All a Matter of Attitude

 Greetings,

The following discussion is about attitude, about the philosophical approach you take to your fencing. Now, I will admit that in my early years that I was a "tourney-bunny" which meant that all that was important to me was the next tournament, defeating my next opponent, securing my next position in that tournament, and I did quite well at it. Time has gone by, I have found that there is more to be found in the Art of Swordsmanship, there is more to be found than just defeating my opponent. 

There is a philosophical approach that a person can take that will enable a person to find personal growth, but it has to be embraced, and it is necessary to focus on more than just how to defeat an opponent, as this is rather limiting in the scope of things. Questions will be asked in the following discussion, questions that we must all answer in all seriousness. If you want to change your approach you have to be serious about it, and work on it every time that you fence.

Are you focused on the win or swordsmanship?

The first dividing line is the biggest one of them. It is a rather generic approach which people will then claim that a person can use swordsmanship to win, this is true, but the focus is still on winning not on swordsmanship. A person who is concerned about the win over swordsmanship will compromise their swordsmanship for the win.

A person who is focused on swordsmanship will not be concerned about winning, they will be concerned about improving their skills in swordsmanship. A bout or tournament is merely a way to test what they have learned outside of the cooperative situation of the drill. To put their skills to the test against an opponent, who may not give them the "textbook" attacks or responses, to see what they have truly learned in their training. This leads on to the next question that needs to be asked.

Are you concerned about the hit, or the way you got the hit?

A fencer who is concerned about winning will only be concerned that they struck their opponent. A fencer who is concerned about swordsmanship will be concerned about the way they struck their opponent. There are all sorts of gimmicks and tricks that can be used to strike the opponent, not restricted to, using the flexibility of the blade to bend it around the opponent's weapon, or simple blind speed.

The fencer who is concerned about swordsmanship will be concerned that they struck their opponent in a fashion which would result in the sword, acting like a real weapon, striking the opponent and doing sufficient damage to incapacitate or wound them, while maintaining the principles of fencing theory i.e. such things as engagement, time and distance. A clean cut, not one that bounces. A clean thrust, not one that skips off the opponent. A clean action, one following the other that results in the opponent being struck and the fencer not being struck. Actions which conform to what the fencer has learned and practised in drills. When the fencer is struck by such an attack, they complement their opponent.

Can you complement your opponent on a good hit, or is it simply a failure on your part, an assault on your ego?

The fencer who is focused on the win will not understand how a fencer can complement an opponent on a good hit. They will not understand how the fencer can appreciate the good action of an opponent, because in their mind the strike against them is a failure on their part; it means that they have not won the bout. This is because they are focused on the win, and anything that is not a win is to be disregarded. This truncates their learning, because they never get to learn from their opponent.

The fencer who is focused on swordsmanship, who complements their opponent on a good hit, who appreciates the action of the opponent, has the advantage because they can learn from their experience. They can always see the strike against them as a chance to learn from an encounter, not as a failure because they did not win. They also have the advantage that their opponent will often have a better feeling fighting them and enjoy their encounters with them more, because of such appreciation.

Do you understand the difference between notoriety and renown and how they are achieved?

I have already written about the difference between renown and notoriety in a previous article on this blog, because it is a significant subject. They are something which the fencer should always have in the back of their mind when they fence, regardless of whether they are fencing in bouting, or in a tournament. These are achieved through the view of the individual's peers, through the actions of the individual. It is the public's impression of the individual, and they do go ahead of the individual.

The fencer who wins and is focused on the win, especially if it is regardless of the cost, will earn themselves notoriety. Notoriety is a difficult mark to get rid of, and the respect that goes with it only last so long as the individual is an effective (that is to say, can win) fencer, after that, often the notoriety remains and the respect goes. The fencer who is focused on swordsmanship, who complements their opponent, who fights with courtesy, will more likely earn themselves renown. The fencer with renown, will keep renown so long as they continue to treat their opponents with respect, regardless of the results they have in bout or tournament. The issue being that once notoriety is earned it is difficult to get rid of, in the period when swords were sharp it would've earned the fencer the name of "duellist."

Do you understand what would gain you the reputation of a duellist, and that of a gentleman, or lady?

Some will claim that there is little point in knowing the history or the culture of the period in which the weapons were used, even when they are studying the same weapons. Some will claim that there is little point in studying the manuals on duelling and etiquette from the period, as they do not apply to what is being studied in our contemporary era. This is because the weapons that we are using now are blunt, and there is little chance that someone is going to be challenged to a duel.

Once again it highlights the difference in attitude, it approach to the art of the sword, that people study. Many of the explanations for the actions are found in the culture and history of the period. The manuals on duelling and etiquette give the cultural foundations for what is found in the fencing treatises of the period for the weapons which are being used. If you were an individual who was just interested in furthering yourself through finding fights and winning them, you would've quickly earned your name as a duellist, however if you studied the art as a part of the requirements should you require it, that would earn you the name of lady, or gentleman, or swordsman. 

The one could likely get you in trouble, decrease your reputation, impact other areas of your social life, determine who would associate with you, and not. The other title would assist you into negotiations and further you life, increase your reputation and so forth. The interesting thing is that the same thing can be seen even today in contrast between the two different groups highlighted in this discussion. For the most part, the latter, the ones who are interested in swordsmanship, and are courteous to their opponents, find more people to fence, simply because people like to fence them more. 

Consider your approach to your fencing, don't just consider what you're getting out of it, but what are you giving back, especially to your opponents.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.