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.
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Simplified Destreza: the REVENGE
I was arbitrarily depressed for no good reason, and then a bunch of bullshit news broke, which pushed buttons. So, I'mma talk swords for a while, because that's a good coping mechanism.
Some destreza insights came to me a bit over a week ago, and they've revolutionized both my Italian and my Spanish game in a way I hadn't thought possible at this point. So that's pretty cool! My brain has been obsessing over them since, trying to figure out exact boundaries of how things work and where they're applicable.
This is mostly a simplified version of stuff I already knew. But it's simplified to the bare bones. I realize that this doesn't look short, but as far as I'm concerned this should be all you need to know in order to fence. I know I'll be proven wrong, and that's fine, but it's a nice thought.
I have a more thorough blog post about this in the works, but I don't want to deal with "writing complete thoughts" or "making illustrations" or anything like that. I'm assuming a right-handed fencer, so change all the rights to lefts and the lefts to rights if you are sinister.
*****
BASIC LEVEL
*****
THEORY
There are five core concepts here.
-POSITIONING: There is a line starting at their hilt and extending along their blade into infinity. Anything which brings your body in a direction that eventually would touch that line is "toward their sword" Anything which brings your body in a direction which would not eventually touch that line is "away from their sword". This can look a lot like stepping "behind" their sword, if you step toward their forearm behind their hilt, but for our purposes this is still "away from". Note that this means I am discarding the circle.
-BODY: Your body should be between your feet, and you should not be twisted in any fashion. If your right foot is in front of your left foot, you should be facing leftwards relative to your opponent. Don't twist your body. If you're putting your back foot forward, rotate your body with it. If you are stepping to the left with your left foot, you should rotate your body clockwise, if viewed from above. If you are stepping to the right with your left foot, you should be rotating your body counterclockwise, such that your back rotates forwards. This is similar to an Italian giarata.
-ACTION: All footwork should be linked to bladework. Footwork "toward their sword" should push their sword upwards or downwards. Footwork "away from their sword" should keep their blade to your left or right. Ideally, you will put their sword into a place such that any direction they can move it will bring it either farther from your body, or press into your sword in a way that they cannot muscle through.
-OPPOSITION: Most actions have an element of pushing their blade, or "opposition". All opposition should be done with the back edge of your blade, in a way that gets your sword "behind their sword". This is in the plane between their forearm and their sword, defined by the angle made at their wrist.
-ATTACKING: Thrusts and chops should be performed at a farther distance, while stepping with your right foot. slicing cuts and cross-body thrusts (including movements of conclusion) should be performed at a closer distance, while stepping with your left foot.
*****
GRIP
You should be grasping your sword generally in one of two ways.
-THRUSTING: The first way has you holding your sword along the handle, with the blade pointing along your index finger. Your pinky and ring finger should be around the handle, your pommel running down the channel of your wrist, your middle finger wrapped around the quillon in front of your blade, your index finger along the side of your ricasso, and your thumb laying on the quillon next to the quillon block on the back side of your blade. You should be able to point your finger at a thing, and have the tip go to a place somewhat similar to where you are pointing.
-CUTTING: The second way has you holding your sword like a hammer, with the blade pointing along your thumb. The blade and grip of your sword should be lying across your palm, roughly from the dip between your index knuckle and the ridge of your thumb, down to the dip between your pinky knuckle and the lump on the wrist-and-pinky side of your hand. Your thumb should be pressing into the back of the ricasso or pulling on the quillon. Your index finger and middle finger should be wrapped around the ricasso, and your ring finger and pinky should be wrapped around the grip. Your tip should go somewhere similar to where you are pointing with your thumb.
You should also be able to transition between these two grips, and adopt various grips in between these two extremes.
*****
STANCE
-A: For these actions, the proper stance from out of measure should be one in which your tip is just below their hilt. You should start with your right foot forward, profiled to your opponent, with your body behind your hilt. Your arm should be straight, even if this means your shoulder is not at a perfect right angle. The reasons for this should become slightly more obvious as time passes. I also prefer to have my hand angled such that my back quillon is on top and angled to the right, and my front quillon is on the bottom and angled to the left.
*****
TECHNIQUES
If we keep the five pieces of theory in mind, we can distill it into four and a half actions. These actions fully and perfectly defend you from your opponent's sword. If your opponent is moving their sword to a place that is not defended, that is evidence that you should transition from one action to a different one, which will cover the hole created.
-ONE: This is the step "away from" their sword, using your right foot. Here, you put your tip directly above their hilt. It roughly corresponds to "Weak Above Strong". You should be defended by the fact that your opponent's sword will be angled away from you, and they will be forced to cross your hilt if they want to attempt to thrust.
-TWO: This is the step "toward" their sword, using your right foot. It roughly corresponds to "Line in Cross". Here, you push downwards on the middle part of their sword sword using your false edge and flat, with a relatively shallow angle. Here, you are defended by pushing them downwards appropriate to your distance, such that they need to do a large movement to attack directly. This generally forces your opponent to take their sword farther out of the line to attack you. You push more based on how close you are, but as a general thing, your hilt will be about as high up as theirs is, or perhaps a bit below theirs. The angle at the crossing, of the plane between your tips, should be relatively large - something like 135º. This might require pushing their sword left or right a bit before you push down.
-THREE: This is the step "away from" their sword, using your left foot. It, too, roughly corresponds to "Line in Cross" Here, you perform a wide, false-edge cutting motion to pull backwards to the point that your sword is at about 90º to their sword. Your arm should be forming an angle forward from your shoulder such that, if they attempt to yield around, you can pull your arm back a tiny bit and prevent them from reaching your body around your sword. You can push their sword with this, and probably will end up doing so a decent amount.
-FOUR: This is the step "toward" their sword, using your left foot. It doesn't really correspond to anything in destreza, except perhaps for some versions of the "Movement of Conclusion". Here, you are wrapping your false edge around their sword, and then ripping it very far down, out of your presence. You are defended by the fact that their sword is super low, and your sword is blocking the obvious disengage. Your quillon should be defending the direct line to you, and your blade should be holding their sword in the same place. This is a somewhat awkward movement, but it makes it super easy to grab their hilt with your left hand.
-GATHER: This is a gathering step. If you execute One, then you need to perform a gathering step before you can execute a One or a Two. Or, you could just perform a Three or a Four. Basically, you can't step with the same foot twice without a gathering step. You can, however, perform any action which corresponds to the foot you have forward, when you gather.
In general, each of these actions also roughly corresponds to an attack. One to the Thrust, Two to the Chop, Three to the Slicing Cut, and Four to the Conclusion. If the positioning is correct, though, either attack associated with the appropriate foot can be done. They also roughly correspond to distances - One to the farthest distance, and closer and closer until we reach Four. For the gathering step, you can perform any attack associated with the foot which is forward. Lastly, these actions form a rough gradient of grip - One representing the Thrusting grip, Four representing the Cutting grip, and Two and Three somewhere in between.
For the destreza folks out there - yes, this does mean that I'm suggesting transitioning between "Line in Cross" and "Weak Above Strong". This is against Viedma's advice, so we'll see if this ends up being terribly wrong.
tl;dr summary: Right foot forward is smaller defensive actions, left foot forward is bigger defensive actions.
*****
MORE ADVANCED STUFF
This is stuff I am less sure about. Keep in mind that "Advanced" doesn't necessarily mean "better". It just means "things which are applicable in a far smaller list of circumstances".
*****
I lied to you earlier, though. Those top four actions are the "best" actions. There are four more actions which are the "from below" variants of the above. In general, if you are fighting single against single, or you have similar reach to your opponent, you only need the above. Even when fighting single against non-single forms, the above is an excellent start, and should get you very far.
*****
ACTIONS, PART 2
The below four "secondary" actions are useful because they, in general, don't require you to defend as much space. They also allow you to do neat circular bladework by transitioning from one of the first four into one of the last four, which is useful when you need to tie up two swords. They are by and large worse than the first four actions, but there are circumstances where they are necessary. Especially when your opponent has an active off-hand, or an active secondary weapon.
-FIVE: Five corresponds to One. Here, you are putting your tip under their hilt while stepping away from their blade, with your right foot. In general, you should rotate your hand so that your back quillon is pointing to the upper-left if you are stepping around to the outside against another righty. So basically, if you are striking to the top, you should "block off" their line upwards, and if you are striking to the bottom, you should "block off" their line downwards with your quillons. This does mean that on the inside line your direction of quillons is reversed. Basically, your quillon angulation should resemble a diamond around their sword, depending on where you strike.
-SIX: Six corresponds to Two. Here, you are sweeping their sword from under, lightly upwards, with the false edge of your sword. You are stepping towards their blade with your right foot. You should be defended in the same way you are defended with Two - pushing them off-line upwards just enough that they can't stab you in the direct line, so they are required to disengage. The angle between your tips should be similar, though here you don't need to do nearly as much pushing-upwards as you need to do pushing-downwards for Two. The reason for this is that there is much less area for you to be stabbed above your shoulder, when compared to your chest and gut below your shoulder. This means you can be a bit more on-line with this - useful if you are out-ranged by your opponent. If you are not out-ranged, being more on-line with your tip might lead to your opponent gaining a strong opposition or using their off-hand. This would be sad.
-SEVEN: Seven corresponds to Three. Here, you are stepping away from their blade with your left foot, blocking them from attacking you by creating a wide line with the false edge. Your hand should be raised a bit, and your tip should be closer to the ground than your hilt. This is the most different of all of these four - instead of having to cover your entire body, you just have to cover your head and be prepared for this disengage. Similarly to Six, you can have your tip farther forward if your opponent's blade is longer, but caution should be used if your opponent's sword is not longer, because they may gain opposition on you.
-EIGHT: Eight corresponds to Four. Here, you are stepping toward their blade with your left foot, raising their sword upwards. You should be raising their sword with the back-edge quillon and false edge of your blade. If your left foot is to the left of your right foot, your quillon should be to the left of their blade and most of your blade should be to the right. If your left foot is to the right of your right foot, your quillon should be to the right on their blade, and most of your blade to the left of their blade. This seems backwards, but if you have their sword raised above your presence, it is more dangerous for them to disengage in a way that lets them stab you in the chest or gut, rather than in a way that stabs you in the flank. You are less profiled, in the former situation.
*****
ATTACKS, PART TWO
-THE THRUST: Oh, the thrust. There are two primary ways to execute the thrust. One is to thrust over or under their quillons with suitable coverage. One is to thrust over their mid-blade with suitable coverage.
When thrusting over or under their quillons, it is important to cover their blade with your quillons. Ideally, you would simply be thrusting over their quillons and just being done with it. But many times, that will not happen. On the inside line against righties, this is rare. The primary essential part of this is to keep the line from your left shoulder, through your right shoulder, and to your quillons, aimed at their hilt and quillons. You can bend and angulate your wrist as needed, to stab your foe, so long as you maintain appropriate quillon posture. This means that, when circling to the inside against a righty, your back quillon will be pointed mostly upwards, and when circling to the inside against a lefty, you will rotate your hand into something similar to an Italian prima, and your back quillon will point toward the ground.
This might also happen when fighting a righty and circling to the outside, but that is less likely. As well, when circling to the outside against a lefty, your back quillon might end up being vertical, but this is also rare.
When thrusting over the mid-blade, it is important to be sure that your opponent will not be able to angle under or over your sword to stab you. This can be difficult, and can require you to lower your hand to your hip or raise it above your head. This operation is one to be undertaken only when you are sure that the angles will work out. If they do not seem as though they will, abandon this course of action and switch to a Three or a Four instead. Or even a One. Anything else, really.
*****
STANCES, PART TWO
-STANCE B: This is a stance for when either your opponent has much more reach than you, or you do not have faith in your ability to stab them except for as a counter-attack. The theory of this stance is somewhat simple - you create an invitation and execute a parry that cannot reasonably be gotten around. This is executed thus - with your left foot forward and to the left, lower and bring your right arm across your chest, such that your right hand is near your left hip, but still extended straight. Edge forward with tiny steps until just before your opponent will be able to stab you by a leaning thrust. Then execute a Three. This can be done to the left or to the right, but to the left is usually better. This will put you into a position to perform a right-foot action such as a One or a Two. Further plays proceed from there.
This stance can be performed either with your left foot forward and to the right, but it is much more awkward.
*****
THEORY, PART TWO
-REACH: When your opponent out-reaches you, pursue them. If they out-reach you by more than six inches, almost exclusively use techniques which involve stepping toward their blade. If you out-reach them by the same margin, almost exclusively use techniques which involve stepping away from their blade.
-DAGGER: Keep your left hand high and to the inside, next to your right elbow, to deflect attacks during the measure that your opponent can hit you, but you might not be able or prepared to hit them. Do not break your profile to better use your dagger. This will happen naturally, as you perform left-foot steps which are to the left of your right foot. In stance B, keep your dagger in the same place it would be for stance A, despite the fact that your arm has moved. This way, it will not get in the way of your sweeping Three. Keep in mind that all of these techniques should also be applicable to daggers, with the stepping reversed if the dagger is in your off-hand.
-STEPPING: What I said earlier about not twisting your body was not incorrect, but it wasn't the whole truth. In truth, you can cross-step, it just is a very niche action. In general, a Twist is performed when you wish to perform a left-foot technique with your right foot forward, and vice versa. A Twist is performed by rotating your hips while maintaining your feet in the same position. This can mean crossing at the shins and dropping your body lower. You can also perform a Twisting Step, by rotating your hips in the opposite direction that would normally be dictated by your step. The thing to keep in mind here is that frequently, this is a bad idea. It reduces the size of your current step in favor of making your next step larger. It is still not a good idea to rotate with your waist or back, though. That destroys your profile, making many techniques less effective.
*****
ACTIONS, PART THREE
-TWIST: A Twist can be performed as part of a Step, a Gather, or just by itself. It is performed by rotating your hips by a movement of your legs, in the opposite direction than would be dictated by the position of your feet. So, if you start with your left foot and left hip forward, after a twist or twisting gather, you would have your left foot and your right hip forward. This allows you to do right-foot-forward techniques, when in actuality your left foot is forward. Similarly, starting from the same left-left-forward position, a twisting step would end with your right foot forward and your left hip remaining forward.
This allows for repeating the same footedness of actions multiple times. It would allow for a One followed by a One, Two, Five, or Six. Again, due to the slowness and awkwardness of the step, it is not highly advised. One place it can be useful is against an opponent who out-reaches you. You can use it for advancing into just outside of your opponent's leaning-thrust measure, to allow for an explosive action to carry you through the area where they may be able to hit you, but you cannot hit them.
*****
This is as far as I've gotten in over-thinking this New Simplified Destreza. I have been trying to think through how to fight against sword and dagger, and how to fight against case of rapiers, but there is a lot of work remaining there. Essentially, a dagger is a rapier that cannot really have opposition applied to it, but that doesn't need to be worried about until you get into a closer measure. For case, you need to do things which are simultaneously two front-foot or back-foot actions - Both a One and a Two, or both a Three and a Four.
I'm sure that over Pennsic I'll continue working on this. But for the moment, it is beautiful in its semi-completeness. When fencing single rapier versus single rapier at relatively matched reach, it seems good to focus on only the first four techniques and to ignore such complexities as the Twist. I hope to continue working this as a solid, workable thing, and to see my understanding grow.
If anybody wishes for me to teach these techniques, feel free to ask and I will be happy to. By teaching them, I refine my understanding of them, and my understanding of my own assumptions. This allows me to further improve myself.
HAVE GOOD SWORDS.
Some destreza insights came to me a bit over a week ago, and they've revolutionized both my Italian and my Spanish game in a way I hadn't thought possible at this point. So that's pretty cool! My brain has been obsessing over them since, trying to figure out exact boundaries of how things work and where they're applicable.
This is mostly a simplified version of stuff I already knew. But it's simplified to the bare bones. I realize that this doesn't look short, but as far as I'm concerned this should be all you need to know in order to fence. I know I'll be proven wrong, and that's fine, but it's a nice thought.
I have a more thorough blog post about this in the works, but I don't want to deal with "writing complete thoughts" or "making illustrations" or anything like that. I'm assuming a right-handed fencer, so change all the rights to lefts and the lefts to rights if you are sinister.
*****
BASIC LEVEL
*****
THEORY
There are five core concepts here.
-POSITIONING: There is a line starting at their hilt and extending along their blade into infinity. Anything which brings your body in a direction that eventually would touch that line is "toward their sword" Anything which brings your body in a direction which would not eventually touch that line is "away from their sword". This can look a lot like stepping "behind" their sword, if you step toward their forearm behind their hilt, but for our purposes this is still "away from". Note that this means I am discarding the circle.
-BODY: Your body should be between your feet, and you should not be twisted in any fashion. If your right foot is in front of your left foot, you should be facing leftwards relative to your opponent. Don't twist your body. If you're putting your back foot forward, rotate your body with it. If you are stepping to the left with your left foot, you should rotate your body clockwise, if viewed from above. If you are stepping to the right with your left foot, you should be rotating your body counterclockwise, such that your back rotates forwards. This is similar to an Italian giarata.
-ACTION: All footwork should be linked to bladework. Footwork "toward their sword" should push their sword upwards or downwards. Footwork "away from their sword" should keep their blade to your left or right. Ideally, you will put their sword into a place such that any direction they can move it will bring it either farther from your body, or press into your sword in a way that they cannot muscle through.
-OPPOSITION: Most actions have an element of pushing their blade, or "opposition". All opposition should be done with the back edge of your blade, in a way that gets your sword "behind their sword". This is in the plane between their forearm and their sword, defined by the angle made at their wrist.
-ATTACKING: Thrusts and chops should be performed at a farther distance, while stepping with your right foot. slicing cuts and cross-body thrusts (including movements of conclusion) should be performed at a closer distance, while stepping with your left foot.
*****
GRIP
You should be grasping your sword generally in one of two ways.
-THRUSTING: The first way has you holding your sword along the handle, with the blade pointing along your index finger. Your pinky and ring finger should be around the handle, your pommel running down the channel of your wrist, your middle finger wrapped around the quillon in front of your blade, your index finger along the side of your ricasso, and your thumb laying on the quillon next to the quillon block on the back side of your blade. You should be able to point your finger at a thing, and have the tip go to a place somewhat similar to where you are pointing.
-CUTTING: The second way has you holding your sword like a hammer, with the blade pointing along your thumb. The blade and grip of your sword should be lying across your palm, roughly from the dip between your index knuckle and the ridge of your thumb, down to the dip between your pinky knuckle and the lump on the wrist-and-pinky side of your hand. Your thumb should be pressing into the back of the ricasso or pulling on the quillon. Your index finger and middle finger should be wrapped around the ricasso, and your ring finger and pinky should be wrapped around the grip. Your tip should go somewhere similar to where you are pointing with your thumb.
You should also be able to transition between these two grips, and adopt various grips in between these two extremes.
*****
STANCE
-A: For these actions, the proper stance from out of measure should be one in which your tip is just below their hilt. You should start with your right foot forward, profiled to your opponent, with your body behind your hilt. Your arm should be straight, even if this means your shoulder is not at a perfect right angle. The reasons for this should become slightly more obvious as time passes. I also prefer to have my hand angled such that my back quillon is on top and angled to the right, and my front quillon is on the bottom and angled to the left.
*****
TECHNIQUES
If we keep the five pieces of theory in mind, we can distill it into four and a half actions. These actions fully and perfectly defend you from your opponent's sword. If your opponent is moving their sword to a place that is not defended, that is evidence that you should transition from one action to a different one, which will cover the hole created.
-ONE: This is the step "away from" their sword, using your right foot. Here, you put your tip directly above their hilt. It roughly corresponds to "Weak Above Strong". You should be defended by the fact that your opponent's sword will be angled away from you, and they will be forced to cross your hilt if they want to attempt to thrust.
-TWO: This is the step "toward" their sword, using your right foot. It roughly corresponds to "Line in Cross". Here, you push downwards on the middle part of their sword sword using your false edge and flat, with a relatively shallow angle. Here, you are defended by pushing them downwards appropriate to your distance, such that they need to do a large movement to attack directly. This generally forces your opponent to take their sword farther out of the line to attack you. You push more based on how close you are, but as a general thing, your hilt will be about as high up as theirs is, or perhaps a bit below theirs. The angle at the crossing, of the plane between your tips, should be relatively large - something like 135º. This might require pushing their sword left or right a bit before you push down.
-THREE: This is the step "away from" their sword, using your left foot. It, too, roughly corresponds to "Line in Cross" Here, you perform a wide, false-edge cutting motion to pull backwards to the point that your sword is at about 90º to their sword. Your arm should be forming an angle forward from your shoulder such that, if they attempt to yield around, you can pull your arm back a tiny bit and prevent them from reaching your body around your sword. You can push their sword with this, and probably will end up doing so a decent amount.
-FOUR: This is the step "toward" their sword, using your left foot. It doesn't really correspond to anything in destreza, except perhaps for some versions of the "Movement of Conclusion". Here, you are wrapping your false edge around their sword, and then ripping it very far down, out of your presence. You are defended by the fact that their sword is super low, and your sword is blocking the obvious disengage. Your quillon should be defending the direct line to you, and your blade should be holding their sword in the same place. This is a somewhat awkward movement, but it makes it super easy to grab their hilt with your left hand.
-GATHER: This is a gathering step. If you execute One, then you need to perform a gathering step before you can execute a One or a Two. Or, you could just perform a Three or a Four. Basically, you can't step with the same foot twice without a gathering step. You can, however, perform any action which corresponds to the foot you have forward, when you gather.
In general, each of these actions also roughly corresponds to an attack. One to the Thrust, Two to the Chop, Three to the Slicing Cut, and Four to the Conclusion. If the positioning is correct, though, either attack associated with the appropriate foot can be done. They also roughly correspond to distances - One to the farthest distance, and closer and closer until we reach Four. For the gathering step, you can perform any attack associated with the foot which is forward. Lastly, these actions form a rough gradient of grip - One representing the Thrusting grip, Four representing the Cutting grip, and Two and Three somewhere in between.
For the destreza folks out there - yes, this does mean that I'm suggesting transitioning between "Line in Cross" and "Weak Above Strong". This is against Viedma's advice, so we'll see if this ends up being terribly wrong.
tl;dr summary: Right foot forward is smaller defensive actions, left foot forward is bigger defensive actions.
*****
MORE ADVANCED STUFF
This is stuff I am less sure about. Keep in mind that "Advanced" doesn't necessarily mean "better". It just means "things which are applicable in a far smaller list of circumstances".
*****
I lied to you earlier, though. Those top four actions are the "best" actions. There are four more actions which are the "from below" variants of the above. In general, if you are fighting single against single, or you have similar reach to your opponent, you only need the above. Even when fighting single against non-single forms, the above is an excellent start, and should get you very far.
*****
ACTIONS, PART 2
The below four "secondary" actions are useful because they, in general, don't require you to defend as much space. They also allow you to do neat circular bladework by transitioning from one of the first four into one of the last four, which is useful when you need to tie up two swords. They are by and large worse than the first four actions, but there are circumstances where they are necessary. Especially when your opponent has an active off-hand, or an active secondary weapon.
-FIVE: Five corresponds to One. Here, you are putting your tip under their hilt while stepping away from their blade, with your right foot. In general, you should rotate your hand so that your back quillon is pointing to the upper-left if you are stepping around to the outside against another righty. So basically, if you are striking to the top, you should "block off" their line upwards, and if you are striking to the bottom, you should "block off" their line downwards with your quillons. This does mean that on the inside line your direction of quillons is reversed. Basically, your quillon angulation should resemble a diamond around their sword, depending on where you strike.
-SIX: Six corresponds to Two. Here, you are sweeping their sword from under, lightly upwards, with the false edge of your sword. You are stepping towards their blade with your right foot. You should be defended in the same way you are defended with Two - pushing them off-line upwards just enough that they can't stab you in the direct line, so they are required to disengage. The angle between your tips should be similar, though here you don't need to do nearly as much pushing-upwards as you need to do pushing-downwards for Two. The reason for this is that there is much less area for you to be stabbed above your shoulder, when compared to your chest and gut below your shoulder. This means you can be a bit more on-line with this - useful if you are out-ranged by your opponent. If you are not out-ranged, being more on-line with your tip might lead to your opponent gaining a strong opposition or using their off-hand. This would be sad.
-SEVEN: Seven corresponds to Three. Here, you are stepping away from their blade with your left foot, blocking them from attacking you by creating a wide line with the false edge. Your hand should be raised a bit, and your tip should be closer to the ground than your hilt. This is the most different of all of these four - instead of having to cover your entire body, you just have to cover your head and be prepared for this disengage. Similarly to Six, you can have your tip farther forward if your opponent's blade is longer, but caution should be used if your opponent's sword is not longer, because they may gain opposition on you.
-EIGHT: Eight corresponds to Four. Here, you are stepping toward their blade with your left foot, raising their sword upwards. You should be raising their sword with the back-edge quillon and false edge of your blade. If your left foot is to the left of your right foot, your quillon should be to the left of their blade and most of your blade should be to the right. If your left foot is to the right of your right foot, your quillon should be to the right on their blade, and most of your blade to the left of their blade. This seems backwards, but if you have their sword raised above your presence, it is more dangerous for them to disengage in a way that lets them stab you in the chest or gut, rather than in a way that stabs you in the flank. You are less profiled, in the former situation.
*****
ATTACKS, PART TWO
-THE THRUST: Oh, the thrust. There are two primary ways to execute the thrust. One is to thrust over or under their quillons with suitable coverage. One is to thrust over their mid-blade with suitable coverage.
When thrusting over or under their quillons, it is important to cover their blade with your quillons. Ideally, you would simply be thrusting over their quillons and just being done with it. But many times, that will not happen. On the inside line against righties, this is rare. The primary essential part of this is to keep the line from your left shoulder, through your right shoulder, and to your quillons, aimed at their hilt and quillons. You can bend and angulate your wrist as needed, to stab your foe, so long as you maintain appropriate quillon posture. This means that, when circling to the inside against a righty, your back quillon will be pointed mostly upwards, and when circling to the inside against a lefty, you will rotate your hand into something similar to an Italian prima, and your back quillon will point toward the ground.
This might also happen when fighting a righty and circling to the outside, but that is less likely. As well, when circling to the outside against a lefty, your back quillon might end up being vertical, but this is also rare.
When thrusting over the mid-blade, it is important to be sure that your opponent will not be able to angle under or over your sword to stab you. This can be difficult, and can require you to lower your hand to your hip or raise it above your head. This operation is one to be undertaken only when you are sure that the angles will work out. If they do not seem as though they will, abandon this course of action and switch to a Three or a Four instead. Or even a One. Anything else, really.
*****
STANCES, PART TWO
-STANCE B: This is a stance for when either your opponent has much more reach than you, or you do not have faith in your ability to stab them except for as a counter-attack. The theory of this stance is somewhat simple - you create an invitation and execute a parry that cannot reasonably be gotten around. This is executed thus - with your left foot forward and to the left, lower and bring your right arm across your chest, such that your right hand is near your left hip, but still extended straight. Edge forward with tiny steps until just before your opponent will be able to stab you by a leaning thrust. Then execute a Three. This can be done to the left or to the right, but to the left is usually better. This will put you into a position to perform a right-foot action such as a One or a Two. Further plays proceed from there.
This stance can be performed either with your left foot forward and to the right, but it is much more awkward.
*****
THEORY, PART TWO
-REACH: When your opponent out-reaches you, pursue them. If they out-reach you by more than six inches, almost exclusively use techniques which involve stepping toward their blade. If you out-reach them by the same margin, almost exclusively use techniques which involve stepping away from their blade.
-DAGGER: Keep your left hand high and to the inside, next to your right elbow, to deflect attacks during the measure that your opponent can hit you, but you might not be able or prepared to hit them. Do not break your profile to better use your dagger. This will happen naturally, as you perform left-foot steps which are to the left of your right foot. In stance B, keep your dagger in the same place it would be for stance A, despite the fact that your arm has moved. This way, it will not get in the way of your sweeping Three. Keep in mind that all of these techniques should also be applicable to daggers, with the stepping reversed if the dagger is in your off-hand.
-STEPPING: What I said earlier about not twisting your body was not incorrect, but it wasn't the whole truth. In truth, you can cross-step, it just is a very niche action. In general, a Twist is performed when you wish to perform a left-foot technique with your right foot forward, and vice versa. A Twist is performed by rotating your hips while maintaining your feet in the same position. This can mean crossing at the shins and dropping your body lower. You can also perform a Twisting Step, by rotating your hips in the opposite direction that would normally be dictated by your step. The thing to keep in mind here is that frequently, this is a bad idea. It reduces the size of your current step in favor of making your next step larger. It is still not a good idea to rotate with your waist or back, though. That destroys your profile, making many techniques less effective.
*****
ACTIONS, PART THREE
-TWIST: A Twist can be performed as part of a Step, a Gather, or just by itself. It is performed by rotating your hips by a movement of your legs, in the opposite direction than would be dictated by the position of your feet. So, if you start with your left foot and left hip forward, after a twist or twisting gather, you would have your left foot and your right hip forward. This allows you to do right-foot-forward techniques, when in actuality your left foot is forward. Similarly, starting from the same left-left-forward position, a twisting step would end with your right foot forward and your left hip remaining forward.
This allows for repeating the same footedness of actions multiple times. It would allow for a One followed by a One, Two, Five, or Six. Again, due to the slowness and awkwardness of the step, it is not highly advised. One place it can be useful is against an opponent who out-reaches you. You can use it for advancing into just outside of your opponent's leaning-thrust measure, to allow for an explosive action to carry you through the area where they may be able to hit you, but you cannot hit them.
*****
This is as far as I've gotten in over-thinking this New Simplified Destreza. I have been trying to think through how to fight against sword and dagger, and how to fight against case of rapiers, but there is a lot of work remaining there. Essentially, a dagger is a rapier that cannot really have opposition applied to it, but that doesn't need to be worried about until you get into a closer measure. For case, you need to do things which are simultaneously two front-foot or back-foot actions - Both a One and a Two, or both a Three and a Four.
I'm sure that over Pennsic I'll continue working on this. But for the moment, it is beautiful in its semi-completeness. When fencing single rapier versus single rapier at relatively matched reach, it seems good to focus on only the first four techniques and to ignore such complexities as the Twist. I hope to continue working this as a solid, workable thing, and to see my understanding grow.
If anybody wishes for me to teach these techniques, feel free to ask and I will be happy to. By teaching them, I refine my understanding of them, and my understanding of my own assumptions. This allows me to further improve myself.
HAVE GOOD SWORDS.
Monday, May 1, 2017
Class Outline for "Inequalities of Reach 101"
Hey guys. I'm Don Lupold Hass. You're currently attending "Inequalities of Reach 101", a class in which I attempt to address one of the biggest non-trainable differences between fencers in this sport - reach.
Why should you listen to me? I'm a fencer who has put a lot of time and effort into this subject. I have fenced using reach for a long time, so I have had a lot of time to characterize the ways that one can use reach to win bouts. At the same time, I have a number of friends who are effective shorter-blade fencers, who know how to turn my reach against me. Lastly, I am just short enough that I can't just out-reach everybody.
Some background. I've done well for a long time with my 45" rapier. Using reach comes naturally to me, not just because of my stature but because of the tactics that long reach implies. Over time, though, I grew to worry that I only was winning because I could snipe my opponents. And indeed, I performed terribly against those who out-reached me. I came to realize that there were flaws in my understanding of rapier, so I needed to take up a shorter sword in order to understand things better. Over time, my journey has led me through the Spanish and Italian arts, in order to gain a better understanding of the short-versus-long inequality, and swordplay as a whole.
This class, we will cover several topics.
Edit: This is two classes' worth of material, I'm pretty sure. First class would be theory, second class would be techniques.
Why should you listen to me? I'm a fencer who has put a lot of time and effort into this subject. I have fenced using reach for a long time, so I have had a lot of time to characterize the ways that one can use reach to win bouts. At the same time, I have a number of friends who are effective shorter-blade fencers, who know how to turn my reach against me. Lastly, I am just short enough that I can't just out-reach everybody.
Some background. I've done well for a long time with my 45" rapier. Using reach comes naturally to me, not just because of my stature but because of the tactics that long reach implies. Over time, though, I grew to worry that I only was winning because I could snipe my opponents. And indeed, I performed terribly against those who out-reached me. I came to realize that there were flaws in my understanding of rapier, so I needed to take up a shorter sword in order to understand things better. Over time, my journey has led me through the Spanish and Italian arts, in order to gain a better understanding of the short-versus-long inequality, and swordplay as a whole.
This class, we will cover several topics.
- Why is reach effective?
- How does reach win?
- How can reach stab you?
- How must you stab reach?
- What advantages does reach have?
- How do you minimize them?
- Specific techniques.
- Why is reach effective?
- Less "cognitive effort"
- Frequently no need for defense.
- Less pressure to have "good technique".
- What tactics does reach use?
- "Threat Zones"
- Keep shorter person in their "threat zone" as long as possible.
- Drifting backwards slowly.
- Demonstrate how cuts from reach are really not that great.
- Timing
- A full lunge will be parried.
- Demonstration.
- Need to either distract or attack using a demi-lunge.
- Feints from out of measure
- Allows for less "plausible" feints.
- Feint goes "tink", makes people twitch faster than they see.
- Discussion of tempo and reaction times.
- How can reach stab you?
- Better question: How do you parry reach, and how does reach overcome those parries.
- The Three Principles
- Disengage
- Over the tip / under the tip
- Pull out
- Yield around
- In order to parry, your parries need to strongly defend against all of these.
- Counters
- Disengage = Width
- Note that "width" only counts if your opponent can't blow right through your sword.
- Pull out = Penetration
- Yield around = Width, but with a focus on rear-width.
- Demonstrate how a Duello-style find-gain-attack uses these principles.
- How must you stab reach?
- Good defense.
- Good offense.
- Get through Danger Zone.
- How can you minimize reach's advantages?
- Getting low, going for the gut.
- Demonstrate how getting low steals reach away and gives it to you.
- Profiling
- Vertical - Fabris
- Horizontal - Destreza
- Straight approach
- Viable if they give you their sword.
- Angled approach
- Viable if they do not give you their sword.
- Use your own body's advantages
- If you don't have reach, you are probably smaller.
- This means voids are good.
- Put sword on "one side" of your body.
- Left / Right - Destreza
- Up / Left / Right - Fabris.
- Blade actions that take a long time to escape
- Transports.
- Get blade contact.
- Threaten the hand while not giving good opposition.
- Specific techniques.
- Fabris stance.
- Fabris rule 1 flowchart.
- Refusing body behind hilt / blade
- Extended arm giving penetration, allowing focus on width.
- Demonstrate again how getting low steals reach from your opponent.
- Destreza stance.
- Thibault plate 29 (?), circle 10.
- Body positioning giving an angle that "hides" you behind your sword.
- Covering the "danger zone" before they can react, then circling.
- Note how this prevents forcing a 50/50 disengage.
- Transports
- Standard Giganti stance.
- Demonstrate transport below, above.
- Cover w/ quillon, reinforce with dagger.
- Demonstrate transport left / right
- Demonstrate that transports can actually happen anywhere
- Single / duo-tempi parry-riposte
- Favored by lighter blades / more back-weighted blades.
- Capo Ferro hierarchy.
- Zing-cuts
- Favored by heavier blades / more front-weighted blades.
- Show how this forces particular, predictable motion
- Show how you can use this motion to force further blade actions.
- Sentiment
- Oh god sentiment.
- Long discussion on tempo and sentiment
- Show how pressure makes blades "sticky"
- Show how this allows you to predict where your opponent can go.
- Closing
- Fabris stance is great and versatile, but hard to do.
- Destreza stance is good and easy to stand in, but removes off-hand items from the bout.
- Reach is effective and faster. (Dark side???) But not stronger.
Edit: This is two classes' worth of material, I'm pretty sure. First class would be theory, second class would be techniques.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Thibault on Italians and Sentiment - the "Short" Version
So I got a copy of the new Greer translation of Thibault's manuscript. It is fantastic, and a joy to read through. I'm going to put down my thoughts and interpretations here, so I can later prove them wrong or flawed in some fashion. I haven't said it in a while, but my standard "I MIGHT BE COMPLETELY OFF BASE HERE, FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS ABOUT THE WORK PLEASE" disclaimer applies doubly here. These are my own interpretations, and I make no guarantees about their correctness.
I am engaging in my standard method for learning a new thing - I read through to assimilate the basics and a basic idea of the more complex concepts, and then I take it onto the field to see where problems arise. After that, I read parts of the book more thoroughly in order to gain a more in-context understanding than I would have had if I had attempted to understand before trying things out.
*****
My revised Thibault game worked surprisingly well at practice on Monday. There is a new form of taking the blade which Thibault advocates for, when my opponents adopt a more Giganti-ish, hand-held-low posture. Essentially, it involves starting with your sword below theirs, stepping around their sword to the right, and wrapping yours behind theirs. I found myself actually actively pushing their sword downwards, so that it was parallel with the ground. This blocks off their means of ingress by placing their sword outside of your presence, while at the same time blocking the possibility of a disengage because of the circular motion of your tip. Your blade ends up higher than you might expect, but it blocks things off pretty well.
This is followed by a brief pause to make sure they aren't doing anything clever, a giarata step to cover ground, and then a right-foot lunging thrust to cover a truly ridiculous amount of ground. This solves a problem I've previously had when practicing the Spanish arts, in that Italians can move backwards faster than I can move forwards in a circle.
If they attempt a yielding-around thrust (which Thibault calls a "curved thrust"), then your response should be to abort the giarata-step and thrust, catching their sword with your inside quillon.
So, to go over it in a simpler way, with pictures. In all of these, Alexander (the person fighting in Thibault's tradition) is on the right, while Zachary (in this case a Giganti-esque fighter. More to the point, he is a stand-in for anybody who fights from a position which keeps their blade back somewhat, blade low, and tip higher than the hilt). I'm saying that this isn't a perfect Giganti or Capoferro, but it can be generalized to deal with them. Or many other non-Fabris Italians.
The front set of figures is the first position. Alexander drops his sword low, while taking a collecting step forward. In my brief experience, this collecting step hasn't been truly necessary, but I can see how it would help in the next bit.
The set of figures behind them shows the transition. Alexander takes a wide step, mostly to the right, while wrapping his sword around Zachary's, tip-first. Note that, in relation to the circle on the floor, Alexander has moved very far to the right.
At this point, Alexander pauses for a moment. This is (in my brain) to allow Alexander to confirm that yes, he has the positioning he wants. His opponent has allowed him to step and position his sword in the way he wants. It's a one-tempo pause, to use demi-Italian terminology, to allow the perceptions to catch up to the world.
The right plate here is essentially the same as the back plate above. Alexander has what an Italian would call "opposition" over his opponent's blade.
The left plate, cut off by the page boundary here, shows the giarata-step I've been talking about. Alexander maintains opposition over his opponent's sword and rotates his body away from his opponent, stepping backwards with his left foot. This combined hip-leg motion is a preparation for a very, very long step in a moment.
Not pictured here is what to do if your opponent attacks at this point. Essentially, the advice given is to abort the step, planting your left foot, then perform a demi-lunge and thrust with your right foot, being sure to collect their sword with your inside quillon, either upwards or downwards.
And of course, we have the result depicted here, the first complete set of people on the right. It looks like they have moved backwards on the circle, but it is important to note that the circle corresponding to the right set of figures is actually the one overlapping the one that Zachary is standing on. It's cut off by the page boundary. In this image, Zachary is completely off of the circle, and Alexander has approached the edge of the circle closest to Zachary.
The left set of figures shows what happens if Zachary executes a complete retreat - moving backwards as fast as possible. Essentially, Alexander and Zachary reset. They are in the same positions, except that they are both now to the left of the original circle that they started on. The circle corresponding to the left set of figures is the circle which Zachary is standing on, in the right set of figures.
To summarize:
The next thing I've been working on is Sentiment. For those who don't know, "sentiment" is the way that Thibault measures the amount of pressure that your opponent is exerting against your blade. Thibault names nine degrees of sentiment, but two groups of three of them end up meaning the same thing. From weakest to strongest, they are "Dead", "Sentiment", "Alive", "Lively", "Livelier", "Liveliest", "Strong", "Stronger", and "Strongest".
A short version of what to do against each sentiment follows. These are works in progress, and an attempt to collapse a large number of use-cases into a set of principles or rules.
Against "Dead" sentiment, you attack immediately, detaching your sword from theirs, maintaining confidence that you will get past their tip if your distance is correct. This amount of pressure is when your opponent is not pressing against your blade, or isn't even touching your blade. This is will be the most difficult to implement in our game, because a lot of Thibault's defense against "Dead" sentiment comes from stabbing through your opponent, and thus placing your body beyond their tip. In our game, this would lead to double-kills due to late, sloppy bladework. Thibault does mention how to "arrest with courtesy", and thus not stab your opponent but instead put your tip directly in front of your opponent's face. The most likely adaptation for me here will be "arresting without courtesy" - that is to say, drawing my arm back such that my tip stabs them, but does not go through them.
Against "Sentiment" sentiment, you attack immediately, detaching your sword from theirs and stepping away from their sword. Here, the opponent is pressing a little, but not hard enough that their blade will "follow" or "stick" to yours if you move yours away from theirs quickly. This is almost the same as against "Dead" sentiment, but you step away from their blade a bit because their blade will move toward you. Just - not very much.
Against "Alive" sentiment, we begin to perform actual blade-on-blade opposition. This is the bit of sentiment which, as I understand it, involves their blade "sticking" to yours a bit. If you were to go for a straight-in thrust without defense, you would end up being stabbed above your sword, and that would be sad. So here, you continue circling toward their blade, collect it with your quillon, and stab them. Yay.
Against the "Livel(y)(ier)(iest)" sentiments, we bend our arm and thread our tip behind their blade. This allows their blade to slide down ours to our hilt, in a way similar to Fabris Rule For Single Rapier #1. The Lively set of sentiments are the point at which your opponent will be able to push your tip hard enough that you can't really accurately thrust. So we solve the issue by collecting them on our hilt and one of our quillons - Thibault advises the outside one, but that seems harder than using the inside one. This places their sword harmlessly between your sword and your body, in a way that seems kind of scary to do but is really cool.
Alternately, and especially if they increase to this level later in our motions, we can perform a half-circle cut, pulling our sword down and backwards to allow their momentum to carry them away, and then cutting above their sword to the front of their face. This maneuver would be preceded by using our hilt and quillons to transfer them from one side of our body to the other, then performing the cut almost entirely with the wrist.
Against the "Stron(g)(ger)(gest)" sentiments, we cannot simply rely on our hilt to control their blade. To deal with these, we, with our arm still extended, transfer their sword to the other side of us. We explicitly are directed to use our (inside?) quillon to help their sword along on its journey, for some reason. We then continue stepping past them, using our wrist to perform a full-circle cut that exits from below their sword to strike the back of their head. You should be sure to block their sword's path of ingress with your quillon during the early parts of this. In the later parts, you are behind them, so it no longer matters. The cut should be thrown, again, primarily from the wrist.
To summarize:
I am engaging in my standard method for learning a new thing - I read through to assimilate the basics and a basic idea of the more complex concepts, and then I take it onto the field to see where problems arise. After that, I read parts of the book more thoroughly in order to gain a more in-context understanding than I would have had if I had attempted to understand before trying things out.
*****
My revised Thibault game worked surprisingly well at practice on Monday. There is a new form of taking the blade which Thibault advocates for, when my opponents adopt a more Giganti-ish, hand-held-low posture. Essentially, it involves starting with your sword below theirs, stepping around their sword to the right, and wrapping yours behind theirs. I found myself actually actively pushing their sword downwards, so that it was parallel with the ground. This blocks off their means of ingress by placing their sword outside of your presence, while at the same time blocking the possibility of a disengage because of the circular motion of your tip. Your blade ends up higher than you might expect, but it blocks things off pretty well.
This is followed by a brief pause to make sure they aren't doing anything clever, a giarata step to cover ground, and then a right-foot lunging thrust to cover a truly ridiculous amount of ground. This solves a problem I've previously had when practicing the Spanish arts, in that Italians can move backwards faster than I can move forwards in a circle.
If they attempt a yielding-around thrust (which Thibault calls a "curved thrust"), then your response should be to abort the giarata-step and thrust, catching their sword with your inside quillon.
So, to go over it in a simpler way, with pictures. In all of these, Alexander (the person fighting in Thibault's tradition) is on the right, while Zachary (in this case a Giganti-esque fighter. More to the point, he is a stand-in for anybody who fights from a position which keeps their blade back somewhat, blade low, and tip higher than the hilt). I'm saying that this isn't a perfect Giganti or Capoferro, but it can be generalized to deal with them. Or many other non-Fabris Italians.
The front set of figures is the first position. Alexander drops his sword low, while taking a collecting step forward. In my brief experience, this collecting step hasn't been truly necessary, but I can see how it would help in the next bit.
The set of figures behind them shows the transition. Alexander takes a wide step, mostly to the right, while wrapping his sword around Zachary's, tip-first. Note that, in relation to the circle on the floor, Alexander has moved very far to the right.
At this point, Alexander pauses for a moment. This is (in my brain) to allow Alexander to confirm that yes, he has the positioning he wants. His opponent has allowed him to step and position his sword in the way he wants. It's a one-tempo pause, to use demi-Italian terminology, to allow the perceptions to catch up to the world.
The right plate here is essentially the same as the back plate above. Alexander has what an Italian would call "opposition" over his opponent's blade.
The left plate, cut off by the page boundary here, shows the giarata-step I've been talking about. Alexander maintains opposition over his opponent's sword and rotates his body away from his opponent, stepping backwards with his left foot. This combined hip-leg motion is a preparation for a very, very long step in a moment.
Not pictured here is what to do if your opponent attacks at this point. Essentially, the advice given is to abort the step, planting your left foot, then perform a demi-lunge and thrust with your right foot, being sure to collect their sword with your inside quillon, either upwards or downwards.
And of course, we have the result depicted here, the first complete set of people on the right. It looks like they have moved backwards on the circle, but it is important to note that the circle corresponding to the right set of figures is actually the one overlapping the one that Zachary is standing on. It's cut off by the page boundary. In this image, Zachary is completely off of the circle, and Alexander has approached the edge of the circle closest to Zachary.
The left set of figures shows what happens if Zachary executes a complete retreat - moving backwards as fast as possible. Essentially, Alexander and Zachary reset. They are in the same positions, except that they are both now to the left of the original circle that they started on. The circle corresponding to the left set of figures is the circle which Zachary is standing on, in the right set of figures.
To summarize:
- Start with your sword below theirs.
- Wind it above/behind theirs while stepping to the side.
- Stab? Stab. Maybe according to below principles of sentiment? We'll see.
The next thing I've been working on is Sentiment. For those who don't know, "sentiment" is the way that Thibault measures the amount of pressure that your opponent is exerting against your blade. Thibault names nine degrees of sentiment, but two groups of three of them end up meaning the same thing. From weakest to strongest, they are "Dead", "Sentiment", "Alive", "Lively", "Livelier", "Liveliest", "Strong", "Stronger", and "Strongest".
A short version of what to do against each sentiment follows. These are works in progress, and an attempt to collapse a large number of use-cases into a set of principles or rules.
Against "Dead" sentiment, you attack immediately, detaching your sword from theirs, maintaining confidence that you will get past their tip if your distance is correct. This amount of pressure is when your opponent is not pressing against your blade, or isn't even touching your blade. This is will be the most difficult to implement in our game, because a lot of Thibault's defense against "Dead" sentiment comes from stabbing through your opponent, and thus placing your body beyond their tip. In our game, this would lead to double-kills due to late, sloppy bladework. Thibault does mention how to "arrest with courtesy", and thus not stab your opponent but instead put your tip directly in front of your opponent's face. The most likely adaptation for me here will be "arresting without courtesy" - that is to say, drawing my arm back such that my tip stabs them, but does not go through them.
Against "Sentiment" sentiment, you attack immediately, detaching your sword from theirs and stepping away from their sword. Here, the opponent is pressing a little, but not hard enough that their blade will "follow" or "stick" to yours if you move yours away from theirs quickly. This is almost the same as against "Dead" sentiment, but you step away from their blade a bit because their blade will move toward you. Just - not very much.
Against "Alive" sentiment, we begin to perform actual blade-on-blade opposition. This is the bit of sentiment which, as I understand it, involves their blade "sticking" to yours a bit. If you were to go for a straight-in thrust without defense, you would end up being stabbed above your sword, and that would be sad. So here, you continue circling toward their blade, collect it with your quillon, and stab them. Yay.
Against the "Livel(y)(ier)(iest)" sentiments, we bend our arm and thread our tip behind their blade. This allows their blade to slide down ours to our hilt, in a way similar to Fabris Rule For Single Rapier #1. The Lively set of sentiments are the point at which your opponent will be able to push your tip hard enough that you can't really accurately thrust. So we solve the issue by collecting them on our hilt and one of our quillons - Thibault advises the outside one, but that seems harder than using the inside one. This places their sword harmlessly between your sword and your body, in a way that seems kind of scary to do but is really cool.
Alternately, and especially if they increase to this level later in our motions, we can perform a half-circle cut, pulling our sword down and backwards to allow their momentum to carry them away, and then cutting above their sword to the front of their face. This maneuver would be preceded by using our hilt and quillons to transfer them from one side of our body to the other, then performing the cut almost entirely with the wrist.
Against the "Stron(g)(ger)(gest)" sentiments, we cannot simply rely on our hilt to control their blade. To deal with these, we, with our arm still extended, transfer their sword to the other side of us. We explicitly are directed to use our (inside?) quillon to help their sword along on its journey, for some reason. We then continue stepping past them, using our wrist to perform a full-circle cut that exits from below their sword to strike the back of their head. You should be sure to block their sword's path of ingress with your quillon during the early parts of this. In the later parts, you are behind them, so it no longer matters. The cut should be thrown, again, primarily from the wrist.
To summarize:
- First: Take them off the center line using your sword near their tip.
- Dead
- GO GO STAB
- Sentiment
- GO GO STAB with a small void
- Alive
- Good blade opposition yay! Stabby stabby!
- Lively / Livelier / Liveliest
- Collect them on your hilt, between your sword and your body, thrust to face.
- Help their sword to the other side of your body, step through, your sword exits below theirs and enters above, cutting to their face.
- Strong / Stronger / Strongest
- Help their sword to the other side of your body, step through, your sword exits below theirs and enters above, cutting to the back of their head.
- Thibault doesn't explicitly call this out, but I bet you could just step on a chord past the circle and stab them in the flank, as other Spaniards advocate.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Melee Practice and Melee Heresies
The regional I was able to attend this weekend was fun. I got in a decent amount of fighting, even after filming the melee Champs tryouts. I as also struck by a few new thoughts, from watching how things worked out and did not work out.
There are a couple of "common knowledge" things that people keep repeating, that I just don't think are true. As such, I am developing heretical beliefs about melee. I'm writing this down because there were some people with strong opinions about rapier melee from crossing over from heavy melee, and I am convinced that these opinions aren't correct or completely applicable to rapier.
*****
The "common knowledge" of a 2v1 is that, no matter who it is, the 2 should be able to stab the 1 quickly. And in a line fight, this is sort of true. If you can create a 2v1 on the end of a line, that's strictly good. However, in a skirmishing situation, I think that this is incorrect.
In a skirmishing situation, the 2 will probably eventually win the 2v1. However, there are a lot of tactics that the 1 can use to delay, especially if they are short-blade fighters.
All of these things are somewhat guaranteed to work, if and only if you can threaten all of them. The last of them is why I think that rapier melee is different from heavy melee, and why I think that all of this that I'm saying is true. Because you can be "too close" for someone to get a good shot onto you, and we don't have spears.
The victory condition for the 2 in a 2v1 is to "cross the T", such that the 2 can attack the 1 at the same time. But the way most people do it involves a lot of communication, and communication takes time. Time means that the 1 can use one of the above tricks to mess up distance. And in order to attack, both of the 2 need to be in the correct place. So, if the 2 are waiting to get into the correct place before communicating their intent to attack, the 1 can indefinitely delay, by moving such that at least one of the 2 are out of position.
The solution, here, is probably for the 2 to learn how to anticipate the motion of the 1, and then attack immediately when they are going to be in position half a second from now. I'm not sure how this would work in real situations - I believe that it will just create opportunities for the 1 to juke harder. I don't believe this falls apart in top-level play, but I am open to the idea that in top-level play this is incorrect.
As such, if I'm correct, I think that "have 2 people jump 1 person" is a completely unworkable strategy. 2 people cannot force the kill to happen in the way that people keep saying they can, so long as the 1 gives ground.
All that said, forcing a 2v1 with the 1 as a skirmisher can be used to the 2's team's advantage. If the 1 is giving ground, whoever of the 2 is closer to the line-fight needs to peel off and hit the line from the side, as soon as the 1 is far enough back that they can only threaten the other of the 2. That way, the 2 are trading the 2v1 for a 1v1, but gaining better positioning in the rest of their team.
In a situation with equivalent numbers, this means you're trading worse numbers right now for a better position later. I think this is a bad tactical choice, until the melee becomes large enough that a one-person difference in a large line doesn't matter. Which happens perhaps at the point of a 6-10-person line or so? At that point, the tactical advantage of positioning outweighs the tactical advantage of numbers that you're giving up.
*****
The next point that I have is that in terms of tactical advantage, 2v1 is less than 4v3, which is less than 3v2. This is because the delaying tactics of the smaller side require coordination of movement. Adding people makes this harder, even if they have practiced together. The reason that 3v2 is better than 4v3, though, is because in a 3v2 you have 50% more people on the larger side, whereas in the 4v3 you only have 33% more people. This means you have less of an advantage, so the smaller side is more likely to be able to get a random kill and equalize numbers.
If I had to put a point value on various positions, a 1v1 or any disadvantageous position is worth 0, a 2v1 is worth 1, a 4v3 is worth 1.5, and a 3v2 is worth 2. I'm unsure of the value of a 3v1 or 4v1 - my intuition places it somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5, though it's an interesting thought exercise. Obviously, all of this assumes optimal play and players who know how to survive a 1v2 in the correct way.
It would be interesting to assign a point value to all numbers-based configurations of people up to 10v10. Perhaps this is an exercise for later.
This means that in a 5v5 melee, the best tactic should be a 1-3-1 split. And if your opponents are clever, they will also perform a 1-3-1 split in order to nullify the possible advantages you can gain from it and turn the melee into a series of 1v1 fights. Depending on the value of a 3v1, a 2-1-2 split might be better? Or a counter to the 1-3-1 split? But that's a thing that requires more data.
The reason that a 1-3-1 split is so good is that any other type of split creates the potential for the opposing team to create more advantageous numbers configurations, getting that sweet, sweet 3v2 or 4v3 action. In return, you at-worst give up a 2v1, which, as we discussed, is not a bad thing.
*****
All of the discussion thus far has been about numbers. But next, I want to talk about positioning.
One of the other complaints from people I disagreed with was that people would run up to the line and stop. While I agree that people tend to run more than they need to in melee, I think that running up to the line and stopping on either edge is a good choice because it forces your opponent's line to take a convex shape. This creates more exposure to more possible cross-shots on their line, which is good for stabbing.
The option advocated for was that you should keep going around the edge of the line, if you're going to go up to the edge at all. I disagree strongly. I think that doing that, with equal numbers, opens your line up to a zipper, while running behind their line only gives you the possibility of some Death From Behind. A DFB can be foiled in a number of ways, but the most crippling is if someone from their side who isn't involved in the zipper peels off backwards to take you.
If the opposing team is smart, and mentions when something is starting in the backfield, this is almost guaranteed to happen.
*****
One more positioning thing.
All this time I've been talking about numbers in terms of 2v1 and so forth. This completely ignores local numbers advantages, intentionally. I do this because I think that local numbers-advantages from positioning are innately less powerful than "real" numbers advantages. So having a slight wrap around the edge of their line in a 4v4 is nice, but if you have to give them a few seconds of having a 4v3 in order to gain it, I don't think it's worth it. It might be if your team is made of very strong defensive fighters, but that's another thing I need more data about. Usually, people get stabbed too fast for the positioning advantage to be worth it.
*****
Lastly, risk threshold.
In any melee less than 10v10, with equal sides, I think that optimal play turns into a bunch of one-on-one fights. Anything else has the potential to give up a numbers advantage elsewhere, for only gaining a 2v1 in your team's favor. And this is bad.
That said, turning into a bunch of one-on-one fights is bad for you if your team is less 1v1 prowess-y than the opposing team. This means that you need to engage in suboptimal tactics, to try to even things out. You need to create an advantage and press it, even if the likelihood of the advantage panning out is less than 50%. Because if the chance your team will win the many-one-on-one-fights fight is (say) 30%, then anything that gains you an advantage which has a chance of success greater than 30% is a good plan.
You are the underdog, and you need to make your opponents uncomfortable. Do it however you can.
*****
That's all of my melee heresies, for the moment. I could say more about terrain, but terrain is something which is hard to control and handled in weird, squishy ways depending on who the marshal is.
Have a good day, and good melee! I'll be happy to discuss these, but I am not super likely to change my mind without some form of semi-anecdotal proof.
There are a couple of "common knowledge" things that people keep repeating, that I just don't think are true. As such, I am developing heretical beliefs about melee. I'm writing this down because there were some people with strong opinions about rapier melee from crossing over from heavy melee, and I am convinced that these opinions aren't correct or completely applicable to rapier.
*****
The "common knowledge" of a 2v1 is that, no matter who it is, the 2 should be able to stab the 1 quickly. And in a line fight, this is sort of true. If you can create a 2v1 on the end of a line, that's strictly good. However, in a skirmishing situation, I think that this is incorrect.
In a skirmishing situation, the 2 will probably eventually win the 2v1. However, there are a lot of tactics that the 1 can use to delay, especially if they are short-blade fighters.
- You can use sinusoidal motion to "dot the i"
- You can use timing and jukes to make people move incorrectly and lose distance
- You can threaten a diving attack past one of the outside edges of the 2
All of these things are somewhat guaranteed to work, if and only if you can threaten all of them. The last of them is why I think that rapier melee is different from heavy melee, and why I think that all of this that I'm saying is true. Because you can be "too close" for someone to get a good shot onto you, and we don't have spears.
The victory condition for the 2 in a 2v1 is to "cross the T", such that the 2 can attack the 1 at the same time. But the way most people do it involves a lot of communication, and communication takes time. Time means that the 1 can use one of the above tricks to mess up distance. And in order to attack, both of the 2 need to be in the correct place. So, if the 2 are waiting to get into the correct place before communicating their intent to attack, the 1 can indefinitely delay, by moving such that at least one of the 2 are out of position.
The solution, here, is probably for the 2 to learn how to anticipate the motion of the 1, and then attack immediately when they are going to be in position half a second from now. I'm not sure how this would work in real situations - I believe that it will just create opportunities for the 1 to juke harder. I don't believe this falls apart in top-level play, but I am open to the idea that in top-level play this is incorrect.
As such, if I'm correct, I think that "have 2 people jump 1 person" is a completely unworkable strategy. 2 people cannot force the kill to happen in the way that people keep saying they can, so long as the 1 gives ground.
All that said, forcing a 2v1 with the 1 as a skirmisher can be used to the 2's team's advantage. If the 1 is giving ground, whoever of the 2 is closer to the line-fight needs to peel off and hit the line from the side, as soon as the 1 is far enough back that they can only threaten the other of the 2. That way, the 2 are trading the 2v1 for a 1v1, but gaining better positioning in the rest of their team.
In a situation with equivalent numbers, this means you're trading worse numbers right now for a better position later. I think this is a bad tactical choice, until the melee becomes large enough that a one-person difference in a large line doesn't matter. Which happens perhaps at the point of a 6-10-person line or so? At that point, the tactical advantage of positioning outweighs the tactical advantage of numbers that you're giving up.
*****
The next point that I have is that in terms of tactical advantage, 2v1 is less than 4v3, which is less than 3v2. This is because the delaying tactics of the smaller side require coordination of movement. Adding people makes this harder, even if they have practiced together. The reason that 3v2 is better than 4v3, though, is because in a 3v2 you have 50% more people on the larger side, whereas in the 4v3 you only have 33% more people. This means you have less of an advantage, so the smaller side is more likely to be able to get a random kill and equalize numbers.
If I had to put a point value on various positions, a 1v1 or any disadvantageous position is worth 0, a 2v1 is worth 1, a 4v3 is worth 1.5, and a 3v2 is worth 2. I'm unsure of the value of a 3v1 or 4v1 - my intuition places it somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5, though it's an interesting thought exercise. Obviously, all of this assumes optimal play and players who know how to survive a 1v2 in the correct way.
It would be interesting to assign a point value to all numbers-based configurations of people up to 10v10. Perhaps this is an exercise for later.
This means that in a 5v5 melee, the best tactic should be a 1-3-1 split. And if your opponents are clever, they will also perform a 1-3-1 split in order to nullify the possible advantages you can gain from it and turn the melee into a series of 1v1 fights. Depending on the value of a 3v1, a 2-1-2 split might be better? Or a counter to the 1-3-1 split? But that's a thing that requires more data.
The reason that a 1-3-1 split is so good is that any other type of split creates the potential for the opposing team to create more advantageous numbers configurations, getting that sweet, sweet 3v2 or 4v3 action. In return, you at-worst give up a 2v1, which, as we discussed, is not a bad thing.
*****
All of the discussion thus far has been about numbers. But next, I want to talk about positioning.
One of the other complaints from people I disagreed with was that people would run up to the line and stop. While I agree that people tend to run more than they need to in melee, I think that running up to the line and stopping on either edge is a good choice because it forces your opponent's line to take a convex shape. This creates more exposure to more possible cross-shots on their line, which is good for stabbing.
The option advocated for was that you should keep going around the edge of the line, if you're going to go up to the edge at all. I disagree strongly. I think that doing that, with equal numbers, opens your line up to a zipper, while running behind their line only gives you the possibility of some Death From Behind. A DFB can be foiled in a number of ways, but the most crippling is if someone from their side who isn't involved in the zipper peels off backwards to take you.
If the opposing team is smart, and mentions when something is starting in the backfield, this is almost guaranteed to happen.
*****
One more positioning thing.
All this time I've been talking about numbers in terms of 2v1 and so forth. This completely ignores local numbers advantages, intentionally. I do this because I think that local numbers-advantages from positioning are innately less powerful than "real" numbers advantages. So having a slight wrap around the edge of their line in a 4v4 is nice, but if you have to give them a few seconds of having a 4v3 in order to gain it, I don't think it's worth it. It might be if your team is made of very strong defensive fighters, but that's another thing I need more data about. Usually, people get stabbed too fast for the positioning advantage to be worth it.
*****
Lastly, risk threshold.
In any melee less than 10v10, with equal sides, I think that optimal play turns into a bunch of one-on-one fights. Anything else has the potential to give up a numbers advantage elsewhere, for only gaining a 2v1 in your team's favor. And this is bad.
That said, turning into a bunch of one-on-one fights is bad for you if your team is less 1v1 prowess-y than the opposing team. This means that you need to engage in suboptimal tactics, to try to even things out. You need to create an advantage and press it, even if the likelihood of the advantage panning out is less than 50%. Because if the chance your team will win the many-one-on-one-fights fight is (say) 30%, then anything that gains you an advantage which has a chance of success greater than 30% is a good plan.
You are the underdog, and you need to make your opponents uncomfortable. Do it however you can.
*****
That's all of my melee heresies, for the moment. I could say more about terrain, but terrain is something which is hard to control and handled in weird, squishy ways depending on who the marshal is.
Have a good day, and good melee! I'll be happy to discuss these, but I am not super likely to change my mind without some form of semi-anecdotal proof.
Friday, February 24, 2017
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:
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.
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.
- Tall person and short person attack at the same time. Tall person wins.
- Short person waits for tall person's attack and parry/ripostes. Short person wins.
- Tall person feints, short person parries, tall person disengages and thrusts. Tall person wins.
- Short person anticipates the feint, attacks through it to choke the disengage. Short person wins.
- 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.
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.
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.
Sunday, February 5, 2017
Southern Region Rapier Practice Post
Just some quick thoughts.
I fought a bunch of people, but my 45-inch rapier felt awkward in my hand. I think I've been concentrating on my 37-inch rapier and destreza too much. I need to get back into the swing of 45-inch rapiering.
I fought a bunch of people, but my 45-inch rapier felt awkward in my hand. I think I've been concentrating on my 37-inch rapier and destreza too much. I need to get back into the swing of 45-inch rapiering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)