Historical Fencing

[yenhoi]

Alot of that has to do with the line, dont you think?

Id imagine, even with the line, sabre play is worlds apart?

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by yenhoi
Alot of that has to do with the line, dont you think?

Id imagine, even with the line, sabre play is worlds apart?

Yep. A lot of that has to do with the line. And with the nature of thrusting weapons vs. hacking weapons. I probably still wouldn't fight with a machete as if it were a foil. Still, I wouldn't fight a guy who had a machete as if he had a stick either. Little things like when you can afford to get your empty hand involved, for example. Against a stick, I have a little more leeway. Obviously, I don't want to get my hand hit, breaking every bone therein. But once the stick has lost its momentum, I can take control of it. The window of opportunity for doing so with a blade is smaller. And keeping your hand out of harm's way while you defend yourself more exclusively with your own weapon is a lesson well learned.

I'm eager to do saber again myself for that very reason. It most closely mirrors the stick but with the blade considerations included.


Stuart B.

p.s. Watching video clip 6 again, I'm inclined to think that Mike's better at some aspects of fencing than I am already. That's a beautiful exchange (though it may be a bit underwhelming to people with more experience than me; I don't know). He stood his ground, read the blade, countered, and kept his feet. I'm envious.

[No_Know]

So (needle-and-thread) it seems that shorter steps--distance is covered with the sword and the time used to close or withdraw is time the other uses to lunge/close and score; less play at your elbow; control of the sword is at the wrist and shoulder; instead of leaning the torso, rotate (counter-clockwise) the torso for extra reach/length.

[blooming lotus]

someone mentioned a few posts back that in their sttyle, they get into postion then extend..is it just me that does that similultaneously ?.....or maybe its just my lightening speed that makes it look that way

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by blooming lotus
someone mentioned a few posts back that in their sttyle, they get into postion then extend..is it just me that does that similultaneously ?.....or maybe its just my lightening speed that makes it look that way

Well, yeah, presumably they'll often happen near simultaneously. But I'm a beginner. So I have to emphasize that sequence. My habit is to move my feet and keep my sword chambered. So I often underestimate the range, get closer than I need to be to hit, and then get bound up. Or tagged by the guy with his sword out.

Sword first, feet second. But ideally in very rapid succession. As far as I understand anyway.

[yenhoi]

Makes you faster.

What about moving the sword around constantly? As opposed to holding it in one spot?

[apoweyn]

Some guys move the sword around a bit. As long as they lead with the hand. By that, I mean that the point of the sword stays pretty much on target, while the guard (and your hand in it) can be moved to different angles. That way, when you parry, your sword point is already on target for the riposte.

When I say the point's on target, though, I guess I'm not talking about a pin-***** specific target. The point is aimed at the torso. But it can change elevation, sides of the opponent's sword, etc. As long as the point is always pointed in the right direction.

One of the biggest mistakes me and Daws have made in the past is parrying by moving the point of the sword. "Windshield wiper defense." The hand is the pivot point and the sword point waves around wildly.

Bad policy. Better to think about parrying with the blade closer to the handle. Keeping the point where it needs to be to counter.

That all changes with saber though.

Standard disclaimer: As far as I know based on my limited exposure to fencing


Edited: Because you can't say "pin-pr!ck"

[ShaolinTiger00]

Gentlemen,

Amazing thread.

carry on.

[apoweyn]

Cheers.

I'll keep it going as long as people are interested. Granted, this thread doesn't have 'got qi' girls. But I'll do what I can.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by No_Know
So (needle-and-thread) it seems that shorter steps--distance is covered with the sword and the time used to close or withdraw is time the other uses to lunge/close and score; less play at your elbow; control of the sword is at the wrist and shoulder; instead of leaning the torso, rotate (counter-clockwise) the torso for extra reach/length.

Our teacher (maestro?) takes extremely small steps when he fences. What I might describe as 'stutter steps.' I'm not sure I could move that way without feeling like an overexcited pekinese, but I digress.

Since fencing takes place in basically two directions (forward and back), it's largely about range. There's no lateral body movement. No zoning (in the FMA sense). Just forward and back. That makes it really important to be able to manipulate both real distance and your opponent's perception of distance, to my mind.

I've noticed our teacher, even when he's standing still, still looks to be moving. So his opponent is making adjustments based on a perception of movement. Not on the reality of movement. Manipulations like that can buy you the step or two that make the difference between scoring and not.

I've also noticed fencers playing a similar game with the extended sword. Fully extended, the sword gives the impression that you're safely out of range. But then the guy throws the lunge in there as well and suddenly you're well within his range and (theoretically) dead.

That's another argument for extending the sword first.


Stuart B.

p.s. I'm getting tired of putting disclaimers like 'as I understand it.' So from here on out, assume that's what I mean. And if you know more about fencing than I do, for God's sake, correct or even directly contradict me. Thanks.

[ShaolinTiger00]

'got qi' girls

Stupidest thread ever.

[ShaolinTiger00]

There's no lateral body movement.

Why not Stu? I would think that a good pivot off the lead foot would allow you to avoid your opponents thrust and yet remain very close to him for a stab/slash of your own..

[joedoe]

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00


Why not Stu? I would think that a good pivot off the lead foot would allow you to avoid your opponents thrust and yet remain very close to him for a stab/slash of your own..

There is a little bit of lateral movement, but not much. This is limited to a certain degree by the rules of fencing. It is actually quite hard to move quickly enough to avoid a well set up attack using a pivot. Add to this that you must actually parry (contact your opponent's blade) before you can launch your riposte, meaning you have to maintain a position where you can execute your parry/riposte.

There is also a rule about how far the non-sword hand can come forward, so you cannot turn your body too far.

[apoweyn]

ST00,

What Joedoe said.

There is some lateral movement. But you're fighting on a strip, so your lateral footwork is limited. You can 'slip' (in boxing terms).

Actually, last night I did that. (I haven't got the clips worked out yet, and for the most part they're abysmal anyway.) A parry 4 followed by a riposte. (An out-to-in parry in karate terms.) Mike lunged, I parried and slipped to the side so the point of his sword actually went well past me. Then I countered.

I think remaining close to him for a counter is exactly the problem though, ST. I mean yeah, it worked. But Mike was virtually on top of me by the time I countered. And that's an awfully close range for a sword counter. Stabbed is stabbed, though. Lateral movement did work. But it wasn't nearly as economical as it would have been to, for example, beat his sword off the line and stick mine out for him to run into.

That's a significant difference between sword and hand. Sticking my fist out and having someone run into it is kinda sad. Not going to do any compelling damage that way. So lateral movement to set up for a power shot makes more sense. But with a long sword, it's much more economical to let the blade do the work for you.

That's a horrible explanation. Mea culpa.

[apoweyn]

And while I'm reflecting on last night's session:

The previous week (the videos from which you've seen), I came out of practice high as a kite. I'd learned some things that changed the whole game for me. I'd felt in control of the exchanges. I wasn't winded. It was great. Breakthrough, I thought.

Last night was the counterswing to that. I felt clumsy, uncoordinated, and forced. Daws and Mike freaking peppered me with hits. (I can't tell you how impressed I was with them last night.)

But I think that's the logical consequence of a 'breakthrough.' Last week, this guy (Rafael) worked on our parry/riposte and our counter 6 parry. (The opposite of a parry 4. An in-to-out parry that sends the opponent's sword out over your lead shoulder.) And another guy (Robert) gave us some great tips too.

Last night, I was trying to use some of the things they taught us. And, in my defense, they worked really well. But I guess I haven't gotten comfy enough with them that they flowed yet. So I felt 'off my game.'

Mike and Daws managed to use them more effectively in their overall game plan. I wish we'd gotten better video of it. There were some nice exchanges.

Anyway, I suppose the point I'm trying to make is mostly to myself. That a breakthrough is indeed often followed with a dip, as I try to incorporate something new into my framework.

Again, sh*tty explanation. Not having much luck with this whole "word thing" today.


Stuart B.