Zornhau ort and the First Winden

[Jesse Eaton]

Jeremy,

"There's nothing invalid with a pass back. I use when the situation calls for it. I just see a wider tactical applicability with a different interpretation." Exactly! That's what I've been trying, and failing, to get across. Thanks

[Jeremy S.]

Your response doesn't surprise me.

I was replying specifically to the "Then keep using it exclusively" comment, not to anything in your post. If you want to get a rise out of me you could, I don't know, insult my mother or something. In fact, please do so, then come on down and I'll hit you on your head that it resounds in your heart.

[Joey Nitti]

Looking at the video again, I'm uncertain why the Zornhau-ort is being done in the vor? So no, I haven't tried that. This is the part of the text we are working from:

The action done in the vor is what we do as just a regular "good" oberhau. A "bad" oberhau would be attacking the opponent directly without controlling their blade or the center. At least, that's our interpretation: a good Liechtenauer fencer's typical oberhau ends with the point online rather than a direct cut.
I'll say it again in bold since these things always need to be crystal clear: this is just our interpretation of a "standard" oberhau.

We aren't assuming that the initial oberhau is intended to hit as a direct cut, we are told that it is in the manual that we are discussing:

Right. I haven't studied Goliath at all really. We use the anonymous gloss as found in the "Von Danzig" fechtbuch. It describes the oberhau-zornhau the exact same way as Goliath though, with the initial attack being direct to the head. Our interpretation is that that initial action is a "bad fencer's" move, similar in idea to how other techniques are demonstrated against something that a "bad" fencer would do. In training, we try not to practice doing things the "bad fencer's" way, lest they become habits. Again, this is based on OUR interpretation of what an ideal or typical oberhau should look like. That's not to say that direct attacks will never happen though. I suppose recreating the play in the manuscript exactly requires a direct cut to the head. If we did that, I suppose we would be able to use a hip-rotate or pass-back zornhau. With the distance we currently use (where an oberhau is intended to finish point in front of the face), passing back would take you out of distance. In that sense, I actually think your interpretation of the Goliath one is pretty good Dustin.

So, at least here, the Z-ort is done in the nach to gain the vor. But I'm curious what text that sequence is from?

I'm not actually sure on the answer to that. As far as I can tell, that complete sequence is not found in Von Danzig. I do know that it is based primarily on the Anon. Gloss in VD, so I think it's just a sequence of techniques that string together.


I will note that like I've said before, our interpretation of an oberhau leads us to a measure that is slightly further apart than most other HEMA groups, which ends with us getting a large amount of our hits with the point, where most groups seem to get the vast majority of hits with cuts.

[Ben Floyd]

... insult my mother or something. In fact, please do so, then come on down and I'll hit you on your head that it resounds in your heart.

I'll rely on this Frenchman to taunt you for me.

Now come to Florida and fence me.

[Dustin Reagan]

"I'm still fond of" does not imply "this is the one true way" nor does it state "this is the only way I do it."

You're right, I apologize for interpreting that as a black/white type statement and for the sharpness of my reply. More than anything, it's my manner of online debate. It's easy for me to get carried away ;]

When I'm executing the zornhau with an offline step I'm targeting their head. That my cut "wrathfully" strikes the weak of their blade is a happy accident of angles and timing. If they don't respond to that direct threat they take one in the temple

That's fine, and I think that's an application of the Zornhau and I do that too occasionally, but that's not Zornhau-Ort, at least what's described in the VD gloss or shown in the Goliath image.

I thought this was a thread for discussing the merits and issues associated with the various possible interpretations of the actions described in the texts, not every possible situation that can arise.

You raise a good point, so I'll clarify that I used the example that I did, even though it is not what is described in the Zornhau-Ort passage to show that:

-The pass backwards interpretation of Zornhau-Ort works [effectively in my opinion] for the explicit case that is described in the VD Zornhau-Ort gloss.
-It also keeps you safe even if your opponent does any of a number of the possible/probable actions that look a lot like he's doing an oberhau to your upper left opening.

So in that sense, I believe the pass-backwards is less risky than some of the other zornhau variations, with very nearly the same offensive potential.

There's nothing invalid with a pass back. I use when the situation calls for it. I just see a wider tactical applicability with a different interpretation.

I don't. But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and that the pass-backwards Zornhau-Ort is less optimal. If that is the case, why does the Goliath Zornhau-Ort image show something that:

-conforms to the VD gloss of the Zornhau-Ort.
-conforms with my pass-backwards interpretation of the Zornhau-Ort [I haven't seen a real challenge to this assumption, so I'm assuming most people agree that my interpretation at the very least does not contradict either the gloss or the image].

Of course, I really don't know what the answer is, but it seems odd to me to conclude that whomever choreographed the images in Goliath decided to show a "less optimal" version of Zornhau-Ort.