How to use Deflections

Deflections are used to stop an opponent action, but they must be done properly.

Any action that deflects an opponent's action from hitting you is a deflection, or displacement and they come in two general flavors:

• Empty displacements

This is what happens anytime you stop an opponent's cut without threatening them at the same time.

These are usually done as a 'parry then repost' form of fencing. The main issue with this style is the gap between the deflection and attack, creating an opening for the opponent to deflect your blade, or perform a single time counter and steal the initiative from you.

• Single time counters

Ideally a single time counter is done as an attack that intercepts the opponent's blade on your weak as you drive your own weak to their body. 

These are arguably the defining aspect of the German school of swordsmanship and the majority of actions in the Fechtbucher focus on this type of counter.

Displacements are done as counter actions

This means that they are always done in response to an opponent's action. In other words they have acted first and taken the initiative, which you will now need to take back from them.

Alternatively to using displacements you can work to take the initiative from the Zufecthen, the opening of the fight, and maintain control over it through distance, and attacking with good form.

Against a bad opponent this will provoke them into using empty displacements, creating openings for you to attack, i.e. a Nachreisen, Abschneiden, Schnappen, etc. 

In other words if you seize the initiative, there are several options for defeating empty displacements.

Studying Your Opponent

Information gathering is crucial in every form of competition, from distance running and chess to business and martial art. Ignoring your opponent is in fact the height of arrogance and stupidity, and demonstrates a poor attitude towards your practice and sportsmanship in general.

Some argue that it's a shady practice, however those people are wrong. If simply knowing what an opponent can do gives you an unfair advantage, then they are relying on gimmick, and after a short period of time this will show. Studying their style however shows a respect for both their practice, and their ability leading to better competition on both sides. It is your ethical duty in a competitive setting to find the flaws in your opponents game and attack them until they are forced to improve. This demonstrates skill on your end, and forces them to elevate their own practice.

When two parties interact, they both have equal opportunity to learn and improve from their experience. It is your responsibility to adapt based on these exchanges and leads towards better art overall. If you share what you have gathered from these with your peers, then again, it only serves to elevate your art, and you can be certain that if your opponent is competent then they will certainly be sharing their experience with their group.

The other side of the argument is to say that you shouldn't adapt to your opponent, essentially learning nothing and changing nothing from any experience. This is ridiculous, especially because we as humans are incapable of doing this since it occurs on a subconscious level. It also follows that you must keep silent about anything that you have encountered, and allow others to continuously repeat the same set of mistakes without warning or preparation. If your are a coach or instructor this is doubly unethical, considering that this is your explicit duty.

We live in an age where the idea of 'secret tactics' are becoming laughably outdated, and relying purely on something novel can't cut it for more than a couple months. If the new tactic is sound, then it will continue working beyond that. Otherwise it will spread across the internet, and people will be able to watch videos or talk about it, and form counter measures to defeat it. This is the natural way that competition and conflict weed out ineffective methods. This is why every coach who is even half competent watches videos of their opponents before hand. It isn't underhanded, it is in fact the only sensible and respectable approach to competition, demonstrating dedication and respect for the spirit of your art and sportsmanship alike.

Making Good Decisions In Tough Situations

We never have enough information to fully understand our situations, and often we have to make good decisions under these circumstances. Here is an approach to making the best decision you can even when you don't have much to go on. 

First we have to recognize that we make up models that simplify our experiences, taking in only what we have learned to be the most important information.

When we see a series of dots we imagine a line. When we smell smoke we imagine a fire

Because we are using these simplified models we need to measure them by their effectiveness in the situation rather than their absolute accuracy to reality.

If you believe your house is on fire, it is likely you will try to escape, but in some instances smoke doesn't mean your house is on fire.

To make your models better, it is important to start out with the most direct path towards your goal.

If you believe your house is on fire, the best course of action is to evacuate it quickly.

As you gain more experience, you will begin to recognize more important information and formulate patterns. As this occurs your model will begin to become more complex. You shouldn't try to skip steps and rush this though, instead focus on getting the best information you can and then act on that.

After realizing that your house isn't on fire multiple times, you'll remember that you just left the stove on, and that you should turn it off before a real fire starts.

The important thing is that you don't confuse your models with reality itself, and that you treat them as flexible. Since the model doesn't need to conform perfectly to reality,  you can change it to help you make useful choices faster and more quickly. This is extremely applicable to martial arts training as well.

Understanding Context

I recently had a conversation with Gavin Cornelius, founder of the Young Entrepreneurs Society (international is in there too at the end) and we ended up discussing context at length, and just how important it truly is.

Gavin is a fan of the Myers Briggs personality test, and so are many business people. It seems great, it was developed based on psychology, measures multiple dimensions of personality and I find it almost completely useless.

Here's the problem, it ignores context. So let's examine why that could possibly matter when it comes to personality types, since surely we are who we are no matter what right? 

Actually no. The Stanford Prison Experiment  is possibly the most well known example of this, essentially concluding that the behaviors of an individual have more to do with their situation  than their personal characteristics. This is also the same with the Milgram Experiment. 

The important thing to get is that what we would normally think of as a self contained identity, the behaviors and concepts of 'who we are' are in a constant state of flux depending on our situation. In other words, our personalities are a emergent manifestation of our context, the way that lighting is simply the discharge of electricity, a wave is a movement in a medium, and wind is the equalization of pressure in the air. Looking at it another way, our context is inseparable from us, we are it and it is us, the way that there is no wind without air,  the two are interconnected.

This is really important for mastery of self and mastery of others. Sure each individual has different dispositions, which is to say they require different specific situations to register differently on the 'dimensions of personality' but there is almost always some conceivable way for someone to get seemingly contradictory traits to manifest in the same individual.

I can use myself as an example. In many circumstances people find me to be introverted, even to the point of anti social hostility, and others know me as an outgoing assertive person. The main factor is to whom I am talking. I find some people fun to talk to, and conversation flows easily, others I can hardly relate to at all, and as such I feel no need to try and force a conversation. 

If you are running an organization it is key to understand and use this to your advantage. Find out the dispositions of your team, and place them in such a way as to encourage the characteristics you deem most desirable.

Learn to feel the context as an extension of yourself and those around you. Feel it extending invisibly around you and learn to move it, alter it to the most useful configuration until what you want comes about of it's own volition, like a sailboat being pulled by the wind.

This goes the same for yourself as well. If circumstance dictates our persona and behavior then the only thing left is to master circumstance.