voiding attacks?

[Frederico Martins]

sorry, I dont know those terms, but yes, it was practiced in the 18 century too.

They end up being out of range but it is what I said, when you strike you strike to reach your opponent with a step, but when you parry, you get out with a step, to keep distance and safety, if you stay, you get hit, if you are slow to step, he can follow you, if you feel confortable you can step less back on the parry and do a faster counter attack, so you should always be on the limit of range.

Ive seen the last freeplay part again, and actually lots of times they end, even at fast speed, in situation that they would get hit if they didn't parry with the staff, that is, are on striking distance.

it doesnt make sense to stay closer at least with the staffs, because that simple leads to close combat and grappling, staffs dont cut so it is pretty easy for the fisically taller and stronger figter to punch or grab the other guy if they stay fencing to close, at a closer distance it is only staff fighting if both fencer are playing the game with a rule like "lets not grapple".

In jogo do pau, when a superior fencer is able to get in close, safely, without getting hit on the hands etc, then he can beat the opponent easily, but to break that distance safely already means he is the superior fencer.
Try parrying full speed oblique strikes with staffs, is very dangerous because of the lack of hand guards. Of couse if you are striking with controlled strikes specially with the hands wide on the grip and stopping the strike before he goes through, then anyone can parry stepping in.

sorry about the long post, probably borring, but i dont practice other arts and like to talk about it.

[RayMcCullough]

No problem about the long post. I didn't think it was that long.

Your second paragragh discription sounds like dui tempo.
..."if you feel confortable you can step less back on the parry and do a faster counter attack, so you should always be on the limit of range."
Trying to parry then repost. Parrying then making an attack after the parry. That's dui tempo in a nutshell.
This is not what was taught as a best defense in the middle ages and the Renaissance. They tried to parry at the same time and same motion that they attacked. Striking and parrying at the same time or in the same time with the same motion. They didn't want to make a defense that didn't threaten the attacker. Dui tempo doesn't do that. Not that just parrying didn't happen. It was just not safe to fight only in dui tempo trying to stay out of a bind.

That was why I figured it developed into Jogo do pau in the 18th centuryor later.

[Frederico Martins]

Thanks for your explanation of what dui tempo means I could guess by the words but since we don't use that expression I couldn’t know for sure.


I understand what you mean by parrying and attacking with the same motion, and I’ve seen it being used with sword.

we do have something similar to that, here in number 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukTeaIHe1kQ&t=28s


It is almost but not at the same time, but this is parrying with the weapon aiming at the opponent, and with just a quick forward step you thrust towards the opponent, if done in time, it is possibly the fastest counter attack we have with staffs.

it is not at the same time, and I don-t believe it can be with staffs for several reasons.

Mostly because of the lack of hand guard, for the parrying and striking at same time to happen, the parry has to be done close to the hands(of the defender), for range, and a hit in the hands, even if not direct, but a sliding from the parrying staff to the hands can be damaging.

Also, with staffs the strikes must make enough power to break bones, so they need to be stronger, the blade of the weapons doesn’t need to generate that much power to be deadly or disabling. And to parry that kind of strikes, even with oblique deflective parries, one must direct the power of the parry in the direction of the strike, this means that the power that would hit the opponent, if parrying and striking at same time with staffs, even disregarding the hand safety, would be minimal, and not that threatening also due to the lack of blade.

On the Bind, with staffs, that have no big short range danger, due to the lack of blades, and are very easy to grab, a bind with staffs is just a call for the physically stronger fighter to grab and go for close combat, that might be something you would want to do if you are stronger than your opponent at close combat, but it is not an ideal situation for some people, and always undisarable when there are multiple opponents.

It is my belief that these kind of moves, parrying and striking at the same time are a technique allowed by the superior technology that is the sword(bladed and with handguard), that is not the same to say that jogo do pau is inferior or not the best way to do it with staffs, on the contrary, it is very demanding on parrying technique due to the lack of those technological advantages of the sword.

If you find documentation of this kind of moves with staffs I almost can guarantee there are major mistakes in the striking technique, such as striking with shorter range, not extending the arms, striking with a wide grip, that kind of strikes might allow it. But with the strikes we do in jogo do pau, I dont believe it would work.

Now back on the topic of voids, That is a situation on that this parrying and striking happens at almost the same time. If you assume footwork as defensive technique.
For example if you just step back, out of range, and at the same time, strike to the hands(dont need to step forward if you are just striking for the hands), both strikes have to end on practically the same instant, because if you are striking to the opponent’s hands and your strike is too late, he would not have his hands there anymore.

Hope it makes sense.

[Benjamin Abbott]

Voiding and counterattacking form a central part of George Silver's system, at least as interpreted by Stephen Hand. I've often used the technique in sparring to good effect.