Meyer’s Ochs? No, not quite.

As I was preparing for a Meyer longsword class I happened upon this video titled Longsword Guards of Meyer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFglqbsVcLA

Here is their ochs.

image

image image

And here is Meyer’s Ochs.

image

Corrections:

  • The right hand is gripping too tight.
  • The point is too high.
  • The left elbow is too low.
  • The left foot is turned the wrong way.
  • The left knee isn’t above the ankle.
  • The right ankle is rolled rather than being inline with the leg.
  • The head is exposed.
  • The entire left side of the body is exposed.
  • He isn’t looking at his opponent.

The reason I’m bringing this up is that if you asked me a week ago I probably wouldn’t have seen any of that. Especially the bit about the knee not being above the ankle; it took a yoga practitioner to teach me about that one.

The day before yesterday that was pretty my what my ochs looked like. Today I hope to do better.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Longsword, Meyer's Longsword and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Meyer’s Ochs? No, not quite.

  1. I find this often, techniques and positions shown in interpretations say they are such and such from whichever MS they often then have the original illustration nearby and then thet don’t look the same, mechanics, centring alignment, extension, weapon position and angle, hand position and grip, often all different, yet they say “this is such and such from this original” no it’s a version that looks something they feel it is but really isn’t. I have no problem of making something ones own physically but then say so, it shouldn’t be held as one thing when it is clear that it isn’t.
    Also a lack of accuracy on things that we can actually see and reference with specific accuracy, then draws in to question, for me at least everything thing they say after that. If one doesn’t get the things we see, the same why should I trust someone version of things that are more open.

    One then hears, “well the illustrations can’t always be trusted because….”
    Which can be the case, but then then don’t use them .
    Anyway this is turning in to a rant! ;)

    • Grauenwolf says:

      Imagine if Fiore presented his manuscript to his patron and it was full of errors. He’d be out on the street begging for scrapes of food. Fiore had to make sure it was right and the dozens of corrections in the Getty version attest to this fact.

      So no, I am not going to believe that the manuscripts are wrong without a really good justification. Not seeing is ok, ignorance is correctable with time and effort. But willfully disregarding the text one claims to study is shameful.

      • Oh yes, it is understandable that people don’t see, things, my isses is when people claim to knowledge which they may have, but claim an “authority” of attaching that specifically to a source, then to put up pictures which aren’t the same, if one can’t see see those differences then it calls in to question a lot of things.

      • Grauenwolf says:

        Even that’s ok in my mind. We can’t correct someone if we don’t know what it is that they are trying to do.

        But as a community we have to be willing to let our ego go and accept the recommendations of others with an open mind. The active hostility we often see is a real problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s