Stepping with every strike anomaly

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

You insult that which you do not choose to practice yourself , in order to support your notion of the absolute supremacy of Silver's theory.

All I said was that there are some exceptions to the 'true time' theory, giving as an example the fact that hands can strike faster than feet. . . and now you respond by indulging in a sweeping denigration of all non European martial arts.

This attack on other martial artists is not necessary, and it doesn't support your argument at all.

It appears that you are completely committed to the position that there is not a single strike in any situation ever, which does not conform to Silver's true time theory. . . . that is a very difficult position to defend, as in fact there are many such blows

A further example ( one of many) is a blow struck from horseback . . . no step is useful there. .

The game continues. . . ..

You have deliberately misrepresented the meaning, and the context of my post, simply in order to be snarky and subversive.

As to the horseback reference, Silver...and I no longer believe you have even read Silver...referred only to combat on foot. Of course it does not apply to mounted combat.

The last line of your "rebuttal" post says it all. I'm not interested in playing games with a self-important mental juvenile. Time to focus on causes not already lost.

-B.

[Stacy Clifford]

Both of you knock it off with the sniping at each other already. Roy, I would agree that it is possible to make blows with the hands faster than you can move your feet (neither my hands nor my feet are slow and I am quite coordinated), but Brandon brings up a good point that these would be short, weak blows at very best. Put a weapon in that hand and the only thing you can do faster than your feet is thrust, similar to punching. Thrusting with a weapon will obviously be more effective than punching, but in order to do it that quickly, again they have to be very short thrusts, using the weapon like a sewing needle, and they have little power to punch through resistant clothing or armor. With little power and short range, miss the first one against a skilled and quick opponent and the rest are easily defended. Silver is generally pretty clear that the stuff he is teaching is intended to put an opponent out of business for good with as few moves as possible, and his principles are geared with that in mind. Flurries of short, weak blows would be a waste of his time. I don't think this is a case where you must believe Silver exactly as the sentence he wrote states word for word. He wasn't a perfect technical writer and you have to take the larger context of his instructions into consideration. I'm sure Silver as an athlete and a fighter knew perfectly well what was possible with the human body, but obviously not all possible movements were worthwhile to teach in his opinion.

[Gene Tausk]

Both of you knock it off with the sniping at each other already. Roy, I would agree that it is possible to make blows with the hands faster than you can move your feet (neither my hands nor my feet are slow and I am quite coordinated), but Brandon brings up a good point that these would be short, weak blows at very best. Put a weapon in that hand and the only thing you can do faster than your feet is thrust, similar to punching. Thrusting with a weapon will obviously be more effective than punching, but in order to do it that quickly, again they have to be very short thrusts, using the weapon like a sewing needle, and they have little power to punch through resistant clothing or armor. With little power and short range, miss the first one against a skilled and quick opponent and the rest are easily defended. Silver is generally pretty clear that the stuff he is teaching is intended to put an opponent out of business for good with as few moves as possible, and his principles are geared with that in mind. Flurries of short, weak blows would be a waste of his time. I don't think this is a case where you must believe Silver exactly as the sentence he wrote states word for word. He wasn't a perfect technical writer and you have to take the larger context of his instructions into consideration. I'm sure Silver as an athlete and a fighter knew perfectly well what was possible with the human body, but obviously not all possible movements were worthwhile to teach in his opinion.

To back up what Stacy just said - enough with the sniping. This is the last warning.

Also, to back up further what Stacy said - Silver was not a perfect technical writer and it is also easy to forget living in the information age that writing down everything by hand with a quill pen on (expensive) paper means that you don't have the space or time to write down every, single last item. I agree with Stacy's conclusion that Silver probably did not need to write down the obvious - short thrusts with no power behind them will be a waste of time and against a good and skilled fighter, will leave openings that will get you killed in a hurry. Also, short thrusts with no footwork (not moving your feet at all) means that you are essentially standing still, which is always a bad idea.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

You insult that which you do not choose to practice yourself , in order to support your notion of the absolute supremacy of Silver's theory.

All I said was that there are some exceptions to the 'true time' theory, giving as an example the fact that hands can strike faster than feet. . . and now you respond by indulging in a sweeping denigration of all non European martial arts.

This attack on other martial artists is not necessary, and it doesn't support your argument at all.

It appears that you are completely committed to the position that there is not a single strike in any situation ever, which does not conform to Silver's true time theory. . . . that is a very difficult position to defend, as in fact there are many such blows

A further example ( one of many) is a blow struck from horseback . . . no step is useful there. .

The game continues. . . ..

You have deliberately misrepresented the meaning, and the context of my post, simply in order to be snarky and subversive.

As to the horseback reference, Silver...and I no longer believe you have even read Silver...referred only to combat on foot. Of course it does not apply to mounted combat.

The last line of your "rebuttal" post says it all. I'm not interested in playing games with a self-important mental juvenile. Time to focus on causes not already lost.

-B.

Brandon I have not deliberately misrepresented anything, please do not attribute motives to me which do not exist, I am responding to your posts in good faith

Regarding your accusation that I am ''subversive' frankly I don't know what you mean, I can only repeat that I am responding in good faith.


.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Roy, I would agree that it is possible to make blows with the hands faster than you can move your feet (neither my hands nor my feet are slow and I am quite coordinated), but Brandon brings up a good point that these would be short, weak blows at very best.

Hello Stacy

Combinations of short blows can be both powerful and useful but one has to train at them in order to make them so,

Put a weapon in that hand and the only thing you can do faster than your feet is thrust, similar to punching.

It depends upon the weapon, I agre with you if we are talking only about swords. . . but with knives or sticks that isn't necessarily the case

There are many moves with a short stick which do not involve a step, these are very fast and lethal. These moves and the short stick wapon itself are not exactly part of the European tradition, nevertheless these and the short hand blows mentioned previously are exceptions to Silver's rule, which seems to apply to weapons of sword length and weight, but not exclusively to unarmed combat or combat with shorter lighter weapons.

Rather than suggesting that the exceptions mentioned are not useful martially ( which is untrue) wouldn't it be better to agree that there are some exceptions, so that Silver's rule can be applied where it works the best ?

My intention is to understand and make use of Silver's rule, and I feel that I can best do that be finding the exceptions to that rule so that I don't feel arbitrarily constrained from keeping valuable techniques which I have already learned

Trying to apply Silver's rule it becomes apparent that it certainly develops more power with ease and without telegraphing intent, when longer heavier weapons are used. .. . that's where I'm going to start with it anyway.

Thrusting with a weapon will obviously be more effective than punching, but in order to do it that quickly, again they have to be very short thrusts, using the weapon like a sewing needle, and they have little power to punch through resistant clothing or armor. With little power and short range, miss the first one against a skilled and quick opponent and the rest are easily defended.

Agreed, however here we are specifically talking about thrusts against an armoured and helmeted opponent

Silver is generally pretty clear that the stuff he is teaching is intended to put an opponent out of business for good with as few moves as possible, and his principles are geared with that in mind. Flurries of short, weak blows would be a waste of his time.

Again, fast does not mean weak, and short does not mean weak. . . this is an incorrect assumption. . . . for example two short blows one to the side of the neck almost simultaneously with an open palm blow to the side of the head ( followed through) can break a man's neck and can be done very fast with plenty of power little space required and no step. . .

I don't think this is a case where you must believe Silver exactly as the sentence he wrote states word for word. He wasn't a perfect technical writer and you have to take the larger context of his instructions into consideration.

Yes that makes sense, the rule applies to his system of fighting and in certain contexts

I'm sure Silver as an athlete and a fighter knew perfectly well what was possible with the human body, but obviously not all possible movements were worthwhile to teach in his opinion.

Agreed.


.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Silver probably did not need to write down the obvious - short thrusts with no power behind them will be a waste of time and against a good and skilled fighter

Short fast blows can be powerful, and are not limited to thrusts withn a weapon

Also, short thrusts with no footwork (not moving your feet at all) means that you are essentially standing still, which is always a bad idea.

Striking faster than one steps certainly does not imply that one is standing still, it simply means that there are more blows tthan there are steps. . . . on can take one step while making two blows for example, or two steps while making three blows . . . one such scenario involves the redoubled strike.

I'm actually wanting to understand the true time concept better, so am keen not only to find where it might not apply but also to find where it applies best ( after all this is not an escrima forum ) so any tips or hints will be appreciated.

.



,.

[Stacy Clifford]

Rather than suggesting that the exceptions mentioned are not useful martially ( which is untrue) wouldn't it be better to agree that there are some exceptions, so that Silver's rule can be applied where it works the best?

If you are trying to interpret something George Silver said, then I would say that OUR idea of what is martially useful is not relevant. What IS relevant is what George Silver thought was martially useful, which has direct bearing on what he does and does not tell you that you should do in a fight. There is no reason that you are not allowed to disagree with a master on nitpicky little items like this, since even the masters disagreed with each other at times. Twenty years after Silver, Joseph Swetnam teaches that it's a bad idea to even throw blows at all with a sword because thrusts are quicker and more efficient than cuts. Silver certainly wasn't as picky about how to kill somebody as long as you made sure you were safe in doing it. George Silver is simply telling you in his own learned and experienced opinion what principles he thinks will serve you best in a fight and ignoring those he thinks will put you at greater risk (even though they might still work sometimes if the situation is right). Basically, you can disagree with an experienced fighter, but you do so at your own risk.

To give a quick analogy from Swetnam, in his staff section he lists only two guards with the staff, whereas Silver says there are four. Swetnam makes mention of two other guards that he says are sometimes used, but then explains why they are not as good as the two he advocates and can be more easily beaten, although strong and nimble men might still use them effectively. In essence he's saying that what he's telling you is not all there is to know, but it is the best advice in his opinion that will put you in the least danger while still enabling you to defeat your opponent. Most of the masters I've looked at seem to take a similar approach.

You might very well be able to defeat somebody with a flurry of 6-inch punches or thrusts, but to get in range to use such a combination puts you in good range for all sorts of nasty counters that pack greater power in a single action. One second can be a very long time to remain within striking range of a good opponent. In the time it takes you to poke my chest full of 6 or 7 shallow holes with a rapier, I have plenty of time to poke one hole all the way through the back of your skull, and you're so busy poking at me that you don't have time to react and counter my counter. The masters did a lot of risk assessment in choosing what techniques and principles to write down, and I generally believe if they left something out or advised against it, it's not because it would never work at all, but because they thought it made you unnecessarily vulnerable when other techniques would not. I believe striking without stepping falls under this category in the opinion of George Silver.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

I see Stacy, thanks for the clarification, off to do some study.

.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

...you can disagree with an experienced fighter, but you do so at your own risk.

In essence he's saying that what he's telling you is not all there is to know, but it is the best advice in his opinion that will put you in the least danger while still enabling you to defeat your opponent. Most of the masters I've looked at seem to take a similar approach.

You might very well be able to defeat somebody with a flurry of 6-inch punches or thrusts, but to get in range to use such a combination puts you in good range for all sorts of nasty counters that pack greater power in a single action. One second can be a very long time to remain within striking range of a good opponent.

In the time it takes you to poke my chest full of 6 or 7 shallow holes with a rapier, I have plenty of time to poke one hole all the way through the back of your skull, and you're so busy poking at me that you don't have time to react and counter my counter. The masters did a lot of risk assessment in choosing what techniques and principles to write down, and I generally believe if they left something out or advised against it, it's not because it would never work at all, but because they thought it made you unnecessarily vulnerable when other techniques would not.

I believe striking without stepping falls under this category in the opinion of George Silver.

Yes! Beautifully, perfectly put. Especially this bit: you might very well be able to defeat somebody with a flurry of 6-inch punches or thrusts, but to get in range to use such a combination puts you in good range for all sorts of nasty counters that pack greater power in a single action.

Pure martial economy. This is what I meant when I talked about the other guy "feeding you your own teeth." Short, shallow jabs have very little force, even when performed by a strong individual. They have negligible "stopping power," if you will. Sure, they can OCCASIONALLY be effective, but if the aforementioned "other guy" has got any skill, you're most likely going to be kissing the pavement.

The proof is in the pudding.

"...and maintain with honour these Paradoxes of mine, which if they be shrouded under so safe a shield, I will not doubt but to maintain with reason among the wise, and prove it by practice upon the ignorant..." Have fun on the pavement, pal.

For the record, there are several Asain arts which I believe to be quite effective: Aikido, Jujutsu, Jeet Kune Do, Kenpo, etc. And why are they effective? Because they, for the most part, adhere to Silver's True Time.

It's important to remember...and even Silvewr himself acknowledged this...that the True Time did not belong to Silver alone, nor did it derive from him. It is UNIVERSAL to all effective fighting. Silver simply codified it. It is, as Silver put it, "ancient."

-B.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

I can't believe that I actually got tired of typing and pretended to agree just to keep you guys feeling like you are winning,.

There are so many obvious and valid exceptions to silver's true time that if you can't see them now there's no point in me taking it further

Keep in mind that just because I am concentrating on the exceptions to the true time rule does not mean that I can't see that the true time concept is valuable, I certainly see that, but saying that it is a completely universal rule which applies at all times to all combat situations without exception is ludicrous and illogical.

Check out some FMA if you doubt it.



.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

I can't believe that I actually got tired of typing and pretended to agree just to keep you guys feeling like you are winning,.

There are so many obvious and valid exceptions to silver's true time that if you can't see them now there's no point in me taking it further

Keep in mind that just because I am concentrating on the exceptions to the true time rule does not mean that I can't see that the true time concept is valuable, I certainly see that, but saying that it is a completely universal rule which applies at all times to all combat situations without exception is ludicrous and illogical.

Check out some FMA if you doubt it.



.

Like I said, have fun.

I would like to make one little point, though. This forum is not intended for the discussion of Filipino martial arts. It's quite obviously intended for the discussion of European martial studies. Perhaps a forum dedicated to Escrima might be more suitable for you. I've already done the work for you:

http://www.fmadigest.com/Advertisement/ ... orums.html

Happy Christmas.

-B.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

So you decree that I will "have fun kissing the pavement" if I see exceptions to silver's rule ?

My counter is simply that if you insist on stepping with every strike when fighting then you will be at times be slow and predictable, and likely to be having fun chewing on the ground yourself !

All the best,
Roy

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

I would like to make one little point, though. This forum is not intended for the discussion of Filipino martial arts. It's quite obviously intended for the discussion of European martial studies. Perhaps a forum dedicated to Escrima might be more suitable for you. I've already done the work for you:

http://www.fmadigest.com/Advertisement/ ... orums.html

Happy Christmas.

-B.

Now that's really unfair, you were the first to bring up non European martial arts, and I quote :

"For the record, there are several Asain arts which I believe to be quite effective: Aikido, Jujutsu, Jeet Kune Do, Kenpo, etc. And why are they effective? Because they, for the most part, adhere to Silver's True Time.

So now you admonish me for mentioning FMA, and show me to an FMA site ? Quite frankly that is an obvious set up.. . . . and is a tactic which I have seen used on several occasions on this forum : First mention non european martial arts and when the other party takes the bait they are then told that they are off topic and on the wrong forum. Not only is this tactic unfair, it is unproductive.

.


.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

I would like to make one little point, though. This forum is not intended for the discussion of Filipino martial arts. It's quite obviously intended for the discussion of European martial studies. Perhaps a forum dedicated to Escrima might be more suitable for you. I've already done the work for you:

http://www.fmadigest.com/Advertisement/ ... orums.html

Happy Christmas.

-B.

Now that's really unfair, you were the first to bring up non European martial arts, and I quote :

"For the record, there are several Asain arts which I believe to be quite effective: Aikido, Jujutsu, Jeet Kune Do, Kenpo, etc. And why are they effective? Because they, for the most part, adhere to Silver's True Time.

So now you admonish me for mentioning FMA, and show me to an FMA site ? Quite frankly that is an obvious set up.. . . . and is a tactic which I have seen used on several occasions on this forum : First mention non european martial arts and when the other party takes the bait they are then told that they are off topic and on the wrong forum. Not only is this tactic unfair, it is unproductive.

.


.

Roy, I was of course replying to your accusation that I didn't care for, or see any value in Asian martial arts in general. But, of course, you already knew that, didn't you. That's what I meant by subversive.

This is a site dedicated to European martial arts. You have frequentlty brought up Filipino martial arts, and how certain principles found within them do not conform to European principles (such as Silver's True Time), and must, by your thinking, therefore be wrong. This is not a legitimate avenue of discussion for this forum, I feel. I can provide qoutes, if you'd like.

As a swordsman who studies European medieval \ Renaissance swordsmansip, I don't go to Kenjutsu websites and rant and rave about how Talhoffer says this, or that, and so therefore Japanese swordsmanship is "ludicrous and illogical," now do I? Of course not, that would make me a troll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

You are, of course, free to draw whatever conclusions you wish, (however dubious I may find them).

Regarding your second point, I quite frankly see no tactics at all, apart from perhaps your own. However, at this juncture, I really must insist that if this verbal dual of ours is to go on, that it be done discreetly via private message from this point on.

Thanks for your time.

-B.

[Jeffrey Hull]

My counter is simply that if you insist on stepping with every strike when fighting then you will be at times be slow and predictable, and likely to be having fun chewing on the ground yourself !

All the best,
Roy

Roy: that error of yours is precisely what I and others have repeatedly tried to counter with thoughtful explanation. Once again, as simply as I know to state it:

Neither Silver, nor any other English, German or Italian master of defence ever said that you must step with each & every sword strike. However, stepping with a strike does make for the most forceful kind thereof -- that is just real-world physics. And if you are to step with a strike, it is bestly done in what Silver called "true time", a universal that applies to any Fencing, whether English, German or Italian. It does apply to Degenfechten and Harnischfechten and Bloszfechten and Messerfechten. It does apply to body movements in Ringen, as well as Jujitsu and Karate.

That is the deal.