voiding attacks?

[RayMcCullough]

Quick question. What master(s) says to void blows? As in dodging an incoming attack and striking the opponent, without out any contact prior to your killing blow. No parries, knocking away, setting aside, slappping the hand away, etc....

Ray

[Sal Bertucci]

Nothing off the top of my head.

[Stacy Clifford]

I know in Swetnam's staff section he talks about "slipping" blows by pulling the staff out of the way and striking after.

[william_cain_iii]

Isn't this what the nachreissen is partly about?

[Jonathan Hill]

17th to 19th century fencing manuals consider voiding a standard practice. As to earlier sources, I had the understanding that Fiore's 'true cross' did not necessarily need blade contact. This infers a void provided you close your line in the process.

[Sal Bertucci]

I think that voiding would contradict Fiore's teachings on Audacity

[Jon Pellett]

Why do people call it "voiding" anyway?

Later authors like Wylde and Godfrey are fond of slipping, but earlier authors don't seem to mention it as much, or at least not so explicitly. But it is definitely there sometimes, e.g. Le Jeu de la Hache has "[54] If the said left-hander comes at you swinging. In whatever guard you may be, step back one pace and he will find nothing." There are also many cases like the second Nachreisen, where they say to hit your opponent when he is open after a blow has passed by in front of you, but they don't say explicitly whether you are supposed to move back to make the blow miss or not.

There are a fair number of evasions in the Bolognese stuff, but they are still considerably less common than parries or counterattacks. E.g. Manciolino I.6.1 and IV.12.

DiGrassi says: "The third manner of defence is, when the body voids out of the straight line towards this or that side, but this is seldom used alone & by itself, but rather accompanied with the opposing of the weapon, or with the second manner of defence aforesaid [i.e. a counterthrust]. If it be used alone, the manner is to let slip the blow, and to strike the enemy in the same time that he is over-reached in his blow." I can't think of any case where DiGrassi actually does use a plain evasion without a parry or counterthrust, though.

Silver says: "The third [defence] is to slip a little back & to strike or thrust after him." There is actually only one explicit slip like this in Silver's work though (against an over-committed staff blow).

As previously mentioned Swetnam likes to slip blows, at staff, sword, or rapier, especially against heavy weapons like bills.

Thibault slips back to avoid a blow with the two-handed sword and then thrusts after in Table 41, Circles 1-3. Capo Ferro advocates slipping the blows of a man who attacks with excessive force.

I'll stop now. Anyway the slip back and attack after seems less common than other defences, but definitely exists in many sources and is particularly recommended against over-committed blows. Also common is slipping the leg against a low attack.

[Stacy Clifford]

DiGrassi says: "The third manner of defence is, when the body voids out of the straight line towards this or that side, but this is seldom used alone & by itself, but rather accompanied with the opposing of the weapon, or with the second manner of defence aforesaid [i.e. a counterthrust]. If it be used alone, the manner is to let slip the blow, and to strike the enemy in the same time that he is over-reached in his blow." I can't think of any case where DiGrassi actually does use a plain evasion without a parry or counterthrust, though.

You are correct there, most of the defenses he describes involve "meeting" the opponent's sword various ways in combination with stepping off line, or just stabbing them before their cut lands. He's just acknowledging what's possible (and largely instinctive) in that quote, but advocating that opposing the blow is a more secure way to fight.

[RayMcCullough]

Thanks for the responses. It seems to be the slipping was moving away or beyond the attack while being able to strike yourself. This I expected and thanks for the references.

Summary:
Being able to void the attack and strike the attacker while being out of range of his attack unless he takes another step is in the sources, But not voiding the attack while staying in range of the attackers next strike if he doesn't have to move his feet.

That makes sense and would be safe.

Thanks

[Andrew F Ulrich]

There's a sort of void in Ringeck where he zwerchs and you zwerch the other way but a little lower so that you cut him underneath his cut:

"A defense against the upper Zwerch:

When you bind at his sword with an Oberhau or another strike from your right side and he strikes with the Zwerch at your other (left) side, forestall this with a Zwerch to his neck under his sword."

[Frederico Martins]

if you mean void by stepping back, out of range, not sideways(sideways might not work against oblique strikes), and counterattacking, then Master Nuno Russo teaches that.

here, nr 7 and 8:
http://youtu.be/ukTeaIHe1kQ?t=1m50s

It is a very simple distance management skill (basic principle in jogo do pau), not easy to perform but a simple concept, I'm sure every single swordsman would have done that.

I have a DVD with an old recording of a demonstration with Master Nuno Mota still young doing it in dozens of different ways steping in and out, just stepping out, steping to the side, from different stances etc...

Sal: what about the audacity of measuring the distance so well as to have the strike pass an inch in front of your nose at full speed, so as to be able to better counter from there. I don't have that audacity, I usually leave a good safe distance, but with practice you can do better. Nuno Russo does it and it is kind of scary just to see.

[Sal Bertucci]

Frederico,

I would actually say that would go with Measure, which falls under Fiore's teachings of Prudence.

[RayMcCullough]

Frederico, In the Free-play, the two never closed within striking distance. They seemed to purposely stay out of fighting range extending the incounter voiding any blows. Was this for the demonstration? Do you have any free-play videos?

[Frederico Martins]

Ray, in the demonstration of the strikes you see that the strikes reach, what happens in freeplay, is that for safety, the fencers parry stepping back, and even if not all but most strikes would hit if the defender stayed in place, the distance is always kept.

In freeplay with wood, a hit means a broken bone immediately because we strike intensionally without control, so for safety, distance is kept that way, but the attacker always aiming to strike to the body and reach the opponent.

To practice safely and do full contact, we do it with projections, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFucsRevxCw
here actually ending with a void and counter attack:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcWROjuNAzw

however, a skilled fencer should be able to parry in place, as Nuno Mota shows here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBBmokN6Kg4&NR=1
and Luis Preto here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlxWt6sIq3k

The kind of practice we do call "jogo" something like "playing" or "game" is intensionally extended as you well mentioned for demonstration but also actually as training practice(is the traditional way to practice), a real fight does not last that much exchanges, as do happen with protections. closing the distance is not prohibited as you see in some demonstrated counter attacks, but we fight in a way to avoid close combat, and take advantage of the weapon instead of going for close combat where a bigger guy would have an advantage that he doesn't have at fencing distance. that is great for self defense specially against more than one guy, to keep him far when you don't want do be grabbed.

[RayMcCullough]

They still seemed to stay out of good striking range.

It seems to be based heavily on dui tempo. 18th Century?