Shooting myself in the foot

Over and over, I've been told that the way to get recognized for fencing is to go out and fight. I should find the events with the big tourneys, and enter them. I've been told that the only way to get recognized for my prowess it to go out, fight and win.

I can see the logic in that. It's the whole money where your mouth is thing, so what did I do this weekend? I skipped the big event where they were holding their champions tourney and attended a small little event, where there were only pick-up fights.

And what's even worse, I didn't even armor up. I mostly stood back and watched and gave the occasional pointer.

Why? Well, the not armoring up was while there was no loaner armor on site, there was a young lady who was very interested in learning fencing. So I talked my son into loaning her his armor, and then he used mine.

As for why I decided against the big event, there were two reasons. The first was the pure logistics of the thing: the event was seven hours away, and my son had to be to work by noon on Sunday. It just wasn't doable. The second reason was a little more nebulous: they didn't need me. They had multiple Masters of Defense, multiple White Scarves, multiple Papillons, and many, many fighter. We had a Cormac, an Albion and me, along with eight fighters, half of whom had less than a year's experience.

I know I'm shooting myself in the foot when I do things like this, but I've always put promoting fencing above promoting myself and, quite frankly, the Masters and Dons have the larger groups down south pretty well covered.

A hard lesson to learn

One of the first things we try to teach new fencers is that this is a martial sport and that you will get hurt. But what we too often forget to teach them is that not only will you get hurt, but that you will hurt someone, too.

We had a young fighter learn that lesson the hard way at last weekend's regional fighters practice. It was about three hours into the practice and he was going hard and maybe just a bit tired. His opponent zigged when he expected him to zag, and he nailed him kind of hard on the tip of the thumb, breaking the nail. Not a bad injury, but a painful one.

And, bless his heart, the young fighter is a gentle soul who took injuring his friend to heart.

So we stopped fighting, and started talking. The first thing we did was to ask him if he'd intentionally injured the other fighter. His answer was no, of course, so we continued on. We explained to him how, as people get excited or tired, their control starts to wane. We explained that, no matter how hard a person tries, telepathy doesn't work, which means that sometimes you will guess wrong about what your opponent will do. We explained that sometimes your opponent's armor isn't quite what it should be.

In short, we explained all the various ways that you can unintentionally and possibly through no fault of your own injure your opponent.

This is one of those lessons we wish we didn't have to teach and far too often we gloss over it, but it's probably one of the most important lessons we can teach.

CAS Hanwei Practical Single Hand Sword - Initial Review

So I broke down and bought myself a dedicated cut and thrust sword. Like most of my purchases, my choice was guided by my budget and bought myself one of Hanwei's practical single hand sword. It arrived today, and while I haven't had a chance to practice with it yet, I do have some initial thoughts on the sword.

The stats:

• Weight: 2.4 lbs
• Overall Length: 36.5 inches
• Blade Length: 30 inches
• Balance Point: 4.5 inches in front of the guard (30% of total length)
• Vendor: Amazon
• Price: $148.50 + shipping

First Impressions:

This sword is tip heavy. Ideally, a sword of this size should balance between 2 and 3 inches in front of the guard, not the 4.5 inches of this one. And with the guard peened onto the tang, it is not a simple process to change it out. On the up-side, the blade flows very nice. It takes next to nothing to get a cut started and you just follow it through. On the down side, it stops like a freight train.

The blade is very stiff, requiring the entire length of the blade to make the flex requirement for cut & thrust, so be very careful when thrusting.

While the sword weighs less than a lot of rapiers, its balance point makes the blade feel heavy in your hand. The edges of the pommel weight are knocked down, but not rounded, and have a tendency to dig into your hand when swinging.

Given its price, this sword may be appealing to new fighters, but its balance and stiffness make it more suited to advanced fighters. And its simple crossguard makes the use of full gauntlets mandatory.

Technically, it is legal for heavy rapier (just barely), but I wouldn't. This is strictly a cut and thrust sword that will show you all the weaknesses in your form.

All in all, if you have gauntlets and if you are willing to put in the time training to ensure your safety, this makes a completely serviceable cut and thrust sword for those on a budget. If, however, your budget can handle it, you would probably be better served with something like Fabri Armorum's Flexible Gothic Single-Handed Sword (if you have gauntlets) or Hanwei's Practical Mortuary Hilt Sword (if you don't).

Little fish

Last spring, I bought myself a mandolin. Why a mandolin? Years back, I had a guitar and I wasn't bad at it, but I wasn't particularly good, either. So, last spring, when I was thinking about getting an instrument again, I thought about getting a guitar, but, I know several really good guitar players. How good? Albion falls about in the middle of the pack. Anyway, there we were in Piccolo's Music [blatant commercial plug] and they had a mandolin hanging on the wall, and I thought, "how many mandolin players do you run in to?" So I picked myself up one and (slowly) started teaching myself how to play.

I've had it for a little over nine months now and I've got about a half-dozen songs I can fumble my way through without sheet music, and about the same with. I'm no good at chords and haven't figured out how to inentionally play more than one note at a time, but I've reached the point where I'll actually bring it to events and doodle around during the day.

The first such outing was Twelfth night in Bronzehelm. After the fighting finished, I screwed up my courage and broke out the mandolin. After about fifteen minutes of doodling, what should walk in but a local folk band with not just one, but two mandolin players. What are the odds? In all my years in the SCA, I don't think I've ever encountered another mandolin player, and here was two of them. I continued to doodle until they were done setting up and then politely put away my instrument.

Undaunted, I tried again at the Feast of Saint Valentines, in Silver Keep. And lo and behold, not another mandolin in sight. A really cool ukulele and Albion and his guitar, but no mandolins. I've got to say this about Albion: he is an incredible supporter of new musicians. His experience as a music teacher shines through, but he can be a bit daunting. I was showing off my still quite thin music book and he starts sight-reading the music (that he'd never seen before) better than I can play it after practicing for several months.

Like I said, daunting.

But! I know he's been playing music longer than I've been alive (and I'm not exactly a spring chicken) and while his exhibitions of skill might be a little humbling, they're not really that unexpected. I mean, with as long as he's been playing, he should be better than me. And maybe, given time and a lot of practice, I may approach his level.

A hit's a hit, isn't it?

A while back, I talked a little bit about the changes to the Society Rapier manual, so I thought I'd do a little delving and see what they really say. I figure I'll start off with the applicable rules and then go through them.
From Section 2: Behavior on the field:
D. Striking an opponent with excessive force, or with deliberate intent to injure, is forbidden.
F. Conduct obstructive of normal rapier combat, such as consistent ignoring of blows, deliberate misuse of the rules (such as calling HOLD whenever pressed), or the like, is forbidden.

From Section 3: Use of weapons and parrying devices:

A. Valid blows are struck by: thrusting with the point of the blade (thrust) or sliding the edge of the blade by drawing (draw cut).

i. Kingdoms have the option of including sliding the edge of the blade by pushing (push cut) and/or placing the tip of the blade upon and then drawing it across an opponent (tip cut) as valid blows.

ii. Cut and thrust rapier also includes the use of percussive cuts as a valid blow. Percussive cuts must always be delivered with sufficient control so as not to injure the opponent while still delivering the necessary impact for a valid cut.

B. Chopping or hacking blows are not permitted in light or heavy rapier combat. For cut and thrust rapier, they still must be delivered with sufficient control. Fast circular movements (such as moulinets) may be used to place a blade for allowable cuts in all three categories of rapier combat.

D. Striking an opponent with any part of a weapon or parrying device not approved for that purpose is prohibited.

From Section 4: Acknowledgement of blows:

C. In rapier combat, blows will be counted as though they were struck with a real blade, extremely sharp on point and edge. Any blow that would have penetrated the skin shall be counted a good blow. Any blow that strikes a mask, helm or gorget shall be counted as though it struck flesh. Kingdoms shall not alter this standard.

D. A valid blow to the:

• head,
• neck,
• torso,
• inner groin (to the fighter's hand width down the inner limb), or
• armpit (to the fighter's inner hand width down the limb)

shall be judged incapacitating, rendering the fighter incapable of further combat.

E. A valid blow to the arm will disable the arm. A valid blow to the hand shall render the hand useless; Kingdoms may decide whether the arm above the incapacitated hand may be used to parry.

F. A valid blow to the foot or leg will disable the leg.

i. For light rapier and heavy rapier, the fighter must then fight kneeling, sitting, or standing on one leg.

ii. For cut and thrust rapier, valid blows to the leg or foot are considered incapacitating, rendering the fighter incapable of further combat.

G. Parries may be performed with weapons, parrying devices, the gloved hand or any other part of the body. Though the gloved hand may be used to parry, it shall not be used to grasp or strike an opponent. Fleeting contact between opponents is allowed, as long as no grappling, deliberate striking or other unsafe behavior occurs.

H. In heavy rapier and cut and thrust rapier, fighters may choose to grasp blades, rather than parry them. If the blade that is grasped moves or twists in the grasping hand, that hand is deemed disabled. Grasping techniques shall be used only to immobilize a blade, not to bend it or wrest it from the opponent's grip. Prolonged wrestling over a grasped blade is sufficient grounds for calling a ‘hold” and forcing a release of the blade.

I. If an effective blow is thrown before, or on, the same moment as an event that would stop a fight (a "HOLD" being called, the fighter being "killed" himself, etc.), the blow shall count.

And from Marshalling concerns in rapier:

5. EXCESSIVE IMPACT: Combat in the Society poses risks to the participant. This recognition, however, does not excuse fighters from exercising control of their techniques. If a fighter throws blows which force their opponent to retire from the field, from a real injury (even one which only causes brief incapacitation), the marshal responsible for the field shall take such steps as are appropriate to stop the problem from recurring.

That's a lot of words. Let's start from the beginning: "Striking an opponent with excessive force, or with deliberate intent to injure, is forbidden." Okay, so what is excessive force? "If a fighter throws blows which force their opponent to retire from the field, from a real injury (even one which only causes brief incapacitation), the marshal responsible for the field shall take such steps as are appropriate to stop the problem from recurring." So, if it doesn't send your opponent off the field, it's not excessive.

Okay, so what makes up a good shot? "Valid blows are struck by: thrusting with the point of the blade (thrust) or sliding the edge of the blade by drawing (draw cut)." and "Kingdoms [such as Artemisia] have the option of including sliding the edge of the blade by pushing (push cut) and/or placing the tip of the blade upon and then drawing it across an opponent (tip cut) as valid blows."

So we can use thrusts, draw cuts, push cuts, and tip cuts, but what sort of force are we talking about? "In rapier combat, blows will be counted as though they were struck with a real blade, extremely sharp on point and edge. Any blow that would have penetrated the skin shall be counted a good blow. Any blow that strikes a mask, helm or gorget shall be counted as though it struck flesh. Kingdoms shall not alter this standard." But there is a caviat: "Chopping or hacking blows are not permitted in light or heavy rapier combat. For cut and thrust rapier, they still must be delivered with sufficient control. Fast circular movements (such as moulinets) may be used to place a blade for allowable cuts in all three categories of rapier combat."

So we've got to hit them hard enough that a real blade would have punctured the skin, but we can't club them like a seal. And, by the rules, percussive hits are allowed only in Cut and Thrust.

Okay, but what does all this mean?

1. Any thrust that is felt, but does not send your opponent off the field is valid.
2. Any cut (push, draw, or tip) that is felt, but does not land with enough force to cause pain (a good general definition of hacking or clubbing) is valid.

You may have noticed that there is no longer any length requirement for cuts, other than the rather vague "any blow that would have penetrated the skin shall be counted a good blow." So, in that regard, it is still on your honor on what constitutes a good cut.

I can't say I'm entirely thrilled by the changes to the rules, but I am glad that they kept the wording against chopping or hacking.

Bump

Everything goes in cycles. Standards will go from very lax to very strict, and enforcement will do the same. That's what's going on with the fencing rulebook right now - we've gone from rather specific, fairly strict rules governing everything from how hard you should hit to what constitutes a draw cut to a far broader set of rules. Most of these changes are geared towards how we play, as opposed to what we use to play.

And Yet...

At the tournament this last weekend, we had two people (that I know of) out of the nine entrants that were bounced for armor failures. One for a hole in their glove that you could drive a (small) car through, and the other for insufficient armor on their torso and the back of their head. The thing is, the one who failed because of insufficient armor had been passed many times using the exact same setup.

So what was going on?

Remember how I said that the new rules loosened up on hit calibration? Well, it used to be that you didn't have to accept an overly-forceful shot? That part's gone. Yes the rules still say, "Striking an opponent with excessive force, or with deliberate intent to injure, is forbidden," but it then defines excessive force as, "If a fighter throws blows which force their opponent to retire from the field, from a real injury (even one which only causes brief incapacitation), the marshal responsible for the field shall take such steps as are appropriate to stop the problem from recurring." So, in short, it's not excessive unless it forces you off the field. And did you notice that there's no mention of the shot not being good? Just that the marshal can pull the person's card.

Okay, but what does this have to do with people's armor getting bounced? Well, without that top end to what constitutes a good blow, you are going to get hit harder. And when you combine that with the tendency in recent years for marshals in Artemisia to be a little more lax - a little more understanding, the odds of someone getting injured is going up.

What do I mean by lax? Currently, the effective requirement for the back of the head in this kingdom is a covering of some sort. Many of the drops in use are a single or double layer of light cloth. They're supposed to be the same as the torso - puncture resistant. This is partly to protect from punctures (well, duh), but it's also to minimize the effects of chops or percussive hits. Likewise, I've started to see a disturbing trend in fencers viewing underarm protection as a suggestion, rather than a requirement.

And too often, the excuse they use when it is brought up is that they are working on new armor. That excuse may work for a month or two, but when the marshal's been hearing it for years, it's time to call bullshit.

Yes, this laxness is the fault of the marshals. For too long, we've thought that if you're stupid enough to wear sub-standard armor, it's your own damn fault, but with the increase in hit force we're starting to see, the armor requirements really have become the minimum you need.

On advice and mentors

Everybody's been there: you're at a fighter's practice or a tourney and someone walks up to you and says, "That last pass was great, but you need to work on..." and proceed to tell you what you did wrong. It can be frustrating, I know. It can even be downright humorous at times. But you have to remember that nine times out of ten, the person offering the advice is trying to make you a better fighter.

With these unsolicited pieces of advice, you have a few choices of what to do. The first is to blow it off and keep doing what you're doing . But if the person in question is wearing white - say a belt, scarf or collar, that might not be the best option. Another option is to try out what they suggest, and if it works, keep it, if it doesn't, file it away for later. The third option is to take the advice to heart and use it all the time.

My recommendation is to use the second option: listen, try and decide. I say this because there is no "One True" fencing style that works for everyone, against everyone. You have to find what works for you.

Now, when you go up to someone after a fight and ask them what you need to work on, you have the same three choices, but remember: if you're just going to ignore what they say, why did you ask them in the first place? So again: listen, try, and decide.

And then there's the exception to the rule: if you have approached someone and said "teach me, please," or been taken as a cadet or provost. Oh, sure, you can still ignore what your mentor tells you, but you may soon find yourself unattached, as it were. A good mentor may (may!) let you get away with listen, try and decide, but you'd better be able to explain and/or demonstrate why something doesn't work for you. That being said, they still may want you to do it their way. (Here's a hint: sometimes instructors build upon previous lessons and aren't able to teach you their super-secret, kill-em every time move until you get the more basic parry or thrust down.)

And for goodness sake, if your mentor gives you homework, do it. (See parenthetical statement above.)

Here's why:

If nothing else, ignoring the mentor that you chose, or that you agreed to be your teacher is just rude.

I have a reputation as a teacher. As such, I have been approached both by people who want me to teach them, and by people who want me to be their teacher. Generally, the people who want me to teach them aren't a problem: I try to give freely of my skills and knowledge. I tell them what I see and what I think, and very rarely do I say, "You need to..." or "I want you to...". I expect those who ask me to teach them to use my own preferred listen, try and decide because, as my son will gladly tell you, I don't know everything.

A person asking me to be their teacher is a whole different ball of wax. In all honesty, while I have said many times, "I will teach you," I have never said, "I will be your teacher." I know the difference is subtle, but it's important. By agreeing to simply teach someone, I set myself as one of many responsible for a fencer's education. If I agree to be someone's teacher, I am directly linking myself to that person. As I said, I have a reputation not only as a fencer, but as a teacher. I have built that reputation by making sure my students are good fencers. Which also means that I want the people who go around saying, "Matheus is (or was) my teacher," to be good fencers.

So, when someone asks me to be their teacher, I agree to teach them and give them little tests as I go along, usually in the form of homework. One of my favorites for new fencers it point drills. More advanced fighters might get footwork drills, or even suggestions that they improve their gear. And if they choose not to do the homework, I can see that their drive isn't there. I'll still teach them, and I'll still give them homework, but until they start doing their homework and I know that they'll do the homework when I give it, I won't even consider calling them my student.

Strangely enough, considering my lack of students over the years, I've only had a few who failed my tests. The rest were snatched up by White Scarves.

And even more oddly, a few of those fencers have graced me with the title of "Teacher."

A short thought problem

Let me ask you a question: you're in a tourney where there's no barrier around the list field, just lines on the ground, and the Marshal in Charge says that anyone who goes outside the lines loses - do you try to force people out of the list field, or is that dishonorable?

Does honor require you to beat your opponent with skill alone?

But isn't footwork and situational awareness part of a fencer's skill?

Is it honorable to win based on a mere technicality?

Aren't all rules "mere technicalities"?

Is it honorable to basically win through intimidation?

Isn't the psychological game 90% of fencing?

What are some other arguments for or against winning by forcing your opponent off the field?

Sheeped

So I got sheeped last weekend.

For those of you who are not familiar with the term (which is probably most of you, since it's my own term), being sheeped is when you win another group's champion's tourney where only a member of the local group can be named champion. The origin of the term goes back about fifteen years to an odd off-hand tourney in Sentinel's Keep. They had such things as a harp, a lute, a mug and, yes, a sheep. Each round you'd roll a die for your off-hand and I kept getting the sheep.

And I kept winning.

Truth be told, Albion won the tournament and I think I took second, but since I'd done so well with the sheep, I was presented it in court. Well, the same thing happened again this last weekend, only I actually won the tournament and this time it was an oven mitt, but their reasoning was the same: I was the most effective with the odd off hand.

Which ties into a conversation I've had with Master Cormack several times over the years. For any of you who hasn't had the pleasure of fighting against him, he is probably the ultimate specialist. He is a killer with sword and scabbard. He also does well with single point, but not nearly so well with the other forms. His view on the subject is that it works for him, so why change it?

I, on the other hand, am quite possibly the ultimate generalist. My goal is that no matter what you hand me, I can use it, and use it well. While the reality falls short of the goal, I have made great strides in that direction: hand me a weapon or weapon combination and while I may not always win, I can guarantee that I won't embarrass myself while dying.

A more concrete example can be seen comparing me and Cormack's weapons cases. Cormack has one sword, a dagger, I think, and his scabbard. That's it. My case is a little more crowded. Not counting the pair of Rawlings I pack around as training aids, I have 7 swords, both straight and curved, with blades ranging from 28" to 43", 2 daggers, 2 bucklers, 2 cloaks and a baton. For some reason, I'm one of the first ones people go to when they need to borrow equipment.

This is another one of those cases where neither philosophy is better, but they each have their strengths and weaknesses. A specialist is actually more likely to be the better technical fighter: give them their preferred style and nine times out of ten, they'll come out on top. But, throw in a wrinkle or two - required style, limited or increased fighting space, broken or unusual ground, and so on - and while the generalist still may not be the best fighter on the field, but their more varied bag of tricks allows them to adapt quicker.

Of course, that's not the real reason I won with the oven mitt. The truth is that I just fought it like single point.

Hmmm...

Maybe I do have a specialty. Maybe the reason I have all those blades is to add a little variety to my life...