A Smack in the Head: Let's Talk Concussion

Greetings,

Some when they talk about concussion discuss it as if it is just a simple hit to the head which they can recover from easily and everything is fine. It is just a little smack to the head, they can continue, no worries. The thing is that this is not the case at all. Concussion is no joke and is something that needs to be taken seriously, very seriously.

I have produced a discussion on the subject of concussion, why it needs attention and some of the very important aspects pertaining to it. This can be found here: http://www.academia.edu/37041914/Concussion.pdf, or I can be contacted for a copy of the same document. This is a subject close to me as I have received quite a few concussions and know that they can have a debilitating effect on your life.

Of the things that need to change, the first thing that needs to change is our approach to striking one another in our martial art, or any martial art for that manner. The intent of the blow needs to be presented to the opponent, that is true. The force of the blow, not so much. This is especially the case when talking about swords. It should be noted that when trying to strike with muscle, that hard impacts will actually do less damage because that is not the way cutting with a sword works. Simply bashing the edge into the target does not work. The blow needs technique to work, not power. Perform the technique properly and ample power will be present.

The above change needs to be made at a community level, simply that people who strike to hard need to be told that they are hitting too hard and that they need to stop. A community can simply refuse to engage with such people as a sign of support for such a move also. At a policy level, organisations can stipulate the levels of impact allowable and permitted in competitions. If there are no such organisations, event organisers can achieve the same by stipulating the same in their rules for competitions.

Some will suggest target restriction. This does not prevent the area from being struck, it just means that the it gets struck unintentionally, or gets placed in the way "gaming" the rules. In sport fencing, in foil, the head is off target, but it does not prevent them from wearing masks to protect against the blades which manage to go in that direction.

The greatest argument will be for increasing protective equipment, and for some this will be the first place where they go. It is the easiest thing to change, but it is a patch job and can lead to worse situations. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is the least effective method for reducing risk of injury. Often an increase in PPE can lead people into more risk taking situations thus reducing or neutralising the effectiveness of the PPE. Larger helmets make for larger targets, and also can lead to whiplash injuries. There is also the brutish mentality of some who think that because a person is wearing extra gear they can hit them harder.

People simply need to stop hitting so hard. Officials need to enforce rules of play which discourage hard hitting and enforce them strongly. Clubs also need to create a culture where hard hitting is also discouraged. If you have people in your club who are hitting hard and you do not feel safe, talk to them. If this comes to nothing, talk to the head instructor. If this comes to nothing, leave. Only when people use the power that they have will an impact be noticed. Remember, this is your safety we are talking about.

Cheers,

Henry.

"Armour" in HEMA

Greetings,

The following discussion will be about armour and "armour" as it stands within the HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) community. The thing is that there seems to be some funny ideas floating around about what armour is and what it does and how it relates to what we do. Hopefully this discussion will clear up some of these issues and clear up some of the confusing terms which have been used.

The image to the left is the full Titan range which is made by Leon Paul in London (Yes, I have noted the lack of shoes on this model). It is designed for the protection of various parts of the body for people who participate in HEMA. This is not armour.


The image to the right is an armour of 1585 for Lord Clifford. This suit is ostensibly for the sport of tilting due to the helm which is fitted to it, and the decoration which is on it, but it could have also seen battle and protected its owner very well. This is armour.

There are differences which need to be pointed out between the two. Firstly, the one on the left is made for a sport in which blunt weapons are used and the opponent has no desire to actually do the wearer of the armour harm, whereas the one on the right is made for battle in which the opponent wanted to either kill or at least maim the individual wearing it. Secondly, the style of combat used when fighting in the one on the left is different to that which would be used to that which would be used to that when fighting in the one on the right. Finally, while the one on the left has some rigid plates in its construction, the one on the right is primarily made of rigid plates. This results in a different style of combat, but not necessarily movement (a question for a different author).

Most of the combat which is being reconstructed by the HEMA community is based upon combat which is focused on unarmoured combat, thus not dealing with armour. When a person discusses "armour" on a forum when discussing their protective equipment, implications in the word can be made. Implications that they are taking their equipment to being like the picture on the right, which it is not. Does this mean that they are also assuming the same of others? This brings up the question of what level of strikes should be accepted.

The idea of unarmoured combat means that a much lower level should be accepted while "armour" gives the automatic idea of a much higher level of strike. The question of calibration or what level of striking has already been brought up in a previous post. This idea of the use of the word "armour" puts an idea in people's heads about what they are using and what they are using it against, even if it is not true. Somewhere in the back-brain "armour" gives automatic idea a harder hit is required. Simply put armour is not being worn.

If armour is not being worn then the name should change when discussing the subject. Some expression to cause less confusion and to prevent the idea that the harder strike is required so that the opponent can feel it through the "armour". A suggestion is that the name be changed from "armour" to "protective equipment" as this is a description of what it is.

The extra padding and certain rigid materials are designed to protect the individual from damage, not to prevent them from feeling the blow. Examine where the heaviest armour is placed in HEMA protective equipment and you will find that it is designed to prevent the wearer from getting permanently injured. Sundry areas are protected by padding.

A change from the use of the word "armour" to the more accurate "protective equipment" will be better in the long-run as it more accurately reflects the state of play, and will be a reminder as to what the equipment is for.

Cheers,

Henry.

Brutal Fencing III: A Question of Calibration

Greetings,

I wrote a previous entry on the subject of brutal fencing and its relation to aggression. This can be accessed here: http://afencersramblings.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/brutal-fencing-discussion-of-aggression.html. This post is aimed at one particular aspect of fencing and indeed brutal fencing and that is how hard one fencer strikes one another, this is sometimes referred to as calibration. Part of this entry goes to the reason why we actually engage in Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA).

What is meant by calibration?

Calibration for the purposes of this post, and indeed in my opinion, is the amount of force sufficient required by one combatant for them to acknowledge a blow as good. This means that the blow would have done them some physical harm if the weapon was sharp, in the case of a sword. Of course this means both combatants have to agree on what one another is assumed to be wearing. The level of calibration will be different if the combatants are assumed to be wearing some sort of armour as compared to if they are assumed to be not.

For the most part, a lot of HEMA, the assumed armour is nil, the combatants are assumed to be wearing no armour at all. This means that they are wearing normal street clothes, no padding, maybe a pair of gloves. This means there is no armour to cut through, or padded jacket to pound through. A couple of layers of fabric and then flesh. The armour, or should it be said, protective gear that is worn is worn for protection against injury not for the simulation of any armour.

Why hit hard?

This is an important question which has not really been answered properly at all, and some of the answers which have come back are quite disturbing. Do you want to injure people? If the answer to this question is "Yes", then I hope that I do not meet you and I hope that you do not turn up to my practice because you re not the sort of student I am looking for. There is no reason to injure people at all. It does not show "martial effectiveness" or anything of this kind, in fact you are borderline from having someone call the police about assault and battery.

Armour and Calibration

Combatants wear extra protective gear to protect themselves where they require it, this should not be a surprise. For some out there, they see this as a challenge, "You wear more armour, I'll just hit harder." The first thing to note here is that the attitude is just wrong. If you find one of these people, report him to your instructor immediately, if he does nothing, leave the school or group.

The problem we face is that as people increase their calibration, so protective gear increases, so calibration increases, so protective gear increases, and so on. One has got to give, mostly it is the bodies under the protective gear, resulting in injuries and people out for months at a time, and people leaving in droves because they can't afford the protective gear and don't like being hit that hard. This is a problem which can be stopped at the beginning by controlling calibration.

"Martial Effectiveness"

Discussing  the question of "martial effectiveness". It does not take as much force to damage flesh as you think. With a thrust it is ridiculously easy. With a cut, it is not much farther off that. We have all ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

The First Defence: Control

Greetings,

Safety is the concern of all combatants regardless of the nature of their art. This applies to those pursuing both Eastern and Western arts, and regardless of the weapons chosen by the combatants. A lack of consideration for safety aspects will result in injury and the possibility of serious injury or even death. This entry discusses concepts of safety and investigates them to find a foundation from which they are based and one which they should be based.

Safety

Standards of safety in fencing, regardless of what form, are based upon what is an acceptable level of injury for the activity which is taken part in. For some this will be to the limit of bones being broken in extreme instances and for others the idea of severe bruising is abhorrent. It is upon this basis that their ideas of safety are built. Obviously there must be some safety standards set for the activity to be encouraged and continued.

This level of injury acceptance goes directly toward the three primary aspects of the safety standard, armour, weapons and performance. With regard to these aspects one will always be emphasised over the others. For some it is performance, this will restrict what actions are acceptable and legal within the system. For others the focus will be on weapons and as such weapons are stipulated with particular characteristics, and thus restricted, to be used within that system. Others it is the armour which determines the primary aspect of safety and for these the armour will be stipulated depending on the recognised limit of injury.

However in truly intelligent systems it is always an even balance of all of the aspects. Weapons are stipulated but only in comparison to the armour. The performance is then regulated to an acceptable level for the system which will allow the weapons and armour to do their respective jobs. What is important here is that it is the performance, and thus control of the combatants which must be most important. Regardless of the armour or weapon standards, a person who is uncontrolled and who does not understand the performance requirements will still be a danger. Thus it must be control which needs to be emphasised in training and also codes of performance which need to be enforced.

Armour and Weapons

With regard to armour and weapons there is always the question of how much of each. Should the focus be upon the weapons or the armour? This has a lot to do with the perceptions of danger on the parts of the combatants.

Should the weapons be light and reasonably forgiving then the armour can be much lighter. Should the weapons be heavier and less forgiving then the armour as a result needs to be upgraded. This is a sliding scale and the direction to which the pointer slides will determine what sort of armour and weapons are chosen as suitable for the activity. The result will also demonstrate which is the focus of safety, the person doing the striking or the person being struck.

Even with armour which is the safest and weapons which are the safest, relying upon the armour and weapons as primary is an issue. This is a fallible system. First, the material in the construction of the armour or the weapon may fail, this is something which we only have a certain amount of control over. Freak accidents will happen. Secondly, the appropriate weapons have to be used in the appropriate manner and the same with the armour should either not suit the purpose for which it is being used, this will cause issues. Finally there is the simple element that a person may forget to don a particular piece of armour, or inspect their own weapon. This can also lead to issues. Once again to comes down to the individual being in control of the situation.

Finally there is the question of armour versus calibration. If the system is designed that the person being ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

Calibration and the Correct Execution of the Thrust

Greetings, Everyone has been struck a too hard by their opponent before, and indeed the same could be said of ourselves in the same situation. This blog, as noted by the title will focus on calibration in the execution of the thrust. The thrust is the primary attack in many forms of fencing and knowing the correct calibration so that we do not injure our opponents is important and is something that needs to be discussed. This blog will address various details with regard to the execution of the thrust and examine how we can minimise the chances of over calibrating our thrust, or in more simple terms hitting too hard. The two root causes of over calibration in the thrust comes from a problem with knowledge of distance or from the technical execution of the thrust. Each one of these will be addressed with some pointers about how these can be improved and why there may be problems. The last part of the blog will address some problem solving suggestions as to how we ourselves can prevent over calibration and how we can fix the same problem in our students. Time and distance are the two root principles of fencing and any flaw in them will be expressed when we come up against an opponent. In this particular case it is distance which needs to be addressed. Knowing your distance is about situational awareness. Knowing your own distance with a thrust, and also the distance to the opponent. This particular element will be affected by other things going on during the bout such as movement and each one of these elements needs to be addressed in some form. The lunge is equally important in this equation but at the moment it is the thrust that will be the focus as the lunge is simply a thrust with a forward step added to it. The same elements which will be raised apply equally to the lunge as they do to the thrust. The first element is your own distance. You need to know how far your point will be away from your body at the full extension of your thrust. If your opponent is within the distance of your thrust it is important that you realise this and do not extend to your full length, otherwise you will strike your opponent too hard. This is the first element, and is forms some of the basis of the others. Once you know your own distance you can move on to the examination of the opponent. You need to be aware of the distance to your opponent in comparison to your own thrusting distance, as stated if they are too close you will over calibrate if you fully extend your thrust. Thus both elements need to be taken into account at the time that the thrust is made. The final element of distance that needs to be taken into account is movement. Both combatants will be moving, during the bout and this will change the distance between you and your opponent. This is most easily seen in the use of the retreat in response to a thrust. You need to be aware of your own movement during the execution of the thrust, but also the movement of the opponent, especially if they close distance as you are thrusting. The elements described above; your distance, the distance to the opponent and movement, all form a part of situational awareness and it is a lot of information that you need to assimilate in a short amount of time. Situational awareness is also important in order to be aware of the environment. For the classical and sport fencers, this means being aware of your position on the piste. For the Renaissance fencers it is being aware of any boundaries or obstructions that may be present on the field which you are using. These elements also need to be taken into account, but for different reasons. Situational awareness is something which is important as you need to know the distance elements in a very short amount of time, in fact when the thrust is delivered, and even a little before it is delivered. With the awareness of distance discovered, the next element that needs to be addressed is technique. The correct performance of the thrust, and indeed all skills in fencing is vital. For the current discussion, the correct technical execution of the thrust is vital to correct calibration. Technique is vital to the correct execution of the thrust and it is something that needs to be examined in some detail. It seems like a simple action, but there is a level of skill in it. The thrust must be examined in some detail in order to see how it works and how this may affect our end result. Accuracy is an element which extends from proper technical performance of the thrust, and while it is not the focus of this discussion it does have elements which are important. An accurate, but slow thrust is substantially more important that a fast but inaccurate one. The accuracy allows us to hit the target that we are aiming for and this can be important in calibration in order that we hit the target at the correct distance rather than some closer one by accident. Thus it can be seen that accuracy in the thrust can be of great importance in its execution and calibration of the thrust. In order to investigate this the technical detail must be addressed. The thrust is not merely shoving the point of the weapon at the opponent and this must be realised at its most base level. There are various elements which come into play in the execution of the thrust and only if all of these elements are combined together properly will the thrust be executed properly. Each one of these elements can affect the calibration of the thrust, some will more than others. Each part of the thrust needs to be examined in order to understand the action properly and be able to do it properly. In the execution of the thrust the point should move in a straight line from its starting position to its target with very little deviation. This will ensure that the point has travelled the shortest distance to its target. This is important for accuracy and also speed. A change in direction of the thrust can also affect calibration as the point may gain more velocity, or it may change the distance. Thus it is important that the point travels in the shortest line to its target. ....

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.