Most important trait in swordplay...

 Greetings,

What is the most important trait in swordplay? Is it courage, honesty, skill, or sportsmanship? The latter of which comes in many different forms. Indeed, each of these attributes could be considered to come in different forms, and there are other attributes that could be named as vital to a fencer who wants to progress. Maybe it is being inquisitive, having a sharp mind, the ability to analyse and question? Again, attributes which contribute to a fencer which will progress mightily along their path.

For our current discussion, I would like to look at the concept of honesty, and not just in regard to what belongs to you and what does not. I would like to look deeper into this concept as it applies to the training in swordplay and also the combatant using those skills in training and bouting with another. For without this trait, it is difficult to progress. A fencer who is not honest with themselves will stagnate,  cause their career to end much sooner than it could, and prevent them from attaining greater heights of skill and knowledge.

In Combat

Honesty is required for a combatant to acknowledge a hit against them. It is required to disallow a bad hit against an opponent when the blade may have landed flat or without the required impetus. Both of these allow the fencer to have an enjoyable bout with a fellow combatant as both will know what's going on. Both will know how effective they are being, and where their technique may need improvement, both in defence and in attack.

Being honest and acknowledging a hit against you, allows you to learn. It allows you to see that you have made a mistake in some fashion, and as such can analyse the action to find out where the mistake can be found, so you can fix it. If you disallow the hit, don't acknowledge it, you lose the chance to learn from your mistake; you lose the chance to grow.

Likewise, being honest and disallowing a bad hit against an opponent in the same way allows you to examine the technique and see where you went wrong. This allows for analysis where you can improve the technique so you can be a better fencer, so you won't make the same mistake again. If you don't acknowledge the mistake, you again lose the chance to learn and grow.

Knowledge

Away from the application of one weapon against another, there is still honesty to be found, and still honesty required of the combatant. This becomes even more important the more a combatant progresses. No fencer can know everything. The honest acknowledgement of this lack of knowledge gives the individual the opportunity to learn. Indeed, it opens the individual to learning.

The simple fact is, the more you learn, the more you will realise just how much there is to learn. The more knowledge you gain, the more you will realise just how much knowledge there is available, and the amount of knowledge that you do not have. This is a healthy attitude as it opens you to learn more, and keep learning.

The lack of acknowledgement of the amount of knowledge present demonstrates a person who is not interested in learning; it shows a person who has closed their mind, and is not interested in learning. A fencer who thinks they know everything they need to know, and really does not, as there is always more to learn. Knowledge is always growing and will never end, so the learning process must never end.

Learning

Learning is essential to the fencer so they can grow. The combatant should take the opportunity to learn from as many teachers as they can once they have their basics mastered; even before, as a different perspective of the basics is often useful. The fencer should take the opportunity to learn from teachers from outside their school of thought as this will broaden their mind and give them a better understanding of swordplay in general. It will give them an advantage against what other opponent's may use in bouts, but it is also useful for broadening their mind, and gaining the understanding of the universal aspects of swordplay.

The fencer who does not keep learning will not learn how to deal with new techniques that others learn, new weapon combinations that appear. Likewise they will be unfamiliar with approaches from other schools of thought and be taken aback, while they may have theories about how to deal with these approaches, learning from the sources is always better. Without consistent and constant learning and practice, the fencer is bound to fail.

Trained Instinct

Honesty must be a trained instinct that students within a school are shown and taught, as Seneca said, "No man’s good by accident. Virtue has to be learnt." They must be taught it by their teachers so they can understand its importance, and then have it demonstrated so the importance is shown from a practical perspective. For teachers this concept must be a consistent approach, so they must be aware of their actions. The students will learn everything from their teachers, both explicit and implicit in nature.

Students who are trained to call blows when they hit them are being trained in honesty. Likewise, they are being trained in honesty when they call bad blows on their opponents. The focus in these situations should always be on the progression of the students, not the outcome of the bouts. They need to be shown that it is better to lose with honesty than win with deceit; because they can learn from the loss. 

Win Focus

Unfortunately, this perspective is not the prevailing one in our present day; I can claim this for HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) as much as it is for sport fencing. As I write this I can already hear the arguments against what I have written, and against this I will ask some simple questions: 

Why are judges and/or electronic scoring apparatus needed? 

Why can't the fencers call the touches upon themselves?

The arguments I will get from the sport fencers are: the touches come in too quickly; they can't call the hits that quickly; they don't know whether the hit is clean or not; or they aren't used to calling the hits on themselves. If both combatants are being hit, then it is a double, simple. If you don't know whether it is clean or not, then your technique needs improvement. If you're not used to calling the hits, that's a mere matter of practice. The last argument is the prime one that the HEMA people give as well, the others sometimes fall in not far behind. In my opinion they are becoming like one another.

Simply put, this is a result of the result being more important than the journey. The focus here is on the win rather than the development of the fencer. Fencers are focused on what works rather than developing the Art and Science of Fencing, or Swordplay, they are both the same, just different weapons for different periods. The prime problem is that people refuse to be honest, because the win is more important that what they can learn - this is a failure.

In HEMA there are long arguments about "double-hits" and "after-blows" in regard to rules-sets. It is very simple to fix this problem. If both combatants get hit, it is a failure to defend on both their parts, they both are penalised, because both have forgotten the essential part of fencing, "to hit without being struck." Any gap of time in between is meaningless. The sport fencers solved this problem with electronic scoring, unless you want to go down this path, fix it quickly.

Honesty is Vital

Honesty is vital to a fencer's true progression in fencing. If a fencer wants to become truly skilled with a sword, or any other weapon for that matter, they need to be honest. They need to be honest in their practice. They need to be honest in their training, and the amount of training they are doing. They need to be honest in their study. They need to be honest in their combats, be it a bout with another student in a school or in a tournament. Every one of these situations is a chance to learn.

The teacher should encourage the fencer to follow a path toward honesty and responsibility. The important thing here is that the teacher can encourage, it is good for the fencing community and it is good for the community at large. Bringing things back to the fencer, it is also good for the fencer. The more honest the fencer becomes and the more responsibility the combatant takes for their actions, and their training, the better off they will be.

If you are not honest about how far you have come, how can you know how far you have to go? If you are not honest about how far you have to go, how can you dedicate yourself to that process?

If you are not honest in your combats, how can you learn from the experiences? This applies to both those fencers who under-estimate themselves as much as those who over-estimate themselves. You need to be honest about your level of skill and your current training, it is only with this honesty that you can progress further. 

The only trait which may stand a chance at being as important as honesty is courage. Regardless of the courage it takes to face an opponent, it takes courage to accept how far you have to go. It takes courage to accept a hit, be honest about it, and then keep going. It takes courage to honestly evaluate what you have learned realise you have made a mistake and acknowledge it. 

Ask yourself, how honest are you being?

Cheers,

Henry.

Sharp vs Blunt Sword: The Effect on Interpretation

Greetings,

These days the two prime places we see sharp swords are as show pieces hanging on someone's wall either as an antique or as a fancy weapon, or during test-cutting. The sharp weapons are not typically used during drills and certainly not used during combats. There are safety reasons they are not used during combats. After all, these weapons were designed with the specific purpose of injuring and killing people, and one slip could result in someone injured even if the intent is not present. This leads to people using blunt weapons for drills and combats. It must be acknowledged that we are using blunt weapons, not sharp ones, as there is a difference between the two.

Sharp Swords are Different

To begin with, there is a simple physical difference between blunt and sharp weapons when it comes to how they act against one another. A blunt edge reacts differently to a sharp edge when it comes into contact with another one. The blunt edge, the tends to slip and slide easily. Whereas, due to the nature of a sharp edge. it will tend to bind on the other one, actually biting in and stopping in some circumstances. This will account for some of the reason that certain actions described in treatises don't seem to work when using blunt weapons.

The blunt sword will make a difference to the interpretation of a treatise, more so when it comes into contact with another blunt sword, as has been described previously, simply because of the different physical reaction between the weapons. There are further places where the blunt weapon will make a difference to the interpretation to a treatise as will be demonstrated as this discussion proceeds. Much of this has to do with the reaction of the opponent who is threatened by the weapon that is being held by the opponent. Certain techniques which work in theory with a sharp weapon work less effectively when the weapon is blunt.

Threat of the Weapon

In his The True Art of Defence (1594) Giacomo di Grassi states, "For there are few nay there is no man at all, which (perceiuing himſelfe readie to be ſtroken) giues not back, and forſaketh to performe euerie other motion which he hath begun." Essentially, that a man who sees that he will be struck first will pull back his offensive action to defend himself, rather than completing his offensive action. This premise is used in later techniques, for example when an opponent is about to throw a cut, a thrust is extended; the threat of the thrust encouraging the other to quit his cut and to defend himself. This would work when the weapons are sharp, but not so much when the weapons are blunt.

The problem is that because the weapons are blunt, the people involved are wearing safety equipment, and are not supposed to be there to injure one another, the fear of the weapon has been removed. There is no fear of the weapon, and no respect for it either. This means that the individuals do not feel under threat by the opponent's thrust coming at them so they will continue their cut anyway, regardless of whether or not both of them are struck or not. This leads to bad fencing, the basic rule of fencing, to strike without being struck, seems to be thrown out; all that seems to matter is that the opponent is struck.

The result of this approach is more double-hits and more double-kills, of which I have already written an article. So I won't go into detail about my thoughts on that subject again here so soon, though I have no doubt that it will appear again. What does occur is that people become so focused with the impression that their skills are good, that they believe that the rules are wrong and not their approach, so they have long debates about tournament rules regarding "double-hits" and "after-blows" and how points should or should not be awarded. I will state clearly again, if you and your opponent are struck you have both failed in your defence. The culprit is primarily a lack of respect for the weapon.

Not All Bad

The news is not all bad, however, there have been some truly excellent things as a result of using blunt weapons. These come into two categories, though it could be claimed that the one leads on to the other. Aside from the legal and insurance nightmares that clubs would have from arguing the case for fighting with sharp weapons, unless there is a failure on the part of some aspect of safety, there is little chance that a combatant using a blunt weapon will be maimed or killed.

I am going to add a caveat here. The prime method of safety for using a blunt weapon has to be the control of the individual using the weapon, PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) has to come at least secondary, if not tertiary, in regard to safety. This because they are objects which can degrade and fail, or even move without our notice. Blunt weapons can still do damage, they are still weapons that need to be respected.

All that being said, because fencers are not using their skills to kill one another, we have the chance to learn from our mistakes, unlike fencers of previous ages who died from theirs using sharp weapons. We must acknowledge the mistakes first, so we can learn from them. If a fencer does not acknowledge the mistake, they cannot learn from the mistake and they will keep repeating it, and they will not improve. Fencers in the contemporary era have the chance to make some of the greatest strides in our art if they only respect what they are doing, and learn from their mistakes.

The result is a "mixed bag" of positives and negatives. The lucky thing is that most of the negatives we can get past if we are willing to work on them conscientiously. We need to examine exactly how we are fencing see where our flaws are and move to improve them. We need to get back to the basics of fencing in many instances, focus on being safe, then strike in safety, rather than just striking at any opportunity that we see, disregarding our defence. Each person needs to do their part in this endeavour, are you ready to do yours?

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.

On Tournaments

 Greetings,

The following is a discussion of tournament formats and their relation to the art that is being created. A person should ask themselves how the tournament format encourages or discourages behaviours in the combatants in the tournaments, and ask themselves whether or not the style of play encourages or discourages good fencing. These tournament formats will be discussed in general terms, rather than getting down to the nitty-gritty because overall the style of tournament may be the same, it is the rules which govern that tournament which is the deciding factor in this case. An idea to push this envelope will be suggested in the final part of this discussion.

There are lots of different formats for tournaments, the choice of actual format usually depends on numbers. While certain tournaments allow for the greatest number of bouts for combatants, they become quite long and unwieldy when the numbers become large. This is a consideration that needs to be made when the tournament is put together, or sometimes, even on the day once the number of combatants is known.  

The following discussion is more about the internal rules of the combats rather than the formats themselves, thought this can affect the format. There are some standard formats which are quite common to tournaments, which should be explained, just as a matter of course.

• Round robin: all combatants fight each other. 
• Elimination tournament: the combatants have a certain amount of "lives" when these are expended they are removed. A double-elimination, for example, means that the competitors have two lives.
• Direct Elimination: the combatants fight one another, and the victor advances to the next round.
• Pools: combatants fight in pools, the top competitors are selected to fight in semi-finals, and finals.

Within the tournament formats there are several different ways to determine a victor for each bout, and this is where things begin to show their differences between the different types of fencing. The bout may be scored, with the competitor with the highest score winning. It may be a best-of-three, with the competitor who scores two wins winning. It may be a single-kill with the competitor with the first win being the winner. It is in this part of the discussion where the differences between the types of fencing are shown.

Sport fencing bouts are scored, most often to 15 points, with the individual who reaches 15 points winning the bout. A point is scored for striking the opponent within the scoring area, according to the rules. All worth one point, regardless of the target struck. In foil, only the torso scores; in sabre only above the waist; in épée the whole body is a target. Every target is one point regardless of weapon.

In Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) have a system which is different to sport fencing, above, but in some ways is the same. The bouts are scored, like the sport fencing bouts. In the case of these bouts they often have a time limit, or a score limit. Sometimes the score will be negative, as in points against the fencer, but the fencer re-sets after each point is scored. There is delineation between targets struck sometimes between "shallow" and "deep", sometimes further between limb (or type of limb, or part of limb), body and head. Points are tallied and there is a result.

In the common Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) tournament, the part that is struck, the combatant loses, in the case of a body or head shot, the combatant "dies" and is deemed defeated. The combatants, most often, do not re-set and are made whole again after being struck. If they are struck in their primary weapon arm, they are expected to either swap arms or accept a loss of the bout. If they are struck multiple times, all of the blows count, not just the first one.

The SCA does have tournament scenarios where points are scored, these are primarily against the person who was struck, rather than to the person doing the striking. This encourages people to watch themselves and to cover themselves in their attacks, but the tournaments where there are immediate consequences to an attack felt on a combatant who is struck, is usually the rules-set which is used.

In regard to this, the SCA has the advantage, because it reminds the combatants that the weapons that they are learning about, and practising to use in these combats were sharp and they did have consequences of a dire kind should a combatant not be certain in their defence. It was not a point that was lost when one of these weapons struck, it was the chance for permanent maiming and death. People often forget, because weapons that are used are blunt, and because sharp weapons are not fought with in real encounters, that there is a lethal nature to the martial art that is being learned. The SCA method of tournament reminds people of this aspect, that a touch to the sword arm has consequences, and that maybe leaving it out is not such a good idea.

A further way to remind people about the sharp and lethal nature of the weapons is the "single kill, single elimination" tournament, or "reality tournament"; in a nut-shell, when you die you're out. It means that if you're struck in the body or the head, or any lethal incapacitating zone, you are out. The other rules follow the same as the usual SCA tournament, hit in the limb, lose the use of that limb. In the "reality plus" version of this tournament wounds are carried through the tournament; this is a way to remind people that sacrificing a limb for a blow is not such a great idea. This "reality tournament" is designed to make people think, and to remind them that "double-kills" or "after-blows" are a bad idea, in any tournament that I run, they count as a double-loss. It is better to hit cleanly. The goal of swordsmanship is, after all, to strike and not be struck.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. A bit of shameless advertising:
I have written another book His Practice in Modern and Elizabethan English, which is my treatise on fencing. It has an Indiegogo campaign running to raise funds for the purposes of publishing and marketing the book. If you are interested in just having a look, or assisting: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/his-practice-a-treatise-on-the-civilian-sword#/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

On the "Double-Hit"

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

I have devised a tournament concept to remind people about the reality of the weapons that are being used in HEMA and other recreational forms of combat, as too often people forget the reality of the weapons that we use. Yes, test-cutting with sharp weapons is one way to remind people about the sharp nature of the weapons and this is a useful tool, especially to remind people just how little force is required to cut or thrust, however the persistence of tournament combats and other forms of combat requires some adjustment to demonstrate the effect of the weapons. This is a basic concept model.

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.

This is simply the concept for the tournament. I have run a couple based on this concept and two out of three times the person in third place has one because the two in first and second have doubled out. This eliminated them both leaving the person in third to win. People quite enjoyed the tournament and said it did reveal to them just how it changed their approach to fencing when one slip made a real difference.

In a lot of places it is simply that we have lost our way and that we need to get back to our fundamentals, to remember fencing's goal, that it is the art of defence. A person should always look to their defence before considering striking their opponent, regardless of the style that they are doing. Teachers and trainers should focus on teaching techniques which keep their students safe, and not accepting the double-hit as simply something that occurs, or that needs to be re-named or something else, it needs to be avoided. Ensure your defence in all parts of your fencing and your chances of double-hits with your opponent fall pretty much to zero.

Cheers,

Henry.

On Respect for the Point

Greetings,

The following article discusses the respect given to the weapon which is being used in a martial context, something which seems to be being lost in some HEMA (Historical European Martial Art) situations. The original weapons, and the idea of the original weapons, is being lost the result is this art is beginning to turn into another sport which happens to involve swords. Of note, originally this article was going to discuss the "fear" of the point, but fear is not what is required. It is a healthy respect of the weapon that is being used.

The fencer needs to respect the weapon that they are using not fear it.

If the fencer has fear of the weapon they are not likely to engage with the opponent with their full being and thus actions will be performed sloppily and without intention. This will result in inaccurate actions, bad form and bad practice on the part of the fencer. Further, the same actions engaged with fear are actually more likely to get the fencer hurt than if they engaged with them properly and fully and not holding back.

There needs to be respect for the weapon that is being used. This means that the original use and capabilities of the weapon need to be acknowledged and kept in mind when performing actions with the weapon. Having a sharp point of a sword pointed at a person will change what they will and will not do as compared to having even merely a blunted one, let alone one which is blunted and has a tip on it, regardless of whether protective gear is worn or not. The fencer must acknowledge that the weapon and techniques that they are using were once used to decide life and death struggles.

The lack of respect for the weapon is demonstrated in actions of "exchanged thrusts" or "double-kills" or "trading targets" in each of these instances the fencer is not respecting the weapon of the opponent. A person facing an opponent's sharp weapon would not willingly allow them to strike them just so that they could strike their opponent, especially with the state of medicine when these weapons were originally used. A fencer should be aiming to avoid being struck at all, thus "striking without being struck" as is the aim of all fencing.

The "double-hit" and "double-loss" in a bout today resulted in injury and death in the past. "Double-hits" should not be accepted as good fencing in any way shape or form. In all instances the safety of the fencer, thus the defence of the opponent's action should be most important, followed by the striking of the opponent; this demonstrates respect for the weapon being used. Having tournaments run in a single-kill, single-elimination format, begins to make people realise the importance of this, having people carry their wounds through the tournament also emphasizes this as well.

"For there are few nay there is no man at all, who (perceiuing himselfe readie to be stroken) giues not back, and forsaketh to performe euerie other motion which he hath begun." - Giacomo di Grassi (1594) His True Arte of Defence

Here di Grassi states quite clearly that a person who is about to be struck will give up the idea of striking to defend himself, rather than being attacked. So one of his defences against a slower action of the cut is to present the point to the opponent, who seeing it will not complete the cut. This does not work in many current HEMA bouting because there is no respect of the point which is being directed at the fencer. So, the cut will be completed and so will the thrust, resulting in a "double-hit".

If fencers are supposed to recreate these texts as they were performed. Is it not also required that the individuals who use them also have the same sort of respect for the weapons which they are using? Is it not also required that they have a healthy respect for the point and edge of the weapon, regardless of whether they can actually do damage, but what they are simulating? If this is not the case what is the difference between what is being performed with these weapons and those of sport fencing aside from some electronics, history and formalisation?

In any form of weapons use, be it swordsmanship, archery, or shooting, there must be respect for the weapon. This is necessary because the capabilities of the weapon must be recognised by the person using the weapon, regardless if the person ever actually wanted to use these capabilities. This respect is necessary for safety to ensure that the weapon is treated properly and that those around them are kept safe. In the case of fencing it is also necessary so that the art of fencing can be performed properly with the intent of the treatises that the art is based upon kept intact through its practice.

Cheers,

Henry.