Main > The Courtyard
Longsword Demo Combat Technical Discussion
SirNathanQ:
My thinking here was to counter someone in the process of stepping past your tip. Say I made a thrust, and it was short. The person attempts to sidestep past my tip, to where I'm vulnerable. That's when I would take a backstep with cut.
It's a preventative measure, not one to deal with the guy already in your face. Does it make sense now?
Sir Brian:
--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-06-14, 05:11:49 ---
--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2012-06-14, 03:20:34 ---
If your thrust just missed by a little, simply pressing the sword's edge into the person isn't really a cut. You might only have a swing that covers a couple of inches. I think the better move, strategically, is to pull back into Ochs or Pflug (or parry or whatever), since you can bet the other guy's sword is coming at you. From there you can thrust again or do a cut.
--- End quote ---
My thinking here was to counter someone in the process of stepping past your tip. Say I made a thrust, and it was short. The person attempts to sidestep past my tip, to where I'm vulnerable. That's when I would take a backstep with cut.
It's a preventative measure, not one to deal with the guy already in your face. Does it make sense now?
--- End quote ---
Fortunately concerning duels it isn’t resolved with a Rock, Paper, Scissors answer. Many of the should’ve, could’ve, would’ve actions are dependent upon tempo and measure. The counter-counter action you are describing Sir Nathan really falls into the realm of ‘Indes’ (Instantly) state of timing which the Lichtenauer tradition describes as:
The tradition distinguishes three states of timing: the Before, when one has the initiative; the After, where one's opponent has the initiative; and the Instantly, the use of swift countermoves designed to gain the initiative when the opponent has it.
The main disadvantage of theoretical duels on paper and in hindsight is everything is absolutely clear however while in the moment the tempo can be missed. Yet the action you describe Sir Nathan is very plausible IF properly and consistently executed which really occurs more often when it is practiced frequently as Sir Edward prescribed in his earlier comments:
--- Quote --- If you're going to step back, yes, please attack while doing so! That's something that Bill drills into us at VAF as well. Always withdraw with attacks and guards, because you're in danger any time you're within measure. Even if you've already hit the person three times. (in a life-and-death duel, you can't count on any of them being fight-stopping for sure, and in a tournament you can't count on the judges seeing them)
--- End quote ---
Sir Brian:
--- Quote from: Sir Brian on 2012-06-13, 20:45:45 ---
--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2012-06-13, 18:59:04 ---But yes, I see your point. If you think the other person is more skilled, playing a more defensive game might work to your advantage. But only as long as the other guy "respects" that and doesn't come charging into your space. At that point all you've done is let him get the Vor. You might be surprised how effective the Vor is. Your cuts don't even have to be that great, as long as you keep pressure on your opponent.
--- End quote ---
My fighting style is a bit more reactive. If my opponent is aggressive then I'll react by being just as or more aggressive. I don't mind going on the offensive with a few combinations but I usually struggle with the more laid back opponents as I typically would rather conserve energy and not constantly pursue them, after all I'm more accustom to dueling MASHS students who generally seem to rely upon a flurry of attacks instead of fewer technically precise ones. ;)
--- End quote ---
It is a bit ironic that at last night’s training this sentiment was reinforced when we had two new longsword students start their first lesson and Matt Lawrence related at one point in our discussion with them about ‘States of Timing’ in which he observed during most duels with me and Josh or pretty much anyone from MASHS that whenever he was in the Nach (After) it was only a matter of time before he got hit. Essentially when he was slow on gaining the Vor (Before) he usually lost in the engagement. This is typically what we at MASHS are fighting for and try to be aggressive to obtain and maintain. ;)
SirNathanQ:
Is there a way to achieve and maintain the vor with reactive fencing?
Sir Edward:
--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-06-15, 01:23:27 ---Is there a way to achieve and maintain the vor with reactive fencing?
--- End quote ---
Not really, since by definition the Vor is proactive, and the Nach is reactive. If you're fast enough, you can regain the Vor, but then you're not being reactive anymore, but rather proactive (and keeping the other guy in the Nach, where he's having to deal with you).
Having said that, more often than not, both people are moving at similar speeds and it's questionable as to who has the Vor, or the Vor switches back and forth whenever someone executes a maneuver that's a little slow. But starting from a place that's reactive can put you at a disadvantage if you're not careful.
Something else to consider: You can create a false opening to draw your opponent's attack, by intentionally attacking slightly out of distance, or slightly off-target. This can still put you in the Vor, even though it wasn't a "real" attack, since the other guy's attack to your opening was by your own "invitation".
I know a lot of this boils down to how to enter measure without getting hit.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version