Sword and shield guards

[JeanryChandler]

Yeah I perfectly understand all the work you have put into this.

On the other hand, I think a little 'teaser' which simply consolidates some of the basic fundamentals might be a great way to draw attention to and interest in your work. Plus I could really use it <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Jr

[Randall Pleasant]

Brian Hunt wrote:
I hesitate to critique Stephan Hand's interpretation, it takes a lot of guts to publish an interpretation and he has also published some changes to the interpretation in his book.

Brian

I too can appreciate the hard work that Hand and Wagner put into their book. However, as a reader the sole criteria by which I can judge their book is it's content. Likewise, later publications have bearing upon their interpretations but not upon the book itself. I do plan on getting a copy of Hand and Wagner latest interpretation and I am hopeful of much improvement.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Randall,

I understand where you are coming from when it comes to the content of something you have spent money on. On the other hand, I tend to look at how to books or intrpretations as a snap shot in time based upon the current understand of the author at the time that they wrote the book. Look at JC's two books. They are very well written and have a lot of great information, but they are getting dated. They are still a good work, but JC's understanding and knowledge is much greater than when he wrote those two books. This doesn't invalidate his work, just means if he wrote them now they would be a different work than what he originally wrote. I look at Stephen Hands interpretation in this mannner, he wrote to the best of his understanding, therefore it is what it is. If I do critique his work, I will try to do so from the position of a "constructive" criticism rather than just a negative one. I prefer to say things like I agree with this, but feel that this would be better if you changed it this way, or while what was written on this is off base in my opinion this part here is fairly correct.

Make sense?

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Jeffrey Hull]

You guys are quite generous regarding Hand and his work.

I do not fault you for that.

However, as far as I am concerned, he evinces a distinct lack of ability to move his body through time and space with any athleticism or skill; or for that matter, what it means to have to really fight. Thus his interpretation is worthless for those reasons. There are 13 year-old girls who could deliver him a sound thrashing.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Jeffrey,

Why don't you stop holding back and tell us what you really think about Stephen Hand. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

As for being generous, I am not neccessarily so, but I do try to be fair and accurate in my critiques whether I agree with someone or not. I will state my reasons for agreement and disagreement in a polite, scholarly manner and leave it at that. This is how I hope my own work will be treated by others whether they agree with me or not. Golden rule and all that.

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

cheers,

Brian Hunt
GFS

P.S. I have never met Stephen Hand or seen him fence so I must base any opinions I have on his abilities and works soley on his writings.

[Randall Pleasant]

Make sense?

Brian

No my friend, as a reader your arguement does not make sense. I understand what you are saying, I understand that all interpretations have faults and do change over time, and I do appreciate people who perform any type of hard work. But again, as a reader I am only interested in content. If someone puts six months into a book and the content is great then it is a great book. If someone puts five years of hard grinding work into a book and its content is poor then it is a poor book. Likewise, at work when I read an architectural document for a new computer software system I never ask how many long hours were put into producing it, the document stands or falls based upon its content. It is black &amp; white with no gray.

I do agree that if a person disagrees with a specific interpretation then that person should attempt to offer something better. However, I did not state that I disagree with any specific interpretation within Hand and Wagner's book, rather I disagreed with William's statement that their book, its total content, offers an "acurate interpretation of MS 1.33". While my disagreement is, by its nature, negative it is not a trashing of their book, rather it is simply a trueful and honest statement.

[Craig Peters]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though the footwork in Medieval Sword and Shield is horrendously complicated and unnecessarily so. I should think that but a fraction of the various forms of footwork is needed to successfully employ the techniques in I.33. Also, it's somewhat odd to me that Hand and Wagner introduce "rapier guards" into I.33. To me, such an addition unnecessarily colours one's interpretation and I didn't find it particularly helpful either since hand positions are largely self evident in the photographs as it is.

[Mike Cartier]

There are 13 year-old girls who could deliver him a sound thrashing.

ROTFLMAO

My personal correspondences with Mr Hand led me to beleive his soul is ruled by politics not martial truth, i have not fenced him or met him in person to judge his fighting skills (or lack thereof) so i can't say how this effects his interpretations but he is a pompous fellow to say the least <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

His wild blithering concerning John Clements though says much about what he thinks martial arts is and therefore what i think about his interpretations. When i first joined ARMA he was running around everywhere talking about how extremely dangerous John was etc etc and how worthless ARMA is. I don't beleive the man has a martial bone in his body.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Randall,

I also agree that the book written by Stephan Hand is not a "accurate interpretation" of the I.33. Two of my main disagreements with his work is the footwork shown and the lack of so many of the false edge strikes that I see in the I.33. I hesitate to go any further at this time into a critique of his work since I really don't know how to do so without also posting more information on Stew's and my work than I wish to make so publicly availible at this time.

I also see your point from a reader's point of view rather than a researchers. I was approaching their work from the point of view of a researcher and the attempt to glean the good from the bad, not of a end-user. You make a well reasoned argument for that position and why the book may not be good for the end reader.

Thanks for the freindly discourse.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Randall Pleasant]

Brian Hunt wrote:
I hesitate to go any further at this time into a critique of his work since I really don't know how to do so without also posting more information on Stew's and my work than I wish to make so publicly availible at this time.

I understand. This is also the reason I kelp my disagreement on a general level. It would have been most dis-respectful of me if I had shared anything learned from Stew before the two of you release your materials to the general public.

Thanks for the freindly discourse.

Of course, we're ARMA! <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />