| Author |
Messages |
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
 |
| 09/15/2006 4:51 PM |
 Alert
|
OK, so comprehensive = newbie. Got it!
I guess I've never met a great Capo Ferro fighter. Does that mean nobody gets it yet? The closest person I've seen to really executing it well is Sean Hayes, and he teaches it. But, even he admits that when the chips are down, he reverts to his classical style.
I don't think the basis of Capo Ferro is power at all...it's based on leverage and judgment. With leverage, you get power...but you don't produce it persay. You're right when you say mechanics. You're right, when Capo Ferro works, it's very good. But when it fails, the Capo Ferro fighter is the one punished for his lack of judgment. Again, I've never fought anyone who could stay in Capo Ferro and not revert to some other form when it mattered. Yeah, in practice, sparring...but not when it mattered...or atleast...not successfully. The biggest tourney's I know of this side of the Mississippi are held at Estrella War. I've been there four of the last six years, and I have seen a lot more fighters attempting Capo Ferro recently than four or five years ago. I've just not seen anyone being successful at it. I personally know the winners of the three Open tourneys this year and the three Open tourneys last year and I'm positive those guys weren't fighting Capo Ferro. In fact, I can't recall any Fabris, Giganti or Capo Ferro stylists winning. My point is....some of their style has been integrated into various fighters in one form or another. So, it's very possible that utilzing period mechanics, philosophy, guards, etc. to a degree less than full understanding, can be successful. Or maybe, as you talked about earlier, they used principles and mechanics from each at appropriate times. But again, I know who won, and those guys had hybrid styles.
I do agree that to be good at Capo Ferro, you should be practicing it every day. What I find flawed in his principles are the reliance on not giving ground and timing. What has to happen properly is recognition of what your opponent is doing as opposed to what you think he is doing, and that is where the Capo Ferro fighters fail. The fact that they didn't give ground after that initial mistake is what does them in.
I apologize. I'm not trying to say Capo Ferro's system is bad. What I'm saying is you can utilize the parts of it that are good and integrate them into your game without swallowing the entire gospel. |
|
|
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:105
|
| 09/15/2006 4:58 PM |
Alert
|
Alvarro, I actually wasn't aware that Fabris' style allotted for running anyone down, but I'll be the first to say I am no student of his particular brand of fence.
As for your student at Ursalmas, his subsequent losses to me in the tournament weren't because he changed form, it was because I changed measure. I do pride myself on my ability to adapt, and it was just a matter of increasing your good student's time to attack.
I'm looking forward to visiting one of your Friday night fights. 
Tora |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/15/2006 5:02 PM |
Alert
|
Still a dreg of coffee left, so, some specific replies re: Capo Ferro.
1. Stesso tempo "riposte" to attacks, without giving ground.
CF's reason for this is that an attack that falls short (misses, is vulnerable to forte control, whatever) is in effect the same as *you* gaining measure on the opponent. At misura stretta, you attack (or run.) Doesn't matter whether you worked to arrive at misura stretta, or the opponent did the work. A smart fencer takes advantage of the opportunity. If you give ground, you give up leverage and control of the blade, and invite a counter by the opponent. The chief difference between modern and rennaissance fencing is that rennaissance style takes advantage of the blade, and does not allow for more than one effective change of line in an engagement. You can attack, and get in one disengage, but no more. With two competent fencers, someone is dead past that point. Hey, it's italian. It's aggressive. If you retreat, you are *not* doing capo ferro.
2. Approach to misura with the weight on the back leg.
Power. Power, and more power. You must be ready to explode and drive in with strength at any moment that the misura changes. It's not that the weight is on the back leg, it's that CF insists that you never, ever leave your perfect guard. As you move, you go from a perfectly balanced stance (not talking guard per se here, just the foot position) to a more stable stance that allows for a stronger attack at the expense of mobiliity. You then recover to a more mobile position.
3. Extension of the arm so that the tip is closer to the opponent.
Uhm...I believe that is actually an extension of the arm to solidfy the gain after the initial stringere. Or more simply, once you have a good line, you put as much of your forte into your opponents foible as possible...which should result in more of your foible in their eyeball. Capo Ferro never, never, makes an action that isn't a direct threat on the opponent, if not a direct attack.
As I was saying, you take these things out piecemeal, and you miss what he's really telling you. He's not trying to *hide* his real techniques, but he is taking it for granted that you will work through what he says, and come to understand what he is saying that way. His manual is the voice of the teacher teaching, not a reference manual. I know the different types of quarks, but that doesn't mean I know what a muon does. That's because I skim the physics books for things that catch my eye, but I don't read them cover to cover, or take classes. But quarks are cool! |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/15/2006 5:11 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Tora on 09-15-2006 4:58 PM Alvarro, I actually wasn't aware that Fabris' style allotted for running anyone down, but I'll be the first to say I am no student of his particular brand of fence. As for your student at Ursalmas, his subsequent losses to me in the tournament weren't because he changed form, it was because I changed measure. I do pride myself on my ability to adapt, and it was just a matter of increasing your good student's time to attack. I'm looking forward to visiting one of your Friday night fights. Tora
Fabris is pretty clear that once you draw the blade, you should be pretty much putting constant pressure on your opponent. No pause, no hesitation.
Artus is pretty good at measure control, trust me... his mental game at tourney competition is what needs work. I believe he got a little cocky. 
Definetly come to a friday fight night. I admit I've been using you as a bogey man to scare some of the students into pushing it just that last little bit. 
|
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:105
|
| 09/15/2006 5:18 PM |
Alert
|
Definetly come to a friday fight night. I admit I've been using you as a bogey man to scare some of the students into pushing it just that last little bit. 
Tora |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/15/2006 5:29 PM |
Alert
|
Blayde,
Stop it with the interesting posts! I've got work to do, dammit!
Yeah, comprehensive=newbie. Gotta start em out with a good foundation, and then let them pare down to what is really their own style. For the record, our program starts with CF, and then blends in Marozzo and Fiore.
The first exam is basically terminology (two days-two months.)
The next grading we ask the student to show that they can maintain CF's form under pressure (6 months to a year.)
The third grading we ask the student to show good form AND win (1-2 years.)
After that, we start tossing more breadth at them, and they work on finding their own happy place.
And no, I haven't met one good Capo Ferro fighter in the SCA. No one even close, aside from Prospere, who is the other instructor at the school.
My insights on Capo Ferro don't come from my own experience, but from my experience teaching it. We've been immersing people in CF for over two years now. They have an understanding of the style at a deeper level than I will. In some ways, my students are my hardest fights. How they do in tournaments...As in any sport or art, performance has more do with personality than training. But let's take Lucien for example. His first tourney was September crown. In the first half of the cadet tourney, he didn't do to well. In the second half, when he pulled it together...he went something like 20+ wins to 5 or so losses. He's been a student here for about five months. His final record was about...50/50 or so. That level of wins takes the average SCA fighter about 3-5 years to attain. I'll take that as credit to Capo Ferro.
Uhm... funny feeling here we are using different words and arguments to say the same thing. Your last sentence makes me want to defend my point of view...but when I think about it, I think we are agreeing. We may differ slightly about what makes up those "good parts" and what makes "gospel" but frankly I think we can agree that 80% of that shows up in winning fights, yeah? And the remaining 20% is why god invented beer and bars to drink it in... |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/15/2006 6:02 PM |
Alert
|
1. Where does Capo Ferro insist on Stesso Tempo only when an attack falls short? In fact, after you stringere the blade, you have moved into position where you can strike from at least misura larga. At this point, if you riposte stesso tempo, you are counting on deflecting a blade that would have penetrated you. My whole assertion about giving ground is to accomplish one thing...and that is so the attack does fall short. Are you expecting your opponent to come into your measure and not their own when they attack? If they attack, it is assured they have found measure. At that point, ground needs to be given to cause them to fall short. If that ground isn't given prior to the attack, and you riposte stesso tempo, then you are not being safe nor doing what you assert. If you give ground as you are riposting, the riposte may be considered stesso tempo, but if your retreat is slightly before that then you are in dui tempo...and clearly not Capo Ferro.
2. Weight over your back foot - It doesn't equal more power nor does it equal mobility. The evenly weight stance loading both the front and back legs will buy you more power, but anytime you shift either backwards or forwards, you give up mobility in the opposite direction. I don't understand where your physics comes from. My understanding of the rear weighted guard is two fold. To keep your body further from your opponent and to allow you to retreat quickly before you commit to the pass.
3. The extention of the arm I'm talking about is in the initial guard, not the extension after stringere. My assertion is that you shouldn't present the blade until you are making contact or closing the line. By having your initial guard too far forward, you present your hand and forearm as a sniper target. By refusing the blade until you wish to engage, two things happen. First, stringere of the blade becomes very difficult. Secondly, your hand isn't easily sniped.
So, taking these things out piecemeal doesn't at all diminish from what Capo Ferro says, it just makes his system more mobile and a little safer. Holding the guard back keeps you from being sniped and keeps your opponent from closing the line by stringere without serious danger to himself. Keeping the stance balanced from beginning to end allows for more mobility.
I riposte in as close to single time as possible, but I ensure I'm just out of measure. Sometimes is stesso, sometimes it's dui. I keep my hand refused, and those who present their blade to me give me nice hands to shoot and blades to bind. I'm very much appreciative of those folks. Lastly, as long as my opponent is solidly over his back foot, he's not in a position to quickly launch. He has to shift weight first, and that is an obvious tell. Sean Hayes teaches a weight shift into stringere. That makes sense to me. What most Capo Ferro students do that Sean Hayes believes is a misinterpretation is to stay in the rear weighted guard inside measure. I'm sure other teachers may feel differently, but I think Sean has that one right.
I think your quark analogy is cute, but it's not the case here. I think we need to clear up some interpretations and understanding, and maybe we're on the same page...and maybe we're not. But, it's definitely not a case of skimming here.
Edited: No time for more now. I just read your last...and we can continue this later. I'm taking my wife out to dinner. I'll await your response to this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/15/2006 9:10 PM |
Alert
|
Welder,
Many treatises are hard to understand, but mostly due to them explaining where and how to stand and move. Pictures paint words, and much of why Capo Ferro is so easy is due to the pictures.
Capo Ferro espouses weight over the back leg...and that with the plates makes it clear that there is no advantage with that stance in moving forward. Body mechanics and physics are pretty solid in that regard. As far as tacto goes, the whole premise of Capo Ferro is utilizing tacto. It's those fighters who deny tacto as I suggest that confound Capo Ferro students. Unless you play the tacto game, Capo Ferro has a difficult time dealing with you. There have been those who argue that you can stringere with absense of blade, but like you say, it's a very dicey subject. So, you're en guarde in Capo Ferro, my blade is denied and I won't attack until I'm at a proper distance that you don't have time to riposte in single time. What do you do?
I agree that students of period masters are historians. My guess is you are a very good one. Me on the otherhand, I'm a fighter who believes the masters are a great place to start. I'm a historian to a degree, but the fight and the duels that I will fight are more important. What matters to me are the techniques that hold up to today's dueling. It matters less who said it or wrote it. It matters more that it really works in what I'm teaching my students. That's where I stand.
|
|
|
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/18/2006 3:40 PM |
Alert
|
I'll take my time.. I'm really not good at keeping more than a few threads going in my head at once, and I'm dealing with about 10 things right now...So I'll do my best.
A little point first: When I talk about power, I am using it in the modern sport science way (http://www.tudorbompainstitute.com) or in a plyometric way. Not being strong, but being quick in a strong way. Make sense?
>1. Where does Capo Ferro insist on Stesso Tempo only when an attack falls short?
Not saying only then...I was answering your initial query which I thought was why a certain action would be done at a certain time. For the rest of your reply, I'm not sure about exactly how you are interpreting the difference between misura larga, stretta, and the tempo's that apply to each. I'll fall back on CF himself. Chapter XI, 104-111 is my point of view. Do you see something in there that is logically wrong, and within those bounds not good combat? I *think* that's the section most relevant to what you are inquiring.
> 2. Weight over your back foot - It doesn't equal more power nor does it
equal mobility.
Distance between feet has the biggest affect on the balance between power and mobility. Thus my point that it's not the weight over the back feet.
> The evenly weight stance loading both the front and
back legs will buy you more power, but anytime you shift either
backwards or forwards, you give up mobility in the opposite direction.
Double-weighting is bad. Movement requiring a weight shift costs time. Chapter IX, 83-94 should be relevant (not trying to be a dick with the text references, BTW...just being really lazy, and not wanting to cut and paste a bunch.)
>I don't understand where your physics comes from. My understanding of
the rear weighted guard is two fold. To keep your body further from
your opponent and to allow you to retreat quickly before you commit to
the pass.
Retreat?!?! What is this retreat you speak of? The guard section follows the foot/leg section (and it's nice for me to re-read it...ahhh, I know what tonights class is gonna be on!) but the quick parts are:
100) There are three reasons
which make it difficult to hit the mark, namely: the distance to the target;
because it is concealed, so that one is at pains to see through the impediment
of the things that veil it; and even if it is uncovered, as the danger of the blow
approaches, in a moment it is possible to cover it.
101) All of these virtues are contained in our guard;
because it greatly distances the target and removes so much of it, that by
means of the fold and concealment of the torso, most of the parts that cannot
be concealed can be excellently covered; one is quick to succor them, being in
equal distance, and thus walks safely to take well the tempo and measure, which
thing is the ultimate perfection of the guard.
>3.
The extention of the arm I'm talking about is in the initial guard, not
the extension after stringere. My assertion is that you shouldn't
present the blade until you are making contact or closing the line. By
having your initial guard too far forward, you present your hand and
forearm as a sniper target. By refusing the blade until you wish to
engage, two things happen. First, stringere of the blade becomes very
difficult. Secondly, your hand isn't easily sniped.
OOooohhhh... Gotcha. Yah, that's sensible. Capo Ferro does not disagree with you. He does mention a quick and easy way to deal with hand snipers which is effective but takes a serious amount of training (we discussed it above...stesso tempo because your opponent has shorted their measure, giving you a "deeper" measure as well as their foible right on your forte.) He specifically mentions that a student should be aware those who present the left side forward and refuse the blade, as it is a feint of measure since the left side can be withdrawn easily, and you will then have arrived at your opponents misura stretta unprepared. Capo Ferro stresses terza for many good reasons (uhm...chapters..eh, you can find them,) and lists reasons why it is the best, but he's not married to it. It's a great guard to teach measure, but read Fabris to see how it really works best.
Was that an obtuse enough answer?
Trying to keep focus here...
Weight shift into stringere...noooot without controversy (mostly about the mechanics of that,) although I agree. It's very, very, important to remember what you need to do outside misura larga, what you do *as you arrive* at misura larga, and that everything past misura larga is striking not gaining. I think one of the key elements of Capo Ferro's method is the understanding of the point nature of misura larga, and how much happens there.
Yeaahh...was there a point to this? Was I trying to prove something? Hope not. I'm enjoying the conversation, and I've gotten lost in the trivia.
Perhaps going back to the original post, I would say that I think a solid "period"-style instruction should give a student solid tools, good plans and practice for building standard objects, a sense of what everyone else does, and a confidence within the student to apply all of that in a way that is unique to the student and the situation. I don't expect a period fighter to be a carbon-copy, I expect them to be well-rounded and intensly prepared for anything. I evaluate the different styles on that basis.
Sigh. Time for palaestra prep. Ciao!
|
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/18/2006 10:29 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 09-15-2006 9:10 PM
Welder,
Many treatises are hard to understand, but mostly due to them explaining where and how to stand and move. Pictures paint words, and much of why Capo Ferro is so easy is due to the pictures.
Capo Ferro espouses weight over the back leg...and that with the plates makes it clear that there is no advantage with that stance in moving forward. Body mechanics and physics are pretty solid in that regard. As far as tacto goes, the whole premise of Capo Ferro is utilizing tacto. It's those fighters who deny tacto as I suggest that confound Capo Ferro students. Unless you play the tacto game, Capo Ferro has a difficult time dealing with you. There have been those who argue that you can stringere with absense of blade, but like you say, it's a very dicey subject. So, you're en guarde in Capo Ferro, my blade is denied and I won't attack until I'm at a proper distance that you don't have time to riposte in single time. What do you do?
I wouldn't presume to tell you what a Capo Ferro student would do, of course.
There are a couple of unpleasant gotchas to entering larga with your blade refused, though. Chief among these is the fact that you have now entered a distance at which you can be hit, and have done so without controlling your opponent's blade (unless you're using your left hand, which is tricky for offense). Danger, Will Robinson. From the hispano-italian world, one common response to an opponent who refuses blade engagment, for example, is the acometimiento.
I agree that students of period masters are historians. My guess is you are a very good one. Me on the otherhand, I'm a fighter who believes the masters are a great place to start. I'm a historian to a degree, but the fight and the duels that I will fight are more important. What matters to me are the techniques that hold up to today's dueling. It matters less who said it or wrote it. It matters more that it really works in what I'm teaching my students. That's where I stand.
You're very kind, but I'm afraid that here we must part philosophical company. To pick and choose elements of your style that cater to the highly-regulated beast that is "today's dueling" (at least in many contexts including, sadly, the SCA) is a step down the same path that estranged olympic fencing from its martial roots. For myself, I will stand with the masters of antiquity and with the people who keep working on the techniques that don't "hold up" until they eventually develop the skill to make them do so.
-William
|
|
|
|
|
RuaidhriMacCuileann
Free Scholar
Posts:59
|
| 09/19/2006 9:34 AM |
Alert
|
First, I'll address a few specifics:
Capo Ferro espouses weight over the back leg...and that with the plates makes it clear that there is no advantage with that stance in moving forward. Body mechanics and physics are pretty solid in that regard.
Umm... I don't think so. If your weight is over the back leg, all you have to do is raise your front foot and you fall forward, propelled by gravity and body mass. That's what body mechanics and physics dictates.
My understanding of the rear weighted guard is two fold. To keep your body further from your opponent and to allow you to retreat quickly before you commit to the pass.
Ah, I think I get it, now. You're thinking that the front foot is pushing your body back over your rear foot. Not so. In a rear-weighted stance, your weight rests mostly on your rear foot, and your front foot rests lightly on the ground. It's not a rear-mobile stance - it's a front-mobile stance.
So, you're en guarde in Capo Ferro, my blade is denied and I won't attack until I'm at a proper distance that you don't have time to riposte in single time. What do you do?
I aim at your sword hand, thus constraining your possible attacks. That more or less robs you of your time advantage and possibly lets me snipe your hand in the same moment that you thought to snipe mine. It may or may not work, but it makes the refused blade tactic a lot more dicey.
Are you expecting your opponent to come into your measure and not their own when they attack? If they attack, it is assured they have found measure.
This is true. And if I'm doing my job properly, I have constrained my opponent's blade in such a way that they have only three choices: an obviously stupid attack, a less obviously stupid attack, or a strategic retreat.
At that point, ground needs to be given to cause them to fall short. If that ground isn't given prior to the attack, and you riposte stesso tempo, then you are not being safe nor doing what you assert.
Not so. Again, if I've done my job properly by constraining my opponent's blade, my opponent's attack is just doing my work for me - that is, they're running on my blade, and I'm perfectly safe (or as safe as you can be in a sword fight). I don't even think of it as a riposte - all of my work was done before the attack. If I give ground, I'm throwing away the bout. OTOH, if I haven't done my job properly (my opponent's blade is not constrained), I need to retreat before my opponent attacks and start over. Otherwise, I'm a dead man.
Now for a more general response:
My nutshell understanding of Capo Ferro is that he wants you to approach cautiously into measure, seeking to constrain your opponent's options so that they have only two ways to attack you, and you have anticipated and covered those two avenues of attack. To be safe, keep your arm fairly well extended - this helps you establish constraint (or stringere) at an earlier time, and it gives you more reaction time in case your opponent attacks. If your opponent happens to constrain you, you retreat as you disengage and attempt to regain the advantage. If you constrain your opponent and they do nothing, you attack them and put them out of their misery. If you constrain your opponent and they attack, you let them run on your blade and put them out of their misery. If you constrain your opponent and they retreat, try a more subtle constraint as you seek measure again. Repeat as necessary. Retreat is only necessary when you are trying to regain the advantage, thus the only time when a balanced stance is necessary is when you are jockeying for stringere. Once you have gained the advantage, you're better off with a rear-weighted stance so you can launch a fast and powerful lunge (going by Randy's definition).
Hmm... I guess I just paraphrased Randy. Smart guy, that Randy.
Regards,
W. Scott Simmons
aka Ruaidhri Mac Cuileann dal gCais
cadet to Don Tyrus of Misty Haven
An Tir fencer emeritus
|
|
|
|
|
TdB
Free Scholar
Posts:58
|
| 09/19/2006 10:55 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By RuaidhriMacCuileann on 09-19-2006 9:34 AM
My nutshell understanding of Capo Ferro is that he wants you to approach cautiously into measure, seeking to constrain your opponent's options so that they have only two ways to attack you, and you have anticipated and covered those two avenues of attack. To be safe, keep your arm fairly well extended - this helps you establish constraint (or stringere) at an earlier time, and it gives you more reaction time in case your opponent attacks. If your opponent happens to constrain you, you retreat as you disengage and attempt to regain the advantage. If you constrain your opponent and they do nothing, you attack them and put them out of their misery. If you constrain your opponent and they attack, you let them run on your blade and put them out of their misery. If you constrain your opponent and they retreat, try a more subtle constraint as you seek measure again. Repeat as necessary. Retreat is only necessary when you are trying to regain the advantage, thus the only time when a balanced stance is necessary is when you are jockeying for stringere. Once you have gained the advantage, you're better off with a rear-weighted stance so you can launch a fast and powerful lunge (going by Randy's definition).
That's pretty much the best summation I've seen on the topic - well done! Of course, the devil is in the details. How do you constrain your opponent such that he's really constrained? How do you deal with his dagger? How do you convince the opponent that he has you constrained when in reality, you have him constrained? These are the things I'd be working on if anyone actually came out to practice in Calgary :p
|
|
OK, fine, I'm unapproachable. Keep your distance or I'll pez you. |
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/19/2006 5:01 PM |
Alert
|
RuaidhriMacCuileann,
Honestly, I have to disagree with a good portion of what you wrote.
First, weight over the back leg: Physics dictates that if you weight is over the back leg and you lift your front foot, you go nowhere. That's great for avoiding a foot snipe...but it hardly helps you go forward. If your weight is evenly balanced and you lift either foot, you go in the direction of the lifted foot. Not so when you shift it forward or back. And no, I'm not thinking your front foot is pushing your body back. It's already there.
I may not have been clear on my question, so let me rephrase it. How are you going to stringere my denied blade to be true to Capo Ferro's teachings? If I'm not constrained, then I'm free to do anything I want. What I'm talking about is you having to or me having to get very close prior to being able to stringere the sword.
I've fought many fighters who use a very low denied guard. Like has been said before, any attack into that stance is very dicey. The Capo Ferro game breaks down as you close measure without properly stringering the blade. You can't aim at the sword hand close enough to it to make any difference. Trust me on this. Aiming at the sword hand is no more than keeping your blade in line. I'm constantly aiming at sword hands...and its a far cry from constraining them in any way.
On the last part, my assertion is you are not properly constraining them because the blade is denied and you have not stringered it properly. The mere denial of the blade makes it difficult for you to do anything. Next, the closer they get, the more dicey the proposition becomes. You don't have a clear advantage, and at some point, you probably won't be able to retreat in time for a quick lunge.
Your definition of what CF wants you to do is spot on. However, it breaks down when you don't have the opponent's blade constrained in the manner which it is understood you should have. The blade being out in front is merely an opportunity for your opponent to sweep it, especially if he is fighting with a dagger or case.
My assertion is that Capo Ferro breaks down when both people aren't playing fair. I'd be happy to demonstrate this for you. If you are in CA anytime, let me know. If you are in the Seattle area, my good friend Tora can show you as well.
Now, if two people are playing CF, then yes, execute a proper stringere of both body and blade, and wait for the not so smart guy to disengage and lunge....unless he is also using CF, then he will feign the disengage...and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/19/2006 9:40 PM |
Alert
|
Welder,
It's funny you should mention left handed. I happen to fight primarily left handed, and that's just one more thing that makes Capo Ferro difficult to accomplish.
I'm very interested in the historical techinique for dealing with the refused blade: acometimiento
I'd like to know what is supposed to work against it. Please don't confuse the difference between refused, meaning held somewhat back and refusing to contacting the blade. The idea is to contact at your convenience, not making it easy for your opponent to bind you. The only thing the refused blade is giving up is about 6 to 12 inches of arm extension and that equals very little time compared to the dangers of losing the hand and giving your opponent the advantage.
It doesn't necessarily give the low refused guard fighter the advantage, but it does make playing Capo Ferro very difficult. Remember, there are all sorts of other aspects of the fight that come into play.
There are very few fighters that I've come across whose blades I can't control from the low refused guard by using measure, timing, deception, etc. For the very, very few whom I've run across where that is a problem, I duel more conservatively and wait for a mistake.
Lastly, I definitely agree with you on the regulated fencing theory. That's why I don't just fight in the SCA. That being said, lots of rules or very few rules don't seem to plug the holes in Capo Ferro or Fabris theory. They are both very wise, but just like every published psychologist, they try to fit the entire universe into their theory. Unfortunately, fencing, just like psychology is bigger than one man's theory. You shouldn't worship the period masters or cannonize them. Most of them didn't respect or agree with each other. We should learn from them, but understand they are fallible. It's not like I'm asking you to defend your religion...or am I?
|
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/19/2006 10:33 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 09-19-2006 5:01 PM
My assertion is that Capo Ferro breaks down when both people aren't playing fair. I'd be happy to demonstrate this for you. If you are in CA anytime, let me know. If you are in the Seattle area, my good friend Tora can show you as well.
Ruaidhri is down in Houston now. However, I think I would disagree with this statement. In my experience with fighting Tora over the past couple of months, is that we go about 50/50 - but there are still many times that he strikes me in my arm, yet I am already lunging and cannot stop - and strike him in the chest.
Given a real fight with sharp swords? We;;. considering the type of "flick" thrusts being used during most of these encounters, I would get some measure of a "cut" to my arm. Yet, I would still end up with my blade through Tora's chest. You tell me which is the better position to be in.
(FYi - the word flick was the best that I could come up with - and not really meaning to come across as disparaging in any way)
|
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/19/2006 11:46 PM |
Alert
|
Relax, Blayde...if anyone here is the Inquisition it is me.
"Repent! Repent, vile sinner, of your departure from the pure faith! Give over Satan's ways and abandon this base perversion of the True Art! Seek you not the prideful road to lesser victory, but renounce your hubris and enrich your soul through the immortal words of the ancient masters of defense!
"So...you will not repent? Very well, we have ways of persuading you. Cardinal Fang, bring me...The Comfy Chair!"
I think that, in the end, if the advantages of learning a style in depth are not apparent to you then no amount of debate is likely to convince. If your primary goal is to win tournaments against like-minded folk as quickly as possible--fence as a means rather than an end--then it may even be that you have chosen the easiest path. But I also think that, because of that choice, there are depths of the Art that you will never plumb, poetic motion that will pass you by unrealized, and epiphanies whose joyous fountains of insight you will never know. That you will miss all this is not a cause for condemnation; it is just sad.
So maybe this is my religion. And maybe I am a true believer. But this is about as much as I'm willing to evangelize today.
-William
|
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/20/2006 8:52 AM |
Alert
|
Justin,
If you're going 50/50 with Tora, and he's only hitting limbs and you're hitting chest, then I commend you, but I think I'll wait and let Tora weigh in on that statement. The funny thing is, I was just fencing a Don from up your way, and I kept hitting him in the body while he was delivering cuts to my thick leather boot that would not have done any damage. Yet, he was content to get in a parting shot. I do understand the concept. As for flick thrusts, it's the SCA that causes flick thrusts, not the fighter. I do flick thrusts a lot to keep people from complaining. When I'm fighting outside the SCA with rules that expect a 4" bend, you won't see any flick thrusts from me.
I'll be up that way in the near future, and I'd love to dance with you Justin. If you're enjoying fighting with Tora, you're gonna love me. 
Welder....that was cute. Very nice. So, If I repent, do I still get the 40 virgins...oh wait...wrong religion.
Here's the thing. I'm not concerned as much with winning or winning tournaments as I am at being the best swordfighter I can be. Winning quickly only comes into play on the battlefield where you have to dispatch an opponent because his two friends are closing quickly. I teach both melee and tournament tactics to my students. When in tournament, I preach caution and defense above all, and I'm spouting Capo Ferro and every other Master who I can quote on defense being the key to offense. Trust me, it's not about winning...it's about striving for excellence in all that you do.
I've been fencing for about 18 years now, and I know there is no easy path. There is no right and there is no wrong, and that might be a tough pill for the purist zealots to swallow. However, there are laws of physics that come into play, and when a law of physics is violated by a master, I'm not going to stand up and shout "I believe" to the congregation. There is also a huge difference between philosophy and science. Fencing is Art and by definition is subjective. Those who would claim that fencing is science are only half right.
Most of the insights I've gained by studying a given master reinforce previous learning and concepts. Masters either agree or disagree with each other. What I've learned is that the more masters I read, the more they lineup with each other and in some cases disagree. I haven't seen a technique that gave me an epiphany in quite a few years. I believe I've offered a difference of opinion on certain aspects of a given style and merely disagreed with the Master. I know that makes me a blasphemer and I'm sure I'm being ex-communicated as we speak. But, that's o.k. I'm not a fencing historian. I won't get the joy that others get out of disecting language, it's not my bag.
What I've always said, is everyone does this for a different reason. You, obviously, care about the depths of a given style and studying one style to it's limits. I'm content to delve into a style to the point where I understand where it could go with practice. I do understand where Capo Ferro is coming from, and I know how well I could execute the style with practice. It works, it's great, it makes sense. However, me being me, I also know where I would change it. Again, I could demonstrate, but realistically, what it comes down to is execution. If I'm better at my style than you are at Capo Ferro, all I've proven to you is I'm a better fencer. If two people are fighting Capo Ferro, it's the same thing. It comes down to who is the better fencer that day. The bottom line, is a style is a style, and being able to use it is what counts. That's why NFL coaches don't sit infront of judges and explain why their team should be chosen the winner of the game. That's why the PLAY the game. |
|
|
|
|
SimonFencer
Provost
Posts:132
|
| 09/20/2006 9:07 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 09-19-2006 9:40 PM
Welder,
It's funny you should mention left handed. I happen to fight primarily left handed, and that's just one more thing that makes Capo Ferro difficult to accomplish.
Bovine excrement...I am left-handed all the time and it doesn't add make Capo Ferro anymore difficult to accomplish.
Paul
|
|
Paul Franklin
in the SCA: Simon Valdez, AoA, cadet to Mouse
Around the triple W: Simonfencer |
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/20/2006 9:26 AM |
Alert
|
Simon,
Before you cry pigsh!t, don't assume you understand what I mean. Try asking me to elaborate, and then see if you disagree. And if you do, no problem. If we all agreed all the time, there would be no reason to learn sword fighting.
So, are you saying you have more power closing the outside line than you have closing the inside line. I think it was Alvarro who said CF was a power game, and I agree. I don't have the same power trying to control my opponent's blade on my outside as I do to the inside. By definition, if your opponent is in terza, and you close the line, you must do so to the inside. If you use your false edge, you cede a great deal of power, and even with your true edge, you're not as strong in that direction with your arm. If you test with a weight machine, you will find you are much stronger pushing from Quarta across than pushing from Terza outward. My assertion is it's harder to keep the line closed and the opponent from taking your debole left v. right. I find Capo Ferro much easier to play with my right hand. I learned both sides from Sean Hayes, and we had to adjust every plate to accomodate the left side. It worked, but not the same and not as easily. |
|
|
|
|
SimonFencer
Provost
Posts:132
|
| 09/20/2006 9:37 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 09-20-2006 9:26 AM Simon, Before you cry pigsh!t, don't assume you understand what I mean. Try asking me to elaborate, and then see if you disagree. And if you do, no problem. If we all agreed all the time, there would be no reason to learn sword fighting. So, are you saying you have more power closing the outside line than you have closing the inside line. I think it was Alvarro who said CF was a power game, and I agree. I don't have the same power trying to control my opponent's blade on my outside as I do to the inside. By definition, if your opponent is in terza, and you close the line, you must do so to the inside. If you use your false edge, you cede a great deal of power, and even with your true edge, you're not as strong in that direction with your arm. If you test with a weight machine, you will find you are much stronger pushing from Quarta across than pushing from Terza outward. My assertion is it's harder to keep the line closed and the opponent from taking your debole left v. right. I find Capo Ferro much easier to play with my right hand. I learned both sides from Sean Hayes, and we had to adjust every plate to accomodate the left side. It worked, but not the same and not as easily.
Sorry, the caffeine is taking its time this am...
I see your explanation as being the fun part of doing it...having to learn something a bit new. Sean is a great teacher too. At 4W two years ago he helped me with adapting the cut and thrust stuff to accomodate my lefthandedness.
Admittedly, it is a bit easier to do CF right on right or left on left, but left on right is a lot of fun.
Paul |
|
Paul Franklin
in the SCA: Simon Valdez, AoA, cadet to Mouse
Around the triple W: Simonfencer |
|
|
|