new video training bouts

[Carlos Negredo]

Here a few new videos:

DRILL ALONE 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=080ZkHoGLvs&hd=1

DRILL ALONE 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoxPPeUJkT0&hd=1

Messer - Javi & Carlos - Sala de Armas El Batallador - Training bout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evn8cd9Rn1k&hd=1

(slowed down version of Messer):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RH4VMWZaJY&hd=1

Longsword - Javi & Carlos - Sala de Armas El Batallador - Training bout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PbHSb3FwAQ&hd=1

(slowed down version of Longsword):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMFeC9UrUhE&hd=1
_____________________________________________________________________________

Rapier & Dagger - Carlos & Paco - Sala de Armas El Batallador - Training bout

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSIeCDjQP9s&hd=1
_____________________________________________________________________________

Update: 06/12/2011

Longsword - Alberto & Carlos - Emphasizing Zufechten with strikes avoiding Binden (Causa Libre):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGWdgDRCecw&hd=1
_____________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE 03/02/12

Longsword - Javi & Carlos - Training freely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEWqgIs6xzg&hd=1

____________________________________________________________________

UPDATE 11/02/12

EXERCISE 1

It is not a tactical exercise, but a biomechanical one. The objectives are boost the coordination of the student, not to apply as a right offensive and defensive technique in the right situation.

Objectives: Turn the right and left side or the body without changing the forward foot (look at the footwork here), and close the right opening. At the fourth strike, setting aside thrust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drkpqxDA11Q&hd=1

EXERCISE 2

It is not a tactical exercise, but a biomechanical one. The objectives are boost the coordination of the student, not to apply as a right offensive and defensive technique in the right situation.

First, a shadow simple exercise about turning the side of the body from a position where there is not rear or forward foot. This part can be made initially this way, and later with right foot forward, and then left foot forward.

Objectives: Turn the right and left side or the body without changing the forward foot (look at the footwork here), and close the right opening. At the fourth strike, setting aside thrust. It is made in a wrong way at the video, you need to use a Unicorn Ward to receive the fourth strike in order to avoid your sword to be deflected and be able to set aside with a thrust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X1XY_uAWpo&hd=1

EXERCISE 3

We have different levels of exercises, some are biomechanical, some are tactical, some are technical, and some are global. Global exercises try to boost general aspects of fencing, as this one, that boost the global techniques and wards with the hands up from the bind. In this exercise you CAN'T hit the opponent, you have to let it defend always, so there are no hits. The first part you can use strikes and thrusts. The second part you can ONLY use thrust movements.

You can use Mutieren, Duplieren, Schwerthau, Krumphau, Schielhau, absetzen, Ochs, etc... BUT YOU CAN'T, BY ANY WAY, LOWER YOUR HANDS FROM THE UP POSSITIONS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y039tyJiwac&hd=1

_____________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE 21/03/12

Longsword - Javi & Carlos - Training bout

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9ru0zi0lN0&hd=1

____________________________________________________________________

[Carlos Negredo]

a new one:

Rapier & Dagger - Carlos & Paco - Sala de Armas El Batallador - Training bout

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSIeCDjQP9s&hd=1

[Carlos Negredo]

Update: 06/12/2011
_____________________________

Longsword - Alberto & Carlos - Emphasizing Zufechten with strikes avoiding Binden (Causa Libre):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGWdgDRCecw&hd=1

[Sven1]

Emphasizing Zufechten with strikes avoiding Binden (Causa Libre):

looks like all the other videos, albeit maybe a tad faster/witha tad mor force. is this meant to proove something cause if yes I am missing it.

generally I see al lot of/incessant daumengriff (thumbing) und umschalgen from inwendig to auswendig (and vice versa), done most of the time under circumstances that would actually not allow for this. a fencer who applies sport fencing mechanics, theory and training will very quickly do away with that. also huuuuge telegraphing with the flat resting on the shoulder etc.

good control over the gambeson guy though...

[Ran Pleasant]

DRILL ALONE 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=080ZkHoGLvs&hd=1

Carlos

I"m totally not getting the footwork shown in the video. All that footwork and yet you are still in the same place. The primary goal of footwork is to move your body through space but in the video you stay in one spot. You also have a foot movement in which a foot is moved inward and then outward without serving any real purpose. Also, at 0:08 in the video your lower leg becomes almost horizontal to the ground, which is a common mistake often seen. Besides being unstable a horizontal lower leg position is never shown in the historical sources. Can you better explain what you are doing with this footwork?

Respectfully,

Ran

[Carlos Negredo]

looks like all the other videos, albeit maybe a tad faster/witha tad mor force. is this meant to proove somethincauase if yes I am missing it.

It seems you want something to be proved…(I think the syntax and grammar of this phrase don’t allow me to fully understand it…

generally I see al lot of/incessant daumengriff (thumbing) und umschalgen from inwendig to auswendig (and vice versa), done most of the time under circumstances that would actually not allow for this. a fencer who applies sport fencing mechanics, theory and training will very quickly do away with that

I am not going to enter into this ground right now, It is very hard to me to explain some things in English (and even more if you don’t understand Destreza). I just want to say that if you develop your fencing thinking in some sort of sport fencing mechanics, then you are definitely wrong…

also huuuuge telegraphing with the flat resting on the shoulder etc.

Yes, I have to admit it…cuts from Zufechten have the inherent potential to be telegraphed (they are predictable). This is the reason they are dangerous to execute them with too much intend in the first intention.


_______________________________________________________________________

Carlos Negredo wrote:
DRILL ALONE 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=080ZkHoGLvs&hd=1

Carlos

I’m totally not getting the footwork shown in the video. All that footwork and yet you are still in the same place.

Well, first, as you can see, I have not much space where I can move, so the drill has a limited reachable space, and my sword can hit some of the nearest obstacles…

Second, it is a drill to improve hip orientation, not to make long steps.

The primary goal of footwork is to move your body through space but in the video you stay in one spot.

If this is your concept of footwork, then I have to suppose you use other technical terms to mention the other aspects that I consider are part of footwork...

You also have a foot movement in which a foot is moved inward and then outward without serving any real purpose.

It is a real and important purpose, because you need to use your hips to close one or the other side, and it is possible to do without a step, so it is faster when you have not the needed time to step, and you can follow this with an step.

Also, at 0:08 in the video your lower leg becomes almost horizontal to the ground, which is a common mistake often seen.

Common mistake? Where have you come to this conclusion?

The lower leg turns to let the hip turns without a step, and it is possible and it is not a mistake because the 80% of your weight lies in the other leg, so there is no problem at all. The more you have to turn the hip, the more the leg has to turn, and if you turn it to an extreme, you will need to bend the knee if you are not looking to hurt yourself (and of course, some turns in this video are extreme, it is a drill).

Besides being unstable a horizontal lower leg position is never shown in the historical sources.

Oh, so we are here stuck into some historical sources that can help us to understand some basis without an interpretation, I see…

Historical sources need a hard interpretation and development, and I am not referring just to interpret what the sources say, but what they don’t say, and what are they actually saying. I think the footwork (and footwork is a lot more than just moving your body through space) is generally a forgotten work. An important part of our interpretation has to come from practice, and one of the most important parts of practice is the biomechanics.

[Carlos Negredo]

You can see more work of complex biomechanics from Master Alberto Bomprezzi, here some videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MZ-dCpM2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXQpqpPWqg

[Sven1]

It seems you want something to be proved…

no, I don't think anyone has ever proven anything to anyone one the hema interwebs successfully . the video title seemed to imply that you wanted to demonstrate something special, my bad if not.

I am not going to enter into this ground right now, It is very hard to me to explain some things in English (and even more if you don’t understand Destreza). I just want to say that if you develop your fencing thinking in some sort of sport fencing mechanics, then you are definitely wrong…

well if you think that you'd have any chance against a world class epee fencer in a match with rapiers you are delusional. sorry to say that. sport fencing body mechanics are rock solid in what they are supposed to do, so is their training attitude, workload etc. etc.

Yes, I have to admit it…cuts from Zufechten have the inherent potential to be telegraphed (they are predictable). This is the reason they are dangerous to execute them with too much intend in the first intention.

anything has potential for anything. the possibility to telegraph can not be a reason to discard it.


cheers

[John H]

I actually had similar thoughts to Ran and Sven, but I’ll correct Sven on one thing, those aren’t sport fencing mechanics, they are fencing mechanics. The sport fencing game is strictly a game at the extent of distance, they do not get much into a binding fight or any part of a grappling fight. I’ll also state that most people who are trained sport fencers will have their way with most historical fencers because they have a full grasp of the fight at the extent of range, I believe this is what the Germans call Zufechten, or for what we study; misura larga. This is commonly ignored in the attempts to get into a binding fight by many historical schools, and it seems to me that you guys are also not giving that range of a fight the respect it deserves. But generally before I criticize things I prefer to understand where you are coming from. It seems that you guys prefer not to fight at 'cutting distance' and prefer to keep your fight in binding distance or a closer distance than the initial cut would happen. Is that correct, and is there a reason for not spending much time worrying about a fight at cutting distance?

To expand on the footwork question, do you guys allow any type of grappling or wrestling? The reason I would question your footwork is it leaves you unstable if someone were to get inside your blades distance and wish to grapple with you, and thus weak in a grapple. That is the reason I would look at it like a mistake but I am not familiar with what type of fight you guys are emphasizing. I would not call it wrong until I understand what it is you are doing. We work with a lot of grappling and thus we have a lot of time working with very ‘stable’ footwork.

[Carlos Negredo]

It seems that you guys prefer not to fight at 'cutting distance' and prefer to keep your fight in binding distance or a closer distance than the initial cut would happen.

I have to disagree; the cutting distance is a closer distance than Zufechten, unless your opponent is a beginner. Zufechten is the part of fencing where you close distance, but you can’t ignore the Center of Proportion if your opponent tries to control your blade from distance. Once the blades are crossed, you are in the bind. But if you ignore Bind when your opponent extends his blade to you, you are in really danger.

Zufechten is always the first intention, and the first intention rarely is not telegraphed, when you understand more the mechanics of longpoint and blade control, you come to the conclusion of not having too much intend into the first intention, because you lose the initiative and become controlled by your opponent. Yes, it can work, but it can’t too, and you are in danger.

There is always danger in fencing, but fencing is all about minimizing danger through technique, all other things are just practice. We are here developing fencing.

Is that correct, and is there a reason for not spending much time worrying about a fight at cutting distance?

As some people have stated before, we began training longsword following the general consensus about the way to fence with longsword. Then we began to think we were not training a true interpretation or developed system and we began to refine and interpret some forgotten basic concepts about fencing with longsword, forgotten just because they are not written in the sources.

And as I have stated before, longpoint and bind are the most important parts of the systems described in the sources.

To expand on the footwork question, do you guys allow any type of grappling or wrestling? The reason I would question your footwork is it leaves you unstable if someone were to get inside your blades distance and wish to grapple with you, and thus weak in a grapple. That is the reason I would look at it like a mistake but I am not familiar with what type of fight you guys are emphasizing. I would not call it wrong until I understand what it is you are doing. We work with a lot of grappling and thus we have a lot of time working with very ‘stable’ footwork.

Well, now I know you think it is an unstable footwork. The point is, I think it is a very stable footwork, we are absolutely focused on stability, and on speed of steps without jumping (jumping is the most unstable footwork, and makes you unable to recover until you finalize your movement). We are focused on stability with fast steps to any direction, or even steps without moving the superior part of the body. It is a complex but effective biomechanical concept (complex to explain in words).

We develop footwork and biomechanical concepts thinking in half-sword, disarm and grappling, but it is another distance, with another transition, once you go to the next transition, your footwork have to change, it is complex to explain here in a forum, but it is not so complex,.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35GOChp5PY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkKsPIFsT0w

[Ran Pleasant]

You can see more work of complex biomechanics from Master Alberto Bomprezzi, here some videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MZ-dCpM2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXQpqpPWqg

Carlos

What historical sources is the above swordsmenship based? I ask because outside of the use of a longsword what I see in the video seems to have very little relationship to the the swordmenship taught by historical masters such Fiore, Liechtenauer, etc.

Ran

[Cutlery Penguin]

we began to refine and interpret some forgotten basic concepts about fencing with longsword, forgotten just because they are not written in the sources.

Then how do you know that they are indeed basic concepts about fencing with longsword that were forgotten? Surely they are more likely to be concepts that seem perfectly logical to you based on your experience?

It seems to be stretching the bounds of credibility to make stuff up and then claim it is right even though it isn't documented just because you think it should be.

[Sven1]

You can see more work of complex biomechanics from Master Alberto Bomprezzi, here some videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MZ-dCpM2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXQpqpPWqg

is he an actual or honorary master?

[Cutlery Penguin]

It seems that you guys prefer not to fight at 'cutting distance' and prefer to keep your fight in binding distance or a closer distance than the initial cut would happen.

I have to disagree; the cutting distance is a closer distance than Zufechten, unless your opponent is a beginner.

It seems to me that you have reached a similar point to the majority of the longsword guys and taken a different direction to deal with it.

When one cuts with outstretched arms one is vulnerable to a cut to the hands/forearms. This results in a lot of double hits. It seems to me that you have reached this point and decided that because the scenario was regularly failing your interpretation must be wrong somehow and that cutting in that manner is something to avoid. And so you end up with a system that avoids any cuts made at the range that most people would cut at. The opposite approach, and that which most of the guys I know have taken was to look at the problem of double hits and assume that it is our application of technique that is at fault, not our interpretation of when to cut.

They ended up with the ability to cut at this range whilst not getting hit anywhere near as often. Whereas you simply removed that range from your system. Neither approach involves many
doubles, but one of them improves us as swordsmen, the other "improves" the system itself.

It seems logical and sensible to me to assume that the fault is our application when something pretty clearly shown isn't working. Not to assume that we know better than the guys who originally did it and recorded how.

[Cutlery Penguin]

You can see more work of complex biomechanics from Master Alberto Bomprezzi, here some videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MZ-dCpM2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXQpqpPWqg

is he an actual or honorary master?

When it comes to Longsword there is only one sort.

[John H]

I do not study German longsword so if my thoughts on Zufechten are off it would be no surprise, I only try to learn the terminology as more people are studying German sources than Italian and I like to know what they are talking about. I do maintain that you are starting your fight at a distance closer than what I consider cutting distance. This is fine as long as both fighters agree to, but once you get one fighter who wants to fight at ‘cutting distance’ then you have to get past that distance to then get into a bind. It is true that most experienced swordfighters will rarely get hit with the first intention and thus practicing fighting at closer distances is a good idea. But to get to this distance you must first earn it by mastering the cutting range and fighting through it. When I see you guys start the fight by setting up in longpoint and binding I look at fully exposed hands, wrists and arms and wonder why no one went to middle iron door and cut your hands off. This leads to the other question I forgot to ask, do you guys allow targeting the hands and arms?

So you know where I am coming from: I do not care to ‘fix’ or change what you are doing or tell you ‘you are doing it wrong’, I merely wish to understand it. When I look at a video of fighting I look for things I can exploit if I were to fight you, this is nothing different than what I expect everyone on this forum does when they watch a video. I see what I consider ‘weaknesses’ and points that I would attack if we were to fight. I know full well the difference between something I think is a weakness and a real weakness that I took advantage of in that fight, so I will never say you are doing something wrong, even if I beat you with it. Why would I correct your fighting if I have a way to beat you because of it? If I think it’s weak or wrong and we fight I will attack that weakness, if I beat you because of it I was probably right, if I was unsuccessful in taking advantage of it then I was probably not right. I personally think you guys are great in the bind and if I fought you I would not bind with you unless I was forced to. I would cut from distance and if we got closer I would move to pommel binds, disarms or ‘grappling.’ I would do that because I do not see much of a cutting fight in your work, I see the avoidance of it. As also you noted I look at your footwork and consider it ‘unstable’ and I would seek to get inside and put you off balance and take advantage of that. I do know that footwork can be changed quite quickly if you know what you are doing, just like an opening in a guard can be closed very quickly and act like an invitation, so actually taking advantage of something is much different than seeing it and deciding to attack it. As this is all just talk on a forum I know that none of this matters, I just wanted you to understand I am not trying to tell you what you are doing is right or wrong.

[Carlos Negredo]

You can see more work of complex biomechanics from Master Alberto Bomprezzi, here some videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MZ-dCpM2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXQpqpPWqg

Carlos

What historical sources is the above swordsmenship based? I ask because outside of the use of a longsword what I see in the video seems to have very little relationship to the the swordmenship taught by historical masters such Fiore, Liechtenauer, etc.

Ran

Where do you see here any longsword?

Anyway, those are drills used to develop biomechanical movements to use all your body to move yourself and maximize the power of your body to project it to the sword. Yes, you can’t read it into the sources, what is the problem?

we began to refine and interpret some forgotten basic concepts about fencing with longsword, forgotten just because they are not written in the sources.

Then how do you know that they are indeed basic concepts about fencing with longsword that were forgotten? Surely they are more likely to be concepts that seem perfectly logical to you based on your experience?

It seems to be stretching the bounds of credibility to make stuff up and then claim it is right even though it isn't documented just because you think it should be.

They are usually forgotten in the modern interpretations, I don’t know, of course, how they moved, how they developed footwork, biomechanics, and so on…

This is exactly what I am trying to say, it is an important part of fencing, you can’t just leave it without developing, because we are practicing historical FENCING, and in the end, every fencer needs to develop a fencing that goes beyond the treatises words, that let us understand some concepts, but if we only develop our fencing reading historical manuals, we will be developing an incomplete fencing system. Yes, we are heirs of historical fencing, but we are, in the end, fencers, and believing that historical treatises are a “How to…” to understand and develop a fencing system is a mistake.

We are not saying our system is historical, or that we are doing “Liechtenauer”, or “Fiore”, we develop a system to fence with longsword studying historical treatises, but develop a complete system interpreting concepts from practice, and not just from historical manuals.

Maybe our system can be less historical than others…? Well, maybe, no one knows…but maybe our system can be someday more complete, understandable, and applicable to any situation.

You can see more work of complex biomechanics from Master Alberto Bomprezzi, here some videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MZ-dCpM2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXQpqpPWqg

is he an actual or honorary master?

Inside AEEA he is recognized as a Master, outside AEEA, some people consider him a Master, others not for sure…

[admin]

We are not saying our system is historical

This says it all really.
Let's call a spade a spade - it is a modern system of longsword fencing inspired by Spanish rapier manuals. It is not historical fencing, per se.

I guess only time and competition may tell whether it works or not. I can say this though, I have fenced someone trying to use something like this style in Dijon and I knocked him out of the competition with 3 arm cuts in the same place each time. You guys look like you have really great ability at the bind, but for your own sakes I encourage you to practice more attacking and defending from open guards outside the bind.

[Carlos Negredo]

We are not saying our system is historical

This says it all really.
Let's call a spade a spade - it is a modern system of longsword fencing inspired by Spanish rapier manuals. It is not historical fencing, per se.

Yes it is, as any other people doing longsword (there is no historical fencing, per se) but some interpretations are more in-depth than others.

And, as said before, we are not inspired by Spanish rapier manuals, if you don't want to understand what we have said before a lot of times, then I will leave you to your own conclusions...it is a waste of time.

I guess only time and competition may tell whether it works or not. I can say this though, I have fenced someone trying to use something like this style in Dijon and I knocked him out of the competition with 3 arm cuts in the same place each time. You guys look like you have really great ability at the bind, but for your own sakes I encourage you to practice more attacking and defending from open guards outside the bind.

First, if you want to know if a system is well developed, I will advise you to not go to a tournament to test it, probably the best way to fence with a longsword in a competition is Kendo way. Tournaments are just sports, specially if the rules favor suicides and let you use strategies.

Second, I can say you I have fenced people like you and I knocked him out with some clear thrusts, but it would be disrespectful I think.

[admin]

And, as said before, we are not inspired by Spanish rapier manuals

First, if you want to know if a system is well developed, I will advise you to not go to a tournament to test it

Where do you test it then? Or do you prefer not to test at all, but only have good Catholic faith?

Second, I can say you I have fenced people like you and I knocked him out with some clear thrusts, but it would be disrespectful I think.

You have fenced someone like me? What is their name?