Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax
- Roger N
- Site Admin
- Posts:701
- Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
- Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
- Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
There's been a bit of discussion on the new Tobler DVD and I would love to hear your opinions on the DVD and the techniques described. I know Hugh has some criticism:
http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2010/07/c ... -from.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OjglXwm00s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4iiRZnbJCs&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTqwLBwem0U
http://www.freelanceacademypress.com/poleaxedvd.aspx
From what I understand, much of the discussion revolves around a claimed lack of intent (ie force, speed, distance and aim) in the attacks om the DVD, making certain counteractions possible, that wouldn't be so with proper intent. There also seems to be a difference in opinion on proper measure with the critics promoting a shorter distance. However, I feel that the last attack in the last clip from the Schlachtschule also shows a lack of intent. The strike is slow and doesn't properly aim for the head, making it easier to avoid without any form of parry. I will have to look into the source text, but a strong bind and schnappen seems reasonable and is done in other manuscripts with several other weapons.
I am not saying that Hugh is wrong. I haven't read the source text yet. In fact his technique also seem plausible, if not so well shown in the last clip, in my opinion.
As for the distance, illustrations are a tricky source, but looking at other manuscripts by Kal, the distance is indeed quite short.
Here is Tobler's translation taken from Hugh's blog:
“Item: If binds to you such that both hammers stand above and strikes with brute force (lit. “peasant’s strikeâ€), then sense this and pretend as if you intend to parry and let his blow pass before you so that you have the hook at the neck or a free stroke to the head, shoulder or arm.†(Tobler 2010 p. 68)
To me, it can certainly be interpreted as both a feint with a weak bind, or even no bind at all, then moving onto either a schnappen or a direct strike.
http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2010/07/c ... -from.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OjglXwm00s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4iiRZnbJCs&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTqwLBwem0U
http://www.freelanceacademypress.com/poleaxedvd.aspx
From what I understand, much of the discussion revolves around a claimed lack of intent (ie force, speed, distance and aim) in the attacks om the DVD, making certain counteractions possible, that wouldn't be so with proper intent. There also seems to be a difference in opinion on proper measure with the critics promoting a shorter distance. However, I feel that the last attack in the last clip from the Schlachtschule also shows a lack of intent. The strike is slow and doesn't properly aim for the head, making it easier to avoid without any form of parry. I will have to look into the source text, but a strong bind and schnappen seems reasonable and is done in other manuscripts with several other weapons.
I am not saying that Hugh is wrong. I haven't read the source text yet. In fact his technique also seem plausible, if not so well shown in the last clip, in my opinion.
As for the distance, illustrations are a tricky source, but looking at other manuscripts by Kal, the distance is indeed quite short.
Here is Tobler's translation taken from Hugh's blog:
“Item: If binds to you such that both hammers stand above and strikes with brute force (lit. “peasant’s strikeâ€), then sense this and pretend as if you intend to parry and let his blow pass before you so that you have the hook at the neck or a free stroke to the head, shoulder or arm.†(Tobler 2010 p. 68)
To me, it can certainly be interpreted as both a feint with a weak bind, or even no bind at all, then moving onto either a schnappen or a direct strike.
Roger Norling
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
- Hugh Knight
- Instructor
- Posts:49
- Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
- Club:Die Schlachtschule
- Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
- Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
- Contact:
Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax
Hello,
You have to understand what those three videos to which you link represent: The technique being discussed is shown on Christian’s DVD at 28:07, in the chapter on the Durchwechseln. In that video, my students, some friends of mine, the family of one of my students, and I, all noticed that in the DVD the attacker doesn’t swing at the defender’s head (and never even starts to do so), as he should, but rather at the defender’s axe. This is a problem in almost all of the plays in Christian’s DVD.
Unfortunately, Christian did not cite the sources for most of his techniques. So we looked at the technique at 28:07 and thought he was trying to show a Zucken (as if from the longsword material). Our first video had two parts: First, we demonstrated *exactly* what is shown on Christian’s DVD, then we showed that if the attacker had actually tried to hit the defender on the head the technique—remember, we thought it was supposed to be a Zucken—couldn’t possibly work.
Next, David Teague, one of Christian’s students in Alaska, posted the next video you cited, trying to show a way to make the Zucken-style technique work. Since he didn’t recreate the action as shown on the DVD this was moot, but, more importantly, he, too, mistook the technique being demonstrated, so the video he made, like my first one, isn’t relevant.
Christian posted a comment on my first video saying that we had gotten the technique wrong, and that he was *trying* to show the fourth play from the anonymous pollaxe material in the Vienna Kal Fechtbuch (this is why everyone should always cite their sources!). Realizing that the play, as demonstrated in Christian’s DVD, didn’t match the text of the fourth play, my students and I then made our second video, again, showing first how the technique is performed on Christian’s DVD, then how it *should* be performed in order to match the text.
I never criticized the intent shown on the DVD: After all, he’s showing instructional material, not free play. What I criticized was a.) the aiming point (aiming at the defender’s axe rather than his head) and b.) the mechanics of the interpretation.
Understanding this is not a simple thing. You must carefully read the text of the play and then try to make sense of the author’s words. The bottom line for the interpretation is that when the attacker makes the wild, over-blown swing described in the play, he’s not going to suddenly change angles in mid-swing to strike his opponent’s block, such wild swings are intended to blow through defenses. Also, the author never says the axes bind, as Christian shows, he says to fake a block. That being the case, the only way the attacker's axe can pass in front of the defender, as the author says it will, is for the defender to slip back to allow it to do so, just as we show.
For a detailed discussion of this interpretation go here:
http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2010/07/c ... -from.html
You have to understand what those three videos to which you link represent: The technique being discussed is shown on Christian’s DVD at 28:07, in the chapter on the Durchwechseln. In that video, my students, some friends of mine, the family of one of my students, and I, all noticed that in the DVD the attacker doesn’t swing at the defender’s head (and never even starts to do so), as he should, but rather at the defender’s axe. This is a problem in almost all of the plays in Christian’s DVD.
Unfortunately, Christian did not cite the sources for most of his techniques. So we looked at the technique at 28:07 and thought he was trying to show a Zucken (as if from the longsword material). Our first video had two parts: First, we demonstrated *exactly* what is shown on Christian’s DVD, then we showed that if the attacker had actually tried to hit the defender on the head the technique—remember, we thought it was supposed to be a Zucken—couldn’t possibly work.
Next, David Teague, one of Christian’s students in Alaska, posted the next video you cited, trying to show a way to make the Zucken-style technique work. Since he didn’t recreate the action as shown on the DVD this was moot, but, more importantly, he, too, mistook the technique being demonstrated, so the video he made, like my first one, isn’t relevant.
Christian posted a comment on my first video saying that we had gotten the technique wrong, and that he was *trying* to show the fourth play from the anonymous pollaxe material in the Vienna Kal Fechtbuch (this is why everyone should always cite their sources!). Realizing that the play, as demonstrated in Christian’s DVD, didn’t match the text of the fourth play, my students and I then made our second video, again, showing first how the technique is performed on Christian’s DVD, then how it *should* be performed in order to match the text.
I never criticized the intent shown on the DVD: After all, he’s showing instructional material, not free play. What I criticized was a.) the aiming point (aiming at the defender’s axe rather than his head) and b.) the mechanics of the interpretation.
Understanding this is not a simple thing. You must carefully read the text of the play and then try to make sense of the author’s words. The bottom line for the interpretation is that when the attacker makes the wild, over-blown swing described in the play, he’s not going to suddenly change angles in mid-swing to strike his opponent’s block, such wild swings are intended to blow through defenses. Also, the author never says the axes bind, as Christian shows, he says to fake a block. That being the case, the only way the attacker's axe can pass in front of the defender, as the author says it will, is for the defender to slip back to allow it to do so, just as we show.
For a detailed discussion of this interpretation go here:
http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2010/07/c ... -from.html
- Roger N
- Site Admin
- Posts:701
- Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
- Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
- Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax
Thanks Hugh for clarifying the "history" of the clips. It makes it all much clearer. It is sometimes hard to follow a discussion after much has been said.
Regarding "intent" I meant several aspects like use of force, speed, aim and distance, all combining to what I regard as intent.
However, I think that much of the discussion is more based on problems with display in both of your video clips, rather than actual difference in validity of interpretation. Both your interpretations sound reasonable, at least judging from Tobler's translation. I am still looking for the original text though, so I may change my opinion here.
I agree that the attacker is not likely to change his direction, but the difference seems to lie in how the feint is interpreted. You see it as a no contact with the weapons, but a weak bind/block could also be done as a feint, and depending on the distance and surroundings, may be a wee bit safer. Also, footwork might be a source of confusion. In my perspective both your interpretations require proper distance which might require footwork. You advocate a step backwards, and I agree, but I can very well see it with a weak "bind", continuing with a schnappen or zucken.
Regarding "intent" I meant several aspects like use of force, speed, aim and distance, all combining to what I regard as intent.
However, I think that much of the discussion is more based on problems with display in both of your video clips, rather than actual difference in validity of interpretation. Both your interpretations sound reasonable, at least judging from Tobler's translation. I am still looking for the original text though, so I may change my opinion here.
I agree that the attacker is not likely to change his direction, but the difference seems to lie in how the feint is interpreted. You see it as a no contact with the weapons, but a weak bind/block could also be done as a feint, and depending on the distance and surroundings, may be a wee bit safer. Also, footwork might be a source of confusion. In my perspective both your interpretations require proper distance which might require footwork. You advocate a step backwards, and I agree, but I can very well see it with a weak "bind", continuing with a schnappen or zucken.
Roger Norling
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
- Roger N
- Site Admin
- Posts:701
- Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
- Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
- Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax
Here are clips from the DVD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qcGV9NIWW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJuNgXUi-Bk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qcGV9NIWW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJuNgXUi-Bk
Roger Norling
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
- Roger N
- Site Admin
- Posts:701
- Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
- Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
- Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax
The way I see it, Tobler's interpretation seems rather similar to the Mortschlag counter and others in Mair's Peasant staff, explored here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-cgClKJbGg
and here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohyb9Mc-4AM
Differences in grip and handling of course, but the principles are the same. Pretty much a schnappen when the opponent strikes with great force and/or binds strongly. Zucken would work equally well, if the stance and distance so allows.
Damn, I got to find the source text.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-cgClKJbGg
and here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohyb9Mc-4AM
Differences in grip and handling of course, but the principles are the same. Pretty much a schnappen when the opponent strikes with great force and/or binds strongly. Zucken would work equally well, if the stance and distance so allows.
Damn, I got to find the source text.
Roger Norling
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
- Hugh Knight
- Instructor
- Posts:49
- Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
- Club:Die Schlachtschule
- Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
- Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
- Contact:
Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax
I don't agree that this can be done as a Zucken or a Schnappen. As our first video shows, that approach can only work when the attacker doesn't strike at the the defender, but rather strikes at his axe, which makes no sense. Regardless, that's not the point, because Christian said that's not what he was trying to show.Roger Norling wrote:The way I see it, Tobler's interpretation seems rather similar to the Mortschlag counter and others in Mair's Peasant staff, explored here:
Differences in grip and handling of course, but the principles are the same. Pretty much a schnappen when the opponent strikes with great force and/or binds strongly. Zucken would work equally well, if the stance and distance so allows.
Damn, I got to find the source text.
As for the text, I told you, it's on my blog on the link I gave you:
http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2010/07/c ... -from.html
along with a detailed analysis of why this play should be interpreted this way.
- Hugh Knight
- Instructor
- Posts:49
- Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
- Club:Die Schlachtschule
- Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
- Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
- Contact:
Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax
Sorry, I believe our video clips show what I'm saying perfectly well. I see no "problems of display."Roger Norling wrote:Thanks Hugh for clarifying the "history" of the clips. It makes it all much clearer. It is sometimes hard to follow a discussion after much has been said.
Regarding "intent" I meant several aspects like use of force, speed, aim and distance, all combining to what I regard as intent.
However, I think that much of the discussion is more based on problems with display in both of your video clips, rather than actual difference in validity of interpretation. Both your interpretations sound reasonable, at least judging from Tobler's translation. I am still looking for the original text though, so I may change my opinion here.
The entire point of this play is that the attacker strikes as a Buffel and that causes his blow to whip by you when you slip back. There is no reason to stop his blow when you want it to go by harmlessly.I agree that the attacker is not likely to change his direction, but the difference seems to lie in how the feint is interpreted. You see it as a no contact with the weapons, but a weak bind/block could also be done as a feint, and depending on the distance and surroundings, may be a wee bit safer. Also, footwork might be a source of confusion. In my perspective both your interpretations require proper distance which might require footwork. You advocate a step backwards, and I agree, but I can very well see it with a weak "bind", continuing with a schnappen or zucken.
- Roger N
- Site Admin
- Posts:701
- Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
- Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
- Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax
I did read your analysis, actually. However I do not fully agree on your conclusions. I still need to find the original text, but awaiting that, I go by Tobler's translation and your clips and comments on his.Hugh Knight wrote:I don't agree that this can be done as a Zucken or a Schnappen. As our first video shows, that approach can only work when the attacker doesn't strike at the the defender, but rather strikes at his axe, which makes no sense. Regardless, that's not the point, because Christian said that's not what he was trying to show.Roger Norling wrote:The way I see it, Tobler's interpretation seems rather similar to the Mortschlag counter and others in Mair's Peasant staff, explored here:
Differences in grip and handling of course, but the principles are the same. Pretty much a schnappen when the opponent strikes with great force and/or binds strongly. Zucken would work equally well, if the stance and distance so allows.
Damn, I got to find the source text.
As for the text, I told you, it's on my blog on the link I gave you:
http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2010/07/c ... -from.html
along with a detailed analysis of why this play should be interpreted this way.
Sure, it makes no sense striking at the axe, although it might under certain circumstances, but such a situation can easily occur if the defender takes a step back, just as you interpret it. The only difference I see, in the textual interpretation, is that you do not bind but make a feint that causes your opponent to think that you will bind, and Tobler makes a feinted bind that only makes the slightest resistance, but can use the impact for a schnappen.
BUT, I have still not read the original text, and haven't seen Tobler's DVD, so I shouldn't really go much deeper here.
I also get the feeling that I am missing something here...
Roger Norling
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
- Roger N
- Site Admin
- Posts:701
- Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
- Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
- Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax
Well both your and Tobler's clips show attacks that doesn't really go for the head which can cause confusion for the viewer. Agreed that tutorials are a bit different in purpose, but nevertheless.Hugh Knight wrote:Sorry, I believe our video clips show what I'm saying perfectly well. I see no "problems of display."Roger Norling wrote:Thanks Hugh for clarifying the "history" of the clips. It makes it all much clearer. It is sometimes hard to follow a discussion after much has been said.
Regarding "intent" I meant several aspects like use of force, speed, aim and distance, all combining to what I regard as intent.
However, I think that much of the discussion is more based on problems with display in both of your video clips, rather than actual difference in validity of interpretation. Both your interpretations sound reasonable, at least judging from Tobler's translation. I am still looking for the original text though, so I may change my opinion here.
The entire point of this play is that the attacker strikes as a Buffel and that causes his blow to whip by you when you slip back. There is no reason to stop his blow when you want it to go by harmlessly.I agree that the attacker is not likely to change his direction, but the difference seems to lie in how the feint is interpreted. You see it as a no contact with the weapons, but a weak bind/block could also be done as a feint, and depending on the distance and surroundings, may be a wee bit safer. Also, footwork might be a source of confusion. In my perspective both your interpretations require proper distance which might require footwork. You advocate a step backwards, and I agree, but I can very well see it with a weak "bind", continuing with a schnappen or zucken.
And I disagree slightly. True, there is no reason to stop it, but there might be reason to fool your opponent into thinking you will try to. Your clip showed a feint although done a bit differently. Tobler seem to advocate making a feint into a very weak bind, but I might be wrong here. Anyhow, his translation seems to leave that possibility open.
But, maybe you omitted that part in your current interpretation? Sorry for being a bit short and perhaps a bit confused here. I am in the middle of a dinner party and need to get back to our guests...
Roger Norling
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild
Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com
Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org
Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
- Hugh Knight
- Instructor
- Posts:49
- Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
- Club:Die Schlachtschule
- Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
- Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
- Contact:
Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax
But in Christian's DVD the defender does *not* take a step back--that's the whole point. The attacker supposedly just changes his mind about hitting the defender and hits at his axe instead in mid-swing. My whole point is that he couldn't do that if he used an overdone, wild swing, and that he wouldn't want to anyway--why would he want to change from a powerful blow to the head to a bind agaisnt an axe that wasn't threatening him?? Therefore you *must* slip back to make the play work, because if you don't you'll just get hit. Moreover, the text clearly says to *pretend* to bind, not to bind and then snap out of it.Roger Norling wrote:I did read your analysis, actually. However I do not fully agree on your conclusions. I still need to find the original text, but awaiting that, I go by Tobler's translation and your clips and comments on his.
Sure, it makes no sense striking at the axe, although it might under certain circumstances, but such a situation can easily occur if the defender takes a step back, just as you interpret it. The only difference I see, in the textual interpretation, is that you do not bind but make a feint that causes your opponent to think that you will bind, and Tobler makes a feinted bind that only makes the slightest resistance, but can use the impact for a schnappen.
BUT, I have still not read the original text, and haven't seen Tobler's DVD, so I shouldn't really go much deeper here.
I also get the feeling that I am missing something here...
As for the bind, I don't want to bind because I want his axe to go flying by--another result of his wild swing--so I can step in before he can recover. This matches the text very well.
By the way, the point here is to correctly interpret the text, not to make up something that might work.
As for Christian's video, I agree you should watch it, of course, but my students match it *exactly* in the first part of both videos. We rehearsed it by watching the video then recreating it right afterwards so as to get it precisely correct, since I knew most people wouldn't have the video.