http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10556447&postcount=2 I would just like to bring this particular martial principle into focus for the benefit of our WMA people. Koyo has as ever perfectly illustrated a principle which I have noticed that is sadly lacking in WMA. I have attended a few fiore dagger/grappling seminars and this principle which would transform techniques is neither trained nor it seems considered. The principle of unbalancing your opponent via strike or threat of strike is fundamental when moving to second intention. In longsword you should see this principle in keeping your point threatening even when blocking or winding. This is one of the fundamental principles of martial arts and should be hammered home for EVERY martial art. The Bear.
I guess there's always an exception. Unbalancing and "the perfect moment" are both integral parts of Brad Waller's instruction on Presas. Also, along those lines, Bob Charon has some very good research on the "Strong in the Bind." And I do mean much much more than simply "your forte, his feeble." Peace favor your sword, Kirk
Hi Kirk, Yeah the problem is that it is only the exceptions training this where is should be part of all our training. We have included this into our training at GCoD. However, this is through my exposure to people like Koyo whose training is purely based on martial principles which I have taken with me into WMA. I suppose the question you have to ask yourself is are you polluting WMA with principles which are coming from EMA or are you enhancing WMA by applying those principles to WMA? The Bear.
given our limited knowledge of what WMA is all about ... its my view that the basic concepts of EMA and WMA are almost the same. Meeting Koyo and explaining German longsword concepts to him resulted in him nodding rather a lot as we shared so many concepts. Those WMA 'purists' who automatically decry EMA influences are simply studying WMA lite. Its up to us as students of the art to evaluate what fits into WMA - if it fits, keep it - if not, toss it out - as we interpret the masters treatises. If we have to get the hint from EMA ... then its not wrong to experiment. Unbalancing for me seems to be a fundamental yet I also took classes where unbalancing was ignored.
That's the crux of it, isn't it? I recently participated in a similar thread over at SFI, so, if you'll permit me, I'll repost the relevant bits of my post here. For those who don't want to read all of the crap, the summary is: Identify clearly to your students and peers what you take from period material and what you surmise or "import." Peace favor your sword, Kirk
Hell, half the time we're making this stuff up - I'm just pleased that our interpretations frequently have a parallel in other combat systems and I'm lucky to have the highly experienced (in finger hacking) p bear as a sounding board. Too many people in WMA are forgetting we're teaching a system to kill and are leaving out key concepts ie violence as they pursue their own 'pretty butterflies'.
It depends I think, like rabid hamster said, if it fits then keep it. It is martial principles anyway, and they are building on the same thing, western or eastern or any other martial culture. It does not matter if you use a hakama when you apply a principle or shorts, its the same. Over at SFI some one asked about if it is possible to transfer koryu in the west. Here are a thread over at budoseek.net talking about exactly that topic. And I believe it is in topic of this thread. http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=23485
Well the Koryu issue is a separate issue I would say. Koryu is about maintaining the traditions of these arts whereas we in Historical European Martial Arts have no traditions to maintain. All you need to do is read one fechtbuch and you realise that there are gaping holes in them. However the problem lies in those that only train what is in the book and believe that adding anything else destroys historical accuracy. Your SFI armchair brigade fall into that category well. They spend years pouring over manuals and not in the training hall trying to fight with the system. Half the time they do fight they are using shinai or padded weapons which prevents you from using half the techniques anyway. I personally would rather use the guards, cuts and techniques are a starting point but filter those through my understanding of martial principles. Using terms like "void" to replace important concepts like "Kuzushi". At the end of the day we are attempting to create a medieval style fighter not an academic swordsman. The Bear.
Yes the koryu is different in that it is already a tradition. That thread is relevant to this because the question about adding something new/different that may be work better (through other experiences and experiments) than what your sensei thought you, be it boxing, BJJ, Muay Thai or wrestling, you would make that change. But that does not need to be polluting the tradition if the person changing it has the needed qualification in that tradition to feel if it fits or not. Hench the Rabid Hamsters comment on if it fits or not.
Ah I understand now. However again I would disagree. Since there is not a standard syllabus in HEMA which is currently taught everywhere. Therefore you can't really be accused of changing it. Koryu however is very different with a clear syllabus and history so I could see the arguement to not adding anything to the art. We have to add to the HEMA systems because they are not completely documented or understood. The other systems you are describing in general are. The problem is when people add absolute crap into them then you have a real dogs breakfast on your hands. I guess as ever it comes down to the martial intention of the group and their motivation and integrity. The Bear.
You don’t want to disagree with me because I agree with you. Wanted to give an example of that if it fits it does not necessarily degenerate, rather it makes it stronger (however out of context the example is). So I think wee agree…
Ha, can you not atleast try to disagree with me. Yeah I was just trying to explain why Koryu wasn't a good example. Gendai arts like Aikido would be a better example except from the fact that most of the later additions to the art have degenerated the art. Atleast I don't have to worry on that count because Uncle Johannes* hasn't had a living tradition for almost 500 years. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenauer The Bear.
... actually the only reason we have the treatises on uncle johannes at all was people were pretending to have been students of Liechtenauer, teaching a debased/substandard technique and the real students came out with treatises to prove who were the real thing. Not dissimilar to fiddling with Koryu AND the situation we have in WMA today. Bear, we need to write a treatise on German Swordsmanship: The Glasgow Way! ....... although we would probably have to put a sticker on the front 'explicit mayhem, parental caution advised'
Was thinking of something very similar. I think our brand of humor and violence would go down well in certain sections. Does that mean we would need to grow dodgy facial hair and wear linen underwear to get taken seriously? The Bear.
I think that's a good idea. It never hurts to have another interpretation out there. Seriously. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
I let my sword do all the serious work. He's got a bit of temper and usually he spends the day drinking. Honestly on the book front, we probably will write a GCoD training manual. Wether we ever publish it is another matter. I fear Italian longsword fighters would become very upset with us if we ever did. The Bear.
I really think you should. It would give folks a better idea of what you're doing, document the evolution of your own study, provide new/interested students a reference to consider, evaluate and compare, and produce a work that could be used as a vehicle to improve your curriculum through the process of comparision and constructive criticism with other schools in both the same and other traditions. I've done manuals before and am in the middle of working with Ken Pfrenger on another (which is VERY slowly taking shape) so, if I may, I could offer advice on the process. You could easily put your work up on Lulu or, if you didn't want to go to that effort, I could even put it in with my material. If you do a bit of searching on Lulu, you'll see that Hugh has also published his German (ims) training manuals there so he might be a resource to tap about how it's working for him. Personally, I'd advise not to try to make much (if any) money off of the work. This isn't a knock just stating that in my experience not that many people buy, particularly in a well served market such as German Longsword. That's the hard part. You're gonna put in dozens, maybe HUNDREDS of hours of work into this and you're gonna wanna say, "I put a lot of work into this, I deserve to get SOMETHING for my effort (or at least the club does)!!!" Just view it as an internal document that you're making available. If you were gonna make it available ONLY to your own students then you wouldn't charge much (if any) for it. Non-students are willing to pay even less and having expectations of making money selling it abroad is a recipie for disapointment and frustration. Anyway, I really encourage you to go ahead and write the manual. The process can be illuminating and can even alter how you teach some material. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
I would recommend the eastern western sword comparisons thread here on MAP. Stolenbjorn an Langenswert posted many informative points. regards koyo
