Masters of Defense!

[Jonathan Waller]

Dave,
A few things to think about is that when coming up with a sequence for a film of this type, one has to make it last longer than it would in reality and for more moves to be incorperated than would be found in anyone actual fight. Too much 'reality' and it becomes hard to learn from what you see, or perhaps don't see <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />.

Regards to footwork. It is not based on any master. Dad developed his approach before the manuals were easily available, starting his work at the begining of the 60's. His approach was to use the weapon and find out how the body works best with it. If you look at,
Body mechanics
Design of the weapon
Clothing/protection worn
Fighters intent
Enviroment.
Yoou can think of what affects the fighter and what they can do and or choose to do. Of course the style you have studied will also be a consideration. Hence his approach and therefore that also of the Guild, it to develop an understanding of the Principles through the relation between weapon design and body mechanics. If one then wants to study a historic master one can, armed with a physical vocabulary under your belt. After all we can only interpret what we believe that the masters are trying to say and we don't know, with many of then how effective their styles were, certainly for people other than themselves.

As to not having seen this kind of footwork in any of you sparring videos, that probably because you not seen someone trained in our method, sparring in those videos <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I've not actually seen Terry using his system in anything other than slow, one/two move demonstartions, so can't really say, but I would say that much of what we do is quiet dissimilar if looked at in detail.

All the best

[John_Clements]

I'll add that JW Senior's appproach is in no way "a-historical" or in anyway invalid as a result of it being developed independantly from a historical source text, because we have every reason to believe that fighting men throughout history have done the very same thing. Not every one who picked up a sword or rapier was "taught by a master" like a Capo Fero or Marrozo, after all. Many men simply fought instinctively and were taught from real life on the street and so developed their own ideas that were sound even if they never had opportunity or request to write them down systematically. The proof is in the results not the theory. The MOD video is a very good source of inspiration and information and should be viewed as an example of what is possible.

JC

[Jonathan Waller]

Thanks John,
Your point is something that I have felt to be important. The surviving manuals we have are rare specimens that have, survived through luck, care etc. How many have been lost over the passage of time. One can not assume that just because we have a surviving text that it was by a master that actualy knew what they were doing, maybe they stole ides from another master, misinterpreted anothers work, or just had ideas that did not work, but there manual has survived where perhaps the systems of more skillful masters have not, or were not even writen down! Just see the number of modern martial arts books that are going round teaching all kinds of rubbish. Imagine if they were the only ones to survive the next 500 years!
We have to be careful when dealing with the old manuals, and not treat them as ultimate truths. We must not either assume that because we feel we understand the techniques, that we know what the Mater taught, or that we are actually doing that masters system. We are only interpreting that system.

Back to the original point. My father started his study, independantly of the manuals, basing his work on Principle and philosophy, some of which I mentioned in the earlier post. When he did get to the manuals, he found that most of the principles he followed were used or advocated in the manuals, and that there were many of the tehiniques etc. that he did which were illustrated in them as well. He of course knew, that you find that there is nothing new and that our ancestors were doing things that worked, we have no real way fo improving what they did, just re-learning. He did find it reassuring that what he felt to be right instinctively and upon his own approach seemed to verified by the manuals.

All the best

[Dave Housteau]

I had posted a reply earlier, but it has not shown up as of yet. So, this may end up being a double, but no harm done.

Mr. Waller,

Thank you for your detailed answer in describing not only the video sequence, but your method and theory of historic study as well. I see that it is very similar to the ARMA approach by mixing in real world experimentation along with historic source materials, as John pointed out so well.

Dave