Charron test cutting

[Jake_Norwood]

Those are different ideas. I suppose that the issue is one of are such still cuts "enough?" Sure, they were performed, but again, what is the context?

Jake

[Bart Walczak]

I'd like to offer another view to the "cutting without stepping" idea.

I would like you to note that in combat you always keep moving, because if you stand in one place, you are dead. It *is* that simple.

But now, from my understanding of the proper cut mechanics as described in German treatises and from my experimentation (can be wrong, of course), your cut should connect slightly (and it is very, very slightly) before your foot touches the ground. Consider now what happens if your opponent displaces the strike or defends from it? You are still during the same step but if the situations warrants to make another quick cut, will you wait and make another step, when you can kill him much faster?

So essentially you cut "between" stepping. I believe this is the case with some abnehmen and with duplieren. Generally the working am schwert occurs "between" stepping, and Fuehlen the same.

Please consider "cutting without stepping" as "cutting between stepping". This might be interesting.

[John_Clements]

Well then that's the whole debate then, isn't it, Bob?
Can you really cut strong enough to end a fight without moving the feet? (or doing so by going softly and slowly?)
Why do we see in the manuals a tiny example of techniques that slice without passing steps or major foot movements, and a much larger portion teaching to cut strongly with out “standing still"?

If you see no reason to “reconcile” this intriguing question, then so be it. We do however. And we’re going to explore it fully by consulting all the sources we can for the fullest and deepest appreciation of the subject and our own skill.

I provided at least a dozen quotes and samples from sources covering a period of over 500 years stressing the need to use footwork in striking strongly. I can’t imagine how much more evidence we need to see that there was a common theme going on in historical personal combat that was importnat enough for such a variety of authors to repeat it over and over.
The massive amount of enlightening material on sword wounds and injuries we’ve collected also supports this.

Meanwhile, see the article online here, “Fence with all your strength .”

JC

[John_Clements]

Stu,

You’re referring, I think, to the idea expressed in hoplology today that there are in martial arts and combatives certain universals, fundamental commonalities, to all fighting systems the world over throughout history. That regardless of methodology, philosophy and theory, they perform the same functions for human all sharing the same bio-mechanics. I agree. Seeking understanding of these core concepts and principles allows us to comprehend the nature of historical combat, and the essence of just what and why these men were developing and teaching these skills.

This process involves researching not just the source manuals, but the culture and society Renaissance warriors existed in, the conditions of battle and self-defence they acted under, the arms and armor they used, the clothing they wore, their ethics of employing violence, and the methods of training and practicing they followed. These things are not all contained whole and complete in any one master’s work on any one sword or weapon from any one era. Thus, the need for historical fencing studies.

JC

“Be not wise in thine own conceit, in thinking that thou hast learned all the skill which is to be learned already, farre deceived are thou if thou thinks so, for if thou live (til) thou art olde, yet thou mayest learne still.”
- Joseph Swetnam, The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence, 1617

[Bob Charron]

Well you see this is the problem.

Some here keep making an argument out of something that isn't an argument. If volta stabile is one option within Fiore, then who ever said it was the majority of the techniques? Not me. I would maintain then that the vast majority of techniques in Fiore and his illustrations of the same show actions that are done with an acressere or a passare. So your argument isn't an argument. You've decided somewhere along the line that I say it is a huge array of techniques that boggles the mind. Not so. No argument here if one is not created.

I also never, ever said "soft" in anything I ever said. Somehow this too has been attributed to me. There is no argument here either, unless someone creates one.

As to footwork being a common theme, well, the use of "common theme" might not be appropriate here, but certainly Fiore falls in the category of footwork being important - very important. So there's no argument here either.

In the end, the reconciliation of the idea of cutting without stepping as part of the repertoire, which is what I've been saying from the beginning, is not at all a problem.

I've read the article.

[Guest]

Hi all,

I am really suprised that noone has ever found themselves at a distance where they can hit their opponent without moving their feet. Silver discusses the idea of striking in the time of the hand (ie no foot movement) extensively.

Bob,

I think you have handled yourself like a true professional in this thread Personally I understood your argument from the first post you made until the last.

Best,
Michael

[Bob Charron]

Thank you very much Michael. I appreciate your words and will use them as encouragement.

All the best,

[Randall Pleasant]

Michael Jubb wrote:
I am really suprised that noone has ever found themselves at a distance where they can hit their opponent without moving their feet.

Michael

The issue was not finding yourself at a distance where you could hit your adversary without moving your feet, rather the issue was at that distance <u>should</u> you move their feet. And the debate goes on...which is healthy for WMA.

Michael Jubb wrote:
Silver discusses the idea of striking in the time of the hand (ie no foot movement) extensively.

Michael

Not being well read on Silver I can only ask, Does the time of the hand mean that the hand moves before the foot or does it mean that only the hand moves without the foot moving?


To all scholars

I like to think that everybody, Bob, John, ARMA scholars, and visiting scholars, have handled themselves very professionally in this thread. The thread has been heavy at times but it has been professional. Most of all, this type of thread is very much needed in and by the WMA community. The quality of this thread is reflected in its length and how much it was viewed.

[Guest]

From Silver's Brief Instructions (http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/brief.html):

1. The time of the hand is when you strike from a ward or stand in place to strike.

2. The time of the foot is when you step forward to strike or when you gather towards your own right side.

3. The time of the hand &amp; foot is when you tread your ground in course to strike rather that pressing forwards, or when you slide back or go back, your hand &amp; foot being then of equal agility.

4. The time of the foot &amp; hand is when you handle your guardant play using then a slow motion in both.

So the time of the hand is swifter than the other true times (time of the hand &amp; body, time of the hand, body &amp; foot etc).

The way I see it is if you find yourself within close distance with the opportunity to strike in the time of the hand you take the opportunity. While this will not be as poweful a cut as a full passing cut there simply may not be time to strike in a longer time (ie using the foot/feet).

Better to have cut your opponnent with a possibly disabling cut then not to have cut them at all.

Cheers,
Mike

[John_Clements]

Bart wrote:
I'd like to offer another view to the "cutting without stepping" idea.

I would like you to note that in combat you always keep moving, because if you stand in one place, you are dead. It *is* that simple.
....
So essentially you cut "between" stepping. I believe this is the case with some abnehmen and with duplieren. Generally the working am schwert occurs "between" stepping, and Fuehlen the same.

******

Well, I'd say that makes sense to me, Bart.
As indicated, the majority of historical sources stressed for the necessity of cutting strongly an overall need for moving while striking --not for remaining stationary.

JC

[Brian Hunt]

This Thread has become a very interesting series of postings. I have seen many view points, concepts and fascinating discussions based around cutting and stepping, not to mention how much force should be used. I have found the statements made by all to be educational, and at times somewhat emotional. I wish to thank both Bob and John, not to mention all the others who have posted, for the information they have shared here and the window into their relative views on training and cutting. I think that both are approaching training from their own ideas,experiences, and views on swords and the masters they study. Differences can be good, even though they may have the tendancy to create discourd. Despite politics, etc., I hope that this has created a dialog that can form new avenues of information exchange for the betterment and enhancement of all western martial artists. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Anything that doesn't kill us, just makes us stronger.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Brian Hunt.

[Bob Charron]

Randall,

You have mis-identified the original issue of the second half of this thread. That issue was if there was cutting without moving your feet as a specified option in Fiore's teachings (this is what I started with). Although there were attempts to move the issue away from that, that is the issue, and there is just such instruction in Fiore's teaching. The only way this can be denied is with a complete refutation of the of passage translated earlier. This has never been done.

Therefore, even with the arguments around the point, the point is that there does exist as a possibility among many, the option of cutting without moving your feet in Fiore.

I'm a little curious as to why you first use Silver's times as suggested "universals", and then ask for clarification of these from Michael as you are not well-read on Silver. Wouldn't that compromise your ability to declare his principles as "universals"?

I agree that the thread has remained civil. It has wandered all around the point, and it has been frustrating having things attributed to me that I never said, and it has been challenging dealing with all this, but it has for the most part been civil.

[Bob Charron]

John,

The point from the beginning of the second half of this thread is the existance of volta stabile and its method of cutting without moving the feet as an option among many within Fiore. Of course Fiore does many, many actions while stepping in different ways.

I'm glad to hear that you agree with this.

[Guest]

"I am really suprised that noone has ever found themselves at a distance where they can hit their opponent without moving their feet" Ehmm, you can always do that from crossed swords, generally it is recommended to thrust at the face, yet you also have the possibility to cut at the arms and thrust at the face... Since John has described this fase of the fight in his book <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> , I definitively think he's aware of this and that he was talking about the pre-crossed swords cuts, not the crossed swords slices and thrusts, there is a certain difference between a cut and a slice.
Carlo

[Bob Charron]

Carlo,

You wrote:
"there is a certain difference between a cut and a slice."

I agree that this is true in the systems of masters who make a distinction between the two (hau vs. schnitt?). Please excuse my poor understanding of some of the German masters.

In Fiore I can find no distinction between "cut" and "slice" created by the vocabulary or in the techniques. It seems that rather than pulling back in a demonstrable "slicing" action after cutting the arms, he instructs you to use the alignment of the point with the opponent's body created by cutting the arm to plunge your point into his chest. So even if the blow to the arm cut not get through his clothes or break his arm, you are still in-line and may follow with another attack while keeping pressure on his arm to reduce his offensive capabilities and in part close the line with pressure.

I guess I'm just trying to keep the subject matter on track here No offense, I hope.