protecing your fingers during the zwerch

[Dylan palmer]

I' v noticed lately during my training when i throw my zwerch's i alwaise have diffucultys guarding my fingers.

if it goes slow i have no problem but when i throw some real fast twich zwerchau in sparring as fast and as hard as i can, i alwaise seem to beat my oppent. but my fingers fall prey to my oppents fearfull wailing defence any suggestions?

and before any of you say it practice practice practice! <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[JeffGentry]

Hey Dylan

A few thing's.

1. get some film of you sparring this can be very valuable to see what you do right and what you may do wrong.

2. be sure when you user the zwerch in sparring you keep the hand's high and get the gaurd turned horizontal to the ground, that will protect your hand's.

3. you may want to use a pell and practice the twitch drill in the Meyer manual on the pell.

Just my 2 cent's worth.

Jeff

[philippewillaume]

Hello
As Jeff said it is difficult without video
But the most common source fro that to happen is that you do not step to the side when you do the Zwerch but you stay in you opponent centreline.
So even if you stike at the right time and the &amp;#8220;not so right&amp;#8221; place, he will be able to get you finger if he crump his strike (after all the crump break the ox and you end up in the ox when you Zwerch).

Since you have a double kill situation, I think your timing and distance are ok. If you do not step enough to the right when delivering the Zwerch, your stike to his head will naturally make his strike curve, he will move his head away from the strike tha will move his right shoulder down and forward which will naturally crump his strike. So he goes around your cross guard and prevent any potential onanism for the rest of your mortal life. <img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Were the blades real and were you to be inclined towards that kind of practice that is. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

When you practice I think you do not have the problem, because you are slower and your partner tries to give you the appropriate response and there no &amp;#8220;hum that blade is coming relatively swiftly toward my little head&amp;#8221; natural response.

If my hypothesis is correct, takin a bigger step to the side will leave his stike short or in your quillons.

Of course, I may totally off and have nothing to do with your problem. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />
Phil

[JeffGentry]

Yea what Philippe said.

Thank's Philippe, I meant to include the stepping off line in there and forgot, that will make a huge diffrence in whether your hand's get hit or not.

Jeff

[Bill Welch]

We have also found that if you make sure you move the blade out in your cutting arc first, it will put the blade in your opponents center line faster, and prevents his cut from getting there first and into your fingers.

[Claus Sørensen]

Greetings from Denmark

When we in our studygroup use the Zwerch to open an opponents stance, the amount of force and speed that you put into your move is very important. We believe that you should only use only enough force that you are a threat to your opponent and make sure that he is forced to react. In blossfechten there is no need to cut of his head just do some serious harm. If you come at him too strongly you will loose absolute control over your sword and not be able to react against his defence. Your hands are really good targets here. We do it like this: Use your opening move against your opponent. As soon as he reacts to it, you have an advantage in being the first to reach the nachslag and initiate good moves from here. Simply: The first move is almost never a killing move, but a way to make an opening and gain further advantage over your opponent. The important part is therefore to practice how much speed and force you are able to use and still have perfect control over the sword, since you must be able to react to the opponents counter move and make it first to the nachslag.

Best Wishes

Claus Sørensen
Medieval Archaeologist
Member of the studygroup "Laurentiusgildet"
Denmark

[philippewillaume]

Hello Claus
I agree with you that blosfechten strikes needs only to strong enough to kill someone and not cleave him in half.
And in effect can only really ob tip velocity and body movement. And it is quite clear that the power of the strike comes from the body and that you should not over commit (commonly referred as striking as a buffalo).
And I think test cutting is what is going to help you in that respect

But where I would disagree with you (well where I think I am in a disagreement)

You should strike to hit him and finish the fight at all time
The time to react to his reaction should be built in your interpretation of the strike.
For an interpretation getting the correct movement is very important but it is only half of the battle what we need to understand is why and when to do that move.

Why would you do a Zwerch when a zornh would work? For me that&amp;#8217;s what the breaking of the guard tells us.
So even that initials breaking is designed to hit and the fight ends there.

If you remember at the beginning when we started to spar, we were all very good at what can be called cheap shot. Mastrehaw are nothing more that a rationalization of those cheap shot making sure that your body and blade position relative to our opponent enable us a direct line of attack and cut of his direct line of attack.

I believe that any interpretation should not rely on us being quick, super sensitive or strong to work. It should work because we have created a situation where we have a large window and where our opponent has a small one or not at all.
So that we can be about the right place using at about the right time and using about the right amount of power and it will still work.
The smaller your window the more precise you need to be.

phil

[Claus Sørensen]

Hello Phillippe!

I think that we agree on most of the ideas. The buffalo, and I certainly agree with you that you should finish the fight as quick as possible and the ideas with the open windows. So if you can finish the opponet in one strike do so. But what I am talking about is the opening move in a fight. I can't remenber when I have last seen the first strike in a fight strike true and end the fight. It is always possible for the experienced opponent to do something about it, perhaps make a countermove, read your hand and armposition, or take half a step back and come back at you. It is this move that I am talking about. Have a plan ready in your head and react to his defencive move and move ahead in your overall plan. This enables you to to stay in the "vor". When we spare, the "killing moves" are "almost always" made on the second strike and onwards. But of course if he reacts in a way that enables you to strike him do so, and go for the direct line.

Best Wishes

Claus Sørensen

[philippewillaume]

Hello claus.

It is difficult to convey what I mean with word (and to makes things easy we are both talking in a foreign language). So may be the differences are purely semantics. We may even do exactly the same thing and just have different way of explaining it&amp;#8230;


That being said, I feel that Ringeck is much more direct that VD. I would say that Ringeck drives wedges into your opponent defenses and with VD you move to place the wedge at an appropriate place.
So I would that what you describe fits what I understand VD says perfectly, as I think he is more supple on hitting your opponents with the first strike than ringeck.
Ie I would summarize VD as strike to get the dominant position so you will get the hit next. (May be or may be not hit him directly but it is less important than getting the dominant position).
And ringeck as to get the hit so that if it fails you will have the dominant position for the next move.


Of course, it is more of a feeling from what I read than something I can demonstrate in an irrevocable fashion. I.e. I can demonstrate that this proposition is true but I can no demonstrated than any other understanding is false.
(For example, it may just be a different way of describing the same thing, may be just like us)

For example, I would say that you do not need to think that much all the thinking has been made for you by the glossator. So you can find the best techniques with minimum information&amp;#8217;s and adapt every time.
For me that can only be done (if we strictly follow what I understand Ringeck tells us) if our intent is to hit our opponent with our initial attack.
And by hitting our opponent I mean hit him from a distance where he cannot subtract the part of his body you are aiming at by movement alone. So you do need to enter the space of your opponent before delivering the strike.

Of course you can use you initial strike to enter and I think that is what VD is telling us but I do not think that it is ringeck point of view.
I do not think that one is working better than the other, both are possible and reasonable way of going about things, but I hope I carried what I was trying to explain.

phil

[Claus Sørensen]

Hello Again Phillip!

I think that we understand eachother perfectly. And I agree with you on the point that some fencingmasters have slightly differerent ways to reach the dominant possition. It also clearly shows that people personalize their styles after what works for them. So you are correct in saying that these sort of things are difficult to discuss since we probably have different "favorite sources" and ways as to how we do things.
And as you say: "both are possible and reasonable". But it is certainly nice to hear about what works for other people.

Best Wishes

Claus Sørensen
Denmark.