Spanish Fencing Notation Part 3 - Fighting Distance
(8/31/2009)
Other Martial Traditions
In Aikido the term “Ma-ai” refers to the distance (or interval) between two adversaries. Distance in Aikido is set by your adversary’s ability to strike you. If the adversary holds a weapon like a knife, Ma-ai distance is increased to account for the greater range of the threat.
By contrast, in the Italian fencing tradition distance is typically understood as the distance your attack must travel to strike the adversary.
Close Distance or Narrow Measure- Without moving the feet the adversary may be struck by extending the weapon arm.
Correct Distance or Wide Measure- The adversary may be struck with a lunge.
Out of Distance - The adversary cannot be struck without moving forward.
The key difference between the Japanese measure and the Italian one is the emphasis it places on the conflict. The practitioner of Aikido evaluates the distance needed to defend oneself and the Italian evaluates his own ability to strike. Each martial artist will evaluate offensive and defensive measure, but the measure which is codified provides us an indication of the focus of the art.
The Spanish break distance down into two separate categories using both the concepts of defensive distance used in Aikido and offensive distance used in Italian fencing. Like the Aikido practitioner, the first measure of concern to a Spanish fencer will be the defensive distance.
The Measure of Proportion (Defensive Distance or Place)
(En español - Medio de Proporcion )
This is the closest distance to the adversary in which you may still effectively observe and react to possible threats. The Measure of Proportion should consider the weapon being used by the adversary and their physical stature. It is very unlikely that two opponents will have exactly the same Measure of Proportion.
When Pacheco defined the Measure of Proportion he used the relationship between the two weapons as his guide. He advocates setting the distance so that when the adversary extends his arm at full reach, the point of his weapon reaches no further than the cross of your own weapon. If two opponents have equal bodies and equal swords, they will share the same Measure of Proportion.
"Measure of proportion when the swords are of equal length - very important" - Pacheco
If the opponent has a longer weapon, how you set your own distance should change and your goal becomes to prevent the adversary from closing the distance so that their threat passes the cross of your weapon. The physical size of the adversary is also considered when setting the distance. For example, an opponent with long legs will have a long lunge and the Measure of Proportion will change to compensate.
"Measure of proportion for a shorter sword against a longer sword." - Pacheco
When your weapon is longer than the adversary’s your goal in setting distance is to close measure enough to maintain your own Measure of Proportion while violating the defensive distance of your adversary and continually keeping them threatened.
"Measure of proportion for a longer sword versus a shorter sword" - Pacehco
Ettenhard, one of Pacheco’s students, later provides a more nuanced description of this distance which is based on a principle rather than setting defensive measure based on the cross of the sword.
| To choose the Measure of Proportion is to determine a proportionate and convenient distance from which the Swordsman can recognize the movements of his opponent, since for whatever determination of his, there should proceed, of body like of arm and Sword: Of body, by means of footwork: and of Sword, by means of the formation of the Technique. |
Restated, the Measure of Proportion must be chosen so that the fencer can recognize a threat from the adversary. You can anticipate the adversary’s actions if you provide yourself enough distance (and therefore time) to recognize motions of the sword or body.
The Measure of Proportion and the Circle
It is important to remember that all the aspects of the Spanish Circle are defined by setting the Measure of Proportion.
The Measure of Proportion defines the Diameter which also defines the Circle, the Square, and the Lines of Infinity.
You should also note that when two adversaries have a different Measure of Proportion, they will have different preferred Diameters and the circle each wishes to create will be defined differently. This indicates again that arbitrarily “walking the circle” isn’t a reflection of the canonical Spanish tradition. Each fencer will attempt to create a more favorable circle which describes the possible footwork and counter-footwork in a fencing action.
As a common practice “walking the circle” would require not only two identical opponents with identical weapons, but also a choreographed plan in which neither fencer took advantage of the shorter distance gained when the adversary steps along the circle (as shown in Part 2). Instead the opponent would need to continually step away from the adversary to artificially preserve the ideal distance in the circle. Walking around a circle while within the striking distance of a non-cooperative adversary would be dangerous.
In order to close distance by stepping along the circle, the action should either control the adversary’s weapon as you move forward or take advantage of a Movement provided by the adversary (such as the thrust into the diagonal reverse shown in Part 1).
The Proportionate Measure (Offensive Distance or Place)
(En español - Medio Proporcionado )
This is the distance that must be covered to deliver a specific attack. For example the Proportionate Measure of thrusts will be different when using a pike, a sword, and a dagger. By using some of Euclid’s work we can provide a demonstration of which attack and position of the arm has the greatest reach.
The Right Angle
Carranza demonstrates here that the Line from B to A has the greatest reach. This line is called the Right Angle and provides us with effective offense, counteroffense, and defense.
If the blade is lifted from the Right Angle, as shown in the line from B to G, we have entered the Obtuse Angle and our reach has decreased.
If the blade is lowered from the Right Angle, as shown in the line from B to F, we have entered the Acute Angle and our reach has decreased again.
Carranza uses Euclid to demonstrate distance.
The thrust typically has the most reach and will have the most favorable Proportionate Measure. In order to reach the correct distance to execute the thrust you may need to gain control of the adversary’s weapon and step along the Square (Transverse Step) or along the Circle (Curved Step). If the adversary prepares a cut, you can strike with a thrust into his preparation and then quickly retreat. By fencing with an extended arm, the Spanish fencer enjoys an advantage in the number of Movements (and therefore Time) when working against an adversary that cuts.
The Spanish cuts (both full circular cuts and the half cuts) are usually actions that occur when the blade has already moved from the Diameter because of a defensive action or because the adversary has deviated your weapon. These typically have less reach than a thrust but correctly executed can be very powerful. Ettenhard indicates that cuts to the head are more common and that horizontal cuts to the body are dangerous and unusual in practice. Because the Proportionate Measure of a cut is larger than that of a thrust, you should never use the cut as your initial action. The greater number of Movements in the cut expose you to counterattack by the thrust. (Remember that an advantage in the count of Movements is also an advantage in Time.)
The Disarm (Movement of Conclusion) requires you to be close enough to seize the adversary’s hilt with your left hand. This typically requires passing forward with your rear foot and the distance you must travel to successfully execute a disarm can actually carry you to the opponent’s Line of Infinity. Because the Proportionate Measure is greater for the disarm, there is a greater degree of danger involved for a fencer executing the disarm.
Final Notes
Remembering the Terms - The two terms Measure of Proportion (Defensive Distance) and Proportionate Measure (Offensive Distance) can easily be confused. At the risk of being slightly silly, I offer the following mnemonic to help remember the difference between the two.
“When asked of his defense, the aggressive fencer ate his opponent.”
- You can remember defensive measure because it has an ‘of’ in the term - Measure of Proportion
- You can remember offensive measure because it has an ‘ate’ in the term - Proportionate Measure
Angle as Position - The angle of the weapon (Acute, Right, or Obtuse) is a common way of describing the position of the weapon in space. You will see the same anglular terms used to describe position in Destreza texts for different weapons, such as the single sword and even Montante.
This is all really fantastic stuff, Puck. How might you describe the movement of a practitioner of the Art in real time. I ask because your conclusions about walking the circle answer a lot of doubts I’ve had for a while. Retreat, advance, step offline? It reads to me as if the spanish fight, from a bystanders view, might look very similar to an Italian, minus the stance. Also, have you discovered anything approximating Constraint in the Spanish school?
By Mateo on September 1, 2009 3:24 pm
Hola Mateo,
I would describe them as ‘backward’, ‘forward’, and ‘transversal’, or ‘curved’ depending on the depth of the offline step. I would say the Spanish fight would look like similar to an Italian sidesword or early rapier tradition.
I’ve got at least one more article I need to write before I can notate an entire action and the counters, but when I get there hopefully this will answer your question better.
The Spanish have ‘Atajo’ which subjects the adversary’s blade from above, but it is part of the Art and not necessarily the Science. If the Science is the method of describing and understanding swordplay that can be applied to any fencing, the Art would be the specific Spanish implementation of the tradition. I want to spend a bit more time describing Science and Notation before I start talking about tradition-specific material like the Atajo.
I will get to the tradition, but I need to give my reader the tools to understand the jargon.
~P.
By puck on September 1, 2009 3:49 pm
In the larger scheme of things, the following comment is relatively insignificant, but I think I’d want to be a bit careful in going from a description of the concept of ma-ai in Aikido to a general (read: blanket) statement about “Japanese measure”–my understanding of ma-ai from kendo includes offensive measure. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maai . In kenjutsu, a traditional “guard” involves obscuring the length of one’s weapon from the opponent, and in so doing concealing one’s own effective ma-ai, and in jodo this tactic exists as well (obscuring the length of one’s weapon).
By Charles Blair on September 2, 2009 2:01 am
Nice work, Puck!
But I have to note a little mistake (that is, IMO, of course):
“You should also note that when two adversaries have a different Measure of Proportion, they will have different preferred Diameters and their imaginary circles will be defined differently.”
The problem is that the common circle don’t change depending of the length of a fencer’s measure of proportion, but with the actual distance between the oponents. The circle that changes depending on the length of a given fencer’s measure of proportion is the (surprise, surprise!) the “circle of the measures of proportion”, also called “orbe máximo” (¿maximum orb?), that is centered on the fencer’s centre and it’s radius is the distance from the fencer to the opponent when the fencer is in his measure of proportion.
The common circle can be described as, whatever the relative position of the fencers in a given moment, the line that links both fencers is the diameter of the common circle. Thus, it can be said that there is not “walking the circle” as you’ll never walk more than a step by the same circle.
Also, there are some other circles, concentric and smaller to the circle of the measures of proportion, that show the distances of each proporcionate measure, that are called circles of the proporcionate measures.
By the way, simplifying the measure of proportion and the proporcionate measures as distances, instead of digging a bit in the way of showing them as a combination of distante and relative position from the opponent, may sound like a fine starter, but can be misleading at the end (even the translation of “medio” as “measure” doesn’t fit exactly, you know, but… dammed if I know a better way) Anyway, it’s not easy with Destreza trying to write a “simple, begginer’s guide”: if you simplify too much, “mistakes” like that one appears; but if you put in all that is needed to keep it true and coherent, it cease to be simple in a dammed blink of an eye.
Anyway, I hope my notes will help you to improve your already outstanding work. And, of course, if you need some help or just to get into one of those ” civil and critical discussion of the system ” you speak of at Swordforum, I’m at your service.
Give my regards to Mary
P.D. Well, rereading again the article, I bet that both “mistakes” I speak of are deliberate simplifications. But still I think that they are a little too much.
By Miguel Palacio on September 9, 2009 11:05 am
Hola Miguel,
Good to see you! I’m literally heading to the airport this morning so I can’t discuss much until next Tuesday, but I’m glad to see you’re looking over the articles and providing feedback. I think the discussion can improve the presentation and that’s the ultimate goal.
~P.
By puck on September 9, 2009 5:38 pm
Hola Miguel,
Thanks for the notes on this and I agree with your feedback for the most part which makes it clearer. It isn’t that there are two Major Circles (common circles) but rather each diestro has a different goal when setting the distance and wants to create a common circle that provides an advantage in distance.
It is the non-cooperative nature of the adversary that makes stepping forward in distance so dangerous. If only I could convince my adversaries to let me do whatever I like!
;-D
I have also added an alternative synonyms for Medio de Proporcion (defensive distance or place) and Medio Proporcionado (Offensive distance or place).
Mary says ‘hola’ back and please keep up the feedback.
~P.
By puck on September 17, 2009 4:46 pm
(9/17/2009)
EDITS —
Changed this:
“You should also note that when two adversaries have a different Measure of Proportion, they will have different preferred Diameters and their imaginary circles will be defined differently. This indicates again that arbitrarily “walking the circle” isn’t a reflection of the canonical Spanish tradition. Each fencer will act with their own unique instance of the circle which describes the possible footwork and counter-footwork in a fencing action. ”
To this:
“You should also note that when two adversaries have a different Measure of Proportion, they will have different preferred Diameters and the circle each wishes to create will be defined differently. This indicates again that arbitrarily “walking the circle” isn’t a reflection of the canonical Spanish tradition. Each fencer will attempt to create a more favorable circle which describes the possible footwork and counter-footwork in a fencing action.”
Added additional synonyms:
Medio de Proporcion (Defensive distance or place)
Medio Proporcionado (Offensive distance or place).
By puck on September 17, 2009 4:51 pm
ok,again.you can complete this link with te termin “medio proporcional”.mentioned at LORENZ DE RADA ,WORKS,IF YOU HAVE NO IT’S ,ASK ME FOR THEM.IESUVINCIT
By IESUVINCIT on October 14, 2009 10:54 am
[...] LINK TO ARTICLE 3 [...]
By Spanish Fencing Notation Part 5 - Strength of the Weapon | A Midsummer Night’s Blog on November 3, 2009 7:01 pm
[...] Tell him about “the six general lines, the simple ones and the mixed, in which it is possible for the opponent to assume his stance, and show him how the line of the right angle has the greatest reach and defense” (f. 82r). (See Article.) [...]
By Pacheco’s Destreza Curriculum | A Midsummer Night’s Blog on December 16, 2009 8:21 pm
Hi, Puck!
Interesting blog, nice summary. I have been reading a lot of Destreza texts lately. Interesting that the definition of Medio de Proporcion changes, in my view drastically, over time. Rada says it’s when the points of the swords reach to the line of the wrist, rather than to the guard of the sword. I assume this is the result of the introduction of the cup hilt, which means that the hand is completely safe, and thus the measure changes. However, this makes a major difference in absolute distance, since it means a change in measure of at least 8 inches (length of the hand, more or less, times two.)
By Matt Galas on December 23, 2009 6:00 pm
Hola Matt!
Thanks for the note. I think there is definitely something to what you are saying and my thought is that the important concept is the principle of defensive distance or place that allows you to recognize and react/respond to the adversary’s offensive actions. I think a nuanced understanding like Ettenhard’s is ideal and the perfect distance will change depending not only on the weapon in your hand, but also according to body type, differing levels of experience, and your perception of the adversary’s possible dispositions. (We would place ourselves differently against a strong cutter than we might against an adversary with a strong lunge.)
Like the translated quote in the article above, Ettenhard is nice because he clearly indicates that some of the defined measures are not fixed and discrete but more qualified within context.
~P.
By puck on December 23, 2009 7:42 pm
I think Rada’s definition of Medio de Proporcion is very helpful in understanding the general concept. Paraphrased: In combat, the fencer has two conflicting goals. One is to be as close as possible to the opponent so that you can hit him easily. The other is to be as far away from the opponent as possible so he can’t hit you. The balance between these two competing goals is the Medio de Proporcion, which places you as close to the opponent as you can safely be without getting hit, and as far away as you can be while still having the ability to hit him if the opportunity arises. This explanation really helped me, and makes eminent good sense. It also explains why the Medio de Proporcion changes between Carranza/Pacheco and Rada (since the cup hilt means the hand is not endangered, so the fencer can be closer to his opponent without being in danger).
By Matt Galas on December 24, 2009 5:24 pm
Here is a formula for the Medio de Proporcion: MdP = 2a + b. “A” is the length of the arm from the point of the shoulder until the end of the hand (ie, just before the quillons). “B” is the length of the blade, measured from the quillons. (This is for the idealized MdP, with equal-sized opponents and weapons.)
Since the MdP applies to any weapon (sword, longsword, dagger), the size of the common circle will vary according to the value of “b” in the formula above. But the thread of continuity is the arm lengths of the fencers.
From this, it follows that in theory this should apply to unarmed combat as well. Thus, using the formula above, the MdP would be the combined lengths of the two arms, since there is no weapon. This leads to a kind of fundamental circle that has the length of the arm as its radius.
By Matt Galas on December 24, 2009 5:37 pm
One comment and question: I notice that you have not gone into the question of “Medio Transferido”, “Medio Apropriado”, and the rest. Would be nice to see another installment that goes through these, since I am still grasping to understand these.
By Matt Galas on December 24, 2009 5:44 pm
That’s a pretty detailed technical discussion but let’s look at it.
(WARNING - Personal interpretation follows.)
It might be easier to look at Proportionate Measure (PM) first.
Personal PM - The different offensive distances (or place) in which I can strike with different attacks safely when the adversary does nothing. (An attack possibly ‘out of time’)
Appropriated PM - The offensive distance (or place) in which I can strike because the adversary has moved. For example, changing guards within measure. (An attack ‘in time’)
Transferred PM - The offensive distance (or place) in which I can strike the adversary as he attempts to strike me. (Taking the adversary’s time or a counterattack. To this we can add ‘before’, ‘during’, and ‘after’ as our tempos for the counterattack. We can also react within a specific movement which provides us with a fine resolution for discussing attacks and counters.)
(For details See Ettenhard folio 75)
Again, this appears to be Spanish discussion of distance and time as closely related concepts. In the Italian tradition, these are all times… In the Spanish tradition they are both timing and distance.
Back to MdP —–
Personal MdP - The distance or place in which I can best react effectively to the adversary’s offensive actions.
Appropriated MdP - I have set the fencing distance so that it favors my Personal MdP and not the adversary’s.
Ettenhard doesn’t discuss a Transferred MdP, but if it were to follow the same pattern it might be a reversal in the advantage of distance taken as the adversary seeks to Appropriate the measure. (If seeking measure were treated like an attack, it would be the counterattack version of footwork that steals the good measure for yourself. For example… You have longer arms than I do so in the motion of your step, I step closer and find my Personal MdP while denying you yours.)
~P.
By puck on December 24, 2009 6:49 pm
Thanks, will work on digesting this.
I note that Brea also has the Medio Proporcional, which (as I understand it), is a transitional measure used to place the Atajo before moving into the Medio Proporcionado. Does this appear anywhere in Pacheco? Or is this a later adaptation?
By Matt Galas on December 25, 2009 7:46 am
Hola,
I think the first place this term showed up was Rada but I haven’t verified it. Miguel Palacio has a pretty good read on Rada and I think he mentioned it was a Rada innovation.
We’re more Pachequistas and Carrancistas here but we occasionally peek into Rada for specifics. (We’re currently neck deep in Ettenhard as we prep the text so in some sense we’re also a bit myopic at the moment. Ask me any question and you’ll probably get an Ettenhard answer.)
~P.
By puck on December 25, 2009 10:03 am