Mick and Jan-

Does the technique you do in sparring look like the technique you practice? I suspect the answer is "no" since you have defended the fact that your techniques doesn't look right as an artifact of sparring.

If you don't look like your drills and techniques when you spar then you must either:
1) Drill more. So that you can spontaneously recreate those actions at speed against an uncooperative opponent.
2) Change the way you drill. If the drills you do perform do not result in good swordsmanship then perhaps you should change how you practice.
3) Question your interpretations. I've seen a handful of fighters (such as Christian Tobler, and Brian Price) who's sparring looks like their techniques. So clearly it can be done. I also think they both have solid interpretations of the original material and have been practicing for 10+ years.

If your interpretations don't work against an uncooperative opponent then you either can't do your interpretations well enough or they are wrong.

At moderate intensity many of the members of our group, Forte Swordplay, can spar like we do technique. Most of us can't do it at max intensity yet. And so we train towards that goal. But our interpretations of technique work at speed against an uncooperative opponent. If we can't make an interpretation work then we question the interpretation. We don't make excuses for why it doesn't work.

If you wish to succeed then you shouldn't either.

-Steven

Hugh,

I accept your (and others) valid criticism long ago. (linear movement, to many slaps without continuation, to short distance etc.) Read my posts please. I wrote to you:

Quote:

Of course, part of your comments were factual, indeed. But if you will practice blossfechten bouting, you will see, that techniqeus in treatise is only part of fencing. I'm not saying, that we don't do "right things" becouse it hard, but rather we do them but not always. If you watch other videos, you will see quite a few clear techniques. Belive me, there are situation when you have to use simple parry, to avoid hit.

I think about, what we can change, and how to make things better. But also I want explain, why we bout like that. I don't want universal applause, and I don't want total critcism.

Quote:

I'm sure you're a "real" German school of the longsword (and I'm very jealous you get to practice in what was once Peter von Danzig's city!!), but if you mean good bouting videos from a German longsword school, I can't because I've not seen any good ones. In my opinion the protective gear and safety rules necessary (and even more so, the safety swords, but your group obviously doesn't have that problem) make it impossible to do realistic Bloßfechten bouting

You wrote, that you never seen good bouting videos from german longsword school. You don't bout, because it's immposible. Then you send me kenjutsu kata, as a proof of real Art. Art of what? making Kata, where everyting it's arranged?(as far as I know, we discuss about bouting, not Kenjutsu show)

I see, that you are 100% sure of your interpretation, and simply ignore what is in treatise. I give you clear quotation, and you give me your subiective opinion. With all respect, I choose treatise.

In my opinion (and it woks in bout) you should try to reach oponent body and head when you are attacking (Vor) When you defend (Nach) yourself, it's possible, to hit simutanisly with Zwer and Schil), during the Displacement. (and it's described in treatise) Other Maisterhau (as it described) first displace (hit to the sword), then try to thrust.

Quote:

To strike closing is what you wish, no change comes into your shield. To the head, to the body, the light blows do not shun. To fight with the entire body, is what you powerfully want to do. Glosa – Note, This means that when you come to him in the Zufechten, in any fencing you do you’ll want to use the entire strength of the body [and strike close to his head or body and remain with your point before his face or chest. Therefore, he cannot change through before your point. If he displaces with strength and removes then the point from you out toward the side, then give him a tap (Zeck) striking to the arm. Or, if he defends by displacing with his arms high, then strike him with a free strike below to the body and step quickly with it backward. Thus he is struck before he comes in.

It's clear - CLOSE TO THE BODY, (it's obvious, that opponent will defend himself) Strike and REMAIN WITH POINT BEFORE HIS FACE OR CHEST. It suggest, that thrust and work "am schwert" is important, becouse, you have low chance to clean hit oponent without metting his sword. (but here you have also example to fight without bind - last line, similar techniqe you can find in glosa about VELER)

Quote:

The Zornhau does result in a bind, it's true, but you are to cut it as if you were trying to cut your opponent and just let his sword get in the way. That way, if he reacts and tries to do something else he will die from your cut in the fencing time before he can do anything else.

Is that your interpretation, based on study of theory? Maybe I'm wrong, but please show me video, where smb simultaneously displace Oberhau with Zorn and hit the opponent with strengh. Show me where I can find this interpretation in treatises? Becouse in my opinion, it's imposible, and german master's didn't advice this. Show me video, when smb do it in bout, with speed, strengh, and real oponent, not Uke. It can be Kenjutsu, but real bout please.

Hugh,
Please stop the snide/condescending remarks. They come across as personal attacks, which as you know, we don't like here. There are better ways to get your points across.

It will be a happy day for me and many others when martial arts topics can be discussed without resorting to condescension.

Hi, Ran. I believe you meant to post the sixth video down on this page. http://thearma.org/Videos/TPVideos.htm

Michael, Randall

Yes, we did encounter the overprotection problem in our playing, which is why we decided to downgrade the gambesons to arming doublets. We do however need the plastrons if we are to thrust forcefully at each other.

The argument 'but I could have killed you' can then be answered with 'then why didn't you try do do it?' For a given understanding of 'kill', of course.

Correctly constructed arming doublets ensure a bit of protection, so that there are no injuries, yet a hit does hurt and it does leave quite colorful bruises.

The real point of protective gear, from our standpoint is that as you play you are not afraid to give your partner a really hearty whack. This changes your attitude to attacking and application of force in a strike or thrust.

Please note, that we just moved our speed, aggression and power to a new level and it takes some getting used to. I'm certain that in a month or two at the outside we will be abe to demonstrate something that is both realistic (AFA it is possible) and liechtenauerian in both its spirit and appearance.
Cheers
Mick