Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Jan 12, 2019 2:58:07 GMT
After years of stubbornly hiding in my dark cave, i have finally ventured out and seen the light. I have always employed HEMA style techniques, such as guards, drills and kata, to supplement what I knew, along side every other thing I could learn such as saber drills, WW1 knife drills and tactics, along with their sword/bayonet training (and of course, my Kendo/Iaido background, not to mention body mechanics I learned from Karate, boxing, muay thai, sambo and wing chun). I felt like this was what I was comfortable knowing. But recently I have gotten into more HEMA stuff, such as body mechanics. I always heard people talk about it, and assumed it was only the stuff I already studied, but recently I have discovered Roland Warzecha, and I found his stuff to explain concepts, in great deal, in ways I never quite understood. Now I feel this is the stuff I want to prioritize. When I practice it myself, it makes so much sense, and does a better job explaining exactly what body mechanics is, and the best way to train it. Which muscles to use, why you are using them, and the theory behind them I feel like I have become that much more knowledgeable. I see why you HEMA guys feel so confident in what you do now. What I learned made sense to, and with repeated motions and practice, you eventually learn why it works. But Roland skips all that sh*t and gets you right to the point. A severely under rated guy, along with Matt Easton, as far as youtube goes. I like his attitude as well. He doesn't come off as pretentious at all, and doesn't seem to be condescending. He really knows his stuff, as far as I can tell Here is a link to his channel, for those who haven't seen it: www.youtube.com/user/warzechas/videosI wouldn't be surprised if Viking combat and swords becomes a fav of mine lol. The way he explains it, factual about history or not, just makes sense. I am sure a real viking or two would have gladly adopted his methods, even if not common to them or not. Though, I don't see why it wouldn't be how they did things
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,632
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jan 12, 2019 14:32:41 GMT
Roland's I.33 stuff is pretty good too. His work with shields really opened my eyes to what a center/boss grip shield is capable of.
|
|
|
Post by demonskull on Jan 12, 2019 14:32:53 GMT
I wasn't familiar with him. Thanks, so far all good stuff !
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jan 12, 2019 18:08:15 GMT
The way he explains it, factual about history or not, just makes sense. I am sure a real viking or two would have gladly adopted his methods, even if not common to them or not. Though, I don't see why it wouldn't be how they did things Because Roland (like many German traditions/lineages) overemphasizes the importance of Fühlen and the Krieg (binding and winding in striking distance). Like many other ma (FMA, for example, but many others, too – though FMA are amongst the worst, they don`t even make use of the Fühlen) stay in mid-range too much. Yes, overgeneralizing a lot, but the point holds true and is an important one.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 12, 2019 18:56:32 GMT
Watching a few of Roland's videos was what made me finally realize the massive importance of shields.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Jan 12, 2019 22:14:20 GMT
His videos on the design on the medieval sword makes an amazing amount of sense. The importance of geometry makes me realize what an advanced weapon it is. I am officially into hema more than anything
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Jan 12, 2019 23:41:31 GMT
Oh, Roland. As always, take it with a grain of salt. He makes some good points but he is also controversial in many aspects. You haven't found the holy grail if that's what you think.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Jan 13, 2019 0:14:41 GMT
Oh, Roland. As always, take it with a grain of salt. He makes some good points but he is also controversial in many aspects. You haven't found the holy grail if that's what you think. Historically I don't see it as the truth or holy grail. It's mostly just made sense of some concepts for me I kinda just glossed over But I also take what you say seriously, as a sword maker and practitioner. If you can elaborate it would be pretty cool, even if it is an exercise of your time
|
|
|
Post by Richard Arias on Jan 13, 2019 2:42:42 GMT
HEMA has some good things and pitfalls depending on the club and what is being taught and the source material. I see students hold the same habits I have seen with FMA and JSA. I dont think any school has the secret. My wing chun sifu had a good observation that a good school should have no secrets. Simply you have not been shown or figured it out on your own yet. Concepts and principals are not that differnt. I just think it can seem that way because of egos and style politics. My wing chun school shares space with a HEMA school and I see more similarity than I do difference to my JSA training.
I would say you just got fresh perspective to give your previous training new context.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Jan 13, 2019 13:21:28 GMT
Oh, Roland. As always, take it with a grain of salt. He makes some good points but he is also controversial in many aspects. You haven't found the holy grail if that's what you think. Historically I don't see it as the truth or holy grail. It's mostly just made sense of some concepts for me I kinda just glossed over But I also take what you say seriously, as a sword maker and practitioner. If you can elaborate it would be pretty cool, even if it is an exercise of your time Roland's skill with sword and buckler is undoubted but in the last years, he is more and more avoiding any contact with the "outside" world. He doesn't travel to events, isn't having his skills and theories tested against people taking a somewhat different aproach. He organizes his own event (the Berlin Buckler bouts) and essentially if you want to fence with him, you have to do it to his own conditions. In the end he does what many martial artists unfortunately do at some point, find their comfy zone and stay there. It is my firm believe that only continuous exchange with other fencers from outside schools/traditions is the way to get an accurate idea of your own capabilities and well, he isn't doing any of that, really. All the martial artists I really value are going to multiple events a year, taking part in competitions or just free sparring there. In more specific turns, I believe Roland overly focuses on working from the bind and his entire system is based on that. His students are trained that way as well. He does too much slow work or fighting with sharp and not enough fencing in full gear and full speed with people he doesn't know or hasn't trained. As usual, if you do too much of one thing, it's problematic. I am a big proponent of employing all degrees of equipment levels, from no gear and sharps to full gear tournament fights.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,632
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jan 13, 2019 16:17:32 GMT
It's a variation on the "one true way" phenomenon commonly seen in traditional martial arts. The reality is there is no one way. If there was, everyone would be doing it because every other method would be provably inferior. I have seen quite a bit of criticism about Roland's focus on the bind, and it is a fair point (at least based on the videos he has released), but he is also one of the most public figures talking about the complexities of fighting from the bind. I think Roland's stuff has value, but it should only be part of one's toolkit of combat techniques. I've often wondered how Roland would deal with a competent, aggressive fighter using a more percussive style and actively avoiding a bind. He may be skilled enough to handle it, but I have never seen him demonstrate anything like that.
|
|
Ouroboros
Member
Imperial, Mysterious In Amorous Array
Posts: 571
|
Post by Ouroboros on Jan 13, 2019 23:30:18 GMT
Djinn--I'll keep a Kat hidden in the cave for you--right behind an Irish ring hilt bastard sword...
|
|
|
Post by Elrikk on Jan 14, 2019 3:12:16 GMT
After years of stubbornly hiding in my dark cave, i have finally ventured out and seen the light. I have always employed HEMA style techniques, such as guards, drills and kata, to supplement what I knew, along side every other thing I could learn such as saber drills, WW1 knife drills and tactics, along with their sword/bayonet training (and of course, my Kendo/Iaido background, not to mention body mechanics I learned from Karate, boxing, muay thai, sambo and wing chun). I felt like this was what I was comfortable knowing. Out of all your training what is your “go to” in real life situations?
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 14, 2019 11:40:45 GMT
Staying out of any overly conclusive opinions, but if I may make a parallel discussion that has previously risen in FMA.
There are those who practice FMA for its "art" aspect. They concentrate on proper form, stance, flow, and the dance of weapons. Sometimes their demos are visually stunning. They have "kata" tournaments, and many of the masters of these styles study local traditional dances when reconstructing indigenous fighting arts (in this respect HEMA is unique and lucky because there are written treatises, whereas FMA is all tradition up until the late 1800s and word of mouth).
There are those who practice FMA for the purely "martial" aspect of it. These practitioners forego artistic purity for effectiveness, simplicity, and potential lethality. A lot of these schools are barely recognizable as FMA because they incorporate many other martial arts such as karate, boxing, wrestling, bjj, judo, etc. Many techniques such as the abaniko or "fan strike" or any attack aimed at the feet are oft discarded for being ineffective or downright stupid.
And there are those in between.
I think if Roland did FMA, he would firmly in the first camp. In a sense, his style and premises are no less valid to those techniques actually practiced in modern HEMA competition. It's just less alluring to those whose goal is mostly determining the truly effective martial techniques. Heck, just practice thrusting (I kid I kid, I love Swordfish)!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:32:04 GMT
This should not be a dichotomy.
If your movements do not reflect the various nuances of the art you're supposedly doing, then you're off track. If you are not able to to take the postures and make the movements with effect, you are likewise not performing them correctly.
The details should not be considered optional or superfluous.
This of course assumes that there is a standard to conform to. Without that then anything goes and nobody is wrong or right.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Jan 14, 2019 22:18:25 GMT
I've often wondered how Roland would deal with a competent, aggressive fighter using a more percussive style and actively avoiding a bind. He may be skilled enough to handle it, but I have never seen him demonstrate anything like that. Precisely my feeling.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Jan 14, 2019 23:47:28 GMT
I'll eventually respond to this thread. Lots to respond to and no time haha.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jan 15, 2019 0:14:08 GMT
What I find rather annoying is Roland's arrogance in claiming that his type of fencing would represent universal principles that would be valid anytime, anywhere, in all of hand-to-hand combat. That may be so, but there are also more important, more governing principles, which he apparently mostly neglects. You just have to look at other sources than MS I.33 and suddenly you see high held swords, outstretched bucklers and longer distances. Let Roland and his followers compete against people with spikes in their bucklers or on uneven terrain. Or against other weapons. Most of their training will go out the window. It's hard to look at them sliding around sticking their buttocks out, fumbling fondly at the other`s foible while in constant danger of getting their knees sliced or sensible fingers and subtle wrists cut. Or getting their guts struck, if the “partner” doesn`t play by the rules.
In addition, it could be suspicioned that MS I.33 was written with the purpose of creating an euphemism, mainly to impress rather influential people, who could have had some kind of (indirect) power over martial events (through writings, sermons, giving orders etc.). So although these people would have rarely (if ever) faced the truth of real martial violence, it would’ve been beneficial to give them the feeling of being something special, and also having some practical martial proficiency. To be better than the "commoners" they stood out above, by knowing all the secrets of "the way to fight” (though, of course, being completely wrong in that it is a "way to die", rather).
It may be they`re mis-/overinterpreting the source(s). Admittedly, there is something very attractive in the idea of “keeping the initiative through Fühlen”, or an “aggressive forward-defense”. Of course it makes sense to practice "Fühlen". On the other hand, very few graceful Wing Chun followers try themselves in MMA cages, for example. Which is a good thing, though. Everything has time and place, not just in ma. Dimicator is creating illusion. If it wasn`t so funny.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 15, 2019 2:28:58 GMT
"Fumbling fondly at the other's foible", Marcus exclaimed 3 times.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 15, 2019 7:24:10 GMT
This should not be a dichotomy. If your movements do not reflect the various nuances of the art you're supposedly doing, then you're off track. If you are not able to to take the postures and make the movements with effect, you are likewise not performing them correctly. The details should not be considered optional or superfluous. This of course assumes that there is a standard to conform to. Without that then anything goes and nobody is wrong or right. The problem is that the standards in HEMA are open to interpretation (as opposed to formal techniques handed down through generations). The problem is that "effect" is not something easy to test, if at all, apart from competition/tournaments, which opens so many other questions on rulesets, equipment, judging, etc.
|
|