by David Kite » 09 Aug 2012 01:49
Well, I didn't mean a bad form of Zornhau as in "incorrect." But I will say tactically inferior. Stepping back alters the range, which of course alters the nature of the bind, putting the middle or weak of your weapon on a weaker portion of the opponent's. This, IMO, would make controlling the opponent's weapon much more difficult and gives the opponent the opportunity to change through (durchwechseln). If you step back far enough, it also negates the need, and therefore the utility, of a bind as well, since you can just void and nachreissen. I could see this being the case if you intended to end in Longpoint in the hopes that the opponent runs himself onto your point, which is useful, but I don't think follows the spirit of this particular play.
Of course, while writing this, I realize that most of us probably approach this material just as we see it in videos: two opponents facing each other set in a guard at a predetermined range waiting to execute a first strike. It's easy, I think, to see these things as being in isolation; one technique discrete from another. This is not necessarily the case, of course. Perhaps this is a second, third, or twentieth strike, where your opponent has executed a Zorn after disengaging from another technique and the weapons are in different positions altogether. If this is the case, then perhaps not only is stepping back a perfectly viable option, it may even be tactically advantageous.
David Kite
ARMA in IN