Postby Jake_Norwood » Wed Jun 18, 2003 7:16 pm
Lets all stop and breath.
Now, lest we lose our focus...
What are the major issues of this thread? It's a long thread and there's a lot of issues, but here's what I see:
1) Cutting standing still. Unless I missed something we agreed that footwork is indispensible to swordfighting, and that Fiore has many kinds of footwork. One option is to cut without moving your feet from place. This may or may not include pivoting or even stomping. We don't know what kind of cut Fiore intends that we do from such a position--a slice, a draw/push cut, a half-arm cut, or a full-power blow (the latter is unlikely, due to the need for real foot movement in such cuts). Whatever the case these still cuts are not the basis of the system, but rather a possible choice from a library of techniques for particular circumstances. Thus the issue is one of particulars and generals. "Still" cutting, whatever our interpretation of it, is clearly a particular-application technique, not a general one, due to the dynamism in combat. Again, these are all points that we essentially agree on, so any further argument about it needs to be something new.
2) One master or many for study. Again, we agree here, whether we want to see it or not. John's post--the one that Bob took offense at--was agreeing to the need for both approaches and that both had disadvantages. Likewise we agree on the fact that all any of us has are interpretations, not the "final word" of Fiore or any other master, so long as (1) what we're doing is within the descriptions set forth by the masters and (2) what we're doing works.
3)Strength. You must use "enough" power. While it appears that Bob and we disagree on how much power is "enough" it's also true that we are not "buffalo." We do agree that a cut has to have significant force to truly damage the opponent. This also touches on the "still cutting" issue, as by-and-large we maintain that a still-standing cut will lack the power of a full-body cut. Weaker or softer cuts have their place. This, like #1, is an area where semantics are masking the fact that we mostly agree and are actually close to reaching an understanding of each other's approach even if we disagree with said approach
4) Confusion about what the ARMA teaches and does. I think this is the biggest issue here. Many of us (Randall , Brian Hunt and myself, at least) have been to Bob's seminars. We went happily and came back having learned something, which has been explored in other threads and shouldn't be forgotten. We know that Bob frequently referenced Vadi, Viggiani, and Silver, and that he isn't studying Fiore alone; he also can't possibly have spent as much time as the "generalists" on other sources because of the time-intensive and very difficult process of learning Itallian and using it to not only translate and interprete Fiore. We have a frame of reference for what Bob means most of the time, and we know that some of the more extreme interpretations of what Bob's said isn't so.
The problem arises that Bob and many others here haven't seen the ARMA approach in action (this is not an attack, but a fact), and so interperet our statements about things like "strength" in an incorrect context...based on (sometimes mutual) ignorance. There's a lot of anti-ARMA mudslinging out there and most of it anymore is innocently (or ignorantly) repeated by those that don't know better but that their teacher or collegue said so. We at the ARMA (not just John C.) are serious scholars and have made significant impact on the community. We are not, as the AEMMA page states "a sparring club," nor are we "buffalo," nor are we uneducated. Many of our number have put significant work into individual masters (David Lindholm and Ringeck, Bart Walczak and Wallerstein, Keith Meyers and Mair, Fabrice Cognot and La jeu de Hache, etc). We have more time spent training "at speed" than any other group that I'm aware of. Likewise our ranks are full of military and law enforcement individuals who spend time studying violence in many forms all the time.
No one is trying to insult anyone else as far as I can tell, but lots of folks are getting uncomfortable. Let's not bolt out of here just yet. In many ways this thread represents the first major discussion between serious ARMA scholars and another school...and it's on our turf! That hasn't happened in some time, and I'd think it a shame if petty and true or perceived personal issues got involved and ruined it.
5) Lastly, as most of us have little or no access to the Getty version, and that leaves us in the unenviable position of having to get our info on it second hand. This is not a good thing, as we're prevented from making a good deal of important points for discussion with only Bob's word and the cheers of a few others. Until we have it, it will be hard to convince us of something without sources that we have availble, just as we will have a hard time arguing against any points (or for them).
So, to actually add to the thread...
What assumptions are we basing our work on? How does Bob's extensive SCA experience play into your interpretation of things--it can't not play into it, just as an Asian stylist can't but help to see things in a certain, well, Asian light. The same is true of languages, philosophy, or any activity. I think that our experiences in sparring and cutting and so forth have colored our opinions very strongly in ways that have been evident throughout this thread.
Bob?
Jake
Edited for spelling, which was awful.
Sen. Free Scholar
ARMA Deputy Director
