| Author |
Messages |
|
Arffuidsson
Free Scholar
Posts:68
 |
| 07/09/2006 10:31 PM |
 Alert
|
Greetings,
This past weekend I was in a discussion with some of my fellow Journeymen (West Kingdom Royal Guild of Defense), and a comment was mentioned that stuck in my mind. The statement was roughly (sorry, I do not have the exact quote), “I’d teach the basics; advance, retreat, parry, thrust, and lunge.” Whether it was said or not (I honestly do not remember), it was implied as the staple for the SCA-hybrid techniques.
At the time I wasn’t sure why it sparked my interest, but I think I know why it did now.
My first question is; how many of the treaties that are currently available to us require the student to have some basic knowledge in the martial art form before the manuscript would be able to be used effectively, and how many of these books can be the very first thing that a new student can learn about our art?
The reason why I ask is because I have heard several influential people in the Western Martial Art (WMA) community state that, “This manual (treatise, fightbook, etc.) was written with the assumption of previous knowledge in the martial art” (or some variant thereof).
My second question is; if the manual implies the need for prior knowledge, what would you consider the “basics” for said new student?
Thank you in advance for your thoughts on the subject.
In Service to the West,
Staffan Arffuidsson
Journeyman, laceName w:st="on">WestlaceName> laceType w:st="on">KingdomlaceType> Royal Guild of Defense
http://santiagosmagic.com/guild/index.htm |
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 07/10/2006 7:23 AM |
Alert
|
Need to head to the office - so let me just focus on the first question. I think that it can be argued whether or not all of these treatieses require some existing knowledge or not - those some most definately do. Giganti's "Teatro..." is a very good example of this. But I think that is fitting, since it really appears to be more focused towards providing some "information" to those who would teach, as opposed to those that just want to learn the art. Actually, Giganti's work seems a tad mor eunique in that aspect. 
When it comes to Capo Ferro and Fabris - while they cover basics and definitions for what they are writing about, in some respects there is a level of assumed knowledge - but to me that is more non-martially oriented then what you were asking.
Um. I have now lost my train of thought - let me answer more after I get to office |
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 07/10/2006 3:14 PM |
Alert
|
Capo Ferro is good for raw beginners. Giganti is just the "Good Stuff." Fabris is like Capo Ferro, but extrapolated out to an exceptional degree. Marozzo is written just for teachers, and in that light is pretty good for beginners (at teaching.) Fiore definetly assumes you are already trained. The rest mostly fit in the middle somewhere.
Basics...Not what you list above. That's what most people in the SCA assume are basics, and that is why the state of fencing in the SCA is what it is.
Guard is number one. And two. And three. Knowing how to stand, how to hold oneself, and what that allows and implies is the most critical thing to learn. Secondly is measure. You must know how far you are from your opponent, and how to control that measure while maintaining the most critical thing at all times. The most critical thing being guard.
Advancing and retreating fall into guard if done correctly, as does a lunge. A "Thrust" or "parry" does not, and should be left for advanced students, if covered at all.
Once guard and measure are introduced, the concept of line (or stringere) should be introduced (it's almost guard, really) and finally tempo should be explained.
That's enough basics for the first 2 or 3 years. |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 07/11/2006 4:16 PM |
Alert
|
| I only know of one treatise that claims it is designed to teach without an other instructor involved, and that is DiGrassi in His True Art of Defence:
But least I seeme to ground this Art uppon dreames and monstrous imaginations (havinge before laid downe, that strength of bodie is very necessarie to attaine to the perfection of this Art, it beinge one of the two principall beeginninges first layd downe, and not as yet declared the way how to come by and procure the same) I have determined in the entrance of this worke, to prescribe first the manner how to obtaine judgemet, and in the end thereof by way of Treatise to shew the meanes (as farre forth as appertaineth to this Art) by the which a man by his owne indevoure and travaile, may get strength and activitie of bodie, to such purpose and effect, that by the instructions and reasons, which shal be here given him, he may easely without other master or teacher, become both stronge, active and skilful.
In addition to what has been said already, keep in mind that a gentleman from the time of DiGrassi or Capo Ferro or even Swetnam would have been expected to have been educated in dance, horsemanship, and music among other things...and thus have an increased understanding of tempo and controlled body movement. I can't speak for linear late-Italian rapier, but for sidesword or the more circle-oriented styles of rapier like Destreza or Saviolo I would suggest that internalizing the concepts of measure, tempo, and blade advantage is requisite for proper understanding of the fight.
-William |
|
|
|
|
Samauel
Free Scholar
Posts:58
|
| 07/26/2006 4:43 PM |
Alert
|
I have been working on one. I can send what I have done so far. I have part one done mostly, but needs editing and more field testing. Part 2 is just a framework for now. Since I teach "SCA inspired Saviolo", I would freely state that my book is definietly a hybrid approach, but we need a basic foundation to start with at some point to get folks to the "Advanced" part. There's pleanty of advanced stuff out there, both in period and current.
Don Samuale
|
|
|
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 07/26/2006 5:04 PM |
Alert
|
| Samauel, I'd be very interested in seeing it. I'm curious about the adaptations necessary to bring Saviolo into the SCA ruleset.
-William |
|
|
|
|
Kristophe
Provost
Posts:80
|
| 07/27/2006 10:50 AM |
Alert
|
| Samauel - if you wouldn't mind I too would like to take a look at your Saviolo adaptation. If it's possible, kindly email it to kristophe(AT)shaw(DOT)ca. Thank you in advance. |
|
|
|
|
Arffuidsson
Free Scholar
Posts:68
|
| 08/20/2006 11:28 PM |
Alert
|
Greetings,
Samauel, I would also like to see what you have. Please send me a copy: arffuidson yahoo com
Thank you!
Staffan Arffuidsson |
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 08/28/2006 9:32 AM |
Alert
|
As a self taught student of historical fencing...and a teacher of the hybrid style as Steffan has coined it, I was fortunate enough to have several years of olympic style fencing under my belt before I attempted to learn from the historical manuals. The manual I was attempting to learn from was DiGrassi's, and it would have been pure giberish had I not had several years of fencing. But, what I'd say is the most difficult thing to do is to translate words into actual body positions. I remember my first fencing lessons and how awkward they felt with my instructor repositioning my hands, feet, etc.
That's tough to get out of a manual. Many folks spend hours and years trying to interpret Capo Ferro and others then teach it. There are several plates that have been interpreted in different ways. Too bad he's not here to explain and show us.
My question for the group is "Do you think Capo Ferro's audience was?" Was it well trained nobles who had trained under other maestros and he was trying to convert them? |
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 08/28/2006 1:20 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 08-28-2006 9:32 AM
As a self taught student of historical fencing...and a teacher of the hybrid style as Steffan has coined it, I was fortunate enough to have several years of olympic style fencing under my belt before I attempted to learn from the historical manuals. The manual I was attempting to learn from was DiGrassi's, and it would have been pure giberish had I not had several years of fencing. But, what I'd say is the most difficult thing to do is to translate words into actual body positions. I remember my first fencing lessons and how awkward they felt with my instructor repositioning my hands, feet, etc.
That's tough to get out of a manual. Many folks spend hours and years trying to interpret Capo Ferro and others then teach it. There are several plates that have been interpreted in different ways. Too bad he's not here to explain and show us.
My question for the group is "Do you think Capo Ferro's audience was?" Was it well trained nobles who had trained under other maestros and he was trying to convert them?
Just curious, did you have any difficulty in "un-learning" olympic fencing when you started your studies of the historical swordplay styles? Seeing as how the two are so vastly dissimilar (perceptions aside), I have found that new students with no previous olympic fencing experience are able pick up the historical techniques much faster than those with the background.
|
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:102
|
| 08/29/2006 2:39 PM |
Alert
|
Speaking as one who also came from an Olympic background, I actually found my previous experience to be quite beneficial in my transition to what I term the sword fight (just saying fencing to most folks conjurs up images of two guys in white with foils). The only thing I had difficulty with initially was training my body not to leave my left hand behind when I lunged. In those days you could put a dagger in my hand and watch as it flew out behind me every time I attacked.  I also come from an Asian martial arts background, though, so I don't know if it was Olympic experience alone or the combination of the two that benefitted me as it did.
Tora |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/28/2006 2:29 PM |
Alert
|
Hey, this thread died a while back, so let me resurrect it here as I didn't answer Justin's question.
Honestly, my Olympic training was the only thing that kept me from being completely lost with the Saviolo, Digrassi, Silver Book. It's easy to convert parry 4 into parry quarta or the quarta guardia. It's very difficult to understand oblique movements without first knowing how to hold a sword...what en guarde means..etc.
I'm not gonna pick on the SCA hybrid approach because it's all over the map, so let's just say if you have a good hybrid teacher, your form will be excellent without Olympic beginnings. If you have a bad hybrid teacher or purist teacher, your form will be bad without Olympic training. If you have Olympic training, you will know that your parries shouldn't go two feet wide and your tip needs to stay on line. Those are the basics you get from the Olympic school that carry over. It's the gaming tactics that don't and you should leave those on the floor when you put on your fancy clothes and pickup a rapier..imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|