Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 1:11:04 GMT
This is what I mean about convoluted - his harness restricts him from being aware of the world around him to the point where he can't tell that the only opponent is throwing something at him, but that same opponent in similar harness has the unrestricted motion and vision to make the throw? Come on.
If he's only a few steps away, why is this not countered by simple stepping in and hitting the dope throwing his pommel in the head with your sword? Simple propping a spear under your arm isn't a sufficient deterrent, that could be battered away with slight effort. They must have known about how to use a beat to kick an opponent's weapon off-line, they couldn't have been that stupid. For this to have a chance of working, the throw has to be far enough away so that doesn't happen. But the further away you get, the less time you have to close in if you accomplish your desired goal of causing a distraction / creating an opening. This totally fails to be a viable tactic, but for some reason you guys can't or don't want to see that.
Cosmoline, can you tell my why you keep bringing up the hand? Maybe you're thinking of another thread and got confused? Are you doing that thing where you imagine an easier argument to tear down? Isn't that a little below you? Do I have to ask you politely not to do that? Would it matter?
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 13, 2017 1:37:00 GMT
2 scenarios for consideration
Your opponent sits and waits, hoping to counter. You throw pommel. He responds. You step in and attack.
Your opponent sits and waits, hoping to counter. You prepare to throw pommel and he takes the opportunity to step in and attack you. You abandon the pommel throwing plan and defend yourself.
This kind of scenario can apply to practically any technique you wish to apply on your opponent. All because it can be countered doesnt make it invalid
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 1:41:56 GMT
So you are one step away when you throw your pommel? How do you defend yourself from the opponent who is one step away and sees you preparing a throw? Is he blindfolded? This doesn't make any sense. A common criticism of kata is double-time responses to single time actions, that sounds like what you're proposing here. He gets to both be playing with unscrewing his pommel - one turn or twenty, he has to hold the thing to twist it off - and at the same time he is able to ward off the attack? With the spear wedged between his arm and his torso? That is believable in some way to you?
Second scenario, you don't throw your pommel which I'm assuming you have loosened? Now you're either restricted to only do half-sword to keep the thing from falling apart or you have to make due with a sword that is barely holding itself together, that is pretty ill advised.
Hey I know, I can make this technique two times more effective. You throw the guard AND the pommel. Two broken arms, or a double concussion, it can't be beaten. I'm a sword genius.
Look to try to be serious, defenders of this absurd technique can't explain the distances involved, the manner of grip, what state the weapon is in, any of the timing or measures involved, but are unable to accept that it's bunk? That is some impressive faith.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 13, 2017 2:07:39 GMT
you are one step away when you throw your pommel? How do you defend yourself from the opponent who is one step away and sees you preparing a throw? Is he blindfolded? This doesn't make any sense. - yes one step is what i would do. If he doesnt attack me first. I throw the pommel. Seems fine to me
Second scenario, you don't throw your pommel which I'm assuming you have loosened? Now you're either restricted to only do half-sword to keep the thing from falling apart or you have to make due with a sword that is barely holding itself together, that is pretty ill advised. - this scenario occurs if he attacks me before i can throw. I abandon the plan and halfsword instead. Im not worried about the sword falling apart. The grip and guard can be attached independently from the pommel. Even if it does fall apart, im halfswording in armour and all i really need is the blade
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 2:24:12 GMT
Now I'm supposed to believe the gently lobbed pommel can crush helmet and shatter vambraced arm from a step away?
Spear-cast range sounds less impressive when its expressed in terms of approximately a yard.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 13, 2017 2:32:23 GMT
Actually, since the projectile decelerates once it leaves your hand, i think the pommel would hit harder at close range. Did anyone say to gently throw it?
Regarding the issue of timing, if my opponent chooses to sit and wait (fighting in the nach), i can theoretically make as many movements as i like before launching my attack, which he is obliged to respond to or get hit. (The effect of which is debatable)
If he chooses to attack first, he has seized the vor and i am obliged to abandon the pommel throw and defend myself as mentioned earlier
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 2:42:15 GMT
OK, throw it hard. Explain how you make a hard throw at someone standing a step away that doesn't give them a fantastic interval to cave your head in?
You're looking at vor and nach, and not indes. There's a moment between the time the pommel is off (assuming you even can remove it, which is a huge assumption in itself but let's roll with it), and the time it leaves your hand. During that interval you have no hope of defending yourself. When you've got someone standing a few feet away sword in hand, it is a big problem and it keeps getting glossed over. Or is he unable to strike because he's also unscrewing his pommel?
That this even needs to be explained is giving me a headache.
What kind of idiots were these swordsmen?
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 13, 2017 2:56:03 GMT
Yes the problem of getting countered indes is there, but applies to every technique. E.g. in blossfechten, i try to cut oberhau but he parries in ochs and stabs me in the face. Bad day for me. But it sure doesnt make opening an attack with an oberhau invalid. Also consider that it's not very easy to do single time counters! Another thing to consider is the use of armour, which gives me a "second chance" if he were to exploit that indes timing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 12:19:36 GMT
I think it's awesome that you can hand-wave these objections away by saying single-time counters are hard, as though every action or sequence of actions took up the same interval.
If it takes you the same amount of time to perform an oberhau as it does to remove the pommel and throw it, then I really feel for you.
Just because every technique can be countered doesn't mean that they are all equally valid. You don't just throw your hands up and declare everything is just as good as everything else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 12:25:54 GMT
This thread makes me smile...lots of great idea and banter. Let me add to it. Assuming I understand the variables... If you've got 2 guys in plate harness, intending to kill each other with swords...and one has the foresight to have a quick release pommel, or one in a handy pouch to throw...how in the heck can you throw it accurately in gauntlets? I have several sets of finger gauntlets and mittens, and I'd NEVER try that in a fight. Unarmored, maybe, but armored, no way...even if my instructors taught it as a 'good idea'. Just my .02 Hmmm... forgot the hand factor 😔 It's ok. I am free for a month and a week from 19th. Will do it again. Hey Asad, If you try this again, would you consider trying a few from 1 step away as Mr. levianthansteak is advocating? I'm having some trouble getting through via text, maybe your attempts can highlight some of the things I'm not having much luck conveying.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 13, 2017 12:39:47 GMT
The oberhau was obviously just an example of the point i was trying to make. Im sure you see my point, despite trying your very best not to do so.
I never said that pommel throwing is some awesome amazing sure-win technique. In fact i personally wouldn't do it if i was in a life or death duel.
Anyway my opinion is that the pommel throw along with seemingly weird techniques should not be casually dismissed without some thought as to how they may have worked.
If we don't understand something we dont just simply give up and say "oh its crap". We use some logic and conjecture to find out what we're missing or misunderstanding.
If the early hema and medieval research community had this attitude of dismissing whatever they didnt understand then we'd still be under the assumption that medieval knights swung 10lb swords like brutes and utilised crane winches to get on their horses.
Anyway I'll excuse myself from this thread. It's clear that your beliefs are firmly set so there's no point discussing this further.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jun 13, 2017 13:54:34 GMT
Why are people still trying to argue this as a viable tactic? Occam's razor time; does it make more logical sense that (despite all evidence) a pommel thrown from a short distance by one armored individual at another similarly armored individual (who is prepared to kill them) is an effective technique, or that it’s either a bit of humor (lost to time) and/or an unproven bit of bad advice in an otherwise solid text?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 14:44:22 GMT
Why are people still trying to argue this as a viable tactic? Occam's razor time; does it make more logical sense that (despite all evidence) a pommel thrown from a short distance by one armored individual at another similarly armored individual (who is prepared to kill them) is an effective technique, or that it’s either a bit of humor (lost to time) and/or an unproven bit of bad advice in an otherwise solid text? Ah, application of the Law of Parsimony. First sensible suggestion so far. But even now, it can go both ways you know.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,819
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jun 13, 2017 14:56:39 GMT
F.e. if a teaching manuscript shows a man throwing a pommel, this could mean ...
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jun 13, 2017 15:04:59 GMT
Why are people still trying to argue this as a viable tactic? Occam's razor time; does it make more logical sense that (despite all evidence) a pommel thrown from a short distance by one armored individual at another similarly armored individual (who is prepared to kill them) is an effective technique, or that it’s either a bit of humor (lost to time) and/or an unproven bit of bad advice in an otherwise solid text? Ah, application of the Law of Parsimony. First sensible suggestion so far. But even now, it can go both ways you know. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.Perhaps, but the responsibility is upon the proponents of the implausible device to prove its feasibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 15:08:12 GMT
Well, I think it was just a theory that was added to the manual. It might just be do or die, with a huge skill gap between opponents.
BTW, why are we discussing this so much again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 15:31:07 GMT
At this point Im just trying to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could allow someone to believe there is any merit to the technique in question. It is grotesquely fascinating, frankly.
Free your mind, yo pommel will follow
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 13, 2017 16:35:09 GMT
If we are at three steps distant, I throw the pommel and you do something really stupid like reflexively raise your forearm and hand to block it.
-I get a good hit in on your arm and/or head as it flies along. You feel the impact and maybe even a sudden sting. Your reptile brain takes over for a moment. I have meanwhile taken three steps and am on you as you reorganize your defenses. If you are distracted that is more than enough t
-I hit but it bounces off. I've still gotten you to change your position and maybe even your footing. Potentially creating an opportunity for attack.
-I hit and you literally just stand there, totally unaffected by anything. So be it, I can try something else.
OR I prepare to throw but you have followed the text advice and raise buckler and spear to receive and counter. I can either throw which will probably be futile or I come up with another plan.
I'm not sure why you think this is so utterly impossible. Throwing stuff at people is combat 101. It's one of the very oldest methods of attack--far older than any sword. But really I think you're just reading the source improperly. You are sitting in judgment of what is a "good" or "bad" technique. These are primary sources. We try to study them. We don't judge them. We can't! None of us have seen a judicial duel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 16:40:32 GMT
....None of us have seen a judicial duel. *clears throat* Not a medieval one with knights, armor and such at least.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jun 13, 2017 16:42:49 GMT
If we are at three steps distant, I throw the pommel and you do something really stupid like reflexively raise your forearm and hand to block it. -I get a good hit in on your arm and/or head as it flies along. You feel the impact and maybe even a sudden sting. Your reptile brain takes over for a moment. I have meanwhile taken three steps and am on you as you reorganize your defenses. -I hit but it bounces off. I've still gotten you to change your position and maybe even your footing. Potentially creating an opportunity for attack. -I hit and you literally just stand there, totally unaffected by anything. So be it, I can try something else. OR I prepare to throw but you have followed the text advice and raise buckler and spear to receive and counter. I can either throw which will probably be futile or I come up with another plan. I'm not sure why you think this is so utterly impossible. Throwing stuff at people is combat 101. It's one of the very oldest methods of attack--far older than any sword. But really I think you're just reading the source improperly. You are sitting in judgment of what is a "good" or "bad" technique. These are primary sources. We try to study them. We don't judge them. We can't! None of us have seen a judicial duel. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
|
|