Quick discussion thought

[Jeff Hansen]

Interesting idea, however I think it assumes that your opponent is less skilled than yourself, or at least no better. Hardly something you can always count on, or know ahead of time. The advantage of the german style of attack first and often, is, you take the vor with your initial attack, and keep it with a flurry thereafter. If you can do this, then, regardless of the skill of your opponent, his only hope is to pull off a meisterhau indes to take the vor away before you find the inevitable opening. Thus, can the lesser swordsman defeat a master (if he's lucky). Basically, I think if Liechtenauer or Ringeck were alive today they would say "screw all that jockying for position, just kill the s.o.b."
Just MHO.

[Shane Smith]

I think that you make an excellent point. Matt Anderson is very good at pressuring you into doing something rash that he is prepared to counter decisively. I think passive-aggression is aggression none-the-less.

[Chris Thompson]

I realize the German system emphasizes the attack, but it is possible to be standing totally still on guard and yet control the initiative. If the opponent doesn't move, he can't hit you, and if he moves at all, you'll hit him. When both are equally good at this it can get very tense.
-Chris Thompson

[leam hall]

I think keeping the initiative means more than striking first, though that is a good way. Another is to control the distance by moving in and then away. Especially if you stay still while your opponent closes and then change the distance or direction right as they initiate an attack.

Striking first, if your opponent is as skilled or less forces them to divide their attention between defense and attack. As long as they have to focus more on defense they have less attention for attack, which gives you more time for attack. Kind of a nice cycle, if you're on the attack. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Experienced fighters are more able to use a defense that also attacks and thus regain the initiative. They are also more able to lessen the time between sensing the attack and responding. This is, I think, what Liechtenaeur means by "indes". It is a result of lots of practice and training. Not necessarily training in all the fancy things we'd like to do, but the basics done so smoothly and naturally that we have to think little at all about them.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Leam

Not necessarily training in all the fancy things we'd like to do, but the basics done so smoothly and naturally that we have to think little at all about them.

When i was in the Marine corps i had a shooting instructor that when we did our reload portion he always emphasized the saying "smooth is fast" and i have found that to be true of many thing's if you don't get rattled and practice the basic's until the are second nature you will be quick with them, they are the foundation and with out a good foundation nothing will stand for long on it.

Jeff

[TimSheetz]

Jeff,

Yes! Speed is efficiency of motion, not raw force.

Tim Sheetz

[TimSheetz]

Looking at the question of initiative from a lqrger point of view: that of tqctics...

Militarily, the defense is merely a launching pad from which to counter attack. The same has to be true at the micro-tactical level: personal individual combat.

P¨roviding pressure so that the opponent attacks at a time and place of your choosing is what the defense is about.

Like Noah said, this is high level tactics... in the micro level and the larger level too.

sorry for typos, I am typing on a non-english keyboard.. is killin me!

peace

[JeffGentry]

Hey Tim
I think some of this has to do with controlling the tempo of battle also, that is another way that you can defend, i totaly agree that a defense is only a launching pad to go on the offense, That was also my point about smooth is fast, hitting hard doesn't alway's mean you are smooth or efficient and if you stumble around with bad footwork you'll lose power, speed, he who move's after the cut deserve's less joy in his art, lol.




Jeff

[John_Clements]

I agree, Shane. I use this all the time. I don't see it as being defensive since my pressure/threat forces a reaction in the opponent that I then exploit and thus hit first.

JC

[Will Adamson]

This is just a bit of wisdom from hockey, although it applies to life in general really. "No one has ever won without scoring." Of coarse being a goalie I'm all about defense.

[Kyro_Lantsberger]

There are a couple threads out there which speak to this particular issue. I have done a great deal of sparring in my time, however my sword work is confined to mostly Chinese Jian fencing....

I agree with the trajectory of this thread, that you cant win unless you attack. However, I think Mr. Clements is making a good point about pressuring the opponent.....I have found myself in the situation when dealing with highly experienced people that I feel forced to retreat backwards....the subtle shifting of angles and adjustments that these people do with just their posture alone constitutes its own attack. The mechanical action of attacking first or trying to draw in are secondary to this larger idea of demonstrated skill.

Hope that made sense.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
May be it the way I read some of the post above n and I am aware that it is almost a philosophical debate. But I would propose that you must attack to gain the initiative is a bit excessive.
It is perfectly acceptable (Von dantzig, ringeck, lew, speyer) to strike in the narch, as long as at least, you gain the Vor or better hit him. In fact the is prtecisly their definition of the narch.
The only one to be rabid on the &amp;#8220;you really, really need to hit first&amp;#8221; is the author of the Dobringer manuscript.

For me in a lots way attack and defense do not really makes senses as far as the German system is concerned.
At a very basic level, I would say, if really pushed, that I see Dobringer as wanting to get the first strike
Von Dantzig being happier with two-times (well two time indivisible) defense and Ringeck promoting single time counters.

But really, whatever we do we always strike or thrust. But I think focusing on attack over defense is missing the forest for the tree.
The master haw are so designed that the include defense when you attack and attack when you defend.
And I think that is the main problem with the masterhaw, for lack of a better word they are very well engineered strike but they non the less need to be delivered from what Silver call the true place for us to gain full benefits.
Because the masterhaw are so good we sometime botch the true place, and in a certain measure masterhaw are designed to cater for that, but it can lead to a tendency to botch it up too much.

For me (i.e. this is where I have sinned in the past) focusing on attack can lead to sacrificing a safe hit for a slightly quicker one but where you get hit at the same time or slightly after.
The way I would put it is that if we haven&amp;#8217;t hit him we should make sure that we remain in the Vor first and formost and for me it means that you should finish your strike even if there is attempting target because that you do not prolong the fight that much and your strike will then be safe.
so for me there is always a nothion of defense in attack in every stike trust or schnitt.


phil