Forward Angular Movement (A Heresy)

[Zafir al-Th'ib]

Here's a figurative bone for everyone to playfully fight over. This is a bit long - I apologize in advance.

I am a fairly inexperienced SCA fighter, but not an inexperienced fighter; I got my start in trad martial arts at a very early age (my father was an Aikido sensei), fought competitively in karate during my teens, then moved on to fencing and, later, grappling/MMA/boxing. Because I live in a relatively remote location, I can make fighter practice, at most, once a week. The rest of the time I try to apply the work habits I learned in other fighting disciplines to my SCA fighting. That means exercise, pell work, diet, and film study.

After preliminary film study of my favorite SCA fighters, here is one of my more surprising (to me) findings - I am at this point relatively unconvinced of the need for lateral movement in SCA fighting, particularly on the attack.

Let me tell you a little about how I got there.

In one of my recent film studies, I fired up Duke Lucan's YouTube series. Great stuff. He fights very, very differently than I do, and those people are always the most interesting to watch. I viewed the whole thing, took notes, watched it again. Lots of stress on lateral movement during attacks - in one section, he shows how he cheats his feet to better access the offside of his opponent. Very cool. I note this mentally.

I move on to Sir Sagan's two YouTube series, Body Mechanics and Training/Studying. More good stuff. But in both, Sir Sagan talks about the 'sword dance,' and exhorts his trainees to trade blows in range, to make passing attacks, large steps (weight still underside, as they would say in aikido). And I start to wonder.

Admittedly, I am, naturally, a straight line fighter. This was probably ingrained on the piste, where movements are explosively forward/back. Boxing has likely exacerbated this tendency - whereas a boxer is trained NEVER to retreat in a straight line unless baiting (it is easy to range someone moving backward), attacks are rarely made by stepping past an opponent on an angle. This is not to say angles are not used - slipping attacks, the angle of the punch, moving your torso - all have almost innumerable variation. But the exaggerated stepping attacks - never. Not that I was ever taught.

So, what do I do? Fire up more tape. Sir Gaston vs. Sir Baldar, slowmo. Neither ever attacks on a bias, though Gaston retreats laterally very well to avoid standing in Baldar's attack zone for extended periods. OK, next: Duke Sean vs. Duke Sven. Straight up trading, almost sniping, though combos are of course key. Hm. How about Duke Lucan vs. Duke Sven? Straight up, though Lucan hits a sweet leaning body shot early in the video. Duke Logan vs Duke Brannos? Certainly no 'sword dance' here; Logan stalks (like a good boxer), Brannos retreats (not straight back, like a good boxer), and uses a previous pattern and a beautiful subtle bodyfake to execute a single-blow kill.

You see where I'm going with this.

I've talked enough here. I loved to be convinced of the efficacy of the passing shot, the bias shot, forward angular movement. Convince me (or agree with me, but that's boring). What I'm seeing is an amazing consistency between all of the Dukes I am watching - despite disparity in stance, in foot-edness, in shield size/shape, they all show a remarkable tendency to warily stalk into range, to remove themselves if they feel even momentary disadvantage, to snipe in single shots or combos, to move, yes, in straight lines, especially on the attack.


~ Zafir

[Raeven]

It's just one of the many tools in the box. Me personally, my goal is to keep manuevering until I can use that tool. Timed right, it's the most effective and decisive attack I can think of.

[bkillian]

Watch the sword not the body and you will see that it is the thing doing the lateral movement. The body sometimes does but the sword it self almost always moves along the lines of a laterally vectored attack. The extra length of the sword changes the geometry.

[raito]

You see where I'm going with this.

I've talked enough here. I loved to be convinced of the efficacy of the passing shot, the bias shot, forward angular movement. Convince me (or agree with me, but that's boring). What I'm seeing is an amazing consistency between all of the Dukes I am watching - despite disparity in stance, in foot-edness, in shield size/shape, they all show a remarkable tendency to warily stalk into range, to remove themselves if they feel even momentary disadvantage, to snipe in single shots or combos, to move, yes, in straight lines, especially on the attack.

~ Zafir

In the last Crown I won (and every bout of that one is on YouTube), I can only think of a single instance where I moved straight forward -- and that was because my opponent was going straight backward. But I did not do it with large steps, except in one case where I was simultaneously avoiding an attack and slipping past his shield.

I've taught footwork classes where that angle is defined by the width of a foot. For me, it's more like a boxer getting his foot outside the opponent's, or a wrestler angling for a single leg.

It's difficult to see that sort of angle in a video.

[Johann ColdIron]

What I'm seeing is an amazing consistency between all of the Dukes I am watching - despite disparity in stance, in foot-edness, in shield size/shape, they all show a remarkable tendency to warily stalk into range, to remove themselves if they feel even momentary disadvantage, to snipe in single shots or combos, to move, yes, in straight lines, especially on the attack.


~ Zafir

Good observation. It is not surprising that people at the high end of this game are using measure and timing to reduce the time they are exposed to the threat of their opponents blow. Entering only when you have your opponent beat by footwork or position will keep you from getting killed. Throwing a decisive single timed shot or couple of shots will keep you fresh for the next fight as well.

When I was young(er) I waded into folks throwing lots of shots to overwhelm their fight computer until one struck home. Now I will wait for the right place or time to hit once or twice will telling strength. Not that I am a Duke or anything. Just conservation minded

[Diglach Mac Cein]

I am a former boxer (among other activities). I'll fight straight line, I'll step out, passing shot...

The question is what is appropriate for the situation.

Now mind you, for me a "step out" might be anything from 2 inches to 2 feet - again, the idea is to use the minimum appropriate action for the situation.

.

[Kilkenny]

There is still lots of regionality to SCA fighting as well. By that I mean that a sufficiently experienced fighter may be able to tell you where people come from by the way they fight.

Tend to walk in and trade blows at close range with not a lot of movement ? Probably not from the East, might be Atlantian. Itty bitty shield and trying to move in and out of range but never be more than a step from being either in or out ? Might be from the West. That sort of "regionality".

When you get top end fighters from very different areas facing off, you aren't seeing a typical fight from either one. It's interesting and it tells you lots about each of them, but you need context to really interpret it.

Most of us probably don't use our feet as well as we should. That we can get away with that probably isn't an argument that it is not needed, but an area of weakness for an opponent to exploit

I would also say that Raito is quite correct - the angles may be quite subtle - especially so since our weapons allow us to maximize the effect of a small shift of angle.

When I'm fighting, I pretty much don't think about my feet. I think about where I can hit this guy, how I can manufacture an opening if he doesn't give them to me and where I need to be to make the most of it when it happens. Obviously, in order to execute any and all ideas about how to hit the guy, I'm probably going to be moving my feet. It's an unusual situation where I can tell you about where I was stepping and why.

I just moved to where I could hit him

[Callidus]

Find a video of Duke Maynard from AEthelmearc fighting with a glaive. This might change your mind about lateral movement.

[freiman the minstrel]

I'm from a martial arts background as well. I studied Shotokan for nine years, and Judo before that. My mother studied in the Philippines and later in Tokyo.

If you approach a sword and shield fighter from in front, he has everything he wants. His shield is placed to what he feels is perfection, he sword is exactly where he wants it to be, and he is able to adjust the range exactly as he wants it, given the caveat that you can also adjust range.

But, if you are also a sword and board fighter, you are also getting everything you want.

Given that the great majority of SCA fighters fight sword and shield (I can only think of one off the top of my head that doesn't have the ticket at least) our movement styles generally reflect that. The way I usually put it is that "We move like cows". There is the further complication that the fighter defending against your move for position is able to simply turn (mostly) while you actually have to move.

But, a fighter can move eight inches in either direction, and deprive his opponent of having everything he wants. The defender must adjust the shield, and focus on your threat from a new position. Why in the world could this possibly be a bad thing?

Because of the ruleset under which we compete, the greater advantages of movement have been nullified, but movement is something we still need to work on.

f

[Hrolfr]

I am a former boxer (among other activities). I'll fight straight line, I'll step out, passing shot...

The question is what is appropriate for the situation.

Now mind you, for me a "step out" might be anything from 2 inches to 2 feet - again, the idea is to use the minimum appropriate action for the situation.

.

Not to mention you are an evil lefty to boot!

I rarely fight a straight line fight. I consider myself a 'counter-puncher' and movement is one of my most vital tools (being old, fat and slow).
I am equally comfortable moving both right and left, forward, backward any combination thereof.

As always, YMMV

[Zafir al-Th'ib]

There is the further complication that the fighter defending against your move for position is able to simply turn (mostly) while you actually have to move.

I was going to mention this, but my post was overlong as it was. Simple physics states that I can turn in a tight circle faster than you can circumnavigate that circle in a wider arc, so if you are going to commit to a passing attack, you'd better be damn certain I've broken my own tight circle first.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. To be clear, I'm not convinced on this point one way or another yet (as I am convinced, for instance, that those fighters who stand almost straight - or worse, lock their knees - while fighting are doing something fundamentally wrong).

Those of you saying the movements are subtle, perhaps the length of a foot? That rings true. I will "step sideways" by perhaps six inches in order to deliver an overhand right with more power, but I have to be very, very certain of my read. What I was mainly objecting to was the 'passing shot' displayed by, say, Duke Lucan in his video (and he is my better, let me be clear). I have yet to see this actually happen in a high level fight; certainly not with any regularity.

Callidus, I will watch these happily, but I was mostly speaking of sword and shield or two-weapon. My apologies for not being specific.

[raito]

There is the further complication that the fighter defending against your move for position is able to simply turn (mostly) while you actually have to move.

I was going to mention this, but my post was overlong as it was. Simple physics states that I can turn in a tight circle faster than you can circumnavigate that circle in a wider arc, so if you are going to commit to a passing attack, you'd better be damn certain I've broken my own tight circle first.

That's why fat old men lie to their opponents. Yes, you can turn tighter faster than I can turn larger, but I know when I'm going to turn and you don't. The interval between my turning and your turning is what lets me hit you.

And DiGrassi espouses not moving widely. He says to let the opponent circle all he wants, and just turn to face him.

[Stahlgrim]

you might want to watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8OCq4tXBg0

to get a better idea of what Lucan Dux is speaking to.

[sir_ulf]

An interesting discussion.

First let me say that I am not an expert in any particular broader martial arts though I have competed in wrestling, boxing and judo in my youth. Nor am I a particular expert in SCA combat though I do have a breadth of experience and some success here and there.

Lateral movement is a funny thing. I believe you will find that most top level fighters use larger lateral movements more on the counter attack than on the offense. In this way I can take advantage of our opponents moving themselves out of position in their efforts to attack us.

That said, I also feel lateral movement can be very effective on offence but not on its own. Where I have seen it most effective is when combined with other strikes or feints that cause the opponent to be distracted or blind themselves temporarily. When this happens a quick lateral step to change the angle of attack can be used to devastating effect. Most commonly you will see this used with an onside setup with the offside body or leg passing shot. I have seen this well used by Duke Davin of An Tir.

To answer your comment about top level fights seeming very linear I would say that most experienced fighters of any discipline tend to fight more conservatevely when up against another high level fighter. I know for myself I know that if I go for something big and make a small mistake against a stud fighter I will frequently end up on the short end very quickly. There are a few exceptions but not all of us can be Mike Tyson in his prime.

Regards,

UlfR
Drachenwald

[Kilkenny]

A couple of people have mentioned something more or less in passing that should be noted.

Quite a few sword and shield techniques involve tremendous angle shifts *without* moving your feet.

Rock over for that offside leg shot, tilting your shoulders and bending at the waist and you've changed multiple angles by a good margin - without moving your feet. If you happen to get the timing so that your shield pops over to block your opponent's offside headshot and you shift for your offside body, the combined angular shift is huge.

As for the whole big circle v. small circle aspect... one of the major points of good footwork is that it is part and parcel of deception. I don't really want to try and do a shield side pass when you're all comfy and on balance, able to see what I'm doing and quick to respond.

I want to sell you on that deep offside to the body, the one that I've triphammered into your shield three times in the past 2 seconds - and then on the recovery from that last offside, as I straighten up I step hard to my right and forward into your shield, throwing the wrap to the body or head. Sure, you've got a shorter distance to turn - but I've maximized that distance by drawing you over to the other side, and I'm cutting off your path to turn and by the time you recognize where I am going and start to respond - well, if it goes my way, you're too late to stop the shot. If it doesn't go my way, you're probably bailing out of range and we both get to re-set.

[AEiric Orvender]

Not to mention you are an evil lefty to boot!

Why all the hate for those of so of the "sinister" persuaision??

[Siegfried Hrodulf]

What an excllent discussion. I find myself mirroring Sir UlfR's views. I find that passing steps rarely work against fighter of my level or better. I suppose that most high level fighters move relativley well and have excllent ranging, due to thi outmanouvering them when initationg an attack is almost impossible. However there are some possibilities when countering, but I am just trying to figure out how to do this stuff.

On opponets who have a poor feel to range it is easy to get them to overcomit, in which case a passing step is very efective.