Page 1 of 1

Zornhau

PostPosted: 06 Jun 2012 08:28
by Alexander Pierre
Hi folks,

My group (PEAMHE, from Paris) has just uploaded a video on the zornhau (more to come): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOnd4Ki- ... e=youtu.be

Let us know what you think about it!

Alexander

Re: Zornhau

PostPosted: 01 Aug 2012 12:46
by Herbert
Nice video! Some things are spot on, with some things I differ - if only in details.
Doing the Zornhau-Ort you should not go backwards but rather stay where you are or even go forward.

Later more.

Herbert

Re: Zornhau

PostPosted: 02 Aug 2012 02:41
by David Kite
Those are smoothly executed and seem to use good control. I agree with Herbert about moving. Often the black shirt seems to wait passively for the red shirt's attack, and then step backward or to the side, both of which are bad, in my opinion.

I have had much better success in drills and in sparring by moving aggresssively into my opponent's attack with my own strike. As a suggestion, you may also want to experiment with beginning at different ranges to see if that affects the application of the techniques. Do you guys ever drill with more intensity? Or do any sparring or free play?

I also have some other disagreements, but most of those might be solved if the black shirt alters his response and moves forward. Otherwise, not too bad.

David Kite
ARMA in IN

Re: Zornhau

PostPosted: 08 Aug 2012 16:37
by Bulot
Doing the Zornhau-Ort you should not go backwards but rather stay where you are or even go forward.


then step backward or to the side, both of which are bad, in my opinion.


Out of curiosity, what makes back-stepping a bad form of Zornhau ?

Re: Zornhau

PostPosted: 09 Aug 2012 01:49
by David Kite
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