Disarms in sparring

[Ilkka Hartikainen]

While not disagreeing on the need for free play, I find the statement

timing, range control, and the ability to "read" an opponent are simply not taught any other way

odd. By simply fighting one can eventually learn these concepts, but there really is then no teaching involved then. I think these concepts are best introduced with specific exercises designed to do so.

- Ilkka

[Dean]

I could use some examples.

In the simple back toss, both people face the same direction, touching each other on the side. The "winner" places his hand across their opponents shoulder to the opposite shoulder thumb up. With the hip is engaged the operator simply rotates the thumb down. (Effectively emptying a class of water) This should provide the impetus for the person to fall over.
If the same drill is tried 4 inches away from the hip it will not work. However if they where to use their knee into the back of the persons knee and rotate forward and towards themselves, and again rotate the hand, the move works with minimal effort
Again a further 4 inches (A total of 8 inches), neither drill will function without a possible counter. However a leg sweep, again rotating in a small circle forward and in, with the hand rotation should provide a similar result.

If I might be so bold as to suggest, that each of these steps of 4 inches are easily recognised, and are somewhat analogous to wide, normal and close. Using our free play example, 4 inches is enough to upset each type, and I suggest it may be difficult to critique such a problem.
I believe I could suitably demonstrate a mere two inches causing a similar problem.

The military sabre has two traverses, which are precisely metered out. Viz right traverse, two inches forward and the width of your foot. With a gathering rear foot. Left traverse. Rear foot moves the length of the foot, and two inches forward with a suitable front foot gathering.
If you were to try to increase 4 inches on any of these measurements, the move would fail. Somewhat less obvious, 2 inches increase would accomplish the same thing. Again how would you critique this in free play?

I am well known for being pedantic; (If you are being kind) most would call me tedious.
However may I direct you to Thibault who had nine positions of sediment on his sword?

I still suggest free play has too many variables to be useful for critiquing a system.

Now, I know a number of the NZ fencers, especially those associated with Colin McKinstry.

Please quote the people you know.

[Ilkka Hartikainen]

Again how would you critique this in free play?

By results?

- Ilkka

[Andreas Engström]

However may I direct you to Thibault who had nine positions of sediment on his sword?

Hnh? Come again? Some silt on the tip, gravel on the forte, mud on the hilt, clay on the foible?

Joking aside, I'm not familiar with Thibault and can't for the life of me figure out what you meant by "positions of sediment"..

I still suggest free play has too many variables to be useful for critiquing a system.

Um, yes.. it's (mainly) used to critique the person (and thereby help him understand and apply the system), not the system.

-Andreas

[Anders Linnard]

Dean,
martial arts is nothing if not applied.

/Anders

[Brewerkel]

While not disagreeing on the need for free play, I find the statement

timing, range control, and the ability to "read" an opponent are simply not taught any other way

odd. By simply fighting one can eventually learn these concepts, but there really is then no teaching involved then. I think these concepts are best introduced with specific exercises designed to do so.

- Ilkka

Agreed. Banging around until someone figures it out or doesn't is not a particularly efficient method of learning.

[bigdummy]

You aren't giving a very good first impression Dean.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am indeed fortunate that you have taken it upon yourself to critique me personally. I find personality debates interesting, although somewhat unfruitful.
Sorry to disappoint you.
I am sure I will continue to do so. Given your ability to ignore the vast majority of my posts, my hope is this will not be too arduous for you. It was never my intention to impress, so it appears I have struck the right balance.

Watch your saccharine-sweet tone with me, be careful about your assumptions. I'm not your friend, I'm a real person who exists outside of this computer screen, and this isn't SFI.

If you are such a fantastic fencer, put your money where your mouth is, lets see a video. Talk is cheap and your particular tune has been sung before.

BD

[Dean]

Quote:
Again how would you critique this in free play?


By results?

Ok
The move wasn't pulled off, is it because of the incorrect move used at that distance, was it because they did the move incorrectly (IE hand or foot in wrong position) there body stature incorrect? Was the move really available? etc etc. With such precise requirements I suggest it is difficult to be accurate in assessment of exactly what went wrong.

I still suggest free play has too many variables to be useful for critiquing a system.

Um, yes.. it's (mainly) used to critique the person (and thereby help him understand and apply the system), not the system.

See above, but also note, some have suggested competition as an evaluation of someones interpretation as being valid.

Dean,
martial arts is nothing if not applied.

/Anders

Please take the time to read all the posts.
I am suggesting free play is a poor method of training, and a poor evaluation of a system and its interpretation.
When someone is proficient in a system, and the same with their opponent, free play may produce some interesting outcomes. It is going to be difficult to separate the interpretation from the individual skill of each person.

Watch your saccharine-sweet tone with me, be careful about your assumptions. I'm not your friend, I'm a real person who exists outside of this computer screen, and this isn't SFI.

If you are such a fantastic fencer, put your money where your mouth is, lets see a video. Talk is cheap and your particular tune has been sung before.

BD

So quick to prejudice



Well as "not your friend" there is nothing left to say to you.

[bigdummy]

How about I say something to you then.

When you speak to someone you don't know in terms of disrespect, as you have done here to several people, you eliminate friendly feelings.

When you preach to a lot of experienced HEMA practitioners in a self-important tone about your alleged lofty ideals and high standards for training (without displaying any evidence that you are achieving results better or even up to the standard of the people here), toss off familiar canards about fencing manuals (that fencing is mostly winden and grappling) and have nothing to back it up other than sarcastic sickly-sweet passive aggressive snide comments, you come across unsympathetic.

is that clear enough?

In fact to be honest, every person I've seen making comments with this specific kind of tone has subsequently been shown to have embarassingly bad form in sparring or even controlled demonstrations when some video has eventually emerged.

No you aren't my friend, and you have given a bad initial impression. But I don't know you. You may have something to say after all, maybe your bluster is just due to a little initial nervousness at plunging into a new crowd. You may ultimately be able to play a role in contributing to understanding of historical fencing, but you might want to get off your high horse first and stand down here with the rest of us for a while.

BD

[HuubB]

How about I say something to you then.

When you speak to someone you don't know in terms of disrespect, as you have done here to several people, you eliminate friendly feelings.

BD

I have read this thread and I never really saw anything negative in his postings.
Maybe it is because English is not my mothertongue.

The way I see it he has been polite, sharp yes, but polite as far as I can see.

by the way, the above is said with all due respect to you BD.

Bert Bruijnen

[bigdummy]

I'm used to a different type of etiquette, cladding an insult in a soft layer of 'politeness' is just an indication to me of greater vulgarity, it doesn't change it from being an insult, to the contrary, it makes it worse in my opinion.

A remark like Deans earlier in this thread:

"I sure that comment was designed to stir better debate. Perhaps you may enlighten us in your humble way?"

...is a kind of flaccid attack, not an honset shove, but the sickly sweet caress which is the preferred method of hostility by some people. I have no patience for it.

Maybe that's what he means in how he thinks we should fence, I don't know.

But as for you Bert, you have been polite and direct, I take no offense in your words.

BD

[Anders Linnard]

The move wasn't pulled off, is it because of the incorrect move used at that distance, was it because they did the move incorrectly (IE hand or foot in wrong position) there body stature incorrect? Was the move really available? etc etc. With such precise requirements I suggest it is difficult to be accurate in assessment of exactly what went wrong.

I still suggest free play has too many variables to be useful for critiquing a system.

Um, yes.. it's (mainly) used to critique the person (and thereby help him understand and apply the system), not the system.

See above, but also note, some have suggested competition as an evaluation of someones interpretation as being valid.

Please take the time to read all the posts.
I am suggesting free play is a poor method of training, and a poor evaluation of a system and its interpretation.
When someone is proficient in a system, and the same with their opponent, free play may produce some interesting outcomes. It is going to be difficult to separate the interpretation from the individual skill of each person.
:

You learn by applying it and as you get experience you see what is wrong. And you forget the opposite is true as well, and much more a common problem, that people learn techniques to perfection, but can't make them work when conditions aren't perfect.

Now I'm with BD on this, my bullshit detector is off the charts when I read your posts. And I wish to second his request for a video.

/Anders

[HuubB]

[
Now I'm with BD on this, my bullshit detector is off the charts when I read your posts. And I wish to second his request for a video.

/Anders

I understand BD's and Anders' requests.

@Dean:
I would rather read or see (video or not, is even for me) some excercises, drills etc.
If you don't feel like it I respect that. If you are willing to provide some I even appreciate it.

@BD
I saw a few of your videos (mainly sparring), do you have videos where you explain concepts or techniques??

example of what I love to see (is neutrally meant example):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtisxi1d ... re=related

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUO ... re=related

and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI ... re=related

here they show some really cool moves based on concepts and manuscripts.

enjoy the vids!

Bert Bruijnen

[Anders Linnard]

[
Now I'm with BD on this, my bullshit detector is off the charts when I read your posts. And I wish to second his request for a video.

/Anders

I understand BD's and Anders' requests.

@Dean:
I would rather read or see (video or not, is even for me) some excercises, drills etc.
If you don't feel like it I respect that. If you are willing to provide some I even appreciate it.

@BD
I saw a few of your videos (mainly sparring), do you have videos where you explain concepts or techniques??

example of what I love to see (is neutrally meant example):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtisxi1d ... re=related

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUO ... re=related

and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI ... re=related

here they show some really cool moves based on concepts and manuscripts.

enjoy the vids!

Bert Bruijnen

I can't speak for BD but I don't think we have ever made any videos like that either. But we should. It's very useful to watch them. First up however is a video of our wrestling workout.

/Anders

[Dean]

You wish me to post a video using a system of evaluation that I believe holds little value. (Free play)
What logic is this?

I could post some dynamic drills, I used examples of one in an earlier posting.

Thanks HuubB, I appreciate your time.

The video's you have posted are what I would term "dynamic drilling", that is there are control conditions. As such they make ideal training exercises. Such play can be taken further with multiple attacks and defense.

Free play is mainly for the person to evaluate themselves, however without a strong core of a system to do so, it may lead to a flawed conclusion.

Perhaps another example. (Bold type face mine)

From George Silvers “Paradoxes of Defence”
The dagger is an imperfect ward, although borne out straight, to make the space narrow, whereby a little moving of the hand, may be sufficient to save both sides of the head, or to break the thrust from the face or body, yet for lack of the circumference his hand will lie too high or low, or too weak, to defend both blow and thrust. If he lies straight with a narrow space, which is to break the thrust, then he lies too weak, and too low to defend his head from a strong blow. If he lies high, that is strong to defend his head, but then his space will be too wide to break the thrust from his body. The dagger serves well at length to put by a thrust, and at the half sword to cross the sword blade, to drive out the agent, and put him in danger of his life, and safely in any of these two actions defend himself. But the buckler, by reason of his circumference and weight, being well carried, defends safely in all times and places, whether it be at the point, half sword, the head, body, and face, from all manner of blows and thrusts whatsoever, yet I have heard many hold opinion, that the sword and dagger has the advantage of the sword and buckler, at the close, by reason of the length and point of the dagger, and at the point of the sword, they can better see to ward than with a buckler. But I never knew any, that won the close with the dagger upon the sword and buckler, but did with himself out again: for distance being broken, judgement fails, for lack of time to judge, and the eye is deceived by the swift motion of the hand, and for lack of true space with the dagger hand, which cannot be otherwise, for lack of circumference to defend both blow and thrust, it is impossible for lack of true space in just time, the agent having gotten the true place, to defend one thrust or blow of a hundred. And it is most certain, whosoever closes with sword and dagger against the sword and buckler, is in great danger to be slain. Likewise at the point within distance, if he stand to defend both blow and thrust with his dagger, for lack of true space and distance, if he has the best eye of any man, and could see perfectly, which way the thrust or blow comes, and when it comes, as it is not to deny that he may, yet his space being too large, it helps him nothing, because one man's hand being as swift as another man's hand, both being within distance, he that strikes or thrusts, hurts the warder. The reason is this: the agent being in the first motion although in his offense, further to go than the warder to defend, yet the warder's space being too large, the blow or thrust will be performed home, before the warder can come to the true place to defend himself, and although the warder does perfectly see the blow or thrust coming, so shall he see his own ward so far from the true place of his defence, that although he does at that instant time, plainly see the blow or thrust coming, it shall be impossible for him to recover the true place of his ward, 'til he his wounded. But let the warder with his dagger say, that it is not true which I have said, for the eyes to behold the blow or thrust coming, so has he as good time to defend himself. Herein he shall find himself deceived to, this is the reason: the hand is the swiftest motion, the foot is the slowest, without distance the hand is tied to the motion of the feet, whereby the time of the hand is made as slow as the foot, because whereby we redeem every time lost upon his coming in by the slow motion of the foot & have time thereby to judge, when & how he can perform any action whatsoever, and so have we the time of the hand to the time of the feet. Now is the hand in his own course more swift than the foot or eye, therefore within distance the eye is deceived, & judgement is lost, and that is another cause that the warder with the dagger, although he has perfect eyes, is still within distance deceived. For proof that the hand is swifter than the eye & therefore deceives the eyes: let two stand within distance, & let one of them stand still to defend himself, & let the other flourish & false with his hand, and he shall continually with the swift motions of his hand, deceive the eyes of him that stands watching to defend himself, & shall continually strike him in diverse places with his hand. Again, take this for an example, that the eyes by swift motions are deceived: turn a turn-wheel swift, & you shall not be able to discern with your best eyes how many spokes are on the wheel, no nor whether there are any spokes at all, or whereof the wheel is made, and yet you see when the wheel stands still there is a large distance between every spoke. He that will not believe that the swift motion of the hand in fight will deceive the eye, shall stare abroad with his eyes, & feel himself soundly hurt, before he shall perfectly see how to defend himself. So those that trust to their fight, the excellency of a good eye, their great cunning, & perfect wards of the daggers, that they can see better to ward than with a buckler, shall ever be deceived. And when they are wounded, they say the gent was a little too quick for them. Sometimes they say they bear their dagger a little too low. Sometimes they are thrust under the dagger, then they say, they bear it a little too high. Sometimes a thrust being strongly made, they being soundly paid therewith, say, they were a little too slow, & sometimes they be soundly paid with a thrust,& they think they were a little too quick. So they that practice or think to be cunning in the dagger ward, are all the days of their lives learning, and are never taught

The concept of this example is to illustrate, without sound grounding in the core system, the individual makes the mistake of believing they can safely defend themselves using a dagger versus a sword. Such is the erroneous judgements that can be made by the individual when free play is the measure

[David A Teague]

And when they are wounded, they say the gent was a little too quick for them. Sometimes they say they bear their dagger a little too low. Sometimes they are thrust under the dagger, then they say, they bear it a little too high. Sometimes a thrust being strongly made, they being soundly paid therewith, say, they were a little too slow, & sometimes they be soundly paid with a thrust,& they think they were a little too quick. So they that practice or think to be cunning in the dagger ward, are all the days of their lives learning, and are never taught

The concept of this example is to illustrate, without sound grounding in the core system, the individual makes the mistake of believing they can safely defend themselves using a dagger versus a sword. Such is the erroneous judgements that can be made by the individual when free play is the measure

Wow...

Here I thought, in freeplay when I wacked the crap out of somebody's wrist who thought they could match my backsword with a dagger, I was showing them the risks involved without them having to die. Hmmm.

Silly Me.

[Dean]

Yeah:
men were real man back in those days.

This gives us some perspective of the lengths that some people went to prove their arts. I seem to recall some master complaining of people practicing with blunts, and that people would never attempt sniping style moves if they faced sharps. Needless to say, he was totally against practice with a foiled weapon. I do wonder how people get on that try to follow his system in a modern age.

[Anders Linnard]

You wish me to post a video using a system of evaluation that I believe holds little value. (Free play)
What logic is this?

I could post some dynamic drills, I used examples of one in an earlier posting.

Yes, because you also said:

So when to free play if ever?
When they can safely defend themselves, using the system, and preferably be able to force their opponent to a draw (Assuming equal skill)
To put it another way, when they can perform the universal methods.

When someone is proficient in a system, and the same with their opponent, free play may produce some interesting outcomes.

But feel free to post some drills as well. Post any video of you showing off your art.

/Anders

[HuubB]

You wish me to post a video using a system of evaluation that I believe holds little value. (Free play)
What logic is this?

I could post some dynamic drills, I used examples of one in an earlier posting.

Psssssst Dean!,.....it's almost Christmas, I have the small right to be a bit not-logic

Anyway, would you have some video that suits you for illustrating what you mean or perhaps it is simply kewl or interesting, feel free to let us enjoy the fruits of your martial wisdom (meant friendly here, no pun intended).

Bert Bruijnen
KDF Netherlands

[Dean]

I have yet to have any trainee's proficient in a system.
Would a cell phone video be good enough, I do not have access to a proper video camera? Since I do not value free play as a training method, we have no use for a video camera.
Our group is presently shut down over Christmas, so it maybe a couple of months (I am holiday to the end of March) I am meeting someone from historical fencing group Dreynschlag, in January however there is no official date, and I am unsure if we would be doing such a thing.

Probably the earliest I would be able to this would be April. I am unsure what value such an item would be to you, as I would not use such a mechanism to evaluate somebody’s fencing/martial ability.
It however might be useful to see if people teach a similar move in a system. Is there any particular system that you have in mind?

Anyway, would you have some video that suits you for illustrating what you mean or perhaps it is simply kewl or interesting, feel free to let us enjoy the fruits of your martial wisdom (meant friendly here, no pun intended).

My speciality area is human bio mechanics, perhaps various grips and how they can effect the human body?
I am also a trained trainer for a profession, so this is where I get most of my knowledge on training methods.
Perhaps some basics of how people can improve their training? IE the use of kinaesthetic, visual and auditory information.
The human brain and how it assimilates information, access and retrieval etc etc.
I run a class especially for helping people become better instructors through the use of known training methods. I am unaware of any other historic fencing group offering such a class as part of their curriculum. The long term goal is to have a number of instructors offering various courses in martial arts which they have a predilection for.