Sports fencing federations and HEMA

[Mink]

Because a certain number of people who join the club turn out not to be interested in Olympic-style fencing competition, and if the school has an associated classical fencing or HEMA fencing program, we can just direct these people to that program instead of losing them entirely. Likewise, if someone starts out thinking they want to do historical fencing, but they get bitten by the competition bug and HEMA can't adequately scratch that competition itch, they can just switch programs instead of leaving the school entirely.

By that logic, you should have a wrestling and boxing coach as well, in case people discover that they'd rather fight without weapons Oh and stickfighting too...

The question is where do you draw the lines between different activities, and why an activity should be subordinate to another (I imagine the FIE is quite glad to take the fees from all these classical fencers to organize their big competitions, even though classical fencers do not necessarily see competition fencing as 'good' fencing).

Regards,

[Steven H]

By that logic, you should have a wrestling and boxing coach as well, in case people discover that they'd rather fight without weapons Oh and stickfighting too...

I have wrestling where I train (BJJ) and it's primarily a boxing gym. And I'd love to do stickfighting . . .

[Anders Linnard]

I can't tell you what they are, because frankly I don't want to give the sport fencers any ideas. But this has the potential of being a huge, irrevocable problem for us.

If you think that there's this conspiracy among sport fencers to destroy HEMA, you couldn't be more wrong.

No, I don't think there's a conspiracy to destroy HEMA. I realise it may sound like that, but that's only because I can't go into detail. Sorry.

/Anders

[bigdummy]

It's time to get serious about accreditation

http://fencingclassics.wordpress.com/20 ... editation/

[Mitlov]

Because a certain number of people who join the club turn out not to be interested in Olympic-style fencing competition, and if the school has an associated classical fencing or HEMA fencing program, we can just direct these people to that program instead of losing them entirely. Likewise, if someone starts out thinking they want to do historical fencing, but they get bitten by the competition bug and HEMA can't adequately scratch that competition itch, they can just switch programs instead of leaving the school entirely.

By that logic, you should have a wrestling and boxing coach as well, in case people discover that they'd rather fight without weapons Oh and stickfighting too...

The question is where do you draw the lines between different activities, and why an activity should be subordinate to another (I imagine the FIE is quite glad to take the fees from all these classical fencers to organize their big competitions, even though classical fencers do not necessarily see competition fencing as 'good' fencing).

Regards,

The FIE does not "take fees" from the classical fencers. At the club I'm at, and at most clubs, USFA membership (basically the US branch of the FIE) is not mandatory. It's mandatory to compete in USFA tournaments, but it's not mandatory for coming to practice or to compete in classical tournaments.

Remember that the USFCA is not affiliated with the FIE or USFA, and this whole thread started because the USFCA (not the USFA or FIE) was offering HEMA instructor certification.

As for "why not have a boxing and wrestling club as part of the fencing club too"--a lot of people come to sword arts not knowing if they want the modern or the classical approach, or even really understanding the differences until they've tried both. Not many people come to a fencing club only to discover two months later that they'd rather focus on wrestling. So there's a symbiosis between modern fencing and HEMA sword arts.

[Ulrich von L...n]

It's time to get serious about accreditation
http://fencingclassics.wordpress.com/20 ... editation/

"Update: Secret Archives Press LLC encourages readers of this press release to double-check the publication date."

[bigdummy]

Yep

[Ulrich von L...n]

It has started to be a little strange and suspicious after:

“The foil is the only historical weapon.”
Credentializing requirements are rigorous. Candidates have to prove that they have never earned a competitive ranking from any national fencing association. “It’s about purity,” says Amberger. “Can’t have anyone in there who’s practiced the killing arts as a game.”

[Mink]

The FIE does not "take fees" from the classical fencers. At the club I'm at, and at most clubs, USFA membership (basically the US branch of the FIE) is not mandatory. It's mandatory to compete in USFA tournaments, but it's not mandatory for coming to practice or to compete in classical tournaments.

Oh. So you mean that there are in fact two federative bodies and that individual fencers at clubs choose their affiliation? USFA for olympic or USFCA for classical? I've been part of clubs for Japanese martial arts in France that worked a bit like that, one federation for empty-handed, one federation for weapons.

I'm almost sure it does not work that way in France. I think you must affiliate as an individual to the FFE, which is the national body for FIE, even if you are only interested in theatrical fencing. That's what confused me.

If it works like that indeed, the problem is not sport fencing taking over HEMA but classical fencing taking over HEMA. Not sure this makes a huge difference from the HEMA point of view

As for "why not have a boxing and wrestling club as part of the fencing club too"--a lot of people come to sword arts not knowing if they want the modern or the classical approach, or even really understanding the differences until they've tried both. Not many people come to a fencing club only to discover two months later that they'd rather focus on wrestling. So there's a symbiosis between modern fencing and HEMA sword arts.

Why? What do they have in common? A portion of HEMA studies sword use. Swords that have very little in common with the modern weapons used by sport and classical fencers. As someone said right at the start, lumping HEMA with classical or sport fencing makes as much sense as lumping kendo with these. HEMA also includes wrestling forms and stick fighting forms. Some of these simply cannot be split from the sword parts.

Aside from the physical training, what distinguishes HEMA from both sport and classical fencing is the relationship to historical sources (the H is there for a reason).

Regards,

[Mitlov]

The FIE does not "take fees" from the classical fencers. At the club I'm at, and at most clubs, USFA membership (basically the US branch of the FIE) is not mandatory. It's mandatory to compete in USFA tournaments, but it's not mandatory for coming to practice or to compete in classical tournaments.

Oh. So you mean that there are in fact two federative bodies and that individual fencers at clubs choose their affiliation? USFA for olympic or USFCA for classical? I've been part of clubs for Japanese martial arts in France that worked a bit like that, one federation for empty-handed, one federation for weapons.

I'm almost sure it does not work that way in France. I think you must affiliate as an individual to the FFE, which is the national body for FIE, even if you are only interested in theatrical fencing. That's what confused me.

France may be entirely different in how it regulates fencing. In the US, it's essentially unregulated, and word-of-mouth and competitive success, not certifications, are not how people judge the quality of coaches. You don't need either a USFCC or USFCA certification in order to coach fencing. Of the four coaches at my current club, the head coach has a USFCC certification, one of the assistant coaches has a USFCA certification, and two have neither.

To analogize: in the practice of law, you are required to have a Bar license to practice. There are several legal organizations or fraternities (American Bar Association, Inns of Court, Phi Delta Phi, etc), and a lawyer may choose to be a member of one, multiple, or none. They offer additional legal instruction and networking opportunities, but they're not required to practice law. In the United States, the USFCC and the USFCA are comparable to legal fraternities, not Bar licenses.

As for "why not have a boxing and wrestling club as part of the fencing club too"--a lot of people come to sword arts not knowing if they want the modern or the classical approach, or even really understanding the differences until they've tried both. Not many people come to a fencing club only to discover two months later that they'd rather focus on wrestling. So there's a symbiosis between modern fencing and HEMA sword arts.

Why? What do they have in common? A portion of HEMA studies sword use. Swords that have very little in common with the modern weapons used by sport and classical fencers.

They have swords in common--particularly when you compare foil or epee to HEMA rapier. HEMA rapier relies upon a lot of the same core skills, mechanics, and strategies that underpin both Olympic and classical fencing.

Aside from the physical training, what distinguishes HEMA from both sport and classical fencing is the relationship to historical sources (the H is there for a reason).

I'd agree with you on distinguishing sport fencing from HEMA fencing based on the "historical." But I don't agree that "historical" is the distinguishing factor between HEMA and classical fencing. Classical fencing IS historical...just based on a different period in history (end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th centuries). It's meant as a recreation of the training tool for 1890s dueling, not as a recreation of the training tool of 1600s battlefield warfare. But both are historical. Classical fencers have the same relationship with Aldo Nadi and his writings and teachings that HEMA fencers have with [insert manual here] and its teachings. I think of classical fencing as one variety of Historical European Martial Arts, not something separate from HEMA.

[Mink]

They have swords in common--particularly when you compare foil or epee to HEMA rapier. HEMA rapier relies upon a lot of the same core skills, mechanics, and strategies that underpin both Olympic and classical fencing.

It hinges on how you define core, but I'm not sure I agree...
Basically with the heavier weapons (my rapier is 4 times heavier in the blade than my foils), the timing of tip and hilt movement is augmented. That means that the coordination between weapon and body movements changes, and this influences tactics as well as motion patterns.

I'd agree with you on distinguishing sport fencing from HEMA fencing based on the "historical." But I don't agree that "historical" is the distinguishing factor between HEMA and classical fencing. Classical fencing IS historical...just based on a different period in history (end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th centuries). It's meant as a recreation of the training tool for 1890s dueling, not as a recreation of the training tool of 1600s battlefield warfare. But both are historical. Classical fencers have the same relationship with Aldo Nadi and his writings and teachings that HEMA fencers have with [insert manual here] and its teachings. I think of classical fencing as one variety of Historical European Martial Arts, not something separate from HEMA.

Aren't there some claims of living lineages in classical fencing, rather than the revival "from scratch" that happens in HEMA? There is a difference between using sources to support the teaching you have received, and using sources to reconstruct lost arts.

Anyway, even in that situation the logical outcome would be for HEMA organizations to issue classical fencing certifications, not the other way around.

Regards,

[Mitlov]

It hinges on how you define core, but I'm not sure I agree...
Basically with the heavier weapons (my rapier is 4 times heavier in the blade than my foils), the timing of tip and hilt movement is augmented. That means that the coordination between weapon and body movements changes, and this influences tactics as well as motion patterns.

And an epee is twice as heavy as a foil. It's not that the weapons and how you fence them are identical, but when I talk about lunges, ballestras, parry-ripostes, binds, attacks in opposition, beat attacks...any fencer--from an Olympic fencer to a classical fencer to a HEMA rapier fencer--should know what I'm talking about. The basic footwork is shared. The basic parries are shared. The concept of leverage and how it applies to a meter-long one-handed pointy thing is shared. Specific tactics and how you combine techniques and the details of how certain parries are executed will be weapon-specific. But I think there's a lot more in common between Olympic fencing, classical fencing, and HEMA rapier fencing, at least in core techniques and principles before you go and specialize in what works best in your branch of the tree.

Aren't there some claims of living lineages in classical fencing, rather than the revival "from scratch" that happens in HEMA? There is a difference between using sources to support the teaching you have received, and using sources to reconstruct lost arts.

Candidly, don't know the answer to that one.

[Michael Chidester]

I must say, this thread has been quite instructive in peoples' perceptions of HEMA (and of sport fencing), even if not of the facts involved in either one.

Sent from my Droid Incredible.

[The Salmon Lord]

It hinges on how you define core, but I'm not sure I agree...
Basically with the heavier weapons (my rapier is 4 times heavier in the blade than my foils), the timing of tip and hilt movement is augmented. That means that the coordination between weapon and body movements changes, and this influences tactics as well as motion patterns.

And an epee is twice as heavy as a foil. It's not that the weapons and how you fence them are identical, but when I talk about lunges, ballestras, parry-ripostes, binds, attacks in opposition, beat attacks...any fencer--from an Olympic fencer to a classical fencer to a HEMA rapier fencer--should know what I'm talking about. The basic footwork is shared. The basic parries are shared. The concept of leverage and how it applies to a meter-long one-handed pointy thing is shared. Specific tactics and how you combine techniques and the details of how certain parries are executed will be weapon-specific. But I think there's a lot more in common between Olympic fencing, classical fencing, and HEMA rapier fencing, at least in core techniques and principles before you go and specialize in what works best in your branch of the tree.

.

I'd agree on a lot of that except I'd substitute Rapier for Smallsword. As somebody who studies early smallsword its very clear to me there is a step change in techniques between smallsword and rapier. I'd argue a lot of what is perceived as rapier from the outside is in fact not really classic era rapier. Its really epee or smallsword with a cup hilt.

Rapier of somebody like Capo Ferro is not linear, the tempos are different and the basic techniques are very different from Liancour or Hope, let alone modern fencing. Try a disengage into quarte beat and thrust with a proper rapier and you just get in a mess, the sword is too big and clumsy. Basic stuff in Courtsword.

In a very sweeping and generalistic way I would say the difference is that in smallsword you move the sword with the hand, in rapier you move the sword with the body.

[DavidCoblentz]

I'd agree on a lot of that except I'd substitute Rapier for Smallsword. As somebody who studies early smallsword its very clear to me there is a step change in techniques between smallsword and rapier. I'd argue a lot of what is perceived as rapier from the outside is in fact not really classic era rapier. Its really epee or smallsword with a cup hilt.

Rapier of somebody like Capo Ferro is not linear, the tempos are different and the basic techniques are very different from Liancour or Hope, let alone modern fencing. Try a disengage into quarte beat and thrust with a proper rapier and you just get in a mess, the sword is too big and clumsy. Basic stuff in Courtsword.

Hi, (first post here)
I would agree with Mitlov on this one. I've been fencing with rapiers for a number of years as well as modern weapons. I would say that the majority of what I do with modern weapons translates pretty well to rapier. I really don't think that the differences between foil and rapier are all that much different than the difference between foil and epee, or foil and sabre. Yes, it's a different weapon, and a different game. The mechanics are different and the tactics are different, but it is not difficult to pick up if you have a grounding in modern weapons. I always love teaching rapier to someone with experience in modern fencing because they already know how to do most of it. Then, all I have to do is focus on some of the distinctives of rapier instead of starting from scratch.

Regarding Capoferro, I find the following relevant:

Many in seeking the narrow measure disengage and counterdisengage, perform feints and counterfeints, stringer a palmo and more of the sword, and step from every side, and twist their bodies and stretch them, and retreat in many whimsical fashions, which are things done outside of true reason, and found to deceive the foolish and make the play difficult...

Yes, Capoferro does mention non-linear footwork in his text, and he describes what to do against an opponent who continually circles, but at distance, I think his ideal is fairly linear. I don't think that he approves much of continually circling your opponent. Images in the plates where someone has stepped off of the line are typically instances of a counterattack or a passing attack, which (as has been pointed out) modern fencers still do, and have ample room to perform on a piste.

Regarding beats, plate 16 of Capoferro describes an interesting action:

[starting from the opponent's engagement in third] If D had been an intelligent person, when he disengaged he would have disengaged with a beating of his enemy's sword with his edge, giving him a thrust to the face or a riverso to the arm...

I've always interpreted this as a circular beat in fourth followed by a thrust. Yes, its far faster to do it with a smallsword or a foil, but it doesn't seem to be unheard of in rapier.


Regarding living traditions. Yes, there are still living traditions. My Maestro's teacher was a student of Aldo Nadi. There were a couple of times when something in Nadi's book confused me (circular parry of 6th followed by a circular parry of 4th) and my Maestro could explain and demonstrate to me what he meant because his teacher had learned the actions from Nadi and had passed that down to him.

[The Salmon Lord]

Whilst coming off line in for example an Inquartata is a theoretical part of smallsword / modern foil how often does it actually happen? Even by the mid c18th the demi-volte is very much an afterthought. My understanding of Italian Rapier is its much more a core fundamental. Voidance is a key to defensive actions along with a closing of the line.

[Reinier]

Just out of curiosity, David Coblentz, what blade do you use in your rapier?

[admin]

Just out of curiosity, David Coblentz, what blade do you use in your rapier?

This was also my first thought. A lot of practice rapiers around use schlager or epee type blades, which of course are not really a good simulator for a c.1600 rapier.

Regardless, welcome to the forum David.

[DavidCoblentz]

Just out of curiosity, David Coblentz, what blade do you use in your rapier?

This was also my first thought. A lot of practice rapiers around use schlager or epee type blades, which of course are not really a good simulator for a c.1600 rapier.

Regardless, welcome to the forum David.

I use a Darkwood 42" Italian Rapier blade. My wife uses a Darkwood 42" bated rapier blade.


Thanks for the welcome!

[admin]

Well those are proper rapiers.