fechtschuleamerica

[Chris Holloman]

This thread has proved to be very interesting and informative, although I am not sure it ever directly answered my original question.

I am very glad to see so many individuals out there pursuing what the masters taught. Our community grows stronger as we sharpen one another through these types of discussions. (I define community as anyone who is using the historic texts to learn the historic European martial arts or study how they were practiced in the past.)

As to something John F. wrote "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." "

I think it is the soundness of the ARMA methodology that encourages me to think outside the box...even the ARMA box. Again, the best way for me to prove something is sound is to test it against other methodologies. John C. repeatedly warns against being to codified. As I said, in my pursuit of this art, as well as my pursuit of the truth of the scriptures, I want to hear every argument against what I believe.

As a minister, I do encourage those I teach to look at what other "religions" say and teach. As a teacher my goal is to work myself out of a job. I want those I teach to learn how to think and seek truth for themselves, NOT just depend on me to tell them what the truth is. That is what I call "being at the mercy of the teacher" and it is very dangerous. If I just want the students to listen only to me and adopt only my views and ready only what I write or approve...the word cult comes to mind.

I love the idea of being a free fighter. I think that is what the masters where wanting to create as well. I have read where they encouraged their students to explore and even add to what was written in pursuit of the art.

A bond-slave of Christ
Bro Chris

[Kody Tench]

Ok I'm not an arma member so I will not pose my opinion on your rules of tournaments however after reading a few posts in this thread it strikes me that many of you do not want or even allow for the use of protection when sparring, I practice every day with my longsword and dagger I practice from manuals both historic and written by JC as well as others. That being said when I spar I NEED some form of protection not because I mind the pain but because if I break a bone or am hospitalized for an accident I am out of work. I cannot afford to take chances needlessly without thought to personal preservation. Also what is a tournament if not a chance to test yourself against others you have not had the opportunity to meet before?

This is an art yes, it is meant to cause pain or death but I don't believe anyone in or out of arma can say they approach their fights wholly trying to kill their opponents when training that in its self shows that some flexibility must be allowable and we know that there have always been tournaments as test of skills.

Forgive the wall of text but it bothers me to see anyone saying that we should not have any rules when sparring as no matter how you train you will always have set limits and never be completely without them without deaths.

Also what is the problem with wanting better hand protection fingers can break quite easily in what we do even if everything is done correctly.

[Jaron Bernstein]

No one here is suggesting to spar/freeplay without at minimum a fencing mask. Many people wear gloves and/or some form of padded garment. The question at hand is more about whether freeplay and/or formally ruled and ranked tournaments is the best way to reconstruct the Art.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hi!

Matt Galas wrote a fairly comprehensive article on that concept of after-blow, and how and why it is indeed martially useful. That includes the translation of the passage from the Anonymous Bolognese...

On the After-Blow

Aside from that I agree that different people in HEMA look for different things, and I'd add that different people are able to focus and feel 'tested' in different situations too. My main point was that it's a bit unfair to dismiss tournaments and rules as a modern artefact while we do have data pointing to that kind of thing contemporary to our sources, and even directly in our sources.

Regards,

[Jorge Cortines]

Hi all!!!

Thanks for the link Vincent!

I disagree with the reasoning and conclusion of the author, even though his logic seems straight foward, the author dismisses the whole idea of violence, injury and the teachings of the Masters. I´ll show you my point.
Look at this video: (please be aware of gruesome images of test cutting a dead animal specimen)

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/M ... /cerdo.mov

This is the damage that a sharp sword does to a body... it cut the liver, stomach, intestine,pancreas, diaphragm, lung, main arteries and nerves, abdominal muscles, and spine muscles. And the swordman didn´t even go full force on his cut... This if it would have been a person would have fallen to the ground as the muscles that hold the body upright were cut, a part from the other injures...
If this cut had hit the head (we did test it btw), it cut through the bone directly to the brain, if the swordman had cut to the hands or legs or arms (we did that too), we were able to severe the whole limb without going full force... This is actually what happens when a sword (that is design to do this) hits, that is what would happen if someone hit you with a sword on the body, or on the head... or on the hands...

Additionally Master Lichtenauer advices that if you hit or miss (vorschlag), immediatly wind and do a nachschlag... so let´s consider I hit my opponent and cut his arm (severe the arm), just as I realize I cut his arm I´m winding immediatly for the nachschlag how is he going to apply the afterblow?... and if I hit his head or body is the same situation, I´m winding immediatly to the next oppening... This teaching is martial sound under violent condition, the afterblow rule is not...

And in my opinion this is why the Masters that knew this kind of damage was the risk if you get hit, they never talk about what to do if you get hit, and preferred to talk about how to hit WITHOUT GETTING HIT... and this is why the importance, and validity of the rule you point out becomes irrelevant in a violent encounter... This rule does workout in a sportish event, but for real life where getting hit is not the option it makes no sense... and trying to practice using this rule as reference is useless martially speaking... It is like saying let´s try to practice shooting back with a gun after a rocket launcher rocket blewout half of my body... instead of trying to not get injured by the enemy...

Kody,
The use of padding has proved to act against the person who practices the art and against the art... It is a very polemic subject, however this is my opinion.
You only need a face mask. Boffers have caused more injuries than any other simulator... when practitioner pad up, they pass the responsibility and consciousness of violence to the padding not to themselves... what happens next is they start to hit each other and don´t feel anything so they increase force and continue to do not take responsibility for their actions... still they don´t acknowledged that they are getting hit, and continue to increase levels of force until suddenly the padding reaches protection break point and someone gets really hurt, and all the time people did not worked on not get hit (developing skills, reading the source literature). Not padding so much does three things make you conscious that you are getting hit so you can work on developing skills, and helps you develop control, and makes you and you partner responsible for your practice... As an aside note you need to develop control to do masterful technics... makes sense? how you do all this is another matter...

I think this thread has gone in circles, and is not my intention to convince anybody, however I would like to leave some unanswered questions open to debate in a near (or not so near) future, I will not check this thread anytime soon:
-Do the Masters of Defense explicitly talk about tournaments?
-Why do you think they do not devote time and space to discuss about tournaments in their fight books?
-If tournaments are so great a tool to teach and practice the art why the Masters don´t spend time discussing them?
-Why the Masters don´t use titles won at tournaments to describe their curriculum?
-History has shown us that when we focused on tournaments the art was lost as it became a sport not a martial art, how by doing today tournaments they will not transform the little art we have reconstructed back into a sport?
-How do we know that what we do as tournaments is in the same spirit, and connotation as the "old" tournaments if we haven´t fully reconstructed the art and we have not fully understand their meaning?
-What is the real benefit of tournaments? prove your training system? prove your skills? learn the art? Something to do with ego? Adrenaline?


Best regards,
Jorge

[Kody Tench]

Kody, The use of padding has proved to act against the person who practices the art and against the art... It is a very polemic subject, however this is my opinion. You only need a face mask. Boffers have caused more injuries than any other simulator... when practitioner pad up, they pass the responsibility and consciousness of violence to the padding not to themselves... what happens next is they start to hit each other and don´t feel anything so they increase force and continue to do not take responsibility for their actions... still they don´t acknowledged that they are getting hit, and continue to increase levels of force until suddenly the padding reaches protection break point and someone gets really hurt, and all the time people did not worked on not get hit (developing skills, reading the source literature). Not padding so much does three things make you conscious that you are getting hit so you can work on developing skills, and helps you develop control, and makes you and you partner responsible for your practice... As an aside note you need to develop control to do masterful technics... makes sense? how you do all this is another matter...

I cannot stand boffers nor did I bring them up what I said was that accidents happen and when using wasters you can easily break bones if you fail to recognize a safety issue due to your own preferances then you make your training partners hold back more than they would in a real fight can you honestly say that if a training partner is wearing only a helmet that you will thrust and cut the same as if they where unprotected? If so then you have a want to kill someone in a sparring match.

My level of training may be personally higher or lower than my opponent I cannot see how making them hold back is going to help anyone. Again I'm not saying wear armor I'm saying wear a vest a mask and some gloves what possible reason could anyone have for saying its better to willingly allow yourself to be injured than to wear simple protection.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hi Jorge,

That swords can cause horrendous damage when they hit home is a well-known fact. But it's also worthy to remember that the human body can withstand quite a lot of damage too. Read also these articles: The Dubious Quick Kill 1 and 2. In an actual encounter not every blow will be perfect; there could be some protection on the target (even just several layers of textile), there could be an attempt to void that was only partially successful, there could be a missed parry that still has lessened the impact. My own personal version of a martial mindset includes these:

• Never neglect any blow directed to me by the opponent, as it could get me down
• Never assume that my own blows will get the opponent down instantly
• If I'm hit, try to hit back instead of collapsing or fleeing

The first point is an obvious concern of any fighter. The last two are adequately covered by an afterblow rule, I find. It forces me not to relax after making a hit, and encourages me not to give up instantly after being hit. You are saying this is not martial? What do you do when you train? Stop everything at the first hit? This is what they do in olympic fencing too

If you think the masters assumed that the opponent would go down at the first hit, read Giganti and how he describes covering the opponent's blade after making a thrust to withdraw safely before hitting again, read Thibault who closes in to prevent the opponent from striking back, read Meyer and how he describes the three phases of combat including abzug, withdrawing safely even after hitting. This is what the afterblow convention teaches to make properly. This benefit is, by the way, absolutely unrelated to its use in tournaments or not...

I've already given my opinion on most of your questions but I'd like to address this one:

History has shown us that when we focused on tournaments the art was lost as it became a sport not a martial art, how by doing today tournaments they will not transform the little art we have reconstructed back into a sport?

In my opinion it's not the focus on sport that killed the art. Rather it's the lack of practical relevance of the teaching. When you are the master of an art with relevant practical application it is easy to transmit it, because you have plenty of interested and motivated students with a constant confrontation to reality. Focusing on sport was (at least in some arts like French stick fighting) the best solution masters found to ensure transmission of at least some parts in the European culture. It was not perfect, of course. But look what happened in Asia; there too martial arts have evolved away from their martial roots, some into religious practices, dances, sports, health care... Lack of competition does not ensure perfect transmission. Do you see tai chi competition? No, and yet this art has diverged from its martial roots too. Sportification was a symptom, not a cause, of ancient martial arts falling into irrelevance.

This all hangs on our purpose when reconstructing ancient martial arts. Why are we doing that, what do we find in it that has practical relevance in our current lives. Everyone probably has his own answer, though I'm not even sure what mine is. What I'm certain of is that no-one's answer will be the same as the answer of ancient students and masters, and that this fact will distort the art in different and more or less subtle ways. Avoiding competitions does not make that problem go away...

Regards,

[Roger Norling]

Damn good post Vincent! You just saved me a lot of time. I would probably have ended up with many more words trying to say what you expressed quite elegantly.

[John Farthing]

There is still a marked difference between the goals, objectives and training paradigm of Martial Artists and Athletes. Let me say this again, "A tournament is an artificial construct", therefore the training approach and paradigm will, by necessity, be altered from the original intent of a true Martial Art. Tournaments are, by their very nature, a self serving enterprise. The goals and objectives become doing well in order to make oneself, ones school or club, or ones (albeit now altered) art look good. The training pardigm essentially becomes, 'In it to win it'. Training is catered to the needs of the tournament construct, which results in many real martial techniques being discarded and/or ignored. The argument has been repeatedly raised that "The Art either works or it doesn't" and that statement is completely true and accurate, however the Art is designed to work in REAL combat conditions. If you are in a real fight you might use such techniques as pommeling to the face or kicking in the cods (techniques which are well documented in the source literature), but since most (and as far as I know, ALL) tournaments disallow such techniques, the result is that those training for tournament remove many martially sound and historically valid techniques. Conversly, Our goals within the ARMA are to reconstruct the entire art, maintaining a true martial spirit. We do not shy away from, disallow or discourage techniques such as those listed above from being employed, and neither did our historical counterparts! Martial Arts are born out of necessity to defend and protect lives (or way of life) and while we today may never use Medieval weapons in a real life or death encounter, We can still train with a realistic martial paradigm. The tournament mentality of "I'm in it to win it, and I can always come back and try again if not", is an unrealistic and unmartial ideology. Our Medieval and Renaissance forebearers knew to train as though their lives depended on the art, because it quite literally did! So, while the combat sports tournament competitor trains to win prestige and glory without fear of death, the true martial artist trains with the understanding and paradigm of "If I do not win, someone dies" (Me, my family, etc.).

It is this 'Kampfgeist' or 'Martial Spirit' that separates the tournament players from the real martial artists. The only questions that remain are, "What are your goals and objectives?" and "Which type of practitoner are you?"

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hi John,

There is still a marked difference between the goals, objectives and training paradigm of Martial Artists and Athletes.

The assumption that you are making is that anyone entering a tournament is training exclusively in order to win that tournament. The line is not nearly as cut and dry as you think it is. Even if you train exclusively to be a martial artist (I'll come back to that later), entering a tournament does not automatically taint you any more than playing video games, watching Hollywood movies or thinking of swordsmanship while playing tennis. It's an experience out of which you can learn something. If it indeed spoils you and affect the spirit of your training it's your fault, not that of the tournament.

Most of the participants in HEMA tournaments are not training exclusively to win tournaments, they strive to learn a martial art and then they apply it in tournaments. That they participate to tournaments does not prevent them from being martial artists.

Our Medieval and Renaissance forebearers knew to train as though their lives depended on the art, because it quite literally did! So, while the combat sports tournament competitor trains to win prestige and glory without fear of death, the true martial artist trains with the understanding and paradigm of "If I do not win, someone dies" (Me, my family, etc.).

I used to think like that. The more I consider it, the more I realize that me thinking that I can focus on my training exactly as they did in the past might very well be hubris, and something that prevents me from seeing why I really train.

My interest lies in 1550-1650 fencing, roughly. What was the situation of a young man wishing to train in fencing at that time? He's probably a noble whose whole life hinges on being a fighter. Fighting is what he is socially expected to do. He has probably lost a few friends in the duelling craze. He lives through wars of religion. Maybe he has already killed or wounded several persons. My situation? I live in a developed country, I am a computer programmer, I have received a scientific education, I know newtonian physics, I know what happened to fencing long before and long after that time. I have only seen deaths from old age. I have never been in much of a fight, much less intentionally wounded someone, and I don't intend to do that any time soon. Whatever understanding I have from the source texts is distorted by our situations being so radically different. The consequences of me entering a tournament or not are dwarfed by that discrepancy and the fact that I have no immediate need for any of this.

I'd rather embrace the fact that my martial spirit will never be the same as theirs than delude myself into thinking that it can be the same and that I will manage to remove all modern distortions from my training. I won't. Better understand the distortions that have to be there than deny their existence.

Good discussion, it's making me realize how my practice have evolved since I began... I was not even consciously aware of my last evolutions

Regards,

[Roger Norling]

... the result is that those training for tournament remove many martially sound and historically valid techniques. Conversly, Our goals within the ARMA are to reconstruct the entire art, maintaining a true martial spirit. We do not shy away from, disallow or discourage techniques such as those listed above from being employed, and neither did our historical counterparts!

---

So, while the combat sports tournament competitor trains to win prestige and glory without fear of death, the true martial artist trains with the understanding and paradigm of "If I do not win, someone dies" (Me, my family, etc.).

It is this 'Kampfgeist' or 'Martial Spirit' that separates the tournament players from the real martial artists. The only questions that remain are, "What are your goals and objectives?" and "Which type of practitoner are you?"

So:

In ARMA Prize Playing and training you are allowed/encouraged to use full force knopfschlag or mortschlag against your opponents, or kick/grab your opponents in the nuts, cut to the neck, punch to the throat, break joints, tear off his mask and gouge his eyes out etc, etc. Is that what you are saying?

Or, for that matter, do you use no protection like our predecessors? A fencing mask is a modern invention with no historical validity...

Do you really practice with sharp swords? You really should if you want to be 100% "martial" . According to the above, we should actually fear dying when we stand against an opponent.

The nachschlag is there to make everyone better martial artists by fencing safely and not relying on half-assed hits. The common reflex to automatically quit once either party has landed a strike is dangerous and, as described before, is both described in historical rulesets and was a core part of several masters' teachings, including my favourite, Meÿer . You should still try to maintain the Vor and continue attacking with the Drei Wunder, but being able to retreat safely is central to Meÿer's teachings. He was an experienced soldier and should know.

Tournament fighting was a vital part of the training and there is a lot material describing these type of events. Meÿer even arranged five fechtschulen. Training, fighting for fun, competing and actual combat was done side-by-side by the fighters in the Middle Ages/Renaissance and trying to separate them like this is not how it was done historically. It was an integrated whole. In fact, I would claim that the tournament was considered an important tool to prepare for actual combat.

Of course today we are missing the actual combat part, but thinking that you can improve your "combat skills" by avoiding tournaments is a faulty conclusion with little historical validation. And in any modern setting you make compromises to avoid injuring your opponent permanently.

It all comes down to your own approach to the tournaments and the mentality of the HEMA community. The tournaments are what we make of them. Most fighters do not want to see a development towards sports fencing or kendo, which is precisely why the rules are defined quite differently. This is also why most tournament fighters also practice techniques they can't use in the tournaments, just as described in the sources.

And the tournaments is a small part of the whole of HEMA. It is just one aspect of HEMA training which complements other forms of training. Few dedicate themselves solely to them. Instead the best tournament fencers spend huge amounts of time practicing ALL techniques and sparring. If you doubt this, then hook up with them some time and ask for some sparring. They are most competent fighters, I assure you.

With all this said, I understand and in part share the fear that tournaments will ruin HEMA. It could, potentionally, and I used to think it would, but I no longer do. The displays and continuing development of competence and skill I have seen in tournaments have changed my mind.

[Kody Tench]

Roger I believe you may have just posted my own opinions in such a succinct way that I must say thank you. I'm glad I'm not alone

[John Farthing]

Okay, for some reason people seem to be missing this statement: It is about attitude, intent and your training pardigm. Of course We don't literally gouge out eyes or throw blows that would actually maim, cripple or kill, but we do throw blows (to ANY target ) with sufficient speed, force and intensity that our training partners know we could have maimed, crippled or killed. For example, I have bitten people in sparring matches before, this consisted of applying enough pressure that my training partner knew I could have torn flesh, I didn't have to actually do it to make the point. At the end of each training session, there is NO Doubt in my mind (or my training partners) as to how a particular encounter would have ended had it been 'for real'. There are no delusions of granduer predicated upon whether I 'got enough points', but rather KNOWING that I either defended myself well against violent aggressive attacks or the very sobering fact that I was struck with suffient intensity that I would have died. This is achieved through dedicated hours practicing and developing CONTROL (see next paragraph for more on this).

As for safety equipment? I have sparred many times without the use of fencing masks or other protective gear. Why? How? The answer is quite simple... First as you pointed out, the fencing helmet is a modern invention, not used in the early fechtschule environments, and yet, our historical forebearers were able to fence each other earnestly and safely! Once again it comes down to your approach to training, and how much you practice. There is no rule, gear, helmet or pad that can substitute PRACTICE when it comes to your safety! These are afterall, Arts of DEFENCE, it is the art above all which keeps us safe! Only continual practice gives me the skill sets necessary to defend myself against aggressive attacks, only continual practice allows me to develop the control to make committed, aggressive attacks at my training partners without actually hurting them! In fairness, and with all due respect, I also do not feel it is a fair comparrison between the modern tournament movement and the historical 'Fechtschule' such as was organized by Meyer. The goal in the 'fechtschule' afterall, was (not unlike the later Mensur) to literally draw blood from the opponents head! I don't think there is anyone (ARMA included) out there, doing that today!

It all boils down to, as ARMA director John Clements states: "Every student of the martial arts must live with the real consequences of how they train, and with whom they train, not the good intentions of either. " While this discourse has been enjoyable, stimulating and thought provoking, it has largely gone full circle. I have presented evidence to support my viewpoints and ultimately I can do little more than that. I thank everyone for the challenging and insightful thoughts, opinions and discourse, but since I have continually had to repackage the same thoughts and have been repeatedly drawn back into this conversation, I will likely not comment on this thread again because, although it has been enjoyable, I'd just rather be training than typing!

[Roger Norling]

So fencing safely by withholding strikes, lessening the power and "marking" hits in sparring is more "martial intent" than striking full force with protective gear in a tournament where you actually risk breaking fingers and ribs?

Just for reference: Several of the top fencers of last Swordfish tournament had such injuries when entering their final fights. Attacks were thrown to all targets, with a few limitations like not breaking joints or attacking the groin, throat or neck. You were allowed to punch, kick, knee, use the pommel (but no strikes with the cross), throw and use your weapon in wrestling. No limitations were put on how much force could be used.

http://www.ghfs.se/Tournaments/Tourname ... fault.aspx

I am not arguing that controlled, safe fighting isn't historical, it is, but I am questioning why it is considered more "martial". Control is important, I agree. But it is still as important in a tournament as it is in prize playing. It is vital in any fighting situation. This is what the nachschlag rule is all about.

Sparring "naked" you say. Did that involve striking and thrusting to the head? Targeting the hands intentionally? Even light cuts bleed a lot... I had one on the top of my head the other day. Not to mention what it does to your hands. Control only protects you so far, or else noone would ever be hit...

Perhaps we can't properly compare the fechtschulen with the modern tournaments. But neither can we compare the prize playing to them for the very same reason. Not until we use steel to draw blood.

And even then, there were different rulesets historically. Some were less violent and certainly forebade attacks to the hands and face, sometimes with severe penalties. Control, again. Which is a limitation, both back in the day and today.

I really think some here do not quite appreciate the mindsets of the best tournament fighters and what the tournaments actually are. They are neither ahistorical or detrimental to your fighting capabilities. They have always been an integral part of the combat training we study. It shouldn't be the only tool you use, but it is still an important tool.

And I do get that the "dangerous techniques" that can't be used and gives no points in tournaments are vital and need to be practiced. That is why most tournament fighters actually practice them. They use self control to not use them in the tournaments.
On the other hand, there is a trend for "no-holds-barred" tournaments where you fight hard and intensely until the judges stop you. It could be argued that this is more close to actual combat. Just take a look at how Jan Chodkiewicz had to be wrestled down by two judges, when he was in "combat mode" in the recent Swordfish finals.

[Jon Pellett]

Hi all!!!And in my opinion this is why the Masters that knew this kind of damage was the risk if you get hit, they never talk about what to do if you get hit...

DiGrassi: "And although there be some, who being struck run rashly on, yet generally, men will not so do, albeit they be struck when they are most choleric, but will, when they are struck or wounded, give back and be dismayed and by reason of the blood which goes from them, always more & more be weakened.

But yet when they be so wounded, it shall be for their profit to be well advised, and not to discomfort themselves for the greatness of the blow, but to bear it patiently: for that which they do in disdain and fury shall turn them to much displeasure. "

Harleian Ms Verse: "Greue not gretly thov yu be tochyd a lyte / ffor a aftr stroke ys betr yf thou dar hÿ smyte".