ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Courtyard => Topic started by: Thorsteinn on 2011-12-14, 04:08:51
-
In my very limited HEMA experience I have noticed that I am throwing and landing a much higher percentage of leg shots in HEMA longsword vs longsword & longsword vs unarmed than my opponents. I have also noticed that those whose primary (sometimes only) martial experience lies only in the unarmored longsword vs longsword styles tend to leave the leg completely open and/or not guard it well enough.
Example#1: Both I and my opponent are right-handed> I throw a fore-edge head strike fake which I moulinet to a off-side fore-edge strike to their lead leg.
Example#2: Both I and my opponent are right-handed> I throw a fore-edge head strike which they block. I slide off the block disengage, Step to their right and with a passing step I hit the back of their leg or unprotected back depending on how quickly they can turn at the hips to bring their sword around in an attempted block.
Example#3: I am unarmed, my opponent is armed. He throws a on-side to off-side diagonal cut to my head which I dodge under. As I reach out to block a return stroke with my arm (I'm blocking his arm and hilt here). I kick his lead leg with a Muay Thai style shin kick to throw him off balance before proceeding with the rest of my attack.
While my blows are not always successful I seem to run into this attitude in my opponents style that says 'Because leg shots are low percentage options I have no need to learn how to block them, not leave my leg open, or learn how to void the shot in other ways". I know that, as I fight in the SCA and studied TKD, I am much more used to seeing and taking advantage of leg shots than others but it got silly some days.
Thoughts?
-Ivan
-
I think half of the answer is in your post - they leave it more unguarded, so it's a great target and struck easier and more frequently. On a casual observation level, I've noticed most people keep their sword pointed upright at least at a partial angle, instead of downwards in pflug / alber (I think that's the name of the stance). That means blocking a leg shot is the longest possible travel their blade needs to make to successfully block, and means they have less time to react to block succcessfully, reducing the chance for them to block.
I started with eastern martial arts and I've always had the habit of "leading" with my leg and then stepping in for follow-through strikes - when I took the 1 class with John Clements of ARMA, he said the proper posture is leaning forwards with your body, at or in front of your leading leg. That makes your leg less of a target, and gives you greater measure for striking. Personally, it was an uncomfortable and unnatural position for me to fight from, as I'm more of a counter-attacker than an offensive attacker, and the "partially retreated" stance gives me more time to react and a better "view" of what my opponent is doing - especially the legs. For the more offensive people, it's a more suitable stance and it also reduces the legs as a valid target area - but at the expense of presenting more body as a target.
-
Leg defense. Ideally, in Longsword you simply take a step back. Make a cut or stab to opponet's head. It's always exposed when they attack your legs.
If you are in the correct measure (prior to binding), the only leg they can attack w/o stepping is the leading leg. By steppign back, you deprive them of their only target.
If you really need to keep a sword in front of your legs, you can drop int oa lower Alber (fool's gaurd). It's mainly meant to draw an opponet into attacking your body, but it does keep a sword in front of the legs.
-
Sorry to come late into this discussion:
Sir Nathan has the right of it concerning the 'typical' reaction to a leg attack. The prescribed counter is to void the attack by withdrawing your leg and at the same time executing a Scheitelhau (parting hew) which will definitely be within measure before an attack on the leg, which is why in tournaments you'll see some combatants 'play' to the rules and utilize a cheesy left one handed swing to the legs to get that additional reach to avoid the Scheitelhau counter. It is pretty much a move that is playing to the rules and not the 'spirit' of the duel whereas a cut to the leg is preferable if you can manage to split your opponent's skull. Yet some will make an attack to the lower targets but usually in a combination of attacks.
I'm more of a counter-attacker than an offensive attacker
To each their own style, however IMO it is far better to be in the Vor (the before) in a longsword duel than the Nach (the after) and if you're in the Nach it should be only because you are waiting for an opportunity to return to the Vor. In other words do not give up the initiative if you can afford it in longsword. ;)
-
My understanding with limited exposure to ARMA is that the leg makes a very poor target when combatting a well trained opponent. The leg is too quick and easily moved out of the way and will almost certainly result in you being struck with a quick counter attack.
I think what you're seeing is that folks are told "hey the leg makes for a crappy target blah blah blah...". And they leave it at that, and thus never train for those attacks because everyone is of the opinion that it's a waste of an attack and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of poor preparedness. An athletic and well trained swordsman though, should be able to kill or defeat his opponent every time his opponent decides to throw a cut to his leg instead of his head or torso, using a technique like Sir Brian described above.
-
Common misconceptions about the sword (series) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCzrZ9optXw#ws)
This video by some ARMA guys kind of addresses this along with cuts to hands or another weapon. Some folks hate ARMA and write them off, mostly because they're of very strong opinion, but say what you will, many of them are excellent swordsmen, and few schools incorporate the athleticism and intent of sword fighting like ARMA does (an aspect missing from a lot of other schools imho) which I think is important when considering things like being able to consistently void a leg shot with a good displacing cut.
-
Great clip! Thanks for posting it Ian! It does a great job of the proper mentality to approach dueling with the longsword. :)
-
Nice video. ARMA is very knowlegeble, and I respect them, but I disagree with some of their methodology. The worst example was the video of a guy getting a rapier to the valuables.
They do have pretty great videos though :)
Also I find that attacking low brings a peron's blade away from defending their head. Also it's good for followup, if I want to keep my opponet on the defence when my initial attack has been spent or defended against.
-
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
-
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
I find your lack of faith... disturbing... ;) /forcechoke
-
*Uses Battlefront 2 glitch. Force chokes and sith lightnings at the same time*
8) 8) 8)
-
Great video clip. Some of their guys are definitely capable and knowledgeable. I just don't like ARMA when they're getting into the whole "cult of Clements" mindset, and everything that goes with that. It's a shame they don't interact with the larger WMA/HEMA community anymore. Isolationism isn't that helpful.
-
They don't talk to anyone now? :o
Geez, I knew there were tensions, but I didn't know groups were pulling this crap already. Ugggg.... :P
Can we all agree to stop pulling Longsword Jihad and actually get ourselves out there first?
-
Some of the ARMA members are still on various forums, like myArmoury and SFI, but often their contributions to conversations fall into the drinking-the-kool-aid "cult" category, and everyone gets pretty short tempered over that. It's all so counter-productive. It's a shame, since they do have members who could contribute positively.
I don't think they've made an actual appearance at a non-ARMA event in quite a few years.
-
I want to see John Clements duel Paul of Belatrix, Gemini de Grendel, Marc de Arundel, or Radnor of Guildemar just once HEMA style at full speed & at least 1/2 power.... and I want to film it.
Duke Paul has a greatsword shot to the leg that rolls into a block for the opponents return that he gets to work against Duke Radnor. See what JC says then no?
-
I want to see John Clements duel Paul of Belatrix, Gemini de Grendel, Marc de Arundel, or Radnor of Guildemar just once HEMA style at full speed & at least 1/2 power.... and I want to film it.
Duke Paul has a greatsword shot to the leg that rolls into a block for the opponents return that he gets to work against Duke Radnor. See what JC says then no?
I don't know, I think this is a bit like the old, who would win in a fight, pirates or ninjas thing... I'm not trying to say one system or group of fighters is better than the other, but SCA heavy and HEMA techniques when truly examined closely, do not translate well. SCA Heavy has evolved independently into its own sport and set of rules and techniques, that while looking like historic swordplay to an onlooker, it shares little with the treatises and texts of actual historical sword technique. Wrap shots for example... I'm not a big JC hater, although I agree, the Cult of Clements phenomenon is strange, and not very productive to the WMA / HEMA community at large, but if you've seen the man in freeplay, he's one hell of a swordsman. I honestly think with someone of JC's skill level, who's dedicated his life to practicing his interpretation of the historical source documents, that trying to hit him in the leg would be a waste of effort and a poor decision on the part of his opponent. You're suggesting taking people at the top of their game and throwing them into a different game and expecting them to be at the top. The fact of the matter is, they're two very different games. It's apples and oranges.
I'm not trying to offend SCA heavies out there. Conversely, I don't think JC would be any good if you restricted him to the SCA rules and made him fight the folks you mentioned above. But let's be reasonable about JC's talent as a HEMA swordsman, even though it's very fashionable to hate his strong personality and inability to play well with others at times.
-
Well yeah JC is a hell of a swordsman. Anyone's got to give him that. ARMA's got a lot that they could contribute, JC especially. I'm mostly saddened more than angry about the whole thing.
I have to agree with Sir Ian on this one. Two different games, two different systems. And then you throw in historical armoured fighting, which is another different ball game from either of them! :o
-
I believe my point has been missed.
I chose 4 people I know and whom I know are great. Also all four have great fighting skills beyond the SCA Tourney Field.
Paul is a 3rd dan in Judo, studied HEMA, & competed in Judo;
Gemini has at least one belt in Kung Fu, competed in Kung Fu & WMA, and owns Knights Quest in Turlock, CA;
Marc de Arundel started in german WMA;
Radnor started in the SCA but has gone on to study anything he can get his grubby paws on. He has one of the best grasp's of body mechanics I have ever seen.
All are Knights in the SCA and all have won Crowns & Coronets. Between them the have reigned at least 12 times.
If I were to pick someone to go up against John C. in his own game & show what can be done if you know how (IE get those low percentage shots to work) then I would have to pick someone who has the right skill & renown to face him. Someone(s) who have a proven track record of not picking gimme fights and answering challenges to their skill.
3 of the above 4 men have free online instructional pages and would be willing to teach whom ever asked for free. I know that Gemini & Mari will be coming up to Reno on their Knights Errant instructional tour this April.
If I were to see someone fight JC who had the capacity to beat him at his own game I would see to it that this person was above reproach so that when I filmed the bout he could not complain.
-Ivan
-
For the record, I have a huge beef with the way that Clements decides to interact with the WMA community, and what he requires from his students. Still, opinions aside, I did take a class with him before, and he is a very enthusiastic, thorough, and skilled teacher. If it weren't for the huge difference in philosophy between us, I would have considered going further with ARMA because I enjoyed him that much as a teacher.
I believe my point has been missed.
I chose 4 people I know and whom I know are great. Also all four have great fighting skills beyond the SCA Tourney Field.
Paul is a 3rd dan in Judo, studied HEMA, & competed in Judo;
Gemini has at least one belt in Kung Fu, competed in Kung Fu & WMA, and owns Knights Quest in Turlock, CA;
Marc de Arundel started in german WMA;
Radnor started in the SCA but has gone on to study anything he can get his grubby paws on. He has one of the best grasp's of body mechanics I have ever seen.
You're suggesting taking people at the top of their game and throwing them into a different game and expecting them to be at the top. The fact of the matter is, they're two very different games. It's apples and oranges.
Apples and badgers, I'd say. Paul isn't going to go throwing people around in the SCA like he would in judo. Gemini won't be using kung fu falcon punches in SCA. Skill at other martial arts is a good way to "balance" someone and broaden a skill set, but when you're in a game where the rule sets dictate what you can and cannot do, and the things you cannot do are things you are skilled at, it changes things. It's not an "anything goes, winner is who lives" battle; that would change things considerably.
I'd put my money on Mike Tyson in a boxing match vs Bruce Lee; I'd put my money on Lee over Tyson in a martial arts battle. Likewise, in a WMA bout, I'd put my money on John Clements. On the other hand, I'd put my money on Paul in a judo bout vs Clements; I'd put my money on Gemini in a kung fu bout vs Clements; and I'd put my money on Paul and Gemini in a SCA battle vs Clements. They may not win *every* bout of their "specialty", but statistically, they should win more than lose.
That is *not* to discount each person's individual skill sets. It's what skills are relevant to the competition, and which aren't. It boils down to the question of : If someone has dedicated their whole life and training to only *one* "game" (WMA, SCA, Judo, Karate, Ninjitsu - whatever) - how does someone who is highly skilled at a different game defeat the person with the laser-focus on their one and only game? It's like near the end of A Knights Tale, when Adhemar asks "How would you beat him?" (in reference to William) and the reply is "With a stick. While he slept. But on a horse, with a lance? That man is unbeatable."
-
Perfect quote, Sir James! I was thinking of that one for this scenario.
But really, the only fair way to go about this would be to create a realistic combat sitution which incorporates the most relevant parts of each system.
As to decidig just what the heck that would be, I'll leave that miserable biusiness to more qualified people.
*Sound of several cans of worms opening at once*
-
For the record, I have a huge beef with the way that Clements decides to interact with the WMA community, and what he requires from his students. Still, opinions aside, I did take a class with him before, and he is a very enthusiastic, thorough, and skilled teacher. If it weren't for the huge difference in philosophy between us, I would have considered going further with ARMA because I enjoyed him that much as a teacher.
I sympathize with with Sir James, for there is a ARMA Study Group 15 minutes away from my place. I would love to train with these guys if not for the fact that the membership is exculsive and appears elitist from the "cult of Clements" mentality. I thank Heaven for training with SIGMA!
Paul isn't going to go throwing people around in the SCA like he would in judo. Gemini won't be using kung fu falcon punches in SCA. Skill at other martial arts is a good way to "balance" someone and broaden a skill set, but when you're in a game where the rule sets dictate what you can and cannot do, and the things you cannot do are things you are skilled at, it changes things. It's not an "anything goes, winner is who lives" battle; that would change things considerably.
That is *not* to discount each person's individual skill sets. It's what skills are relevant to the competition, and which aren't. It boils down to the question of : If someone has dedicated their whole life and training to only *one* "game" (WMA, SCA, Judo, Karate, Ninjitsu - whatever) - how does someone who is highly skilled at a different game defeat the person with the laser-focus on their one and only game? It's like near the end of A Knights Tale, when Adhemar asks "How would you beat him?" (in reference to William) and the reply is "With a stick. While he slept. But on a horse, with a lance? That man is unbeatable."
But really, the only fair way to go about this would be to create a realistic combat sitution which incorporates the most relevant parts of each system.
I agree, different situations would require different fighting skills. However certain skills can transcribe over to different scenarios depending on what the opponent throws at you. Best example of this is wrestling at the sword and durchlaufen ("running through") which utilizes wrestling at close range. However different fighters will fight differently either by their specialized skill(s) or by rules of competition.
-
A good system that incorporates lots of each but all of none?...
I got it!
They could compete in the Lauren Tournament!
-Ivan