Post by Cosmoline on Oct 16, 2019 23:27:01 GMT
Roland's style is a product of his system, in exactly the same way that tournament styles are the product of their systems. So when you spar with him using a controlled approach, his methods work extremely well and he's VERY difficult to beat. At least one of his students is nearly impossible to beat. The end result, at least with S&B (I'm no expert on viking stuff either way), is that you end up with a longpoint-based interpretation using small blows, thrusts and a lot of hip hinging. It starts looking like certain rapier methods. There is some textual evidence for this approach, but I'm increasingly of the belief that it's based on a misunderstanding of what the author meant by it being the heart of the system. I'm currently exploring a theory advocated by Alex Hanning out of Lonin in Seattle that I.33 is a system of interruption moves designed to be thrown very fast into committed attacks from the wards. But that they only work if the tempo is correct. So for example schtz. to second would be used as they are moving forward, not before. And in that moment they can hardly stop their body, so repositioning the strike becomes difficult and their strike cannot be completed without suicide. This works in testing we've done over the years, but your timing has to be perfect and there's little margin of error. In that sense it's less safe than a probing longpoint approach like Roland is using. But with a ton of drilling and enough athletic conditioning, it's entirely possible. And I think once you start understanding the text this way, the whole thing falls in place. Moves like crutch are frankly insane as anything but very fast responses to incoming blows from the low quarter. We know you're not supposed to linger in any of these positions--the text says so half a dozen times and shows what happens if you do. That means they must be intended as very fast counters to fast incoming blows intended to hit *YOU*, not merely to take the center. I mean when we've done this in testing and when I've tested it in different events, I.33 works every time (sadly *I* don't). But not many have spent the time actually drilling he crap out of the counters in that text. Not many actually understand them at this point. And one thing Roland's slow play has helped us do is fine-tune things like the obsessios and counters so we can actually start deploying them at speed. And it's taken years. The tournament S&B folks never seem to bother with this level of detail.
Anyway I accept the shortcomings of Roland's system because I get a lot out of working binds and have been able to exploit nach. attacks when those who aren't comfortable in binds seek to retreat--a technique right out of I.33 ("he seeks to flee, I follow"). And because it's fun, which is the main point. But it can be annoying to not be able to smack some longpoint out of my face and drive in. And the potential for cheese is ever-present. It's just the imperfection of the system. And the fact is the folks who wrote these things just don't seem to have put any stock in wearing protective kit. The first ones to do it way out in the 18th were, IIRC, ridiculed for it.
I should note that the full gear version of HEMA also has its own problems along these lines. But in that case it's a problem of accepting risks that the sources and reality itself would never ever endorse. Way too many doubles, and way too many frantic power snipes. Too much risky leaping, not enough line control. And above all else not enough protected blows. BUT it is getting better. Much better than it was a decade ago, so I have hopes. Actually I find the women's longsword tourneys to be the better ones, with cleaner styles and less nonsense. I won't speculate on the underlying reasons for this LOL. Any approach you use is just going to have shortcomings, I think. Because it's not going to be the thing it's trying to replicate. Some piece of the grenade is left out. It has to be. So you should try different combinations. Seems sensible to me.