Search
Close this search box.

Guy's Blog

Guy frequently keeps this blog updated with thoughts, challenges, interviews and more!

Author: Guy Windsor

One way to see what is really there, when fencing.

The essential cognitive skill behind the application of swordsmanship is to see what is really there, not what you think is there. This is a profound and difficult skill to master, as we are all subject to all sorts of cognitive illusions and biases. Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow  is perhaps the best single resource on the subject.

For us, in practice, we have to pay attention to what the opponent is doing, all the time- but refrain from telling ourselves stories about what we see. “His sword is coming towards me” is meaningful. But “he is attacking” is not: it prevents us from realising his action may be a feint. Ascribing motives to his motions is to be avoided. Likewise, we must not tell ourselves stories about what we are doing. “I am parrying that attack” is a lie. Because you don’t know whether the parry will work, or whether the attack is real, or anything. “I am moving to intercept his motion” is better, because the movement is real, and its intention is clear, and if the interception fails to occur, there is nothing in that statement to prevent the motion changing to find his weapon.

If we are telling ourselves a story, and the action changes, rewriting the story to fit the new data is hard. So we tend to ignore the data that doesn’t fit- we prioritise the story over the facts. This is normal. But will get you hit. I don’t think we can truly prevent the story-writing process, but we can cast the story in terms that permit endless easy rewrites as the situation changes.

Of course, the fight happens faster than conscious thought can keep up. Which makes story-telling that much worse, as the data is not just incomplete, it’s out of date. Better then to give yourself a set of instructions that fit the goals of the bout, such as “control his sword and hit him”, and let your training do all the hard work of actually issuing specific commands to the sword.

My own solution to the distractions of the conscious mind when fencing is I quietly sing a little song to myself. That keeps my conscious story-telling mind gently occupied, leaving my adaptive unconscious relatively unfettered, and able to see what is happening. It also freaks the hell out of my opponent if they get close enough to hear it. A win-win situation.

 

Read Full Post

A holo-deck for the philosophy of ethics

I was talking to a student after class the other day, someone who has been training with me off and on since the school opened. I happened to mention that for me, one of the primary uses of the art we study is that it is a holo-deck for the philosophy of ethics. Because we are not expecting to use our skills in earnest any time soon, we are free of the constraint of knowing we must be willing to use them. (This is my core moral objection to the idea of arming teachers to defend students against those sad evil little wankers who try to compensate for their utter inadequacy by murdering the defenceless. Giving the teachers guns would not help at all, without training them to use them, which would inevitably require those teachers to train to be willing and able to take life. That is a profound and utterly life-changing moral and emotional step, and it is simply not fair to ask the average teacher to make it. My practical objection is simply that kids are great at improvising, and having more guns in schools will inevitably lead to more guns in childrens' hands, and so more likelihood of fatal shootings, accidental or otherwise.)

For us, the salle becomes a simulator, a holo-deck if you will, in which we can examine violence and degrees of violence, and pose questions such as

“Is this action ever justified?”

“In what circumstances would cutting off someone's head be ok?”

“How do I feel about the idea of fighting to the death over a point of honour?”

“What was it about this culture that made this response acceptable?”

It is moronic to suggest that violence never solved anything: for the entire history of life on earth it has solved the problem of hunger: I kill to eat. Rory Miller makes this point well in this podcast. So the question then is “in what circumstances is violence acceptable, and to what degree?” Current martial systems, such as police training, military training, and such must have clearly defined answers to all such questions. In these  circumstances, I can use a baton. In those, I must shoot. In these, I call for an airstrike, etc. Martial arts teachers and parents both must be able to teach their students/kids a moral framework in which to place violence. One interesting point of view on this, that of a mother trying to raise her son in a non-violent way, and learning that violence is not intrinsically evil but has its place, can be found here. In short, she decided on a set of rules which, if followed, would make any violence her son was a part of morally acceptable. My rules are a little different (less gender-oriented for instance), but I admire her position.

We can imagine our Art being applied in dozens of circumstances, and while many of my students use aspects of their training at the School in their work as security guards, police, etc. most will never call on their skills outside of class. But for the training to be of any moral use it should require the practitioner to engage with the fact that we are training in lethal techniques, and therefore must have a clear set of internal guidelines as to when their application is acceptable. We can create those guidelines for all sorts of modern or historical contexts, which while it is not of any immediate practical use, nonetheless has the value of making us engage with these difficult questions.

In my view, it is impossible to inflict damage on another soul without inflicting damage on your own, no matter the circumstances. But there are situations in which the better course is to inflict the physical damage and take the spiritual. Failing to act out of fear of damage, physical or spiritual, is cowardice.

Let me tell you a story:

Twenty years ago, while at University, I was walking home alone from band practice with my trumpet, through a dodgy part of Edinburgh. As I was walking I saw a man, rough looking, with a bleeding head, standing over a woman in a doorway. I was terrified, of two things. One, I would act, and get the shit kicked out of me or killed. I was under no illusions as to who wins in a fight between street-thug and pampered kid. Two, I would not act, and despise myself for the rest of my life. So I stopped, far enough away to have a running head start, and called out in my best public-school accent

“Excuse me, but can I be of any assistance?”, the subtext I was trying to imply being “I've seen you and will call the police if you don't leave her alone”.

I was astonished when the man called back:

“Yes, please, my wife is having an epileptic fit!”

So I went over and helped him get her home, and we became friends. Turns out the blood came from his trying to cushion her fall. Some weeks later I told them that I had thought he was up to no good in that doorway, and they both fell about laughing.

My point is that while we can simulate all sorts of scenarios, and come up with ideal responses to them, we cannot reasonably predict our own actions unless they have been tested under stress, nor necessarily predict the outcome of a seemingly obvious scenario. But we can use our training in violence to help us make moral choices about who we are and wish to be, and then try to live up to them, accepting that doing so can be dangerous.

Read Full Post

A Birthday Present

This blog has now been up for one whole year. Huzzah! In that time I have published 58 posts, in 11 categories. By far the most-viewed post, with nearly double the hits of the next most viewed, has been “Plastic swords are for children”, which is interesting as the majority of hits have been sent this way by people who clearly disagree with my view. Also popular has been the rant regarding the sport fencing coaches in the USA thinking that they can certify historical swordsmanship instructors.  Of the more pedagogical posts, I Am Slow, Class Instruction, and Size Matters are well ahead of the rest.  I am surprised to find the beginners’ course series way down at the bottom of the list.

Anyway, to celebrate one year in, here is my translation of Vadi’s De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi laid out on the original images (by Kliment Yanev, thanks!), yours for free under a Collective Commons Attribution licence. Post it, play with it, put it to work. And if you like, feel free to buy the book, Veni Vadi Vici, which includes the transcription and my commentary.

Thanks for reading!

 

Read Full Post

One Thing

In this week’s intermediate level class, our monthly freeplay diagnostic session, the theme was One Thing. We began with the cutting drill, and I gave them one round of it to identify one general movement issue to work on. Then about one minute of basic power drills to identify one technical or tactical weakness to work on. They could then choose either the general movement issue, or the specific technical or tactical issue, to pay attention to while sparring. As the class was quite small I had them spar in the following format: one student stood his ground and fought one pass against all the other students in turn; then the next student in line stood their ground, and so it went on until every student had had a go standing their ground.

I then had them determine from that experience one specific weakness, one action or situation that they had difficulty dealing with. This had to be articulated as clearly as possible. The next step was to return to the sparring format, with each student simply trying to create the problem; this often meant getting hit, but countering was not forbidden. In other words, if a student had difficulty dealing with the feint of mandritto, followed by a roverso strike, they were primarily trying to draw that action out of their opponent; whether they successfully defended against the roverso or not was irrelevant. Out of eight passes the top score was four: one student managed to create the circumstances they wanted in half of their fights. Most had much more difficulty. Getting hit the way you want to be hit is high-level shit.

They then paired off and worked on the solution to their weakness; the technical or tactical counter to the hits they had received. This was done in a variety of formats, from a basic set drill to a coaching session, depending on need, and could focus on predicting the action, or the technical aspects of countering it.

We then went back into the sparring setup, with an unusual scoring ruleset: each student had to identify to me the specific problem they were having, which I wrote down. They would score one point for getting their opponent to make that action; one point for successfully defending against it (i.e. not getting it); and one point for striking the opponent (in any context). This was particularly interesting to watch, as when the opponent figured out what action they would do that would automatically grant their opponent a point regardless of success, they started to avoid doing it. But the purpose of this was to direct the attention of the fencers onto working on one specific thing, rather than just fencing opportunistically.

This of course is an extremely artificial set-up, not to be confused with competitive sparring or a tournament ruleset. It was very effective in getting the students to pay  attention to the one skill they were trying to develop, rather than getting sucked into a game of sword tag. We finished off with some normal fencing, i.e. you score for striking, and nothing else. This left us with about 20 minutes to work on the new stretto drills, which we worked out and videoed that evening.

Read Full Post

Stretto Drills Revisited

One of the major drivers of syllabus development is the difficulties the senior students have either with the drills themselves, or with making sense of them. Recently the stretto form of second drill has been causing problems. Most critically this comes from the (perfectly reasonable) perception that step four of the drill is the counter to step three. In other words that the entry to wrap counters the left-hand pommel grab (11th play of the zogho stretto). But of course, it doesn’t. The issue here is that one of the defining features of the crossing at the zogho stretto is that either player can make the plays that follow. So, what we have in the stretto forms of first drill and second drill is, at step three, how the attacker should respond to the crossing, and at step four, how the defender should respond to the crossing. But because they are set drills, the attacker knows what the crossing will be in advance, and so is busily executing his response to the crossing in the tempo in which the defender is trying to act. This is a fault of the design of the drills, not of the way they are being trained.

Let me note here that unless otherwise stated, play numbers refer to the Getty MS: there are 23 stretto plays in the Getty, but the PD is quite different, having 12 plays of the first master, crossed mandritto v mandritto, and 9 of the second, who is crossed roverso v roverso. You can see him and his scholar here:

To address this problem I have, with the assistance of the members of the intermediate class on Monday nights, come up with new versions of these drills. Unlike all the other drills in the syllabus, they branch: so the stretto forms of first drill and second drill come in two parts. In part one, the attacker enters at the crossing, to which the defender has a counter; in part two as the crossing is made the defender enters, to which the attacker has a counter.

The Pisani-Dossi second stretto master
The Pisani-Dossi second stretto master

So the stretto form of first drill, part one, goes like this:

  1. The attacker initiates, with a mandritto fendente.
  2. The defender counter-attacks, also with a mandritto fendente, sending his point into the attacker’s face.
  3. The attacker parries the counter-attack, keeping his point close to the defenders face, and grabs the defenders hilt (as in the second play of the zogho stretto).
  4. As the attacker parries, the defender grabs the attacker’s point and smashes it sword into his face (the 12th play of the zogho stretto).

This has the added benefit of including one of my favourite plays, the 12th play of the zogho stretto. Why blunt your sword on his face when you can use his? The text reads:

If someone parries from the mandritto side, grasp his sword with your left hand as shown and strike him with a thrust or cut. If you want, you can cut his face or neck with his own sword as you see in the picture. After I'm done striking you, I can leave my sword and grab yours, as the student after me will do. (trans Tom Leoni)

Grab his sword and hit him with it!
Grab his sword and hit him with it!

The stretto form of first drill, part two:

  1. The attacker initiates, with a mandritto fendente.
  2. The defender counter-attacks, also with a mandritto fendente, sending his point into the attacker’s face.
  3. The attacker parries the counter-attack, and the defender enters with a pommel strike (3rd play of the zogho stretto).
  4. The attacker counters the pommel strike with the ligadura mezana.

The stretto form of second drill, part one:

  1. The attacker initiates, with a mandritto fendente.
  2. The defender parries with a roverso sottano and strikes with a mandritto fendente.
  3. As the defender parries the attacker binds the parry, and grabs the defender’s pommel with his left hand and throws it over the defender’s left shoulder (the 11th play of the zogho stretto).
  4. As the attacker binds, and will try to enter, the defender kicks him in the nuts (stomach, amongst friends), and strikes with the sword.

The 11th play is important to know as it has a similarly general application as the 12th:

If someone parries on the riverso side, grasp his left hand and his whole pommel with your left hand and push him backward; then you may strike him with thrusts or cuts. (trans Tom Leoni)

grab his pommel and throw it over his left shoulder.
grab his pommel and throw it over his left shoulder.

I like having both these plays in the basic syllabus, as their context is so clearly defined.

The stretto form of second drill, part two:

  1. The attacker initiates, with a mandritto fendente.
  2. The defender parries with a roverso sottano and strikes with a mandritto fendente.
  3. As the attacker binds the parry, the defender enters to wrap, as we see for example in the Pisani Dossi MS, first and second plays of the second master of the zogho stretto.
  4. The defender counters the ligadura mezana with the 16th play of the zogho stretto (Getty MS). Note we already have the 15th play as a counter to the ligadura in the base form of second drill, so here is the alternative.

Many people find this counter to the ligadura mezana easier than the 15th play (which ends in a ligadura sottana, the most commonly used counter to the ligadura mezana, seen before in the 3rd and 4th plays of the 1st master of the dagger, and elsewhere).

throw your sword to his neck.
throw your sword to his neck.

The text reads:

I am the Counter of the student who tried dagger-plays against me–i.e. I act against the student in the second play before me. Slitting his throat would be going easy on him. And I can also throw him to the ground as quickly as I want to. (trans Tom Leoni)

Having these additional forms of the drills should clarify what is supposed to counter what: the main problem with the old versions was that “step four” was really “alternative step three if the defender had had the initiative at the moment of the crossing”. Breaking it down like this and adding the counters should solve the problem. This is one of the best bits about being the head of the school: if there is a problem with the syllabus I can just try to fix it, without committee meetings or appeal to a higher authority. I look forward to hearing from branch leaders whether these new drills have actually solved the problem, or whether they need more work. Bear in mind that they have not been tested yet in their proper environment: class. After teaching them for a few months we should have our answer.

Read Full Post

New Beginnings, part 8

This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is the end of this beginner’s course. Unusually for me I actually wrote out a class plan in advance. I wondered whether given what we had covered before, we could get through the first seven plays of the first master of dagger, and to the end of second drill. I also wanted to emphasise the ligadura mezana and its counter (the third and fourth plays of the first master), and of course make sure that the longsword cutting drill part one was in place. And even more unusually, I stuck to the plan. Here it is in all its glory:

bcplan

We began with the salute and the usual warmup, in which I was sure to include kicking squats and falling, and then to the four guards drill. I then had the beginners on their own (so, the non-beginners stepped back) go through the four steps and the three turns: the steps were fine, but the turns were somewhat lacking, so we reviewed them in detail. Then with everyone together they practiced their footwork, while I put the stick in play.

I then demonstrated the first and second and the third and fourth plays of the first master of the dagger; then the third and fourth and the fifth and sixth; then the fifth and sixth and the seventh. Having thus surveyed all seven as a series, I asked them to choose the one technique they did not want to practice and practice that. It’s a pretty reliable guide to what you should be practising: the thing you dread is the thing you need.

They had already seen the flowdrill before, but I had them do the three disarms alone, then tie them together into the drill. Having worked the drill for little bit I had them choose to either practice the part they found most difficult, or break the flow. They self-selected with a remarkably accurate view of which group their skills placed them in, and tending to stick to the base rather than try the more difficult.

Then we all reviewed the third and fourth plays as we would need them to complete second drill. This took us to 18.50, and we took our swords and practised part one of the cutting drill. We then went through all four steps of first drill, then studied step three, then step four, in isolation. This took us to 19.10, and parts one and two of second drill. I then taught them step three, where the attacker yields to the parry, enters in and wraps the defender in a ligadura mezana and strikes with the pommel. Then step four, the counter to that, which is mechanically almost identical to the fourth play of the first master of the dagger. I demonstrated the action first with the dagger, so in its most familiar context, and then with the sword.

We finished with a drill in which the attacker throws eight mandritti fendenti, against which the defender alternates parrying from tutta porta di ferro, as in first drill, and then dente di zenghiaro, as in second drill. We concluded with my telling them that I hoped they would all continue to train, as indeed this course has been a pleasure to teach.

I will absorb all this for a while, then use the data from these two courses to summarise the key elements of how I think a beginner’s course should go, and highlight where and why these courses differed. Stay tuned!

Read Full Post

Mindful Practice

This week’s intermediate class yielded some interesting insights. I began by asking my students what they thought my job was. As far as I see it, at their level, my job is mainly to keep their practice mindful, and provide solutions to any problem that crops up that they cannot solve themselves. We started by having each student identify for themselves a specific problem they were having, and articulate it clearly to the class. These included difficulty in closing the line after the first action in a bout, difficulty in controlling measure in dynamic situations, and difficulty in maintaining flow under pressure.

We began with the cutting drill as usual, and then discussed how it could be used or adapted to address their specific needs. We concluded that for their purposes right now, it was of limited use in its basic form. So we went to the X-drill, with the pell in the middle of the salle, and the students divided into two groups. One individual from each group crossed the space in style and struck the pell couple of times, with one group’s aim being to arrive first, and the other group’s aim being to arrive at the same time. This brought in dynamic control of measure and timing.

The next exercise was first drill, with the variations the attacker may feint, and the defendant may counter-attack instead of parry. This highlighted specific difficulties, such as vulnerability to a counter-attack, or difficulty in distinguishing between a feint and a real attack. After a few minutes of this each student had a super-specific example of a specific weakness related to the more general problems they had highlighted at the beginning of class.

So, the next exercise was to articulate exactly the problem they were having to their partner who then coached them through that specific issue. For example if you found that you were vulnerable to a feint, your partner would coach you in getting that second parry in time. This required the coaching partner be able to control elements of the fight in real time so that their student was training at the optimum level of difficulty. After five minutes the roles were reversed and then, each student having had a lesson, we returned to the particular variation on first drill, with the same original partner, to see whether the corrections had taken.

Next up we have to establish whether the corrections, having worked (because each student reported an improvement), were general or specific. In other words, whether an improved ability to defend against a feint of mandritto fendente followed by a roverso fendente lead to an improved ability to deal with feints in general. So I had the students change the drill so that they could defend from any right side guard and the attack to be of any kind from any side, real or feint. As it turned out most of the improvement was quite specific, which meant that what we ought to have done next would have been developing that more general skill, but given the problems declared at the beginning of class, it was necessary to move on to address the issue of controlling measure. I pointed out that they could follow this thread in free training. By this stage they were all sweating hard and out of breath. This is one of the hallmarks of mindful practice. It is tiring.

We started our addressing the issue of measure with a drill that I invented back in 2001, where one student establishes a measure with their partner, then the students move around freely with the partner initiating change that measure, and when I clap at random intervals they were to check whether they were still in measure. There may have been push-ups involved. Then we used wooden bucklers like focus mitts , with one student coaching another. This prepared them for giving a specific lesson on measure,  for which, given that the students present were not trained coaches, I gave a specific example for them to copy. In this case simply a variation on first drill in which the coach is defending, and if he ends up close after his parry, the student should pommel strike, but if he ends up further away the student should cut on the other side. This allowed them, in a very simple set up, to take one specific aspect of the art and develop measurable improvement.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with gathering together with some swordy friends and having a bash. Neither is there anything wrong with playing around with some aspects of swordsmanship. I would actually go so far as to say that not all practice should be mindful, as you can become too goal oriented: it’s the journey that matters, not the destination. But for those activities, you don’t need a professional instructor. So when I am running the class, there is no point my being there unless I am making it possible for my students to really improve, and for that mindful practice is without doubt the most efficient approach.

The basic pattern is this:

  1. Practice something that you know, at a pace and level that generates error.
  2. Articulate the error in the clearest possible terms. This becomes your goal.
  3. Select the training tools that you think will most efficiently address your goal. Apply them with rigour.
  4. Test to see whether your goal has been reached, by returning to the original set up in which the error occurred. If yes, return to step 1 to find a new error if no, either select new tools, or apply the same ones better.

If you’re not sure what skill that you’re trying to develop, it’s not mindful practice. If it does not demand the absolute limit of your concentration and physical skill, it’s not mindful practice. If it does not generate measurable improvement, it’s not mindful practice. If it’s not tiring, frustrating, or painful, it’s probably not mindful practice. If your practice highlights your every weakness and makes you strengthen it, efficiently and deeply, then it is, must be, mindful.

Read Full Post

New Beginnings, part 7

I should warn you, reading this, that my experiments in the land of data entry have shifted to a new phase. I am boldly going into Star Trek territory, and dictating this to the computer. This experiment has yielded some astonishingly weird results, including one mini shit-storm on Facebook, but it is very interesting (to me anyway) to have to think clearly about what I’m going to say, to articulate clearly each and every word, and to speak the punctuation. It does change several things, not least speed, and word-choice. Typing is somehow more formal. Anyway, on with the course review…

This week’s beginners course class, the seventh out of eight, was oddly attended, with relatively few beginners, and relatively many more experienced students. We started with the warmup of course, including squat push-ups, then went on to solo falling practice, before the four guards drill. After this we looked at the mechanics of the takedown, starting with one student standing in posta longa, and the other making the takedown from there. We looked at the idea of the takedown being to create a situation in which your partner must take a step to keep their balance, but you have arranged things such that they cannot step. We also looked at creating a spiral twist in the back, by pulling the right hip and pushing the left shoulder, and vice-versa. From here we went into a gentle and cooperative version of the seventh play of the first master of the dagger, emphasising falling without using your hands. The image I used was of using your left hand to grab an imaginary dagger from the thrower’s belt and stab him in the femoral artery with it.

We then looked at this play of the first master, using both hands to break the attacker’s arm. This went very well, so we went swiftly on to the sixth play, which counters it, by grabbing the blade of the dagger with the left hand and jamming it in the defenders right elbow. We then went to the Book and saw the first seven plays of the first master of the dagger in order: disarm, counter, lock, counter, break, counter, takedown. We then looked at memorisation strategies for keeping these seven plays in memory. After which we reviewed the flowdrill and i had them break the flow with the third, fifth, or seventh play of the first master. This was a step too far for most, but I think it got the idea of how the terminology is used and why it is useful to have these plays in memory. As I have said many times before: you remember that which you are ready to learn. If you can’t remember it, you can’t study it.

From here we took up swords and went through part one of the cutting drill. Again. This time though, I pointed out the relationship between the mandritto fendente from posta di donna, and the guard tutta porta di ferro, to the one long sword pair drill that they know, First Drill.

As last week we took a moment to look at the guards tutta porta di ferro, and dente di zenghiaro, (I don’t believe it, the dictation engine recognised both those guard’s names!) and then resumed the cutting drill. After a few more rounds of that, we began pair practice. I pointed out that the primary defensive movements in medieval combat are beating the enemies weapon up or down. In first drill we beat it up. We then did steps one and two. After they had practice that for a while, I described Fiore’s hierarchy of four Masters or Kings, and then we did steps one to 3, pointing out the remedy and the counter-remedy. After working on that pommel strike for a little bit we added step four, the counter-counter-remedy. This was revision from last week.

We had just enough time at the end (about 8 minutes) to have a look at what might happen if you ended up trying to defend from the “wrong side”: i.e. From dente di zenghiaro. So I demonstrated the whole of second drill, and they had a go at steps one and two.

Attentive readers of this blog will have noted that we are covering a lot more material in this beginner’s course than in the previous one. This is mostly an artefact of the smaller number of beginners in a given class, and the larger number of more experienced students available to pair up with them. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that these beginner’s have an excellent record of attending Thursday’s basic class, and staying behind for free training to practice. I have been using that time to work with many of them on individual issues such as pre-existing knee problems, and on the various aspects of the training they may be having difficulty with, such as falling, or sword handling.

Read Full Post

Book distribution: not simple!

The distribution mechanisms of print on demand and ebook titles are arcane in the extreme. But it appears that the paperback versions of Veni Vadi Vici and the 2nd edition of the Swordsman's Companion will have filtered through by the middle of May. And while the pdfs can be had from my Scribd account, the epubs must be got from elsewhere. Lightning Source, my printers, sent me a list of distributers, which I append below.

A Book Company LLC–eCampus.com (US)

Advanced Educational Products (US)

All Romance eBooks (US)
Asia Books (Thailand)

Berean Christian Stores (US) Bilbary (UK)
BOL.com (Netherlands) Bookshop Krisostomus (Estonia) BooksonBoard (US)

Campus eBooks (US)
Canongate Books (UK)
Central Boekhuis (Netherlands) Cokesbury.com (US)
Computer Manuals Ltd. (US)
DEA Media Group (Italy)
Diesel eBooks (US)
Digital Reserve (US)
Direct Ebooks (Ireland)
DittoBook (US)
DMC (US)
Early Access, Inc. dba eBookPie.com (US) eBookMall (US)
eBookShop (South Africa)
EC Media International (India) eCommSource (Ireland)
Eguidebooks, Inc (US)
FeedBooks (France)
Fictionwise (US)
Fishpond (New Zealand/Australia) For-Side.com (Japan)
Hastings (US)
Infibeam (India)
Kalahari.net (South Africa)
Kobo Books (Canada)
LeFeltrinelli.com (Italy)
Lai Lai Book Company (China)
Libri.de (Germany)
Lulu.com (US)
Lybrary.com (US)
Mardel (US)
MBS Books (eBook) (US)
Media Corp. Ltd. (Singapore)
MobiLire (France

Mogul View Media (Switzerland) MPH Online (Malaysia)
Off World Books (US)
Online Book Place (US)

Page Foundry (US) Parable (US) Payloadz.com (US) PocketBook USA (US) Powells

Qbend LLC (US)
Robertson Marketing Services (US) Saraiva e Siciliano (Brazil)
SBS Special Book Services (Brazil) SHOP.CA (Canada)
Starland Media (US)
Suomalainen (Finland)
Teaching Shop (Australia)
Team Research (US)
TookBook (Croatia)
Total Boox (Israel)
Tradebit (Germany) TreeFreeMobile (US)
Tritium Digital Pte Ltd. (Singapore) Txtr GmbH (Germany)
WaveCloud (US)
Webster (Italy)
W.F. Howes (UK)
WOWIO (US)

Read Full Post

A trip up North

I have just come back from teaching seminar in Oulu, a charming little town in the North of Finland. Friday afternoon was spent doing game development with our game designer for the new card game, which is coming on very nicely. I was asked to run a conditioning class before the intermediate class that evening, and it seemed to me most useful to skip the usual jumppa* nonsense, and actually teach the people present something useful. We ran through the beginning of the basic warmup, and then spent 25 minutes working on the basic push-up. We separated the push-up position from the motion, and took them separately. We used a spear or long stick to establish a straight line between heels, hip and head. The stick should touch the back of the head (chin tucked), the middle of the thoracic spine, the tailbone, and the heels. Having found the position, the trick is to keep it as you go down. For most people during the push up the relationship between body and stick changes. It should not. We did this in pairs, one person spotting the other.

Then it was time to look at the stabilisation of the scapulae. We established the correct relationship of the scapulae to the spine, for the purpose of generating force forwards, and then found that everybody was breaking that connection when going down in the push-up. We practiced the motion standing up, and established that everybody could do it properly when there was no stress on the system. So then we did it against a wall, again spotting each other. We then tried to do the push-up correctly, keeping the scapulae stable, up from start to finish. As expected, nobody could do it. But they all understood why they should train towards it.

Then it was time for squats. Mechanically, the squat is a lesson in the correct relationship of spine, hips, knees, ankles, and feet. Leaning forward has no place in a good squat. So we did them facing the wall. Knees should not go forwards over the toes. So we did them in pairs spotting each other. Chins should not come up, so we did them with plastic drinking glasses held between jaw and chest. To help with this we also did Pythagoras stepping. By the end of the 45 minute class, everyone had a new understanding of the mechanical depth of our basic warmup, and seemed to be very keen to develop perfect push-ups and perfect squats.

This was followed by an intermediate-level class. I think it came as something as a shock to most of those involved, throwing them in the deep end as it were. But while many of them may have had trouble keeping up, none drowned. We started with the cutting drill as usual, and then worked some of the approach variations using the pell. This broke them out of the set-drill mentality, and set them up to work on the first couple of steps of first drill.  Entering into measure to strike, without leaving an opening of your opponent to exploit, is tricky. We train this by allowing the defender to enter with a thrust to the face if you leave the opening. Ideally, the attacker will either leave no opening and force the parry, or deliberately invite the defender’s entry onto his prepared defence. We gradually increased the level of complexity to eventually allow the defender to enter, parry and strike, or counter-attack as he saw fit, and the attacker to either invite the entry, feint to generate the parry or the counter-attack, and in each case ideally to strike.  Of course they swiftly stopped paying attention to blade relationship.  So we threw that in there.

We used this escalating complexity to find areas of weakness in the group as a whole and in the individual swordsmen, and allowed time for the students to correct their own personal weaknesses, using their knowledge of the syllabus.  We also emphasised having one student up deliberately coach another, so it was absolutely clear who was training what, with what specific, measurable goal.

To calibrate the machine, or zero the scales, we returned to the basic form of first drill exactly as we would find it in a basic class. Of course, if first drill is done correctly, the set response to each step is the only correct one.  Which means that the attack must leave no opening, the blade relationship on the parry must lead naturally to the second play of the second master of the zogho largo, the pommel strike must be the only reasonable continuation, and structured such that the defender’s own pommel strike is the only reasonable solution to it.  Not impossible, just very difficult.  This prepared them nicely for the rest of the weekend, in which we covered much of the basic syllabus, returned to intermediate level training on Sunday morning, and ran through quite a bit of the basic sword and buckler syllabus on Sunday afternoon. I may write up my notes on this, but have last month’s seminar in Kuopio to do first.

All in all, I was very impressed by the level of training that the Oulu branch was able to absorb, with even the beginners doing a pretty good job of keeping up, while I beat the hell out of the seniors who seemed to relish the challenge. This was an exhausting pleasure, from start to finish.

*jumppa is a very useful Finnish word for general calisthenics, or jumping about for health and fitness. Something I do as little as possible, preferring skills that happen to make you sweat, like swordsmanship training, to mindless exercise.

Read Full Post
Search

Recent Posts

Ready to Wrestle?
March 6, 2024

I’m delighted to let you know that From Medieval Manuscript to Modern Practice: the Wrestling

¡Viva la Panóplia!
December 13, 2023

I’m just back from the Panóplia Iberica, held in Alconchel, a village in Spain near

Categories

Categories

Tags

Tags
audatia (16) beginner swordsplay (23) boarding school (7) breathing exercises (12) capoferro (12) crowdfunding (15) dagger (7) exercise (9) fear (8) filippo vadi (8) fiore (30) fiore longsword (11) fitness (11) form (13) health (20) hema (15) How To (33) injuries (7) intermediate swordsplay (7) learning (56) lifestyle (12) manuscripts (16) martial arts (12) mastery (7) medieval longsword (8) meditation (7) mindful practice (8) nutrition (7) rapier (13) safety (8) series post (15) sword class (24) sword drills (23) sword texts (16) teaching (24) the swordsman's companion (11) Tim Ferriss (9) training mindset (27) travel (26) vadi (8) video (27) warm-up (10) windsor books (18) writing (39) writing tips (8)

Guy Windsor: a website all about the Renaissance Italian martial arts expert who blends historical accuracy with practical training.