The "Female" Guard (Part 1)

Greetings,

Below is a discussion of what has been termed by students and myself as my "female" guard. This is a more in-depth discussion of the physiological basis of the guard, demonstrating the differences between males and females in the structure of their pelvises and how this affects their movement. Due to the breadth of this topic, it has been divided into two parts, this is the first part.

Why?

A while ago one of my readers (Curious Girl) wrote a comment asking for more information about the hip position in my “female” guard proposed in one of my earlier articles. I have finally managed to write that article, examining the pelvis and the differences between males and females in more detail, at least the first part of it. It has been an interesting time performing this research, especially considering there is not a lot using fencing-specific actions.

I hope that the information below answers some of the questions that you had about the guard which I presented. I have learned quite a bit since then, thanks to my female students who keep teaching and reminding me about the joy of our differences.

Disclaimer

I have said this before when I have talked about recommendations about how bodies should move, but just to be sure, I will say it again…

I am not a physiotherapist, Occupational Therapist, or any other health-care professional. I am a person who has done a bit of reading, as the bibliography will present, and I have been training people in fencing for about 25 years or so.

If you’re interested in the original post you can find it HERE, or you can find it in my book Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings, where I talk about the original female guard. I am a fencer with chronic health issues and so have a care for those a) with chronic health issues, and b) preventing others from gaining them. If you have a specific issue, talk to a health-care professional or your trainer about solving this problem, they are there to help. If you would like some general advice, please do contact me and I will give you what assistance I can.

A “sort of” Correction

          The title of this article is “The “Female” Guard”. It could just as easily be entitled the “wide-angled” guard, or several other names. I primarily teach this guard to female students due to the anatomical differences between males and females, and due to the ill-fit that most of the typical guards found in many treatises have with the female body. I do not claim that it will suit every female, or that it is only for females. If you find the guard useful, please use it.

Why is this important?

          Why is this important? This guard is important because it is a first step in the prevention of knee and hip injury, and the prevention of the risk of such injury. It is also a step toward making fencing more comfortable for the female fencer. Regardless of gender or body-shape, every fencer should be looking toward the prevention of injury, regardless of what kind.

          In the examination of hip position as it relates to injury risk, a person must examine the differences between male and female position of the hips both in a static position, but also in motion, because they will both affect the characteristics and potential of injury. The first thing that will be noted is that there is a difference in the structure of male and female hips, and it is due to this structure that males and females move differently. This results in different injury risks.

 

“Men and women have different passive hip ROM measurements, and as a result, require different degrees of force closure across the joint to maintain stability. Further, injury patterns and dysfunctions involving the hip and its affects on the pelvic girdle can be different in men and women.”[1]

 

          The range of motion (ROM) is different for males and females due to the different structure; the body can only move certain ways because of the structure. This results in different movement patterns during walking and running between. While walking is closer to footwork the same resulting differences in gait between the genders needs to be noted, as it relates to the same indicated injury risk if the body is not placed in an advantageous position.

 

“Gender differences in kinematics during running have been speculated to be a contributing factor to the lower extremity injury rate disparity between men and women.”[2]

 

          Simply explained, males and females move differently, and it is because of these differences in movement that females have a higher risk of lower extremity,  primarily knee injury, because of the way they move. This is because of developmental changes that occur within the body which change the muscular structure and control altering the action of the body. This causes the tendency toward injury.

Muscular Activation

 

“During puberty, females undergo bone and muscle changes that often create laxity, or joint instability, that limit neuromuscular control in lower extremities. To compensate for this lack of control, female knee joints tend to rotate inward as weight is applied. This places strain on tendons and ligaments, and increases the risk of tear and injury.”[3]

 

          The indicated tendency of the knee to roll inward results in an instability in the structure and excess stress on tendons and ligaments, and an increase potential for damage. Such strain is worsened during movement such as running, and even walking. This is partially because of the wider female hips and the increased angle resulting between hip and knee, but there is more to this explanation, such as patterns of muscle activation.[4]

          There has been a tendency to blame the issue present on this angle, which is created between the hip and the knee, known as the “Q Angle”. There is muscular involvement, which is important for the explanation of this weakness. The lack of alignment is only part of the answer, the muscular issue compounds this issue which leads to failure, they also have a job to do.

 

“no pre-activation of the posterior kinetic chain resulting in more force – both internal and external forces – applied upon ligaments and tendons surrounding the knee joint, ultimately resulting in a situation of stress that can lead to mechanical failure (failure equals injury, more likely than not involving the anterior cruciate ligament).”[5]

 

          The posterior kinetic chain is the muscles which are connected behind the legs and up the back, which help keep you upright. Without its pre-activation, force is applied to other parts of the body, the ligaments and tendons which are not used to such forces. This can lead to failure and injury; it usually occurs at the weakest point which is the knee.

Knee Injury

          Due to the variety of factors which have been presented previously, structure of hips, muscular development and activation, and movement style, females are more likely to suffer a knee injury. Such remarks concern about running, but other athletic activity involving similar active motions where stress is placed upon the leg could also be included.

This is a result of the way females move. The hips move differently to males when they are running, but also when they are walking. [6] The differences are important as they relates to differences in movement of the lower extremities. It is a caution that should be taken to heart as it is not just running that is an issue.

 

“This all means that women will be at greater risk for knee injuries while performing in sports or physical activities than their male counterparts, especially anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury.”[7]

 

          Care needs to be taken when performing in all sports and physical activities to make sure that the knee is in the correct position, and the hip is in the correct position to do the best to prevent injury either to the knee or the hip. Females should not stop sports or other physical activities; there should be active preventions present.

Injury Prevention

          Preventing an injury is always better than rehabilitating after an injury and that goes for any injury. Here, the fencer should be paying attention to the position of their hip in relation to their knee. They should be paying attention to the position of their knee in general. The guard that is taught is meant to correct the position of both the hip and the knee to ensure that both are supported properly in actions. Part of this prevention of injury is in correction which will be spoken about later.

Generally Different

          Females and males are different, they are different on an obvious physical level; they are also different on the psychological level. It is something that needs to be acknowledged by teachers and trainers of all kinds, regardless of whether they are teaching physical or other skills. The way that the lesson is delivered and the methods which are described should be changed to suit the individual.

Figure 1: Drawing human body - female-anatomy-for-artist
Source: https://www.slideshare.net/EduMoLDeS/drawing-human-body-femaleanatomyforartist

 

          There has been a tendency, for a long period, of a “one size fits all” approach to fencing, which ignores physical differences, and gender differences among them. This has not been helpful, some will and have succeeded while others have lagged, “refusing to address the issues that differentiate men and women is not helpful either.”[8] Training should be modified to suit the individual so all may excel, and part of this is acknowledging the difference between male and female.

Motion

          Females and males will perform the same task, such as throwing a ball in a different manner, “Women and men perform many athletic tasks in a sex-specific manner.”[9] This is because of the structural differences between males and females. Females move differently because they are built differently, this will become clear as the focus of the discussion moves toward the pelvis and gait.[10]

          When gait is discussed, the primary discussion concerns walking, but running is considered, as it is a form of gait. In the case of the fencer, footwork is a form of gait, and the female will perform the actions of footwork in a slightly different manner due to the differences in pelvic structure. Another study evident differences in gender were present, as “statistically significant effects of “sex,” which were independent of running speed.”[11] So there were effects of gender on movement which were independent of running speed.

          Due to the different structure of the male and female, there is a different centre of mass, with the female’s being slightly lower than the male’s. Gait changes between male and female due to the different centre of mass.[12] There are differences between male and female on a physical and psychological form, and these need to be acknowledged so that both can be trained effectively.

Anatomical Discussions

          The focus of the discussion is the hips and their placement. To assist this discussion the structure of the pelvic girdle will be discussed, what is commonly referred to as the hips, “The pelvic girdle (hip girdle) is formed by a single bone, the hip bone or coxal bone (coxal = “hip”), which serves as the attachment point for each lower limb.”[13] This single bone is actually made up of several different parts, like the skull which come together to support one another, and most of the body. The structure is important for within these structures we find the differences between male and female that are so important.

The differences between the female and male pelvis will be presented and the reasons for their differences explained. We know that the pelvis is necessary, an essential part of the body but knowing some of the details on an anatomical level allows us to understand why the positioning of the pelvis is so important.

 

“the bones of the pelvis are strongly united to each other to form a largely immobile, weight-bearing structure. This is important for stability because it enables the weight of the body to be easily transferred laterally from the vertebral column, through the pelvic girdle and hip joints, and into either lower limb whenever the other limb is not bearing weight. Thus, the immobility of the pelvis provides a strong foundation for the upper body as it rests on top of the mobile lower limbs.”[14]

 

          There are elements of the pelvis which are universal, because they are necessary for human beings to function. Knowing these features of the pelvis familiarises us with the pelvis and allows us to be more familiar with the subject which is being discussed, and the form and reason for the pelvis.

Differences

          There are some obvious physical differences between females and males when we examine the sexual organs, however the differences between male and female go beyond these differences. They go far beyond surface appearances.[15]

To be more specific these differences are found in the structural elements. The differences can be found in more anatomical differences than simply organs. “There are many significant anatomical, structural and functional differences between the male and female bony pelvises.”[16]

          The human pelvis of the modern human homo sapiens sapiens evolved over millions of years to its present form. This evolutionary change can be followed through the archaeological record from our earliest ancestors who walked with a stooped gait all the way up to our modern selves who walk upright. This change in locomotion required a change in structure a change in our pelvis.

          A further change was required in our structure was needed in female bodies as our brains grew, “the female pelvis evolved to allow the birth of large-brained infants”[17]. The change in our pelvis is important as it is a change which took many millennia and changed our bodies to what they are now; the purpose of our bodies determined their structure.[18]

 

“The geometry of bony pelvis differs significantly between males and females – the phenomena caused by adaptation to the obstetric demands. Females have a relatively larger and rounder pelvic cavity, a shorter and more posteriorly projecting sacrum, a wider subpubic angle, and smaller acetabula with a larger distance between them.”[19]

 

          Female bodies are evolutionarily formed for the purpose of child-rearing. Adding our evolutionary changes toward walking upright and toward bigger brains, this led toward other developments in our bodies. Females have wider pelvises while, “Male pelves are not constrained by the issue of childbirth, and thus are narrower and more optimal for bipedal locomotion.”[20] This goes toward the evolutionary purpose of the male and female. From an evolutionary perspective and the perspective of the structure of the body, the male’s body is built to have stronger muscles, evidence for this is found in our skeletal structure.

 

“A male pelvis is smaller and narrower in nature which is designed to support a heavy body build and a stronger muscle structure while a female pelvis is wider and roomier and mainly serves for the purpose of childbearing.”[21]

 

          The heavier build of muscle in the male is seen in our evolutionary cousins the apes, especially in gorillas where the male is much larger than the female. We can see how the pelvis relates to the function of the individual, the power of the male requiring stronger muscles while the female’s purpose is primarily for child-rearing. It is not the “evolutionary purpose” of the structure, which is important to the discussion, but the difference in the structure. The evolution of the body shows the path to how we got here and the reason for the structures which we now possess. Figure 2 (below) depicts an image of a female pelvic girdle (above) presented with a male pelvic girdle (below) so the differences can be seen.

Figure 2: Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pelvis_(10819143624).jpg

Differences are clear in the human skeleton, the wider pelvis of the female, for example. “The pubic arch is usually wider in the female pelvis at about >80°.”[22] Allows for a larger head on the baby, thus allowing for a larger brain, as shown previously; the male skeleton and pelvis does not require this structure, so it is narrower. “While in the male it is heart shaped, and narrow. A male pelvis has a v-shaped pubic arch that is approximately <70°.”[23] So there is a distinctive difference in the connection and angle between the femur and the lower extremities. Even the acetabulum, which the head of the femur sits at the hip joint, the socket, is of a different shape.[24]

          The biggest difference between the male pelvis and the female pelvis is the female is wider than the male pelvis. This is the simple difference; other differences have been noted, however this simple difference has a greatest effect upon the motion of the male compared to the female, as there are biomechanical considerations to be made. In its simplest form, the wider hips of the female make them more prone to torsion knee injuries, simply due to the form. The “female” guard addresses this by acknowledging this difference and working with it.

The Acetabulum and the Femur

          While the focus of the discussion is mostly upon the hips, we must not forget what is joined to the hips. So, there must be a discussion of the lower extremities. The position of the hips will affect these lower extremities.

          The female’s wider hips creates an increased angle between the hip and the knee and thus between the lower leg, which will be affected by the position the individual takes in their guard position. The “female” guard attempts to neutralize this angle. However, we must discuss those bony parts of the body which result in such angles of difference between the male and the female.

There is a very good image (Figure 3, below), very relevant to our study as it shows the pelvis in a seated position and shows the acetabulum of the male and female next to one another. The seated position is useful, in a correct guard position the pelvis should be almost in a seated position. The acetabulum will determine, in part, how far the leg will be able to move.

Figure 3: Pelvis in seated position - Source: Wang, S. et.al. (2004) “Gender Differences in Hip Anatomy: Possible Implications for Injury Tolerance in Frontal Collisions”, 48th Annual Proceedings: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, September 13-15, 2004

 

          The acetabulum is where the femur connects to the pelvis and the shape of it will decide how the femur is able to move. The position of the pelvis decides the position of the acetabulum and possible movement of the femur and lower leg. There are some marked differences.

          The acetabulum is on the side of the pelvis and is part of the hip joint, the socket. There are variances between male and females in the shape of their pelvises. There are differences in the shape of the acetabulum between male and female. The position and shape of the pelvis results in further differences. The female has smaller acetabula with a larger distance between them.[25] The larger distance between them is caused by the wider pelvis and results in the wider valgus angle.

It is necessary to investigate the root cause of the position of the femur and the lower leg when examining this issue and difference between the male and female. The examination of the acetabulum tells us the reason the femur is positioned differently in females and that that there is different movement in gait.

          The male acetabulum faces more to the side while the female acetabulum faces more to the front. This simple difference has significance in the positioning of the femur and lower leg. It would be easier for the male to line their feet up with their knees with the narrower stance simply because their pelvis allows them to turn their legs in this manner, allowing them to line their knees up, while the female pelvis is less inclined to do so.

End of the first part...

The parts of the body involved in movement have been discussed and their differences highlighted, but in fencing, as with other activities, the body moves. This movement is related to how the parts of the body sit according to the structures which are found in the body. What will be found as a result is that males and females, based on their structural components, their body parts, move differently. This needs to be taken into account by the teacher and trainer, but this is a discussion for the next part, which will be published next week.

Cheers,

Henry.

Bibliography

Betts, J. et.al. (2013) “8.3 The Pelvic Girdle and Pelvis” in Anatomy and Physiology, OpenStax, Houston, Texas https://openstax.org/books/anatomy-and-physiology/pages/8-3-the-pelvic-girdle-and-pelvis, [accessed 21/2/22]

 Breaking Muscle (2017) “The Difference Between Male And Female Biomechanics In Strength Training” in Editorial, Breaking Muscle (22 Sept 2017), https://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/the-difference-between-male-and-female-biomechanics-in-strength-training/, [accessed 21/2/22]

 Chumanov, E., Wall-Scheffler, C. and Heiderscheit, B. (2008) “Gender differences in walking and running on level and inclined surfaces”, Clinical Biomechanics 23 (2008) 1260–1268, doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.07.011

 Graci PhD, V., Van Dillen PT, PhD, L., and Salsich PT, PhD, G. (2012) “Gender Differences in Trunk, Pelvis and Lower Limb Kinematics During a Single Leg Squat” in Gait Posture. 2012 Jul; 36(3): 461–466, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3407338/, [accessed 21/1/22]

 Hunt, D. et. al. (2010) “Gender differences in passive hip range of motion in asymptomatic adults”, 7th Interdisciplinary World Congress on Low Back and Pelvic Pain, Los Angeles 2010

 Lewis, C. et. al. (2017) “The Human Pelvis: Variation in Structure and Function During Gait” in The Anatomical Record (Volume 300, Issue 4, p.633-642), https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.23552, [accessed 21/01/2022]

 Lumen Learning (2022) “The Hip” in Boundless Anatomy and Physiology, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ap/chapter/the-hip/#:~:text=The, [accessed 21/1/22]

 Mohr, M. et. al. (2021) “Sex-Specific Hip Movement Is Correlated with Pelvis and Upper Body Rotation During Running” in frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2021.657357/full

 Nakahara, I. et. al. (2009) “The Gender Difference of Normal Hip Joint Anatomy”, 55th Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, Osaka, Japan.

 Rahimi, A., Arab, A., and Nourbakhsh, M. (2020) “Gender Differences in Pelvic and Lower Limb Kinematics during Walking in People with Chronic Low Back Pain”, Biomed Journal of Scientific & Technical Research 28(4)-2020. BJSTR. MS.ID.004697

 Šavlovskis, J. and Kristaps, R. (2021) “The Bony Pelvis & Gender Differences in Pelvic Anatomy” Anatomy Standard (12 Aug 2021),  https://www.anatomystandard.com/Pelvis/Pelvis.html, [accessed 21/1/22]

 Steenerson, L. (2014) “Physical differences between men and women regarding training”, Life Assurance (9 Feb 2014), https://womenselfprotection.blogspot.com/2014/02/sical-differences-between-men-and-women.html, [accessed 21/1/22]

 Tamon, G. (2011) “Difference Between Female Pelvis and Male Pelvis”, Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects (31 Aug 2011), www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-female-pelvis-and-male-pelvis/, [accessed 21/1/22]

Walker, H. (2019) Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings, Sword and Book Enterprises, Brisbane, Australia

 Wang, S. et.al. (2004) “Gender Differences in Hip Anatomy: Possible Implications for Injury Tolerance in Frontal Collisions”, 48th Annual Proceedings: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, September 13-15, 2004

 Zidon, Dr. H. (2019) “Differences Between the Male and Female Bony Pelvises”, Complete Anatomy Community Blog, Elsevier,  https://3d4medical.com/blog/differences-between-the-male-and-female-bony-pelvises-anatomy-slices, [accessed 9/3/22]

---

Endnotes

[1] Hunt, D. et. al. (2010) “Gender differences in passive hip range of motion in asymptomatic adults”, 7th Interdisciplinary World Congress on Low Back and Pelvic Pain, Los Angeles 2010

[2] Chumanov, E., Wall-Scheffler, C. and Heiderscheit, B. (2008) “Gender differences in walking and running on level and inclined surfaces”, Clinical Biomechanics 23 (2008) 1260–1268, doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.07.011, p.1260

[3] Steenerson, L. (2014) “Physical differences between men and women regarding training”, Life Assurance (9 Feb 2014), https://womenselfprotection.blogspot.com/2014/02/sical-differences-between-men-and-women.html, [accessed 21/1/22]

[4] Breaking Muscle (2017) “The Difference Between Male And Female Biomechanics In Strength Training” in Editorial, Breaking Muscle (22 Sept 2017), https://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/the-difference-between-male-and-female-biomechanics-in-strength-training/, [accessed 21/2/22]

[5] ibid.

[6] Chumanov, E. et.al. (2008), p.1260

[7] Steenerson, L. (2014)

[8] Breaking Muscle (2017)

[9] Mohr, M. et. al. (2021) “Sex-Specific Hip Movement Is Correlated With Pelvis and Upper Body Rotation During Running” in frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2021.657357/full

[10] Lewis, C. et. al. (2017) “The Human Pelvis: Variation in Structure and Function During Gait” in The Anatomical Record (Volume 300, Issue 4, p.633-642), https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.23552, [accessed 21/01/2022]

[11] Mohr, M. et. al. (2021)

[12] Lewis, C. et. al. (2017)

[13] Betts, J. et.al. (2013) “8.3 The Pelvic Girdle and Pelvis” in Anatomy and Physiology, OpenStax, Houston, Texas https://openstax.org/books/anatomy-and-physiology/pages/8-3-the-pelvic-girdle-and-pelvis, [accessed 21/2/22]

[14] Betts, J. et.al. (2013)

[15] Nakahara, I. et. al. (2009) “The Gender Difference of Normal Hip Joint Anatomy”, 55th Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, Osaka, Japan.

[16] Zidon, Dr. H. (2019) “Differences Between the Male and Female Bony Pelvises”, Complete Anatomy Community Blog, Elsevier,  https://3d4medical.com/blog/differences-between-the-male-and-female-bony-pelvises-anatomy-slices, [accessed 9/3/22]

[17] Lewis, C. et. al. (2017)

[18] A functionalist perspective to be true, but most of what is being spoken about is about the function of the anatomy.

[19] Šavlovskis, J. and Kristaps, R. (2021) “The Bony Pelvis & Gender Differences in Pelvic Anatomy” Anatomy Standard (12 Aug 2021),  https://www.anatomystandard.com/Pelvis/Pelvis.html, [accessed 21/1/22]

[20] Lumen Learning (2022) “The Hip” in Boundless Anatomy and Physiology, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ap/chapter/the-hip/#:~:text=The, [accessed 21/1/22]

[21] Tamon, G. (2011) “Difference Between Female Pelvis and Male Pelvis”, Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects (31 Aug 2011), www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-female-pelvis-and-male-pelvis/, [accessed 21/1/22]

[22] Zidon, Dr. H. (2019)

[23] ibid.

[24] Tamon, G. (2011)

[25] Šavlovskis, J. and Kristaps, R. (2021)

di Grassi: Pick it Up and Use It

 Greetings,

In this month's post in which we look at a section in di Grassi's treatise in which he regards anything by which a person may offend and defend as a weapon. From this premise I will expand on this idea to examine some odd items which are often found laying around a campsite that may be used as a weapon, primarily of a defensive nature.

"ALbeit Wepons aſwel offenſiue as defenſiue be infinite, becauſe all that whatſoeuer a man may handle to offend an other or defend himſelfe, either by flinging or kepinge faſt in his hand may in my opinion be tearmed Weapon." Giacomo di Grassi (1594)

The following discussion is formed on the basis of the above statement found in Giacomo di Grassi's (1594) The true Art of Defence exactlie teachinge the manner how to handle weapons ſafelie, aſwel offenſiue as defenſiue, With a Treatiſe of Diſceit or Falſing, And with a mean or waie how a man may practiſe of himſelfe to gett Strength, Iudgement, And Actiuitie. This has been sourced from the 1594 translation of the treatise not the 1570 Italian and then translated, because I do not speak Italian and the Elizabethan English text is a text in its own right, worthy of study as I will likely have discussed previously. Moving on with the subject at hand...

There have been quite a few movies, especially of recent times, where a protagonist has picked up something convenient and used it as a weapon. This usually in the middle of a brawl, where rules have been thrown out of the window and the pair are fighting to survive. An incidence comes to mind where a rolled up magazines was used as a baton, for example, in "The Bourne Supremacy" (2004). The same sort of thing occurred in sword combats. While we are not likely to be involved in a brawl with a sword to save our lives, it is useful to examine some different objects, and approaches that can be used just in case we are surprised with an unfamiliar item.

Defensive Items

In this case, the focus will be on weapons of a defensive nature. This means weapons which are not intended to strike an opponent. A dagger, for example has both offensive and defensive capabilities, so will not feature in this discussion. Where as the buckler, which has the prime object of being defensive will be present, at least in reference in these discussions. 

Defensive weapons can be used for offensive purposes. Indeed, it is di Grassi who mentions the use of the "muſtachio" a blow to the face with the edge of the buckler, should the opponent be close and the sword bound or occupied. This is not their prime purpose, their prime purpose is for defending the individual who picks them up. Further, it will be some generic items, things that may be lying around in a Renaissance setting that will be addressed for use as these defensive items.

Relatable

The trick in each of these items is to approach using the item by relating it to an item more commonly used in fencing and then applying the same rules, taking into account its idiosyncrasies. There is no item which should not be relatable to another item more familiar. It is these links that should allow you to pick up anything you like and defend yourself with it. 

In an attempt to keep this discussion relatively brief, there will be a limit on the number of items that will be discussed. Each one of these will be related to a weapon form that I have discussed in one of my articles previously, so the rules can be found there, if you are unfamiliar with them. The trick is to look at them from the correct point of view.

"Buckler"

So we no doubt have all walked into a kitchen and picked up a pot lid and thought ,"Hey if this was bent the other way, it would make a great buckler." in return it could be said that it could make a good buckler just the way it is, especially in an emergency. It is the right shape, it comes with a handle in the right spot and it is made of a robust material. Further, being in a kitchen, finding an offensive device to go with it should not be a problem. The word messer does mean "knife" in German after all, and a stout blow with a rolling pin is going to make an opponent think twice. 

"Kitchen Combat" here we come? Instead, I think we should move a little "outdoors" though the same objects would be available in a camp kitchen as well. There are even more objects available when you think about it here, and the items become even more robust in nature.

"Cane"

The idea behind using a cane is a stick used to defend yourself, in its simplest terms. In a truly combative situation, the same stick could also be used as a club, and thus as an offensive device, but we will focus on the defensive aspect. Here there are many options, not restricted to flags, staffs, shooting sticks for muskets, pretty much anything with a stick involved. Let's push that envelope just a little further, what about a shovel?

It could be used sort of like a buckler and cane combined if you use the blade upward. This method, by the way is rather unwieldy and strains the arm a lot (Yes, I've actually done it.). The better way is to hold the shovel by the handle and use the blade as a counter-lever. This way it makes a very solid defence which the opponent will have a very hard time moving. It is not particularly mobile, but once you're behind it, you're pretty safe from an opponent's attacks if you stay there.

"Cloak"

Any, preferably large, piece of material can be used as a cloak. I really mean any. I have used a coat, and a tabbard both used as a cloak on separate instances. A blanket or a tablecloth, both of good material will serve as good stand-ins for cloaks in emergencies. In fact some of the best cloaks that I have seen, and worn, were made from blankets, or at least blanket-type material. It's the volume of material that makes this device effective, and also keeps the warmth in when you wear it. This is why slightly heavier and thicker material is more effective than thinner.

"Rotella"

A rotella is a large shield which protects most of the arm and shoulder, and extends out from the arm. If a chair was picked up, especially a wooden camping chair; forearm against the back, seat grabbed and legs toward the opponent, it could act as a rotella with some added reach. Now, the hand would be exposed on the outside, but the opponent would have to get past the legs of the chair first. Of course the wielder of the chair also needs to be careful about those legs, if using certain rules, to ensure they do not strike their opponent. If no such rules exist, they could be a potent weapon for striking. This does not even begin to investigate their potential for entanglement.

Out of the weapon suggestions that I have discussed, this is the only one that I have not actually put into practise more than a single time, at least in a practical/bouting situation. I have certainly thought about the theoretical side of it, and I think that there is a lot of potential. After all, I am the one who is usually writing about people sitting on the chair, not using them for weapons.

Why?

The purpose of this investigation has been to open your eyes to different possibilities. To show how different things are related to one another, that many things that we think are foreign, are actually not that different from one another. You may not have learnt, or been taught, how to use a device, but if you relate it back to a device that you do know of similar construction, then you have a step-up.

Examine the usual weapons that are used during your form of fencing, compare them to other forms of fencing, then compare them to other items that you might find laying about. See how they might be used in a similar fashion should you have to use them at a moment's notice. Think about the chance of a sudden invasion of a campsite, you have to pick up the closest thing to you to defend yourself. Think about a tavern brawl, you have to pick up the closest thing to you and defend yourself. Expand your mind have a look at objects differently, it will reveal a lot about the objects, and the objects you are basing their use upon.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Fencing for the Blind

Greetings,

Fencing for the blind? What is this crazy idea? It's not that crazy and it is a compulsory element in the rehabilitation program at the Carroll Centre for the Blind and has been since a little after World War II. What follows is not a detailed discussion of fencing for the blind, I wish merely to present an introduction and some ideas about the concept. I have previously discussed in several articles fencing from a chair, now I wish to discuss the idea of fencing for the blind. 

What about seeing?

The concept of fencing for the blind is one which some people will have a hard time getting their heads around. The primary stumbling block for people is that the blind person cannot see. How will they find their opponent? How will they defend themselves if they can't see their opponent's weapon? This is looking at the situation from entirely the wrong perspective. This is focusing on problems and not focusing on solutions, or opportunities for learning.

Isn't seeing a prerequisite for fencing? No, it isn't. There are times when vision is not the best asset at all when feeling is a much better asset, and a person who has low vision, or who is blind has a much improved sense of feeling. If you haven't heard of the term senso di ferro or sentiment du fer or tacto or fühlen, and can't describe what they mean, then your training is sadly lacking. I would suggest that you need some more training, and need to do some research.

The blind fencer sees through touch, and also hearing. They feel where their opponent is located, they feel where their opponent's sword is located. The blind actually have a great advantage in this area because they use the sense of feeling to find their way around the world. The walking cane is simply swapped for a sword.

Method

There are two different methods which are suggested for use and you can see examples of these found on the internet and on YouTube if you look up "blind fencing" and ignore all the building instruction for fences, here is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJQf1V6zBAw. There two methods proposed: one where the fencers are immobile, the rarer of the two; and the other where the fencers are as mobile as usual on the strip. The former does not allow any kind of footwork, and minimal use of the body, the latter allows the fencers to use the strip to move along, like fencers usually do. 

For the classical fencer, the scoring apparatus is removed. Depending on how "classical" the weapons might be changed. Everything else remains the same.

For the historical fencer, not used to the strip a method somewhere in between could be found; an area marked out and roped off for the fencers allowing them some of their usual lateral movement but encouraging them to face one another directly. Safety officers would have to ensure that the fencers do not hit the edges of this area, but it could be workable.

The fencers would start with their weapons crossed at the debole so they would know their positions initially, and then they would move from there. They could remain engaged or quit the engagement as is their choice, there would be a point of reference for where the opponent was, they would then have to find the opponent again through a combination of sound and feeling, if the engagement was quit. 

No mention of safety gear is made because there are no changes required. The only increase in safety rules that is required is that safety officers will need to be aware of the edges of the area presented for the combat, and it is recommended that they wear eye protection, and ensure they stay clear of the combatants, as they will not be able to see.

Being struck unawares tends to increase the feeling of a blow, so individuals will have to ensure that they try and strike their opponent with only the amount required that the blow can be acknowledged. Historical weapons tend to be a little stiffer than sporting ones, so some care should be taken in the initial parts of training and bouting that the combatants are all aware of the different situation. This is the prime area where injury can occur.

Teaching

The above has described the method how to fence using a method of fencing for the blind, it does not describe techniques for teaching a person who is visually impaired or blind to fence. This is a more challenging, and exciting prospect. It requires the teacher to think about teaching in a different way.

The teacher cannot simply show the student the action by demonstrating it and have them copy the action. They must describe the action and then if they must "show" the student the action they must physically show the student the action. This requires a relationship of trust between the student and the teacher.

Of all the things the teacher must do, the teacher must be polite. Always ask before doing anything. Ask before touching or moving the student, but this should be a standard thing. It doesn't matter if it is your first lesson with the student or the fiftieth, always ask. Tell the student what you're going to do. Tell them when you arrive, and when you leave. For safety, it is important you tell them when you have your mask on and when you take it off. The most important thing about teaching this student, as with any other, is communication.

Possibilities

The possibilities with including fencing for the blind in a training program are more than one might expect, especially if you examine this from a broader perspective. Every new enterprise or idea should be examined from the broadest perspective to see the greatest gain that can be sought from the idea, rather than some narrow view. Sure, a program of fencing for the blind could encourage some blind or low-vision individuals to join and participate, however there is more...

Think about the possibilities of a fencer who has their vision participating in a program of fencing for the blind, or even simply bouting with a blind individual with a level playing field, both with no vision. Both fencers are reliant on their sense of touch and hearing to find their opponent and successfully engage to see the encounter through. "Your eyes can deceive you, don't let them." Obi-wan said in "Star Wars" here is a perfect example to see what your sense of feeling can do.

Many fencers tout their ability to feel their opponent through the use of senso di ferro, or whatever similar term they use. Deprived of their sight, the fencer must use this sense to both find their opponent and defeat them. Think of how it can improve a fencer's sense of feeling and remind them of the importance of holding their weapon properly. This method will be a great asset to any training program.

Further having a fencing for the blind program within the organisation in which you participate, begins to create the inclusive clubs and groups that people have claimed that they are. Only when everyone is included is inclusivity present. The Oxford English Dictionary defines inclusivity as:

noun, "The practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those having physical or intellectual disabilities or belonging to other minority groups." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/inclusivity) 

Providing a program of fencing for the blind is a step toward this idea of inclusivity, ensuring that everyone who is interested in fencing, regardless of their situation, has the chance to try it out to see whether they are physically able to fence or not. The opportunity is provided, a person merely has to avail themselves of it. 

Just a Beginning...

This is a mere beginning, an introduction to the concept of fencing for the blind, there is a information about fencing for the blind present, there is just not very much of it. You will need to search to find more. I will present some of the information that I have used in my research of this subject below.

Do your research. Talk with others about their experiences. You never know you may find that others that you have talked to, are visually impaired and wanted to fence, or have taught people who are visually impaired. There can only be an advantage to people sharing their information about this subject and opening our activity to more, interesting people, who we can learn from.

Cheers,

Henry.

Suggested Reading

Behrends, S. Fencing for the Blind: A 12-Month Program, 2007, http://lassaillant.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/EpeefortheBlind.pdf

 

Carroll Center for the Blind “Fencing”, Carroll Center for the Blind, 2022, Blind Fencing - The Carroll Center for the Blind, accessed 22/6/2022 

Chirashnya, I. “Fencing for the blind or visually impaired”, Academy of Fencing Masters Blog (April 12), 2016, Fencing for the blind or visually impaired (academyoffencingmasters.com), [accessed 22/6/2022] 

Koncul, A. and Slatman, J. “Rehab/ituation from a Phenomenological Perspective: The Case of Fencing for the Blind and Visually Impaired”, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 21(1), 2019, pp. 67–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.559 

Salle Green “Fencers with Disabilities” in Programs, Salle Green, 2022, Fencers with Disabilities – SALLE GREEN, [accessed 22/6/2022] 

Tehan, R. “Blindness is No Foil to Fencing” in Journal of Rehabilitation (July/August/September) 1980, blindness is no foil to fencing | mysite (vze72rf7.wixsite.com), [accessed 22/06/2022

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.

On the "Double-Hit"

Greetings, 

The following subject is one that I have particular feelings about. Every time the question of tournaments and their rules comes up especially in HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) circles, the question about "doubles" or "double-hits" emerges. The following article will describe my feelings on the matter, and on the matter in general. This is a subject that I have touched on in other articles, but it does require attention of its own.

Definition

The first thing that is required is to define what is meant by a "double", "double-hit", "mutual blow" or whatever other term that would like to be termed for it. There will be a couple of other terms which will be used in this discussion, one will turn out much the same, the other will be different. The simplest definition of a "double-hit" is: "when both fencers strike each other at the same time." This would seem simple enough and would seem to end the question. 

However there are "rules lawyers" out there so it pays to be specific: "when both fencers strike one another in the same tempo of their movement." What does this mean? A tempo in its simplest terms is an action. The double-hit is therefore a blow in which if the blow is started at the same time or before the other's is completed, it remains a double-hit.

The above definition should take care of the "after-blow" as well. The "after-blow" is a concept which is most common to people who study longsword. It has its origins in the tournaments of the Belgian fencing guilds. The sword must fall; so complete its tempo. Any action which is after that is an artifice of a tournament set. The fencer needs to keep themselves covered during and after they have completed their blow.

Simply it is a question of the tempo of the strikes and the difference between the two. If they are the same or close enough to be the same it is a double-hit. If it they are not close enough to be the same then it is not, however the fencer should always ensure they remain covered when they are in guard.

"Revenge" Blows

"Revenge" blows are blows made out of the tempo of a double-hit, and are clearly made after a combatant has been struck. The action is out of tempo of the action of a double-hit and sometimes out of tempo of any encounter. This blow is simply struck out of anger against the fencer who has made the strike, and these are dangerous. Any fencer who makes this sort of blow should be warned a single time and censured severely thereafter. They are unacceptable in any tournament or sparring scenario.

A Failure in the Primary Goal of Fencing

To strike and not be struck should be the goal of all fencing, double-hits fail in the second aspect. Sacrificing some part of your body to strike some other part of the opponent's body would seem to be a silly and somewhat suicidal way of dealing with fighting, especially when a person is dealing with a sword. The swords these days are not sharp, and there is little chance of loss of limb or life, and this knowledge in part is the reason that people will corrupt their art to accept a hit to strike a hit.

The double-hit is a failure in the performance of the art by the individual performing the art not a failure in the art or the tools that are being used. Some leniency may be given for the tools, but not the performance; so the proverb goes, "a bad workman blames their tools." Most often it is the failure to perform a proper defence when performing the offence, or simply the focus on offence rather than defending themselves first, then worrying about attacking the opponent. 

I have heard the excuse, "But I performed the proper technique and still got hit." Clearly not, there is something you did not take into account, like your opponent moving, or countering. Just because you have your plan, doesn't mean that the opponent doesn't have theirs. In fact, it is certain that they will have one. You still have to counter the offensive actions of the opponent to ensure that you don't get hit, while striking the opponent, to prevent a double-hit. You should be considering your defence even in the performance of your offensive actions. If you do this properly, double-hits shouldn't occur, at least with you.

In Training

The culture in schools needs to focus on the essential goal of fencing, striking without being struck. The double, especially in training needs to be an unacceptable result, not re-named, or be in any form of it. The double-hit needs to be something that students are trained to avoid. They need to be trained not to compromise their defence to strike their opponent; to remain defended when they are both seeking to strike and also leaving from striking the opponent; to ensure they are performing proper, clean technique so that they do not get double-hits at all.

Trading one blow for another, say a lower scoring blow for a higher scoring blow, or a less debilitating blow for a more debilitating blow is a sporting, rather than a martial approach to the use of the sword, it does not assume the items being used are weapons. This approach sacrifices much understanding which can be found in the art of swordsmanship which is available and denies the student of the art much understanding of the art. The sporting approach is too often found in tournaments.

Tournaments

The purpose of tournaments, one would hope, is a test of skill. To test the skills of fencers against one another. This means that the rule-sets of the the tournaments should benefit and reward those who perform with skill and not benefit those who do not. The double-hit, and certainly the double-kill, where both combatants strike a vital area, certainly are not demonstrating skill, they are demonstrating a failure to defend themselves; demonstrating a failure to abide by the essence of fencing, "to strike without being struck".

The result is that the "double" in any form should not be rewarded. In the reality of swordplay a double-hit results in both fencers injured in the least and dead as a possibility. Is this something that demonstrates skill? Is this something that should be rewarded? 

Where a double is made by the combatants, in a tournament where the hits are scored, either points should not be scored at all, or points taken off as a penalty for failing to defend themselves. In a tournament where the individuals "die" as a result of vital blows "double-kills" should result as being recorded as a double loss as no one won, both died; they should not be re-fought.

The problem is, that there is too much of a focus, especially in tournaments on winning the bouts, on scoring the point against the opponent, so the importance of proper fencing tends to degrade. This results in people sacrificing targets so they can score against their opponents. Something they certainly would not do if they were not wearing safety gear, and even less so if the weapons were sharp. The competitors in tournaments are too busy focused on whether a blow hit an arm or a body, the points scored, their placing, who wins the tournament, to worry about whether they are fencing properly to gain the points they are scoring. Often sportsmanship also suffers as a result.

Sportsmanship

What's sportsmanship got to do with double-hits? To win a tournament a fencer focuses their attention on the points they are scoring. They hone in on striking at a target. They find the weak point of their opponent and they hammer at this weak point, again and again, until they cover it, or they score sufficient points to win. Sometimes as a result to do this they strike hard, sometimes too hard, but this is what's required to win, so what does it matter?

It matters a lot. This is where injuries can occur, especially if a person is simply attempting to blow through an opponent's defence. If this is with a lunge, and the opponent decides to act, lunging or acting with counter-time, the two fencers can impale one another causing a very hard hit, and unless the technique and angle is correct, a double-hit. The same can happen with a cut, where it is cut at the same time. Both fencers could be quite easily injured, or the power of the blows could simply just keep going up to try to go through the opponent's defence.

On the other hand, if there is consideration for the opponent, and their well-being, a person uses skill to find a way around their defences. Uses skill and tactics to strike the opponent, both combatants have a much more enjoyable bout, and there is much less chance of injury. Also as a consequence of considering defence, and skill, there is likely less chance of double-hits.

There needs to be a greater focus on sportsmanship, on giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt, on the art that is being practised rather than the result of any tournament. This is up to tournament organisers to help make a change, give big prizes to the fencers with the great sportsmanship, rather than some token in comparison to tournament winners. The prizes for those with sportsmanship need to be on par with the tournament winners to demonstrate the importance of sportsmanship, but this will take a radical change in thinking, in some cases.

The Reality of the Double-Hit

From Baron de Bazancourt’s Secrets of the Sword, 1900.

When most people consider the double-hit this is what they think about. Two people who are struck who will walk away quite happily later on, no injuries to worry about. This is not the reality of swordplay. It is not even the reality of the swords for which this sword was practise. The foil being a practise weapon for the epee du combat a weapon that saw duels with sharp weapons even as late as the twentieth-century. The most common weapons for HEMA are the rapier and longsword. Sharp weapons which were designed to defend an individual in a potentially deadly encounter.

Paulus Hector Mair De Arte Athletica, 1567

Here is the reality of the double-kill with the longsword against halberd. Both strikes straight to the skull, neither of these two combatants are likely to be walking away from this fight. The double-hit shows a failure of proper defence and this is the reality of the result, and it is something that should be kept in mind, for when the art becomes divorced too far from its origins it becomes pure sport and its martial aspects are lost. This reality should be something that is kept in mind.

The "Reality" Tournament

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

Weapons

• The tournament can be fought with which ever weapons are chosen, however it is best that weapons are matched, to keep the contest even. It will work with rapier, longsword, or sword and bucker, any weapon a person might choose.
• Other details for the weapons are as per the tournament organiser's discretion.

Format

• The tournament is a single-kill, single-elimination tournament. This means that everyone in the tournament gets one life, and bouts are fought to one kill, or until your opponent is "disinclined to continue." Once this occurs you are eliminated. Winner is the last person standing.
• Individuals are considered to be wearing civilian clothing, a single layer of cloth on their bodies, i.e. no armour.
• Double-kills eliminate both combatants.

Blows

• Both cuts and thrusts with all weapons count as valid, so long as they do so with the weapon in reality.
• Demonstrations of such may be performed on milk bottles filled with water before the tournament, if necessary, or may be determined by agreement, or by determination of the tournament organiser.

Limbs

• A blow (being a thrust or cut) will disable a hand or arm. If this is the individual's primary arm, they will swap hands or concede the bout.
• A blow to the foot or leg will cause the individual to stop using that leg. They may: stand on the other and take the weight off that leg; kneel if it is in the lower leg or foot; or sit.
• Exceptions: A cut or thrust to one hand-span to the inside of the arm or leg is a killing blow, due to arteries located in this area.

Vital Areas

• The head, throat, entire torso (to point of shoulder, and hips) and groin are lethal zones.
• Any blow to any of the lethal zones is considered a "killing blow".

Optional

• For the Ultra-Reality version wounds are carried through the tournament.
• Blows from bucklers etc may be added along with grappling options at the discretion of the organiser. For the most part, these effects lead on to the killing blow rather than are the killing blow.

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

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

Cheers,

Henry.

Special Edition: Of Gorgets

 Greetings,

This is one more for all of my SCA readers (and more for my Australian readers), however the principles apply regardless of your rules-set...

The gorget is a piece of armour, rigid in construction which is worn about the neck. It is often taken for granted, often not thought about until either a person's doesn't fit properly, or that first time an opponent strikes it and the fencer realises it just might have saved your life. The gorget needs to be discussed like any other piece of armour, investigated and addressed so it can be understood more deeply and appreciated.

The gorget in fencing is primarily designed to protect your throat and neck, from the crushing damage of the point of the opponent's weapon. A strike from an unprotected larynx could result in a person being suffocated. Should the weapon break then the gorget protects the neck from a piece of steel coming at their neck. It is important that the gorget covers the entire neck because there are nerves, veins and arteries which are all around the neck, and damage to any one of these can cause catastrophic consequences. This is the reason that, like the head, the neck is protected by rigid material. Damage to the neck can result in death, or other permanent consequences.

2.8.3 Neck

1. You must wear a gorget (collar) made from rigid material to protect your entire neck and throat. This should be backed by resilient padding or penetration-resistant material.

2. You must also protect your cervical vertebrae with rigid material. This might be a combination of a gorget, helm or hood insert.

The above is what the current Lochac Rapier Rules say about protecting the neck. The first point is the one which is most important for our discussion here, though the second one is also a factor. The gorget must protect "your entire neck and throat", this means that all of it should be covered, any part of your body which is considered part of the neck or the throat should be covered by the gorget. It is as simple as that, and should remain covered. This includes the obvious throat at the front down to the collar bones, but also includes around the sides as well and includes the back of the neck, and notice the mention of the cervical vertebrae, all must be covered.

Here are some things to look for when you are making or buying a gorget. When you put it on, if you can easily slip your finger up and under the front of your gorget and touch the gap between your collar bones, the gorget is too short in the front. The gorget will tilt back with your head and this part of your neck may be exposed.

When you tilt your head forward, if the underneath of your chin does not touch the top of your gorget, you should be concerned. Put your mask on. If you can put your fingers between the gorget and the bib of your mask, your gorget does not cover your throat, it does not sit high enough.

When you do your gorget up, if the rigid plates of the gorget do not meet, on both sides, then the gorget does not cover your entire neck. The plates of the gorget must meet to give full protection to the neck, and to cover your entire neck.

One of the greatest complaints about gorgets is that they are uncomfortable, they don't fit nicely or other such things. They are no different to any other piece of armour, or clothing. If you buy it "off the shelf", you have to put up with what you are given. If you pay for customisation, then you will get a better fit. The best gorget fit will always be the one which is made with the person actually present so fittings to the individual can be made as it progresses, the same as clothing.

Cheers,

Henry.