Can you feint a pommel throw? Unscrew the pommel, pretend to throw it, let the opponent wince, and then go in and attack? It would be a bit more humane than just throwing the pommel and ending the universe, I think.
Thats even less humane. You pretend to throw the pommel, they close their eyes and nothing happens, they open their eyes thinking that you missed them only to see your arm cocked back ready to throw an object of death.
Thank you for taking the time to make this clarification. I'm always interested in learning more about how HEMA works as unfortunately I don't have a club near me. I do practice Katori Shinto Ryu and the similarities between HEMA longsword and Katori are very fascinating. I will ask my sensei about feints in Katori and see what he tells me.
If i'm not mistaken i've seen feints in sparring sessions and matches,but nothing on historic applications. Even if there were individuals who engaged in it,most likely either it is considered a deviant move and not recorded or the records got lost in time somewhere.
Thanks for the updated video. There are a few things I'd like to add. Even in one of the examples you brought up it mentions when a feint is made in measure, your opponent will/can strike you. This is vital. A feint made in measure will put you in tremendous danger, and is not the norm. Second, the concept that because a feint does not provide threat nor defence, it means you will be struck. This is not true. When feinting, it is often possible to provide cover against a counter, whether you expect one or not. Distance is vital again here. If you close too much, or go forward with the foot before the sword, you are really vulnerable. About Capo Ferro. He does say that feints are not good, and goes on to say why. But it is important to understand how language is used here. He isn't saying don't use them. He is outlining their weaknesses, as all techniques have weaknesses. He later goes on to explain how a clever man would use them in a variety of his plates. Capo Ferro understands both the importance and weaknesses of the feints. Going to another source I use a lot, Roworth (Sabre/Broadsword). He says 'A feint is an offer at a cut or thrust without striking home'. He very clearly means to deliver a simulated or fake attack. This is further clarified when he says 'The single feint is made by disengaging from that side on which you are opposed by your adversary's guard, and making a slight motion at the other, you then return to the first and deliver the cut.' Notice a slight motion. A simulated attack, not a determined attack which then changes course. Changing course during an attack is different to a feint, and both techniques are valid and useful. A feint is weak when people cannot sell it well, or close too much distance in their feint (when they are not threatening). So its true to say that feints are not wrong if done well. But no more so than any other technique. A Zornhau that is obvious to see can be struck around just as easily as a feint can be struck in to. Feints are a martially sound and very important part of swordsmanship.
Nick, I know you do sabre and dussack, but your comment about "go forward with the food before the sword" will that be true across systems, even if you're using something that is not following a more 'sabre-y' style of footwork? Arming sword/traverse stance for example?
Moving the sword before the foot is a standard method of timing to ensure you don't telegraph and create openings, so yes. There are examples of where the foot can move without the sword, (an appel, a beat with the foot, as a feint). But this is still done without closing distance. If you step in to distance when feinting, you are hugely exposed to a time hit. Some get away with it by using enough threat and aggression that they intimidate their opponent in to not responding, but that only works so far.
Hugh Quigley - A feint is basically fooling your opponent to block and create an opening for you to strike. In this video, he's just correcting himself from a video he posted today.
*Kudos on updating your video* ! :) The reason I know feints work is because I've used them during sparring, both empty handed and when fighting with swords. *Feints can be anything from a head nod, hip rotation, shoulder turn, quick step, or just a quick re-positioning of your hands or feet* . It's anything to make your opponent believe that an attack is coming right now so that they perform whatever defensive move they're about to perform... while you remain out of range. Only after your opponent's defence (against nothing) is exposed or their counterattack (against nothing) is performed, do you perform the real attack, thereby catching your opponent in a defenceless position. *Feints that involve taking a "half arsed" cut and then changing to a different cut mid-swing are really going a step too far because a poorly performed initial cut leaves you exposed and within range of a counter* . (I think that was the point of your previous video.) It is possible to do this kind of feint, so long as your opponent counters with a block and not a strike. If your opponent likes to counter attacks with cuts, then this approach will have problems. If your opponent prefers to block and then counter, this type of feint can work well. But you leave yourself at the mercy of what your opponent does. Like you mentioned, a feint has to be done well in order to trick the opponent. :)
*Attacking a feint is an effective counter against a feint.* It means that that person is a counter striker, he attacks an attack rather than defending from it. It is done by experienced individuals. *The purpose of a feint* is to know the reaction of your opponent. You can use a feint as a means of drawing his counter (if you're sure he's going to counter) and counter his counter. IF he doesn't react to an initial feint then it means he reacts slow or reacts at the last moment. You can then just attack with a simple attack knowing your opponent's unreactive response.
Dean Natuno a counter fighter evades the attack and attacks the attacker, not the attack itself. edit: maybe that's the context you intended, I'm not sure. but everything else you said I completely agree with. they are sound, fundamental and universal principles of counter fighting.
But then again, if your opponent is skilled enough to see your feint in time to react slowly on purpose in order to trick you, you're probably doomed anyway.
you're describing fourth intention, specifically feint by time first intention is a simple attack second intention is a feint, which then be negated by a parry or counterattack second intention is also counterattack. funny how second intention offense can negate second intention offense third intention is countertime, expanded upon a feint. countertime negates counterattack as when fencer A feints and fencer B counterattacks, fencer A abandons the feint for a parry for the countertime fourth intention, specifically feint by time, feint around the countertime as the countertime is a parry. this means that when fencer B counterattacks & fencer A countertimes with a parry after abandoning the feint, fencer B feints by time to feint the countertime if your weapon is extending for the offense and the opponent's weapon is not extended and it wishes to negate your offense, your weapon can deceive
Thank you for the history lesson but what would you do in those situations? At that point the combatant throwing the first feint wouldn't gain much from the feint seeing as the opponent receiving the feint is now feinting the counter attack. Actually they might be at a disadvantage because now the opponent can follow through with the counter or feint or feint into another attack..... That can be feinted. SO AFTER ALL THAT, Maybe attacking a feint is pretty useful.
10:54 "I started winning a bunch of fights, but then everyone got wise to me" - alright, but this... wouldn't happen in real life? In historical times, most people who would've lost to you would be likely dead or crippled, and WOULDN'T have a chance to fight you again to realize you have a pattern. You'd need to fight enough duels that you'd get a reputation as 'that guy who uses a lot of feints', which is unlikely.
Probably not. People were practicing this system and they were doing it without killing or injuring each other. You need to be able to practice a system, otherwhise you can never learn to use it. It's unlikely that most fencers were ever involved in a duel to the death: if, as a fencer, you have just one such duel per year and we start with an amount of 1000 fencers, after 10 years almost everybody is dead. Another source: even in a city like paris in the 16th century, judicial duels were rare. There was one every 30 years or so. People practiced these systems on a daily and were able to learn about feints and about the different styles their peers had. But even in a duel to the death or dangerous injury, there probably is time for the combattants to learn about each others style. In such a situation you would most probably approach the opponent very, very carefully and do a lot of stuff outside of measure. There are accounts of such duels that commonly lasted more than an hour. I'm not arguing against feints. I think if we also count feinting an opening as a feint, every exchange that leads to a clean hit will involve feints. The only exceptions I can think of is if one of the combatants is significantly stronger and faster and more skilled than the other one.
experienced fighters can adjust during the fight and not after, so it's not unlikely to get "wise" during a fight or after getting hitted; you should be able to learn about your opponent on the fly if you want to be successful fighting people (that's what can give you a real advantage, also)
I don't see why you called this a correction. It's like bluffing in poker. You don't bluff unless you know (or strongly believe) that you're going to be succesful in leading your opponent to where they want to be. Whether or not "they are wrong" is dependant upon who you are up against and your own abilities
Any fellow who actively welcomes constructive criticism is well deserving of respect. You're a rare sort, and things like this are a major reason why I enjoy your videos. Keep up the great work!
I dont know how it works with sword-fighting, but in hand-to-hand martial arts feignts are extremely important. They're used to gauge an opponents reactions and create openings for strikes. Feignts in the middle of a combination are especially tricky and are one of the best ways to set up a knockout blow.
When you talk about this "Changing the mindset" idea about treating the feint as a real attack and then responding all I'm hearing is " Don't do bad feints. Do good ones" When I used to do foil fencing when we did feinting drills, the partner being attacked shouldn't respond unless the initial attack is convincing and If they never respond you would just finish your attack without any feint. To me your alternative to feinting is just do better feints. now the situation that is again described at the end of this video about novice fencers discovering feints and over using them: I entirely agree. When i figured out how to feint in my first year it immediately became my entire game. But my instructors warned me to be careful and if I'm going to try and set up feints I need to vary them widely and always treat them as a real attack just in case the opponent does not respond. cheers mate I really did your openness to having a discussion on the topic!
I'm glad you clarified. In every type of swordfighting I've done I've been told about feints that they should always have the potential to turn into real attacks should your opponent give you an opening, which causes your previous video to be summed up in my head as "bad feints are bad". Something I think is very applicable from Foil to this topic is the Tactical Wheel, which is a series of actions that beat the previous one. There are more complicated forms I won't get into that only really apply to Foil because it has priority, but in its simplest form it starts at Direct Attack, followed by Parry Riposte, then Compound Attack (so an attack with multiple parts, such as a Feint Disengage, or even merely changing lines), followed by Counter Attack (if your opponent is doing something fancy then just hit them), and finally goes back to Direct Attack.
Re-posting the question I asked on the last video as I'm still curious: As an additional question, what about feints where you leave a deliberate opening that you know how to exploit- I don't know the proper terminology to use, but say you're very comfortable countering overhand cuts so you leave an opening for an overhand cut? Is that considered a feint (or even a thing at all) in HEMA, and if so does it suffer from the same problems as the false attack feint?
I wouldn't call that a feint, more of an invitation (you could call it a form of bait though). Deliberately presenting openings that you're ready to defend is quite common.
in Italy we call a provocazione, a taunt, where after an attack you leave very large opening for the opponents to attack. We call invitation the opening of the guards, where you want the opponebt to strike if he is active
the term in fencing is invitation feints are offensive, invitations / openings are passive defensive the tactical problems of feints are not transferrable to the tactical problems of invitations
Hi Skall, I had the same "epiphany" recently, after many year of praticing martial arts, both armed and unarmed. I agree 100% with what you say, but it's really difficult to grasp the subtle difference between feinting with or without the "intention" or the "commitment". I had an interesting conversation on this exact topic with one of my masters, and I was asking him, how could I fake and attack in such a way that my opponent will believe it is a real attack, when in my mind it is not. The answer was simply that you can't. (of course if facing an experienced opponent, otherwise everything will work). The point is that in your mind you have to commit to the attack, this is the only way to make that attack believable, and actually dangerous for your opponent, but you have to do this, while keeping your mind ready to change at a moment's notice, and react to your opponent only if that is actually needed. It's a subte sensation and difficult to get, but it's definitely there. This is, of course, just my opinion and my personal experience, and although I've be practicing martial arts for a long time, I don't see myself as an expert. Great content by tha way! And thanks for bringing such a delicate topic onto this platform. Keep up the good work
Great video Skal, I'm a For Honor player and HEMA enthusiast. I really enjoyed your free association here. When played (or fenced) at high level, or even by any lucky aggressor, you can be stuffed by a quick committed attack while feinting with offensive intent, unless your motion is fluid enough to deceive and has the spacing to be a true counter feint. However with quick enough reflexes and defensive intent, a quick feint to neutral, even "in measure" can be effective at prompting a countermeasure. Whether your opponent reacts defensively or commits an attack, you could, at least in theory, have time to react and strike accordingly. In conclusion, I think feinting has got many new fighters killed and probably saved a few older ones who knew how to read an opponent
you dont have to be first or even in the top 10. Just attempt to comment on the video to set a better example for the rest >.> Thank you Skall for clarifying your earlier video, i havent watched the original yet but saw you just uploaded this so i wanted to take the opportunity to at least show my gratitude for your willingness to take criticisms as a content producer, and your unbiased information in general. I dont have any hema classes or clubs around me to get a more direct feed of useful info, so for now you talking about it is the best source i have to learn about practical sword fighting techniques. It may not be a modern weapon but it is an artform in my opinion, and it is something i wish to dedicate my time to as its one of the few tangible real life skills i actually have any sort of interest or proficiency in. So thank you for being honest, and for taking the time to be as good as you can be at what you do :)
There are so many variations in feints body feints (the twitch to pull the counter that you pick up), feints with angulation, false feint/disengages where you don't change line, deliberately shortening the attack to have a safer pull of the opponents blade etc. Its hard for me to believe anyone would not be using them with court swords or rapiers at least.
When you said "a channel of this size" I looked down and was like "were the flip did all these people come from". I found your channel when you were at 20k and hadn't been paying attention to the subscriber count. Congrats!
I saw the last upload and thought "Oh no the internet's going to get it's holier-than-thou pants in a bunch over this" You can't leave anything up to common sense online. It's just not there to be relied on. Now, forced pommel memes? Those we have in spades.
I was glad to see at least some of the original video here, although more (or all) would have been better. There was a really good demonstration of the topic, and I personally did not misinterpret it as saying “feints are never a good move”. More, I came away with a better idea of how feints are best enacted and how the subtleties of defining an effective “transformation” move versus a risky feint is more about semantics. In the end, feint may be more specific in your context, but in general public parlance it covers both move types since we don’t use that more specific (but welcome) bit of distinction.
Thanks for the continuing discussion. Feints need to be a viable threat but they also need to be safe threats. If the threat gains a reaction then another intention can follow. They are used to cause a reaction and gain tempo / time. If the threat does not gain a reaction, the feint can turn into an offensive cut or thrust. As always, it depends; context. Where an issue may be is performing them safely and making the correct decision at the correct time.
This is what I have been taught: Never pretend anything. If you move, it is in such a way as to actually destroy your enemy. A good "feint" is a viable attack that you expect to be countered, but sets up another attack. ie: there is no such thing as a feint, as it is often thought of. A "feint" is, most simply, the act of being ahead of your enemy. If your enemy is skilled, you must know that they will attempt to counter your first movement. This does not mean that your first movement of the engagement should not present a real threat, in fact to do so would be disrespectful. I think this method is in keeping with the video. Skilled martial artists who say "there is no feint," are practicing the same thing as people who are quite good at the feint. Martial artists of the first kind, in my experience, consider psychological manipulation an entirely different matter.
Tane Sorby i agree. The physical motion/action of the one feinting is meant to cause a phycological reaction in the defender to react in a way the attacker can then anticipate and react. Just because master fighters often feint quickly and in fluid motion with their intended strike doesn't mean that feinting isn't a thing or effective. And as far as "disrespecting" and opponent by moving without intent to damage sounds edgelord to me. What do you call spacing and footwork then? Feinting is risky. Like holding a sword in measure with someone else who has one. Right? Right.
And for the record I do agree that your first move should not "always" be a feint. But your first move should not "always" be anything. It should adapt. And any Sensei I have ever studied under taught reaction and defense is how you beat aggression. So in theory, you should never move first and only react to your opponents strikes. If you are fighting an opponent who knows this and you have reached a stalemate, yet you are both still intent on killing each other, someone may find it less risky to feint defensively rather than risk be countered by an easily parried blow. Cheers
The problem in my opinion is that you tend to over complicate your points. There are tons of varibles where either can work. BUT I do understand with main point they can leave your defenses open.
Honestly, I feel like your first video did it complete justice. There's a distinction in my mind between a bait and a feint; one is to goad out an attack, the other is to strike with a backup plan ready when it's obvious they will set aside your first offense.
I may have to make a video to clarify myself but as a modern (i.e. sport) fencer there is specific ways that you have to feint. Now this is in mind with smallsword and sabre but this is based off the rules from the 1880's. When you change lines during an attack you cannot pull your arm back and should be a continuous motion. If you pull your arm back then its called a preparation and you loose right of way. Feints are good for people with a parry based defense. If you attack a line and you know he's going to parry then you should be able to assume what parry he's going to use by the line you cut. Then when he goes for the parry you change lines and strike the open area. Now for counter heavy people you can do something similar called a counter parry or second intention. Its like a feint but instead of doing another attack you bait them to counter where then you can parry and riposte. As for the whole hand-to-hand reference Bruce Lee did fencing and incorporated a lot of the strategies in his book "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do". He uses terms like riposte, stop hit, and second intention in the book for specific unarmed techniques. Though using a weapon is very different from unarmed fighting doesn't mean you couldn't learn something from it.
I find it very curious how in the last few minutes i find a lot of paralels between skalls explanation and some techniques we have in kendo. Shows how there would amways be some constants in cross cultural martial arts :D
Off topic, but Skall, could you review the Schrade SCHF21? I'm interested in buying a carryable fixed blade dagger for self defense, and that one seems like an interesting option. It's made from 1070 high carbon steel, which I guess is simple but effective. I'd like to know your opinion, as well as any other suggestions you might have. That knife's price is my ideal price as well. Thanks!
How about using a shield or your off-hand to misdirect, distract or obstruct the view of your opponent? Would that change things. (Assuming it counts as feint.)
I don't know if this counts as a feint, but what I have found that works occasionally for me is during a fight I like to fight without using my full range first, doing teasing/ testing strikes on the forward step and then when I see he/she is going to advance and counter I will do a full range strike on a soft back step. I then immediately follow with a hard push off my back foot to keep him or her from pressing their first advance. If the feint is defined as an attack meant to deceive the opponent as to your true intentions or ability, then I believe it counts.
3:57 This summons it up pretty nicely: "act as if you would strike" the difference should not be apparent to the opponent. I'm not in HEMA but the concept should be the same in all Fighting Arts: You don't fight with the weapon, you fight with the body. I learned that hip movements are way more important that feet movements and arm movements alone are almost meaningless. However in terms of visibility it's the exact opposide, hip movements are barely noticeable and arm movements can be used to confuse the opponent. For example, when you commit to a strike you move your hip and set your weight into the step, when you faint, you only move your foot, while keeping most of your weight on the other to change the direction at any time. And once you move your body your arms will follow no matter where they have been before.
Skallagrim, can you please make a video about LARP combat? By not being allowed to hit the head and to stab and wielding wobbly weapons and mostly fighting against "beginners" it poses many questions that HEMA/experioence might answer.
I would call it a feint only if it was intendially and forhand planned. If you change on the fly, I would call it a redirecting (adjusting due to the sitation). The outcome may be the same but the intend is what makes the difference.
I don't think you said anything so fundamentally wrong in your other video that this correction were necessary. I mean, you made perfect sense, you illustrated your point and you backed it up with years of experience. There's virtually no need to entertain the keyboard warriors.
The sword shop you’ve linked in your description seems to have some exceedingly high standards of customer service, I came to this conclusion soon after just reading their FAQs.. Very rare to see day in age. I live in the UK though so I can’t buy anything.
Skall I feel anybody who is into HEMA will understand what you meant in the video. Don't get me wrong I think it's a good idea you addressed this in this video for those who aren't into the sport or what not, but i got what you meant in the video and understood what you were going for. edit: I live in Quesnel and am taking a trip down to Blood and Iron in Vic. I'm 21 and thought it's about time I got into actually sparring. Even though it might be a little late compared to some of the pros.
I agree and I think this video was needed for those who took it in the wrong direction. Even those other HEMA channels. You did a good job filling in the gaps some people had with the video. edit: for those fans who took in it the wrong direction*
In the first part of his book Capo Ferro writes how feints are no good because they open you up for a counter thrust. In the second part (the plays) he almost allways says "had he been wise his attack would have been a feint, so that he would parry the counter"... So that confusion is as old as the art itself
The way I was taught it in sabre is - you know your first cut will get parried. You anticipate that parry and are ready to change the angle of your cut (most likely to the parrying arm), however your feint is a true attack - if he doesn't parry you follow through and finish the cut. And you don't feint in a situation, where a commited attack would be to risky. And this makes good feints realy hard to pull of successfully. Most people just do some very hectic and half hearted thrusting - or flailing their blad around left an right - that should never provoke another response, than a hard counter thrust.
As an complete amteur i would like to ask: when does the action you are performing become a simply reacting to a defense, and when does it become a feint?
I would say it depends on if you intend for the original strike to go through or not. Simply reacting to a parried strike is, well...just a reaction. If you fully intended for the original strike to be deflected, and are just using it as an opening for your intended damaging strike, then it is what one would consider a 'feint.' Of course, a skilled swordsman would probably be thinking two steps ahead and already have a plan of action if the original strike fails, so it kind of varies between individuals and their mindsets. Some people will say it is just planning ahead, some people will say it was attempting to feint.
engaging the opponent's blade after they engage your blade can be "simply reacting to a defense" fencer A engages fencer B's blade to displace fencer B's point offline and put fencer A's point inline fencer B engages fencer A's blade to displace fencer A's point offline and put fencer B's point inline fencer A engages fencer B's blade to displace fencer B's point offline and put fencer A's point inline fencer B engages fencer A's blade to displace fencer A's point offline and put fencer B's point inline and so on to infinity until one fencer wants to attack displacing the opponent's point offline while simultaneously putting your point inline is defensive for many reasons, especially in rapier and smallsword the "engagement" can be used as a preparation to the feint fencer A engages fencer B's blade to displace fencer B's point offline and put fencer A's point inline fencer B ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE fencer A's blade to displace fencer A's point offline and put fencer B's point inline fencer A disengages to avoid fencer B's engagement so that fencer A can do a feint
Charles Roworth (1798) refers to feints as "an offer at a cut or thrust without striking home". He also describes the action as "making a slight motion", which seems to mean that it is not intended to be a committed strike. However, if the opponent doesn't respond at all, the logical thing to do is to complete the attack. He does mention the importance of speed and timing, as well as the risk, as you mentioned, of "receiving a time cut or thrust". Furthermore, he mentions the danger of feinting with a sabre when opposing a spadroon or smallsword, as both are quick thrusting weapons and can take advantage of openings created by a wide motion.
I know you've said before that you don't have much interest in Eastern Swordsmanship, but your preferred method of feinting sounds a lot like some japanese techniques I've read of. It basically just emphasized the idea of not distracting yourself by trying to plan elaborate attacks, but using parries and feints as reactions that were demanded in the exact moment they presented themselves. I believe the book was called The Sword & The Mind by Yagyū Munenori if you're interested.
It is not that feints are a bad utility. Like any technique in combat, it is awful to be predictable and reckless at the same time. As stated in the video, feints are just as resource and focus intensive as a real attack. The feint is a tool to probe for predictable defenses and reactions. Attacks punish people trying to wait for a reaction. Feints punish people for trying to use the same defensive reaction. Parries punish people for trying to use the same offensive action. The fact of the matter is, if you don't utilize all of the tools in your toolbox, you will never grow. Also, armor punishes people for using a sidearm.
Thank you for the clarification. I hope people weren't being too harsh in the other video. I hope I didn't come off like that. Everything should be constructive. I've learned alot from your videos. But I do have some strong opinions on certain points because of my personal experiences. keep on making awesome videos skall
Thanks for the video Skall, I knew you where just over exaggerating to get your point across. Good on you for clarifying instead of getting angry. Good vide your way.
It takes a good man to recognize they may have been wrong, or at least giving off the wrong impression. Especially in a situation like this where you might not have been 'wrong', just stating it in a...misguiding way, or what have you. I'm sure everyone knows the frustration of saying the right thing the wrong way and giving off a completely different impression than what you were aiming for. Even worse is trying to correct it afterwards...I digress, though. The point is, good on you for fixing whatever the mistake might have been. (I hadn't watched the original video before it was taken down and replaced by this, so I can't say fo sho.) Anyway, to the topic of the actual video at hand...Maybe Ferro disapproved of the idea of feinting, as it's a vain and deceitful tactic, but still felt it necessary to detail their usage as a swordsmanship instructor? While he dislikes them, he can't completely discredit their use, and therefore needs to explain them in greater detail for anyone that doesn't feel the way he does. Potentially as a way of showing students what to be wary of when going against an opponent that is willing to perform these...riskier maneuvers. Perhaps he even held a similar viewpoint as you did, not necessarily disapproving of the concept of feinting itself, but of the preconceived notions people had on the subject. I haven't read the passages in question so it's hard to actually understand the minutia of the text, but that just seems like it could be a possibility. Do correct me if it isn't this way at all, and he just outright states they are BS and shouldn't be used. (Before showing how they can be used because...reasons?)
Sounds bit like how we do things in Escrima Concepts. Meaning that usually feinting calls for opponent to strike but redirecting the hit just when opponent reacts is viable strategy.
This is from a katana manual, but I think the basic point is the same. In hagakure musashi reiterates over and over again that every move you make should be done with your thoughts focused on nothing more complicated than "cut down opponent." Feint moves that are overly planned out and presented tend to be hesitant and obvious affairs that leave you open to the reflexive actions and follow through from your opponent. The ones that come from your own reflexive response to your opponents defense however, are quite potent. Any fight involving melee is extremely fast. Those who hesitate to think out anything often find their thoughts are interrupted by something hitting them. This is why drilling moves into muscle reflex is so important in every style of martial art.
Very intressting... lot to think about :D what i took away from this and the last video: feints are not "Fake attacks" Feints are part of an elaborate "Ploy" or set-up for one swordfighter by getting to dictated the "flow" of the battle Feints should be deliverd in a way that each outcome furthers the swordfighters goal a thought i had about that: Feints should be committed attacks transform in the last moment in to something else. Thatswhy fighters train to make thier moves flow into each other also im not a HEMA practioner just a intressted layperson.
I was under the impression that he was trying to say that you dont want to just do a feint, with that being the only mindset. You need to make sure that if the move is countered properly that you are safe. Also just because he says they arent good, saying how to perform a feint is still necessary, as it could still work and the only way to learn how to face such an idea even if non-optimal would be to practice and face such threats
Sorry if I'm talking off topic, but please do a review on Kingdom Come: Deliverance, I wanna know what you think about the game, especially the combat in it.
O.K., that makes sense. I think most of that was covered in the main video, but it certainly bares repeating. I never did get the hang of them, though.
Feints are tricks. You can always take someone by surprise by doing something novel, but to anyone who has seen you do it before, it is not a novelty. I trained in Haidong Gumdo for a number of years, and my instructor and I were the only ones in the club who did any contact sparring. He was MUCH better, faster, and braver than I was, but I scored a lot of points on him by feinting, changing my timing, or misrepresenting when I was "engaged". These tricks consistently worked twice - once surprised him, the second allowed him the opportunity to analyze my trick, and the third (yes I always did it too many times) always failed. However, I learned that I could score points with novelty, and made an effort to be novel during matches. Things like interrupting my stance changes, drop my guard for a half second, start exclusively attacking his forward toe until he was expecting it then strike high... it was a game to me to find something that he wouldn't expect and that abused his structure. And it worked enough that I could actually score points against him. I don't think I ever scored an "honest" hit in a year of sparring. Feinting is just a trick, it only works if it is novel (unexpected). If you were to fight a fresh opponent every match, you could probably win every fight with feints, but as soon as the word is out and your trick becomes predictable, it can be abused by your opponent, the same way I abused my instructors more formal structure.
I would rater say that it is a chain attack insted of a faint. The same goes for unarmed martial arts, all attacks must be ment to hit. As you talked about, "movment" faint are smart to use. Also using movments to lock the opponent in a movment pattern that are easy to read.
As a long time RPG player I don't understand what's all the fuss about. If you study the 'ancient' manuals there's clearly stated what level, what perk and what stats you must have to feint. Skall, clearly you're too low level still, just give it time! :P ( You're great, keep up the excellent work you're doing)
I respectfully want to point that maybe you're not taking some things into consideration about the measure (like reach or skill difference in knowing your actual measure). I rarely work with weapons in the martial art I practice so I may be biased, but one of the basics we practice the most is distance reference (I must signal that we use things like attacks to the crotch, the knees, or the eyes -obviously fully protected or with extreme care-). Those of us who are tall-ish (I'm 1'80m tall for example) are taught to use our full reach against smaller/shorter people so they wouldn't be able to touch us; this way, our faints are much safer (not more effective, though). For the rest, I think that feints should be only used in two situations: to exploit the overconfidence/underconfidence of your enemy or to punish any error on their judgement while in combat.
it sounds like feint is a mix. it is a strike that would hit but you know in your head that if you throw a certain type of cut, your opponent is likely to put out a certain type of defence and you are fully prepared for that so that when he is in the expected guard position, you already know what your next step is and thus change your strike within an instance without having to lose any time thinking about it
When I was learning Chinese martial arts we learned that a feint must still be a viable if the opponent doesn’t fall for it. Is this also true in HEMA and your experience?
I think people are misunderstanding the idea. The idea is to make a unknown situation in to a situation you know how to deal with. From a situation where you are in danger from not knowing what type of attack your opponent will do you do a "fake" attack, and get your opponent to do a reaction which you can exploit. A simple example is swinging your hand in the opponents face. Not with the intention to punch but to get your opponent to lift his arms and protect his face there by exposing other part of his body or his arms. I'm talking from a perspective of a Martial Artist that uses unarmed techneaques, and armed techniques with a sword, knife, and short staff.
In Aikido, a Feint is called a Suki (pronounce Tsuki) It means: Opening, the chance for a attack or technique It is a part of the technique. You don't separate the Suki from the actual attack. A Suki by it self if useless, and will get you hurt. The entire thing should be seen as a whole technique that stars with a movement that makes your opponent react and enables you to continue the technique or makes a opening to switch to a different technique. So practice, practice, practice or trow something at the attackers face, and run away :p
Aiki-ken Practice Much of aiki-ken bears little similarity to other modern sword arts. Rather than learning to "fight" with swords, the primary purpose of aiki-ken is to magnify errors in one's aikido technique, and to give the student an opportunity to apply the principles of aikido in different situations. Aiki-ken is practiced using bokken (a wooden katana) and has a wide variety of techniques. Saito codified two sets of techniques, the first being seven suburi(solo cutting exercises), and the second being five partnered forms. Some dojo also practice jiyu-waza armed with bokken (freestyle technique, without a predetermined form of attack and response). I'm reallying impressed how the techniques have, a lot of the same principles as Hema. Seams that we humans, are not so different when it comes to the same body restrictions. Even though different cultures same principles appear even if executed a bit differently.
A video about AikiKen ua-cam.com/video/aOTxmPq8cnI/v-deo.html I suggest watching the video techniques at 30:30 time stamp, and then watching the begining of the video. It will make it a bit easier to understand. I believe @Skallagrim would be interested in this :) I love your videos... Keep it up!
True but I think the issue here with feints has in HEMA often seems falls down to, you need to put a certain amount of actual effort into the strike that you're about to "feint" to the point it's basically just another attack that you plan to follow up with. If you don't put the commitment behind it, then chances are it's going to be ignored or an aggressive opponent is going to immediately counter it and press the attack by anyone who knows what they're doing or simply too oblivious to be thinking enough to fall for a feint. It seems to boil down to what Skall said in the actual video that, feints do work against beginners with understanding of sword fighting pretty well but they're just very risky for a fight against someone more experienced or just oblivious but aggressive.
I believe in HEMA, there is two sword fighting, or perhaps sword and buckler. In this case, I think a feint with one weapon (an attack that you're already planning to be blocked), then striking with the other from a different direction can be quite effective. I notice that many duelists tend to use both weapons to block one, leaving themselves open to the other weapon.
I don't understand the consensus that feints inherently leave you open. What if you feint into a guard or a krumphau? If you feint a standard overhead swing it can be transitioned into pretty much any guard you see fit, from which you can riposte, essentially forcing your opponent into action.
I didn't misunderstand your original point. What I took from it was that novices or inexperienced people should not feint, because it would not turn out well.
Most of my experience has been unarmed...but I've never seen a 'feint' as a half hearted attempt. It's a legitimate strike that is likely to be seen as dangerous and reacted to, because it's a legitimate strike that is dangerous. This could/would set up a situation that open up multiple options of things to do if the initial attack needs to adapt. For instance a fighter with a boxer stance keeps his arms up to protect his head...a blow to the lower abdomen is a real strike (yes above the belt) if the boxer lowers his arms to counter the strike he expects, his head is now open. Or the defender can absorb the attack which will wear long term. Assuming a boxing match a quick boxer could redirect his blow to the head or upper body, if the lower body shot is blocked. The defender could accept the attack (for awhile) or counter when the attacker is committed to the lower body. If you want to throw out boxing and go MMA... showing a boxing stance could lure an opponent into an assumption of style and cause your opponent to fall for a "feint" ...well let's go total "what ifs" at this point. Feints in my experience have been real attacks with a healthy dose of misdirection meant to lure the opponent into a false sense of predictability which the crafty attacker could then exploit. A pattern of jab/face, jab/face, jab/body a couple of three times and suddenly three jabs to the face will result in a black leading eye. A pattern of jab/face, jab/face, right hook/body a few times could open the head to a nasty right hook to the side of the head when the right hook is anticipated to the body or maybe a black leading eye with another jab. In the mean time a nasty right hook to the body in not insignificant. This is assuming a "fair fight". A boxing stance and showing jab/face, jab/face, right hook/body was an excellent set up for jab/face, jab/face, right hook/head, knee/balls when the fights got serious. Specifics would vary using sword, but the overall philosophy would remain. Set up expectations and violate the expectations. It works the other way around too, show defensive holes and encourage exploitation so it can be countered.
What sort of booby didn´t understand what you were talking about in the other video? You made yourself very clear. There was no need to make this video, you and the other guy (can´t recall the name) were pretty clear.
a feint should always be a committed attack first, but the intent and plan to take advantage of the opening it creates if it's defended against makes it work
From a Karate point of view: It takes a lot of training to make a feint really work. Especially against experienced fighters. So what we train in karate is to implement a feint into a combination and try to make it work against your training buddies. The main thing of course is timing. It only works if you can estimate how far you have to go into the feint to convince your opponent it's an actual attack but not to expose yourself to much. The easiest way to make a feint work is to at first actually attack a couple of times with the technique you later want to use as feint.
Technically speaking any attacks that you throw without the intention of them connecting fit the criteria for a feint. The purpose of this technique is simply to draw your opponents attention to an area that you do not intend to attack. Thus opening the path you desire to attack along. How you go about this, probably changes based on context. For instance, in boxing and other martial arts we sometimes take a punch to gain something of greater value. This tactic is nearly impossible when any blow could be lethal, such as when swords are involved. The principal behind these "non feints" in swordsmanship are very similar to feints, if not downright identical. Of course since swords can easily mame or kill you, you modify the concept so as to hedge your bets. In other words, we are probably splitting hairs. Which is fine, but we should be aware of it.
I know of a really good feint. You start your initial strike from any wished direction. But just before your blades connect as your opponent goes into a counter. You withdraw from the attack, taking one step back, UNSCREW YOUR POMMEL AND END HIM RIGHTLY!
I felt the original feint video relied on committing to an attack too much, it could be very useful out of measure to start an attack and change up and enter measure while they are moving to defend against the original attack which cannot land as you are not where you were supposed to be while they are where you wanted them. I do not see a feint to be in measure or fully committed. Just committed enough so they will react while still being a safe distance away. Feinting would be to manipulate their muscle memory into reacting at which point they wont be able to correct course to change enough to meat the real attacks. I have never heard of a feint being late in the attack but early, early as in as soon as they start to counter so they have to stop the counter and start the real one rather than go from guard to counter. The feint starts out of measure so they are not in guard anymore but actively going for a parry while you change the attack and get in measure where their parry may not be possible and their blade is nowhere near to you. Also a feint should be used with the real attack being done more than once already and properly defended against rather than a new attack. If they have already seen the attack more than once and have defeated it they will be more confident in the feint being that attack and will be more committed to countering it and more surprised when it is a feint.
meh i thought i had some issues so i thought you were right... my brother is a good feinter but i could definitely see he could improve his feints in those ays you mentioned...
i think the idea of using misconception against a similarly armed opponent sounds nice for most newcomers in theory, but they find that it wont work when fighting/sparring against someone who has a lot more experience. If anything i would suggest newcomers to focus on the basics, pose/stance, footing and being able to swing more efficiently, and i know i'm probably missing something here, but i'd say that's a good start.(and before anyone asks, no i am not into HEMA, i don't have any tutors/masters living near me, nor do i have the time for a 4th hobby that requires so much time, but learning the basics and actually putting in the time to practice them is a good mindset for any hobby, and the basics i mentioned seem to be the root of a majority of martial arts)
Can you feint a pommel throw? Unscrew the pommel, pretend to throw it, let the opponent wince, and then go in and attack? It would be a bit more humane than just throwing the pommel and ending the universe, I think.
So, like playing fetch with a dog and pretending to throw the ball…?
Thats even less humane. You pretend to throw the pommel, they close their eyes and nothing happens, they open their eyes thinking that you missed them only to see your arm cocked back ready to throw an object of death.
I think even threatening it might be a war crime.
I'm sure Geneva Conventions forbid this.
Actually you feint to throw the pommel but in reality you're throwing your blade.
Thank you for taking the time to make this clarification. I'm always interested in learning more about how HEMA works as unfortunately I don't have a club near me. I do practice Katori Shinto Ryu and the similarities between HEMA longsword and Katori are very fascinating. I will ask my sensei about feints in Katori and see what he tells me.
Let us know what he says!
If i'm not mistaken i've seen feints in sparring sessions and matches,but nothing on historic applications. Even if there were individuals who engaged in it,most likely either it is considered a deviant move and not recorded or the records got lost in time somewhere.
Thanks for the updated video. There are a few things I'd like to add. Even in one of the examples you brought up it mentions when a feint is made in measure, your opponent will/can strike you. This is vital. A feint made in measure will put you in tremendous danger, and is not the norm.
Second, the concept that because a feint does not provide threat nor defence, it means you will be struck. This is not true. When feinting, it is often possible to provide cover against a counter, whether you expect one or not. Distance is vital again here. If you close too much, or go forward with the foot before the sword, you are really vulnerable.
About Capo Ferro. He does say that feints are not good, and goes on to say why. But it is important to understand how language is used here. He isn't saying don't use them. He is outlining their weaknesses, as all techniques have weaknesses. He later goes on to explain how a clever man would use them in a variety of his plates. Capo Ferro understands both the importance and weaknesses of the feints.
Going to another source I use a lot, Roworth (Sabre/Broadsword). He says 'A feint is an offer at a cut or thrust without striking home'. He very clearly means to deliver a simulated or fake attack. This is further clarified when he says 'The single feint is made by disengaging from that side on which you are opposed by your adversary's guard, and making a slight motion at the other, you then return to the first and deliver the cut.' Notice a slight motion. A simulated attack, not a determined attack which then changes course.
Changing course during an attack is different to a feint, and both techniques are valid and useful. A feint is weak when people cannot sell it well, or close too much distance in their feint (when they are not threatening). So its true to say that feints are not wrong if done well. But no more so than any other technique. A Zornhau that is obvious to see can be struck around just as easily as a feint can be struck in to.
Feints are a martially sound and very important part of swordsmanship.
Nick, I know you do sabre and dussack, but your comment about "go forward with the food before the sword" will that be true across systems, even if you're using something that is not following a more 'sabre-y' style of footwork? Arming sword/traverse stance for example?
Moving the sword before the foot is a standard method of timing to ensure you don't telegraph and create openings, so yes. There are examples of where the foot can move without the sword, (an appel, a beat with the foot, as a feint). But this is still done without closing distance. If you step in to distance when feinting, you are hugely exposed to a time hit. Some get away with it by using enough threat and aggression that they intimidate their opponent in to not responding, but that only works so far.
Oh I understand now. I miss read entirely thought it was talking about distance instead of time =P Thanks!
I like how at the time of this comment it would be impossible for anyone (other than Skallagrim himself while editing) to have watched the full video.
XD tru dat
Even right now it's impossible
Inception
Plot twist, this guy had it in his Watch Later list
ua-cam.com/video/exBe2Paw21Y/v-deo.html
Don't need to watch a full video to decide whether you like it or not, or to have something to say about it.
I watch these videos but I have little understanding of what he’s actually talking about.
Hugh Quigley - A feint is basically fooling your opponent to block and create an opening for you to strike. In this video, he's just correcting himself from a video he posted today.
Oh ... I thought it's about making your opponent go to sleep.
Y’know, I’m glad I’m not the only one
930 8323 - That would be faint/fainting. This is called feints.
well a faint can also be used as a feint in rare circumstances....
*Kudos on updating your video* ! :)
The reason I know feints work is because I've used them during sparring, both empty handed and when fighting with swords.
*Feints can be anything from a head nod, hip rotation, shoulder turn, quick step, or just a quick re-positioning of your hands or feet* . It's anything to make your opponent believe that an attack is coming right now so that they perform whatever defensive move they're about to perform... while you remain out of range. Only after your opponent's defence (against nothing) is exposed or their counterattack (against nothing) is performed, do you perform the real attack, thereby catching your opponent in a defenceless position.
*Feints that involve taking a "half arsed" cut and then changing to a different cut mid-swing are really going a step too far because a poorly performed initial cut leaves you exposed and within range of a counter* . (I think that was the point of your previous video.) It is possible to do this kind of feint, so long as your opponent counters with a block and not a strike. If your opponent likes to counter attacks with cuts, then this approach will have problems. If your opponent prefers to block and then counter, this type of feint can work well. But you leave yourself at the mercy of what your opponent does.
Like you mentioned, a feint has to be done well in order to trick the opponent. :)
*Attacking a feint is an effective counter against a feint.* It means that that person is a counter striker, he attacks an attack rather than defending from it. It is done by experienced individuals.
*The purpose of a feint* is to know the reaction of your opponent. You can use a feint as a means of drawing his counter (if you're sure he's going to counter) and counter his counter. IF he doesn't react to an initial feint then it means he reacts slow or reacts at the last moment. You can then just attack with a simple attack knowing your opponent's unreactive response.
Dean Natuno a counter fighter evades the attack and attacks the attacker, not the attack itself.
edit: maybe that's the context you intended, I'm not sure.
but everything else you said I completely agree with. they are sound, fundamental and universal principles of counter fighting.
But then again, if your opponent is skilled enough to see your feint in time to react slowly on purpose in order to trick you, you're probably doomed anyway.
And if they feint their counter to your feint? It happens in For Honor so I'm guessing it happens in real life as well.
you're describing fourth intention, specifically feint by time
first intention is a simple attack
second intention is a feint, which then be negated by a parry or counterattack
second intention is also counterattack. funny how second intention offense can negate second intention offense
third intention is countertime, expanded upon a feint. countertime negates counterattack as when fencer A feints and fencer B counterattacks, fencer A abandons the feint for a parry for the countertime
fourth intention, specifically feint by time, feint around the countertime as the countertime is a parry. this means that when fencer B counterattacks & fencer A countertimes with a parry after abandoning the feint, fencer B feints by time to feint the countertime
if your weapon is extending for the offense and the opponent's weapon is not extended and it wishes to negate your offense, your weapon can deceive
Thank you for the history lesson but what would you do in those situations? At that point the combatant throwing the first feint wouldn't gain much from the feint seeing as the opponent receiving the feint is now feinting the counter attack. Actually they might be at a disadvantage because now the opponent can follow through with the counter or feint or feint into another attack..... That can be feinted. SO AFTER ALL THAT, Maybe attacking a feint is pretty useful.
10:54 "I started winning a bunch of fights, but then everyone got wise to me" - alright, but this... wouldn't happen in real life? In historical times, most people who would've lost to you would be likely dead or crippled, and WOULDN'T have a chance to fight you again to realize you have a pattern. You'd need to fight enough duels that you'd get a reputation as 'that guy who uses a lot of feints', which is unlikely.
the person you fight have friends and their are other onlookers. their are also persons that was kind of good at geting in to fights.
Probably not. People were practicing this system and they were doing it without killing or injuring each other. You need to be able to practice a system, otherwhise you can never learn to use it.
It's unlikely that most fencers were ever involved in a duel to the death: if, as a fencer, you have just one such duel per year and we start with an amount of 1000 fencers, after 10 years almost everybody is dead.
Another source: even in a city like paris in the 16th century, judicial duels were rare. There was one every 30 years or so.
People practiced these systems on a daily and were able to learn about feints and about the different styles their peers had.
But even in a duel to the death or dangerous injury, there probably is time for the combattants to learn about each others style. In such a situation you would most probably approach the opponent very, very carefully and do a lot of stuff outside of measure. There are accounts of such duels that commonly lasted more than an hour.
I'm not arguing against feints. I think if we also count feinting an opening as a feint, every exchange that leads to a clean hit will involve feints. The only exceptions I can think of is if one of the combatants is significantly stronger and faster and more skilled than the other one.
experienced fighters can adjust during the fight and not after, so it's not unlikely to get "wise" during a fight or after getting hitted; you should be able to learn about your opponent on the fly if you want to be successful fighting people (that's what can give you a real advantage, also)
It's good to learn from your mistakes and the pommel throw is always the right answer.
tom possessed *_"a right end is not always a right answer"_*
-me
"Righteous" answer
I don't see why you called this a correction. It's like bluffing in poker. You don't bluff unless you know (or strongly believe) that you're going to be succesful in leading your opponent to where they want to be. Whether or not "they are wrong" is dependant upon who you are up against and your own abilities
Exactly.
That moment when the anime character have a change of heart
top 10 anime plot twist
Any fellow who actively welcomes constructive criticism is well deserving of respect. You're a rare sort, and things like this are a major reason why I enjoy your videos. Keep up the great work!
From what I've seen of the comments, many HEMA laymen understood your video, but some HEMA channels did not. Its kinda funny
I dont know how it works with sword-fighting, but in hand-to-hand martial arts feignts are extremely important. They're used to gauge an opponents reactions and create openings for strikes. Feignts in the middle of a combination are especially tricky and are one of the best ways to set up a knockout blow.
When you talk about this "Changing the mindset" idea about treating the feint as a real attack and then responding all I'm hearing is " Don't do bad feints. Do good ones" When I used to do foil fencing when we did feinting drills, the partner being attacked shouldn't respond unless the initial attack is convincing and If they never respond you would just finish your attack without any feint. To me your alternative to feinting is just do better feints. now the situation that is again described at the end of this video about novice fencers discovering feints and over using them: I entirely agree. When i figured out how to feint in my first year it immediately became my entire game. But my instructors warned me to be careful and if I'm going to try and set up feints I need to vary them widely and always treat them as a real attack just in case the opponent does not respond. cheers mate I really did your openness to having a discussion on the topic!
I'm glad you clarified. In every type of swordfighting I've done I've been told about feints that they should always have the potential to turn into real attacks should your opponent give you an opening, which causes your previous video to be summed up in my head as "bad feints are bad".
Something I think is very applicable from Foil to this topic is the Tactical Wheel, which is a series of actions that beat the previous one. There are more complicated forms I won't get into that only really apply to Foil because it has priority, but in its simplest form it starts at Direct Attack, followed by Parry Riposte, then Compound Attack (so an attack with multiple parts, such as a Feint Disengage, or even merely changing lines), followed by Counter Attack (if your opponent is doing something fancy then just hit them), and finally goes back to Direct Attack.
Re-posting the question I asked on the last video as I'm still curious:
As an additional question, what about feints where you leave a deliberate opening that you know how to exploit- I don't know the proper terminology to use, but say you're very comfortable countering overhand cuts so you leave an opening for an overhand cut? Is that considered a feint (or even a thing at all) in HEMA, and if so does it suffer from the same problems as the false attack feint?
I wouldn't call that a feint, more of an invitation (you could call it a form of bait though). Deliberately presenting openings that you're ready to defend is quite common.
AGrumpyPanda agree, presenting an opening you are actually anticipating is bait. Hook, line, and sinker ;)
in Italy we call a provocazione, a taunt, where after an attack you leave very large opening for the opponents to attack.
We call invitation the opening of the guards, where you want the opponebt to strike if he is active
Davide Missaglia very cool
the term in fencing is invitation
feints are offensive, invitations / openings are passive defensive
the tactical problems of feints are not transferrable to the tactical problems of invitations
Hi Skall, I had the same "epiphany" recently, after many year of praticing martial arts, both armed and unarmed.
I agree 100% with what you say, but it's really difficult to grasp the subtle difference between feinting with or without the "intention" or the "commitment". I had an interesting conversation on this exact topic with one of my masters, and I was asking him, how could I fake and attack in such a way that my opponent will believe it is a real attack, when in my mind it is not. The answer was simply that you can't. (of course if facing an experienced opponent, otherwise everything will work). The point is that in your mind you have to commit to the attack, this is the only way to make that attack believable, and actually dangerous for your opponent, but you have to do this, while keeping your mind ready to change at a moment's notice, and react to your opponent only if that is actually needed. It's a subte sensation and difficult to get, but it's definitely there.
This is, of course, just my opinion and my personal experience, and although I've be practicing martial arts for a long time, I don't see myself as an expert.
Great content by tha way! And thanks for bringing such a delicate topic onto this platform.
Keep up the good work
Great video Skal, I'm a For Honor player and HEMA enthusiast. I really enjoyed your free association here. When played (or fenced) at high level, or even by any lucky aggressor, you can be stuffed by a quick committed attack while feinting with offensive intent, unless your motion is fluid enough to deceive and has the spacing to be a true counter feint. However with quick enough reflexes and defensive intent, a quick feint to neutral, even "in measure" can be effective at prompting a countermeasure. Whether your opponent reacts defensively or commits an attack, you could, at least in theory, have time to react and strike accordingly. In conclusion, I think feinting has got many new fighters killed and probably saved a few older ones who knew how to read an opponent
you dont have to be first or even in the top 10. Just attempt to comment on the video to set a better example for the rest >.>
Thank you Skall for clarifying your earlier video, i havent watched the original yet but saw you just uploaded this so i wanted to take the opportunity to at least show my gratitude for your willingness to take criticisms as a content producer, and your unbiased information in general. I dont have any hema classes or clubs around me to get a more direct feed of useful info, so for now you talking about it is the best source i have to learn about practical sword fighting techniques. It may not be a modern weapon but it is an artform in my opinion, and it is something i wish to dedicate my time to as its one of the few tangible real life skills i actually have any sort of interest or proficiency in. So thank you for being honest, and for taking the time to be as good as you can be at what you do :)
The best feint is from someone who never feint. It's a nice card to keep up your sleeves.
You.
I like you.
There are so many variations in feints body feints (the twitch to pull the counter that you pick up), feints with angulation, false feint/disengages where you don't change line, deliberately shortening the attack to have a safer pull of the opponents blade etc. Its hard for me to believe anyone would not be using them with court swords or rapiers at least.
When you said "a channel of this size" I looked down and was like "were the flip did all these people come from". I found your channel when you were at 20k and hadn't been paying attention to the subscriber count. Congrats!
I saw the last upload and thought "Oh no the internet's going to get it's holier-than-thou pants in a bunch over this"
You can't leave anything up to common sense online. It's just not there to be relied on.
Now, forced pommel memes? Those we have in spades.
I was glad to see at least some of the original video here, although more (or all) would have been better. There was a really good demonstration of the topic, and I personally did not misinterpret it as saying “feints are never a good move”. More, I came away with a better idea of how feints are best enacted and how the subtleties of defining an effective “transformation” move versus a risky feint is more about semantics. In the end, feint may be more specific in your context, but in general public parlance it covers both move types since we don’t use that more specific (but welcome) bit of distinction.
Good man, open thoughts with good old research! Good points made too.
It's nice that you're on top of correcting yourself when presented with new/better info, shows integrity
Much respect for being open to criticism and responding to it in the right way
Thanks for the continuing discussion.
Feints need to be a viable threat but they also need to be safe threats. If the threat gains a reaction then another intention can follow. They are used to cause a reaction and gain tempo / time. If the threat does not gain a reaction, the feint can turn into an offensive cut or thrust. As always, it depends; context. Where an issue may be is performing them safely and making the correct decision at the correct time.
This is what I have been taught:
Never pretend anything. If you move, it is in such a way as to actually destroy your enemy. A good "feint" is a viable attack that you expect to be countered, but sets up another attack. ie: there is no such thing as a feint, as it is often thought of. A "feint" is, most simply, the act of being ahead of your enemy. If your enemy is skilled, you must know that they will attempt to counter your first movement. This does not mean that your first movement of the engagement should not present a real threat, in fact to do so would be disrespectful.
I think this method is in keeping with the video. Skilled martial artists who say "there is no feint," are practicing the same thing as people who are quite good at the feint.
Martial artists of the first kind, in my experience, consider psychological manipulation an entirely different matter.
Justin Roundy yes I agree completely, and this apply not only in martial arts
I think people just misunderstand the word "feint"
Justin Roundy yes I agree completely, and this apply not only in martial arts
I think people just misunderstand the word "feint"
Tane Sorby i agree. The physical motion/action of the one feinting is meant to cause a phycological reaction in the defender to react in a way the attacker can then anticipate and react. Just because master fighters often feint quickly and in fluid motion with their intended strike doesn't mean that feinting isn't a thing or effective. And as far as "disrespecting" and opponent by moving without intent to damage sounds edgelord to me. What do you call spacing and footwork then? Feinting is risky. Like holding a sword in measure with someone else who has one. Right? Right.
And for the record I do agree that your first move should not "always" be a feint. But your first move should not "always" be anything. It should adapt. And any Sensei I have ever studied under taught reaction and defense is how you beat aggression. So in theory, you should never move first and only react to your opponents strikes. If you are fighting an opponent who knows this and you have reached a stalemate, yet you are both still intent on killing each other, someone may find it less risky to feint defensively rather than risk be countered by an easily parried blow. Cheers
Joe Blow agreed
Thank you for the correction Skall. I, as a viewer, appreciate it.
The problem in my opinion is that you tend to over complicate your points. There are tons of varibles where either can work. BUT I do understand with main point they can leave your defenses open.
Honestly, I feel like your first video did it complete justice. There's a distinction in my mind between a bait and a feint; one is to goad out an attack, the other is to strike with a backup plan ready when it's obvious they will set aside your first offense.
I may have to make a video to clarify myself but as a modern (i.e. sport) fencer there is specific ways that you have to feint. Now this is in mind with smallsword and sabre but this is based off the rules from the 1880's. When you change lines during an attack you cannot pull your arm back and should be a continuous motion. If you pull your arm back then its called a preparation and you loose right of way. Feints are good for people with a parry based defense. If you attack a line and you know he's going to parry then you should be able to assume what parry he's going to use by the line you cut. Then when he goes for the parry you change lines and strike the open area.
Now for counter heavy people you can do something similar called a counter parry or second intention. Its like a feint but instead of doing another attack you bait them to counter where then you can parry and riposte.
As for the whole hand-to-hand reference Bruce Lee did fencing and incorporated a lot of the strategies in his book "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do". He uses terms like riposte, stop hit, and second intention in the book for specific unarmed techniques. Though using a weapon is very different from unarmed fighting doesn't mean you couldn't learn something from it.
I find it very curious how in the last few minutes i find a lot of paralels between skalls explanation and some techniques we have in kendo. Shows how there would amways be some constants in cross cultural martial arts :D
Off topic, but Skall, could you review the Schrade SCHF21?
I'm interested in buying a carryable fixed blade dagger for self defense, and that one seems like an interesting option. It's made from 1070 high carbon steel, which I guess is simple but effective.
I'd like to know your opinion, as well as any other suggestions you might have. That knife's price is my ideal price as well.
Thanks!
Guys he's just clarifying that pommel feints are ok but still nothing else
How about using a shield or your off-hand to misdirect, distract or obstruct the view of your opponent? Would that change things. (Assuming it counts as feint.)
I don't know if this counts as a feint, but what I have found that works occasionally for me is during a fight I like to fight without using my full range first, doing teasing/ testing strikes on the forward step and then when I see he/she is going to advance and counter I will do a full range strike on a soft back step. I then immediately follow with a hard push off my back foot to keep him or her from pressing their first advance. If the feint is defined as an attack meant to deceive the opponent as to your true intentions or ability, then I believe it counts.
3:57 This summons it up pretty nicely: "act as if you would strike" the difference should not be apparent to the opponent.
I'm not in HEMA but the concept should be the same in all Fighting Arts: You don't fight with the weapon, you fight with the body.
I learned that hip movements are way more important that feet movements and arm movements alone are almost meaningless. However in terms of visibility it's the exact opposide, hip movements are barely noticeable and arm movements can be used to confuse the opponent.
For example, when you commit to a strike you move your hip and set your weight into the step, when you faint, you only move your foot, while keeping most of your weight on the other to change the direction at any time. And once you move your body your arms will follow no matter where they have been before.
I don't know how many youtubers would have done something like this. Good job, Skal
In Hema do you do you do points sparring, or is a clean strike to a vital area considered a KO?
Can you please give me a few recommendations for sparring/training swords? Preferably steel or so...?
Oh shit! What up Skall? That background is the fucking greatest I've ever seen.
I feel betrayed /sarcasm/
but good job on correcting yourself /not sarcasm/
Skallagrim, can you please make a video about LARP combat? By not being allowed to hit the head and to stab and wielding wobbly weapons and mostly fighting against "beginners" it poses many questions that HEMA/experioence might answer.
Different topic: Are there kicks or foot sweeps in HEMA? Can you demonstrate how they would be used?
I would call it a feint only if it was intendially and forhand planned. If you change on the fly, I would call it a redirecting (adjusting due to the sitation). The outcome may be the same but the intend is what makes the difference.
i knew what you meant. I don't know why it was misrepresented.
I don't think you said anything so fundamentally wrong in your other video that this correction were necessary.
I mean, you made perfect sense, you illustrated your point and you backed it up with years of experience.
There's virtually no need to entertain the keyboard warriors.
Have you seen that gif of the guy breaking his opponent sword?
The sword shop you’ve linked in your description seems to have some exceedingly high standards of customer service, I came to this conclusion soon after just reading their FAQs.. Very rare to see day in age. I live in the UK though so I can’t buy anything.
I watched the original video, and everything you said was interesting and nuanced and I really can see no problems with.
UA-cam unsubscribed me again even though I watch your videos regularly.
Skall I feel anybody who is into HEMA will understand what you meant in the video. Don't get me wrong I think it's a good idea you addressed this in this video for those who aren't into the sport or what not, but i got what you meant in the video and understood what you were going for.
edit: I live in Quesnel and am taking a trip down to Blood and Iron in Vic. I'm 21 and thought it's about time I got into actually sparring. Even though it might be a little late compared to some of the pros.
Matt Easton and a number of other HEMA channels seem to have understood it as "feints are wrong", so the correction seems to be needed.
I agree and I think this video was needed for those who took it in the wrong direction. Even those other HEMA channels. You did a good job filling in the gaps some people had with the video.
edit: for those fans who took in it the wrong direction*
In the first part of his book Capo Ferro writes how feints are no good because they open you up for a counter thrust.
In the second part (the plays) he almost allways says "had he been wise his attack would have been a feint, so that he would parry the counter"...
So that confusion is as old as the art itself
The way I was taught it in sabre is - you know your first cut will get parried. You anticipate that parry and are ready to change the angle of your cut (most likely to the parrying arm), however your feint is a true attack - if he doesn't parry you follow through and finish the cut. And you don't feint in a situation, where a commited attack would be to risky.
And this makes good feints realy hard to pull of successfully. Most people just do some very hectic and half hearted thrusting - or flailing their blad around left an right - that should never provoke another response, than a hard counter thrust.
As an complete amteur i would like to ask: when does the action you are performing become a simply reacting to a defense, and when does it become a feint?
I would say it depends on if you intend for the original strike to go through or not. Simply reacting to a parried strike is, well...just a reaction. If you fully intended for the original strike to be deflected, and are just using it as an opening for your intended damaging strike, then it is what one would consider a 'feint.' Of course, a skilled swordsman would probably be thinking two steps ahead and already have a plan of action if the original strike fails, so it kind of varies between individuals and their mindsets. Some people will say it is just planning ahead, some people will say it was attempting to feint.
engaging the opponent's blade after they engage your blade can be "simply reacting to a defense"
fencer A engages fencer B's blade to displace fencer B's point offline and put fencer A's point inline
fencer B engages fencer A's blade to displace fencer A's point offline and put fencer B's point inline
fencer A engages fencer B's blade to displace fencer B's point offline and put fencer A's point inline
fencer B engages fencer A's blade to displace fencer A's point offline and put fencer B's point inline
and so on to infinity until one fencer wants to attack
displacing the opponent's point offline while simultaneously putting your point inline is defensive for many reasons, especially in rapier and smallsword
the "engagement" can be used as a preparation to the feint
fencer A engages fencer B's blade to displace fencer B's point offline and put fencer A's point inline
fencer B ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE fencer A's blade to displace fencer A's point offline and put fencer B's point inline
fencer A disengages to avoid fencer B's engagement so that fencer A can do a feint
+10 in honor
Charles Roworth (1798) refers to feints as "an offer at a cut or thrust without striking home". He also describes the action as "making a slight motion", which seems to mean that it is not intended to be a committed strike. However, if the opponent doesn't respond at all, the logical thing to do is to complete the attack. He does mention the importance of speed and timing, as well as the risk, as you mentioned, of "receiving a time cut or thrust". Furthermore, he mentions the danger of feinting with a sabre when opposing a spadroon or smallsword, as both are quick thrusting weapons and can take advantage of openings created by a wide motion.
I know you've said before that you don't have much interest in Eastern Swordsmanship, but your preferred method of feinting sounds a lot like some japanese techniques I've read of.
It basically just emphasized the idea of not distracting yourself by trying to plan elaborate attacks, but using parries and feints as reactions that were demanded in the exact moment they presented themselves.
I believe the book was called The Sword & The Mind by Yagyū Munenori if you're interested.
"Feints aren't wrong if done well."
So, "If they work, they're correct."
Genius.
It is not that feints are a bad utility. Like any technique in combat, it is awful to be predictable and reckless at the same time. As stated in the video, feints are just as resource and focus intensive as a real attack. The feint is a tool to probe for predictable defenses and reactions.
Attacks punish people trying to wait for a reaction.
Feints punish people for trying to use the same defensive reaction.
Parries punish people for trying to use the same offensive action.
The fact of the matter is, if you don't utilize all of the tools in your toolbox, you will never grow. Also, armor punishes people for using a sidearm.
Thank you for the clarification. I hope people weren't being too harsh in the other video. I hope I didn't come off like that. Everything should be constructive. I've learned alot from your videos. But I do have some strong opinions on certain points because of my personal experiences. keep on making awesome videos skall
Thanks for the video Skall, I knew you where just over exaggerating to get your point across. Good on you for clarifying instead of getting angry. Good vide your way.
It takes a good man to recognize they may have been wrong, or at least giving off the wrong impression. Especially in a situation like this where you might not have been 'wrong', just stating it in a...misguiding way, or what have you. I'm sure everyone knows the frustration of saying the right thing the wrong way and giving off a completely different impression than what you were aiming for. Even worse is trying to correct it afterwards...I digress, though. The point is, good on you for fixing whatever the mistake might have been. (I hadn't watched the original video before it was taken down and replaced by this, so I can't say fo sho.)
Anyway, to the topic of the actual video at hand...Maybe Ferro disapproved of the idea of feinting, as it's a vain and deceitful tactic, but still felt it necessary to detail their usage as a swordsmanship instructor? While he dislikes them, he can't completely discredit their use, and therefore needs to explain them in greater detail for anyone that doesn't feel the way he does. Potentially as a way of showing students what to be wary of when going against an opponent that is willing to perform these...riskier maneuvers. Perhaps he even held a similar viewpoint as you did, not necessarily disapproving of the concept of feinting itself, but of the preconceived notions people had on the subject. I haven't read the passages in question so it's hard to actually understand the minutia of the text, but that just seems like it could be a possibility. Do correct me if it isn't this way at all, and he just outright states they are BS and shouldn't be used. (Before showing how they can be used because...reasons?)
Sounds bit like how we do things in Escrima Concepts. Meaning that usually feinting calls for opponent to strike but redirecting the hit just when opponent reacts is viable strategy.
This is from a katana manual, but I think the basic point is the same. In hagakure musashi reiterates over and over again that every move you make should be done with your thoughts focused on nothing more complicated than "cut down opponent." Feint moves that are overly planned out and presented tend to be hesitant and obvious affairs that leave you open to the reflexive actions and follow through from your opponent. The ones that come from your own reflexive response to your opponents defense however, are quite potent. Any fight involving melee is extremely fast. Those who hesitate to think out anything often find their thoughts are interrupted by something hitting them. This is why drilling moves into muscle reflex is so important in every style of martial art.
Very intressting... lot to think about :D
what i took away from this and the last video:
feints are not "Fake attacks"
Feints are part of an elaborate "Ploy" or set-up for one swordfighter by getting to dictated the "flow" of the battle
Feints should be deliverd in a way that each outcome furthers the swordfighters goal
a thought i had about that:
Feints should be committed attacks transform in the last moment in to something else.
Thatswhy fighters train to make thier moves flow into each other
also im not a HEMA practioner just a intressted layperson.
I can't find the original video...
I was under the impression that he was trying to say that you dont want to just do a feint, with that being the only mindset. You need to make sure that if the move is countered properly that you are safe.
Also just because he says they arent good, saying how to perform a feint is still necessary, as it could still work and the only way to learn how to face such an idea even if non-optimal would be to practice and face such threats
Sorry if I'm talking off topic, but please do a review on Kingdom Come: Deliverance, I wanna know what you think about the game, especially the combat in it.
Isn't Capo Ferro saying basically the same stuff you said in both of these videos?
O.K., that makes sense. I think most of that was covered in the main video, but it certainly bares repeating.
I never did get the hang of them, though.
Feints are tricks. You can always take someone by surprise by doing something novel, but to anyone who has seen you do it before, it is not a novelty. I trained in Haidong Gumdo for a number of years, and my instructor and I were the only ones in the club who did any contact sparring. He was MUCH better, faster, and braver than I was, but I scored a lot of points on him by feinting, changing my timing, or misrepresenting when I was "engaged". These tricks consistently worked twice - once surprised him, the second allowed him the opportunity to analyze my trick, and the third (yes I always did it too many times) always failed.
However, I learned that I could score points with novelty, and made an effort to be novel during matches. Things like interrupting my stance changes, drop my guard for a half second, start exclusively attacking his forward toe until he was expecting it then strike high... it was a game to me to find something that he wouldn't expect and that abused his structure. And it worked enough that I could actually score points against him. I don't think I ever scored an "honest" hit in a year of sparring.
Feinting is just a trick, it only works if it is novel (unexpected). If you were to fight a fresh opponent every match, you could probably win every fight with feints, but as soon as the word is out and your trick becomes predictable, it can be abused by your opponent, the same way I abused my instructors more formal structure.
I would rater say that it is a chain attack insted of a faint. The same goes for unarmed martial arts, all attacks must be ment to hit.
As you talked about, "movment" faint are smart to use. Also using movments to lock the opponent in a movment pattern that are easy to read.
As a long time RPG player I don't understand what's all the fuss about. If you study the 'ancient' manuals there's clearly stated what level, what perk and what stats you must have to feint. Skall, clearly you're too low level still, just give it time! :P ( You're great, keep up the excellent work you're doing)
I respectfully want to point that maybe you're not taking some things into consideration about the measure (like reach or skill difference in knowing your actual measure). I rarely work with weapons in the martial art I practice so I may be biased, but one of the basics we practice the most is distance reference (I must signal that we use things like attacks to the crotch, the knees, or the eyes -obviously fully protected or with extreme care-). Those of us who are tall-ish (I'm 1'80m tall for example) are taught to use our full reach against smaller/shorter people so they wouldn't be able to touch us; this way, our faints are much safer (not more effective, though). For the rest, I think that feints should be only used in two situations: to exploit the overconfidence/underconfidence of your enemy or to punish any error on their judgement while in combat.
Nice to see a correction. Props to you skall!
in saber it is common to feint out of measure, this is probably related to the linear footwork and rarity of passing steps.
Informative, and great as usual. I do agree with the sudden change when a response is made.
For what it's worth, I thought the first video was fairly clear as to what you intended to get across. I didn't hear "you should never..."
it sounds like feint is a mix. it is a strike that would hit but you know in your head that if you throw a certain type of cut, your opponent is likely to put out a certain type of defence and you are fully prepared for that so that when he is in the expected guard position, you already know what your next step is and thus change your strike within an instance without having to lose any time thinking about it
When I was learning Chinese martial arts we learned that a feint must still be a viable if the opponent doesn’t fall for it. Is this also true in HEMA and your experience?
I think people are misunderstanding the idea.
The idea is to make a unknown situation in to a situation you know how to deal with.
From a situation where you are in danger from not knowing what type of attack your opponent will do you do a "fake" attack, and get your opponent to do a reaction which you can exploit.
A simple example is swinging your hand in the opponents face. Not with the intention to punch but to get your opponent to lift his arms and protect his face there by exposing other part of his body or his arms.
I'm talking from a perspective of a Martial Artist that uses unarmed techneaques, and armed techniques with a sword, knife, and short staff.
In Aikido, a Feint is called a Suki (pronounce Tsuki)
It means: Opening, the chance for a attack or technique
It is a part of the technique.
You don't separate the Suki from the actual attack.
A Suki by it self if useless, and will get you hurt.
The entire thing should be seen as a whole technique that stars with a movement that makes your opponent react and enables you to continue the technique or makes a opening to switch to a different technique.
So practice, practice, practice
or trow something at the attackers face, and run away :p
Aiki-ken Practice
Much of aiki-ken bears little similarity to other modern sword arts. Rather than learning to "fight" with swords, the primary purpose of aiki-ken is to magnify errors in one's aikido technique, and to give the student an opportunity to apply the principles of aikido in different situations. Aiki-ken is practiced using bokken (a wooden katana) and has a wide variety of techniques. Saito codified two sets of techniques, the first being seven suburi(solo cutting exercises), and the second being five partnered forms. Some dojo also practice jiyu-waza armed with bokken (freestyle technique, without a predetermined form of attack and response).
I'm reallying impressed how the techniques have, a lot of the same principles as Hema.
Seams that we humans, are not so different when it comes to the same body restrictions.
Even though different cultures same principles appear even if executed a bit differently.
A video about AikiKen
ua-cam.com/video/aOTxmPq8cnI/v-deo.html
I suggest watching the video techniques at 30:30 time stamp, and then watching the begining of the video. It will make it a bit easier to understand.
I believe @Skallagrim would be interested in this :)
I love your videos...
Keep it up!
True but I think the issue here with feints has in HEMA often seems falls down to, you need to put a certain amount of actual effort into the strike that you're about to "feint" to the point it's basically just another attack that you plan to follow up with. If you don't put the commitment behind it, then chances are it's going to be ignored or an aggressive opponent is going to immediately counter it and press the attack by anyone who knows what they're doing or simply too oblivious to be thinking enough to fall for a feint. It seems to boil down to what Skall said in the actual video that, feints do work against beginners with understanding of sword fighting pretty well but they're just very risky for a fight against someone more experienced or just oblivious but aggressive.
I believe in HEMA, there is two sword fighting, or perhaps sword and buckler. In this case, I think a feint with one weapon (an attack that you're already planning to be blocked), then striking with the other from a different direction can be quite effective. I notice that many duelists tend to use both weapons to block one, leaving themselves open to the other weapon.
I don't understand the consensus that feints inherently leave you open. What if you feint into a guard or a krumphau? If you feint a standard overhead swing it can be transitioned into pretty much any guard you see fit, from which you can riposte, essentially forcing your opponent into action.
I didn't misunderstand your original point. What I took from it was that novices or inexperienced people should not feint, because it would not turn out well.
Most of my experience has been unarmed...but I've never seen a 'feint' as a half hearted attempt. It's a legitimate strike that is likely to be seen as dangerous and reacted to, because it's a legitimate strike that is dangerous. This could/would set up a situation that open up multiple options of things to do if the initial attack needs to adapt. For instance a fighter with a boxer stance keeps his arms up to protect his head...a blow to the lower abdomen is a real strike (yes above the belt) if the boxer lowers his arms to counter the strike he expects, his head is now open. Or the defender can absorb the attack which will wear long term. Assuming a boxing match a quick boxer could redirect his blow to the head or upper body, if the lower body shot is blocked. The defender could accept the attack (for awhile) or counter when the attacker is committed to the lower body.
If you want to throw out boxing and go MMA... showing a boxing stance could lure an opponent into an assumption of style and cause your opponent to fall for a "feint" ...well let's go total "what ifs" at this point.
Feints in my experience have been real attacks with a healthy dose of misdirection meant to lure the opponent into a false sense of predictability which the crafty attacker could then exploit. A pattern of jab/face, jab/face, jab/body a couple of three times and suddenly three jabs to the face will result in a black leading eye. A pattern of jab/face, jab/face, right hook/body a few times could open the head to a nasty right hook to the side of the head when the right hook is anticipated to the body or maybe a black leading eye with another jab. In the mean time a nasty right hook to the body in not insignificant.
This is assuming a "fair fight". A boxing stance and showing jab/face, jab/face, right hook/body was an excellent set up for jab/face, jab/face, right hook/head, knee/balls when the fights got serious.
Specifics would vary using sword, but the overall philosophy would remain. Set up expectations and violate the expectations. It works the other way around too, show defensive holes and encourage exploitation so it can be countered.
What sort of booby didn´t understand what you were talking about in the other video? You made yourself very clear. There was no need to make this video, you and the other guy (can´t recall the name) were pretty clear.
i do both MMA and HEMA and i use feints all the time
a feint should always be a committed attack first, but the intent and plan to take advantage of the opening it creates if it's defended against makes it work
From a Karate point of view:
It takes a lot of training to make a feint really work. Especially against experienced fighters.
So what we train in karate is to implement a feint into a combination and try to make it work against your training buddies.
The main thing of course is timing. It only works if you can estimate how far you have to go into the feint to convince your opponent it's an actual attack but not to expose yourself to much.
The easiest way to make a feint work is to at first actually attack a couple of times with the technique you later want to use as feint.
Technically speaking any attacks that you throw without the intention of them connecting fit the criteria for a feint. The purpose of this technique is simply to draw your opponents attention to an area that you do not intend to attack. Thus opening the path you desire to attack along. How you go about this, probably changes based on context. For instance, in boxing and other martial arts we sometimes take a punch to gain something of greater value. This tactic is nearly impossible when any blow could be lethal, such as when swords are involved. The principal behind these "non feints" in swordsmanship are very similar to feints, if not downright identical. Of course since swords can easily mame or kill you, you modify the concept so as to hedge your bets. In other words, we are probably splitting hairs. Which is fine, but we should be aware of it.
I know of a really good feint. You start your initial strike from any wished direction. But just before your blades connect as your opponent goes into a counter. You withdraw from the attack, taking one step back, UNSCREW YOUR POMMEL AND END HIM RIGHTLY!
I felt the original feint video relied on committing to an attack too much, it could be very useful out of measure to start an attack and change up and enter measure while they are moving to defend against the original attack which cannot land as you are not where you were supposed to be while they are where you wanted them. I do not see a feint to be in measure or fully committed. Just committed enough so they will react while still being a safe distance away. Feinting would be to manipulate their muscle memory into reacting at which point they wont be able to correct course to change enough to meat the real attacks. I have never heard of a feint being late in the attack but early, early as in as soon as they start to counter so they have to stop the counter and start the real one rather than go from guard to counter. The feint starts out of measure so they are not in guard anymore but actively going for a parry while you change the attack and get in measure where their parry may not be possible and their blade is nowhere near to you.
Also a feint should be used with the real attack being done more than once already and properly defended against rather than a new attack. If they have already seen the attack more than once and have defeated it they will be more confident in the feint being that attack and will be more committed to countering it and more surprised when it is a feint.
meh i thought i had some issues so i thought you were right... my brother is a good feinter but i could definitely see he could improve his feints in those ays you mentioned...
i think the idea of using misconception against a similarly armed opponent sounds nice for most newcomers in theory, but they find that it wont work when fighting/sparring against
someone who has a lot more experience.
If anything i would suggest newcomers to focus on the basics, pose/stance, footing and being able to swing more efficiently, and i know i'm probably missing something here,
but i'd say that's a good start.(and before anyone asks, no i am not into HEMA, i don't have any tutors/masters living near me, nor do i have the time for a 4th hobby that requires so much time, but learning the basics and actually putting in the time to practice them is a good mindset for any hobby, and the basics i mentioned seem to be the root of a majority of martial arts)
It's like bluffing in poker. It exposes you to risk, but it can change the dynamics of the match