On Feinting

[Thorsteinn]

Thoughts?

A reply to this thread on feinting: http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3135&start=20

[Sir Brian]

Excellent video! Well done! Thank you for sharing a few bits of your fighting repertoire!

In the basic definition a feint is an attack attempting to elicit your opponent to react to your feint however if they do not react at all or as you intended for them to and the line is still open then your feint should continue with the actual attack. It depends upon how gullible your opponent is and how convincing you are at the feints execution.

The first technique you demonstrated I would call that a fake because you are eliciting a reaction from your opponent based upon their hasty anticipation whereas the second technique you showed seemed to be a true feint as I understand it since you are attacking one line then changing to another to bypass your opponent's guard. Both techniques are very valid based upon the success you have had with them! 

Another note about your feint. The starting guard is comparable to Vom Tag in Liechtenauer tradition in that an attack launched from this guard has a multitude of possible angles insofar as all the cutting attacks are possible from Vom Tag and so it is an excellent and preferred guard to launch feints from.

[Sir Edward]

I agree with Sir Brian.

Yeah, the terminology is all pretty interchangeable. In the Liechtenauer system, what we call a feint is often referred to as a "failer" (just meaning that it fails to do what the opponent is expecting). A true "failer" is an attack that can still carry through and do what it looks like it's doing if the opponent doesn't react to it, but your intention is to draw that response and then change line of attack. It has to be a real attack so that it's believable, and can still land if they don't react properly.

Dropping the shoulder isn't really a "failer" in that regard, since you're intentionally giving a "tell" to misdirect him without having made the attack yet, but the word "fake" or "feint" probably still work here.

I like the idea of using the word "fake" for an intentional "tell", and use the word "feint" for a false attack, and "failer" for a true attack that is meant to draw out a response and can change lines quickly. But in the end, it's all a fine line between them, and it's all misdirection, so it may not matter much what we call it.

[B. Patricius]

Thorsteinn,

that was a cool video and I really liked watching it.  I also like the conversation going on between everybody.  This is a ton of fun! I love talking technique.  On that note, from my experience, I'm one of the ones that thinks "fake" and "feint" are interchangeable.  I like what Sir Brian and Sir Edward were also saying above.  Definitely some food for thought.

YIS
B. Patricius

[Sir Vander Linde]

I really like hearing others point of views on this
my understanding

fainting: any action/threat in which invokes the opponent to seek a bind/collection that is not there, that is followed by another violent action as to end.

fake: any modern interpretation of historical works that is implemented in a way to invoke a static block or movement (not a bind or collection) which can be taken advantage of.