George Silver and Closing Distance

[Martin Austwick]

Hi,

I would be interested to hear if people have any strong thoughts about how to close distance using Silver's system.

The commonly held belief (at least on certain other forums) is that stepping in from wide distance using a "slow-hand" or "broken-time" attack is the best way to do so. This stays within the description of the "true" fight as the hand moves first and so must be correct.

In the interests of openness I should admit that I do not believe this and I have an alternative interpretation which I have been known to argue. However I do not want to make this into a soap-box for me to espouse my own work, so I would like to hear other people's opinions on how to close distance and what we should be using the Time of the Hand, Body and Foot (Feet) for. I will of course happily go into more detail about my interpretation if people are interested.

Thanks for humouring me.

Oz

[Matt Bryant]

Hi Martin,
If I understand you correctly, this is the scenario I visualize:
My opponent and I are out of range of each other. That is to say, if I take a normal passing step and cut I will miss him by a little bit. In this instance, I want to get close enough to the guy and hit him all in one step/movement. To do this I have to break true time because I am not in the true place. My feet move first in order to bring my body (and therefore the reach of my arms and sword) within range to hit my oposite. During that pass (or leap if the range is pretty far), as soon as I can swing and hit him I do so.

In that instance, I use a false time and telegraph as a consequence. I am forced to do this because I am not in the true place. If I do a true time cut, then my cut will fall short, but I still move my body within range for a nachreisen (travelling after).

There is another option that I like and it keeps me in true time (technically). In this scenario I am at the same distance and all that jazz. I make a true time cut right as I start moving my feet. That cut falls short, but it is still aggressive, it may goad my opponnent into action, and it sets me up for an immediate follow up cut. The hands move very fast in this case and the follow up cut is made during the rest of the step. [One passing step/leap - two fast cuts]. The second cut is made in range and can land on flesh.

Another option would be turning that cut into a thrust or vise versa.

Those are my thoughts, yours?

[Martin Austwick]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for replying, I know Silver isn't really fashionable at the moment so it's all the nicer when someone is willing to chat about it.

Hi Martin,
If I understand you correctly, this is the scenario I visualize:
My opponent and I are out of range of each other. That is to say, if I take a normal passing step and cut I will miss him by a little bit.

Woud it not be safe to close the distance to the point where your opponent cannot hit in the time of the hand/body, but still has to step? That way you can make the most of any errors of judgement on their part. If they unwittingly come within this distance you can offend them in the time of the hand and body which we know is considerably faster than the time of the hand body and foot.

My instinct is that this is a very wide distance and certainly not where I wold expect to fight, but I am fully aware that my opinions are simply that, opinions.

In this instance, I want to get close enough to the guy and hit him all in one step/movement. To do this I have to break true time because I am not in the true place.

Am I right in thinking that you are saying that because you are not in the true place (where you can hit your opponent without putting in of the foot) you have to resort to a relatively slow time (one that involves moving the foot)?

My feet move first in order to bring my body (and therefore the reach of my arms and sword) within range to hit my oposite. During that pass (or leap if the range is pretty far), as soon as I can swing and hit him I do so.

Ok, I think I understand. Could it not be argued that what you are doing utilises a false time? (I am playing Devil's Advocate here, I don't think that. I don't think that times are relevant outside of distance only when your opponent is in reach of you)

In that instance, I use a false time and telegraph as a consequence. I am forced to do this because I am not in the true place. If I do a true time cut, then my cut will fall short, but I still move my body within range for a nachreisen (travelling after).

Ah, should have read this bit first, this makes it clearer. Do you feel that this is your only option outside of distance?

There is another option that I like and it keeps me in true time (technically). In this scenario I am at the same distance and all that jazz. I make a true time cut right as I start moving my feet. That cut falls short, but it is still aggressive, it may goad my opponnent into action, and it sets me up for an immediate follow up cut. The hands move very fast in this case and the follow up cut is made during the rest of the step. [One passing step/leap - two fast cuts]. The second cut is made in range and can land on flesh.

So in effect you are closing distance with an attack you know will not land in order to try and provoke your opponent into an action that you can then utilise to your own benefit?

If so I like that as an idea

Those are my thoughts, yours?

I will apologise now for the long post I know this will entail (don't say I didn't warn you )

I believe a number of things.

Firstly that time applies to all actions, be they attacks or defenses or feints etc.

"To hurt or defend, a time in both is observed to the furtherance of which place is to be gotten"

I believe that certain times are more appropriate to certain actions.

I believe that we are specifically told not to attack as the Agent by the use of one of the two slower times

"In striking or thrusting never hinder your hand with putting forth your foot but keep the place thereof 'til you have offended with the one only the bending of your body very little foreward any suffice"

I believe that the heart of backsword play rests on the close fight and the halfsword.

"Seeking to cross him still in his playing as you may, whereby you shall force him to fly, or else to stand to the proof of his backsword play."

And I believe that if we are actively closing distance we should do it in such a way as to maximise our chances of successfully defending against any attacks our opponent may attempt as we close.

"When you gather & suffer that govern your fight, defend only"

"There is but 1 good way to gather upon your enemy, guardant. All other are dangerous & subject to the blows on the head or thrust on the body. For no way can ward both but as aforesaid."

"When you gather keep your place & space equal & only be a patient & remember your guardant play bringing you safely in & keeping your enemy out"

Which leave me thinking that if I want to actively attack my opponent I should nto do so from outside close distance, but I should actively seek to close the distance in such a way as to maintain my own safety (in Guardant) to either gain the place, or create a bind (half-sword) which I can utilise for my own ends.

Of course this is highly dangerous, but such is the paradox of defense

I hope this makes sense...

Take Care

Oz

[Randall Pleasant]

Oz

I have been following your Silver threads on other forums with great interest, it is alway good to see some new ideas being presented. It is always fashionable to discuss Silver on the ARMA forum. I guess its just not fashionable on some other fourms with select people who have an emotional attachment to their published interpertations on Silver.

Before giving my opinion I should note that although I have read Silver I am far from being knowledeable of Silver. I am engaging this conversation to learn rather than to express some interpretation. It seems to me that the single most important thing that gets overlooked by many people is the absolute speed of a cut. A cut made in True Time is basically meaningless if the cut is slow, weak, and short. Yet, a cut made in False Time is extremely meaningful when it is fast, strong, and has good reach. A False Time cut that hits is infinite times better than a True Time cut that misses! For these reasons, interpretations of Silver in which cuts are described as being made in True Time with a "slow hand" made no sense to me.

Although the inital cut described by Matt would be made in False Time I can assure you that his cut would not be slow. Matt's cut in False Time would still be very fast, very strong, with good reach, and most likey offline. Even through made in False Time there would be very little telegraphing of the cut due to the absolute speed of the cut. In my opinion Matt's cut in False Time would be relative only to a True Time cut that was also very fast, very strong, and made with good reach.

My opinion is that the wide distance is where one is forced to start fighting, it is the distance at which I know am in danger of a cut. If you don't consider yourself "fighting" at that distance does it not place you in great danger of a very fast, very strong False Time cut? At the WMAW event in 2006 I was able to watched just what I have attempted to describe. At the 2006 WMAW event I watch an ex-ARMA member spar with longsword with a person who kept trying to get close enough to make a True Time cut using Lazy Vom Tag (sword in front of the chest). The results were that the other person was repeatedly hit before he could get within range. This is why I consider the longsword interpretations that form the Vom Tag guard with the sword in front of the chest to be martially unsound, although their cuts are in True Time their cuts are still short, weak, and relatively slow, thus requiring people to start fighting a much too close of a distance.

Respectfully,

[Martin Austwick]

Oz

I have been following your Silver threads on other forums with great interest, it is alway good to see some new ideas being presented. It is always fashionable to discuss Silver on the ARMA forum. I guess its just not fashionable on some other fourms with select people who have an emotional attachment to their published interpertations on Silver.

Hi Randall,

I do find the vehemence with which my suggestions have been shouted down a little puzzling, but I realise that people have invested a lot in their interpretations.

My motivations were that the more I studied the manuscript the less I could justify what it was I was teaching. Superficially it made sense, and it even worked to a degree but it just didn't make sense. I made a conscious decision to start from scratch and see exactly what it was that Old George said and how I could build a system purely from that rather than looking at it as yet another English Backsword system. I ended up with something that is a lot more direct, a lot more brutal in its efficiency and a lot more aggressive. I also think it is a lot more effective. It certainly explains all those bits of his writings that didn't quite fit before.

Before giving my opinion I should note that although I have read Silver I am far from being knowledeable of Silver. I am engaging this conversation to learn rather than to express some interpretation. It seems to me that the single most important thing that gets overlooked by many people is the absolute speed of a cut. A cut made in True Time is basically meaningless if the cut is slow, weak, and short. Yet, a cut made in False Time is extremely meaningful when it is fast, strong, and has good reach. A False Time cut that hits is infinite times better than a True Time cut that misses! For these reasons, interpretations of Silver in which cuts are described as being made in True Time with a "slow hand" made no sense to me.

I couldn't agree more. I feel that there is no guarantee of success with true times, just as there is no guarantee of failure with false times. It is the necessity to act by moving the foot that causes an action to fail, not the simple act of moving the foot. That is why our actions in the close fight are so vital, and also why it is that longer weapons are false, because they cannot help but use false times from the halfsword or bind.

This is why we measure the length of our sword the way Silver tells us to. his gives us the longest possible sword that we can safely uncross within the distance set by us using our off hand to control their sword. If we cannot do this we are forced to use a false time. Of course we can force such situations against people utilising perfect length weapons if we include pommel strikes, hilt blows, punches, kicks and grips in our repertoire. We can only do this if we are willing to close. Just like he tells us to.

Although the inital cut described by Matt would be made in False Time I can assure you that his cut would not be slow. Matt's cut in False Time would still be very fast, very strong, with good reach, and most likey offline. Even through made in False Time there would be very little telegraphing of the cut due to the absolute speed of the cut. In my opinion Matt's cut in False Time would be relative only to a True Time cut that was also very fast, very strong, and made with good reach.

I didn't mean that it would be a slow cut, simply as you say that it would be relatively slow when compared to a similar cut using the time of the hand.

My opinion is that the wide distance is where one is forced to start fighting, it is the distance at which I know am in danger of a cut. If you don't consider yourself "fighting" at that distance does it not place you in great danger of a very fast, very strong False Time cut? At the WMAW event in 2006 I was able to watched just what I have attempted to describe. At the 2006 WMAW event I watch an ex-ARMA member spar with longsword with a person who kept trying to get close enough to make a True Time cut using Lazy Vom Tag (sword in front of the chest). The results were that the other person was repeatedly hit before he could get within range. This is why I consider the longsword interpretations that form the Vom Tag guard with the sword in front of the chest to be martially unsound, although their cuts are in True Time their cuts are still short, weak, and relatively slow, thus requiring people to start fighting a much too close of a distance.

Respectfully,

I can't comment on German Longsword as it has been over ten years since I did any seriously, however I do kind of agree with the concept.

Take Care

Oz

[Matt Bryant]

Martin,

Like Randall, I would like to add that I am no authority on Silver.

"Woud it not be safe to close the distance to the point where your opponent cannot hit in the time of the hand/body, but still has to step? That way you can make the most of any errors of judgement on their part. If they unwittingly come within this distance you can offend them in the time of the hand and body which we know is considerably faster than the time of the hand body and foot."

Yeah, that's cool. But the closer you get, the more dangerous things become. There is nothing wrong with creeping into range as you describe, you just have to be quicker than the other guy.
Recently, I have been making an effort to make true time cuts as an opening attack. I do this by getting into range and moving hands body and feet all together and its nice. But I think it should be just another option, not the only way you can fence. For example, oftentimes others have a greater range than I do and creeping up is the wrong idea.


"Am I right in thinking that you are saying that because you are not in the true place (where you can hit your opponent without putting in of the foot) you have to resort to a relatively slow time (one that involves moving the foot)?"

Not always. There is that "medium" range where you can still make a true time cut that involves passing or stepping. Even though that is not exactly the true place, I consider that being within range. In my example, I was referring to when I want to attack from out of range (i.e. closing the distance into range with an attack).

"I believe that certain times are more appropriate to certain actions. "

I can agree with that.


"Which leave me thinking that if I want to actively attack my opponent I should nto do so from outside close distance, but I should actively seek to close the distance in such a way as to maintain my own safety (in Guardant) to either gain the place, or create a bind (half-sword) which I can utilise for my own ends. "

Once again, it is my opinion that that should be one of my options and not my only way of attacking. When Silver talks about approaching the true place whilst being "guardant, " I like to call that "crowding the other guy." I find that to be a lot of fun to do if you have the initiative in the fight.

Another thing: It seems that a lot of people imagine that Silver is saying to creep up into the true place. That really is very dangerous and it leads to people fighting too close all the time. How about moving quickly into the true place (or range of a step, or range of a passing step), attacking, and moving out again? Sort of a hit-and-run tactic. It doesn't compute well with me that I should stay in such a dangerous range for so long unless I am really on fire and I am controlling the fight. Why not move in, do your offenses (hopefully kill him), withdraw (also offensively so he doesn't want to chase you), and then be at a safe range again?


"I ended up with something that is a lot more direct, a lot more brutal in its efficiency and a lot more aggressive. I also think it is a lot more effective. It certainly explains all those bits of his writings that didn't quite fit before. "

Right on.

[Jay Vail]

After reading these posts, I am not sure what exactly you're trying to say. Silver is important to us, as it should be to any martial artist, regardless of style. It is not a matter of "fashion." His principles of time and distance are universal concepts and applicable to all hand-to-hand weapons and unarmed combat. All of us use or are subject to his principles whether we know it or not.

Getting into distance is no big deal. You step there however you must. The key is to be aware of "his" distance and "your" distance, because the two are not the same. The first refers to the distance you must cover with a single step to be in your true place and so be able to hit him; the second refers to the distance he must cover to get to his true place. Silver is quite adamant that you confuse your opponent with constant movement, which is also intended to deny him "your" distance and the true place. This, not covering or anything else, is your primary defense. When during this constant movement you slip into "his" distance, then you attack using true time.

The mistakes that most of us make (myself included) are: 1) not being aware of the distances, 2) not striking in true time, and 3) not moving around enough.

[Martin Austwick]

Yeah, that's cool. But the closer you get, the more dangerous things become. There is nothing wrong with creeping into range as you describe, you just have to be quicker than the other guy.
Recently, I have been making an effort to make true time cuts as an opening attack. I do this by getting into range and moving hands body and feet all together and its nice. But I think it should be just another option, not the only way you can fence. For example, oftentimes others have a greater range than I do and creeping up is the wrong idea.

I should say that I'm not talking about creeping into range, I'm talking about pressing in under cover of guardant. The reason behind this is that if your opponent attacks you you are in the best lying to deal with it as the patient. The vast majority of Silver's techniques are describing this. If they don't then you gain the place and attack in the time of the hand (or any othe other times you chose, the important thing is to be in a situation where your hand is not tied to the speed of your feet).

Not always. There is that "medium" range where you can still make a true time cut that involves passing or stepping. Even though that is not exactly the true place, I consider that being within range. In my example, I was referring to when I want to attack from out of range (i.e. closing the distance into range with an attack).

Is this something that you have got from Silver or from other systems? I;m not suggesting that it isn't an effective way to fight, just that perhaps it is not what Silver specifically describes. I am very much a Silver purist when it comes to backsword.

Once again, it is my opinion that that should be one of my options and not my only way of attacking. When Silver talks about approaching the true place whilst being "guardant, " I like to call that "crowding the other guy." I find that to be a lot of fun to do if you have the initiative in the fight.

Another thing: It seems that a lot of people imagine that Silver is saying to creep up into the true place. That really is very dangerous and it leads to people fighting too close all the time. How about moving quickly into the true place (or range of a step, or range of a passing step), attacking, and moving out again? Sort of a hit-and-run tactic. It doesn't compute well with me that I should stay in such a dangerous range for so long unless I am really on fire and I am controlling the fight. Why not move in, do your offenses (hopefully kill him), withdraw (also offensively so he doesn't want to chase you), and then be at a safe range again?

Absolutely. What I am trying to describe is a rapid action that presses in attacks and flies out all in one fluid motion. Not either prancing around out of distance like you see some people doing, or just walking up to close distance and trying to fight in the manner of modern fencers.

Take Care

Oz

[Matt Bryant]

Martin,

"I should say that I'm not talking about creeping into range, I'm talking about pressing in under cover of guardant. The reason behind this is that if your opponent attacks you you are in the best lying to deal with it as the patient."
"What I am trying to describe is a rapid action that presses in attacks and flies out all in one fluid motion."

Oh okay, that makes good sense to me.

"Is this something that you have got from Silver or from other systems?"

I did not get that specifically from Silver. I understand being a purist. I am definitely a purist when it comes to Renaissance martial arts. But if I'm fighting with a cut and thrust sword, I'll use stuff from Silver, I.33, Fiore, Meyer, and whatever else I can apply to that weapon. As long as they are historically accurate concepts and techniques.

Also, I think Jay brings up a good point about varying distances.

[Martin Austwick]

After reading these posts, I am not sure what exactly you're trying to say. Silver is important to us, as it should be to any martial artist, regardless of style. It is not a matter of "fashion." His principles of time and distance are universal concepts and applicable to all hand-to-hand weapons and unarmed combat. All of us use or are subject to his principles whether we know it or not.

Hi Jay,

I'm not trying to be insulting to anyone, I was just commenting on the fact that certain styles seem (and this is only my opinion) to go through phases of popularity. I agree that the concepts he discusses can be applicable to any fight, but I have a fairly unorthodox view as to what he means by his true and false times so I'm not so sure that they fit in any other system.

Getting into distance is no big deal. You step there however you must. The key is to be aware of "his" distance and "your" distance, because the two are not the same. The first refers to the distance you must cover with a single step to be in your true place and so be able to hit him; the second refers to the distance he must cover to get to his true place. Silver is quite adamant that you confuse your opponent with constant movement, which is also intended to deny him "your" distance and the true place. This, not covering or anything else, is your primary defense. When during this constant movement you slip into "his" distance, then you attack using true time.

I agree wholeheartedly that my distance and my opponent's distance are calculated differently, it is nice to see someone else saying similar (there is an article on my group's website that discusses this). I am not sure that we calculate it the same way though. In my opinion Silver splits distance into where you can hit without stepping (close distance), and where you can hit only by stepping (wide distance). He specifically tells us to force our opponent to attack from wide distance in order to give us the freedom to react as we see fit. I think that this is directly related to his true and false times and that any attack from outside of close distance, by definition, utilises a false time as it ties the speed of the hand to the speed of the foot. Exactly what he tells us not to do. I also think that this means that we have to approach close distance in a very specific way. It is my belief that Silver clearly states what he thinks this method of closing distance is, hence my original post...

The mistakes that most of us make (myself included) are: 1) not being aware of the distances, 2) not striking in true time, and 3) not moving around enough.

Couldn't agree more if I tried!

Take Care

Oz