Zornhau ort and the First Winden

[Jesse Eaton]

Joey,

No, actually we are all doing exactly what you are suggesting. It is the 'ort' part of the Zornhau-ort that is expected to land. And yes, keeping the point leveled at your opponents face is the key aspect. The Zornhau is just there to take control of the center line, I think we're all on board that. The discussion is really about how the Goliath manual plays out and whether the art is trust worthy or not.

As to that video, I'm not sure where that sequence comes from? Is it taken from a manual, or is it just a possible sequence given the tools at hand?

Edit*

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 Wrath Strike counters all high strikes with the point. And it is indeed nothing other than a bad peasant strike. Deploy it thus: when you come to him in the pre-fencing: if he strikes to you from his right side high to the head, then to this also strike from high on your right (note in margin: in the weak on the sword) wrathfully displacing with him on his sword, if he is then weak on the sword, then aim to shoot ahead with the point and stab to his face, or attack the chest between the arms.

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?

[Dustin Reagan]

One thing I'll just mention: It seems like all of you are assuming that the initial oberhau/zornhau is intended to hit as a direct cut, which then causes a certain interpretation of the manucript's images, and the distance involved, and what possible footwork could have been done.

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:

The Wrath Strike counters all high strikes with the point. And it is indeed nothing other than a bad peasant strike. Deploy it thus: when you come to him in the pre-fencing: if he strikes to you from his right side high to the [your] head, then to this also strike from high on your right (note in margin: in the weak on the sword) wrathfully displacing with him on his sword, if he is then weak on the sword, then aim to shoot ahead with the point and stab to his face, or attack the chest between the arms.

I fully agree with you, though, as I've said now several times in this thread and in others, that all of the plays describe principles/concepts. You don't have to follow exactly what is said/shown in the manual for a technique to be valid. But, again, as I've said previously, there is something to be learned from trying to replicate, as closely as possible, an image + text of a technique. In this particular case, this is what I am doing in my video. It's just an exercise...I know it's not the *only* or the *best* way to do zornhau-ort. Auggh, how many times do I need to say it?

[Jeremy S.]

I'm still fond of the "pass forward offline" interpretation.

If your opponent does not react to your Zornhau, their oberhau is displaced and you continue on to hit their head. If they do react you end up in a bind and most likely controlling the center due to the angle. The same situation arises with the other meisterhau - if your opponent does not react to your cut theirs is displaced and they get hit; if they react you have a bind and can continue on to skewer them as you please. I feel that is the defining characteristic of the meisterhau.

When passing back, why strike a Zornhau at all? If your opponent needs to pass foward with his strike to make contact, your pass back keeps the original distance and their cut misses. As it passes by, you stike: textbook nachreissen. If they stop their cut at langenort you deal with that. I'm not seeing the point of reacting (with bladework) to an attack that doesn't pose a direct threat. An attack that is out of distance (which your pass back ensures) doesn't pose a direct threat.

[Dustin Reagan]

I'm still fond of the "pass forward offline" interpretation.

Then keep using it exclusively, while I'll be using a "pass forward offline", a "pass backwards" a "stand still and swivel", etc Zornhau when it is appropriate to use each variation.

If your opponent does not react to your Zornhau, their oberhau is displaced and you continue on to hit their head. If they do react you end up in a bind and most likely controlling the center due to the angle.

That's definitely one set of possibilities, but there are many others. Here is one where a backwards pass with Zornhau would be advantageous:

Your opponent does a standard oberhau feler. You fall for it, passing forward and offline while cutting a zornhau at their blade. Your opponent cuts the oberhau short (thus the feler) and under, into unterhau into left ochs, displacing your zornhau while simultaneously stabbing your breast or gut. oops...maybe you should have stepped backwards with that Zornhau...

When passing back, why strike a Zornhau at all? If your opponent needs to pass foward with his strike to make contact, your pass back keeps the original distance and their cut misses. As it passes by, you stike: textbook nachreissen. If they stop their cut at langenort you deal with that. I'm not seeing the point of reacting (with bladework) to an attack that doesn't pose a direct threat. An attack that is out of distance (which your pass back ensures) doesn't pose a direct threat.

That's assuming that they are a buffalo. It's possible/likely, that a better swordsman won't just ignore that you are stepping back and finish their full-cut; They'll transition their full-cut into a half-cut, leaving their point-in-line and driving it into your face/throat/breast.

A couple other advantages to doing the Zornhau against their blade even if you have made yourself safe(r) by opening distance:

-You have "wrathfully" struck the weak of his blade aside. This will most likely buy you a tempo or half a tempo, no matter what he does (i.e. look, you've regained the Vor!).
-Now you know, proprioceptively, where his blade is and what it's doing.

So again, it's all contextual. There are times to use one sort of footwork with Zornhau-ort and times to use a different sort of footwork...there is no "best". This applies to all the described plays, in my opinion. There, I've said it again.

[Dustin Reagan]

Another footwork variant you might find useful is passing back by moving the rear foot offline first. This brings in the hips nicely and you still end up right foot forward.

Mark thanks for this tip. I tried this out last night and even a very small offline movement of the back foot can make a difference in how quickly/smoothly your hips swing around during the pass.

[Steven H]

I'm still fond of the "pass forward offline" interpretation.

Then keep using it exclusively, while I'll be using a "pass forward offline", a "pass backwards" a "stand still and swivel", etc Zornhau when it is appropriate to use each variation.

For a while now, I've used the working assumption that in a situation where the texts don't say specifically what to do/is going on, then we should assume that multiple versions work and that we should apply the one correct to the situation.

I expect that a lot of you already work this way as well. But a discussion like this comes across differently. A discussion like this one ends up sounding like a debate over the one, true version.

The assumption that Kal and the Goliath author are doing the technique the same way, is just that an assumption. And we should be mindful of that fact as we have these discussions. I look at the variation in something like the Kenpo I was taught and I have no reason to believe that our ancestors were any less fractious, contrary or disagreeable.

That being said I prefer to assume continuity between manuals. And I do think that Kal and Goliath are showing similar enough techniques for the images to be used that way.

Cheers,
Steven

[Steven H]

It would seem to me that a pass-back version of Zorn-ort, as Dustin describes, could be advantageous as follows:
I pass back, but not quite as much as my opponent passes forward, so I'm able to readily strike to his weak with my strong. Doing so creates a tempo, and leverage, for the follow-on thrust.

The pass back gained time to bring the defense into place, and better leverage on the ensuing action. Also, a larger pass, that allowed a nachreisen, may not have fit into the time available to defend.

If you look at what a lot of new students do, our analog to the "peasant", they pass back while striking to the opponents sword, and they do so reflexively. So perhaps that is what is meant by the "peasant" part of the technique?

Cheers,
Steven

[Mark W]

Dustin,

Glad you like the pass variant. I can't take credit, I stole it like I steal everything else.

The gaining the bind rather than attempting Nachreissen is certainly valid. In some military sabre a blow to the legs is parried rather than overrun to get a blade contact to work from. A pass back is no less valid IMO.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Jeremy S.]

"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." 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.

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

Having said that...

...You fall for it, passing forward and offline while cutting a zornhau at their blade.

I love it when people attack my blade. Judging from the vids you've put up, you do as well. It makes it very easy to avoid their blade and put them on a spit. 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; if they react and counter the cut the mechanics and the angles involved lead to a shorter cut and bind with the point in their face.

From the example you gave:

They'll transition their full-cut into a half-cut, leaving their point-in-line and driving it into your face/throat/breast.

I covered that in the second part of my first post. It's much easier to counter someone as they are transitioning to a guard (langenort, pflug, sprech. etc) and must arrest their momentum when you are poised and ready.

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. Don't agree with me? Then let's discuss over a few beers at Longpoint. While we're at it we can talk about your interpretation of the canonical schielhau - I'm still not satisfied with what I was taught and need to refine it.

[Steven H]

"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." 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.

Your response doesn't surprise me. My comment was more about the appearance of such comments given the context. And wasn't specific to you Jeremy. It was more a general observation about the conversation and those like this one.

Cheers,
Steven