Stepping with every strike anomaly

[Stacy Clifford]

I've always thought of hewing as implying not only the action of cutting, but also the result of splitting something in two. In other words, if you hew something then you didn't just throw the cut, you landed it and did major damage.

[Richard Strey]

I'll check with the linguists in our group, but I'm pretty sure that the difference between the German "schlag" and "hau/haw" is not one of meaning. At least today, the words are used interchangeably. I also have not noticed any systematic differentiation in the manuals and credited the frequent use of the outmoded word "hau" to the evolution of the language: It was in common use back then and might seem like a technical term to us now.
So the question is: Did you read something into the word that isn't there, based on the meaning its translation has? Did I overlook a meaning that is lost or lessened today? Both? Neither?

[Jeffrey Hull]

I shall explain and clarify

Roy:
Your question is relevant and it is the actual topic which we ought to discuss. Pursuant to that:
The true time of Silver is a universally correct principle of striking, it avails in all situations, armed or unarmed. It is kinetically and tactically correct. Jay Vail does a good job explaining it in his dagger combat book and in sundry posts at this forum. The easiest way to sum it up is hand-body-foot, basically as Silver stated it. It does not conflict with the German or Italian schools of longsword in any way.

Richard:
Schlagen = striking -- thus any hauen, stichen, schnitten.
Hauen = hewing, cleaving or cutting -- generally.
Stichen = stabbing, thrusting.
Schnitten = slashing, slicing.
Those are the meanings which are substantiated by the various German fechtmeister and fechtbuecher of circa 1300-1550.

May this get back to Roy's topic now?

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

I shall explain and clarify

Roy:

Your question is relevant and it is the actual topic which we ought to discuss. Pursuant to that:

The true time of Silver is a universally correct principle of striking, it avails in all situations, armed or unarmed.

Thankyou for your reply Jeffrey.

I can't see that you are correct however, as you imply that one should never step prior to striking, or strike without stepping., even in unarmed combat . .. . . such a rule is a particularly severe handicap to unarmed strikes, as they can be executed much faster than one can step.

For example, a combination of many hand strikes which alternate from the left to the right can be thrown in the time it takes to step once. Also, in such a combination approximately half the strikes will be cross punches, surely you don't want to suggest that the cross punch is universally incorrect ?

Another scenario is where one needs to advance to get within range of one's opponent.. . . . if one has to take a large step to do so, then starting the punch prior to the step will mean that the punch is slowed down to the point where it is useless, as the time it takes to make a long step is many times longer than it takes to throw the punch. . . .

The rule seems more applicable to longer heavier weapons than the hands, and a single weapon rather than two weapons ( two weapons including the two unarmed hands ), but even then surely there will be exceptions to the rule?

.

[Ken Dietiker]

The easiest way to sum it up is hand-body-foot, basically as Silver stated it. It does not conflict with the German or Italian schools of longsword in any way.

Except that I would add that in the Italian system, or rather Fiore's, he more specifically refers to movements than actual "stepping". Most often he explains that a cut or strike is performed with a move, meaning some sort of turning movement of the feet (which translates to the hips, shoulders and arms/hands). He describes how one steps or pivots in his three basic turns (Stable, Half and Full). But more importantly he does not use the words for stepping by themselves unless breaking down the specified movement, or turn, such as "step slightly off line with the left foot and then traverse" or using a "stable turn" with the strike. So, from that point of view, Fiore is more oriented toward "moving" with each strike, not specifically "stepping" with each strike.

It may seem like a small difference, but for some it may make more sense. It does for me, anyway, in that now I can see how a step is only a part of the overall movement in a strike, by rotating, passing, traversing, advancing or retreating and how one doesn't necessarily step in every strike but most certainly moves in one of Fiore's three turns, even if it's a simple stable pivoting on the balls of the feet.

I also believe that later Vadi bears that out.

[Ciaran Daly]

The easiest way to sum it up is hand-body-foot, basically as Silver stated it. It does not conflict with the German or Italian schools of longsword in any way.

Except that I would add that in the [Fiore's] system ... he more specifically refers to movements than actual "stepping". Most often he explains that a cut or strike is performed with a move, meaning some sort of turning movement of the feet (which translates to the hips, shoulders and arms/hands). He describes how one steps or pivots in his three basic turns (Stable, Half and Full). But more importantly he does not use the words for stepping by themselves unless breaking down the specified movement, or turn, such as "step slightly off line with the left foot and then traverse" or using a "stable turn" with the strike. So, from that point of view, Fiore is more oriented toward "moving" with each strike, not specifically "stepping" with each strike.

It may seem like a small difference, but for some it may make more sense. It does for me, anyway, in that ... a step is only a part of the overall movement in a strike ... and how one doesn't necessarily step in every strike but ... moves in one of Fiore's three turns, even if it's a simple stable pivoting on the balls of the feet.

This just seems far more natural and intuitive to me and actually echoes the footwork I learned in kali/escrima.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Agreed ( I'm an escrima person also ) except that when multiple strikes are used in combination ( doubles for example ) then sometimes they are almost like a single strike as far as footwork goes, although there will still be some turning of the body between strikes even if it is slight and not really visible.

.

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

I can't see that you are correct however, as you imply that one should never step prior to striking, or strike without stepping., even in unarmed combat . .. . . such a rule is a particularly severe handicap to unarmed strikes, as they can be executed much faster than one can step.

Where are you seeing this implication? I think that is being brought in. You keep saying that one can throw a strike faster than one can step, this is not true. If that were true then there would never be any kicks in any kind of martial art. The feet can move as fast as they can be trained.

For example, a combination of many hand strikes which alternate from the left to the right can be thrown in the time it takes to step once. Also, in such a combination approximately half the strikes will be cross punches, surely you don't want to suggest that the cross punch is universally incorrect ?

That is not a matter of correct/incorrect. This is also a miscontruing of stepping. As noted before, movement in the hips or the slight movement of the foot would count as a step. I have never seen a fighter throw cross punches without moving their feet and their hips.

Another scenario is where one needs to advance to get within range of one's opponent.. . . . if one has to take a large step to do so, then starting the punch prior to the step will mean that the punch is slowed down to the point where it is useless, as the time it takes to make a long step is many times longer than it takes to throw the punch. . . .

If you need to step to be in range, then you are out of range for a fight, you had better not be throwing a strike, because you will regret it. This calls for entering techniques, which are universal in armed and unarmed combat. And then as you enter you should be setting yourself up not for a weak blow, but a strike that will end the fight as quickly as possible (i.e. striking with a step for power)

The rule seems more applicable to longer heavier weapons than the hands, and a single weapon rather than two weapons ( two weapons including the two unarmed hands ), but even then surely there will be exceptions to the rule?.

The true time rule applies to fighting. Armed, unarmed, doubley armed, really long armed. A strike begins and then everything else follows.

-Jeremiah (GFS)

[Aaron Pynenberg]

The only item I would like to add to this discussion is that anytime we discuss techniques and think of them in terms of "all the time" or other absolutes always equates into trouble for us. The Masters do talk of stepping and striking, but not always..Doebringer adds what I believe to be some of the best historical advice on the complexities of ascribing any particular technique in all situations. He says several times, and in several ways..that sometimes a strike is followed by a step..sometimes it is not..etc..etc..but if you read into these seemingly repetitive remarks he is in effect answering these types of questions as a whole.

The answer is simply this: sometimes you do..sometimes you don't. It is going to depend on what is happening in the fight. Some would say that this type of answer is "side-stepping"-no pun intended-the question but really it is not. The problem is that the individuals framing this question do not understand the complex nature of these types of fights. It's like saying this : "In MMA the best guard to use is the half-guard" -really? well, I could add all sorts of what-if's? into that kind of statement that would make that comment seem stupid. The same thing can apply here, sometimes you do want to step-you add power, leverage, and range to the strike..however sometimes you don't want to step..for other various reasons. Does that make sense to anyone?

[Jeffrey Hull]

Yes, I agree with Aaron P., and the totality of my statements agree him, Silver, Doebringer and (primarily) the kinetics of the fight.

In fact, it is quite congruent.

As AP indicated, there is something faulty about the framing of the question at hand; and I would add, thus some inherent misunderstanding therewith.

I encourage those who seem confused about the matter to really think about the possibilities, to comprehend them, and then to try them and to do them in practice.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

You keep saying that one can throw a strike faster than one can step,
this is not true.

Strikes can be thrown much faster than kicks, this is perfectly obvious and well known. It isn't particularly difficult to land 8 to 10 punches per second, but it is impossible to land the same number of kicks, no matter how well one is trained.

If that were true then there would never be any kicks in any kind of martial art.

Incorrect. In fact feet are much slower than hands, and the usefulness of foot strikes does not depend upon them being as fast as hands.

I suggest that you prctice multiple hand strike combinations, the truth will soon become apparent

For example, a combination of many hand strikes which alternate from the left to the right can be thrown in the time it takes to step once. Also, in such a combination approximately half the strikes will be cross punches, surely you don't want to suggest that the cross punch is universally incorrect ?

That is not a matter of correct/incorrect. This is also a miscontruing of stepping. As noted before, movement in the hips or the slight movement of the foot would count as a step. I have never seen a fighter throw cross punches without moving their feet and their hips.

I agree that we can stretch the definition of a step to include a slight foot movement, however you state that a movement of the hips OR a slight foot movement counts as a step. . . . . and clearly a definition of stepping which involves no foot movement is ludicrous.

As for throwing combinations without foot movement, I can assure you that some very fast combinations ( in wing chun for example ) do not involve a step with every blow ( where step is defined as a foot movement)
. . . provided that we don't use a ludicrous definition of a step as including slight hip movement without any foot movement.

Another scenario is where one needs to advance to get within range of one's opponent.. . . . if one has to take a large step to do so, then starting the punch prior to the step will mean that the punch is slowed down to the point where it is useless, as the time it takes to make a long step is many times longer than it takes to throw the punch. . . .

If you need to step to be in range, then you are out of range for a fight, you had better not be throwing a strike, because you will regret it.

Wrong again. . . . there are various fighting ranges, for example if I am within rnge for a long punch, I may choose to advance to a closer range in order to deliver a fast combination of short strikes .

in this scenario striking first is not necessarily agood idea and can actually telegraph one's intention more, rather than less.. . . also it is possible to advance while the hands are occupied in blocking, redirecting, or otherwise controlling the opponent, in which case his attention is distracted and a step can be taken without a strike nd without telegraphing the strikes to come.

I could go on, there are many counterexamples to the 'always strike before stepping' dogma. . . would you like me to suggest some more ?

This calls for entering techniques, which are universal in armed and unarmed combat. And then as you enter you should be setting yourself up not for a weak blow, but a strike that will end the fight as quickly as possible (i.e. striking with a step for power)

I disagree, there is more thn one way to strike, it isn't necessarily the case that a strike without a step is a 'weak blow'. . . . in fact a strike which is thrown out at the moment of the conclusion of the step can be very powerful. . . . . as can combinations of short fast strikes. . .. applying a rigid formula as you are doing is not a good idea, as there are infinite striking/ stepping possibilities.

The rule seems more applicable to longer heavier weapons than the hands, and a single weapon rather than two weapons ( two weapons including the two unarmed hands ), but even then surely there will be exceptions to the rule?.

The true time rule applies to fighting. Armed, unarmed, doubley armed, really long armed. A strike begins and then everything else follows.

Well if that's how you fight then you will be very predictable, and that's a recipe for disaster !

In my opinion, applying the 'true time' theory to every conceivable fight situation is a very limiting thing to do, and insisting that it is the only correct way in all situations is dogmatic in the extreme.



-

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

and the totality of my statements agree him, Silver, Doebringer and (primarily) the kinetics of the fight.

In fact, it is quite congruent.

As AP indicated, there is something faulty about the framing of the question at hand; and I would add, thus some inherent misunderstanding therewith.

I encourage those who seem confused about the matter to really think about the possibilities, to comprehend them, and then to try them and to do them in practice.

You are not really saying anything here, your post is merely a patronising put down without practical content.

attempting to apply silver's true time theory in every situation is a very bad idea. . .. unless we define a step as including a slight hip movement, and in that case the confusion does not lie with myself but with those who use such a counterintuitive and misleading definition in order to prop up their pet theory.

There is no 'one way' and IMO anyone who thinks so is suffering from a mental rigidity which must inevitably be reflected in their martial art.


.

[Will Adamson]

It isn't particularly difficult to land 8 to 10 punches per second, but it is impossible to land the same number of kicks, no matter how well one is trained.

Punches are faster than kicks, but not that fast.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Roy- what's the deal man, seems to me your original question was answered. Now you seem only apt to use portions of people's comments to enjoy yourself with.

There are fighters..there are talkers...and there are only a few who can do both. I find myself wondering which cat you fit in. I don't think anyone was putting you down by thier comments but simply trying to answer a question to which you asked in the first place.

Your responses I find a little harsh and unwarranted. If you had all the answers to begin with, why didn't you lable your post something like this: I KNOW HOW TO STRIKE WITH A LONGSWORD. Then you could just comment on how much you know about this art.

Sorry if I come off a little pandering but hey man what gives..Jeff H. gave you your answer in the second or third post..it depends....there you have it man, not that great of a question I am afraid-

[Gene Tausk]

Roy- what's the deal man, seems to me your original question was answered. Now you seem only apt to use portions of people's comments to enjoy yourself with.

There are fighters..there are talkers...and there are only a few who can do both. I find myself wondering which cat you fit in. I don't think anyone was putting you down by thier comments but simply trying to answer a question to which you asked in the first place.

Your responses I find a little harsh and unwarranted. If you had all the answers to begin with, why didn't you lable your post something like this: I KNOW HOW TO STRIKE WITH A LONGSWORD. Then you could just comment on how much you know about this art.

Sorry if I come off a little pandering but hey man what gives..Jeff H. gave you your answer in the second or third post..it depends....there you have it man, not that great of a question I am afraid-

Agreed. The original question was answered and now the conversation is simply moving in the direction of snippy posts.

Let's put it back on track or wind it up.