Committment in your swing

[jester]

Question for you good SCA fighters (which I am not). In my WMA studies I'm seeing a real tendency to use the least amount of force necessary in a sword blow. This is, apparently, a way to avoid over-committing to a blow so that you can change the blow while the sword is in motion. I.E. you started with an onside flat snap and switched it to a vertical blow to take advantage of an opening AFTER you'd already started the flat snap.

Is this how you do it?

I know that I didn't. If I threw a shot it was fire-and-forget until it was time to recover.

[SirVitale]

In order to throw a shot that changed directions, you would normally start the shot with the intention that it change directions part way through.

There will be diffences in how your throw it if you want it to easily change direction.

A well throw normal shot has a very short time between when it is fully in motion and when it lands. There just isn't the time, half way through a shot to suddenly notice a gap elsewhere and substantially change the direction of the shot.

[Dmitriy]

If you fire with the body and just use your hand to "drive", you can adjust and redirect.

Not a very clear video, but watch what Radnor (in white) is doing with changing directions his sword is going: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgbqvsBNS5A

(before anyone asks, he's using a "broken" lance for blocking)

[Murdock]

"In my WMA studies I'm seeing a real tendency to use the least amount of force necessary in a sword blow"

This would seem contrary to at least Lichtenhauer's philosphy.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

What Count Dmitriy said. I do it right about half the time.

[Dmitriy]

Viscount

[Dagonet]

To expand a bit on what Dmitriy said. This is from my experience in SCA combat, and does not necessarily have any implications for period combat. Power is generated in the body, primarily by the hips and shoulders. The arm is simply the mechanism that delivers the sword to its target. The energy that the body develops does not need to be transferred to the target until the moment of impact. With this in mind, it is possible to do any number of redirections of the arm and sword prior to the blow landing. I have found that to transfer power to the blow from the body, particularly if you are in an unusual position, either a shoulder or hip must be in some sort of line with the point of impact. That line does not need to be parallel to the ground.

When I fight, I feel the energy balled up in my gut and am able to control the transferral to the target, speeding or slowing its movement at almost any point. I know this is not a trivial task, nor can I always do it perfectly. I tend to move a lot, which negates some of my power. Anywho...

To answer the question, you have not committed to a blow until you have committed the energy, or force, that your body has generated.

I hope this helps. A more complete picture of my thoughts on fighting can be found at http://sirdagonet.blogspot.com/

[Maeryk]

Question for you good SCA fighters (which I am not). In my WMA studies I'm seeing a real tendency to use the least amount of force necessary in a sword blow. This is, apparently, a way to avoid over-committing to a blow so that you can change the blow while the sword is in motion. I.E. you started with an onside flat snap and switched it to a vertical blow to take advantage of an opening AFTER you'd already started the flat snap.

Is this how you do it?

I know that I didn't. If I threw a shot it was fire-and-forget until it was time to recover.

I found I did my best with pre-decided combos.. I _knew_ where I was going, but later learned to adapt them so it _could_ go A C D B or it COULD go A B D C or.. or...

I usually aim for a spot about a foot past where the target is.. or I find myself "pulling" shots, and having them come in light, because I'm "braking" for the rebound before it even lands.

I don't think I've EVER hit anyone "as hard as I can". I've never had to.

Which might tie more into what you are saying above.. "least amount of force necessary" as opposed to sledgehammering every shot, which will tire you out quickly, and have you far, far more committed than you want to be if he, say, dodges out of the way.

Course, I see plenty of people fight styles that _make_ them commit too far to individual shots, rather than a more centered, fluid, moveable style akin to boxing where you are over your feet at all times, always balanced, and always moving enough to accelerate the next shot through pure body mechanics.

[Dagonet]

Pre-decided combos are great...until your opponent is not where you expect them to be...then, not so much.

Adapting them is good, but if each shot is a decision point, they aren't really combos anymore.

[Maeryk]

Pre-decided combos are great...until your opponent is not where you expect them to be...then, not so much.

Adapting them is good, but if each shot is a decision point, they aren't really combos anymore.

True.. but practicing with combos, I found, got me learning how to use the continuing motion in the sword to move into other shots effectively.

That, combined with muscle memory, means it's easier to do it without thinking.

So, say.. onside head, offside head, onside leg.. a pretty standard opening combo.. you learn to do them one, two three.. but if you practice mixing it up, you get better at moving from say, onside head to offside leg, back to onside head, etc etc.

Didn't mean to imply being married to combos was a good thing.

[rhys]

Didn't mean to imply being married to combos was a good thing.



It's not? whatabout a brunette anda red head?.... thats a combo....... Ooops, wrong combo.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

I stand corrected.

[adric]

Didn't mean to imply being married to combos was a good thing.



It's not? whatabout a brunette anda red head?.... thats a combo....... Ooops, wrong combo.

yea - avoid the red head - they can be a bit nuts.....

[sha-ul]

Didn't mean to imply being married to combos was a good thing.
It's not? whatabout a brunette anda red head?.... thats a combo....... Ooops, wrong combo.

nah the blonde & brunette is better

[Guy Dawkins]

Question for you good SCA fighters (which I am not). In my WMA studies I'm seeing a real tendency to use the least amount of force necessary in a sword blow. This is, apparently, a way to avoid over-committing to a blow so that you can change the blow while the sword is in motion. .

I don't see that in Fiore. Are you, perhaps, misreading the idea that blow force is not generated from the arms but the body.

[FergusStout]

As I have been repeatedly told "You should only throw a shot as fast as you can throw the shot correctly". A correctly thrown shot can be adjusted by changing multiple aspects, hand position, angle, etc to change targets as the opportunity presents itself.

*disclaimer* thats the theory - I am still working on getting it to work for me. I still don't have the body awareness and 'fight sight' to get it all to slow down enough for my mind and body to connect. I see it constantly from Sir Alexis, HSH Ulsted and others in our practices.

[jester]

"In my WMA studies I'm seeing a real tendency to use the least amount of force necessary in a sword blow"

This would seem contrary to at least Lichtenhauer's philosphy.

Well, as my motto says "I could very well be wrong."

I haven't studied a lot of Lichtenauer, but the German longsword instruction I have had seems to agree with this idea. If I strike Oberhau at my opponent and he strikes Oberhau to the bind I must have the control to be able wind (a relatively soft reaction) or strike through (a hard reaction) depending on the feeling I get from his blade. Using only the least amount of force necessary doesn't mean that you should fight wimpy, it means that you should use the force necessary and no more lest you begin to fight like a buffalo.

Most of my reference right now is I.33 and that contains numerous examples of an offensive strike being converted to a defensive bind in mid-motion.

I will now remind you of my motto and state that this is my opinion. I'm asking here because I find the SCA is a great sounding board for principles.

[jester]

Question for you good SCA fighters (which I am not). In my WMA studies I'm seeing a real tendency to use the least amount of force necessary in a sword blow. This is, apparently, a way to avoid over-committing to a blow so that you can change the blow while the sword is in motion. .

I don't see that in Fiore. Are you, perhaps, misreading the idea that blow force is not generated from the arms but the body.

I see it in Fiore. The Colpe de Villano is an admonition not to swing with excessive force and the actions at the bind (tasting his sword) demand that you be able to respond to your opponent's intention which means you cannot be wholly committed to a strike. But, again, I could very well be wrong.

[Murdock]

I think you are also seeing the diffrence between blossfetching and harness fetching

in bloss you just have to cut through cloth and skin so more slichen and less kinda zornhau from vomtag.

We in the SCA are kinda doing harness fetchen so we're trying to prduce a hack or more cocussive shot so we swing as oppsed to cut.

So we comitte more body to the shot.

if that makes any sense

[Aaron]

yea - avoid the red head - they can be a bit nuts.....

I'm married to a redhead, and never, ever bored. I do agree that nuts are involved a bit.

This thread has been officially highjacked...

[Guy Dawkins]

Question for you good SCA fighters (which I am not). In my WMA studies I'm seeing a real tendency to use the least amount of force necessary in a sword blow. This is, apparently, a way to avoid over-committing to a blow so that you can change the blow while the sword is in motion. .

I don't see that in Fiore. Are you, perhaps, misreading the idea that blow force is not generated from the arms but the body.

I see it in Fiore. The Colpe de Villano is an admonition not to swing with excessive force and the actions at the bind (tasting his sword) demand that you be able to respond to your opponent's intention which means you cannot be wholly committed to a strike. But, again, I could very well be wrong.

OK I can agree with not swinging with excessive force but I'm not sure about it being apparent that you use the least force necessary so you can change direction. It certainly will alow you to. But, again, I could very well be wrong.

Where are Greg Mele or Bob Charron when you need them?

[raito]

I see it in Fiore. The Colpe de Villano is an admonition not to swing with excessive force and the actions at the bind (tasting his sword) demand that you be able to respond to your opponent's intention which means you cannot be wholly committed to a strike. But, again, I could very well be wrong.

Well, I think you are (though I thnk it's more a matter of coming to the wrong conclusions).

As I understand Fiore, which is a little, it appears to be very much about positioning. You're trying to get to a position where there's little chance for the opponent. Swinging too hard puts you out of position by overswinging. Miss, and your oppoent has a position to attack from.

At the bind, you do need to figure out his intentions. But once at the bind, you aren't striking any more.

Lastly, I don't recall anything in Fiore about redirecting a cut in progress. I imagine that you're supposed to train enough that it isn't necessary.

[Kilkenny]

Question for you good SCA fighters (which I am not). In my WMA studies I'm seeing a real tendency to use the least amount of force necessary in a sword blow. This is, apparently, a way to avoid over-committing to a blow so that you can change the blow while the sword is in motion. I.E. you started with an onside flat snap and switched it to a vertical blow to take advantage of an opening AFTER you'd already started the flat snap.

Is this how you do it?

I know that I didn't. If I threw a shot it was fire-and-forget until it was time to recover.

I think there's a fairly widely held misconception that having control means not swinging hard or fast. How hard and how fast one can swing and still maintain control varies from person to person based on strength and experience. The person who swings very very hard and very very fast and has good control may very well lose, consistently, to a person who only swings fast and hard but has *excellent* control.

Each person has a point of commitment for their blows, a point after which they cannot, effectively, change their target. Don Fernando Salazar y Perez was truly amazing on this count - his point of commitment was 6 inches past anyone else I've known, and he was verra fass. Made for a really evil combination because if you didn't twitch block when you thought you saw him move, you missed the block - and if you did, he hit you someplace else.

When I'm fighting really well, I can do some of that changing in flight kind of thing. It's not really my style though. My approach is more one of fluid combinations, where the first shot may not take advantage of that hole I see, but the second shot may and the third shot is aimed for the hole that will appear if you block the second one.

I'm more about predicting where your weakness will be and arranging to exploit it, than opportunistically jumping on something that just appeared.

Maeryk, I'm a huge fan of combinations, and some of mine are pretty much hardwired. I never run more than 3 blows in a single combo, but I've been known to string together 28 blow sequences. One triplet morphs into a second, a third, etc. and they shift from "canned" triplets into created on the fly for the situation. I could never consciously reproduce a given 12 blow chain and I don't think I would want to.

As for where power comes from, it's the core strength - abdomen/torso. We talk about hips and shoulders, but in comparison those are little muscle groups. They are, however, easier to *see*. So we say turn the shoulders, drive with the hip, but what we need you to do is *throw* that hip with your abdominal muscles.

Anyway, on Jester's point, I think exceptionally good fighters make that kind of adjustment quite often.

Gavin

[Murdock]

"Where are Greg Mele or Bob Charron when you need them?"

In Chicago and out toward Madison i assume

[Guy Dawkins]

"Where are Greg Mele or Bob Charron when you need them?"

In Chicago and out toward Madison i assume

PPRRRTTT!

[jester]

These are some very interesting replies and I really appreciate everyone who took the time to respond. What's particularly interesting to me is the characterization of a mid-swing change of direction as a very high level skill. I'd like to take a little more of your time and offer up a concrete example of this from an historical document and see what you think about the level of skill needed to actually execute the actions in the example. When you look at this, please bear in mind the point Murdock made about the difference between fighting in armor and fighting out of armor and the level of force required in each.

This example is drawn from the Tower Armouries Manuscript I.33 which is a document written in Latin with some German terms thrown in. It has been dated to circa 1290AD and is accepted as being from Germany. This images I am using here are recreations I am using to avoid infringing upon copyright. The manuscript is instruction in the art of unarmored combat with sword and buckler. The first two pages of the manuscript show the seven wards used by the system and the first instructional sequence begins on page 3, upper, as below.




Here we see the cleric (mnemonic device indicating an instructor) and the scholar (mnemonic device indicating a student). The cleric, in blue, is in the first ward, his sword is point back and under his left arm. The scholar, in red, has adopted the opposition called the Halpschilt (half-shield).

From this position the scholar has a limited set of options. If he draws his sword back the cleric will follow in and strike him. So the scholar can remain in Halpschilt or he can attack. On page 22 the manuscript revists this scenario and makes it clear that attacking is what the scholar should do. The end result of this attack is shown on page 22, lower, as below.



This is the variety of cut known as an Oberhau. In this case it is a cut that descends from high to low on a diagonal that moves from right to left. The exact angle of the diagonal is unimportant; until the blow becomes purely vertical or purely horizontal it is an Oberhau.

The text on page 3 tells us what the cleric should do when the scholar attacks thus; the cleric should cut to the centerline and thrust. If this is done with a little shift step to the cleric's left, it's very effective. The end result of this can be seen below and this is called a Stichschlac (thrust-strike).



Here's where the mid-stroke change of direction comes into play. The scholar, striking his Oberhau, sees the cleric's Stichschlac coming in. So he changes the direction of his sword blow and makes it go straight down. This is a change of target and intent; instead of striking the cleric, the scholar is now obeying the first rule of combat (don't get killed) and defending himself by striking the cleric's sword. The end result of this action can be seen on page 4, upper, as below.



What I would like is the benefit of your experience. Based on that, how good a fighter do you think someone would need to be to actually pull this off? How plausible does this scenario sound to you?

In case you're wondering, there are other possible courses of action from this starting position. Though the text says the scholar should strike from this position, it also shows, in another instructional sequence, the scholar simply dropping his point to menace the cleric's face and draw him out of the first ward without committing the scholar to a strike. So if you consider striking from Halpschilt to be a less than perfect solution, the author of the manuscript and I agree with you. But changing sword direction is an important part of this manuscript and I'm wondering if the manuscript is meant for master level fighters rather than being a primer in sword and buckler combat.

[jester]

This might be easier to picture as a whole with the images laid out in sequence.
[img]http://home.armourarchive.org/members/jester/I33/Discussion_Image.gif[/img]

[Woodsende]

Jester,

If I remember correctly (I don't have my copy with me), the manuscript advises the scholar in hapschilt to immediately thrust if the cleric does not initiate an attack.

In this case, when the clerics blade makes contact, there is no need for a change of direction, just a downward bind.

Robert of Woodsende
Robert Holland

[iomtalach]

I'm going to speak from complete ignorance with I.33. (ahem)

Looking at *just* what you've illustrated, it looks more like this:

From the top:

If blue stands still, whack em in the head, curving over the shield.

If blue attacks, then either knock it (the attacking sword) to the outside, or chop down on it.

Am I missing where the change of direction is?

Dealing with your original question, I think there is a *strong* tendency in WMA practice to be overtly technical...and forgetting that sometime a strong attack *will* blow through any fanciness.

To move from a tondo to the head to a fendente, my approach would be to fire the tondo hard and fast with an intent to out-speed or blow through my opponents defense. *If* they manage to stop that I would use the momentum of my blow and the "bounce" of their defense to molinello into a fendente.

[Dmitriy]

Just as a sidenote... a copyright on an anonymous manuscript from the 13th century???? Not any more than there is a copyright on mona lisa.

-D

[jester]

Jester,

If I remember correctly (I don't have my copy with me), the manuscript advises the scholar in hapschilt to immediately thrust if the cleric does not initiate an attack.

In this case, when the clerics blade makes contact, there is no need for a change of direction, just a downward bind.

Robert of Woodsende
Robert Holland

From the text on Page 3:
It is to be seen that the one who is higher is directing a strike to the head, without schiltslac, if he is a common fencer. But if you would be instructed by the priest's counsel, do bind and enter.

From the text on Page 22:
You might as how the pupil should attack the priest. And it should be known that the priest by tarrying omits all defence, in order to teach the pupil, who, as he stands, without moving sword or shield, approaches, i. e., soon he has the opportunity to strike, as shown in these images.

If the person in Halpschilt attacks without binding then the person in first ward will stichschlac. That makes perfect sense to me. It even makes perfect sense to hold in halpschilt and draw the opponent out of first ward. But page 22 counsels the person in halpschilt to attack (because the person in first ward has failed to take the initiative). So if he does this with an Oberhau (which is how I think it's done) and the person in first ward reacts by trying to stichschlac (which is the correct response) the Oberhau has to change from a diagonal downward strike to a vertical downward strike (sorry, I don't know the German term for this). Perhaps my understanding is flawed (and I'm quite willing to admit this could be the case) but the target has changed fairly significantly. Is this not a change of direction?

Thank you.

[jester]

Just as a sidenote... a copyright on an anonymous manuscript from the 13th century???? Not any more than there is a copyright on mona lisa.

-D

My only legitimate source for the images is the book published by Prof. Singman in cooperation with the Tower Armouries. Copyright applies, I believe. For a long time I used the black and white images that ARMA has online, and while I'm grateful they were available, they're pretty crappy. Using these images side-steps any possible issues and helps with clarity, to a degree. There's still no substitute for looking at the original images.

[jester]

I'm going to speak from complete ignorance with I.33. (ahem)

Looking at *just* what you've illustrated, it looks more like this:

From the top:

If blue stands still, whack em in the head, curving over the shield.

If blue attacks, then either knock it (the attacking sword) to the outside, or chop down on it.

Am I missing where the change of direction is?

Dealing with your original question, I think there is a *strong* tendency in WMA practice to be overtly technical...and forgetting that sometime a strong attack *will* blow through any fanciness.

To move from a tondo to the head to a fendente, my approach would be to fire the tondo hard and fast with an intent to out-speed or blow through my opponents defense. *If* they manage to stop that I would use the momentum of my blow and the "bounce" of their defense to molinello into a fendente.

If red attacks then blue will try to cut to the centerline and thrust. He can do this pretty handily, particularly if he combines his cut with a displacement to the rear (as is demonstrated later in the manuscript). So red has to change his diagonal cut to a purely downward cut. That's the change of direction I perceive.

I'm a big believer in the idea that sometimes brute force is the perfect solution. In fact, I inherently distrust anything I perceive as overly subtle or complicated. Blue doesn't block, he re-directs; adding to the force being directed against him to take that force off the centerline and opening up the outside line for a thrust. Easier to show than to say, as generally seems to be the case.

[Murdock]

"
Lastly, I don't recall anything in Fiore about redirecting a cut in progress"

wel there kinda is the rebatare (sp?) is a intercepting of the blade and moving it out of it's line of attack with your line of attack while making cover with you line and crossing thier line up so their attack is nullified.


Ummmm

i think i just confused myself


easier to show.

[iomtalach]

If red attacks then blue will try to cut to the centerline and thrust. He can do this pretty handily, particularly if he combines his cut with a displacement to the rear (as is demonstrated later in the manuscript). So red has to change his diagonal cut to a purely downward cut. That's the change of direction I perceive.

Single imperfect time attack? One cut that carves an arc, like a modern graze or glissade? Is that what you are talking about? As opposed to a due tempi action...

I'm a big believer in the idea that sometimes brute force is the perfect solution. In fact, I inherently distrust anything I perceive as overly subtle or complicated. Blue doesn't block, he re-directs; adding to the force being directed against him to take that force off the centerline and opening up the outside line for a thrust. Easier to show than to say, as generally seems to be the case.

I assume that is implicit in every good fencing action. Easier to use the "rough" words, though.