| Author |
Message |
|
Travis Canaday
Location: Overland Park, Kansas Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 147
|
 Posted: Tue 13 Feb, 2007 2:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
At the end of the following video John Clements performs a Zorn-to-Zorn counter cut just as you describe (please correct me if you perfrom it differently) and finished in a postion very similar to what is shown in the Paulus Kal image provided by Christian. |
Again, it's not what I describe, it's what the fight books describe. It's written quite explicitly. And no it is not really the same thing because John is stepping back not forward. Which is fine in that situation. And at that close of range it would make sense to cut down on the head. But no, it is not the same thing. Not better or worse, just a different situation. What if the guy didn't step in so close, and a good cut was out of range? What if he stepped in so close you couldn't get a cut or thrust in?
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
However, John also states that he pulled his cut so as to not hit his training partner but that in a real fight he would have extended his arms so as to cut his adversary. |
Sure... makes sense.
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
So now the question to ask yourself is, In a fight for your life would you perform the Zorn-to-Zorn techique in the same manner as we do in training for safety sake? |
It just depends on the situation. Are you trying to argue which is a better technique? Are you debating cutting vs. thrusting?
If it was good enough for the fight masters of old, it's good enough for me.
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
When you attempts to cut the adversary in this technique does the point of your sword not threaten the adversary twice as much?
|
I am not sure what you mean by twice as much. One version brings the sword down on the head (makes sense in close range), and the other the stabs the face (also makes sense, if your range is further out.) Both get the job done.
Travis
|
|
  |
 |
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Feb, 2007 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | However, John also states that he pulled his cut so as to not hit his training partner but that in a real fight he would have extended his arms so as to cut his adversary. In both cases his cut protected him by displacing the adversary's blade.
|
Still, the two techniques are not completely equivalent in my opinion. When you pull the cut then thrust, you protect yourself first, and then hit the adversary (even if done almost in single time). If I interpret correctly what Clements is demonstrating next, he cuts the opponent then pulls back to control the sword (almost single time as well). I'd agree that both work and that the second one is maybe more impressive, but it seems more risky as well. If you start a bit late, or the adversary strikes a bit lower than usual, isn't there a danger of taking a hit on the arms? This could be a case of picking the safest technique that works...
I don't practice longsword and I'm not familiar with the manuals either, but I know that in kenjutsu there are similar techniques. There is one where the adversary strikes your waist and you counter attack by intercepting his blade near your guard and striking his thigh at the same time. It works because of the relative distances and angles of the blades, but you have to be very quick to jump into the attack. Another form of the same technique is to control the blade and then thrust at the thigh. Interestingly, this latter form is considered the "traditional" form, the one that is found in katas.
So I don't know for sure, but it seems that japanese and german masters agreed on the most secure technique for teaching at least... Which does not mean that the other form was not known or efficient, of course.
Regards
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
 |
|
|
Travis Canaday
Location: Overland Park, Kansas Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Feb, 2007 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Still, the two techniques are not completely equivalent in my opinion. When you pull the cut then thrust, you protect yourself first, and then hit the adversary (even if done almost in single time). If I interpret correctly what Clements is demonstrating next, he cuts the opponent then pulls back to control the sword (almost single time as well). I'd agree that both work and that the second one is maybe more impressive, but it seems more risky as well. If you start a bit late, or the adversary strikes a bit lower than usual, isn't there a danger of taking a hit on the arms? This could be a case of picking the safest technique that works... |
I agree with what you are saying. If you can't catch his sword on yours and get the cut, you shouldn't do it. Protect yourself by controlling his blade with your strong, and if you can get the cut in while you do that, than by all means.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Feb, 2007 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
As Travis and Christian pointed out, that is the exact thing described in Ringeck, von Danzig and Paulus Kal, and is also described in the Lignitzer sword and buckler plays, so I find it hard to agree that to do so is wrong.
That said, Randall, what you are describing isn't necessarily wrong, either, in the right context. Like everything in fencing, it all depends on distance and timing. If my opponent brings himself into the distance where a thrust is impractical, then yes, I will cut, because the system is dynamic enough for those types of situational changes. But if the situation doesn't require that change, then I'm not going to do it: I'm going to close the line of attack with my Zornhau as I thrust, which will lead straight into a thrust.
It is not simply a matter of blocking first, pausing, then attacking second. The action is seamless, so that you are thrusting in the same motion. To use 19th century terminology, it would considered a tempo indivisible, where even though we are describing two actions, it is performed fluidly to work as one.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Feb, 2007 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the case of single time coutners like the one you guys are describing...can they be used offensively as well?
I'm having a hard time dealing with Dobringer and Ringeck saying that it's better to fight in the Vor but then describing predominantly counters.
In my study group's classes we practice these techniques offensively as well as defensively...(e.g. I cut zonrhau first and as I see my opponent doing the same I pull it back and thrust over his blade). Should we not be doing this?
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Feb, 2007 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know I struggle with the teachings of fighting in the vor. My understanding is that the masters describe choosing a strike that will defeat or give an advantage against the guard the adversary has adopted. I struggle with execution and with adapting in the moment to the situation (i.e., execution). It seems to me that throwing a zorn and then reacting to the situation is just fine and correct.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Travis Canaday
Location: Overland Park, Kansas Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Feb, 2007 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | In the case of single time coutners like the one you guys are describing...can they be used offensively as well?
I'm having a hard time dealing with Dobringer and Ringeck saying that it's better to fight in the Vor but then describing predominantly counters. |
Stabbing the face seems like a good offense to me. 
When you say offensively, I assume you asking can they initiate the fight. Yes they can, of course. The master strikes can be used to break the guards... what is the confusion?
Swinging the sword first doesn't insure getting the Vor. Having the Vor means controlling the fight. If as soon as you swung your sword at me and I catch it and thrust to your face (first zorn play), the fight is over and you never had Vor. Or if I catch it with a zwerch and cut or thrust to your face... it's over and you never had the Vor. Or maybe I jump away from your cut throw a krump at your hands and finish with an unterhau to the head... although you swung your sword first... you never had the Vor.
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | In my study group's classes we practice these techniques offensively as well as defensively...(e.g. I cut zonrhau first and as I see my opponent doing the same I pull it back and thrust over his blade). Should we not be doing this? |
It's hard to say without actually seeing what you are talking about. If you have to pull back some in your cut to make sure you catch his sword and protect yourself, I think that's right. That is why you want your point online so the threat is there, and now you can thrust to his face.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Feb, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Travis Canaday wrote: | When you say offensively, I assume you asking can they initiate the fight. Yes they can, of course. The master strikes can be used to break the guards... what is the confusion?
|
The master strike are more than just strikes..they involve decision trees. You do it, if he does this, you do that. Yes, the master strikes are both offensive and defensive, but I'm specifically asking about the follow ups...thrusting past his sword, for instance. These are described as defensive measures in Ringeck...he cuts you cut back and thrust.
| Quote: |
Swinging the sword first doesn't insure getting the Vor. Having the Vor means controlling the fight. If as soon as you swung your sword at me and I catch it and thrust to your face (first zorn play), the fight is over and you never had Vor. Or if I catch it with a zwerch and cut or thrust to your face... it's over and you never had the Vor. Or maybe I jump away from your cut throw a krump at your hands and finish with an unterhau to the head... although you swung your sword first... you never had the Vor. |
This is not the way I have been taught. If you attack first, you have the Vor, unless maybe you attack was provoked, in which case it was in the Nach. It sounds to me like you're saying "if I win, I had the Vor all along", and this doesn't make sense. If we are just standing there and I attack you first of my own free will, I act in the Vor. I may not get you, you may recover the Vor and get me, or get me in the nach, but I acted first, win or lose. Is this not how it works?
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Travis Canaday
Location: Overland Park, Kansas Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Feb, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael,
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | The master strike are more than just strikes..they involve decision trees. You do it, if he does this, you do that. Yes, the master strikes are both offensive and defensive, but I'm specifically asking about the follow ups...thrusting past his sword, for instance. These are described as defensive measures in Ringeck...he cuts you cut back and thrust. |
Well it’s not really a follow up if it is done in one continuous motion, and in one time. It is defensive in that it protects, but it is also an attack, hence the thrusting to the face or chest. It attacks as it counters. When you end up with swords crossed like this, it doesn’t really matter who actually started moving their sword first… it’s a matter of what comes next. I could swing first at your head, you could then step offline and cut with Zorn as well, and now our swords are crossed. If my positioning is right, I can thrust along your blade and stab you.
See what I mean? The person who swings his sword first can catch the opponent’s blade on his strong and thrust from there too. If you don’t hit the guy out right, the fight is going to be a series of counters until somebody wins… sort of like fencing. I think that is why techniques are primarily described as counters.
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | This is not the way I have been taught. If you attack first, you have the Vor, unless maybe you attack was provoked, in which case it was in the Nach. It sounds to me like you're saying "if I win, I had the Vor all along", and this doesn't make sense. If we are just standing there and I attack you first of my own free will, I act in the Vor. I may not get you, you may recover the Vor and get me, or get me in the nach, but I acted first, win or lose. Is this not how it works? |
What I mean is that being in the Vor means to have the initiative… keeping the opponent on the defensive so he can’t muster any attacks of his own. Not just swinging your sword first… it is more than that.
As I said above: “Swinging the sword first doesn’t *insure* getting the Vor.” I am not saying the Döbringer text’s emphasis on striking the Vorschlag is wrong. But it should be done correctly, and you should be ready for a follow up move; as decribed in the text (bottom of 20R).
I guess what I am trying to say is that striking first can give you the Vor, but if you are not ready, your opponent’s Nach can become the Vor in a flash.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Feb, 2007 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | As Travis and Christian pointed out, that is the exact thing described in Ringeck, von Danzig and Paulus Kal, and is also described in the Lignitzer sword and buckler plays, so I find it hard to agree that to do so is wrong.
That said, Randall, what you are describing isn't necessarily wrong, either, in the right context. Like everything in fencing, it all depends on distance and timing. If my opponent brings himself into the distance where a thrust is impractical, then yes, I will cut, because the system is dynamic enough for those types of situational changes. But if the situation doesn't require that change, then I'm not going to do it: I'm going to close the line of attack with my Zornhau as I thrust, which will lead straight into a thrust. |
I think we are both on the same page but just stating things a little differently. What I have personally observed is that when a person does not attempt to cut in the Zorn-to-Zorn is they usually end their cut not just in a lower hangen with the point several inches from the adversary's face (as seen in the clip of John Clements that I linked in an earlier post). On the other hand, when someone attempts to cut in the Zorn-to-Zorn but fails to hit the adversary they usually end in a lower hangen with the point only a inch or two from their adversary's face. Having the the point right in his face makes it much much harder for your adversary to perform his own technique.
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | It is not simply a matter of blocking first, pausing, then attacking second. The action is seamless, so that you are thrusting in the same motion. To use 19th century terminology, it would considered a tempo indivisible, where even though we are describing two actions, it is performed fluidly to work as one. |
The cut and the thust may be perform seamless so as to appear to be one motion but, as you noted, it always involves two actions. It is much easier for the adversary to make use of this small time window when he does not have to fear being hit by the cut.
By the way, I enjoyed meeting you at the WMAW 2006 event. Hopefully I will be able to make the next one. It would be nice to show and discuss these things in person. I really did enjoy your student's dagger work in the rapier fighting, it was the best move I saw at the event.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Feb, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | I think we are both on the same page but just stating things a little differently. |
You might be right about that.
| Quote: | | The cut and the thust may be perform seamless so as to appear to be one motion but, as you noted, it always involves two actions. It is much easier for the adversary to make use of this small time window when he does not have to fear being hit by the cut. |
It is two actions only in dialogue, not in motion. If I perform a feint and change through to strike elsewhere as my opponent defends, this would be described as two different motions, but the actual action is done as one motion. Besides which, there are numerous fighting styles that involve defending first and attacking second that are incredibly effective. No one says that everything in the Liechtenauer tradition HAS to be done in single time (though I will agree that most things in the style certainly are).
| Quote: | | By the way, I enjoyed meeting you at the WMAW 2006 event. Hopefully I will be able to make the next one. It would be nice to show and discuss these things in person. I really did enjoy your student's dagger work in the rapier fighting, it was the best move I saw at the event. |
Thanks! I have to apologize, as I am horrible with names, but I can't recall what face matches your name.  To be honest, I'm always a little surprised when people remember who I am myself.  I assume you're referring to my student Kelly Wynn at the rapier tournament... she certainly does have a nasty way with that dagger, doesn't she?
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Welch
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Feb, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael Edelson,
would you start another thread about your test cutting? I am interested in what you are doing.
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Feb, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Welch wrote: | Michael Edelson,
would you start another thread about your test cutting? I am interested in what you are doing. |
Michael
Seems your thead did get hi-jacked.
Sorry about that. 
We won't do it again.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Feb, 2007 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | I have to apologize, as I am horrible with names, but I can't recall what face matches your name. To be honest, I'm always a little surprised when people remember who I am myself. I assume you're referring to my student Kelly Wynn at the rapier tournament... she certainly does have a nasty way with that dagger, doesn't she? |
Bill
You don't remember the name and face everybody at the event!  I though only us old guys had that problem.
In the follow picture from the WMAW 2006 event I am the gray headed guy at the back of the class in the red shirt.
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/event_wmaw2006i.jpg
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Feb, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Welch wrote: | Michael Edelson,
would you start another thread about your test cutting? I am interested in what you are doing. |
What is left to say about the poor pig feet?
I'll start another thread when I make another test.
I was going to do a mail test the day after (I have a piece of really high quality mail) but then it snowed...
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Feb, 2007 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | David Welch wrote: | Michael Edelson,
would you start another thread about your test cutting? I am interested in what you are doing. |
Michael
Seems your thead did get hi-jacked.
Sorry about that.
We won't do it again. |
Are you kidding? If threads did not go off on interesting tangents, what would be the point?
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Feb, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Michael, i don´t want to sound stupid or something else, but after analyzing your results, considering that dead pork´s skin and bones are even harder than human ones, What do you think (By specullation) that may happen if a cutter longsword (Type XVIII, or type XX) hit a man in his belly? Do you think it could pass freely through the man´s body, or it will get stuck in the first muscles?
Thanks.
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Feb, 2007 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rodolfo Martínez wrote: | Hello Michael, i don´t want to sound stupid or something else, but after analyzing your results, considering that dead pork´s skin and bones are even harder than human ones, What do you think (By specullation) that may happen if a cutter longsword (Type XVIII, or type XX) hit a man in his belly? Do you think it could pass freely through the man´s body, or it will get stuck in the first muscles?
Thanks. |
I'll assume you mean a proper two handed cut...
Flesh alone offers almost no resistance to a sword. If the man were nekid, it would pass completely through. However, because the belly has give to it, if the man were wearing protective clothing, like a gambeson or just a thick coat, it may not cut through. The targets I cut had a lot of bones in them, which presented a lot of resistance to the sword...it's like cutting butted mail by putting it on a log...makes it much easier. Put the same crappy butted mail on a fleshy target and over a gambeson, and you may not have as much luck.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic