jab versus haymaker

[JeanryChandler]

Another debate which sprung up in my discussions with various people about armor, was the idea of attacking with varying degrees of intensity. I have been told by a couple of different medieval fencing experts that all attacks should always be made with the maximum force, sufficient force to kill. Others have suggested that varying degrees of attack must be made in the flexibile strategy required to win.

My personal experience with stick fighting reinforces the latter contention. Sometimes there is an opportunity for a quick jab which may not do much damage, but will discomfit my opponent, but there is not enough time to make a full (from the shoulder, say) attack. I will usually make the jab attempt anyway, as it seems to help me sieze momentum and I often follow up with a decisive killing blow. Strikes to the hand, face, knees, and feet often have a disproportionate effect on an opponent, even if they aren't hard. When they recoil back you can take them out in followup attacks.

In terms of armor, it seemed to me that if there were three intensitities of blows, light (from the wrist, say) medium (from the elbow) and hard (from the shoulder) then the light and medium blows are much easier to land, but probably only the very heavy blow (haymaker) would have a good chance of penetrating the armor.

Sure it's better to kill with one strike, but what about say, a rope-a-dope strategy? Wear out your opponent with jabs and a good defense and then go in for the kill when they make a mistake. This seems to make sense to me especially when using armor.

Similarly, when stick fighting I will often make a flurry of attacks, some light, some of medium intensity, and then strike much harder and more precisely when through my attacks, I have made myself a good opportunity to do so by causing my opponent to make a mistake, to expose themselves to such a degree that I can execute a much harder blow without being likely to be struck in the process.

A harder strike always entails more risk of counterattack, or at least this has been my experience. I tend to make hard strikes most often at the end of an exchange, such as a jab, followd by a riposte, which if dealt with effectively enough leaves me the opportunity for that hard decisive follow-up.

If I try to make the hard strike initially, I often end up with that rotten 'mutual death' result, which I hate.

What is the consensus on this? Am I misled on this issue as with so many others?

JR

[Casper Bradak]

This is one of those arguments like, "better to cut, or better to thrust?" All martial arts are composed of major and minor moves. All have their time and place. Someone only delivering blows capable of killing is extremely limited in both knowledge and repertoire, and needs to read the source text more closely. Fence with all your strength doesn't mean be a buffalo.
Like you said, you can cut from the wrist, 1/2 arm, and full arm. Deliver schnitt and stromazone. Etc. Attack by a wrist cut to his fingers, immediately followed by a full arm cut through his teeth, as an example of combined minor and major moves. This way your options are limitless

[JeanryChandler]

It is possible that I misunderstood the people I was talking with, the specific disagreement was about the term 'haymaker'. Maybe the whole thing is more subtle than I understand.

JR

[John_Clements]

Let’s be practical here. Fighting for real is a lot different from play fighting and sparring. In mock combat you might try all manner of blows since none of them are intended to do real harm and injury and there’s no real consequence for failing. In real combat, excepting for taking of prisoners, when someone is trying his best to violently kill you, you cannot afford to do anything else than strike brutally and lethally. Regardless of whether or not doing such involves minor harassing or provoking attacks, his concern was only for doing everything to ensure his safety and survival. Anything else is a self-delusion ignorant of the historical accounts of actual sword combats.

JC

[JeanryChandler]

In real combat, excepting for taking of prisoners, when someone is trying his best to violently kill you, you cannot afford to do anything else than strike brutally and lethally. Regardless of whether or not doing such involves minor harassing or provoking attacks, his concern was only for doing everything to ensure his safety and survival.

Are you saying then that 'minor harassing or provoking attacks' are a valid part of the fencers repertoire?

I don't know about actually fighting with swords, but I know from experience, when involved in actual hostilities with blunt instruments such as broomsticks, bats, pool cues, and pipes; a jab or a light, quick crack from the elbow or even the wrist can be very effective, both as a preliminary to a harder follow-up attack or as a general strategy to put them off guard.

A jab to the face or a crack on the head has an especially dramatic effect, as can strikes to the hand and knee. It has actually saved me from being badly beaten on one occasion.

Of course my experiences in this area were against basically amateurs, and while serious bodily harm was definately intended, actual murder probably was not, at least not by me <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

JR

[John_Clements]

This issue really is that sparring as you describe is not an end in itself. For study of historical fencing, sparring is a tool, a means to an end (the end being cultivating a continual path of expanding your understanding and skill).

We have to be very careful when saying "it worked in sparring" about any particular technique or action because this thing that "worked" certainly didn't cause serious harm or injury or death and wasn't genuinely intended to. Sparring is not real fighting after all.

JC

[John_Clements]

Just consider that though human flesh is highly susceptible to terrible injury from impacts by sharp metal things, in combat one had to be sure of taking out an opponent as quickly and efficiently as possible, and not striking in the hope of wounding with minimal effort. You had to be sure he was unable to strike back. Against armors, both soft and hard, cuts that would have been debilitating or lethal on bare flesh alone, might have no effect if they were too weak. But if executed with appropriate strength, they could traumatized the tissues and bone below and incapacitate the target. This may be why the German masters so repeatedly stressed the need for “fencing with strength.” While provoking or harassing strikes have their tactical place, one could never count on just using blows sufficient only for injuring or for fighting unarmored opponents, but had to be able to strike hard against cloth doublets, leather and maile defenses, and even attempt to damage underneath plate armor. While a cut or even a thrust might not penetrate them, a strong blow might yet still cripple the opponent or at least open them to a follow on thrust. Thus, in one sense, a skillful fighter would have been one who was able to strike quickly with the appropriate kind of blow as needed on a variety of targets, armored or not. Besides, hitting hard also applies to other weapons besides swords.

JC

[JeanryChandler]

Against armors, both soft and hard, cuts that would have been debilitating or lethal on bare flesh alone, might have no effect if they were too weak.

I see your point, but didn't the masters distinguish between specific techniques for fighting versus armored and unarmored opponents? Or are the italian and german masters different on this?

JR

[Casper Bradak]

In regards to fighting armour, Liechtenauer: Remember, with all weapons, use the point against the bodies openings.
Ringeck: That is, with all 3 weapons used in the fight, you should always thrust with the point to the openings, as has been previously mentioned. Otherwise, you will give yourself a disadvantage.

It's only sensible that you're far more likely to injure/incapacitate/kill someone in armour by actually wounding them (thrusting into the openings), so that's what you should ideally do in combat, which is the center of this discussion: bring him down as quickly as possible. But, of course there are times where a blow vs. armour may be more easily made on the opening you have, like trying to ring someones bell in plate, or break something on a man in mail. And of course if you want to take them alive for ransom, or just beat them down in tourney.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi all,

the other problem, as I see it, is that a light harrasing or wounding attack is going to have a different effect upon different individuals. Anyone who has been in a few fights knows that different people respond differently to being hit. Sometimes it is attitude, the physical threshold ability to endure pain, or a powerful constitution. They may also be a wimp and faint at the first sight of blood. Others may go crazy or beserk at the sight of blood or upon being injured. Even when going for a good killing stroke, you cannot be sure of stopping your opponent. There are all sorts of recorded incidents of people who absorb terrible wounds, kill their opponent, then live for many years afterwords, there are also many other accounts where people die from much lighter wounds. It is a case by case basis, so in a fight for my life, I would rather rely upon good, powerful, fight stopping or killing blows (not being a buffalo here, but with control and power) rather than harrasing ones that may not have the effect I was hoping for. Or to paraphrase George Silver, bring me a fencer and I will bring him out of his fence tricks with good, downright solid blows. (sorry if the quote isn't word for word perfect)

just my 2 cents worth.

Brian Hunt.

[Craig Peters]

I think the points here can be summarized quite nicely as follows:

1) In a life and death situation use any strike that will hit.

2) The more force you strike with, the better.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi,

Here is my take on loose and slow vs tight and fast.

Loose and slow allows you to begin your attack, draw a defence and widespace this defence from the change of speed or line you make subsequently to get around it. This is how alot of systems designed for heavy cutting swords work.

Tight and fast allows for simple attacks to succeed on the basis of speed and small disengages and changes of line to work for much the same reason.

There is a place for both. It depends mainly on the system you employ and the wards you and an opponent are lying in.
Cheers,
Stu.

[John_Clements]

Hmmm...not so sure that makes sense. The Japanese for instance would be a "heavy cutting style" and it certainly is based on using very powerful, very rapid, decisive attacks.
I have not seen anything in our source manuals on longsword that persuade me 14th, 15th, or 16th century Europeans had a different view when it came to life and death encounters.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi John,

I never make my attack in first intention at full speed in single sword unless I believe I have deceived my opponent of his distance.

If I do make my attack in this fashion, especially when at a distance that requires the time of the hand, body and foot then it is easy for my opponent to make his defence in the time of the hand and choke up my attack to his advantage. I want him to be uncertain of the eventual angle and speed for as long as possible. This is the advantage of tying an attack to the tie of the foot.

Generally I prefer to attack with a slow hand in true times so that I can gauge my opponent's reaction before committing to an angle of attack.

Even when I was doing kenjutsu, you would never attack with as much force as you could muster because not only would it stuff up your cut, you couldn't adjust angles or speed very easily and in addition would be in danger of losing balance.

I believe Vadi says to cut with a serene hand, Mushashi gives similar advice about cutting with "the longsword". I am sure I could find many more examples if I looked hard enough.

Interestingly, I have a source somewhere (can't remember who) who says "one doesn't cut with a knife, one strokes with it".

I have only really done alot of test cutting with knives and machete's and I know from working with these short blades that great speed and force are not required to cut well.
I have done *a little* with a sword and it was effortless by comparison if only because of the length of the lever. This doesn't even take the edge geometry advantage of most swords into account.
Just my .02
Stu.

[Casper Bradak]

In my opinion there are a number of attacks that even require a very forceful initiation, such as the master cuts, for one example. Also, if you're in danger of losing balance when you cut strongly, you need to practice cutting strongly with attention to your stance, or use a sword you have the strength for.
As far as "stroking" as opposed to "cutting" with knives, in my experience you usually don't have a choice. Most knives don't have the mass to cut, they slice, and this cannot be compared to a sword capable of strong cuts as well.
In my experience those who cut slowly and with less force are more easily countered, their blows are more easily set aside, and their binds are always soft and slow to react.
Even with forceful blows, you should be able to change your angle of attack and alter your strikes in mid delivery, and quickly wind and twitch, making your fight dynamic and forceful.
Keep in mind as well that your interpretation of the "serene hand" may possibly not be the correct one, and opinions vary.
I have one more thought. If you attack your opponent with the time of the hand, body, and foot, and he can stifle your attack with only the time of the hand, you must be aiming the strong of your blade at him. Otherwise, to close the distance while stopping your blow enough to stifle it, he would have to add his body and foot into his counter. Also in my experience, those who defend only by interposing their blade, and not moving the body or feet, are not much different than those who lay in their stance waiting, and are quickly defeated even if they do deflect the first blow.