The Armour Archive

What do you watch for if a fighter asks you critique him?

While I did not have a set list before, I jotted these down and thought I would compare notes with others.....

And the list continues to grow....... I think I have included all the points.. I have taken the editorial option to include some from private messages and combine some that really meant the same thing.


If I have missed something, please give me a shout.

Offense:
Ranging–Able to fight at their max/mid/and close ranges
Timing -
Variety of shots -
Weapon Speed -
Shot Power -
Domination/Control of fight
Accuracy Able to control where his shots are landing.
Using Entire body to throw
Properly thrown Attacks –no wrist flicks, smooth returns or transition to multiple attacks.
Return - how quickly and effectively do they recover from delivering a blow to prepare for the next.

Defense:
Shield movement
Shield coverage
Active Defense with shield or second weapon
Reaction to attacks

Overall:
How is armor works for/against him.
Footwork - includes being on the balls of the feet, not heals
Stance -includes foot placement
Presence
Deny -which is about moving to "deny" an attacker's window of opportunity -- either by interposition (the simplest, but least likely to allow a strong counter), time, or place ("don't be there when they swing").
Displacement -refers to redirecting your opponent's attention, or defense into an ineffective time or place.
Relaxed or Tense –
Fighting speed –the tempo of the entire fight.
Stamina/Physical fitness
Style – are the comfortable with the fighting style used, is it offensive or Counter-strike
Awareness -How does the fighter handle his surroundings, the terrain, the opposition's demeanor.
Crispness of technique and execution - do they deliver a clean blow or block or is it messy and desperate.
Flow - do their attacks and parries work together.
Scaling - do they fight at only one position of "on" or can they fight at different levels depending on the talent of their opponent. It is both scale up and down.
Consistency - of calibration, blow quality, defense.
Energy Conservation/Economy. Do they expend tons of energy to get a shot in or do they create openings and take opportunities with a minimum of effort.
Energy / Shell --you can influence the opponent with your mind, your aura, your shell feel and see it.
Balance - not just with themselves, but in the context of the fight.
Breathing -
Linkage - (need an explaination)
Heart- The desire and love of the fight.
Incorrect execution of techniques.
Telegraphing -Anything that will provide the opponent with a warning that a particular blow or movement is going to happen. This may include a change in stance or sword position, a cocking of the sword arm, a "hunching" of the shoulders, a gradual movement forward or back, and other "tells".
Overly flexible abdomenal region. Not keeping the Abdomenals taunt

Stacy

I think you have covered a pretty good list of general guidelines. But I don't look at them all at once; there is a definite progression to how I look at a person.

My main teaching strength (being a small girl myself) is body mechanics and footwork. I have had a LOT of years of having to learn by hard experience how to get the most power out of what you have.

I tend to focus FIRST on these things - stance stability and position, blow progression and follow through, foot placement, shield positioning (for defense and blow balance) and angle of attack. I tend to focus on how muscle tension progresses in a shot from the person's foot placement, through the center body and down the arm. In two-handed weapon (greatsword in particular), I place a special emphasis on footwork and body balance - control of the sword and fluidity of movement is critical if you want to have more than one blow movement in your arsenal, and for integration of offense and defense (which can't be viewed as separately as when you have a shield).

Then I branch outward and upward from there to looking at the more strategic aspects of the fight - ranging, timing, etc. If you don't have the first part down, the second is mighty hard to teach. Plus it does cut down on "info overload" - if you hit them with too much, too fast, it just overwhelms them.

Broinnfinn

I walk him over and introduce him to someone who knows something about fighting and can provide him with good advice.

Giles of Redheugh wrote:What do you watch for if a fighter asks you critique him?


Stacy

Everything......... Then attempt to work on the most obvious problem first.

Vebrand

You have it listed there.

For newer fighters, I watch for control as well - maybe precision is a better word. You can throw a solid, accurate shot, but look wild when you throw it.

Vebrand,

But what are you lookin' for?

Stacy

About the only things you don't have on your list, that I look at, are Stance and Foot Position (FP is different than Footwork though they are closely connected.)

I spend a lot of time assisting newer fighters. Generally I start with the broadest principles and work to the finest. Can they generate power and throw the three most common blows? Do they move or are they planting their feet? Do they see attacks coming and move to block them with their shield? Only once the most broad mistakes and problems are corrected is it worth moving on to the next issue.


Frederich

1. Armour/gear problems.
2. General fitness.
3. Timing.

When someone comes up to me and says, "Morgan, can you watch me and tell me what you think?" I ususally respond with a few questions first, to see what they're hoping I'll notice. I'll ask what they've been working on specificailly, what their game plan for the fight is, and so on. If they're a VERY new fighter, I go through the normal progression, but if they're a little advanced, I try to get a few steps ahead of the curve by zeroing in on a target before they fight starts.

Giles of Redheugh wrote:Vebrand,

But what are you lookin' for?

Stacy

As I said, "Everything". I watch a new fighter fight and see what good things and what bad things they are doing. Then start working on what appears to be their biggest problem first. I break things down to try and handle them step by step to help them improve. We may be able to work on multiple things at once. It depends on the fighter and how they respond to what I show them.

Vebrand

Giles of Redheugh wrote:Using Entire body to throw

Well then, you guys would have a field day with me. I generally use nothing more than my upper body to throw blows.

But you know, I've long realized that I can't teach thin or short fighters. I mean sure, I can tell them general blow mechanics, the theories of defense, range and timing, bu those are all things I think someone should know after they've fought for a year or so.

To get really into "How do I fight my fight?", the person asking me has to be large to get the most benefit.

Kevin wrote:
But you know, I've long realized that I can't teach thin or short fighters. I mean sure, I can tell them general blow mechanics, the theories of defense, range and timing, bu those are all things I think someone should know after they've fought for a year or so.

But you would be surprised how many don't.

Some folks can get by for a while, because of having the upper body strength to compensate for iffy technique. However, in the long run, they also tend to be more prone to injury, particularly shoulder, elbow, lower back and knee. I have seen some big guys have to "re-learn" how to throw because years of compensation have taken their toll.

Broinnfinn

Returning to the basics, is always good, no matter how long we have been doing this.

Starting at the base (foot) and working up is best, but I will point out the most important obvious things first.

you cover it good...

I usually just watch and see if i see any blatant errors when they fight. If i do i try to not correct them as give them advice, since most people tend to dislike being corrected if they haven't asked for it.

But the way i do it if a fighter comes up to me and ask me for advice, i usually first ask him about stances. Foot placement. Then i progress up to his upper body, and look for sword and shield positions. Then i usually take them through the target areas and see them strike them. Then i take them through a range of blocks.

After that i watch them fight, and then just look for everything from there.

Technique is the first thing I watch.

Majority of the fighters have a pretty limited technical ability because they have never really been taught to execute the blows properly.

1. I look at their fighting stance to see whether their body is properly "loaded" for offensive fighting (i.e. their attacks come straight from the position without always having to pull the arm back)

2. I observe whether their body is relaxed or tense. Tense fighting is slow and cumbersome.

3. I look at the body mechanics. Whether the fighter uses the hips properly or just does those wrist flicks or other anatomically disastrous things.

4. I look at the shield arm (or the other sword arm) to see whether it is active or passive. Passive arm does not load the body properly for offensive shieldwork or attacks with the second weapon.

5. I look at the fighting speed. Whether it is artificially hurried and clumsy or natural.

6. I look at movement and ranging. Whether the fighter shifts his/her body naturally and the movement is balanced or whether it looks like a pregnant elephant on amphetamine.

7. I look at the variety. Whether the fighter uses a wide wariety of techniques or is stuck with two.

8. I look at the timing. Whether the fighter knows how to slow or delay the shots when necessary.

9. I observe the power of the shots. Whether it comes from good, relaxed and fast technique or whether the shots look like a stoned Hulk with a 200 lbs sledgehammer is fighting under water.

10. I look at ranging to see whether the person knows the difference between short/medium/long/extreme and can exploit it properly or just wants to dance lambada on the opponent's toes.

11. I look at the fighting syle to see whether it is purely offensive or counter-fighting.

To sum it up to me the beter fighter is not necessary the one that wins. The judging method of our sport is not very objective after all.



This was a short and quick version since I am at work, Hope it helps.

Sir GrimR

Grimr,

Thanks for the reply.. are you coming to NK?

G

Hi Giles,

Unfortunately I probably can't come to Niebelungen this year. I just started working in a new company and can't really choose my vacations as freely as I used to. I will therefore only go to the Cudgel War this summer, and hopefully stay for the whole time. I might be able to go to Civil War in the fall but I don't know yet.

Eddie and his boys plus some other Finns will probably be at NK, and maybe Ivan, too. I really wish I could go.

GrimR

Thats Cool...

The entire Finn Group was a blast last year... Glad to see they are coming back...

I am trying to make to Civil Wars.. we will see...

I added your reply to the list above.. thanks again for your input.

G

You're welcome! However, it would be easier to talk about these things face to face. I am not at all sure that I expressed myself as clearly as I wanted.

Prowess and technique are my favourite issues when discussing possible chiv. candidates. It is partialle the "fault" of my background in traditional karate where we used to refine the same stance five hours in a row

And partially due to my squiredom with Jade where crappy technique gave lots of bruises

GrimR

Of course I would want to continue in person, and I will take you up on your offer when we meet again.

Giles

His heart. Everything else is minor and easily worked on. Without it, it doesn't much matter what you work on.

BEDLAM

Absolutely brother. Without heart you're just posing.

Bedlam and Animal,

Ok, Heart... I will add it...

Now, assuming he has Heart.. What do you look for?

Stacy

Shot technique (offense) ie does he throw with any speed or power. Defense sometimes corrects itself (the ouch factor), but I will talk slots and angles for O and it will apply to D.

B

AW: Without heart you're just posing.

I really like that.

GoR: What do you watch for if a fighter asks you critique him?

The first thing I look for is whether the fighter appears to be in balance -- not just with themselves, but in the context of the fight. If they are not, I look to isolate what is causing the imbalance, and focus on integrating the correction into an effort to achieve a balanced approach. To me, the principle elements of balance incorporate centering, timing, stance, and movement. It also takes into account such concerns as relaxation, breathing, power generation and linkage, over/under compensation, aggression and domination.

Thanks for the thread... AoC

As an addition to the factors listed, I would suggest watching for:

1. Any unconscious commitment that might interfere with movement, offense or defense. This might include leaning, having the weight too much on one foot, leading an attack with the shield, moving in a set pattern, and other similar things.

2. Anything that will provide the opponent with a warning that a particular blow or movement is going to happen. This may include a change in stance or sword position, a cocking of the sword arm, a "hunching" of the shoulders, a gradual movement forward or back, and other "tells".

3. Incorrect execution of techniques.

4. Ineffective reaction to attacks.

5. Lack of combinations, or many repetitions of the same attack.

6. Poor targeting.

7. Poor positioning (result of poor footwork) during attacks and defenses.

8. Overly flexible abdomenal region. This causes a loss of power, speed and control.

PaulB

paulb wrote:8. Overly flexible abdomenal region. This causes a loss of power, speed and control.

PaulB

Your Grace,

Can you further explain this, I've never heard of this theory before...fascinating.

Thanks!
byram

Made some changes to the original post.

G

BdeB wrote:

paulb wrote:8. Overly flexible abdomenal region. This causes a loss of power, speed and control.

PaulB

Your Grace,

Can you further explain this, I've never heard of this theory before...fascinating.

Thanks!
byram

Sir Colin seems to generate plenty of power with his Gumby-esque lefty fight...

Kevin,

Many people fight well with handicaps...

I do not believe PaulB is saying that one thing alone will make you a incapable fighter.... It is just one of many things listed above that can weaken your fighting ability.

We all fall somewhere on a percentage scale on each of these things...

Giles (who sucks as most of them)

Hi

Another thing I watch is the fighter's ability to take punishment. This is a bit nasty way to put it but I couldn't come up with anything better in a hurry.

What I mean is I observe whether the person actually is horribly afraid of getting hit/hurt. I don't really approve if the person gets upset and throws the toys into the bushes whenever he/she gets a slight bruise.

And I don't mean that whenever there's a newbie around, he/she should be whacked like a baby seal. What I do mean is that if you enter a serious tourney or wish to get the white belt at some point, you really need to be able to take the pain, too. After all this is a contact sport.

GrimR

My guess on Linkage would be how they and how well they link their attacks together.... how often and how well they are able to combination strike....

When I get that question I watch them and try to come up with just one thing or perhaps two that will help. I figure a fighter can't really process or remember much more than that anyway when in armour.

Usually it's not "this is what you are doing wrong." it's "Try doing this for a while." or "See if you can start that out a toatlly different way." I reserve "this is all wrong and you really need to learn a totally different way" for people who have comitted somewhat to being my student already

Bri has a good point about mechanics. The small girls tend to learn them early and the biggest, strongest guys tend not to learn them at all until years later when they have repetative stress injuries and then trying to un-learn a shot is a nightmare.

Badlam's right that heart is important, but I think you can actually learn it. If you can't, then part of my love affair with martial activities has been for naught. I'd like to think I've seen fighters grown a spine through effort and training.

Gaston

Concerning my comment that an overly-flexible abdomenal region can cause a loss of power and speed -

Based on my experience, throwing blows with heavy weapons is more similar to using a Judo throw, rather than a Karate strike. In the Judo throw, the abdomenal region moves to rigidity as soon as possible in the technique, to provide a "transmission link" between the lower and upper body, adding power and speed to the technique. In the Karate strike, the abdomenal region moves to rigidity later in the technique, providing a whipping action to propel the hand forward in the strike.

Again, in my experience, the whipping action does not work as well with heavy swords as it does with hands. My Karate instructor (long ago) nearly fell over backwards when he first tried to throw a "snap" with my sword.

This is not to say that the Karate version doesn't work in heavy weapons, given enough strength. However, I try to design my techniques so that they work with a minimum of strength. Strength is great - I use it a lot, but not everyone has enough to overcome the mechanical disadvantage.

In addition to being useful in throwing blows, I believe it is useful in throwing combinations, which require several changes of direction. If the abdomenal region is kept fairly rigid, the control of the blade during these changes is increased, as compared to the "whipping" motion, since maximum control is maintained by the body, rather than lost and regained.

Paulb

paulb wrote:Based on my experience, throwing blows with heavy weapons is more similar to using a Judo throw, rather than a Karate strike. In the Judo throw, the abdomenal region moves to rigidity as soon as possible in the technique, to provide a "transmission link" between the lower and upper body, adding power and speed to the technique. In the Karate strike, the abdomenal region moves to rigidity later in the technique, providing a whipping action to propel the hand forward in the strike.

Did you do shotokan, shorin-ryu or kempo by any chance? Those guys tend to throw the hip first and then "whip" the upper body with the abs starting out loose. Chinese arts tend to do the same. I did Yoshukai (a lot like Kyokushinkai which more people are familiar with) and we start out punches pretty much rigid with the hips not preceeding the arm or shoulder. The effect is a punch with less "snap" but more penetration. I didn't really have to alter that at all for SCA fighting. What I did have to do was strengthen my wrists and also learn how to coordinate the whole thing which develops a lot more slowly than a punch and has trickier timing.

There's a great book called "Karate Kinematics and Dynamics" written by a physics professor that's out of print but the author will give you a PDF for free if you ask .... It really influenced how I think about this stuff. He's a Shotokan guy but it still made a lot of sense to me when I first read it at 17.

Gaston