Matthew_Anderson wrote:Craig Peters wrote:Randall Pleasant wrote:
This goes to the heart of much of what I have observed outside of ARMA during the past year. For example, some scholars in other groups have taken a single image of Vom Tag in which the sword is held in front of the chest as literal (while not taking the rest of the images as literal). This mistake in turn leads to short weak cuts in which the arms are rarely fully extended and rather than torquing the hilt they pull the pomel down. These mistakes in turn result in fighting starting at too close of a distance and lots of edge hacking. This results in lost opportunities to attack at longer distances and lots and lots of blade damage. All of this is easily seen in their interpretation of Liechtenauer's Zornhau-to-Zornhau counter. All of these mistakes really come to light at the Application level. The sparing matches I observed that incorporated these interpretations were little more than sword tag.
Another one that stands out to me is people using the Zornhaw specifically as a lead-in to fighting at the bind, rather than using it as a countercut to the head which can result in a bind if you misjudge your strike. Reading what the masters tell us to do does not support the former interpretation at all. Dobringer's manuscript tells us probably at least six times "Do not strike for the sword; instead, go for the man". It really makes no sense therefore to argue that the Zornhaw is only used for setting up krieg when it's extremely easy to use it as an effective counterstrike if you modify your application of it slightly. It also flies in the face of Ringeck's (and I believe Liechtenauer's) warning not to engage rashly in krieg, which is nothing more than winding at the sword.
I can see how some people might interpret the Zornhaw this way, given that nearly every technique that Ringeck describes in the Zornhaw section presupposes that a bind has occurred. But this is self evident; obviously, if your countercut strikes your foe to the head, you don't really need to worry about a follow-up. It's when you fall short, and find yourself in a bind, that the rest of the actions become relevant. And this is where things like martiality, athleticism, biomechanics, (and even a little common sense), come into play when interpreting what the masters wrote. These aren't things that are found in a fencing book. You have to bring them on your own.
I agree wholeheartedly. I firmly believe that in most scenarios, you should be trying to strike your opponent, not his blade. If I throw a big Zorn or any strike for that matter, and I hit you, the fight is likely over. If you counter or cover, and the result is a bind, we work from there. To purposely seek to strike your opponent's blade to arrive at a bind is a misinterpretation IMO and tactically unwise. There are plenty of techniques that will defeat someone who is actively seeking to displace or bind your blade to the point of no longer striking at you, several masters address this.
Scholars
Another observations I had of interpretations outside of ARMA is an excesive amount of binding in relation to an extremely small amount of cutting. The Zorn-to-Zorn counter interpretation mention earlier is a very good example. This problem is not only seen in throughout some longsword interpretations, it is also seen in some I.33 interpretations. For example, at the WMAW 2006 event not once did I observed a full arm cut in the four I.33 classes I attended or in any of the sword & buckler sparring matches. The only cuts I observed were preformed after a Shield-Stike. I am actually thinking that the focus of binding might be related to some people's long background in Sports/Classical fencing and Re-enactment/Stage fighting. In any case, this problem leads into an excessive amount of edge hacking and into many missed opportunities to attack.
