| Author |
Messages |
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
 |
| 09/21/2006 5:54 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.
I'm not sure what you mean by that Justin, so I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a put down and allow you to respond.
I haven't weighed in on this plate - what's the number? |
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/22/2006 10:12 AM |
Alert
|
Personally - I am of the opinion that there should be no blade contact when constraining the blade (constrain being stringere).
Since A is a left handed fighter, when his blade is outside of B's, he is in quarta - and in seconda on the inside of B's blade - so that the true edge is always facing B's sword. |
|
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
|
| 09/22/2006 10:15 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Blayde on 09-21-2006 5:54 PM 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.
I'm not sure what you mean by that Justin, so I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a put down and allow you to respond. I haven't weighed in on this plate - what's the number?
I just meant that it seemed to me that you were judging others based on what others said of them, or at least your perception of such based on a bias - and not based on the actions of the people specifically. Note the use of the word "seems" or "seemed".
Plate # 38 from Capo Ferro |
|
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
|
| 09/22/2006 11:28 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By jgreywolf on 09-22-2006 10:12 AM
Personally - I am of the opinion that there should be no blade contact when constraining the blade (constrain being stringere).
Since A is a left handed fighter, when his blade is outside of B's, he is in quarta - and in seconda on the inside of B's blade - so that the true edge is always facing B's sword.
Uhhh.. OK.... however, that not what plate 38 is showing... or what the Master himself speaks of.... which is my point...
the plate shows him (the lefty) in Seconda to the OUTSIDE, not inside... which to me is silly..... and yet what the Master says... unless in his lessons, which we don't truly have availabe, he uses this as a "bad example"?
On the Stringere..."The act of making a firm but supple contact on the adversarys blade".... or Stringere of the body, which "is done only in order to seek the misura"... As they are already in measure, it doesn't seem he is talking about the stringer of the body, but the blade....
Soooo... you would do different things than Capo in that situation... and have a stringere of the blade that is positional vice contact.....
Are you not, with all do respect, then fighting and advocating a Hybrid style?
Wow... almost like this thread came back around to the origional subject.... amazing.... |
|
|
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/22/2006 1:52 PM |
Alert
|
Justin,
I've not heard anything about anyone on this forum. Every judgment I make or have made here is based on what they have written to me...or in most cases about me. The opinion I have of masters is a different story since the only thing we do have on them is written. They've been dead a while, so not much choices there. But, honestly, I only critique their work/style, not them as a person. My comments regarding why there's really no evidence of Capo Ferro, Fabris, Saviolo winning duels and my conclusion that it was bad for business is opinion with some conjecture based on what I've read and haven't been able to read.
As for the growing number of translators and lecturers of period style, I place those folks in the same basket as the Italian Masters in London during Silver's day. My opinion of them is probably much better than Silver's was of the Italian Masters, and I commend them for making money doing something they love. I just don't idolize them.
The only other comment I have at this point is I commend those who are still discoursing for sticking to the subject matter and not presenting credentials as to why they are right. Yes, it's not nearly as exciting, but we may actually make some progress.  Big Smile....big smile!
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Barber
Scholar
Posts:25
|
| 09/22/2006 2:11 PM |
Alert
|
Justin said:
*Since A is a left handed fighter, when his blade is outside of B's, he is in quarta - and in seconda on
*the inside of B's blade - so that the true edge is always facing B's sword.
Romeo said:
**Uhhh.. OK.... however, that not what plate 38 is showing... or what the Master himself speaks of.... **which is my point...
**
**the plate shows him (the lefty) in Seconda to the OUTSIDE, not inside... which to me is silly..... and
**yet what the Master says... unless in his lessons, which we don't truly have availabe, he uses this
**as a "bad example"?
Plate 38
Figure that strikes with a strammazone riverso in the face of a left-hander and will also be able to strike him in the chest in seconda; or alternately in quarta from the outside of the enemy’s sword during the disengage that his point makes in order to strike.
The adversary, who will be left handed, lying in quarta with his arm extended, you will begin to stringer his sword on the inside *1 in terza, with your dagger high, and he disengaging in order to strike you in seconda in the face, you will be able to strike him inthree manners: first, only lowering your dagger and parrying his sword you will strike him with a strammazone riverso in the face; alternately, in seconda in the chest; taking note, nonetheless, that during his disengage it could be better to strike him in quarta withyour sword alone on the outside*2.So, CF says A is in quarta and B stringeres him on the inside - placing A's sword on the outside of B's. A starts to disengage to the inside and B: 1) parries A's sword to the outside as A disengages and goes into seconde and cuts to the face (putting A's sword to the outside in seconde), 2) stesso-tempo counters in seconde with a thrust to the chest (putting A's sword to the outside in seconde), 3) cathces A during the disengage and thrusts in quarte (putting A's sword to the inside somewhere in between quarte and seconde). The first 2 both fit what Justin says andwhat the plate shows.
Justin said:
*Personally - I am of the opinion that there should be no blade contact when constraining the blade
*(constrain being stringere).
Romeo said:
**On the Stringere..."The act of making a firm but supple contact on the adversarys blade".... or
**Stringere of the body, which "is done only in order to seek the misura"... As they are already in
**measure, it doesn't seem he is talking about the stringer of the body, but the blade....
**
**Soooo... you would do different things than Capo in that situation... and have a stringere of the
**blade that is positional vice contact.....
**
**Are you not, with all do respect, then fighting and advocating a Hybrid style?
**Wow... almost like this thread came back around to the origional subject.... amazing....
Sarcasm aside  I assume you took that definition straight from the glossary section of the Kirby translation. There isn't universal acceptance of that as the correct way to execute the stringere, and CF himself doesn't really clearly define it. Since CF doesn't specifically say contact or no contact, it tends to be a personal thing regarding how much or little presence or absence of blade is used. I find too much contact gives away a great deal of intent via the 'tacto' the opponent gains, but I don't rabidly try to avoid all contact either.
Jon |
|
|
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/22/2006 2:12 PM |
Alert
|
OK, I've lost track of where the conversation is, but what I can remember:
In the last post...Plate 38 is a D vs C plate, which means they start in quarta and terza, not seconda. The seconda is indicated in the text as the result of a disengage to the "inside" (lefties inside. Evil lefties.) It's a pretty straighforward plate. You invite an attack into the line that you have prepared a defence in. In this example he suggest drawing a response in seconda, but anything that is discussed in the theoretical section is always applicable. Capo ferro is a lot like Fiore that way, in that everything is built up from the previous foundations, and all the rules from the previous foundation can still apply.
Stringere is "senza toccare." Which to me is very sensible. Regardless of the advantage you give an opponent with contact, it's also a bad idea to be continuously chasing someones blade around.
Refuse guard. I think we were discussing the relative merits of it vs the usual terza? It's a superior guard to terza, yup. It's a feint of measure, an invitation if you will. Feints and invitations are *meant* to be superior...otherwise we would all be trying to straight shot each other with pure speed all the time. It's also one of the reasons I say that Capo Ferro is a great cirriculum manual. He starts his education with terza, and all fencers should start with terza. Why, if it's not the best way to win?
Well, it is the best. It's the best guard for learning to develop a sense of measure. Capo Ferro says the sword in this guard can be used as a ruler of measure. It teaches you a few things very well. It helps give you a visual reference that speeds up your understanding of measure against different opponents. It teaches you to use the length of the blade as a fence against advances, etc... But no one out there is going ever going to say "use the same thing everytime against every opponent."
When I face an opponent in refuse, especially low refuse, I use the principle of stringere to beat them. I either place the length of my blade across the path their blade will naturally cross as it rises to strke me, and then I wait. They will either be stupid and rise up and hit my blade, getting a face shot for their work, or they will be clever and roll the hip back, moving the tip and inch or two to change the trajectory. That's the only one I watch for. The point of stringere is to try and limit the options of what your opponent *will* do (as opposed to what they *can* do...) The other way I will stringere is to lower my tip slightly below the line of their blade, and as they rise the blade up to strike, I follow and beat the blade up, and retaliate with a nice straight fendente on top of the head or to the sword arm.
There are, of course, cleverer ways to use refuse, and cleverer counters, but hey...y'all do the work.
I feel funny commenting on this thread, BTW. There is a reason AD is described as a "Modern Swordplay" school, not a historical school. We like the period masters, we think they are a great building block and reference source, but...we really aren't all that interested in being curators and restorers. Got no dog in this show. Great discussion though. |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Jon Barber
Scholar
Posts:25
|
| 09/22/2006 2:15 PM |
Alert
|
>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....
A is a lefty, B is a righty. For A to stringer in quarte, palm up and true edge to B's blade, A has to be on the outside. A then cavaziones to B's inside in seconde. |
|
|
|
|
Jon Barber
Scholar
Posts:25
|
| 09/22/2006 2:20 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Alvarro on 09-22-2006 2:12 PM
When I face an opponent in refuse, especially low refuse, I use the principle of stringere to beat them. I either place the length of my blade across the path their blade will naturally cross as it rises to strke me, and then I wait. They will either be stupid and rise up and hit my blade, getting a face shot for their work, or they will be clever and roll the hip back, moving the tip and inch or two to change the trajectory. That's the only one I watch for. The point of stringere is to try and limit the options of what your opponent *will* do (as opposed to what they *can* do...) The other way I will stringere is to lower my tip slightly below the line of their blade, and as they rise the blade up to strike, I follow and beat the blade up, and retaliate with a nice straight fendente on top of the head or to the sword arm.
**Dontcha love when that works against somebody who just *knew* they could fake you
**out or change the line faster than you could cover? *g*
I feel funny commenting on this thread, BTW. There is a reason AD is described as a "Modern Swordplay" school, not a historical school. We like the period masters, we think they are a great building block and reference source, but...we really aren't all that interested in being curators and restorers. Got no dog in this show. Great discussion though.
**Well, none of us are doing anything other than teaching modern swordplay. Some of us just
**have a more academic/historical accuracy ( I hate that term but you know what I mean)
**approach that others. It's all good stuff.
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/22/2006 2:39 PM |
Alert
|
Mssr le Barber wrote:
**Dontcha love when that works against somebody who just *knew* they could fake you
**out or change the line faster than you could cover? *g*
Nah, it's getting boring. EVERYBODY fights refuse up here, and about three people do it well. What I love is when I fight one of those three. They know what I'm gonna do, I know what they are going to try to do...and we flip a coin and go for it. Sometimes you just have to put it on the line and live with the consequences.
Some people I will *never* face with a sharp rapier.
**Well, none of us are doing anything other than teaching modern swordplay. Some of us just
**have a more academic/historical accuracy ( I hate that term but you know what I mean)
**approach that others. It's all good stuff.
Well, to be even more truthful, we just hate arguing about nitpicky little details all the time. "Modern Swordplay" means we don't have to defend every tiny little detail...It's a luxury to really just do what we think is best. Make the choices, take the blame...all on us. Sooooo relaxing... 
|
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Jon Barber
Scholar
Posts:25
|
| 09/22/2006 2:54 PM |
Alert
|
Le Paquer wrote: Nah, it's getting boring. EVERYBODY fights refuse up here, and about three people do it well. What I love is when I fight one of those three. They know what I'm gonna do, I know what they are going to try to do...and we flip a coin and go for it. Sometimes you just have to put it on the line and live with the consequences. Some people I will *never* face with a sharp rapier. >>Don't really see it down here, so when some ghit tries it I find it satisfying to tool them. >>Better luck next time... Well, to be even more truthful, we just hate arguing about nitpicky little details all the time. "Modern Swordplay" means we don't have to defend every tiny little detail...It's a luxury to really just do what we think is best. Make the choices, take the blame...all on us. Sooooo relaxing...  >>Heh...I do that by stating clearly "This is *my* interpretation based on blah blah blah... >>Do as I say, it really does work. Trust me - I'm a professional  >>I don't stress much. Wanna learn what I teach? Come on by. Don't? Cya later. >>Argue too much? Door's over there.
|
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/22/2006 2:57 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Jon Barber on 09-22-2006 2:15 PM
>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....
A is a lefty, B is a righty. For A to stringer in quarte, palm up and true edge to B's blade, A has to be on the outside. A then cavaziones to B's inside in seconde.
Uhhh.... why? he is already in the stronger position if as is stated in the writeup by Capo, and shown in the plate, B stays in Terza... why give B the tempo to do anything by the cavaziones?
Now.... if B does go to secunda... the cavaziones might be a good tactic, as long as you can gain tempo.... however, since you are loosing contact with his blade, without tempo, he will just continue his thrust, and A will end up hurting....
My point to this whole thing, to paraphrase youself... Capo does not explain certain actions, we are interpeting his actions from a limited set of writings, and really have very little idea of how he actualy fought...
If you'll notice, I'm the one who brought up plate 38 and asked for interpretations... I did this because it is probably the most ambiguous plate in the manual... with the write up that makes the least amount of sense, both fighters IMO are NOT playing by the ideas that Capo puts forth in other parts of his treatsie....
and yet is the ONLY place I can find where Capo addresses Left handed fighters.... How did he handle leftys? or teach leftys? we really don't know... and so by definition must interpret or read between the lines, to get an effective fighting technique.
I started this whole serious of posts, to point out this fact... we really don't know. You are interpreting how Capo fought... but modifying it to fit your style, your beliefs, and the modern ruleset...
which brings us back to the origional subject which started this whole post...
Hybrid V. Period... is there a difference??? |
|
|
|
|
Jon Barber
Scholar
Posts:25
|
| 09/22/2006 3:08 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Romeo13 on 09-22-2006 2:57 PM
Posted By Jon Barber on 09-22-2006 2:15 PM
>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....
A is a lefty, B is a righty. For A to stringer in quarte, palm up and true edge to B's blade, A has to be on the outside. A then cavaziones to B's inside in seconde. Uhhh.... why? he is already in the stronger position if as is stated in the writeup by Capo, and shown in the plate, B stays in Terza... why give B the tempo to do anything by the cavaziones? Now.... if B does go to secunda... the cavaziones might be a good tactic, as long as you can gain tempo.... however, since you are loosing contact with his blade, without tempo, he will just continue his thrust, and A will end up hurting....
This was explained a page or 2 back. B stringers A in terza by placing his blade over A's, and thereby placing his true edge against the flat of A's blade. i'd also change the angulation slighty and be absolutely sure to keep my forte on his debole. This places A in the weaker position, causing the cavazione. If A doesn't disengage B simply turns his hand into seconde while picing up A's debole on his forte and blammo. It follows CF's principles quite well - gain a mechanical advantage, limit your opponent's responses so you can react properly and attack from 'cover' as it were.
|
|
|
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/22/2006 3:23 PM |
Alert
|
If you take a brand new person, and work them through Capo Ferro, one paragraph at a time, skipping nothing, even before they get to the plates, they will be a very capable fighter. Nothing else is needed. I speak from experience. And it works just fine for lefties, too...actually a little better. Damned lefties. Seconda/quarta=outside/inside. Paying attention to the blade only, handed concerns mostly dissapear.
Hybrid vs period...How many different people taught fairly distinct styles in period? How many of them said they were the best? The only thing I find common amongst all the period masters is that they all learned from somebody else...
Capo Ferro and Marozzo both give the best advice on how to become a good period fencer. Train with a *good* teacher who can teach AND fight, and practice against the best fighters you can find.
Period hybrid. Yeah.
Remember when the UFC used to be style vs. style? Now it's one style, and it's heart vs heart, and training vs. training. We'll get their. The question is, what are our current styles? Which one is TKD, JKD, BJJ, Wrestling, or Mixed?
I know we are trying to teach Catch Wrestling... |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Jon Barber
Scholar
Posts:25
|
|
RuaidhriMacCuileann
Free Scholar
Posts:59
|
| 09/24/2006 2:12 PM |
Alert
|
Hi, I'm back, and I'm feeling sheepish. First, I want to apologize for flaming out a few days ago. It was not a constructive thing to do, and I'm sure it cost me a few points, respect-wise. I know it cost me a few self-respect points. 
Yep, it's semantics. I tend to think of respect as the attitude behind the behavior of courtesy, and admiration is what takes the place of respect in "Respect is earned, courtesy owed." Again, I apologize for my attitude earlier.
I was thinking about it a bit, and I believe Romeo had a good point about quarta being fairly strong in the context of righty-vs-lefty. If B used his foible to cross A's sword, B would've failed to stringere A's blade, and A could raise his sword hand a bit (for better cover), lunge (perhaps slightly to his left), and hit B in the face or neck. B would also be in a bad situation if A's blade covered B's blade, but that starts straying into Giganti territory (A rolls into seconda and lunges). On the other hand, if B crossed his forte with A's foible, and had his blade covering (over) A's blade, B would have a very strong mechanical advantage. A would have less leverage, couldn't raise their sword properly for a protected strike, etc.
Which brings me to one of the main things that I hope for in these conversations. Believe it or not, I really do think that the purists can learn quite a bit from the hybridists, and the hybridists can learn quite a bit from the purists. In fact, I don't think there's all that much difference between the two camps, as far as the pursuit of excellence goes. The problems only start when someone feels slighted and starts screaming about it. I'm obviously as guilty as the next guy in this regard. In the long term, I do think that an attitude of respect and a willingness to listen and learn will do much to blur the boundaries between camps.
I think I'll try to shut up for a while and just listen. No promises, though.
Regards,
W. Scott Simmons
aka Ruaidhri Mac Cuileann dal gCais
cadet to Don Tyrus of Misty Haven
|
|
|
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/24/2006 6:38 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By RuaidhriMacCuileann on 09-24-2006 2:12 PM
Hi, I'm back, and I'm feeling sheepish. First, I want to apologize for flaming out a few days ago. It was not a constructive thing to do, and I'm sure it cost me a few points, respect-wise. I know it cost me a few self-respect points.
I don't think you need to feel sheepish at all. As it happens, a friend mentioned to me just yestarday that she admired the position you'd taken in this thread. We must, all of us and in every part of our lives, remember that "civil" does not mean "noncontentious". To hold it so is to surrender the discussion to the most pale and bloodless of topics, and to leave unexamined the very issues which could most benefit from the light of day.
Which brings me to one of the main things that I hope for in these conversations. Believe it or not, I really do think that the purists can learn quite a bit from the hybridists, and the hybridists can learn quite a bit from the purists. In fact, I don't think there's all that much difference between the two camps, as far as the pursuit of excellence goes.
In this, you raise a pair of thought-provoking points. To address the second one first, it seems to me that each camp may pursue excellence, but define "excellence" differently enough to warrant attention. A scholar of the purist variety would define excellence as the effortless grace, sprezatura, that comes from both a completely internalized understanding of the principles of fence and from a clear understanding of one's own nature, free of the demands of ego. A hybrid fencer might well have a more direct goal, based on the premise that what matters above all else is the duel: winning bouts, generally as soon as possible. I would suggest that the choice of hybrid or purist philosphy does not dictate which vision of "excellence" a given fencer holds, but rather the other way around.
In this light, what can we teach each other? Probably not much, since what I have to teach would lead the hybrid fencer away from widespread bouting in the short term, and what he would teach me would add techniquies to my repetoire for which I have insufficient or conflicting background. Until one or the other of us is willing to alter the result for which we are striving, there is no reason to change.
And what have we lost, each of us, by choosing our respective paths? I, as a purist, give up (or at least curtail, by comparison) the fun, excitement, and potential warm fuzzies that come from competitive bouting, and I resign myself to a much, much longer learning curve. The hybrid fencer gives up the academic pleasures that come with in-depth study of the art, and the moral authority to represent himself as practicing respected historical techniques. Given the goals above, these seem like fair trades all around. Regardless, though, they are the ones we make.
It occurs to me that when I snarl about people who "take what works" from multiple systems of fence, I am forgetting that these folks' end goal is different from my own. To insist that they match my version of excellence is, in retrospect, as inappropriate as to imply that Tom Leoni should value the duel highly enough to accept challenges from any schmuck on the street.
-William
|
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/24/2006 9:35 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By welder on 09-24-2006 6:38 PM
To address the second one first, it seems to me that each camp may pursue excellence, but define "excellence" differently enough to warrant attention. A scholar of the purist variety would define excellence as the effortless grace, sprezatura, that comes from both a completely internalized understanding of the principles of fence and from a clear understanding of one's own nature, free of the demands of ego.
If I, as a Left handed fairly tall and strong hybrid fencer, studies long and hard a system that is not built for my body style, such as ohhhh... Fabirs.... just how does that make me have "effortless grace"? Let alone leave me a clear undestanding of "ones nature, free of demands of ego"???
Sounds pretty dang egotistical to me...
NONE of these were Zen masters... these were gentlemen who made a living teaching others to fight. To give them some mystical enlightnement that us poor deluded Hybrid fencers will never attain.... even though they didn't teach philosophy... shows your elitist attitude.
I once talked to a Buhdist Master in Hong Kong (at the Lion Temple above the city.)... who was teaching his students to perfectly sweep the floor... and yet each one swept the floor differently. Why? because it was what is perfect for the individual which is what is to be striven for.... and everyone attains Satori differently....
I've acheived Satori on the ski slope... running... playing football... watching my children play.... in REAL combat... and once or twice with fencing... some call it in the zone.....
If you find it by recreating what someone else did??? fine... but don't dismiss, as you apparently have, that others find another path....
/zen rant off
|
|
|
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/25/2006 12:15 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Romeo13 on 09-24-2006 9:35 PM
I'm sorry, but that statement is one of the most elitest posts I've heard in a very long time.
If I, as a Left handed fairly tall and strong hybrid fencer, studies long and hard a system that is not built for my body style, such as ohhhh... Fabirs.... just how does that make me have "effortless grace"? Let alone leave me a clear undestanding of "ones nature, free of demands of ego"???
Sounds pretty dang egotistical to me...
NONE of these were Zen masters... these were gentlemen who made a living teaching others to fight. To give them some mystical enlightnement that us poor deluded Hybrid fencers will never attain.... even though they didn't teach philosophy... shows your elitist attitude.
I once talked to a Buhdist Master in Hong Kong (at the Lion Temple above the city.)... who was teaching his students to perfectly sweep the floor... and yet each one swept the floor differently. Why? because it was what is perfect for the individual which is what is to be striven for.... and everyone attains Satori differently....
I've acheived Satori on the ski slope... running... playing football... watching my children play.... in REAL combat... and once or twice with fencing... some call it in the zone.....
If you find it by recreating what someone else did??? fine... but don't dismiss, as you apparently have, that others find another path....
/zen rant off
No need to be sorry. It is elitist. In this context, that is not an insult. The society in which these systems of fence were formed was explicitly elitist. Indeed, I've heard it suggested that one reason that the rapier found such popularity among the English nobles of the late 16th century was the fact that it required a lot of training to use properly, training which only the elite could afford, and thus it served to help define the "elite" in an age when the sword was becoming commonplace. I'm still chewing on that one, frankly, but it makes initial sense. If you're hoping for egalitarianism, though, nothing requires you to maintain the elitist context of the 16th century. That is a freedom that comes with not tying yourself firmly to period styles.
Philosophy was, of course, a pillar of a gentleman's education in Renaissance europe. A gentleman--a member of the elite--would be expected to have studied philosophy, rhetoric, theology, and music among many other subjects to be regarded as even minimally educated. Plato, Cicero, Aristotle, Quintilian, even Erasmus, would have been no stranger to the educated fencer of the era.
Your comparison to your zen students is an apt one. Everyone, Elizabethan fencer or Zen student, engages in introspection in a way unique to himself. Every student will sweep the floor in their own way, but the student who chooses instead to practice caligraphy has only himself to blame if he misses the master's intended lesson. It is certainly true that none of the period masters of fence whose works we study was a Zen master, but to assume that they did not have an equivalent understanding of the relationship between mind, body, and soul--couched in the terms of their culture and religion, like "reason", "enlightenment", and "grace"--is ill-advised.
Ironically, the point of my post is that one's method of fence is a function of what one views as the ultimate goal, not some
character flaw. If your goal is to win duels and tournaments, then you
cannot reasonably be expected to supress your ego, ergo you cannot
follow the Art for its own sake. If your goal is to ferret out the
subtleties of the text then it behooves you to spend more time in study
and less in the list. That's it.
-William
Earning that "Elitist Bastard" title, one day at a time
|
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/25/2006 7:51 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By welder on 09-25-2006 12:15 AM
Posted By Romeo13 on 09-24-2006 9:35 PM
I'm sorry, but that statement is one of the most elitest posts I've heard in a very long time.
If I, as a Left handed fairly tall and strong hybrid fencer, studies long and hard a system that is not built for my body style, such as ohhhh... Fabirs.... just how does that make me have "effortless grace"? Let alone leave me a clear undestanding of "ones nature, free of demands of ego"???
Sounds pretty dang egotistical to me...
NONE of these were Zen masters... these were gentlemen who made a living teaching others to fight. To give them some mystical enlightnement that us poor deluded Hybrid fencers will never attain.... even though they didn't teach philosophy... shows your elitist attitude.
I once talked to a Buhdist Master in Hong Kong (at the Lion Temple above the city.)... who was teaching his students to perfectly sweep the floor... and yet each one swept the floor differently. Why? because it was what is perfect for the individual which is what is to be striven for.... and everyone attains Satori differently....
I've acheived Satori on the ski slope... running... playing football... watching my children play.... in REAL combat... and once or twice with fencing... some call it in the zone.....
If you find it by recreating what someone else did??? fine... but don't dismiss, as you apparently have, that others find another path....
/zen rant off
No need to be sorry. It is elitist. In this context, that is not an insult. The society in which these systems of fence were formed was explicitly elitist. Indeed, I've heard it suggested that one reason that the rapier found such popularity among the English nobles of the late 16th century was the fact that it required a lot of training to use properly, training which only the elite could afford, and thus it served to help define the "elite" in an age when the sword was becoming commonplace. I'm still chewing on that one, frankly, but it makes initial sense. If you're hoping for egalitarianism, though, nothing requires you to maintain the elitist context of the 16th century. That is a freedom that comes with not tying yourself firmly to period styles. Philosophy was, of course, a pillar of a gentleman's education in Renaissance europe. A gentleman--a member of the elite--would be expected to have studied philosophy, rhetoric, theology, and music among many other subjects to be regarded as even minimally educated. Plato, Cicero, Aristotle, Quintilian, even Erasmus, would have been no stranger to the educated fencer of the era. Your comparison to your zen students is an apt one. Everyone, Elizabethan fencer or Zen student, engages in introspection in a way unique to himself. Every student will sweep the floor in their own way, but the student who chooses instead to practice caligraphy has only himself to blame if he misses the master's intended lesson. It is certainly true that none of the period masters of fence whose works we study was a Zen master, but to assume that they did not have an equivalent understanding of the relationship between mind, body, and soul--couched in the terms of their culture and religion, like "reason", "enlightenment", and "grace"--is ill-advised. Ironically, the point of my post is that one's method of fence is a function of what one views as the ultimate goal, not some character flaw. If your goal is to win duels and tournaments, then you cannot reasonably be expected to supress your ego, ergo you cannot follow the Art for its own sake. If your goal is to ferret out the subtleties of the text then it behooves you to spend more time in study and less in the list. That's it. -William Earning that "Elitist Bastard" title, one day at a time
Sooooo...
When Capo states...
"The aim of fencing is the defense of oneself, from which it takes its name, because to fence comes to mean nothing other than defending oneself"
It certainly sounds to me like he is teaching fighting.... not philosophy... that it is ALL ABOUT EFFECT, within a certain bound set of honorable combat rules...
Its pretty plain to me that the "Masters" thought fencing was fighting, and nothing more. Now... how do you "proove" your style of fighting is superior... that the "subtleties of the text" which you THINK you have ferreted out is right, correct, or even more importantly effective?
To attempt to have fencing, without the lists, is to my mind doing a disservice to the sport.
But hey... more power to ya... if you want to be like certain "Martial Art" schools and have Kata competitions??? Knock yerself out... its pretty... and mostly useless in a fight.... but hey... at least your getting excercise....
Just don't expect the respect that the very title "Elitist" which you so ardently embrace attempts to garner, from the non purists....
Just as an aside... if you wish to know where I come from.... go read "The Martial Way" by Forrest Morgan.... he is much more eloquent than myself about what is a MARTIAL Art.... and what is a sport....
|
|
|
|
|
|