Someone asked me to explain what I meant when I said that “angling footwork is over-hyped”. Here’s an attempt to explain that.

Now, in boxing, kickboxing and MMA, angles get hyped quite a bit, y’know, with the “neo-footwork” of Cruz and Dillashaw especially current. It’s not all buzz by any means, but even those who know their onions can concede the word gets thrown around a lot:

This is the least terrible modern boxing text, and by a significant amount. There are actually some decent ideas in here; an entire chapter on angles that is actually about angles and not just nonsense with “angles” as a buzz word.



Jack Slack reviews “ Boxing’s Ten Commandments” by Alan Lachica, under Techniques & Concepts - Striker’s Reading List



All of those, however, are unarmed arts. In HEMA longsword, we have swords. Why does this make a difference? Well, we’re engaging from perhaps a metre further away at minimum. Most of the time, I want much more than two metres between me and the opponent to feel safe to manouvre in “Zufechten” mode. This distance really reduces the impact of angles.

Whether I’m holding a sword or not, the distance I can sidestep remains constant. The angle created by the sidestep or offline step or triangle step or whatever damn step I make around my opponent - that angle varies with the distance between us. The further the distance between us, the less difference taking that step makes. Same effort, time, and work, less effect and reward.

Here’s a shitty MS paint diagram.

This is why angles look so dramatic in the hands of Mike Tyson working at uppercut distance.

At the range of my Vorschlag (which, given that I’m a foot taller than Anton, probably has about his 2m range :P) taking sidesteps or stepping offline has little effect.

What about working offline with the entering attack? If I’m aiming to hit with reasonable extension of the arms and the weak of the sword, that probably leaves me still outside the range of my jab or teep if I was unarmed. Add to that that I’ve got to use most of my step to come in, and the effect of the angle will still be minimal. Of course, in a swordfight, gaining 1 inch relative to the “line” of the bind can be critical, but I don’t think it matters much.

Compared to the minimal effects of working to gain angles in the Zufechten and Vorschlag, the importance of controlling the distance between us is overwhelming, so I insist that this is where the bulk of one’s focus should go.

When you’ve got beyond the Vorschlag and into the pocket that gets nebulously called “Krieg”, angles begin to take on greater significance. When you get beyond that into Ringen am Schwert/Durchlauffen range, angles are even more significant, because they’re again easier. However, to get to these distances, you’ve got to be able to control and close the distance between you.

Digression:- DBMA distinguishes no fewer than seven ranges: 1) snake (out of all contact) 2) stick squared (you can touch weapons but not each other), 3) largo(hit with a step), 4) medio (hit arms without a step), 5) corto (hit body without a step), 6) standing grappling/clinch, and 7) ground grappling. How many do you consider when you analyse your fencing?



In longsword fencing, I put minimal empasis on lateral movement in the Vorschlag phase. In Zufechten, I’ll circle around, but that’s more hoping that the opponent goes to sleep for a moment and gives me an angle that I can’t take myself or to disguise an adjustment in either stance or distance that I’m again hoping they don’t react to for long enough for me to take advantage.



When I enter, I rarely look to take angles with my advancing attack. I need to focus on closing distance to make a threat. Some instructors teach to step offline with the Zornhau/Fendente, but I struggle to see any justification to lose pressure and range to try to “go around” their cover when they can adjust their angle relative to the line by a tiny rotation on their feet without even stepping themselves. The same goes for the Zwerchau - while I hate to disagree with Anton, I don’t put much emphasis on stepping offline as I go. I’m more concerned with getting my sword online! And ditto for Schielhau and Scheitelhau. Even for Krumphaus, I often move relatively little laterally, and that is more to give myself room for the Krump than to get my body out of the way. His blade will move faster than my torso, unless I’m fighting a sloth.



Edit: When I react to a long range, Vorschlaggy (it’s a word, ok?) attack is often when I’ll look for angles. With my parry, I’ll try to go offline and shave some space for my riposte, or look to come out to his outside. To do that, though, I’m also closing space. I often call that “making collisions happen” - Plan A is always to move out with a cover and look to reset the fight to restart it on my terms. Plan B is to cover and stay engaged, and only if I’m confident in his attack and my cover’s success will I try to go to Plan B and close the distance even more than my opponent has done. A good example is stepping in and slightly offline to MY LEFT with a Zwerchau counter from MY RIGHT, then offline further to MY LEFT with a Zwerchau from MY LEFT. When you’ve closed range, angles are more important, for the geometrical reasons outlined above (do I repeat myself a lot?) but I still struggle to make these angles usefully large unless I make them with a lot of footwork both in my defensive and riposte phase.

Now with close range weapons like dussack? There’s a lot more scope for angles but that’s another article…