"Masters" trash talk...

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Hello Matt, William and all who have been posting here!

Guys, thank you all very much for posting your opinions in what I view to be a respectful and well-reasoned manner.

I wanted just to comment on a few points discussed then leave you all to a very good conversation.

Very quick, I am, and have been one of ARMA's more active Scholars, I have done much for the subject, and have traveled extensively as well. In fact, I am the new Deputy Director of ARMA.

New to the fencing community, I had little background on what it was that so many here discussed about issues surrounding the political nature of these arts, and was not completely surprised these issues existed in this area, as with all things these issues will be present.

Of course, as I got into it and heard the tales, learned the personalities involved and the past issues I took with a grain of salt some of our more vocal Members opinions.

Must say though this quickly changed as I became viewed as "one of those ARMA guys". In fact I was treated in person and in communication by some -not all, in the most disrespectful and arrogant way. It was not me who was offending, it was the others who saw me perform, then having some personal deficiencies in their abilities, projected this attitude very rudely at me.- needless to say uncool.

I must agree though with the stated fact that all groups have improvement to be made, and sooner or later we are going to have to forget the past and move on.

I think for some that process has begun, for others there are some things they will never be able to forget, insulting say, thier families, who they are as persons, spreading outright lies and inuendos..yes, there is much we can improve but some of those individuals have shown who they truely are as persons and what their true motivations are in the Craft. To them I say "no thanks".

As far as who is what, with what credentials, as Martial Artists studying and reconstructing these lost skills, people can claim just about anything.

It is easy however to discover who has really mastered the path. Those individuals who can easily, and repeatedly demonstrate skill, can produce students who posess that same skill and have acknowledged that the journey never really ends and "True Mastery" is always learning and reaching and striving, while at the same time questioning everything you do along the way. That's true Mastery-

I can certainally understand why some folks get upset when ARMA Members talk in the manner in which they do, and perhaps humility at times is a lesson which needs to be learned. However other times it is a needed and much deserved reponse to some out there, who have shown no true skills in combat effectiveness, no personal path of improvement, no adherence to any checks and balances system of peers and only a wish to do what is "specifically" stated in works desinged and crafted as "general" guidelines to a lost culture. These are folks who will not admitt they they are not striving to do what we do, but rather hate us for what it is we do. These are the folks I do not and will not ever understand.

In the end all of you have made good reasonable points, but the little important details of why we are different are what is sooo very important.

Lastly, there are a number of individuals and groups that we as ARMA enjoy and consider as fellows in the efforts to rediscover the Craft, a number of whom have already been mentioned.

Good luck with your studies folks, train hard ! AP

[Matt Rovaris]

Aaron,

I can see why you are Deputy Director. A fantastic post, and 100% agreed.

You and your style are one of the reasons why I respect ARMA.

Matt

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

From my own research, Martinez's "maestro" was a ballet dancer. No exactly confidence-inducing for our subject.

It's not my place to argue for or against the Martinez Academy's credentials. But could you elaborate on why you find dance to be incompatible with fence?

What credentials? And, ummm...LOL. Just how are they compatible? Fencing, true fencing is a killing art. Dancing is...well, dancing. You're not serious, right? Please tell me you're not serious.

-B.

I'm quite serious. If fencing was priomarily a killing art, then double-hits would be double victories instead of double-losses. No, mainly, it is a defensive art. There's a reason that it was called "The Art of Defense". You kill the other fellow so that he will cease to be a threat. The real work is in making sure he doesn't kill you in the meantime.

In aid of this, fencing--foil, rapier, longsword...doesn't matter--concerns itself with control of time, distance, and proportion. Control of these things is how the master makes successful assaults seemingly without effort. We call this proportionate and controlled movement grace. Castiglione called it sprezatura. It is the same quality which dancers seek to develop, albeit for different reasons. These same notions of time, distance, and proportion all lead to grace in dancing just as in fencing.

With this in mind, I find it hard to criticize a man for being both a dancer and a swordsman. In fact, it seems a natural combination.

-William

You and I mean different things when we say "fencing." I mean Silver, and anything to do with the medieval stuff. You mean pigeon-spit cavorting. Your comment about "grace" sounds like something out of sport fencing...something out of Angelo's play book. Way too late and way too watered down for my tastes. I don't give a rat's backside abaout "grace," I want to be deadly. We'll leave it at that, shall we?

-B.

[Stacy Clifford]

Regarding the lack of response to Ilkka's critique thus far, a couple of things. Only a few ARMA members have spent enough time studying Fiore specifically to respond adequately to the level of detail he addressed, and those people have not yet been available to answer. John himself would obviously be ideal, but he is working on his books and has not spent much time on the forum in months, so I wouldn't expect a reply from him even if we all would like to see it; we'd rather he finish the books. Jay Vail may have some good commentary the next time he's on here, as might a few others. If you're expecting a detailed answer RIGHT NOW to prove that we're more scholarly than Ilkka, you're going to be disappointed, most people don't visit the forums every single day. Be patient. Aside from that, his points look pretty good and well worth considering, and that paper from John is now several years old, so there's a fair possibility it needs updating. Since Ilkka has obviously done his homework on Fiore then I would certainly take his comments seriously if I decided to take my own hard look at that manual. I may be more inclined to agree with John's physical interpretations because I know how he reaches them and often approach things the same way myself, but that by no means disrespects Ilkka's work. Actually I would encourage him to submit his list to John politely as potential points to review and revise in the online Fiore Study Guide (adjusted for differing content, since it's too late for the book), or provide reasoning why he disagrees. He might not have time, but you won't know if you don't try.

[Stacy Clifford]

Brandon, you may not have much interest in rapier fencing, but it does fall within ARMA's period of study and it is perfectly fair for anyone to address it here, we do in fact practice it. As for dancing, if you read our physical fitness article, dancing was often part of the recommended exercise prescribed for knights in training, and not just as a social grace. Rapier does require smooth and practiced lines to do well, and I can see where dancing would have some applicable value. That said, I don't know anything about Martinez's supposed master except that nobody else knows anything about Martinez's supposed master either, except for Martinez. Nobody here puts much credence in him and he's irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

As for William's point that these are the "Arts of Defense," his point is valid, the first rule is always don't get killed, the second is kill the other guy so he doesn't try again later. Nonetheless, most of the masters I'm familiar with seem to adhere to the philosophy that the best defense is a good offense, so it's still a killing art.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Brandon, you may not have much interest in rapier fencing, but it does fall within ARMA's period of study and it is perfectly fair for anyone to address it here, we do in fact practice it.

Yes, I know. If I came across as implying that it wasn't appropriate for the forum, then that was unintentional. All I meant to convey by my comment was my personal lack of interest in the rapier, and nothing more. I hope that is clear now.

As for dancing, if you read our physical fitness article, dancing was often part of the recommended exercise prescribed for knights in training, and not just as a social grace.

From a pure physical fitness perspective, I can see that to a degree. Sure. But medieval dancing and ballet are two different things.

Rapier does require smooth and practiced lines to do well, and I can see where dancing would have some applicable value.

Perhaps for the rapier. I don't like the rapier.

That said, I don't know anything about Martinez's supposed master except that nobody else knows anything about Martinez's supposed master either, except for Martinez. Nobody here puts much credence in him and he's irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

Agreed.

As for William's point that these are the "Arts of Defense," his point is valid, the [i]first rule is always don't get killed, the second is kill the other guy so he doesn't try again later. Nonetheless, most of the masters I'm familiar with seem to adhere to the philosophy that the best defense is a good offense, so it's still a killing art.[/i]

I'll go along with that.

-B.

[Stacy Clifford]

You may not like the rapier, but that may simply be because you haven't learned to torture opponents using shorter weapons with it yet.

[Jason Taylor]

Hi!

I'm willing to discuss these points further, either here or privately.

Yours,
Ilkka

Hi, Ilkka.

I read your responses and found that I could speak to more of them that I thought, so I will post a response for you tomorrow with as much information as I can include. It'll be kind of a monster-long post, actually.

I'll be doing a quick revision to make sure I've gotten all the style/typo issues out of it before I post it for all the world to see.

Jason

[Axel Pettersson]

Hey, Axel. I think we may have a language barrier thing going on here. It can be difficult to detect tone something over the WWW. Sarcasm. I was in fact agreeing with you.

-B.

OK, sorry in that case, I understood you perfectly, though your tone came out in completely the wrong way to my ears.


In regards to an earlier post you made, I know of several groups outside of ARMA that practices many different systems, not just us (Ilkka and his gschool for example does many different systems). It has great value as you say, so does focusing on only one system as well though, so take advantage of the knowledge you get from both ways instead of battering on the one you don't adhere to.

cheers/A

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Hey, Axel. I think we may have a language barrier thing going on here. It can be difficult to detect tone something over the WWW. Sarcasm. I was in fact agreeing with you.

-B.

OK, sorry in that case, I understood you perfectly, though your tone came out in completely the wrong way to my ears.


In regards to an earlier post you made, I know of several groups outside of ARMA that practices many different systems, not just us (Ilkka and his gschool for example does many different systems). It has great value as you say, so does focusing on only one system as well though, so take advantage of the knowledge you get from both ways instead of battering on the one you don't adhere to.

cheers/A

I disagree with the approach, Axel. And I give the reasons why. And that's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As far as I can tell, Ilkka (please, Ilkka, correct me if I'm wrong) is mostly a Fiore and Bologenese guy. We've sparred abit on this board, but I have had the pleasure of conversing with him via PM, and I have enjoyed that enormously. He and I have agreed to a friendly match some time in future, which I look forward to.

-B.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

666

[I. Hartikainen]

Brandon,

the validity or effectiveness of the approach depends on the goals and ultimately the needs of the individual training or being trained.

If the goal is to be able to effectively fight (or spar/compete) with others outside one's own group, it becomes useful to know their game as well.

If the goal is to research/interpret a specific text on swordsmanship (with the aim of providing information that can then be used on its own or in combination with other styles, or even to recreate something new altogether) the text in question needs to be looked in isolation, and one individual's preferences carry little weight. Of course, the process involves referencing to other texts as well. If you are not familiar with it, I suggest you take a peek at Bart Walczak's AGISE method for ideas.

There can of course be various other goals as well, and everything depends on the context.

The Liechtenauer tradition presents us with a supposedly original verse written by the original author, and then various commentaries upon it, written by different authors who all admit that they are commenting the original.

With Fiore we have four texts, which all claim to be original, but still have differences among them and are written/drawn in different languages, dialects and artistic styles.

With the Bolognese tradition we have original texts that describe the authors personal take on the same system (system being defined by the same basic terminology, actions and positions with little variance, and the same geographical location).

It becomes obvious, that each group can be more closely referenced within themselves originally, what lacks from one work of Fiore can more easily be filled in from another version of the Fior di Battaglia than the Liechtenauer tradition. And this is not just because of language or laziness on the part of the researcher, it is because what the traditions describe are more or less systems, they describe a style which follows same principles and which is not a compilation of 'trickery' that seemed to work for one individual. There is an amount of personal preference involved, of course, but also the context for which the texts were written, the style of weapons they used, the attitude of the people and so on.

I am familiar with the Liechtenauer tradition, and can 'fence' using it even though I am more familiar with Fiore.. but while I am aware of the teachings of master L., I usually don't go for the German techniques since they don't fit in so well to the Italian way of thinking, acting and moving. This is not to say which style is more effective, but that they are different. Stylistically.

And here is the important bit: if you think that 'staying within a system' limits the possibilities to act and leads to bad fighting, I would argue from my experience, that staying with one system makes the work much easier, leading to less thinking, more fluid actions, quicker reactions and better power-generation.

Fiore's actions flow from his guard positions, Liechtenauer's actions flow from his four. To mix the actions one would need to mix the positions as well, mix the length of the pass, the way the sword is held, the way the blade is moved, the direction of the steps... that necessarily complicates things.

Again about the effectiveness, both styles can be effective, as can be their combination. But their combination is no more 'historical', if that ever mattered to you (nothing wrong with a modern approach), and you really should know _both_ systems deeply before combining them to something of your own.

As a teacher I need to understand both styles even if I 'd only teach Fiore. I often get students who are familiar with Liechtenauer but not Fiore, and I need to know their style to be able to easily point out that when they stand in a perfect schrankhut, they are not standing in a perfect tutta porta di ferro.

Jason, I am waiting for your comments. Looking forward to interesting insights and learning from you.

Yours,
Ilkka

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi again,

as to my own background, I have formal training in Fiore, Capoferro and I.33 with a little bit of smallsword (which is very martial, believe me or not) under Guy Windsor. I am familiar with Fiore's texts and read them from the original Italian.

I have for the past year done my own work with the Bolognese (and other 16th century) sources to expand our School's curriculum with this material, and I would definitely say that Fiore and the Bolognese are my strongest areas. In the future I see myself concentrating on the Bolognese material - there is a whole world of material available for a lifetime of study.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I am familiar with the Liechtenauer concepts, but I don't read German and am therefore left unable to conduct my own research to the sources.

And yes, I'll fence anybody for mutual benefit. In the end, that's why we do this, is it not?

Yours,
Ilkka

[Sam Nankivell]

I'm quite serious. If fencing was priomarily a killing art, then double-hits would be double victories instead of double-losses. No, mainly, it is a defensive art. There's a reason that it was called "The Art of Defense". You kill the other fellow so that he will cease to be a threat. The real work is in making sure he doesn't kill you in the meantime.

In aid of this, fencing--foil, rapier, longsword...doesn't matter--concerns itself with control of time, distance, and proportion. Control of these things is how the master makes successful assaults seemingly without effort. We call this proportionate and controlled movement grace. Castiglione called it sprezatura. It is the same quality which dancers seek to develop, albeit for different reasons. These same notions of time, distance, and proportion all lead to grace in dancing just as in fencing.

With this in mind, I find it hard to criticize a man for being both a dancer and a swordsman. In fact, it seems a natural combination.

-William

You and I mean different things when we say "fencing." I mean Silver, and anything to do with the medieval stuff. You mean pigeon-spit cavorting. Your comment about "grace" sounds like something out of sport fencing...something out of Angelo's play book. Way too late and way too watered down for my tastes. I don't give a rat's backside abaout "grace," I want to be deadly. We'll leave it at that, shall we?

-B.

Funny how precisions leads to lethality, creating the side-effect of being graceful, style does come from substance, and sport fencers are hardly ones to be concerned with grace, only with scoring.

Seriously, this whole meme about rapier and smallsword fencing being all style and no substance is an old and disproven idea. Heck, evidence from a study done on the police records from Paris in 1732 (Châtelet archives) show that of the 251 "murders" around 49% (123) were from sword wounds. Of those sword wounds, 121 were smallsword from smallsword wounds, 1 was from a broadsword and 1 was from a spadroon. (Sourced from http://salvatorfabris.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=351, the same post also has accounts of bandits and thugs making good use of the smallsword.) Hardly just a weapon for "first-blood", "watered-down" fencing.

The core ideas of defending yourself and killing/injuring your opponent have been present from the Neolithic era to the last days of the duel in the 19th Century. Besides, why is it that medieval fencing would somehow lack "grace"? I find Fiore to be very graceful in his actions in light of what I mentioned earlier.

I realise that ARMA's specialty is in styles before the 18th Century, but creating the meme that 18th Century (or even 17th Century) styles were obviously "watered-down" and no longer killing arts is no better than those fencers before us who created the meme that Medieval martial arts were "crude" and "unsophisticated".

If this post is too off topic for this thread, let me know, I will create a new thread for it.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

I see whst you're saying, Ilkka. But I disagree with it in the strongest possible fashion. AFAIC, it is nothing near "obvious," as you say. I have gathered a body of evidence that strongly refutes your stance I think; unfortunately I am not at liberty to divulge it here and now. It will appear in print, (hopefully sooner rather than latter). There will be those, perhaps even you, that disagree with it, but I am thoroughly convinced that you're wrong. Tell you what, though...email me w\ your address, and when it is released, I will send you a free copy. Can't say fairer than that, right...cool?

-B.

returnofthefallen@hotmail.com

Brandon,

the validity or effectiveness of the approach depends on the goals and ultimately the needs of the individual training or being trained.

If the goal is to be able to effectively fight (or spar/compete) with others outside one's own group, it becomes useful to know their game as well.

If the goal is to research/interpret a specific text on swordsmanship (with the aim of providing information that can then be used on its own or in combination with other styles, or even to recreate something new altogether) the text in question needs to be looked in isolation, and one individual's preferences carry little weight. Of course, the process involves referencing to other texts as well. If you are not familiar with it, I suggest you take a peek at Bart Walczak's AGISE method for ideas.

There can of course be various other goals as well, and everything depends on the context.

The Liechtenauer tradition presents us with a supposedly original verse written by the original author, and then various commentaries upon it, written by different authors who all admit that they are commenting the original.

With Fiore we have four texts, which all claim to be original, but still have differences among them and are written/drawn in different languages, dialects and artistic styles.

With the Bolognese tradition we have original texts that describe the authors personal take on the same system (system being defined by the same basic terminology, actions and positions with little variance, and the same geographical location).

It becomes obvious, that each group can be more closely referenced within themselves originally, what lacks from one work of Fiore can more easily be filled in from another version of the Fior di Battaglia than the Liechtenauer tradition. And this is not just because of language or laziness on the part of the researcher, it is because what the traditions describe are more or less systems, they describe a style which follows same principles and which is not a compilation of 'trickery' that seemed to work for one individual. There is an amount of personal preference involved, of course, but also the context for which the texts were written, the style of weapons they used, the attitude of the people and so on.

I am familiar with the Liechtenauer tradition, and can 'fence' using it even though I am more familiar with Fiore.. but while I am aware of the teachings of master L., I usually don't go for the German techniques since they don't fit in so well to the Italian way of thinking, acting and moving. This is not to say which style is more effective, but that they are different. Stylistically.

And here is the important bit: if you think that 'staying within a system' limits the possibilities to act and leads to bad fighting, I would argue from my experience, that staying with one system makes the work much easier, leading to less thinking, more fluid actions, quicker reactions and better power-generation.

Fiore's actions flow from his guard positions, Liechtenauer's actions flow from his four. To mix the actions one would need to mix the positions as well, mix the length of the pass, the way the sword is held, the way the blade is moved, the direction of the steps... that necessarily complicates things.

Again about the effectiveness, both styles can be effective, as can be their combination. But their combination is no more 'historical', if that ever mattered to you (nothing wrong with a modern approach), and you really should know _both_ systems deeply before combining them to something of your own.

As a teacher I need to understand both styles even if I 'd only teach Fiore. I often get students who are familiar with Liechtenauer but not Fiore, and I need to know their style to be able to easily point out that when they stand in a perfect schrankhut, they are not standing in a perfect tutta porta di ferro.

Jason, I am waiting for your comments. Looking forward to interesting insights and learning from you.

Yours,
Ilkka