HEMA vs Modern Fencing.

[Gav]

What is the point of footwork? The point of footwork is to keep you poised and ready. You should be comfortable and able to easily move where you want (catlike is the synonym). Not everyone manages this sort of movement - even modern fencers - but it is something you need to strive for.

Ummm...well, that is *one* point of footwork. Others include powering your attacks and (sometimes) powering your defense...

Which is implied even if not asserted.

It should be painfully obvious. I forget that is not always the case.

[admin]

The pass is old fashioned. We both know that.

Pardon?
Passing footwork. ie. the footwork used by most fencing systems until about 1600 and some fencing systems until 1900. You can't do much longsword, quarterstaff or sword and buckler without passing feet...

Moulinets are still done. I'll see if I can find a vid for you - it's just not common. They are also not done like that.

Because you use them to play tag. They were originally intended to lop bits off people, not flick them to death.

Just because it's in an old book doesn't mean you have to do it.

You don't understand the purpose of HEMA at all, do you?

Are you aware of the different engaging guards used by different schools of military sabre and the different versions of Tierce, for example

Yes.

Then you realise there isn't only one right way to do something, even something as simple as Tierce.

[Gav]

The pass is old fashioned. We both know that.

Pardon?
Passing footwork. ie. the footwork used by most fencing systems until about 1600 and some fencing systems until 1900. You can't do much longsword, quarterstaff or sword and buckler without passing feet...

I actually started learning quarterstaff aged 10. When did you start? Haven't done it in about 15 years so might be a little rusty.

Because you use them to play tag. They were originally intended to lop bits off people, not flick them to death.

Sigh. You really don't understand Olympic fencing do you? We can both play this game? It's tedious though. Not what I had mind tonight.

Though I like the way your prejudice is finally out in the open. Nicely done.

I have tried to remain constructive throughout our exchanges. If you want we can either end it here or make it nastier? I know which I would prefer.

Just because it's in an old book doesn't mean you have to do it.

You don't understand the purpose of HEMA at all, do you?

To just do things from a book?

I always understood it to be about.
1 Having a good time (check!)
2. learning to use the old hardware. If all you are interested in are actually the static poses in a book - you're wasting your time. Why not branch out? Try new things! Learn to do things in interesting ways! If I want to use a sword in "anger" I want to know my opponent is on the floor with me standing over him. I couldn't give a stuff about an old book. Sure, reading a book is going to give me some ideas - but don't be slavish.

Are you aware of the different engaging guards used by different schools of military sabre and the different versions of Tierce, for example

Yes.

Then you realise there isn't only one right way to do something, even something as simple as Tierce.

Tierce is a high outside line with the hand pronated. It's not a mystical move...

Where are you based, next time I'm in your area I'll try and pop in. I think it'll be fun to have a go.

[admin]

I actually started learning quarterstaff aged 10.

Then why dismiss passing footwork?

You really don't understand Olympic fencing do you?

Gav, you asserted that the moulinette was essentially pointless. In a historical fencing or martial art context how can you sustain that view? You know better than Sir Richard Francis Burton or Captain Alfred Hutton how to kill people with a sabre?

Though I like the way your prejudice is finally out in the open. Nicely done.

My prejudice has been in the open since the beginning of this thread. That is why you guys all registered here to call me on it. See page 1 of this thread.

I always understood it to be about.
1 Having a good time (check!)
2. learning to use the old hardware. If all you are interested in are actually the static poses in a book - you're wasting your time.

Gav, this just confirms that you are not reading what people are writing here.

I'll remind you that a fair percentage of people in this thread are currently engaged in HEMA and are former sport fencers, myself included. I have also done kendo, kung fu and various other things, like many other people here.
Sport fencing does not hold any secret or sacred knowledge. We are fully aware of what can be learned from it and carried over to HEMA, and also where its limitations are and where we are on our own.

The primary purpose of HEMA is to reconstruct and practice lost European martial arts.

Some things in sport fencing are useful for the study of HEMA - learning foil for example is a great basis for 18thC smallsword. But learning epee would be a fairly useless basis for studying 16thC sword and buckler. You have to compare like with like. Kendo, for example, can certainly teach some things that sport fencing can not, though I would argue that these days you could learn those things even more quickly by attending a HEMA longsword class.

Tierce is a high outside line with the hand pronated. It's not a mystical move...

It is, but you have ignored my point. My point is that Tierce can take many different forms in different schools of fencing - to keep it basic, some military sabre styles had the arm held out extended and high, others kept the elbow near the ribs and the hand low. This is important - why? Because it relates to the 'useless' moulinette that you pointed out. An extended Tierce means that you must make a moulinette to power the sabre cut, a bent arm means you can give a solid direct cut, without the need for a moulinette. So a detail like whether you use a moulinette or not in part depends on what kind of engaging guard you use...
This is not covered by modern sport sabre at all, because in modern sport sabre all you are aiming to do it tap the opponent. Cutting something is very different, and so the action involved is very different and the tactical considerations are different. Sport fencing has a great big gaping hole in this regard.

Where are you based, next time I'm in your area I'll try and pop in. I think it'll be fun to have a go.

If you ask to attend my class in a polite way then I will be happy to admit you. My classes are easy to find, because this forum we are posting in is on my website :
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org

[Bulot]

To just do things from a book?

I always understood it to be about.
1 Having a good time (check!)
2. learning to use the old hardware. If all you are interested in are actually the static poses in a book - you're wasting your time. Why not branch out? Try new things! Learn to do things in interesting ways! If I want to use a sword in "anger" I want to know my opponent is on the floor with me standing over him. I couldn't give a stuff about an old book. Sure, reading a book is going to give me some ideas - but don't be slavish.

If I may rephrase :

1 - Having a good time
2 - Practice period arts with period weapons using period systems.

It's not about finding new ways of using old weapons. Nor even trying to find the best way to use these weapons. (though this last point is clearly debatable, a lot of people here tend to think period systems are the best systems* and are arguing constantly about it)

*I know, and I understand how you may find it a "romanticized" idea. That we idealize the past, or don't take into account the enormous amount of progress we have done in many fields (hence your remark on leeches).
Thing is, IMO, we have lost knowledge in the process. There's no shame in admitting it.

I don't really want to enter this debate though. I just felt the need to pop in, but I really enjoy reading it.

[bigdummy]

And to bring it up-to-date, the final of the men's sabre World Cup Warsaw 2011

http://youtu.be/UKUEZIrDVT8

I only watched the first two bouts, but that doesn't even look remotely martial to me, it doesn't even look like a fight. Just whipping some car aerials.

BD

[Thearos]

Just because it's in an old book doesn't mean you have to do it. Next you'll be telling me you use leeches because it was popular back then.

Is that not like saying to a man whose interest is playing Bach on period instruments "wait until you see the newest electric piano" ?

[bigdummy]

If I may rephrase :

Here is our version

1 - Having a good time
2 - Fight with period weapons, use the old books to find ways to fight better.

It's not about finding new ways of using old weapons. Nor even trying to find the best way to use these weapons. (though this last point is clearly debatable, a lot of people here tend to think period systems are the best systems* and are arguing constantly about it)

This is my opinion. My guys are not subtle, we like to fight. When we find a dilemma in our fighting, for the last ten years we've always been able to find the solution to improve our fencing that much more from the manuals. The first person to use the guards correctly started winning bouts, beating everyone who fought unstructured. Then the first people to execute effective master-cuts started breaking those guards and they started winning. Then the people who effectively learned the versetsen and the absetsen as counters to those master-cuts started beating them... and then others figured out winden and ringen techniques to in turn beat them. And so on.

This is also the progression I've seen in the tournaments.

BD

[bigdummy]

Just because it's in an old book doesn't mean you have to do it. Next you'll be telling me you use leeches because it was popular back then.

Is that not like saying to a man whose interest is playing Bach on period instruments "wait until you see the newest electric piano" ?

Or Lady Gaga

BD

[Fab]

*I know, and I understand how you may find it a "romanticized" idea. That we idealize the past, or don't take into account the enormous amount of progress we have done in many fields (hence your remark on leeches).
Thing is, IMO, we have lost knowledge in the process. There's no shame in admitting it.

It's not a matter of 'romaticizing' stuff. It has been said before, but in most cases people that wrote these books had to use what's in them to defend their lives - with success. Or tought others to do so.
They're a direct link to stuff that worked. Simple as that.

[Bulot]

@Fab and BD : Of course, I agree with both of you.
The "romanticizing" argument is not my opinion : it has been opposed by sport fencers on this thread, and on the fencing.net forum.

[John H]

Gav

I can’t tell you how impressed I am with your e-peen. I have a basic rule, don’t insult people who have the balls to put their stuff on the web when your stinky shit is hidden in your closet. If you feel the Sabre work is bad, show up and beat everyone, only then you have cause to talk. Until then…

Rant Rule:

5. If you have a lot of opinions on people fighting in tournaments, but never fought in a competition yourself, then shut the f*ck up ***Meaning one of ours, not yours
7. If you have opinions about how we fight in our videos, but would never post videos yourself, then shut the f*ck up
8. If you think that having an opinion is all that it takes, then shut the f*ck up

I may agree that most of the sabre work in the tournaments is poor but until I prove it by manhandling most of them, my shit smells just as bad. I may agree that a full moulinet is a poor first intention but until I make you regret it most of the time you do it to me, it means nothing. I may believe that leaning forward is poor footwork, but until I use it against you my opinion doesn’t matter. If ‘some other group’ thinks resting my blade on my shoulder is poor martially, they need to make me regret it when I do it, not fall into a trap every time I do it.

Matt already called you on Tierce, it was basically a trap. The right answer is ‘in what system?’ We may study bookwork and that reinforces that there were many different names for the same position. Some systems use different guards or positions some don’t.

[John H]

double...

[The Salmon Lord]

Gav,
Are you aware of the use of moulinettes in 19thC sabre? How much could sport fencing help with passing footwork? Are you aware that a heavier weapon requires both different body mechanics and different footwork and stance? ?

The pass is old fashioned. We both know that.

Moulinets are still done. I'll see if I can find a vid for you - it's just not common. They are also not done like that. Even if I am missing the detail - don't do it all the time.
There's a hanging parry that is sometimes used in foil against egregious flicks which can result in some weird sabre-like actions that look like looping attacks too. I'm not calling that a moulinets though.

Just because it's in an old book doesn't mean you have to do it. Next you'll be telling me you use leeches because it was popular back then.

-----

I find it strange that all I see are the similarities and all you guys are interested in are the differences.

The basic issue is Think Gav you still dont quite understand what we do.

I also personaly feel too many of us are too ready to define ourselves by what we are not. I shall do my best to define what I do.

I really like C19th sabres. I have done since I was a wee boy and found my grandads old sabre and got a collosal bollocking from my mum when she caught me at 7 years old playing with one. I also grew up watching sharpe and stuff. I think they are just about the best sword ever made not the janapese J sword, not the longsword, not the rapier, not the f@ing highland backsword. The military sabre. Cracking swords.

And I want to be as good as I can at using it the way it was intended. That means understanding how a military weapon is meant to be used in a lethal fight. That means specifically looking at the instructional manuals issued by the British and other military powers and the men who trained them. Like Captain Alfred Hutton.
I take input from everwhere I can to get better at using this sword and teaching my students how to be better at using it. Instructors, other arts, books written by professional swords instructors who actually taught the art at the time. Oh and cricket and fencing and classes on teaching web skills.
But the sword is different and used for a different purpose than the ones you use. They are just both called the same thing and we both wear cen2 masks.

As for John H. Calm down. He has come to defend his sport from some pretty poor misrepresentation in this thread. He's been considerably more polite than many of my fellow historical swordsman have been to his art over the years.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a golfer about cricket and that we both had no interest in the others sport. He could not understand how a sport could last 5 days and take so long. Most people never will. But so long as he doesnt tell me I'm playing a cover drive wrong because I should use a 9 iron its all fine.

[John H]

Sorry, this one got to me…

Oh, and if you wish to make fun of or critique videos, perhaps it would be courteous to pick the latest videos, not the absolutely oldest tripe you could find.. just sayin'.

2-3 years old is the absolutely oldest tripe? Really?

There is a fine line between discussing what we believe is wrong with the other person’s sport/Martial Art and taking shots at people’s work they put out there when you don’t put anything out of yourself. He may have been ‘being polite’ but this one crosses as well as a few others. If you want the right to tell off the fighting, do it with your blade not your keyboard.

[The Salmon Lord]

When you are one badger in a pit of dogs snapping at you I imagine at some point you might snap back. Bollocking the badger is not really on.

[Cutlery Penguin]

When you are one badger in a pit of dogs snapping at you I imagine at some point you might snap back. Bollocking the badger is not really on.

What he said.

It does none of us any favours to resort to bickering and sniping instead of actually debating.

[Mink]

This discussion underlines an important point: the period sources are the only element granting martial validity to HEMA. They do so because they come from people who had experienced the application of the art, not just the training or the play.

Freeplay and competition can be training tools to make us better fighters, but in the end we tailor the rules and equipment to make sourced techniques successful. Well at least I think we should.

Olympic fencing on the other hand tailors the rules and equipment to satisfy other needs: safety, fair competition, impartial judging, interest for spectators, etc. (not that HEMA is not concerned by these either). At most it tries to be more martial according to modern ideas of what is martial, not according to what historical sources describe, though quite frankly I'd be interested in seeing a FIE text changing some rule and pointing to martial validity as a justification.

Sources are where the divide lies. Individual performance of this or that group is completely irrelevant. HEMA fighters could be unable to hold unto a sword for 10s and it wouldn't change the argument one bit. Sport fencing does not take period sources into consideration hence it does not have the same kind of martial validity that HEMA has.

Regards,

[Mitlov]

Hi everyone, I'm currently a modern fencer (epee and saber) with a background in both modern sport arts (fencing, taekwondo) and traditional martial arts (Shotokan karate, Yang taijiquan). Although I myself have more fun with the modern sport approach, I understand the appeal of both approaches. Saw the link to this thread posted on fencing.net and thought I'd chime in.

They tend to attack attack attack (which frankly is what a lot of modern epee looks like to us).

It seems to me as if you are saying that modern epee is a bit shit in all the ways Matt describes except for at the highest level.

If only the 90th centile or above are any good then it isn't a worthwhile system in my opinion.

Candidly, I only see that sort of epee fencing in the bottom 25%, not the bottom 90%. The competitive rules of epee enforce caution quite effectively. There's only one context I can think of where I typically see an "attack attack attack" approach to epee, and that's probing around the bellguard looking for a wrist or forearm touch (or using that pressure to draw a big counter-attack which you intend on parry-riposting).

But ironically, that tactic has its roots in the form of dueling that sport epee was derived from. Epee is not based on life-or-death smallsword combat, but instead first-blood epee duels, where probing around the bellguard was a common tactic.

Footage of a 1911 first-blood epee duel between Henri Bernstein and Maurice Pujo, featuring a mix of probing around the bell-guard with the occasional lunge to the body: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTpOK6HikxU

Footage of a 1914 first-blood epee duel between Jean Richepin and Pierre Frondaie, featuring an absolute flurry of probing around the bell-guard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZMtxrGwH1E

Footage of one of the last real first-blood epee duels, a 1967 duel between Gaston Deffere and Rene Ribiere, featuring a lot of probing around the bell-guard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e68nuAcSuWQ

For comparison, the 2010 Cadet Women's Epee gold medal match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DgOXUTdCak (many of the points are handled with the same caution and the same emphasis on targeting the forearm with probing attacks as you saw in those duels).

Now, do modern epeeists fence deliberately emulate early-20th-century first-blood dueling techniques? No. We do whatever works best in the sport. But thanks to the epee rule-set, what works in modern epee is not all that different from what worked in early-20th-century epee dueling. So there is a similarity there even though there is definitely not deliberate emulation of the period style by modern epeeists.

[Mitlov]

Olympic fencing on the other hand tailors the rules and equipment to satisfy other needs: safety, fair competition, impartial judging, interest for spectators, etc. (not that HEMA is not concerned by these either). At most it tries to be more martial according to modern ideas of what is martial, not according to what historical sources describe, though quite frankly I'd be interested in seeing a FIE text changing some rule and pointing to martial validity as a justification.

Then look to the recent increase in foil debounce timing (the amount of time the tip of a foil must be depressed in order to register a touch). It increased the emphasis on traditional lunges and decreased the emphasis on flicks. I believe that part of this change was motivated by the FIE's desire to make foil look like more traditional blade-play.

That said, the FIE does not always seek to conform to history. Modern saber is, in my opinion, so far removed from traditional swordplay to be basically unrecognizeable. On the other hand, I think it's the best of the three modern weapons from a purely sport standpoint (the most athletic, the most exciting to watch). I love modern saber a ton, but I just don't see anything related to historical saber in it. For criminy sakes, you don't even have to cut with the edge of the blade--it scores equally well to use the side or back (and fencers frequently do). So if you're looking to modern sport that still has a connection to some form or other of historical dueling, look first to epee, then to foil, but definitely don't look to saber.