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.

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.

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.

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.

Re-Inventing the Wheel

Greetings,

There are questions which are going to be asked about this particular post, like what is he on about? That is simple. There is the propensity for the Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) community for re-inventing the wheel rather than taking perfectly good examples of things and either just using them or modifying them slightly to suit their purposes. This post will give three examples which seem to keep coming up as issues for the community which have been dealt with elsewhere before.

Why?

Why is it that in HEMA people seem to need to keep re-inventing the wheel? It is almost like that what has come before is just not good enough, or because it comes from another sport, or similar area and they do not want to be like them that they cannot use anything which is anything like them. There are three topics which have histories which are established which could be used as they are, or modified to purpose, yet they are not. This is, of course, causing people issues and in some cases injuries as a result because people are doing the hard work that has been done before all over again.

Armour

Armour has been around for literally thousands of years, yet when it comes to HEMA rather than looking at existing examples of armour and simply copying it or modifying the armour to suit, new armour has to be invented. The great saga of the gauntlet is the greatest example of this one that can be put up as a prime example. There were fully-articulate gauntlets manufactured and used in the medieval and Renaissance period. Why are they not just copied? Or at least the principles of their designs not copied? Its not like they did not work.

What I find really amusing about this one is that people in HEMA have been cobbling together protective gear from other sports or designing it based on other sports, and then realising that it has holes in it, which are not covered. Then these holes are being covered by examples which are found on medieval and Renaissance armours. Knee protection first just covered the front of the knee for HEMA, now it seems that fans are being added to protect the sides and give some protection to the back of the knee, which are, of course, found on medieval and Renaissance knee cops. Why go through the effort of having to find out what does not work when we already know what does?

Armour Standards

When it comes to the question of protective gear, each club or organisation will have their own ideas about what will be required for their own people. Obviously it will be dependent on the weapon that is being used, i.e. more will be required for doing longsword than smallsword. What is a little silly is that for the most part these standards are created on the spot from what the individuals think is reasonable. There is in existence an armour standard, for rapier at least, which has been around since at least the late 1990s which is an international standard, that being used by the Society for Creative Anachronisms (SCA).

Why not start with this and then add on to it? Obviously it is effective, and all of the hard work has already been done. Seems that some would rather not want to be in anyway associated with the group than use a standard which is known and works, which is ridiculous. Instead these people would rather go through the trials and issues of finding out what works and what doesn't, which puts their members at risk.

Refereeing

There has been a lot of discussion about how tournaments should be judged, whether one referee should be used and four linesmen, or one senior referee and one junior and two linesmen, or some other combination. My particular preference is to teach the combatants to call their own blows, I mean they are the ones receiving them so they would know the best if they have been hit or not. Some of this has started to filter into competitions and gradually it is beginning to hold some sway.

Again what we see is the HEMA community trying to re-invent the wheel when there is a system already available for them to use. This system is found in non-electric sport fencing. There is a presiding judge and one for each fencer. The presiding watches both competitors the others only watch their one fencer for a hit and indicate when theirs has been hit. Again, it is a recognised method with a recognised standard. It also results in using only three people and not four or five people to staff it, which has advantages when the staff are primarily volunteers.

Conclusion

Three different areas have been examined where standards or examples are have already been established, and yet in all three cases the HEMA community is trying to invent their own. The question has to be at this point in time, why? Is it an ego thing? Not willing to accept that maybe it has been done before? Or not willing to borrow from another group and thus admit that they may have some good ideas? Both of these are ridiculous reasons not to use ideas or standards used by another group and modify them to suit what is required. In most instances in the HEMA community, there is probably already an answer out there to the question which has been posed, it is a matter of finding the answer, and accepting that it is the answer. For some, it is the last bit that is the most difficult.

Martial Art Versus Martial Sport

Greetings,

Regardless of the organisation, regardless of the weapon we use, at some point in time we need to sit back and have a look at what we are doing. We need to do this with a critical eye. Unfortunately as we become attached to a certain way of doing things in a certain group, we tend to become blind to alternatives which are just as valid, or in some instances even more valid than our own. This does not mean that we should change groups every time we find this, but we should at least look at what we are doing and with a critical eye. The purpose of this article is to ask question of whether that form of combat we are involved in is a "martial art" or a "martial sport". Both have their valid forms, but as stated we need to look at what we are doing with a critical eye in order to find the truth.

The first question to look at and one which will come up again and again is the question of consequences. In their original form the weapons and techniques used have and inherent lethality to them and the consequences for failure were for the most part dire. The presence of this level of threat, whether inferred or real is an important part of the form of combat. In the comparison between the martial art and the martial sport, this is a good place to start. In the martial sport, there are really little consequence for being struck, a combatant is struck, a point is awarded and the combatants re-start until a time limit is reached or one combatant scores a certain amount of points. This form is found in its extreme form in sport fencing. In the martial art, there are consequences present for the combatant who is struck, these are mostly simulated due to the nature of the real weapons, but are still present. A combatant who is struck with a lethal blow is considered killed, a strike to a limb results in the limb being useless for at least the rest of the bout.

In the further discussion of the idea of consequences in the combat, there is the question of the double-kill. Two combatants strike one another with equally lethal blows, what happens as a result of this determines the difference between the martial art and the martial sport. In the sport version both combatants are awarded on point each or zero points, the combatants then re-set and then continue 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.

Reasons Why I Do Not Do Sport Fencing

Greetings,

I have a fencing history which begins officially back in my late teens. Of course I played with swords when I was a child, however it was only in my late teens and my first adventure to university that anything official happened with regard to this. This first adventure into the world of swordplay was to join my university fencing club, which, of course was teaching sport fencing. Due to leaving the university, I had to stop attending the club, however after sometime, and finding other areas of swordplay I decided I did not want to go back. This entry discusses the reasons for this.

Now, admittedly my adventure into this form of fencing was not long, relatively. So, there will be those that this was not a real investment or investigation into the art of fencing. However, from what I have seen as it is presented both in the media, but also as it is presented by those who promote this particular art, I believe that my reasons for not coming back or taking it up were well-founded.

The first area I would like to highlight in this particular explanation of my choice is, aims. It would seem that to strike the opponent is the primary aim of what happens in sport fencing. In no place is this more emphasised that in epee where the difference between a "hit" and a "non-hit" is something in the vicinity of 0.25 of a second. The idea of avoiding being struck in the process of striking the opponent seems to have been lost as long as your hit scores first. This seems to go against everything I know and feel about fencing. My belief is that you should be seeking to strike while not being struck yourself, or maybe my focus is a little off.

What has been discussed above focuses on the essential principle of fencing being that it is to defend yourself first and then to strike the opponent. This is the primary principle of fencing and it seems to have been pushed aside for "as long as you strike your opponent first". I will be examining this concept a little further later on with regard to another concept and reason. The principles of fencing seem to be something which are taught to beginners and then pushed aside. The other principle which is most evidently lost is the principle of distance and knowing it. In many pictures of fencers, they are standing on one another's toes, much too close. It would seem then rather than re-adjusting distance the idea is to contort arms etc in order to strike the opponent. If this foundation principle seems to be missing, what else could be?

My next point that I would raise can be described in one word, "ugly". This comprises two areas. The first I have dealt with a little and that is the "anything for a hit" concept. This bothers me a lot as it allows a lot into the "game" which would seem not to fit into an art which was once practiced by gentlemen and ladies. The idea allows a fencer to perform whatever action he can in order to lay his point or edge on to the opponent, rather than sticking with the forms and functions of the weapon which he is using, which leads to the second area "form".

In manuals we see pictures of fencers upright and standing with arms extended. In lessons we see 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.