Thanks. Hmm, so it is a stop made while stepping in, as advocated by DiGrassi and Godfrey (and arguably Silver)? We unrepentant edge-bashers would definitely call that an edge parry - just one variation on the spectrum.Parrying is kind of a general term for stopping a blow, whereas stifling more specifically refers to moving in and stopping a blow early in the arc to prevent power and energy from being generated. It's a more proactive and complex action than simply stopping an incoming blow at the peak of its cutting arc as a reflex.
Okay, but you can't prove this kind of thing over the Net, if at all. Look at the big, inconclusive debates unarmed martial artists have over whether certain styles or techniques are effective - and they're in a much better position to settle the question than we are. There are lots of people who say that in their experience edge parries work fine. Personally, I suck much too badly to have an opinion, but the fact that they were used by real swordsmen, who fought in real combat, for hundreds of years, suggests that they were at least adequate. The opinions of a bunch of hobbyists playing around (and without even agreement amongst ourselves) are hardly convincing counter-evidence.Our experience has been that edge to flat parries are far more effective in fighting. Anyone else who feels otherwise is welcome to dispute us- but they have to prove that their edge to edge parries are actually effective in combat.
Let me be clear that I am not knocking flat parries here. I think they are just grand, and perfectly historically accurate. I just think that edge parries are legitimate as well.
My bad, let me clarify. There are many ambiguous passages which can be interpreted as edge-to-edge or edge-to-flat techniques. It can be difficult to tell which is meant. Choosing the flat interpretation because you consider edge parries inferior seems rather subjective to me. You obviously feel differently.And no, we don't claim that a historical style doesn't use them because we don't like them. If you read John's article, he points out evidence and reasons why manuals are advocating edge to flat parries, rather than edge on edge.
Hmm, maybe I will try, though it will take a while.If you believe that his interpretation is less than convincing, you need to provide good reason why a) his reasoning is faulty and b) why your reasoning is better. I have not seen anyone so far even attempt to do this.
You are making an assertion. In your opinion, edge parries are inferior, and therefore would not be used by historical masters. You are by impication asserting that the masters shared your opinion. Where is the textual evidence for this?"And the passages which state that you shouldn't parry edge to edge are where, exactly?" - The burden of proof always lies on the person making an assertion. You should know this - there's no way we can prove to you that something doesn't exist, which is why you have to prove that it does exist.
I am also making an assertion, and I have provided evidence.
Sorry, poor choice of wording. However, clearly Renaissance masters did advocate their use; Viggiani says so! I assume you mean the masters who wrote the manuals which we have. In which case, you are arguing not only that edge parries are inferior, even though many masters used this inferior technique, but that the masters who wrote the manuals we have all belonged to the group that didn't. On what grounds can you possibly claim to know this?This is a straw man argument; we never said that edge on edge parries don't exist. In fact, I'm sure that they existed back in the time of Liechtenauer and were employed by the kloppfechter. However, that's a much different thing from saying that medieval or Renaissance master advocated their use.
If I can put this argument in a nutshell: in many manuals there are defences which can be interpreted in a number of different ways, including as hard edge parries. Hard edge parries were used and taught in the 16th c, at least. Therefore it was not the opinion of all masters that they were bad technique. Thus, vaguely described defences in 16th-17th c. manuals could well be hard edge parries, and and this possibility must be fairly considered based on particular evidence from the text, not dismissed due to a blanket aversion to this known historical technique.
BTW, the only reason I'm involved in this discussion at all is because I study Silver, and he is a perfect example of what I mentioned above: vaguely written and smack in the middle of the period in question. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
Cheers
