Proper Sword Cuts

[Matt_Bruskotter]

Just a quick question...

Meyer explained a sword cut as going through 3 different postures. For example, a normal oberhau goes through tag, longen ort, and alber. My question comes with the prudence of cutting all the way to alber. If your target is your enemy's head, wouldn't you rather stop your cut about 12 inches below the enemy's chin? From my experience of sparring, cutting all the way to alber is a liability because if I miss or my opponent parrys, I'm a sitting duck. If I stop my sword a good foot "after" my target, this allows me to stay on his sword, in a low longen ort but not quite an alber, and to have some protection from any counter action.

I don't feel as if this takes away any power from the cut because I'm stopping after my intended target. Therefore I'm still cutting through it. Though once I cut through it, through the skull, I stop. I don't see the logic in cutting through to his pelvis or knees.

I was looking for some experience and opinions on this. I haven't done a whole lot of test cutting so I'm sure you guys who have should have some good info. Again to clarify...

Does stopping your cut shortly after you cut through your target affect cutting power or should you cut through all the way to alber thus exposing your head? Does this apply to all cuts?

[philippewillaume]

Hello
Well I will have a go, It hard to explain, I think it is a good question but I think you may need to approach it from another angle.

Conceptually a cut is nothing more than moving from one guard to another. And there is always a cut that is going to break a given guard.
So whatever guard you end up there is always going to be a bit of you that can get twated.
So for example any guard that is function of ox will expose your hands and your side the same way alber exposes your arms and your head.
Or if you stop in long point or plough well you are vulnerable to a scheil.

Chop efficiency depends greatly on tip velocity so any breaks you apply will diminish the effiency of the cut. All that being said, being dead is like pregnancy you may have several babies or receive a blow that will kill you several time over but it does not really make than much of difference with have a single baby or receiving a blow that is just enough to kill you once.

I think the vulnerability you speak of is present in any strike that you make; So I would say it is not related to the how you strike in itself insomuch as the when you strike.

phil

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hello,


The translation on the Schielhau site is rather incorrect.

Meyer says:

Nach dem aber in allem Fechten, du Hauwest, Arbeitest, Versetzest, oder treibest für arbeit was du wollest, nicht in einem Leger verharren, sonder alweg auß einem in das ander verfahren, unnd eines in das ander verwandlen must, wil dir in sonderheit gebüren ein gut fleissigs auffmercken zu haben, wie oberzeiten Leger eins auß dem andern ervolgen, welches ich dañ mit den Hauwen durch die Linien oder strassen etlicher massen mit wenig worten will erkleren.

important is the last part. the english translation says:

"... and will lead out from one to another of the above cited stances, which I will clarify with a few words about the strikes through the lines or pathways."

It's not "about the strikes" but "with the help of the strikes".


And later:

Erstlich so du den obern oder Scheitelhauw thust findestu drey Leger, dann im anfang ligstu im Tag, im Mittel im Langenort, am endt im Olber, also hastu in der geraden Lini von ober herab von A und E drey Huten oder Leger, fehrestu widerumb von unden herauff mit geschrenckten händen zur versatzung, befindestu abermals drey Leger, Nemlich im anfang die Eysenport, im mittel das Hangentort, im endt ubersich in voller höh das Einhorn, ziehest du dein Schwerdt mit dem hefft vor die Brust, das die halbe schneide auff deinem Lincken Arm ligt, so stehestu im Schlüssel, also kommestu im auff und abfahren in der Lini A. und E. auß einem Leger in das ander.

the english text is:

"Firstly if you will execute the high or Vertex Strike, you will find yourself in three Stances..."

it's not "if you will execute the Vertex strike" but "just as if you would execute the Vertex strike".

That's a big difference. Meyer does not want to tell us to cut though the stances, but rather, that one has to move often (Frequents Motus in Hanko Döbringer) and change the stances. And which stance follows which one, he explains with the HELP of strikes. I never read anything about ending a strike in Alber was a must...


greets,

Szabolcs

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Matt, I think also remember the power we are creating in that strike, you should committ yourself more to the strike and worry less about the defense. It's the old, "strike at him as though he had no sword" admonition. So, the mindset then is I will hit him so hard and fast that he will have to defend it or he will get creamed, then after the hit I hit him again depending upon what he does, but again hitting with power.

I tend to guess that if you are thinking about stopping the strike in your mind at all then when you actually do hit it will not have as much power as you would like.

now, setting up that hit in range with power first, I think is where the question lies?
-Aaron Pynenberg

[GaryGrzybek]

Hi Matt,

Remember that each cut is one that's commited. Think of it this way. In the cut you are passing through the various guards as explained but with an intended target. If his head is there then fine. The sword is going to stop after it no longer has the force to cut. If he voids and you wind up in alber you must know how to prepare for what's next. Are you exposed? sure but it can also invite him to your opening so then you can take advantage of him. It's hard to explain but much easier to show.

[Matt_Bruskotter]

I ask because I was having problems at first with not being able to react to counter cuts when I "over extended" my cut. I started stopping my cuts shortly after my target and that helps my defense quite a bit. I was wondering if it affected power much. I know with a full cut you couple probably come close to splitting a guy in two, but if I only split him down to his sternum with a stopped cut then I'm happy.

Don't I seem to remember Doebringer saying something about after you attack to stay on his sword? I don't have time to look it up now, but wouldn't a stopped cut do just that?

Just to reemphasize, a "stopped" cut does cut through a target, just not down to the ground. I see it like a punch. I was taught that a punch should stop about and ince or two through or past the target and not to be widely swung thus cutting reaction time and exposing you. I know every attack has a weakness but shouldn't we try to limit that? This probably needs actual instruction as opposed to on-line chat. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Mike Cartier]

IMHO the whole reason Meyer teaches the Zornhau as a transition through 3 guards (tag/zornhaut, langort and wechsel) is to get across the message of proper extention with your strikes, else we might pull in our elbows or pull on the hilt.

One you put some of the handworks into the mix the striking changes considerably as you do so.

I would look to Meyer's methods of cutting which are described especially in the dusack section. Kudos to Jeff Forgeng for pulling those out for our use from the Dusacken portion of the book.
He uses a cutting through method, a centerline pulling cut, change cutting (in and out on different lines) and cutting in opposition. All very excellent for variuous reasons.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Matt

I ask because I was having problems at first with not being able to react to counter cuts when I "over extended" my cut

I don't think i have seen you "over extend" a cut, I think what you do is cut and stop moving and try to take up a proper gaurd quickly, this is allowing them to attack in the nach, here is were the weakness of the middle gaurd/pflug is exposed you have to do two thing's in order to cut from it 1) raise it above your head(vom tag) 2)then you cut (pflug/middle gaurd is a great defensive position the only quick thing you can do is thrust), which allow's your opponent time to prepare to defend and then attack so essentialy you never had the initiative you only thought you did so your cut will not be fast enough to keep him from attacking after, when you do the vorschlag and nachschlag, the second attack has to be quick enough that he will have to defend it, Doebringer talk's about the vorschlag and nachslag, there can be no hesitation between the first strike and second strike, if there is hesitation he now has time to do his own vorschlag there by denying you your nachschlag, this is the nachriesen, moving offline when you attack is also very important, remeber we are not doing Kendo we use angle's of attack not just speed, because it force's your opponent to adjust, also remember our discussion of controling the tempo/rythm of battle, that is why when he attack's you while you are still attacking him instead of defending himself it will be a double kill because you are alway's moving and changing the tempo, Doebringer talk's about the double kill.

The only way to avoid the double kill is to use one of the five strike's in the proper, range, with the proper timing, and when you flow through one cut to another and change the tempo it will be less likely he can effectively determine what gaurd you will go to or through and it will be more difficult for him to set up his "Meisterhau", because you just keep moving from one thing to the next, fast then faster, like was stated earlier Doebringer talk's about constant motion, and Lichtenauer say's something about if you are moving your alive, only the dead stop moving.

there are a million and one thing's to think about in this "Art" and I think it will be the "one" that spell's victory the other million are very important, It is the One you forget that will be what bite's you in the butt, or get's your skull cleved.

Jeff

Disclaimer: Doebringer has been parphrased, he does not state the exact same as what i have written it is along the line I stated above.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hey guys,

Just being curious, where does Meyer say you have to cut throug stances, that a cut has to be a transition between guards? Like, I haven't read the dusack section yet, BUT the longsword section has no mention of this. There is, IMHO, a slight translation error on the Schielhau.org website, after reading it through quite a many times. Right now I'm translating the original source into hungarian, and I met some, in my opinion, misinterpretations/translation errors. Some are only small and do not alter the meaning, but like the topic of this Thread, I think this has to be thought over.
I am not completelly through with Meyer tough.
In my interpretation, the master wishes to tell us, to have a motion in our fencing, never to b static, in one guard. And how to transition from one guard to another, he tells us - and here is my point - with the HELP of cuts, and not that you have to cut through any stances.
There is a whole section of his book describing the cuts and their proper way, without mentioning anything about this.


Szabolcs

[KatherineJohnson]

Page 10, Meyer describes a schietelhau as starting in Tag, then going to langenort, and then finishing in alber.

He then proceeds to describe a few more cuts as passing through the stances aswell.

[Mike Cartier]

As Katherine says Meyer does indeed describe a few cuts in this manner in chapter 10

[Bill Welch]

Hey Guys I just wanted to add my thoughts,
Doebringer also says:
"14R
For you should strike or thrust in the shortest
and nearest way possible. For in this
righteous fencing do not make wide or ungainly
parries or fence in large movements
by which people restrict themselves."

and

" Often they (The Leychmeistere) want to alter or give a new
name to a technique, all out of their own
heads and think up wide reaching fencing
and parries and often make two or three
strikes when one would be enough or stepping
through and thrust, and for this they
receive praise from the ignorant. With
their bad parries and wide fencing they
try to look dangerous with wide and long
strikes that are slow and with these they
perform strikes

14V
that miss and create openings in themselves.
They have no proper reach in their
fencing and that belongs not to real fencing
but only to school fencing and the exercises
for their own sake. But real fencing
goes straight and is simple in all things
without holding back or being restricted
just as if a string had been tied or as if they
had been connected. When you strike or
thrust at another in front of you, then no
strikes or thrusts before or behind, nor besides
or wide reaching movements or many
strikes"

I think that it is dependent on what you are doing. Because Doebringer also says to try and keep your point on your opponent which is hard to do if every cut is though three guards.(depending on the guards like Tag to long point to plough you can keep your point on target)

Don't you think it is possible that in Meyer, his explaination of the cuts using three guards is to explain the lines of attack?

I think we have to be careful when saying "every" and "all" when talking about Fencing, because it limits your tools.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hey Katherine,

Thanks for your answer. Now, my question is, whatyou think about my opinion - that the english translation is wrong? That's what I try to say. Like, I translate it right now, and think a lot about that paragraph, and if you are using the english translation from the homepage called schielhau.org, then it is probably wrong. Meyer sys in German, that the transition between guards should go "just as if you would do a scheitelhau etc.". He, my opinion, does not say - in the german text! - that the cuts should be done like going through the guards.
Now, you can assume I am not perfect in middle-high german, but please consider my opinion.

Szabolcs

[M Wallgren]

Very intressting indeed!

And one thing we should consider is the time of writing the manuals. Döbringer is 1390 or something and Meyer is late 16th c. Thats 200 hundred years, guys! It´s a long period of time in any culture, and alot could have happened in that time. In the manual pictures of Meyer there is fetherswerde. In the time of Joachim Meyer the longsword had become something of a past age. How much for play and how much it was for real life surival is hard to know, IMO. Just my thoughts on it! I have not studied Meyer in any larger amount of time so I maybe should´n honk the horn too much, but I just wanted to bring the question to the table;)

Is Meyers fencing a tad bit "sportified"?

In some ways I think the large strikes are safer to deploy if you do freeplay or simmilar, they telegraf more and your "opponent" has much more time to react and much more of a chans to make a nice-looking counter. This goes along with the thoughts of "the three wonders" of Döbringer where the strikes only get a third of the reportoar of a good fighter!

Martin

Martin

[Joachim Nilsson]

I wouldn't say that Meyer's fencing is "sportified" as much as it is fencing somewhat adapted for the fechtschule. That is -it is still dangerous indeed when employed outside the classroom or in earnest.

And remember that in the 16th Century Swiss mercenarys still used the longsword when acquiring their daily bread. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />