| Author |
Messages |
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
 |
| 09/12/2006 4:51 PM |
 Alert
|
In the Kingdom of the West, the Rapier Guild's charter mentions "period technique." The idea is that if you're teaching SCA fencing that isn't subscribing to a single master, you're teaching Hybrid. And, if so, you're not teaching period technique and therefore not doing anything to be promoted within the guild.
OK! So, if you've gotten some of your style from DiGrassi, say the four governors, your stance looks more like Morozzo than Capo Ferro, and you do more dui tempo ripostes than single tempo ripostes, you're not period.
Agree, disagree, thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/12/2006 9:09 PM |
Alert
|
Agree - and disagree.
Using techniques from multiple treatises does not make one's "style" any less period than someone that is trying to faithfully recreate a specific treatise.
I think the distinction comes from the concept of adapting bits from here and there, and fighting in a style that would be ineffective with a real blade, in a real fight.
|
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
MollyModine
Provost
Posts:135
|
| 09/13/2006 11:59 AM |
Alert
|
| You know I was trying to figure out how to respond to the original question but couldn't seem to put my thoughts into written words. Anyhow, my thoughts exactly Ramon thanks for that. |
|
Molly Modine (GdS, Havoc)
Cadet to Monseignor Prospere de Montsegur
Thorn of the Sable Rose, Argent |
|
|
Guillemin
Provost
Posts:120
|
| 09/13/2006 2:52 PM |
Alert
|
| I think it'll differ from person to person. For one person, period technique is the translation and step-by-step re-creation of a particular treatise. For others, there is substantial hybridization. The important thing is that the person is dedicated to re-creating an art practised long ago, and treats every fight as if the swords were razor sharp. Although you may never see the hybrid technique written up in a treatise, it can be period if it follows the same conditions and principles of the time. |
|
Guillemin de Rouen
Cadet to Raoul Delaroche
Rapier Champion of Avacal |
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/13/2006 4:45 PM |
Alert
|
I think one of the main points to be made here is that I believe that ONLY Cappo Ferra fought using his entire system... his students, who probably started at other schools, with other Maestros, fought with a derivitive system... and a true scholari of the blade would have studied many styles.... using different tecniques in different situations...
What brings a style to posterity is not how effective it is, but how well the documentation survives. How many boxers emulate Muhamid Allie vice Marvin Haggler without a "treatsie" or Master telling them how to do so? Sure they have trainers... but do those trainers techniques survive even 30 years... let alone 300? We know that there were many schools of fence, and even manuscripts, which did not survive.
My guess would be that the "Hybrid" school is probably more realistic and was actually more used, than many of the purest styles.
At least once you emulate a true fear of the blade.... |
|
|
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:105
|
| 09/13/2006 8:59 PM |
Alert
|
The funny thing is that it is very likely those we know as the period masters, whose styles bear their names, were probably considered to be teaching a hybrid style by their contemporaries because of the changes they made to the current knowledge of the day.
Tora |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
Lessingham
Provost
Posts:121
|
| 09/14/2006 9:29 AM |
Alert
|
BLayde;
I think the problem here is partially one of definition. I have always had the SCA Hybrid system explained as a hybrid of Modern fencing combined with selected techniques or postures found in period texts and laid over a set of rules limitations. Given this definition there is a huge difference.
Fencing combining various historic systems is something I think most everyone does to one extent or another. I know I personally combine Saviolo with some Destreza and a little Morozzo when I fence - though I would say I probably change up styles during the fight more than I truly combine them. These are the systems I am working on. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem lies when people just pick up some random techniques from said systems and combine them together instead of studying them enough to understand the underlying principles. You can't combine anything and have it make sense if you don't use the core principles of the teachings involved. THese principles are optimized for fighting for real and not sport. If you take this approach then what you are doing is period.
Lessingham |
|
"The Will is the captain general of our army and our fortress."
1587 F. Ghisliero pg. 108 |
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/14/2006 8:42 PM |
Alert
|
Blayde,
I can't find the part in the charter were it says that. It talks about studying multiple styles or schools, and *suggests* that one present a paper on *one* period style for the guildmaster exam...which seems reasonable.
Actually looks like not a bad setup once you read it all...Is it done differently in practice than it is as written?
And if you are doing dui tempi actions that are not cuts, you are definetly not doing a period style. 
Marozzo's stance should have the legs one half an arms length apart, for mobility, which suites his multi-tempo cutting style. Capo ferro's stance length should be one foot less than two arms lengths, for stability and power generation in his one or less tempo lunging style. If you are taking the stance from one and trying to apply the technique from the other, then you are one confused puppy, and probably wondering why you keep losing when you try to fight "period style."
And Digrassi is for posers who can't read Italian. 
That said, if you read each masters treatise deeply, and get to understand why they are picky about all these little details and how they fit together to create the particular tactics, theory, and practice that make up the taste of that master, then you can start to tie together aspects of more than one master to fit the particularities of the type of opponents you expect to face.
Hmm. This would the funnest conversation in a hotel bar at a KWAR or Paddy Crean or WMAW or something. Hell, I'm gonna go pour a tequila and talk about it with myself for a while. |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
warwick
Provost
Posts:125
|
| 09/14/2006 11:36 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Alvarro on 09-14-2006 8:42 PM Blayde, snip* And Digrassi is for posers who can't read Italian.  snip*
|
|
|
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/15/2006 8:49 AM |
Alert
|
There is nothing inherently wrong with combining elements of different fencing styles. In fact, as Tora pointed out, that was almost certainly done in period anyway. Hell, Saviolo is pretty clearly a "hybrid" of Italian and Spanish techniques. What is "violent unto nature" is trying to combine elements of different styles of fence without a thorough understanding of the principles that underpin those techniques. I would echo DiGrassi, who says of the use of two swords, "To him that would handle these weapons, it is necessary that he can aswell manage the left hand as the right." If you want to import from one style of fence to another, it is requisite that you understand them both thoroughly.
I often hear folks breezily say something like, "Oh, I take what works from a
bunch of diffrent styles and put it together." To the fencing scholar,
this translates as "I take the obvious stuff wherever I can find it
because I'm too lazy to study the things I don't understand." Should you hear this from someone who purports to study fence, please pimp-slap them and tell them it was from me.
This is not to imply that a fencer's interpretation of any given style exists in a vacuum. If you study French smallsword, it is bound to offer insights into your Italian rapier play. Same for Bolognese sidesword or even (saints preserve us) Hope's New Method. The difference is between "oh, that's what Saviolo meant by X" and "I bet I could make True Guardant work with Saviolo".
Let me pick on Blayde for an example of how this can go wrong. I refer you to Renaissance Raiper by Joseph "Blayde" Brickey.
Posted By Blayde
So, if you've gotten some of your style from DiGrassi, say the four governors...
As it happens, DiGrassi--in the Churchyard translation anyway...I'm a poser who can't read Italian--does not list "four governors". Silver does, but they are not "time, measure, judgement, and place"...the ones Blayde lists in Renaissance Rapier as "The Four Governors of Rapier Fighting". These are, in fact, Silver's Four Grounds. With that in mind (and with ol' George whirling like a dervish in his grave), a comparison of the notion of "place" described in Blayde's treatise with that of Silver's exposes a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the author: "place" is not "the place on your opponent that can be hit..." (Brickey, Renaissance Rapier, p.8) but rather the relation to your opponent where "you have time safely either to strike, thrust, ward, close, grip, slip or go back" (Silver, Brief Instructions, ch.I).
Let us suppose that a scholar with the misconceptions listed above attempts to import a technique from Silver--let's stick with True Guardant just for the comic image--into his Saviolo fight. Had he a thorough understanding of both Silver and Saviolo, he might be able to reconcile Silver's place with that implied in Saviolo's system, but because he misunderstands Silver's idea of True Place, upon which the
use of True Guardant relies, he is at a serious disadvantage in
adapting the ward to his own use.
I've picked on Blayde because he's published a fencing treatise and thus invited peer review, but I suspect that few of us (certainly not myself) can claim the profound understanding of any style--much less more than one--that makes combining them reasonable. If you want to combine two styles, then identify them and master each in its own right first.
-William
|
|
|
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/15/2006 10:43 AM |
Alert
|
Accepted!
Since you are going to "kick" my butt (your choice of words) 5 five minute rounds of thai rules? Or you do you want to take the easy way and go two pins out of three?
I'll be at fight night tonight.
Posted By warwick on 09-14-2006 11:36 PM Posted By Alvarro on 09-14-2006 8:42 PM Blayde, snip* And Digrassi is for posers who can't read Italian. snip* I'm gonna kick yer butt Al.
|
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
warwick
Provost
Posts:125
|
| 09/15/2006 11:35 AM |
Alert
|
I'll stick with the grappling brother - I don't want my face to end up looking like yours |
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/15/2006 11:59 AM |
Alert
|
Welder,
That's funny. My initial fencing book on period was Silver, DiGrassi, and Saviolo together, and I've always attributed Silver's work to DiGrassi...my bad. In fact, much of my fighting manual is a blend of Silver, Saviolo, DiGrassi...or atleast basic principles taken from what I had read. I agree my position on the last governor was misunderstood when I originally included it and was written from memory. I'm sure that's not my only mistake and there are many things that I currently disagree with that are in the manual. My philosophy as changed over the years... and not just in my approach to fencing. I plan on a revision soon or a complete rewrite. It's going to happen sometime this fall. I invite you to critique it when it's finished. My belief on any of the above guys and on others is none of them have a complete system. They have treatises, and they all have holes in them.
I disagree with you that any style need be mastered to combine elements. Using Capo Ferro as an example: Capo Ferro insists on stesso tempo ripostes to attacks while not giving ground. There's no reason you could not give ground while riposting in single time.
This philosophy goes against Capo Ferro and others teachings, but it works. It is definitely a mix of different styles or atleast an alteration. No complete understanding is necessary to do this. Another example is the Capo Ferro approach into measure with the weight over the back leg. This is not necessary, merely stylistic. It is a philosophy, not a mechanic. Next, is Capo Ferro's guard with the philosophy of extending the arm outward so your tip is closer to your opponent. Again, this is philosophy, not mechanics. You can still use much of Capo Ferro without using all of it...or should I say, limiting yourself to only Capo Ferro.
|
|
|
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/15/2006 1:08 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By warwick on 09-15-2006 11:35 AM I'll stick with the grappling brother - I don't want my face to end up looking like yours
Dude.
I CANNOT kick you pretty. Sorry.
Grappling is good. Catch rules in effect. There will be a medic in the house.
|
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
warwick
Provost
Posts:125
|
| 09/15/2006 1:47 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Alvarro on 09-15-2006 1:08 PM
snip*
Grappling is good. Catch rules in effect. There will be a medic in the house.
Oh good. I'll bring the Olive Oil. Don't forget your leather pants. And shave your back please. |
|
|
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/15/2006 2:07 PM |
Alert
|
Hey Blayde,
Not to jump into your reply to welder, but Capo Ferro is our newbie's style, so I wanted to make a little comment. You mention elements of capo ferro's style, but those particular elements, or others, are not what make up Capo Ferro's style. That's somewhat the problem...a partial understanding gives you the flesh, and little muscle, but no bone. Flesh will fit over a lot of different bones, but it's the bones that drive a thing.
This is not the same thing as saying that you need to totally absorb yourself in a manual for twenty years until the true light is revealed to you by a mystical vision. Nor can you spend a while reading the text, even deeply, and expect to understand it. You will only "get it" when you read it all, try it all the way the author says to try it, and but the good practice in. Do it on your own, takes a while. Do it with a good instructor OR some people who have already done the hard work, six months or so.
I am a person who uses many different styles when I fight. I suppose that makes me a hybrid fighter. I find the best approach though is not to try to combine styles, but to use the styles like a playbook. Each composed attack should develop from one style, and stay within that styles dictates. Which style you use for which opponent...yeah, that's a whole other bit of fun.
For example, when I face an opponent I will decide which style will work best against them. With me, it's usually Capo Ferro, Marozzo, Guidonator, or Albertesque (I'm working on adding that one.) When I decide which style to use, then I'll modify my game within those parameters to face the particularities of the opponents guard, and then attack in the "legit" manner. I won't break form during the engagement.
As a real-world example of this, my Cadet Artus was facing Tora in the finals at Ursulmas. He asked for advice and I told him that Tora was fast, and seemed to generally wait for the opponent to reveal an error in guard or execution, that he would exploit. So, I told him not make any mistakes...which for him, meant approaching with Fabris. Artus went into the right mindset, took the proper Fabris "athletes only" guard, and ran down Tora and killed him. Then he decided to try something different for the next round and got killed...silly boy...and then sniped to death for the loss. But when stuck within the single form, success. And that approach worked for him just about every time *after* that loss...he's gone on to become a truly deadly period fighter. Who moved out east. Wah. 
Taking tidbits from every style and trying to mash them together until you have your own style...well, the SCA provides a darwinian enough environment that you *will* eventually come up with a style that allows you to win within the rules. But DAMN that is the hard way to go! It will take you years to discover things that you could have found in months. And even with all those years, you will still likely have holes in your style that will take heartbreaking effort to correct down the road. The period guys did the work, listen to what they actually say, not what we expect them to say, and you'll hear a good truth. |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/15/2006 2:16 PM |
Alert
|
| OK Posted By warwick on 09-15-2006 1:47 PM
Oh good. I'll bring the Olive Oil. Don't forget your leather pants. And shave your back please.
OK, that's it. You owe me a beer for the coffee I spilled!
Shave my pretty back fur? Never! It hugs me like...well, never mind what...
|
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/15/2006 2:58 PM |
Alert
|
Alvarrao,
I'm sure Capo Ferro wouldn't consider his style a newbies style...nor do many who use it or teach it. Why do you consider it a newbie style? I'm really curious...is there another master whom you consider far superior? If so, please share and I'll endeavor to study that one in the near future. I always need more perspective.
I like your bone analogy, and you're right about that if someone has no background. But, as someone gains experience with other styles and experience fighting, it takes less time, and less muscle and flesh before they reach the bone of the matter.
The other thing to consider is that if you line up every style or treatise that has survived, each will have very similar elements to them. When I read a treatise, I try to find both differences as well as similarities. Also, what you find are lots of philosophy. I believe philosophy is much more important than execution. I also believe you can learn mechanics and adapt them.
I do agree you don't change styles mid-lunge. I also can't always remember where I originally got an attack from...i.e...which treatise it originally came from. If I dagger attack as a riposte at an oblique after binding my opponent out with my sword, I'm not concerned where it came from. I'm only concerned with executing it in proper measure and tempo.
The period guys did a lot of work, and I continue to learn from them, but to not develop your own style is believing that because it was written, it is law. Styles are artforms, not science. Silver thought the Italian style was dangerous and seriously flawed. And I agree.
I agree with you that trying to develop a form without input from those who came before you is folly. As for expectations, I don't have any. I believe each author had his own truth's and the truth to one was a lie to another.
Re the Tora story: When I defeat Tora in melee or in tournament, it usually amounts to one thing. I either out executed him or I out timed him. When he defeats me, it's usually the same thing. It sounds like your guy managed to land a blow on Tora in a tournament, and I commend him for it. Most people don't. If he stayed with one thought or one defense that worked for him, excellent. But, what I would attribute it to is execution rather than style. But, I do hear what you're saying...don't switch in the middle. I'm lucky enough to have developed my own style and philosophy (of course based on what I've read from period authors and learned from years of fighting), so I don't worry about switching in the middle and it takes the guess work out of it. |
|
|
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/15/2006 4:04 PM |
Alert
|
Blayde,
Capo Ferro is a newbie style. He carefully explains what the basics of swordplay are, to a complete beginner. It's all very, very basic stuff, but also fairly thorough. It's also laid out in instruction order. He begins by explaining the theoretical basis of fencing (which covers the first six months or so of a fencers training) and then moves onto the practical application of theory (which covers the next six months to a year) and finally he dips into tactical solutions to specific issues. It's a whole fencing curriculum, covering the first time you pick up a sword to the first real fight.
No one else really does that.
The examples I like to compare are Capo Ferro, Giganti, and Fabris. Giganti is just the good stuff from Capo Ferro. Not a lot of depth, but really, really effective. It's written like one of Capo Ferro's students who wanted to show you the "good stuff." Fabris is what happens when you start with Capo Ferro and get *really* serious about your swordplay.
And frankly, the earlier you go, the more complex things get. Cutting is very, very complex.
I agree with Silver too, at least with the Italians he was talking about, which was Saviolo. Capo Ferro, etc...whole different thing.
I guess my main concern is that people really miss the point of a style. I've rarely seen a properly interpreted Capo Ferro. I've seen a ton of people who can ape the postures and quote passages, but don't get the gut of it...and they suck eggs as a result. The mechanics of Capo Ferro...well, that's a good point. People can take the mechanics and try to string them together, and all you get is a mess. You can apply them outside of his system and make a bigger mess...you might have the odd success (I am talking here about successes due to application of theory, not chance or natural advantage) that makes you think you've got it...but you don't. So...what is "it" that can't be picked up this way?
It's pretty simple. Capo Ferro is a power style. It depends on mechanics and timing to kill with brute force. You punch through guards and counters with inertia as much as anything else. Can you get that from a piecemeal understanding of Capo Ferro? I've never seen it. I've only seen people trying to be fancy. If you understand the power aspect, the system clicks. Good Capo Ferro fighters will punish you in bouts. They are HARD to beat and hit like bricks. Like I said, it's a good beginner style.
But show me someone who can get that understanding from anything less than a thorough read and good, solid, constant practice of Capo Ferro, and you'll be showing me one hell of an exception.
Now, once you understand *how* and *why* he generates this power, then yes, you can start to find new ways to apply it (see giganti and fabris) and then you are working on your own unique period style. But...most people I've seen will grab a guard or two and a technique or three and figure that's good enough. They don't reach through to what they are supposed to take away.
OK, now the coffee's worn off. Nap time. |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/15/2006 4:42 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 09-15-2006 11:59 AM
Welder,
That's funny. My initial fencing book on period was Silver, DiGrassi, and Saviolo together, and I've always attributed Silver's work to DiGrassi...my bad. In fact, much of my fighting manual is a blend of Silver, Saviolo, DiGrassi...or atleast basic principles taken from what I had read. I agree my position on the last governor was misunderstood when I originally included it and was written from memory. I'm sure that's not my only mistake and there are many things that I currently disagree with that are in the manual. My philosophy as changed over the years... and not just in my approach to fencing. I plan on a revision soon or a complete rewrite. It's going to happen sometime this fall. I invite you to critique it when it's finished.
I thought it might be something like that, but I didn't see a date on the manuscript. That "Three Elizabethan Fencing Masters" will get you every time. I look forward to reading your manual when you finish your rewrite.
My belief on any of the above guys and on others is none of them have a complete system. They have treatises, and they all have holes in them.
It is certainly true that the systems laid out in many treatises are hard to understand and often presuppose certain knowledge on the part of the student. We, as modern students without this presumed context, often perceive these omissions as "holes" in the system. We fill these gaps by interpolating based on what the rest of the system tells us. DiGrassi, with clear intent, does not cover all possibilities of offense and defense in all wards, instead allowing the reader to explore and fill in the gaps based on the rest of the treatise. This sort of "frog DNA" I do not object to. My concern is with the extrapolation involved in importing techniques that are outside the scope of the original system entirely.
I disagree with you that any style need be mastered to combine elements. Using Capo Ferro as an example: Capo Ferro insists on stesso tempo ripostes to attacks while not giving ground. There's no reason you could not give ground while riposting in single time.
This philosophy goes against Capo Ferro and others teachings, but it works. It is definitely a mix of different styles or atleast an alteration. No complete understanding is necessary to do this. Another example is the Capo Ferro approach into measure with the weight over the back leg. This is not necessary, merely stylistic. It is a philosophy, not a mechanic. Next, is Capo Ferro's guard with the philosophy of extending the arm outward so your tip is closer to your opponent. Again, this is philosophy, not mechanics. You can still use much of Capo Ferro without using all of it...or should I say, limiting yourself to only Capo Ferro.
I'm not a Capo Ferro student, so I will happily defer to those--like Randy--who are. That said, I would be highly reluctant to classify any of the techniques you mention as "not necessary". I strongly suspect that each serves a specific purpose. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps the weight on the back leg is meant to allow for a more ready lunge while removing the torso, and the extended point invites blade engagement (and the accompanying tacto) without which the lunge seems a more dicey prospect.
Another point I would like to raise is that we, as students of period masters, are as much historians as we are students of fence. If I, as a student of Saviolo, cannot demonstrate a good, artful fight using only the elements of Saviolo's system, then I have failed in a part of my duty to myself, to my school, and to the Art. Any additions I wish to make outside of that are on my own head, but History and the students who come after me deserve the opportunity to see and learn the art in a way as closely tied to the man and his times as I can manage.
-William |
|
|
|
|
|