New ARMA Editorial: Making Better Sense

[Webmaster]

By special request of the membership, a new ARMA editorial has been moved from our private member's area to the public Articles & Essays section:

Making Better Sense
http://www.thearma.org/essays/MakingBetterSense.htm

[Jeffrey Hull]

This is probably my favourite quote from that fine essay

I first wrote about and spoke publicly on this matter back in the year 2000, pointing out that the foreseeable problem to come for historical fencing studies would not be the lack of source material or even viable translations, but of the coming misinterpretations of their teachings. I warned the historical fencing community of one or more views becoming ossified by the lowest common denominator into a new orthodoxy resulting in profound (and often subtle) misunderstanding and misrepresentation. As I once prognosticated, I now see this phenomenon well under way among some circles and I lament the momentum it has gained in the exploration of these diverse and sophisticated combatives.

[Rod-Thornton]

By special request of the membership, a new ARMA editorial has been moved from our private member's area to the public Articles & Essays section:

Making Better Sense
http://www.thearma.org/essays/MakingBetterSense.htm

Thanks for the article. I think the best quote there however, was ..."there are an infinite number of ways to do something wrong and only a few ways to do it right."

[Benjamin Smith]

Very well written. I've seen this sort of thing over and over again, and I've only been in ARMA for five years.

[Randall Pleasant]

John

Great article! In light of some of the interpretations currently floating around that are so martially unsound, the article is also very timely.

[JeffGentry]

Very well written. I've seen this sort of thing over and over again, and I've only been in ARMA for five years.

Well I have only been in ARMA a couple of years, 2, and do not alway's agree with JC, Jake, or who ever on every thing, I have never had a problem with discussing thing's agreed or disagreed on, I feel this is one of the strongest thing's about ARMA that we will disagree with each other in a scholarly way and allow our selve's to teach and be taught no matter how long we have been doing this.

I think in many way's JC hit the nail on the head when he wrote this little gem. We absolutely must must keep an open mind and test everything we Hypothosis(?) about before preaching it as gospel and then be ready to adjust when new info. come's to light.

To use a Marine Corp saying we are on the tip of the spear with what we are doing so there is much more behind us we may not see right now.

Jeff

[Randall Pleasant]

Upon a second read of the article what really stood out to me was the following:

While a translation of any particular source text of our subject may for example be interpreted to offer up eight or ten core elements, with perhaps six or seven of these being self-evident enough to grasp, there might be three or four other vital elements that can easily be overlooked, or worse, mistakenly taken as literal, to thereby collapse any genuine effectiveness. From a single misinterpretation of a fighting posture or other key element of some historical teaching, the vital fundamentals are going to be very difficult to properly acquire and master. Additionally, any prior mistake compounds with each new element added in—making reassessment of earlier assumptions even more difficult.

This goes to the heart of much of what I have observed outside of ARMA during the past year. For example, some scholars in other groups have taken a single image of Vom Tag in which the sword is held in front of the chest as literal (while not taking the rest of the images as literal ). This mistake in turn leads to short weak cuts in which the arms are rarely fully extended and rather than torquing the hilt they pull the pomel down. These mistakes in turn result in fighting starting at too close of a distance and lots of edge hacking. This results in lost opportunities to attack at longer distances and lots and lots of blade damage. All of this is easily seen in their interpretation of Liechtenauer's Zornhau-to-Zornhau counter. All of these mistakes really come to light at the Application level. The sparing matches I observed that incorporated these interpretations were little more than sword tag.

[david welch]

I once was having a discussion on religion with friend who is an Orthodox priest. He made the point that for our discussion, God made the Universe and the Bible perfectly to His plan, and what we relied upon was our interpretation of the Bible.

If what we see in the Universe does not conform to what we believe is in the Bible, then we can choose to believe God is wrong, the Universe is wrong, or more probably that it is our interpretation that is wrong.

While the Fight masters weren't gods, we should be able to assume that at least the elements common to the manuscripts worked. Sword fighting was real, and what they wrote was meant to keep you from being killed. And what we rely upon was is our interpretation.

If what you are doing doesn't work in honest sparring, you have to believe either the Fight masters were wrong or you have to re-examine your interpretation.

I'll say it again. If it doesn't work, either the Fight master, the fight book, sword fighting in general, or your interpretation is wrong. It is nothing but hubris to declare that you are the one that has it right.

If nothing else, ARMA's philosophy of "if it works it is right, if it doesn't it is wrong" is the correct direction to base your studies if you want to do "real" sword fighting.

[Mark Driggs]

If nothing else, ARMA's philosophy of "if it works it is right, if it doesn't it is wrong" is the correct direction to base your studies if you want to do "real" sword fighting.

One slight caveat David. Sometimes, a technique may seem right, but only in a certain context. The fire in front of my eyes is perhaps the brightest source of light I've ever seen, yet I may still be chained up in the cave while the sun shines brighter outside.

But yes, those who insist that their interpretation is not at fault are the ones who remain chained up, in the dark. The religious comparison is probably not that far off, given the zeal some can exhibit when talking about swordsmanship.

[Jay Vail]

If nothing else, ARMA's philosophy of "if it works it is right, if it doesn't it is wrong" is the correct direction to base your studies if you want to do "real" sword fighting.

One slight caveat David. Sometimes, a technique may seem right, but only in a certain context. The fire in front of my eyes is perhaps the brightest source of light I've ever seen, yet I may still be chained up in the cave while the sun shines brighter outside.

But yes, those who insist that their interpretation is not at fault are the ones who remain chained up, in the dark. The religious comparison is probably not that far off, given the zeal some can exhibit when talking about swordsmanship.

Mark, every technique has its place. That is a fundamental consideration. See Mike Cartier's article at http://www.arma-sfl.com/meyer_parts.cfm

[Mark Driggs]

If nothing else, ARMA's philosophy of "if it works it is right, if it doesn't it is wrong" is the correct direction to base your studies if you want to do "real" sword fighting.

One slight caveat David. Sometimes, a technique may seem right, but only in a certain context. The fire in front of my eyes is perhaps the brightest source of light I've ever seen, yet I may still be chained up in the cave while the sun shines brighter outside.

But yes, those who insist that their interpretation is not at fault are the ones who remain chained up, in the dark. The religious comparison is probably not that far off, given the zeal some can exhibit when talking about swordsmanship.

Mark, every technique has its place. That is a fundamental consideration. See Mike Cartier's article at http://www.arma-sfl.com/meyer_parts.cfm

I realize that techniques are not always universally applicable and each have their place. What I was trying to convey is people's faulty application of a technique which seems to work for them in a limited or less challenging environment. People's perception of what is right is the subjective part.

When a new student is performing a technique incorrectly, sometimes they say they do it because it feels more natural to them that way. Doing things the right way seems counter-intuitive to them at times. Of course demonstrating why their technique or application won't work with a quick counter-drill can quickly correct them.

BTW, that is a pretty good article by Mike.

[david welch]

If nothing else, ARMA's philosophy of "if it works it is right, if it doesn't it is wrong" is the correct direction to base your studies if you want to do "real" sword fighting.

One slight caveat David. Sometimes, a technique may seem right, but only in a certain context. The fire in front of my eyes is perhaps the brightest source of light I've ever seen, yet I may still be chained up in the cave while the sun shines brighter outside.

But yes, those who insist that their interpretation is not at fault are the ones who remain chained up, in the dark. The religious comparison is probably not that far off, given the zeal some can exhibit when talking about swordsmanship.

I agree with you about context, but to my thinking that is not an argument about if I am wrong, but about how I am wrong.

If you strike at my head and I deflect you with "perfect" technique but still get hit in the head because what I did was inappropriate to the situation, I am still wrong.

About the other thing, I really used my religious comparison not because of the zeal involved, but because it is really hard to find another group that spends more time and effort in attempting to interpret texts.

[Matthew_Anderson]

Finally had a chance to read the article and it is spot-on! I've watched with much fascination and some dismay as so many historical fencing "schools" and "teachers" have sprung up from nowhere in recent years. Usually they have a website with a few photos and some links ( often to sources on this website). I always look for something that addresses the credentials of the "instructor" and usually find that there are either none given or that his background is dubious at best with regard to any actual historical fencing experience. There's nothing wrong with anyone delving into the subject, forming a study group, and learning together from historical sources, workshops, etc. That's the whole basis of ARMA, after all. But when an individual with a couple of years of this type of training then bills himself as an instructor of these arts and charges students fees for classes, that borders on fraud IMO. The students don't know any better, and learn flawed interpretations and ineffective techniques. I would urge all new practitioners to be cautious and suspicious of anyone charging fees for instruction in historical fencing, as there are damned few individuals who are really qualified to do so.

[Craig Peters]

This goes to the heart of much of what I have observed outside of ARMA during the past year. For example, some scholars in other groups have taken a single image of Vom Tag in which the sword is held in front of the chest as literal (while not taking the rest of the images as literal ). This mistake in turn leads to short weak cuts in which the arms are rarely fully extended and rather than torquing the hilt they pull the pomel down. These mistakes in turn result in fighting starting at too close of a distance and lots of edge hacking. This results in lost opportunities to attack at longer distances and lots and lots of blade damage. All of this is easily seen in their interpretation of Liechtenauer's Zornhau-to-Zornhau counter. All of these mistakes really come to light at the Application level. The sparing matches I observed that incorporated these interpretations were little more than sword tag.

Another one that stands out to me is people using the Zornhaw specifically as a lead-in to fighting at the bind, rather than using it as a countercut to the head which can result in a bind if you misjudge your strike. Reading what the masters tell us to do does not support the former interpretation at all. Dobringer's manuscript tells us probably at least six times "Do not strike for the sword; instead, go for the man". It really makes no sense therefore to argue that the Zornhaw is only used for setting up krieg when it's extremely easy to use it as an effective counterstrike if you modify your application of it slightly. It also flies in the face of Ringeck's (and I believe Liechtenauer's) warning not to engage rashly in krieg, which is nothing more than winding at the sword.

I can see how some people might interpret the Zornhaw this way, given that nearly every technique that Ringeck describes in the Zornhaw section presupposes that a bind has occurred. But this is self evident; obviously, if your countercut strikes your foe to the head, you don't really need to worry about a follow-up. It's when you fall short, and find yourself in a bind, that the rest of the actions become relevant. And this is where things like martiality, athleticism, biomechanics, (and even a little common sense), come into play when interpreting what the masters wrote. These aren't things that are found in a fencing book. You have to bring them on your own.

[Matthew_Anderson]

This goes to the heart of much of what I have observed outside of ARMA during the past year. For example, some scholars in other groups have taken a single image of Vom Tag in which the sword is held in front of the chest as literal (while not taking the rest of the images as literal ). This mistake in turn leads to short weak cuts in which the arms are rarely fully extended and rather than torquing the hilt they pull the pomel down. These mistakes in turn result in fighting starting at too close of a distance and lots of edge hacking. This results in lost opportunities to attack at longer distances and lots and lots of blade damage. All of this is easily seen in their interpretation of Liechtenauer's Zornhau-to-Zornhau counter. All of these mistakes really come to light at the Application level. The sparing matches I observed that incorporated these interpretations were little more than sword tag.

Another one that stands out to me is people using the Zornhaw specifically as a lead-in to fighting at the bind, rather than using it as a countercut to the head which can result in a bind if you misjudge your strike. Reading what the masters tell us to do does not support the former interpretation at all. Dobringer's manuscript tells us probably at least six times "Do not strike for the sword; instead, go for the man". It really makes no sense therefore to argue that the Zornhaw is only used for setting up krieg when it's extremely easy to use it as an effective counterstrike if you modify your application of it slightly. It also flies in the face of Ringeck's (and I believe Liechtenauer's) warning not to engage rashly in krieg, which is nothing more than winding at the sword.

I can see how some people might interpret the Zornhaw this way, given that nearly every technique that Ringeck describes in the Zornhaw section presupposes that a bind has occurred. But this is self evident; obviously, if your countercut strikes your foe to the head, you don't really need to worry about a follow-up. It's when you fall short, and find yourself in a bind, that the rest of the actions become relevant. And this is where things like martiality, athleticism, biomechanics, (and even a little common sense), come into play when interpreting what the masters wrote. These aren't things that are found in a fencing book. You have to bring them on your own.

I agree wholeheartedly. I firmly believe that in most scenarios, you should be trying to strike your opponent, not his blade. If I throw a big Zorn or any strike for that matter, and I hit you, the fight is likely over. If you counter or cover, and the result is a bind, we work from there. To purposely seek to strike your opponent's blade to arrive at a bind is a misinterpretation IMO and tactically unwise. There are plenty of techniques that will defeat someone who is actively seeking to displace or bind your blade to the point of no longer striking at you, several masters address this.