Posted On:11/02/2010 9:46pm
No, that's not what I'm talking about. This is (Von Danzig):
"And this is also called the Speaking Window. Note, when you have come almost to him in the Zufechten, then set your left foot forward and hold your point long from your arms against his face or breast before you bind to his <37r> sword and stand calmly to observe what he will execute against you."
Which seems to be a direct contradiction of:
"This means that when you come to him in the Zufechten [Onset], then you should not stand still and watch for his stroke nor wait for what he will execute against you. Know that all combatants who watch and wait for another’s strokes and do nothing but parry, should not much rejoice in their skill – for it is worthless, and they will be struck because of it."
It only seems to be a contradiction until you begin to view the texts as lesson plans. Each of the above is a seperate lesson. When you first learn the art, you learn that it is wrong to let someone control you, which is what happens when you stand and wait for his actions. Much later in your studies, you are taught that it is no longer wrong to stand and wait for someone's actions, because you understand enough at this point that he can't control you that way. This is not a contradiction, this is progress.
The point of this is that if you look at the texts this way, and you interpret "follow the blow with the foot" to be a lesson on the first timing, then you realize that this lesson does not exclude anything, just as the lessons above are not mutually exclusive.
Let's just agree to disagree. I find your interpretations odd and we have little common ground. This is not a bad thing, there is room for many ways of doing things. None of us are right about everything, or even most things. We need contrary opinions and different ways of doing things to progress.
Please keep in mind that if you are claiming that first timing is the only valid one, that's fine. One who practices all three can do that one also and is not missing out on anything. Even if the other two are not used in Liechtenauer (something I strongly disagree with) then the understanding of the relationship between space and time that understanding the three timings gives you is more than worth it.
Last edited by nyhfa; 11/02/2010 9:52pm at .
Posted On:11/03/2010 7:20pm
Style: aikido, medieval fencing
Well I am not sure we disagree on lots of points.
I am working from sigmund ringeck as principal sources and yes if there a fair amount of common ground with VD, there are some differences.
As well I have to admin that Ringeck is the only one to talk about the Zorh ott.
For completeness I think the setup in VD is more dynamic that what ringeck presents.
So thrust me I can see where you are coming from and why you got there.
First I do agree with you that the manual, regardless which one, is a fully comprehensive system as how to strike and break the distance and a pedagogic method.
Now may be I got the wrong end of the stick but I understood from your post and what I see in your vids, that you are saying that you not lead your actual strike with your sword but with you foot for the 3rd timing and with your body in the 2 nd timing.
Those are clearly in a false time.
Again if I misunderstood you, it is possible just a semantic argument about what constitute a step before staking as opposed to see that initial step as part of the strike.
Spare with the guys of ACT and they will make it very clear with their one hand release.
You can try with some with kali guys. Sure they do tend to leave their hand in front too much but they are vey good at sniping and they are very good at taking advantage of the timing disadvantage of moving your body or you foot fist.
If you do not spare, it is very simple to demonstrate; start a range where you need both to use what you can the third timing to hit each other or just to cross is does not really matter.
If one of you sticks to what I understood is your 3rd timing and the other take a step as you would normally but punch his hands forward and follow with the body and the leg. The one that stuck to move and strike in 1st timing will always arrive first.
As well biomechanically, your movement get in the way of your body and reduces you ability to react and limit you ability to move after the blow, for example to switch side for winden.
That being said, the true times of Silver or Ringeck striking advise only applies to the strike in itself an not the movement as how to you get into the adequate position for striking.
In Silver you have the true place as you have the true time. Regardless how you strike you need to get there fitst.
So yes you can move forward (or whatever to take a position and then strike using a “true time” or what you call the first timing.
If that is what you mean by the third timing, then we are really saying the same thing.
And that is what I use to break the distance and strike according to the guard he is in.
In fact if we are thinking about that properly if you want to get the “vorshlag” , you need a way to move into distance before you can strike in the “first timing”. Because the vorshalg is not the first strike, it is the first strike in the vor. (Or if to present it differently the first meaningful strike)
So I do agree with your argument about the range and the need to get there.
Posted On:11/05/2010 12:12am
You can certainly look at it that way re: the third timing. You actually begin your strike in the same place you would when using the first, you are just on your way into measure at that point.
To use the first in a pure sense, you have to get quite close.
The second timing is different, but it has its application, just as do the other two. In reference to your comments on sparring, using any timing/technique/anything when the situation for it is wrong is a sure way to fail. The stepping into measure demo at the end of the vid works, and it works beautifully in free fencing (sparring), but there is a time and a place, and a setup using pressure, just as there is for everything.
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info