For those of you patient enough to have followed the sneaker thread,
you may have noticed that Aleister's comments might have seemed a bit
out of sync with my last posting. that's because I accidentaly sent it
to him instead of the list. I wanted to add my final reactions &
clarifications, but I thought that before I did that, I should post
the misssing missive. Feel free to disregard it. I'll post my followup
separately.
Anyway, here it is:
--- In classicalfencing@y..., "Alister Oloughlin" <almiri@o...> wrote:
> 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.
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 body throws and jumps,
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 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.
Sorry, but you're completely wrong on almost every count here (I know
a few dancers). First off, it's the intensive training that destroys
many dancers. If they go,it ain't the bones, but the joints that go.
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. 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. 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 properly executed pirouette, for example,
has absolutely no wasted motion. Acceleration, deceleration, momentum,
maximizing centrifical force, even floor friction (why it's done on
"point") are dealt with. 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.
Actually, from what I've seen, there are some ballet exercises that
would be ideal for fencing, except that they would train the body into
movement patterns (toes 180 degrees apart, for example) that are
counter-productive to fencing.
Even though the dance may seem artificial, the way a dancer utilizes
his body is extremely ergonomic.
There are some more modern schools of modern dance that are more
"muscular," and some (ie: Butoh) that strive for very unnatural-
looking 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.
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.
To split a few hairs: "Elizabethan" rapier was brought in to England
by Italians (ie: Vincetio Saviolo). Elizabeth I reigned 1558-1603.
Fencing books from mid 1550s (Agrippa comes to mind) depicted long
lunges, so the lunge really isn't neccessarily out of your sphere.
> 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 you misundertood me. I'm not making a value judgement, I'm
describing the physics of the situation. To clarify what I was trying
to say:
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.
When I said that "alignment was static" I'm saying that in order to
keep the bones lined up in a certain way, they have to stay that way.
If the bones change position, they change the way they line up. For
example, when your arm hangs at your side, the bones of your arm are
in one sort of alignment (vertical), when you raise it parallel to the
floor, the bones are in a different alignment (horizontal). Between
those two alignments there is motion, including acceleration (from no
motion to whatever speed you use to raise it) and deceleration (when
you stop raising it).
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....
I'm in complete agreement with you, here. But I would call this "body
alignment" rather that "skeletal alignment" because to me, there's
more than just the bones involved. The limbs and body are aligned with
regard to a single line of motion on a particular axis. The bones do
change their alignment to each other when beginning and then ending
the action.
> 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. 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. Hence, the limping ballerinas.
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). 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.
I practiced Aikido for several years. There were definitely over-
training injuries to knees, shoulders and wrists. Of course, being an
over-trainer by nature, I had my share. I can vouch that the injuries
don't get better till you stop, cold-turkey, for about 3-6 months.
Cheers,
J.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
