For us to have people who are able to spend 50 years studying the art and achieve great things they need to do it for a living and that means traditional teaching and school/student relationships.
bigdummy wrote:For my period, I don't think there is a lot of evidence that most of these people who practiced this art actually did it for a living. It was something like a lifelong 'hobby' for lack of a better word, and this informs how I think I and most of us will really approach it.
You seem to be implying that there is some dichotomy between people who are physically skilled and naturally aggressive on the one hand and those who are deeply involved with the historical manuals on the other, as if the two were mutually exclusive.
bigdummy wrote: I've only been to a few tournaments, but the best fighters I've seen in the tournament circuit, Mishael Lopes Cardozo, Anders Linnard, Axel Petterson, Matt Galas, Jake Norwood, Jay Vail, Jeff Tsay, Scott Brown, are all fighters who have a deep knowledge of the historical sources, and are also physically skilled.
bigdummy wrote: I'm not saying that an historical basis for your training, and ongoing research, are alone going to trump physical skill or fitness, but I think they are at least as important.
bigdummy wrote:As for applying a technique without regard to what your opponent is doing (doing winden from out of range, trying a nachreissen against a static guard)- that is not only bad fencing, it isn't historical. The manuals tell you when a given technique can be applied and when it can't.
bigdummy wrote:Whether or not Meyer teaches schulefechten exclusively is another debate for another thread, suffice it to say I don't agree with your interpretation of that either.
And I know these guys and I've seen them fence. I even fought with all of them (except for Jay Vail who I do not know at all). I cannot say, that they win with complicated techniques. They win with better skills.
If you can point me to the right thread I'd be happy to discuss this further. I know many people are using Meyer, for he writes stuff down very clearly. They use it for backing up Lichtenauer, even tough a part of Meyer is Marozzo, a part Mertin Sieber, and (most of it) Lichtenauer. The english translations I found had a lot of translation errors ( I tried to get them right, also on the ARMA forum for example, I guess you can imagine how well that went), but, there are more than a few clues in our interpretation that point out that there must have been some ruleset preventing him, for example from using thursts with the longsword.
Thanks for reading.
DavidCoblentz wrote:I am curious as to how the word "technique" is being defined in this discussion and precisely what is meant by "historical technique." Does historical technique refer only to blade work? Does it include tactical concepts? There seems to be a distinction between "historical techniques" and some of the more general skills needed for fencing. These other skills that are necessary for combat, for instance understanding distance and time, being physically fit, etc... are they not considered historical?
Do techniques (or tactics) which rely on a fencer's understanding of distance and time and exploiting flaws in the opponent's movements count as historical technique? What if the manner in which this is done is not described in any historical texts, but is not in contradiction with them?
What exactly constitutes using complicated techniques? Is this an obscure, single tempo movement used in a specific context? Is it a series of back-and-forth exchanges that lasts for several seconds? What about the use of a complex tactical strategy which involves few blade movements?
What do you look for when you watch a bout and try to pick out historical techniques? Are you looking for specific technical actions used the way they are described in a manual? Are you looking for someone applying the principles from a text in a way that fits the situation ahead of them?
admin wrote:Any martial art or sport will field its fair share of good and bad, quality teachers and charlatans. You can't stop that, though you can try to minimise it with legislation.
To do so you simply need to get the good people to form federations or other such groupings and to recognise each other, but not the crap ones.
There are some HEMA charlatans in the UK, but note that they are not members of the British Federation for Historical Swordplay or British Combat Association or other such bodies of experts. That is the main purpose of such federations.
My advice, Frede, if you are worried about this, would be to form a Danish federation for HEMA, if you haven't got one already.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest