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.

The Story of Fencing from a Chair

 Greetings,

Some of my readers know me in person, quite a few do not. This means that you do not know where my information comes from, whether or not I have done any experimentation or research, or if I actually hold any sort of even pseudo-qualifications to be telling you about fencing. To shed a little light on at least one part of this, I present my story of fencing from a chair. This is intended to give a little history, to show where it all came from, and that I did not develop the techniques and ideas that I propose for using this technique overnight.

The two primary articles for fencing from a chair, if you are interested in the concept, are:
No Footwork Fencing Or Fencing From a Chair and Etiquette for Facing a Seated Opponent. I will refer to these articles throughout this article, and if you want an idea of what I am talking about, these are your go-to articles. I have written a couple of other articles on the subject, one which proposed the use of the techniques of Fabris from a chair, and others. This subject is really one of my specialties, and you will see why shortly. 

The Beginning

D.A. Girard Actors On Guard, 1996

The first time I had seen fencers with rapiers sitting down was this picture from Actors On Guard by D.A. Girard, about 1997, a theatrical fencing manual which I had used for research purposes, because it had some quite relevant information about the use of the rapier and dagger. This drill concerns ensures that the two fencers remain out of range but can practise their blade engagement and other blade skills. I did not pay it particularly much attention until something happened.

Life has its little twists and turns, as it would have it, I stepped in a hole and injured my ankle. The doctor's prognosis a badly twisted and sprained ankle. Treatment: strapping and as little pressure on the foot as possible, for six weeks. At the time I was in a small group as the primary trainer and this would mean six weeks of no training, because I could not stand... well, only if I had to stand. My thoughts went back to the image above. 

The next week at training, I turned up hobbled out to the middle of the field with a chair. I parked my butt, in much the same way as in the picture and invited my students to have a go. The learning curve was very sharp...

There was no quick retreat step to get you out of trouble; there was a lot more reliance on your hands and accuracy in your parries. On the other hand, your opponent could easily take a step back or even simply lean back; your timing and Distance with your attacks had to be on point. These were two simple things that I learnt from the first training session. My handwork improved over the period, as did my sense of Distance, at least in regard to my sword- and arm-length, with a little body lean. My parries were also a lot more accurate, but there had to be more. This adventure sparked more interest in the subject...

Research Begins

After I recovered from my injury, I noticed that my hand-work i.e. parries, thrusts and other elements focused on the use of the hand had improved, as had my stationary sense of Distance. I had a very rudimentary idea about how seated fencing could work. I figured there had to be more available about fencing from a chair.

I first turned to sport fencing to see if there were any clues there, any answers to be found. While standard sport fencing held no answers, the Paralympics did. Here I found wheelchair fencing, which is essentially fencing from wheelchairs. If you've never seen this, I recommend that you do; it's a real eye-opener. There are some impressive videos on YouTube.

I examined the rules for wheelchair fencing as possible future alternative for myself. Something that I could use later on should one of my chronic illnesses cause me to be confined to a wheelchair, or similar situation in the future. One of the big things that I noticed was that the wheelchairs were angled. In my initial foray into fencing from a chair my body was placed in the chair in its usual manner, much like the picture above. The angulation of the body on the chair at least would change things, and I would get the opportunity to try it out.

Rowany 2006 (AS XL)

Rowany Festival is the biggest get together for the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) in Australia. In 2006 it was held at the Cross-Roads Campsite which is near Yass, New South Wales. The event is held on the Easter weekend, and is a camping event. I went along to the event and camped, like most of the attendees.

Sleeping in a tent, in the cold (it got down to - 6 degrees Celsius overnight one night), resulted in my fibromyalgia playing up quite severely. The result being that my leg froze up; hip, knee and ankle. I had promised that I would play some Prizes (examinations) the same day, so I suggested I could do them from a chair. This allowed me to put some of my new-found research into practice.

Duncan Bailey and Myself

You will note, while the chair is still mostly facing square to the opponent, my body is somewhat angled to him. The chair is slightly angled but not significantly. There were quite a few revelations made during these Prizes. First, that rapier and dagger is the superior form when fighting from a chair as it gives you both offensive and defensive options at distance and close, while defensive forms are useful, but are hampered a little in close. Second, that fighting with an extended guard while intimidating leaves you exposed should the opponent clear the blade. Third, the Low Line is mostly insignificant and needs little effort to defend. The experience confirmed some previous ideas and gave me more.

The Four Foot Model

Much later on, I went to a seminar about Fiore dei Liberi with Bob Charron. How does this concern fighting from a chair? Just wait and you will find out. In this discussion he discussed "open" feet and "closed" feet, along with "lines of power" in a person's stance. In wrestling, a person was strong where they had two "closed" feet lined up, this made a "line of power"; they were weak where their two "open" feet lined up along the other "line of power". This described a person having four feet. A person was manipulated so the fencer would put their opponent over their "open" foot to destabilise them.

Some years later I was thinking about fencing from a chair and its use, when I realised the blindingly obvious... a chair has four feet. Therefore the chair has four "closed" feet. If the chair can be angled correctly to the opponent, and the fencer sits in the chair correctly, the fencer can also have four "closed" feet and will remain stable in their movement.

The angling of the chair came from the position of the chairs placed for wheelchair fencing. They are bolted in place so they do not move about. I had previously just been angling my body. If the chair was angled too, then there would be more stability, and the possibility of movement of the body. 

So, I sat down on the chair, lined my legs up with the chair legs, then turned my body until I was in profile, relatively to my opponent. More to the point I sat on the chair so I would sit in my guard position with my front toe pointed toward my opponent. If I stood up and the chair was taken away there would be no difference. This is where the true essence of my system of fencing from a chair evolved. 

Angle the chair to the opponent so the front leg lines up with your natural front leg of your stance. Make sure the chair that you are using doesn't have arms, so they won't get in the way. Make sure the chair is stable so you can bend at your middle, should you desire, and remain balanced. Get a chair suitable for your height, so your feet can be flat on the floor. All of these things came with this model.

Revelations

My most recent explorations into fencing from a chair which have appeared in articles on this blog have been the result of experiences, both good and bad of fencing from a chair. There will be time, in the future, where I will, no doubt, write another article about the subject of fencing from a chair explaining my method and how it works, by then I will hope to have some more revelations about fencing from a chair.

I looked at doing Fabris from a chair, because I cannot perform his method standing up. I even wrote a good long article about the subject which appears in my book Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings. This was more a theoretical exploration rather than a practical one. I have played with it a bit while fencing from a chair, and the on guard position looks intimidating as hell, but I really need to play with it a lot more to get it working properly.

One thing I must put in here, fighting case of rapier from a chair is a little crazy, because once your opponent gets past your points you have a lot of trouble. Fighting case of rapier against another person who is also in a chair with case of rapier, is a little insane, but a hell of a lot of fun. Rotella give you a lot of coverage, but once again, once the opponent gets close you are in trouble, they are also a nuisance to fight around.

The biggest revelations when it comes to fencing from a chair were: the angling of the body and the chair; the use of the body as "footwork" and for voiding; the use of various off-hands, rapier and dagger being the superior form; and finally, the Low Line is minimal, be careful not to hit yourself when you cover it.

What's Next?

Quite frankly, I don't like fencing from a chair. I only do it when I have to, or when I teach it, or when my opponent invites me, because they are fencing from a chair because they have to, or because I have been legged and I don't want to sit on the ground (I don't kneel, it hurts too much). This is a method that I devised so I could continue fencing when my legs decided to pack it in and not work.

The most important thing about fencing from a chair is that it is not a gimmick. It is a real option for those with mobility issues of a permanent or temporary kind. Indeed, when I originally wrote this, one of my students was fencing from a chair; he was a couple of weeks out of hip replacement surgery.

 

Fencing from a chair is also good for training. Concerned that the actions of your hands are not what they used to be? Want to check them out? Fence from a chair and find out. It is also a good way of utilising limited space to a premium. Think of how many fencers you could have fencing from chairs in the same space you have standing. Push that idea further, an indoor tournament, all the fencers fence from chairs in the middle of the hall while people sit around watching. That's a small list field.

I have fenced from a chair in some form or another for about 15 maybe 20 years now, and I have experienced some good and bad from fencing from a chair. I have also seen good and bad as a result of others fencing from chairs, and it is not always a person who is standing who is in the wrong. Everyone can have their effect om the situation for good or for ill.

I have seen standing fencers snipe at their maximum range while the seated fencer cannot reach them; and close to where the seated fencer has no chance of withdrawal. I have also seen seated fencers move from their chairs to gain a little extra Distance, close to launching themselves from their seated position. I have seen standing fencers turn a seated fencer around in their chair to gain advantage over them. I have seen shots land that were claimed to hit the chair, where it actually hit the seated fencer. Both standing and seated fencers can do ill for the game that is played, but they can also do a lot of good as well.

Always consider your opponent, and consider the fencers who will come after you. The trick that you pull today may look cool, but it might ruin things for people after you. Consider whether the act that you perform will earn you renown or notoriety in its performance.

I will keep researching and finding new ways to improve the techniques for fencing from a chair, and hopefully more people will begin to understand this method of fighting. It has taken quite a while to figure things out, and is still a work in progress. I will continue to share my findings as well.

Cheers,

Henry.

Armour is Hot

 Greetings,

There is a certain amount of assumption that is made in regard to gear that is worn, especially when it is made of fabric that it will not affect a person particularly much; only rigid protective equipment, "real" armour is considered when the issue of heat and restriction is considered. This may not be a conscious thing, it may be a sub-conscious thing, I have found myself doing the same thing. Sometimes, especially during the hotter months of the year, we don't bother with the protective equipment during practice, for heat reasons. We get used to not wearing our protective gear and then when we do this is a problem. 

Armour is Hot

Our protective gear (PPE/Armour) needs to be taken into account.

Now, I've already had a discussion about the difference between protective gear or Personal Protective Equipment and armour. I am going to be lazy and bounce between "PPE" and "Armour" knowing the difference between the two. I will use both and "protective gear" assuming that my reader will understand what I am aiming at. 

Back to the subject at hand. This PPE adds extra layers of material and extra weight to what we are used to carrying when we are usually walking around, even usually clothed. It is heavier and warmer than the clothes that we usually wear, thus "armour is hot." We need to get used to this "heat" and the presence of this armour and get to a situation where our movements are not distracted by the presence of this gear, what's called "Armour Fit."

The military gets its trainees used to carrying a pack and their weapons by getting them to run obstacle courses while wearing the gear and carrying the weapons, so the soldiers are used to carrying the gear and using the weapon under all circumstances. This approach to armour fitness has been present in military training since the Romans indeed the tactician Flavius Vegetius Renatus, known more commonly as Vegetius wrote about this in his Concerning Military Matters. Part of it was even plagiarized as the "Poem of the Pel" in the Middle Ages. I am not suggesting that we should do such extreme training, however some of it might be of use to us, especially if we want to get really "Armour Fit".

If nothing else, we need to get used to the heat of the armour. We need to get used to simply wearing the armour as a part of our normal practice. This way, when we have it on for when we are bouting or competing in competitions, there will be substantially less restriction.

Training in Armour

So, am I suggesting that we should do all of our training in our PPE? Yes, mostly. Am I suggesting that we should do the training in all of our PPE? Well, maybe not all of it, all of the time. There will be times when masks are not required and maybe gorgets, however the more armour that you wear during the training, the more that you will get used to it, the quicker you will become used to wearing it.

"But that will tire me out quickly." Really? That certainly says something about your armour fitness if you can't go through a training session wearing the gear that you are supposed to be bouting or competing in, maybe this sort of training is exactly what you need to build up your endurance.

"But the armour is hot and uncomfortable." Then maybe this is your chance to get used to the heat that it supplies, and find the areas where it is uncomfortable so you can make some modifications. This equipment like any form of clothing should be made to fit the wearer, not just taken off the shelf and assumed it is going to fit.

During your first couple of times training in armour as described above you will have to pay close attention to your heat tolerance. Be very aware of any heat stress that you may be suffering and attend to it immediately. If you feel that you are beginning to suffer from heat stress, go sit down, drink water, remove some layers and rest for a while. Do NOT push it until you drop or dehydrate yourself. This will take some time to get used to and build up your tolerance. Besides if you do push until you drop, you are likely going to have to start at all over again as you recover and then build up again.

You will notice some quite interesting differences between being in armour and being out of armour. Maybe this might require re-learning some skills, or modifying them to suit while you are in armour. The armour will change your movements.

Armoured vs Unarmoured

You will notice that movements while wearing armour is different to not wearing it. This will change your actions. Likely one of the reasons you do not perform particular actions during your bouts is simply because you can't, because your PPE will not allow you to execute such actions. There is a significant amount of weight present and it is more bulky in different places this needs to be taken into account. While Musashi was talking about "real" armour, the same, in part, applies.

"You cannot profit from small techniques particularly when full armour is worn." 

Miyamoto Musashi Go Rin No Sho

Certain techniques may not work for you because of the PPE that you are wearing. You need to take this into consideration. What is even more interesting about this situation is that we are supposed to be performing an unarmoured art, yet we are doing it while wearing armour, in a lot of cases. This is going to make a lot of difference to the way that we can and cannot move.

This is especially the case when we look at a lot of HEMA combatants. They can't perform the correct actions because they can't move in the way that they need to because of their protective gear. Questions could be raised as to the reason that they need all the protective gear. It does not take all that much effort to damage an individual, so what is the reason for the hard blows? I think this is a matter for another article, or maybe one I have already discussed previously.

All a learning process...

This is all a learning process, but one that will be well worth your while. You have to learn what it is like to move in your protective gear, and your body has to learn to get used to the heat of the armour that is being worn. This is not a slow process and there will be some times, especially in the beginning, where you will need to slow down, not that this is a bad thing in training, so you can learn to cope with the increased stress.

If the armour gets too hot: stop, take a breather; even take the gear off if it is not required. The point being that the gear is there to protect you from harm, but if it is harming you then there is something that needs to be adjusted. The PPE has been proven to protect the individual, so it is really the individual that needs to change not the gear. The individual needs to get used to the heat and weight of the armour. Practice in the armour, get used to the heat and movement of the gear that you are fighting in so it presents less stress to your body and you will be a lot more comfortable when you fight, and you will be able to fight for longer.

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.

A Fencer's Responsibility

 Greetings,

There is lots of discussion about individuals' rights and what a person is or is not allowed to do, say, wear, or practice. People forget that along with rights come responsibilities. Responsibilities begin with the simple responsibilities we have to our fellow human beings which allow the rights to exist in the first place, but this post is not to discuss such subjects. If you want my discussion of this subject you can read it HERE. The subject at hand is the responsibilities that each fencer has to each other fencer. These responsibilities are intrinsic with the picking up of a weapon, of any kind, simulated or not.

Every time that you fence, or even pick up your weapon you are representing every other fencer as a member of an unofficial, but present worldwide membership, that goes back into history, and crosses national and cultural boundaries. It does not matter if you are a member of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms), a kendoka, a sport fencer or a member of one of the many Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) groups around the world, you have a connection ALL of them, simply because you participate in the art of the sword. You have a responsibility to all of them to represent the art in its best light. This is the first responsibility that you have. Every time a person takes up a sword and strikes another human being in anger or with the intent to injure or kill, it sheds a negative light on everyone else. 

Safety: It's All in Your Hands

Safety in regard to any weapon, it primarily concerns control over that weapon. For a firearm it involves ensuring that the weapon is unloaded whenever it is away from the range; ensuring that it only points toward the target when it is loaded; your finger only goes anywhere near the trigger when you are ready to fire; and ensuring the weapon is again unloaded before leaving the firing area. All of these points are about controlling the mechanical processes which are involved in the operation of the weapon.

It's Still a Weapon

The firearm is obviously a weapon capable of doing damage, but in all cases the swords which are used in fencing should always be treated as weapons. They may be simulated weapons in most cases, except those used for test-cutting, but they are weapons nonetheless, and should be treated with the respect due a weapon as they still have the potential to do damage. This is something that you must appreciate, and thus observe all of the rules in regard to safety.

Rules and Conventions

Some groups, and most of the officially established groups have formalised rules and conventions for the way they perform their combats. If the situation is a more informal situation then some of the rules and conventions may be unwritten and there may be some negotiation required before the combat starts. In either case, ensure that you always stay within the rules and conventions which have been established for the combat. They are there for your safety and the safety of your opponents. If you are unsure about any of these, ask before you start.

There are many reasons to fight within the established rules and conventions. In many instances if you do not  there will be consequences for not doing so. These can be up to and including removing and banning you from participation. There is a better reason to fight within these standards, it will result in a more pleasant fight, and people will more likely want to fight you again. This will give you a better reputation, and this spreads to other groups with which they will have contact. I have already discussed the subject of notoriety and renown in another article previously.

The Excessive Blow

There will be instances where a combatant will be struck too hard. This is inevitable as fencing is, after all, a contact sport. The purpose is to strike the opponent after all. There is an acceptable standard set in groups as to what blow is hard enough and what is too much, the latter being an "excessive blow." This may waver between groups and even within a group.

You should always attempt to strike with sufficient force to transmit your intent, but never to injure your opponent, if there is no standard set. Discuss the standard in a group where you are visiting to ensure that you do not strike too hard. It is your responsibility to ensure that you do not strike too hard.

Now incidents will happen where such blows are unavoidable, colloquially it could be called the, "sh*t happens" situation, but this is the exception more than the rule. Such an incident could occur where both fencers attack simultaneously, mutually striking one another, or even simply one striking the other. One miscalculates what the other is about to do, expecting them to go back instead of forward, and they are struck, the result is an "excessive blow." 

In each instance the responsibility falls to the person holding the weapon which struck the person who received the "excessive blow" not the person who was struck. The blame should not fall on the person who is struck as the individual should have control of their weapon. Again, there will be instances where the individual has thrown themselves on to the weapon, but it is up to them to accept the blame rather than receive it. This is a fine line, but it must be noted.

Know the Rules

Some will state part of safety and what has been said previously is knowing the rules, and in part they are correct. It is important to know the rules, but the following discussion focuses on the rules of the game that is being played, rather than the game and how it is played. There are often long sets of rules which are presented and many participants read part of them, leaving much of them to marshals or referees, depending on what the appointed safety personnel are called. For convenience, I will be calling them "marshals" and the combatants as "fencers".

Fencer's Rules

Many feel it is sufficient for a fencer only to know those rules which particularly pertain to the fencer. In this they feel it is only necessary that the fencer know: the conventions of combat, armour and weapon standards, and how to fight safely. The result is they focus on only those rules which pertain to them as a fencer which either get them on the field or involve them actually fencing. This, unfortunately, leaves a rather large hole in their knowledge, and can cause issues for them, should certain incidents arise.

Know All the Rules

In actual fact, even for fencers it is better to know all of the rules. This is because they give explanation to things in the fencer's rules which are often described in detail in the later parts. A fencer may be involved in an incident on the field of combat. If they have only read the bare minimum, they do not know how to handle the incident, aside from talking with their opponent, and maybe the marshal on the field.

Knowing all the rules allows the fencer to know procedures for following up on incidents which occur on the field, should they occur. On the more positive side, should a fencer find a weapon combination that is not yet covered in the rules, they will, however give direction how they might be able to experiment with permission, rather than simply turning up and simply being not allowed to use it. Other procedures which are presented in the rules include what to do about another fencer if they break a rule, or if the fencer has concerns about the rules.

If the fencer only knows their part of the rules. How do they know when a marshal is acting within the bounds of the rules? How do they know how to do anything about this? All such information is, no doubt, found somewhere within the rules and procedures, beyond the simple rules for fencers. Likewise the reporting procedures, so any of the incidents mentioned above, can be reported correctly is likely present. This way something can be done about the incidents, the first time, rather than a lot of backward and forward as the fencer talks trying to find the right person to talk to.

Rules and Safety

It would be nice to think that every combatant had the safety of every other combatant in mind every time they took the field. It is simply not the case. Once the adrenaline begins to flow, and the desire for victory is present, often concerns for safety tend to blend into the background and things get missed. It is at these times the individual needs to stand firm and be the representative of safety, even if it is only doing their part to keep them and their opponent safe.

One way of keeping people safe is to know the rules under which you are fighting, and knowing all the procedures so you can follow them, should it be required. If you are involved in an incident, it is your responsibility to report it as you were involved. If you expect something to be done about it, then it is likely that you will have to follow it up using the correct procedures. This is your responsibility.

You have a responsibility as a fencer, one that is linked to every other fencer around the world. The safer you can make what you do the more likely that what you do will last for years to come. The greatest threat that fencing of all kinds faces is not from a lack of participants, but from safety issues and thus legal and insurance issues. It is your responsibility to do your part to keep it safe.

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.