Longsword "Approaches"

[Jesse Eaton]

Carlos,

Just to clarify what you meant by "Light and too much balanced blunt", I think you meant "too light and the COG or POB is too close to the cross."?

[Carlos Negredo]

You are right Jesse.

[Mike Edelson]

You are my new favorite person. I agree with almost everything you said, and yet we fight very differently. I'd love to talk shop one day.

actually having fought you Michael, I don't think your fighting style is all that different from what I have seen in Carlos' video performances. you both make very quick and tight cuts along a very narrow line of attack, aiming at pretty small target areas, thereby covering your openings better. You both fight with lots of longpoint tactics (though Carlos seeks offline advantage a little more then you) and both of you are very comfortable at mid to close range. its super intimidating

That's an interesting comparison, I hadn't looked at it that way. Although assuming I'm correct in believing that Carlos seeks the bind, then in some ways we must be polar opposites, because I avoid the bind. I think our similarities must come from the fact that we both base our art on the use of real swords, which affects a lot of stuff, how you move, how you strike etc.

[Mike Cartier]

Interesting fencing style there Carlos, I like it. Tell us more.

We don't use afterblow because we think is a bad thing for fencing, but I don't want to discuss this matter again.

Yeah I hear you man no stress here on that. I would be interested to get your opinion offline if possible. I like the afterblow concept myself but I am interested in your perspective which I find refreshing also.

[Jesse Eaton]

I'm very much in the camp with Carlos and Mike, I think that most of the rest of the Kron guys are too, we focus on realistic use of the sword as much as possible and do our best to avoid artifacts of insufficient equipment and safety considerations in our free play and bouts. I'm more skeptical than the others, I've had this conversation with both Jason and Jonathan. We are trying to have a tournament that avoids a lot of the 'gaming the rules' that goes on in tournaments. We are looking at customizing gloves and cross guards for better hand protection that allows for clean execution of techniques, like Zwerchau, that require a bit of finesse with the fingering.

I've been reading and watching everything that the guys in Spain and Puck are doing. The approach is different, but complimentary to the people whose work I had been reading and watching, like Michael E., Steven H., Hugh K., Christian T., and others who place a value on technical proficiency and historical accuracy. Kron wants to have a tournament and no tournament fighting can be 100% artifact free, but we can try . To that effort I posted Michael's article on artifacts introduced into free play and how to avoid them, a very good article by the way, and hopefully that will help.

I'm really interested in what Jake's take on all this is, considering that he is an avid promoter of tournaments and also of historical accuracy?

"I think our similarities must come from the fact that we both base our art on the use of real swords, which affects a lot of stuff, how you move, how you strike etc." Definitely, different tactical basis, but same considerations. Maybe we need a video of the two of you too...?

[Jeremiah Smith]

That's an interesting comparison, I hadn't looked at it that way. Although assuming I'm correct in believing that Carlos seeks the bind, then in some ways we must be polar opposites, because I avoid the bind. I think our similarities must come from the fact that we both base our art on the use of real swords, which affects a lot of stuff, how you move, how you strike etc.

well it gets a little fuzzy in the bind bit, really. Here is my perspective, just because Carlos approaches close enough to bind doesn't necessarily means that he seeks to bind. In fact more often then not It seems like Carlos seeks to twitch. In most of the videos I have watched the blade on blade contact is really not that long and when there is binding and then winding its very apparent, but mostly I see a rapid succession of cuts and counters, Krumps, Zucken, etc. and though there is lots of binding in the approach I wouldn't say its is sought out.

On the other side of the coin, for you, when fighting in longpoint (not that you always do but, just from my observations) though you are aggressively playing a distance game from that guard, there is at least a 50/50 chance your opponent will have to bind with you just to get your point offline and out of the way. So by those numbers whenever you assume that guard and move into range you are seeking the bind at least half the time.

Now of course knowing what to do from longpoint not to have to bind gives you a bump up there but assuming that everyone you fight knows, all of your counters and can counter all your counters then that still puts you back at 50% and if they are proficient even lower.

thats just how I see it, but my newbie eye might count for dick

*edit also much like you I avoid binding whenever possible

[Jesse Eaton]

Jeremiah,

"just because Carlos approaches close enough to bind doesn't necessarily means that he seeks to bind" I think he is seeking the bind as a point of entry and control over the line of attack, as is the recommendation of the Destreza school of thought. What is important is not the bind but control over the line and he does this by the tactics you describe at the range you describe. He wants the bind, but he wants the bind at the angle which gives him control. He holds the middle range and center line, and makes his opponents fight over it his way. A fight they are likely to lose.

Michael on the other hand plays range games like no other. Here's one of my favorites to analyze http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6kTWvY32A

Here Michael is out reached against a highly skilled opponent, Bill Grandy, who also out reaches him, but Michael is still besting him in the distance game. I would guess this has something to do with having a JSA background?

If that video isn't convincing enough, here is an even better of example, and view, of Michael playing range games: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajD1DhNS ... re=related

Want more? Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3ZfnhPNfUk

Three different fights, same tactics in each case. Fighting either from Zufechten just outside of reach or close quarters corps-a-corps, with minimal binding in between.

So Carlos has a predominately mid range bind and line control game and Michael has a long range timing and distance game. Both a wicked in the close, just for different reasons. Both, I think, are historically accurate and appropriate for the weapon type. I have experimented with both of these styles and find both styles useful at times. I would love to see these styles meet.

I think Mike's long range timing and distance game has plenty of proponents, I think it should be added as another of the 'approaches'.

[Jeremiah Smith]

very good argument Jesse, it also should be noted that Mike's distance and timing tactics are good at kicking my ass, but thats another story, and not a long one.

[Davy Van Elst]

Carlos,

Just to clarify what you meant by "Light and too much balanced blunt", I think you meant "too light and the COG or POB is too close to the cross."?

Carlos, just to be sure, do you mean that most feders are not realistic enough? Because I know someone who makes longswords that weigh less than 1600 gr and are well balanced and the only thing that needs to be done to make them realistic is sharpening them http://www.jinoswords.cz/index.php?lang=en&call=home which would make them weigh even less.
But I understand you point of view about it being too easy to recover from forceful blowes however if you look at Talhoffer's wechselhau, then you can see that historically speaking this was already part of the existing techniques.

One of the things that strikes me in this discussion is that it looks like there are 2 camps here, one being in favour of binding and controlling and another in favour of using more aggressive blows. While I think that the truth will be somewhere in the middle, it is not because my first blow is a forceful strike that I cannot use a control over the bind when it happens and as such, it is a big part of the KdF (they call it 'edelen krieg' for this purpose).
Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc&context=C48bea0dADvjVQa1PpcFPYd8_J-OxsaLYjM1mUaUBLAz836XblGoI= and you will understand what I mean, they fight with a lot of intent and at the same time they also have a good control over the bind when it happens.

BTW. I want to clarify that these are my opinions, and it doesn't mean that I'm against you or anyone else for that matter.

[Carlos Negredo]

Carlos,

Just to clarify what you meant by "Light and too much balanced blunt", I think you meant "too light and the COG or POB is too close to the cross."?

Carlos, just to be sure, do you mean that most feders are not realistic enough? Because I know someone who makes longswords that weigh less than 1600 gr and are well balanced and the only thing that needs to be done to make them realistic is sharpening them http://www.jinoswords.cz/index.php?lang=en&call=home which would make them weigh even less.
But I understand you point of view about it being too easy to recover from forceful blowes however if you look at Talhoffer's wechselhau, then you can see that historically speaking this was already part of the existing techniques.

One of the things that strikes me in this discussion is that it looks like there are 2 camps here, one being in favour of binding and controlling and another in favour of using more aggressive blows. While I think that the truth will be somewhere in the middle, it is not because my first blow is a forceful strike that I cannot use a control over the bind when it happens and as such, it is a big part of the KdF (they call it 'edelen krieg' for this purpose).
Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc&context=C48bea0dADvjVQa1PpcFPYd8_J-OxsaLYjM1mUaUBLAz836XblGoI= and you will understand what I mean, they fight with a lot of intent and at the same time they also have a good control over the bind when it happens.

BTW. I want to clarify that these are my opinions, and it doesn't mean that I'm against you or anyone else for that matter.

Davy, if you use a too light or/and too close POB blunt and full force, you have those important artifacts:

-----Light and too much balanced blunt:

-Too fast blows (also the blow charges too fast).
-It lets change the direction of the blow at the middle of it (probably canceling all the cutting capabilities).
-Too fast recovery from those full force blows.
-Blows with half force that travel fast but would do absolutely nothing to the opponent.
-Thrusts are not anymore faster than blows, so the half of the historical techniques are useless.
-As the use of full force blows is effective with this unrealistic tool, the blows scares, but the thrusts don't, so a thrusting technique is always emotionally in an inferior position.

If you use an accurate blunt with more realistic atributes and full force, you have this important artifact:

-The blows still scare the opponent (they hurt and injure in the bout), but the thrusts still don't hurt and still don't scare, so a thrusting technique is always emotionally in an inferior position.

-At least, the charge time required for the blow and the recovery are more realistic, so the thrust gains effectiveness (realistically).


By the way, in your video I don't see full force blows, just blows where you put your point in line with the opponent with proper strikes. Intend is an overused word here in historical fencing. Intend to what? You don't need to strike as soon as the other strikes to you, entering both at the same time. Only when you have the security that you have closed your openings and at the same time opened the opponent's ones would you do that, at least if you want to survive some duels before die. Things are not as easy as:

+"I am going to kill you! You touched my wife!"
-"I am going to kill you too! You said I touched your wife!"

And then both got pierced and satisfied for accomplish his wishes

I would like to add that the bind doesn't imply to have a constant and permanent contact with the opponent's blade, but the occupation of the center line in a way that the opponent has to close the lines winding the sword readapting his ward and position. It sometimes require the contact with the opponent's blade, but not in a permanent way.