HEMA vs Modern Fencing.

[Gordon L]

... the blades are not whippy in the plane of the cut or the plane of the parry.

To command a line, to control an opponent's blade, to parry properly, to close a line, to force his blade, all are possible.

It's also funny to me because the line is essential in current sabre to the extent you cannot actually say you can fence it without understanding the line. Point attacks are extremely important at the moment.

...

Yes indeed.

It's important to note that the line and the point have been important since ... well, I was going to say Waite. (Remember, he published his book in order to emphasise the use of the point with the sabre in Britain).

Almost a century before Waite, Taylor and Roworth, and Angelo, want sabre, and more especially spadroon, wielders to have the full range of smallsword thrusts in their skillset.

Before that, you have several works on the cut-and-thrust, and none that I am aware of reduce the "cut-and-thrust" to a "cut".

[Gordon L]

I can't really imagine a thrusting weapon not being rigid

They didn't only have to defend against other lightweight thrusting weapons.

If your blade was of brittle temper, it significantly restricts your palette of defensive actions.

With broadsword against rapier, for example, one piece of period advice for the broadsworder is to basically hack the brittle tip off the rapier with repeated cuts from out of distance. Then, once the thrusting sword has been cut down to size, you can engage from a measure more natural for you.

Springier blade-temper guards against this.

And the parts of the sword are known as the feeble and the fort for a reason. The fort is more rigid, the feeble is light, not rigid.

It's no issue for point control, and it's no issue for ensure the thrust is effective - the taper means that it gets lighter as it gets bendier, so there is no pendulum effect.

[Gordon L]

...They were the finalists in the first sabre tournament ever held at a HEMA event. It was a very small tournament (I think only eight participants), and it was held with the extremely clunky shinai simulators we still sometimes used back then, for safety reasons. Nowadays we only use steel. ...

Shinai are lighter than light sabres.

Why not use light sabres? They were, after all, designed for the job of long hours of drilling the moves of sabre.

[Anders Linnard]

I think you'll find the answer at the end of the paragraph you quoted.

[Andreas Engström]

I think you'll find the answer at the end of the paragraph you quoted.

Yes. Also, these shinai were weighted with lead to attempt to correct their balance and weight, making them far heavier than a sports sabre. But that's in the past, now we use proper sabres only.

-Andreas

[Andreas Engström]

Why not use light sabres? They were, after all, designed for the job of long hours of drilling the moves of sabre.

Um.. no? At least not if you're talking about sports sabres.. they are designed for the sport of sport sabre fencing.

I own eight period swedish practise sabres, the things that were actually designed for the "job of long hours of drilling the moves of sabre". They are nothing like a sport sabre in any way.

-Andreas

[Gordon L]

I can't really imagine a thrusting weapon not being rigid

Can you imagine a thrust-training weapon not being rigid along its entire length, in all planes?

People who trained for the thrust element of cut-and-thrust could, and did.

[Gordon L]

This is Olympic sabre fencing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Et6xWqC1A8

Just so the historical fencers know the kind of thing they are missing.

I watched the first three minutes, and was pleased to note that cuts and parries were taking place in the plane of the cutting edge.

[Mitlov]

This is Olympic sabre fencing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Et6xWqC1A8

Just so the historical fencers know the kind of thing they are missing.

I watched the first three minutes, and was pleased to note that cuts and parries were taking place in the plane of the cutting edge.

Many times that's the case simply because it's the strongest and most efficient wrist positioning. But with certain techniques, such as the skyhook (an upward-moving stop-hit to the forearm), the back or the side of the blade is used because that is a more natural wrist position.

As just one example, see the attempted skyhook at 0:49: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPlGThm6mS4

I tend to use the flat of the blade when making a stop-hit to the top of the opponent's forearm (I'm a leftie, for the record) and the back of the blade when cutting flank, particularly after feinting to the forearm. In other words, both actions are performed with the hand palm-down.

And there is absolutely no distinction between attacking or parrying with the edge of the blade, the side, or the back under modern FIE saber rules. None. Like I said on the last page, I think saber is the best sport of the three modern weapons (in terms of athleticism and excitement) but by far the most divorced from historical swordplay.

[Gordon L]

My instructor at Dundee used to encourage this sort of technique, and even boast of his successes at whipping people on the back of the neck or across the nipples in competition

Your instructor and I were both student fencers on the same collegiate competition circuit at the same period, remember - I know exactly how competitive and aggressive he is.

... by striking with what to a HEMAist would be the flat.

It is the flat to anyone.

The judges turned a blind eye to fairy sabre whipping; if they saw the light come on that was good enough for them.

a) There are no judges if there is electrical apparatus.
b) see a)
c) The problem with electric judging of the validity of hits is that there is no human judgement.

If you wish to ascribe this style of play to bad fencing then I would agree, but it would mean that bad fencing was so endemic in the Scottish club and university competition circuit of the early 90s that it very much defined the sport.

Yes, I agree, it is very poor technique, and not something with which I personally will have truck.

Please bear in mind that another student contemporary of your instructor's ended up with Commonwealth gold at sabre, unlike your instructor - and did so by training to cut with the edge, not hit with the flat.

One of my own pupils was Scottish Student Sabre Champion in the mid-90s - again, cutting with the edge, not hitting with the flat.

It may have been endemic - it did not define the sport. It did not define the teaching, and it certainly was not required for competitive success.

When the electric apparatus came in in the very late Eighties, they had sensors attached to ensure that the lights only went off if the blade action that made the touch was one that moved in the plane of the cut. It is greatly unfortunate that they couldn't get them reliable enough.

And again, what you are complaining about is misuse of actions with the flat of the blade, not refuting my description of the mechanics of the blade.

[n.b. Last night I was using one of my ""fairy" sabres" against longsword and buckler, and then against longsword and handaxe. (I didn't have anything more suitable in metal on me, only having packed wasters and canes). At no point was the lateral instability of the feeble an issue.]

[Gordon L]

N.B. The little singlestick fencing that went on in St. Andrews did not involve this whipping technique, for the sticks weren't whippy on the flat (obviously) and in any case the basket hilts prevented the bending of the wrist required for whipping. Therefore, it was very much classical in style, and consequently much more enjoyable.

Your singlestick Professor from Auld Reekie was along at a HEMA event last weekend. We had discovered his singlesticks were broken, and we presented him with a new set over dinner.

Ultimately, whether sport fencing was, or is now, good or bad doesn't really matter to me - I find it mostly boring and don't want to do it and I no longer have to. But, those who like it are welcome to it.

I feel similarly about training to hit with the flat of the blade - 'why would you want to?' and 'if you want to go ahead, just don't expect me to help or join in'

I do, however, object, to people saying that
a) the ""fairy" sabres" are not stiff in the plane of the cut
b) training to hit with the flat of the blade is the only activity that goes on at NGB-affiliated fencing clubs

[knirirr]

It is the flat to anyone.

An anecdote from the first competition (Dollar Academy c. 1990-91, IIRC) I attended where I fenced fairy sabre:
As it was before electric equipment I was asked to be one of the four people who stood at the corners of the piste to assist the person running the bout (a judge, apparently - see below). The fencer for whom I was spotting landed a blow by striking lightly from right to left, with his knuckles downwards, against the torso of his adversary, with a blow that would never have cut with a sharp sword, in my opinion. I was asked whether a hit had landed and replied "yes, but it was with the flat."
All present roared with laughter at my great stupidity. For, as they told me, everything that wasn't delivered with the point was flat, and the very aim of sabre was to deliver hits with the flat! When I protested that the part of the "flat" that landed wasn't the bit that would have been sharp they replied that this did not matter.

a) There are no judges if there is electrical apparatus.

I meant the chap who stands next to the piste and shouts "fence" and "halt", whatever he gets called - I have apparently forgotten the correct terms.

And again, what you are complaining about is misuse of actions with the flat of the blade, not refuting my description of the mechanics of the blade.

Whether the blade is stiff in the plane of where the cut should be does not really matter, for it is not stiff in the plane the cut is actually delivered a great deal of the time. This is an artefact of the way fairy sabre bouts were (and perhaps still are) conducted. As the gentleman said earlier in the thread, this is not the way an actual fighting sword would be used. This is the charge against the modern sport, that it does not resemble the use of a sword as a weapon, something which attracts the interest of those who have moved on to HEMA.
Of course, at the time I thought it all exciting stuff and enjoyed it, although I no longer do. I also believed that as I was learning proper art I could transfer this directly to sharp sabres, which would not have been the case.

It may have been endemic - it did not define the sport. It did not define the teaching, and it certainly was not required for competitive success.

I beg to differ.

b) training to hit with the flat of the blade is the only activity that goes on at NGB-affiliated fencing clubs

You will note that I never claimed it to be the only activity. It was certainly taught, though. I recall that in general blows (the term "cut" hardly seems appropriate) to head, cheek and downwards to the arm used the edge, whilst to chest, belly and upwards to the wrist used the flat.

By the way, whilst I remember, here is something I tried (and failed) to explain to you in the pub during a small-sword symposium, which may be of interest to you. As I tried to say then, we are channeling the same principles of art into different focuses and thereby coming up with different results.

[admin]

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" ?

Yes.

This is a good summary and illustration of what many (not all) sport fencers just seem not to 'get' about historical fencing.

They are like the teenage kid who doesn't want to learn any old music and only wants to listen to the latest pop. We are like the middle aged man who has lost all interest in pop and rock and only wants to listen to classical music played on instruments made of wood and brass.

The two genres may be able to teach each other certain things, but they are certainly not reliant on each other and can operate in completely separate spheres (and usually do).

[admin]

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.

QFT.

We learn from people who did it for real.
Not guys who taught tricks to win a bizarre version of 'tag' by flicking training blades at each other.

[Bethan J]

Next you'll be telling me you use leeches because it was popular back then.

Leeches are commonly used in medicine nowadays - see eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3858087.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1543325.stm
&c.
Just because something is old, doesn't mean it should be dismissed as obsolete.

[admin]

Something the sport fencers say about examples of HEMA fencing is that it shows a lack of expertese in fundamental principles like timing and distance. This is sometimes true, because of course these are videos of amateurs, not Olympic athletes (though more on that in a moment), but often this is just because sport fencers do not understand the context of what they are seeing. They do not understand that sometimes a fighter wants to get close in order to attempt a disarm or grab, for example. Have a look at escrima videos for an extreme example of that sort of thing. They also generally do not understand that to cut something you must strike it near to the centre of percussion of the edge and usually then slide the blade across/through the target. Not just tap it with some part of the blade. This thread has made it patently clear that realities like these are usually alien concepts to the vast majority of sport fencers.

Equally, from a historical fencing perspective, the Olympic fencers also display a wide range of poor tactics and execution. For example, look at any Olympic bout (supposedly the best of the best, yet to a HEMA person's eyes often look diabolically bad) and see how often the attack is given in a way that would not wound with a real sword (eg a flick rather than a stab, or a flap rather than a cut), or where the result would be a double kill (either because the blades touch almost simultaneously, or the wounded person would be able to immediately avenge themselves on the attacker). Most Olympic bouts look hopeless from a HEMA perspective. It looks like bad fencing to us. Even in terms of form, hits are often exchanged where neither person is executing a proper lunge (seen as a cardinal sin in 19thC fencing), and in modern fairy sabre cuts are sometimes given without an extended arm or covered line, safe in the knowledge of 'right of way'. The rules seem to even encourage and reward bad martial form. But again this is a matter of perspective. These things are not wrong from a modern sport fencing perspective, they are just playing to the rules of the game that it has become and of course Olympic athletes have to be at the top of their game to get there.

Any of us could make similar criticisms of top level Kendo incidentally. But that, like sport fencing, has become a peculiar game played to peculiar rules. The split with and gradual divergence from traditional Kenjutsu is easy to see and fairly well documented. Parallels abound.

All views are a matter of perspective and where you sit. We're unlikely to convert each other on an internet forum.

[Bulot]

One thing we could take from high level sport fencers, though, is the dedication it takes to become an olympic level athlete.
The average level of fitness in HEMA is still quite low. It has constantly improved in the past years though, and I'm happy to see that every year, big events attract a more diverse and fit crowd than a few years ago.

[Gordon L]

I am pretty much in occassional-read-only mode until my pc gets back from the repairers - I can see this is going to be a frustrating week or two.

I'll try to [starts attempt at voice-to-text] keep a breast all the rage [ends attempt at voice-to-text]. Although perhaps the phone has the right idea.

I'll try to keep up with the thread and reply

One minor point to (re)make. (typing it on the phone was too painful, even for a minor point, and I deleted it.

Meantime, please don't mistake my silence for acquiescence.

[John H]

I can't really imagine a thrusting weapon not being rigid

They didn't only have to defend against other lightweight thrusting weapons.
Snip…

To be fair the current Rapier we use is very rigid along the ‘sharp’ plane but flexible along the ‘flat’ such that we can bend the blade on the person just like the epee and foils. If you have an old Hanwei blade this is far too floppy but if you have a newer Darkwood it’s very stiff along the flat until you thrust something. Same goes for the longswords, and sidesword/broadsword blades.

This is another difference in weapons as you don’t have a flat or sharp edge of the later period blades/epee/foil (thrusting weapons) you cannot use the mechanics of the blade or be used to fencing with them, as they just don’t exist. “Closing your line” means something different when the blade doesn’t have a sharp or flat to work with or take advantage of. This is also seen when moving from Rapier to Small Sword, they don't act the same.

trying to be nice today...

[Mitlov]

Something the sport fencers say about examples of HEMA fencing is that it shows a lack of expertese in fundamental principles like timing and distance. This is sometimes true, because of course these are videos of amateurs, not Olympic athletes (though more on that in a moment), but often this is just because sport fencers do not understand the context of what they are seeing. They do not understand that sometimes a fighter wants to get close in order to attempt a disarm or grab, for example. Have a look at escrima videos for an extreme example of that sort of thing.

I don't agree that not understanding the different ranges of combat is the issue. Besides fencing, I've got a background in Shotokan karate and Olympic taekwondo, among other things, and I'm a big MMA fan (as a spectator, not a participant). So I'm not looking for FIE ranges. So I totally get the different ranges you'd need in an art that includes knee strikes, elbow strikes, grappling, takedowns, etc.

The problem I've seen in some of the HEMA videos I've seen is just one of experience and refinement. It's not a fundamental or inherent problem of the art. It's just a side-effect of HEMA's rebirth really only starting a decade or so ago, and really only gaining momentum in the past few years. You don't have three or four or fourty generations of coach-student relationships that you're building on. This is not a permanent problem with HEMA--it's one that will resolve itself with time and increased interest--but it's one that currently does exist, and I don't think that denying the issue serves anyone's purposes.

For example, as long as you've mentioned FMA groups...here's a Gdansk HEMA group held out as some of the best HEMA has right now by some HEMA posters over at fencing.net. For comparison, here's highlights from a recent Dog Brothers meeting, involving some of the best that FMA has to offer right now. To me, it seems obvious that the Dog Brothers group has a higher level of balance, efficiency, explosiveness, and just overall experience. Does this mean FMA will always be better than HEMA? Of course not. But there is that different average skill level right now, from what I've seen.

Gdansk HEMA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMlm0NhDB28
Dog Brothers FMA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAwTRVXDiPo

The only other thing I would point out is that different emphases in training methodologies can lead to different learning curves. For example, Shotokan karate is heavily kata-based in how it trains, which does a good job of preserving the same body mechanics that people used 100 years ago but inevitably leads to a longer learning curve than a padwork-and-sparring-oriented, coach-and-student-oriented approach of, say, boxing. An experienced karateka can hold his own against an experienced boxer (Lyoto Machida anyone?), but take a hundred people after two years of karate and a hundred people after two years of boxing, and the boxers on average will have built up more precise distance, timing, etc in those two years. This is because a padwork-and-sparring-focused curriculum builds those attributes faster than a kata-focused curriculum does. And I think there's a good argument that manuals are the European equivalent of kata.

Those two factors, unfortunately, play into each other. A recently-reborn martial art with a slower learning curve is going to result in a lower average experience level and, at the moment, fewer top-tier practitioners. I don't think that that means HEMA is fundamentally flawed or not worth pursuing, just like I don't think every karateka should quit karate and take boxing instead. But I think there's more there besides just "other people don't understand what they're watching when they watch HEMA."