Deep Attacks vs Shallow Attacks

[Chris Thompson]

The idea for this post was suggested by Steve Reich's derailing of my "Lessons of the Broadsword Masters" thread, so thanks Steve!

In my experience, no skilled opponent will make a deep, completely committed attack until and unless he has you in a position where he can do so with impunity. Until that point, all his attacks will be somewhat shallow, "probing" actions. As a result, the real skill of winning a sword bout lies in inducing your opponent to make a deep attack at a time and place of your own choosing, or otherwise setting up a scenario where you have the other guy dead to rights and can make a deep attack with little or no risk.

Yet, when I look at videos of Japanese classical swordsmanship, nearly all the kata seem to assume the opponent will make deep attacks from the get-go. And the applications of most Chinese sword forms also seem to assume that all the opponent's attacks will be deep, committed blows.

For that matter, most of our historical fencing manuals seem to make the same assumption:

"When your Adversary Throws an Inside, instead of Stopping it with an Inside Guard, draw your Right Foot backward towards the Left, in the same Manner as in the Retreat, and at the same Moment withdraw your whole Body backward and Sideways to the right of the Line, letting your Adversary's Point pass by your Sword a little out of his Reach, and steping into your former Position, Throw home at his Outside, which can't but be open by his over throwing himself, which He will do the more by missing your Body, and not being receiv'd by your Sword, which he expected, to stop the effort of his Strength." (Thomas Page)

What Page doesn't tell us here is that this is only going to work if the opponent's attack is full-force and completely committed, otherwise he will not "over throw himself" but will simply abort his attack and pull out when he sees what you're doing, or worse still he might change his attack and time you. So the real art lies not in knowing this technique but in knowing how to trick the other guy into making a deep attack so that you can use it.

On the other hand, when you're fighting in a melee-type situation, especially if one side is charging, then there is no time or space for probing actions and all attacks will need to be deep. For instance, we recently did some bouts with sword and targe vs spear. If we treated it as a duel, the spearman could easily use multiple feints and changes of line before the final committed attack, allowing him to dominate the bout. But if the targeteer charged, the spearman only had time for a single, committed attack before the targeteer was on top of him. This attack was easily blocked and controlled by the targe on the way in, and the targeteer started winning all the bouts.

So, it seems to me that there are two possibilities here:

1- some sword arts are based on the battlefield exclusively, in which case it's a pretty safe assumption that the opponent will actually make deep attacks. I'm skeptical about this, because most sword arts around the world are a lot more complicated than they would need to be for the battlefield alone, implying that they were developed in a single combat context even if they could also be used in war.

2- most fencing manuals, kata etc show you the techniques, but leave out the really important information, which is the art of setting up the opponent. Without this information, no art can be used effectively, because you cannot initiate a deep attack without exposing yourself to one of your opponent's techniques, nor can you count on your opponent to make a deep attack so that you can apply your own techniques. The result of this can be seen when people try to bout for the first time, whether in Asian sword arts or Western. You can see it in a lot of longsword bouts- neither fighter can apply the Meisterhau unless the other one makes a big attack, but since both of them know that, neither of them will do it. The result is that they start to swipe at each other half-heartedly, or they start stretching and distorting themselves in an attempt to get through somehow. You can see this in a lot of rapier bouts too.

So, if I'm right about #2 here, the question is this: why do the manuals of our traditions and the forms of other traditions seem to leave out the most important aspect of winning real sword bouts? Were you expected to learn this yourself through sparring? Was it explained in private by your fencing master? Were you expected to figure it out yourself by analyzing the forms? Or was this kind of information the "botta segretta" that you could only get by paying extra for it?

I look forward to your thoughts!

[Javan M.]

In my opinion as a student looking at the manuals and sparring this can in some cases be explained. A good example is in Talhoffer on Messer.

This one charges in anger upon the former and means to cut him across the head. -- This one displaces up with might (opposition) from below and in drawing up hews off the other’s hand.

If you've ever sparred with someone who began to get emotional when they fought, you notice a change in their posture, breathing and strikes. Once I sparred against someone who got themselves in a state like this. Most of their strikes were deeply commited, with malicious intent. It was no longer in effort to strike a point but to honestly harm me.

Once more in my opinion, many of these cases would have been like this. When someone has murderous intent, it can be difficult to keep a clear head. When you fight in a duel or self defence on the streets which i think a lot of the manuscripts focus on, it is often out of pure hatred that the attacker is driven to the wreckless act of murder. The manuals show how to defeat this.

Of course this isn't always the case but as i said in the first paragraph i believe this explains at least some part of it.

[Dan Sellars]

Thanks for starting this topic I look forward to seeing others views on it.

...

So, if I'm right about #2 here, the question is this: why do the manuals of our traditions and the forms of other traditions seem to leave out the most important aspect of winning real sword bouts? Were you expected to learn this yourself through sparring? Was it explained in private by your fencing master? Were you expected to figure it out yourself by analyzing the forms? Or was this kind of information the "botta segretta" that you could only get by paying extra for it?

I look forward to your thoughts!

I am not sure about the secret knowledge thing. When we look at Fiore for instance he is writing a private document for someone important. He say's it's all in there, even though a lot of the time we don't see it. He has also no reason to leave it out.

Although I suppose if you look at the descriptions for some of the posta then you could argue that to some extent it is in there, maybe.

I would imagine that some of it may have to do with actually trying to kill the opponent. Something about the psychology of a real encounter that we don't get. I don't know really.

[Michael Edelson]

In my experience, no skilled opponent will make a deep, completely committed attack until and unless he has you in a position where he can do so with impunity. Until that point, all his attacks will be somewhat shallow, "probing" actions.
<snip>
Yet, when I look at videos of Japanese classical swordsmanship, nearly all the kata seem to assume the opponent will make deep attacks from the get-go. And the applications of most Chinese sword forms also seem to assume that all the opponent's attacks will be deep, committed blows.

For that matter, most of our historical fencing manuals seem to make the same assumption:

Hi Chris,

If you think about what you've said above and brake it down into its essential elements, what you're really saying is that living traditions and historical treatises all say an opponent will make a deep, committed attack, while your experience in free play says that attacks will likely be shallow and probing.

I don't mean to single you out...I think most people's experience in free play will say the same thing. People tend to make hesitant, probing strikes. You've seen it, I've seen it, everyone's seen it. But is this what you're supposed to do?

The German medieval (Liechtenauer) texts tell us that there is safety in a deep, committted attack. We are told that is we strike to the head or to the body then our opponent is forced to defend, and in so doing we can control him by forcing his actions.

So then why, in free fencing, is this not so? Well, how many times have you made a deep attack and instead of defending, someone let that hit or took a serious chance of letting it hit to attack you back? And really, why not? What do you have to lose? Certainly not your life or your limbs.

I think when it comes right down to it, we should trust the living traditions and historical treatises and not our own free play experience, not if we want to stay true to the arts we are trying to recreate. Does that mean I think all attacks would have been or should be deep? No. There are many ways to control your opponent, some are mentioned in the Liechtenauer texts with which I am familiar, some are hinted at. Feints, pressure, etc. But what I don't see in these texts, except to set up a feint in one or two cases, are shallow, probing attacks. In fact we are told such attacks are plain wrong (if you choose to interpret it that way, some may not).

Javan also brings up an excellent point about intent. This has been my experience as well (and again, I don't think my experience is worth squat unless it confirms what is in the texts). When things get serious, the long range sniping ends and the real fighting begins.

[Steven Reich]

Great topic and one I often have to cover when teaching Bolognese. There are many parriy-riposte actions where the riposte just won't won't if the opponent stops his blade at the target and I often have to demonstrate what I mean on someone before it sinks in. That is, I will often see someone make a light cut such that it won't "run off" the sword blade when parried with a deflection, so in order to demonstrate what I mean, I will have the attacker who is not cutting correctly be the defender against me as I demonstrate the differences.

It is interesting that this isn't explicitly addressed all that much in the sources. IIRC, there is a short passage in Marcelli (1686) who says that when you attack, you should do so with full commitment, but I can't think of any other similar passages (although there are a few interesting descriptions which seem to imply pretty heavy blows in Lovino's manuscript).

Anyway, to your points.

1- some sword arts are based on the battlefield exclusively, in which case it's a pretty safe assumption that the opponent will actually make deep attacks. I'm skeptical about this, because most sword arts around the world are a lot more complicated than they would need to be for the battlefield alone, implying that they were developed in a single combat context even if they could also be used in war.

Nearly every surviving Italian treatise written for swordsmanship is a dueling manual. That doesn't mean that they don't think their art will be used on the battlefield, but that they are instructing you on how to handle being against someone who has all of his attention directed on you. I guess that's my long-winded way of saying I agree.

2- most fencing manuals, kata etc show you the techniques, but leave out the really important information, which is the art of setting up the opponent. Without this information, no art can be used effectively, because you cannot initiate a deep attack without exposing yourself to one of your opponent's techniques, nor can you count on your opponent to make a deep attack so that you can apply your own techniques. The result of this can be seen when people try to bout for the first time, whether in Asian sword arts or Western. You can see it in a lot of longsword bouts- neither fighter can apply the Meisterhau unless the other one makes a big attack, but since both of them know that, neither of them will do it. The result is that they start to swipe at each other half-heartedly, or they start stretching and distorting themselves in an attempt to get through somehow. You can see this in a lot of rapier bouts too.

I also see this as a matter of being unsure of what to do. If all you know how to do is make a simple attack, you're going to feel unsafe because at best, your opponent will parry it and at worst, he'll hit you instead. This was a big problem for me with Bolognese (and I've pretty much designed a whole curriculum around solving it)--that is, teaching students how to initiate effective attacks. Essentially, the implied rule in Bolognese swordsmanship is that you should plan on making multiple offensive techniques to land a blow. Thus, you'll tend to begin attacks with feints or beats, and/or you'll redouble blows. Once you know what to do when your opponent reacts to your first offensive technique, you'll throw it with more confidence and power because you're following it up with another one (which will also have more power).

So, if I'm right about #2 here, the question is this: why do the manuals of our traditions and the forms of other traditions seem to leave out the most important aspect of winning real sword bouts? Were you expected to learn this yourself through sparring? Was it explained in private by your fencing master? Were you expected to figure it out yourself by analyzing the forms? Or was this kind of information the "botta segretta" that you could only get by paying extra for it?

I think that you were expected to learn it by practicing the complex actions (at least in Bolognese Swordsmanship). However, there are two things that I can note about this topic. First, anyone who has test-cut a fairly sturdy target (i.e. plastic bottles or thick bamboo) will note that a cut needs to have some real momentum to do anything. A simple little flick will break skin and whatnot, but your opponent might not even notice that he's been cut (or think that it was a light cut). Cuts made without commitment don't notch or sever bone. Second, I note that many Bolognese defenses involve actively striking your opponent's sword rather than just blocking it. Perhaps this is a way of ensuring that his sword isn't around to do you harm during your riposte.

Another this that I wonder is that if the uncommitted attack was a problem in period, does that figure in to why so many of the Italian masters say that the thrust is deadlier than the cut? If your opponent is whiffing light cuts at you, he probably isn't going to incapacitate him, but a thrust delivered with the same force might be a mortal wound. Also, I wonder how many times it happened that a swordsman started with relatively uncommitted cuts and noticed that even though he hit his opponent, it didn't slow him down--even without any adrenaline surge, you can be cut down to the bone and not realize how deeply you've been cut.

Steve

P.S."You're welcome"

[Dan Sellars]

A question this topic has raised in my mind, where is the line between a deep committed strike and a Villain or Buffalo?

[Michael Edelson]

A question this topic has raised in my mind, where is the line between a deep committed strike and a Villain or Buffalo?

A proper committed strike does not overcommit, nor does it use more force than necessary, both of which would make it hard to recover. A proper committed strike is performed in the proper tempo, meaning the fencer is aware of what his opponent is doing and strikes when it is proper to do so.

A proper committed strike does not put the striker off balance or move off of his center (unless it's a strike specifically designed to do that). A proper committed strike maintains correct edge alignment and is done with the point moving in a proper arc and not trailing the hands, and has the body behind it with proper timing.

There's more, but you get the idea.

[M. McDaniel]

After reading several of the smallsword manuals, I have an alternative explanation.

They may not have thought of it.

The natural inclination in any kind of fighting is to go for an immediate kill, or not attack at all. Attacking the advanced target in order to weaken an opponent is a very sophisticated strategy. Military strategists really didn't have the concept of a campaign down until the middle of the 19th century...it is not unreasonable to think that fencing masters were no faster to adopt the concept.

[J. G. Smith]

A proper committed strike does not overcommit, nor does it use more force than necessary, both of which would make it hard to recover. A proper committed strike is performed in the proper tempo, meaning the fencer is aware of what his opponent is doing and strikes when it is proper to do so.

A proper committed strike does not put the striker off balance or move off of his center (unless it's a strike specifically designed to do that). A proper committed strike maintains correct edge alignment and is done with the point moving in a proper arc and not trailing the hands, and has the body behind it with proper timing.

There's more, but you get the idea.

Good topic folks, and it echoes somewhat my sentiments of late.

Just to piggy-back off of what Mike said, I generally try to differentiate it as the difference between cutting *to* the target, and cutting to the *center* of the target. The first one allows you to stop more easily, preventing many of the parries and ripostes that would be available if you were cutting to the center.

[Dan Sellars]

Good topic folks, and it echoes somewhat my sentiments of late.

Just to piggy-back off of what Mike said, I generally try to differentiate it as the difference between cutting *to* the target, and cutting to the *center* of the target. The first one allows you to stop more easily, preventing many of the parries and ripostes that would be available if you were cutting to the center.

Are you suggesting that you *should* only cut *to* the target?

[J. G. Smith]

Are you suggesting that you *should* only cut *to* the target?

Sorry if that was unclear: no quite the opposite, unless such is your intent, but of course, you won't cut anything if you only cut *to* it.

[Dan Sellars]

Sorry if that was unclear: no quite the opposite, unless such is your intent, but of course, you won't cut anything if you only cut *to* it.

Cool I thought I must have been reading the wrong thing into it.

[Michael Edelson]

Good topic folks, and it echoes somewhat my sentiments of late.

Just to piggy-back off of what Mike said, I generally try to differentiate it as the difference between cutting *to* the target, and cutting to the *center* of the target. The first one allows you to stop more easily, preventing many of the parries and ripostes that would be available if you were cutting to the center.

So there are no misunderstandings, when I say keep center I am refering to your, the cutter's, center, not the target's. Now that may have nothing to do with what you said, but I want to be clear in case my use of "center" was not understood.

[Kevin Hemmingsen]

I have found that feints are effective for setting up committed attacks. But like everything there are so many variables when fighting. If your opponent is waiting on you hoping you make mistakes then a deep committed attack might be a invitation to be on the receiving end of a master strike (in longsword fencing of course).

To me a varied game is usually most effective. By varied I mean feints, combined with quick less powerful attacks (still committed but just not a power strike), in addition to committed powerful strikes. This helps keep your opponent guessing and leads to the most effective part of the system which is applying PRESSURE. Michael mentioned pressure above and in my experience when I can pressure my opponent the fencing flows better for me than any other time. There are many ways to do this and it is even possible to pressure someone who is coming forward constantly and putting you on the defensive. You just want to stay one step ahead of them and constantly switch your advantages and disadvantages, this quickly forces them to adapt. Changing from a deep stance to a more upright stance and back and fourth can force them to adapt to you also.

I use a variety of guards but I find the original four laid out by Lietchenauer work extremely well when your trying to keep the advantage. Sorry if this sounds like I'm rambling, it is a bit tough for me to explain in text. But once applying pressure effectively clicked for me in freeplay, I felt like a new fencer.

I can explain specific examples of some of this stuff if anyone wants.

[Michael Edelson]

But once applying pressure effectively clicked for me in freeplay, I felt like a new fencer.

Me too, completely different. Not to mention much better.

I noticed your avatar is a mon, or at least looks like one. Did you also pick up the use of pressure in Japanese sword arts?

[Dan Sellars]

I hope this is not going too off topic as the initial topic is a good one.

So by pressure do you mean 'putting the opponent under pressure' as in psychologically? or do you mean using 'physical' pressure in sword contact to get a response?

[Michael Edelson]

I hope this is not going too off topic as the initial topic is a good one.

So by pressure do you mean 'putting the opponent under pressure' as in psychologically? or do you mean using 'physical' pressure in sword contact to get a response?

Psychologically. The best example I have is this: picture yourself driving in the center lane on a highway. All of a sudden, a car in the left lane starts to edge into your lane, so you swerve to the right. The car didn't hit your car, but it created a sense of threat that you felt and reacted to. It pushed you into the right lane without touching you...it pressured you.

So say you're standing in Schrankhut feeling clever. No matter what I do, you tell yourself, you are going to Krumphau me. I change guards into Pflug, and you tell yourself, "Ha, he thinks he's smart, but Krumphau works against a thrust too. Come get some!" All of a sudden I start edging just a teeny bit closer, extending my point until it hovers ominously close to your hands, which are in front of your body. Your hands feel threatened, pressured, so you pull them back. Just as you do so, I thrust into your chest, taking advantage of your tempo, and as you die, you think, "Crap, where did I go wrong?"

[Keith Myers]

I think that you were expected to learn it by practicing the complex actions (at least in Bolognese Swordsmanship).

--I think the same is true of Joachim Meyer. A lot of the more sophisticated things are not stated explicitly, but are found in his set-play descriptions.

Another this that I wonder is that if the uncommitted attack was a problem in period, does that figure in to why so many of the Italian masters say that the thrust is deadlier than the cut? If your opponent is whiffing light cuts at you, he probably isn't going to incapacitate him, but a thrust delivered with the same force might be a mortal wound. Also, I wonder how many times it happened that a swordsman started with relatively uncommitted cuts and noticed that even though he hit his opponent, it didn't slow him down--even without any adrenaline surge, you can be cut down to the bone and not realize how deeply you've been cut.

---I think this is an excellent point! I have been a student of knife combatives with a tactical folder, and this is key. The modern approach involves cutting deeply to muscle bellies or tendons in order to disable the attacking limb, because otherwise a determined attacker will just keep on coming! This is also the approach found within traditional Filipino Martial Arts that go back many generations. Obviously getting whacked with a big sword would likely be incapacitating, regardless of targeting! But "harassing cuts", or cuts with the tip of a lighter sword (like a rapier) aren't going to slow many determined opponents down.

Keith

[Graeme Anderson]

Interesting topic& enjoyed your posts everyone,as it happens "sudden deep lunges and getting into the safe spots afterwards" is my current personal practice topic
as it is dawning on me that that is what makes commiting against my big fast "opponents" scary

[Chris Thompson]

My own solution to this problem is to induce or force the opponent into making committed attacks, and there are a lot of different ways to do this, some of which have been mentioned here ("pressure" and so forth).

One way- which I don't think violates anything in the manuals- is to make attacks that are big enough that he has no choice but to respond (not just sniping attacks) but which leave a reserve or a margin so that I can get out of a trap if I have to. I then try to use these attacks to lead him into blind alleys, set up my own traps, etc.

[Kevin Hemmingsen]

Me too, completely different. Not to mention much better.

I noticed your avatar is a mon, or at least looks like one. Did you also pick up the use of pressure in Japanese sword arts?

Its actually a Basque lauburu, sometimes called a Basque cross. Very similar though, in fact in the lauburu wikipedia entry it mentions this.

I have four years of Japanese arts under my belt, but they are not sword or weapon related. That experience combined with a lot of boxing definitely helped. I think footwork is essential to creating pressure.

[Kevin Hemmingsen]

So by pressure do you mean 'putting the opponent under pressure' as in psychologically? or do you mean using 'physical' pressure in sword contact to get a response?

As Michael said psychologically. Michael's car analogy is spot on, everything he said is what I meant by footwork being essential to pressure.

[Dan Sellars]

Thank you both.

That is what I assumed you meant but I just wanted to be clear. I try not to trust my assumptions too much.

[Dan Sellars]

My own solution to this problem is to induce or force the opponent into making committed attacks, and there are a lot of different ways to do this, some of which have been mentioned here ("pressure" and so forth).

One way- which I don't think violates anything in the manuals- is to make attacks that are big enough that he has no choice but to respond (not just sniping attacks) but which leave a reserve or a margin so that I can get out of a trap if I have to. I then try to use these attacks to lead him into blind alleys, set up my own traps, etc.

The way I see it is that an attack has to be a real attack. Even if you have a back up plan for his most likely response, and you should at least. But that first attack is not a patsy, it will kill.

That is my theory any way putting it into practice is a different story.

[Aaron Bolarinho]

Hello Again Chris!

Great topic! Oddly enough, two mondays ago I was taught a very painful lesson on just this topic by my Provost.

During our longsword bout, I was unable to widespace or effectivly affect his guards such that I could land a strike. Of the many issues at play, one in paticular was my unwillingness to play from the bind. This is because I got caught up in the you know that I know that you know that I know kind of fight, which (for me) guarentees insincere attacks.

This would happen because of the following thought process: I would throw a blow. I know he is going to cover the blow. Why would I maintain a sincere amount of force on my blade if I know he is going to cover it? Would it not be better to remove some force from the blow such that I can imediatly (upon it being covered) make another attack? Ok. So the blow I threw lands on his cover. Imediatly it leaves for the new open line. He goes to cover it. the the same thought process as above comes into effect.

This ended up with me throwing many 3 or 4 cut combinations which (by and large) lacked sincerity and intent. Thus my fencing lacked sincerity and intent. Thus, my Provost found it quite easy to defend a combination of blows that lacked sincerity and intent (ie. were all probing) with only changes of guard and some simple footwork.

So why did my fight go like this? again, there were many other issues at play (footwork, etc.), however the Intent issue was a major one. I have this intent issue because I lack the nessesary in-fight- sensitivity (and the discernment that goes along with that).

Part of Aemma's curriculum are the some of the tenents of George Silver, specifically his Grounds and Governors. I tend to think of fight sensitivity and discernment in terms of his 3rd and 4th Governor "the twofold mind of pressing in and flying out". In this case, I can sum up my "intent issues" as a compensation for a lack of the two-fold mind.

To generalise a bit, I think you can fence with three different levels of intent. All in, all out, and both at the same time where appropriate.
An all in fencing is always commiting. He throws a blow and sees it to completion regardless of the action of the patient - in kind of a "Hail Mary" way. Few fencers (once they learn to fence) seem to be like this - for they learn to respect the weapon and its desctructive cababilities and so they hesitate to rush in over-commited.
Then we have all-out fencers. I am a classic example of this kind. I "fight leaving" - as such many of my blows are struck "on the way out". This is just as bad as the all in, because I rarely EVER commit. As you say chris, this kind of fencer (the probing fencer) only commits to a "deep" strike when he is sure it will land. This means though that most of his attacks are largly probing, insincere, and of not much danger to the patient. If, God forbid, the patient ever catches on to the fact that your main attacks are insincere - then he will beat the stuffing out of you like my Provost did to me.
The lesson I learned about intent that night was that I should be fully commited to the attack untill I should not be. Thus, my attack should be such that I throw my blow with full and complete intent (not over commited but fully commited) so that when the patient goes to defend it, there is something to defend. Then I must base my next action on what the patient ACTUALLY does, not what I anticipate he is going to do. Thus, I should not be throwing probing attacks expecting my Provost to cover them because I know he can easily, I should be throwing real and commited attacks and then reacting to what takes place. My Provost said (and I think rightly) "all you can do is act, you cannot controll what I do"

I think the same analogy is the case in Dagger work. The agent throws the blow, then the patient makes the defense. In that instant, the patient must discern whether the agent is pushing foward, staying, or pulling back the dagger - and then react accordingly. Same with the sword I think. I throw the fully commited blow, and my oponant defends it. In that instant of blade contact, I must discern the pressure and the direction of it on my sword, so that I can react accordingly.

I find this paticular expectation of skill the most thoroughly enigmatic and mysterious of any I have come across so far. In practice, the instantaneous discernment is far, far beyond my ability - much less in a bout. I suspect this only achievable through constant and life - commited practice.

Anyway, the above ramblings are my backround oppinions behind my possible answer to your question Chris:

I think the manuals assume this level of discernment. I suspect the manuals assume the presence of this enigmatic ability which defines the skilled fencer, in which the fencer simply reacts appropriatly in the right time to the actions of his opponant, always sincere, always commited to his action untill he should abandon it. Therefore, it might have be the case that the student was informed of this expectation by his master, able to catch glimpses of it in action through the learning of the plays, kata etc, and then expected to develope it through sparing and training.

Great topic Chris, I hope I contributed

On a side note: If it is the case that the manuals assume this level of discernment, what might that mean about how we read the plays? If this level of discernment is given, perhaps "over-commited" does not mean " a Hail Mary" strike, but rather "an attack which continued to be commited past the instant of blade contact where the proper response was to begin to leave"? If this is case, maybe the plays in these manuals are more subtle then they appear. This is just an idle thought though, it occured to me as I was finishing the post.