Further Destreza Work

Greetings!

At practice yesterday, I decided to work something completely different from what I have been working on. Previously, I had been working on Playing My 45-and-Dagger Game. That has been getting a bit stale because I am messing around too much.

So, this practice I dropped back to my 37 and started trying to work my one-shotting people game. This is important because if someone expects that they could be one-shotted, they will approach more carefully than they otherwise would. This allows for more opportunities in the "ok we're fencing now" part of things, rather than my opponents knowing that my first action will always be defensive.

I didn't do this amazingly well - I think that I strayed into the second intention far too much. I really need to work on my attacks into people's guards, to provoke the correct reactions.

My even-more-offensive-than-usual game also led to an interesting insight about how cuts work, when stepping through. Essentially, you want to maintain middle-to-middle blade contact until you can put your hilt behind their hilt, with respect to their body. This will allow you to "snap" your blade around theirs.

This also has led to a thought that perhaps, out of all of the arbitrary Destrezesque guards that I do, I should be keeping my hilt toward the side of their body that their sword-hand is on, because the way that one executes a cut while passing to that side allows one to defend better than when attempting to go to the other side.

Explicit outline:
-Attack immediately more often. MORE AGGRESSION.
-Snappy winding/unwinding cuts. MORE CUTTING.
-Hilt to the left, tip to the right, against right-handed opponents. MORE... uh. SOMETHING.

Practice Report

I just want to write a quick practice report in order to not forget A Thing. I found this thing because I couldn't use my left hand while fencing, due to not wanting to pop some stitches in my left hand.

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?

I have a thing to think about. YAYS.

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?

Review???

I need to review my blog.

My shoulder has been a touch unhappy with me when I fight Spanish, lately. This is likely because I drilled too much a few weekends ago. Fortunately, fighting Italian doesn't seem to bother it at all, so it appears that I'm taking a break from Spanish.

As well, I've been so focused on my shorter-rapier game that I've lost sight, somewhat, of how to correctly fight with my "standard" load-out.

I fought seriously with my 45-inch rapier and my dagger for the first time in a long while, at that regional. It was good, but I kept starting off sets of passes doing badly, then remembering little bits of guiding principles over the course of passes which improved my game.

Such principles included:

-Use counter-guards. Rock < Paper < Scissors exists, and it is defined in terms of dagger position. Sword-forward-dagger-back is paper < Dagger-middle-sword-middle is scissors < dagger-forward-sword-back is rock.

-The primary driving goal should be to "create openings", rather than to try to figure out how to strike my opponent. This is easiest to apply against less-skilled fencers. The more skilled a fencer is, the smaller the "openings" one can create, to the point that an "opening" might just be the ability to create a slightly larger and larger "opening", and so forth.

-Tip-middle-hilt principle of sword-contact. Which is to say - usually the safest way to engage with a sword is by switching sides that one engages with. So if I engage with the false edge of their tip, I should engage with the true edge of the middle of their blade, and then with the false edge next to the hilt. This confuses opponents, and all of those positions are good for both offense and attack. As well, it creates more obvious "lines" to use to attack through an opponent's sword. In general, the middle of the sword or the hilt are the only safe places to attack through, for various reasons.

-Old-style off-line fighting is very nice, if my opponent doesn't wish to make contact with my blade. It's a different way of doing Scissors, which relies on misdirection more than my dagger to do things. Sweep / tap / through is still a good strategy. However, if they make contact with my blade, my ability to deceive is greatly reduced.

In all, I'm pretty happy with how my fencing was. I just need to get the essentials back into my working memory, and perhaps make some sort of mnemonic phrase to remind myself of the essentials.

Practice Report, and Thibault-esque Position/Find/Gain/Attack

Fencing was good. I'm attempting to budget better, so I didn't grab any of the pre-fencing snacks that I normally would. This resulted in me having less energy during practice than I normally would. This is expected, and I'm trying to lose weight anyway, so it is fine. It does mean I am likely to derive less per-practice improvement, but again, I will survive it.

I did mostly Thibault things this practice. I spent time trying to do the Thibault-esque position/find/gain/attack to people, and it was interesting. I learned a number of things, which can be summed up into a single-ish point that I will mention later in this post.

LATER IS NOW.

*****

So, from working Thibault these few years, I've come to understand that his basic flow of action is very similar to the Italian flow of action. The Italian flow of action, as I understand it, goes something like this.

1. Position
1. This means to get in whatever guard or counter-guard your particular master specifies.
2. Find the blade
1. This means a small gain of their blade, to make it harder for them to hit you at very large range. "To make it harder" is somewhat ambiguous and squishy. Hard to define.
3. Gain the blade
1. This means to create a larger angle with your sword while moving forward a bit, to make it even harder for them to hit you. This is because you are likely progressing into or close to the range in which they can hit you with a leaning thrust, rather than a lunging or passing thrust. This is faster, so you need to make their attack take even longer.
4. Attack
1. This is mostly self-explanatory, but it's hard to say exactly what ways one can attack with assured safety from all positions. Usually this is, in Spanish terms, an attack by detachment.

In Thibault, the flowchart is similar. I have filled in many details using experience, which I give to you now. I use Italian terms when applicable, since "defensive actions at first instance" is very unwieldy. I realize I should be using different words here, but please bear with me because I view these as being very similar to the Italian things.

1. Step to the edge of measure
1. This has a very specific flow, described very early in the book. Swing your blade left and low as you step forward with your right foot, swing it right and usually low while stepping with the left foot, and then step with the right foot, ending in the intended position.
2. This step wouldn't exist, except that a number of plays later in the book involve altering the way that we do this, especially the blade positioning when stepping with the left foot.
2. Position
1. This is more explicit than the Italian way of things. Thibault specifies a number of counter-guards based on the position of your opponent's sword. The idea is to get to a place where you can step into the next bit.
2. Generally, this is where you get to a position where your blade is parallel to their blade and below it.
3. Find the blade
1. Thibault's plates imply that you want to get to a place in which you will be defended from a direct thrust by your quillons. Specifically by your quillons. Your blade can be used to position their blade to reduce the area they can strike, but the direct attack should be defended against using your quillons.
2. In general, you want to try to position your quillons as close to perpendicular to the line drawn by their blade from their hilt to infinity as possible.
3. Your blade should limit where they can go. Your quillons should defend against their direct attacks.
4. Gain the blade
1. Here, we need to transition to using our blade to defend ourselves. We want to transition from quillons-perpendicular-to-their-blade to blade-perpendicular-to-their-blade. This is because we're entering a closer measure, which requires wider defense.
2. This is usually done because an opponent either starts in a guard that doesn't allow one to find the blade, or they transition to such.
5. Attack
1. In general, we need to be able to place their blade in a position that allows us to attack them with our blade, quillons, or off-hand in a perpendicular position to defend us against their counter-attack, or their blade in a position that doesn't allow them to counter-attack.

That is the basics. However, to do well and to win, you need to know how to cut corners and when one can transition early, or entirely ignore steps.

Thibault's first play in his book shows only positioning, finding the blade, and attacking, because that's all that is needed against a passive opponent in the Destreza right-angle stance. Positioning is barely touched on because you adopt the "default" position which is described in detail previously. Stepping into measure isn't mentioned at all for the same reason. Gaining the blade simply doesn't happen because it isn't necessary.

In searching for these places I can skip steps, I've started classifying Italians based roughly on how angled-up their blade is.

• If my opponent is almost parallel to the ground with their blade, with their arm mostly extended, I can probably do all of the steps here defined, though a little bit less of Finding than with a Diestro in the Right Angle posture.
• If my opponent is less parallel with the ground, perhaps between 25º and 55º from the ground and with a correspondingly lowered arm and hand, Finding becomes irrelevant. By the time I get into the range in which I can Find the blade, I am within their lunge range. I should skip finding, and go directly from Positioning into Gaining.
• If my opponent is even less parallel to the ground than that, I honestly am not sure what to do. Maybe I need to just skip directly from Positioning into attacking? This is how I lose repeatedly to Zohane.

 Two particular plays seem relevant. These are adapted to a standard Italian or Spanish grip, rather than Thibault's grip.

*****

Against one of the first type of Italians, I Find their blade from the inside line. My sword is in a hybrid terza-quarta such that my blade is above theirs, but my quillon still blocks the direct line of ingress. I feel a disengage and immediately lunge, bringing  my sword into a low quarta, such that my quillons block the most direct path of their sword, and the strong of my blade blocks the less direct path. This allows me to stab them, countering their disengage. I have thus skipped the "Gain" step and move directly into "Attack".

*****

Against the second type of Italian, I position myself such that my blade is parallel to theirs, sloped downwards toward the ground. If they are attempting to gain the inside line, I'm somewhere between terza and quarta. If they are attempting to gain the outside line, I'm somewhere between quarta and what would be called "quinta" by logical and rotational progression. In the German tradition, it would be the hand position of Left Ochs.

Regardless, my quillons are perpendicular to the line of their blade, and I am just barely hidden from some of the direct thrusts they could perform. While stepping forward, I flip my blade around theirs, such that my false edge cuts into the false edge of their blade, leading with my sword's tip and immediately transitioning to a position where my blade is perpendicular to their blade. Here, I have transitioned directly from "Position" into "Gain".

*****

ADDITIONAL EDITED-IN-AFTERWARDS PLAY

When someone has significantly more reach than their opponent, they can frequently ignore the "positioning" step, and go from a relaxed lack-of-a-guard into an immediate attack.

*****

All that said, I think the next evolution of my fencing is to look actively for places and times that allow me to skip or combine steps. As a minor aside, I believe that this sort of "combining steps" is what the Germans mean by their definition of the "master stroke", which combines offense and defense.

I would be interested to talk to people about places where they find that they are able to combine steps in similar ways.

The Capoferro Hierarchy seems like a similar thing, depending on distance and timing. I feel like there's a lot of stuff in there that could be mined for more information. As an example - if you and your opponent are at a somewhat long range and your opponent executes a very committed cavazione, it isn't super possible for them to abort to a duo-tempi parry-riposte, which is the traditional counter-counter. But if they are a bit less committed, they can execute the duo-tempi parry-riposte. It would be an interesting study to find where the borders of each counter and each counter-counter exist, to see when they are viable or not viable.

Anyhow. That's the end of this post. Your homework is to tell me about things you do in your fencing to "skip a step". Tell me the thing!

Practice Report Thing

This started as a G+ post, but it became long enough that it should really go in here.

Fencing was really good yesterday. I was super not feeling like going out to fencing, but I know from prior experience that usually when I'm Very Not Feeling Like Going, then I will feel good about it by the time I am done.

I decided that the practice would be another day in which the only thing I really work on is focusing on keeping my hilt along the diameter line. That seemed to work out well, in terms of being a thing I can do that gives me good and useful feedback that I can learn from.

I fought Rodrigo a bunch, first bringing single Thibault, then switching over to sword and dagger to give him a chance to work on fighting against people who use the style of Gregor and Rowan. I gave him five things he could do against that style, inspired by people from Viedma, to Thibault, and even through Fabris. He tended more toward the solution inspired by Fabris, which was interesting. I want him to try the Thibault solution a bit more, even though it might not work quite as well for him as it works in similar situations for me, because he uses a sword that is short for his height, according to Thibault's proportions.

Rodrigo is super good at in-fighting. Fighting him single felt a lot like fighting Sorcha in weird ways. He heavily prefers cuts up close, but regardless, if I'm using my Thibault single rapier style and he gets close, I lose.

I then fought a succession of People Who Are Good At Case. I don't super like case as a style for fighting singles passes, because it's much easier to do well with it without being skilled, when compared to sword and dagger or single rapier.

My strategy was to keep my hilt on the diameter line of one of their shoulders (usually the one that is farther forward), and then point my tip toward the hilt that corresponds to the other shoulder. After that, I tried to cut into their blades as a distraction, breaking from pointing at their other hilt. Eventually I wanted to get both of their swords under mine, but that rarely happened for various reasons, depending on who I was fighting.

I think that my strategy could evolve a bit, there. I think that I need to do something different with my blade, depending on how far forward or backward their rear shoulder is. As well, I think that I need to try being on the diameter line of the shoulder corresponding to their hand which is lowest, regardless of which shoulder is forward, because otherwise I end up in a bit of an awkward place where my wrist is supinated in a weak-ish way, which can't parry a rising thrust without bringing my hilt off-line.

I also did a lot of voiding backwards, which I think is incorrect according to Thibault. I need to figure out better options for defending myself while still moving forwards or sideways, rather than backwards. I think that also would have helped against Robert, who did a lot of blitzing forwards, which I was not very able to deal with. He suggested I try using my off-hand more, but I think that I need to get into better positioning before I use my off-hand.

All in all, single versus case went better than I thought it would. I think my recent rigid adherence to Thibault is paying off, even in disadvantageous situations.

I also fought Donovan single as per usual these days, which was super interesting. It went well, rather than one, the other, or both of us feeling like shit afterwards. He applied a lot of celerity to our fights. I tried a few new things against celerity that I haven't tried before, mostly involving anticipating his actions rather than waiting to confirm what he is doing before acting.

In retrospect, anticipating movements is sort of what Thibault's idea of sentiment is all about. I likely just need to keep grinding away at this style to get a better feeling for sentiment in order to improve my anticipation, since the time scale that sentiment and anticipation happen in is very, very small. So I'll just submit the problem to my subconscious and eventually, my brain and body will come up with a solution.

I also very explicitly need to *not* drill at home for a while, since subconscious work tends to happen better for me when I'm not trying to consciously work on the same skills. Also, I've been over-drilling recently, which leads to an aching hand.

On the drive home, some thoughts about the advantages and disadvantages of longer arms coalesced. Frequently, I'll feel intuitively that my bladework needs to be tighter against people with shorter arms. The reason for this, I think, is the arc drawn by the arm when bending at the elbow. I need to think more before saying anything about it, but it's a thing.

Vancouver International Swordplay Symposium

Vancouver was great!

First up - here's a video of the exhibition match between the Italian Rapier teacher and the Thibault Rapier teacher.

I took several classes. In no particular order:

*****

Italian Rapier was fun. I didn't learn much new stuff from it, but I gained some meta-knowledge. I now know the proper way to run a class like that.

I think that having two instructors, with one playing the assist-and-fill-in-blanks role, is the ideal way to teach. Also, if there is a drill, explicitly tell people to line up on either side, call out when people should switch partners, and call out when people should rotate.

Make sure that every single bit is called out and practiced. Separate out the footwork from the blade-and-arm work, and perhaps even the body-work, and have people drill each part. Assuming that you break things down into small enough parts, it should actually be pretty possible to figure out exactly how long it will take to cover things.

I did gain a bit of technique-insight. For example, if your opponent is taller than you, you will tend to rotate more toward prima than you otherwise might. But again, most of what I learned was stuff I already knew.

I skipped out on the second day, because I wanted to wander Vancouver. I regret it slightly, but not that much.

*****

German versus Italian Rapier was interesting. The class compared two actions, in the Italian sidesword school, and the German rappier tradition. The two are very similar.

The action for the German school was a transition from Right Ochs through Longpoint, into Left Ochs, with a step, and then the strikes that could come from there. It was interesting to see how Left Ochs is basically "fifth" guard, if we consider the logical rotation of first into second, into third, into fourth, and then into fifth. It also only really works if you are completely profiled, and your elbow is bent a bit.

This transition had several sequences, depending on what your opponent did and where your sword made contact with theirs. The first was "threading behind" theirs with your false, and picking their blade up with your quillons. The second was a disengage to the other side, with a false-edge cut to the back of their blade and a true-edge cut to their head. It was interesting, and made me appreciate German Rapier more.

The Italian sequence was from a low-right Iron Gate through Longpoint, into a low-left Iron Gate. We didn't have much time by that point, but the argument there was that those sequences were essentially the same thing, except that the German sequence was optimized against cuts, and the Italian one was optimized against thrusts.

There was a fascinating digression about german footwork - apparently in Meyer's first draft, he has a long section on footwork. There is apparently a crescent moon shape in one of his plates which shows off all of the ways that you can step, but the finished version only has about a paragraph on footwork. So, at some point I'm going to go mining for that image, and for the original manuscript's section on footwork.

*****

I got SO MUCH out of the Thibault class. My prior experience with Destreza certainly helped with this. I liked the Italian class's pedagogy more, but the Thibault class had so much information for me to absorb. It was also a huge class, and I think that things were made much more difficult for the instructor because of it.

Things I got out of that class:

• Smaller steps are good, so you can abort the action appropriately if needed (?!?)
• I am not sure I believe this? Reaction times would dictate that it is hard to step appropriately and immediately.
• The instructor held his sword in a looser grip than I would have expected, from briefly reading the manual.
• Rotating from the hips/chest frees your arm to act in the opposite direction. So, when finding and gaining the blade, I should do it from my core and lower body, keeping my upper body still. That way, if they disengage, I can instantly move my shoulder and elbow to parry.
• Movements of conclusion are great, and essentially an arm bar on your opponent's sword.
• A stretch is just a joint lock performed nicely. Conversely, a joint lock is a stretch performed with vigor.
• If your opponent has more reach than you, do a cross step such that your back foot is in front, and then take the step that you would have taken if your front foot had been in front, in order to close distance.
• The "right angle" means that your arm is level with your shoulders. If you want to aim at a shorter opponent, tilt from the shoulders. There should be a straight line from your left shoulder, through your right shoulder, into your hand. If you want to aim at a taller opponent, tilt upwards.
• Keep your tip and hilt closer to the diameter (shortest line between you and your opponent) than your opponent's sword. Just a bit closer though, such that you have more strength, but they can't suddenly lunge for a low target.
• Against Italians or people with secondary offensive implements, pre-queue an atajo and then circle toward whatever side has less reach.
• Against lunges to the low line, toss that thigh back, punch downwards with your hilt to block their blade, and then stab them in the face.
• If your blade is longer than theirs, keep yours high so that they can't catch your weak, then drop down when you approach close enough that you can take their weak.
• To drop your tip in the Thibault grip, rotate your palm up. To raise it, rotate your palm down. This creates excellent structure for providing opposition and excellent positioning of quillons. Super strong. So very, very strong.
• There is apparently a second Thibault grip for cuts, that one should be able to transition into from the default quillons-flat, index-finger-under-the-flat-of-the-ricasso grip. It involves closing your hand more, but I haven't been able to pull it off. This grip-change, combined with the horizontal-quillon hand-posture, is the reason Thibault's swords do not have a knucklebow.
• If you have both strength and blade contact, you should step toward their sword. If you are without either or both of those, you should step away from their sword.
• Don't over-angulate your blade outwards, as this makes it hard to strike and hard to foil a disengage.
• Thibault does not do Weak Under Strong.
• It seemed like the instructor agreed with most of my definitions of Destreza things.
• Parallax is still important.

We discussed a couple of definitions.

First Instance is the location at which you can stab them with a step and a lean. Second Instance is where you can stab them with a lean. Third Instance is where you can stab them with barely any movement, by extending your arm. It wasn't explicitly stated, but thrusts come from first instance, cuts from second, and movements of conclusion from third.

Enlivening the foot is the process of pushing downwards with one foot to free the other to move freely. This is the primary way Thibault advises one to take steps.

Springing Steps are steps in which you take a conservative step, note that your opponent is moving backwards, and then drop into a demi-lunge. Your foot should tap the ground at the end of the conservative step. It essentially lets you move two steps' distance.

Power Slopes are a concept that the teacher used to express how opposition should work. Essentially, you should create a slope that, by its nature, forces your opponent's sword to slide down your blade and onto your hilt if they try to strike you.

Sentiment is the feeling of how strongly your opponent is committed to a bind. I will refer to this as "oppose strongly", "oppose mediumly", "present no opposition but don't move from the bind", and "disengage". Alternately, "strong sentiment", "medium sentiment", "no sentiment", and "disengage". My instincts say that you can increase strength without increasing sentiment by increasing the angulation of your sword, as per Fabris.

There was one primary sequence we worked through. It was something like this.

• Rotate to palm-down in order to raise your tip, enliven your back foot, and then rotate from your hips/legs/core (NOT ARMS) to apply an atajo, while stepping toward the direction that their sword is from your sword.
• If they oppose strongly,
• Raise your tip more to increase angluation and thus strength, dropping your hilt a bit as well, while stepping through with your back foot to put your left hand forward. Perform a movement of conclusion by grabbing their hilt/blade, pushing on their blade with your hilt, and essentially performing an arm bar on their sword.
• If you had enough strength to start with, you should be able to feel them pushing against you, and act accordingly.
• I want work on my ability to perform a thrust out of this
• If they oppose mediumly,
• Step toward their sword again, lowering your hilt and tip such that their blade is trapped between your quillon and blade. Stab them in the sword-side flank.
• If they present no opposition, but don't move from the bind
• They could either push suddenly or disengage. This is dangerous.
• Perform a cutting glide, aiming your cut for about 6 inches to the outside of their hilt, across their blade. Performed correctly, this will expel their blade, and make your blade "spring up", stabbing them in the face.
• There is some excitement to this technique. Remember that you want to rotate your sword such that your strike point is always touching their sword, as per my post on strike points.
• If they disengage
• Take a second step toward where their sword was, which is now a step away from their sword. Bend at the shoulder and elbow such that your arm stays at the same location in space, but moves backwards and toward their blade's new position relative to your body. Angle your wrist toward their blade, so you are covered. Proceed to attack from there.

There was also a segment on dealing with Italians, and dealing with sword-and-dagger. I have already covered the former. For the latter, you are to circle toward their dagger-side, trying to keep your weapon between their two weapons and angled as stated is proper against Italians. If they try to take your sword with their sword, proceed as if they had opposed you strongly, performing a thrust (?) and moving out in the direction of their dagger side. If they try to take your sword with their dagger, disengage to the outside around their dagger and stab them in the dagger-side flank.

There was also a Thibault versus Italians class, which was interesting. I have covered most of the items I got from that class in the first bullet-point section. I skipped out on Thibault Against The World, which makes me a bit sad, but oh well.

*****

Lastly, there were the Physical Asymmetries and Tactical Asymmetries classes. During the classes, I felt like I was getting a lot from them, but thinking back, a lot of the pieces of the class made me feel weird. The tl;dr version is that shorter people are required to bait taller people into making the first move using distance, then counter-punch or parry-riposte. Taller people are required to bait shorter people into biting on a parry early, then disengage or otherwise attack.

It resolved into a long rock-paper-scissors game.

1. Tall person and short person attack at the same time. Tall person wins.
2. Short person waits for tall person's attack and parry/ripostes. Short person wins.
3. Tall person feints, short person parries, tall person disengages and thrusts. Tall person wins.
4. Short person anticipates the feint, attacks through it to choke the disengage. Short person wins.
5. Short person anticipates the feint. Tall person throws a sincere attack. Tall person wins.

So, with T meaning "Tall" and S meaning "Short", with the winner marked in the individual cells:

	T full intent thrust	T feint/thrust
S full intent thrust	T	S
S parry/riposte	S	T

Note that S feint and T parry are not listed at all, because in that particular fight it doesn't make sense.

I disagreed with this conclusion somewhat. It simplifies things in a way, but I tend more toward the Destreza-esque opinion that there is a correct choice in all circumstances, or at least a choice that will make you not get stabbed. Envelops and suchlike fit in here.

For Tactical Asymmetries, we discussed two-by-two properties of fencers. The properties were:

Approaching or Receiving, which describes whether somebody prefers to move forward or to stay still and respond to their opponent's actions.

Attacker or Defender, which describes whether someone wants to perform feints to open up an opponent for attacks, or if they want to go in for defensive blade contact.

We had historical examples of some of these, of which Fabris was presented as the approaching attacker. The main thing I got out of this class was the idea of slow-working as a different style of fencer. I also had a long conversation with Sorcha about our types - I tend to be more of a Receiving Attacker, whereas she tends to be more of an Approaching Defender. This makes sense, given the fact that I have much more reach than her, with my chosen weapon. At the same time, she is much faster to defend herself.

Basically, it means that both of us are playing at "level two" of our respective games.

Huh.

Maybe I do agree with it a little bit more, then.

*****

I also attempted to apply all of this at practice, after cutting the knuckle-bow off of a spare hilt I had lying around. I'm not sure it actually made a difference, especially given that I do SCA fencing, and so there's a lot of focus on the thrust. I actually had more success doing Thibault better with a shorter weapon, rather than a longer one, because that allowed me to thrust at closer range. Also, having a dagger as an alternative to movements of conclusion was nice. I still want a 26-inch sail dagger for Destreza purposes, but the claws on my standard dagger were nice for grabbing onto swords as well.

*****

Aside from that it was beautiful, I had fun going there with all the people who were there, I sabered a bottle of champagne at the gala, and all the food was really tasty.

I hope this was useful.

Practice Report with Preliminary New-New-New Destreza

Practice was good yesterday. I didn't have as much endurance as I usually have, for a couple of reasons. I think I messed up my knee somehow recently. Also, I didn't sleep on Wednesday, and work has entered a minor burnout loop. (There are deadlines, so I work longer, and then over-promise based on how much work I think I will get done, and then under-deliver, so work becomes more stressful, so it's harder to concentrate on work, so try to compensate by working longer...)

Anyhow.

Practice. Right.

Practice was good yesterday. I hadn't been to practice in a while, but my new perspective on Destreza is already paying dividends. The new way I've been doing Destreza has been to only allow one place for my opponents to disengage to, and to always immediately push my opponent's sword to the cone of parallax, as per the earlier posts on parallax.

Reposting this picture. Cone/planes of parallax are on the right, and it grows wider as you get closer.

In my new Destreza-ish paradigm, there are a few specific actions which need explaining before I can say anything else. Assuming this all continues working, I'll probably make a more detailed post about them in the future, but here's what I have been doing. These are all sword actions, not footwork actions.

• Spiral inwards
• This is when I perform a circling motion with my sword, leading with the tip. The point of the motion is to "pull" my opponent's sword toward a direction, making their weak naturally slide onto my strong by the way my blade is angled.
• Generally, you slide from a stronger part of their blade to a weaker part of their blade as you do this, to make sure you touch a weak enough part of their blade to move them.
• Spiral outwards
• This is when I perform a circling motion with my sword, leading with the hilt. This "expels" or "pushes" my opponent's sword outwards. This leads to their weak naturally sliding toward my weak.
• Generally, you slide from a stronger part of their blade to a weaker part of their blade as you do this, to make sure you touch a weak enough part of their blade to move them.
• Push
• This is when I use my fully-extended-straight arm to push on their weak with the middle of my blade. Sometimes I angle in behind their sword a bit, in order to make my opposition stronger. As Fabris says, blade-angle is what matters most in opposition.
• Angled weak over/under strong ("Weak atajo")
• This is when I extend my arm along the plane of parallax, with my hand angled such that my blade points inwards toward their body. The implied point of contact with my blade is very close to the hilt here, so that the point of contact is along the plane of parallax.
• Line in Cross / Narrowing ("Strong atajo")
• This is when I perform a firm, wide parry. My arm should be extended along the plane of parallax, as should my blade. My blade should be angled such that I have as much width in the plane of parallax as possible.

So, given those building blocks, I did a couple of different things.

A spiral inwards transitioning to a spiral outwards with a strong atajo as we moved to the plane of parallax worked pretty well. It seems like that particular set of movements is super hard to escape with bladework, because of how strongly it limits where your opponent can move. It was hard to transition into an attack, but I think that's just something I need to drill with a partner. I probably just need to abandon the atajo earlier and go for a stab. I don't like how dependent on my off-hand I am for attacking from this position, though.

A push transitioning into a strong atajo on the opposite plane ended up being basically the same as the previous paragraph. Both of these actions were harder to attack when my atajo ended up on the left side, rather than when they were on the right side. I tried throwing cuts from those positions, too, but I don't think that the geometry is appropriate for being able to throw a quick cut. I also think that this action might be equivalent to the previous action, but for the moment they are separate in my brain.

Going directly into a strong atajo and then transitioning into the corresponding weak atajo on the opposite plane worked super well, and didn't have the problems with attacking that the previous two actions had. It was harder to get the positioning correct to safely go directly into the strong atajo, though. As well, I can't just attach this onto the above two actions because my body kept ending up too close to their body to transition into a weak atajo, when I did this.

All of the things worked okay, aside from the problems with attacking mentioned above. All of these problems would have been solved with a dagger, but I didn't have a dagger. Oh well.

*****

After that, I fought some with my traditional ideal setup of 45-inch sword and dagger. The work I've been doing with my 37-inch sword is really starting to show in my 45-inch game. My opposition is far, far better than it was before. I also have a more specific definition of find-gain-attack, which helped for performing safe thrusts. 

Basically, the "find" is a push to the inner cone of parallax while gaining the appropriate amount of penetration, and "gain" is a movement to have as much width as possible while continuing to push their sword to the outer cone of parallax. Then the thrust is a thrust, taking advantage of the time and distance covered during the previous two steps to trade width for stabbings.

As an aside - I have had a problem with the non-specificity of "find" and "gain" for a long time. This new definition is pretty spiffy, and seems accurate according to all of the definitions of "find" and "gain" that I've seen.

By the end of the night, my knee was hurting a bit, so I tried doing a more upright Italian stance. That wasn't the best idea in the world - I ended the night with a knot in my glutes, which was a weird feeling.

*****

So, in closing, this is the stuff I need to work on:

• Work on safely abandoning my strong atajos earlier to attack.
• Wear my right knee brace when fencing.
• Start thinking about why my point control isn't as good as it could be.
• Teaching, which will have blog post soon.

Have a good day!

Frustrating Practice

Practice was frustrating yesterday.

I came into practice with such high hopes. I had developed a different way of doing Spanish, which worked okay, but not as well as I had hoped. This is part of why I like practice though - when I bring a new theory that I've drilled for a week or so, then I can test it against Real Life, and it will either succeed or fail.

The theory was based on last post. Essentially, I have been having trouble with Spanish because I was not considering parallax when fencing in a Spanish way. This meant that my opponents could step around my parries. So, I decided to consider parallax in a Spanish way.

A step back for a moment.

So, in Romagnan's Rada, as pictured below, there is the Left Defensive Plane (LDP) and the Right Defensive Plane (LDP). These form a slice of pie. According to Romagnan, you remain safe as long as you keep your opponent's weapon outside of the slice of pie formed by your left and right defensive planes.

For quite some time I tried to do this. However, when I attempted to attack, I still felt unsafe and as though I could easily be attacked, if I didn't out-range my opponent. So, I continued on, vaguely unsettled and feeling as though something was wrong.

[ROMAGNAN'S RADA ON THE LEFT, LUPOLD ON THE RIGHT.]

These are both a top-view of you on the bottom, and your opponent on the top.

And then, I had my thoughts about width, penetration, and parallax. In particular, parallax, because the problem I consistently had was people with more reach simply yielding around my weapon. So, I developed ideas about how to prevent this, which resulted in the thoughts from last post and the resulting spreadsheet.

So, I changed my understanding of the Left Defensive Plane and Right Defensive Plane, as pictured above on the right. The dotted line labeled "A" is the line connecting your shoulder to their shoulder. The angle labeled "B" is the Smallest Useful Angle of Parallax, listed on the "SmallestUseful" page on the spreadsheet. The angle labeled "C" is the Largest Useful Angle of Parallax, listed on the "LargestUseful" page of the spreadsheet.

Basically, as you get closer to your opponent, the Left Defensive Plane and Right Defensive Plane expand. So, that means that as you get closer to your opponent, your parry needs to be farther to the side. The appropriate angle begins at "B", and then ends at "C".

[TERRIBLE ILLUSTRATIONS OF TWO SMALLEST ANGLE PARRIES ON THE LEFT, AND ONE LARGEST ANGLE PARRY WITH ATTACK ON THE RIGHT]

These drawings are terrible, but I don't think I'd be able to do better if I redid them. I have a 26-inch arm.

So, on the left we have the smallest useful parry depicted. The Lupold with the white sword has a 45 inch sword, while the Lupold with the black sword has a 37 inch sword. Lupold37 is within Lupold45's measure, but because Lupold37's parry carries Lupold45's sword past the right defensive plane, outside of the angle of parallax, he is safe. The angle "B" is labeled, and according to the spreadsheet should be something like 20º.

The middle illustration has the same situation, but better. The angle is still B, but instead Lupold37's arm and weapon are along the plane. This means that Lupold45 must disengage completely around Lupold37's sword, rather than being able to simply move elsewhere and yield around it. In the left Illustration, Lupold45 could easily move his tip toward Lupold37's hand and perform a yielding thrust, getting around Lupold37's defenses and stabbing him. But in the illustration to the right, he must get around Lupold37's parry. It would be best if Lupold37 had some sort of angulation to his blade that would increase his blade's effective defensive width, but I didn't illustrate that, so tough luck.

In the middle illustration, the angle is still the smallest useful angle, which is about 20º.

The right illustration is an illustration of how Lupold37 could attack while maintaining the right defensive plane. In it, Lupold37 has closed and is performing a thrust. The angle has widened to C, which ends up being about 35º. So, Lupold37 has moved his body around his hand such that Lupold45 still cannot stab him, by exiting the angle which Lupold45 could theoretically yield around to. At the same time, Lupold37 is stabbing Lupold45, by being close enough to stab him.

Thinking about it, I believe that my calculations for the Largest Useful Parry are wrong, but they should over-estimate, rather than under-estimate.

But in any case, this is the new principle of Destreza that I'm using. And it didn't fail, exactly. It had two circumstances in which it didn't perform according to expectations.

• One short-blade fencer would persistently move forward, attempting to yield around my blade. So I would push downwards and outwards as he moved forward, and we'd end up in a scrum with our hands on each other's blades. This, while entertaining, was not clean.
• A fencer using a longer blade would place his hilt in a place that wouldn't let me perform a Weak Under Strong thrust against him. This meant that my only offensive possibility was Line in Cross, or to abandon the Low General, and made me sad. Because ideological purity is a Thing, and Viedma says you only need the Low General.

So, frustration. I think that I need to integrate the High General, and I need to figure out better ways to lead with Weak Under Strong.

Sigh. Good game, everyone.

Practice Report, and a Discussion of Tempo, Stance, and Distance

Practice was a good, solid, fun time. One fencer who moved up north showed up again, which was really nice. He's good people.

After practice I did a plus-minus-plus exercise with Sorcha in the car on the way home. My points were:

• Plus: Successfully implemented a strategy that I have trouble against, and gained ideas from how other people dealt with it.
• Minus: I lost a bunch against a particular opponent who usually uses buckler, but couldn't tell quite why I lost. The minus is not the losing, the minus is the couldn't-figure-out-why.
• Plus: I had a realization about how I think a particular very-skilled fighter uses tempo and distance and successfully implemented it later in practice. I will explain it here.

I also was not patient enough against one very effective case fighter, but I suppose that practice is for trying shit out, rather than for fighting a conservative fight. So that's kind of a neutral.

Also, I need to not thug people as much. Usually, when I hit people hard, it's because I expect them to void backwards, so I throw the shot such that it will still touch them if they move backwards. Then, they move forwards. It usually gives me enough time to break with my hand, but especially if the shot is particularly whippy, it ends up being uncomfortable for my opponent. Against particular people who I fight at full-speed and at full extension, sets of fights tend to end when I land a shot that's too hard.

I'd like to figure out a better strategy for hitting people who are zigging backwards, without necessarily hitting them hard if they zag forwards. I'm not 100% sure how to do that, without giving up many opportunities to touch my opponent. Other people seem to manage to, but they might be giving up numerous opportunities. One idea is to throw more "structured", straight-on shots. Basically, throw better shots that are less disengage-y. That's not really my style, and would tend to favor a shorter blade. But it is a possibility. Those shots wouldn't whip hard, they would just have followthrough.

Against people who I out-range significantly, this tends not to be a problem, because I need to pull the shot earlier so that I'm not over-committed. This means I can throw at an angle that bends more easily.

Anyhow, on to tempo, distance, and stance.

*****

I had a realization about tempo! It's great. I think it's something I've sort-of understood in the past, but before I had a blog. I'll explain the principles first, then the specifics of how I implement the principles near the end of this section.

Theory

Basically, whenever someone "settles" into their stance, there's a tempo in which you can act. If you begin acting in that fourth-of-a-second as they are finishing settling their weight between their feet, you can generally catch people off-guard. This is how I have lost my hand in fights many, many times. I settled my weight without thinking about it, and gave my opponent a tempo.

The bit I didn't realize was that there's a counter-tempo available. So, if you take a half-step inside of lunge measure and begin to settle, there are two basic possibilities available. If your opponent isn't aware of the above principle of tempo, they will wait until you're settled and then begin fighting. If they are aware of that above principle, they will attempt to jump you in that fourth-of-a-second before you finish settling into your stance.

If you're aware of the second step in that process, you can abort your settling-into-position at that time, and then perform an action which will catch your opponent unawares. I only realized that this was a possibility after it was done to me time and time again. I noted my opponent settling into stance well within our respective lunge ranges, but that he was still acting before I thought to act. Then it clicked that this was what he was doing, and I was able to execute the same against him.

Though, it did result in a few nasty train wrecks, because once or twice I tried to just clear his sword and lunge. And we both did that, and were better at attacking than at defending. OH WELL.

Application

So, in terms of implementation - when I settle into stance, there's a very specific "rising" and then "falling into place" step. During the "rising" step, I place my feet in the correct location. Then, during the "falling into place" step, I allocate my weight appropriately for whatever stance I'm doing. usually 70%-back, 30%-forward, because I like my Giganti stance.

(Note that by "rising" step and "falling" step, I mean "step" as in "part of the process", rather than "step" as in "taking a step forwards".)

This is how most people get into a stance. It's a vaguely universal way that human beings move. Some people place their back foot, allocate all their weight to it, and then place their front foot and shift some of their weight to their front foot, but that's the same thing - at that point the "falling into place" step occurs after they set down their front foot, while they're shifting their weight from their back to their front.

It takes about a second for all of this to occur. So, using my bro-science definition of "tempo" as "about a fifth of a second", there are about two tempi during the "rising" step, and two tempi during the "falling" step. Yes, I realize that if we're being super-strict, that leaves a fifth of a second un-allocated, but this is bro-science, and not exact. And not completely accurate, but the way my definition of "tempo" has changed is not a discussion I want to have here.

Basically, there are about two tempi during the "falling" step - you want to act such that your lunge will end about as they finish settling. So, in the second available tempo during the "falling" step.

Obviously, this is only applicable if you have convinced your opponent to settle into stance while inside of your lunge range. There are many ways to do this.

• You can deceive your opponent as to your true lunge range in a variety of ways, which is a whole discussion in and of itself. The easiest way is to gather your back foot to your front foot ahead of time, which extends your lunge.
• You can select a location to set up in your list area which doesn't *allow* them to be out of your lunge range.
• You can select a lunge-target which is closer than their body, such as their hand or a cut into their blade to unsettle them.
• You can take a tiny single-tempo step forward during the "rising" step in the process of your opponent settling into guard. This is probably the best, most universally-applicable choice.

So, this is all great. This will allow you to take advantage of tempo in exciting ways. As well, if your opponent recognizes that they are inside of your measure during any step in the process of settling into guard, it will force them to move back and begin the process of settling into guard all over again.

It's great. I love it.

But all of that is just the basic level. There's more yet!

Next Level, Bro!

If you are aware of the "rising" and "falling" parts of settling into stance, you can take advantage of this yourself. Indeed, you can take advantage of your opponent's knowledge of tempo and turn "getting into stance too close in measure" into an advantage, rather than a disadvantage.

If you are aware that your opponent could act before you settle into stance, you can abort that "settling into stance" right before the second half of the "falling" step, to perform an action. This allows you to settle into your stance just a bit closer than is normally preferred - inside of your opponent's extended lunge measure. If you do this, and then abort your "settling into stance" action, you don't even need deceive your opponent into being too close! You can take an action that seems like a bad choice, but make it a good choice by playing with your opponent's expectations of timing.

That is to say, by acting instead of finishing settling into stance, either:

• Your opponent is waiting to fight until you finish settling into stance, in which case you stab them.
• Your opponent is planning to attack during the last bit of time as you "fall into stance", in which case you both attack at the same time.
• Hope you covered your openings, bro!

This is great. This is wonderful. It lets you play with tempo in a way that will feel like you're cheating time. You can even do this when you are performing advancing steps, by aborting the step at the last minute to turn it into a lunge.

But that's not all!

The Levels Don't Stop Coming, Bro!

So, let's consider the above actions.

• Attack in your the tempo of your opponent settling into stance.
• Attack out of the tempo of you settling into stance.

Both of these are actions in the tempo of "settling into" stance, whether yours or your opponents. As I said above, there are two tempi in the "falling" step - what if you aborted getting-into-stance during the first of these "falling" tempi?

This would allow you to attack before your opponent, even if they understand tempo well enough to attack both into and out of settling into stance. Things do get a bit weird here. If you are attacking into your opponent settling into stance, they usually are still looking "outside" of their body, rather than "inside". There are two things which make attacking into someone settling their weight effective.

• Settling your weight requires you to concentrate on a sensation, rather than something visual, so for a brief moment you are not paying full attention to what you're seeing.
• Settling your weight means you can't move immediately.

So, if you attack during the first part of the "settling into" step, your opponent will be in a better position to defend themselves. But, if your opponent is playing tempo games, such as trying to settle into stance within your measure in order to deceive you, it is an effective strategy.

Attacking out of the first part of yourself setting into a stance has similar disadvantages. Normally, watching the first half of someone "settling into" stance creates the expectation that the second half of "settling into" stance will happen. If you abort the first part, which would have set that expectation, then your opponent doesn't have an expectation of what is going to happen. This means you don't gain the advantages of attacking out of the latter half of settling into stance, and you might as well have just let yourself settle completely into a good, structured stance.

I Lied. That's All the Levels.

So, we have generated for ourselves a modified rock-paper-scissors. Let's flowchart it.

I decided to go backwards, from the last tempo to the first tempo, because if I did it in order that would imply that you can make choices based on what your opponent is doing here. The timing here is such that you can't react fast enough based on what your opponent is doing. You can make the choice of when to act, but your opponent's choice of when to act is entirely separate, due to how fast this set of things happens. This is what I mean by tempo - it takes a full tempo for you to process and react to what your opponent is doing, and while that's happening your opponent is already processing and reacting to what you just did. BROSCIENCE.

As yet another aside, this is why I disagree with people who put too much weight in slow-fencing. There are legitimately things which work at full-speed, which don't work at slower speeds due to human reaction time. Which I generally equate to tempo, which isn't exactly correct, but it's correct enough for my purposes.

• If you're settling into stance...
• And you decide to finish settling into stance...
• And your opponent lets you finish...
• You end neutral, match continues.
• And your opponent attacks in the second tempo of your settling...
• Your opponent has an advantage to their attack, probably stabbing your hand or something.
• And your opponent attacks in the first tempo of your settling...
• You can probably defend yourself just fine, meaning your opponent is at a disadvantage.
• And you decide to attack out of the second tempo of your settling...
• And your opponent was going to let you finish...
• You have an advantage to your attack, and probably stab their hand.
• And your opponent attacks in the second tempo of your settling...
• A double-kill is likely, unless someone successfully parries. Good game everyone. Feel shame.
• And your opponent attacks in the first tempo of your settling...
• Your opponent has an advantage by attacking before you.
• And you decide to preemptively attack out of the first tempo of your settling...
• And your opponent was going to let you finish...
• Your opponent has the advantage, because this gave them enough time to see your attack and respond.
• And your opponent was going to attack in the second tempo of your settling...
• You have the advantage, because you're attacking before them, but close enough to when they're attacking that they can't abort.
• And your opponent was going to attack in the first tempo of your settling...
• Something something, double-kill, shame.
• If they're settling into stance...
• And they decide to finish settling into stance...
• And you let them finish...
• Neutral
• And you attack them in the second tempo of their settling...
• Advantage to you.
• And you attack them in the first tempo of their settling...
• Advantage to them.
• And they decide to act out of the second tempo of their settling...
• And you were going to let them finish...
• Advantage to them.
• And you attack them at the same time...
• Double-kill is likely.
• And you act in the first tempo of their settling...
• Advantage to you.
• And they decide to act out of the first tempo of their settling...
• And you were going to let them finish...
• Advantage to you.
• And you were going to attack them in the second tempo...
• Advantage to them.
• And you attacked at the same time...
• Double-kill is likely.

I feel like this would have made a better set of graphs than bulleted list. Oh well.

So, in all of the above "double-kill is likely" bits, that doesn't mean not to do it - it means to only do it if you feel super safe. This usually means you have their sword covered with your dagger or some such. As with all things, "advantage" doesn't necessarily mean "win" - it means "advantage".

There are some parts of the above list that I'm somewhat unsure of. I'll work on mapping those out more thoroughly over time.

So, it's a weighted rock-paper-scissors. The "meta-game" tends to allow people to finish because double-kills are bad, which means that acting in the second tempo is the best action in most circumstances. But since double-kills are bad, that means the true best action is to just get out of damn measure and have both people settle into their stance.

I'm super frustrated, because this seemed like something that was going to be a cool thing, but it really just ends up being a frustratingly dead-ended rock-paper-scissors in which two draw conditions lend themselves to double-kills. Sigh.

Anyhow. That's all for now.

Post-Practice Post

So, just to follow up on a few things.

New person at practice was vexingly good from the get-go. Her instincts are good, so if she stays around, the thing to do will be to make sure to accentuate her correct instincts, rather than try to replace them completely.

The "deep, strong atajo" thing seemed like it... sort of worked? I think I need to work on my stepping patterns, there. It also feels like something wrong there. Like, when I push down with a strong atajo, my opponents tend to want to keep disengaging under, even though they totally don't have a line there. So when I attempt to perform a weak attack above their hilt afterwards, I stop blocking their blade. It doesn't get me stabbed, because tempo, but it still feels awkward.

Also, the switch from a "deep, strong atajo" to a thrust feels super awkward.

Also, "flowing" from position to position seemed to work better than committing to quick motions. It was interesting.

I had more words, but they're gone now. OH WELL.

Oh hey, look! A practice report!

Practice yesterday, in contrast to Monday, was really good.

I worked on presence-of-mind, partially inspired by this paper. Basically - I tried to maintain presence in-the-moment and avoid planning ahead. This allowed me to take advantage of the present situation, instead of trying to derp my way through situations that didn't actually come to pass.

Being present in-the-moment was super useful. I wasn't completely without plans - for example I periodically considered how my opponent was most likely to respond. But I didn't consider beyond that. I guess the real point is that I tried to not get lost in visualizing what might happen. Instead, I tried to consider whether openings were big enough, or how to make them larger if they were not. When making plans, my plan only extended to the immediate goal of making my the openings in my opponent's guard larger, rather than the goal of stabbing them two or three steps down the line.

I still was able to react with several of my usual actions - in particular, dagger-parry with a thrust in prima is a thing which has come to occupy more and more of my oh-shit reactions.

*****

I've started leaning over very, very far when I thrust. Assuming that Fabris is correct, I'll take this to be a good thing.

******

I did more solidly against the lefty at practice than I did against right-handed people. I think this is because, in my Italianized Destreza, I haven't been transferring appropriately from Weak Under Strong to Line in Cross, and Weak Over Strong to Narrowing, against right-handed opponents. Against a lefty, switching from one to the other feels much more natural, because they maintain the line constraining the lefty to the inside or outside of my blade, while still allowing for an attack.

Against a righty, in order to go from a passing thrust in Weak Under Strong at their flank into an appropriately-defensive thrust with Line in Cross, I have to push my hand super far toward the center of the circle, in order to maintain the defensive 45º angle between our blades and also block off the angle of their attack.

If I don't appropriately switch from Weak Under Strong to Line in Cross against a righty, then they can just thrust over my hilt at my face after they parry my thrust to their inside line. Or, after they parry me to the low outside, and then cut over the tip of my blade and throw a thrust over my hilt. Or, after they parry me to the outside with their tip high, then just thrust straight in above my hilt.

But much of what I did was exploit my greater range. Exploit the hell out of it. So good.

*****

Maintaining presence of mind against Sorcha was hard. Fights against one's significant other can be hard and frustrating, to one or both parties. I found it hard to maintain presence of mind, especially since her way of maintaining presence of mind is to banter. We are diametrically opposed in every way, in how we fight. I kept having to forcefully pull my brain back to presence of mind, which was in-and-of-itself frustrating.

Normally, I can ignore banter by growing angry at the other person, in the context of the bout. However, I was trying not to get angry, because I knew that would result in Sorcha growing frustrated as well, and I didn't want that. It's a difficult problem. The answer might just be to not fight her very often.

*****

tl;dr:

• Maintain presence of mind by concentrating on using and creating openings.
• Friggin' transfer between atajos appropriately against right-handed people. Don't be lazy.
• Maintaining presence of mind against certain people is hard, in a not-necessarily-constructive way. Don't force yourself to fight them.

I think that's all I have for the moment. Have a nice day, I guess?

Yesterpractice

Practice yesterday was frustrating. I felt like I kind of phoned it in. I was thinking about what I was doing. In retrospect, I think that was the problem. I didn't make the choice between a murderpractice and a practicepractice, and ended up doing something weird and in-between. This means I didn't have the satisfaction of a murderpractice, but I also didn't have the learning of a practicepractice.

This weird hybrid practice got me thinking about what was different about the passes I lost or doubled in, versus the passes I won at Rose Tournament.

In the passes I won, I was not thinking. In the passes I lost, I thought and second-guessed what I needed to do. This led to me choosing the wrong thing several times, and then losing.

I think that the next level in my fencing will be brought about by increasing my decisiveness. Thinking is wrong. Action is the only thing that matters, even if that action is a conscious and specific choice to remain still. I need to act, and the thing I do will be correct. Indeed, it will be more correct by the fact that my opponent will not be prepared for it, since I'll act instantly.

I achieved a lack of thought several times yesterday, and that's when I was fighting well. This lack of thought needs to be a lack of the fore-thinking that I do frequently. It needs to be living in the moment, rather than thinking about what my opponent might do. It needs to be watching my opponent and existing in the progressing moment, rather than watching to make sure I do my actions correctly.

I will perform and act correctly. The only input I need to what my opponent is doing right now.

Super Productive Practice!

Practice this week ended up being short, because I spent the first part of it working with a new person. They seem to be our sort of people. So, yay.

The practice portion of practice went well. I spent time doing my Italianized Destreza, which operates on a diamond rather than on an octagon. It seemed to go well. The main Destreza-esque thing I am doing is getting in one of the four things-I-call-atajos (Line in Cross, Narrowing, Weak Under Strong, Weak Over Strong) and then transitioning to the corresponding atajo-like-thrust for the attack (In order of the previous parenthesized list: Weak Under Strong, Weak Over Strong, Line in Cross, Narrowing).

So, this means that I go from having my tip under their sword into thrusting through their sword, while pushing down from the top, in the case of Weak Under Strong => Line in Cross.

I continued operating in a very profiled Italian stance, while thinking in terms of body angle when attacking. This seems to have increased the number of times people just miss and can't bring something into a good attack. This is a nice thing.

I also returned to thinking about opposition in terms of strike point. So, the strike point can be determined by gripping a sword, then wiggling it back and forth. The point about which the sword rotates is the strike point. This is the point that is best to push with for opposition, I think. This is different from my previous thoughts about opposition, which were in terms of the strong, weak, and middle of the blade.

The strike point of my weapon is farther back than I expected it to be. When attacking and performing opposition with it, I was more able to push through people's weapons than usual. That was nice!

I also succeeded at adjusting the strike point. So, if you grip farther down the blade but behind the point of balance and then wiggle the blade, that will show where the strike point is if you make the weapon rotate around that point, when striking something. This is accomplished by "whipping" the sword, so that it rotates around a point past the hand but before the center of balance. This is most easily demonstrated in-person or in a video, but lazy.

This has improved my ability to do a glisé. What I do is land with the strike point initially, then "whip" the sword so that the strike point moves with my opponent's sword, pushing it harder than a straight-up cut. This was very effective, and allowed me to cut into my opponent's blade and then detach and thrust a few times. This will also allow me to actually do a subset of opposition with my 45" rapier, which is super exciting.

I need to study this, to see if manipulating the strike point will allow me to perform opposition on "stronger" places, if my opponent doesn't counter with strike-point-manipulation of their own.

This also explains why some of my whipping-shots have been landing harder than expected - if I whip my thrust in a particular way, that puts the strike point right at the tip, meaning that the full force of the rapier will be there. This means if I want to land a face shot, I shouldn't whip it in. I should whip near, and then push it in.

Things to work on for next practice:

• Further strike point manipulation! Experiment at home!
• Maintain the highly-profiled Giganti stance.
• Continue adapting Spanish principles to an Italian game.
• People might grow familiar with where I am attacking. This means that either 
• my attack needs to be un-parry-able due to positioning
• or I need to vary things sometimes. Possibly transferring from between the Weak Under/Over atajos? Possibly also transferring from Line in Cross to Narrowing and back by cutting over their tip?

Quick Practice Post!

Practice was good. A couple of bullet-points:

• I finally am starting to feel like a mid-range short-blade-fighter.
• Giaratas are hard. See the below picture and text for details.
• I'm getting better at changing from "I'm practicing!" into "I'm trying hard to win!" at will.
• I need to use my short sword to push into their sword more, when I am doing opposition. Many people are stronger than me, so I need to compensate with better technique.

*****

Below is described my Problems with Giaratas.

My art continues to be fantastic.

This is a top-view again. 

Of both Weak Under Strong into a thrust,

and of a giarata.

The issue here is the angle of the shoulder, when entering into the thrust at the top of the Spanish Circle, or after performing the void from a giarata. I need that particular body-angle, but in order to land my tip at that body angle I need to bend my shoulder in a way that I'm not sure it actually bends. I'll try working flexibility for a while, but I might need to consider other options.

Notes from Practices

There were a couple of practices. I write down what happened in them here, so I will remember them better in the future.

*****

First, I spent time using my old style, described here. It was interesting. As expected, it worked better against people who had not spent time fighting me when I started using that style in the first place. This makes sense - if someone has never had to deal with that extremely specialized game, then they won't necessarily know the specific techniques and principles necessary to counter it.

This makes me wonder if my modern fencing game (vaguely outlined here, though I've never gone through a full description, looks like) is just the latest in a series of finding new things which work against the current meta-game. If so, it means I would need to synthesize my old style and my new style, and figure out more specifically when to use one or the other. Perhaps I should just tack my old style on as what I do in my blade-forward stance. It does, however, show promise in positions that, in theory, I would use my dagger-forward stance against. So that might be a thing.

*****

After the dismal failure of my simplified bargain-basement destreza at Pennsic, I started thinking about what I could do differently. One primary issue I ran into was that people would instantly respond to large Line in Cross and Narrowing atajos. As such, I wasn't able to attack effectively from them. And sadly, my bargain-basement destreza doesn't take into account the idea that you might push through their sword.

Additionally, the mutating circle seemed like it kind-of worked out. It always felt like I was spending too much time calculating where the circle was in relation to their sword, given that halfway through Pennsic I realized that it would need to resize based on how close to the right-angle position their sword was. This, combined with the fact that in my old fencing style I pay attention to the division of weak and strong in people's swords, led to a minor breakthrough.

The thing I have been trying recently is to center the circle on the middle of their blade. This means that as they lower or raise their blade, the circle gets smaller or larger. Additionally, instead of using Line in Cross or Narrowing as initial positions, I have been using Weak Over Strong and Weak Under Strong as positions. Only instead of trying to keep my tip hovering near their guard, I have just been trying to maintain the middle of my sword against the middle of their sword. This allows me to more effectively control the position of the weak of their sword.

So again - everything I do happens to and centered around the middle of their sword. This is not necessarily the exact middle - this is the division between the "weak" and the "middle" of their blade, as I have described in previous posts that I do not care to hunt for. This just happens to be in the center of many blades, given that many blades have more weak than strong. But that conversation is not super-relevant here.

This new operation of weak-under and weak-over as being things I do to the center of their blade has allowed me to control their sword much more thoroughly. If someone attempts to attack, I twitch my hilt up or down to Narrowing or Line in Cross, and then proceed accordingly. If they don't, then I proceed to attack either by moving my sword toward a weaker part of their sword while I thrust, or by detaching my sword from theirs while I step away from their sword. It is fun times.

tl;dr: I've started using both the point of blade-contact and the center of the circle as the middle of their blade. This has resulted in good things.

*****

That's all I've got for now. Ciao.

Practice Yesterday, With Video!

Practice yesterday was good. I authorized someone, and I attempted to use the new hilt-sweep-thrust thing that I described in a previous post. It worked okay. Then I started using the alternate versions of it, and those worked great.

*****

I did an exercise in which myself and my opponent fought without stopping or calling shots. It was interesting. It allowed for both of us to practice redoubling, even if our shot was pretty clearly successful. This is a good thing, because frequently there will be shots which look clear, but aren't good. Whether it's sleeve, or it looks like arm but is shoulder, or it's something else, double-tapping until they say "dead" is a good habit to get into.

*****

I also had a conversation in which I clarified the technique I described a few posts ago. I sometimes don't put terribly much effort into writing clearly, but it was interesting to see opinions of the technique. It certainly does seem Spanish-ish, but I'm unsure that there's any documentation that specifies exactly what I have been doing. It is possibly similar to Viedma's High General, comprised of Narrowing and Weak Above Strong, but it's done with the false edge, rather than the true edge.

Oh well. I'll give it more thought. I should probably review Spanish more.

*****

The fights which occupied most of my brain-cycles were myself with a short blade versus Aiden with two mid-size blades. He and I have been fighting this fight quite a bit - he has been working on his case game, and I have been trying to work out ways to beat case with single rapier, when you can't just out-range your opponent.

Here is some video from about a month ago:

In that video, I primarily try to Destreza at Aiden. We complete two points, and then we take a long-ish time to do a third.

Here is video from yesterday:

At the beginning I was trying to catch his blade with the New Thing, and this decidedly doesn't work due to his blade positioning. After about 2:40 or so, I started using more Fabris-ish stuff. After about 4:40, I started doing the thing correctly.

That is, using Fabris's Rules for Single, in particular the 3rd in which I don't adopt a guard until I'm in the process of stepping into Misura Larga, and the 4th in which I keep my sword below his until I take an offline step and take his sword from the outside. You will note me positioning my feet such that I can take a step to the left or to the right as I approach, by sometimes switching to have my left foot forward. This is to step toward the sword of his that is up, rather than the one which is down.

As a side-note, I wonder if I could step toward the sword which is low, if I took it from above? A thing to think about.

Monday, I was able to catch him with quick lashes inward of speed, but I guess I didn't see that as an option yesterday? As well, I have previously used Fabris's 5th and 6th rules with effectiveness, but I didn't do that yesterday and I'm not sure why. I think he has improved at counter-thrusting under my sword with his other sword, which would preclude usage of the 5th and 6th rules for single.

*****

For next Monday, I want to:

• Continue working single 37".
• Work on Tournament Brain, with emphasis on visualizing myself at Champs as a high-pressure situation.

*****

Anyhow, that's all I've got for now. Sword well!

Practice Yesterday, and Analytics!

Yesterday was a good practice. I spent the day thinking I wasn't going to go because my shin had been bothering me, and because it looked like it was going to thunderstorm. But it didn't! And using a bicycle inner-tube to force my hamstring to stretch actually helped my shin a bunch. Thanks, internet!

So as usual, I collected heart rate data using my fitbit. I fought six different people - first two fights were outside, then the next few were inside.

It's hard to draw straight lines on a phone screen

My first fight was against a shorter, long-time OGR. Those fights were really good. I did not ramp up my speed to 100%, which forced me to focus more on technique. I was trying to fight in a Destreza-ish way and also use the invitation I described last post, which didn't work super well due to how far below me her sword was. Short people with long swords continue to present a problem, especially when my sword is shorter than theirs.

My next set of fights was short single against case. It was a very mobile fight, and it looks like we paused in the middle of the fights for whatever reason. I had to use my mobility to force him to commit one sword, then use my sword to take the other one. Alternately, I had to push his swords together. Alternately, I had to use timing and burst down the center line super-fast. This continues to be an illuminating fight. I also continue to have more success being Fabris-ish against case with single, than being Destreza-ish. I tried to use the invitation thing as a multi-step process to get both of his swords, but it didn't work so well, partly because I have to think to set up the invitation.

My next set was against someone who had been fighting for a year. It went well - he kept surprising me by catching parries when we were in in-fighting range. After a bit, my invitation with my blade to the left stopped working, so I had to change the invitation such that my blade was to the right.

My next set was against a fighter who continually pushes my game to improve. I brought my standard long rapier and dagger against him. You will note that this set and the previous set were the ones where my heart rate peaked. After a certain point I was just exhausted - I couldn't cool off fast enough. I did some cool things with the mirrored invitation with blade to the right, but I think they worked well largely because he expected me to disengage and generally deny blade contact more. I feel like he took more passes than I did, and his game was pretty on-point.

My second-to-last set of fights was against an extremely skilled case fighter. He kept catching me on things that I have been able to deal with in the past, but my brain just wasn't in the fight because it was so ridiculously hot. Very good on him for that. He acknowledged that I seemed tired, and the fact that I couldn't get my heart rate to peak is probably physical evidence of that. So basically, I fought him with my dumb game and didn't use any of my cool new things, and he roflstomped me. I also tried to use mobility to neutralize one of his swords, and it just didn't work.

Plate on the left

My last set of fights was against another extremely skilled case fighter. He also roflstomped me, but I used the guard from Fabris plate 168 against him. Again I tried to use mobility to neutralize a sword, but I couldn't get it to work. I will be trying the mobility thing again against both my last and second-to-last opponent, when I am less tired and overheating. The guard seemed to work relatively well though - I would move in and explode my sword and dagger outwards, hopefully catching one of his swords with each of my instruments. It became a game in which either he was able to counter-punch me, or I was able to catch his swords. I think I need to be even more aggressive about moving forward, and I need to be willing to get into dagger range and dagger-lunge skilled case fighters. He certainly took more passes than I did, but I feel like I have a direction to move, learning-wise.

*****

It looks worse in person. But it doesn't hurt! So that's nice.

I apparently also took a super hard shot to my hand. After practice I noticed that on my glove and hand. I didn't notice anything super hard, but the nasty bruise on my knuckle and the blown-through kevlar on my glove say otherwise. I now believe that those gloves were worth every penny I paid for them, because that would be way worse if I had not had semi-rigid protection on my knuckles.

That's all I've got for the moment. Tune in next time, for more of the violence-things!