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.