Greetings,
The following subject is one that I have particular feelings about. Every time the question of tournaments and their rules comes up especially in HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) circles, the question about "doubles" or "double-hits" emerges. The following article will describe my feelings on the matter, and on the matter in general. This is a subject that I have touched on in other articles, but it does require attention of its own.
Definition
The first thing that is required is to define what is meant by a "double", "double-hit", "mutual blow" or whatever other term that would like to be termed for it. There will be a couple of other terms which will be used in this discussion, one will turn out much the same, the other will be different. The simplest definition of a "double-hit" is: "when both fencers strike each other at the same time." This would seem simple enough and would seem to end the question.
However there are "rules lawyers" out there so it pays to be specific: "when both fencers strike one another in the same tempo of their movement." What does this mean? A tempo in its simplest terms is an action. The double-hit is therefore a blow in which if the blow is started at the same time or before the other's is completed, it remains a double-hit.
The above definition should take care of the "after-blow" as well. The "after-blow" is a concept which is most common to people who study longsword. It has its origins in the tournaments of the Belgian fencing guilds. The sword must fall; so complete its tempo. Any action which is after that is an artifice of a tournament set. The fencer needs to keep themselves covered during and after they have completed their blow.
Simply it is a question of the tempo of the strikes and the difference between the two. If they are the same or close enough to be the same it is a double-hit. If it they are not close enough to be the same then it is not, however the fencer should always ensure they remain covered when they are in guard.
"Revenge" Blows
"Revenge" blows are blows made out of the tempo of a double-hit, and are clearly made after a combatant has been struck. The action is out of tempo of the action of a double-hit and sometimes out of tempo of any encounter. This blow is simply struck out of anger against the fencer who has made the strike, and these are dangerous. Any fencer who makes this sort of blow should be warned a single time and censured severely thereafter. They are unacceptable in any tournament or sparring scenario.
A Failure in the Primary Goal of Fencing
To strike and not be struck should be the goal of all fencing, double-hits fail in the second aspect. Sacrificing some part of your body to strike some other part of the opponent's body would seem to be a silly and somewhat suicidal way of dealing with fighting, especially when a person is dealing with a sword. The swords these days are not sharp, and there is little chance of loss of limb or life, and this knowledge in part is the reason that people will corrupt their art to accept a hit to strike a hit.
The double-hit is a failure in the performance of the art by the individual performing the art not a failure in the art or the tools that are being used. Some leniency may be given for the tools, but not the performance; so the proverb goes, "a bad workman blames their tools." Most often it is the failure to perform a proper defence when performing the offence, or simply the focus on offence rather than defending themselves first, then worrying about attacking the opponent.
I have heard the excuse, "But I performed the proper technique and still got hit." Clearly not, there is something you did not take into account, like your opponent moving, or countering. Just because you have your plan, doesn't mean that the opponent doesn't have theirs. In fact, it is certain that they will have one. You still have to counter the offensive actions of the opponent to ensure that you don't get hit, while striking the opponent, to prevent a double-hit. You should be considering your defence even in the performance of your offensive actions. If you do this properly, double-hits shouldn't occur, at least with you.
In Training
The culture in schools needs to focus on the essential goal of fencing, striking without being struck. The double, especially in training needs to be an unacceptable result, not re-named, or be in any form of it. The double-hit needs to be something that students are trained to avoid. They need to be trained not to compromise their defence to strike their opponent; to remain defended when they are both seeking to strike and also leaving from striking the opponent; to ensure they are performing proper, clean technique so that they do not get double-hits at all.
Trading one blow for another, say a lower scoring blow for a higher scoring blow, or a less debilitating blow for a more debilitating blow is a sporting, rather than a martial approach to the use of the sword, it does not assume the items being used are weapons. This approach sacrifices much understanding which can be found in the art of swordsmanship which is available and denies the student of the art much understanding of the art. The sporting approach is too often found in tournaments.
Tournaments
The purpose of tournaments, one would hope, is a test of skill. To test the skills of fencers against one another. This means that the rule-sets of the the tournaments should benefit and reward those who perform with skill and not benefit those who do not. The double-hit, and certainly the double-kill, where both combatants strike a vital area, certainly are not demonstrating skill, they are demonstrating a failure to defend themselves; demonstrating a failure to abide by the essence of fencing, "to strike without being struck".
The result is that the "double" in any form should not be rewarded. In the reality of swordplay a double-hit results in both fencers injured in the least and dead as a possibility. Is this something that demonstrates skill? Is this something that should be rewarded?
Where a double is made by the combatants, in a tournament where the hits are scored, either points should not be scored at all, or points taken off as a penalty for failing to defend themselves. In a tournament where the individuals "die" as a result of vital blows "double-kills" should result as being recorded as a double loss as no one won, both died; they should not be re-fought.
The problem is, that there is too much of a focus, especially in tournaments on winning the bouts, on scoring the point against the opponent, so the importance of proper fencing tends to degrade. This results in people sacrificing targets so they can score against their opponents. Something they certainly would not do if they were not wearing safety gear, and even less so if the weapons were sharp. The competitors in tournaments are too busy focused on whether a blow hit an arm or a body, the points scored, their placing, who wins the tournament, to worry about whether they are fencing properly to gain the points they are scoring. Often sportsmanship also suffers as a result.
Sportsmanship
What's sportsmanship got to do with double-hits? To win a tournament a fencer focuses their attention on the points they are scoring. They hone in on striking at a target. They find the weak point of their opponent and they hammer at this weak point, again and again, until they cover it, or they score sufficient points to win. Sometimes as a result to do this they strike hard, sometimes too hard, but this is what's required to win, so what does it matter?
It matters a lot. This is where injuries can occur, especially if a person is simply attempting to blow through an opponent's defence. If this is with a lunge, and the opponent decides to act, lunging or acting with counter-time, the two fencers can impale one another causing a very hard hit, and unless the technique and angle is correct, a double-hit. The same can happen with a cut, where it is cut at the same time. Both fencers could be quite easily injured, or the power of the blows could simply just keep going up to try to go through the opponent's defence.
On the other hand, if there is consideration for the opponent, and their well-being, a person uses skill to find a way around their defences. Uses skill and tactics to strike the opponent, both combatants have a much more enjoyable bout, and there is much less chance of injury. Also as a consequence of considering defence, and skill, there is likely less chance of double-hits.
There needs to be a greater focus on sportsmanship, on giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt, on the art that is being practised rather than the result of any tournament. This is up to tournament organisers to help make a change, give big prizes to the fencers with the great sportsmanship, rather than some token in comparison to tournament winners. The prizes for those with sportsmanship need to be on par with the tournament winners to demonstrate the importance of sportsmanship, but this will take a radical change in thinking, in some cases.
The Reality of the Double-Hit
 |
| From Baron de Bazancourt’s Secrets of the Sword, 1900. |
When most people consider the double-hit this is what they think about. Two people who are struck who will walk away quite happily later on, no injuries to worry about. This is not the reality of swordplay. It is not even the reality of the swords for which this sword was practise. The foil being a practise weapon for the epee du combat a weapon that saw duels with sharp weapons even as late as the twentieth-century. The most common weapons for HEMA are the rapier and longsword. Sharp weapons which were designed to defend an individual in a potentially deadly encounter.
 |
| Paulus Hector Mair De Arte Athletica, 1567 |
Here is the reality of the double-kill with the longsword against halberd. Both strikes straight to the skull, neither of these two combatants are likely to be walking away from this fight. The double-hit shows a failure of proper defence and this is the reality of the result, and it is something that should be kept in mind, for when the art becomes divorced too far from its origins it becomes pure sport and its martial aspects are lost. This reality should be something that is kept in mind.
The "Reality" Tournament
Weapons
- The tournament can be fought with which ever weapons are chosen, however it is best that weapons are matched, to keep the contest even. It will work with rapier, longsword, or sword and bucker, any weapon a person might choose.
- Other details for the weapons are as per the tournament organiser's discretion.
Format
- The tournament is a single-kill, single-elimination tournament. This means that everyone in the tournament gets one life, and bouts are fought to one kill, or until your opponent is "disinclined to continue." Once this occurs you are eliminated. Winner is the last person standing.
- Individuals are considered to be wearing civilian clothing, a single layer of cloth on their bodies, i.e. no armour.
- Double-kills eliminate both combatants.
Blows
- Both cuts and thrusts with all weapons count as valid, so long as they do so with the weapon in reality.
- Demonstrations of such may be performed on milk bottles filled with water before the tournament, if necessary, or may be determined by agreement, or by determination of the tournament organiser.
Limbs
- A blow (being a thrust or cut) will disable a hand or arm. If this is the individual's primary arm, they will swap hands or concede the bout.
- A blow to the foot or leg will cause the individual to stop using that leg. They may: stand on the other and take the weight off that leg; kneel if it is in the lower leg or foot; or sit.
- Exceptions: A cut or thrust to one hand-span to the inside of the arm or leg is a killing blow, due to arteries located in this area.
Vital Areas
- The head, throat, entire torso (to point of shoulder, and hips) and groin are lethal zones.
- Any blow to any of the lethal zones is considered a "killing blow".
Optional
- For the Ultra-Reality version wounds are carried through the tournament.
- Blows from bucklers etc may be added along with grappling options at the discretion of the organiser. For the most part, these effects lead on to the killing blow rather than are the killing blow.
Cheers,
Henry.
