Charron test cutting

[Jake_Norwood]

Welcome, Bob. Good to see you here.

I see what you're saying about Fiore's "one inch punch" cuts, as Matt described them. In Denver the bulk of your cuts were what I would consider half-arm cuts (I don't mean fendente into posta longa, but rather fendente into cinghiale). While these cuts can indeed be quick, what's your opinion of full-arm cuts in Fiore's system? I find it hard to believe that there were none.

Secondly, on the issue of strength: we discussed this a little in Denver, with me quoting "strike with all your strength" or something to that effect, and you said that you interpret that as "with all your ability." I'd like to discuss this point some more, as it's one of the major "philisophical" differences between your approach to HES and ours. What are your feelings (and "counters," if you will) to the passages above? I know that one of your concerns is not fighting as a "Buffel," or fencer who relies only on strength, but where do you draw the line between "Buffel" and "not using enough strength"?

I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Jake

[Shane Smith]

Bob,

One post from you is worth more than a lifetime of speculation.Thanks for the clarrification.I tend to agree with you on most of the above issues though not all.I can live with that.When the day comes when we can all agree all the time,we will then know that as a community,we have given in to mediocrity.Let the debate continue...thats how we will all continue to sharpen our skills with the help of our fellow Swordsmen. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Bob Charron]

Todd,

Thank you for your civil post. I very much appreciate it.

Hopefully those that were not so civil will also offer their questions for debate, or offer apologies.

Peter Johnson's swords are marvelous. After talking with him it is clear that he understands the mathematical and scientific principles under which the originals were made and follows them. The proper tool makes a world of difference.

I don't really advertise or solicit seminars, but let the quality of my work generate more. I have done several repeat seminars in particular locations. The first is usually an overview. The second is usually a weekend of hand to hand combat and dagger. The third is usually a weekend of swordplay. I already have another in the works as a weekend of armoured combat. So far previous students at seminars have generated more. Yet it's not a money-making game, and that's why I keep my regular job

Because I do not get to work with seminar students on a regular basis, I cannot assess their control properly, and must default to safety first in all cases. My own regular students can be properly assessed, and given privileges as they earn them.

Again, thank you for your polite post. There is no need to let you have it with both barrels

[Bob Charron]

Jake,

Good to hear from you again.

I think we need a little more understanding of each other's semantics. By full-arm cuts, I take it to mean those that move from a high or low posta to a high or low posta, rather than stopping in longa or breve. I think these are certainly sufficiently quick. But again every blow must be done at its appropriate time and with appropriate consideration of measure. Full cuts are certainly used situationally. If you will hark back to the plays from incrosada, you will remember many cuts that came from frontale and ended in longa.

My comments in Denver concerning "fence with all your strength" were that we need to recruit the expertise of linguists to determine just what connotative meanings accompany the precise language used in the period. If at one point the master says "fence with all your strength" and then refers to someone who uses too much strength as a "buffalo", then it seems to me more study is needed in the original language to sort out the apparent contradiction.

I do read in Vadi and other places lines that would indicate a "collected" approach to delivering blows. Much like riding, the collected gaits offer the horse and rider more options and abilities than one that is "flat out." We may differ here, but I do not consider it a issue worth "fighting over."

Again, good to hear from you.

[Bob Charron]

Thank you Shane. I agree wholeheartedly.

Disagreement over technique or language used in the original sources is fine. Difference in training methods is going to occur. Speculation on one's abilities and character in the absence of evidence and when the person in question is readily available for direct questioning is a problem it would serve us all to address.

I know that judging by the number of previous posters and the language they used that I certainly should get several more posts on this thread, and I'm glad to answer all questions until the speculations and accusations are resolved.

[Guest]

point 1: I know <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
point 2: Colin moved the bottle with telechinesis <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
BTW: those swords were the best I've ever handled, their maker is to be really proud of them, maybe when I've the money I'll ask him to build me a paloscio or light backsword.

[Jake_Norwood]

Hey Bob. No intent to "fight over" it here, but this is rather the real meat of the thread, and I wanted us all to get back on it instead of talking about relationships.

What I'm thinking of when I say "full arm cuts" are those that would, for example, go from posta di dona into cinghiale by passing through longa--a cut using the full extended arm.

As for the linguistic end of "with all your strength..." well, that's my degree--linguistics with an emphasis in historical comparative, and perhaps that's why the issue is important to me. I agree that it's only speculation as to what the masters ever mean, but some guesses are better than others.

My understanding of the term "Buffel" is not one that uses much strength but one who relies on it to fight (the same might be said for one that relies on natural speed instead of training). We know that our ancestors frequently managed to remove limbs and heads (and we also know that they often didn't...).

Again, the problem is semantics. When we say "with strength," we don't mean leaping about delivering blows that would "cleave a horse in two if only we can catch it."

It also depends on your target, I'm sure. It is possible to cut with too much strength (buffel-style) and overreach oneself or shock onesself with how cleanly a cut travel through the target. Having done some test cutting, I think you'll know what I mean.

The key is control and what we might call "force" as opposed to "strength" (though in many languages they are the same). This is accomplished through what you called harmony and through practice.

Okay, maybe I'm not really getting anywhere here...I feel like I've started to ramble. Once again it's nice to see you here. Please feel at home.

Jake

[Bob Charron]

Jake,

Yes, I think you're doing a good job of expressing yourself.

With shorter cuts, use of the lever of the grip of the sword becomes more emphasized, as the goal of any cut with a proper sword is to get the sword to naturally and gracefully rotate around its center of balance so that it does the cutting for you.

Does this require "strength"? Of course. You have to be able to handle the tool. Does it require "intent"? Yes. You do intend to cut them don't you?

The trap in these semantics is that by focusing on these two words, keeping a sharp eye out for them, and jumping on anything which doesn't use them in the same way as one indivual might understand them as bogus, you see the practice of others as different, not as similar. On the other side of the coin, when one is taken to task for not having "proper strength and intent" when they know quite well they do, then they can only assume the criticizing party means that they need to have more (excessive) strength and intent. Misunderstandings and acrimony begin, and continue for years, when one tries to define what they are doing by what it is not, rather than what it is.

Everyone I have ever seen do a credible job of teaching uses both strength and intent. Yet with a sharp, well-made sword, if you move your body through the proper path, as described by the master, you don't need more strength than that which is supplied by the motion indicated by the proper motion to sever an arm. You don't need any more intent than your intention to cut them to make a valid cut. I don't have to power it if I have the proper tool and the proper mechanics.

I hope this makes my particular position a little more clear. Semantics are very often the problem, and when you study ancient languages, you may have no clue to the semantics. In the "fence with all your strength/buffalo" issue, what is really meant? Only someone who has a *very* good knowledge of Medieval German can make an educated guess. I can't, and most of us can't. Hence the seeming contradictions and confusions.

[Webmaster]

Bob,

Given that I suspect that my comments were the "last straw" that prompted you to join us on our forum, I would be remiss if I didn't address them now that you're here. First I want to welcome you and thank you for taking the floor in person. My comments were not meant with real animosity, but I must admit that many of us have been puzzled by your lack of interest in joining our forum in the past, and my speculation was based partly on that and past incidents. In fairness, I don't spend much time on other forums myself. However, I am glad to see you here to answer my challenge and prove me wrong, and I will revise my opinion of your character and scholarship for my own part. I hope you will continue to return here and engage our many eager members (including me) who continue to admire your work and dedication.

Understand that I have no problem with your willingness to answer private e-mails, but I think most of us here believe that public discussion is an important part of scholarship, most of all for someone who intends to teach others. We respect John Clements as much for his openness on the subject as for his skill, and we would like to say the same about any of the people we consider to be our peers. Whatever feelings remain from past incidents, rumors, etc., we respect you more now for confronting us on our own floor. Many of us have already learned from you at your seminars (again, including me) and will continue to do so, and I hope your debate here is fruitful and that you can learn something from us as well.

I will also extend my invitation to you to e-mail me privately if you wish at webmaster@thearma.org . Thank you.

[Bob Charron]

Stacy,

Thank you for your post. So in future I hope that this experience can serve as an example. We should not be quick to judge one's character or academic work without all the available data. I won't do it to you if you won't do it to me

We should also be understanding of those that don't want to frequent our particular forum. It is not an insult, but a decision based on time and close associations. I don't plan on spending a lot of time on this forum, because I have one major forum that I spend most of my time on and at which everyone knows I can be reached. I also have a 50-60 hour a week professional job and view swordplay as my academic hobby (I need something stimulating or I'll go crazy in the business world

All in all, I hope this thread proved educational with respect to how we deal with others and how *all of us* are too quick to assume the worst. This should never be the case. While I fail from time to time in my humanity, I do try to form opinions based on personal observations over an extended period of time. Don't take someone else's word concerning someone else or something else - always decide for yourself. And I hope that so far anyone who hasn't met me may judge me by my posts here and ask any questions which may be on their mind.

[Bob Charron]

In checking this thread this morning, I see an entire evening has passed without further posting.

I will continue to check it for the next day or two, and then assume the thread is finished, all questions and accusations have been addressed, and any remaining questions, digs or outright slander have either been apologized for and retracted, or are null and void as after I presented myself the original poster chose not to pursue it. I will assume this is because they know they were wrong but do not wish to apologize.

I feel this post is necessary to clear the air once and for all, and I don't want any misunderstandings about me or how I feel about things to be misconstrued in the future.

So if you still have something to say, please say it now. If you see something come up about me in the future, please encourage the interested party to contact me with their concerns, or invite me in to clear it up. That's the proper way to handle things.

Otherwise, I look forward to seeing ARMA scholars at the major inter-organizational WMA events. I attend and teach at nearly all of them currently, and I welcome the chance to chat with you and answer questions at these marvelous gatherings, or at your convenience by e-mail.

[Guest]

Mr Charron, with all due respect, one has the right to have a wrong opinion, one is in fault when he does not have a wrong opinion and yet he expresses a wrong opinion..., but this does not happen here I think. I've expressed wrong opinions on this forum (about wasters, messers <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> , mind set...), have been corrected and did not need to apologize, I was just wrong.
Regards
Carlo

[Brian Hunt]

Bob,

things seem to slow down here on the forum on any weekend, let alone a major holiday weekend. : ) I do have a couple of questions about things your views on Fiore. At your seminar we did a lot of steppiing offline on the 45' and then shifting so our hips were facing our opponent. I realize the step offline is to place ouropponent out of position and creating an opening, but could most of those techniques also be done by stepping through your opponent thereby being quicker without the extra footwork?

Thank You for your time.

Brian Hunt

[Bob Charron]

Carlo,

Agreed completely, concerning academic points. Mistaken is mistaken. Mistaken about a person's character while being very loud about it usually warrants an apology At least that's the way I try to do it.

You point is well taken.

[Bob Charron]

Brian,

This is an excellent question. As much as possible, I try to do what Fiore instructs us to do from the original text. Many of the plays begin with words to the effect of "with the foot that is in front I will step off the line, and with the one in back I will pass to the side." Of course you can also catch the blow short before it is able to generate power by moving in. To do so safely I believe you should always try to do so to the outside of the strong sword arm to prevent you opponent from moving directly to zogho stretto (close play or grappling). I believe this is an important distinction in why Fiore divides his techniques into zogho largo and zogho stretto.

Let me know if that addressed your question. More simply put, yes, you can do as you suggest. When teaching Fiore, I try to portray the play as it is set down. Variation is then up to the individual. I too work on variations, as long as it does not slip outside the parameters of Fiore's system.

Where I do slip outside, or make assumptions, I try to be very clear about it in order to maintain academic integrity. Some very good friends of mine remind me every time I do that