Question on vom tag

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I wonder if this style focus on simplicity and efficiency? Wouldn't that decrease the reaction time?

[Roger Norling]

I wonder if this style focus on simplicity and efficiency? Wouldn't that decrease the reaction time?

It most definitely does. That is why you are advised to imagine a string going from your point to your target, thus cutting the shortest possible way, and then try too keep your point aimed at your opponent a large portion of the time.

That is also why you use the Verborgene Haw (the hidden strikes) and should use thrusts and slicing just as wisely as a strikes, always knowing which is the fastest and most suitable.

And it is for this reason you are advised to not forget weaker but quicker strikes in unarmoured fencing, after having struck first.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

You're a Viking! [chuckle] I love Viking! Reminds me of Eric Northman who is a Viking vampire on "True Blood"! He is 1, 000 years old and my favorite character.

[Roger Norling]

You're a Viking! [chuckle] I love Viking! Reminds me of Eric Northman who is a Viking vampire on "True Blood"! He is 1, 000 years old and my favorite character.

Hehe, Yep I live in Sweden and my surname means the same thing as that of the Eric character... But that is about the only likeness you'll find. He is tall, slim, pale and hairless. Me I am dark, hairy, heavy and pretty stocky. More of a werewolf than a vampire.

[Jorge Cortines]

Scholars!!!
I've been travelling and had no access to internet, and just seeing so much happening on the thread
I'll try to address the topics...

*Regarding from the striking from the strong side…
I can strike from right vom tag to the left with a powerful zwerch for example, and all done from my right side by two different segno lines, right horizontal line of the segno (the point goes around in front of me) or/and left horizontal line of the segno (the point goes by my back, while mantaining my hands in the right side)… That is only possible if I'm not resting the sword on the collar bone/shoulder, while doing so I'm still cutting from my right, that is my strong side to the left and it can be done with the vorschlag or in a bind, thus not going against any teaching from the Masters... I have only this possibility because the sword is not resting on any part of the body... the stepping is the same, the range is the same, the only difference in doing as the example of the zwerch is in which of the upper hangings you finish your cut... So I still have all the 8 lines of cutting from my strong side, but just because I'm not resting the sword on the shoulder...

*About Zufechten: we understand it different. So here we'll have to make an effort in understanding each of us because even though we use the same name we are not refering to the same distance… For me Zufechten is a distance at which if I swing my sword it will not touch the tip of my opponent when he is swinging his sword it too... so doing things in zufechten are things that when can be changed in krieg...

*About feints. None of the Masters suggest that the Art consists of feinting, they are a tool but you should never abuse them, I can not recall what Master even said that if you feint too much you are not masterful in the Art… I'll have to look for that quote!!!! Today it almost looks as if feinting was the Art, even though most of the technics are not feints but rather commited attacks and then working your way from there... I don't consider feinting a core concept, all Masters suggest that if you are afraid the Art is not for you... I would not confuse frequens motus with feinting, yes feinting can be part of frequens motus, but in no way frequens motus is feinting... Feinting takes two parts, the one who feints and the one who takes the bait or not, that is why feinting is not the Art... it is a small part of the Art...

*Taking/waiting/wanting/looking/regaining/keeping the Vor: It's been a long time since I haven't heard this pharses, personally I don't use them (neither any of our study group) with the Rosetta Stone we understand very different "Vor"…
Why we don't understand each other, is because we see concepts differently...
However the Master do address on how to deal with closing in (by being in frequens motus, guarding yourself, and with good heart...) this is where resting the sword on the shoulder does not fit IMO, yes we can move our legs and feet, but we are not guarding ourself by resting the sword on the shoulder, if we are not guarding our bodies how can we have a good heart to go after our opponent? what we see today is waiting for the opponent to take a bad step, throw an out of range strike to snap a fast counter, is this what the Masters are saying they did or that we should do? Is this what we see in the images? strikes from a distance? or outtimed strikes?

*Reading intentions. You are adviced by all Masters to hide your intentions, if you are hidding them, in frequens motus, how can I read my opponent? if the sword is resting on the shoulder it is easy to see when it moves either if they are feinting or commiting an attack... however if the sword was already in vom tag in frequens motus guarding the whle of the upper oppening, how would I read his intentions? he is already in frequens motus, his sword is already moving, he is alreadyguarding the whole oppening, he is ready to cut through the 8 lines of attack...

*Just moving my feet to get in or out of zufechten does nothing to prevent my opponent from continuing trying to close to krieg... and having that sword resting on the shoulder does not cover you from any attack from him... "Not even constant motion provides absolute safety and relying too much on that can leave you vulnerable too, depending on where you apply that concept." - Frequens motus holds the beginning, the middle and the end of fencing...-

*Krieg. "BUT there is no doubt that you are advised not to rush to krieg" disagree on how you stated it, all the Art is on how to close in to krieg to hit without being hit... the Masters say to close in to krieg using their teachings (core principles) if you close in not using their teachings (rushing) you can get hit... one of their teachings is frequens motus, close in in frequens motus, because Frequens motus holds the beginning, the middle and the end of fencing...- because you are closing in guarding your oppenings, but closing in with the sword resting on the shoulder is not frequens motus, it does nothing to guard your body, so you may get hit if you close in...

*Vorschalg: As I expressed above I understand differently the concept of vor and therefore vorschlag...

*What we can see in the plates of the Masters are not fighters moving in zufechten, the technics are not used in zufechten, in zufechten I cannot neutralize the threat of my opponent, I cannot control the decision of my opponent to leap into krieg… trying to keep a distance (zufechten) to start an attack, by that reasoning the whole Art is just snapping, snipping from a distance, is that what the Masters say to do? is that what we see in the plates? look at Mair... Meyer... Fiore... Vadi... Wilham... Talhoffer... do you see them sniping from a distance? Where are we told to outtime our opponents from a distance? What the Masters tell us is to be audiciuos, to have a good heart, if the fighter is afraid then the Art is not for him/she... The Masters are clear and specific use the core teachings to close in to attack without being attacked...

"if your opponent is good at defending, often move back into zufechten"... I don't agree, I don't recall any Master suggesting moving back to zufechten… what happens if you fight a bully? Try to withdraw and he keeps following you in krieg or in ringen am schwert (he keeps pressuring you as you said), and he keeps closing and closing, and you continue to try to withdraw to zufechten?

"Again, Hs3227a and other manuscript says that you need to know how to move well back and forth and be ready to balance your opponents stepping, as if on a scale." This clearly refers to waage!!! the whole of JC's article... As I interpret this, is at krieg or ringen am schwert you can only do this, how else can I balance my opponent stepping (in zufechten?), as I see it only in krieg or in ringen am schwert... so as I see it there is no going back to zufechten but rather know waage, opening and closing the key in krieg or ringen am schwert to balance my opponent stepping...

*"Hs.3227a mentions how you will lay under you "all the drumming and inventions by the Leychmeistere or play masters, since the five strokes are the foundation of Liechtenauer's art". We do not know for sure what is intended by Masters in the reference you make."
The Masters say that if you understand and use the core principles you will be able to defeat a lamb as well as a lion, that a child may beat a Master if he know the teachings... so I understand that the teachings are meant to be used against skillful opponents not just peasants...

*"I'm wondering what you guys think of this passage from Jud Lew:"
That in every translation there is a part of interpretation... I'm in no way someone with skills in transcription and translation, however I went asking, and what I understood is that the word "an" can actually be translated as: "close to", "at", "besides", "against", it is a tricky business the translation, because the author gets to put his "own" interpretation... Tobler is just doing that, interpreting an as on, but it can be close to or at or besides... what can give us the edge on which of the meanings best suits, we must put it in context... what context? frequens motus, guarding, striking, etc... in a fight!!! Now with context of a fight that you need to be in frequens motus, guarding your body, closing in, fighting in krieg, does an = on? probably there is a better translation for an... like close to or at... the shoulder

*"Meyer also says you should only remain in a guard for a very short time; only enough to evaluate the situation"
Remaining in a guard does not mean the sword should be resting on the shoulder. IMO it means that you should be in that guard, let's say right VT but the VT should be moving covering all of your upper right oppening, now do not remain to much time covering your right upper oppening with a moving guard (just as boxers do!!! ) but continue guarding other oppenings... all of this is frequens motus, mvoing your guard, transitioning to other guards, stepping... all of it...

*"Also, certain aspects like Meyer's very low and outstretched postures can be interpreted as what the author of the first part of Hs.3227a ridicules as Leychmaisters. "
DON NOT AGREE!!! I do not concur with your interpretation... Meyer is in pretty accordance to the early Masters. His is in wide waage.
Being in waage (wide), you are stable to displace any cut, and being in waage (as the images of Meyer) with little movement (not wide movements) you cover almost all of your body (try the wide waage stance in phlug vs a straight up stance in phlug, where are you covering more of your body with less movement?)... Now this is in accordance to HS3227a, where Master L says that you should do wide coverings, but not wide parrys.
"For you should strike or thrust in the shortest and nearest way possible. For in this righteous fencing do not make wide or ungainly parries or fence in large movements by which people restrict themselves."
"From the sword, do good and wide covers."
That's it, he is widely covered, does not need to move his sword lots of distance to cover himself.... in accordance both Masters... Meyer is covered with little movement... what the HS3227a says is about being foolish is about wide cuts, not about wide coverings, so no inconsistency between both teachings at least IMO as how I see things... By the way Meyer should be in frequens motus, not resting a sword on his shoulder in that waage
You even see in Meyer, where they are in waage crossing sword in krieg, winding... so being in waage does not disagrees with any teaching from HS3227a...

Jorge

[Roger Norling]

Hi again Jorge! That's quite a bit to chew on.

First of all, I agree that changing guards frequently IS good in zufechten, which btw we both regard pretty similarly; a distance that no one can strike from without stepping. Also, I agree that remaining in VT when someone is striking at you is bad, but I doubt that anyone is that foolish. Instead he will use a versetzen, an absetzen or just step out of danger.

However, it is pretty clear to me that the manuscripts tell you to strike from high right first, if you are right-handed, and I think I have showed that pretty clearly.

"...and left with right is how you will fence with strength. If you only strike after, you will have little joy from his art
---
Hear what is bad; do not fence above left if you are a right hander. And if you are a left hander then leave the right behind and fence rather from high left to low (on the right).
---
Also know and note that when he says that you should show art, then he intends that the artful fencer should place his left foot forward and strike with it from the right side straight at the man with true strikes as soon as you see how you can take him and reach him with your own steps. Also when you want to fence strongly, then fence from the left side with the whole body and with full force to the head and to the body wherever you can hit" - Hs.3227a

However, striking from your right shoulder towards your opponent's right side, even with the sword resting on your shoulder IS possible. I thought we had already established that earlier in the thread?

So, a question; if you are supposed to strike your Vorschlag from high right primarily, how does that go with constant motion? Both can't be right. I am not saying you shouldn't work with different guards, but these quotes seem to contradict doing so for offensive purposes by cutting through all eight lines.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the art revolves around feinting... Neither do I think anyone has confused frequent motion with feinting, although both serve a similar purpose. So, with your 3d and 4th passage I am not so sure whom you are targeting.

I really think you are completely misunderstanding the "resting". If it is done, then it is done so at a "safe" distance, not when you are actually cutting or thrusting. But resting the blade on the shoulder IS guarding yourself, just as much as moving your blade from Vom Tag to Pflug, if not more. You can do all Versetzen quite excellently from VT resting on your shoulder. Just moving between guards does not provide MORE protection, although it certainly can confuse your opponent and in that sense provides more protection. But, if you are moving only to confuse your opponent, which can be good, you can also confuse yourself about your openings, leaving you vulnerable to nachreissen attacks. Distance management is the key here. So, changing guards frequently in Zufechten is good. In Krieg you are quite busy with other things...

Hiding your intentions can partly be done through frequent motion, but just as I mentioned earlier in this thread it can also be read like any regular deflection shooting. You mention this too, so we seem to agree.

In Krieg, constant motion is vital, with the whole body. Locking up will get you "killed". But just because the manuscripts largely focus on Krieg doesn't necessarily mean that it is in Krieg you should spend most of your time. It could just as well be a result of the fact that it is the most dangerous and complex part and that it needs the most focus because of that fact. Didn't I provide quotes telling us not to "rush to krieg"? If not, then I will have to get back with those.
IF we rush to Krieg, which many of us do much too often, including me, then double hits are a high risk. I believe that the balance that is mentioned in 3227a is very important here...

Of course you are not supposed to work only from Zufechten. But neither are you supposed to rush upon your opponent without a proper plan at any time. That is the whole point of the Vorschlag and the Meister Haw. You strike once and then you pack up and go home. Krieg is a failed attempt at a Meister Haw and not something you desire, although it is quite likely you will end up in it, especially when your skills are equal or if your opponent is better than you. Thus the need to maintain constant motion to keep the Vor. Keeping in constant motion with various attacks after the first strike can even defeat better skills and techniques, as Hs.3227a examples.

The key question is what frequent motion in Zufechten means. Since you are told to strike from high right normally, with a meisterhaw or attack with a thrust and then continue with winden while in Krieg, this limits what you should do somewhat, in my opinion. How often you change guards in the early manuscripts is not clear or even in the later like Meyer. You are told to not remain too long in a guard in Hs.3227a, which certainly can be interpreted in many ways.

I do not agree that Hs.3227a speaks of the Waage in the sense that JC uses it. Instead I believe it describes your distance relationship to your opponent. If he moves towards you, you step back, if he steps to his right, you do likewise. Thus keeping the balance. By controlling distance you control the fight in Zufechten and can win the vorschlag at the time when a good opportunity arises.

The text is ambiguous to say the least, but it mentions stepping back and forth (in English this time):

"Also know that when you fence with another you should step with caution and be sure in them [the steps or movements] as if you were standing on a scale and adapt accordingly if you go forward or backward as is fitting.
---
You should also show reach in your fencing as is suitable and not step too wide, so that you can pull back and be ready for another step backwards or forwards."

Leychmeisters... Yes the teachings were originally designed to be used against BOTH good fencers and "peasants", quite clearly, as well as against those trained in other schools and traditions. But, what we were discussing originally was the peasant's strike, the Buffalo cut and how to counter a superpowerful cut from above. Some claimed that it couldn't be done from the right VT, if I remember correctly. And again, several manuscripts quite explicitly express that the art does not revolve around force, but around technique.

Regarding the outstretched postures of Meyer and how the authors of Hs.3227a may have regarded them. Do you not see a difference in postures between the early 15th century manuscripts like Codex Wallerstein, The Gladiatoria Fechtbuch, The Solothurner Fechtbuch and Paulus Kal compared to the later 16th century manuscripts of Mair and Meyer? Even Mair is more upright than Meyer.

It seems to me that there was a development towards lower and more outstretched stances in the manuscripts. If it is related to schulfechten or not, I have no idea. I do not think it is due to artistic license, since the wrestling stances are lower and often involve bent knees.

It may have been a development from armoured fencing with perhaps more upright stances compared to school fencing, with perhaps more acrobatic and agile fencers of a regular and selective fencing guild recruited from the hard working burghers. Or, it could be local variations or different lines of styles within KDF. Clear to me at least, is that the fencing of Meyer is not exactly the same as that of Codex Wallerstein...

With this I will try to refrain from posting in this thread any more, since I feel that we are beginning to move around in circles and often repeat what has already been said. I don't think I can say things more clearly than I have done thus far in this thread. It's been good discussing this though, since it has forced me to define things in my head that have been slightly unfocused.

Good luck with your training and your studies!

[Alex Bourdas]

I agree with Roger that I think this argument is getting a bit circular, and really should start to wind down, but I still think there are some points worth making.

However the Master do address on how to deal with closing in (by being in frequens motus, guarding yourself, and with good heart...) this is where resting the sword on the shoulder does not fit IMO, yes we can move our legs and feet, but we are not guarding ourself by resting the sword on the shoulder, if we are not guarding our bodies how can we have a good heart to go after our opponent?

The problem is that being in a non-resting shoulder guard isn't automatically more defensive than a resting shoulder guard. The non-resting guard doesn't cover much more of the openings than the resting guard does. Besides, in Zufechten, you don't need to be in a position that actively covers you. You only need to be in a position in which you can quickly move into a position which does. The defensive capabilities of vom tag when used by itself are irrelavant. You defend your body from vom tag by moving into a different position, or parrying, or counter-striking when you enter krieg.
And as for the argument that if we are not directly guarding our bodies in a guard, then we must not have good heart, does that mean that any that uses Alber, or Schrankhut, or Nebenhut, has bad heart because they've left openings?

*"I'm wondering what you guys think of this passage from Jud Lew:"
That in every translation there is a part of interpretation... I'm in no way someone with skills in transcription and translation, however I went asking, and what I understood is that the word "an" can actually be translated as: "close to", "at", "besides", "against", it is a tricky business the translation, because the author gets to put his "own" interpretation... Tobler is just doing that, interpreting an as on, but it can be close to or at or besides... what can give us the edge on which of the meanings best suits, we must put it in context... what context? frequens motus, guarding, striking, etc... in a fight!!! Now with context of a fight that you need to be in frequens motus, guarding your body, closing in, fighting in krieg, does an = on? probably there is a better translation for an... like close to or at... the shoulder

Yes, it is quite possible than on is not accurate. However, I think it is. Which of these two sentences makes more sense "hold your sword with the flat on the shoulder" or "hold your sword with the flat near the shoulder". In the first, the use of the word flat provides with valuable information, in the second it does not. If all he meant was hold your sword near the shoulder, why bother including the detail about the flat?
If you hold your sword near your shoulder, the flat has to be near the shoulder. There is only any sense in specifying the flat when the sword is rested, as that is when blade alignment can change if it's flat or blade resting.

[Jonathan Hill]

I’ll make this my last as well.

A guard covering an area, I would only use that term if I were refereeing to a sabre guard. Inside guard covers the inside line (stomach side)from direct attacks, outside guard covers your back side, the outside line. Holding the blade in that position does protect you. Many Longsword guards (yes there are some) are not guards of protection by holding the blade at a position, or even moving it around that position, they are guards with the potential to protect you when you move them from one guard to another. Every guard leaves openings, this is true on every weapon, you cannot guard every spot on your body at the same time. High Von Tam leaves a ton of openings but it is the transition from this guard to another than protects you. The Italian philosophy is to hit you when you move as you cannot move and defend yourself at the same time, there is an ‘advantage of time’ meaning you moved and the time it takes you to move is an opening. Constant motion that creates openings is bad, frequent motion that closes them is good.

Feints and range of fight. It is much easier to fight at the extreme edge of your distance as you do not risk as much, it takes more courage/audacity to close distance and risk being hit to get in your own hits, this is where most manuals deal with the fight. If people today are keeping the fight at the full extent of the range it may be because of different reasons, but one valid reason is that a cut from range still cuts you. Feinting is just one tactic to create an opening in your opponent so that you may take advantage of it, and frankly it works better with a parry riposte system and isn’t that great of an idea if you fight in stesso tempi like long sword encourages. It is just one tool in the toolbox, but until other fighters learn to overcome that tool and counter it, it works.

Reading intentions: the masters tell you not to reveal your intentions because of people reading them. Many of the experienced fighters can tell with great certainty what you will do by just looking at you, something I hope to do with great proficiency in the future. If I know what you will do I am well prepared to deal with you, and you have already lost. If you neglect learning to read your opponent you handicap yourself. A fight can be won in Zufechten, you just need to have read your opponent properly, you will see this in fights when one fighter strikes and his opponent had no way of defending himself at all, or when one fighter strikes and his opponent counters him perfectly in one blow, the fight was won before the attack happened. These are also just tools in the toolbox.

Using the video Greg just posted there were two spots that I would say the fight was won before the blade was used. 1:15 and 3:15 both times the actions were read such that the fighter (Greg I think) only needed one blow. Greg’s video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quSRn6OvFgo

I still have not seen one good reason that resting the blade is weak. The only practical problem I saw was someone who actually allowed the blade to get lodged under the mask while resting it and therefore could not use the blade. That was just funny and the only real weakness I have seen, but also a very valid issue in todays sparring. The real problem was holding the blade too close to the head and strikes from there could just cut the ear off.

[Jorge Cortines]

Scholars,

Just getting back... I agree this has been a long thread, and I will be not posting any further... so this are my closing remarks and something to think about it... sorry it is a long long post with images...

This is the proposition:
*I think we all agree the sources teach constant movement and guarding

I keep in constant movement by not only using footwork, I keep constant movement by guarding my body by not keeping my guard stationary (resting the flat on the shoulder), where I'm in zufechten (in which case it will be good as I'm closing openings not letting my opponent come to blows) or in krieg or in ringen am schwert...

As to why would I do it, first that is what we understand from the sources, how did I concluded this, Master Vadi says use your sword as a shield (Italians), Fiore talks about coverta, Master Liechtenauer (germans) says do wide coverings, Master Dobringer, concurs, and so Meyer, Mair, Ringeck, Wilham, Digarssi, Silver even all the way to Capo Ferro...

Why would I do coverings (coverta or wide coverings or use my sword as a shield, etc) because I want to enter from zufechten to krieg (I'm with good heart, audiciuos, good spirit or whatever, because I know I can enter krieg safely from zufechten because I'm covered), in krieg is where I can hit my opponent, and do all those nice technics we see and read in the source material... Can I cut from being moving my guard? Yes, can I bind? yes, can I cover myself so I don't get hit? yes...

I don't really see how resting the flat let's me bind, cover myself, or make certain cuts without first going through the not resting on the shoulder guard... so why rest it if I can already be where I can bind, cut, cover?

So how I see things is in context, I see constant movement of my guard, being used as a shield, covering my oppenings, from where I can cut through the 8 lines of the segno when I feel I can hit, from where I cannot get hit because my sword is moving to close oppenings like a shield, and I do this before I enter krieg... I'm not doing wide parries, I'm doing wide coverings, I'm in motion...

Here I post some images of Vom Tag:
Fiore:






Fiore doesn't show the flat resting... in third image it looks like the edge is resting on the shoulder, but does it? or is it near the shoulder? why posta di donna is not the same image (if resting the sword on the shoulder, we would see the same posta,look at the videos of guys resting their swords on the shoulder they just look like identical) if it is the same Master?

Lets look at more images:

Vadi, a low VT, almost looks like phlug but it is not resting... a high posta di donna in Fiore, and low PDD in Vadi, neither resting... how can we explain this? the guard is in motion...


Talhoffer, not resting...


Mair right and left low VT in krieg... but wait their other right and left VT that are high... within the same Mair!!! how can this be... because they teach constant movement, so the do like boxers do mover their sword covering their oppenings, not holding a stance and not resting the sword on the shoulder...

Mair, now he is up there, not resting the flat...

Mair again, now he is low, is he resting the flat, why he drew high and low VTs? they are moving there guard, or can we explain this by resting the flat? think about it...


Mair...

Vadi again... now he is up and not resting the flat... posta di falcone

Not resting any flat... either of the fighter either left or right VT...

Lets look at more images...










And yet more images where there is no resting of the flat while doing VT either high or low:



















All this images don't show resting the flat on the shoulder, some are high the head some are just high above and near the shoulder... again there images from the same Master like Mair, that has VT all over the right or left VT but not resting the flat...

and more images:











Now the doubtful images:



I see a shadow... hmmm but it can be me...
Is he really resting it?

try to put the cross on your arm pit and at the same time have your weak behind your head...

I don't see it resting I even see it more foward and low... guarding... movement...


the flat on the shoulder? really? again try to put the cross on the arm pit and the weak behind your head..




...but are they really resting the flat? but how can I explain making coverta, or using the sword as a shield or making wide parries or even explaining why the same Master depicts different positions for the same guard?

The Master chose to put these images for some reason, they are not random...then why we don't see within a same Master the exact same position with the same named guard? why between Masters we see these images? why from all of the images we pick the few that are confusing as resting the flat on the shoulder and discard many many more that show clearly not flat resting, and show movement

This is why I don't see any resting of the blade on the shoulder, first I cannot guard anything, the flat for defense, the edge for attack, the flat is on my shoulder... hmmm by the flat being rested on the shoulder I cannot explain why in one source like Mair, or Fiore there are so many different vom tags, posta di donnas, the only way simple to explain is that they are moving there swords to cover themselves "just as boxers do" do move their hands (guards) so they can cover there bodys, they do not rest them.... also being the sword in motion on a guard explains why from source to source you never see the exact same position (resting the flat on the shoulder should result in almost identical images which we don't see within a source book, or between source literature), resting the flat on the shoulder needs a more complex explanation to this images, not resting it you can explain them by only understanding that the guard is moving, not resting, covering the oppening... making sense between images and text in context of motion, in context of covering...

As I see it moving a guard does close the oppening. Now being "as boxers do" with your VT is one thing it does close that upper oppening, transtioning to other guards help you close other oppenings. And by the way when you rest your flat on the shoulder when you want to do something you first have to pass to not resting the sword on the shoulder LOL =) why loss time, strength, reach when you can already be there?

Alex: by what I explained and what I see and understand from the images and text above it makes more sense to me to say the flat is near the shoulder, why explain the flat near the shoulder, because you are covering your upper oppening it is moving... also do you think shrank, alber or nebehut do not guard? if you see them as stationary they really don't but if you see them as constant movement guards, then they do, and you will find out they are not wide movements, but wide coverings...

Jonathan: you see oppenings in the guards because you see static guards (holding positions), but if they are moving, the oppening and closing is quite fast so where should I attack if the coverta is done all the time?

I have yet to see an advantage to resting the flat on the shoulder, and to see explanations of why there is no one VT inside a same source or between sources that is just the same image that can be explained by resting the flat on the shoulder...

Regards,

Jorge

PD. Roger, why we may not agree is because we have different core assumption, different core principles, we understand different on what it is the Art is founded on... thus we understand different the concepts...

[Andreas Stahlberg]

What a wonderful collection of images!!!!!! Thanks for sharing.

To the point: I'm not entirely sure that the guard Vom Tag is assumed with the flat resting on the shoulder, but I think there is textual evidence (earlier in the thread) that in preparation for the zwerch people sometimes turned the flat. I'm not sayig this was common practice, but that it occurred.

Now, personal experience warns me against resting any part of the blade to heavily on the shoulder because it slows me down and makes my counters slower. It can be described as heaviness in getting the blade moving, a sort of law of inertia. However, if I "rest" my sword very lightly on the shoulder, I find the position advantageous. But it requires an active sword, which means small, minute movements to keep the sword "alive" and not dead weight. Am I making sense at all?

/Andreas

[Stacy Clifford]

Now, personal experience warns me against resting any part of the blade to heavily on the shoulder because it slows me down and makes my counters slower. It can be described as heaviness in getting the blade moving, a sort of law of inertia. However, if I "rest" my sword very lightly on the shoulder, I find the position advantageous. But it requires an active sword, which means small, minute movements to keep the sword "alive" and not dead weight. Am I making sense at all?

/Andreas

Yes Andreas, you're making sense. What drives us nuts the most is the videos we see of people resting the sword on the shoulder in a slack manner almost as if they're merely carrying it down the road. That's just not being coiled, dangerous, and ready to strike, which is what fighting is all about.