Quick discussion thought

[John_Clements]

If the opponent moves, you strike; if the opponent doesn’t move you strike. ...Why?

Because if you move the opponent will strike; if you do not move the opponent will strike. This is the Art; a "paradox of defense."

Thoughts/comments?

[JeffGentry]

Hey John

Well after Jake's 1.0 and reading Meyer quit abit, i am becoming convinced that the four opening's are very important, when i look at Ringeck and Vadi, Fiore any of the Old Master's, it is becoming more apparent( at least to me) that if i know the 4 opening's and can determine what stance/gaurd my oppnent is in i can narrow down how/where he can strike, and i can pick my strike's to kill and defend at the same time and fight how i want, if he move's ok not a big deal and if he doesn't move then tough luck for him, I want to control the fight and his movement or lack there of is no concern to me as long as i strike the opening i choose to strike and close off the opening he wanted to attack.

I think this is partly why we have the Miesterhau, in any fight there is a certain tempo and i want to control the tempo because then it is my fight to win or lose not his to kill me.

[Casper Bradak]

I think "fire and maneuver" makes a good analogy. You must use significant fire (strikes) to keep him occupied in order to defeat him or maneuver, in order to gain a better firing position (advantage) in order to defeat him, keepin the initiative, advantage, and the vor.
If he occupies you with his strikes, keeping the vor, he will be able to maneuver while you are pinned, and you will be defeated unless you can retake the advantage or the vor and begin to maneuver on him.

[TimSheetz]

Similar to what Casper was saying....

I think that to win you must seize the initiative. To seize the initiative you must attack. If the opponent initates first the only way to beat him is to strike - preferably to injure but at a minimum to break his attack and put himi on the defensive. If the opponent does not attack, you still must strike to take the initiative.

I think Matt Larsen mentioned last summer about "dominant position" in his combatives class... the strike is the dominant position of the Long Sword I think.

Tim Sheetz

ARMA - PISA

[robrobertson]

My experience, and I'm new to arma but I used to fight quite a bit when I was younger, is that you can't just stand there and win a fight.

If you're both standing there breathing and nobody moves, your mind will start to wonder. Then you'll probably get hit. You've got to stay focused! Tossing some shots out there is a great way to do that.

If your opponent moves and you just stand there, then you'll most likely be taught "the lesson of the well driven tent peg"!

Rob

[Jeffrey Hull]

You must hit the opponent sometime -- so go ahead and do so. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[GaryGrzybek]

I often wonder if there is a fine line here when "taking the initiative". I mean, if the opponent fails to egage or hesitates then the only logical thing to do is take advantage of the situation. On the other hand, if the opponent strikes first you may be able to exploit an opening created by his attack and counter accordingly. I understand that fighting defensively is not the wise choice but in some cases could it be advantageous?

[JeffGentry]

hello Gary

I agree some time's it is advantageous to fight a little(not much though) in the after. The Old Master's even say when he thrust you thrust when he strike's you strike.

Sun Zsu say's " when you are strong appear weak", and i think sometime's it can work to your advantage,as far as exploiting opening's i am trying to learn how to analyze the gaurd's so i know what strike's my opponent has at his disposal so i can pick my strike at his opening and not concern my self with what they do just strike the opponent and kill him so his sword or strike is no concern to me, and patience to wait on the attack at time's is a part of the art and paradox of defense.

This is realy the science and art of defense and it is a very paradoxial science and art, because it is subject to human judgement the "rule's" are very flexible.

This whole thing of actualy Sword fighting (with blunt's or sharp's) in reality is a paradox's in itself, in that a person make's the choice to stand there and take the chance of death by drawing his sword and returning the challenge, instead of running away,lol, it is a whole other type of will to survive that is in people like us.

Is just my thought's MHO take it for what it is worth.

[John_Clements]

I think fighting skill is far more about the ability to respond to a threat, not to stand and wait for it.

For example, in 1389 Hanko Doebringer wrote how Master Liechtenauer had the saying: “who is lying is dead, who moves still lives.” We might also recall Filippo Vadi’s instruction: “Be always matched with your enemy while moving, attacking or defending, and what I say never forget: as soon as you see his sword begin to move, or if he moves, or even if he attacks, go back or let him find you near.”

Yet, none of this agressiveness means failing to take advantage of an opening offered by an opponent's own attack or missing the opening created after his attack misses. In each case, before or after, we take the initiative.

JC

[GaryGrzybek]

John wrote:

"I think fighting skill is far more about the ability to respond to a threat, not to stand and wait for it"

That makes perfect sense to me. In each case whether we fight in the Vor or the Nach is it about taking the initiative as the masters tell us.

[JeffGentry]

Hello again

I think fighting skill is far more about the ability to respond to a threat, not to stand and wait for it.

"responding to a threat" in my mind implie's that you have in some way shape or form been attacked.

Yet, none of this agressiveness means failing to take advantage of an opening offered by an opponent's own attack or missing the opening created after his attack misses. In each case, before or after, we take the initiative.

I totaly agree with your statement John, like i said earlier in most fight's being able to control the tempo of a fight and fighting your fight as opposed to responding and letting your opponent control what you do is very important.

isn't that part of the paradox? To move and strike when you want/need to seize the initiative and not when the opponent force's you too, there by you control the tempo of the fight and increase your ability to survive, sometime's not doing anything will force the opposition to do what you want them to/expect them to and there by hand you the initiative and allow you to kill them, again the paradox of defense.


Boy very difficult subject John you trying to fry my brain? <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[John_Clements]

It goes without saying that it’s hard to counter-attack and hurt your opponent when you are having to play defense. As the rapier master Ridolfo Capo Ferro wrote in 1610, Offesa è una difesa—“offense is defense.”

JC

[JeffGentry]

Revisiting this thread <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

If the opponent moves, you strike; if the opponent doesn’t move you strike. ...

I had a moment last night at work and thought about a recent experience in that if the opponent move's i will move to strike in defense, if he doesn't i will have ample time to probe for a weakness and decide where i want to strike, where, when, and how, this may not be right it is another thought.

[Mike Shustock]

Hi..

Although I hate to open up an old post... this one seems very good.

Why attack attack when your opponent doesn't?

It places him on the defense instantly. My experience tells me that most first strikes are always countered.... unless you strike when your opponent is not paying any attention to the situation unfolding in front of him. In which case, there would be very little honor gain from such a fight...: ) Defensive fighting is an oximoron. There is no such thing. I've never seen anyone conquer an opponent with defense. I have seen someone use defense on an opponent until they are so frustrated in there attack they beaten with 1 offensive move however.... Until you test your opponents steal... his inactivity might just be FEAR.... and once again you will have conquered. Forcing an emotional response from your opponent its the road to victory.

Why attack when your opponent attacks?

Contengencies,,,, this tests the contingencies your opponent has. There nothing better in testing your opponenets contingencies than to not allow him to finish his attack technique. Make him come up with something else because "that didn't work" Once you put your opponent off his "game" and keep him off it... the end is in sight. There nothing like catching an attacker off guard by having him move into the defense instead of finishing his atttack technique.

Also catching an attack mid stream so to speak will do more than give you the edge.... It will take your opponent's "Heart"

Mike

[noah gross]

Hello,
I have read this thread with interest, and would like to ask you all, does taking the initiative necessarily have to mean attacking with strikes first?
I have experienced in sparring empty handed and with swords, the effects of an aggressive opponent who maneuvers while covering his openings and threatening my opening all the while closing in and pressuring me.
Two things may happen, one: i panic and strike because he is getting too close, an event for which he is prepared and easily takes advantage of by either setting aside my attack or voiding and then striking.
Or i do not strike and he has moved in to his striking range and is again at his advantage.
This moving in and pressuring of the opponent does not have to entail strikes and is very effective in gaining the advantage.
I see it as a very advanced level of skill of fighting.

(I am not theorizing, i am referring to something experienced first hand on both ends of the sword)

Noah Gross.