Seeking comments on this rapier video

[SeanH]

I recently viewed a recording of a rapier seminar, and right at the beginning (2:15 in) something struck me as being mechanically very odd about the lunge being performed.

The video is here.

Please let me know what you think.

[Reinier]

I am no Capo Ferroist, but I am not sure what it is that strikes you as strange.

The only thing I would do differently is, after extending my arm to the extension it needs, and then turning the right should forwards (he already has all that), to start with moving my body forwards, and then use the step to balance that movement of the body where/when needed to prevent falling. He seems to step first, and move the body second. Other than that you might mean the very slight lifting of his back foot, or the even slighter upwards motion of his body as he steps? Those seem rather minor (few cm at most) to me...

[Rob]

The rear knee appears slightly turned in, denoting the hips are not engaged, so he will be heavy on the feet and will have to bear the weight of the sword on the arm alone, rather than using the muscles on the back. The position of the hips will also shorten the lunge. Further, the weight seems a little forward, so he cannot drive from the rear foot. However, I'm probably being hyper- critical.

Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

[Reinier]

Hi Rob,

I am not sure I agree with you.

I can't really see his knee because of the loose pants, but, assuming "turned in" means rotated forwards, I find that very difficult to reproduce with the toes of my back foot pointing back as Guy (correctly IMHO) holds his. Likewise, I don't see the problem with his hip (I am assuming you mean it is not fully rotated into the lunge to achieve maximmum extension). If that is the problem, that would be weird, as he just spent quite some time earlier in the clip showing how to rotate the hip in line in the normal stance.
Furthermore, most early 17th century rapier masters (IIRC) advise lunging so deep (I am rather sure Fabris and Capo Ferro agree on this) that your toes, knee, and face are on one vertical line. So, from that point of view, his body is too far back, rather than forwards.

[Reinier]

hmm, maybe I am seeing the hip-and-knee thing...

[Rob]

Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

[John H]

Very much nit picking…

From a capo ferro side, his initial guard is too ‘high,’ where it should be deep/with his legs more bent so that the height of your shoulders is the same in a lunge as it is in a guard. From the way he lunges, there is probably half a foot to a foot difference in height at the point of extension when he is in ‘guardia ordinario’ vs guardia extrodinario (lunge.) You can see this from his lunge, the height of his shoulders drop and he actually comes up and then down in that action. This potentially throws your targeting off as you are moving at a downward angle vs a strait shot in the lunge. It also can make you lose control of his foilable as during such an action your blade would be sliding along his and bringing the blade position to meza to meza or putting your foilable on his forte. Now I’ve met a few people who can nail a moving tennis ball and lunge like that so it’s not a definitive issue, but it is definitely something I would train out of a student.

Also as Reinier pointed out he is not going forward enough with his lunge to represent Capo Ferro. On the flip side of that, when you lunge past your heel you put stress on your patellar and as I have blown that out before I do not recommend letting your knee go past your heel when you lunge. Younger people and those sufficiently flexable can do it better but when you get older things tighten up and you are more prone to hurt yourself.

[Reinier]

So, now there has been some input, I am quite curious what Sean meant...

[SeanH]

Thank you everyone, your insights have been interesting, and you certainly spotted more than I had noticed.

Reinier, I apologise for not posting again earlier. My main concern is this:

...with the toes of my back foot pointing back as Guy (correctly IMHO) holds his.

I've not seen this done before, and in no manuscript or modern fencing display have I seen the toes ending in that position in a lunge.

Could you tell me why this is correct?

[Rob]

Well, from my view, not having the foot turned back can restrict the lunge, while having the foot turned back helps the recovery.

Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

[Reinier]

Hi Sean,

No problem, but my curiosity was peaked!

If you look at Bruchius illustration number 6 (on page B), where he displays the lunge, you can see this done in a period treatise (1671), though one could argue that it is a result of perspective. (You can also see it in ill. number 10 on page C, 15 and 17 on page D etc. b.t.w..) Similarly, one could interpret Fabris's illustrations 12 and especially 17 and 21 as turning the foot like this too. Giganti plates 5 and 20, for example, show a similar turning, though other plates in Giganti do not appear so (for example his plate 1 - the Lunge - does not appear so). Some plates in Capo Ferro could perhaps be interpreted just so, but he seems more inclined to lift his heel, without turning the foot.

Turning the foot like that is a way to extend the lunge by another few cm's. In modern fencing you will often see fencers drag their foot onto its side to achieve a similar result, but that is bad for the ankle, makes you very vulnerable in case there is more than one assailant, and hinders withdrawal, as you can't shift balance until the foot is rooted again. Turning the foot like Guy shows is a natural consequence of extending whilst keeping the toes on the ground, and you can readily recover as you are still firm-footed

[SeanH]

Hi Rob

I take your point, and Reinier had also expressed the same view, however doesn't turning the foot to the back lead to a less stable lunge, as well as introducing a rotating motion from the back foot in contrast to a straight piston-like push from the entire back leg?

Recovery also seems slower since either the "pulling-back" action of the back foot is done with only the ball of the foot, instead of the entire foot, or while moving back into guard the back foot needs to be repositioned.

Performing the lunge and using the ball of the back foot to push backwards also feels like a groin strain waiting to happen, but note that these observations are my own and could be a result of my lack of experience.

Next, Reinier, I'm afraid I've not read Bruchius, but we can talk about the others

In Giganti you are right, I just flipped through and missed the back foot positions in plates 4, 5, and almost all the plates with dagger. If you look at plate 11 there is even a rolled ankle, not to mention plate 24 etc with a raised heel.

Fabris' illustration are slightly ambiguous, although that could be due to the perspective. Then again this is Fabris, and I'm sure he has a backflip killing move somewhere in book 2

Agreed that Capoferro doesn't show anything like that, although I wonder if the 'raised heel' is due to perspective.

[Michael S]

Meyer certainly seems to depict every possibly variation for the back foot, even with raised heels.

I'm trying to incorporate steps with the back foot facing rearwards into my game - I think that the mechanical difference is that rather than force being generated by the leg muscles independently, opening and closing the hips like this when you step brings into play the muscles in your backside and groin too.

The difficulty that I'm discovering is fluidly moving into another, because instinctively I want to lock out my back leg when lunging. For a following step forwards, you can either draw forwards your back foot keeping you foot turned out, ready to lunge again, or you can 'close' the hips and draw forwards your rear knee with the foot pointed forwards and dropping your hips down, as though you're shooting for a take down in wrestling.

As someone used to Olympic Fencing lunges, it is mechanically very weird. But it's amazing how much forceyou can generate from a 'standard' lunge into one of these 'open lunges' over a few cm...

[Rob]

As a Fabris practitioner, I haven't covered back flips and am feeling cheated. I will have a go at Phil about this...

Fabris does not like lunges, preferring to pass. He also believes in following through rather than withdrawing, so even where you do lunge you would still go forward. If I remember right from Giganti, the withdrawal would be done by pulling the body back (which would be assisted in a long stance by having the foot turned back) and then pushing off with the front foot; there should be no 'pull' with the rear foot. I think.

One thing that may be of import is that the lunge in the vid is in quartre, so the shoulders are in profile and the hips fully opened out. If in seconda, I would have the hips and thus the shoulders more square and allow the rear foot to roll onto the ball of the foot. With this posture one has to push with the front foot to withdraw and cannot pull with the rear.

Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

[Reinier]

Rob; in chapter 13, Fabris states that (if I read it all correctly - I might be too hasty now) after a lunge you pull back by stepping with the right foot behind the left, or near it. If you need to withdraw far, you step behind the left, and then step back with the left, but after stepping back with the right, you could also choose to lunge again.

He then follows on that if your lunge brings you too close (because you underestimated the distance, or because your opponent also lunged) you cannot retreat, and in stead you will pass to the body.


Giganti indeed states that you start recovery by withdrawing the head, following with the body and then the foot.

[Rob]

Yup, you're quite right (sorry!), though I would still say that he would prefer to carry through (though Fabris would call this a following pass, I guess, rather than just a lunge). Unfortunately my poor display here will have clouded the statement I wanted to make, which is that Fabris does not like lunging. You will note that in many of the plates the lunge is shown with the rear foot at a shallow angle and, in some instances, pointed slightly forward. My interpretation is that Fabris does not like the deep lunge, which would not be so favourable from the small-stepped postures he prefers, and so performs a short lunge, where useful, which caters for a pass.

[Reinier]

I agree with that.