Pavlov's Fencers

Greetings,

Are you fencing for the points, or for the joy of swordsmanship? Is it more important that you struck your opponent, or how you struck your opponent? These are some important questions that we must ask ourselves as fencers, and as practitioners of swordplay.

I would say that there are some fencers out there who are like Pavlov's dogs, who are only happy when they hear the sound of a buzzer, or the referee announcing that they have struck their opponent. These individuals have little care for how they struck their opponent, so long as they struck their opponent. They will also find a single weakness in their opponent and then strike that area for as many points as they can; either until they have the points, or the weakness is fixed. Regardless of what sort of sword they carry or what sort of swordsmanship they claim to pursue, they are "sport fencers", there for the win.

Conditioning

The interesting thing is that Pavlov's dogs and the form of conditioning involved here is called "classical conditioning" what we see with fencers and their only glee being when they strike, and hear the buzzer or the referee announce a hit is called operant conditioning.

Operant conditioning (also called instrumental conditioning) is a type of associative learning process through which the strength of a behavior is modified by reinforcement or punishment. It is also a procedure that is used to bring about such learning. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning)

 The reinforcement is the win, the punishment is the loss of the bout. This is a very simplistic way of looking at the processes and the thinking which is behind this "sport fencer", but it fits quite well. They only measure themselves on the strength of their last tournament placing, for the most part, who they have beaten recently, there is little consideration for personal development, and this approach affects their fencing and those they teach.

Effect

A person could succeed at being a "sport fencer" from learning a very simple set of skills to a very high degree of precision. These skills would then be applied to their opponent with simple counters against the actions they might perform, leading to simple attacks nurtured in the simple set of skills. An example from rapier: a lunge for the attack at Distance; thrust for closer which is part of the lunge anyway; a circular parry as the default defensive response to cover all Lines; and finally parry-and- riposte in Double and Single Time to counter the opponent's actions. Learned with precision and to a high degree of accuracy, these would be sufficient to see a "sport fencer" through most encounters. I know this from experience. I have been there... and found it boring.

The "sport fencer" refines their skills not to learning systems, but to what "works" against opponents at the time. They learn a collection of tips and tricks which they can apply against various opponents. Mostly, these tips and tricks are offensive in nature, as the focus is always on how to score against the opponent. The focus is always on how to score on the opponent.

When we examine different forms of fencing we see the effect on fencing, and the focus on their fencing baring out in the actions performed. Modern or sport fencing is focused on scoring points these days. Clubs are primarily focused on the most effective methods for striking the opponent, so methods such as "the flick" are used; methods which when used with a real sword would have no effect, except maybe the lightest of scratches. The flèche is over-used because it involves quickly striking the opponent.

The result of this focus on striking the opponent, on setting a buzzer off is a loss of form. The classical lines of fencing are lost, its classical skills are mostly lost along with it. There is also a loss of the control of Distance along with it; resulting in two fencers stabbing at one another at close range, neither wanting to break Distance for fear of being struck contorting themselves to bring their points in contact. It also results in fencers striking one another at the same time; 40 millisecond's difference (in épée) and one has struck the other first, and a point is awarded, but it is not good fencing.

In HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) much the same thing is happening. Once all of the study was completed, there were those who decided that there must be somewhere they can test their skills against one another so HEMA tournaments were set up. They are scored in much the same way as sport fencing, with a referee awarding hits against either combatant when they are struck. With the introduction of line judges, it is drifting even further toward its cousin.

For some schools the training has also drifted more and more toward preparing their students for tournaments, making them eager to face the students of other schools, to taste victory. The focus is then on the result, not how the person got there. Actions are chosen out of the curriculum for how effective they will be in a tournament situation, rather than being taught as complete systems. Power is often emphasised over finesse to the point where these ostensibly unarmoured tournaments have competitors competing in a type of armour, because of the power increases, not being able to perform actions properly. Speed is emphasised over technique, with muscle used instead of the method described utilising the motions of the body, so actions are performed with too much power and too much speed, so they are sloppy and uncontrolled; so PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) becomes the prime ensurer of safety rather than the competitor's control.

Tournaments

Tournaments become the focus rather than personal development, so the fencers only care about how well they went in the last tournament. They don't particularly care about how they got there, they only care about the result of the tournament. The higher placed individuals in the schools become the focus, they become the focus of training and the focus of attention and promotion. This is where it is evident that a school has a tournament focus, rather than a focus on swordsmanship. Members of such schools are always the first to argue the rules, squeezing the rules so they benefit their school's approach. 

The Double-Hit

One area of contention is always the double-hit and how it should be dealt with. In some tournaments there is the statement that double-hits will simply be fought again; in others the blows performed in the double-hit count against the combatants because they were foolish not to consider their defence; yet others introduce a concept found primarily in longsword schools and tournaments called the "after-blow", a combatant struck has a short period of time to return a blow against their opponent. I have already discussed this in a previous article.

These arguments often rage long and quite passionately with many different claims about the fairness or combat realities of one rule-set over another. The thing that is lost in these discussions is that both combatants in a double-hit have failed, they have failed to consider their defence. This is the problem with the focus on striking the opponent, the fundamentals of fencing of all kinds gets lost "to strike without being struck."

Results

The result-focus is an issue that many do not see because the effect is only found by how others perceive them. This is because the focus on results rather than how the person got to the result forgets the effect of what impact and they might have on their opponent, and on those who will see the bouts that they fought. I have previously discussed renown and notoriety and it is a subject which keeps coming up in discussion. In our modern world the problem is that the line between them often is blurred.

There are those who are known to be notorious, and this is their claim to fame, it is what attracts people to them. This is a reverse of what the concept really implies. For the swordsman of the Medieval and Renaissance period, and a little today, to be notorious is to be only respected for the victories that the individual gains. This individual is respected for their skills in combat, but they are not a person you want to get to know. Once they lose, their reputation that is the end of their respect, until they find victory again.

A fencer with renown is known for more than their skill, they are known for how they achieve their victory. They are respected for their skill, but also respected for much more, because of how they deal with their opponents. The fencer with renown's reputation lasts longer than their victories because they have the respect of people for more than just mere skill. This fencer has their eye on more than just the result, they are concerned about how they got there.

More to Life

There is more to life with a sword than just victory. There is more to swordplay than just learning those techniques that will allow you to defeat your opponent. Learning a system of swordsmanship is a longer, harder road than learning tips and tricks, and it will not win you tournaments in the beginning, it may not win you tournaments in the end, but it is a process of personal development that the focus on winning tournaments does not bring.

I have been the "sport fencer". I know what it is like to focus on the next tournament, the next opponent, the next victory, and it is a life which is far less fulfilling than delving into treatises and discovering the true arts of the sword which have been left to us. Learning a system of swordsmanship gives you a foundation upon which other learning can be based. Learning a system can allow you to take it apart so you can know how to deal with it if an opponent uses it against you.

Seek renown, be considerate of your opponent. Seek the honourable path, and the honourable victory. Find a teacher who will allow you to develop as a fencer, not one who is focused simply on how to defeat different opponents; there are always new opponents with new skills, a proper foundation is the best place to start to deal with them.

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.

Against Strength

Greetings,

In a person's fencing career, they will always come up against an opponent who will want to use strength as their primary method to force their way through an engagement. Over the past months I have been dealing with this problem with some of my students, thus how to deal with an opponent who uses strength. This article deals with questions relating to the use of physical strength and where it originates.

Reasons

To understand where the idea of a person using strength, it is necessary to understand where this individual is coming from, where they get the idea that strength is the most advantageous method. This often comes from a couple of main sources: a) skill compensation, b) improper grip on the sword, and c) simple size advantage over their opponent. Each will be addressed in turn.

1. Compensation

The first is skill compensation. Often a fencer will compensate for a lack of skill with a weapon by using strength against an opponent. They will compensate for a lack of finesse in their actions by using strength, forcing the action through rather than using the correct blade engagement or Timing. This often happens when a person has not practiced the individual elements enough, or has not spent enough time honing their skill, as a result they use strength in their blade-work to force the weapon through. This results in actions which rely on strength for success.

2. Improper Grip

The next is an improper grip. If the weapon is gripped tightly or even simply incorrectly, a fencer will not be able to use an even grip on their sword. This will prevent the use of senso di ferro or sentiment du fer. This means that they will rely on a heavy pressure against their opponent's blade and will not  feel a lighter pressure against it. This will cause the fencer to force their way through an engagement rather than reading through feeling and applying the appropriate pressure for the action which they want to use. An improper grip on the weapon can cause a fencer many issues, and not just this one.

3. Size/Strength Advantage

Finally there is size advantage. A larger opponent will often use strength against an opponent who is smaller or weaker than they are believing that strength and speed are the best ways to deal with this opponent. This is often seen with larger male opponents against female opponents, but is not necessarily restricted to such. The same larger male combatant will also use strength against a weaker male opponent as well. This is simply using an aspect of physical strength against another. It is a very unsubtle approach and the weaker combatant will be surprised and defeated by the stronger opponent and will not see a way around them. But the stronger combatant can also be defeated by the weaker opponent as will be demonstrated below.

With all the discussions of the reasons that strength is used in an over-compensating way, it is now possible to discuss how to defeat a combatant who uses strength in this method. It should be noted, there is a place for strength in swordplay, but it needs to be applied with knowledge of the situation at the correct moment for the greatest effect. Much of this relies on a correct reading of the situation and thus good senso di ferro.

Against Strength

There are two prime methods of dealing with an opponent who uses strength: avoidance and using the strength against them. These two methods have a similar approach to them but are also different and thus must be explained separately. Each uses an aspect of the use of strength so that the fencer who is subject to the strength of the opponent to gain an advantage.

1. Avoidance

You can use avoidance to compensate for an opponent using strength. There are a couple of ways to do this. The first is through Absence of Blade. If the opponent is strong on their engagements and is using strength to control or move the weapon away so they can control or strike, simply do not give them the opportunity. Avoid contact with their weapon. This way the opponent will not be able to apply their strength to your weapon because they will not connect with it.

Another method is diversion. Rather than seeking solid contact with the opponent's weapon, which they can then use to gain strength against your weapon. Use your weapon to divert their attacks when they are made; divert their weapon when they want to make contact with yours. Such is achieved by angling your weapon so theirs always deflects off your weapon so it never maintains contact. Using disengages and slips with the weapon are prime methods in the arsenal for diversion.

2. Use the Strength

You can use their strength against them and also strength that they cannot resist. These are two different approaches which are based on a similar approach. The first is an approach using the Strength/Weak dichotomy. It is known that strength has the advantage over weak, because it can force the weak, but the weak can also have the advantage over the strength because the weak can slip from the weak and remain mobile and put the strength out of place. For example: The opponent engages hard with strength on the blade pushing forward, the combatant uses weakness and uses the strength to turn their weapon out of the way and back on-line so an attack can be made. This approach is similar in approach to the Avoidance approach above but uses the strength of the opponent's weapon use against them.

You can also use mechanical advantage to your advantage to create strength. Ensure that when the opponent applies strength to your weapon that you always ensure that you have mechanical advantage or can angle your weapon so theirs, through their strength, is always moved to your forte. Regardless of how strong they are, when their debole (or foible) is at your forte you have a clear mechanical advantage and their strength does not count for much. This uses some of the idea of diversion, which was discussed above.

There are aspects of strength which even the smallest and weakest can use against the largest which they cannot resist. The first of these is foot placement, if yours is better, with your feet lining up with one another, you are in a better and stronger position, especially if this lines up between theirs. This is enhanced if the forward foot lines up with your forward hand. The last part of this is what di Grassi calls the "Agreement of Foot and Hand", the previous element comes from Fiore and is noted in the foot positions of his plays. 

Added to this is skeletal alignment, any time that you can line up aspects of your skeleton, in a thrust, parry, or any other action you form a position which the strongest opponent cannot force through. They will be fighting with their muscles against your bones. So long as you keep your bones aligned you will have the strength. If you add this to the two previous elements, you will be in the position of strength.

Recommendations

In regard to recommendations of which skills to use against a stronger opponent, I would recommend those which do not try to match your strength against theirs. If they want to use strength, turn it against them. Show them how the use of strength is not an approach which will be effective against you. I teach these techniques to every student of mine who has issues with those who use strength against them. Like all skills they need to be practiced. Find the skills that suit how you fence, but be warned that applying these new skills may take a change in approach.

A fencer who only uses strength in their game is missing out on a lot. They are missing out on the finer aspects of swordplay and will not go as far as a fencer who spends the time to learn these finer aspects. Spend the time, learn proper blade engagement and all the other skills of fencing so that you have a complete skill-set to use against your opponent. A fencer with a diverse skill-set is a much greater opponent than one who relies on any one skill-set. 

Cheers,

Henry.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Applied to Fencing

Greetings,

Some first things that need to be established. I am not a physicist, I have not studied physics save for a little dabbling in Aristotelian Physics to greater understand Renaissance thought. So with this in mind my approach to using Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is going to be a little "popularist" and a little "generic". Please do not try to argue the physics of the situation, I am taking something from one field and applying it to another where I believe it fits. The inspiration for this came from watching a movie from another entirely different field, "The Catcher Was a Spy" in which the theory was used in a similar way to explain something not to do with physics.

"[Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle] is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which the values for certain pairs of physical quantities of a particle, such as position, x, and momentum, p, can be predicted from initial conditions. Such variable pairs are known as complementary variables or canonically conjugate variables, and, depending on interpretation, the uncertainty principle limits to what extent such conjugate properties maintain their approximate meaning, as the mathematical framework of quantum physics does not support the notion of simultaneously well-defined conjugate properties expressed by a single value. The uncertainty principle implies that it is in general not possible to predict the value of a quantity with arbitrary certainty, even if all initial conditions are specified."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)

"I thought this was a fencing blog. What am I doing reading about physics?" This is probably what's going through your mind as you read the previous quote. The thing that needs noting about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is that it can be applied to fields outside those of quantum mechanics and even physics. Or at least a certain basis of the Principle can be applied to these things. It is that last part which is most interesting, "it is in general not possible to predict the value of a quantity with arbitrary certainty, even if all initial conditions are specified."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle). Here, it is used as a "framing device".

In regard to fencing there are details given about techniques. These are based on the actions of what an opponent will do in response to the action of the fencer. Indeed, other actions are established on what the fencer is only able to do from that particular position. 

Other techniques are detailed, these are based upon how a weapon will move. Others are founded on actions of the opponent. Some actions are established on the action of the fencer, intended to make the opponent move their weapon, thus produce the moving weapon. 

Further admonitions assert, a fencer will act from a particular position in response to the action of the fencer and will move their weapon in a particular way. So prediction is made based upon both the position and the action. Indeed the same can be said that a fencer can be predicted to move in a particular way from a particular position with or without stimulus, according to what the texts teach us.

According to the Uncertainty Principle, none of this is possible. As it has been previously presented,  such predictions cannot be made based upon such initial conditions when they are specified. A fencer may not execute the action predicted by the text, so the fencer has to respond in a different way. The fencer actually had no idea how an opponent will respond to any action they might make. All they can do is assess the probability of the response of the opponent.

The fencer must work on a probability matrix based on what they have observed of the opponent, but they can never be 100% sure of any action of the opponent, regardless of what information they have. Reading the opponent is vital in assessing this probability of what an opponent may do. The fencer should never be so sure that they think they know exactly what the opponent must do. The opponent always has options which are not planned for.

Cheers,

Henry.

[Edited for clarity: 20/08/2020]

Of the Use of the Foil

Greetings,

The foil is a much misunderstood weapon. From the point of view of many historical fencers it is much maligned, and even from modern fencers it is misunderstood due to the rules which are associated with it. The following discussion attempts to shed some light on the use of the foil not only to the modern fencer, but to fencers in general as it can be a most useful tool when it is approached from the correct perspective.

The original purpose of the foil was as a training weapon for the smallsword. It was a lighter version created so that the weapon could be held for an extended period of time so more training could be done. Clearly it was blunted so that it could be used in training. The "right of way" rules which are associated and also its target area, limited to the torso, were both designed to protect the individuals who were practicing with it to prevent injury to them.

When the foil was first introduced, masks were not being used so removing the head from target was an effort to prevent damage to the vulnerable face. The "right of way" rules encouraged fencers to ensure that they had a defence presented before they launched an attack at their opponent, thus preventing two fencers from impaling one another and losing control of where the points of the weapons went. This training tool encouraged the fencer to prepare a proper defence, and penalised the fencer who did not defend themselves before attacking.

The foil's prime current use is in modern fencing where it is recognised as one of the three weapons used. This is the weapon which every beginner should start with as it teaches all of the basic fencing actions with the point and teaches the fencer form in these actions. Further, with the "right of way" rule, as it was previously stated, teaches the fencer to defend themselves before attacking. The foundation of a good modern fencing career starts with the foil. All of the actions of the foil transfer to the epee, and the "right of way" rules are used in sabre, with the addition of cuts.

The historical fencer can use the foil for its original purpose, as indicated, for practicing smallsword, but this is not the only purpose that the foil can serve. The nature of the weapon means that actions need to be performed with precision for them to work, so it encourages the individual who practices with the foil to increase their accuracy in their technique. This weapon has utility in practicing for rapier actions as well.

If the foil is used for practicing rapier actions one will find that accuracy in technique is required. There is no weight in the weapon to compensate for sloppy technique. Blade engagement actions need to be made accurately and so do actions on the blade. This is only accentuated where the foil is used for practice against a partner using a rapier, but if the actions are accurate in their performance then the actions will succeed. It is not recommended that the foil be taken against the rapier in any sort of antagonistic scenario as the foil is simply much too light physically to stand against the rapier and has a higher chance of breaking dangerously in this sort of scenario.

The foil is especially useful for those times when a person is restricted due to some illness or injury. The foil is much lighter than most other weapons and thus can still be carried and used for practice. I have done this myself when I was not able to use a rapier due to an injury and found that using the foil, I was able to participate in training exercises. I further found that such participation was useful because it made me perform the actions properly, due to the nature of the weapon that was being used.

To understand the use of a weapon means that a person must understand the weapon. This requires looking into the purpose of the weapon. The foil is a practice weapon and should be used as such. It is an often forgotten, and often maligned weapon that can be most useful to all sorts of fencers, should it be examined from the correct perspective. Take another look, have another go, the foil is more useful than you realise.

Cheers,

Henry.

Accuracy is the Best Weapon

Greetings,

The following discussion is about accuracy and the assertion that "accuracy is the best weapon". This will be discussed from three different points of view, all of which are relevant to those with an interest in swordplay. Accuracy is an element of which its importance cannot be denied, but for many where the application of accuracy applies, it is only limited whereas its scope is much wider.

Accuracy is always more important than speed. An accurate thrust which is a little slower is far more dangerous than a fast thrust that does not always find its mark. This is the primary place where accuracy is seen as important in swordplay, but it is not the only place. The same accuracy can also be applied to the cut as well. A cut which can be directed to a specific target each time is more dangerous to an enemy than a fast one that might find its target. Speed can always be solved with timing, accuracy is reliant on itself. The most amusing thing is that the accuracy in attack leads on to a discussion which is often forgotten.

Accuracy must be maintained in the use of the weapon. This means accuracy in technique. It is from here that efficiency is built and from here that real speed is built. When the individual focuses on accuracy of technique they will find that the weapon will be more controllable, thus it will go where they want it to and be more accurate. Due to the accuracy of technique there will be less wasted motions made in the technique, thus it will be more efficient thus it will seem to be quicker. Speed is built more efficiently from accuracy of technique rather than muscle power. Accuracy of technique also means that the fencer will defend themselves better, attack better, and fence better in general. Accuracy of technique should always be the focus when using the sword.

Accuracy is also necessary in the use of research materials. It is vital that a person present what is actually said in the research materials rather than some other interpretation of what is said in them. The skill to present research materials in a usable fashion is one which takes time to hone, and also takes acknowledgement of an individual's personal biases as well, as these will colour the presentation of the research material. Especially where there is some interpretation required from what is presented, as is found in primary source fencing treatises, particular attention needs to be paid to presenting what is in these sources accurately.

Accuracy is also required in arguments. A person needs to say exactly what they mean to say, and the person on the other side of the argument needs to hear exactly what was said. One of the reasons why arguments of an intellectual kind become so heated and become emotional is because people are not accurate in the presentation of their arguments. One side or the other adds or subtracts from what was said by the other party and this is where intellectual arguments degrade into just plain arguments with little point and little intellectual result. In these arguments emotion needs to be removed so that the intellectual side may be maintained. Accuracy is important so that points of view may be presented properly and so that arguments are presented accurately.

Accuracy in all its forms is of vital importance. For the fencer this comes in many different forms, from the attacks made, to research made, to actions performed, to arguments made. Each one must be made accurately so that the fencer can put themselves forward in the best light and in the best manner. Each one takes practice and time to develop, but each has rewards for the person willing to take that time.

Cheers,

Henry.

On Holding the Sword

Greetings,

The action of holding the sword is one of the most fundamental of fencing, and yet it is one which seems to be passed over in preference for other subjects such as how the rest of the body should be placed. It would seem that holding the sword, or the grip would be a simple action, but there are mistakes that can easily be made which will affect how the sword is used.

Gripping the sword seems simple enough but there are often mistakes made. The sword is sometimes held too tightly or too loosely. The sword is sometimes held by the wrong fingers, or with the pressure of the wrong fingers. Each one of these elements can impact how the sword is used by the fencer. Of course it also depends on which sword is being spoken about, so some specificity is necessary before proceeding any further.

Weapon

The reason that the sword needs to be spoken about is that the hilt shape and construction will be important to how the sword will be correctly held. Holding a foil with a French grip will be different to holding a sabre, which will be different to holding a rapier. Due to it being the weapon which I have most familiarity with, the rapier will be the focus of the discussion. To this, the weapon will be taken to have a straight handle, quillons, and a ricasso as the essential elements which will be required.

Sword Methodology

With the weapon and hilt discussed, the gripping of the weapon can be returned to. The rapier may be gripped in several different ways, depending on what the fencer intends to do with the weapon, and how the fencer wishes to fence with it or what style they wish to use. Again, some specificity is required because often the grip will change to suit the the methodology of using the sword. For the purposes of this discussion the fencer will be assumed to be using an Italian or Elizabethan methodology, thus using both cut and thrust, but primarily thrust.

Effects

A sword which is held too tightly is difficult to move because the muscles are already constrained. It is also difficult to practice fine movements because of the constraint on the muscles. Further, feeling through the blade (senso di ferro or sentiment du fer) is more difficult to access if the weapon is held too tightly. If the weapon is used to cut, the weapon will more likely smack into the target and bounce off rather than slicing into the target. Finally, holding the sword tightly uses energy which will tire the hand quickly which means the fencer will tire quickly.

A sword which is held too loosely is difficult to control, and is thus difficult to practice accurate fine movements due to the lack of control. The weapon is more easily controlled by the opponent. The weapon will be easily beaten and the fencer is more likely to be disarmed. If the weapon is held too loosely it will not be able to apply the pressure that is required to transmit a proper cut, and the looseness of the blade will likely make it bounce off rather than slicing the target.

The rapier should be held by the index and the thumb primarily, assisted by the other fingers. If it is held by the middle, ring and little finger, there will be less control over the point. There will also be a higher likelihood of the fencer being disarmed due to the lack of pressure around the ricasso. Pressure from the lower fingers should only be used to move the point about, these are manipulators.

The Grips

In every method, the sword should be gripped as if holding a small bird. Firm enough so that it will not fly away, but not so tightly that you will crush it. Another way to think of this is how you would hold the hand of your significant other, tight enough to let them know that you are there, but not so tight that you will crack their knuckles. The grip should be firm not tight.

The first method of gripping the rapier is the single finger grip in which the index finger alone is wrapped around the ricasso, around the true edge. The thumb should fold over and either sit on the quillon block or on top of the index finger, or on the false edge of the ricasso. The other three fingers should be then wrapped around the handle. This is the method that I prefer.

The second method of gripping the rapier is the two-finger grip in which the index and middle fingers are wrapped about the ricasso. They are both placed about the true edge side of the ricasso. The thumb is then placed against the index finger or against the false edge of the ricasso. The ring finger and little finger are then wrapped about the handle.

Other methods of gripping the sword are modifications of one of these two methods. The only method which I strongly discourage is one in which the index finger is wrapped around the quillon on the false edge side of the ricasso and the middle finger is wrapped around the quillon on the true edge side of the ricasso. This method results in a "punch-grip" on the sword, which often results in a lack of control and also striking much harder than is required for this weapon.

Which Method?

Which method should you use? The one which is most comfortable for you. So long as you follow the guidelines which have been presented here, and then find the method which is most comfortable for you and provides you with the easiest method of movement of the sword, then you should be fine.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. Ask your trainer, ask your class-mates, everyone will (or should) have an idea of the reason why they hold the sword in the way that they do. Different ideas about how to hold the sword can only be of benefit.

The correct method of holding the sword is essential for using the sword properly. Actions can only be performed accurately and properly if the sword is held properly. Often the root-cause of a fencer's issue with a particular technique is that they are simply holding the sword incorrectly, or at least with some issues. The most fundamental elements have the greatest effect on your fencing, the way that you grip your sword is one of these.

Cheers,

Henry.

Drills are Not Combat

Greetings,

Have you ever been in a class performing a drill and a person states that they could counter the action that you are doing with another? How about, that the drill that they are doing is artificial and does not relate to combat? What has happened here is that the person who has made these statements is probably true on the first, and is definitely true on the second, and it is because drills are not combat.

Drills are related to combat in that they will teach you the skills that you will use in combat. They will teach you the individual skills not how they should be used in combat. If you approach your combats the same way as you approach your drill expecting that your opponent is going to give you the cues and exact attacks given in a drill, you are going to be sadly mistaken.

A thrust and parry drill teaches one partner how to thrust properly, and one partner how to parry properly. It teaches the each partner the bare mechanics of one action and the timing of the action of the parry. Nothing more. Then they swap and they get to drill the other action and learn it. This is not combat.

Even when the drills become more complex, it is still not combat. In the drill: one thrusts; the other parries, binds, steps in and cuts and then moves off to a safe position on guard. There are several actions in this drill. It is not combat because the opponent does not respond to the bind, nor the stepping in, nor the cut. Even when the counter is added to the drill, it is still not combat. It is a drill with a responsive element. It teaches the student how to close and cut, and also how to respond to an opponent who does the same.

Drills are artificial and they often do not relate to combat because they take skills in isolation and focus on them so the students can learn them. Drills are designed to take a skill or a set of skills and work on these particular skills without the involvement of others in particular, or at all in some cases. There are drills which do not use footwork, something which is mostly essential in combat for the fencer to survive. There are drills in which one partner only defends, something that is not likely to happen in combat. Drills are artificial and they are supposed to be, they are skill-focussed.

The next time that you are drilling remember to focus on what's being worked on at that point in time. There is no point in worrying about how it relates to other things, your trainer will get around to showing you how it all fits together. Drills are designed to put a particular skill or skills in a situation where they can be focussed on and used over and over. This is so that the skill can be learnt. This is the purpose of drills, for learning. Combat is a different thing altogether.

Cheers,

Henry.

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.

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.

Relax and Fence

Greetings,

We all know that muscles need oxygen, so we need to breathe when we are exercising, so this would be the reason why some time ago I wrote a post about the necessity of standing up straight in the on guard position (http://afencersramblings.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/stand-up-straight-and-relax.html). What you will notice about this post is that there is an element of the relaxation point in here as well. This element will be the focus in this post.

First point, when you are tense, your muscles tense unconsciously. This burns energy, so you are burning fuel without even doing anything. Relaxing will increase your endurance when you fence. Further, when your muscles are tense before action they move slower, when they are relaxed before action they move faster.

When people tense up one of the first things they stop doing when they make an action in fencing is breathing. When you relax, you will breathe properly, this means that your muscles will become oxygenated properly this also means that you will have more endurance. When people tense up another thing they stop doing is thinking and this is never good. The physical elements lead to the psychological elements.

Relax, take a breath and just fence. "Well that's easy for you to say." Why? What is so important? Are you going to die if your opponent hits you? Most of the pressures that are built up, we build up ourselves and it is up to us to remove them. It is not easy and it will take time.

Practice is for practice. This means that you are supposed to try new things. This means that you are supposed to make mistakes. The most important thing is that you learn from those mistakes. If you are not getting hit while bouting at practice, then you are not learning, and you are not progressing. If you have just learnt a new action or skill in a lesson, you are supposed to be trying it out in bouting. Talk to your opponent and tell them what you want to practice; maybe they will want to practice something too and then you can help them.

Release the pressure. Find out what is causing the pressure in your fencing. Find a way to release it. ...

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.

Brutal Fencing II: Aggressive Versus Assertive

Greetings,

A long while ago I wrote a post on Aggressive and Brutal Fencing. At that point in time I really was not able to explain what I meant. Well, I was able to explain what I didn't mean, but I was not able to explain what I thought was suitable. This post is an attempt to address this particular issue and hopefully clear up some meaning. This was greatly helped by reading one of the articles in the Encased in Steel: Anthology I, which I reviewed.

The Oxford dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/) defines the terms as follows:
Assertive: "having or showing a confident and forceful personality"
Aggressive: "Ready or likely to confront; characterized by or resulting from aggression"

One is an expression of confidence, the other is an expression of confrontation. While they could be seen as being quite similar they are actually different. The assertive may attack because he is confident about himself and is thus assured of the result, but he will choose when. The aggressive must attack because he must because that is his way, he has no choice.

So, a person in their fencing when facing and bouting or even competing against another opponent should be assertive rather than aggressive. To be aggressive in this instance is to use power and force where it is not required, to overtly over-power the opponent much as any thug would. To be assertive on ...

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.

Of Wasters

Greetings,

The subject of wasters is something which I have been meaning to write about for a while. I have certain opinions which I believe I need to share with regard to them and the change in attitude with regard to them. What needs to be noted throughout this discussion is that I am not decrying the use of wasters completely and utterly at all, merely that they are being used incorrectly in their current form.

Wasters have been a part of Western Martial Arts for many years, indeed their use can be documented as far back as the Roman period where wooden swords (rudius) were used by both legionaries and gladiators for practice. These weapons were used both against the Palus or pell, a standing stake and also in mock combats. Wooden weapons were used in these instances to ensure that no permanent injuries came to the combatants. This idea of using wooden weapons flowed through to the medieval and Renaissance periods and has been adopted in our modern period.

In the first instances the waster in the modern period was only available in wood, this made for a hard, not very forgiving item meaning that they were best designed for practice with another with control exercised on both sides, and of course use at the pell. The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) took this one step further and used weapons made out of rattan in their melee combatants as a standard weapon for fighting in armour and so it has continued to this day.

More recently nylon and other forms of plastic waster have been introduced, these were, in the beginning, much more forgiving and thus allowed more free-play between the combatants so long as a level of control was shown. Indeed with regard to nylon wasters, back in 2011, I participated in some combats using nylon waster longswords in very minimal armour, and thanks to the control of my opponents and myself the worst the combatants walked away with was a welt here and there. You can follow the following link to have a look at some of those combats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9PoU_i--20

Due to this particular outing it gave me the idea that if you needed lots of armour to use wasters with an opponent you're doing something wrong. This idea is quite contrary to what I have seen most recently where combatants fighting with wasters are having to armour up to the point where they might as well be using steel, as there is not much difference in the armour requirements. Further, in stark contrast to ...

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 Myth of Speed

Greetings,

Interested in learning how to be amazingly fast, performing actions faster than your opponents? Do you want to know the secrets? Unfortunately the secrets are not really secrets. In fact, there are no secret methods or practices to make you faster. It comes from practice.

Now, it is true that muscle use does have a part to play and this has an effect upon the skill being performed, but where the muscles end the hard work begins. There is only a finite amount of power that can be added to an action before it starts to be a problem. Too much power added to the action can actually decrease the efficiency of the action. Practicing the action allows control to be added to the equation thus the right amount of power is added.

The reason that the more experienced combatant seems to move faster is that they have had more practice. The result of the practice is that the actions of the combatant become efficient thus making the ...

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.