An Interesting Dilemma

One of the rounds in the tournament at Sentinel's Keep this last weekend brought up an interesting dilemma. In the round, each fighter was given a point for each wounding or killing blow they landed on their opponent, with a maximum of three points possible per fighter. After a fighter had earned the three points, they had the option of either continuing with the fight until someone was dead or withdrawing and calling the fight over. And that's where the dilemma comes in: if you've earned your three points and your opponent still has an offensive capability, do you withdraw, or do you go for the kill?

In the tournament in question, if you went for the kill, you couldn't earn any more points and risked the chance of your opponent earning more points by hitting or killing you, but your own points were safe whether you lived or not. And if you withdrew, you denied your opponent from earning any more points while again leaving your points safe. So what to do?

If you were thinking strategically, you'd withdraw and assure the smallest number of points for your opponent. But does that strategy fulfill the requirements of your honor? There's the rub. And like most questions of honor, I cannot answer it for you. All I can do is tell you what my choice was in the tournament: I chose option C. I made sure my third blow was a killing one so that I wasn't faced with the choice.

Sometimes the best way to keep your honor untarnished is to avoid situations that will force you to ask what honor demands of you.

A Challenge

An open letter was posted to the Aerie today about the continuing problem of excessive hits. My first though on it (and not knowing the details of the incident that brought about the letter) was that at least we were doing better up North here. After all, I only came home from Spring Feast with a single interesting bruise, and only a few other people at the event complained of hard hits. Not bad for a two-hour long tournament.

But...

It might not have been bad, but it wasn't as good as it should have been. After all, the ideal is that we can go through an entire tournament (or melee) without a single hard hit, no matter how long the fighting lasts. And I've talked in the past about how to train away the tendency to hit hard, but I think that the problem isn't just one of training: I think it's a problem of positive reinforcement. Even though the rules state that fencers are not required to take excessive hits, in all my twenty years of fencing, I have never seen a fencer do so. So even if you do clock a guy, you're still given the win. Sure, you may get a talking to, and you might have to apologize, but you still win. So for some people, the choice comes down to fighting beyond their skill level and having to say they're sorry or possibly losing. And, as the old saying goes, sometimes it's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

And that's where the challenge comes in: over the next year, if you throw a shot and you think it's too hard - or your worthy opponent thinks it's too hard - take it back. We are fencers. We are supposed to be grace and elegance personified. We should not need to muscle our way through a tournament. We should be able to hit our opponents precisely where we intended with precisely the right force - no more, no less - for the attack to count. Many of us already call back shots that are too light, let's start calling back shots that are too hard.

I accept my own challenge. For the next year, I will call back any and all blows I land that either I or someone else feels is too hard. Will you?

Yes, but...

I've had my Alchem curved Safeflex blade for better than two years now and I have to say I don't have a complaint about it. Well, maybe one: aesthetically, it falls under the 10-foot rule. That is, it looks period when viewed from 10 feet or farther away. Other than that, it's a great sword.

Alchem's Safeflex blades appear to be made from stamped steel (as opposed to forged blades in the more traditional schlagers) with rounded edges and fluting running lengthwise through the strong of the blade. The blades are then pressed and epoxied into the tang assembly.

The weight on it is good. While it is heavier than my other 40" (a Triplette), it is far from unwieldy and its tapered blade allows it to approach the weight and balance of period blades without an excessively heavy pommel. The blade also manages to be reasonably flexible while not being whippy. However, due to the fluting down the strong of the blade, it will not flex as far as a traditional schlager blade.

Due to the wider design of the blade and the fluting of the strong, Alchem does not need to use as hard of a steel for their blades as is found in a traditional schlager. This does lead to an increased tendency for the blade to get nicks, but not prohibitively so. Now don't get me wrong: you will not get the 15+ years of service you see out of the old WKC blades, but they should last at least as well as your average Zen Warrior or Hanwei.

Overall, I am very impressed with the quality of the Safeflex blades - they are a good blade for the budget-minded - but there is one issue that keeps me from recommending Alchem to people sword hunting: their order turnaround time. My first Alchem blade I ordered in September and received in December. My most recent batch of blades (2 bare blades, 1 complete sword) was ordered in early November. It is now March and I am still waiting for them to show up. When I've talked to other fencers who have ordered blades from Alchem, they've told me similar stories. This, combined with the fact that all but their curved sword blades are considered experimental in Artemisia means that I cannot, in good conscious, recommend Alchem Armory to fencers looking for a new sword.

But, if you are looking for a curved sword, your only choices are between Alchem and the more expensive Darkwood Armory. So if you must order from Alchem, do it at the end of tourney season: with a little luck, you'll have your sword before the next one starts.