Physical state and historical fencing

[Motley]

It seems we are butting heads a little here, and perhaps the fault is that I'm not expressing myself very clearly. I fully agree with what you say there, and I wouldn't dream of saying that strength and cleverness are mutually exclusive!

No head butting going on, I basically agree with your premise as you stated later in this post. I was just firing off replies quite quickly so maybe I seemed a bit brusque? Sorry if so.

[admin]

Oh, and I'm reminded of BJJ arguments: 'Skill beats athleticism?' 'But if there are two competitors, of equal skill, but one's far more athletic, who'd succeed?' 'That's not the point I'm making!'
I think that there's no reason to try and avoid physical fitness in HEMA. Only excuses for not doing it (some of which can be good excuses, like 'I don't care about getting better at this enough to make the effort'...)

I do agree with this generally. Though there is another way to look at it in evolutionary terms - you only need to be good enough to win. If you win without exercising then why exercise?

This may seem a silly argument, but at the moment some of the people entering competitions and not doing very well are very fit. IMHO they would be far better off spending their time getting better at fencing, rather than just getting fit. Assuming everyone only has a finite amount of time to improve their abilities.

[Motley]

Oh, and I'm reminded of BJJ arguments: 'Skill beats athleticism?' 'But if there are two competitors, of equal skill, but one's far more athletic, who'd succeed?' 'That's not the point I'm making!'
I think that there's no reason to try and avoid physical fitness in HEMA. Only excuses for not doing it (some of which can be good excuses, like 'I don't care about getting better at this enough to make the effort'...)

I do agree with this generally. Though there is another way to look at it in evolutionary terms - you only need to be good enough to win. If you win without exercising then why exercise?

This may seem a silly argument, but at the moment some of the people entering competitions and not doing very well are very fit. IMHO they would be far better off spending their time getting better at fencing, rather than just getting fit. Assuming everyone only has a finite amount of time to improve their abilities.

It's a balance but it also comes down to time. For example I go to the gym at lunch so time I spend getting 'stronger' is not interfering with time I could spend getting better. However if I was to miss a practice session just to lift weights then yeah you are totally right it would be foolish, I need the practice more than the strength.

But given the opportunity to get stronger and still get practice in then I see that as a better option.

Around the time I started getting into HEMA I also got pretty heavily into Crossfit. Before that I had not been particularly fit, although I had been doing other martial arts on and off for years so I was used to skill training. One thing I did notice when I started Crossfit is that I just started to hold myself and move much better, learning physical skills was easier because I was much 'stronger'. The strength work naturally improved my posture, alertness, body awareness and structural understanding. So in my personal n=1 experiment getting 'stronger' had much more positive knock side effects than just strength, infact strength was the least of the improvements as regards to HEMA although still nice. I still try not to use pure strength at all when I train but train my 'skill' (such as it is instead).

anyway ymmv

[admin]

However if I was to miss a practice session just to lift weights then yeah you are totally right it would be foolish, I need the practice more than the strength.

But given the opportunity to get stronger and still get practice in then I see that as a better option.

Yes, I think most people would agree with that.

Now, going back to the original question 2), I wonder why we don't see a marked advantage in sparring/competition between the people doing physical jobs, compared to those who sit on their arses most of the day? Maybe physical strength/fitness is not AS important as we assume? (I'm not suggesting people stop exercising, just wondering why the exercise doesn't seem to make more of an impact)

[Motley]

However if I was to miss a practice session just to lift weights then yeah you are totally right it would be foolish, I need the practice more than the strength.

But given the opportunity to get stronger and still get practice in then I see that as a better option.

Yes, I think most people would agree with that.

Now, going back to the original question 2), I wonder why we don't see a marked advantage in sparring/competition between the people doing physical jobs, compared to those who sit on their arses most of the day? Maybe physical strength/fitness is not AS important as we assume? (I'm not suggesting people stop exercising, just wondering why the exercise doesn't seem to make more of an impact)

Well a lot of people that do sit on their arses all day also do other things like go to the gym at lunch time play football at the weekends etc. As evidenced by they want to go fencing in an evening rather than play with their xbox.

I am curious how many of the people that work in an office and do well don't do anything else at all? How many of the people that do well are complete slobs?

[admin]

I am curious how many of the people that work in an office and do well don't do anything else at all? How many of the people that do well are complete slobs?

I fence usually twice a week, cycle about 12 miles a week and walk about 8 miles a week, that’s about it for me. I used to cycle 75 miles a week and was obviously a lot fitter then, though I can’t really say I notice any difference to my swordplay. Many years ago I used to do weights regularly, but I’m not sure that improved my fencing ability at all. Maybe a little.

[knirirr]

I am curious how many of the people that work in an office and do well don't do anything else at all? How many of the people that do well are complete slobs?

I've done adequately in competitions on occasion, and work in an office.
Other than turning up to fencing sessions my sole fitness activity is a few minutes a day on a cross trainer, perhaps followed by a few pressups and/or situps, injuries &c. permitting.

[admin]

I have to say that I think there are some cases where people are doing lots of fitness training because they don't necessarily understand how to improve their fencing abilities through specific drills/exercises.

[Ulrich von L...n]

... and walk about 8 miles a week...

Is this some kind of hiking once per week or just part of your normal daily routine, for instance walking to your workplace, and back?

[Stevie T]

Speaking from personal experience I'd say fitness will make a significant difference to ones fencing.

18months ago I was about 11.5 stone, I then started to work in a call centre where I'm sat on my arse for 9 hours a day and I'm now about 14 stone, having lost half a stone over the past few months due to starting to do more exercise.

You just have to look a videos of me sparring to see the difference, I used to fly out if anyone rushed me, now I don't at all, I get out of breath quicker and rely on tricks over skill.

In my younger, post school, days I was much more active, football, re-enactment etc. and my fitness was really quite good. Okay, I smoked and drank too much, but being active all the time seemed to counter that. As I got older my involvement got less but I don't think my fitness suffered overly much, the weight didn't start to pile on until I stopped my physical activity almost completely.

However, having lost my fitness (I really can't face doing much after being shouted at for 9 hours) I'm finding it really hard to get it back. It definitely a case of 'you don'tknow what you've got 'til it's gone!'

It's de

[John H]

I have to say yes we are less physical, compared to just a few generations ago many of us are wimpy little girls. I’m speaking in generalities so pointing out one or two specific people just doesn’t cut it from where I’m looking at it. If you take a modern kid raised on a farm vs. a city boy there is a marked difference even today. Some of the toughest kids/best fighters of the students at the school were raised on a farm doing manual labor while city boys are much smaller of muscle, usually fat and do not have nearly the endurance. The ‘farm boys’ just get it faster, probably because they are used to swinging some tool and this is just another tool. The city boys have to develop muscle because the strongest muscle we have is our first finger that constantly clicks a mouse.

First my generation just doesn’t have the average pain tolerance or ‘thick skin’ (mentally) my grandfather had: of the three grandfathers I knew two were tough sons-a-bitches, the other was a perfect gentleman that never had to prove a thing but I know he could handle himself just fine in a scrap. Both of the sons-a-bitches were grunts in WWII and were they type of guys who would pick fights with people half their age just to see if they still had it. At 60 they would still be able to go three rounds in a boxing ring. At about 12 when I was being taught to shoot a shotgun he took the gun away and punched me in the shoulder almost knocking me to the ground. Told me that is what the gun would feel like. When he was growing up this was considered ‘toughening the kid up’ and was a fathers duty to make sure the kid could deal with the other boys out there. Now it’s considered child abuse. The common boys-playing-rough that I had when growing up is now considered bullying.

I read an article about a sabre fencing school only a few generations ago that trained with no shirt - http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/sabresedge.php good read. Most fencing schools now require a plastron and decent fencing jacket. Brute aggression and intimidation from excessively hard hits were ‘part of the game’ even in the early 1900’s fencing, now it’s a penalty offense. One of the guys at the gym was telling me about a cavalry man in the civil war that needed his leg amputated. After they took an axe to the leg they needed to table for someone else so he hopped out of the room on his good leg without help.

I’ve also been reading a family history: my great grandmother had 10 children; she died at 32 years old after miscarrying the 11th. Her husband died from a kick from a horse, about a year or so after the horse kicked him. As I keep reading I realize that I’m pretty soft and wimpy compared to my family a few generations ago, again I’m a city boy with a desk job.

So in summery yes I believe a modern person with a desk job is much less physical than an original master was. #2 there may not be an evidence that people with physical jobs are better at fencing but of my students, the ones raised on a farm are tougher, stronger, have better fitness and endurance than the squishy city boys. They also routinely kill their own food.

At this point (especially after coming in second in a tournament last year because I got tired) I jog 3 miles a day 5-6 days a week (I usually can barely get out of bed the morning after a good night of freeplay), walk about 8-10 miles a week (wife is pregnant and I need to walk her regularly) and she has been requiring at least 20 push ups a day because she says I need a better chest. So why don’t I have a stomach women want to do shots off?

[admin]

... and walk about 8 miles a week...

Is this some kind of hiking once per week or just part of your normal daily routine, for instance walking to your workplace, and back?

The latter

[MugginsToadwort]

Two points:

1) Not all Medieval swordswingers were manual labourers- tailors, cutlers, goldsmiths, furriers are all known to be guildsmen. Many of these occupations spent most of the day sitting down.They were, perhaps, slightly fitter in general, but I doubt they were spectacularly fit. Knights and soldiers were probably very fit, just like today.
2) Exercise, in itself, won't make you a better swordsman. However, focused exercise can speed up your reactions and allow you to fence longer. Anja and I are working with a strength and conditioning coach now, and there is a noticeable improvement in those areas.

[Chiron]

What might be something to keep in mind when talking about the manuals for the higher classes is the amount of riding they did, riding develops the legs and core muscles. Muscles that in most office workers tend to be underdeveloped in, unless they do a lot of biking, which helps with the thighs but leave the core muscles out of it except for posture. Riding helps allot with deep guards as well as stability. Allot of manuals also advocate wrestling as exercise, something that the lower classes also enjoyed, just think of the plethora of surviving wrestling styles in Europe. Kids probably grew up practicing wrestling and working either on the farm or in their fathers workshop, so they probably had good muscle development, and at least a familiarity with wrestling.

[admin]

I suspect that this underlying familiarity with wrestling and the use of tools and weapons is probably a bigger factor separating some of us from some of them than fitness (especially when you consider that we are bigger on average and have generally better medical health (less disease and childhood hardship), lung capacity etc).

I'd still like to hear more from people who have observed any difference in modern fencing ability between blue collar and white collar workers. As James points out, a lot of medieval and renaissance martial artists were essentially white collar workers of their time.

On the subject of strength, it is perhaps worth noting that the weight of one-handed swords is about the same throughout history, across most of the world. Whether that is indicative of average strength in a population or not is questionable, but it might be... Maybe average adult male populations just don't vary in strength much, regardless of when they lived in history.

[MugginsToadwort]

I suspect that this underlying familiarity with wrestling and the use of tools and weapons is probably a bigger factor separating some of us from some of them than fitness (especially when you consider that we are bigger on average and have generally better medical health (less disease and childhood hardship), lung capacity etc).

I'd still like to hear more from people who have observed any difference in modern fencing ability between blue collar and white collar workers. As James points out, a lot of medieval and renaissance martial artists were essentially white collar workers of their time.

On the subject of strength, it is perhaps worth noting that the weight of one-handed swords is about the same throughout history, across most of the world. Whether that is indicative of average strength in a population or not is questionable, but it might be... Maybe average adult male populations just don't vary in strength much, regardless of when they lived in history.

As I mentioned on another thread, I definitely attract the degreed elite to my classes, so I can't really answer the first. The second is an interesting point- there is a uniformity to the weight of object people regularly swing. That may be a function of the length of the arm, rather than strength- perhaps anything with a higher angular momentum (either longer or heavier) feels wrong, or unwieldy?

[Thallian]

I'd like to resurrect the debate with a thought that just came to me while chatting with my buddy Eric.

Eric is a special forces soldier in the US military, in a certain airborne regiment. He doesn't talk much about his job but we regard him generally as a very special kind of tough nutter (in a loving, friendly sort of way). Naturally, he has the opportunity to train in army combatives and when he has a day off he enjoys brazilian jiu-jitsu.

Admittedly, that doesn't have much to do with HEMA but what intrigued me is that his physical fitness doesn't seem to give him much of an edge in either combatives or BJJ.

Now, Eric is extremely fit by necessity. He can bang out 75 pushups in under 2 minutes and runs 1.5 miles in under 9 minutes. He argues, however, that army or generic fitness is entirely different to the sort of fitness required of a martial artist.

His training is tailored towards strength and endurance, the ability to carry heavy kit for prolonged periods of time, to run and jump with it and still be able to handle his weapons without suffering from fatigue.

As a martial artist, however, he trains for power, which he describes as a mixture of strength and speed, a sort of relaxed quickness.

I found this interesting as I have never really thought about different levels of fitness before. So I went and asked one of the chappies at the local Gym I sometimes frequent. I usually make up my own training routines, so I've never really looked into the science of muscle gain with anything but a casual glance.

As far as I understand it, to train for endurance one should use less weight or resistance but aim for a prolonged workload (many repetitions).

To train for speed and power, however, one should use heavy weights or more resistance, resulting in a heavier workload over a shorter duration, (fewer repetitions).


Interestingly, to me this instantly brings the practice of pell training to mind. I can't cite and historical references now, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Is it not generally thought that beginning fencers were sometimes given heavier weapons to train with initially? And pell training seems to bring a certain amount of repetition to mind.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of fitness is beneficial or even desirable to a swordsman. Didn't I see a depiction somewhere - was it Talhoffer? - of young men engaged in physical activity? Running, vaulting, tossing rocks and such.
I think the strength or fitness we are looking for favours speed over raw physical lifting capacity. Perhaps that is stating the obvious. A fencer quick enough to strike his opponent without the strike being intercepted has naturally the edge (no pun intended).

So therefore, students of historical weapon arts might be better off focusing on training that emphasizes quick, explosive movements with heavy weights, combined with some cardio (running, cycling, swimming) to condition the body for quick oxygen intake in stress situations ("Good breathing in combat" - I attribute this phrase to Talhoffer again, I really ought to look it up sometime...)

Kettelbell training might be beneficial, as would be boxing.
Oddly enough, I even suspect that blunt and overly heavy re-enactment swords might suddenly become an intriguing training tool, especially for pell-work.

Things like push-ups, sit-ups and benching weights would have less of an impact, though they might be generally beneficial for one's overall health.

Your thoughts?

[Alex B]

A while ago I wrote a blog article covering some of the basic issues relating to strength and HEMA:
http://historical-academy.co.uk/blog/20 ... -training/

There are things that I'd change it about now, and I do feel a little guilty recommending it, as I've in fact been very lazy and not entirely followed my own advice, but it may be of help.

I'd also very much recommend reading through the information on the Fight with all your strength blog:
http://fightwithallyourstrength.blogspot.co.uk/

Basically, yes, being able to bang out dozens of push ups probably doesn't have much immediate carry over to HEMA. Power is much more important to us than strength, however having a base layer of strength is extremely useful, and should not neglected.

Ultimately though, speed will come from practising with weapons, not weight lifting. As you say: "A fencer quick enough to strike his opponent without the strike being intercepted has naturally the edge", but if you want to be faster, the best way to do it is to train to throw your strikes quickly. Some of the guys I fence with are much faster than me, even though they're weaker and don't really do any strength training.

As for the idea of heavier weapons, that comes originally from Vegetius' De Rei Militari, a text which unfortunately to say, is a bit dubious. The 13th century King's Mirror says you should practice with a heavy sword and shield in sparring, and the Poem of the Pell advises using a double weight mace against the pell.

One final thing I will say is that you shouldn't just make up routines, you really should find a routine and stick to it.

[Thallian]

I remember my old fencing coach: an old polish gent who was quite frail and suffered from certain age-related problems, yet he was lightning quick from a lifetime of practice.
Halfway through an afternoon, however, he would run out of stamina and even students that were fairly inexperienced could then beat him easily.

I suppose it depends what one trains for: personal fitness might be less relevant in a formal duel but more so in a street fight or military skirmish where you might move about a lot without ever fully engaging an opponent.
I don't think the latter situation is yet fully explored by HEMAists?

If one were to come up with a viable training method, how would you feel about incorporating wrist weights for sword drills? It'd increase resistance without unbalancing the blade (which may be a problem using heavier, clumsier swords).

I may disagree a tad on alternating routines though. Or rather, I'd suggest a different approach.

I find I plateau easily, so every 6 months I will mix things up a bit, use different equipment or set a different focus. I like to train casually and prefer the outdoors to the gym as I'm very much doing this for my personal enjoyment, not for any particular purpose. Also, a break from the routine makes things more interesting and keeps me motivated.

[admin]

On a very basic level I think one of the very best things any aspiring swordsperson can do is spend as much of their time as possible with a sword in their hand. Weapon dexterity and familiarity plays a huge part in weapon effectiveness. Picking up a sword once a week just does cut it (especially if it's fairly unrealistic, like a nylon sword or fairy sport sabre).