In reply,
'Um. Spring floors (the kind of gym floor where the planks are built
over padding, or are raised off the floor on risers, so that the whole
floor has some give) absorb big impacts, like jumping and body throws,
which is why they're used for basketball and wrestling gyms. These
floors don't provide cushioning for footwork, and in any case, a
spring floor is a far more specialized piece of equipment than
sneakers, and harder to come across. And it's not even remotely
"period." With sneakers, you always have your shock absorbers with
you, whatever the surface.'
I never claimed that sprung floors were period - and they do make a
difference to footwork when the footwork involves impact moves - like the
lunge. Its niaive to think otherwise. The point I was making was that
training barefoot on a sprung floor will often be better than working in
"sneakers" on a concrete or similar surface, but that the over-riding factor
is technique. Also, if there is the slightest flaw in your articulation when
you are wearing those "sneakers" they'll remember it in their wear-patterns
and these in turn will reinforce your faults, as will any shoe. I'm not
suggesting you should fence barefoot, just be aware that wearing a "sneaker"
in and of itself will not neccessarily do anything to protect you,
especially if that "sneaker" is not designed specifically for the training
in hand.
I said
> Old ballet dancers are notoriously rickety, with shot knees, ankles and
> backs incredibly common.
ie: to quote you: "it ain't the bones, but the joints that go" I then said
"also an increased brittleness of the bones." and if you doubt this hang
around with ex-national ballet dancers in their 70's and 80's. Not all, but
enough to say it's a possible danger.
Again, here to misquote, but Sorry, you're wrong on a count or two here (I
know many many dancers, have danced myself, and am married to a
choreographer.)
'First off, it's the intensive training that destroys many dancers.'
Yes, where did I claim otherwise?
'They wear out and become arthritic. Professional dancers have an
unbeleivably intense training scedule, it's their job, after all, and they
do it every day, for hours each day.'
Yes, as do all serious performers, gymnasts, acrobats and every other person
doing a physically based job.
'The old dancer's addage is "it takes two weeks of training to make up for
one missed day." The reason for that is that it's not the physical training,
but the coordination of the body, that is emphasized in classical, and many
modern schools, of ballet.'
Only some of the time. A lot of classical training is based on straight
repetition and increasing flexibility, which is why you end up with teachers
smacking a dancer's leg higher with a walking cane (yes this does still
happen, go train in Eastern Europe and say I'm wrong).
'All the strength training that dancers do is done with coordination in
mind, which is how they can remain slim and delicate and still leap higher
and farther that someone with twice their muscle and strength.'
A lot of that comes from pure repetition and practice - kind of the same
thing but not so isolated as you seem to think. What we're talking about
here is the specialization of muscles that happens in this training. Sure
coordination is of paramount importance but the best coordinated person in
the world will not match a dancer's jump because as Deborah Bull (prima
ballerina at the Roayal Ballet) recently explored in her documentary show
"the Dancer's Body" the classic ballet jumps are all about muscular
strength.
'And body alignment--a dancers body alignment
provides maximum control for the movements for dancing. Also, dancers
break bones through over-use, not brittle bones. Elderly dancers are
usually in excellent shape and rarely suffer the kind of fractures
that other folks in their age group get.'
No, they get different kinds of problems based on calcification and
"powdering".
'Actually, from what I've seen, there are some ballet exercises that
would be ideal for fencing, except that they train the body into
movement patterns (toes 180 degrees apart, for example) that are
counter-productive to fencing.'
And there are loads that can cross over without adjustment, particularly on
the lunge front.
'Even though the dance may seem artificial, the way a dancer utilizes
his body is extremely ergonomic.'
I never argued against this, this is obvious.
'There are some more modern schools of modern dance that are more
"muscular,"'
Modern or contemporary ? Contemporary dance is almost entirely "release"
based these days, where the emphasis is on an organic skeletal lead system
of movement.
'and some (ie: Butoh) that strive for very
unnatural-looking movement.'
I have to say that this is an extremely niaive view of Butoh - have you seen
much Butoh? And by which masters? Also your use of the word
Natural/Unnatural here is fraught with problems as no performance is in the
dictionary sense Natural any more than any fencing method is. The word tends
to be used to describe a Stanislavski based or Strasberg based naturalism
which, as those practioners discuss a great deal, is anything but Natural.
Nevermind.
> Now, I study Elizatheban rapier, not classical fencing, but I have
watched
> classical fencers at work and in the big footwork moves,
particularly the
> lunge, there appears to be a much greater reliance on explosive muscular
> movement than the work of the skeleton.
> Needless to say that sport fencing is even more guilty of this.
'There's no "guilt" involved here. A step uses muscular force, a lunge
more. Remember, a lunge cover the distance of (roughly) two advances
in the time it takes to execute one, so one would have to move twice
as fast. That is the advantage of the lunge, and why it was
universally adopted.'
This is just arguing for the sake of it itsn't it?
'To split a few hairs:'
A few!!!!
'"Elizabethan" rapier was brought in to England
by Italians (ie: Vincetio Saviolo).'
So who were Bonetti, and Jeronimo? And how are you using the term rapier
here? And are you saying that one day there were no rapiers in England and
the next day Master Vincent turned up at Smithfield Market with a cart load
to sell?!
'Elizabeth I reigned 1558-1603.'
May we never forget.
'Fencing books from mid 1550s (Agrippa comes to mind) depicted long
lunges, so the lunge really isn't neccessarily out of your sphere.'
Agrippa didn't teach in England did he? Or publish his book there? So he
wasn't Elizabethan. Elizabethan is a period of English History, the
Elizabethan rapier must be defined by the the attitudes of DiGrassi, Saviolo
and George Silver. I study Saviolo particularly. I can't find a lunge in his
treatise - sorry.
'You may have perfect skeletal alignment, but the bones don't move
themselves. Skeletal alignment maximizes the efficiency of the force
created by movement (muscles). Which is to say, if your bones are
properly aligned, you need exert very little muscular force to get the
desired result.'
Which is exactly what I've been arguing for.
'I'm in complete agreement with you, here.'
Thank the sweet Lord!
'But '
Ah...
'I would call this "body alignment" rather that "skeletal alignment" because
to me, there's
more than just the bones involved.
Yes, obviously I agree with this but it's just semantics what you're saying
really.
> The real importance of the skeleton over muscle issue is that by
moving from
> the skeleton,(ie. with a correct alignment and with the minimum
neccessary
> energy) you will increase the longevity of muscles and joints and
also the
> range of movement that the body is capable of.
'Tricky to say.'
No it's not, I just said it, and it's true. It's obvious. Everything you've
just said in agreement with me makes this clear.
'With proper alignment, you can effectively apply as
much or as little force as you care to (skewer two guy with a single
thrust, perhaps!), for sure, but it doesn't neccessarily correlate to
how much stress your joints can take.'
Ah, I see. Then let me also make it clear(er) that I'm talking about a
system of maximum economy, which means, use as little muscular strength as
you need to the get job done, align correctly and also articulate correctly
and you should be pretty much ok.
'Hence, the limping ballerinas.'
I thought that was excessive training?
This is the route of
> passivity over the violent route of muscular strength - this is the
> philosophy of Yoga, of Ki Akido and all great art.
> > My aunt who studied Yoga with Master Iyenga could do the splits,
handstands
> and bridges well into her 70's, and octagenarian Yogis and Akido
Masters are
> by no means in short supply.
'From my understanding of yoga, the aproach to physical development is
through flexibility training and passive muscular development
(stances).'
Yes, based around a correct skeletal alignment and everything else I've just
said, with a huge emphasis on breathing etc. Is your understanding through
doing it or seeing it?
'I think that that is very good & important training for the
body, but different from the kind of physical development for a
martial art in that it doesn't seek to exert force from the body
against a target.'
And the point I'm trying to make is that a good martial artist will, through
passivity, overcome the martial artist who seeks to exert force against
them.
'I practiced Aikido for several years.'
Then you should know all this. This is the explicit design of akido! The art
of overcoming through non-resistance. On which point I will resign from the
discussion as it seems clear we'd bang heads on this for a decade.
all the best
Alister
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets.
http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
Linear Mode
