Silver and stepping

[Andrzej Rosa]

In one sense "true place" means simply a distance, but I believe that the meaning of this term is a bit more universal.

It is imprecise to argue the term "true place" has some universal meaning (apart from the singular one we generally assign it: the name for the optimal distance between you an adversary that allows a blow without stepping). At best, you can argue that Silver used the term to mean two completely different and unrelated things.

Why? Both terms describe a very related phenomenon. If one is in "true place" one is able to perform an action with reasonable chances of success; be it an attack or defense, no matter.

[Jay Vail]

As I see it, Silver's true time is a tactical concept to avoid telegraphing. But since both strikes discussed here are out of Silver's true distance, perhaps it is unwise to apply the same principles to them?

This may be a quibble about the meaning of "telegraphing." I see Silver's emphasis on true times to be aimed at the problem of moving within distance without threatening a strike at your adversary. This type of movement invites a stop hit. I generally don't think of that as telegraphing. Are you using the word in this sense, however? (I tend to think of telegraphing as when you wind up to deliver the blow.)

Yes, I was considering both of these problems. More the stop-hit problem, actually, moving your body first while in the true distance of the adversary. I think cocking back your weapon to strike would break the spirit of Silver's true time as well, isn't it?

I'm not really into Silver, but does he say that true times apply in entering techniques? Because I think these are actually the heart of the present controversy. If you are in true distance, you can strike without stepping (even if stepping adds power), and Silver says so, irrespective of what German masters said, which was the question asked by the original poster of the locked thread. If you are out, you are doing an entering technique, and then I don't know what Silver says...

To me, on Jeffrey's pictures, there is a problem because he hits faster than he steps. So he is not subject to the stop hit, but on the last part of the step he could be entering true distance without posing a threat. It might be how the Germans describe this strike, but it seems contrary to the true time/true distance theory.

I would think, but German longsword is not my area of interest, that German masters describe ways to attack on one step, with the first part posing a sufficient threat to enter a sort of true distance, but keeping control to avoid counters, and a last part with the hit proper when the opponent cannot get out. Entering and striking all in one step. In this case it could be that the first part of the hand movement is slower than possible, making it look like a true time motion out of true distance. This is more or less what Casper shows in the video.

The concept of the true times is a universal that applies to all combat with all hand-to-hand weapons and also applies in striking based unarmed combat, like chuanfa, karate and boxing. I have seen it used in all these contexts with great success over those who do not use it.

In true time, the hand moves before everything else. Often the blow lands before the foot does. This is not wrong; it is natural and does not mean that you'll not be in the true place when the blow hits.

[Jay Vail]

In one sense "true place" means simply a distance, but I believe that the meaning of this term is a bit more universal.

It is imprecise to argue the term "true place" has some universal meaning (apart from the singular one we generally assign it: the name for the optimal distance between you an adversary that allows a blow without stepping). At best, you can argue that Silver used the term to mean two completely different and unrelated things.

Why? Both terms describe a very related phenomenon. If one is in "true place" one is able to perform an action with reasonable chances of success; be it an attack or defense, no matter.

Perhaps you could consider making the distinction because a better man than you or I did so long before us:

Then thus do I conclude, that if there be perfection in the Science of Defense, they are all in their opinions deceived; and that the truth may appeare for the satisfaction of all men, this is my resolution: there is no advantage absolutely, nor disadvantage in striker, thruster, or warder: and there is great advantage in the striker thruster & warder: but in this maner, in the perfection of fight the advantage consisteth in fight between partie and partie: that is, whosoever winneth or gaineth the place in true pace, space and time, hath the advantage, whether he be striker, thruster or warder. And that is my conclusion.

George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence, p. 8. See also Paradoxes p. 24 (where Silver uses "true place of defense" in reference to the space the warder needs to move his hand to defend, ie "true space": "the Agent being in the first motion although in his offence, further to go then the warder to defend, yet the warders space being too large, the blow or thrust wilbe performed home, before the warder can come to the true place to defend himself, and although the warder doe perfectly see the blow or thrust coming, so shall he see his own ward so farre from the true place of his defense, that although he doe at that instant time, plainly see the blow or thrust comming, it shalbe impossible for him to recover the true place of his ward, till he his wounded.").

The distance you must move your hand and weapon to ward is a different concept than the distance you must have to hit your adversary without stepping.

[Andrzej Rosa]

The concept of the true times is a universal that applies to all combat with all weapons and also applies in striking based unarmed combat, like chuanfa, karate and boxing.

That's also how I understand it.

I have seen it used in all these contexts with great success over those who do not use it.

In true time, the hand moves before everything else. Often the blow lands before the foot does. This is not wrong; it is natural and does not mean that you'll not be in the true place when the blow hits.

If a blow reaches an opponent without stepping, why step at all? The opponent should be within reach of a faster action.

[Jay Vail]

I have seen it used in all these contexts with great success over those who do not use it.

In true time, the hand moves before everything else. Often the blow lands before the foot does. This is not wrong; it is natural and does not mean that you'll not be in the true place when the blow hits.

If a blow reaches an opponent without stepping, why step at all? The opponent should be within reach of a faster action.

You step because to remain in the true place for any length of time is very dangerous. Silver is adamant that you stay out of the true place until you are ready to attack because to remain there does not simply invite an attack against you, but ensures its success.

So the problem is, how to get to the true place without getting hit coming in. Silver's answer is moving in true time: hand first, followed by the body and then the foot coming after.

[Andrzej Rosa]

Why? Both terms describe a very related phenomenon. If one is in "true place" one is able to perform an action with reasonable chances of success; be it an attack or defense, no matter.

Perhaps you could consider making the distinction

Perhaps I wouldn't. "True time" and "true place" are general terms which mean that a fighter has time enough to perform an action, because he is properly positioned to do so.

because a better man than you or I did so long before us:

Then thus do I conclude, that if there be perfection in the Science of Defense, they are all in their opinions deceived; and that the truth may appeare for the satisfaction of all men, this is my resolution: there is no advantage absolutely, nor disadvantage in striker, thruster, or warder: and there is great advantage in the striker thruster & warder: but in this maner, in the perfection of fight the advantage consisteth in fight between partie and partie: that is, whosoever winneth or gaineth the place in true pace, space and time, hath the advantage, whether he be striker, thruster or warder. And that is my conclusion.

Fine by me. That is I don't see how it contradicts my interpretation.

George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence, p. 8. See also Paradoxes p. 24 (where Silver uses "true place of defense" in reference to the space the warder needs to move his hand to defend, ie "true space": "the Agent being in the first motion although in his offence, further to go then the warder to defend, yet the warders space being too large, the blow or thrust wilbe performed home, before the warder can come to the true place to defend himself, and although the warder doe perfectly see the blow or thrust coming, so shall he see his own ward so farre from the true place of his defense, that although he doe at that instant time, plainly see the blow or thrust comming, it shalbe impossible for him to recover the true place of his ward, till he his wounded.").

It gets ridiculous, but what the hell. Silver doesn't distinguish between "true place" where it means a correct distance to attack and the "true place of defence" as being two unrelated terms. You do it, not him.

The distance you must move your hand and weapon to ward is a different concept than the distance you must have to hit your adversary without stepping.

Both just happen to be called "true places", simply by chance. If you like it that way, I will not argue any more. I'm getting tired.

[Andrzej Rosa]

You step because to remain in the true place for any length of time is very dangerous. Silver is adamant that you stay out of the true place until you are ready to attack because to remain there does not simply invite an attack against you, but ensures its success.

So the problem is, how to get to the true place without getting hit coming in. Silver's answer is moving in true time: hand first, followed by the body and then the foot coming after.

You mean that because being within reach is dangerous one should get there with arms and body extended and feet trailing behind?

[Andrzej Rosa]

One last comment and I'm done, I promise.

This link: http://www.thearma.org/essays/Quality&Build.pdf was supposed to show, that one is able to start a blow with arms and do it coherently anyway.

Well, IMO it doesn't. The actual Zorn happens between frames second and third. First frame is a build up, fourth frame is a follow-up, but Zorn is already done on the third frame. That is until somebody will try to insist that to deliver a Zornhau one is supposed to describe an arc of 360 degrees with his sword. It is worthy to point out, that the single step it took to deliver this mighty blow is still going on and both feet aren't firmly planted on the ground even in the last frame.

Now, Jeff hits his imaginary target in third frame, while he is midair. I didn't read German masters, so I can't say if it is an accepted situation, but judging by the video of deer halving and the next, where JC cuts a bamboo, it isn't. I assume that JC is generally regarded as someone who knows what he is doing. I'm just watching his video frame by frame, and he does exactly what I say is biomechanically sound. For example when his sword is in position corresponding to the first frame of discussed pdf, his right leg is in front, not his left.

So either JC strikes with proper timing or Jeff does. Tertium non datur, as they say.

Discussing something different than my usual topics was a lot of fun. I'll probably be back at some time next year, I'm afraid.

Happy hacking to everybody all New Year round!

[Stacy Clifford]

The distance you must move your hand and weapon to ward is a different concept than the distance you must have to hit your adversary without stepping.

This makes perfect sense for a simple reason. With a sword, you want to attack with the weak and defend with the strong. You have to be closer to use the strong (defending strong against strong being considered optimal, as opposed to strong against weak) than to use the weak, therefore the sword's true place for defense should be closer to the opponent than the true place to attack. Also, as JC often says, a dagger is all strong, no weak, so its true place for both attack and defense are both close to the opponent. A buckler basically negates the strong/weak issue and can defend at any range, but if you decided to attack with the buckler then its true place would necessarily be in close.

Funny how we still have more controversy over the meaning of a source written in English than all the ones translated from German and Italian.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

S. Clifford:

Funny how we still have more controversy over the meaning of a source written in English than all the ones translated from German and Italian.

Yes, I agree. The key thing here being that it is in English, which may be what is hindering some people from understanding Silver. Not only is it English, but it is an archiac English.

-B.

[Jay Vail]

You step because to remain in the true place for any length of time is very dangerous. Silver is adamant that you stay out of the true place until you are ready to attack because to remain there does not simply invite an attack against you, but ensures its success.

So the problem is, how to get to the true place without getting hit coming in. Silver's answer is moving in true time: hand first, followed by the body and then the foot coming after.

You mean that because being within reach is dangerous one should get there with arms and body extended and feet trailing behind?

It means that, generally speaking, the hand and thus the weapon reach the target first. The passing foot lands a fraction of a second later.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

(defending strong against strong being considered optimal, as opposed to strong against weak)

I'm sorry, this parenthesis surprised me... I'm quite sure all the manuals I've ever heard of or read advocate to defend strong against weak. Why exactly would strong against strong be optimal?

[Jeffrey Hull]

I suppose you are refering to the 4 pictures found at page 4 in this article?

If so, I can see some differences between what Casper does in the video and what you show...

Casper makes two movements with his sword, first backward to arm the cut and then forward to deliver it. He is stepping forward hence, if I understood the quotes correctly, he is not in Silver's true distance at the beginning. His cut ends approximately at the time when his foot lands. So yes, his arms are faster, and the first motion could be conceived as an entering technique.

In your sequence, you just make a move forward with your hands. Hence, you strike the target roughly halfway through your pace. This is because you did not slow your hands and Silver's principles still hold... At the end of your strike, on the fourth picture, it can be seen that your body has advanced further.

And yet I think your hands were slightly slowed down by the great arc up you did. So I believe you could have landed a significant strike even before half of your step.

Thus, either you were closer to your assumed target than Casper was, and the step is just there to generate momentum but you could have made your strike without it, either you were a full pace from the target and in that case, it might be tactically unwise to be forced to continue forward after the strike, or to strike before covering the distance. If it missed, you are putting the adversary in good position...

As I see it, Silver's true time is a tactical concept to avoid telegraphing. But since both strikes discussed here are out of Silver's true distance, perhaps it is unwise to apply the same principles to them?

If the point of the Zornhau is to generate power at the expense of tactical considerations, perhaps it does not have to respect true times? After all, we don't respect them when cutting firewood either

Regards

VLC: Of course our strikes are different due to the fact that our longswords were in differing initial positions since CB started from Ochs and I started from Zornhut; and his forward stepping was treten and mine was springen. (So what is your point?) Hence CB had to make an upward motion (not backward, as you fallaciously assert) which becomes forward motion as carried by the arms, body & legs (in that order), done so while he advances. (Hence it is all one smooth motion actually.) His movement in that video was most certainly in accordance with Silver's true-time.

(Definitely more so than the ridiculous tameshigiri demonstration I saw just last night on a TV show called Weapon Masters, done by some iaido "expert" who cocked back his sword, then stepped, then swung forward, then cut -- ludicrous. )

My own sequential photos demonstrate the most forceful way (thus via springen) to do Zornhau. My Zornhau was meant to reach & hit a target at fullest distance of my range for hewing the foe mortally. It was in accordance with Silver's true-time and with Liechtenauer's advice to step with striking. My strike was tactically sound for its intended purpose, as sound as the leaping attack of a cougar or a leopard

VLC: You did not get that, your perception & interpretation thereof were incorrect. (Perhaps even relativistic, no?) You either are unfamiliar with athletic fencing movements or actual sparring, perhaps never attempting such yourself. If you know better, you could post your own video or photos to substantiate your claims. Maybe when you have time away from doing your applied mathematics research you could publish something about applied fencing to educate us.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

CB had to make an upward motion (not backward, as you fallaciously assert) which becomes forward motion as carried by the arms, body & legs (in that order), done so while he advances. (Hence it is all one smooth motion actually.) His movement in that video was most certainly in accordance with Silver's true-time.

In fact I was talking of the movement of the tip, or cutting portion of his sword, when I said backward. I was under the impression that the notion of true time implied a forward motion not only of the hands but of the weapon. It means I'm wrong on that, then, and I take your word on it because I only had a cursory look at Silver's text itself. Thanks for the clarification.

My own sequential photos demonstrate the most forceful way (thus via springen) to do Zornhau. My Zornhau was meant to reach & hit a target at fullest distance of my range for hewing the foe mortally. It was in accordance with Silver's true-time and with Liechtenauer's advice to step with striking.

I can certainly agree that your strike hits at full power and speed at the longest range allowed by respecting Silver's true time. I was merely pointing out that you could have reached a bit further if not respecting true times. I think this is what was confusing not only to me but to others in this thread.

You either are unfamiliar with athletic fencing movements or actual sparring, perhaps never attempting such yourself. If you know better, you could post your own video or photos to substantiate your claims. Maybe when you have time away from doing your applied mathematics research you could publish something about applied fencing to educate us.

I'm honored to see you remember me, though I'm not sure how exactly my occupations relate to the matter at hand...

My current training is kenjutsu, so no sparring for me (you know, tradition and all that). I know this means that anything I can write or think has exactly zero value from the ARMA's point of view. I mainly registered to get more detailed explanations of what I was seeing compared to what was said, and Jay Vail and yourself aptly clarified your position as far as I'm concerned. With the hope that it might have been useful to others, I'm bowing out of the discussion...

[Stacy Clifford]

(defending strong against strong being considered optimal, as opposed to strong against weak)

I'm sorry, this parenthesis surprised me... I'm quite sure all the manuals I've ever heard of or read advocate to defend strong against weak. Why exactly would strong against strong be optimal?

You always want to use the strong of your sword to defend against any part of your opponent's if possible, but my assertion comes from the concept of the meisterhau primarily. The ideal defense is one that both defends and offends simultaneously (a "master strike"). If you defend against your opponent's weak, then your closest target within your sword's length is his hand or forearm. If you defend against his strong, that puts your point or weak within reach of shoulders, chest and face. It also tends to push his point significantly further offline, making it harder to disengage or wind to resume the attack, and his blow has less force to counter near the hilt than at the tip.

Here is a quote from Di Grassi on defending blows, and I have seen similar passages in other manuals as well:

But returning to my purpose, namely, of the way how to defend, which is to carry the weapon opposite, this manner is commonly used, but is not so profitable, being used as it is. And the reason is, because when men endeavor themselves to encounter or oppose themselves against the weapon which comes to strike them, (neither making bold that their weapon can, neither knowing how it should defend) they withdraw their body with their foot, and commit all these faults following.

1. First, by withdrawing of themselves, they encounter the enemy’s sword towards the point, in which place it bears most force, and therefore with greatest difficulty they sustain the blow.

2. Another is, if they would strike the enemy, of necessity they must return their feet and weapon there, where they were before, and yet increase forwards somewhat more, if they would strongly strike him: And in this they spend so much time, that the enemy may not only easily defend, but also, very well and safely strike. To him then that would use this manner of defense without danger, it is necessary and needful, when he encounters the enemy’s sword, that he do not withdraw himself, but with his left foot increase a crooked or slope pace forwards, the which shall encounter the sword, which before was coming striking with the edge, on that part of that, in which it has least power to defend, and shall by that means easily withstand the blow.

I'll have to do some searching to find other specific quotes.