| Author |
Messages |
|
RuaidhriMacCuileann
Free Scholar
Posts:59
 |
| 09/21/2006 8:42 AM |
 Alert
|
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......
All I can say is "Try it for yourself." The true edge (the one that lines up with your knuckles) is forward, and therefore down. All of the muscular power and skeletal structure of B's arm is behind that edge. On the other hand, quarta is fairly weak. If A decided to attack from that position, he'd be killed in short order. Now if A compassed to his left as he attacked, he might survive. The safest route for A would be the one Justin endorsed.
BTW, everything CF says about fighting a lefty can also apply to a lefty fighting a righty.
Anyway, have you actually picked up a sword and worked through any of these materials with someone who's familiar with Capo Ferro? Until you do, you are arguing from a position of zero experience. You have a theory based on no evidence. Perform the experiment as described, and then decide.
Starting general audience diatribe:
If you were an art student, would you tear down Vermeer because he never made much money, or would you study how he acheived such realistic lighting in his paintings? Would you just ignore his work because you do pen-and-ink instead of oil painting, or would you argue that oil painting is useless?
On some level, this whole thread has been annoying me, and I think I've finally figured out why. What bothers me is hubris. To be sure, I see hubris among the purists, but I also see a helluva lot of it in the hybrid camp. What else can make a 21st-Century amateur sportsman who's read a few books feel like they know more than someone who devoted their life to teaching people how to keep themselves alive? What else can explain an urge to dismiss inconvenient principles or techniques without even trying them because they don't fit one's preconceived notions? How else to explain the casual, sideways insults ("Oh, that stuff isn't as effective as MY way") offered to the hard work and dedication of people like Ramon Martinez, William Wilson, and Tom Leone? I don't particularly care if you want to do Capo Ferro, George Hope, or Errol Flynn. If you're not interested in historical masters of defense, don't bother studying them. Do your own thing. I'm fine with that. But if you were on an Asian martial arts forum, would you say "Aikido is nothing but wimped-out Ju-Jitsu" or "Aiki-style rolls are useless - in MY form of Aikido, I only use break-falls" or "There's no way a breath-throw could work - the mechanics are all wrong?"
Now before anyone takes up keyboard to respond, go back and take a good look at your past claims and at the things you've said. Take a hard look at yourself and your motivations. Could you not as easily say things like "No, I'm just not all that interested in Fabris. I'm sure he teaches some good stuff, but it doesn't light my fire" or "I'm too busy/enjoying winning too much to throw aside everything I know for awhile to learn destreza" or "I have my own style that samples liberally from various sources - I don't pretend to know those sources in depth, but what I have works pretty well for me and my students."
All I'm saying here (and this applies to everyone, traditional and hybrid alike) is listen respectfully, debate respectfully, and if something doesn't make sense, try it out and work on it honestly until it does. Maybe Joe Schmo only plays in a sporting context, but his weird techniques help him win most of his bouts. Instead of saying "That shouldn't work," say "I wonder how that works" or "What might work to defeat that?" Maybe Ridolfo Capo Ferro never fought a duel in his life, but he stayed in business as a fencing master (which implies a certain amount of return business and referrals), so he probably had a pretty good system going. Again, when something puzzling comes up, don't say "That won't work." Instead, say "I wonder how that works? Let's try it out." Above all, don't let pride get in the way of improving your game.
Regards,
W. Scott Simmons
aka Ruaidhri Mac Cuileann dal gCais
cadet to Don Tyrus of Misty Haven
|
|
|
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:105
|
| 09/21/2006 8:48 AM |
Alert
|
Well, I don't think it will be necessary to keep score, but I will definitely make it out to your practice, Ramon. Good conversation mixed with some hooking and jabbing is always a winning combination for me. If Thursdays work best for you then I'll give you a heads up on when I plan to come over--just to be sure that day still works for you.
Look forward to seeing you then! 
Tora |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/21/2006 9:17 AM |
Alert
|
Scott,
There you go cannonizing not only the masters, but historians like Tom Leoni or William Wilson. First, let me address a couple of the Masters. Do you actually know if Capo Ferro or DiGrassi devoted their whole life to fencing? Professionally, I've been an Army Officer, Navy Crypto, Food and Beverage Director, Marketing Manager, and for the last 9 years in the IT field. I've written tactical military manuals and technical manuals for the military, but I've hardly devoted my whole life on the subject. Just because I'm published doesn't make me right. Do you think Capo Ferro may have had other things to do besides studying fencing? Do you think he was a fencing master his whole life? I'm very interested in some information on that. Also, how much fencing can a person do? In the last 9 days, I've fenced for no less than 2 hours six of those days. I've fenced for more than four hours 3 of those days. Dude, that's a buttload of fencing, and my body is pretty damn worn out from it. My assertion is the masters didn't fence quite as much as we would like to believe. My guess is wife, kids, crown, court, drinking, womanizing, etc., took up a bit more time than you might think, and fencing...well it was either a business or a hobby that at some point got serious enough to publish. The guys we should be worshipping never wrote books...or atleast none survived. Those guys are the military trainers who saw tons of combat and lived. They have my utmost respect.
Saviolo is great example of someone who never put his own life on the line and made money off his style.
I've been teaching fencing on and off for the better part of 18 years...but it still doesn't make me right. If Tom Leoni translates Fabris and is going around teaching his translation, that probably makes him the leading expert on Fabris. If he's actually making money off it, good for him. But, that won't save his life if he were in a real duel, and it certainly doesn't mean he got it right...or at least all of it right. I know Tora as contacted him about showing the quality of his form, but Tom has yet to take him up on it. I'd would very much like to see how well Tom can do Fabris against my hybrid style.
I haven't said this yet, but since you brought it up. There are historians and there are swordsmen. Historians write books and translate Italian or Spanish. Some historians are decent swordsmen and some swordsmen are decent historians. If you read what most of these published guys wrote, you will note that most of them preach practice and training. I'm not saying that historians and translators aren't any less commendable than those who can actually practice what they preach, but for my money, I respect swordsmen who are historians over historians who are also swordsmen. Why? Because the guy telling me do a, b, c, who can show me that it works will get my ducats. The guy telling me a, b, c, whose getting his arse handed to him by the other guy doesn't get my ducats. Have you ever wondered why most of these translators don't actually commit to fighting with their students? There's a very good reason and there are historical counts of masters of schools who duelled publicly, lost and had their school immediately close. Masters can't afford to be publicly trounced by another master. It's bad for business. No master wants his students to know he's not the best. That's why most of them teach and don't compete. Remember Knights Tale? You have weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting! Every time you go out into that Eric in a tourney, you are putting your reputation on the line. It doesn't matter how many books you've read or how right you are in your theory. You can be the forum GOD...but if you can't deliver, then you're just talk and theory.
If your Gods are historians...that's your call, just don't expect everyone to worship at the same alter. To each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/21/2006 9:27 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 09-21-2006 8:03 AM
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?
Bold? Perhaps. I am also fairly biased that you can find the best rapier fighting (in the SCA) in this area - so the fact that it might happen does not seem to off base to me. Again, this has only been my experience at May Crown and July Coronation. As I said, we have not fought since July, for some odd reason.
As to the second question - this is from both tournaments and pickups. |
|
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
|
| 09/21/2006 9:34 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Romeo13 on 09-20-2006 10:15 PM
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?
As Scott has already mentioned - you will have MUCH more power by constraining A's blade in terza, because your blade is on top of A's. If A were to just turn his wrist into seconda, B's blade would still be in the stronger position ON TOP of A's blade.
That is the distinction that I think you are missing from only reading, and not working with someone who understands the text, and can actually demonstrate the mechanical principles.... |
|
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
|
| 09/21/2006 10:32 AM |
Alert
|
Blayde, you've completely missed the point. I am not canonizing anybody. I'm paying respect where it's due. If you want respect for yourself and your style, quit being such a braggart and start paying respect. Nobody doubts that you're a good fighter. Why do you doubt that anyone else can be? To the guys with big names in the WMA community, you're not a threat - you're a joke. If you want to play with them, treat them with respect. If all you do (as has been the case to date, as far as I can tell) is strut around talking trash and putting down styles that (by your own admission) you have not studied deeply, you are nothing but a buffoon. If you're happy being a buffoon, more power to you. Just don't complain when nobody takes you seriously.
If you want respect, pay it. Otherwise, all you'll get is either fear or contempt.
Regards,
W. Scott Simmons
aka Ruaihdri Mac Cuileann dal gCais
cadet to Don Tyrus of Misty Haven
|
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/21/2006 10:36 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By jgreywolf on 09-21-2006 9:34 AM
Posted By Romeo13 on 09-20-2006 10:15 PM
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?
As Scott has already mentioned - you will have MUCH more power by constraining A's blade in terza, because your blade is on top of A's. If A were to just turn his wrist into seconda, B's blade would still be in the stronger position ON TOP of A's blade. That is the distinction that I think you are missing from only reading, and not working with someone who understands the text, and can actually demonstrate the mechanical principles....
Ahhh... the usual dismissal.... love it...
As I happen to use much of this tactic, although I learned it from a MUCH different art than fencing...
As a lefty I start it Quarta with my arm extended (hand held inside the thigh palm upward), the righty starts in terza......
the righty takes my blade with stingere to the inside.... staying in Tersa... according to the plate... at this point our blades are in contact.... is it your assertion that you, have more available force and strength with the outside flat of your blade, than I do with the true edge INWARD, That you are in the stronger position?
Is it your assertion that if I maintan contact with your blade, and bring my wrist across my body (as this is still on the left side) while keeping my point offensive... basic VERY strong parry... and thrust in single time... that you in Tersa, with the only the outside strength of your arm, as your true edge is down, as shown in the plate, will be able to stop that move??? Without turning your wrist out (true edge to the right, opposing my edge) to get into a stronger position?
I'm not sure what you mean by "ON TOP".... and why that would neccesarily be a stronger position... I can see it if your playing a verticle game... but this isn't (IMO) its a horizontal strength game in this particular instance. |
|
|
|
|
RuaidhriMacCuileann
Free Scholar
Posts:59
|
| 09/21/2006 10:57 AM |
Alert
|
Ahhh... the usual dismissal.... love it...
Ahem. Disagreement is not disrespect. Saying "Ahh... the usual dismissal...." is disrespect. If you want respect, pay it. 'Nuff said. |
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/21/2006 11:13 AM |
Alert
|
Edited.
Scott...lets take this off list. blayde99@yahoo.com |
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/21/2006 12:01 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By RuaidhriMacCuileann on 09-21-2006 10:57 AM Ahhh... the usual dismissal.... love it... Ahem. Disagreement is not disrespect. Saying "Ahh... the usual dismissal...." is disrespect. If you want respect, pay it. 'Nuff said.
Ah... and what a "bright lad" you are... (catty, I know... but can't resist)....
I brought up a technical discusion, and am being told to go find someone who has "experience" to explain it to me, and show me. Someone who understands the "mechanics"....
Basicaly the first post addressed the issue in a way that didn't make sense to me... but then said to go find someone who can show me.... you then reinforced that opinion...
Basicaly telling me here is our explanation, and for any further discussion you need to go elsewhere... is that not a dismissal?
I've trained in various arts, with various purists, both in fencing, the martial arts, and in the military. I am NOT a purist, and never will be... because many purists (not all, not even most) have an interesting characteristic in common.... Just like a religous fanatic, there beliefs are not to be questioned... holy writ is holy writ.... and any flaw an outsider questions, which cannot be adequately explained is put off as you not having a "higher or deeper" understanding... you didn't get the epiphany... you need to spend more time... these things to me are a dismissal, not an explanation....
If you took that as disrespectful, I appologise... but respect is earned, not given. Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/21/2006 12:27 PM |
Alert
|
On top of the blade means that the fighter in terza has their sword to the inside AND above the fighter in quarta. This is affected through angulation of the blade such that your true edge is facing your opponent, and their blade. It is a subtle distinction that I will try and provide an image for later.
In regards to something I just thought of. The image in plate 38 shows two of the three possible responses that B could have taken. It does not show the aspect that we are referring to.
If you look at plate 14 it shows something similar - where D (left side fighter) has their blade in terza (ish) OVER the blade of C, on C's inside line. This is what I mean when I say over. Let me know if that plate does not help you in picturing this, and I will come up with something better.  |
|
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
|
| 09/21/2006 12:38 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Romeo13 on 09-21-2006 12:01 PM
I brought up a technical discusion, and am being told to go find someone who has "experience" to explain it to me, and show me. Someone who understands the "mechanics"....
Basicaly the first post addressed the issue in a way that didn't make sense to me... but then said to go find someone who can show me.... you then reinforced that opinion...
Basicaly telling me here is our explanation, and for any further discussion you need to go elsewhere... is that not a dismissal?
I've trained in various arts, with various purists, both in fencing, the martial arts, and in the military. I am NOT a purist, and never will be... because many purists (not all, not even most) have an interesting characteristic in common.... Just like a religous fanatic, there beliefs are not to be questioned... holy writ is holy writ.... and any flaw an outsider questions, which cannot be adequately explained is put off as you not having a "higher or deeper" understanding... you didn't get the epiphany... you need to spend more time... these things to me are a dismissal, not an explanation....
If you took that as disrespectful, I appologise... but respect is earned, not given. Nuff said.
Please do not be so quick to assume the worst from people - and certainly do not add meaning to words which are not there - whoch you have done in this case. I know that I certainly never told you to find someone with experience that could show you. Here is what I said, with some emphasis added:
That is the distinction that I think you are missing from only reading, and not working with someone who understands the text, and can actually demonstrate the mechanical principles....
I merely stated that I think you are missing a particular distinction by only reading the text, and not working directly with someone that has spent years working with the same - and possibly has a better understanding of some of the mechanical properties which are not evident in the artwork itself.
Working with someone directly would include something as simple as the conversation that we are having right now.
BTW - I disagree with your last comment about respect. Respect is NOT earned, it should be given to all as default. However, once "lost", respect has to be earned again.
To use an example - I lost respect for Tora due to reported activites in other kingdoms, and the manner through which it was coming across that he was dismissing the historical fighters, and treating them as "beneath" them. That respect was "re-gained" during the time I have been able to talk with him since he has been back in An Tir. (note, nothing says Tora had to do anything himself to regain respect - just that the respect itself was missing)
|
|
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
|
| 09/21/2006 1:04 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By jgreywolf on 09-21-2006 12:27 PM On top of the blade means that the fighter in terza has their sword to the inside AND above the fighter in quarta. This is affected through angulation of the blade such that your true edge is facing your opponent, and their blade. It is a subtle distinction that I will try and provide an image for later. In regards to something I just thought of. The image in plate 38 shows two of the three possible responses that B could have taken. It does not show the aspect that we are referring to. If you look at plate 14 it shows something similar - where D (left side fighter) has their blade in terza (ish) OVER the blade of C, on C's inside line. This is what I mean when I say over. Let me know if that plate does not help you in picturing this, and I will come up with something better.
Thankyou very much... now I begin to understand what you are saying...
so when fighting a lefty, for this to work, because his blade is to your outside (to the right of your blade), you would twist your wrist into Seconda... which makes perfect sense to me... this places you in a much stronger position than staying in Terza... which is what is shows in the plate in question... and speaks of in the write up....
and started my origional question... because I could not figure out how you could effectivly control his blade, being in a weaker poistion....
On a reread it also shows the lefty coming out of Quarta, and go to seconda, to "strike at your face", while the stringere is already in action.... which leads to the plate.... pretty silly of him, IMO, as it seems to me that if you are in terza, he in quarta during the stringere, he finds himself in a stronger position (unless you go to seconda as you suggest)....
Still not clear on the whole OVER thing... and why it would be an advantage... it is somthing like on plate 16? Where C has the blade of his opponent bound, forced to the outside, while he takes the inside line over his opponents blade?
Again thanks for the responce... I'm just a traveling scolari...
|
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/21/2006 1:21 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By jgreywolf on 09-21-2006 12:38 PM
BTW - I disagree with your last comment about respect. Respect is NOT earned, it should be given to all as default. However, once "lost", respect has to be earned again.
No problem... and perhaps this is semantics... but I believe that Courtesy should be given as a default... respect is somthing totally different... and much harder to earn.
Respect to me is that you give that persons opinion MORE weight than the norm... that you pay MORE attention to them than you would someone you don't know of. That through acts they have gained a more trust than you would normally give...
I guess I see respect as somthing above what I give to a normal person....
But like I said... semantics.... |
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/21/2006 1:22 PM |
Alert
|
I agree on respect being something that you should give everyone. But, that respect should be as a fellow human being. The respect you would give someone who has achieved excellence in their field is something else. There's something else that we should all give each other called benefit of the doubt prior to judging them. If we listen to others and disrespect someone because of what others have said about them without giving them the benefit of the doubt, then we are judging them without due process.
I'm glad you've had a chance to get to know Tora well enough to not believe the b.s.
Lastly, the bad thing about forums and the written word is you don't get the body language or the joking attitude. And, people tend to be more offended than they should be because it's public. |
|
|
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/21/2006 2:44 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 09-21-2006 9:17 AM
Saviolo is great example of someone who never put his own life on the line and made money off his style.
Do you have a source for this? Silver mentions Saviolo, but he hardly counts as an impartial source--for reasons clear to anyone who's read Paradoxes--nor as a complete one, since his experience was only with Saviolo in England. You could be right, but the point is that you don't know.
Posted By Blayde on 09-21-2006 11:13 AM
the only thing that matters in sword fighting is winning. The loser always gets
a long wooden box and dead men have no opinions.
Really? Remind me again of the last time someone tried to kill you in earnest with a sharp rapier. Or perhaps the last time you observed someone try to murder someone else with such a weapon. In this last, at least, I'm willing to bet that Saviolo, DiGrassi, and Fabris--even cast in the most unflattering light--could hardly have helped but have more experience than you or I.
And even if we were to discover that somehow they had remained secluded in a ivory towers and managed to avoid all contact with the serious duelling that risks life and limb, how does that make their experience any less applicable to the "modern duel"? If anything, it would mean that they specialized in just what we do today.
Posted By Blayde on 09-21-2006 9:17 AM
Those guys are the military trainers who saw tons of combat and lived. They have my utmost respect.
Um. Probably not for rapier, which was primarily a civilian weapon. That is to say, respect all you want, but don't expect military training necessarily to be directly relevant to the unarmored single combat of the rapier duel.
Posted By Blayde on 09-21-2006 9:17 AM
Have you ever wondered why most of these translators don't actually commit to fighting with their students? There's a very good reason and there are historical counts of masters of schools who duelled publicly, lost and had their school immediately close. Masters can't afford to be publicly trounced by another master. It's bad for business. No master wants his students to know he's not the best. That's why most of them teach and don't compete.
I'd be interested to see those accounts. Can you cite them? I'm not doubting you in this case, just curious.
As to your other points, you've taken care to assign these folks the most base possible motives. My experience is that most instructors are too busy teaching their students to bout them in the way you suggest. In many schools, teaching is viewed as a more complex activity than simple repeated bouting. Also, in those schools the instructor has an obligation to provide regular, quality instruction to his paying students that must outweigh his own desire to free bout. By the same token, when they do decide to bout it is for the love of fence, not to service a chip on anyone's shoulder. They seek out people whose art they respect, because--win or lose--it gives them pleasure to fence with these people. Likewise, they avoid bouting people who display little or no art because they have better things to do--see "teaching" above--than engage in a duel that would give them no pleasure regardless of the outcome. To imply that they avoid tournaments out of fear is both discourteous and ill-informed.
Posted By Blayde on 09-21-2006 11:13 AM
So dude, get over yourself and come down from your period pulpit. And quit calling names like a fifth grader. Then you can talk to others about respect. You've shown none. If you want to keep this going, take it off line and I'll be happy to oblige. blayde99@yahoo.com Your name calling and b.s. don't belong here.
I missed the name-calling. Seems to me, though, that Scott had some good points about hubris all around. I say this as one of the main offenders.
-William
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Barber
Scholar
Posts:25
|
| 09/21/2006 3:19 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Romeo13 on 09-21-2006 1:04 PM
Posted By jgreywolf on 09-21-2006 12:27 PM On top of the blade means that the fighter in terza has their sword to the inside AND above the fighter in quarta. This is affected through angulation of the blade such that your true edge is facing your opponent, and their blade. It is a subtle distinction that I will try and provide an image for later. In regards to something I just thought of. The image in plate 38 shows two of the three possible responses that B could have taken. It does not show the aspect that we are referring to. If you look at plate 14 it shows something similar - where D (left side fighter) has their blade in terza (ish) OVER the blade of C, on C's inside line. This is what I mean when I say over. Let me know if that plate does not help you in picturing this, and I will come up with something better. Thankyou very much... now I begin to understand what you are saying... so when fighting a lefty, for this to work, because his blade is to your outside (to the right of your blade), you would twist your wrist into Seconda... which makes perfect sense to me... this places you in a much stronger position than staying in Terza... which is what is shows in the plate in question... and speaks of in the write up....
Not exactly. A begins in quarta to B's outside, so B changes the angulation/height of his blade so that it is now above A's and oriented so B's true edge is more or less to A's flat (not exactly, but enough so to give an advantage). This is why A chooses to cavare under into second on the inside, leading to the 2 actions shown and describes.
Gah - it's so much easier to show this stuff and play with it in 60 seconds than to spend days writing back and forth...
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/21/2006 3:25 PM |
Alert
|
William,
Thank you for the careful disection and misinterpretation of my previous post. Your attention is quite flattering but unnecessary. Did you really devote an entire paragraph to my long wooden box joke? OMG...you did.
As for Saviolo, if you care, go look it up.
As for rapier being a civilian weapon: Wow! So, that's why all the nobles carried them around at court. Thanks man! What that has to do with having respect for those who actually fought wars as opposed to those who taught others how to go out and get killed I don't know. I guess I have a right to respect those whom I feel deserve it most.
Please refer to my post on the Pub directed towards you regarding academic review. I have no responsibility to you to answer or prove anything. If you want to discuss that particular matter further, I'd be happy to take it off list. blayde99@yahoo.com
Lastly, your answer in regards to why maestros don't compete much: It was exactly what I would expect. Thanks for not dissapointing me.
|
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/21/2006 3:26 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 09-21-2006 1:22 PM
The respect you would give someone who has achieved excellence in their field is something else. There's something else that we should all give each other called benefit of the doubt prior to judging them. If we listen to others and disrespect someone because of what others have said about them without giving them the benefit of the doubt, then we are judging them without due process.
Ironically enough, this seems to me what you have been doing here as well.
Posted By Blayde on 09-21-2006 1:22 PM
I'm glad you've had a chance to get to know Tora well enough to not believe the b.s.
Oh - I never said that it was all b.s., or that I did not still believe some of it, having seen it first hand. But that does not change the fact that he is a nice guy, fun to hang out with, and even fun to fight - on occassion.
Posted By Blayde on 09-21-2006 1:22 PM
Lastly, the bad thing about forums and the written word is you don't get the body language or the joking attitude. And, people tend to be more offended than they should be because it's public.
Yes. This is not new. However, take the words for what they are, without adding any extra meaning. If you assume the wrost out of people, then that is what you will always get. Can you guess another way that you can read the bolded statement?
|
|
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
|
| 09/21/2006 4:05 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Jon Barber on 09-21-2006 3:19 PM
Posted By Romeo13 on 09-21-2006 1:04 PM
Posted By jgreywolf on 09-21-2006 12:27 PM On top of the blade means that the fighter in terza has their sword to the inside AND above the fighter in quarta. This is affected through angulation of the blade such that your true edge is facing your opponent, and their blade. It is a subtle distinction that I will try and provide an image for later. In regards to something I just thought of. The image in plate 38 shows two of the three possible responses that B could have taken. It does not show the aspect that we are referring to. If you look at plate 14 it shows something similar - where D (left side fighter) has their blade in terza (ish) OVER the blade of C, on C's inside line. This is what I mean when I say over. Let me know if that plate does not help you in picturing this, and I will come up with something better. Thankyou very much... now I begin to understand what you are saying... so when fighting a lefty, for this to work, because his blade is to your outside (to the right of your blade), you would twist your wrist into Seconda... which makes perfect sense to me... this places you in a much stronger position than staying in Terza... which is what is shows in the plate in question... and speaks of in the write up.... Not exactly. A begins in quarta to B's outside, so B changes the angulation/height of his blade so that it is now above A's and oriented so B's true edge is more or less to A's flat (not exactly, but enough so to give an advantage). This is why A chooses to cavare under into second on the inside, leading to the 2 actions shown and describes. Gah - it's so much easier to show this stuff and play with it in 60 seconds than to spend days writing back and forth... Jon
Ok... now ya got me totally confused.... How can A, while in quarta stringere (left hand palm up, true edge to the right... with blade contact with his true edge... get to the INSIDE by going to secunda (which would be palm down, true edge to the left)???? unless his arm works differently than mine...
I could see a Cavarre to the outside in seconda.... breaking the stringere contact..... but that would be giving the opponent a huge opening.... |
|
|
|
|
|