Having read many sources and practiced the techniques in them, I see how he can come to this conclusion. however I believe it to be the wrong one. you will see many "practitioners" and so called "students" of the long sword traditions who simply have no clue how to uses a sword. they throw names and terms around like they know what it is that they are doing, and in fact can and will beet persons in sparing situations, merely because of imitation. but imitation is not true form. these are the people who say, for example, they studied Liechtenauer, and they have a great understanding of the vocabulary and general body movement, but lack every aspect of any techniques use. This is what I think Liechtenauer addresses in his teachings as do many other masters. The mere sing of a difference in a work is no biases to address it as nonstandard. There were indeed many masters and many schools of fencing, so yes technique varied but to single out a specific teaching is just silly. For example I can not tell you how many different interpretations of the "crooked cut" I've seen, and yet these persons all say they got it from the same source. That is what is being addressed, I'm sure some of you if not all have been in a sparing situation in which some one desperately tries to implement a technique, and fails over and over or keeps repeating basic technique from drills done solo or with a partner. This is not the teachings and is not the source material. That in my opinion is what it is about.... (rant end lol )
