Sports fencing federations and HEMA

[SeanH]

Sport fencing has plenty to offer to badminton, such as teaching experience, pedagogy, sport fitness, respectability, coach development, certification, entry into the empty market of historical fenceminton coaching, and a killer lunge to rescue shuttlecocks that might land just out of reach.

[The Salmon Lord]

I personally find this appalling.

Not many people know this, but in the US there has been a consistent effort by a well known professional society for athletic trainers and physical educators to regulate and require all martial arts instructors to go through their courses to achieve certification.

It's been opposed on multiple fronts and legislation defeated across the board for this, but efforts like this really stink of that.

Sport fencers really have no place certifying things that are outside of their sport.

What's next, them offering certification for badminton?

But historical fencers of 15 years experience? Like you know. Ken.

[Mink]

I personally find this appalling.

Not many people know this, but in the US there has been a consistent effort by a well known professional society for athletic trainers and physical educators to regulate and require all martial arts instructors to go through their courses to achieve certification.

It's been opposed on multiple fronts and legislation defeated across the board for this, but efforts like this really stink of that.

Sport fencers really have no place certifying things that are outside of their sport.

What's next, them offering certification for badminton?

But historical fencers of 15 years experience? Like you know. Ken.

It hugely depends on how this will be presented in the end. There is a marked difference between "USFCA HEMA certification, with support of Ken Mondschein" and "Ken Mondschein HEMA certification, with support of the USFCA", at least in perception. Both from the outside public (including state officials) and from the HEMA crowd.

Regards

[Cutlery Penguin]

I suspect my thoughts on this are a little extreme.

One of two things will happen, either:

1) The coaching certification is purely based on coaching skills and no reference will be made to individual interpretations or skill levels which will lead to anyone becoming a certified HEMA coach regardless of whether they can perform. In essence it opens the certification up to anyone who wishes to purchase it.

Or

2) A judgement on the candidate's level of skill and/or interpretation will be made by someone (Ken?) leading to anyone with a contrasting interpretation, or perhaps even a different source being effectively barred from certification.

Either way it is deeply flawed.

Now if they were to offer a simple non-specific coaching certification applicable to any form of physical activity then I'd be all for it.

[Steven H]

Oz, that's a false dichotomy.

[Barca]

I am reserving judgement until I see how it unfolds.

One thing I think hasn't really been acknowledged: if the intention is that this program will be taken up, primarily, by existing HEMA instructors and students, won't those HEMA instructors wield a lot of influence over the USFCA HEMA program and help shape its future direction? As USFCA accredited instructors, these HEMA people will be the key internal stakeholders who ultimately determine whether the program succeeds or fails, attracts renown or notoriety. The USFCA will have to keep their HEMA instructors happy, in order to keep them paying their dues and renewing their membership/accreditation etc.

This is why I am not in the camp that sees this as the end of HEMA as we know it. I suspect most of the early crop of USFCA HEMA instructors would come from a pool of existing HEMA people. Once in the USFCA, I would expect HEMA people would have considerable influence as insiders. The arguments against USFCA training and accreditation, on the basis the USFCA will suddenly reinvent HEMA in the image of the modern sport, seem to assume HEMA people are nothing but outside, passive bystanders, watching but having no influence on the shape and future of the program. That's only true for those who choose not to participate, surely?

Ultimately, I take a wait and see approach. It could be the USFCA program ends up being excellent, adequate or worthless: either way, lessons will be learned and new impetus provided to the rest of the HEMA community to get serious about training instructors (particularly smaller, more remote groups that don't have the benefit of experienced coaches and established instructors). The sensible, scientific approach is to wait until a couple of generations of USFCA instructors have graduated, then evaluate the program based on its results. Trying to evaluate an instructorship program before it has even started is like trying to review a book before it is published - typically, the premature review says more about the reviewer's own fears and biases than it does about the thing itself.

Cheers,

Bill

[Cutlery Penguin]

Oz, that's a false dichotomy.

Wow, I hadn't considered that. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me in such detail.

[Steven H]

Oz, that's a false dichotomy.

Wow, I hadn't considered that. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me in such detail.

Why'd you bother, then?

[Cutlery Penguin]

Oz, that's a false dichotomy.

Wow, I hadn't considered that. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me in such detail.

Why'd you bother, then?

Perhaps you might benefit from spending a little time looking at the purpose of discussion forums. As I understand it they are primarily for discussion.

Though I accept that there is a possibility that this isn't a discussion forum, it is in fact a refutation forum. In which case your post was definitely not a complete waste of bandwidth.

[Steven H]

I am reserving judgement until I see how it unfolds.

One thing I think hasn't really been acknowledged: if the intention is that this program will be taken up, primarily, by existing HEMA instructors and students, won't those HEMA instructors wield a lot of influence over the USFCA HEMA program and help shape its future direction? As USFCA accredited instructors, these HEMA people will be the key internal stakeholders who ultimately determine whether the program succeeds or fails, attracts renown or notoriety. The USFCA will have to keep their HEMA instructors happy, in order to keep them paying their dues and renewing their membership/accreditation etc.
. . .

Ding, he wins a prize. If we participate then we decide how it evolves.

Cheers,
Steven

[Axel]

I would suspect this is mostly intended for sport fencing coaches looking to expand the courses they can offer in their salle, more than for HEMA instructors. There are many more sport fencing coaches for one.

[admin]

This is why I am not in the camp that sees this as the end of HEMA as we know it.

I think that if anyone sees it as that then they are silly.
This *may* have some effect on HEMA in the USA, but it certainly would not and could not have any great influence on HEMA in places like the UK or France, where there are already national umbrella federations representing HEMA.

[Dave B]

Also in the UK, because the BFA (representing fencers) and the BAF (representing coaches) are seperate and the whole setup is structured quite differently (and is a little set in it's ways), I just can't see them initiating anything unless the BAF had a huge push from thier members.

And the majority of BAF members have very little interest in historical fencing at the moment, and in my experience confuse it with either reenctment or stage fencing. I suspect that any cooperation in the UK would neccesarily follow a different path.

I see a link up through the national coaching scheme (which represents and trains coaches in modern fencing and everything from archery to boxing to ping-pong) being more likely, even though that has it's own issues perhaps

http://sportscoachuk.org/site-tools/about-us/who-we-work/national-governing-bodies

[knirirr]

I see a link up through the national coaching scheme (which represents and trains coaches in modern fencing and everything from archery to boxing to ping-pong) being more likely, even though that has it's own issues perhaps

http://sportscoachuk.org/site-tools/about-us/who-we-work/national-governing-bodies

IIRC the BFHS plan was to link their instructor certification to the various levels in this scheme, so that they'd be in a better position if they could ever achieve official status. However, obtaining that status appeared to have been too difficult, from what I've heard of the attitude of the officials who were approached.

[Dave B]

Thats a shame. From what I remember of a slightly inebriated conversation with Mark Hilliard, it sounded like rather a good idea.

[Phil C]

IIRC it firstly came down to requiring a certain number of people involved in order to be "recognised" which were far in excess of the numbers of practitioners that exist, even allowing for casual involvement and a very wide definition of "HEMA". This was further exacerbated by them having an England/Scotland split so there would have to be repesentative HEMA bodies set up for each country (even if they both then came together under one overall body), and that divided the numbers even more.

[The Salmon Lord]

Slight correction. The numbers issue was with relation to the BFHS being a recognised governing body.

The UKCC stuff I understand is still the model the fed is basing assessment on for IL1, and if it ever materialises, IL2. They are supposed to broadly follow the UKCC level 1 and level 2 models. I think official accreditation by UKCC would however follow similar issues as the governing body one and of course “please forward your cheque for £x thousand pounds”

[Reinier]

So they are going to certify fencing masters for teaching HEMA. This might be scarier than the other options...


MacDojo and now MacHEMA also?

Will we have "certified fencing masters" waving their titles around teaching "HEMA" without having looked at a single source except at the first half hour of their HEMA-course? Will the public know the difference?

[Anders Linnard]

They, and the Hema people involved, certainly have some explaining to do.
/a

[admin]

Let's be honest though, anybody could claim to be teaching HEMA if they wanted to. If someone (or a group of people) is claiming to be teaching HEMA and are a bit crap then they can be denounced like anyone else. And they would not be able to get into an organisation like HEMAC, the BFHS, HEMA Alliance, KDF or whatever. Some organisations are already on the 'outside' and get more or less ignored.