Stepping with every strike anomaly

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

I am often coming across the idea that longsword practitioners must step with every strike, I find this problematic because of the relationship between the speed of some combinations of strikes and the maximum speed with which one can step.

For example, Mark Rector's translation of Talhoffer's 'Medieval Combat' states that a step must be taken with each strike, but also states that there are three kinds of strike, one with the whole body, one with the arms and shoulders, and another with the hands and wrists. Given that it is possible to strike more than once in the time it takes to step, if using the just hands and wrists, and sometimes also if using the shoulders and arms, it follows that stepping with every strike will slow down combinations of strikes.

I saw the problem illustrated clearly recently in a video clip which was supposed to show a 'true time' training exercise using punches ( Conducted by members of an EMA group) . .. . . the instructor was making the students start the punch prior to stepping and insisting that the blow landed at the same time that the step did. .. . this makes for a woefully slow punch. The exercise only works in ultra slow motion, and also prevents cross punches.

help anyone ?


.





?

[Richard Strey]

[...]Given that it is possible to strike more than once in the time it takes to step[...]

You are not stepping quickly enough, then. I can do about 3 "full body swings" per second, I can't without stepping, though. Remember, that "stepping" is more about using the hips than actually moving around.

[Will Adamson]

Giving the strike a step does not mean it has to have a passing step. You can step with the lead foot for a simple step for example.

[Jeffrey Hull]

It is not that you "must" step with all schlagen, but the most forceful strikes, the hauen, are best done with footwork of treten or springen.

You can certainly do various schnitten and stichen, and even some hauen, without stepping at all. That may fit the tactical reality of a given moment. But the most forceful are done by stepping.

If for some reason a fencer is "slow" at doing that, then he probably needs to work on improving the athleticism of his footwork, perhaps of the entire treiben & wellen of his schlagen.

[Shane Smith]

Vadi does advocate cutting in close without stepping with only a leaning of the body and hips as I read him.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

It is not that you "must" step with all schlagen, but the most forceful strikes, the hauen, are best done with footwork of treten or springen.

You can certainly do various schnitten and stichen, and even some hauen, without stepping at all. That may fit the tactical reality of a given moment. But the most forceful are done by stepping.

If for some reason a fencer is "slow" at doing that, then he probably needs to work on improving the athleticism of his footwork, perhaps of the entire treiben & wellen of his schlagen.

Yes obviously the most forceful strikes will involve a step, however that's a different matter, I was referring to an insistence upon stepping with every strike as being a handicap, due to the fact that it slows down certain strikes, and makes one move arbitrarily.

I can counter your suggestion that a fencer who cannot step as fast as he can strike should learn to step faster by saying that those who can step as fast as they strike are slow at striking and should learn to speed it up.

Your answer states that some strikes can be done without stepping, that's what I was hoping to hear, thanks !

.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

[...]Given that it is possible to strike more than once in the time it takes to step[...]

You are not stepping quickly enough, then. I can do about 3 "full body swings" per second, I can't without stepping, though. Remember, that "stepping" is more about using the hips than actually moving around.

It's not just full body swings we are talking about, there are also strikes which use only the wrist and hands, or the arms and shoulders.

The arms and hands can move faster than the legs, thus at times a strike without a step is appropriate, that's what I was saying.

If we define a step as a slight hop or twitching of one foot, or merely a tensing of the abdomen or movement of the hips, then I agree that a step is necessary. . . . I wasn't trying to suggest that the entire body below the armpits should be rigid.



.

[Richard Strey]

That's what I was getting at with the "steps that don't involve movement". I strongly suspect that it is this twitching/energy generation from the hips that one should always do with all cuts. Even cuts from the wrists are faster if initiated by the hips. Think Bruce Lee's One-Inch-Punch. Same thing.

Jeffrey, you are a bit off on your German grammar... are you sure you want to use those foreign words and violate them this way?

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

That makes sense, I also prefer to initiate the strikes from my waist and let my legs do what they will, either stepping or not as the case may be, but I was starting to experience some confusion after reading so much about having to step every time . Paranoia about stepping correctly isn't productive !



.

[Stacy Clifford]

If we define a step as a slight hop or twitching of one foot, or merely a tensing of the abdomen or movement of the hips, then I agree that a step is necessary. . . . I wasn't trying to suggest that the entire body below the armpits should be rigid.

I believe this is more what is meant than a full step forward or back. I recall JC many times saying "always move your feet when you cut or change your stance," and in his demonstrations it might be just a subtle shift of the foot forward or a short, sharp stomp barely traversing an inch. For the fastest successive wrist cuts I can do, my feet will still move like this on every beat, and it isn't difficult at all. Of course Shane is right that the same motion can be initiated from the hips or other ways of shifting your weight without moving the feet, if you have to, but keeping the feet constantly making small movements gives you quicker reaction time to make larger movements like voiding a cut or leaping in to strike. It's the difference between accelerating from 0-60 mph and going from 10-60 mph.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Got it now, thanks Stacy.

.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Stewart:
Do you know what you are intending to ask? I suggest that you study Silver's true & false times if the cordination of hand-body-foot confuses you.

Richard:
No, I am using those words correctly, inasmuch as I mix them into English sentences. If it made no sense to you, then perhaps you ought to study up. I question whether you understand their meaning. If you need education in the use of several of those, you may find such in my transcription, translation & commentary for the entire Talhoffer 1459 edition.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Stewart:
Do you know what you are intending to ask? I suggest that you study Silver's true & false times if the cordination of hand-body-foot confuses you.

:

Jeffrey, that' s Mr Stewart or Roy please, not 'Stewart'

I have no confusion as far as my own bodily coordination is concerned, I am merely trying to make sense out of the fight manuals and interpretaions of them which I have seen, and was pointing out:

1) What appears to be an anomaly in, or misinterpration of the training manuals, regarding the supposed necessity to step with every strike which I constantly read about. This matter has now been somewhat clarified in my mind, thanks to those who have kindly responded. If one treats a 'step' as including very small foot movements which happen naturally as a result of using the entire body to strike, then it makes more sense.

2) That a 'true time' exercise which I observed whereby the arm is extended first, and where the blow is required (by the instructor)to land at the conclusion of the step made for a very slow blow, as the arm can extend faster than the foot. The exercise involved punches, and appeared to be quite useless in that context.
Given that there are many useful blows which can involve stepping prior to the strike, I presume that the 'true time' theory of Mr Silver's is applied
only in some situations, and not as a general rule, consequently I am going to ignore the true time theory in my own training, and let my feet do what they will, as always.

.

.

[Richard Strey]

Richard:
No, I am using those words correctly, inasmuch as I mix them into English sentences. If it made no sense to you, then perhaps you ought to study up. I question whether you understand their meaning. If you need education in the use of several of those, you may find such in my transcription, translation & commentary for the entire Talhoffer 1459 edition.

I wasn't questioning your use of words... I said your grammar was off.
In "with all schlagen", the noun is in plural. So it would have to be either "schläge" or "schlags", depending on how much you want to adapt it to the English language. Similarly, "hauen" should be "haue" or "haus/haws" or whatever. Same thing with the "schlagen" in the last line.
But I'm antf*cking here, anyway.

It would, however, be of interest to me what difference you find between the words "schlagen (schläge)" and "hauen (haue)" in content. To me, both seem to mean the same. Could give me some reference for this? I'm always eager to learn.
Could it be that the English "hewing" carries a connotation that differentiates it from cutting or striking, while the middle German "hau/haw" does not?

and let my feet do what they will, as always.

I think that's usually the way to go, provided one has drilled enough useful footwork into one's feet in the first place. Probaby that's also the reason why many masters tell us *where* to step, but not *how*.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

In English 'Hew' has a connotation which makes it a subset of striking or cutting. .. to hew is to strike as if with an axe, as in a powerful sweeping blow, whereas cutting or striking can involve hewing as well as other kinds of actions.

.