HEMA vs Modern Fencing.

[Gav]

to point out that the flick-hit was deliberately targetted by changes in the rules designed to attempt to control its use, and eliminate it, if possible

I don't want to seem to be having a go at you Gordon, but I just wanted to offer a counter-view. The flick, from what I can see, is very much alive. It may have diminished slightly, but there are plenty of fencers out there who consider it an essential skill:
How to do it

That video is hilarious. It was passed around the fencing community when it was released - to much merriment. Thanks for reminding me of it. I "lol'd".

That's not how you "flick", the technical discussion is naive and the coaching technique terrible. I really hope you don't think it's demonstrative of anything a good fencer would want to associate with.

Blades specifically for it

This is the flickmaster. It's not as popular a blade as it used to be because the game has changed quite a bit over the last 10-15 years.

Current thread on best blades for flicking, with not a dissenting comment

So? The "flick" is a recognisably valid technique.

This is a discussion about flicking in Epee. The negative connotations come from a particular period of foil (very late 80s to middle late 90s). Epee, foil and sabre are different...

Flicking started with Epee and isn't anything new. Epeeists were in fact "flicking" around 40 years ago (maybe more but I am too lazy to do the research this time on a Saturday) and many years before the foilists picked it up.

The "fly fish" technique is peculiar to foil not epee. It's also largely extinct in the current version of the sport amongst anyone who actually matters.

[admin]

Blades specifically for it

This is the flickmaster. It's not as popular a blade as it used to be because the game has changed quite a bit over the last 10-15 years.

So the game has changed a lot in the last 10-15 years? But not in the last 600?

[Gav]

So, to be clear, are you arguing that thrusting someone in the toe 0.3 of a second before they thrust you through the face is 'realistic' or 'martial', or are you arguing that in 1900 fencers taking part in first-blood duels would have done that anyway?

No, not necessarily.

Can we step back from the constant reference to "martial" and be dispassionate?

Clearly we have a disagreement on interpretation.

I look at early footage and see a ton of similarities.
You see only the differences.

We both bring our baggage but I am comfortable with what I see.

Toe hits are rare beasts*. You do them only when you know you can get away with it. Do it properly and your opponent will not be able to do anything about it - and certainly not hit you in the mask. This particular example is extreme. That's not to say that you don't get those "doh" moments when you line up for the toe and your opponent just wallops you in the mask (to much hilarity in the stands).

Besides double defeats happened all the time (in actual duelling too).

The 0.25s is just a means of adjudicating when a hit is scored. If you're not looking for blood then you need some method. It's also a surprisingly long time.

When epee was electrified it was hailed as a boon to the sport. It was seen as a way of ameliorating cheating and ensuring a "fair fight". Strange but true. Scoring apparatus is not evil.


*can also be performed with a bind - which means your opponent simply won't be able to hit you in the face anyway.

[Gav]

Blades specifically for it

This is the flickmaster. It's not as popular a blade as it used to be because the game has changed quite a bit over the last 10-15 years.

So the game has changed a lot in the last 10-15 years? But not in the last 600?

In the context of flicking - which was only ever controversial in foil.

Put my comment in context and not out.

Thanks.

[admin]

I look at early footage and see a ton of similarities.
You see only the differences.

We both bring our baggage but I am comfortable with what I see.

Sure, that's undoubtedly true.

The 0.25s is just a means of adjudicating when a hit is scored. If you're not looking for blood then you need some method. It's also a surprisingly long time.

I guess my main argument is that it is not long enough. If the time were increased (to one fencing 'tempo' (or an equivalent time), which is what we use and what was used in the 16thC) and doubles could result in a more permanent penalty, such as being both disqualified (as we do in HEMA) then I believe what we see in modern epee fencing would be much more similar to what was being taught in the late-19thC and what I would class as 'realistic'.

That isn't a massive change in the rules - have you guys ever tried anything like that? Do you see a reason not to do it like that, for experiment or fun if nothing else?

Scoring apparatus is not evil.

I'm not fundamentally against electronic scoring devices, though I think they would not necessarily be a good thing for HEMA because they discourage the judges from more actively imposing common sense and guiding the techniques rewarded (as they still do in kendo and as we attempt to do in HEMA). Having said this, if the rules are good enough (and I believe we are getting closer to the perfect HEMA rules) then many electronic scoring could assist judging.

The toe thrusting thing is an extreme example, but I could equally use a thrust at the thigh answered with a thrust at the chest. The thigh shot might land first, but the chest hit would likely be far more lethal. Some early fencing systems took this into consideration and either awarded points for the body part hit or in a double gave the point to the highest body part hit. Those were the rules used in times when duels were far more common and those duels were far more dangerous.

In case any readers here are interested in reading more about HEMA competition rules then here is a summary of what we use at FightCamp:

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/fightcamp/tournaments/

[Gav]

The toe thrusting thing is an extreme example, but I could equally use a thrust at the thigh answered with a thrust at the chest. The thigh shot might land first, but the chest hit would likely be far more lethal. Some early fencing systems took this into consideration and either awarded points for the body part hit or in a double gave the point to the highest body part hit. Those were the rules used in times when duels were far more common and those duels were far more dangerous.

Hit a person in the thigh (I suppose I mean upper leg) in the right place and it's fatal.

Many people have survived being run-through.

I've had an epee in the leg (calf). My ex coach had one in his upper arm (I put it there and I think I was the second person to do so). I know an Olympian who was run through the shoulder. I saw two old mean impale themselves once. In sabre a tip through the hand has become so commonplace that the FIE want to find a way to deal with it. I also know someone who had an epee in their skull. They have survived with only a strange speech impediment to tell of their ordeal. It's quite a story!

You talk as though we are not aware of risk.

I am perfectly aware that Fencing doesn't aim to simulate a lethal fight - not really. If we step away from discussions of lethality and focus on the tactical elements we see that Epee fencing (fencing generally) is a sport of strategy, tactics, psychology and ability (technical and athletic). A good fencer understands that any hit, within the circumstances they are currently in, carries a percentage chance of hitting. What you aim to do is hit the valid target area - and you really don't want to be hit in return. You don't do stupid things. You just don't .

Of course it doesn't always go according to plan!

Statistically, it's approaching 90% of all hits are scored somewhere on the body - most of those in the shoulder area.

On scoring apparatus: the main point of the scoring apparatus is to remove as much subjectivity as possible.

Ps. When I started fencing we still talked in terms of defeats. How long ago that seems now!

[Gav]

Apologies for ANOTHER post - I forgot to answer your question.

That isn't a massive change in the rules - have you guys ever tried anything like that? Do you see a reason not to do it like that, for experiment or fun if nothing else?

You mean weighting hits by body area?

It's standard training technique. Though you tend to award advanced targets (those away from the body) more because most people don't hit those areas. You might also insist that double hits don't count and that you must hit with a single light only.

In 1 hit epee a double hit counted as a double defeat. There are still tournaments run on that basis. An interesting side effect of this rule is that it encourages "unorthodox" fencing styles. In some old manuals there are actual discussions on how to deal with common unconventional styles.

Also "fencing time" is well understood and is a core concept of modern fencing. It's even described in the current ruleset.

[admin]

One of the problems we have encountered with not punishing doubles in some way is that it means people tend to take a lot of risks in the hope that one of their doubles will swing in their favour. They tend to attack attack attack (which frankly is what a lot of modern epee looks like to us). Penalising doubles means people are more cautious, which I think most people consider more 'realistic' in terms of 'if this was with sharps'.

[John H]

Cuz I felt like writing…

Moving away from epee for a bit I’ll give you the reasons I’m no fan of the sport rules (again) as I view longsword a lot closer to saber than epee (epee would be closer to Rapier on our side of the weapons for comparison.) If we have a double hit in the same tempo we don’t care who hit first, both got hit. In sabre once I had right of way, it was irrelevant if I get hit or not. So my opponent attacks I parry, right of way is mine and I riposte with no care of being hit. It’s naturally better to have one light go off as the judges don’t get to have a say in it, but if I know I have right of way, I can fully take any hit I want so long as my hit lands. So basically the current way the sabre goes, I don’t need to worry about his blade spent or not, pointed at me or not if I have right of way. A double impale is rewarded to the person with right of way. Right of way assumes a roll for the person who is supposed to defend, and it assumes they should and will defend.

As we go in our club even a spent blade is dangerous, especially if I showed you how to draw cut. Someone can fully draw cut your leg as you take his head, not that it was a good idea for him, but you still got your leg laid open which is a bad result for you. As I am the only one who matters even if I land a blow that would cleave the head in two and stop his actions quickly, if I took a scratch to my hand it is too much.

Modern fencing has dropped quite a lot of these ‘but you both will get hurt’ situations to focus on principals. HEMA is trying to throw those principals back in the mix and see if we can get back to what would have happened with sharps. There is no “but you should do X” principle that would be wise against an educated fencer because not all people are educated fencers and you cannot rely on them being educated fencers or acting like it even if they are.

‘Martial Attitude’ IMO is a bunch of horse shit, as someone may pick up a blade and attack you with it without any thought in their head. Some idiot may think its funny to stick a blade through my foot, even if I stick one through his eye at the same time. Trying to approach things as if all people have some respect for themselves and what they are doing is a poor assumption and is just as bad an assumption as thinking they have a ‘duty to defend.’ My attitude is all I care about and dam the other guy; I’ll be sending him to hell anyways. As far as I am concerned if there was a real martial attitude that would be it.

[Gav]

One of the problems we have encountered with not punishing doubles in some way is that it means people tend to take a lot of risks in the hope that one of their doubles will swing in their favour. They tend to attack attack attack (which frankly is what a lot of modern epee looks like to us). Penalising doubles means people are more cautious, which I think most people consider more 'realistic' in terms of 'if this was with sharps'.

You don't watch enough epee or have enough of dealings with people who have a reasonable skillset. The "attack attack attack" mindset is typical of newbies who haven't really grasped that there's more to life than hitting their opponent. These people are ... idiots.

By and large. The "attack only" mentality is just representative of certain folks mentality and they can be at most marginally successful. The truly good fencer realises that a good attack is based on sound foundations - the risk is too great to just "attack". I don't know what epee you are watching but, epee (the good stuff) is famous precisely because nothing happens and ... EVERYTHING happens. You are either not looking at the right epee or watching crappy (low-end) stuff. The crappy stuff is not representative of good Epee.

If you have a problem with doubles you are either stale (a real problem if you don't have good fencers) or
only have fencers who don't understand what's going one. Either way I understand your frustration. A simple method for dealing with this is to not accept doubles. Say to people that a double is a double-defeat.

At risk of repeating myself. It is clear to me that you do not watch enough good epee to truly appreciate how cautious it can really be. Epee - epeeists - is/are famous for caution. Whole bouts can seem to go by with absolutely nothing apparently happening. When I say "nothing happening" what I mean is jockeying for position. If you pay attention to good epee you will see the protagonists move as little as millimetres (back and forth) as they try to get their opponents in a position that's favourable to them. If you have a good understanding of tactics this should be obvious.

[Motley]

Gav, Any chance you could link something that you consider good epee? Assuming you have time. I can go and search youtube but would not really have a clue what I was looking for.

One thing that this thread has done is make me want to get back into sport fencing, if only had time as well as HEMA. I kind of see HEMA and sport fencing as two sides of the same coin.

[Cutlery Penguin]

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.

[admin]

Presumably this is considered good epee - 2008 Beijing Olympics France v Italy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpo7O8SVRVQ

It's very athletic and impressive in some ways, but in terms of swordsmanship most of these 'points' would count as doubles to us and what is shown is very far away from what most historical fencers would consider 'realistic' or sensible swordplay.
On the slow motion replays you can see that in many cases one person simply replies to a thrust with their own thrust, sometimes closing a line, sometimes not... Look at the suicidal charge at 2 minutes, resulting in a broken blade, or the suicidal double at 4.50 (though of course this scored a point for one person..replay at 5.05). This is a game of tag, which is fine, but it is not swordsmanship. That's not to say of course that these men might not be excellent swordsmen, but under these rules we don't see it.

[Thearos]

Epee - epeeists - is/are famous for caution. Whole bouts can seem to go by with absolutely nothing apparently happening. When I say "nothing happening" what I mean is jockeying for position. If you pay attention to good epee you will see the protagonists move as little as millimetres (back and forth) as they try to get their opponents in a position that's favourable to them. If you have a good understanding of tactics this should be obvious.

Hmmm.

[admin]

Yes, the implied insult at the end made me chuckle.

[John H]

This highlights something I’ve always thought of the sport side. It’s really just a distance game. I’ll move it to sabre again, and you definitely see the same thing. Both contestants jockeying back and forth to get the other guy ‘out of position,’ once they are happy, extend the arm and go. The blade is so whippy that you can not effectively command a line and control your opponents blade or do a proper parry or expulse his blade. It is impossible to close your line and approach your opponent because the blades don’t work that way. In other words you can’t ‘close under cover,’ even if closing was in the rules.

Of the distance game, the skilled ones are obviously superb at it. But pick up a heavy blade and now you must manage distance and line.

[Thearos]

Does anyone practice or teach military sabre (of the sort which the Hungarian texts mentioned by Ulrich von L... say should not be used for duels because they're too brutish) outside of the HEMA guys ?

[John H]

there are some Polish groups that I don't believe are affiliated with any HEMA groups. They seem to just be concerned with traditional Polish Sabre.

[admin]

As John said - but it all comes down to definitions and whether we or they class what they are doing as HEMA. I expect that if you explained to them what HEMA means to us then they would agree that they are doing the same thing. They lack historical (written) source material, so are essentially creating a system based on other sources, common fencing principles and experimentation with replica weapons.
However there are some hints (I don't know whether true or not) than in some parts of Eastern Europe there may have survived some little morsels of military sabre teaching in military-influenced fencing schools that survived the introduction of modern rules and 'fairy' sabres. After all, the Russians and a few others were still training with and using military-weight sabres until WW2, which is only 3 generations ago. There was a thread here recently where some possible Russian sources for military sabre instruction were listed.

[Gav]

Gav, Any chance you could link something that you consider good epee? Assuming you have time. I can go and search youtube but would not really have a clue what I was looking for.

The best place to look is probably the FIEvideo channel on youtube. There's a ton of stuff on there and you can find enough to probably support any viewpoint you'd like to create... for me there's plenty of good fencing for you to have a look at. Sabre too for those who are interested. I'd recommend Tagliorol's bouts f you can find them.

Here's an example of what I would term "typical": http://youtu.be/uQ_EQYSnjqA

I haven't watched all of this bout (I do have work to do) but from the first couple of hits I'd say it was an alright one.

You have different styles on show. It's also not a jab fest.

One thing that this thread has done is make me want to get back into sport fencing, if only had time as well as HEMA. I kind of see HEMA and sport fencing as two sides of the same coin.

I'm glad that's the case because we essentially agree. I don't have a problem with HEMA... I've even fenced it.