FW: [CFML] Feets, don't fail me now

[Alister Oloughlin]

-----Original Message-----
From: Alister Oloughlin [mailto:almiri@oloklin.fsnet.co.uk]
Sent: 28 October 2002 21:11
To: stuydaze
Subject: RE: [CFML] Feets, don't fail me now


Dear all,

in answer:

Plenty of these guys can work into their fifties. And Jackie Chan was taught
the old fashioned way - through repetitions and beatings as he has said many
times in interviews.

At the same time you'll see lots of old performers on sticks and hobbling. A
lot of it comes down to the individual, and of course if you make a habit
out of performing on concrete it will eventually take it's toll - a good
sprung floor will do more to protect the joints than any amount of purpose
designed shoes.

I think we all agree that the biggest factor is technical corectness, and
the next factor will be the demands of the particular style studied.

Old ballet dancers are notoriously rickety, with shot knees, ankles and
backs incredibly common. Also an increased brittleness of the bones. Now
these guys have fantastic bodies, perfect postures, work on sprung floors,
do extremely competent warm-ups and cool-downs and are surrounded by
specialist therapists. Needless to say they use the most modern equipment
available and the men don't have to wear blocks, so -why the injuries? (And
bear in mind that classical ballet shares a lot of movement and a common
aesthetic with classical fencing) I'd argue that a great deal of the
movement involved is against the natural movement of the body - most
importantly, and this goes back to something someone else said in this
debate - muscular strength is favoured over the skeleton's movement.

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.

You say:

"alignment is static by definition--if the bones are
moving, the alignment is changing, and there is motion (vectors
of force & acceleration)."

I don't understand where you are coming from on this - are you saying that
alignment is not important? I think it's of great importance - to safety and
to accuracy. If you're not correctly aligned at the outset of a lunge you
can hardly expect to end it with the correct articulation to make your lunge
safe - if the knee and the foot are not aligned throughout, for example, or
the forward leg is not aligned correctly to the central axis of the body and
the rear leg. Also your point is going to carry off target if you are not
aligned correctly and so not only will you cripple yourself you'll also miss
your oponent. He doesn't need to move to defeat you!

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. 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.

Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I would suggest
we would all benefit from re-evaluating the old treatises with these truths
in mind.

Yours

Alister




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTm...3IAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/

[Alister Oloughlin]

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/

[Stephen Hand]

>I study Saviolo particularly. I can't find a lunge in his
>treatise - sorry.

I can. I'll give you a hint, while lunge is currently a noun in English, it
comes from the Italian adjective lunga, meaning long. Something cannot be a
long. It must be a long something. Giganti's lunge (credited by some as
being the first properly described lunge) is called the stoccata lunga. If
we translate the word lunga into English and correct the word order for
that language we get long stoccata. You will find the term long stoccata
first mentioned on page 29 verso of Saviolo (under the third illustration).

Cheers
Stephen


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/

[Bryan Maloney]

--- In classicalfencing@y..., "Alister Oloughlin" <almiri@o...> wrote:
> 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.'

Having attended a rapier class in a room built for gymnastics, thus
on one of those spring mats, I can attest that they do not make
footwork any easier.

> training barefoot on a sprung floor will often be better than
working in
> "sneakers" on a concrete or similar surface, but that the over-

Concrete is just a Bad Thing To Walk On (TM). I'm an inveterate
pedestrian and walk miles every day (to and from work). On walks
that I would consider "long", I avoid walking on concrete or similar
surfaces (like flagstone). It should be noted that such surfaces
were not likely to be all that common outside an urban area before
the 20th century.

> 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

Thus underlining the need to study under a skilled and knowledgeable
instructor.

> '"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

Agreed greatly. Saviolo was a latecomer, a "_nachgaenger_", even (to
abuse the German language). Rapier was already well established in
England before Saviolo showed his face there.

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

Can you find me some information that demonstrates that English
attitudes towards swordsmanship and study of swordsmanship were for
some reason utterly opposite their attitudes toward the study of
architecture or other practical arts? During the reign of Elizabeth,
there were no major English architectural manuals published.
According to your form of "historiography", one could conclude that
no buildings were designed during in England during this period.
Actually looking at the evidence produces a different conclusion.
Instead of English architectural manuals, the English imported
Italian manuals! Likewise, they tried to get Dutch dyers, German
bladesmiths, etc. Since we have direct evidence for these practical
arts, why not presume the rule held rather than invent an exception
for one art?

> 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.

Sounds like the theory behind classical fencing, actually...

> 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.

Passivity? At best a mistranslation--suppleness, sensitivity,
responsiveness, or perhaps _tacto_, _sentiment du fer_, _et cetera_,
are what you are wanting to say. You want to see passivity vs.
force? Take an axe and chop wood. The wood is passive, you are
forceful. You chop the wood and the wood does not overcome you. The
Aiki that I've studied was never passive. It wasn't aggressive, but
it was never passive. It was supple, sensitive, and responsive.
Oddly enough, those were the things that the people who taught me
fencing likewise seemed to want to instill.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/

[Alister Oloughlin]

Against my better judgement...

To Steven,

I can. ...
If
we translate the word lunga into English and correct the word order for
that language we get long stoccata. You will find the term long stoccata
first mentioned on page 29 verso of Saviolo (under the third illustration).

Ok. It could mean that. It could also not mean that. You're finding a long
stoccata to mean a lunge, I don't, leastways not in the sense of a step long
enough to put much more stress on the forward knee, which is where all this
started from.

I'd read it a bit differently anyway but our interpretation differs from
yours in quite a few ways so it's to be expected.

To Brian,

Having attended a rapier class in a room built for gymnastics, thus
on one of those spring mats, I can attest that they do not make
footwork any easier.

A sprung mat is not a sprung floor, not nearly as good, and I never said it
would help footwork anyway, I said it would help protect the body.

Can you find me some information that demonstrates that English
attitudes towards swordsmanship and study of swordsmanship were for
some reason utterly opposite their attitudes toward the study of
architecture or other practical arts? During the reign of Elizabeth,
there were no major English architectural manuals published.
According to your form of "historiography", one could conclude that
no buildings were designed during in England during this period.
Actually looking at the evidence produces a different conclusion.
Instead of English architectural manuals, the English imported
Italian manuals! Likewise, they tried to get Dutch dyers, German
bladesmiths, etc. Since we have direct evidence for these practical
arts, why not presume the rule held rather than invent an exception
for one art?

Yeah, but, we can also assume that treatises published in English would have
been more commonly used and more importantly we have only the three to work
with. I don't think any of them have been revived and explored to exhaustion
yet (though Mstr Hand is obviously working on it) so maybe we should keep
learning from them before conjecturing about what we can't know.

Sounds like the theory behind classical fencing, actually...

And all true arts for that matter.

Passivity? At best a mistranslation--suppleness, sensitivity,
responsiveness, or perhaps _tacto_, _sentiment du fer_, _et cetera_,
are what you are wanting to say. You want to see passivity vs.
force? Take an axe and chop wood. The wood is passive, you are
forceful. You chop the wood and the wood does not overcome you. The
Aiki that I've studied was never passive. It wasn't aggressive, but
it was never passive. It was supple, sensitive, and responsive.

I'm using passivity as an opposite of violence or agression which I thought
was obvious from my context. Obviously not. A philosophy of non-violence in
terms of art can be applied to every movement a body makes so whilst I don't
mean inactive, I do mean an absence of effort. It's what Castiglione is
talking about in The Book of the Courtier when he discusses nonchalence.

To extend your metaphor you can split the logs all day if you allow the
weight of the axe to do the work for you. Surely you, as I, have seen
someone who isn't used to chopping wood exhaust themselves on the first few
logs. In this way the wood can overcome the agressor.

Oddly enough, those were the things that the people who taught me
fencing likewise seemed to want to instill.

Then they were good teachers, lucky for you.

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/

[Stephen Hand]

At 08:26 PM 5/11/02 +0000, you wrote:
>Against my better judgement...

??

>To Steven,
>
> >I can. ...
> >If we translate the word lunga into English and correct the word order for
> >that language we get long stoccata. You will find the term long stoccata
> >first mentioned on page 29 verso of Saviolo (under the third illustration).
>
>Ok. It could mean that. It could also not mean that. You're finding a long
>stoccata to mean a lunge, I don't, leastways not in the sense of a step long
>enough to put much more stress on the forward knee, which is where all this
>started from.
>
>I'd read it a bit differently anyway but our interpretation differs from
>yours in quite a few ways so it's to be expected.

You have me at a disadvantage. You evidently have versions of my
interpretation, of what age I don't know, but I don't have copies of yours.
What I am saying about Saviolo's long stoccata is that Giganti called an
essentially modern lunge a long stoccata. Saviolo, a contemporary and
countryman used exactly the same term for a move involving thrusting while
advancing the right foot, by definition a lunge. In my experience the step
forward from the ward in quarta must be longer than Saviolo's step forward
and right when he attacks from one of his wards in terza. I don't think any
lunges in rapier treatises stress the forward knee, but I don't want to get
back into that argument.

Cheers
Stephen


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTm...3IAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/