Doebringer 39v

[JeffGentry]

Hey Gent's

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.

That is what i am thinking, I.e I turn(winden) a cut into a thrust, i turn(winden) from an oberhau to an unterhau. no technique just a set of movement's duplieren is a specific technique of double hitting being used as an example of how to use "winden", the only way we can realy have a full 24 attack's is to use the winden.

like Doebringer say's on 40r

"Glossa. Note here that turning(winden) is the rightfull art and foundation of all fencing with the sword. From these stem all other fencing's and techniques and it is impossible to be a good swordsmen (without knowing) the turning in. There are many play masters (Leichmeystern) who despise it and call it "of the shortened sword" since it is so easy and uncomplicated. And look at those who use the long sword and who go about with outstretched arms and outstretched sword in order to look dangerous and to look good, using all the strength of the body. it is terribly embarassing to see someone thus stretched out as if he wanted to run after a hare. And this has nothing to do with turning in(winden) or Lichtenauer's art, since this art does not require strength. If it was not an art, then the strong would always win."

So are we agreeing winden is more a set of movement's, than specific technique's and winden is very, very, to our art?


Jeff

[Bill Welch]

in reply to:
"So are we agreeing winden is more a set of movement's, than specific technique's and winden is very, very, to our art?"

I think that sums it up pretty nicely. <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[philippewillaume]

Well, yes and not but we probably are arguing semantic
I believe that every technique in the manual illustrate a concept.
I.e. they use the technique that illustrates the concept the best but the tactitical application of the technique can be extrapolated over the strict description of it.
So I cannot see any bit being more conceptual than the other.

For example you have plenty of way to do mutieren and duplieren and you could see winding as a subset of mutieren and dupliren concept.
So you could say mutieren duplierent is about what to do to take the weak and the strong of you opponent sword as much as the technique described. Winding is the lichtanauer &amp;#8220;way&amp;#8221; to do it.

So I would say winden is both a concept and a technique.
It is a specific way to move your sword and as such can be qualified as a technique.
Or if we want to be pedantic we could call it a supporting technique; I e a technique that will enable us to use another technique.
And the fact that is just that obviously makes it a concept as well.
So yes winding is core to the system but it is just a cog like mutiren or hangen.

I hope a made some sort of sense

[JeffGentry]

Hey philippe

For example you have plenty of way to do mutieren and duplieren and you could see winding as a subset of mutieren and dupliren concept

See i am going in the opposite direction, I would say Mutieren and Duplieren are subset's of the winding concept.

It is a specific way to move your sword and as such can be qualified as a technique.

see that is partly what got me thinking about this Doebringer say's "Therefore Lichtenauer says that only five strikes with other techniques should you use in real fencing." And Doebringer give's us 24 attack's when you watch A real street fight or the UFC or any "combat sport" usualy there are a limited number of techniques that are winner's, and i think that is what Lichtenauer/Doebringer was teaching, were the winning concept's and giving us a few techniques to illustrate the concept and how and when to use it.

So yes winding is core to the system but it is just a cog like mutiren or hangen.

I see winding as part of the core, I do not think Mutiren or Hangen as cog's, because you could survive and never use them were as with winding you will not survive long without it against an opponent who does know and use it as part of the 24 attack's.


Jeff

[philippewillaume]

Hello jeff
I could not agree more with you. The only difference is that I would present it as There is only 17 techniques.
I was not trying to say that I was more right than you I was just trying to explain where my rationalistaion comes from.
Th make an analogy,
I think we are like two neighour discussing the color of the fence between their garden, we have not painted it the same color but it is still the same fence.
Our only difference is how we go about explaining it.

Cheer mate

[JeffGentry]

Hey Philippe

I could not agree more with you. The only difference is that I would present it as There is only 17 techniques.

I am not real sure what you mean as far as 17 technique's, could you list them or give me an example.

I was not trying to say that I was more right than you I was just trying to explain where my rationalistaion comes from.

I don't see it as being right or wrong, It seem's more a matter of is it a principal or a technique. To me a technique is a specific thing and a principal is very broad and covers many techniques.

I think we are like two neighour discussing the color of the fence between their garden, we have not painted it the same color but it is still the same fence.
Our only difference is how we go about explaining it.

The thing is to be sure we know what the fence look's like regardless of color.

Jeff

[philippewillaume]

Those one <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />
Here is the pieces of the manual
Zorn haw, krump, zwerch, hat schiller, mitt schaittler, alber; versetzt, nachreisen überlauff, haw setzet, durch wechsel, zuck, durchlauff, abschnie, hende druck, heng, vnd mitt blössen, schlach, vach streych, stich, mitt stossen.
Mark, here are named the true master strikes from the art of fencing with the long sword, (yettlichs from eitel) which are hastily separated/presented by name so that you can better understand their secrets. (as in break/crack; verstend=the darkness bestern). They are 17 in number (an der zalh=in number) and they are abeted/suborned to the five strikes: (anheben= anheben, anstiften)
the first strike: the zorn haw (the strike of wrath)
the second: the krump haw (the crooked strike)
the third: the zwer haw (the traverse strike)
the fourth: the schill haw (the squinting strike)
the fifth: the schaitel haw (the vertex strike)
the sixth: the 4 hütten, (the 4 guards)
the seventh the 4 versetzen (the 4 breakings of the guards)
the eighth: the nachraysen (the traveling after)
the ninth the überlauffen (the reaching over)
the tenth : the absetzen (the setting aside)
the eleventh: the durchwechßlen (changing through)
the twelfth: daß zucken (twiching)
the thirteenth: the durchläuffen, (the running through and wrestling at the sword)
the fourteenth the abschnyden(the slicing)
the fifteenth: the hend trucken (the pressing of the hand)
the sixteenth: the hengen (the 4 hangings of the point)
the seventeenth: the winden (the 8 windings
Item now mark: (name of the pieces see German text) And how you are to loose/unattach/break (emplosen=ebtlosem=losen) yourself with the hengen and winden and how you are to use/do all the pieces above mentioned, that you will find hereafter written.

to expend a little bit i think all those are what you call principal.
I beleive that binding is like making love you need to be two for that.( well at least two)
So for example if your opponent keep sniping at you, binding and winding will be very difficult so we are better nach raisen him.

But that being said it is not intrinsically different to what you say. It is just an other angle. I am more of a Ringeck guy so I tend to see thing the Ringeck way <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />
phil

[JeffGentry]

Hey Philippe

I agree with Ringeck and your 17, this is the same as in Doebringer/lichtenauer which Ringeck was working from.

to expend a little bit i think all those are what you call principal

Yes i would say these are principal's, once we have them down instinctively, we can move from one principal and one technique to another offensively and defensively in a seemless manner and use the 24 attack's.

I beleive that binding is like making love you need to be two for that.( well at least two)
So for example if your opponent keep sniping at you, binding and winding will be very difficult so we are better nach raisen him.

It isn't realy about binding and winding we have 4 opening's and 3 way's to attack the opening's and 2 way's to use our 3 attack's if we strike and rush in then we can begin to use the 17 in your list, and a bind could last only for the blink of an eye it doesn't have to last for 3 minute's to be a bind whenever the sword's touch it is a bind and will lead you to your next movement throught he use of feeling.

It is not intrinsiacly diffrent most all the German fight book's say the same thing or something similar, those 17 are listed in most German manuel's just not in that type of order, it is difficult to seperate one piece from another because it is a system and interrelated and it all flow's together.

Jeff