S
Shane Smith
Guest
George Silver in his" Paradoxes of Defence", circa 1599, tells us that no man may be judged a perfectly good master of defence until he can stand unharmed after bouting in turn against three masters of defence, three valiant yet untrained men and three determined men half-drunk. This seems to me a pretty darn insightful test and one that is valid in the extreme(especially in period) if not practical for legal and other reasons.
Still we can learn much from the unskilled yet aggressive guys that show up to train with us all from time to time. These guys embody the buffel that the source texts warn us against as well as instruct us in overcoming by superior skill of art. These kinds of men with their generally good athleticism and their audacity make for excellent training tools and gut-check devices on occasion. Quite simply, throwing a big commited zorn at an unskilled yet valiant man will often result in a double hit as he will launch when you do with the one thought of landing his blow as well. This is not so likely against another skilled fencer who will often seek to bind to save his skin and steal the initiative. He knows what to do and is therefore safer to engage with audacity. A non-fencer will do the most unexpected and irrational things and therefore they must be faced much more cautiously in some cases. You must move them from their place of protection either by coming in under your own surest cover or defend their buffalo strike with a displacement or a void with counter. You simply have no idea what he may do beyond the limits any mans skeletal/muscular structure place on his actions. That is a true test of nerve and skill.
Non skilled yet aggressive fighters are excellent tests of skill in my opinion along with the normal fare of skilled opposition and my own experiences leads me to side with Master Silver 100 percent. What are you guys' experiences and thoughts in this regard?
Still we can learn much from the unskilled yet aggressive guys that show up to train with us all from time to time. These guys embody the buffel that the source texts warn us against as well as instruct us in overcoming by superior skill of art. These kinds of men with their generally good athleticism and their audacity make for excellent training tools and gut-check devices on occasion. Quite simply, throwing a big commited zorn at an unskilled yet valiant man will often result in a double hit as he will launch when you do with the one thought of landing his blow as well. This is not so likely against another skilled fencer who will often seek to bind to save his skin and steal the initiative. He knows what to do and is therefore safer to engage with audacity. A non-fencer will do the most unexpected and irrational things and therefore they must be faced much more cautiously in some cases. You must move them from their place of protection either by coming in under your own surest cover or defend their buffalo strike with a displacement or a void with counter. You simply have no idea what he may do beyond the limits any mans skeletal/muscular structure place on his actions. That is a true test of nerve and skill.
Non skilled yet aggressive fighters are excellent tests of skill in my opinion along with the normal fare of skilled opposition and my own experiences leads me to side with Master Silver 100 percent. What are you guys' experiences and thoughts in this regard?