Further Seated Fencing Considerations

 Greetings,

Sorry it has been so long, I have been busy writing articles for my Patreon page, and other projects, of course. The following is like all the other posts about fencing from a chair, complete.

As with all techniques, my method of fencing from a chair has changed over the years, reflecting the knowledge I have developed about the subject. The result is that the following are some considerations which have arisen out of examining the concept of seated fencing, as is applicable to the SCA. These methods have been used in SCA fencing and do not delineate policy or concepts for the Paralympics or any other form of swordplay[1].

1.  Chair Position

Figure 1: Seated Chair positions

This looks like a particularly odd diagram, possibly it more belongs on an electrician’s schematics or some other technical drawing. However, these are positions of an individual seated on a chair as compared to an opponent who is also seated on a chair. The circle represents the individual’s body, the little sticks with bulges on them are the individual’s feet and legs. The line through the circle is the general angle of the body based on the position of the feet and legs.

Number 1 and 4 shows individuals of the same method facing one another directly opposite one another. Number 1 shows individuals seated using the method I have described in my previous discussions of seated fencing, with the two front feet of the combatants aligned. Number 4 shows the more traditional method of sitting on a chair, with both feet and legs facing forward.

Number 3 depicts what happens when you have one using one method, while the other uses the other method facing one another, and it is here we begin to see the change in perspective, of angles between the pair of fencers. The lower one is in a more stable position as they can lean back more easily without fear of falling. Further, they have positioned themselves so their front foot, the one that assists guiding the thrust is pointing at the centre of the opponent’s body. One will note that this can also restrict the possible targets for the one who is sitting on the seat in the traditional manner.

Returning to the previously-described images (1,4), these both have their opponents directly opposite one another. In 4 it is evident that both combatants have easy access to the entire opponent, at the other end of the scale, with the feet positioned so they are directly against one another the target is very limited, mostly to would be the Outside Line in a right-handed fencer. These two images are excellent for demonstrating the extremes of both methods of seating.

Number 2 is the only one which has not been discussed thus far. This is a new method of seating for the seated combatant using my method. Rather than the direct method (1), this one pushes the front foot to the Inside Line, opening further options for attack, and allowing more effective use of the off-hand and any device they might be carrying. This is my preferred method of placing the two combatants when seated on their chairs.

2.  Distance

How far should two seated combatants be placed from one another? Who should have priority over distance, the person with the longer or the shorter reach? Regarding the placement of two seated fencers, this is the question that gets asked most, even more than the question about position in comparison to one another. There are certain aspects which must be considered here.

If the combatants are places where the person with the shorter distance can reach the opponent, the taller one is guaranteed to reach. If the combatants are placed with the longer person’s reach, it is not guaranteed that the shorter will reach the longer. So, we have a quandary to solve, who should get preference for reach.

First, the combatants should be measured for distance in a “neutral” position, i.e. both fencers should be sitting up in their chairs. Movement of the body backward and forward allows the fencers to advance or withdraw from their opponent. This is something I have discussed in my previous discussions about fencing from a chair.

It should be established a person should be able to reach the opponent when sitting up, if the shorter person’s reach is chosen. However, this could mean that the longer could reach the shorter even if they are leaning back. This is a consideration to make and goes to the heart of this issue.

If the longer person’s reach is used as the standard, then the shorter fencer is going to have to lean forward to strike the opponent, but they will be able to lean back to withdraw from their opponent as well. So, the shorter is going to require more effort to strike the opponent. This is the choice that should be made, by the combatants participating preferably.

I think it should be left to the combatants to decide where there is a difference in distance, whose distance they will choose to make their initial measurement. This way the combatants take upon themselves the decision of where they are placed and what they will require both to strike the opponent, but also to not be struck. Yes, this is not a definitive answer, but it does give agency to the combatants who are fencing.

3.  Weapon Combinations

When considering the best weapon form to use when seated, there are some principles that can be applied in this choice. Through these principles we can then find the most suited combinations for fencing from a chair. It must be remembered that these are my assessments, a combatant is always free to choose what they want to take, these are not rules.

1.      The best combination considers both long and short range, especially when facing a standing opponent.

2.      The best combination considers offensive capability at long and short ranges, especially when facing a standing opponent.

3.      Better forms consider defensive capability at long and short ranges, especially when facing a standing opponent.

4.      Better forms consider the issue of entanglement prevention, and the opponent’s ability to control the item being used.

5.      The method employed will consider the seated combatant’s position and their vulnerabilities against the opponent’s actions, and their own vulnerabilities against the opponent.

Why is the difference between a seated or standing opponent so important? In very simple terms, because the standing opponent can change Distance, not only to withdraw from the seated fencer’s Distance, but also to close beyond the points of the seated opponent’s main weapon.

Considering the fifth principle presented above, there will be those methods which are more suited to the seated combatant, while there are other methods which are best left to the standing combatant. This is a matter of how the combination is used, rather than any inherent advantage. Further, these are general recommendations regarding these forms, not hard and fast rules. It is the fencer who decides the efficiency and effect of the combinations, not the combinations themselves.

“Standard” combinations are: single sword, sword and gauntlet, sword and buckler, sword and cane, sword and cloak, sword and dagger, and case of rapiers. Forms becoming more common are: sword and rotella, and spear. Each will be addressed in turn so we might find out which of the above statements applies to the combination, and the reason for this.

Single Sword

The single sword is the foundation of all the other forms. This is the form the individual has most likely had the most practice, because of its foundational status. Considering the factors above, the single sword has ability at both long and short range, including offensive and defensive; it has no special issue regarding entanglement. This form thus qualifies under the four principles.

Sword and Gauntlet

The gauntlet is an addition to the single sword, leaving the weapon side of things with no issue. This method, as with the single sword, qualifies under the four principles.

Sword and Buckler

The sword and buckler is an enhancement of the defensive capability of the fencer, thus it lacks the offensive capability of some of the other forms. It can be used at short and long ranges however it has an issue when it comes to shorter ranges regarding offensive actions with no enhancement beyond those found with the single sword.

Sword and Cane

Sword and cane is also known as sword and baton, or sword and stick. The implication is some solid object of a cylindrical nature is being held in the off-hand for defence, it lacks the offensive capability beyond the single sword, so has a failure in this respect. There is also a potential tangling issue when it comes to closer work with the cane, especially longer ones. The shorter ones may not have this issue.

Sword and Cloak

Cloak or cape, the same applies here. It lacks offensive capability beyond the single sword, and there is an increased chance for entanglement unless the fencer primarily used it wrapped about their hand, in a kind of soft buckler.

Sword and Dagger

The sword and dagger combination, like the single sword qualifies under all four of the discussed principles. However, the dagger has an additional offensive capability, especially in the close. This weapon is less likely to be entangled than most of the other off-hands. For the seated combatant, this is the best form to use. I would consider it even better than the single sword, and if you know me, this is remarkable.

Case of Rapier

Case of rapier, case of swords, or “Florentine”, they all refer to the same method of having a sword in each hand. This method is primarily used at distance due to the high chance of entanglement, especially when being used by someone of less experience. It is certainly a lot of fun to fight with case from a chair, but it is certainly not preferable considering the principles laid down.

Spear

Even with a butt-spike, the spear is simply not useful from a chair. Once the opponent closes beyond the fencer’s point, there is little the fencer can do in reply. Indeed, the best combination involving a spear, would be to have a dagger in reserve, if the opponent closes that far. Even with this combination, adding the dagger, there are issues to solve. I do not recommend fighting with a spear from a chair.

I hope these considerations assist those who fight from chairs to improve their game and ability while fighting from this position. I use this method when my body is complaining and not doing its thing. This is no gimmick, it is a method so more people can be involved in our game, to consider how more people can be accommodated.

Cheers,

Henry.

---

[1] Including SCA policies regarding this subject.

The "Friend Un-met"

 How we view a person with whom we fence is significant. In drills, they are "partners" because the purpose is to enhance the skills of both present in the drill. In a bout we face an opponent, or an uncooperative partner because again, it takes both for a bout to be fought. However, I believe that a certain different approach to this situation is required, I like to think of my opponents as "friends un-met", thus there is the potential for something more present in the bout, and a different approach taken to the bout.

If we consider an opponent, a "friend un-met" it changes our thought processes regarding the bout. Rather than a pure focus on the win, or the point, or whatever goal there is present for the bout, we consider this other person as a potential friend. This means we take a different approach to how we play, what actions we perform, and how we perform those actions.

We don't like hurting our friends. If we consider our opponent a "friend un-met" we will consider the safety of the opponent as one of our most important considerations, because we would not like to hurt this individual if they are potentially a friend. With this approach the bout becomes the focus, not the result; ensuring that both parties enjoy the engagement comes to the fore. If a person enjoys a bout with another individual, they are more likely to seek more bouts on a more social basis.

If we take the "friend un-met" as a fencing philosophy in our drills, bouts, and tournaments we have a change of perspective, a deeper consideration for our prospective partners and opponents in the different forms of fencing. The focus changes from achieving an objective (though this still remains in part), to a consideration of how much the other individual will enjoy themselves during the bout. A consideration of making sure our actions are clean, making sure we control our weapon and deliver only enough force that our "friend un-met" can acknowledge the blow we have delivered. .... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View the complete article on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/friend-un-met-127475188?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

Some random thoughts coalesced...

 Greetings,

I haven't been on here in a while, most of my posts go to my Patreon site these days. However, I will share some thoughts with you which came together over the past week or so. I haven't really edited this much. It started out as thoughts for a historical fiction, or something similar, and then coalesced as a collection of thoughts about fencing and training for fencing. As I said it is a collection of thoughts which I really have not edited. So here it is, this post is also available on my Patreon site, which I recommend you go have a look at, because you are missing out on some free stuff as well.

I hope you find this interesting and useful.

Cheers,

Henry.

The blade sliced effortlessly through the air. A sharp noise rang out as the two blades intersected. The offensive action of one countered by the action of the other, placing his weapon in the right position, at the right time. The reason for their contest with weapons had melted away, it was trivial compared to the importance of skilful use of their weapons and the defence of life and limb. How long would the contest last, was the death of one required to satisfy the encounter, or was it simply a test of arms, a test of courage? Only the two combatants knew.

The scene around them seemed to have been blotted out, the only things left were the two people in the contest. It was as if a black cloth surrounded them as they moved about, concerns of the outside world were gone. Any focus on those details would detract from their focus, and any minor loss of focus could result in failure of action, due to the distraction. They were focused on one another and their weapons and nothing more.

Why were these two individuals attempting to strike the other? What is the reason for these martial skills to be employed? What is the prize, the goal, the purpose of their combat? All of these questions are questions for away from the combat, so neither combatant considers them at this moment. There are more important things to be concerned with.

A counter made from the defence of the other’s attack, there is the hissing sound of edge on edge as one weapon slides down the other with pressure. One blade dominates the other to gain the combatant an advantage over the other. To gain such dominance requires placement at the correct time, everything is bound by the concepts of Time and Distance, more about these things in action. The other blade flies off the weapon as pressure is increased to its limit.

The blade moves almost silently toward its target, like a predator in the night, seeking to strike the other’s flesh. With the blade deflected away from the counter, the combatant moves their body, clearing it from the line of the opponent’s attack. Using his body, he brings his weapon back, cutting at the other in their exposed position as they thrust.

A foot is drawn back, bringing the body and the weapon with it, the blade is lifted over the combatant’s head, deflecting the opponent’s blade away from the combatant’s arm, countering the attack again. The opponent moves again, stepping and using their body, throwing another cut. The combatant draws their weapon down impacting on the opponent’s weapon, another attack, another counter made.  

This is how the story of combats between individuals is made, an attack, a defence, a counter, a counter to the counter, maybe even another after that. The combatants withdraw as Time runs short, not pressing any perceived advantage past its limit. The two combatants are controlled in their actions; this is a contest of precision more than strength. The combatants work with their weapons, not against them. They seek the best line, the best angle, the best distance, for their actions.

These actions are a conversation between the combatants; one makes a statement, the other replies in kind a counter to the statement. There is a counter to the counter, another statement is made, another counter. This is a conversation in motion, in action, in steel. Each has his time to speak, each has his time to reply. Unlike the conversation in words, the statements and their responses are quicker, based on trained instinct.

Some actions are learnt, others are trained. This is the way of the student of the blade. Those which are trained, become instinct, informed and educated by the situation, the action of the opponent. Often the difference between victory and defeat is a mistake made by one opponent or the other, rather than a purposeful action made or action perfected. To every action there is a counter, the combatant merely has to find it.

There is no question of social status once the weapons are drawn, there is no question of race, gender, or any other difference between the combatants. They rely on their skills to succeed not some imposed identifier; the sword is the great leveller, anyone can learn enough to succeed, once weapons are in hand, one combatant facing the other, outside considerations pale in comparison to the skills of the fencers. The short can defeat the tall, just as the tall can defeat the short; it is a matter of the application of skill. The skills of the combatants are what really matters.

Some will claim there are differences due to various factors, but these differences can be countered. A longer weapon, a shorter weapon, both can be countered. The fencer needs to know their ability, their attributes, their situation and then apply it to counter the opponent’s. Some will counter with the question of luck. This is always present regardless of the skill, but it is not as reliable as skill. Luck requires certain things to be present and is random. The combatant dices with the skills of their opponents, presenting a random occurrence against the honed skill of the opponent. This is no sure way to succeed. Better that the fencer learns and trains, becomes proficient, rather than rely on luck.

Train, and train well. The path is long, and it is not easy, but for those willing to travel it, the benefits are certainly present.

Extra-Curricular Activities: Gaming Training

 Greetings,

Yes, it has been a while since I have posted here, it's because I have been busy writing articles for my Patreon page where most of my writing goes. However, this was a thought that popped into my mind as I was doing one of my regular walks. Just a thought about some extra-curricular training I do every now and then, and it does help to keep the brain sharp-er.

Likely you have heard of the concept of "brain training." In essence this is using your brain to focus on aspects you will be doing in a physical sense to enhance your brain's pathways you will use when using those skills. There was a study of basketball players (I believe). One group trained physically, another group was told to read, think, and watch basketball, another group was told not to do anything at all. In the end both the group who were physically training and the group who were training their brains performed the best, and about equal according to the study. 

"So, get on with it. What has all of this got to do with fencing?" I am getting to that part, trust me. It's called "A Fencer's Ramblings" for a reason, you know.

Sometimes training will be called off due to weather, or I can't make it due to health reasons (chronic illness and chronic pain sucks), or several other reasons. So, do I just sit at home and veg out? No, that's just not "a thing" with me. I am always writing about fencing, or something like it. So, I am always training my brain, adding new concepts, examining new ideas, and reinforcing old ones.

I play console games in my "down-time" I have a thing for first-person shooters, and some fighting games. It is the fighting games we are going to talk about, more specifically the Soul Calibur series. Why this series in particular? Well for starters, it is a weapon-based fighting game, and I have been playing it since its first version. What has it got to do with fencing? 

Artist: Frater
Source: https://www.goodfon.com/games/wallpaper-witcher-soulcalibur-vi-soulcalibur-6-bandai-namco-entertainm.html

Time and Distance; every character's moves, and the successful use of their weapons is still based on the notions of Time and Distance. 

Yes, a lot of people get their characters and "button mash" hoping they will hit the right buttons when they are near enough to the opponent. I think this is not unlike the new fencer who simply thrusts out or does what they can when they first come out to fence. Their actions are random and the chances of success are a flip of a coin.

I look at the character and plan, based on the weapon and their moves. I use the move at the appropriate Distance for the character. I strike the button at the appropriate Time depending on how quick the character is in comparison to the opponent. I have been doing this for a while, and enjoy the game more when I can plan my moves, rather than smash the buttons and hope for the best.

What is the conclusion? Brain training is available where you find it. Individual training is available where you find it, or where you create it. The only motivation required to achieve this is yours. Take a look around, I am sure you can find something fencing related to improve your current "fencing fitness."

Cheers,

Henry.

Let's Talk About Space

Greetings,
I am going to apologise to all the astronomers and astrologers, that's not the sort of space that I am talking about. I am talking about the space in which a person fences with another. This can be the training area, or it can be a formalised arena such as a list field.
There are considerations that need to be made concerning this concept of space, especially in regard to the concept of Distance as it relates to space in this context, as will be seen as this discussion progresses. This is because Distance occupies space. The Distance between two combatants occupies a certain amount of space, and this is contained within the overall space in which they are fencing, or training.
For simplification, and for focus, we are going to focus on the space within an arena (or a list field) as this is where this concept becomes most important. The individual who can "occupy" the space the best is the one who will dominate the space. This will give the individual the ability to move the other around the space, and by virtue of this ability, control the Distance between the two individuals. 
Now we need to break this down a little bit, isolate some of the aspects and how they apply to see how we can use this to our advantage...

Read the rest here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/lets-talk-about-91803789

Of Things Long and Pointed...

 Greetings,

I have not been writing here for a little while. I have been focusing on some larger projects which are found on my Patreon page. I will no doubt be back again at some point, both to promote projects found here and also to present some shorter ideas that I have had, however, on to the meat of the conversation...

Speaking of which I have just presented part of one of these for public viewing. It concerns a project concerning the subject of "spears." I say "spears" in that they come in different forms and this is demonstrated in parts of the investigation throughout. Have a read of what I have put in the post indicated in the link above, and you will have an idea of where this project is heading.

The project itself will be presented in a little while, this is just a "taster" for what is to come. While you are on the page why not have a look at some of the other things on the page, see if they interest you. There will be quite a few more coming as the months progress. If you've enjoyed my posts here, and there will be more coming, just not as regularly as they used to be, then it is likely that you will enjoy what you find on my Patreon page. Come have a look, come join the adventure.

Cheers, 

Henry.

Practice Targets

 Greetings,

A short note about practice targets that I noticed...

1. People's brains are obsessed with hitting the middle of a target, or target areas where delineated. Point a dot on a target and people will try and hit the dot.
2. The target needs to be identified to serve a particular purpose, or sections for particular purpose if multipurpose in design. The trainer and trainee both need to understand this purpose before they begin.
3. "Body Targets" need to account for the position of the weapon, thus Lines, or recognise that they are absent.
4. The target size needs to be proportional; a) to the skill of the combatant, b) to the target being sought, c) to the height of a "normal" thrust of the combatant.

These are just some quick points to consider when designing and using targets. They need to be considered when training students, especially when training them for a particular technique. Are you training them to strike a particular target, or use a particular technique? The target you use will affect the training that you use, and the result. Is the target you are using the most effective for the result you want? 

Cheers,

Henry.

Like this post? You will find more posts like this, and more in-depth studies of fencing, along with some of my other writings on my Patreon.