Parrying attacks to the hips/waistline

[Eric White]

Hey folks,
I've been dabbling in western martial arts for a few years now. I've had Mr. Clements' book, Medieval Swordsmanship, since 1999 and have been studying karate for over 15 years. However, I've recently turned my martial arts focus towards medieval swordsmanship and have recently applied for membership to the ARMA.

That quick introduction being said, my question is this. How does one train in order to differentiate a waistline/hip attack from a leg attack? In Mr. Clements' book, he states that to parry a strike at the waist one uses the close guard. I've drilled this parry with a fellow practitioner but am having a lot of difficulty distinguising an attack to my hips from an attack to my legs while free-playing with wooden wasters. This morning my amateur skills showed brilliantly during free-play as I punched my hilt directly into an attack at my hips; I missed the parry with my blade and my opponent's attack bruised my knuckles nicely.

Are there drills one can practice to differentiate an attack to the hips from an attack to the legs? Any tips or drills would be much appreciated.

[Jonathan Newhall]

Something to note is that an attack to the legs is parried by simply removing your leg from the place it is being attacked and countercutting to the enemy. A good way to avoid being tricked about which below-the-belt place you're being hit at (if you are more defensive-minded) is to parry for a waist strike while simultaneously shifting your front leg away in the event it was aimed there rather than at your torso/waist.

Otherwise I'm not advanced enough to say, I think. I'm barely qualified to advise folks on what to do about torso hits

[CalebChow]

Something to note is that an attack to the legs is parried by simply removing your leg from the place it is being attacked and countercutting to the enemy. A good way to avoid being tricked about which below-the-belt place you're being hit at (if you are more defensive-minded) is to parry for a waist strike while simultaneously shifting your front leg away in the event it was aimed there rather than at your torso/waist.

Otherwise I'm not advanced enough to say, I think. I'm barely qualified to advise folks on what to do about torso hits

That's exactly what I do too, but I find that if I stand low with shrankhut both my hips and legs are pretty much covered. One of the advantages of being fairly short

[Greg Coffman]

First, if somebody cuts to or below your waist, cut to their head. It works like a charm. I am assuming longsword. This is about proper distance. Since the line of your sword starts at your shoulders, the straightest line to your opponent is straight out, more or less at their head. Conversely, in order to strike lower the sword and arms make a diagonal in order to reach the lower targets of leg and waist. The head comes in range first. If they are close enough to cut (and actually hit) your legs and waist, then their head has already been in range. Step appropriately (in order to cover yourself with distance) and strike to their head.

Second, forget this parry business. Static blocking, "parrying," is not a good technique, because your opponent will see your block and either feint or just change to a different opening. "Cut when he cuts, thrust when he thrusts," (Liechtenaur). Strike in such a way that you cover yourself by your audacity and your opponent is forced to bind against your strike.

Instead of striking to the head, you can also step back as the cut comes at you and cut to his/her hand or arm which will be extended out. Krumphau or zwerchau works well here because it keeps your own arms out of the way.

[CalebChow]

First, if somebody cuts to or below your waist, cut to their head. It works like a charm. I am assuming longsword. This is about proper distance. Since the line of your sword starts at your shoulders, the straightest line to your opponent is straight out, more or less at their head. Conversely, in order to strike lower the sword and arms make a diagonal in order to reach the lower targets of leg and waist. The head comes in range first. If they are close enough to cut (and actually hit) your legs and waist, then their head has already been in range. Step appropriately (in order to cover yourself with distance) and strike to their head.

There's a slight problem when your opponent is much taller than you or possesses a longer sword, however. Just so happens that in my study group I'm the shortest guy there.

I haven't really had a chance to spar someone my height (5'7), ironically. Still, this is a very good point; isn't that one of the reasons the schietelhau is used against the alber guard?

[Jonathan Newhall]

Greg, I think you make a good point. It is important that one differentiate between an offensive parry and a strictly defensive parry. A solid block is nice in that it prevents your death, but it is suboptimal compared to the offensive parry, which is generally achieved by cutting as he cuts or thrusting as he thrusts, nicely explained by our early German friend.

Don't fall into the trap of hitting at the sword - you aren't fighting his sword! Only make sure that you hit the sword as or after you hit the person to make sure it does not harm you

[Greg Coffman]

There's a slight problem when your opponent is much taller than you or possesses a longer sword, however. Just so happens that in my study group I'm the shortest guy there.

I haven't really had a chance to spar someone my height (5'7), ironically. Still, this is a very good point; isn't that one of the reasons the schietelhau is used against the alber guard?

The principle is still the same. If your opponent is cutting to your left, then step wide to your right and cut. If you opponent is cutting to your left, then step wide to your left and cut. Cut at your opponent, or at least where he (or she) will be or where their arms will be. With your height difference, I reccomend mittlehaus (including zwerchhaus). Cut to wherever you can best reach.

[Eric White]

First, if somebody cuts to or below your waist, cut to their head. It works like a charm. I am assuming longsword. This is about proper distance. Since the line of your sword starts at your shoulders, the straightest line to your opponent is straight out, more or less at their head. Conversely, in order to strike lower the sword and arms make a diagonal in order to reach the lower targets of leg and waist. The head comes in range first. If they are close enough to cut (and actually hit) your legs and waist, then their head has already been in range. Step appropriately (in order to cover yourself with distance) and strike to their head.

Second, forget this parry business. Static blocking, "parrying," is not a good technique, because your opponent will see your block and either feint or just change to a different opening. "Cut when he cuts, thrust when he thrusts," (Liechtenaur). Strike in such a way that you cover yourself by your audacity and your opponent is forced to bind against your strike.

Instead of striking to the head, you can also step back as the cut comes at you and cut to his/her hand or arm which will be extended out. Krumphau or zwerchau works well here because it keeps your own arms out of the way.

I understand the concept of "cut when he cuts" very well, because the same idea exists in Isshinryu karate (i.e. strike when your opponent strikes) which I've studied quite extensively. However, it feels so different with a waster in my hand then with an empty-hand technique. I'm sure this is due to the fact that I'm a novice and am trying to interpret free-play straight from Mr. Clements' book Medieval Swordsmanship.

The other very interesting reference you folks keep making is to the techniques one can execute from "the bind." I have found this reference only four times in Medieval Swordsmanship and most instances seem to assume one knows what it is (p. 146, 194, 197, and 232).

Is the bind simply when the two blades are pressed against one another? I believe my confusion again stems from not seeing this demonstrated. Mr. Clements did an amazing job with this book but, as he stated in the beginning, it's impossible to learn a technique simply from reading.

However, to back up exactly what you said Greg, I believe Mr. Clements addresses this specifically on p. 217: "Ideally, such attacks [to the waistline] should be evaded by passing back and countercutting." Could someone describe what a countercut looks like?

I truly appreciate all of the help.

[Eric White]

The principle is still the same. If your opponent is cutting to your left, then step wide to your right and cut. If you opponent is cutting to your left, then step wide to your left and cut. Cut at your opponent, or at least where he (or she) will be or where their arms will be. With your height difference, I reccomend mittlehaus (including zwerchhaus). Cut to wherever you can best reach.

Ah yes, I should have read further. This is countercutting?

[Greg Coffman]

Yes, countercutting is anytime really you cut when he cuts. You can do this a couple of ways, you can void his cut and hit him or you can cut at him so that a bind occurs. So on pg 217, John C. probably means you void out of the way of the cut, and then cut to his hand/arm or somewhere else you can reach, which may require a step or two back in. This works and is a good technique to learn. But you also need to learn to cut to his head with proper range, timing, footwork, audacity, etc.

A bind is a crossing of the swords. Techniques related to the bind are called winding. For example, when the swords are crossed in a "bind," you can "wind" (turn) your point towards his chest, into an ochs position, and thrust. This is elementary material

You should know that Medieval Swordsmanship is a bit out of date. It was good work when published and still has many good articles. But our interpretation (meaning, ARMA's interpretation furthered by John C. and others) have moved way beyond most of what is presented in the book. I would not recommend the book as source instruction for the longsword. Instead read Sigmund Ringeck's commentary on Liechtenaur which can be found on our website (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Ringeck.htm) or look at the Goliath commentary, also on Liechtenaur, which can be found at http://www.schielhau.org/. In Medieval Swordsmanship John C. tells you what he has learned about sword fighting based largely on his experiences sword fighting up to that point. At that time, the historical sources had not been studied and interpreted to the same degree as we have now. Study the historical sources if you want to learn how to fight with a sword. Enought= material is available online free.

[Stacy Clifford]

Countercutting isn't a specific technique, it's more of a general concept - using an offensive move to stop or counteract another offensive move. If he cuts at you, rather than simply blocking his cut, you throw a cut against him in such a way that yours lands and his doesn't. Ideally you cut so that you intercept both his cut and his body at the same time, but you can also void his cut (say at your leg) and hit him where he's open (like the head or arms).

The bind is the point where crossed swords meet, and you use it to gauge the force and direction of your opponent's movement and then wind around it to counteract his motion and gain the advantage. You won't see as much about that in Medieval Swordsmanship because that book is a dozen years old and we have had a lot of revelations and new research come out since it was written. It still contains a lot of good material and practical advice, but the technical interpretation has gotten pretty out of date (which is good because it means we're making progress in our understanding). You'll find a lot of discussions in this forum on binding and winding, which is a much more prominent focus for us these days, so I would recommend going back and reading through older threads on here and then asking questions as you go.

[Eric White]

Countercutting isn't a specific technique, it's more of a general concept - using an offensive move to stop or counteract another offensive move.
[...]
The bind is the point where crossed swords meet, and you use it to gauge the force and direction of your opponent's movement and then wind around it to counteract his motion and gain the advantage. You won't see as much about that in Medieval Swordsmanship because that book is a dozen years old and we have had a lot of revelations and new research come out since it was written. It still contains a lot of good material and practical advice, but the technical interpretation has gotten pretty out of date (which is good because it means we're making progress in our understanding). You'll find a lot of discussions in this forum on binding and winding, which is a much more prominent focus for us these days, so I would recommend going back and reading through older threads on here and then asking questions as you go.

All of your explanations are incredibly clear. Thank you very very much. I'll dive into the material you have on the web site regarding the source texts.

I'm going to make a flying leap here and state that it is pretty difficult to practice binding/winding techniques in solo practice. The nature of the bind must require a practice partner.

[Stacy Clifford]

You could gain a little bit of insight about winding from one edge to the other and maneuvering your edge and point by using a stationary pole as a fulcrum, but that will be very limited at best. You really do need a partner to practice it properly.

[Eric White]

You won't see as much about that in Medieval Swordsmanship because that book is a dozen years old and we have had a lot of revelations and new research come out since it was written. It still contains a lot of good material and practical advice, but the technical interpretation has gotten pretty out of date (which is good because it means we're making progress in our understanding).

Are the fundamental stances and footwork shown in the book still accepted? The 14 essential long-sword postitions? During free-play I will utilize, say, the hanging guard while I circle and counter, and then transition to the high guard to try another technique; the various stances also keep me from being static. Is this concept still utilized?

[Greg Coffman]

Well, somewhat. The positions as listed in the book roughly correspond to longsword guards. We use the historical name for the guards such as vom tag for "high." This is important because you don't want to have multiple sets of terminology floating around in your head and it is good to stay consistent to the source literature, the manuals. But then, many of the positions presented in the book are close to historical position, but are not the best representation of those guards. I strongly recommend learning a set of historical guards even if that means that you unlearn the "14 essential longsword guards." You will be much better served in the long run.

Think of the guards as the alphabet of possible position to be in with a sword. You start in a position. As you cut, you move through one or more positions. You end in a position. When you bind against another sword, you should still be in a guard. The guards teach you the different ways to hold the sword and hold you body to maximize body mechanics. You definitely don't want to be static, sitting and waiting in a guard. Do practice guard transitions. Then throw cuts in there as you transition.

About circling in a fight. Personally, I think you should just go up to your opponent and strike at him/her (using good timing, distance, range, etc.). If you are not ready to make that strike, stay well back out of distance. When you are ready to strike, then enter into proper range and cut! If as you come into range and are about to make a cut your opponent cuts at you, countercut! Any questions?

I believe the footwork hasn't changed that much in terms of stepping. We use passing steps, simple steps, false steps, and...is that it Stacy?

This is all pretty basic stuff that we teach to prospective members in the first 4 weeks or so though it takes longer for it to become natural.