The Light Foot, a Consideration of Footwork

 Greetings,

I have not posted on here in a while, I have been busy with my Patreon page. I have come to a consideration about footwork...

I have certainly written about footwork before, maybe not here, but I certainly have discussed it other places (some of my students may claim I am a little obsessed by the subject). It would seem that it is one of my areas of particular interest, then again, the fencer should also be interested in such a subject because it determines their Distance. The arm, and weapon only being so long, the prime determiner of Distance is footwork. However, we must consider how the feet are moved.

Read the rest of this post on my Patreon page. 

Cheers,

Henry

Further Seated Fencing Considerations

 Greetings,

Sorry it has been so long, I have been busy writing articles for my Patreon page, and other projects, of course. The following is like all the other posts about fencing from a chair, complete.

As with all techniques, my method of fencing from a chair has changed over the years, reflecting the knowledge I have developed about the subject. The result is that the following are some considerations which have arisen out of examining the concept of seated fencing, as is applicable to the SCA. These methods have been used in SCA fencing and do not delineate policy or concepts for the Paralympics or any other form of swordplay[1].

1.  Chair Position

Figure 1: Seated Chair positions

This looks like a particularly odd diagram, possibly it more belongs on an electrician’s schematics or some other technical drawing. However, these are positions of an individual seated on a chair as compared to an opponent who is also seated on a chair. The circle represents the individual’s body, the little sticks with bulges on them are the individual’s feet and legs. The line through the circle is the general angle of the body based on the position of the feet and legs.

Number 1 and 4 shows individuals of the same method facing one another directly opposite one another. Number 1 shows individuals seated using the method I have described in my previous discussions of seated fencing, with the two front feet of the combatants aligned. Number 4 shows the more traditional method of sitting on a chair, with both feet and legs facing forward.

Number 3 depicts what happens when you have one using one method, while the other uses the other method facing one another, and it is here we begin to see the change in perspective, of angles between the pair of fencers. The lower one is in a more stable position as they can lean back more easily without fear of falling. Further, they have positioned themselves so their front foot, the one that assists guiding the thrust is pointing at the centre of the opponent’s body. One will note that this can also restrict the possible targets for the one who is sitting on the seat in the traditional manner.

Returning to the previously-described images (1,4), these both have their opponents directly opposite one another. In 4 it is evident that both combatants have easy access to the entire opponent, at the other end of the scale, with the feet positioned so they are directly against one another the target is very limited, mostly to would be the Outside Line in a right-handed fencer. These two images are excellent for demonstrating the extremes of both methods of seating.

Number 2 is the only one which has not been discussed thus far. This is a new method of seating for the seated combatant using my method. Rather than the direct method (1), this one pushes the front foot to the Inside Line, opening further options for attack, and allowing more effective use of the off-hand and any device they might be carrying. This is my preferred method of placing the two combatants when seated on their chairs.

2.  Distance

How far should two seated combatants be placed from one another? Who should have priority over distance, the person with the longer or the shorter reach? Regarding the placement of two seated fencers, this is the question that gets asked most, even more than the question about position in comparison to one another. There are certain aspects which must be considered here.

If the combatants are places where the person with the shorter distance can reach the opponent, the taller one is guaranteed to reach. If the combatants are placed with the longer person’s reach, it is not guaranteed that the shorter will reach the longer. So, we have a quandary to solve, who should get preference for reach.

First, the combatants should be measured for distance in a “neutral” position, i.e. both fencers should be sitting up in their chairs. Movement of the body backward and forward allows the fencers to advance or withdraw from their opponent. This is something I have discussed in my previous discussions about fencing from a chair.

It should be established a person should be able to reach the opponent when sitting up, if the shorter person’s reach is chosen. However, this could mean that the longer could reach the shorter even if they are leaning back. This is a consideration to make and goes to the heart of this issue.

If the longer person’s reach is used as the standard, then the shorter fencer is going to have to lean forward to strike the opponent, but they will be able to lean back to withdraw from their opponent as well. So, the shorter is going to require more effort to strike the opponent. This is the choice that should be made, by the combatants participating preferably.

I think it should be left to the combatants to decide where there is a difference in distance, whose distance they will choose to make their initial measurement. This way the combatants take upon themselves the decision of where they are placed and what they will require both to strike the opponent, but also to not be struck. Yes, this is not a definitive answer, but it does give agency to the combatants who are fencing.

3.  Weapon Combinations

When considering the best weapon form to use when seated, there are some principles that can be applied in this choice. Through these principles we can then find the most suited combinations for fencing from a chair. It must be remembered that these are my assessments, a combatant is always free to choose what they want to take, these are not rules.

1.      The best combination considers both long and short range, especially when facing a standing opponent.

2.      The best combination considers offensive capability at long and short ranges, especially when facing a standing opponent.

3.      Better forms consider defensive capability at long and short ranges, especially when facing a standing opponent.

4.      Better forms consider the issue of entanglement prevention, and the opponent’s ability to control the item being used.

5.      The method employed will consider the seated combatant’s position and their vulnerabilities against the opponent’s actions, and their own vulnerabilities against the opponent.

Why is the difference between a seated or standing opponent so important? In very simple terms, because the standing opponent can change Distance, not only to withdraw from the seated fencer’s Distance, but also to close beyond the points of the seated opponent’s main weapon.

Considering the fifth principle presented above, there will be those methods which are more suited to the seated combatant, while there are other methods which are best left to the standing combatant. This is a matter of how the combination is used, rather than any inherent advantage. Further, these are general recommendations regarding these forms, not hard and fast rules. It is the fencer who decides the efficiency and effect of the combinations, not the combinations themselves.

“Standard” combinations are: single sword, sword and gauntlet, sword and buckler, sword and cane, sword and cloak, sword and dagger, and case of rapiers. Forms becoming more common are: sword and rotella, and spear. Each will be addressed in turn so we might find out which of the above statements applies to the combination, and the reason for this.

Single Sword

The single sword is the foundation of all the other forms. This is the form the individual has most likely had the most practice, because of its foundational status. Considering the factors above, the single sword has ability at both long and short range, including offensive and defensive; it has no special issue regarding entanglement. This form thus qualifies under the four principles.

Sword and Gauntlet

The gauntlet is an addition to the single sword, leaving the weapon side of things with no issue. This method, as with the single sword, qualifies under the four principles.

Sword and Buckler

The sword and buckler is an enhancement of the defensive capability of the fencer, thus it lacks the offensive capability of some of the other forms. It can be used at short and long ranges however it has an issue when it comes to shorter ranges regarding offensive actions with no enhancement beyond those found with the single sword.

Sword and Cane

Sword and cane is also known as sword and baton, or sword and stick. The implication is some solid object of a cylindrical nature is being held in the off-hand for defence, it lacks the offensive capability beyond the single sword, so has a failure in this respect. There is also a potential tangling issue when it comes to closer work with the cane, especially longer ones. The shorter ones may not have this issue.

Sword and Cloak

Cloak or cape, the same applies here. It lacks offensive capability beyond the single sword, and there is an increased chance for entanglement unless the fencer primarily used it wrapped about their hand, in a kind of soft buckler.

Sword and Dagger

The sword and dagger combination, like the single sword qualifies under all four of the discussed principles. However, the dagger has an additional offensive capability, especially in the close. This weapon is less likely to be entangled than most of the other off-hands. For the seated combatant, this is the best form to use. I would consider it even better than the single sword, and if you know me, this is remarkable.

Case of Rapier

Case of rapier, case of swords, or “Florentine”, they all refer to the same method of having a sword in each hand. This method is primarily used at distance due to the high chance of entanglement, especially when being used by someone of less experience. It is certainly a lot of fun to fight with case from a chair, but it is certainly not preferable considering the principles laid down.

Spear

Even with a butt-spike, the spear is simply not useful from a chair. Once the opponent closes beyond the fencer’s point, there is little the fencer can do in reply. Indeed, the best combination involving a spear, would be to have a dagger in reserve, if the opponent closes that far. Even with this combination, adding the dagger, there are issues to solve. I do not recommend fighting with a spear from a chair.

I hope these considerations assist those who fight from chairs to improve their game and ability while fighting from this position. I use this method when my body is complaining and not doing its thing. This is no gimmick, it is a method so more people can be involved in our game, to consider how more people can be accommodated.

Cheers,

Henry.

---

[1] Including SCA policies regarding this subject.

Some random thoughts coalesced...

 Greetings,

I haven't been on here in a while, most of my posts go to my Patreon site these days. However, I will share some thoughts with you which came together over the past week or so. I haven't really edited this much. It started out as thoughts for a historical fiction, or something similar, and then coalesced as a collection of thoughts about fencing and training for fencing. As I said it is a collection of thoughts which I really have not edited. So here it is, this post is also available on my Patreon site, which I recommend you go have a look at, because you are missing out on some free stuff as well.

I hope you find this interesting and useful.

Cheers,

Henry.

The blade sliced effortlessly through the air. A sharp noise rang out as the two blades intersected. The offensive action of one countered by the action of the other, placing his weapon in the right position, at the right time. The reason for their contest with weapons had melted away, it was trivial compared to the importance of skilful use of their weapons and the defence of life and limb. How long would the contest last, was the death of one required to satisfy the encounter, or was it simply a test of arms, a test of courage? Only the two combatants knew.

The scene around them seemed to have been blotted out, the only things left were the two people in the contest. It was as if a black cloth surrounded them as they moved about, concerns of the outside world were gone. Any focus on those details would detract from their focus, and any minor loss of focus could result in failure of action, due to the distraction. They were focused on one another and their weapons and nothing more.

Why were these two individuals attempting to strike the other? What is the reason for these martial skills to be employed? What is the prize, the goal, the purpose of their combat? All of these questions are questions for away from the combat, so neither combatant considers them at this moment. There are more important things to be concerned with.

A counter made from the defence of the other’s attack, there is the hissing sound of edge on edge as one weapon slides down the other with pressure. One blade dominates the other to gain the combatant an advantage over the other. To gain such dominance requires placement at the correct time, everything is bound by the concepts of Time and Distance, more about these things in action. The other blade flies off the weapon as pressure is increased to its limit.

The blade moves almost silently toward its target, like a predator in the night, seeking to strike the other’s flesh. With the blade deflected away from the counter, the combatant moves their body, clearing it from the line of the opponent’s attack. Using his body, he brings his weapon back, cutting at the other in their exposed position as they thrust.

A foot is drawn back, bringing the body and the weapon with it, the blade is lifted over the combatant’s head, deflecting the opponent’s blade away from the combatant’s arm, countering the attack again. The opponent moves again, stepping and using their body, throwing another cut. The combatant draws their weapon down impacting on the opponent’s weapon, another attack, another counter made.  

This is how the story of combats between individuals is made, an attack, a defence, a counter, a counter to the counter, maybe even another after that. The combatants withdraw as Time runs short, not pressing any perceived advantage past its limit. The two combatants are controlled in their actions; this is a contest of precision more than strength. The combatants work with their weapons, not against them. They seek the best line, the best angle, the best distance, for their actions.

These actions are a conversation between the combatants; one makes a statement, the other replies in kind a counter to the statement. There is a counter to the counter, another statement is made, another counter. This is a conversation in motion, in action, in steel. Each has his time to speak, each has his time to reply. Unlike the conversation in words, the statements and their responses are quicker, based on trained instinct.

Some actions are learnt, others are trained. This is the way of the student of the blade. Those which are trained, become instinct, informed and educated by the situation, the action of the opponent. Often the difference between victory and defeat is a mistake made by one opponent or the other, rather than a purposeful action made or action perfected. To every action there is a counter, the combatant merely has to find it.

There is no question of social status once the weapons are drawn, there is no question of race, gender, or any other difference between the combatants. They rely on their skills to succeed not some imposed identifier; the sword is the great leveller, anyone can learn enough to succeed, once weapons are in hand, one combatant facing the other, outside considerations pale in comparison to the skills of the fencers. The short can defeat the tall, just as the tall can defeat the short; it is a matter of the application of skill. The skills of the combatants are what really matters.

Some will claim there are differences due to various factors, but these differences can be countered. A longer weapon, a shorter weapon, both can be countered. The fencer needs to know their ability, their attributes, their situation and then apply it to counter the opponent’s. Some will counter with the question of luck. This is always present regardless of the skill, but it is not as reliable as skill. Luck requires certain things to be present and is random. The combatant dices with the skills of their opponents, presenting a random occurrence against the honed skill of the opponent. This is no sure way to succeed. Better that the fencer learns and trains, becomes proficient, rather than rely on luck.

Train, and train well. The path is long, and it is not easy, but for those willing to travel it, the benefits are certainly present.

Extra-Curricular Activities: Gaming Training

 Greetings,

Yes, it has been a while since I have posted here, it's because I have been busy writing articles for my Patreon page where most of my writing goes. However, this was a thought that popped into my mind as I was doing one of my regular walks. Just a thought about some extra-curricular training I do every now and then, and it does help to keep the brain sharp-er.

Likely you have heard of the concept of "brain training." In essence this is using your brain to focus on aspects you will be doing in a physical sense to enhance your brain's pathways you will use when using those skills. There was a study of basketball players (I believe). One group trained physically, another group was told to read, think, and watch basketball, another group was told not to do anything at all. In the end both the group who were physically training and the group who were training their brains performed the best, and about equal according to the study. 

"So, get on with it. What has all of this got to do with fencing?" I am getting to that part, trust me. It's called "A Fencer's Ramblings" for a reason, you know.

Sometimes training will be called off due to weather, or I can't make it due to health reasons (chronic illness and chronic pain sucks), or several other reasons. So, do I just sit at home and veg out? No, that's just not "a thing" with me. I am always writing about fencing, or something like it. So, I am always training my brain, adding new concepts, examining new ideas, and reinforcing old ones.

I play console games in my "down-time" I have a thing for first-person shooters, and some fighting games. It is the fighting games we are going to talk about, more specifically the Soul Calibur series. Why this series in particular? Well for starters, it is a weapon-based fighting game, and I have been playing it since its first version. What has it got to do with fencing? 

Artist: Frater
Source: https://www.goodfon.com/games/wallpaper-witcher-soulcalibur-vi-soulcalibur-6-bandai-namco-entertainm.html

Time and Distance; every character's moves, and the successful use of their weapons is still based on the notions of Time and Distance. 

Yes, a lot of people get their characters and "button mash" hoping they will hit the right buttons when they are near enough to the opponent. I think this is not unlike the new fencer who simply thrusts out or does what they can when they first come out to fence. Their actions are random and the chances of success are a flip of a coin.

I look at the character and plan, based on the weapon and their moves. I use the move at the appropriate Distance for the character. I strike the button at the appropriate Time depending on how quick the character is in comparison to the opponent. I have been doing this for a while, and enjoy the game more when I can plan my moves, rather than smash the buttons and hope for the best.

What is the conclusion? Brain training is available where you find it. Individual training is available where you find it, or where you create it. The only motivation required to achieve this is yours. Take a look around, I am sure you can find something fencing related to improve your current "fencing fitness."

Cheers,

Henry.

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.

Fencing is Choices and Consequences

 Greetings,

The title of this article makes it look like it's about social choices we make in our fencing career. I have spoken about this long and in-depth previously; this time it isn't. Those choices will determine the length and depth of your fencing career, often will result in what sort of people you will associate with, and your overall worldview of fencing. For this article I am wanting to look more at the fencing itself, though it is likely the discussion will venture into some those areas again as they are all related. 

When we fence there is a set of choices to be made. These result in consequences in our fencing, and sometimes, even broader than that. For the purposes of this article, I want to focus on the choices and consequences that are made in regard to the act of fencing, and some of the physical details attached to it. There are some simple things that we do not take into consideration which will affect our fencing, choices which we make, either consciously or subconsciously which will affect the result of the bout/s that we have.

The interplay of choices and consequences in the act of fencing one of the reasons I really enjoy fencing (there are others). A fencer makes a choice in the actions that they take; then they must face the consequences of those actions. Sometimes the consequences of those actions are immediate, sometimes they take a little longer to take effect, but they always have an effect. There is no avoiding this situation. There is always some effect.

If an opponent makes an attack, there is a choice to make in the response. Even the timing of this response is a choice. If the fencer making this choice gets the choice right, they don't get hit; if they make an incorrect choice, it is likely that they will be hit, unless they have redundancy built into their choice, and the redundancy is a choice too. This is the immediate result, the immediate consequence.

Even where there is a redundancy built into the response, there will still be a consequence for the primary response failing. This may cost the fencer Time, Distance, or both. Both of these are essential to fencing, and any action that loses the fencer either one of these will affect the actions that follow.

Each time a fencer makes a choice, there are consequences. Those consequences are not necessarily immediate, such as being struck, but they will have an effect on the encounter. Each action affects the position of the fencers in time and space, an action which takes the fencer out of the correct time or space is going to affect where they should be for the following actions. This is especially important for compound actions. The effect of half a foot-length (even less) over two actions can be amazing, as will be the effect of an action which is even slightly out of tempo.

Fencing with an opponent is a series of choices and consequences made. Successful fencing is simply making the right choices, for your fencing at the right time. Of course, this is made easier by training and practising so you have more options available and so more correct choices to make. 

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.

Etiquette for Facing A Seated Opponent

 Greetings,

A long while ago I wrote an article entitled No Footwork Fencing Or Fencing From a Chair, intended to teach people some of the ideas that I had gained from my practice of fencing from a chair. This is no gimmick, no trick. This a legitimate way for those who are not able to stand, to participate in rapier combat, from a period foundation, and from a comfortable position. This article has been quite popular and people have taken these principles on board, and this is great. I would like to thank all of those who have promoted these ideas. I will not name names, to prevent embarrassing myself by missing someone, you know who you are.

Now, we have the problem in reverse, people who do not understand how to fence a person who is seated in a chair. They do not know what to expect from a seated fencer. They do not know what they should and should not do so they can treat their opponent with courtesy, so both can have an enjoyable encounter. I have seen some really good things, I have also seen, and experienced, some not so nice things. Here, I will explain how to face an opponent who is seated, so you both have an honourable encounter, and an enjoyable one as well.

Precedence: For all of those who are looking for precedence for fencing from a chair, look no further than the Paralympic Games. For those who want a more period approach, I believe there is an incident in one of the many duelling books, where it is reported that one individual fought seated, even in a chair, while the other stood. I don't have the story to hand, if I find it I will include it later on.

Not Often Seen

Facing a seated opponent is something that does not happen very often. Even when a person is legged in SCA rapier combat, most will choose either to go to their knees or post, rather than sitting on their behind. Personally, I find this quite odd. The seated position, is quite stable, and substantially more comfortable for an extended period of time, especially for a person with dodgy joints, but I digress. 

The fencer who chooses to start their fencing bout from a chair, by choice, does not happen all that often, though there are is a small number who are doing so more often. This is an unusual situation, and there are some important things to consider when facing this opponent, seated as they are. These are things which should be considered above and beyond facing an opponent who has been legged, but should also be applied in the same situation.

"It's a Trap!" ... No. It's not.

One of the things that runs through some people's minds about the seated combatant is that the chair is some sort of defensive device that the seated combatant is going to use all of a sudden (especially with some recent discussions about di Grassi's approach to defensive items and the concept of off-hand chair, a discussion for another article). Another thought is, the combatant is going to lure their opponent in, and then spring out of their chair to launch a devastating attack against their opponent. 

Put these fears aside. If your opponent is starting fencing from a chair, there is likely a good reason for it. It is not the best position to start from as the person loses most of the control of Distance by doing so. They may lure you in, but they are not going to be springing out of their chair at anytime, so you can put that one to bed.

Comfort

Just like any combatant who has had their mobility impaired by your action, you should check your opponent's comfort. You should check whether they are comfortable, is the sun in their eyes, or glare affecting them. Ask them whether they are comfortable in their position. We will return to this comfort area shortly.

While it is a true courtesy, I would suggest that you ask whether they want to check their Distance, and check yours as well. This is useful for at least a couple of reasons. First, it allows your opponent to check their Distance knowing when they can strike you, thus giving you an idea of when they can strike you. Second, when you check your Distance, it allows you to give the same courtesy, and a rough idea of how close you have to be to strike your opponent safely. The seated combatant isn't going to walk into your blow after all. There are some things that the seated combatant can do, but mostly it is up to the standing combatant, hence checking Distance is useful.

When we come to the combative elements of facing the seated combatant, there are some two main headings that things can be placed under: Line and facing. The Line is the more straight-forward one and has less discussion so it will be dealt with first, but this belies its importance. Likewise, just because the subject of facing is being placed second does not mean that it is of "secondary" importance, they are both of equal importance if you want to have a bout that both you, and your opponent, will enjoy.

The Line

The Line is determined by the position of the hilt of the sword, in most standard ward positions this usually divides the individual through the waist, or thereabouts, unless you are from an Iberian school. A person who is seated is not likely going to be performing something from one of those schools from a chair due to the movement requirement. This means that the target for the Low Line is the hips and legs, maybe the lower belly.

Forget the Leg

Why am I discussing the Low Line? Unless you are aiming for the lower belly or femoral arteries of the seated opponent's legs, striking at the Low Line is a waste of time. Indeed, I would say that striking a seated opponent in the leg is just plain rude. Just don't do it, "Just to be sure." or for any other reason, leave the legs alone. Yes, incidental contact happens, and this needs to be accepted, but targeting the legs of a seated combatant, not polite. It's not like the fencer in the chair can be any more immobile, or any more seated.

Facing

The facing of the opponent is important when it comes to the fencer who is seated, it becomes more important when the fencer is seated in a chair. Like any opponent who is grounded you should not "corkscrew" (move around your opponent) this is just plain impolite. In the case of the seated combatant, they have no way to move, except to possibly swivel on their chair, if they are able, in most instances they can't, or simply won't, as this will affect their comfort. In regard to this, remain to their front.

Don't Turn the Opponent

The seated combatant will have placed their chair in a particular position facing you in a particular way so it is comfortable for them. This will likely result in the back of the chair not being directly behind them and other similar factors involved. Further the stability of the combatant is likely founded on the position of them in their chair. While it is convenient for you to change the facing so you can stand front facing to them, so the chair is front-on as this will give you the bigger target, this is certainly not convenient for them. 

Their stability is likely compromised due to this positioning. If they try to lean backward, they could topple the chair over and hurt themselves. Remain to the seated combatant's front. Consider your opponent's comfort as well as your own. Doing so will make it a much more pleasurable bout for you and your opponent.

Be Polite

In all of these instances, put yourself in your opponent's place. Would you appreciate your opponent doing the same to you? This is one of those times when you need to ask yourself, what is more important, the win, or the experience? 

We should always be considering how we can make the experience of fencing better for our opponent. This involves being polite, greeting a new opponent and introducing ourselves. Saluting our opponent in an honourable fashion. Giving our opponent the benefit of the doubt, in all instances. It does not mean that we should not use our skills, or seek to win the bout, but we should try and make the experience as enjoyable as possible. The way that we know that we have achieve this is by, both combatants coming off the arena both with smiles, and more so when the same combatant seeking us for follow-up bouts afterward, because the experience was so enjoyable. 

Have fun with your fencing, but take your opponent's fun into account as well.

Cheers,

Henry.

In Response to Criticisms of "Just Another Fencer"

 Greetings,

I don't usually release a second article before the next month but the previous article Just Another Fencer seems to have caused some contention, at least among some circles. To wit, and in answer to those particular contentions, I present the following:

There is no editor who goes through and reads my posts before I post them. They are all my writings, there is no one else who writes them, just me. I also rarely edit them once they have been posted. I also tend to write about subjects that I feel passionate about, and so write straight from the heart, meaning that there will occasionally be some passionate language which will be present, but also means that they are subjects that I believe in. These are my fencer's ramblings, so my opinions.

Some of my statements in my articles have been accused of being provocative, indeed some of my entire articles have been provocative, I find this to be a good thing. I do not want some passive reader just mulling through my words, I want them to be engaged, I want them to think. Sometimes this requires a little provocation.

Where there is some sort of statement made, there will be an argument and conclusion to back it up. You only need to read further along. To find these arguments and conclusions, you need to read the entire thing, not just skim over the article or you will miss something.

In certain circles, the previous article was claimed, by some parties, to be "mansplaining" and "condescending." This was not my intent. I have the greatest appreciation for the female fencer, indeed of any fencer. It is not an easy skill to use, and that you have chosen to take this up and follow it through, this instantly gains my respect, regardless of your skill level. 

I use personal anecdotes, because these blogs are personal to me. They come from my personal experiences. I write because I have been inspired from some part of my life, something has happened which has resulted in me having a think about something long enough to write it as a blog. They don't happen over-night, I tend to think about these things for extended periods of time, however they remain personal.

I teach my students as individuals. Yes, there is a certain core set of skills, but even those are modified to suit the individual should they be required. Short, tall, long armed, short armed, slim, not so slim, even with certain disabilities, each one of these will make a difference, and will require some sort of modification to their fencing style. This is how I teach. I have been teaching this way for at least two decades.

There was a claim made that what I meant when talking about the opponent was "just another MALE fencer." It was not what I wrote, so it was not what I meant. I do not take gender characteristics into account. I do not fence female fencers any different than I fight male fencers. Let me be clear. I do not fence female fencers any different than I fight male fencers. 

The only thing that makes any difference is their skill level, and how they fence. I will be cautious with all opponents at first until I have had time to read my opponent, and see what they do. Then I will make the decision how I will play my game, but it will have nothing to do with their gender. The game that I play against my opponent is directly in response to the actions the actions that they choose to give me. Again, nothing to do with their gender.

Cheers,

Henry.