|
Post by elbrittania39 on Jun 13, 2019 0:44:03 GMT
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 13, 2019 1:35:31 GMT
Another good video. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 13, 2019 22:15:10 GMT
Sorry to bother, but you can cut towards your passing contralateral leg – and in fact very strongly. Just to throw that in there...
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Jun 13, 2019 23:06:22 GMT
Sorry to bother, but you can cut towards your passing contralateral leg – and in fact very strongly. Just to throw that in there... Not doubting you, but what system or treatise are you taking that from?
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 13, 2019 23:18:04 GMT
That’s not a good question. A better question is „does my treatise forbid it“, followed by „why does it forbid it?“ resp. “in which context does such a technique make sense/is effective” resp. “in which context is that technique dangerous/ineffective?” followed by “do I find hinds/implications to any such limitations”? Assuming that every technique has to be explicitly laid out in a treatise is, well, limiting…
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Jun 14, 2019 2:53:14 GMT
That’s not a good question. A better question is „does my treatise forbid it“, followed by „why does it forbid it?“ resp. “in which context does such a technique make sense/is effective” resp. “in which context is that technique dangerous/ineffective?” followed by “do I find hinds/implications to any such limitations”? Assuming that every technique has to be explicitly laid out in a treatise is, well, limiting… Okay but I kinda assumes when someone makes a really declarative statement about a technique, they have source be it a treatise, a trainer, or personal experience. I have never seen cutting opposite a passing step in a treatise, I've never had an instructor tell me to do so, and I've always found it clumsy and counter productive myself. So if you think it's good, I'd kinda like to hear why you think that.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jun 14, 2019 5:14:18 GMT
That’s not a good question. A better question is „does my treatise forbid it“, followed by „why does it forbid it?“ resp. “in which context does such a technique make sense/is effective” resp. “in which context is that technique dangerous/ineffective?” followed by “do I find hinds/implications to any such limitations”? Assuming that every technique has to be explicitly laid out in a treatise is, well, limiting… Well, it is a good question because it gives someone some basis to start looking into it, and to see how to correctly perform the technique.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 14, 2019 9:54:00 GMT
That’s not a good question. A better question is „does my treatise forbid it“, followed by „why does it forbid it?“ resp. “in which context does such a technique make sense/is effective” resp. “in which context is that technique dangerous/ineffective?” followed by “do I find hinds/implications to any such limitations”? Assuming that every technique has to be explicitly laid out in a treatise is, well, limiting… Okay but I kinda assumes when someone makes a really declarative statement about a technique, they have source be it a treatise, a trainer, or personal experience. I have never seen cutting opposite a passing step in a treatise, I've never had an instructor tell me to do so, and I've always found it clumsy and counter productive myself. So if you think it's good, I'd kinda like to hear why you think that. Well, I think then you should have said it like that in the video.
So I’ll try to kinda explain myself. There is not one/a/that system of longsword – there are different treatises/manuals/sources on longsword. And different interpretations. Same with any other weapon.
What do you think your trainers take their experience from? What they show you is their interpretation of a source, or their personal experience, either through having been shown by someone else or through personal experimentation. Now I could tell you a number of treatises with a number of plays where it’s entirely unclear with which foot to step. I could tell you to take a look at a number of plays from Mair, where its flat out indicated to step with the contralateral leg. Or take a look at Fiore’s porta breve. Read the text. Then think about. Try it. Think again. Or take a look at Marozzo’s guardia d’intrare, for example. Or I could show you video of very experienced fencers pulling off striking with contralateral stepping hitting very experienced fencers with.
I’m not here to win any arguments.
See, I’ve been doing this stuff for twenty years. Just because you find something “awkward” doesn’t mean it can’t/shouldn’t be done (in a specific way and context) or that your view is true in first place. And in fact it’s you making a really declarative statement saying it’s “cancelling out the energy”, while further implying that cutting/stepping contralateral has no value in a system (which of all the “systems” exactly?).
As long as a treatise doesn’t advise explicitly against a specific technique or states a general rule to always do a set of techniques (like “the Oberhau”, e.g.) in one specific way and no other, don’t limit yourself by premature assumptions based on your current state of experience. Also you shouldn`t take advice on a specific technique from one treatise as being universal rule. It may hurt your understanding of “the art”, kinda.
So now that we have the attitude stuff out of the way, we could go on with the “So if you think it's good, I'd kinda like to hear why you think that.” part
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 14, 2019 9:54:57 GMT
That’s not a good question. A better question is „does my treatise forbid it“, followed by „why does it forbid it?“ resp. “in which context does such a technique make sense/is effective” resp. “in which context is that technique dangerous/ineffective?” followed by “do I find hinds/implications to any such limitations”? Assuming that every technique has to be explicitly laid out in a treatise is, well, limiting… Well, it is a good question because it gives someone some basis to start looking into it, and to see how to correctly perform the technique. A bit yes and a lot no. Yes, because we should work from the treatises and no because not everything gets served to you on a silver tray, especially not by the older masters.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Jun 14, 2019 12:20:38 GMT
Okay but I kinda assumes when someone makes a really declarative statement about a technique, they have source be it a treatise, a trainer, or personal experience. I have never seen cutting opposite a passing step in a treatise, I've never had an instructor tell me to do so, and I've always found it clumsy and counter productive myself. So if you think it's good, I'd kinda like to hear why you think that. Well, I think then you should have said it like that in the video.
So I’ll try to kinda explain myself. There is not one/a/that system of longsword – there are different treatises/manuals/sources on longsword. And different interpretations. Same with any other weapon.
What do you think your trainers take their experience from? What they show you is their interpretation of a source, or their personal experience, either through having been shown by someone else or through personal experimentation. Now I could tell you a number of treatises with a number of plays where it’s entirely unclear with which foot to step. I could tell you to take a look at a number of plays from Mair, where its flat out indicated to step with the contralateral leg. Or take a look at Fiore’s porta breve. Read the text. Then think about. Try it. Think again. Or take a look at Marozzo’s guardia d’intrare, for example. Or I could show you video of very experienced fencers pulling off striking with contralateral stepping hitting very experienced fencers with.
I’m not here to win any arguments.
See, I’ve been doing this stuff for twenty years. Just because you find something “awkward” doesn’t mean it can’t/shouldn’t be done (in a specific way and context) or that your view is true in first place. And in fact it’s you making a really declarative statement saying it’s “cancelling out the energy”, while further implying that cutting/stepping contralateral has no value in a system (which of all the “systems” exactly?).
As long as a treatise doesn’t advise explicitly against a specific technique or states a general rule to always do a set of techniques (like “the Oberhau”, e.g.) in one specific way and no other, don’t limit yourself by premature assumptions based on your current state of experience. Also you shouldn`t take advice on a specific technique from one treatise as being universal rule. It may hurt your understanding of “the art”, kinda.
So now that we have the attitude stuff out of the way, we could go on with the “So if you think it's good, I'd kinda like to hear why you think that.” part I don't know why you are assuming I think my treatises and instructors are gospel. I don't, and I've never said that. But those two things plus ones own personal experiences are literally all any of us could possibly go off of when talking about martial arts.
|
|
|
Post by Dalin Caulder on Jun 14, 2019 12:36:07 GMT
Wow markus, wow. The guy tries to share some knowledge (and good starting points) and you just come in here to take him down. Maybe you should teach philosophy or sociology rather then hanging out on a forum waiting to pounce on people.
Good work Elbrittania. Nice starter stuff and your response to Markus was on point(who may be more knowledgeable, but really doesn't appreciate what your trying to do here), trying to learn/teach is good, those who choose not to share...well they can play by themselves.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 14, 2019 12:48:09 GMT
Oh well… It was certainly not my intention to talk anyone down. Yes, good starter stuff, but also misleading in some ways (not only about what I was trying to hint at with my first post).
If I wasn’t willing to share, I wouldn’t have posted in the first place. It’s all good, to me, though. Perhaps we should leave it at that. If you felt offended or mistreated, I ask you to accept my apologies, Elbrittania. I didn’t want to come across as intrusive or insolent.
Keep up your good work and research.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Jun 14, 2019 12:56:40 GMT
Oh well… It was certainly not my intention to talk anyone down. Yes, good starter stuff, but also misleading in some ways (not only about what I was trying to hint at with my first post). If I wasn’t willing to share, I wouldn’t have posted in the first place. It’s all good, to me, though. Perhaps we should leave it at that. If you felt offended or mistreated, I ask you to accept my apologies, Elbrittania. I didn’t want to come across as intrusive or insolent. Keep up your good work and research. no need to apologise, I don't think you were making you points in bad faith. Although I do wish you could have just told me why you thought what you do about cutting opposite a pass rather than talking about martial art philosophy. Oh and for what it's worth, I know I'm not gonna be right all the time. I present what I know, but I'm no expert. I try to avoid topics I don't feel qualified to talk about like Eastern martial arts.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 14, 2019 18:30:49 GMT
Although I do wish you could have just told me why you thought what you do about cutting opposite a pass rather than talking about martial art philosophy. Due to my full-time job and having three kids, I’ll excuse myself in advance for not being able to dig any further into the sources or post a video of my own. Also I pardon my ungainly tone. English is my second language. So I can only hope that this may be of some help (all of these work two-handed as well as one-handed)…
From 10:30…
At 0:31, 3:13, 3:21, 5:49 for some examples…
From Mair… wiktenauer.com/wiki/Page:MS_Dresd.C.93_226r.png
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 14, 2019 19:04:48 GMT
Thanks Mark for the “Basic Cuts Used in Bolognese…”. I liked that one, the best I’ve seen in a while.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Jun 15, 2019 4:44:21 GMT
Although I do wish you could have just told me why you thought what you do about cutting opposite a pass rather than talking about martial art philosophy. Due to my full-time job and having three kids, I’ll excuse myself in advance for not being able to dig any further into the sources or post a video of my own. Also I pardon my ungainly tone. English is my second language. So I can only hope that this may be of some help (all of these work two-handed as well as one-handed)…
From 10:30…
At 0:31, 3:13, 3:21, 5:49 for some examples…
From Mair… wiktenauer.com/wiki/Page:MS_Dresd.C.93_226r.pngThanks for the links. I had a busy day so I haven't had time to review these, but I plan to do so tomorrow and get back with what I think.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Jun 15, 2019 18:42:24 GMT
Although I do wish you could have just told me why you thought what you do about cutting opposite a pass rather than talking about martial art philosophy. Due to my full-time job and having three kids, I’ll excuse myself in advance for not being able to dig any further into the sources or post a video of my own. Also I pardon my ungainly tone. English is my second language. So I can only hope that this may be of some help (all of these work two-handed as well as one-handed)…
From 10:30…
At 0:31, 3:13, 3:21, 5:49 for some examples…
From Mair… wiktenauer.com/wiki/Page:MS_Dresd.C.93_226r.pngWould you mind translating what Meyer said in the treatise picture you linked? I tried translating through google but apparently it doesnt know old German, because one line came back as "he would be punished after his left side of his (censored)" XD
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Jun 15, 2019 19:00:27 GMT
Although I do wish you could have just told me why you thought what you do about cutting opposite a pass rather than talking about martial art philosophy. Due to my full-time job and having three kids, I’ll excuse myself in advance for not being able to dig any further into the sources or post a video of my own. Also I pardon my ungainly tone. English is my second language. So I can only hope that this may be of some help (all of these work two-handed as well as one-handed)…
From 10:30…
At 0:31, 3:13, 3:21, 5:49 for some examples…
From Mair… wiktenauer.com/wiki/Page:MS_Dresd.C.93_226r.pngAfter a bit of trial and error with the Bolognese example, I think I've figured out what's going on. The bolognese cut is descending opposite the passing step into longpoint, whereas I was cutting opposite my passing step into fool. When cutting opposite the passing step into longpoint this actually feels very natural because longpoint can be done with either foot forward without the blade needing to change sides unlike something like vontauge or fool. Furthermore, cutting into longpoint is a more controlled and less powerful cut then following through into fool making the power generation from the hips less relevant. So while I maintain that doing a full cross body cut with a passing step is a bad idea, I think ending in longpoint with that same footwork makes perfect sense and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 15, 2019 19:48:10 GMT
Would you mind translating what Meyer said in the treatise picture you linked? I tried translating through google but apparently it doesnt know old German, because one line came back as "he would be punished after his left side of his (censored)" XD This is from Paulus Hector Mair. There should be English translations on Wiktenauer:
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 15, 2019 19:57:05 GMT
After a bit of trial and error with the Bolognese example, I think I've figured out what's going on. The bolognese cut is descending opposite the passing step into longpoint, whereas I was cutting opposite my passing step into fool. When cutting opposite the passing step into longpoint this actually feels very natural because longpoint can be done with either foot forward without the blade needing to change sides unlike something like vontauge or fool. Furthermore, cutting into longpoint is a more controlled and less powerful cut then following through into fool making the power generation from the hips less relevant. So while I maintain that doing a full cross body cut with a passing step is a bad idea, I think ending in longpoint with that same footwork makes perfect sense and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Good job! Your views go together with these gent’s interpretations of Marozzo, for example…
However, you can cut into fool/Wechsel, too (with single and double handed weapons > see my link to Mair in my previous post > top heavy weapon gripped with both hands close together > no strikes into Langort). Perhaps it’s a matter of tilting the elbow(s). This should be a very powerful cut (both into point forward and fool/Wechsel), due to the quick acceleration/forward momentum gained through the natural gait. It's important to twist ("hinge") at the hip of the passing leg (outward rotation of the knee after passing the lead leg, before planting the foot). You use power from the leading leg by "loading" from that side of the gluteus (again "hinging"/sitting into that hip to "collect" force).
|
|