Skip to main content

Equilibrium is death

From my experience there is a school of thought I commonly encounter, what I call in my head the "conversation" approach. This is where one persons makes an action, your opponent makes a response and then you respond back and forth like having a civilised conversation. This mental approach can be detected most easily in two areas, in the onset and in the bind. It looks like follows:

1. Two people advance to just outside of measure
2. At an agreed signal or after a certain amount of circling one will adopt a guard
3. Then the other a counter guard
4. The attacker will then attack
5. The defender will take a defensive action
6. A bind is formed
7. Both partys push backwards and forwards for a bit "feeling" in the bind
8. It all ends up in a heap with scrappy cuts in the bind or semi-half sword wrestling 

The problem with this approach is it encourages equilibrium, where the person with the initiative is continually giving it up so their opponent can respond and potentially take the initiative. This approach is completely understandable but largely draws from traditions of sports fencing where talking turns is enshrined in the rules. However in "real" fighting it is remarkably unhealthy. From reading Meyer I can see that he presents something of a different approach.

If the above is likened to a conversation with the parties politely taking turns to speak then I think Meyer is more like a shouting match whereby one party berates the other until they are able to get a word in edgewise.

I think Meyer looks more like this:

1. There are two people in a room with swords
2. The attacker launches themselves at the patient and their attack passes through a "guard" based on the opening they are targeting
3. The defender is not perfectly sited to respond but struggles to get their response by cutting back traveling through the appropriate "guard" positions

To my mind the system outlined in Meyer recognises that unless your initial strike from the onset is spectacularly well devised and your opponent is an unlikely level of incompetent your initial attack is very unlikely to land. So it is almost certain that they will attempt some kind of parry and a cross of swords is a likely occurance eventually. However there are two difference I detect, firstly because your opponent isn't already sited in the correct counter guard you are actually putting him on the spot to make their defence. Secondly I do not think Meyer would characterise the bind as a "good" thing, something to be desired, instead I think he sees it as an likely but not optimal outcome.

From my reading of Meyer the best case for a skillful agent in my mind is like this:

4. The attacker flits immediately to the next opening
5. The defender responds as best they can, their response traveling through the appropriate "guard" positions
6. The attacker flits immediately to the next opening
7. and on until the attacker lands a hit

However this is likely to happen eventually if the agent cannot land a hit within a few moves:

4. a bind is formed
5. The attacker immediately feels strong/weak to either take off or drive through

At this point the attacker should immediately try and break out of the potential balance, to retake the initiative immediately. If this does not take place immediately then the safest course is to withdraw. Why no sawing backwards and forwards in the bind, why no stopping and standing in measure to see what happens? Because in an equilibrium the chance of a double hit taking place skyrockets as both parties strive to take the initiative. Therefore in the world of life or death with real swords it's best to take the long view, reset and begin again than risk it in the throw of a dice. To break the initiative of an attacker is high skill technique and from a secure fencing perspective for most practicitioners with modern skill level it's actually safer to be either attacking fully or defending fully and to only risk breaking an attack when absolutely certain.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Kit mod: heavy sparring glove 2

This is a follow on to heavy sparring gloves and SPES arm protectors.

Finally: a pretty good HEMA glove.

Essentially I've created this final stage by removing the cuff from the gauntlet and attaching Velcro so the SPES arm & elbow protection attaches to the gauntlet. The Velcro attaches under the lip of the arm protection providing a solid join between the pieces.

My photography is lame but I hope you get the idea:



Good protection.

I would say that this setup has good protection from injury from sparring blows from fingers to elbow. Against full force blows it takes it down from injury to some mild discomfort and possibly light bruising, against moderate blows you feel some pressure with no discomfort. The fingers are where I've invested the heaviest protection but there is still some room for improvement.


Light weight

Because the weight is distributed along the length of the arm rather than at the wrist/hands end and because they can fit quite tightly to your body they seem…

Halberd Waster

Several times through my historical martial arts career I've got it into my head that I'd like to do halberd. However, the issues with a suitable waster have tended to put me off, specifically creating anything that can be used at something approaching full intention. The issue is that if you make the head from the usual materials (steel, aluminium, wood, leather etc) you have to exercise extreme caution at very slow speed because all you've made is a giant heavy mace on the end of a 6ft lever.

Recently I was working on making foam swords for another side project and while doing this it occurred to me that foam was the obvious solution to the halberd head issue. Pretty quickly I developed this simple waster.

The head is cut from EVA foam matting. This material is importantly both ultra light and pretty robust. To get a good strength I cut two head shapes out and stuck them together. The bracket to attach the head to the pole is just PVC piping with a slot cut into it for th…

Absolutely no absolutes

The more I study and learn of historical fighting, and the more I teach, the more I become careful in throwing around "absolutes" in terms of technique. I find that to say that something is "wrong" is a sub-optimal way of thinking about fencing that hinders development. Rather I like to highlight that everything is situational, i.e. with a proper understanding of the principles of fencing that there is often a time and a place where a particular technique is optimal and that you should not completely discount anything.

For example:

(and I'd like to make it clear that I'm not being negative on these examples, I liked and remembered both these videos I'm just using them to illustrate a pedagogical mindset.)

In this interesting video, the view is put forward that you should cut and step at the same pace to ensure that your hand and body land together. This is so that you cut with maximum strength and for reasons of balance.  The idea of not stepping and cu…