Against Strength

Greetings,

In a person's fencing career, they will always come up against an opponent who will want to use strength as their primary method to force their way through an engagement. Over the past months I have been dealing with this problem with some of my students, thus how to deal with an opponent who uses strength. This article deals with questions relating to the use of physical strength and where it originates.

Reasons

To understand where the idea of a person using strength, it is necessary to understand where this individual is coming from, where they get the idea that strength is the most advantageous method. This often comes from a couple of main sources: a) skill compensation, b) improper grip on the sword, and c) simple size advantage over their opponent. Each will be addressed in turn.

1. Compensation

The first is skill compensation. Often a fencer will compensate for a lack of skill with a weapon by using strength against an opponent. They will compensate for a lack of finesse in their actions by using strength, forcing the action through rather than using the correct blade engagement or Timing. This often happens when a person has not practiced the individual elements enough, or has not spent enough time honing their skill, as a result they use strength in their blade-work to force the weapon through. This results in actions which rely on strength for success.

2. Improper Grip

The next is an improper grip. If the weapon is gripped tightly or even simply incorrectly, a fencer will not be able to use an even grip on their sword. This will prevent the use of senso di ferro or sentiment du fer. This means that they will rely on a heavy pressure against their opponent's blade and will not  feel a lighter pressure against it. This will cause the fencer to force their way through an engagement rather than reading through feeling and applying the appropriate pressure for the action which they want to use. An improper grip on the weapon can cause a fencer many issues, and not just this one.

3. Size/Strength Advantage

Finally there is size advantage. A larger opponent will often use strength against an opponent who is smaller or weaker than they are believing that strength and speed are the best ways to deal with this opponent. This is often seen with larger male opponents against female opponents, but is not necessarily restricted to such. The same larger male combatant will also use strength against a weaker male opponent as well. This is simply using an aspect of physical strength against another. It is a very unsubtle approach and the weaker combatant will be surprised and defeated by the stronger opponent and will not see a way around them. But the stronger combatant can also be defeated by the weaker opponent as will be demonstrated below.

With all the discussions of the reasons that strength is used in an over-compensating way, it is now possible to discuss how to defeat a combatant who uses strength in this method. It should be noted, there is a place for strength in swordplay, but it needs to be applied with knowledge of the situation at the correct moment for the greatest effect. Much of this relies on a correct reading of the situation and thus good senso di ferro.

Against Strength

There are two prime methods of dealing with an opponent who uses strength: avoidance and using the strength against them. These two methods have a similar approach to them but are also different and thus must be explained separately. Each uses an aspect of the use of strength so that the fencer who is subject to the strength of the opponent to gain an advantage.

1. Avoidance

You can use avoidance to compensate for an opponent using strength. There are a couple of ways to do this. The first is through Absence of Blade. If the opponent is strong on their engagements and is using strength to control or move the weapon away so they can control or strike, simply do not give them the opportunity. Avoid contact with their weapon. This way the opponent will not be able to apply their strength to your weapon because they will not connect with it.

Another method is diversion. Rather than seeking solid contact with the opponent's weapon, which they can then use to gain strength against your weapon. Use your weapon to divert their attacks when they are made; divert their weapon when they want to make contact with yours. Such is achieved by angling your weapon so theirs always deflects off your weapon so it never maintains contact. Using disengages and slips with the weapon are prime methods in the arsenal for diversion.

2. Use the Strength

You can use their strength against them and also strength that they cannot resist. These are two different approaches which are based on a similar approach. The first is an approach using the Strength/Weak dichotomy. It is known that strength has the advantage over weak, because it can force the weak, but the weak can also have the advantage over the strength because the weak can slip from the weak and remain mobile and put the strength out of place. For example: The opponent engages hard with strength on the blade pushing forward, the combatant uses weakness and uses the strength to turn their weapon out of the way and back on-line so an attack can be made. This approach is similar in approach to the Avoidance approach above but uses the strength of the opponent's weapon use against them.

You can also use mechanical advantage to your advantage to create strength. Ensure that when the opponent applies strength to your weapon that you always ensure that you have mechanical advantage or can angle your weapon so theirs, through their strength, is always moved to your forte. Regardless of how strong they are, when their debole (or foible) is at your forte you have a clear mechanical advantage and their strength does not count for much. This uses some of the idea of diversion, which was discussed above.

There are aspects of strength which even the smallest and weakest can use against the largest which they cannot resist. The first of these is foot placement, if yours is better, with your feet lining up with one another, you are in a better and stronger position, especially if this lines up between theirs. This is enhanced if the forward foot lines up with your forward hand. The last part of this is what di Grassi calls the "Agreement of Foot and Hand", the previous element comes from Fiore and is noted in the foot positions of his plays. 

Added to this is skeletal alignment, any time that you can line up aspects of your skeleton, in a thrust, parry, or any other action you form a position which the strongest opponent cannot force through. They will be fighting with their muscles against your bones. So long as you keep your bones aligned you will have the strength. If you add this to the two previous elements, you will be in the position of strength.

Recommendations

In regard to recommendations of which skills to use against a stronger opponent, I would recommend those which do not try to match your strength against theirs. If they want to use strength, turn it against them. Show them how the use of strength is not an approach which will be effective against you. I teach these techniques to every student of mine who has issues with those who use strength against them. Like all skills they need to be practiced. Find the skills that suit how you fence, but be warned that applying these new skills may take a change in approach.

A fencer who only uses strength in their game is missing out on a lot. They are missing out on the finer aspects of swordplay and will not go as far as a fencer who spends the time to learn these finer aspects. Spend the time, learn proper blade engagement and all the other skills of fencing so that you have a complete skill-set to use against your opponent. A fencer with a diverse skill-set is a much greater opponent than one who relies on any one skill-set. 

Cheers,

Henry.

On Respect for the Point

Greetings,

The following article discusses the respect given to the weapon which is being used in a martial context, something which seems to be being lost in some HEMA (Historical European Martial Art) situations. The original weapons, and the idea of the original weapons, is being lost the result is this art is beginning to turn into another sport which happens to involve swords. Of note, originally this article was going to discuss the "fear" of the point, but fear is not what is required. It is a healthy respect of the weapon that is being used.

The fencer needs to respect the weapon that they are using not fear it.

If the fencer has fear of the weapon they are not likely to engage with the opponent with their full being and thus actions will be performed sloppily and without intention. This will result in inaccurate actions, bad form and bad practice on the part of the fencer. Further, the same actions engaged with fear are actually more likely to get the fencer hurt than if they engaged with them properly and fully and not holding back.

There needs to be respect for the weapon that is being used. This means that the original use and capabilities of the weapon need to be acknowledged and kept in mind when performing actions with the weapon. Having a sharp point of a sword pointed at a person will change what they will and will not do as compared to having even merely a blunted one, let alone one which is blunted and has a tip on it, regardless of whether protective gear is worn or not. The fencer must acknowledge that the weapon and techniques that they are using were once used to decide life and death struggles.

The lack of respect for the weapon is demonstrated in actions of "exchanged thrusts" or "double-kills" or "trading targets" in each of these instances the fencer is not respecting the weapon of the opponent. A person facing an opponent's sharp weapon would not willingly allow them to strike them just so that they could strike their opponent, especially with the state of medicine when these weapons were originally used. A fencer should be aiming to avoid being struck at all, thus "striking without being struck" as is the aim of all fencing.

The "double-hit" and "double-loss" in a bout today resulted in injury and death in the past. "Double-hits" should not be accepted as good fencing in any way shape or form. In all instances the safety of the fencer, thus the defence of the opponent's action should be most important, followed by the striking of the opponent; this demonstrates respect for the weapon being used. Having tournaments run in a single-kill, single-elimination format, begins to make people realise the importance of this, having people carry their wounds through the tournament also emphasizes this as well.

"For there are few nay there is no man at all, who (perceiuing himselfe readie to be stroken) giues not back, and forsaketh to performe euerie other motion which he hath begun." - Giacomo di Grassi (1594) His True Arte of Defence

Here di Grassi states quite clearly that a person who is about to be struck will give up the idea of striking to defend himself, rather than being attacked. So one of his defences against a slower action of the cut is to present the point to the opponent, who seeing it will not complete the cut. This does not work in many current HEMA bouting because there is no respect of the point which is being directed at the fencer. So, the cut will be completed and so will the thrust, resulting in a "double-hit".

If fencers are supposed to recreate these texts as they were performed. Is it not also required that the individuals who use them also have the same sort of respect for the weapons which they are using? Is it not also required that they have a healthy respect for the point and edge of the weapon, regardless of whether they can actually do damage, but what they are simulating? If this is not the case what is the difference between what is being performed with these weapons and those of sport fencing aside from some electronics, history and formalisation?

In any form of weapons use, be it swordsmanship, archery, or shooting, there must be respect for the weapon. This is necessary because the capabilities of the weapon must be recognised by the person using the weapon, regardless if the person ever actually wanted to use these capabilities. This respect is necessary for safety to ensure that the weapon is treated properly and that those around them are kept safe. In the case of fencing it is also necessary so that the art of fencing can be performed properly with the intent of the treatises that the art is based upon kept intact through its practice.

Cheers,

Henry.

Giacomo di Grassi - The Essentials

Greetings,

Each system proposed by a theorist or practitioner is founded on some basic principles. The understanding of these principles is what the system is founded upon. Aside from the typical theoretical elements such as time and distance, there are also some foundation practical elements which are the keys to understanding the system which is being presented. These practical elements will appear and reappear throughout the system which is being presented. In the case of Giacomo di Grassi and His True Art of Defense (1594), these foundation practical elements are found in his wards and his footwork.

Of Wards

In di Grassi’s opinion the ward is a position in which a person may withstand the attack of the opponent, or may perform a simple action from them in order to defend himself. Its second purpose is a place form which to launch an attack against the opponent. This action should be simple enough to cover all parts of the body from the correct ward, and a large action means an inefficient ward. Thus the ward must be formed properly. The ward is a place to settle after an action in order to consider his next action, or in expectation of the opponent’s action against him.

The foundation weapon for di Grassi's system is the single sword, as is found in many manuals. He uses the single sword in order to depict all of the basic forms which will be presented throughout the following forms. For the single sword there are three wards. Neither in di Grassi’s opinion need there be any more, “for that one onlie ſtraight line, which is the ſword, maie not couer, defend and eaſilie offend after anie other maner.” The three wards of which di Grassi speaks are the High Ward, Broad Ward and Low Ward. These are the positions from which the fencer will start and therefore are the foundation from which things are learnt. 

Even within this foundation there is another foundation element to be found, and that is the basic form of the wards. Each has the right foot forward, the body straight, knees bent and left arm extended toward the opponent. The feet are shoulder-width apart and the left side tends to be more toward the enemy in order to reduce the profile. What should be noted is that there is also an option available for the right foot to the rear rather than forward.

The High Ward

The High ward is formed from the drawing of the sword from the scabbard, just like Agrippa's first ward. It is also called the first ward as in Agrippa. In di Grassi's opinion this only just qualifies as a ward due to its open position, however used correctly it can defend the whole person. In order to achieve this, the point of the weapon must be turned downward toward the opponent. Thus the ward is formed with the arm high from the shoulder with the knuckles of the sword hand high in first position, however the point of the weapon is not parallel to the ground nor horizontal, it is obliquely positioned, pointed downward toward the opponent. 

From this position he states that the fencer should gather his hind foot to his forefoot, and make a thrust "above hand" or as an imbroccata, with the hand in first position at the enemy. In this as in all the other wards a line should be drawn from the point of the weapon toward the enemy, this may be bent in order to strike another part, but the point should follow this line directly against the opponent. The point must be pointed downward at the enemy, lest he pass beneath it and strike the fencer before it descends, however it should also not be too low, or it may be beaten off by the opponent's sword. From this position the fencer may also beat off the opponent's weapon downward using the force and create an opportunity to strike.

The Broad Ward

The Broad Ward is the second ward, it is called "broad" because the arm is stretched wide from the ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

Displacement as Effective Defence

Greetings, One of the simplest defences in fencing is not to be where the attack of the opponent is delivered, as such this blog will be about the use of voids and other forms of displacement as a form of defence. Performed effectively the use of displacement of the fencer can be an extremely effective form of defence and can also set up for a counter-attack while the void is being executed. There are various considerations that need to be made when using this form of defence and these aspects will be discussed in this blog. Voids or displacements can be used effectively both as a form of defence and also to set yourself up for an effective counter-attack. Voids can be extremely simple or quite complex in their execution, and various forms of displacement will be discussed. The simplest form of void is the retreat, in this the distance is increased between the combatant and their opponent so that the attack is avoided by a simple increase in range. This is one of the basic forms of footwork that is taught in the early stages of learning how to fence, but surprisingly enough, it is often forgotten as a simple form of defence against the opponent's attack. All of the tools available to the fencer should be used in order to be effective. Displacements can be very simple, as in the retreat, or quite complex as in the form of the inquartata or volte as it is called in French. A simple movement of the body can be used in order to avoid an attack, or this can be combined with the use of the feet in combination with the body movement. It is important that both forms of avoidance are considered for their effectiveness and how they can be most effective in their execution. Each element must be considered in order or them to be efffective. As in all parts of fencing, timing and distance are of great importance, and this also applies to the use of the void. If one of these elements has been percieved badly then problems can occur. With regard to distance it is important that in the use of the retreat, for example, that the distance is increased enough that the opponent's attack does not still strike its intended target. Distance is also important that the correct part of the body is moved a sufficient distance out of the way of the attack. Timing is also of equal importance in this situation. The combatant must use the correct timing in order for the void to be effective when it is used. The fencer must wait for the attack to come and only move at the last minute to ensure that the defence is effective. This is the same with all forms of defence. Particular to the void, an early movement can allow the opponent to change their direction and still strike the fencer with the same attack. Without the awareness of these particular principles and how they apply to the use of the void, the void will be substantially less effective.
....

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.