a common combat language?

[raito]

ALex,

Interesting interpretation. I always thought of DiGrassi's philosophy as being the true art was killing the other guy, and the false art was trying to look good in preference to killing the other guy.

Amuslingly enough, many years ago I happened to be fencing, and got berated by one of the local fencers for not parrying enough (I was winning every pass). I stated that as simply taking a slop pace to void and thrusting was good enough, why would I bother? (I didn't go so far as to accuse him of being a devotee of the false art).

[Broadway]

I thought that was Silver's philosophy.

I always thought of DiGrassi's philosophy as being the true art was killing the other guy, and the false art was trying to look good in preference to killing the other guy.

[Alex Baird]

ALex,

Interesting interpretation. I always thought of DiGrassi's philosophy as being the true art was killing the other guy, and the false art was trying to look good in preference to killing the other guy.

The jist I get from him is that the True Fight is preferred, because to sell a feint, you need to endanger yourself. Thus, while feinting an offside, for example, you are in range and time to be pegged by your opponent. He therefore recommends that "falses" be saved for sparring or play, and not used in earnest fights.

Resolving themselves for a truth, that when they are to deal with any enemy, & when it is upon danger of their lives, they must then suppose the enemy to be equal to themselves as well in knowledge as in strength, & accustom themselves to strike in as little time as is possible, and that always being well warded. And as for these Falses or Slips, they must use them for their exercises & pastimes sake only, and not presume upon them, except it be against such persons, who are either much more slow, either know not the true principals of this Art. For Deceit or Falsing is no other thing, then a blow or thrust delivered, not to the intent to hurt or hit home, but to cause the enemy to discover [uncover] himself in some part, by means whereof a man may safely hurt him in the same part.

[maxntropy]

Nope See, that's a naming convention breakdown, because the blow is still a false edge strike. There are mechanics for short-range false edge strikes that don't work at long range. There are also mechanics for long range false edge strikes that will work quite close in (where the strike lands on the sword will change greatly depending on the range with these).

The bottom line though, is that if you tell me which edge you are striking with and what target you are striking to, I can narrow down the options for the mechanics of the strike - typically to one set.

That's why in our Scholum, we start with the mechanics and train forward -- with the foundational shot categories (Zones: onside/front/true/palm-up, offside/back/false/palm-down, angle-change/thumb-lead/wrap-around/half-moulinet, slot/center-line/caveman/axe-shot/moulinet; Ranges: zero-stem/inner-baseline; short-stem/dead-zone; long-stem/outer-baseline) evolving organically out of our training in the biomechanics and work on maneuver, positioning, and range.

Thus, as Gavin stated, any of the shots are really simply the application of appropriate biomechanical combinations with the weapon into a certain Zone at a certain Range (e.g., zero-stem onside, long-stem wrap-around slot (scorpion), short-stem offside, long-stem offside sidearm-thrust, etc...). So perhaps if you are simply generating sufficient angular momentum force from one of the possible power-generating axes (feet, hips, shoulders, elbow, wrists, etc...) and lock that force sufficiently into the weapon with appropriate mechanics -- then perhaps it's simply a matter of the biomechanics to sufficiently Generate and Lock angular momentum into a Weapon at a targeted Zone (onside, offside, center-line, angle-change) and Range (zero, short, long).

From a mechanics and targeting perspective, I believe that the edge and the tip of the sword are of relatively little consequence -- with sufficient angular momentum and lock, a wrap becomes a face-thrust and a zero-stem offside become a face-thrust with absolutely minimal changes to zone and range from maneuver, positioning, and targeting. Thus, perhaps it's even simpler than the weapon-specific (front-edge, back-edge, thrust) based approach and might instead simply be a question of target Zone and target Range (assuming the biomechanics, maneuver, and positioning).

Just some thoughts.

Max Von Halstern