Since my last post, I've started working again (yay!) which has cut into my ability to keep cranking on things here. New job, new schedules, things get shifted. I'll try to get something new up by the end of the weekend, though.
In lieu of more Fabris, I'll leave you with this New York Times blog post from 2009, involving some studies about taking ibuprofin before exercise. I know a number of us who've done that - before melees, before tournaments. Turns out, it's a terrible idea. Who knew?
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Fabris, Part Eight - Chapter 10
We're back!
(pages 17-18)
Chapter 10 - On Tempo and Contratempo - Which are good and bad; how to deceive a false tempo that the opponent gives you in order to wound you in contratempo.
Fabris begins by defining tempo for purposes of this discussion. Here, he says that "A tempo is a movement that the opponent makes within measures. If he were to move outside the measures, it would not be a tempo but merely a movement or mutation, because in this discipline, 'tempo' also implies an occasion to wound or at least to take some advantage over the opponent." I've seen other definitions before (specifically noting that it's a movement between two moments of stillness or a moment of stillness between two movements, using Aristotelian concepts), but I really appreciate Fabris including the point that the movement has to occur within a measure to even matter.
Fabris goes on to point out that the time you use to make one movement cannot be used to make another movement - so if your opponent has an opening, is in measure, and makes a movement during which you strike, you will wound him because he cannot do two things at once. In doing this though, the tempo of your attack can't be longer than the tempo of the movement your opponent is making, otherwise he can still parry you and respond to your attack.
This is what Fabris calls an attack in tempo. (Or of tempo.)
Fabris further states that distance plays into attacks in tempo. If your opponent is sufficiently far away and only moves his arms or body but not his feet, you may well not be able to reach him with your attack because he can move his feet to break measure entirely. In this case, Fabris recommends using this opportunity to close the measure and take the next tempo to wound your opponent.
Very nearly any movement can give you a good tempo. Shifting around in a guard, moving feet and body, or sword and feet, or any combination can give a tempo if there's an opening. Naturally though, it's much easier to take a tempo if your opponent doesn't realize he's giving it, and if you already are in a good counter-posture. Because your opponent is already moving, he can't parry and counter because that's two tempi, and if you're already in a good counter posture, you only need one to strike.
Fabris states that even at wide measure, taking a tempo when your opponent moves - even if it isn't his feet - can be good because he probably doesn't know that he just gave you the tempo; this should let you close quickly.
At this point in the chapter, things are very straightforward, but there are some interesting conclusions we can take from what Fabris is saying. He doesn't outright say that tempi can vary in length from one another, but simply notes that it's a thing to be careful of and moves on. It seems as though it's just taken for granted, which I suppose, it should be. It only makes sense.
What does stick out to me though, is that Fabris doesn't seem to allow for the interruption of a tempo to do something else - what I tend to think of as aborting to a parry, or suddenly bailing out of measure. It's something we've all seen, and many of us have done. I suspect that this is because this may not fit into his view of proper fencing, because any attack is a commitment and if you're allowing for the possibility of hitting the abort button it's because you didn't correctly choose a counter-guard, gain your opponent's blade, and make a firm strike.
While we haven't gotten to his chapter on feints yet (it's coming up soon), I'm going to guess that he'd consider a feint and attack as being composed of a number of short tempi, and not a single long tempo. That being the case, you wouldn't be interrupting the feint to parry or do something other than what you had planned, but simply doing something else as the next tempo.
Moving on to the remainder of the chapter!
Fabris states that some fencers will make a tempo to lure you into an attack and then have parried and countered your blow as you do so. This is what he calls "contratempo," and he goes on to clarify that technically, any time you counter an attack it's a contratempo action. He states that another possible result is both fencers are wounded, because either one didn't judge the contratempo correctly, the invitation was performed too close, or the invitation was too large.
If you want to avoid the contratempo, you need to be keenly aware of the tempo your opponent is giving you, and make sure that it's long enough so that your blow has time to reach your opponent. If you feel that it is an invitation, Fabris says that you should begin your movement, and then change to the opening made when your opponent moves his blade in the contratempo.
Fabris then says, almost as an aside, that "this discipline relies in great part on the ability to subtly deceive your opponent."
If you are in close measure, Fabris says you can take advantage of any movement from your opponent (unless they're breaking measure). Unless he's increasing measure (in which case he may have the time necessary to parry and strike you), you should have the advantage if you attack in that tempo. It is never good to be the first to move in close measure, unless you are attacking.
Additionally, if you are in close measure you can attack without your opponent giving you a tempo, if you are in a good counter-posture. If you are careful in your choice of targets and your assessment of your opponent's ability to parry, and you gain the blade well, you should be successful.
I must say that I enjoyed how Fabris pointed out double-kills, as well as how when you're sufficiently close, some of the rules about tempo morph somewhat into more of a gunslinging approach - although he does say that you must still have a good counter-posture lest you be wounded as well. This is a really tight description of tempi and what you can do with them.
Next up, the cavazione. Tune in!
(pages 17-18)
Chapter 10 - On Tempo and Contratempo - Which are good and bad; how to deceive a false tempo that the opponent gives you in order to wound you in contratempo.
Fabris begins by defining tempo for purposes of this discussion. Here, he says that "A tempo is a movement that the opponent makes within measures. If he were to move outside the measures, it would not be a tempo but merely a movement or mutation, because in this discipline, 'tempo' also implies an occasion to wound or at least to take some advantage over the opponent." I've seen other definitions before (specifically noting that it's a movement between two moments of stillness or a moment of stillness between two movements, using Aristotelian concepts), but I really appreciate Fabris including the point that the movement has to occur within a measure to even matter.
Fabris goes on to point out that the time you use to make one movement cannot be used to make another movement - so if your opponent has an opening, is in measure, and makes a movement during which you strike, you will wound him because he cannot do two things at once. In doing this though, the tempo of your attack can't be longer than the tempo of the movement your opponent is making, otherwise he can still parry you and respond to your attack.
This is what Fabris calls an attack in tempo. (Or of tempo.)
Fabris further states that distance plays into attacks in tempo. If your opponent is sufficiently far away and only moves his arms or body but not his feet, you may well not be able to reach him with your attack because he can move his feet to break measure entirely. In this case, Fabris recommends using this opportunity to close the measure and take the next tempo to wound your opponent.
Very nearly any movement can give you a good tempo. Shifting around in a guard, moving feet and body, or sword and feet, or any combination can give a tempo if there's an opening. Naturally though, it's much easier to take a tempo if your opponent doesn't realize he's giving it, and if you already are in a good counter-posture. Because your opponent is already moving, he can't parry and counter because that's two tempi, and if you're already in a good counter posture, you only need one to strike.
Fabris states that even at wide measure, taking a tempo when your opponent moves - even if it isn't his feet - can be good because he probably doesn't know that he just gave you the tempo; this should let you close quickly.
At this point in the chapter, things are very straightforward, but there are some interesting conclusions we can take from what Fabris is saying. He doesn't outright say that tempi can vary in length from one another, but simply notes that it's a thing to be careful of and moves on. It seems as though it's just taken for granted, which I suppose, it should be. It only makes sense.
What does stick out to me though, is that Fabris doesn't seem to allow for the interruption of a tempo to do something else - what I tend to think of as aborting to a parry, or suddenly bailing out of measure. It's something we've all seen, and many of us have done. I suspect that this is because this may not fit into his view of proper fencing, because any attack is a commitment and if you're allowing for the possibility of hitting the abort button it's because you didn't correctly choose a counter-guard, gain your opponent's blade, and make a firm strike.
While we haven't gotten to his chapter on feints yet (it's coming up soon), I'm going to guess that he'd consider a feint and attack as being composed of a number of short tempi, and not a single long tempo. That being the case, you wouldn't be interrupting the feint to parry or do something other than what you had planned, but simply doing something else as the next tempo.
Moving on to the remainder of the chapter!
Fabris states that some fencers will make a tempo to lure you into an attack and then have parried and countered your blow as you do so. This is what he calls "contratempo," and he goes on to clarify that technically, any time you counter an attack it's a contratempo action. He states that another possible result is both fencers are wounded, because either one didn't judge the contratempo correctly, the invitation was performed too close, or the invitation was too large.
If you want to avoid the contratempo, you need to be keenly aware of the tempo your opponent is giving you, and make sure that it's long enough so that your blow has time to reach your opponent. If you feel that it is an invitation, Fabris says that you should begin your movement, and then change to the opening made when your opponent moves his blade in the contratempo.
Fabris then says, almost as an aside, that "this discipline relies in great part on the ability to subtly deceive your opponent."
If you are in close measure, Fabris says you can take advantage of any movement from your opponent (unless they're breaking measure). Unless he's increasing measure (in which case he may have the time necessary to parry and strike you), you should have the advantage if you attack in that tempo. It is never good to be the first to move in close measure, unless you are attacking.
Additionally, if you are in close measure you can attack without your opponent giving you a tempo, if you are in a good counter-posture. If you are careful in your choice of targets and your assessment of your opponent's ability to parry, and you gain the blade well, you should be successful.
I must say that I enjoyed how Fabris pointed out double-kills, as well as how when you're sufficiently close, some of the rules about tempo morph somewhat into more of a gunslinging approach - although he does say that you must still have a good counter-posture lest you be wounded as well. This is a really tight description of tempi and what you can do with them.
Next up, the cavazione. Tune in!
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Overcoming hurdles to the inclusion of historical technique in SCA rapier
(With thanks to Lilias de Cheryngton for editing this. Otherwise, it wouldn't be remotely intelligible.)
One of the common remarks I hear about historic technique is that it doesn't work well in the SCA. On the contrary, I think there's a lot of room for the use of period techniques in rapier (and for that matter, in Cut & Thrust) over those of sport fencing, but there are absolutely barriers to their full adoption by the SCA rapier community. I think that these barriers can be problematic to the point of turning people entirely off from the study and use of period techniques, and that is unfortunate. At the very least, we should be able to use historical techniques in bouting situations within the bounds of our rules, and I argue we should make an effort to work past the hurdles and do so.
One of the common remarks I hear about historic technique is that it doesn't work well in the SCA. On the contrary, I think there's a lot of room for the use of period techniques in rapier (and for that matter, in Cut & Thrust) over those of sport fencing, but there are absolutely barriers to their full adoption by the SCA rapier community. I think that these barriers can be problematic to the point of turning people entirely off from the study and use of period techniques, and that is unfortunate. At the very least, we should be able to use historical techniques in bouting situations within the bounds of our rules, and I argue we should make an effort to work past the hurdles and do so.
In this brief essay, I would like to
discuss the issues that can interfere with the use of historic technique, and offer
a few ways we can try to avoid, remedy, or at least mitigate them. The crux of
the issue is, essentially, people don't
fight the right way for the techniques to work. I will elaborate on this
rather broad statement in the following ways:
- Reasons due to safety concerns.
- Calibration.
- Speed and intent of attack.
- Body contact.
- Reasons due to influence of rules on combat (or “gaming
the system”).
- Double kills.
- Touch calibration.
- Reasons due to mindset.
- Modern influence - sport fencing.
- Lack of fear - point fear, fear of death.
- Lack of period priorities.
There is certainly some crossover
between these categories, but my hope is that breaking it up in this manner
will facilitate discussion.
Safety Concerns
Safety concerns are probably the
more intimidating issues to cover - who wants to ignore safety and really
injure their opponent or themselves? That being said, they're also pretty easy
to address, since they tend to be concerned solely with the fighter initiating
the attack.
The first safety issue is that of
calibration. Initially, it looks like we need to thread a needle between
"safe" and "historically accurate." Look at some of those
plates - they want you to hit someone so there's a foot or more of steel coming
out the other side! How hard would you need to hit someone to do that, though?
The answer is to adjust the angles necessary to perform the technique safely as
well as effectively. Modifying the technique slightly from the original will
take more study and practice, but changing the angles slightly to allow you to
perform it safely in SCA combat is worth it. Sometimes you can simply place the
tip of your blade on your opponent and not finish the skewering movement, but performing
the technique without the prescribed follow-through could leave you vulnerable.
A large subset of period techniques require
proper intent and speed for them to work, making safety more of an issue. These
techniques should be worked up to, and practiced until they can be performed
safely – much like any “modern” fencing technique a person uses for the first
time! Until you can perform them safely, do not use them in an uncontrolled
bout. Given enough practice, it is quite possible to perform period techniques while
being ready to break your wrist or arrest your forward motion on contact.
Body contact can be a larger hurdle,
depending on your home kingdom. If your kingdom allows fleeting contact in
accordance with the society standards for rapier, you have a fair amount of
freedom to play with. You still can't grab, pull, grapple, or strike, but you
don't need to worry about accidentally bouncing off your opponent, or
performing techniques that require you to put your hands on their limbs to
check their motion. If you are forbidden to use body contact, there are still
large amounts - honestly, the majority - of historical techniques you can use
without any change whatsoever; you just happen to be somewhat restricted in
what you can choose from. Nearly every
period technique either fits, or can be modified to fit, within our safety
rules.
Influence of Rules on Combat
A much thornier issue is how the
rules of our game unduly influence the course of combat. This might also be
termed "gaming the system." Sometimes it's intentional on the
fighter's part, sometimes it isn't, but the rules have an effect either way.
Double kills are the first problem
here, and they are two-fold. First, there is the practice in the East where, when
each opponent strikes the other at nearly the same time, the second is
considered late and not counted, regardless of whether it was in motion at the
time the first shot landed. (Note: Society rules specify that if a shot is in
motion when the first blow lands, the second shot is still good, which neatly
obviates this issue.) The Eastern practice encourages speed while ignoring
defense; as long as you get that first touch, whatever happens afterward is
irrelevant, no matter how large a bruise it leaves. This can lead to poor
defense, and is a horrible practice in general. The period masters agreed,
using the concept of "after-blow" to describe its dangers. Dealing
with this is relatively easy – I suggest adopting the society rule on the
matter, and the problem should remedy itself. You'll either see better
fighting, or a sudden spike in double kills (which should encourage better
fighting).
The second issue with double kills
is the fact that, much of the time, double kills are not punished. It can be
common practice, to make life easier on the MoL, to re-fight double kills until
there is a winner. There are no negative consequences. This has another easy
solution: to quote Don Dylan ap Maelgwn, "Dead is dead." A double
kill counts as a loss for both combatants. It could be awkward if both
finalists in a tournament are eliminated this way, but a special provision
could be made in this case.
The other major rule issue has to do
with touch calibration. In kingdoms where lightest touch calibration is
preferred, a number of bad habits can develop. It's easier to not commit to
your attacks, tap people gently as you're flinging yourself backwards, or touch
your target many times in rapid succession, but in ways that wouldn't even
realistically break the skin. Beyond altering what your region views as
acceptable, it is difficult to remedy this for other fighters. Certainly
though, you can ensure that you are placing your weapon firmly and well, making
good committed attacks against your opponent. The benefit to doing so is that
it is much harder for those shots to
be ignored – intentionally or not – and that is a benefit in itself.
Mindset
Finally, we come to mindset. This is
the area individual fighters can most readily change in themselves, and even
lead by example in their communities.
First, the fighter should look to
any modern influences on their fighting. The majority of us still have foil and
epee roots even within the society, even if they never officially did sport
fencing. There is also a definite perception that techniques derived from sport
fencing need to be used in order to win.
For people who came to the SCA from
sport fencing, there is absolutely a hurdle of ingrained responses to get past.
Especially if these responses win bouts, it is hard to let them go in favor of
more period techniques. However, I would point out that sport fencing
techniques are primarily designed around sport fencing weapons - which period
weapons are assuredly not. The difference in weight alone could lead to injury,
either in execution of technique on your opponent, or simply through muscle
strain on yourself. Additionally, with as much difference as there is between
modern weapons and period ones, the techniques used with modern weapons aren't
designed for the heavier, longer, and otherwise different period weapons. Period
technique was designed for period weapons. While there is absolutely going to
be a learning curve in learning or re-learning techniques with the weapons we
use, I feel that it will ultimately be more comfortable and have a higher
success rate - as well as being closer to what the SCA is ostensibly about.
Another issue which can dramatically
affect how the fight plays out is the lack of fear. There may be a deep concern
for winning; fighting well for your royalty, kingdom, or inspiration; and
simply performing well. However, that is different from looking at your
opponent and realizing a missed parry might mean death - possibly a quite
painful one over days or weeks. In our game, there's no fear of mortality, and
there's not even any “point fear.” Look at a tipped rapier pointing right at
you. Now take the tip off and do it again. It's suddenly a lot harder to pin
down where the point of the blade is. That difference in perspective, combined
with the fact that it is pointed right at your vital organs, is scary.
It might be melodramatic, but it drastically changes how people fight. Without
live steel, what's the worst that will happen? You might lose. Maybe you'll get
hit a little hard. Because of this, people are willing to take risks, fight
unsafely, and do things that they'd never even consider if the fight were real.
All of these mental aspects of the
game roll up into the final point - the lack of period priorities. The manuals
I'm personally familiar with are very clear on one point: worry about defending
yourself first and make sure you are perfectly safe before you consider attacking
your opponent. For instance, Capo Ferro states, “Therefore, it is moreover seen
that defense is the principal action of fencing. No one should proceed to
offense if not through the route of legitimate defense.” This means that
gunslinging, willingness to sacrifice a limb to land a hit on your opponent, and
trying for a double kill are out. Combat is serious because blood can be shed.
This isn't to say we shouldn't try to have fun out there, or that we shouldn't
be trying new things, working on different techniques, and relaxing (especially
in pickups with friends) - not every fight needs to be kill-or-be-killed. When
it matters, though, I believe internalizing the period fighting mentality does
a lot for encouraging the use of period technique.
One of the great things about SCA
rapier is the degree to which, even keeping our safety rules in mind, we are
able to train and use period techniques as we fight. I believe encouraging this
in ourselves and in our communities is important to what we do, both as
historical fighters, and as members of the SCA.
Friday, August 9, 2013
A few Pennsic thoughts.
Before I dive back into the Fabris (WITH SHOUTING, FOR IAN) I figured I'd drop a few notes on Pennsic here - or at least specifically fighting notes. In no particular order, even!
The melees were, well, melees. That said though, they were really, really smooth and had not nearly the number of issues that I'm used to. I blame the weather being so awesome and not hot and gross. The fact that it wasn't 95* with humidity to match really seemed to take the tempers off.
There was a meaningful force imbalance in play, though I admit that I'm not sure of the numbers. It was especially noticeable in the woods though, where the East was able to have a pretty much unbroken line across the entire woods and the Middle, well, couldn't. Partway through, the East was told by either HRM or HRH (I got differing reports on that) to stop using DFBsThe bridge battle (Gunning: The War Point) was wacky fun, but pretty unsatisfying as a war point. Again, I didn't notice any really upset fighters though, so I imagine we all had the same attitude going into it.
Another thing that I noticed for something like the second or third year running was the Freelance Academy Press sponsored track of WMA classes. This is excellent, and I want more of this. I realize this means that I need to put up or shut up, and despite my fear of a class full of people who will point and tell me how wrong I am, that I should do this damn thing, huh?
A few things did make me blink over the course of Pennsic, though.
Meat Shields - I come from a kingdom where disabled fencers are obliged to remove themselves from the field, so we tend to just not see them where I'm from. I get that it's not forbidden by Pennsic convention (and likely in other kingdoms as well), but man, I just think it's silly. That said, I saw (and at one point was involved in) what would have been a double kill situation in a tournament with one person dead and the other having lost both arms, but the latter being allowed to continue because hey, they aren't dead. (Which, for the record, I was totally okay with every time I saw it.) So maybe I'm just a hypocrite, or it's a melee thing that irks me because melee.
Spears - Oh, boy. So. A number of folks from a number of kingdoms brought a number of examples of experimental spear designs to show people, play around with, and get feedback on. Universally, I think, the reactions were, "Well, it's neat, but hell if I want to get hit with that." Personally, I have Strong Feelings about them, on both sides. In almost nothing resembling order:
DFB - I'm still a little divided here. It's a tool, and I use it really well. It's realistic, in that if I can get behind someone on a melee field for long enough to plant my feet, they're guaranteed out of the fight. But it's not what I want to play. I want more people facing me when I kill them, and I want more of That Kind Of Honorable Engagement. Then again, I'm also the person who wants to give more people singles when they ask for them despite also rolling over people in melees in which we're supposed to be training for Pennsic. I should really just examine what I want out of my own game and make up my mind, huh? I suspect the answer will make me less popular in the East, and more Donovan "Funkiller" Shinnock, but whatev. I'll go read The Phoenix Guard again and remind myself of one of the big reasons I got into this whole organization, right? Right.
So that was my Pennsic. I fought a whole lot of people, saw some great people get recognized for being great, avoided the EMT cart, and had fun doing what I do. Which is pretty great.
The melees were, well, melees. That said though, they were really, really smooth and had not nearly the number of issues that I'm used to. I blame the weather being so awesome and not hot and gross. The fact that it wasn't 95* with humidity to match really seemed to take the tempers off.
There was a meaningful force imbalance in play, though I admit that I'm not sure of the numbers. It was especially noticeable in the woods though, where the East was able to have a pretty much unbroken line across the entire woods and the Middle, well, couldn't. Partway through, the East was told by either HRM or HRH (I got differing reports on that) to stop using DFBsThe bridge battle (Gunning: The War Point) was wacky fun, but pretty unsatisfying as a war point. Again, I didn't notice any really upset fighters though, so I imagine we all had the same attitude going into it.
Another thing that I noticed for something like the second or third year running was the Freelance Academy Press sponsored track of WMA classes. This is excellent, and I want more of this. I realize this means that I need to put up or shut up, and despite my fear of a class full of people who will point and tell me how wrong I am, that I should do this damn thing, huh?
A few things did make me blink over the course of Pennsic, though.
Meat Shields - I come from a kingdom where disabled fencers are obliged to remove themselves from the field, so we tend to just not see them where I'm from. I get that it's not forbidden by Pennsic convention (and likely in other kingdoms as well), but man, I just think it's silly. That said, I saw (and at one point was involved in) what would have been a double kill situation in a tournament with one person dead and the other having lost both arms, but the latter being allowed to continue because hey, they aren't dead. (Which, for the record, I was totally okay with every time I saw it.) So maybe I'm just a hypocrite, or it's a melee thing that irks me because melee.
Spears - Oh, boy. So. A number of folks from a number of kingdoms brought a number of examples of experimental spear designs to show people, play around with, and get feedback on. Universally, I think, the reactions were, "Well, it's neat, but hell if I want to get hit with that." Personally, I have Strong Feelings about them, on both sides. In almost nothing resembling order:
- Rapier is, at heart, a civilian weapon. Our melees are at best random terrible militia and more likely Montague v. Capulet brawls. Why the hell would we have pikes?
- Without putting any force behind a shot I was able to hit Caine hard enough to make him, as he put it, "Throw up in his mouth a little." Granted, I put the point in the right place while he wasn't braced for it, but how often would that happen in a melee? Lots. And that was with no force behind the shot - I can't imagine what that would have done with the force that I'd end up throwing in a melee.
- Any head shot with a spear transferred all the force right to the neck. There's no extra mass in what we wear on our heads to soak up the force.
- The arms race. We're already seeing it to a small degree with twohanders, and a very large degree with shields. (As an aside, I would kill for a maximum shield size of 24". Pretty sure that's the biggest thing I've found in any manual or the like that was used with rapiers or rapierlike weapons. Am I wrong? I'm probably wrong.) I feel that if pikes showed up, then it would very rapidly become All Pikes and All Giant Shields All The Time and then we're basically fighting rattan without armor. I just don't want that in rapier.
- On the other hand, spears were taught in a number of period manuals, and also used in the London Masters of Defense prize fights. It would be pretty awesome if we could see a longsword v. spear match, assuming it could be done safely.
DFB - I'm still a little divided here. It's a tool, and I use it really well. It's realistic, in that if I can get behind someone on a melee field for long enough to plant my feet, they're guaranteed out of the fight. But it's not what I want to play. I want more people facing me when I kill them, and I want more of That Kind Of Honorable Engagement. Then again, I'm also the person who wants to give more people singles when they ask for them despite also rolling over people in melees in which we're supposed to be training for Pennsic. I should really just examine what I want out of my own game and make up my mind, huh? I suspect the answer will make me less popular in the East, and more Donovan "Funkiller" Shinnock, but whatev. I'll go read The Phoenix Guard again and remind myself of one of the big reasons I got into this whole organization, right? Right.
So that was my Pennsic. I fought a whole lot of people, saw some great people get recognized for being great, avoided the EMT cart, and had fun doing what I do. Which is pretty great.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Fabris, Part Seven - Chapter 9
Wow. I get this set up and then... don't do much with it. Shame on me! The heat has been sapping my will to live. It's pretty terrible. So, without further ado, I give you MORE FABRIS.
(pages 15-17)
Chapter 9 - What Is Finding The Sword And how it is effected. When a sword is understood to be found.
Fabris starts off by saying that "finding the sword means occupying it." (I'm curious how to read "occupy" here.) He notes that it's similar to the counter-posture, but there are differences because you can find your opponent's sword without closing the exact line between it and your body - but you'll still retain an advantage over his blade because you can't be wounded without your opponent's blade passing through your forte. (Is this the first time he's mentioned the forte in these terms? I need to go back and reread the earlier chapters, suddenly. Because forte. That's important.) Also, your forte is close enough to the point of the opponent's blade so the moment he moves to lunge, you immediately find the blade. Compare to a counter-posture, where it's not truly correct unless "the line between the opponent's point and your body is completely covered, although even in this case you are playing with the advantages of the forte against the debole." (To me, this is saying that you can find the blade without completely cutting off the line of attack for your opponent. This seems to indicate that using an invitation isn't a true counter-posture, but you can find the blade with an invitation.)
So your opponent's blade is "found" when yours is more strongly positioned such that you can move his, but he can't move yours. (That seems straightforward enough. I wonder when it'll get more complicated than that!)
So to quote Fabris' further explanation in full (which is the ratio example that I tend to use), "If you are in guard, and wish to find the opponent's sword, you should situate your point against his so that the fourth part of your blade is into the opponent's fourth part, but with the greater portion of yours into his. He who has more of his sword into the opponent's (no matter by how little) will have the advantage of the sword, as long as the opponent's sword is found on the weaker side."
The sword is always stronger on the side to which it is pointing. (Tom Leoni points out in a footnote that understanding this concept is key to being able to understand Fabris.)
You don't want your point to be so far away from your opponent's that while you're looking for the fourth part of his blade that he can push ahead into his third or second part. You should push your sword into your opponent's and take up distance if he does this. (I don't think I quite grasp this, unless he's saying that you should immediately push in to regain parity rather than retreat to regain parity, which I think I can see, except that your opponent has the advantage.)
However, no matter how close your points are, if you go to find your opponent's sword, he can defend against that by angling his blade, moving his point farther away. If he has a good distance when he does this, it can happen as part of an attack, and his forte will be such that you cannot parry. If he involves a void away from your blade as well, this situation is even worse for you. (What I'm getting out of this is that if you don't take the initiative or are appropriately careful about your opponent taking the initiative, when finding the blade everything can go terribly wrong.)
If you want to avoid this, you need to be very cognizant of measure, and if you move, be prepared to alter your movement if need be. (Because any movement is a tempo, even if you're moving to gain the blade, and if you make a tempo, your opponent can take advantage of it. Even if you're trying to gain his blade at the time. Awkward.)
Fabris notes that when finding your opponent's sword, you should never touch your opponent's blade. (Yeah, this kind of flies in the face of how I've done this, too.). If you don't touch his blade, it's less likely that he'll know that you've found it and do something about it. Fabris points out further that with blade contact "you somewhat disrupt your own form" and it's harder to take advantage of tempi. (This makes perfect sense to me, though. Huh.) Additionally, you're not forced to muscle against your opponent's blade, which can cause "fencing to degenerate into wrestling."
Fabris mentions a couple techniques to keep your blade free - a disengage (as opposed to a cavazione - though he doesn't call it a disengage, but that's how dropping the point reads to me) or yielding the blade, which is always fun.
Fabris closes by saying that finding the blade is the first part of victory. If he tries to take advantage of the tempo created by you finding the blade, you will wound him. If he wants to avoid this, he must withdraw and entirely change his position.
Notes: This is, unsurprisingly, a fantastic overview of finding the blade. It really is the type of thing, I think, that requires a lot of practice and a lot of not getting it because of a lot of little things, but there'll be a sudden epiphany and it'll be awesome.
This also reminds me, for a couple reasons, that I should ramble in a future entry about some reasons why period techniques don't work so well in the SCA sometimes. Maybe I'll do that before Pennsic, because that's less interpretation and thinking about a manual, and more just kicking ideas around. Maybe not, though. We'll see.
(pages 15-17)
Chapter 9 - What Is Finding The Sword And how it is effected. When a sword is understood to be found.
Fabris starts off by saying that "finding the sword means occupying it." (I'm curious how to read "occupy" here.) He notes that it's similar to the counter-posture, but there are differences because you can find your opponent's sword without closing the exact line between it and your body - but you'll still retain an advantage over his blade because you can't be wounded without your opponent's blade passing through your forte. (Is this the first time he's mentioned the forte in these terms? I need to go back and reread the earlier chapters, suddenly. Because forte. That's important.) Also, your forte is close enough to the point of the opponent's blade so the moment he moves to lunge, you immediately find the blade. Compare to a counter-posture, where it's not truly correct unless "the line between the opponent's point and your body is completely covered, although even in this case you are playing with the advantages of the forte against the debole." (To me, this is saying that you can find the blade without completely cutting off the line of attack for your opponent. This seems to indicate that using an invitation isn't a true counter-posture, but you can find the blade with an invitation.)
So your opponent's blade is "found" when yours is more strongly positioned such that you can move his, but he can't move yours. (That seems straightforward enough. I wonder when it'll get more complicated than that!)
So to quote Fabris' further explanation in full (which is the ratio example that I tend to use), "If you are in guard, and wish to find the opponent's sword, you should situate your point against his so that the fourth part of your blade is into the opponent's fourth part, but with the greater portion of yours into his. He who has more of his sword into the opponent's (no matter by how little) will have the advantage of the sword, as long as the opponent's sword is found on the weaker side."
The sword is always stronger on the side to which it is pointing. (Tom Leoni points out in a footnote that understanding this concept is key to being able to understand Fabris.)
You don't want your point to be so far away from your opponent's that while you're looking for the fourth part of his blade that he can push ahead into his third or second part. You should push your sword into your opponent's and take up distance if he does this. (I don't think I quite grasp this, unless he's saying that you should immediately push in to regain parity rather than retreat to regain parity, which I think I can see, except that your opponent has the advantage.)
However, no matter how close your points are, if you go to find your opponent's sword, he can defend against that by angling his blade, moving his point farther away. If he has a good distance when he does this, it can happen as part of an attack, and his forte will be such that you cannot parry. If he involves a void away from your blade as well, this situation is even worse for you. (What I'm getting out of this is that if you don't take the initiative or are appropriately careful about your opponent taking the initiative, when finding the blade everything can go terribly wrong.)
If you want to avoid this, you need to be very cognizant of measure, and if you move, be prepared to alter your movement if need be. (Because any movement is a tempo, even if you're moving to gain the blade, and if you make a tempo, your opponent can take advantage of it. Even if you're trying to gain his blade at the time. Awkward.)
Fabris notes that when finding your opponent's sword, you should never touch your opponent's blade. (Yeah, this kind of flies in the face of how I've done this, too.). If you don't touch his blade, it's less likely that he'll know that you've found it and do something about it. Fabris points out further that with blade contact "you somewhat disrupt your own form" and it's harder to take advantage of tempi. (This makes perfect sense to me, though. Huh.) Additionally, you're not forced to muscle against your opponent's blade, which can cause "fencing to degenerate into wrestling."
Fabris mentions a couple techniques to keep your blade free - a disengage (as opposed to a cavazione - though he doesn't call it a disengage, but that's how dropping the point reads to me) or yielding the blade, which is always fun.
Fabris closes by saying that finding the blade is the first part of victory. If he tries to take advantage of the tempo created by you finding the blade, you will wound him. If he wants to avoid this, he must withdraw and entirely change his position.
Notes: This is, unsurprisingly, a fantastic overview of finding the blade. It really is the type of thing, I think, that requires a lot of practice and a lot of not getting it because of a lot of little things, but there'll be a sudden epiphany and it'll be awesome.
This also reminds me, for a couple reasons, that I should ramble in a future entry about some reasons why period techniques don't work so well in the SCA sometimes. Maybe I'll do that before Pennsic, because that's less interpretation and thinking about a manual, and more just kicking ideas around. Maybe not, though. We'll see.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Calontir has rapier!
We interrupt this blog to say that as of today, Calontir has enacted a rapier program.
From what I'm told, it's effectively cut and thrust - but this means that every kingdom in the SCA has a rapier program now. Awesome!
From what I'm told, it's effectively cut and thrust - but this means that every kingdom in the SCA has a rapier program now. Awesome!
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Fabris, Part Six - Chapter 8
(pages 12-15)
I've got more inline comments as opposed to a collection of them at the end. I suspect that going forward, I'll be using a combination of these - I was just pretty tired while writing this one out, so the inline notes were plain easier for me at the time.
Chapter 8 - On The Advantages and Drawbacks Of Parrying; on those who parry using the left hand in sword alone.
Fabris begins by describing the parry as a form of fear; if you were not afraid of harm, you would not need to defend. Because of this, it can be considered falling into obedience, moreso when it happens due to necessity, because if you don't want to see yourself wounded you feel compelled to parry. On the other hand, if you can cause your opponent to parry, you have an advantage because when he moves to parry he creates an opening where he can be wounded. [Straightforward second intention stuff here!]
Therefore, Fabris feels that parrying is counter-productive.
If you feint an attack in one place, you can redirect it elsewhere, deceiving him through that action. "It is infinitely better to let cuts fall away from you and to void your opponent's thrusts." This is exceedingly true when using the sword alone, because with the sword and dagger you can parry with one hand and attack with the other. [Clearly, Fabris didn't fight in the SCA, where that empty hand is all kinds of active with people.] With the sword alone, you need to be much more careful to use these techniques of simultaneous offense and defense.
Fabris says that if you have to parry, put your forte where your opponent's sword is about to fall and at the same time thrust quickly so your attack lands before your opponent contacts your forte (so your point control remains good). This is how you parry a cut - because it takes longer to hit than a thrust does.
If you know that your thrust can't reach your opponent, then you don't need to parry because he can't reach you either. [I can think of some mismatches that this in no way applies to.] If you doubt that, just pull back a bit, let the cut drop past, then counter.
If you still want to parry despite knowing your sword can't reach your opponent, you should still move your sword as if you will hit him. This way your opponent can't just keep attacking. If you are lucky, your opponent might abort to a parry because your point will come at him in the tempo, and then you can wound him.
Generally, Fabris says, don't parry if you can't counter (or fake it) so you can put your opponent into obedience while freeing yourself from it. Also, because the cut us slow, you can sometimes wound him and retreat before it drops.
All these things are possible if you have a solid grasp of your opponent, his distance, and measure. At a wider distance, you'll need to bait your opponent into an unwise overreaching attack. At a narrower distance, you'll need to wound him before the cut falls, because thrusts are faster. You can withdraw the left foot a bit to help control your distance that way, but your thrust won't be as effective. If you parry, you can pass in boldly, and since it's a thrust you will recover more easily.
Fabris also notes that if you're worried about people who cut into your sword to beat it away and then attack? If you understand tempo and cavazione, then you have no need to worry at all. [Beats: not all that great sometimes.]
Now Fabris moves on to defending against thrusts. Because they are faster and deadlier, defending against them is likewise more difficult, but generally less strength. Because you can easily employ a second intention with the thrust, even if you parry and simultaneously counter, your opponent can void your blade and redirect his blade into the opening created by your parry. This is why voiding your opponent's point with your body is preferable for defending against and countering thrusts in tempo, as long as you know what you're doing with this.
Fabris does say that it's important to be able to parry so that you can void or parry, as the situation demands. It's best if you do both at once, because it's more effective and doesn't change the location of your sword too much. Also, it is fast and makes it difficult for your opponent to easily change lines.
Further, Fabris states that there are many fencers who use their empty left hand to parry, and base their defense on that rather than the sword. They even go so far as to grab the blade (so he refers to this as 'sword and glove')! [Well, in some kingdoms, anyway!] Fabris does not even think this possible with a sharp sword. Frankly, he thinks this whole thing is foolish, but he'll go into it so we know how to operate against it, and then describe the proper way to use the left hand.
It is true that the left hand can make wider motions than the sword. Also, it is true that if you make straight line attacks without any feints or cavazioni, the left hand can easily parry. Against opponents that parry with the hand, Fabris advises keeping your sword at a slight upward angle, so that he can't pass with the body or counter before you straighten your point against him. This will also make it difficult for your opponent to grab your sword while you are on guard. He advises you attack along an oblique line to deceive the parrying hand. Basically, once you find your opponent's sword, get measure and tempo and an opening, you attack and take care to keep your point proceeding forward. This way, once you straighten the angle against the target, the point is already there before your opponent can bring his hand into play, as long as he doesn't break measure. [I really, really like this description.] One can also employ "all sorts of feints" depending on the hand position.
He feels that it is easier to fight people who defend with their hand, because they don't make use of their forte. Their big concern is keeping their sword free, so it tends to be withdrawn, leaving more openings to choose from, making it easier to wound them and retreat to safety. This is even easier against those who first parry with the hand and then jab with the sword. [This happens SO MUCH.]
The proper way, Fabris says, is to always move your sword in a controlled manner, and always observe the tempo - even if you use the left hand. It's important to know how to use the hand, but it should only be used in case of emergency, not as a habit. Generally, don't use it at all unless you can reach the opponent's hilt or get into grapples and wrestle him. [A&S! A&S!] (Fabris does say that wrestling isn't really what we're doing here since we're only interested in proper defenses and attacks with the sword. "However, since once a sword bout becomes a wrestling match you have passed the greater risk, it is more important to stay on the subject of how to safely overcome this "greater risk" and wound your opponent in the process.")
So, to correctly use the left hand. When your opponent makes an attack, you parry with the sword and counter. At the same time, place your hand so as to defend the most likely opening you make. This way, the hand defends the body and closes a line without touching your opponent's sword. This should be done whenever the tempo allows it. [Yup, this makes sense to me so far.] This is the best defense, because your hand isn't in danger, the body is covered, and you don't give anything away to your opponent by molesting his sword. If he attacks, his path will be blocked and if he doesn't attack, you can wound him without unsettling your form.
Chapter 8 - On The Advantages and Drawbacks Of Parrying; on those who parry using the left hand in sword alone.
Fabris begins by describing the parry as a form of fear; if you were not afraid of harm, you would not need to defend. Because of this, it can be considered falling into obedience, moreso when it happens due to necessity, because if you don't want to see yourself wounded you feel compelled to parry. On the other hand, if you can cause your opponent to parry, you have an advantage because when he moves to parry he creates an opening where he can be wounded. [Straightforward second intention stuff here!]
Therefore, Fabris feels that parrying is counter-productive.
If you feint an attack in one place, you can redirect it elsewhere, deceiving him through that action. "It is infinitely better to let cuts fall away from you and to void your opponent's thrusts." This is exceedingly true when using the sword alone, because with the sword and dagger you can parry with one hand and attack with the other. [Clearly, Fabris didn't fight in the SCA, where that empty hand is all kinds of active with people.] With the sword alone, you need to be much more careful to use these techniques of simultaneous offense and defense.
Fabris says that if you have to parry, put your forte where your opponent's sword is about to fall and at the same time thrust quickly so your attack lands before your opponent contacts your forte (so your point control remains good). This is how you parry a cut - because it takes longer to hit than a thrust does.
If you know that your thrust can't reach your opponent, then you don't need to parry because he can't reach you either. [I can think of some mismatches that this in no way applies to.] If you doubt that, just pull back a bit, let the cut drop past, then counter.
If you still want to parry despite knowing your sword can't reach your opponent, you should still move your sword as if you will hit him. This way your opponent can't just keep attacking. If you are lucky, your opponent might abort to a parry because your point will come at him in the tempo, and then you can wound him.
Generally, Fabris says, don't parry if you can't counter (or fake it) so you can put your opponent into obedience while freeing yourself from it. Also, because the cut us slow, you can sometimes wound him and retreat before it drops.
All these things are possible if you have a solid grasp of your opponent, his distance, and measure. At a wider distance, you'll need to bait your opponent into an unwise overreaching attack. At a narrower distance, you'll need to wound him before the cut falls, because thrusts are faster. You can withdraw the left foot a bit to help control your distance that way, but your thrust won't be as effective. If you parry, you can pass in boldly, and since it's a thrust you will recover more easily.
Fabris also notes that if you're worried about people who cut into your sword to beat it away and then attack? If you understand tempo and cavazione, then you have no need to worry at all. [Beats: not all that great sometimes.]
Now Fabris moves on to defending against thrusts. Because they are faster and deadlier, defending against them is likewise more difficult, but generally less strength. Because you can easily employ a second intention with the thrust, even if you parry and simultaneously counter, your opponent can void your blade and redirect his blade into the opening created by your parry. This is why voiding your opponent's point with your body is preferable for defending against and countering thrusts in tempo, as long as you know what you're doing with this.
Fabris does say that it's important to be able to parry so that you can void or parry, as the situation demands. It's best if you do both at once, because it's more effective and doesn't change the location of your sword too much. Also, it is fast and makes it difficult for your opponent to easily change lines.
Further, Fabris states that there are many fencers who use their empty left hand to parry, and base their defense on that rather than the sword. They even go so far as to grab the blade (so he refers to this as 'sword and glove')! [Well, in some kingdoms, anyway!] Fabris does not even think this possible with a sharp sword. Frankly, he thinks this whole thing is foolish, but he'll go into it so we know how to operate against it, and then describe the proper way to use the left hand.
It is true that the left hand can make wider motions than the sword. Also, it is true that if you make straight line attacks without any feints or cavazioni, the left hand can easily parry. Against opponents that parry with the hand, Fabris advises keeping your sword at a slight upward angle, so that he can't pass with the body or counter before you straighten your point against him. This will also make it difficult for your opponent to grab your sword while you are on guard. He advises you attack along an oblique line to deceive the parrying hand. Basically, once you find your opponent's sword, get measure and tempo and an opening, you attack and take care to keep your point proceeding forward. This way, once you straighten the angle against the target, the point is already there before your opponent can bring his hand into play, as long as he doesn't break measure. [I really, really like this description.] One can also employ "all sorts of feints" depending on the hand position.
He feels that it is easier to fight people who defend with their hand, because they don't make use of their forte. Their big concern is keeping their sword free, so it tends to be withdrawn, leaving more openings to choose from, making it easier to wound them and retreat to safety. This is even easier against those who first parry with the hand and then jab with the sword. [This happens SO MUCH.]
The proper way, Fabris says, is to always move your sword in a controlled manner, and always observe the tempo - even if you use the left hand. It's important to know how to use the hand, but it should only be used in case of emergency, not as a habit. Generally, don't use it at all unless you can reach the opponent's hilt or get into grapples and wrestle him. [A&S! A&S!] (Fabris does say that wrestling isn't really what we're doing here since we're only interested in proper defenses and attacks with the sword. "However, since once a sword bout becomes a wrestling match you have passed the greater risk, it is more important to stay on the subject of how to safely overcome this "greater risk" and wound your opponent in the process.")
So, to correctly use the left hand. When your opponent makes an attack, you parry with the sword and counter. At the same time, place your hand so as to defend the most likely opening you make. This way, the hand defends the body and closes a line without touching your opponent's sword. This should be done whenever the tempo allows it. [Yup, this makes sense to me so far.] This is the best defense, because your hand isn't in danger, the body is covered, and you don't give anything away to your opponent by molesting his sword. If he attacks, his path will be blocked and if he doesn't attack, you can wound him without unsettling your form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)