an interesting observation

[Jay Vail]

David,

I don't think you can say that as a definitive statement. The dagger fighting in some of those treatises -- for example Talhoffer -- is clearly depicted in a dueling environment, in the ring. So at least from appearance, those techniques were meant to be used for duels.

A point of clarification. I had in mind the unarmed dagger defenses rather than the dagger v dagger techniques.

But even then, I think a close analysis of the techniques shows that they are *primarily* intended for street combat rather than the duel. However, this does not mean that they are ineffective in the duel, or that they cannot be modified to be effective in the duel, or that they were not used in the duel, or that they were not created *in part* with the duel in mind. I think that all this is true, but only for the dagger v. dagger material.

The ancients understood the dynamics of the duel. The Codex Wallerstein gives advice that is clearly meant for a duelling type encounter, as does Joachim Meyer.

Obviously the ancients understood the differences between street defense and the duel and trained accordingly.

Respectfully, JV

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jay

I am just concerned that people get into the wrong training mode because of their over reliance on free sparring as the test of techniques. Some techniques work well in the duelling environment of free sparring, others less well. I have often, in other MA circles, heard perfectly valid techniques derided because they don’t work well in free sparring.

Yea this is also my concern myself and Jaron have used a sharp Albion Sempach to try limited technique's and even slow it is a whole new game knowing you could lose a finger if you screw up it was excelent training though, i think in most MA the reason some of the thing's don't work for real is like you said the enviroment that they were learned in is unrealistic, if you try to block a very hard committed shot on the street and have never actualy done it any other time except as a form(EMA) or limited sparring, it may just get blown through and your hit in the face and how do you react when blood is coming form your nose or the taste of blood is in your mouth we as MA need to know these thing's, i think some of this is due to the fact that a formal school has liability issue's to be "safe", and not everyone want's to be hit hard(i accidently hit Jaron in the forearm very hard he has a nice bruise from it, i didn't intend to hit that hard his arm was coming at me so it added to my force, although we know what it will do now for sure) some people would leave if this type of thing happened not good for a business, Jaron choke's the dog pee out me sometime's and my throat will hurt for a few day's, i take it as a learning experiience to see how it effect's my ability to fight when it he does it, no big deal it is the nature of combat.

I think a close analysis of the techniques shows that they are *primarily* intended for street combat rather than the duel. However, this does not mean that they are ineffective in the duel, or that they cannot be modified to be effective in the duel, or that they were not used in the duel, or that they were not created *in part* with the duel in mind. I think that all this is true, but only for the dagger v. dagger material.

I totaly agree with this, it is another ball game when you know that you are going to a knife fight, as opposed to being ambushed in the street in an ambush there isn't whole lot of time to think you just have to do what is required, as opposed to thinking about a knife fight the night before and trying to get your head right to do what you "think" you need to do, and the physiology of it would also be diffrent.


Jeff

[Jared L. Cass]

Jeff wrote,

"I throw committed blow's for the simply reason that if we expect this stuff to work we have to use committed blow's or we are fooling ourselve's by half ass throwing a fake blow and just standing there waiting for the opposition to do the "technique". "

Exactly. We're in complete agreement. This is sort of what I was getting at in my previous post. For practicing so much (probably all) of what we do, all of us need to keep your comment in mind. We need to really try and avoid falling into the trap of a duling mindset when learning/practicing techniques meant for commited "me or him" combat.

Jay, you and I are also in complete agreement. My post was meant as a warning to all to avoid getting stuck in a "tournament" mindset. Also, that it's been my observation of MA schools- both AMA and WMA, even combative instructions, that many people forget that it's not just about doing this move to get that result. Often one must do extras to make something work.

In this fledgling study of RMA/WMA it's the very fact that the "little extras" aren't specifically mentioned around every corner in the manuals that practitioners sometimes are at a greater risk of falling for the "this move doesn't work for me" attitude while experimenting with a manual technique.

If something doesn't work specifically as mentioned, make it work. Pull hair, grab nads, head butt, ect. And make sure one is using real energy/commitment (intent <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ). Keep it as real as training and personal levels of acceptable risk allow it.

Again, this isn't targeted at anyone in particular, it's just general advise for all.

So far I don't think anyone on this thread has really dissagreed or passed on faulty information. Seems to me like we're all on the same page... thinking explaining with the same atitude/mindset.

Jared L. Cass, ARMA Associate, Wisconsin

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jared

My post was meant as a warning to all to avoid getting stuck in a "tournament" mindset. Also, that it's been my observation of MA schools- both AMA and WMA, even combative instructions, that many people forget that it's not just about doing this move to get that result. Often one must do extras to make something work.

This is very easy to do when working on a new technique, it can be very boring doing the same thing over and over again, then when we go to full speed thinking "i know this technique" and you try it and the opponent doesn't step exactly right for you to do it and you need to push him a little with the other hand to get the right position, the technique automaticly doesn't work because you didn't make your adjust to the opponent's position.

In this fledgling study of RMA/WMA it's the very fact that the "little extras" aren't specifically mentioned around every corner in the manuals that practitioners sometimes are at a greater risk of falling for the "this move doesn't work for me" attitude while experimenting with a manual technique.

we have been working on the firemen's carry throw from Petter(it is other manuel's don't know what they call it) i am 6' and i can do it to Jaron who is 5'10" i doubt i would do it in reality to an opponent who is shorter than me because i need to crouch so low to load them over my shoulder it does work just not a real good technique for me to use in my mind, so that is also somethign we need to consider not every technique will be good for you to use.

If something doesn't work specifically as mentioned, make it work. Pull hair, grab nads, head butt, ect. And make sure one is using real energy/commitment (intent ). Keep it as real as training and personal levels of acceptable risk allow it.

i think this is a big factor in all that we do, in this there are alot of subleties in this that may not be specificly mentioned they are covered in thing's that are said in the form of quote's from the book's such as "set yourself for advantage" Ringeck say's this and i doubt he meant in just sword play.

Jeff