Simplified long sword fighting... and why.

[JeanryChandler]

As an outsider, I have this observation. I've seen sparring clips and personally trained and sparred with members of several WMA groups in Europe and the USA including ARMA. If you add the videos provided by Lance Chan I have at least some idea of WMA as practiced in Asia too.

In every case, I would say that there seems to be an often highly sophisticated intellectual interpretation and analysis of the Fechtbuchs by the WMA practitioners, in many cases reproducable in slow motion or even up to half speed in drills...

But there is a rather enormous gap between the academic analysis and the actual level of technique actually applied at full speed, full contact as apparent in sparring.

Lets say someone who is capable of discussing a fencing match in terms of 40 or 50 techniques, might be only actually applying 4 or 5 in an actual fight. Some of this is inevitable the factor often discussed that in every martial art the fight itself becomes simpler than the training. But I think the gap is wider than that. For some individuals it also involves a basic lack of the sort of primal physical aspects of fighting, the psychological mindset of a real fight versus training. These quite frankly are at least as important as the entire training regimen but much harder to teach, you have to learn through real fights or hard core sparring there is no other way..

The gap between the intelectual and physical understanding if you will is significant though and always a challenge to bridge in any martial art, perhaps especially as we learn WMA often on our own and at our own pace.

It is interesting to me is to see how much advancement has actually been made with ARMA in particular, just in the fairly brief period between my experiences at Southern Knights and some more recent encounters. People are grasping a greater percentage of the technique and applying it. I ascribe this to the prevalance of full-speed, full-contact sparring and to the excellent openness of communication which seems to be thriving within this group.

My advice, and it might be bad advice so take it with a pinch of salt, I guess would be to try not to really bother getting too far ahead of your physical skill level with your scholarly training. Learn the basics, add on layers of complexity when you are ready for them.

For example, and maybe this is wrong as I'm definatley no master, but perhaps don't bother with learning a lot about winding until you reach the point that you are starting to get into a lot of binds. If all you are doing on the sparring field is getting constant mutual kills and very few of your bouts last more than one or two strikes; more work on footwork, reading and breaking guards, learning reach and measure is probably in order. Once the necessity for a new level of complexity becomes apparent, crack that chapter in your fechtbuchs and learn it. The immediacy and relevancy will make itself instantly apparent on the sparring field as you apply the new techniques, and I think you will learn them faster.

Thus make the complex simple one layer at a time.

Jr

[philippewillaume]

Hello, Dave i think you missed a bit
"And beware of all displacements used by bad fencers. Note: Strike, when he strikes, thrust, when he thrusts"
Ringeck

The passage reads as
Vnd hyt dich vor allen versetzen, die die schlecht vechter tryben. Vnd merck: wen er hawt, so haw och, vnd wen er sticht, so stych och. Vnd wie dü hawen vnd stechen solt, das findest dü in den fünff hewen vnd jn den absetzten geschryben.

And guard yourself from all versetzen that the poor fencer does. And mark when he strike then strike as well, when he thrust then thrust as well and how you are to strike and thrust you will find described in the five strike and in the Abzetsen.

A fair amount of pieces are described when the baddy is striking us. i.e. he is in the Vor and we are in the narch.
So we are defending and he tells us to defend ourselves only with masterstike and absetzen.
of course we are "attacking" as far as we are concerned but for a spectator we are defending against our opponent attack.
If you see what I mean
Personally I think the notion of attack and defence as we understand it today, does nor really make sense as far as Ringeck and the other 15-cent master form the lichty tradition.
All you do is master stike and absetzen, and by nature they are both defensive and offensive (if done pertinently they make sure that you can not get hurt buy a double kill or a finger of the dead attack) so it is not really linked to when we use it or what purpose it is used for.

phil
PS
About
Your "point of differentiation" late in the blow is feeling if he is hard or soft.

I think that too restrictive, you see he may or may not bind and fullen by definition applies to the bind.
For example, he may only take a full step back and change guard so you an change your strike to break the guard he is going to.

[philippewillaume]

Hello tim
I think I was not clear enough.
If I understand you I think we all agree that a technique should be simple and have some relatively large tolerance. (i.e. you do not need to move and strike as precisely as Swiss clock maker)
But there is an intellectual part of the job that needs to be done.
Sparing is what make me take up manuals, I was fade up with double kills and Pyric victories.
I am the first one to say if you cannot use a technique in sparing it is because your interpretation needs some refinements. But the reverse of that is equally true. You interprestion of a technique has to stand the sparing test.
And the build up of that interpretation cannot really be done by sparing alone, you need an environment that helps you understand the technique so that you can then understand the concept and being ably to apply it in sparing. After all, the point of a martial system is reproducibility when it matters.
I this is similar to what Jake is saying

Speaking of the man
There is one point, that I am not sure that I agree in his argument and I think It may help me to explain what I mean more clearly.
And that is.
Liechtenauer and Ringeck can say that there are only 5 or 9 or 17 techniques or principles or whatever until they're blue in the face, but dozens of fight books, each dozens if not hundreds of pages long, prove that this is not the case.

I d not think it prove anything at all. Obviously other master are wrong…
Ok more seriously.
I do believe that you do not need anything else that what there is in the manual (in my case Ringeck)
As I have said before I am a firm believer that if my interpretation is valid it should work in sparing.
I.e. no double kill or finger of the dead strike (you kill him first but is blow lands after yours so if was a kamikaze he would have killed you or weakened you so that someone else could kill you)

So you need to come up with an interpretation that takes care of all the situations.
Can it be done with 17 principles?
To quote Austin Power may answer is Yeah, baby, yeah
However there is a but, and that but is that you need to interpret the 17 principles as concept and not technique stricto sensus and by doing so you are doing something similar, if only in principle, as to mixing sources.

If I can illustrated that with and example.
My opponent is waiting for me in guard of boar tooth (not every body is studying Ringeck, they should be but well), if I am to be true to my principles I need to not to worry to much about what he is doing and strike him at the opening but to make that safer for me I need to link his position to at least one of the 4 guards/position.

And the only ways to do it are
- Use what ever Fiore uses to break it
- Study plough and alber to understand what the concept behind the actual examples are (basically I believe that what matter in the guard/position is the where the hands are the sword is just in its optimum position so for me that is just a plough.
- Use other source from the same school (in our case Dobringer who call it the plough)


I hope that made sense.

[Mike Cartier]

I agree with Jeanryu on many points and very much agree with Jake that before you can simplify you must explore the complexity of the fundementals.

In every martial art I have ever seen there is a set of high percentage techniques which are seen as the basics for fighting, these techniques generally work well and are naturally simple and direct. But there is always another layer of more complex techniques which are less high percentage but are still quite effective but whioch require much more work to grasp and use in real time.

[david welch]

Wow, where to start?

JeanryChandler :

I think one thing we often miss in basing out understanding on the manuals is the reality of unequal weapons and numbers of combattants. Ive boxed a little and I've been in a lot of street fights and I can tell you there is a huge difference between how you might fight one on one with equal (or no) weapons vs against a group or someone with different and possibly superior weapons (in terms of reach like a staff or spear, or in defense as with a shield...)

With multiple enemies, yes there are tactics you need to know, like stacking.

But once I learn how to clear a blow coming in from above and simultaneously counterstrike with a crossing strike, does it really matter to me if you are using a longsword, a single handed sword, a stick, or are holding a dagger, when you throw an oberhaw at me?



Mike Cartier:

it is my opinion that Meyer does indeed teach defensive actions, or at least actions which are not purely offensive in nature. he even has a whole part of the fight devoted to the art of fading backwards and counter striking the opponent (abzug)

Every master does. You have to be able to.

I have even heard people say that Meyer taught a defensive and counter-cutting "style" of fencing. Now this is just my opinion... but I think that is a gross misinterpretation.

Meyer IMO is nothing more, and nothing less, that an instructor teaching an instructors course on the art of fencing per the Liechtenauer tradition. the only "contradiction" he has to Liechtenauer is to admit that they don't thrust as much as they did in the ancient days... but his book is still full of them using the point as a threat.

Now as far as him teaching "defense"... Meyer says on page 1:

"This can be advanced in three stages and be organized thus, namely as the Start, the Middle and the End, where the three stages each have one aim which you shall fence through, and must do one by one to advance, that you thereby know with which strikes or stances you will engage your counterpart and then frontally attack as you would in the Middle stage's handwork, letting fly to work against the openings, keeping the initiative such that his attacks are preempted."

That is pure Liechtenauer tradition fencing.

I think part of the problem with people's perception of Meyer if that he gives so much instruction on fighting in the after. But he explains why:

"Of Displacing, a useful concept
Chapt. 5
When you are forced to these parries with force and strong bearing, see that you steady yourself by stepping back, and thus be able to come into the "Before" again with advantage from the parry, to this Liechtenauer did speak.
Before displacing guard yourself. Place yourself for advantage.

With which he didn't completely warn against parrying, namely that you should teach only strikes and how to damage, as was told above. When you will succeed from displacing, it does much, thus you should displace stoutly. Thus it is used not only to return strikes, on the other hand it also keeps an eye on preventing his strikes from moving in closely, so that no more fencing can then be built or similarly be attempted without problem."

And:

"Handwork
All in the first part of fencing up until now, both the Stances and Strikes, were sufficiently and properly done, and from thus we come ahead, that you come to your opponent as equals under the sword, and so first push one's self to strive seriously, so that you drive against him accurately and forcefully into the Middle work such as Misleading, Following After, Changing, Doubling, Hitting After, setting the Prize thus as the goal all Fencers work toward and wish to attain and keep with quick work.

Because it doesn't start off fully and immediately, where you neither close nor safely attack, then from there on the largest art lies, which is fully grasped here in this chapter of handwork. Since similar things must happen in various ways, on this you'll have advice in every special word and way, which will be through lessons, and from there through demonstration you shall fully draw clearly and rightly how it is done and understood."

There are quite a few other places where he mentions this, also. Reading it all and taking it in context, this is what I think.

Meyer was writing a fight book in the Liechtenauer tradition. You are in a drag race for the first strike. If I throw a wrath strike, get the first strike, and cut you in half... the fight is over.

But you don't always win the drag race. Meyer even says so:
"Because it doesn't start off fully and immediately, where you neither close nor safely attack, then from there on the largest art lies"

If you lose the first strike, you don't have to just stand there and let them hit you. You try and regain the initiative. But things get complicated, and it takes a lot more to explain how you do that.

But just because you can still win if he strikes first doesn't mean you should let him strike first.



Jake_Norwood:

Yes, and No.

<img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />



James Sterrett:

Footwork is part of the basics. I didn't say to ignore the basics... just to not make it more complicated than it needs to be.



philippewillaume:

PS
About
Your "point of differentiation" late in the blow is feeling if he is hard or soft.

I think that too restrictive, you see he may or may not bind and fullen by definition applies to the bind.
For example, he may only take a full step back and change guard so you an change your strike to break the guard he is going to.

I wasn't being too restrictive, I was being very broad and not explaining myself well.

By "feeling if he is hard or soft" I really meant (and should have said) sensing if you can attack through or not. I don't mean so much that you physically feel pressure from his blade, I mean you "feel" whether or not your attack will strike through. If I throw a wrath strike, and see you setting into a solid looking hangen, I will "feel" in the middle of my strike I won't hit you, so Indes I will pick another opening, cross my hands, and hit you with a cross strike on the other side, or change into a glancing strike, or what ever. Make sense?



philippewillaume:

I do believe that you do not need anything else that what there is in the manual (in my case Ringeck)
As I have said before I am a firm believer that if my interpretation is valid it should work in sparing.
I.e. no double kill or finger of the dead strike (you kill him first but is blow lands after yours so if was a kamikaze he would have killed you or weakened you so that someone else could kill you)

This is just my opinion, but I don't think I agree that you should pick just one manual and stay with it. I think you get a far larger picture by using multiple manuals. I like Meyer, Doebringer, and Talhoffer.

Meyer explained Doebringer to me.
Doebringer taught me how to fight.
Talhoffer taught me what was important.

Once I read the techniques and applications, Talhoffer really helped. He would show a plate with a guy with a sword stuck in his head that said:

"The guy on the left cut from above and the guy on the right cut from below, so the guy on the left wound and stabbed him in the head."

What guards did they start in? Did the guy on the right cut from plow or changer? was the strike from above a wrath strike or an oberhaw?

He doesn't say... because it doesn't matter.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Philippe,

Contrary to what you and others are saying I still say that what we do is simple.

The complexity we are all discussing is NOT the TECHNIQUE, but the EXPLAINING of the concept and the EXPLAINING of the technique.

This does not reduce the significance of what is being done and all the permutations that exist.

The sword is a machine with 1 moving part.

Even the advanced sword taking techniques that we have seen John do are SO TOTALLY amazing BECAUSE they are very simple and effective... it is in the EXECUTION of the simplt thing under duress or full speed that make it DIFFICULT.

Of course, knowing that something is simple is not always easy. How many of us have worked on something and then someone shows us a way to do it that is so efficient we are amazed?

Peace,

Tim

[david welch]

The complexity we are all discussing is NOT the TECHNIQUE, but the EXPLAINING of the concept and the EXPLAINING of the technique.

Tim, yeah, that's it exactly. Especially when I am trying to explain it to myself.

Of course it doesn't help any that everything we do has half a dozen different names, and each of those have half a dozen different spellings... <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[JeanryChandler]

With multiple enemies, yes there are tactics you need to know, like stacking.

But once I learn how to clear a blow coming in from above and simultaneously counterstrike with a crossing strike, does it really matter to me if you are using a longsword, a single handed sword, a stick, or are holding a dagger, when you throw an oberhaw at me?

Well, as just one example, if I'm carrying a shield absolutely yes it makes a difference. You better be prepared to react a lot differently or you are going to be dead quick.

Jr

[Randall Pleasant]

Tim Sheetz wrote:
The complexity we are all discussing is NOT the TECHNIQUE, but the EXPLAINING of the concept and the EXPLAINING of the technique.

Tim

I fully agree. Many simple things are anything but simple to explain.

Even a Marine can tie his shoes. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> But have you tried to write a description of the process? <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Patrick Hardin]

Yes, this is what I was talking about. It takes a lot of training in the techniques to learn how to move, but once you do learn how to move, fighting becomes easier to understand.

Patrick

[JeffGentry]

Hey Ran

Even a Marine can tie his shoes.

What are trying to say about Marines? <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I also think some of it has to do with the natural chaos of fighting, there is alot going on and so much is out of our control so even though we "know" a "technique" when we actualy have to conciously think about doing it, i have found it generaly doesn't work because by the time we are done thinking the oppertunity is gone.

When i first learned to roll a kayak in a pool i thought i was real cool, an hour later i was on the river and flipped unexpectedly, well now current is pulling on my paddle, my head is bouncing off rock's, holding my breath, shockingly cold water, i was not able to roll, it was not that i didn't know how to roll, i had to learn to deal with the chaos and not let it effect what i was doing, and become fully confident that no matter what was going on around me or happening to me i could right the boat, my point is that sometime's it is not the manuel's that are complicated sometime's our perception of what is going on in and around the fight will also complicate thing's, because something's are out of our control and so it effect's are concentration and how we need to execute.


Jeff

[philippewillaume]

hello, Tim
I still think you did not get me (or may be I do not get you &amp;#8230;..)
I keep saying that the technique and the concept are simple and as Descarte said "the word to describe them come simply to the mind". So I think it is even simple to explain and demonstrate in person. (On the web that&amp;#8217;s petty much another ballpark, I mean we have tall the ingredients to make discussion difficult) but that does not mean making it happen when it matters is simple. To make that last bit simple you need training and experience.

It does not matter if you are studying several master or one, the tricky bit is to pick up the right technique for the right situation and to do so in a timely fashion (as Jeff explained) For that to happen in sparing or in a fight, you need to have a deep and intricate knowledge of the limits of the techniques composing the system you are using (what ever it may be) and experience in using them. So that training can override instinct.
All that form work and sparing does, is to help you to recognise and explore the tactical limits of techniques and that why sparing alone will never be good enough on its own and nor will intellectual work.

It is true for almost everything
for example changing foot on the fly every two step on a horse can seem complicated, but it is not it is just asking the horse to start galloping on the other leg in the suspension time and that every other step.
It happens only with simple leg and hands signal and it is not different of starting galloping on that foot from the walk, trot or standing still. You can do that very early in your riding career.
The hardest bit is to recognise when the suspension time is about to happen not to ask the horse to start galloping.
And that can only happen much latter in your riding career, when you have a better understanding of what you are doing and can read the signal much better that when you started to gallop.

What ever your level of riding, know you probably have a clear understanding of what is changing foot on the fly every two times.
It is asking a gallop start on the other leg during the suspension time and that every two step.
You can probably explain it easily but unless you have about 10 years of classical tuition, it will be a dam struggle to make it happen anytime soon on a horse that you do not know.

phil

[philippewillaume]

philippewillaume:

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do believe that you do not need anything else that what there is in the manual (in my case Ringeck)
As I have said before I am a firm believer that if my interpretation is valid it should work in sparing.
I.e. no double kill or finger of the dead strike (you kill him first but is blow lands after yours so if was a kamikaze he would have killed you or weakened you so that someone else could kill you)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is just my opinion, but I don't think I agree that you should pick just one manual and stay with it. I think you get a far larger picture by using multiple manuals. I like Meyer, Doebringer, and Talhoffer.

Meyer explained Doebringer to me.
Doebringer taught me how to fight.
Talhoffer taught me what was important.

Obviously I am not too keen on that approach (otherwise that what I would do) that being said I think it is perfectly valid way of doing things. (and probably as historically accurate than any other method mine included)

The relevant merit of each practice was not really what I was after (i think they both have merits and flows
A little bit like jam and bread. The fight is the bread and which ever way we interpret is the jam. It is quite clear that one manual is less jam so you need to spread it more, and that several manuals you have more jam but you will need to marry the jams. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I was more about the need top study the technique and sparing.

phil

[Mike Cartier]

I too am in philippes camp on the one manual approach, i think as he said both ways are valid of course but I personally prefer sticking to one manual for a few years before i start using others to fill in gaps. There are pitfalls to both approaches. Personally I feel as if I could spend the rest of my life working in Meyer and still not get it all.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Phillipe,

We obviously (now) I see we are in a greement on most things here.

You wrote: "... but that does not mean making it happen when it matters is simple."

I reply: Exactly, but.... going back to what I originally said, the technique can be simple, but in battle, simple things ARE DIFFICULT. They are not less simple. In battle, the important things are simple, and the simple things are difficult.


You Wrote: " the tricky bit is to pick up the right technique for the right situation and to do so in a timely fashion"
I reply: Yes, but which techniques are usually right? The techniques are simple. Take the machine with one moving part and move it so that it creates effects on the target, with and without additional second and thrid order effects. Simple.... but to do it is difficult in battle. Circumstances alter the level of difficulty, but not the level of simplicity.

You wrote: " For that to happen in sparing or in a fight, you need to have a deep and intricate knowledge of the limits of the techniques composing the system you are using (what ever it may be) and experience in using them."
I reply: I can agree that you SHOULD be able to know the "deep and intricate knowledge" of techniqes composing a system... but knowing a SYSTEM does not enable your technique under duress. A system is really a tool for COMMUNICATING or EXPLAINING how to tie various TECHNIQUES together. The SYSTEM is complicated maybe, but the techniques are not... or if the technique is complicated I would sugggest that it will fail under duress.


You Wrote: " So that training can override instinct."
I reply: "So that through training we can rise to the level of unconscious competence" is how I would say it. If your instinct is to strike fast and hard, then maybe overriding it is not what we are seeking.

The whole point to training is to pass through the 4 levels of competence to the point where it is unconscious. This can be done only by training. It is that simple.

unconscious incompetence - being incompetent and NOT knowing it
conscious incompetence - being incompetent and knowing it
conscious competence - competence with thinking about how to be competent
unconscious competence - competence without thinking about it

Tim