While I was fighting Zohane, I realized that a particular thing was working well. When I felt him pressing against a part farther out on my sword, it was better for me to execute "tippier" opposition. So, the disengage/change-lines/counter-disengage game. However, as soon as I felt him press into the middle of my blade, I could do more "hilt-forward" actions, bringing my tip farther away from his body than my hilt in preparation for a cut, as I stepped forward. I used this for the rest of the night, with a decent amount of success.
If I remember correctly, it seemed like this was possible regardless of which part of his sword he was pressing with. I don't know if it's that he just happened to be pressing with a relatively middle-ish part of his blade, or if the level of pressure required to trigger the feeling of correctness here could only be expressed through a somewhat middle-ish part of his blade, or if the pressure required meant a level of commitment on his part. For that last one, I mean that if he pressed that hard with his tip it would mean he couldn't move his sword in time. But if the point of contact was farther down on his sword, it might have meant that I was deep enough in that he couldn't do a quick little disengage.
That last point is a thing I should Do Some Math about. Lever equations and such. The basic idea, semi-mathematically expressed, is this:
(directional commitment from hand of opponent) /( distance from hilt of contact on opponent's sword) = (amount of sentiment felt by you)
At longer distance, this would mean that if you feel a lot of sentiment, there is a large amount of commitment from your opponent's body-structure to press into your sword. At closer distance, the same amount of sentiment doesn't necessarily represent the same degree of commitment. But at the same time, as you get closer, there is more of their sword past the point of contact with your sword, meaning that any motion to get around your parry would be larger. This means that their commitment is less, but it doesn't matter. Which is fascinating to think about.
The weird thing to me, here, is that the feeling I was keying off of was "where on my sword I thought that they were pressing". Not the strength of pressure, but the location. It's very possible that the strength and location are linked - after all, strong pressure at my tip just feels like my opposition failing. It's also possible that the mechanics of how my sword can hinge on my opponent's sword (without changing the relationship of our blades) are linked more closely to location of contact on my sword. It is a thing for me to think about.
The more I think about it, the more I think it has to do with the idea that, if I'm using my sword to make a "wall" between their sword and my body, if I rotate around anywhere other than the center of my blade, then one "side" of the "wall" will be shorter than the other and thus more vulnerable. So if I rotate my blade around a part near my tip, my opponent can probably disengage around my tip. And if I rotate my blade around a part near my hilt, it's very likely that my opponent can disengage under my hilt.
This likely means that, since there is more of me below my shoulder than above it, high guards (like my interpretation of Narrowing) should distribute my sword's defensiveness farther forward, since my hilt needs to be less far off-line to cover the size of my head, rather than needing to cover the height of my gut.
In summary, this is what I found.
- Taking my tip far off-line feels correct and works correctly when my opponent presses against the center of my sword.
- Why?
- 1: Is it because of the ratio of depth of penetration and commitment?
- 2: Is it because of the special case of how swords hinge around the center?
- 3: Is it because if the center of my sword is being pressed against, my opponent is probably using the center of their sword and this means they have deep penetration?
- 4: Is there a parabolic arc of "ideal angle of blade" versus "location of contact"?
- It seems like 1 and 3 are opposing assumptions, as are 2 and 4. Interesting!
- How do I prove this?
- If it's #1, this would mean I can do this even when just the barest amount of tip is pressing against my sword. If it's #3, this would not be the case.
- If it's #2, I shouldn't be able to do half of the blade angle when my opponent is pressing against 3/4 of the way up my blade. If it's #4, this should work.
- It would be interesting to figure out how the back half of the blade should act based on #4, if #4 is true. My gut says it is. Further testing would probably be something like, "we start in this position. What is optimal here?"
- Regardless of if it's #2 or #4, I probably need to figure out special cases for defensive opposition at various locations of blade contact. From there, I can probably tease out a general rule, but that is not yet where I am.
- Thinking about different-sized implements would be interesting for #4. Would the arc be the same for a dagger as for a sword? Even though the dagger has much stronger opposition at its tip than the sword at its tip?
Also, topic to think about: What kinds of attacks can one do when in-fighting, and how can one neutralize the possibility of the opponent using their off-hand to defend themselves?
Also, other topic to think about: How, in this system, can I avoid having to come to (or close to) in-fighting?
No comments:
Post a Comment