Speed and Force

[Jako Valis]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the elaboration on Meyer. That's interesting.

I'll see if I can get some videos done about control sooner or later, I'll be out of computer access from tomorrow morning for a week or so, but after that, and when the dust has settled, I'll see what we can do. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I watched your clip, I'm not very experienced in staff things, but it seems you had a lot of fun. Some good feints and hits. I'd be careful about the one handed swings, though. Very hard to get your body behind them. Thrusts are a different thing, of course.

And I like to wrestle myself, it's a good workout. And to be honest, I think Fiore would've handled himself on the ground just fine, he just chose not to.


Yours,
Jako

[Sean_Gallaty]

mike, I'm guessing you are the guy in the sleeveless shirt?

Edit: Now I don't know. I thought he had better footwork but the guy with sleeves on seemed to control the grapple and turned around two takedowns.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Jako, I read in "Daily life in Medieval times" by Frances &amp;Joseph Gies and also "a Chronicle History of Knights" by Andrea Hopkins about some of the issues you are discussing. This buisness of gentelmanly fighting etc..I think you are focusing on this aspect of the art a little to much my friend. This is especially true once you have expirenced a true life or death situation. When you believe you are fighting for your life -(or trying to save yourself from serious injury or pain even) seldom to these fanciful ideals come to the fore- not that they were not important to the warrior, as clearly history shows us that they were. I think that this was a relativley late medieval ideal though and not something that was constant throughout the whole period.

I think it is interesting to note though that this line of thinking is something that can be associated somewhat to Fiore and the Italian School, even though Doebringer clearly states to also fight with honor, but I digress we are starying off topic, I would also be interested to see some video of the kind of drills you run, I have been involved in many full-contact sports and other activities and fighting with padded weapons for me is akin to full-on football, and very close to a violent force on force encounter, and this is part of why I am so hooked on ARMA's methodology. I train with all of the tools to get as close as possible to the real fight encounter and learning on how to manage that violence and overcome my opponent through the historically proven, techniques. - Aaron

[Jaron Bernstein]

First, I am not bashing Fiori. I think his system is just as sophisticated as the other masters, but I would say that our understanding of his system at present (as with the others for that matter) is as far I can tell somewhat limited.

Anyhow, on this "noble/peasant" thing, I would suggest that it does not bear on the actual methods of fighting but rather on the nature of the training and those receiving it. I.e. in that era the nobles received systematic training in fighting that was supposedly restricted to their class. But that does NOT in my opinion suggest that the actual things they were taught (as captured in the manuals) was lacking in force/intent nor was it "clean" fighting. I would suggest that makes "noble" fighting different from "peasant" fighting was more that it was taught in a systematic manner (hey check out those manuals!) to one social class, where the peasant did more of the untrained brawling thing. But that does NOT mean that the "noble" training was "gentlemanly" in the sense of modern sport fencing and the like. Manuals written for the elite describe rather rough stuff.
If you cut in free play with great speed and stop just short of your target as you seem to suggest, you end up "training" you muscle/nerve memory to do that rather than cut through the target. IMO that is the great use of padded sparring. Think of it in boxing terms. You can (and should) do all manner of boxing training, but until you actually put on the gloves and throw full force blows at a resisting opponent with them trying the same to you, your boxing development will be limited. Same for this.

Understand, I am NOT saying that controlled freeplay doesn't have its uses or that padded sparring with intent to hit the other person hard doesn't have its problems (mainly in the limitations of padded weapons in terms of "fuhlen"), but that you really need both to be a well rounded fighter.

And just to clarify since it hard to convey in print, this is meant in a quite friendly manner! <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[david welch]

I want to also say ,,just cause I think it is important, that in no way my discussing terms on full speed with blunts or padded is a knock on the importance of training with blunts. It is part of an overall system and each piece is a part of "the elephant"...

If three blind men were asked what an elephant was like and each went to feel it... if one felt the trunk, he'd say it was liek a snake... if one felt a leg, he'd say it was like a tree... if one felt its side, he'd say it was like a wall... they are all correct but only partly... so by studying with these training tools helps us see part of the ELEPHANT that is combat.

Tim, that is the answer to the other question I was looking for. "Why is ARMA different?"

We train with blunts, wasters, padded, any form of "simulator" we can. Plus sharps. With pads on, without pads on. From slow careful drills, to all-out full contact to the death... without the death. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

To keep from using absolutes and saying "all":

More than likely, we use every training aid another school uses to try to get a feel for what combat would be like.

However...

More than likely, they don't use all the training aids ARMA uses.

[Roger Soucy]

Why I can't refrain from the padded-issue is, because with paddeds this sort of control is not such an issue. But with paddeds you compromise a lot of features you only get with steel - that's why I'm talking about an issue that prevents many of us from using steel, but I believe with training you can go around that issue.

Jako, after reading all of your posts, I think this one points out in great clarity where these arguments are stemming from. This quote of yours, from rather late in this discussion seems to be ignoring the fact that we do use steel to train. And that those ARMA members with the skill and experience do train at high speeds with steel, but increasing the control in the very same ways you are discussing.

It just so happens that we also train with wasters and padded swords. Your quote suggests you think that training with padded weapons prevents us from training with steel. It does not. Yet time and time again in this discussion you seem to be ignoring that we do train with steel and still find a usefulness in training with padded weapons.

You have said yourself that you've never trained with padded weapons. So how can you honestly tell those who have trained with both your methods (steel) and their own (padded) that their's has no merit?

Let me put this in another context... Say you drove cars, but only ever automatic transmissions. But then you discovered a group of individuals who drove both standard (stick) and automatic transmissions. Could you with your limited experience really be able to tell the other group that driving a standard transmission (stick shift) had no merit, when you'd never tried it?

Now, keep in mind that was just an example, also this is in no way meant as a personal attack, but it seems to me you think we are limiting ourselves in our training by using padded weapons, where we as a group believe we are expanding our training in ways you yourself have admitted you have never tried.

Would you discount the practice of running full out in your training because light running should teach you all the form and technique you need, thus leaving you the ability to run full out when you need to? Can you be sure?

[Scott Anderson]

Following Rogers post I have to ask:

Would training with the control you advocate for safety (which I am interpereting as a form of pulling your punch as it were) not artificially limit your training? The concept I'm working under here is that you will fight how you train. The concept that "I could have followed throgh had I so chosen, but I prefered to show my control by not doing so." has never worked in my experience. The person who trains that way tends to fight that way.

For example a person who trains in karate (or any other style for that matter) with that concept especially in a simulated "real" fight sparring match then gets into a real fight on the street but continues to not follow through because that's the only way he's ever trained and thus gets klobbered. I'm just wondering how you can be sure that you are not unknowingly cheating yourself?

Now I'm not suggesting that sparring all out with padded simulators will completely remove this artifact, but I feel that it can help mitigate it. The only way to fully remove the posibility would be to fight for real to the death with someone trying to do the same to you. However the padded simulators are about as close as you can get without someone (potentially yourself) dying.

This is not meant as an attack, but as something to consider.

SPA

[TimSheetz]

THANK-YOU, David Welch.

I almost thought that hardly anyone had read my whole post!

THIS is the sort of argument that I have had a long time ago somewherer else... but Jako is MUCH more courteous than those I argued with back then.

Multiple training tools are extremely important to any serious endeavour aimed at unlocking the mysteries of combat performance... and unless we want to say that every successful armed force in the world that uses multiple training tools and venues is wrong in how they go about prepping folks for combat, then we need to acknowledge that multiple systems are a major enhancement to learning how to fight. There is target practice with live ammo, individual tactical movement practice, target practice in simulators that creat realistic situations but use non-lethal ammo, there is simulated combat with lasers, and with SIMUNITIONS (that REALLY HURT and thus help you train to aviod mistakes) and there are LIVE FIRE exercises.

Many sophisticated knife systems (Filipino, Asian, etc..) use rubber, wooden, aluminum and steel blunts to train with. Are these guys full of it? Nope.


Now I know we aren't training to go into combat for real, but we should be training AS IF we were prepping to go to combat, cause that is what the Masters of Defense were paid to do... To ignore multiple training tools flies in the face of reason. It makes no sense to ignore one type of tool as 'inferior' cause they all help us "see the elephant" and glimpse the reality of this method of combat.

My point is to be inclusive of training tools, not exclusive.

Jako, feel free to totally prefer blunts for training. It suits me totally fine if that is the way you like it. I would also prefer it if you wouldn't feel free to say that training with other tools is an inferior idea... cause it isn't.. and over a 1000 years of history supports me in this.

Peace, all.

Tim Sheetz

[Gene Tausk]

Hi Tim:

You wrote:

"Now I know we aren't training to go into combat for real, but we should be training AS IF we were prepping to go to combat, cause that is what the Masters of Defense were paid to do... To ignore multiple training tools flies in the face of reason. It makes no sense to ignore one type of tool as 'inferior' cause they all help us "see the elephant" and glimpse the reality of this method of combat.

My point is to be inclusive of training tools, not exclusive.

Jako, feel free to totally prefer blunts for training. It suits me totally fine if that is the way you like it. I would also prefer it if you wouldn't feel free to say that training with other tools is an inferior idea... cause it isn't.. and over a 1000 years of history supports me in this."

You are right on target and explained the necessity of multiple training tools concisely. The use of multiple training tools, such as use of contact weapons, wasters and blunts (aka the ARMA method) develops, IMHO, the necessary skills of combat. Each of these training tools, and they are training tools, have their own abilities. With contact weapons, you can go "all out." With wasters, you use control but you get the feel of what it is like to hold and use a simulated weapon. With steel blunts, you also use control, but you get the feeling of holding steel in your hand which is critical for combat with "the real thing."

Actually Tim, you have more than 1000 years of history on your side - the Romans used multiple training devices as well. And, hey, they were the greatest military geniuses and tactitions of the ancient world. Who can argue with success?

Jako, once again respectfully, if you are only using steel blunts for training, IMHO, you are limiting yourself. Have at it if you want, but I stand with Tim on this one as I believe him to be absolutely correct in his analysis. I also will state that unless your opponent is Clark Kent or Peter Parker, there is no way you can unload on your opponent with steel blunts like you can with a contact weapon without the threat of serious injury to someone.


------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene
SFS
Director - Houston ARMA Southside Study Group

[david welch]

Yes, and all's good and well.

However, let's not forget there is another "elephant" in the room.

Assuming present company excluded...

You can hardly claim to be a "master of defense" and take people's money if you can't fight worth crap, and newbies kick your ass in sparring.

Preaching against using padded swords and doing all-out sparring would certainly help to navigate around this "little difficulty".

[JeffGentry]

Hey David

<img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" /> why did have to go and uncover that elephant i thought it was hidden pretty well.

Full speed full force even the best will get hit occasionaly, there is no room for error in padded sparring and everyone will occasionly make an error.



Jeff

[Sean_Gallaty]

Not to be unkind, but whenever I ran into that in a regular karate situation that was always my first thought. "their stuff falls apart when sparring."

Full contact and limited rulesets have a way of distilling combat down to the essentials of what works, and this excludes a great number of flashy, fluffy, slow, broken, unbalanced, or ineffective moves and techniques and has a way of opening up big questions such as "If this doesn't work why are we studying it?"

A technique can work or utterly not work with as simple a change as where you return your arm after a strike, or what guards/strikes you set yourself up to follow. Timing, flow, rythym, recovery, initiative, conservation of effort, stamina, adrenalyne response - all of these things and more are tested ONLY in full contact sparring. I cannot and will not train without it. Noone who has EVER learned the difference would be willing to train any martial style without full contact sparring. Nothing else hones us except real combat.

I suspect that the appearance of infallability is one of the big hurdles to admitting that we don't understand everything. Like you said, there are people taking money for teaching this stuff - they claim to have a grasp of it and then teach it. How they can do that and not throw down to learn to improve themselves is a mystery to me.

[Stacy Clifford]

Jako,

Pardon me if my terminology doesn't accurately describe the physical actions I'm trying to portray, but I think you misinterpreted my descriptions a little bit.

Try not to stiffen your muscles, your cuts will become faster. The sword is already hard, and the support is given by your skeleton with two hands on the hilt - no need to tense up.

In order to cut through an object with substantial mass, you have to apply muscular pressure in your follow-through to overcome the friction presented by the object. I'm not saying to make the cut with stiffened joints, but to maintain even muscular pressure all the way through the strike and follow-through, rather than relenting that pressure upon contact with the object (or opponent). The momentum of the sword in motion alone is not always sufficient to penetrate deeply into a large (possibly armored) object or deflect an opposing force like an attacking sword.

Mechanics stay the same - you just control leverage with your hands and do not penetrate by pulling the sword on the target rather than through. But there is really no recoil, as recoil is a result of bad support, unless you're intentionally making it. Here, you discuss cutting through.

Recoil might not have been the best choice of words here, but your description is close to what I actually meant. Upon or just before contact with the target, you relieve your muscular pressure to avoid penetrating force and allow your arms to act as shock absorbers rather than shock producers. If necessary you may even need to slow the motion of the sword if you feel that its own momentum is still unsafe.

I can't possibly describe all the fine muscular adjustments you have to be able to make to do this safely, but I've been doing this for a long time now and I know how to do it in my own mind and body, as I'm sure you do. This is as dry, empirical and scientific as I can make it, so I hope it makes a little more sense to you now.

Also, I think both "times" I described are important in practice. "Thinking time" allows you to analyze and understand what you are doing and internalize it. However, in a real fight you don't have time to think, you have to do whatever your muscles are trained to do with the least amount of supervision from your brain (not NO supervision, just least amount), what I call "reflex time". If you can't learn to fight in reflex time, then there is nothing martial in your art.

[Sean_Gallaty]

I'm gonna back up tim on this one.

I've 'sparred' with martial artists who don't 'spar' and they lock up in realtime. The timing is different and without that trained imperative of full speed practice, you won't have the instinct for full speed practice.

Also, with noncontact sparring typically the encounters are short and the hits are 'implied' rather than carried through. This never demonstrates if that follow through would have actually been carried out.

[John_Clements]

Tim,
I must make this brief as this is moving in time for our new house and I am still struggling to stay on sabbatical, and there is much here to digest.

Re your initial post, I see what you mean, but what I was getting at was the use of "focus" ---the difference between speed for making mere safe surface contact, and speed employed for actual penetration or inflicting real damage. The speed required to produce injurious force is not all that different than that which can be used safely in mock-combat practice. However, where some practitioners and students fail is thinking that just being fast means they have developed proper focus. They have not. That only comes from long-term exercise at pell targets and through test cutting. Make sense?

The development of "control " in a fighter or fencer is meaningless without their also developing "power" --unfortunately, too many today, I think, conveniently substitute the idea of "control" for a lack of combat effective force.

(Also, as a side note, the use of padded copntact weapons in vigorous free-play only makes true sense when we balance their use by training with steel blunts and sharps as well as wooden practice tools. We include use of padded weapons for one reason: to do that which the historical fighters did but we cannot---hit a live person with considerable force so there is no question they would be killed or maimed).

JC