German Sword Stances

[SyrRhys]

It's not a lexicological dispute. It's a lexicological dispute *with consequences.*

To wit:

Sure I can. Your krump example gives no threat because of your interpretation. In mine, it presents the direct threat of being grappled and thrown.

I'm not sure what you mean here (not sarcasm--honestly!). The Krump doesn't have anything to do with grappling for throwing--it's a cut. If you were making a joke, I apologize, I missed it. It's a technique where you get into a non-threatening position an *wait* for your opponent to strike--wait on purpose, seemingly unprotected. Just as we've been discussing.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, or definitions, or, hell, my taste in clothing. But if you try to argue that you happen to possess the world's only valid set of interpretations, prepare to get snickered at.

Ah, the old, "if you stick by your guns that makes you an egomaniac who thinks he can never be wrong." Sorry, won't wash--I've been wrong many times, and I admit it when I am--in writing. Go look at my blog--I actually post my mistakes there.

If someone comes to me and says that the Krumphau is *actually* a thrust rather than a cut, I will listen to him very carefully, check his sources, and then, if I find nothing to show him to be correct, tell him he's wrong. I'm not a bad person for doing so, I'm *right*. So it is here. I've shown you *numerous* plays right out of the German sources that show people waiting to be struck and then reacting rather than trying to attack first, which you said NEVER (emphasis yours) happens. So just admit you either forgot about all of these plays when you made your statement or were misinformed.

[Russ Mitchell]

The difference, Rhys, is the distance at which this is assumed to occur, which is the entire problem in zufechten definitions, and the differences between the two "schools."

The position you're assuming in order to give that opening, if you're at your definition of zufechten, and starting at safe distance, I agree, is absolutely nonthreatening in and of itself, and very much like how Fiore (whose system is designed to carry you not only around a battlefield, but also through duels where who strikes first may be socially-constrained) operates.

Using Forgeng's definition of zufechten, which is somewhere between yours and Krieg/Handarbeit, assuming this position puts you within ready distance for any number of wrestling takedowns using either the arm, shoulder-and-arm, or arm-plus-sword. And as any high-level mma bout will show, a skilled wrestler can put that technique on VERY rapidly. So just as *both* Speaking Windows (in my interpretation) give the opponent the choice of "react RIGHT NOW or die," this particular move gives him the choice of "react RIGHT NOW or be thrown." Only in the example being given, you're punishing him for making the correct reaction by taking advantage of geometry while you remove his hand.

Now, you don't have to buy into Forgeng's translation of the zufechten and its implication of safe vs. unsafe distance and the seizing of the Vor implied. But it IS a fundamental issue to how one then chooses to interpret the text. It's a dispute over definitions based on which everything else changes.

[SyrRhys]

The difference, Rhys, is the distance at which this is assumed to occur, which is the entire problem in zufechten definitions, and the differences between the two "schools."

The position you're assuming in order to give that opening, if you're at your definition of zufechten, and starting at safe distance, I agree, is absolutely nonthreatening in and of itself, and very much like how Fiore (whose system is designed to carry you not only around a battlefield, but also through duels where who strikes first may be socially-constrained) operates.

Using Forgeng's definition of zufechten, which is somewhere between yours and Krieg/Handarbeit, assuming this position puts you within ready distance for any number of wrestling takedowns using either the arm, shoulder-and-arm, or arm-plus-sword. And as any high-level mma bout will show, a skilled wrestler can put that technique on VERY rapidly. So just as *both* Speaking Windows (in my interpretation) give the opponent the choice of "react RIGHT NOW or die," this particular move gives him the choice of "react RIGHT NOW or be thrown." Only in the example being given, you're punishing him for making the correct reaction by taking advantage of geometry while you remove his hand.

Now, you don't have to buy into Forgeng's translation of the zufechten and its implication of safe vs. unsafe distance and the seizing of the Vor implied. But it IS a fundamental issue to how one then chooses to interpret the text. It's a dispute over definitions based on which everything else changes.

Russ, you're trying to change the debate. You said:

Unlike Fiore, you NEVER wait to counterstrike/exchange thrusts.

I showed *many* plays in which you *do* wait. I didn't argue that this obviates the general principle (in fact, I stated it did not), but I did show there are exceptions. You sound like Clinton: "It depends upon what your definition of 'is' is." Look at the video I gave you the link for: I stand there, non-threatening, and wait for my student to attack. Only then do I respond.

Admit it: There are numerous cases in which the German masters tell you to wait for your opponent to attack. This *cannot* be denied.

[Russ Mitchell]

Rhys, you do realize you're pushing this argument, having publicly admitted to never having studied Fiore, right?

So, let's break this up into small bites. You may not agree with it, but hopefully you'll understand where I'm coming from, and agree to disagree without having to constantly assume that I'm dicking with you. Please read the entire thing before replying.

In Fiore, you assume a guard, and wait for him to act. Your posta is not creating an active threat unless and until your opponent actually moves to strike, at which point it (hopefully) gakks him while simultaneously defending yourself.

In Dobringer, you move in the zufechten while creating a threat, and see how he moves in response to your action. Dobringer doesn't tell you what to do if he's a moron and just stands there, because the answer's obvious -- you kill him. Neither does he describe any of the myriad many "wrong" actions he can do, because the answer's obvious -- you kill him. Instead, he DOES tell you what to do if he does one of the "right" actions. So a play is introduced, and a "flow" of continuing options in the face of "right responses" is seen throughout the text (this is why there's more than one correct "speaking-window.")

In this case, D&Co. is telling you to wait. But it's no different than being told to ~"wait to see if he's strong or weak on the sword"/fuhlen. Yes, we are translating that into the English word "wait," but it's a fundamentally different "wait" than what you see in Fiore.
(edit to clarify: you're 'waiting' in order to see how to continue your move, not waiting in order to counterstrike/exchange thrusts)

Except describing the zufechten as you do, involving being out of distance as you "very-initially" approach the fight. (I'd define this not as zufechten, but as "standing around.") In your definition, because there's no active threat, and no distance, and certainly no fuhlen, none of my interpretation will make a lick of sense.

But one waiting is not like the other. Standing while creating no threat, with the intention of creating the "counterpunch from hell" is very different from creating a deadly threat and "fuhlenning" to see how he reacts to it before proceeding for the kill. Fiore does the former; (imho) Dobringer does the latter.

Does that make any sense to you? Don't care whether you agree with it, just 'do you understand how I'm defining this and approaching the discussion?'

[SyrRhys]

Rhys, you do realize you're pushing this argument, having publicly admitted to never having studied Fiore, right?

So, let's break this up into small bites. You may not agree with it, but hopefully you'll understand where I'm coming from, and agree to disagree without having to constantly assume that I'm dicking with you. Please read the entire thing before replying.

In Fiore, you assume a guard, and wait for him to act. Your posta is not creating an active threat unless and until your opponent actually moves to strike, at which point it (hopefully) gakks him while simultaneously defending yourself.

In Dobringer, you move in the zufechten while creating a threat, and see how he moves in response to your action. Dobringer doesn't tell you what to do if he's a moron and just stands there, because the answer's obvious -- you kill him. Neither does he describe any of the myriad many "wrong" actions he can do, because the answer's obvious -- you kill him. Instead, he DOES tell you what to do if he does one of the "right" actions. So a play is introduced, and a "flow" of continuing options in the face of "right responses" is seen throughout the text (this is why there's more than one correct "speaking-window.")

In this case, D&Co. is telling you to wait. But it's no different than being told to ~"wait to see if he's strong or weak on the sword"/fuhlen. Yes, we are translating that into the English word "wait," but it's a fundamentally different "wait" than what you see in Fiore.

Except describing the zufechten as you do, involving being out of distance as you "very-initially" approach the fight. (I'd define this not as zufechten, but as "standing around.") In your definition, because there's no active threat, and no distance, and certainly no fuhlen, none of my interpretation will make a lick of sense.

But one waiting is not like the other. Standing while creating no threat, with the intention of creating the "counterpunch from hell" is very different from creating a deadly threat and "fuhlenning" to see how he reacts to it before proceeding for the kill. Fiore does the former; (imho) Dobringer does the latter.

Does that make any sense to you? Don't care whether you agree with it, just 'do you understand how I'm defining this and approaching the discussion?'

All I said was I hadn't studied Fiore in sufficient detail to know what he calls the opening phase of an engagement. But this isn't about Fiore, it's about your statement that the Germans NEVER wait to attack.

And yes, I understand how you're changing the argument perfectly well, and my position still holds. Your post said nothing about not creating a threat, it just said the Germans NEVER wait before attacking.

So, in response to your changed argument, I *showed* you techniques in which you do not create any threat, but just stand there and wait, but you ignored those and kept focusing on the Sprechfenster. And, again, your statement didn't really have anything to do with Fiore (except as a general contrast; you only created the *specific* contrast when you realized I was right), but let's pretend that matters. Look here:
http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/li ... tion6.html
The first play is right after the guards. You take a guard (probably the Bastard Cross, which is quite close to our Third Guard), then wait. When he attacks, you displace and thrust.

Now look at the video clip I gave you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj4MzYzmWnw
Now I will grant that the attack isn't the same, but the rest of it is very similar. I assume a gaurd, non-threatening, with my point out to my side. When my opponent attacks I displace with the part of the blade between my hands, then convert the defense into a thrust. The mechanics are slightly different (I am *not* one of those who can't tell the difference between Fiore and Liechtenauer), but the principle of waiting and then responding are identical. Now I'm not saying this waiting is *typical* of the German system, only that we are sometimes told to do it.

Sorry, Russ, but again, this simply isn't open to reasonable interpretation.

[SyrRhys]

In Dobringer, you move in the zufechten while creating a threat, and see how he moves in response to your action. Dobringer doesn't tell you what to do if he's a moron and just stands there, because the answer's obvious -- you kill him. Neither does he describe any of the myriad many "wrong" actions he can do, because the answer's obvious -- you kill him. Instead, he DOES tell you what to do if he does one of the "right" actions. So a play is introduced, and a "flow" of continuing options in the face of "right responses" is seen throughout the text (this is why there's more than one correct "speaking-window.")

Incidentally, as a separate issue, I'd like to correct a number of mistakes in the above parapgraph.

First, it's not Döbringer. Liechtenauer is our source (comparable to Fiore), whereas Döbringer is one of the masters listed in one book, Hs 3227a (often named after him in normal conversation, although he didn't write it).

Second, in the plays of the Sprechfenster, the masters *do* tell us what to do if he does nothing, and what to do if he does the wrong things. The only "right" thing to do against someone in Long Point is to use the Schielhau, and he doesn't actually mention that in this section.

Third, there are two groups of plays of the Sprechfenster because one is done in the Zufechten--that is, before anyone strikes--and one is done in the Krieg--that is, after the bind. The first group of plays completely counter your original argument that the Germans NEVER wait to attack because it's done *before* anyone has struck, as the text says in plain black and white so it cannot be misinterpreted.

You have argued that the plays of the Sprechfenster don't answer your original claim that the Germans NEVER wait to attack because this is a threat. You twisted the original argument by saying that it doesn't count when you wait with such a potent threat (which I countered easily by showing techniques that don't threaten). But your changing of the argument is invalid because Fiore does the same thing as Long Point; look at his guard called the Long Guard: "I am the Long Guard and with my short sword and with my talent I often cut a throat." This is the same basic posture as Long Point: you take it up in the opening of the fight, the point threatens the opponent, and you act from there. You don't do the same things we do from Long Point with the Sprechfenster, but the principle is the same--you stand out of contact and bring your point to face the enemy, then wait for him to do something.

Game, set and match.

[Russ Mitchell]

Rhys, this is seriously getting silly. Why would I consider a video of you doing longsword badly as evidence, compared to primary sources?

I've wasted more than enough time on you this afternoon. If you want to understand what's been posted, try re-reading my posts with an open mind, understand what I've said, and be man enough to agree to disagree with me. That's what scholars do. If not, keep puffing up that ego, give yourself the last word, and for Christ's sake, move on.

(Edit: while disagreeing, yielding and assuming Rhys is correct on specific manuscript sourcing, etc. I'm writing while correcting student papers, and don't have any of my mss off the bookshelf atm.)

[Thomas MacFinn]

I think it is safe to say that the two of you have firmly reached the "agree to disagree" portion of the discussion. You can stop now.

[SyrRhys]

Rhys, this is seriously getting silly. Why would I consider a video of you doing longsword badly as evidence, compared to primary sources?

I've wasted more than enough time on you this afternoon. If you want to understand what's been posted, try re-reading my posts with an open mind, understand what I've said, and be man enough to agree to disagree with me. That's what scholars do. If not, keep puffing up that ego, give yourself the last word, and for Christ's sake, move on.

First, I did *halfsword* (not longsword) *well*, not badly. That's a damned good technique, and it's done smoothly and with perfect control.

Second, it counts because I didn't just give you the video, I gave you the source material to show that I did it correctly. When I first posted it, I said it came from von Danzig fol. 70v so that you could check it for accuracy. For your convenience, I will post the text here:
"Note: When you have your sword over the left knee in the guard and he isn't strong and strikes above with his pommel, then step skilfully to him and catch the blow between your hands in the middle of your sword blade. And go up into the High Guard to plant upon him." (Tobler, In Saint George's Name p. 158.) Thus, as you can see, my video matches the text exactly, and the text supports my argument perfectly.

Third, normally I have been just giving up when people won't admit they're wrong, but this case has been so egregious I decided to simply keep correcting you until you had to admit you were wrong. This isn't about "puffing up my ego," and it's not about "agreeing to disagree." Yes, that's what scholars do when an issue is open to debate--this issue isn't. I have shown you hard, undeniable evidence in black and white. When one scholar says Shakspeare's plays were written by Bacon, that may be open to debate and could be an issue about which you have to agree to disagree. But when one scholar says Washington wasn't the first president of the USA, then the issue is not open to debate and saying we'll just agree to disagree doesn't make any sense.

Fourth, why do you feel justified in ad hominem attacks? Attacking the individual in debate usually happens either when you have been attacked personally (which I have *not* done) or when you know you're wrong and feel defensive about it. Since the former isn't the case, the latter must be.

[SyrRhys]

I think it is safe to say that the two of you have firmly reached the "agree to disagree" portion of the discussion. You can stop now.

Thank you for your permission. If this discussion is of no interest to you, I suggest you do not read it.

[Thomas MacFinn]

I think it is safe to say that the two of you have firmly reached the "agree to disagree" portion of the discussion. You can stop now.

Thank you for your permission. If this discussion is of no interest to you, I suggest you do not read it.

All three pages of this discussion are of considerable interest to me.

I have a son-in-law that, when he disagrees with somebody, is convinced that if he just keeps talking that the other person will eventually agree with his point of view. He sometimes needs to be told when no amount of talking will change anything. Your mileage may vary.

I don't know enough to agree with either viewpoint and have learned alot.

Sheldon (to his mom): But, evolution is not opinion, it's a fact!
Sheldon's mom: And that is your opinion!
Sheldon (to Leonard, Howard and Raj): I forgive you, let's go home.

[Kel Rekuta]

I should think that adherents of any fighting school posting here should do so with tolerance and respect for a variety of opinions, some well formed, some not, from a variety of sources.

Most of us do. Its just that the loudest and most exasperating are so readily noticed.

[Leo Medii]

Thomas, my advice is don't give up, and keep trying things and see what works.

One, some people in the SCA will tell you it's stupid to do period stuff because of "X", and two, it's damn hard to practice doing it against opponents with no fear of death or maiming from the contest.

If you keep at it, you will excel at it, and become better at combat. One thing to keep in mind is, that the people who studied and wrote these books were people who lived at the time that being handy with a sword or weapon was not only a way to make a living, but necessary to stay alive in a violent conflict. They weren't weekend warriors who because we/they don quasi-armor or protective euipment and swing oriental furniture parts at each other think they/we are as qualified, or learned to lecture others on the matters of swordplay. We are nothing but mall cops when compared to Henry Hotspur, or others who put their life and fortunes on the line and needed to learn and practice techniques that would both bring them home at night, and able to put food on the table.

Yep. Mall cops.

[Count Johnathan]

I wouldn't say that SCA fighters are equivalent to or superior to medieval masters but I do think we have a better grip on melee weapon fighting than say... mall cops. I'd like to think we more of a significant edge over average joe with medieval weaponry than mall cops. Mall cops are pretty average joes for the most part. Most I've seen are pretty pathetic at giving the appearance of any actual security.

I'm sure there is a better comparison than mall cops Leo. We're not as inferior as you make us sound.

On that note WMA and the study of medieval sword manuals is not a bad thing either. I just have a hard time accepting that anyone who as you say have not practiced "against opponents with no fear of death or maiming from the contest" would be experts of the period techniques. Nobody has been taught by those masters since they died so long ago and trying to learn their fighting style from a manual does not make one an "expert" at least as far as a "working" knowledge of the techniques are concerned.

I agree with HG Avery that adherents of any fighting school posting here should do so with tolerance and respect. Lack of terminology from a period manual does not mean ignorance of the technique. It means that if you told me I just did a "blah blah blah" in german or some other language I would just have to take your word for it since I don't study those books and have no need to refer to a period manual to understand or apply certain techniques I have already mastered.

[gaius]

On that note WMA and the study of medieval sword manuals is not a bad thing either. I just have a hard time accepting that anyone who as you say have not practiced "against opponents with no fear of death or maiming from the contest" would be experts of the period techniques. Nobody has been taught by those masters since they died so long ago and trying to learn their fighting style from a manual does not make one an "expert" at least as far as a "working" knowledge of the techniques are concerned.

Self appointed experts are a problem endemic to martial arts generally. Unfortunately the tendency has infected hema as well. Lots of guys want to think they are experts when they are not. They are only students following (or attempting to follow) in the footsteps of men who really knew what they were doing. Our efforts inherently will be approximations, so in a really true sense, there can never be modern hema masters or experts.

Whether one is entitled to claim mastership as a hema exponent has been a hotly debated topic in our community. I reject the right to such a claim for the reasons stated above. Mastership implies expertise. Because one can never be expert, one cannot be a master.

A large dose of humility is necessary in the study of these lost arts. Unfortunately many seem unable to swallow the humility pill.

[Russ Mitchell]

Gaius, for the reconstructive traditions, I absolutely agree with you. Humility? That's just plain good advice.

E: My apologies for helping to junk up the thread, btw.

[Count Johnathan]

It wasn't junked up IMO. Maybe a little chest puffing but overall an interesting clash of opinions and interpretations.

I probably junked it up more with my lack of knowledge about the period manuals.

[Russ Mitchell]

Meh, that's not a problem... Forgeng or some of the other guys who can sight-read medieval Swabian would come in here and hand my ass to me, anyway. But in a good argument over sources and theories, the spectators should be able to watch the interplay, like a good boxing match. I can't believe that mess up above was pleasant or entertaining to *anybody.* So, my bad.

[DukeAvery]

The impersonal portion of such an intricate and passionate technical discussion seems to me a credit to the archive in that other readers may test their knowledge of the material and encourages broader exposure. Even getting such antique information accessible to the modern mind is a huge undertaking and to be welcomed and applauded.

Regards

Avery

[Leo Medii]

I agree with HG Avery that adherents of any fighting school posting here should do so with tolerance and respect. Lack of terminology from a period manual does not mean ignorance of the technique. It means that if you told me I just did a "blah blah blah" in german or some other language I would just have to take your word for it since I don't study those books and have no need to refer to a period manual to understand or apply certain techniques I have already mastered.

Perhaps you should take this very advice you are giving out, as the entire reason I decided to take up this argument was the complete lack of respect you seemed to show people who attempt to study the actual historical subject, and then upon those themselves who passed on those traditions in page 2.

All kidding aside I think it is easier for people who have fought a great deal to figure out what the techniques are best used for and in what situations. I have little respect for the fighting ability of anyone who tries to learn (solely) from the period manuals. Just like learing karate from a book. It can't be done effectively. I am sure many of the period styles work like a champ in SCA combat when used correctly by someone who has a grip on the actual combat side of the action. If you tried to draw SCA fighting techniques using crappy one dimensional art I am certain it would look a lot like what is in the period manuals.

I love the SCA, and SCA combat. However, I just can not call a Camaro a Corvette. But a Camaro is pretty damn sweet.

[Count Johnathan]

I have little respect for the fighting ability of anyone who tries to learn (solely) from the period manuals.

I don't disrespect people who have an educated knowledge of what the manuals say. I disrespect the "If you do this move from manual A I would counter that with this move from manual B so clearly you can see that my understanding of it is so much greater."

Those of us who put our knowledge (and physical prowess) to the test regularly and have for decades know that it doesn't work that way in reality. Remember before MMA hit it big, most average joes thought that Kung fu or Karate were mystical undefeatable styles simply because they didn't know any better? Turns out greco roman wrestling and brute strength is nothing to balk at in a real fight. Before there were rules in the UFC ball sack punching was an effective tactic. All I am saying is that having a good knowledge of one method does not mean people using another method are ignorant. Like I said if an individual who has studied the manuals watched me fight and told me I had done some specific period german maneuver I would have to take their word for it. I don't disrespect knowldege of written technique. I disrespect the attitude that knowing the techniques on paper makes one an expert who should criticize people who know the physical motions of the techniques by muscle memory.

Musashi was a bad ass with a sword obviously but even if Musashi himself taught you his techniques there might still be a great lack of one of his greatest assets. I bet Musashi was lightning fast and couldn't understand why the others around him weren't as fast as he was. That man bested an expert weilding a sword with a bokken he whittled down from a boat oar. Bested his ass to death. His stance and the type of sword stroke he used was only a very small portion of that contest.

[Russ Mitchell]

Musashi didn't understand a whole lot. Why people love the guy, I've no idea. He was badass, sure, but he died lonely in a cave, hated by everybody who knew him.

As opposed to the founder of Ichi-ryu (iirc, it's late and I'm still feverish), who had a cool sword school, and died surrounded by family, students, and friends who adored him.

I know who I'M hanging with... made the mistake of training with the former, just b/c he's legitimately martial-arts awesome. Still never going back.

[Leo Medii]

Musashi was a bad ass with a sword obviously but even if Musashi himself taught you his techniques there might still be a great lack of one of his greatest assets. I bet Musashi was lightning fast and couldn't understand why the others around him weren't as fast as he was. That man bested an expert weilding a sword with a bokken he whittled down from a boat oar. Bested his ass to death. His stance and the type of sword stroke he used was only a very small portion of that contest.

No. Musashi was a killer. A stone cold killer. I would go as far as to say, from my study of the man, that he probably liked to kill people. He was kind of out there, in a guy from No Country For Old Men kind of way. What made him special isn't that he was a better fighter IMO, but he wanted to kill. That he liked the "kill" and thought of nothing else but that once in combat.
Like Mike Vick, people today idolize him because he was a winner. Back in his day, he was hated and feared and sometimes reputation hunted. My honest opinion of the man is he was bat-shit crazy, and that is how he was able to do some of the stuff he did. He totally fits the profile.

And. I have, and as my personal sig line every where says believe, there is no superior art, only superior practioners.

[Armand d'Alsace]

I have little respect for the fighting ability of anyone who tries to learn (solely) from the period manuals.

I don't disrespect people who have an educated knowledge of what the manuals say. I disrespect the "If you do this move from manual A I would counter that with this move from manual B so clearly you can see that my understanding of it is so much greater."

Those of us who put our knowledge (and physical prowess) to the test regularly and have for decades know that it doesn't work that way in reality. Remember before MMA hit it big, most average joes thought that Kung fu or Karate were mystical undefeatable styles simply because they didn't know any better? Turns out greco roman wrestling and brute strength is nothing to balk at in a real fight. Before there were rules in the UFC ball sack punching was an effective tactic. All I am saying is that having a good knowledge of one method does not mean people using another method are ignorant. Like I said if an individual who has studied the manuals watched me fight and told me I had done some specific period german maneuver I would have to take their word for it. I don't disrespect knowldege of written technique. I disrespect the attitude that knowing the techniques on paper makes one an expert who should criticize people who know the physical motions of the techniques by muscle memory.

I don't know if you realize it, but comments like these:

Ahh the "I learned swordfighting from a book that I interpreted myself" kind of attitude that I totally disrespect. Always reminds me of that scene in karate kid where Daniel is trying to learn Karate from pictures in a book. Same same. Of course he didn't call himself an expert and try to correct Mr. Miyagi though.

Makes you "sound" as if SCA fighters are Miyagi, and HEMA-students are Daniel.
Now, I love SCAfighting, it's a blast, full speed, full force, rattan waster combat.

But to place students of swordmasters as students to SCA because they actually bothered to RTDM is both arrogant and false.

And, something that should please you Johnathan, I'm going to attend a HEMA conference (my first), and they will hold a tournament there. The rules are: Plastic wasters (comparable to nylon) fencing mask, gorget, gloves, cusp, kneepads, no additional armour allowed.

That sounds to mee exactly like the attitude that we have(had) in the SCA, only starting with reading the manual, instead of leaping into fullcontact contests with minimal training.

I am extremely keen to see how my 15 years of SCA and lately leafing through manuals will stand up to their 15 years of reading and training with and from manuals.

[Peikko]

...And, something that should please you Johnathan, I'm going to attend a HEMA conference (my first), and they will hold a tournament there. The rules are: Plastic wasters (comparable to nylon) fencing mask, gorget, gloves, cusp, kneepads, no additional armour allowed.

That sounds to mee exactly like the attitude that we have(had) in the SCA, only starting with reading the manual, instead of leaping into fullcontact contests with minimal training.

I am extremely keen to see how my 15 years of SCA and lately leafing through manuals will stand up to their 15 years of reading and training with and from manuals.

Have fun at Swordfish mate...I hope you enjoy the tourney.

[Saritor]

That sounds to me exactly like the attitude that we have(had) in the SCA, only starting with reading the manual, instead of leaping into full contact contests with minimal training.

Let's not forget that what turned in to SCA heavy combat was a few guys who had some traditional fencing training going at it in someone's backyard with poorly-copied images from a manual trying to figure out how they'd actually done it Back In The Day.

We've lost a lot of that original spirit as we've developed SCA heavy (and rapier now, too) in to sport combat.

Johno, if you (and whoever else) are up for it come Estrella, I'll bring a few bottles of something and happily sit down and discuss SCA/WMA crossover between heavy combat and German or Italian combat styles. It's a discussion that probably works best in person, but that's the next time I'll be in Atenveldt (though Tir Ysgithir is roughly equidistant to al-Barran, so maybe I'll start going to their events every now and again.)

[Armand d'Alsace]

Saritor: That is very true, and should be remembered.

But it seems to me that we in the SCA somewhere along the road decided that really fun fullcontact fighting with sticks, and good rules to do it safely in armour lost the vision of recreating medieval combat, peacul tournaments or training in favour of generic fun.

Similar to the road fencing went.

[DukeAvery]

There are some interesting thoughts here but way off topic from stances, even considering the OP references the SCA. We might start another thread.

Regards

Avery

[Saritor]

There are some interesting thoughts here but way off topic from stances, even considering the OP references the SCA. We might start another thread.

The SCA/WMA thing has been done in the past. I just wanted to post my Estrella offer in a place where folks would see it as a one-and-done kind of post.

[DukeAvery]

No worries. I would hope to be able to stop by such a WMA/SCA gathering at Estrella - it seems worthy of its own thread at some point is all.

I enjoy my discussions with Marc Arundel, for example. I stopped training with long sword (rattan simulated), but I'm back at it. Just carved a new one. These are long roads that one must choose to walk joyously or not at all (as I see it).

There are some interesting thoughts here but way off topic from stances, even considering the OP references the SCA. We might start another thread.

The SCA/WMA thing has been done in the past. I just wanted to post my Estrella offer in a place where folks would see it as a one-and-done kind of post.

[Armand d'Alsace]

I will enjoy Swordfish immensely I believe. But I do it love when people can teach me things, so I don't have to reinvent anything.

And for the record, I have absolutely no problem with fighting hardcore SCA, and reading manuals.

To me they are two different paths towards the same goal, and I at least, can use knowledge gained on either road to further my advancement on the other.

[Count Johnathan]

No. Musashi was a killer. A stone cold killer....

So that means he wasn't a bad ass? OK.

And I never said he was a great guy just that the dude had skills above and beyond what he could have ever explained or passed down in a manual.

And. I have, and as my personal sig line every where says believe, there is no superior art, only superior practioners.

That was basically my point. Don't look at a guy who trains hard daily and has for decades that he is ignorant of a fighting technique simply because he doesn't know some specific german terminology for it.

We have gone way off topic from stances and for that I do apologize. My bad.

I wouldn't mind discussing different maneuvers and methods from the period texts. It would be better discussed in person where we would have to ability to demonstrate specific postures and methods that show why this move or that move is superior and what its purpose is. That way my lack of german terminology would be less of a hindrance to the discussion. I don't have it in for the WMA/HEMA guys. I'm not trying to hate on them. I just don't like the attitude that we are all ignorant because we don't follow the same methodology.

[Russ Mitchell]

Not everybody who uses the manuals uses the same terminology, to wit, the cluster-fart above. Don't think anybody's intending to beat on you for that -- though if you're goign to talk the discussion, learning the terms at least does help, even if you're training something else.

[SyrRhys]

Not everybody who uses the manuals uses the same terminology, to wit, the cluster-fart above. Don't think anybody's intending to beat on you for that -- though if you're goign to talk the discussion, learning the terms at least does help, even if you're training something else.

Sorry, Russ, but you don't get to sneak back in that way. The "cluster-fart" above, as you so-gently put it, was not a matter of mere definitions, as I showed by demonstrating two techniques that were identical in approach from the two different sources.

[Russ Mitchell]

If this discussion is of no interest to you, I suggest you do not read it.

This, SirRhys.

I suspect, Jonathan, that some of Rhy's displacements (which are well-executed), could be performed at sword and shield, if they were slow-drilled ahead of time at three-quarter speed. It'd be a different approach to defending that much of what I saw at fighter practices, and might catch people by surprise. Of course, it needn't be done from a vertical plane as he shows in the video -- a horizontal plane more or less in keeping with one's guard stance would work fine, if the distance/timing issues were worked out.