We practiced the postures of the first guard. Fabris' postures are unusual; the head and the shoulders are forward, while the trunk of the body is tucked back. Balance is maintained partially because the posterior is stuck back. My first problem, honestly, stemmed from being fat. My balance is thrown off, and its difficult to put myself into the appropriate posture. I don't want to modify my stance too much, because I'm afraid of loosing the core of the style.
Does that make sense?
If I modify things from the beginning, then I'm not really doing the style properly. On the other hand, I have to modify things just slightly so I can compensate for my weight/balance.
We were told that most of your weight should be distributed to the back foot. So every time I'd take a step, I have to make sure that my weight is properly distributed. The trouble was that I ended up shifting my weight before settling. This would throw off my timing, and of course would throw off my balance.
So my practice now involves getting my stance correct, adjusting for balance and proper distribution of my weight.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Question about the first guard in Fabris
Had our first question about how to approach some of the interpretations of the plates:
My partner asked:
ok, first question for you.
p. 35 (first paragraph) "in this manner your opponent will not be able to come in above your sword; and that part being the weakest, it should be the most strongly defended".....my question... why is this part the weakest.
I thought about it, and read over some of the manual:
Just looking at the formation of the sentence, "that part" seems to refer to the target area you'd be defending. If someone is attacking above your sword while you are in this guard, they're attacking the head, and possibly the arm (he mentions earlier the possibility of the arm being the target). Looking at the plates, where exactly is the forte really protecting? He mentions the guard helping protect the body more efficiently, too.
Check out page 25, where he talks about why to hold the sword extended: "If your opponent simply places his forte to your debole and goes for the attack, he will find it difficult to succeed by virtue of the small opening that is one of the properties of the manner of holding the sword." Also, check page 28, talking about posture: "If a person could make himself so small as to be able to cover his entire body with the forte of the sword, it would be ideal. But since this is not normally possible, you should at least make an effort to cover as much of it as you can, so you can enjoy more safety."
Does that make sense? I don't think he comes right out and says what the weak part is, but he's already said this is an effective guard against cuts, and it appears the primary cut someone would attempt would be from up to down, near the head or shoulder.
My partner asked:
ok, first question for you.
p. 35 (first paragraph) "in this manner your opponent will not be able to come in above your sword; and that part being the weakest, it should be the most strongly defended".....my question... why is this part the weakest.
I thought about it, and read over some of the manual:
Just looking at the formation of the sentence, "that part" seems to refer to the target area you'd be defending. If someone is attacking above your sword while you are in this guard, they're attacking the head, and possibly the arm (he mentions earlier the possibility of the arm being the target). Looking at the plates, where exactly is the forte really protecting? He mentions the guard helping protect the body more efficiently, too.
Check out page 25, where he talks about why to hold the sword extended: "If your opponent simply places his forte to your debole and goes for the attack, he will find it difficult to succeed by virtue of the small opening that is one of the properties of the manner of holding the sword." Also, check page 28, talking about posture: "If a person could make himself so small as to be able to cover his entire body with the forte of the sword, it would be ideal. But since this is not normally possible, you should at least make an effort to cover as much of it as you can, so you can enjoy more safety."
Does that make sense? I don't think he comes right out and says what the weak part is, but he's already said this is an effective guard against cuts, and it appears the primary cut someone would attempt would be from up to down, near the head or shoulder.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Universal truth at fencing practice
My partner and I started talking at practice last night about how to start with studying Fabris' manual. We went through a good part of the first section of the book, going over what we took away from each section, and discovering what common theme ran underneath everything.
There were a few things that weren't necessarily surprises to either of us: the importance of performing motions in a single tempo, the basics of measure, and patience.
Throughout the book, a common theme is that one does not perform an aggressive action until the stars are right. Don't be the aggressor at the risk of loosing tempo. Be wary of moving into measure with someone who is in a static guard, waiting for your move.
Be patient. Wait. Back up.
Chill out.
Be still.
...
So next week, we'll begin working on the plates. The first, of course, being the first position.
There were a few things that weren't necessarily surprises to either of us: the importance of performing motions in a single tempo, the basics of measure, and patience.
Throughout the book, a common theme is that one does not perform an aggressive action until the stars are right. Don't be the aggressor at the risk of loosing tempo. Be wary of moving into measure with someone who is in a static guard, waiting for your move.
Be patient. Wait. Back up.
Chill out.
Be still.
...
So next week, we'll begin working on the plates. The first, of course, being the first position.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Fabris: trusting the source
"My advice is this: follow the book, and trust its contents blindly."
How many students ever want to hear that from an instructor? Haven't we all been taught to be critical thinkers, to test everything we read, everything we learn? Double check the sources. Consider the translator. Look back over the language. Confer with colleagues about potential other meanings.
But that runs counter to Leoni's advice in his introduction to The Art of Dueling. We're asked to trust the source. Consider Fabris' mastery. We're asked to invoke a type of papal infallibility when it comes to Fabris' teaching. He's the master, we are the students. If we want to know how to fight like Fabris wants us to, then trust Fabris.
To do this, we have to forget how to be 21st century students. We have to trust the source. For the sake of learning this technique, this style of fighting, then we have to work in a pure manner. Fully immerse ourselves in his technique, and trust his work implicitly.
So, for the sake of this technique, I'm willing to take the translator's advice and to trust the author completely. I think back to what I wrote yesterday, about wanting to put away old notions and start new.
On to the technique: Guards and measure.
My plan is to just jot down some notes on what I've read or practiced each day. I'd like to at least write out whatever I've taken away from the text that day.
The manual starts with the four guards, and the division of the sword. I'm familiar with the guards, but there are some strong reminders about the importance of the guards in technique. "It must be clear that nothing is done that does not proceed from the essence of one of these guards (emphasis mine)." There's a flexibility implied, because of the motion the hand goes through between guards. Motions may go from the transitional state between guards (what he calls "bastard" guards). Here, we're immediately hit with an important part of the foundation: your sword motions aren't going to be executed from static positions. Shortly, Fabris will describe the dangers of fighting in dui tempi.
The divisions of the sword are mentioned. He divides the sword into a defensive portion, nearer the hand (which he divides into two), and the debile (half closer to the tip) is divided into two portions, as well. Any fencing student is already familiar with the strong and the weak parts of the blade. Strong for defense, weak for attack.
When taking posture is discussed, it can't be discussed without discussing measure and tempo. The two measures, misura larga (where one may attack by moving a foot), and misura stretta (one may attack by just moving the body forward) are described.
Tomorrow, on "flinging the sword," and "on cuts."
How many students ever want to hear that from an instructor? Haven't we all been taught to be critical thinkers, to test everything we read, everything we learn? Double check the sources. Consider the translator. Look back over the language. Confer with colleagues about potential other meanings.
But that runs counter to Leoni's advice in his introduction to The Art of Dueling. We're asked to trust the source. Consider Fabris' mastery. We're asked to invoke a type of papal infallibility when it comes to Fabris' teaching. He's the master, we are the students. If we want to know how to fight like Fabris wants us to, then trust Fabris.
To do this, we have to forget how to be 21st century students. We have to trust the source. For the sake of learning this technique, this style of fighting, then we have to work in a pure manner. Fully immerse ourselves in his technique, and trust his work implicitly.
So, for the sake of this technique, I'm willing to take the translator's advice and to trust the author completely. I think back to what I wrote yesterday, about wanting to put away old notions and start new.
On to the technique: Guards and measure.
My plan is to just jot down some notes on what I've read or practiced each day. I'd like to at least write out whatever I've taken away from the text that day.
The manual starts with the four guards, and the division of the sword. I'm familiar with the guards, but there are some strong reminders about the importance of the guards in technique. "It must be clear that nothing is done that does not proceed from the essence of one of these guards (emphasis mine)." There's a flexibility implied, because of the motion the hand goes through between guards. Motions may go from the transitional state between guards (what he calls "bastard" guards). Here, we're immediately hit with an important part of the foundation: your sword motions aren't going to be executed from static positions. Shortly, Fabris will describe the dangers of fighting in dui tempi.
The divisions of the sword are mentioned. He divides the sword into a defensive portion, nearer the hand (which he divides into two), and the debile (half closer to the tip) is divided into two portions, as well. Any fencing student is already familiar with the strong and the weak parts of the blade. Strong for defense, weak for attack.
When taking posture is discussed, it can't be discussed without discussing measure and tempo. The two measures, misura larga (where one may attack by moving a foot), and misura stretta (one may attack by just moving the body forward) are described.
Tomorrow, on "flinging the sword," and "on cuts."
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Studying Fabris: Day 1
This past Pennsic, I was inspired by a few classes on Italian fencing master, Salvator Fabris. Some of the stuff I'd learned was familiar to me (thanks to the work I've done on Capo Ferro for the last couple of years), while others were totally alien to me. The postures take a little work for me, but that's the simplest thing to get over for me, probably.
I'm working together with a friend on Fabris' manual. We're using the Tomasso Leoni translation, Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606 (available through Chivalry Bookshelf). We're taking time from our local fencing practice to work on the manual every week. I'm using this blog to keep track of my own work (and I may publish my journal for review, after a while).
I've gone into the manual today, looking to take out something to help focus. Even the preface and introductions have helped in that regard. Regarding this translation, Maestro Sean Hayes says in the preface, "It allows us to reconsider previous interpretations..." That's exactly what I need out of this kind of study: I want to reconsider what I've learned up to now. I want my previous notions of Italian swordfighting shaken up.
And away we go.
I'm working together with a friend on Fabris' manual. We're using the Tomasso Leoni translation, Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' Rapier Fencing Treatise of 1606 (available through Chivalry Bookshelf). We're taking time from our local fencing practice to work on the manual every week. I'm using this blog to keep track of my own work (and I may publish my journal for review, after a while).
I've gone into the manual today, looking to take out something to help focus. Even the preface and introductions have helped in that regard. Regarding this translation, Maestro Sean Hayes says in the preface, "It allows us to reconsider previous interpretations..." That's exactly what I need out of this kind of study: I want to reconsider what I've learned up to now. I want my previous notions of Italian swordfighting shaken up.
And away we go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
