Parry with the Flat

[philippewillaume]

well no i would say that against a full power zornh you better do a sheil. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

especially in VD world... were the the zornh is nothing more that a peasnt strike.
and against someone who imbues the art of the master with strengh.....

[JeffGentry]

Philippe

especially in VD world

I am not sure what you mean by VD world.


Jeff

[Randall Pleasant]

Philippe Willaume wrote:
especially in VD world... were the the zornh is nothing more that a peasnt strike.

I am assuming that "VD" stands for "Peter Von Danzig". My personal experience within ARMA has been that most ARMA members see themselves as studying the teachings of Liechtenauer rather than that of his students. Thus, I think most of us see the writtings of Ringeck, Doebringer, Peter von Danzig, etc., as describing the same thing, just differently and all one world. Therefore, a Ringeck Zorn is a Doebringer Zorn is a von Danzig Zorn, etc. Thus, you can see the confusion. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[Bnonn Tennant]

True enough; German practitioners treat Liechtenauer's students as all being under a single tradition, since clearly they were. But, to be sensible, this does not mean that there is some kind of neo-Platonic "perfect Liechtenauer tradition" which all the students are describing. Just as we might interpret the students (aka the masters) differently, so they might have interpreted Liechtenauer differently; and I think in many instances this is clearly the case.<p> It would be poor hermeneutics to interpret each individual manuscript as if they were all working with exactly the same assumptions and describing exactly the same techniques. It's clear that in many instances the masters had different understandings of techniques to each other. Sometimes this is because of personal preference, sometimes because of how the technique evolved, and sometimes it's because many German techniques are not specific actions, but rather principles which can be applied and described in varying ways. We should therefore be very wary of saying that a Von Danzig zornhau is a Ringeck zornhau is a Meyer zornhau. This definitely might not be the case, and the better our understanding of the <em>differences</em> between the masters' interpretations of Liechtenauer's teachings, the better our understanding of the tradition as a whole will be, and the better our application of these techniques will become.

[JeffGentry]

I just couldn't wrap my brain around VD, i was going through the list of master's and it didn't click it was PeterVan Danzig, lol.


Thank's guy's

[JeffGentry]

Hey Philippe

Once i was informed about the VD abreviation, i got to thinking about what his text say's, and went and looked to be sure, I had a note written in the margin of the hard copy i made awhile back i think Danzig is using the zorn to bind and Mutiere as the counter, i had forgotten about that.

I generaly don't do that because i'm not that fast.

Jeff

[Randall Pleasant]

Bnonn

I must disagree with some of what you said.

this does not mean that there is some kind of neo-Platonic "perfect Liechtenauer tradition" which all the students are describing.

Given that Liechtenauer was a single individual do you think his teachings can represent more than a single body of knowledge? Considering the fact that Ringeck and Von Danzig were actual students of Liechtenauer, ie they each received personal instructions from Liechtenauer himself, how can you assume that they studied different traditions?

Just as we might interpret the students (aka the masters) differently, so they might have interpreted Liechtenauer differently; and I think in many instances this is clearly the case.

I feel fairly sure with Liechtenauer as their personal instructor that Ringeck and Von Danzig did not have to interprete any where near the degree that we do today. If they didn't know which edge to use when throwing Krump they asked Master Liechtenauer himself! Wish I could do that! <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

It would be poor hermeneutics to interpret each individual manuscript as if they were all working with exactly the same assumptions and describing exactly the same techniques.

Considering that Ringeck and Von Danzig were actual students of Liechtenauer it is much safer to assume that they were working with the same body of knowledge then it is to assume that they were working with very different bodies of knowledge. While their learning mileage would have varied some, they basically learned with same thing.

To use an example from today, ARMA assisant director Jake Norwood is many, many times better at swordsmenship than I. However, as students of John Clements, Jake and I have basically learned the same things from John - but there is great variation in our mileage.

It's clear that in many instances the masters had different understandings of techniques to each other.

All of what we today consider our knowledge of the masters is nothing more than our interpretations of their writtings and drawings mixed with our experiences in non-deadly sparring. The view that Ringeck and Von Danzig had different understandings of their personal instructor's teachings is nothing more than an interpretation of their writtings. Again, it is much safer to assume that they had the same understanding of their master. So no, it is <u>not</u> at all clear.

Clarity is a goal but it is also a warning. I would guess that many of us in ARMA have experienced clarity about a technique only to get knocked in the dirt trying to executing our interpretation of the technique in sparring. Thus, Clements teaches us that we not only have be historically valid but also martially sound.

We should therefore be very wary of saying that a Von Danzig zornhau is a Ringeck zornhau is a Meyer zornhau.

Indeed, we should be wary of saying that a Von Danzig zornhau is the same as a Ringeck zornhau (Meyer was not an actual student of Liechtenauer, thus I am not consideringl him at this point). However, we should be <u>extremely</u> wary of saying that Von Danzig's Zornhau is different then Ringeck's Zornhau. The only thing suggesting that they were different is someone's modern day interpretation of their writtings. Again, in regard to the actual students of Liechtenauer it is many time safer to assume similarity than it is to assume differences.

[Randall Pleasant]

Jeff

It is fairly safe to assume that the art is about killing an adversary. Thus, it is safe to assume that the goal in throwing a Zorn is not to bind the adversary's blade, rather the goal is to cut/kill the adversary. Given that assumption we can also assume that the bind happens as a result of failing to significantly cut the adversary.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Schiel against Zorn is allright, but Ringeck says, Oberhau against Oberhau <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
We are not keen on Ringeck, quite the opposite. Me being a huge Döbringer, Speyer and Fiore fan, we do not do much Zorn VS Zorn, yet you have to practice evbery aspect of the Art.

Hanko says: Lichtenauer only collected the teachings, he did not make them up. I see Lichtenauer as a great Master, but also a great Manager, for he created his "guild" which would ensure that the teachings are kept safe right 600 years after. We should probably not only look at him like the genius swordsman and master he must have been, but also a leader, an organisateur.
I think, when we are referring to the german school as the lichtenauer tradition, we actually talk about lots of masters and their different ways Lichtenauer collected.
And you know what? We connect a lot of things to Lichtenauer, which seem to be in the same lineage of teachings, but Döbringer does not name them.

In my opinion, whatever was NOT in Ringeck, Döbringer, Danzig or Paulus Kal, must not neccesserely be Lichtenauer. Meyer does mention a lot of cuts, you cannot find in earlier codexes. Calling everything german as being in the Lichtenauer tradition can be misleading, in my humble opinion, dear Sirs.


Szabolcs

[M Wallgren]

I have to agree with this!

And the the way teachings turn diffrent is quite fast. Joachim Nilsson was my insructor in the Art, but one year ago I moved 600 kilometers away from him and had to start my own new group. And in 10 month a slightly different style has developed in the way we sparr. This of courese depending on new influences from the members of the new group. What I try to say is that when Ringeck and Hanko and Peter and all of those guys started their own groups of students things quite rapidly would have started to differ. This is the nature of MA and Human Nature.

And I think it is a good thing, because more ground is covered in this way!

My 2 cent.

Martin

[philippewillaume]

Yes I agree with randall here (well I think I do anyway)

To start with sorry, yes VD is von dantzig, as Randal says I have a very much segregated approach to each master.
So I am the fist one to say that there is difference between Ringeck and Peter. In the vein as what randal described earlier, if you take aikido O sensei died in the 60 and now there is legions of flavor from his direct students.
However shihonage is still shihonage across the board, the trick is that every school probably favor one particular version of doing it.

Basically they all talk about the same thing, may be not necessarily go about it the same way. I believe that masters wrote what they meant, that they did not forget something and that the format of what they wrote matters.
IE unless I cannot make it work. I do not explain the differences by scribal mistake.

So this is what ringeck says
This is the Zornhaw and its pieces
He who strikes high, the point of the Zornhaw lurks/threatens (dröwen=drohen) (it can be droehen to bang to hit)
Glose
That goes like so: when one strikes at the head /at the top from his right side, so hew him in (einhauwen) a Zornhaw with the long edge as well from the right shoulder with a powerfull one at him (in dem starck eyin= at him do strongly/grandly) at him. Should he be weak at the sword so shoot the point to his face, along blade and threaten to thrust at him

This VD (sorry this is a on the fly translation)
glosse
Note, The zornhau break with the point all oberaw and nothing other, than what a bad peasant strikes, and it is done like so, when you come to him with the Zu fechten, stikes he then one high to the head from his right side, then strike as well from above and from you right side an all displacement, doing one wrathfully at is sword, is he then weak at the sword, send/shoot your rightly/straight along his blade, and thrust him in the face or the chest, so set it at him.

If we look at the text strictly
The both agree that it is a powerful strike from your right shoulder and that we should follow with a thrust if is weak (or strong as the next paragraph will tell us)

VD seems to be attacking the blade and setting it aside and then thrust (weak or strong will produce a different thrust)

Ringeck seems to be striking at the guy (especially since we are told earlier that we should always strike the man and that we are not told to strike the blade) and we trust if that misses and thrust (weak or strong will produce a different thrust)

I am probably one of the most extremis in the way is see how author realtes to each other but clearly The zornh is the same concept for both of them it is just the way they setup the gag that is different.
An other way to put is to that they are different applications but use the same principle.

Really yes they are the same and yes they are different.
As we cannot neglect the similitude we cannot neglect the difference. For exemple since we are not looking at exactly the same result, the optimum trajectory for the strike will not be the same.
Ringecks need to be much more vertical and VD more close to 45 degree.

[Shane Smith]

It is fairly safe to assume that the art is about killing an adversary. Thus, it is safe to assume that the goal in throwing a Zorn is not to bind the adversary's blade, rather the goal is to cut/kill the adversary. Given that assumption we can also assume that the bind happens as a result of failing to significantly cut the adversary.

Agreed whole -heartedly Ran <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[JeffGentry]

Hey Ran

It is fairly safe to assume that the art is about killing an adversary. Thus, it is safe to assume that the goal in throwing a Zorn is not to bind the adversary's blade, rather the goal is to cut/kill the adversary. Given that assumption we can also assume that the bind happens as a result of failing to significantly cut the adversary.

I was just stating that in Danzig it appears he is saying to strike the sword i never realy thought about it, i just assumed(even though i made a note) he was striking the man.

Given that assumption we can also assume that the bind happens as a result of failing to significantly cut the adversary.

In the earlier post i made that was what i was saying, although i don't think the bind is a result of it failing to cut significantly it is just a result of doing it with all the element's in place, I think that is why so many "Master's do not know what to say" about the 5 hidden strike's.



Philippe

the optimum trajectory for the strike will not be the same.
Ringecks need to be much more vertical and VD more close to 45 degree.

I don't think it is so much about trajectory as it is targeting, I have thrown a zorn to the sword and to the body and it is more a matter of how i step and what i am hitting, ie there head or the sword, to the sword i step diffrently then when I'm targeting there head.



Jeff

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Jeff, Sorry Bro, I have to ask, why would you target the sword when you could target the head? Given the choice I would rather avoid the bind all-together if I could just smack him in the head. I also feel that even though it does happen naturally, I am not going to try and instigate the bind in my training. I may train specifically for a bind, but here again I will not target the sword if I can help it,( in my masterstrike training that is).

[JeffGentry]

Gentlemen

Has no one been following this thread?

I'll repost my first post

In reply to:
Okay.... So you are telling me, that a fullpower zornhau against a fullpower zornhau is OK?



Yes and at the same time a resounding No, the Zornhau to Zornhau counter is not to the sword, He throw's a zornhau at your left head/shoulder, You counter by stepping offline and throw your Zornhau at his left ear/shoulder, your changing the distance and angle by stepping offline will enable you to hit him and counter his zornhau all at the same time, it is hard to demonstrate at full speed with a waster/padded because waster's/padded's don't cut, that is why the fechtbuch's repeatedly tell us alway's strike to the man not the sword.

In reply to:
you do Oberhau VS Oberhau with the middle of your sword, or the Strong part, but not with the ricasso



Again when you step right or left offline it will be more flat against flat and displace there blade, very little if any edge contact will be made.

Like was stated earlier when we use good footwork and cutting technique it will normaly not result in a whole lot of edge to edge contact.

ok everything that has been said was in response to other post which basicly said i was wrong.

I have not told anyone to try and strike the sword working for a bind, I said it appears that Danzig is saying to strike the sword in response to Philippe's post about Danzig's zornhau and Randall's poat about killing the opponent.

So far since the first post i made which is above what i have said was either taken out of context or not understood and i thought i made myself pretty clear, guess not, so i'll say it again throw your zornhau at his head/neck and step offine when he throw's his and you will hit him and displace his sword, he lose's you win.

Aaron

why would you target the sword when you could target the head?

If i am attacked and know i can not hit my opponent without being hit, i will aggressively defend myself by trying to strike his sword aside(absetzen, abwenden, struch und bruch) so i can break his attack as quickly as possible and attack safely so i don't get hit while hitting him, The double kill, this is the only time i do this when i know i am behind, that is why we see so many double kill's people atacking when they should be defending.

I will not target the sword if I can help it,( in my masterstrike training that is).

i never said anyone should target the sword in there 5 hidden strike's training.



Jeff