fechtschuleamerica

[Chris Holloman]

http://www.fechtschuleamerica.com/

Anyone planning to attend this one or have any feedback from last years. Looks like a great opportunity to learn and/or put your skills on the line...

Bro. Chris

[John Farthing]

The ARMA's mission is to rediscover and reconstruct the legitimate martial skills of Medieval & Renaissance Europe, hence our motto of: "Real World Skills from Real World History". A legitimate fighting art cannot be realized through the artificial construct of rule based tournament systems.

[Chris Holloman]

Hey John,

I agree that you cannot "learn" a real martial art by just fighting in an artificial environment, but real martial skills can still be displayed and should easily outshine others. I don't think the rules for combat in these competitions are much different than how we free play. Hopefully some ARMA trained individuals will go and represent our group and display the martial prowess we possess.

Bro. Chris

[John Farthing]

One will always fight as one trains, ergo if one trains for tournaments... a tournament fighter is what they will be, despite the best intentions to "display martial prowess".

[Chris Holloman]

Therein lies the question. Are these people training for a tournament or are they training in the art and then choosing to display their skills in that format. We could say that we are just training to play our prize...
I think it is dangerous to assume that everyone who participates in a tournament is not pursuing the real martial art. We know the "real" knights participated in and probably trained for tournaments, but it would be silly for us to say that they were not pursuing the real martial art.

The only way I can see to settle such an issue is to just go and display ones' skills. If a person really knows and is skilled at the real martial art then it will be obvious through their performance. Didn't John C. enter some open weapons tournaments in the past in order to demonstrate his skills and the validity of our art?

Bro. Chris

[John Farthing]

There is no "issue" to "settle", we are speaking of the difference between sport and martial art. I have written a paper on this (for eventual publication on this website), spoken at some length on this topic with ARMA director John Clements and ARMA Academic Advisor Dr. Thomas Green. Tournaments by their very nature become spotified, and this question was a common one in antiquity (see both books by Kostas Dervinis and also 'Combat Sports in the Ancient World' by Michael Poliakoff for more on this).

The skill sets displayed in athletic 'combat sports' (like boxing) are admirable and those athletes display real prowess in their given art, but boxers are not trained for the harsh conditions of real combat conditions the way the Medieval pratitioner of Ringen/Abrizzare would have been.

make sense?

[Chris Holloman]

I understand the premise. So then, should we stop playing the prize? That can be viewed as a sport or tournament since we keep score and determine if someone wins...or are we just validating or proving their skill?

A tournament can be viewed as nothing more than a free play exercise or it can be viewed as a sport event that one is trying to win. It comes down to the participant. I disagree with the presupposition that anyone who participates in a tournament is not pursuing the martial teachings of the masters of defense. It can be, as we say, another "chalk board" upon which to test what we have learned or think we have learned.

If the principles of this art are true and we have learned these principles, then we should be able to implement them in most any circumstance. Having the opportunity to try them out against others who are also pursing the same martial art should be something we jump at...literally, maybe slightly offline and to the right, whilst zwerching them in the head...hehe.

Or we can hunker down in Fort-ARMA and say we are the only ones doing it right and we are really better fighters than everyone but the only way to show it is if you join us... if we do that, do we not just become irrelevant? I hope we will share what we know with all those who are pursing the historic masters and put our skills on display.

The tournament issue aside, it still seems healthy to see and hear what others who are pursing are art are doing and discovering. What are they teaching and how are they teaching it. As the scripture says..."iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another...". I want to see and hear every argument against what I believe. If I only ever stay around people that already agree with me then I lose out.

Bro. Chris

[John Farthing]

I too can appreciate what you are trying to say, BUT try looking at this from a more martial perspective. Martial Arts are born out of a REAL need to defend lives (or a way of life). Sometimes Martial systems can inspire althletic competition (like boxing, modern wrestling, etc.). The two however, are not mutualy exclusive. The ancients recognized this and the antiquarian sources are filled with copius statements indicating how athletes (even and sometimes especially those who train in combat sports) do not make good soldiers!

When resurecting Historical fighting methods, one should draw upon the available sources, the archaeological record, etc. and not create something new by implementing modern rules, equipment, etc.

[Chris Holloman]

John we are for sure on the same page about wanting to see the real and viable martial art revived. Though I may at some point participate in a tournament, using the skills I learn, I am not at all interested in learning how to fight in tournaments...

Bro. Chris

[Corey Roberts]

Historically, competitions existed in an environment where the participants were real combatants who often had real-world life and death experience. Therefore tournament results could be contextualized based on known comparison to actual combat.

Today, the worlds militaries also have competitions but these are grounded in a foundation of reality. The danger we face with these arts, is since they are no longer used, is that competitions and tournaments can rapidly depart from the needs of real combat without anybody being aware or batting an eye, because nobody has a real world foundation in these arts to work from. Thus tournament and competitions become self-fulfilling circular feedback processes where fighters begin more and more to perfect techniques that win them points in tournament and competition without an anchor in their real combative potential, merit or value. Soon the process eventually erodes the art itself.

However, I would say that attending such a thing once in a while is probably not going to "kill the art" so long as one doesn't make it a focus or emphasis of one's training, and doesn't get stuck in the whole tournament mindset. It may be edifying once in a while to observe such events or even participate in them rarely and with the understanding that you are not devoting yourself to winning tournaments but rather using it as an education tool. Thoughts?

[Jorge Cortines]

So then, should we stop playing the prize? That can be viewed as a sport or tournament since we keep score and determine if someone wins...or are we just validating or proving their skill?

Hi Chris! Prize playings are quite different from tournaments, they serve a different purpose, they are about the prizer demostrating he has developed skills physically and emotionally and about his companions recognizing them by testing him but it is not about the fighters that go against the prizer or the scoreboard, quite different from who's the best of the pool of fighters in a given scenario with given rules...

A tournament can be viewed as nothing more than a free play exercise or it can be viewed as a sport event that one is trying to win.

I disagree, freeplay has a "free" word in it for some reasons, freeplay is training tool. However tournaments have artifitial rules, and this changes the nature on how you approach the subject...
If you agree all tournaments by default have artificial rules and you are not interested about winning said tournament (by the way the objective is winning in a tournament), what is the benefit of you participating in it that you cannot equal or best in freeplay?

I disagree with the presupposition that anyone who participates in a tournament is not pursuing the martial teachings of the masters of defense.

How can you pursue a martial teaching when you are bounded to follow artificial rules? Does any of the Master of Defense used in their teachings for fighting artificial rules, like the area for fighting that you can not step out or you are disqualified = dead?

If the principles of this art are true and we have learned these principles, then we should be able to implement them in most any circumstance. Having the opportunity to try them out against others who are also pursing the same martial art should be something we jump at...literally,

Inaccurate, you (and the opposing fighter) are constraining the principles of the art to match the rules of the tournament... There is no art above the rules of the tournaments... We have not finished reconstructing the art, how can we constrain something we have yet to finished to understand, and validate it by restraining it?

Or we can hunker down in Fort-ARMA and say we are the only ones doing it right and we are really better fighters than everyone but the only way to show it is if you join us... if we do that, do we not just become irrelevant? I hope we will share what we know with all those who are pursing the historic masters and put our skills on display.

Winning tournaments that are restraining an "under-construction" martial arts makes you relevant? explain how? to whom? Tournaments are self serving enterprises, they are about having a winner under a set of rules... what does this have to fighting arts and reconstructing a martial art?

I hope we will share what we know with all those who are pursing the historic masters and put our skills on display.

???...We share tons of information on this websites, we make demonstrations with setplays and freeplays, seminars, videos, photos etc, we publish research, we debate, we interact with the academia, we serve as consultants to interested parties, we promote MARE...

I have no problem with tournaments or people participating in them as long as I/we understand the place they take in relation to reconstructing and practicing a martial art...

[Chris Holloman]

"I have no problem with tournaments or people participating in them as long as I/we understand the place they take in relation to reconstructing and practicing a martial art..."

I am with you 100% on this!

There is much discussion and debate within our community concerning the "rules" that should be used in a tournament. I am very encouraged to see this. We have our own "rules" when we free or prize play... Must wear a mask, must use same type of weapons (steel on steel, wood on wood), there is a defined area, and an agreed upon level of force. Someone could say that these rules hinder the martial progress. It does come down to intent. Several threads that I have read have been centered around the idea of creating "rules" that allow for the most accurate and martial expression of our art. This is a challenge for sure.

As to what benefit such activity has to the reconstruction of our art... I believe it is just another chalk board upon which we can try out what we think we are learning. It gives me the opportunity to cross blades with another individual who is pursing the teachings of the masters of defense and thereby have some measure of the effectiveness of what I am learning. If I only ever fight against people who train as I train, and sit under the same teacher I sit under, and operate under the same rules as me, then I miss out on a great opportunity. The Art either works or it doesn't...

The apostle Paul makes a statement in his letter to the church at Corinth that I am often reminded of...

"For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise."

Bro Chris

[John Farthing]

We in the ARMA are striving to reconstruct these arts as accurately as we can in keeping with the original Historical practices. I have suggested multiple texts you might read which detail how this very issue was considered historically. We are trying to help you understand. We are basing our discussion upon historical evidence, as well as, experience. We have seen this all before, and we have determined it to be counter productive to our goals and objectives. You asked, "Didn't John Clements compete in tournaments?", perhaps a better question might be... "Why doesn't Mr. Clements (or anyone else in the ARMA) compete in tournaments anymore?". You might tell a child not to do something because you would not wish to see them repeat your own mistakes, I would emplore you to consider the experience of Mr. Clements, Dr. Green, Dr. Anglo and the many others who are trying to help you stay the course, instead of taking blind detours.

It is great that you are thinking and questioning!!! At this point however, you seem to be holding a hard line based upon your opinion that this is how you think it should be. Try taking a step back and looking at it again after reading some of the suggested texts, the e-list discussions on this very topic, and viewing Kostas Dervenis's excellent video series 'Tactical Errors' (on YouTube).

When you make statments such as: "If I only ever fight against people who train as I train, and sit under the same teacher I sit under, and operate under the same rules as me, then I miss out on a great opportunity.", you are indicating (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that you do not really think the ARMA's methodology is sound. This line of thinking is however, roughly equivalent to a Christian telling his congregation... "In addition to coming to Church on Sundays, you should all also attend Synagogue because you might learn something else about God."

Consider what we are saying, consider the collective experience and research behind it and do your own research. We are not trying to simply disagree with you, we are trying to guide and help you to understand lessons we have already learned. Please! take some time to read and reconsider, but also... keep thinking and keep asking questions!

"Man muss fleissig nachdencken"

[Jonathan Hill]

I was pleased that this is mostly an ‘internal ARMA’ discussion, so I wanted to wait until it seemed to be slowing down before I said anything, but it seems this is running in circles now so I hope I have not jumped in too soon.

First off events like fechtschuleamerica or combat con etc. are more than just the tournament, if you are going for the tournament alone you shouldn’t waste your time. When you enter a tournament you need to go in with the understanding that you will be out in the first round (50% of the fighters are out in the first round, thus it is most likely that you will be eliminated in the first round as well.) If you travel to a weekend event and are eliminated in the first round you will be seriously disappointed with your weekend. You should go to the event for the classes, the community and beers with other HEMA practitioners. The tournament is just the fun after the real event, and there should be plenty of free play for those who are not interested in the tournament. So if you are only going to fight in the tournament and bring glory to your group…stay home.

Now the rest is just my opinion and I will grant that I am not ARMA…

The debate on the value of tournaments is going on outside ARMA as well; many groups are not interested in tournaments either and the arguments are very much the same. Many complain that the rules create an artificial fighting environment, which is definitely true. The bigger complaint is learning to fight a tournament can hinder the real art, again this is true, but this is up to the school and practitioners on what their goals are. Personally I could care less if some other school wishes to only learn to win tournaments, it does not affect me or my training and they will do what they want regardless of my opinion. That said I can tell you that when I have been getting into ligadura I will get to a point where the plays indicate breaking an arm, dropping them on their neck or other such damage and I’ll then modify it to something I could use in freeplay or in a tournament. The fact that I wish to use what I learn in a way that respects my opponent is already leading to ‘changing’ the art. It does not degrade the effectiveness of the principles but it does move from a brutally effective combat tool to an effective fighting tool that I can use ‘safely’ in freeplay. I will not make any apologies for this; if I get in a fight on the street I will still have a way to disable my opponent safely rather than break his arm and expose myself to a lawsuit.

Rule: Rules are essentially a principle or regulation governing conduct, or it can be said that rules set the goal for the fight. Fighting under rules, this seems to have happened for as long as fighting existed. Taking the renaissance era, a knight will have different goals when fighting another knight that he can ransom vs when he is fighting a commoner who he encountered on a road, vs when he is in a town and in a bar fight. In one instance he should not kill his opponent he should capture him and ransom him, in another he is free to kill at will, while another he may not wish to kill due to laws in the area. In essence he is fighting with rules even though they are unspoken or in some cases are the laws of the land he is in. As I understand it, even though I am not studied on the topic, even the judicial duels had a set of rules. Fighting with ‘rules’ is not only normal it is common, today we have the ‘rules of engagement’ that set restrictions on how and when our fighting men can act.

In the last debate over ‘rules,’ (outside ARMA) it was decided that it is ok, even beneficial, to have multiple sets of rules and the fighter that can compete in all and fight well under multiple rule sets, is going to be the best fighter amongst us. IMO; This shows control and the ability to adapt your fight to suit the needs of the situation which I do believe is historical and gentlemanly. I personally believe that the development of the rules is more important to our art than strictly objecting to a tournament. The tournaments will happen with or without the objectors, those who participate are the ones who will get a say in if the rules help represent the art or if the rule distort the art.

Now the most important thing to remember is that you represent your school and organization, win, lose or do not fight. It is up to ARMA’s leaders to decide if this is appropriate or not and you should show them the respect by following the ‘rules’ that are set up in your own organization. If the head of my school says I do not get to fight in a tournament, I do not fight.

[John Farthing]

(outside ARMA) it was decided that it is ok, even beneficial, to have multiple sets of rules and the fighter that can compete in all and fight well under multiple rule sets, is going to be the best fighter amongst us.

The danger here is that practitioners develop multiple skills which are mediocre without ever developing any one codified skill set. In addition, what protocols exist to determine that the so called "best fighter" wasn't simply the luckiest?

In addition, allow me to reiterate that the ARMA is concerned with how the art was practiced historically. Inventing new rules is ulitimately nothing more than inventing something new. It no longer reflects the historical reality.