Thanks - good question. The description is quite brief: "Spring backwards as far as you can with both feet at once, without in any way altering the distance between them" That's all the description given; though in practice people tend to more naturally spring back in a "one-two" movement with their rear leg first followed by the front leg, or simply slip the front leg (which is an element of footwork missing from this video).
@@DanielPopeScholarVictoria Okay, very interesting that they emphasised the need to jump with both legs at once, as at first glance it seems suboptimal in terms of range of motion and dynamics. But perhaps there is something into it - do you have an idea on what are the pros there?
@@Sprechfenster it's definitely true that a spring back using the front leg and working more like a regular retreat, just with a leap, provides better range of motion etc. I believe that the one advantage this spring does have is that it allows an immediate lunge on landing; the feet are precisely in position to lunge straight away, with the rear leg already bent. With the alternative (more commonly seen in practice) leap back, the rear leg is extended for much of the motion, meaning that it can't push off in a follow up lunge until the backward motion is arrested and the rear leg resumes its bent position. This scenario is much like a ballestra in modern fencing, though the ballestra is a spring forward and a lunge, whereas this would be a spring backward followed by a lunge.
@@DanielPopeScholarVictoria Hm... That's interesting and I would have to experiment with it for a while to be able to engage fully in this talk, but I can't help mentioning that one of the reasons fencing coaches advocate for a backward jump started with rear foot (not both at once) is that it facilitates lunging right afterwards (you land en garde and have the rear leg charged up by the landing). I mean this sort of jumping retreat: ua-cam.com/video/5b6GYTSxO7g/v-deo.html Also, balestra is not necessarily followed by a lunge - often it is used as a part of the so-called "marching attack" to break the rhythm etc. And, at least classically, it is visibly started with the front foot, not both at the same time: ua-cam.com/video/2YEhUhzhpCM/v-deo.html Moreover, starting the jumping retreat and advance (aka balestra) with, respectively, the rear and the front foot goes a long way towards making these moves non-telegraphed and initiated in a very similar way to regular retreats/advances. That's why I am very curious about the possible advantages of jumping back as you described.
@@Sprechfenster in practice (and the way I typically do it) there is in fact some small initiation of the motion with the rear foot first; if you look at the second and third jump back in the video you'll see the rear foot initiates (in the first attempt I'm trying to stick to a strict double foot spring, in the second two the initiation is much clearer -the original footage was never meant for instructional purposes; rather I was using it for my own footwork experiments :) ). Both feet land at the same time though, which is also how it is largely taught in fencing from the 20th century for the spring backward (as opposed to a standard "leaping backward retreat). The move of the rear foot can be less exaggerated, as in the video you posted at ua-cam.com/video/5b6GYTSxO7g/v-deo.html, though "old school" fencing coaches still insist on the feet landing at the same time at the standard spacing - as with the balestra. Interestingly I find that if I'm already on the fast retreat (and very occasionally a fast advance!) I tend to use a simultaneous double leg spring, whereas if I'm using more cautious footwork with advances and retreats etc. I initiate with a slight movement of the rear leg first. In the former case it is probably the case that both legs are already "charged" to spring back at ones - especially with the added momentum of a fast retreat, whereas in the latter the tiny kick back provides that initial momentum as my lead leg is doing other things to be more deceptive etc. Your comment highlighting this has really made me think about it significantly more to arrive at this particular differentiation, so thank you! :-) As for the balestra not always being followed by the lunge - indeed; just as this retreat isn't always followed by one. Aborting footwork forward or back part way through is extremely common, and as you point out in your comment (and as mentioned in the video when mentioning the toe-life and kick out for the lunge) this helps make differentiating between footwork much more difficult. This is one of the reasons for the controversy with the "natural" lunging footwork in recent years - classically trained coaches use the argument of making all movements start the same way to make them difficult to read, while more modern coaches respond with "yeah, but this is how people end up doing it anyway at high speed" Some elements footwork, such as slipping the leg, cross stepping, or traversing (not shown in this video) are outliers to this principle, effectively breaking the rules we've previously set. To a lesser extend the backward leap seems to fall on the edge of this category - if conducted as a strict double foot spring it inherits from both a retreat and a slip, while if given a slight impetus with a fractional rear leg movement, it somewhat resembles a regular retreat, though both historical and more modern versions of the formal "jump" back both still advocate the landing of both feet in place, ready for lunge or follow up :)
Finally! Love this series so much, hope to see some sidesword coming up.
I'll try to do a sidesword video in when I can train again! :)
Great job (as always). I can't wait to see more!
This great material, nice job.
The intro is so cleaaaaan
Great as always.
One question on the backward spring - is this mechanics advocated in the sources you work with?
Thanks - good question.
The description is quite brief: "Spring backwards as far as you can with both feet at once, without in any way altering the distance between them"
That's all the description given; though in practice people tend to more naturally spring back in a "one-two" movement with their rear leg first followed by the front leg, or simply slip the front leg (which is an element of footwork missing from this video).
@@DanielPopeScholarVictoria Okay, very interesting that they emphasised the need to jump with both legs at once, as at first glance it seems suboptimal in terms of range of motion and dynamics. But perhaps there is something into it - do you have an idea on what are the pros there?
@@Sprechfenster it's definitely true that a spring back using the front leg and working more like a regular retreat, just with a leap, provides better range of motion etc.
I believe that the one advantage this spring does have is that it allows an immediate lunge on landing; the feet are precisely in position to lunge straight away, with the rear leg already bent.
With the alternative (more commonly seen in practice) leap back, the rear leg is extended for much of the motion, meaning that it can't push off in a follow up lunge until the backward motion is arrested and the rear leg resumes its bent position.
This scenario is much like a ballestra in modern fencing, though the ballestra is a spring forward and a lunge, whereas this would be a spring backward followed by a lunge.
@@DanielPopeScholarVictoria Hm... That's interesting and I would have to experiment with it for a while to be able to engage fully in this talk, but I can't help mentioning that one of the reasons fencing coaches advocate for a backward jump started with rear foot (not both at once) is that it facilitates lunging right afterwards (you land en garde and have the rear leg charged up by the landing). I mean this sort of jumping retreat: ua-cam.com/video/5b6GYTSxO7g/v-deo.html
Also, balestra is not necessarily followed by a lunge - often it is used as a part of the so-called "marching attack" to break the rhythm etc. And, at least classically, it is visibly started with the front foot, not both at the same time: ua-cam.com/video/2YEhUhzhpCM/v-deo.html
Moreover, starting the jumping retreat and advance (aka balestra) with, respectively, the rear and the front foot goes a long way towards making these moves non-telegraphed and initiated in a very similar way to regular retreats/advances.
That's why I am very curious about the possible advantages of jumping back as you described.
@@Sprechfenster in practice (and the way I typically do it) there is in fact some small initiation of the motion with the rear foot first; if you look at the second and third jump back in the video you'll see the rear foot initiates (in the first attempt I'm trying to stick to a strict double foot spring, in the second two the initiation is much clearer -the original footage was never meant for instructional purposes; rather I was using it for my own footwork experiments :) ). Both feet land at the same time though, which is also how it is largely taught in fencing from the 20th century for the spring backward (as opposed to a standard "leaping backward retreat). The move of the rear foot can be less exaggerated, as in the video you posted at ua-cam.com/video/5b6GYTSxO7g/v-deo.html, though "old school" fencing coaches still insist on the feet landing at the same time at the standard spacing - as with the balestra.
Interestingly I find that if I'm already on the fast retreat (and very occasionally a fast advance!) I tend to use a simultaneous double leg spring, whereas if I'm using more cautious footwork with advances and retreats etc. I initiate with a slight movement of the rear leg first. In the former case it is probably the case that both legs are already "charged" to spring back at ones - especially with the added momentum of a fast retreat, whereas in the latter the tiny kick back provides that initial momentum as my lead leg is doing other things to be more deceptive etc.
Your comment highlighting this has really made me think about it significantly more to arrive at this particular differentiation, so thank you! :-)
As for the balestra not always being followed by the lunge - indeed; just as this retreat isn't always followed by one. Aborting footwork forward or back part way through is extremely common, and as you point out in your comment (and as mentioned in the video when mentioning the toe-life and kick out for the lunge) this helps make differentiating between footwork much more difficult. This is one of the reasons for the controversy with the "natural" lunging footwork in recent years - classically trained coaches use the argument of making all movements start the same way to make them difficult to read, while more modern coaches respond with "yeah, but this is how people end up doing it anyway at high speed"
Some elements footwork, such as slipping the leg, cross stepping, or traversing (not shown in this video) are outliers to this principle, effectively breaking the rules we've previously set. To a lesser extend the backward leap seems to fall on the edge of this category - if conducted as a strict double foot spring it inherits from both a retreat and a slip, while if given a slight impetus with a fractional rear leg movement, it somewhat resembles a regular retreat, though both historical and more modern versions of the formal "jump" back both still advocate the landing of both feet in place, ready for lunge or follow up :)