Define: Martial Art

Greetings,

The definition of what a martial art is has been debated somewhat and I have made mention of the concept in previous articles in this blog. The following article is designed to examine this concept a little more closely using a definition taken from one source and then examining various elements from what is considered a martial art. It is hoped that the main points of examination presented will give places where practitioners can examine their own practice to see how their own practice compares to these points.

Previous Articles

The previous articles which I will refer to which I have written are: "Martial Art vs Martial Sport" (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com/2014/02/martial-art-versus-martial-sport.html) in which comparisons are made between martial arts and those which have been directed toward more sport applications, thus moving away from their martial backgrounds; and "Are You Teaching a System?" (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com/2016/05/are-you-using-or-teaching-system.html) in which it is asked whether the teacher is teaching their students a system of techniques, or merely a series of "tips and tricks" which have less foundation in fencing principles found in martial arts systems. Each of these articles addresses the concept of martial arts from a different perspective but add to the following discussion, and will be referred to in the discussion.

A Definition

The Wikipedia gives the following definition of martial arts:

Martial arts are codified systems and traditions of combat practiced for a number of reasons such as self-defense; military and law enforcement applications; competition; physical, mental and spiritual development; and entertainment or the preservation of a nation's intangible cultural heritage.

Although the term martial art has become associated with the fighting arts of East Asia, it originally referred to the combat systems of Europe as early as the 1550s. The term is derived from Latin and means "arts of Mars", the Roman god of war.^[1] Some authors have argued that fighting arts or fighting systems would be more appropriate on the basis that many martial arts were never "martial" in the sense of being used or created by professional warriors. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts)

From the simplest point of view, martial arts can be defined by the first paragraph, as supplied by the Wikipedia, above. However, the following paragraph adds an increased completeness to the definition of the term allowing for a broader perspective of the subject. There are some important elements which arise from this definition: codified systems and traditions; combat practiced for a number of reasons; association with fighting arts of East Asia; and from Latin "arts of Mars". Each of these need to be discussed to see how they apply to various arts.

East Asian Focus

When the term "martial arts" is used most lay-people think of those arts practiced by those of the Orient. This is often due to the martial arts movies of the 1970s and 1980s which popularised martial arts and presented them in such a fashion that they were found to be interesting. The result if this was that there was a boom period of various Oriental martial arts schools, which continues today. The media has focused the attention of the public toward the Orient with regard to the term "martial arts". The long lineages of many of these Oriental martial arts only furthers to cement these ideas.

In comparison, Western Martial Arts (WMA) or Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) is relatively new and relatively unknown in comparison. Interest in these forms only is created through the media when popularise films and series come out. Schools and clubs supplying this form of fighting style are relatively new and few in number in comparison to Oriental martial arts.

The Arts of Mars

That the term "martial arts" is an Occidental (Western) one based on the Latin and is applied to  Oriental and Occidental arts simultaneously is most interesting and demonstrates common ground between these two physical forms. Here, it is commonality which can be found rather than difference. Even more interesting is that it originally referred more to the Occidental arts of the Renaissance rather than those of the Orient is most interesting.

The same theories which apply to Occidental fighting forms can also be applied, and should, to Oriental fighting forms. The discussion which is presented here to discuss martial arts is not only to discuss Occidental fighting forms, though it tends to be my focus, but to discuss all forms and can apply the same criteria to them. This is only possible due to the commonality and the same levels of expectation of them.

The evaluation of a fighting art can, as such, be evaluated using the same criteria regardless of whether it is Oriental or Occidental as they should both carry the same characteristics to qualify as a martial art. To evaluate one by one set of criteria and the other by another has no justification as there is a commonality between them which has been presented previously in their common label. What will be found is that some of the assumptions made of both Occidental and Oriental fighting arts are not necessarily true.

Codified Systems

To be a martial art the fighting art must have a codified system. This is most likely based on a long tradition of the fighting art, but in the case of many Occidental arts, they are being rediscovered so the tradition is not present. The tradition is preferable as it establishes the system, but this can also be abused. Some of this was discussed in the article "Are You Teaching a System?" The essential part is a codified system.

The fighting art's system needs defined theory which can be explained by its instructors to the students to demonstrate how this theory applies to the physical practice. There must be this link between the theory and practice; the goal for any martial artist should be to make the theory and practice to become one, thus the science and the art of fencing, for example to become one. While theory may not be explained to beginner students it must underlie each technique and technical sequence which is taught.

Further, to be a martial art, it needs to be a complete system. A complete system means that an experienced practitioner of that particular art can deal with any attack at any distance, and thus, not be limited by type of attack or distance at which the attack is made, also the practitioner should respond in kind to such attacks. Those fighting arts which limit themselves to a particular distance, and do not take into account other distances are not complete systems. Further, an art which is limited by the attack which it delivers can defend against is not a complete system. Clearly, there is some limitation when it comes to projectile weapons.

A martial art has combat application. This means that the practitioner could use the art that they are being taught to defend their life. If they were put into an antagonistic scenario, they could defend themselves and do sufficient damage to an opponent to end an encounter successfully. Here is where the question of its "martial" application is applied. There will be further discussion of this aspect further along. While this may not be the primary purpose of the art, this must be present.

Transmission of the fighting art is from teacher to student. The teacher teaches the lessons and the student learns the lessons. The person who teaches the student may not be the head teacher of the organisation, but they have been selected because they have the knowledge to teach the student the lesson they are being taught.

Reasons for Practice

The Wikipedia definition lists various reasons for the practice of martial arts: "self-defense; military and law enforcement applications; competition; physical, mental and spiritual development; and entertainment or the preservation of a nation's intangible cultural heritage". Each of these will have a different impact on how the fighting art is practiced, and this needs to be noted.

The different reason for practicing the fighting art will affect how the martial art is practiced and also affect its final outcome. A martial art which is practiced for the purpose of self-defense, will have a different outcome to a martial art which is practiced for the purpose of competition. This was discussed in the article "Martial Art vs Martial Sport". The focus and the application of the skills will be different. This will change again if it is for personal development or for the preservation of cultural heritage. Each choice of direction affects how the end result will turn out.

Each choice of direction can also have an effect and change the nature of the fighting art. While the sportification of some martial arts has allowed them to become more mainstream it has also lead to the degradation in many of their principles, and even in their codified systems. They have become focused on the sport rather than the martial art, focused on what rules conventions determine competitions or tournaments rather than the origins of the martial arts. This has led them away from their original content.

Further, some arts, due to their nature, cannot be practiced as they once were, due to modern society's safety requirements, so the systems have been truncated. Often these techniques are not even examined to see how they work, they are simply not allowed. This denies avenues of understanding of the fighting art and can lead to reduction in understanding of the overall art. The complete system still needs to be examined, even if it is not used, so it can be understood and appreciated for the art it is.

Martial Art or Not?

In the examination of any claim by a fighting art to be a martial art, a close examination is required. The system that is presented needs to be examined for various points of validity as a martial art. A complete codified system is the most important element that is required. This needs to be presented with established theory which can be presented by instructors and demonstrated as relevant during the training. There needs some sort of application of this system to a "real world" situation where the art would be effective, based upon the system and theories which are presented. Further, it needs to be demonstrated that the transmission of the information is from teacher to student as this connection is essential for correction of technique and to ensure that the information is passed on correctly.

The list is quite long, and quite impressive and there are many fighting arts, which call themselves martial arts, which really do not stack up. There are many fighting arts which are present which are simply fighting arts and they should be appreciated for what they are. They should be noted both for their achievements and also their failings. We should also note that the sportification of a martial art can force it away from its origins too far and result in it no longer being a martial art. Then only suitable for sporting purposes. It is not meant to denigrate any fighting art or practice which any participant partakes in, more to ensure that the relevant questions are asked, so the relevant information is sought and found.

Cheers,

Henry.

Those Who Can't, Teach?

Greetings,

There is this idea going around that if a person is an instructor or trainer or master of a particular school then they should also be some sort of high-level competitor, able to dish out the hard stuff to others in competitions.  On the other hand there is this idea that those who cannot dish it out in competitions allow others to do so, and thus teach instead, hence "those who can't, teach". Both of these notions are fallacious in their own ways. Both need to be addressed so that we do not get the wrong idea and wrong expectations of our teachers.

Trainers cannot, in general, maintain the position as high-level competitors for a simple reason. A competitor's focus is on themselves: making sure that their skills are honed, making sure that their timing is in focus; and making sure that they are fit enough to compete in competitions. A person who truly takes on the position of the trainer does not have this focus. Their focus is on the individuals that they are training; focusing to make sure that the skills that they are teaching are up to date with the latest research; making sure that the method of delivery is understood by the students; making sure that the students can excel; the trainer's focus is outward rather than inward. Usually on more than one student.

Trainers spend much more time on others than they do on themselves. This is the reason why their skills may not be as sharp as the high-level competitors, because they have someone to think about other than themselves. Their students are their focus, not the next tournament win, not making themselves better through improving their fighting skills, but making themselves better through their teaching skills. This is another place where this idea of "those who can't, teach" is a misnomer.

A person who competes demonstrates their skill by performing it against an opponent. They can even sometimes give you all the technical information about the skills that they were using. Often, they cannot teach those skills. The trainer can. Not only does the trainer need to know how to perform the actions that the competitor does, but the trainer also needs to know how to teach those skills to others.

There are some great competitors who have striven to the height of their particular chosen pursuit, but they cannot teach. Just because you know the skills does not mean that you automatically know how to teach the skills. This is an additional level of learning which is involved. It is a process which the trainer goes through to learn how to teach, often the students learn through this process.

To teach a skill. The teacher has to know how the skill works. The teacher also needs to know why the skill works. For fencing, the teacher also needs to know when and where to apply the skill to a situation for it to work. These must be real understandings of how the skill works not just surface/physical understanding, but intellectual understanding of how the skill works. It is only through this level of knowledge that the teacher can explain to the student how to perform the skill properly.

If you see a trainer or teacher, and you see them fencing, examine what they are doing. You will notice that their fencing is more technical than athletic, because they are focused on getting things right. They may not keep up with the high-level competitors but fencing them will always be worth your while. They have a different focus, a focus which is toward the education of others in swordsmanship rather than seeking the heights of fame. It is an extremely important role as if there were no person willing to teach, there would be a lot less people to compete with.

"Those who cant, teach" is a misnomer.

Those who are teaching are doing, all of the time.

They may not be representative on the tournament honour's list. They may not be present on the world rankings. They are present in the school every week teaching people from beginners all the way up, spending their time on others. Without their technical knowledge and technical skill swordplay would not be what it is today. It is these people who do most of the study to ensure that what is being taught and thus what is being learnt makes sense, and works. Thank your teachers and trainers, they are a great asset.

Cheers,

Henry.

To the "Sword Widows"

Greetings,

We often do not thank our significant others (wives/girlfriends/husbands/boyfriends/insert appropriate title) enough for allowing us to pursue something which gives us so much joy. There is a time factor which needs to be taken into account. It is not just the weekends away at events every now and then, it is the during the week training as well, those can surely rack up if you count them. This post is to thank all of the significant people in our lives for giving us the time to pursue our passion.

Thank you.

For them to share their time with other people, most of whom they have never met before, or sometimes will never meet, there has to be some level of understanding. It is an understanding that this pursuit and study of swordsmanship, whatever its form, is important to us. Life can be very difficult when this understanding is not present, arguments are abound as there is no understanding why you need to spend the time going to training, or reading the books, or spending the money to pursue swordplay. It might be more understandable if it was relevant to our current age. It might even be more understandable if it was more "popular" or "normal", but it isn't. So there is a level of expectation of understanding for our sake. It is understanding that it is important for us. This also requires thanks.

Thank you.

Then there is the focus. For some of us the focus can be so great it tends to blot everything else out of existence. I am in that particular category quite often. For most things, if it requires huge effort and it does not relate to swordplay, you're going to have a hard time motivating me. Further things in our lives get more motivated toward swordplay. Getting fitter because you can fence longer. Expanding your book collection because you want to get more fencing manuals. Getting a place with a backyard or a close park so there is somewhere to train. This focus can be hard to live with sometimes. For understanding this focus when swordplay has become a person's driving passion there is also thanks required.

Thank you.

You are the foundation of our support teams even though you probably did not know it. It is because it is you who sees us through the mundane tasks that gets us to swordplay. You help organise things so that we can get to participate in swordplay. For all the things that you do not realise that you do that help us with our passion, thank you.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. And Thank you again.

Accuracy is the Best Weapon

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Henry.

Check Your Height

Greetings,

Much has been said in various manuals and treatises about the combat of the short fencer against the tall fencer and also vice versa. These are considerations of note and need to be taken into account. What does not seem to appear all that often are considerations of teaching a shorter or taller student and how this may change the approach that the teacher might take. This is something which needs to be considered as this will affect how the individual will be effective with their weapon.

Being a taller person, actions are performed in a particular way, and tactics are appropriate to a particular method. These are not so much for a shorter person. Thus as a taller person who is teaching people who are shorter, these things need to be taken into account. This is vital otherwise we are teaching the shorter person simply that they will be less effective because they are shorter and cannot do what the taller people can do, and this does everyone concerned a disservice.

What is ironic is that most people assume that because taller people have the length that they have the advantage, this is not necessarily the case. If a person who is shorter than their opponent extends their weapon from their shoulder, they will be directing their point toward the target area of the opponent.  If a taller person extends their weapon from their shoulder, they may be directing their point over the head of their opponent. By having to drop the point down, length is lost due to the change in angle from the right angle at origin to an acute angle. The same reason a person may safely stop-hit at the face while keeping their leg free from attack. This is also something that should be taken into account.

In teaching the height of the individual must be taken into account, especially if there is a marked difference in height between the trainer and student. There is little point in teaching a short person to fight like a tall person as they do not have the reach, and there is not much greater advantage of the reverse because then the taller person will not learn to use the advantage of their reach. Actions which rely on an individual being a particular height as compared to their opponent should be examined, as many of them will not be as effective, and in some cases effective at all when the fencer is shorter. It is at this point in time that the trainer needs to change tact to suit the student.

A cut delivered vertically designed to clear or at least block the opponent's weapon while striking them is an excellent attack and works beautifully when executed properly, when the fencer is the same height or taller than the opponent. When the fencer is shorter, the angles are changed. The sword will connect further up on the weapon and so will not have the strength to do the job designed and the striking part of the weapon is less likely to strike the opponent due to length. The result is that this technique is not as effective, if at all. The trainer thus needs to find an alternative, such as stepping off-line and striking the arm, or stepping off-line and coming upward and underneath to strike the flank. This is only one example, there are many more.

Both teachers and students need to take height differences into account, not only from the point of view of combat situations, but also from a teaching point of view. A shorter or taller student is going to result in different angles as a result of their height. These are going to have to be taken into account in their training, and some actions will have to be modified. A good teacher will look at this as just another challenge to be surmounted in the adventure of teaching.

Cheers,

Henry.

Studying the Sources

Greetings,

The following article is the result of a discussion that I had with Lois Spangler about studying the sources. There are various questions that we all have to ask ourselves when we are studying the sources so that we can understand what we are actually doing. Many of them are just a really good read, and this is great, but there is often a further motive behind the study and this what will be discussed here.

Single or Multiple?

In some cases a source will be found which appeals to us on a very basic level. Maybe it is one which is different from what everyone else is studying, maybe it just suits the way that we move, or maybe due to a talent for a particular language we have an advantage because no one else can read it completely. This results in the focused study of a single source. In my case, I picked up Saviolo's (1595) His Practice in Two Books some 20-odd years ago and have been studying it on and off ever since, because it appeals to me. Why on and off? Is a focused study not the best way to do things? Yes, and no.

There are also new manuals which are being scanned, translated and being made available all of the time. This is a great boon to the swordsmanship community at large. A person may be studying a single manual but another may come out which draws their attention, what should they do? This would depend on the individual. I have read various manuals in various forms, in many instances it is to keep up with what students are studying, and also to keep up with what others are also studying. This does not detract from the primary manual that a person studies, in fact it enhances it. A greater appreciation of swordsmanship can be gained from examining multiple manuals than from just focusing on a single one.

Reasons and Justice

What this all comes down to is the reason for studying a treatise. There are many different reasons for studying a treatise. The prime reason is to recreate what is written in the treatise, but this is not the only reason. Another reason is to find the foundation elements so that they can be examined to compare to another treatise for similarities and differences, this way elements can be traced through lineages and also across continents. In some instances a manual may be picked up just for "tips and tricks" i.e. just to add an extra couple of techniques to a person's repertoire. A teacher may also examine a manual to understand what their student is studying. Each one is a different reason.

How do we do a source justice? What doe this even mean? For some, the only way to do a source justice is to go through the entire manual and use every element. For others, this is not even a concern. This all goes back to the reason for studying the manual in the first place. If a person is studying a treatise to examine social elements within it, the technical elements to not even play a part in the examination, therefore there is no need to consider recreating these technical elements. If the study is for comparison of a single technical element, then the other elements are not really required. For example, a cross-manual examination of rapier and dagger, then only the rapier and dagger parts are really pertinent. The reason for examining the manual must be taken into account in all instances.

De-focusing and Re-focusing

There are reasons why in the study of a single treatise a person should be looking elsewhere to get a better perspective of what they are studying, sometimes it is even a necessity. This allows a better perspective of the work which is being studied and often a greater understanding of what is being studied. I will take as an example Saviolo's (1595) His Practice in Two Books because it is the one which I have been studying.

To begin with this is not simply a fencing treatise, it also includes a discussion of duelling, which the author actually spends more pages on. From this part of the treatise alone it can lead to the reading of other treatises in discussions of duelling, honour and other similar concepts to gain a greater understanding of what the author was discussing. Focusing more on his more practical elements, Saviolo's treatise is not of a "pure" school. It is a combination of Italian and Spanish for sure, with suggestions of German as well.

To understand this treatise in all of its detail the reader really should have a grasp of the foundation elements of the Italian and Spanish schools for sure, with some of the German as well. This grasp can only be gained by looking elsewhere, not at the treatise itself. This means following a tangent to examine something which is not the primary source which is being examined. This investigation will further enhance the reading of the primary source as a greater understanding will be had. In the case of Saviolo, I can assure you that following the tangent to gain an understanding of the foundations of these schools will grant a better understanding of his treatise.

The same "de-focusing" or following a tangent can be useful to the study of other treatises. A study of Renaissance mathematics of philosophy, for example can give the individual a greater understanding of the mind of the writer. An examination of treatises of a similar period, or tradition can establish trends and elements which are common, or changes, all of which lead to a greater understanding of the original text that was being studied. In this case the broader understanding does have great advantages, when this understanding is re-applied to the original text.

Re-focusing is the other side of the same coin. This is focusing on a single treatise to the exclusion of all others. There are times that this is what is required to get a clear and consistent reading of a treatise without the words being muddied by external sources. In this particular case it is where external sources can be an issue because they do influence how we interpret what is being read. Our history influences how we interpret what we read, what we have learnt influences it also, as does our cultural background and many other different factors.

If the treatise is read in accompaniment with another's interpretation of it, then our own interpretation can be swayed by that interpretation. Likewise if the treatise is read in accompaniment with other secondary sources about a similar subject, this will also colour the interpretation. This can be an issue as these influences are not always positive. Often it is best to focus on what the author of the treatise is talking about and what they are saying, without any interpretation. This is difficult when the treatise is translated from a different language as there is inherently an element of interpretation present.

How can this fit with "de-focusing" then? In this other process, resources are selected which are designed to enhance the understanding of the treatise. An enhanced overall understanding is what the aim is. Thus, in reading another treatise it is the foundation elements which are important rather than particular techniques. In reading philosophy it is to understand the mind-set of the author, rather than the philosophy in detail. The broader topics are read so re-focusing is easier later on, so greater understanding is possible.

What Now?

When a primary source is taken to study there are certain elements which must be in play for the person studying it to achieve their end. There must be some sort of connection between the person studying the treatise and the treatise, this has to be something which is going to keep them going through the hard parts of its examination. Studying treatises is not an easy task if it is going to be done properly. There also has to be a real reason for the individual to want to take the time to read and study the treatise. It will take a lot of time, and often a lot of re-reading. This form of reading and interpretation is not a direct nor simple process.

The elements which have been raised here are for information but also for discussion. My position is only one, others may have a different point of view, and they should share it. The more people we have talking about period sources the better. The more people we can encourage to study period sources and come up with their own interpretations the better. Some will be the same, and some will be different. Just because they are different, doesn't mean it is wrong. They might have a different point of view which is worth investigating.

Let your investigations take you different places. Follow the tangents in your investigations, it can only lead to a greater understanding of what you are studying. Found something which you do not understand? Go research it. Found something different or interesting? Go research it. Examine the different pathways and backgrounds to the people who wrote the treatises, figure out some of what they would have read, and go and read some of it, you will gain a greater understanding of them and their treatises. Sticking assiduously to the treatise without looking side to side is not necessarily the best approach, you have to occasionally lift your head up and look around as well.

Cheers,

Henry.

On Holding the Sword

Greetings,

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

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

Weapon

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

Sword Methodology

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

Effects

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

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

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

The Grips

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

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

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

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

Which Method?

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

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

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

Cheers,

Henry.