technique question: parries

[philippewillaume]

hello casper
About the different authors, as I mentioned I do agree with you, some other are doing it. I am not disputing the fact that it could or it could not.
Meyer clearly does not, so using him to support that it could be done or than you can thrust is a tad iffy.
You originally asked me why I said Meyer does not move. I replied because he does not write so nor does he advocate thrusting. I am not having a dig at how Arma or other people way do thing, I have said before and at multiple time that I though your approach was sound. And yes thrusting the abzetzen way from the eisenport will work. But Picking Meyer to support the thrust as you step from the eisenport is a bit controversial.



About ringeck and parries:
If you forget about the other masters, I do not think that your position is supported by the actual text.
Not that I think your point of view is wrong per se, if study several sources what you are saying is the most logical/natural way to look at it. And I do not doubt it works.
However I do not think that is what Ringeck is telling us. (Just for reference I think VD and ringeck have different tactical approach …)

He clearly tells us to stay clear form parries and that we should strike instead.

Vnd hyt dich vor allen versetzen, die die schlecht vechter tryben. Vnd merck: wen er hawt, so haw och, vnd wen er sticht, so stych och. Vnd wie dü hawen vnd stechen solt, das findest dü in den fünff hewen vnd jn den absetzten geschryben.
And guard yourself from all versetzen that the poor fencer does. And mark when he strike then strike as well, when he thrust then thrust as well and how you are to strike and thrust you will find described in the five strike and in the Abzetsen .

That is pretty clear do not parry but strike or thrust

Ringeck does not use the kron. Only the bad guy does and we are told how to defeat it. On the same vein we are presented with bad versetzen, the bad guy does it and we are not supposed to do it. Being in the manual does not make it usable.
The kron may be a valid defense, ringeck does not use it.
It is just on of the two possible defense against the scheitel haw.

Each time there is an abzetsen the grammatical form clearly indicates simultaneity of the action. So striking the blade and whatever comes after is intricately liked and undisociable logically speaking.
Seing absetzen as having a defense part and an attack part, I think is contrary to Ringeck tactical concepts.
You are not moving the blade so he does not hit you. You are moving his blade so you can hit him.
Abzetsen or masterhaw are a safe way to do so.

The concept of defense is intrinsically linked to each strike. The strikes are the defense the concept of parrying is just not here.
You seeing the two pieces of the krump as defense then riposte and it is possible.
Ie I do the krump and I see what happen ie what strike I can use.
But it can be seen and done as one strike in one step.
You start to strike the rump without moving (you have you keft foot forward so you strike to the left.) and you start to move you right foot
Either you will strike his flat and you finis you move with a thrust (winding) or with a strike of the short edge.
Or it is not as nice as you like and you do wrist rotation with to pass by the shrankhurt (ringeck version which conveniently has the long edge on top on either side) from which you strike with the long edge when you reach the end of you move

Hoe you en up the move depends on fullen but you are going to hit him at the end of the move. It is one strike not krump stop strike. It is just and alteration of the trajectory of the krump.

Do I make more sense ?

[Casper Bradak]

We're talking about the same thing, you just see it differently. We do it the same way.
Say you're in right pflug, and he thrusts to your left opening. If you only thrusted, you'd both be perforated, but you don't. You move into pflug on your left, setting his aside, and in one fluid motion thrust to him. One fluid motion, 2 parts to the motion.
The way you're argueing it, you could do a flourysh for 1 minute and say you only made one movement. Which is true in a way, you can fluidly link an infinite number of techniques together, but they are still seperate parts done fluidly with no pause.
Ringecks counters are for the most part, strikes modified to parry the attack simultaneously. He has nothing against parries, you'd be killed otherwise, only parries done with no offensive value.
Any way you look at it, when you break it down, for example the thrust against thrust from plug above, you go out of your way to deflect the thrust as you thrust by moving into pflug on the other side. It's a simple parry, done simultaneously with a thrust. If you didn't thrust, it'd be a defensive parry, but Ringek would say you're wasting your time for not attaching a thrust to it.
You're right about Ringek not using the kron, my quote was Leichtenaur saying to use the kron.
So how do you think such a motion was taught? Krump and cut or wind to a thrust, and say "now you do it!" Or do you break it down into the individual parts, and then develop the fluidity to one motion?

[James Sterrett]

We went through this again. The parries worked better, not least thanks to mulling over advice here.

- Don't put the point, or your hands, too far into the parry. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

- Use a bit more force in the parry than we had been;

- and it helps to move with the parry - not just in terms of getting out of the way, but we found it helped the parry do its job. We're not quite sure on why, but that will come with time.


We also realized we *really* need to make a set of padded full-contact practice weapons to train this properly. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />


Wiser heads may now nod knowingly.... <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[JeffGentry]

Hey Phillipe

Hoe you en up the move depends on fullen but you are going to hit him at the end of the move. It is one strike not krump stop strike. It is just and alteration of the trajectory of the krump.

Indes


With all this in mind go read the Mutriene and dupleriene (hope i spelled that right) think in term's of strike and stay, feel weak or strong in the bind and when you feel your opponent change the pressure on the bind move "indes" to thrust, cut or slice, the change in the pressure on the bind is a movement or the very start of one, in all the reading i have been doing lately i am thinking this is the key it is a split second feeling, decision and it is gone you live or die on this feeling, and decision you make in that moment.

it can't be something you think about it is totaly intuitive , you think you die.


wish i could do it, lol, oh well maybe in time.

Jeff

[philippewillaume]

Hello Casper
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.
I would call what you describe a parry-riposte in modern fencing (two times indivisible)
It is action A and then after action B. What I understand you are telling me is that Ringeck says do A and then B as fluidly as possible.
That is in total opposition whit lichtanauer principles strike him so that is point fall and your hit
What I am talking about is one time counter. Do C with include A and B both at the same time.
The abzetzen from the krump is borderline between the two. But it should really be a one-time counter. The absetzen from the krump is nothing more that a redirection of the blow as you strike, akin to the feller.

You said that you modify your strike so that you can parry and that the point I am disputing. No, you do not modify your strike when doing a Thrust abzetsen .
The abzetsen from the krump being a kind of exception because you do not really know how you are going to finish so there is modification you could almost said, as jeff pointed out, that there is an &amp;#8220;indes&amp;#8221; bit and it can more easily sort of overlap onto a parry-riposte type of action according to your opponent attack)

In the absetzen (i.e. Thrust absetzen) from the right plough you have two options either he is in the right plough or the left plough.

If the strike comes from his left plough or the right plough, it does not mater you are doing the same thrust (which is really as if you were doing a schilhaw with a trust instead of a strike or a thrust taking a low hangen to the left).
You do not need to actively look for his blade; you will meet it that is the nature of the attack. So I never ever pass by the right plough.
This is not a two-part move you thrust from right plough to left low hengen that&amp;#8217;s all.

On a logical point of view, absetzen &amp;#8220;thrusts&amp;#8221; are to thrusts what masterhaws are to strikes.

You said if you thrust it is going to be a double kill. And were you to use any odd thrust you are right.
It is in principle true for the strike as well, how ever you see that Ringeck use 5 special cut to counter cut. It is the same for the thrust
You do not need the defense because it is integrated into the attack. You never pary ripost you always counter

This is really the basic principle to lichatnauer, on foot on horse in and out Armour.

what do you think.
a pitty you are on the other side of the pound. We could just compare in 2 minutes...

cheers

[philippewillaume]

good for you mate

say a head that had been similarily bashed before putting foam at the ends of the shinais and a fencing helmet on the said head<img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" />

[philippewillaume]

amhen to that.

[Shawn Cathcart]

Just to clarify in my own head.

This is not a two-part move you thrust from right plough to left low hengen thats all.

I assume you are doing a passing step. Right leg stepping foward to become the lead leg correct? And if so, do you step directly forward, or slightly to the right?

I understand what your saying. Its a matter of angles. In this example particularily. Concentrating too much on setting aside the thrust before giving your own robs you of timing, albeit a small amount of timing. It also in my experience can cause many people to push out to far in blocking the thrust, therefore leaving themselves in less than ideal timing and distance for a successful counter thrust. Your thrust has the angle built in. You give your counter thrust with the intent, or with the knowledge that its angle will also take aside his thrust. Its a very small difference, but then we tend to deal with very small increments of time so far as successful techniques are concerned.

[Casper Bradak]

We are talking about exactly the same thing, and we perform it in the same fashion. I agree on technique, I just have different description. I guess I'm just not putting my point of view clearly. It is too bad we're so far away though.

[philippewillaume]

hello casper
Well that the way of written communication
Since what we write can be interpreted differently, espacilly with english. It just take lots of virual ink to convey what you mean.

shaw
i take a normal pass. but where you end up really depends of where he started from and how surprised you are.