| Author |
Messages |
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
 |
| 09/20/2006 10:38 AM |
 Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 09-20-2006 9:26 AM
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.
In controlling your opponent's blade from the outside, try moving your blade into seconda, and THEN push your opponents sword to your left, while your feet are moving towards your right side (but sword still going "straight" to your opponent's chest....
As long as you have been working on balanced muscle development, your left arm should be just as strong as your right. |
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/20/2006 10:45 AM |
Alert
|
As an aside, if you are going to mention people at all, I think it might be better to actually be blunt about who you are referring to, and not vague references to "Don from your area", or things like that.
I know I am curious  |
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
RuaidhriMacCuileann
Free Scholar
Posts:59
|
| 09/20/2006 10:58 AM |
Alert
|
Just to be annoying, I'll disagree again. There IS a right way and a wrong way to fence. The right way is the one that keeps you alive, and the wrong way is the one that doesn't. Of course, the right way and the wrong way change from moment to moment. 
Yes, Capo Ferro does have a few weaknesses. He does have this to say about what you should do when your opponent refuses to engage (Swanger-Wilson translation):
12) Method of Striking the Hand. You must know that every time that your adversary has the point of his sword outside your presence, either high or low, or that it faces outside your left or right side, you will put the point of your sword opposite his hand in a straight line; leaning your body somewhat to the rear, you will approach to measure, and, having arrived, you will push a thrust in mezzo tempo into the said hand; just by propelling the body forward and bending the right knee will one strike; but you will take care that in such striking you must carry the left foot back, accompanied by the right; and furthermore, the enemy having his dagger arm advanced forward, you, wanting to strike it in the hand, will follow the same directions as above.
It's not a perfect solution, but with practice, it works fairly well. With even more practice, it works pretty consistently. On the other hand, Capo Ferro just gripes about people who move off the straight line (a la destreza). Thus the famous quote "Of course! But I find that Thibault cancels Capo Ferro. Don't you agree?"
Since you keep coming back to the physics thing, let me try another explanation. Capo Ferro does not advocate putting all of your weight on your rear leg. Your center of gravity is typically an inch or two forward of your rear foot, and your rear leg is deeply flexed, waiting to spring into extension at a moment's notice. To move forward, you raise your front foot and extend your rear leg. Boom! You've lunged quite a distance. To move backward, you must shift your weight forward, extending your rear leg and flexing your front leg a bit, then raise your rear foot as you extend your front leg. Forward motion happens in one tempo, and backward motion happens in two tempos. The stance increases your forward mobility at the expense of your rearward mobility.
To jump back to the core of this topic, I'll present my $.02: Yes, you can learn things from Capo Ferro without studying his system intensively. No, you cannot understand Capo Ferro's system without practicing it intensively. The same principle applies to Fabris, Giganti, Marozzo, Fiore, Leichtnauer, Thibault, Pacheco, Saviolo, Silver, Swetnam, etc. You might be able to put together an effective martial art by taking pieces of Aikido, Arnis, Wing Chun, and Tae Kwon Do and mixing them together, but you couldn't claim to understand those component arts unless you'd really studied each of them in depth.
BTW, Ramon, I'm in Plano, just north of Dallas. I'm not in the armpit of the nation, but I am about a five hour drive from there!
Regards,
W. Scott Simmons
aka Ruaidhri Mac Cuileann dal gCais
cadet to Don Tyrus of Misty Haven
|
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/20/2006 11:39 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By jgreywolf on 09-20-2006 10:38 AM
Posted By Blayde on 09-20-2006 9:26 AM
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. In controlling your opponent's blade from the outside, try moving your blade into seconda, and THEN push your opponents sword to your left, while your feet are moving towards your right side (but sword still going "straight" to your opponent's chest.... As long as you have been working on balanced muscle development, your left arm should be just as strong as your right.
As the point goes right by yer head...
Just ta let ya know... Blayde is a natural Lefty.... and I can attest that his Left arm is the stronger...
His point is, that Cappo was writen, and is best used, from a right hand stance, against a right handed fighter. Inside and outside change as you, or your opponent, shifts from a right to left handed stance. Stronger and weaker change dramaticaly.
Looking at Kirbys translation of Capo, I see ONE plate (#38) which shows a left handed fighter, in Quarta, with sword extended.... ie...playing into the Capo system... allowing you contact to stringere...
"You will then commence to stringere on the INSIDE of his sword with terza....." Ummm... doesn't this put you, in Terza, ie hand in an upright position, true edge pointed down, opposing his quarte? Doesn't this put HIM in the stronger stringere position? because he can easily, with a wrist movement, bring his true edge against your blade? Which is why in the plate he is parrying with a dagger???
This is the kind of thing Blayde is talking about... fighting an different hand fighter, either right or lefthanded really forces you to rethink your lines, and what will put you into the stronger position....
Sooo... as Capo apparently does not cover the left hand fighter, does this make anyone who fights lefthanded a non purist? As we CANNOT follow many of his plates... we HAVE to adapt?
Well... being ambidextrous, and as I proudly make a habit of changing hands every Touche... excommunicate me as well....
HERETICS UNITE!!!
Long Live the Sinister!!! |
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/20/2006 11:43 AM |
Alert
|
Justin, it's not arm strength, it's what arms do best. If your arm had the exact same power in every direction, you would be able to bench press the exact same amount as you could curl. I think we all know that isn't usually the case. In this situation, I am talking about being in seconda...the natural line close. With your arm extended forward, you don't have the same leverage. That's all I'm saying there.
As far as mentioning names, it's not a smart idea because you may have a different take on what happened than the person you reference. If you are prepared to discuss that publicly, go ahead....like your reference to Tora which I'm sure you will be discussing in the very near future. As far as my reference to a "Don from your area," I'm not positive where he's from but I believe he's from Antir, so I kept it vague. I thought I'd met him at the West/Antir War prior to our recent dance. I'd only use his name with his permission.
Ruiad,
All I'm getting out of the passage is when you're striking the hand, get opposite it and thrust then move back. It says nothing about refused guardia. Did I miss something? I do agree that the closer you get to the hand before you lunge increases your chances. No argument there. You have to have better tip control the further you are away. So what I'd say to those with a refused guard trying to snipe hands is practice, practice, practice. The practice makes up for not presenting your own hand to be sniped. To snipe a refused guard, you have to get closer...and therein lies the danger.
Regarding the plate you posted. Figure C is definitely over his back leg and Figure E is slightly forward of that, but just barely with enough body weight on his back leg that still doesn't bode well for lunging forward. Sean Hayes, according to my recollection, teaches a weight shift forward upon stringere of the blade. The initial guardia is for moving into measure is what I was taught in regards to CF. You and others continue to argue that CF advocates staying in that position during the fight until lunging.
I'm going to see if I can get Sean to clarify his interpretation, and I'll get back to you.
Oh, lastly, remember a guy named Bruce Lee.....he was a hybrid fighter....he took what he knew and developed Jeet Kun Do based on his understanding of numerous schools and what worked best for him. I'm sure CF Fabris and others did the same thing but had one particular style that was their basis. This is just speculation, but I bet I'm right.
|
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/20/2006 11:51 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By RuaidhriMacCuileann on 09-20-2006 10:58 AM Just to be annoying, I'll disagree again. There IS a right way and a wrong way to fence. The right way is the one that keeps you alive, and the wrong way is the one that doesn't. Of course, the right way and the wrong way change from moment to moment. Yes, Capo Ferro does have a few weaknesses. He does have this to say about what you should do when your opponent refuses to engage (Swanger-Wilson translation): 12) Method of Striking the Hand. You must know that every time that your adversary has the point of his sword outside your presence, either high or low, or that it faces outside your left or right side, you will put the point of your sword opposite his hand in a straight line; leaning your body somewhat to the rear, you will approach to measure, and, having arrived, you will push a thrust in mezzo tempo into the said hand; just by propelling the body forward and bending the right knee will one strike; but you will take care that in such striking you must carry the left foot back, accompanied by the right; and furthermore, the enemy having his dagger arm advanced forward, you, wanting to strike it in the hand, will follow the same directions as above. It's not a perfect solution, but with practice, it works fairly well. With even more practice, it works pretty consistently. On the other hand, Capo Ferro just gripes about people who move off the straight line (a la destreza). Thus the famous quote "Of course! But I find that Thibault cancels Capo Ferro. Don't you agree?" Since you keep coming back to the physics thing, let me try another explanation. Capo Ferro does not advocate putting all of your weight on your rear leg. Your center of gravity is typically an inch or two forward of your rear foot, and your rear leg is deeply flexed, waiting to spring into extension at a moment's notice. To move forward, you raise your front foot and extend your rear leg. Boom! You've lunged quite a distance. To move backward, you must shift your weight forward, extending your rear leg and flexing your front leg a bit, then raise your rear foot as you extend your front leg. Forward motion happens in one tempo, and backward motion happens in two tempos. The stance increases your forward mobility at the expense of your rearward mobility.
Sooo... in order to retreat, you have to shift your weight forward, without moving your feet yet, thus moving your body FORWARD into your opponents measure?
As to physics, the more weight you have over your back leg... ie the further BACK your center of gravity is, the SLOWER the begining of the movement will be.... think of a tree that was just cut down, its initial movement is very slow, but acceleration increases as more of the weight is vertical. A more balanced weight will actualy make your footwork, and thus your thrust, faster. |
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/20/2006 12:01 PM |
Alert
|
| Long Live the French Resistance! |
|
|
|
|
RuaidhriMacCuileann
Free Scholar
Posts:59
|
| 09/20/2006 2:07 PM |
Alert
|
In my interpretation, "your adversary has the point of his sword outside your presence, either high or low, or that it faces outside your left or right side" means that your opponent is refusing to engage by using a refused stance, by withdrawing their hand, by keeping their point off the line, etc. My personal preference is to just point my sword at their hand until they decide to do something different. Why? Because it's an obvious trap, and I'm not going to walk into a trap, no matter how obvious.
I don't really advocate staying in the rear-weighted stance. Not strongly, at least. It has its uses, but in practical terms, a balanced stance is more natural when involved in the advance-retreat dance of constraining your opponent. However, when I reach a point of stillness, I'll settle back a bit. It's my own way of setting a trap.
I've done some practical experiments, and I've discovered that my lunge speed is to the same whether I use a modern, Capo Ferro, or Giganti lunge, but the range for each differs significantly. If measured in terms of my center-of-gravity to my opponent's center-of-gravity, the striking range of my modern, balanced lunge is on average 8.5 feet, my Capo Ferro lunge is 9 feet, and my Giganti lunge is 9.5 feet. Measuring the travel distance of my point, my modern lunge travels 2.5 feet, my Capo Ferro lunge travels 3 feet, and my Giganti lunge travels 4 feet. Of course, it takes quite a bit longer to recover from a Capo Ferro or Giganti lunge. My take on it is that you aren't supposed to lunge until you're sure your opponent is going to be dead at the end of it. If your opponent is dead, then you can take all the time in the world to recover.
Romeo13 - A smart lad you are! As I've been saying all along, the rear-weighted stance sacrifices your rearward mobility. You use it during your approach into measure, when rapid retreat isn't on your mind. It's also handy for setting up a long-range lunge. As Blayde has pointed out, it's not so useful during the dance of constraint. I've tried to maintain the rear-weighted stance throughout a bout, but it's a rare day that I don't slip into balanced stance, and on those rare days, I tend to get killed while tripping over my own feet. I've been fairly agnostic on the subject, but I'm leaning toward a balanced stance while moving and a rearward stance while still. Especially after reviewing some of the plates and commentary, where the plates show more balanced stances while in motion and the instructions call for things like passatas or voltes. You just can't do that stuff effectively without a balanced stance. OTOH, it's really fun to hit someone who thought they were a foot out of your range! Shifting back and forth seems the best solution.
Yep, Bruce Lee did that. And he did it after he'd deeply studied each of the component arts of Jeet Kune Do. And he was a damn fine fighter. And he was very systematic in his approach. Morihei Ueshiba also comes to mind. He took a lifelong study of jujitsu, kenjitsu, and other arts, mixed them well with moments of inspiration, and devoped Aikido. Hybrids can be amazingly good. The good ones are usually built upon a deep understanding of existing arts. From reports and from personal experience with Tora, y'all may have a good hybrid system under development. I understand that it is based on a combination of classical western fencing and various eastern martial arts, with elements of western historical swordplay mixed in. You get good results from it. If your students also get good results from it, you're on your way.
I suppose in the long term that the relative effectiveness of different styles might be judged by how well the average student of a given style does against the average student of a different style. Maybe in our lifetime we'll have large enough sample populations to make reasonable judgements. I doubt that there will be any significant differences, though. Style X may have an advantage over Style Y, but be vulnerable to Style Z, which in turn is vulnerable to Style X. I'll still say pick the one you like most, learn it top to bottom, and then start working on the next one.
Ugh. I need to go do some gardening, now. Been putting it off all day...
Regards,
W. Scott Simmons
aka Ruaidhri Mac Cuileann dal gCais
cadet to Don Tyrus of Misty Haven
|
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/20/2006 2:37 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By RuaidhriMacCuileann on 09-20-2006 2:07 PM
Romeo13 - A smart lad you are!
Regards,
W. Scott Simmons
aka Ruaidhri Mac Cuileann dal gCais
cadet to Don Tyrus of Misty Haven
Yep... a 47 year old retired Military "Lad"....
What next, gonna call me "Son"?
Sigh.... why do I suddenly feel like Rodney Dangerfield? |
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/20/2006 2:40 PM |
Alert
|
| PS.... Romeo13 was my Callsign... when I was boarding ships in the Persian Gulf... |
|
|
|
|
RuaidhriMacCuileann
Free Scholar
Posts:59
|
| 09/20/2006 3:54 PM |
Alert
|
What next, gonna call me "Son"?
Sure, why not? I'm only three years your junior.
More seriously, allow me to apologize if I offered any offense. I'm used to being one of the old coots around here, and it occasionally leads me to make bad assumptions regarding age.
-Scott/Ruaidhri
|
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/20/2006 4:19 PM |
Alert
|
Yes, laddy, that's the best compliment you can get at your age. Since I'm a young man of 44, I guess calling me lad would be a compliment too.
Ru, can I call ya Ru? It's shorter and I don't even know how to pronounce your name...no worries, I won't refer to you as my son.
I'm glad you have seen through practical application that an even balance is better, but i can't fathom how you can time your lunge and expect it to be the same as the rear stance. But, that brings up a very interesting point. If you did have a more accurate stopwatch and freezeframe camera with time attached, I'm sure you would see that your rear weighted lunge is slower. The thing is, not by much...but we are discussing mechanics. That being the case, how much time advantage do you think you would get by having your point app. 8 inches closer v. the disadvantage of having it 8 inches closer to your opponent's tip? That's my whole argument for the refused guardia.
I think you assume a little when you say Bruce Lee had a deep understanding of every art form he used to develop Jeet Kune Do. For instance, Bruce Lee had a brother named Peter who fenced, and he picked up some fencing technique from him. He also read many fencing books. There are aspects of his art derived from fencing, but it is quite obvious he never had a deep understanding of any one style. Nonetheless, he uses measure and movement very similar to fencing in many aspects of his art. Afterall, martial arts are tied together by many facets. Again, I don't believe you have to have a deep understanding....just an understanding to encorporate different styles into your game. I don't particularly like Fabris's approach and I'm not going to spend two years getting a deep understanding of his style to be sure. Nonetheless, a lot of things he says makes sense, and I do use many of his principles. All that being said, if you have time to seriously study every form and then encorporate, you should be able to develop a solid hybrid that will one day be a purist form. No argument. For the rest of us, if it makes our form better by encorporating something, there's no reason not to. Agreed?
As far as the Tigers and Tora's style or my style go, they are different but very similar. Each of us as well as other members of the Black Tigers cadre have their own students. Everyone's style is different but based on common principles that we reinforce. I would agree with you that our style is still under development and will be until we stop fencing. I'd say the style is based on historical first, classical second with very little Eastern Martial arts from my end and more from Tora's end. Afterall, we have a thriving school in Japan at the moment, so Kendo is going to get mixed in. Unfortunately, we don't cut in the sca, so we only use those techniques outside of SCA...we'll see how widespread the new c/t goes. For now, we're going to be doing our cutting at non SCA events.
I don't believe style is as important as training. If a style is inherently flawed, then all things being equal, a better style will win. But, that's hardly ever the case. My experience has shown me that those practicing Capo Ferro don't do too well in competition, but I don't think that's his fault. I think it's a case of proficiency. The guys fighting a hybrid style they have been doing for years should be better than the guy fighting Capo Ferro for a year or two. I've got 3 or 4 guys who have only been fencing a year that will, without doubt, beat 90% of the fighters in the SCA. But, I can't give credit to the style as much as I would to their determination, work ethic and discipline. The Black Tigers train hard, and it shows when we go to war. Look us up next year at Estrella. We won't be hard to find. |
|
|
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:105
|
| 09/20/2006 4:38 PM |
Alert
|
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)
Ramon, do you think perhaps you should revise what you said above? I think you're a good guy, I really do, and a skilled swordsman, but don't you think you're being just a tad overgenerous there? I don't mind if people want to use me as a gauge but if you're going to invoke my name on a public forum then we need to keep the statistics hard and factual.
As for the arm thrusts, try and remember that I'm making contact and pulling it the moment I do so as to save on the amount of bruising you take. Much as I might disagree with it, it is the rules nonetheless. Then please do remember that the tells you give me are what allow me to take your arm as you prepare to launch. Lastly, anyone who fights me knows that if I were to hit the hand or arm in such a fashion that it would not sufficiently damage then I tell him instantly not to take it. If I hit your arm and DO expect you to take it, it is because I'm quite certain you will be trying to finish your attack minus some muscle, tendons, and perhaps a severed vein or two. You know, all those things that allow you to hold a sword in the first place. I usually give people a second or two after they have been struck to realize this; which most of them do.
But, if you feel I am the mistaken one, fair enough. Please understand I am not trying to be confrontational here, but your practice is just down the road. We could always straighten this out in person--privately, if you like.
Tora |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/20/2006 4:50 PM |
Alert
|
Blayde,
I think you are close on the footwork... but missing one element I consider vital...
The forward motion of the sword on a good thrust is a combination of the vertical speed of your hand, some (minimal ) body lean, and the speed of your advance.
If you are backloaded, ie, more on your back foot, your initial foot speed is going to be slower than if you have a more balanced center of gravity. It just plain takes longer to get going.... Its like the difference between a sprinter using starter blocks, and one who starts upright....
As your hand speed is not going to change between the two.... it would seem that if you have an even center of gravity, your sword will actually approach the target more quickly....
As the difference between a good touche, or an opponents parry is sometimes measured in hundreths of a second... I contend that this difference can be significant.
Now... as to the arguement that you have a bit more reach? As neither move should be done when outside of measure, its immaterial.
And I must also add, that advancing into measure, and not being prepared to retreat if you do not find yourself in an advantageous positition, seems counter intuitive (unless of course you have a reach advantage over your opponent...). |
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/20/2006 4:50 PM |
Alert
|
"Unless there is a tactical reason for acting otherwise, gaining and breaking ground is executed by means of small and rapid steps. A correct distribution of weight on both legs will make for perfect balance, enabling the fighter to get off the mark quickly and easily whenever the measure is right for attacks." -- The Tao of Jeet Kune Do - Bruce Lee
Romeo,
I agree in the sense that milliseconds make the difference in hitting, being hit, and deflecting a blade prior to being hit with it. I will always look for the even balance and when necessary, loading both legs. Unfortunately, this technique has a stamina cost to it. I do it less in melee and more in a duel. |
|
|
|
|
RuaidhriMacCuileann
Free Scholar
Posts:59
|
| 09/20/2006 5:27 PM |
Alert
|
You mean you can't read Gaelic? What kind of illiterate are you? It's actually pronounced "Rory," but I also answer to Scott, and it's easier to spell.
I haven't really scientifically measured the time that I take to do each lunge, but I just thought of something that could work with an accuracy of 1/29.87 of a second: a camcorder! I'll have to set mine up sometime soon and do the research. The longer lunges may well be a bit slower. They don't feel any slower, but subjective experience won't pass peer review, will it? I'll post my results when I'm done.
The guys fighting a hybrid style they have been doing for years should be better than the guy fighting Capo Ferro for a year or two.
Yes and no. If it's a good hybrid style and the guy who uses it is a diligent practitioner, then yes. On the other hand, if it's a cobbled together hybrid (like you see so much of in the SCA) and the Capo Ferro guy is a diligent practitioner, then no.
The problem with hybrid styles is that they very often are just grab-bags of techniques. It takes a long time to gather enough techniques to cover every situation. The hybrids that are successful are the ones where their inventors start breaking the techniques down into principles, and then rebuild everything based on those principles. Alternatively, the inventor may already have a set of principles to work from, and they cast about to find techniques that work with those principles. Either way, if you have a solid base of principles, you can start inventing techniques on the fly. In some cases, this is done unconciously. These are hybrid fighters who can beat most of the world, but they can't really explain what it is they do, other than to teach techniques piecemeal. In other cases, the hybrid fighter conciously develops their principles, and in so doing comes up with a body of theory that they can test, refine, and teach easily.
That said, the problem with established schools is that they can lead to the sort of orthodoxy/heresy behavior that's been joked about on this forum. Sometimes, a student of an established style can fall into the trap of putting the theory before the evidence. Established styles and schools are a wonderfully effective way to teach and learn basic principles of combat in a fairly short time. But the best practitioners will keep a critical eye on what they've learned, try to discover their weaknesses before someone else does, and learn or develop new principles that fix those weaknesses.
So, in the end, the best of the hybrids become established schools, and the best of the established schools become hybrids. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Regards,
W. Scott Simmons
aka Ruaidhri Mac Cuileann dal gCais
cadet to Don Tyrus of Misty Haven
Texas? Whattaya mean I'm in Texas? |
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/20/2006 7:38 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Romeo13 on 09-20-2006 11:39 AM
"You will then commence to stringere on the INSIDE of his sword with terza....." Ummm... doesn't this put you, in Terza, ie hand in an upright position, true edge pointed down, opposing his quarte? Doesn't this put HIM in the stronger stringere position? because he can easily, with a wrist movement, bring his true edge against your blade? Which is why in the plate he is parrying with a dagger???
Regarding Plate # 38 (A is being denoted as the left handed fighter, B is his right handed opponent):
To start, A is in an extended quarta, so B constrains A's sword by placing his blade over that of A's, in the position of terza (as you say, with the true edge facing down - i.e., facing A's blade). Now, since I am sure that A does not like this situation, he will cavare into seconda (moving from B's outside line, to the inside one), and attempt to strike B in the face, chest, etc.
From here there are different options:
1: At the lowest point of the cavare, B could raise their sword and strike in terza to the face, or in seconda to the chest. However, B will also need to use his dagger to parry A's sword towards B's outside line.
2: Given the higher risk of getting skewered in either of the two options above, it would be much easier for B to move his own blade into quarta on the outside of A's sword, as A is completing their cavare into seconda on B's inside line. Then, with opposition against A's blade, B is in the better position.
However, if A were to attack on an oblique line, by lunging on a diagonal line to one side or the other, while their sword continues forward, they would have greater mechanical leverage behind them. My personal preference would be for A to lunge on a diagonal line to their left, keeping their sword in seconda. This pushes B's sword further away, and reduces their own attempt to gain the stronger position from quarta on A's outside. It also removes B's dagger from the picture a bit.
Lunging on a diagonal to the right could possibly work as well, but then B could just strike A chest with his dagger.
If you spend the time with it, Capo Ferro's "system" works fairly well for either the left or right handed fighter. Dont get hung up on the plates, or specific scenarios, just look at the fundamentals, and apply as appropriate.
|
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/20/2006 7:42 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Tora on 09-20-2006 4:38 PM
Ramon, do you think perhaps you should revise what you said above? I think you're a good guy, I really do, and a skilled swordsman, but don't you think you're being just a tad overgenerous there? I don't mind if people want to use me as a gauge but if you're going to invoke my name on a public forum then we need to keep the statistics hard and factual.
As for the arm thrusts, try and remember that I'm making contact and pulling it the moment I do so as to save on the amount of bruising you take. Much as I might disagree with it, it is the rules nonetheless. Then please do remember that the tells you give me are what allow me to take your arm as you prepare to launch. Lastly, anyone who fights me knows that if I were to hit the hand or arm in such a fashion that it would not sufficiently damage then I tell him instantly not to take it. If I hit your arm and DO expect you to take it, it is because I'm quite certain you will be trying to finish your attack minus some muscle, tendons, and perhaps a severed vein or two. You know, all those things that allow you to hold a sword in the first place. I usually give people a second or two after they have been struck to realize this; which most of them do.
But, if you feel I am the mistaken one, fair enough. Please understand I am not trying to be confrontational here, but your practice is just down the road. We could always straighten this out in person--privately, if you like.
Tora
I was not trying to be confrontational either. Just stating what has been so, in my experience since May Crown. Granted, we fought a bit there - and twice at July Coronation, but I do not think that we have done anything since then.
I certainly would not mind you coming down here, publicly or privately - just let me know when you are available - even if we do not have class running that night. Well, of those only Thrusday nights would work for me But I think it coudl be fun, and give me some time to talk to you more about some other topics that we had discussed in the past.
I am not saying that I can always get the same results - you are damn fast, and certainly have an advantage of measure |
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/20/2006 10:15 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By jgreywolf on 09-20-2006 7:38 PM
Posted By Romeo13 on 09-20-2006 11:39 AM
"You will then commence to stringere on the INSIDE of his sword with terza....." Ummm... doesn't this put you, in Terza, ie hand in an upright position, true edge pointed down, opposing his quarte? Doesn't this put HIM in the stronger stringere position? because he can easily, with a wrist movement, bring his true edge against your blade? Which is why in the plate he is parrying with a dagger???
Regarding Plate # 38 (A is being denoted as the left handed fighter, B is his right handed opponent):
To start, A is in an extended quarta, so B constrains A's sword by placing his blade over that of A's, in the position of terza (as you say, with the true edge facing down - i.e., facing A's blade). Now, since I am sure that A does not like this situation, he will cavare into seconda (moving from B's outside line, to the inside one), and attempt to strike B in the face, chest, etc.
From here there are different options:
1: At the lowest point of the cavare, B could raise their sword and strike in terza to the face, or in seconda to the chest. However, B will also need to use his dagger to parry A's sword towards B's outside line.
2: Given the higher risk of getting skewered in either of the two options above, it would be much easier for B to move his own blade into quarta on the outside of A's sword, as A is completing their cavare into seconda on B's inside line. Then, with opposition against A's blade, B is in the better position.
However, if A were to attack on an oblique line, by lunging on a diagonal line to one side or the other, while their sword continues forward, they would have greater mechanical leverage behind them. My personal preference would be for A to lunge on a diagonal line to their left, keeping their sword in seconda. This pushes B's sword further away, and reduces their own attempt to gain the stronger position from quarta on A's outside. It also removes B's dagger from the picture a bit.
Lunging on a diagonal to the right could possibly work as well, but then B could just strike A chest with his dagger.
If you spend the time with it, Capo Ferro's "system" works fairly well for either the left or right handed fighter. Dont get hung up on the plates, or specific scenarios, just look at the fundamentals, and apply as appropriate.
Ummm... Why would A bother with a Cavare into seconda, when he is already in a stronger stringere??? All you need do is turn you wrist, deny B's line (as he is in terza, with the true blade down, ie no power), and thrust for the throat, as you have his blade bound...... his own arm and blade would inhibit his dagger from parrying... and its a single time move.... the only counters is to either void by retreating (difficult if he's in the Capo rear foot weighted stance), or raise your wrist, cavare, and hope your fast enough to scewer them before they scewer you (because there move is already started.... in... in tempo...).
this whole scenario is based on an idiotic left handed fighter..... which is part of my problem with the treatsie in its entirety... I have read it, though not truly studied it... but just where else is there anywhere he talks about fighting an off handed fighter? and the differences you have to make to adjust?
Trust me... I think I understand the fundamentals ( and use some of them periocicaly), but in this thread I believe we were talking about Purists, vs the Hybrid styles....
|
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/21/2006 8:03 AM |
Alert
|
Scott,
I have to agree with you. I am ill illiterate when it comes to reading or pronouncing Gaelic. I've been exposed.
Actually, I'm in total agreement with you when it comes to grab bags of techniques. What it really boils down to is people learn techniques and don't understand why they work. Suddently, they don't work, and there's no where to go. That's why the most important thing I get from period masters are principles. I always see where numerous masters agree. Unfortunately, I've read enough, have competed at the is sport in various forms for 18 years, and have very solid opinions of what works and what doesn't.
I've been force feeding principles and theory down my students throats for a while now, because several of them seem to be content with Blayde said it, it must be true...we keep winning...why worry about what anyone else says. It works the same way with Tora. My guys worship him as a fencing God. If he says something...it's gospel...and rightly so. Your maestro should be the final say until you become your own maestro. The problem with that, just like religion, is that you don't open yourself up to new ideas. That's why I continue to quote from different maestros. This week they are getting Bruce Lee...since he does share a common form. I just read an article on him, and many of his ideas and philosophies are not original. That shouldn't be suprising considering he read numerous books on both Eastern and Western martial arts as well as a huge amount of boxing books. Here's another quote from his Tao, but it was originated centuries before in Japan....however, it's a great thought.
"To state it in terms of swordsmanship, the genuine beginner knows nothing about the way of holding and managing the sword...when the opponent tries to strike him, he instinctively parries it."
"But as soon as the training starts, he is taught how to handle the sword,...and many other technical tricks- which makes the mind 'stop' at various junctures. For this reason whenever he tries to strike the opponent he feels unusually hampered; [he has lost altogether the original sense of innocence and freedom]."
"But as days and years go by, as his training acquires fuller maturity, his bodily attitude and his way of managing the sword advance toward 'no-mind-ness,' which resemble the state of mind he had at the very beginning of training when he knew nothing, when he was altogether ignorant of the art. The beginning and the end thus turn into nextdoor neighbors."
Basically, it says the longer you fight, the less you have to think when you are fighting and just act not instinctively, but freely because your training takes the place of cognitive thought.
Justin,
I fight Tora every chance I get, and we are partners in the Band of the Black Tigers. Honestly, I've never seen anyone go 50/50 with Tora in the long run, so your statement to the rest of the world would seem very bold. I'm just trying to lay this out for you how the public may percieve what you said.
For the record, are you talking about tournament fighting? It's my understanding that Tora hasn't lost a tournament in Antir this year. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Or, are you talking about pickup playing?
So, when you guys do this little dance, please keep score and let us all back here know what the final outcome was. I'm sure I'm not the only curious one. Oh BTW...there are really two Toras. I'm not sure if you've met the second one. The first one is very casual and playful...the second one is strictly business. That guy is very hard to land anything on. Good Luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|