Doebringer 39v

[JeffGentry]

Hye Bill

"(changing through is durchlaufen)"


I misspoke myself, i meant Durchwechsel.

( we need more words that mean the same thing) and you guys were saying english is not precise.

LOL, ok so written language is not real accurate, lol.

In 39V Dobringer, does not mention changing thru, or attacking any other openning. He mentions turning and stepping.
The only reason I dont tie the two together (changing thru, and turning) is in 34V

I knew there was a whole in my thought process and i think this is it, that make's good sense. I had not tied those two together in that way, i guess i was looking at it as changing thru as something seperate from the winding.

So do you think changing thru is another type of winding?


Jeff

[Bill Welch]

Jeff wrote:
"So do you think changing thru is another type of winding?"

No, because you can change from opening to opening without turning your sword over, like in 34V

"34V
This is regarding changing through
[Durchwechsel]
Learn how to change through [Durchwechsel]
from both sides and thrust with
intent. He who binds you [your sword] is
found to be open by the changing through
[Durchwechsel]. When you have “changed
through”, strike, thrust or turn [Wind]. Do
not strike at the sword but change through
[Durchwechsel] and do not wait for (or
with doing the changing through, do it at
once) it."

And yes, because you can turn, and then change thru, change thru then turn, or change thru while you are turning.

40R says
"40R
Glossa. Note here that the turning in
[Winden] is the rightful art and foundation
of all fencing with the sword. From these
stem all other fencings and techniques and
it is impossible to be a good swordsman
[without knowing] the turning in [Winden]."

So with 40R all On-the-sword techniques come from turning in, but it is also a seperate movement.

"36V
This is regarding pressing the hands [Hende
drucken]
Turn your edge; push the hands to the flats.
One thing is turning, another is winding
[Winden], the third the hanging [Hengen]."

then:

"That is why if you wish
to be a good swordsman before all things
learn how to set aside [Abewenden] well,
since if you set aside well you will come at
once into the turning in [Winden] and from
these you can perform artfully and courteously
in the fencing. The foremost edge on
the sword is called the right/true edge and
all strikes or thrusts are wasted by the turning
[Wenden]."


and in 37R
" . He who binds with you, the war will
wrestle him seriously. The noble turning in
[Winden] finds him for sure. With strikes,
with thrusts and with cuts you will find him.
In all turning in [Winden], strikes, thrusts
and cuts should you find well. The noble
hanging [Hengen] would not exist without
the turning in [Winden], since out of
the hanging you shall make the turning in
[Winden]."

Reading 36V through 40R as one big piece helps explain the interaction of everything starting with Hanging.

I am sorry that my posts have been so long, I have been tring to keep it confined just to Dobringer, and not start with "In Meyer it says" <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[JeffGentry]

Hey Bill

Reading 36V through 40R as one big piece helps explain the interaction of everything starting with Hanging

Well i have been over all this numerous time's, and wanted to see some other peoples perspective and get some new insight.

I am sorry that my posts have been so long, I have been tring to keep it confined just to Dobringer, and not start with "In Meyer it says"

Well actualy i am glad i wanted this to be about Doebringer's text.


Jeff

[Bill Welch]

Jeff wrote
"Well i have been over all this numerous time's, and wanted to see some other peoples perspective and get some new insight."

Just about every time you read one of these texts, you can find something new and interesting.
Especially if you look at it from a different perspective.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Bill

Especially if you look at it from a different perspective.

You and Philippe have given me a diffrent perspective that i am thinking on.

In many regards this is very simple stuff, We in our modern age tend to overcomplicate things the simplicity and efficiency is Often times what makes it seem so complicated.

The reality of how easy it is to take a life does not usualy sit well with us, knowing how easily it is to end our life is something most people do not readily accept, i think sometimes we want to make the principals and techniques in the manuals more complex to disguise our own vulnerability.

Where as the men writing these books knew how easily they could be killed and so developed simple, easy, efficient ways to preserve there own lives.

Like Doebringer mentioning how "simple and uncomplicated" winding was/is, So i just wanted to see what how other's took this it has been educational.


Jeff

[philippewillaume]

Hello jeff, you asked
======================================
Hey Gent's

Philippe
In reply to:


I would say yes, but this is ringeck logic here, i.e. I am winding because you protected the target I was aiming at with initial hengen (or the winding that was doing before you pary). So if it is protected I need to go somewhere else.



Why not just change the type of attack depending on the amount of pressure on your sword?

Go from an oberhau to a high thrust at the same opening..
=========================================
Because if we take Ringeck definition of winding, this is not winding stricto sensus, this is taking a hanging (as we do from the Zornh when he strong) he clearly links where you go according to the pressure you receive.
I.e. you can do any of the three attacks but you have to do them from the direction he tells you to wind towards.
So I would say you are going a bit to far, as far as the text is concerned, by linking every thing to winden but that is not a stupid way to conceptualise the system (without using the proper terminology and probably loosing some granularity as to when is what and when to do it).
phil

[Bill Welch]

Philippe wrote
"So I would say you are going a bit to far, as far as the text is concerned, by linking every thing to winden"

I dont think that I have gone to far Dobringer said it I was only quoting him from:

" 40R
Glossa. Note here that the turning in
[Winden] is the rightful art and foundation
of all fencing with the sword. From these
stem all other fencings and techniques and
it is impossible to be a good swordsman
[without knowing] the turning in [Winden]."

So I dont understand how you could say we were taking it too far.


Phil also wrote:
" but that is not a stupid way to conceptualise the system (without using the proper terminology and probably loosing some granularity as to when is what and when to do it)."

Please clarify, I dont understand what point you are trying to make.

[JeffGentry]

Hey folks

I dont think that I have gone to far Dobringer said it I was only quoting him from:

I agree Bill from what i am reading in the fight books i think winding is an major part of fencing that is not realy being utilised to the full extent.

Any idiot can throw a full arm cut once they are shown, learning to wind well is not so easy to learn.

Jeff

[ChrisThies]

Hello Jeff,
My take on the 8 winden - and I may be totally wrong or guilty of oversimplifying - is that they are what one would call a 'yielding parry' in modern terms. 2 in each blossen because they can 'yield' in either direction depending upon the opponent's defense.

For example if you make a thrust, from left pflug, to your opponent's lower right blossen; and your opponent attempts to displace your blade by setting it aside from his right to his left; then you would wind to a right pflug whilst maintaining blade contact and thrust to the same quarter with your point from a different angle.

[philippewillaume]

First sorry for the delay I was on holiday and away from my mail. So no snubbing intended

To answer your question, that is probably because you are focusing on the bit of what I say that you do not &amp;#8220;like&amp;#8221; (i.e. the bit that makes you react).
So you are took my statement as a general comment where it was a reply to a specific point developed by Jeff.
Which I would resume as
Why not just change the type of attack depending on the amount of pressure on your sword?
Which is slightly different to &amp;#8220;all that pertains to the bind can be presented as a function of Winden&amp;#8221; which is what I understand you are talking about.

As I said with my &amp;#8220;it is not a stupid way of..&amp;#8221; what jeff is talking about is a perfectly reasonable way to present things . However by doing so you are in danger of loosing some aspect of the techniques that do not pertain to winding stricto sensus.

The example of the duchwelchen that you used earlier is a perfect illustration of what I mean by the above.

I hope that clarified things.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Philippe

However by doing so you are in danger of loosing some aspect of the techniques that do not pertain to winding stricto sensus.

I am wondering if by trying to have a great definition of "this technique is winding, this technique is not" are we doing the same thing as far as limiting how we use and think of "technique's" instead of of putting the right principal with the right type of movement's, as opposed to a specific technique being "this technique is winding", or winding being thought of stricto sensus.

Jeff

[philippewillaume]

Hello jeff
That is true and may be to some extend I think the problem is more with how we explain our understanding of the system

For example, I believe that there is one and only one technique that is the most relevant (Ie the best to do) to a given situation.
So for me there is a kind of limited way to use a given technique but that technique is limited to a relatively defined set of action. Fullen being what you are using to recognize the situataion you are in.
So the way I have organized it seems totally antagonistic to what you are saying
But practically, when demonstrating/explaining it to students I often end up with
Yeah dupliren is a like winden but there is a differences here (bla bla bla)

I think there is not that much difference between approaches as far as how it is done. The difference is more on how we rationalize the why we do it.

[Bill Welch]

I think that the problem arises from tring to narrow down "winding", and giving a certain technique the name "winding", when winding is a group of movements not one spacific move is "winding"

If all techniques come from winding then any tech., that envolves turning of the sword, regardless which opening you are attacking (i.e. moving from the upper opening from a lower, or changing from left openning to the right opening.)
is winding.

in reply to:
"So the way I have organized it seems totally antagonistic to what you are saying
But practically, when demonstrating/explaining it to students I often end up with
Yeah dupliren is a like winden but there is a differences here (bla bla bla)"

Yes, what I am saying is that dupliren is winding, its just a subset of winding.

[M Wallgren]

I like that way of thought!

Winding is thus a collective word for a certain grope of movments or techniques.

Dupliren on the other hand is a specific Technique.

Seems like a good way to sort it!

[Bill Welch]

In reply to M Wallgren:
"Winding is thus a collective word for a certain grope of movments or techniques.

Dupliren on the other hand is a specific Technique."

Exactly!! Thats it at least IMHO.