I.33 Trailer

[Jeffrey Hull]

It looks like Dave Rawlings & Boar's Tooth in Britain has been busy assembling a sword & buckler interpretation for MS I.33 (what I like to call Walpurgis)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egwTkA1r57w

If anyone has viewed and/or utilised that full DVD, then please post your comments about it.

[Mike Cartier]

I've seen it and i think its pretty good myself , although i know little of I33
It seems well research, clear, and martially tested to me.
I recommend it to anyone into Sword & buckler

[Jeffrey Hull]

...And Dave Rawlings seems to be a serious & athletic martial artist.

So his interpretation of MS I.33 must be inherently superior to that of the horribly unfit reenactor Stephen Hand, who somehow got his own interpretive book published.

If for no other reasons than that, if I were to make a choice between those two, then Rawling's DVD would get my money.

Anyway, more commentary regarding that DVD is welcome.

[Jaron Bernstein]

...And Dave Rawlings seems to be a serious & athletic martial artist.

So his interpretation of MS I.33 must be inherently superior to that of the horribly unfit reenactor Stephen Hand, who somehow got his own interpretive book published.

If for no other reasons than that, if I were to make a choice between those two, then Rawling's DVD would get my money.

Anyway, more commentary regarding that DVD is welcome.

I own and have watched it but am not really enough of a S&B scholar to comment otherwise.

[Richard Strey]

Jeffrey,
while I wouldn't judge Mr. Hand's interpretation based on Dave's DVD, I have had the opportunity to meet Dave twice at seminars in Germany. He knows his I.33, and is one of (the?) the most explosive and physical fencers I've encountered. Once he gets going, he is a force of nature. Really. Without a timeline, we'll never *know* if an interpretation is correct or not, but Dave's sure works.
The DVD is way up on my wishlist.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Richard:

Why not judge Hand's interpretation vis-a-vis the seemingly superior interpretation done by Rawlings?

Hand and his cronies, howsoever unmartial and unathletic they may be, refrain not from constantly passing cursory, summary & unqualified judgement upon far better fencers than any of them shall ever be.

To be quite honest, I would rather buy an interpretive work of fencing by an athletic martial artist than one by an obese reenactor.

I refute this notion that everybody's stuff is equal to everybody else's stuff. That is just not true.

Anyway, yes, it seems that everybody so far likes Rawlings-Boar's Tooth MS I.33 DVD. Further comments are welcome -- and thanks to those who have expressed their views about it.

[Shane Smith]

Keep it Scholarly and lay off of the personal insults gentlemen. If you do intend to take someones body of work to task, now, that is just fine if the facts support you and you can make your case. This forum is for reasoned debate and discussion, not name-calling. Arguments are much more persuasive when they attack the issue at hand.


In short, tell us why you feel the other guy is wrong and why you are right and we'll all see what we think of the case you make. That is Scholarly and it's characterstic of the ARMA approach to research.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Shane:

I think that my assertion is nonetheless valid

If an athletic martial artist does an interpretation of a rediscovered martial arts work, then his interpretation is inherently more likely to be correct than the interpretation of someone who is not an athletic martial artist.

[Shane Smith]

Shane:

I think that my assertion is nonetheless valid

If an athletic martial artist does an interpretation of a rediscovered martial arts work, then his interpretation is inherently more likely to be correct than the interpretation of someone who is not an athletic martial artist.

Your last statement above is soundly reasoned. This is the post you probably should have originally presented instead dragging in "cronies". It keeps to the facts and allows your impressive intellect to do you justice.

[Ciaran Daly]

Shane:

I think that my assertion is nonetheless valid

If an athletic martial artist does an interpretation of a rediscovered martial arts work, then his interpretation is inherently more likely to be correct than the interpretation of someone who is not an athletic martial artist.

Guys, this is just not true. Athletic talent can (but obviously doesn't always) cover a multitude of sins. You can get away with garbage technique if you're quicker than greased lightning and stronger than the other guy. While I enjoy watching the combination of skill and athleticism, I find that the seasoned martial artist whose expertise is hard-won is often the more insightful instructor - precisely because he has had to learn perfect technique to compensate for less-than-stellar natural gifts.

Obviously, we should all strive to better ourselves athletically as martial artists, but dismissing someone's knowledge base because they have a beer belly is arrogant and stupid. And I've seen portly men you might dismiss do some horrifyingly athletic things in my time...

[Matt_Conner]

If I read you correctly, your issue with Hand is that he's fat, and he does reenacting. I very much have to agree with Ciaran here, in that judging by physical fitness the knowledge and scholarship of a text on our pet subject is shortsighted. I haven't had the chance to work with I.33's system yet, not having the funds to get either buckler or arming sword at this time, but in my read through of the text, it seems reasonably researched AT THIS POINT in my understanding of the system. I am, as I think I should be, open to researching what other interpretations are, and will likely buy the Boar's Tooth DVD. It's also worth noting that although I haven't read much else by Mr. Hand, and therefore haven't seen firsthand whether he really is "constantly passing cursory, summary & unqualified judgement upon far better fencers", the appendix to his book does point out a number of other people studying I.33, including Mr. Rawlings.

[carlo arellano]

Shane:

I think that my assertion is nonetheless valid

If an athletic martial artist does an interpretation of a rediscovered martial arts work, then his interpretation is inherently more likely to be correct than the interpretation of someone who is not an athletic martial artist.

Guys, this is just not true. Athletic talent can (but obviously doesn't always) cover a multitude of sins. You can get away with garbage technique if you're quicker than greased lightning and stronger than the other guy. While I enjoy watching the combination of skill and athleticism, I find that the seasoned martial artist whose expertise is hard-won is often the more insightful instructor - precisely because he has had to learn perfect technique to compensate for less-than-stellar natural gifts.

Obviously, we should all strive to better ourselves athletically as martial artists, but dismissing someone's knowledge base because they have a beer belly is arrogant and stupid. And I've seen portly men you might dismiss do some horrifyingly athletic things in my time...

I think "athleticism" here is the ability to use martial force in a meaningful manner on a resisting opponent. How many chunky looking BJJ guys have taken out martial artists who have great muscle tone but mostly practice kata? The judgments come from how people move, timing and how one invades the opponent's space and not from the participant's physical appearance. An experience martial artist can see these things in another, even when the other person is simply explaining a technique. By this criteria Jeffrey's judgment is still valid.

[Ciaran Daly]

Shane:

I think that my assertion is nonetheless valid

If an athletic martial artist does an interpretation of a rediscovered martial arts work, then his interpretation is inherently more likely to be correct than the interpretation of someone who is not an athletic martial artist.

Guys, this is just not true. Athletic talent can (but obviously doesn't always) cover a multitude of sins. You can get away with garbage technique if you're quicker than greased lightning and stronger than the other guy. While I enjoy watching the combination of skill and athleticism, I find that the seasoned martial artist whose expertise is hard-won is often the more insightful instructor - precisely because he has had to learn perfect technique to compensate for less-than-stellar natural gifts.

Obviously, we should all strive to better ourselves athletically as martial artists, but dismissing someone's knowledge base because they have a beer belly is arrogant and stupid. And I've seen portly men you might dismiss do some horrifyingly athletic things in my time...

I think "athleticism" here is the ability to use martial force in a meaningful manner on a resisting opponent. How many chunky looking BJJ guys have taken out martial artists who have great muscle tone but mostly practice kata? The judgments come from how people move, timing and how one invades the opponent's space and not from the participant's physical appearance. An experience martial artist can see these things in another, even when the other person is simply explaining a technique. By this criteria Jeffrey's judgment is still valid.

Perhaps I'm missing something and Mr. Hull has seen the man in question move. But if not, then I'm afraid you're wrong. What's valid is honest analysis of the technique in question: good criticism, in other words. "This technique does not work as illustrated because x", that sort of thing. Otherwise we're back to the childish state of affairs upthread where grown men type "fatty can't fight", and none of us learn anything.

[Gene Tausk]

Guys, this is starting to venture into the area of personal snipes. Let's get it back on track or close it down.

Also, since this thread is dedicated to I.33, if someone wants to talk about athleticism, then I would respectfully suggest opening another thread.

[Ciaran Daly]

Guys, this is starting to venture into the area of personal snipes. Let's get it back on track or close it down.

Also, since this thread is dedicated to I.33, if someone wants to talk about athleticism, then I would respectfully suggest opening another thread.

Well said Gene. Let's get this back on track to talking about I.33 before someone says something rude...