Charron test cutting

[Guest]

While I'm certainly no expert of swords, much less I am of long swords <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> , I understand the arm cut you describe because a British friend who knows Fiore showed it to the class in which I was, it's a very smart move, no surprise it comes from an Italian master <img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> . I think in modern knife terms it could be called "push cut" as opposed to "draw cut", both belonging to the family of slices since the offense is effected by pressure combined with friction and not to the family of hacking cuts in which the offence is effected by the arch in which the blade accumulates chynethic energy and momentum. One important difference between the two is that in slices the blade portion that establishes the first contact with the target starts the offence but others portions of the blade effect it, while in hacking cuts the spot of impact goes into the target.
Carlo

[Bob Charron]

Carlo,

I hope my putting a fine point on it doesn't frustrate you too much

Fiore doesn't talk about cutting the arm with a "push cut" once the arm is struck, so I can't put forward that technique as documentable to Fiore. He advises that you should first strike the arm, then thrust the point into his chest. No mention of cutting the arm with the edge is given. Perhaps it might happen incidentally, but push and draw cuts are not part of the specific instruction within Fiore, and don't really seem to be necessary.

The may be quite evident and plain in instruction from other masters, but as I'm trying to stick with the one here, he doesn't put if forward, and it doesn't seem to be necessary to his art.

All the best,

[Guest]

"I hope my putting a fine point on it doesn't frustrate you too much " You must be assuming we (majestatis plural <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> ) are more tied to our opinion than we actually are...
Carlo

[Bob Charron]

Actually Carlo,

I was just being especially careful to return your previously demonstrated courtesy to me

[Matt Easton]

"Fiore doesn't talk about cutting the arm with a "push cut" once the arm is struck, so I can't put forward that technique as documentable to Fiore. He advises that you should first strike the arm, then thrust the point into his chest. No mention of cutting the arm with the edge is given. Perhaps it might happen incidentally, but push and draw cuts are not part of the specific instruction within Fiore, and don't really seem to be necessary."

I agree. Carlo was of course referring to me <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> I do not actually describe a push cut, because as you say Bob, that is not described - he simply says cut straight down onto the arm and then thrust, and he shows the thrust as passing with the previously-rear right foot, which makes sense because cutting the poor guy in the arm is going to make him strong in opposition (or very weak <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) and hence you have to pass to get the point around his blade. Plus it is safer. In addition to which you have to get in distance to plant the point.
What Carlo may have seen is that I tend to slide the blade along the opponent's arm doing this thrust - not specifically to give a push-cut, but rather to try and stop him hitting me in the head as a reflex <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />. I don't know whether that is right or wrong, and the treatise does not comment on this little nuance, but I do it.

Matt

[John_Clements]

And I'm glad you are recognizing the central need for footwork and body movement when cutting strongly, as opposed to limited applications of slashing and drawing slices that do not need passing or forward and backward stepping yet are not “motionless”.

In interpreting Fiore's techniques, if he does not quantify differences between types of "cuts" or use more than one word to describe different ways of delivering edge blows –“cuts”, that can't be used as evidence that all his cuts should be made in the exact same manner. Perhaps he simply assumes knowledge on the part of the reader that different techniques obviously call for different ways of cutting --at the very least we must keep within our interpretation the possibility there are more than one way of doing things that still fit the words he uses –even then this is assuming any translation and transcription is accurate and that are own understanding of the body mechanics involved are sound.

JC

[John_Clements]

Stu wrote:
I see possibilities and insights from every source available. I'm not saying that I ignore subtle differences of movement, I'm saying that those subtle differences can be used as tools of interpretation--one master's work can help unlock the nebulous areas of another master's works. From what I have seen of Fiore, his work really is different in a lot of ways from the German masters. But the more I see these differences the closer I scrutinize, and I realize that though specific techiques may vary, the principles behind them are often the same.

****
Pardon me if I sound too “philosophical” here, my intention is serious. Those of you who know me personally, know I am something of a historical fencing “philosopher.”

To me, the study and practice of historical fencing is as much a process as it is a mindset.

What today’s students of Renaissance martial arts are essentially studying is not a “tradition”, since it no longer survives intact, but rather fragments of teachings and skills which must be carefully reconstructed.

Any modern reconstruction or interpretation will be inevitably incomplete as we cannot know from source manuals and historical materials alone the exact totality of any forgotten fighting art or combative system.

It is not enough for modern practitioners to know for example what advice or teaching a Master wrote centuries ago about a particular techniques, we must have an understanding what good it was, and why and where would one want to use it. This kind of knowledge can only come from hands-on, long-term training with the weapons in question in the manner the Masters described.

The whole problem in studying or practicing any martial art style is how do you determine if something would really be combat effective? With little to know understanding or experience in actual hand-to-hand combat with the archaic weapons of Medieval and Renaissance fencing, this issue is often a debatable matter. Questions of what would or would not actually work in real fighting are often reduced to subjective impressions. As modern students our goal must be to reduce this element and rely on more pragmatic and empirical views of what the historical sources meant in their instructions.

As we are in the infancy of reconstructing and interpreting this subject, it makes no sense to me to say that one source text is or is not compatible with another or one master’s work should or should not be mixed with another in the course of study. They all provide insights to learning and they all reveal techniques and concepts and principles that are similar or even identical at times. We should not assume from our current readings they must each have had their own distinct "style" but rather instead, try to learn the teachings in terms of those very techniques and concepts and principles, and then over time, as we practice them, allow a "style" to emerge. Whether this will then be “the” historical one, who tell us for sure? Not the masters, they are long gone.

In a way, the interpretation that occurs in the historical fencing community could be compared to that old children’s game where the kids turn their back and only by listening to her directions try to draw what the teacher has drawn on the blackboard. The results are always very different than the original. In a sense, this is where we are with much of our attempt to reconstruct the teachings of the source manuals.

In the process, we have come to view this subject not as pure historians or anthropologists, but as martial artists –practitioners of the noble Science of Defence, the Art of fencing.

As we learn more and more, I expect our views to change and grow, but the approach we have so far followed will I suspect remain.

The key error to avoid I think is the assumption that after a mere few years of reading and playing we can suddenly teach the exact true meaning and unquestoned replciation of a 400 or 500 year old virutually extinct fighting art.

JC

[John_Clements]

I see what you mean, Stu. You must admit though, there is a dilemna of sorts at work in this. On the one hand, we want to know what it really was that a specific master was teaching in his method. While on the other hand, we want to have as inclusive an understanding of historical fighting in the period on the whole as possible.
...But then, on the gripping hand, we also seek to develop our own personal skill.

JC

[Bob Charron]

John wrote:
"And I'm glad you are recognizing the central need for footwork and body movement when cutting strongly, as opposed to limited applications of slashing and drawing slices that do not need passing or forward and backward stepping yet are not “motionless”. "

As for the first part, I have from the beginning put forward that volta stabile is one among many choices in Fiore. I never said anything different. I received a strong negative response to that very reasonable statement.

I of course recognize a central need for footwork. I think that one of the barriers in all this is the use of all these terms of that repeatedly speak to not a strong cut, but a *very strong* cut. I think it gets in the way of good communication, and could be dropped. Talking about a good cut, or a sufficient cut, would change the tone entirely.

So you led your statement in too strong a direction to correctly portray my feelings in the first part of that statement. Then you did it again in the second statement.

There are cuts that do not require any foot movement, not those that "are really not motionless". Any cut contains motion. Sometimes that motion does not involve changing the location of the feet - according to Fiore. That is opinon based on the text of Fiore's treatise.

As to cutting mechanics. I find that I don't need to extrapolate or interpolate anything in Fiore. I move from posta to posta through the precise cutting path indicated for the type of cut being used, and in proper distance, and a very good cut results. I think Fiore tells us all we need to know about cutting.

[Bob Charron]

Stewart,

1) The three volta are described as both footwork and motions of the sword. This would indicate an integrated method in which the body and the sword are not disconnected from one another.

2) Fiore does not go into detail explaining all the possibilities of what the arm cut can do. He simply says to first cut the arm, then place the point into the chest. I find that if I just do as he says, all sorts of things may happen based on the circumstances and the opponent's reaction, but making one rule for what is to happen is unecessary.

Does that make sense?

[Bob Charron]

John wrote,
"I see what you mean, Stu. You must admit though, there is a dilemna of sorts at work in this. On the one hand, we want to know what it really was that a specific master was teaching in his method. While on the other hand, we want to have as inclusive an understanding of historical fighting in the period on the whole as possible."

I don't disagree. I just think that matter is up to individuals to decide for themselves. We cannot demand anyone be a generalist, nor a specialist.

[John_Clements]

Bob wrote
I think that one of the barriers in all this is the use of all these terms of that repeatedly speak to not a strong cut, but a *very strong* cut. I think it gets in the way of good communication, and could be dropped. Talking about a good cut, or a sufficient cut, would change the tone entirely.

****

The historical source material that speak of “strong cuts” must be doing so for a reason. “Strong” is not something easily equivocated, whereas “good ” and “string” would be, they can be subjective after all and speak of result rather than effect, so I think we’ll stick to referring to “strong” cuts as so many of the manuals emphasize.

As long as there is no misunderstanding among students that cuts are not motionless (“stationary”), and that many sources stress the crucial import of footwork in cutting strongly then I have no problems.

JC