Differences

[John_Clements]

A colleague recently asked, why do we sometimes have such divergent methods and interpretations of techniques in the historical fencing community when we all use the same essential tools and all study from the same source material? My answer was, because enthusiasts often have decidedly different ways of going about their studies and do so with different objectives in mind. This naturally produces distinct systems of modern practice, which lead to very different experiences. This in turn influences any understanding of how historical weapons were employed.

So, is it all just a matter of differences in approaches and goals?

JC

[Richard Strey]

Indeed, I see strong evidence for that in the "environment" that I study swordsmanship in:
There are those who do not try to make the techniques work with full force or - in my opinion - don't have a full understanding of what "full force" even means. In the ways of power, speed an dynamics. These people are sometimes in danger of proposing a technique that would not work for various reasons, were it to be carried out "with intent" and full speed.
On the other hand, there are those - like ARMA, from what little experience I have with your organization - who carry out the techniques with full speed, power, intent, whatever you want to call it. Of course this is usually the last step in a long learning process, as we all know. And this is where the other side of the problem is: Some scholars will all too readily dismiss a maybe working technique, because "It doesn't work full speed", when actually they just didn't practice enough.
So, the way I see it, both ways of study hold their share of dangers and potholes for those who try to reach an understanding of what you can do with a sword.

[Shane Smith]

I don't think it just a matter of goals and approaches that leads to different interpretations.I think equally important factors are the personal attributes of the individuals involved.

I'm sure I will take heat for this,but I feel compelled to point out that in the Western Arts as in the Eastern, the manuals/techniques passed down from the given Masters do not necessarily represent the best and most effective technical application in every respect for everyone that may potentially seek to learn and master those respective Arts for themselves.As an example,the Art of the Sword as set forth by Fiore differs considerably in particulars when compared with Talhoffer.Are we to conclude that one was right and the other wrong?I think not.I think it is safe to say that each was a Master of his own fight,that is, the one that suited his personal attributes and attitude most closely.Fiore's down and dirty fighting at grips,while nearly ideal for Fiore himself,may be of lesser utility to a smaller/weaker man at the hilt.For the smaller Swordsman,a more elusive style of fighting may be more beneficial as to come to grips with a guy twice your size is NOT desireable to any sane man.I think that one must use the manuals as a guide to aquire a solid understanding of the basics and then he must optimize those priciples for his own body-type and attitude within the bounds of historic accuracy and common-sense.This would naturally lead to a healthy and individualistic divergence from one man and another on some of the minor technical points.If one finds himself in conflict with the source-texts on the primary principles however,he needs to examine his methods to root out the falsity that is surely hidden therein.

[scott adair]

Shane,

I agree with your comments about different masters and how their body types influenced their styles and resulting manuals. I am small by anyone's standard at 5'7" and 125 lbs. In my previous art my instructor was over 6 feet tall and over 200 lbs. There were definitely some techniques he taught that I looked at and said, "There is no way that will ever be feasible for me in 9 out of 10 cases." This became very apparent when I trained with a friend in the 6 foot/ 200lb category. There are some takedowns and throws that I have confidence in but many I no longer bother to train because of their 'wrestling' nature. I feel that a person of my size needs to hit fast, hard and decisively; because as you said smaller people are better off not coming to grips with someone who is nearly twice their weight. I really appreciate what Bruce Lee said about the truth in combat being different for each person. There are lots of techniques that I see as practical, just not for me.

,Scott Adair

[Guest]

Shane, you heretic! But seriously, I find it fascinating to compare and contrast the concepts and themes that seem to emerge as you look at what various masters have left us. Certainly all these techniques,although often different, were effective for the master who used and taught them. Who would win a fight between Talhoffer and Fiore? Vadi and Ringeck? Could King Kong beat up Godzilla? I think that modern practitioners end up with different interpretations mostly due to different approaches, but your point is also valid. No doubt we all customize our own performance and understanding of historical techniques based on our attitude, body type, etc.

[John_Clements]

Yes, as was discussed on the Elist recently, the issue was raised about the legitimacy of teaching or demonstrating techniques slowly or without realistic intent and energy. My view of course, is if I can't show real defenses and counters to moves attempted by an unskilled assailant how can I justify they would work against an earnest opponent? If you have mastered the skills they either work or they don’t. I suspect it’s at the heart of much of the problem with modern approaches and interpretations from study of historical sources among a great many practitioners, in my opinion.

It is one thing to be shown moves slowly so you can learn them a step at a time and acquire the correct form and body mechanics. It is one thing also to continue to practice them yourself this way for awhile. However, from my experience I am unquestionably sure that to learn actions correctly they must be performed as they were intended: full speed and full power. They are not understood as lethal any other way. When someone is trying to kill you, you don't hit slow or soft, you don't displace his blows by being slow and soft. The historical manuals are full of admonitions to train hard and strike strongly. This is how I teach and the sucess of the results have been self-evident.

I have said before, if techniques cannot be preformed effectively this way they should be scrutinized even more than ever. If an instructor, for whatever reasons, cannot demonstrate actions this way, their understanding is also questionable and you must view the validity of their techniques or understanding with healthy skepticism until you are satisfied you can make them work at full speed and energy.

In martial arts, and swordplay in particular, there are just too many things, too many actions and techniques, where you need real energy from your opponent’s movement in order to practice how to properly counter and redirect it effectively. Without this you end up with a delusion of how such motions actually work.

If you try to do displacements and counter-strikes and the other person is hitting with a much weaker energy and speed, making their moves slow, soft, or out of range and off-target, you will never learn to make proper movements against forceful attacks. You will fail to grasp the dynamics at work, and your interpretation, your reading of the source literature, and, I argue, your grasp of the concepts within the manuals will all be highly flawed and distorted. And all because they were done soft and slow all the time.

W'ell present an article on this topic in January.

JC

[Guest]

Agreed, but another important point is that what remains to us from the orriginal masters is very much like having a set of still images from a film. We are trying to re-construct the film, and the interpolated bits inbetween are necessarily of our own creation, albeit with the benefit of some experience and relevant thought.

I often find myself being frustrated thinking "what did XXX REALLY mean by that picture, or phrase?"

I think this is a contributing factor to the development of diffrent interpretations.

Cheers, Cen.

[John_Clements]

Yes, absolutely, agreed.
This is where interpretation based on experience in trianing and sparring using accurate replica wepaons comes in.

JC

[Shawn Cathcart]

There is also a trend recently in WMA in certain people to put too much reliance on the manuals, or one manual or source in particular, let me explain. The manuals we study from are often an amalgamtion of techniques that while shown almost entirely in a one on one fashion, are suitable for many different and varying situations. There is a tendancy for people to take a single source or manual as gospel, and have the attitude of, well its in the manual, therefore it must be true. I think what a lot of people are missing, even now, is serious and "with intent" phsyical understanding of things within the manual. It becomes fairly easy to spot people that are slowly trying to decipher things from the manual and describe them on here. If you've practiced these techniques in earnest in sparring, with wasters, with blunts, certain physical realities become clear in your understanding of the manuals, and it shows when explaining things to others. Many people try to decipher, and understand one manual. I fight in the "Talhoffer" style, or my style is more "Ringeck" in nature. I think Shane was very true in his statement, that different phsyical statures have different techniques that work better for them. But also many people forget to take the timeline of these different manuals into effect, and even location. Armour and Arms of the time also very heavily influence techniques. Also some make more sense when done within a group setting rather than one on one. Basically I think people do to much reading at times and thinking on the manuals, and not enough time training and sparring. To draw a nerdy comparison it's like paper-MSCE's back in the day. Sure they had certification, but it was instantly noticable to anyone who knew their stuff, who was book smart, and who was experience smart, you need a good level of both to have a true understanding, WMA is the same.

[Jay Vail]

Shane, your concern was obviously one known to, and shared by, warriors of the middle ages. Here is a description of a sword-and-shield fight from a 12th century tale:

“Hereward armed himself -- for it was for that reason that he had entered into discussion with him [a bully]. Rapidly returning therefore, Hereward pierced the bully’s thighs with a javelin at the first sign of onset; and struggling together, they struck blows at one another for some time. Well, continually advancing and attacking, the young man [Hereward] avoided the blows, and ducking and weaving, often inflicted blows that were unexpected and covert. When the detestable man saw the youth’s spirit, he attempted to grapple with him hand to hand, for he was stronger and very much greater in stature. But Hereward continually evaded him until, as he was in the act of bending over and less careful of his rear, Hereward thrust his sword under the mailcoat into the groin.”

The Deeds of Hereward, “Medieval Outlaws”, Thomas Ohlgren (ed.) p, 23.

Note how Hereward, because he was smaller than his attacker, avoided grappling and relied on footwork and mobility to win.

[Matt Easton]

Right Shawn, don't think I am picking on you, but your appraisal sounds very naiive.

There are some manuals that give you everything you need to know to face an opponent one on one. The opponent can do things that are not in your manual, but these manuals give answers to these new challenges. For example I train totally in Fiore, though I have travelled around Europe and trained with many groups who train from many other manuals, especially the Liechtenauer lineage. Now, the Liechtenauer lineage does lots of things that are not described or shown in Fiore or Vadi, but both Fiore and Vadi teach answers to these methods (if you have the intellegence to see them) - Liechtenauer uses winden, Fiore lineage uses voltas - one cancels out the other. The methods may be different, but the result and objective is the same, until you get to the 16thC manuals.

>>Basically I think people do to much reading at times and thinking on the manuals, and not enough time training and sparring. <<

This is just one of those shoot-myself-in-the-foot moments....
Training and sparring is irrelevant unless based upon research, because we are not training to kill each other, and sparring is always a false training unless you understand methods of killing historically. What works in reality does not always work in sparring, and what works in sparring does not always work in reality.
I would counter your statement by saying that the reverse is also true - some people spend to much time leaping around with wooden swords, blapping each other, and not enough time actually studying historical treatises written by masters of real combat.

The answer is that both are required in equal measure.

In answer to studying lots of treatises, or one, or a select few, well - I would say that studying only one good treatise, or a very small number of related ones is the best idea. If I studied Fiore, Ringeck and Silver equally then I would be totally useless in a fight, because there are too many options thrown into the equasion - too many conflicting options. The Fiore lineage and the Liechtenauer lineage are both set out clearly to provide a simple set of options for a fight, easy to apply to a real situation. If you mix them then you end up with a hybrid monster that is no longer efficient and useful in a fast-thinking reaction-based real fight.

Matt

[Casper Bradak]

I agree that sparring is very important, and in these arts at least, research is equally as important. I just had a comment, as un p.c. as it sounds, about how you said that we are not training to kill each other.
Although we have no enemies in this, and will likely never use these skills, training with the intent that these skills will be used for life and death, to kill, is what many of us, especially in the arma, do. It's what separates warriors and martial artists from those only doing physical research, sports, etc., and yields different results and different caliburs of skill. And, the intent with which we train is one of the defining features of the arma.
I'm not saying one way is better than the other, they are different, I just wanted to bring to your attention that people do train that way.

[Guest]

I would tend to side with Matt here, I personally believe that it is impossible to spend too much time researching historical sources but without the practical application that knowledge is worthless.

I suppose the entire issue revolves around your intended goal. In my humble opinion there seem to be two different schools of thought when it comes to WMA, one is to create an effective martial art using historical techniques and the second is to re-create the fighting style as taught by a particular Master.

I personally subscribe to the second school of thought. I primarilry teach Silver in my group because I personally feel that he provides us with an exceptionally effective system that can be applied to any situation. I have been studying his works for years and although I have looked at other sources and attended many workshops and seminars I feel his system regardless of gaps in technique gives us the best chance to re-create a truely historical martial art. This does of course lead on to comparisons with other styles. I have personally found that I.33 is very similar in style to Silver's sword and buckler and although the footwork is a little different, the techniques seem to be compatible and work well within Silver's system. I have as yet found no way of working any of the Lichtenauer school into my fight which to be honest could as easily be through my lack of complete understanding as a simple incompatibilty, but my fight is Silver through and through. As I look more and more into his two handed sword I am beginning to see certain parralels with the little bits of Fiore I have seen but I would hesitate to say that they are compatible (yet!)

I am not in any way attempting to decry the other school of thought, I am just saying that it is not for me. I forget who it was that mentioned the whole Apples and Oranges comparison earlier but that is exactly what I see this as being about. It is impossible to compare and contrast the two approaches as they are completely different but to an outsider they are the same thing, and the petty bickering that seems to take place on a regular basis (I am not attempting to apportion any blame to any one person or group here) only detracts from what should be a WMA community.

I hope that a little of this makes sense.

Take Care

Oz

[Tony_Indurante]

"I personally believe that it is impossible to spend too much time researching historical sources but without the practical application that knowledge is worthless."

I agree with this, after all where else are we going to find how they fought than through these manuals.

"In my humble opinion there seem to be two different schools of thought when it comes to WMA, one is to create an effective martial art using historical techniques and the second is to re-create the fighting style as taught by a particular Master."

This I would have to disagree with. I'd say that there were at least three schools of thought.

School #3- The practical application of historical techniques applied in a martially sound and historically correct manner, but not relying on a singular master's system. The third school of thought is NOT trying to create anything new, but believes that no single manual or teacher's system can teach you everything you need to know about this type of combat, therefore you have to use other sources to get a more complete picture of medieval and renaissance combat.