One in Ten

My captain told me once that he spent 90% of his time dealing with 10% of his soldiers. He was talking about how it was the problem children in the unit who required all of his attention, which made him feel like he was neglecting the rest of the unit.

And that problem isn't unique to the military, just about every large group suffers from it. Even us fencers. If you look through the rule books for the SCA, just about every decision in there can be traced to a single person (not all the same one, but still...).

I was taken to task over my last post, because it sounded like I was blaming all of the white scarves for what happened at Uprising. That wasn't my intention, and if it was taken that way, I appologize.

But, likewise, I cannot say that all of the White Scarves (either in Artemisia or the Knowne World) are the paragons of Truth, Justice and the Artemisian Way that we would hope they would be. In fact, I would go as far as to say that each and every one of them has had at least one lapse in judgement at one time or other, that's just part of being human. Unfortunately, just like in any group, there are a small few for whom these lapses of judgement go from occasional to fairly often.

And, thanks to good old Murphy, the bigger the lapse the more public it tends to be. This leads to the group being judged too often by our occasional mistakes, instead of by the numerous good deeds that surround them.

That is why I brought up the occurence at Uprising. Everyone makes mistakes, yes. But in order to offset these mistakes to the surrounding public, we need to be seen as being able to recognize them and show that we can take care of them, and the more in-house we can do it, the better.

So, why did I bring it up in a public forum? Wouldn't directly confronting the individuals about their actions have been better? If I'd have had names, yes. But I didn't. So, instead, I used the incident as a chance to remind everyone of the impact of their words.

Wheter this was the best choice or not, I don't know, but it has obviously gotten people's attention.

Balance

In my last post, I talked about how armored fighters don't tend to be impressed with rapiers, and made the comment that they don't even like my 36". Sounds conceited, I know, but...

Many moons ago, when I was a happy newlywed, I did a study on period rapiers and how they compared to their counterparts in the SCA (you know, I might just have to resurrect that study because that was back before we expanded beyond schlagers). Basically, I compared the blades based on length (blade and overall), weight and balance. The short of it was that the SCA failed miserably. Too short, too light and with our balances waaaay off. The only group that consistently got anything right was the epee fencers. Surprisingly enough, an epee balances almost exactly the same as a period rapier. Go figure.

Anyway, when I built my 36" schlager, I based it off of that study (practice what you preach). It was still too short (this was before longer blades were readily available) and about a pound too light, but the balance was nearly spot-on. Okay, it's not quite tip-heavy enough; I need to shave about a quarter-ounce off the pommel. Not perfect, I admit, but darn close to the balance being in the 22-25% of the total length range that my study showed was the norm. In short, my 36" feels like a sword.

Here's how balance works. The more tip-heavy a sword is, the quicker it is. But, the less tip-heavy (pommel-heavy?) a sword is, the easier it is to control.

Think inertia and momentum. A tip-heavy sword takes more power (strength) to get going, but once you've started it moving, it keeps moving on it's own. A pommel-heavy sword is easier to get moving, but you have to apply power the whole way through. That's what makes a tip-heavy sword quicker.

Now, when it comes time to stop a tip-heavy sword, you actually have to use your power to stop it (think trying to stop a hammer in mid-swing). Not so with a pommel-heavy sword. All you have to do with one of those is stop applying power.

So the trick with a sword is to balance speed and control. If all you're ever going to do is point drills, you want a sword that's pommel-heavy. Likewise, if all you care about is getting your blade going fast, you want it as tip-heavy as you can get. The tendency I've seen up here in the north is for slow, easy to control swords with their balance point at or below the quillons. While this does improve tip control, it makes the blade slower than a snail on valium. Not a good thing if you're up against some young buck who's just chugged a case of Red Bull.

As you can probably tell, I like my balance point out in front of my quillons. This does mean that I have to work harder at tip control and that I do need a bit more wrist strength. But, hey, I'm old and slow and need all the help I can get. And besides, it's period.

The hockey stick from heck

As anyone who's encountered me in the last six months knows, I got myself a new sword for Christmas: a 40" Alchem with as much curve as I could get. The responses I've gotten to the sword haven't been mixed, so much as polarized. Although the majority of responses seem to be at one end of the spectrum.

Almost no one's response to the sword has been meh. Everyone seems to either love it (the majority) or hate it (Yes, there are a few). Okay, that's not quite true. There are quite a few people up here who hate it - or at least hate fighting against it. That's probably the most common response, "I hate that #$%^ thing! Where can I get one?" The scary part is that that's against someone who doesn't really know how to effectively use a curved blade.

I think the most interesting part is the reaction I've gotten from armored fighters who've played with it. Now, the usual reaction of a heavy being handed a rapier (even my 36") is a look of confusion, followed by a fairly meh response. Not with this thing. Oh, you still get that initial look of confusion ("Why does this wire weenie think I'd care?"), but it's followed by a look of concern as they realizing they're starting to have unnatural feelings towards a rapier, and finally, a big, ear-to-ear grin.

You see, the Hockey Stick from Heck (so dubbed by Don Adam, one of the sword's first victims) not only looks like a sword, but it balances like a sabre (no, it's NOT a scimitar) should and it's approaching the weight of what a sword should be. When you hold it, you know it wasn't meant for thrusting. You feel it wanting to slice and cut and get in close. Or, as one knight put it, "I couldn't use this. Someone would get hurt. I'd use it the way you're supposed to."

Which leads to my problem: how do I use a sabre as a sabre, but still fight legally and safely? I mean lopping off body parts is pretty frowned upon by the SCA, at least in the rapier community. Sure, I can keep using it as a standard rapier, but even that's got its problems. The tip is 4" to the left of where it should be, for starters. What I need to do is find a manual on sabre (period, preferably) and try and modify that for positive pressure.

The only problem is that I'm not sure where to begin. What would be a good style? Kendo? Kali? Sabre? All of those are edge-intensive forms, but which would work best? And where do I even find the manuals?

Anyone have any ideas?

Finding the right scarf

We have a fighter up here who is looking to become a cadet. Aside from the opportunity this gives us old farts to rib them, it also leaves us with trying to advise them on who would be a good White Scarf to attach themselves to. I've been keeping my mouth shut so far because I don't see any White Scarf who would be a good teacher for our wannabe cadet. Not because I think so low of our Scarves, but rather because the nearest one is a good three hours away, making any real instruction impractical. Now, in a year or so, when they go off to college in Salt Lake, it'll be a different matter. But for right now, I don't see a good solution for them.

That being said, there are some questions you should when choosing which White Scarf to attach yourself as a cadet to.

The first question is do you respect them? If you don't, you won't take their advice seriously. And there's no point in mentoring yourself to someone you won't listen to.

Second is: are they a good teacher? Teaching - and the ability to teach well - is an entirely different skill set than doing. Just because someone is an excellent fencer does not mean that they can teach fencing. This is one of the areas where I know I fall short of the ideal of ever becoming a White Scarf. I'm really a lousy teacher. I'm grumpy, I'm impatient, and I'm waaaay too opinionated. On top of that, I just don't have the skill to take apart someone's form and critique it the way a true fencing teacher should.

Third is can they teach you what you need to know? Different people have different strengths and weaknesses, so finding someone whose strength is your weakness will offer you more chance for improvement than someone with your same strengths and weaknesses.

Fourth: is their code of honor compatible with yours? They don't have to be the same, but there shouldn't be any glaring differences, like, say they believe that there's nothing wrong with juggling kittens, but you are a firm believer that only hamsters should be juggled. Remember that as their cadet, not only does your honor reflect on them, but their honor reflects on you.

Fifth and sixth: do they have the time to teach you and do you have the time to be taught? Just like with someone you don't respect, it's pointless to attach yourself to a White Scarf you'll never get to spend time with. This is why I don't recommend choosing a White Scarf that lives more than a couple hours away: the travel time just makes the relationship too difficult to maintain.

And finally: are they who you want to be? Look at your prospective White Scarf. Are they someone you want to be like, both on and off the field? Of course, we want to be the best we can be on the field, but that's only part of being a White Scarf. You need to find someone who's not only good on the field, but who's also good off the field. Someone who lives up to your idea of the dream, no matter what your dream is. If you enjoy service, look for that White Scarf who's a shoe-in for Pelican. If the arts are more your style, find the one that made their own garb. Or if bardic's your thing, find the White Scarf who's always singing around the campfire.

Now if you're strictly a stick-jock like myself, forget it. Part of becoming a White Scarf is showing skill in the arts and sciences as well as a tendency towards service. So for those of us who's primary interest in the Society is fencing, we're SOL until and unless we find some other aspect of the SCA that draws our attention in addition to the sword.

The only of these questions that is really make-or-break is that of honor. You can get by if you answered no to one or two of the others, but the more questions you answered yes to, the better.

Yield

I had an interesting conversation with another fencer at fighter's practice this last weekend. I was standing back, observing while he fought and his opponent managed to take both of his arms. She asked if he wanted to yield and he said no. That's when I roused from my slumber - I mean observation - and asked, "Are you sure about that?" Whether to yield or accept a quick death is generally considered a personal decision, and I suppose it is. But it's a decision that can have ramifications that aren't immediately obvious.

For fans of the modern-day action hero, the idea of yielding or surrendering is unthinkable. As Winston Churchill said, "... whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." But you have to remember, he was talking about a war, not a tournament. I know, I know. If you surrender once, it makes it easier to surrender the next time. But we're not talking about just sticking up our hands and saying "I give" when faced with an opponent, we're talking about having lost all ability to carry on the fight for one second more. That is what yielding in a tournament is: the recognition of your inability to defeat your opponent.

So what, you say. No quarter given, none received is the way you fight. Fair enough. You're a mean mother, and everyone can see that. But think about this: by refusing to yield, you are forcing you opponent to kill an unarmed opponent. Now I know there are all sorts of different codes of honor, but I'm pretty sure most of them do not say that killing the helpless is a Good Thing.

Of course, you have to assume their honor can handle the necessity of doing something dishonorable. Either that, or they have so little honor that it doesn't matter to them (of course, there isn't anyone who has so little honor in the SCA, so we can throw that notion out). There's only one problem with that. There are individuals for whom their sense of honor is so strong that they absolutely refuse to go against it. And unlike the dishonorable fencer, these do exist. You'll see them every once in a while a tourneys. They're the ones who give their opponent back an arm after they've been double-armed. There was even one who, faced with an opponent who would not yield, yielded himself, giving the bout to his unarmed opponent. Let me tell you: that caused a bit of a stir.

So now you're thinking, either they'll go ahead and kill you, or they'll give you back your arm and you might kill them, or else they'll yield and you'll win, which leaves you about a 50-50 chance of winning, even though you can't fight any more. Those sound like pretty good odds, except for one thing. To get those odds, you have to play on your opponent's honor. If they kill you, both of you will lose at least some honor. If they give you back your arm, then they gain honor, but you still don't. And if they yield to you, they gain a tremendous amount of honor - we're talking on-the-spot recognition and free beer for the rest of the event - and you're left standing there with your honor being questioned by all who witnessed it. Whereas, if you yield, they don't get that instant boost to honor and even if your honor isn't increased, you get recognized for having the common sense to admit when you're defeated. So I suppose it comes down to a question of what's more important to you: winning or your honor.

Now like I said, it's a personal choice whether to ask the quick death from or yield to your most worthy opponent, but I'd bet you can guess where I come in on the argument.

In case of emergency...

In an ideal world, armor inspections are that brief moment before you fight when the marshals comment on how wonderful your equipment is, but in reality, armor inspection is when you discover your tip is shot or yes, you really did leave your gear out in the rain. These discoveries often leave fencers scrambling around, looking for the stuff to fix their problems. The answer to this problem (other than actually going over all of your gear before hand) is to have an emergency kit.

These don't have to be very large. In fact, all you really need is three items:

1. Spare tips. You need at least one, but I recommend one for each of your blades, plus one to share.


2. Scotch pad - for cleaning surface rust from your blades. Again, you need one, but it doesn't hurt to have a spare to loan out.


3. Tape. Remember: whatever type of tape you use, it must contrast with both the blade and the tip, so silver and black tapes are out. Which means that your basic duct tape and electrical tape are out, unless you get different colors. I recommend white athletic tape. It's durable but rips easily and is visible enough for use in torchlight tournaments.

Those are the basics, but some other items that would be a good idea are: a multi-tool (always a good thing to have),a set of needle files, and duct tape (if it's not part of your basic kit).

These simple items will fix just about any problem you'll encounter on the field. Of course, if you want to go overboard, you can throw in spare blades, spare guards, handles, pommel weights, etc. but those are probably just as easily left back at camp.

In the Mix

Anyone who's been around fencing for any length of time has heard someone ask, "What's the best off-hand weapon?" And everyone has their own opinion about what that is. Looking back at Estrella, and the weapons on the field there, the hands-down winner was case, followed by dagger, then buckler.

The reality of the situation is that weapon choice usually comes down to personal preference. To put it simply: people are going to use what they're comfortable with. Unfortunately, personal preferences play only a minor part in determining the best mix for the melee field. And it really should be a mix, too. Every weapon style has its advantages and disadvantages: it's only through mixing the styles that you can get the most out of the three styles.

Bucklers are your linemen. They don't pack much of a punch, but they can hold the line like nobody's business. Casers are the exact opposite. They're your heavy-hitters, capable (in theory, at least) of attacking multiple targets at the same time, but seriously lacking in the defensive department. Your daggers are your all-purpose fighters. They've got better offense than bucklers, and better defense than casers, but their defense isn't as good as buckers and they can't match the casers for offense.

So now that we know their strengths and weaknesses, what do we do about them? Well, the obvious answer is to match each person's strengths and weaknesses so that they complement someone else's. In other words, pair a buckler with a caser the same way armored fighters pair a shield man with a spear man. The buckler's in charge of defense while the caser is in charge of killing things. Unfortunately, this means the middle-of-the-road daggers are on their own, but that's okay. We can work with that.

The next step is to build our formation, using the sets we've made. Most formations are made up of a line, reserves, and cowboys. Generally speaking, the only thing that effects the set-up of the line and the reserves is whether you're on offense or defense. If you're on offense, give both the line and reserves an equal mix of bucklers and casers. But, if you're looking purely at defense, make your entire line bucklers while your casers are the reserves. But no matter the situation, cowboys are the easy part to figure out. They're the guys who are going to be acting independently anyway, so why don't we use the guys who are on their own, anyway: the daggers.

As for actual numbers, you want one buckler for each caser and enough between the two of them to fill your line and reserves, with any extras as daggers. A good, generic formula is 40% bucklers, 40% casers and 10% daggers. This isn't a hard-and-fast mix, and may need tweaking, depending on the situation, but it makes a good starting point.

The Trinity of Action

With Uprising on the horizon, I thought I'd talk a little bit about melees. Try to get us in the mood, as it were.

In the modern army, there is a standard doctrine for when you are ambushed. When you first come under fire, you should do three things: move shoot and communicate. Once you've done these three things, you can try and figure out tactically what should be done. A while back, I was thinking about that, and how (or if) it applies on the melee field. And you know what, even though ambushes are rare in the SCA, the general principle still works. After all, an enemy trying to roll your flank is does have its similarities to an ambush.

The first part is to move. When that hot-shot team comes barreling in, trying to roll the flank, don't just stand there and let them, move to engage them. Yes, they'll be expecting it, but it still forces them to react, instead of merely acting. And it allows you at least some say on the ground you fight over. Nine times out of ten, flankers will slow down considerably when you move to intercept them.

Since the majority of us don't go onto the field with rifles, we can't literally shoot, but that doesn't mean we can't throw shots. As you rush over to defend that flank they're trying to roll, throw shots at them. Don't go for the kill, just attack. At least for the first thrity seconds of the engagement. The modern equivalent is suppressive fire: throwing bullets at the enemy so they'll duck. When you start throwing shots, those flankers you slowed by merely standing in their way will stop dead in their tracks, buying you (and more importantly, your commander) time. Once you've stopped them in their tracks, then you can start getting fancy and going for the kills.

So far so good. By simply moving to intercept and throwing a few shots, you've stopped the advance of their flankers. Now comes the most important part: communicate. Now, even though it comes last in the trinity of action, you should be doing it all along. When you first spot the flankers, sound off. Yell something like, "Flankers left!" which, of course, you follow up with, "Moving to engage left!" and "Engaging left!" and the oh-so-important "Dead!" if the unfortunate happens. And don't be afraid to use your outside voice. If your commanders can't hear you, they can't send reinforcements.

Like any set of rules, the Trinity of Action has its exceptions. If you're not on the flank being rolled, don't pull out of the line to intercept them without orders, just sound off and know someone will deal with them. Likewise, if your orders include the phrase, "at any cost" but aren't to "defend the flank" or "keep them from getting through" then sound off and drive on. You'll notice that, even if you can't move or shoot, you should still communicate. I can think of only one time when you shouldn't communicate, and that's when you're trying to sneak up on the enemy. Other than that sound off.

I know it's all pretty basic stuff, but it is the heart of melee: Move, Shoot, and Communicate.

Masks

Well, I finally did it. I broke down and ordered myself a new fencing mask yesterday. I didn't really need to - my old mask doesn't have any dents in it yet, and it'll still pass a punch-test, no problem - but I managed some extra money and it's a toss-up as to which is older, my mask or my first-born, so I figured now was as good of a time as any.

The hard part was finding one I liked. You see, my old mask (and every mask I've ever owned, except my very first) is a Santelli. You know, raw metal screen with what was once tan leather wrapped around the edges, ugly as sin, and built like a tank. I know of two other fencers off the top of my head with Santellis and mine's the youngest at about eight years old and the oldest is 15 years old and still going strong. Like I said, they last.

Maybe a little too well. You see, while what I want is another Santelli like the one I have, I can't get one, at least not new. Santelli went out of business several years ago (my guess is their profit margin was way too low for the quality they were putting out). And I will not buy a used mask, I went that route with my very first mask, and it's a miracle I never got a blade through the mesh.

Which, like I said, has left me looking for a new mask. The Triplettes aren't too bad, but they just don't call out to me, especially not for $75, same with Blue Gauntlet's stuff. I even checked out the masks for sale at Estrella this year, and they were all meh. The problem is that the majority of fencing masks are designed to take thrusts from epees and whacks from sabers, neither of which come close to the forces we see in the SCA, especially if you do any teaching. That's what I liked about the Santelli: it wasn't designed for tournament use, instead it was designed for club fencing where the odds were good that your opponent wasn't.

It was, basically, a coach's mask.

When I realized that, I changed my search from trying to find a fencing mask to trying to find a coach's mask. That made things a lot easier. After a quick google, I came across Absolute Fencing and their Absolute 3-W Coach Mask w/: Extra Padding, for a whopping seven bucks more than a basic Triplette. I know, it's a bit overkill, but I've seen a catastrophic mask failure (a second-hand mask, as a matter of fact), and it isn't pretty (If the guy'd been hit an inch lower, he would have lost an eye). Besides, I like overkill. I mean, you're talking to a guy with a bulletproof codpiece.

Like I said, I ordered it yesterday, so I won't get it until next Wednesday, but I'm already impressed with Absolute Fencing. My order was processed within an hour of my placing it, and shipped that afternoon. As for the mask, itself, we'll see next week.

I guess that means it's time to look for replacements for my 12-year-old gloves next.

Omens, portents and augurs, oh my!

Walking into work this morning, I noticed the mirror that usually hangs by the door was on the ground, shattered. Needless to say, I wasn't overly surprised to discover that five of our six servers were down. Five hours later, and we were back up, but it got me thinking about how superstition plays a role in what we do.

Now I like to think that I'm a relatively realistic, fairly well-grounded type of guy, so of course superstition doesn't play a part in my fencing, does it? Of course not! Sure I've got some things I do every time I fence, but it has nothing to do with superstition. It's all about consistency.

Yeah, that's it! Consistency.

And actually, it is about consistency, at least for me. By doing the same steps in the same order before each bout, I'm attempting to force myself into a consistent state of mind for each fight. Does it work? Maybe a little too well. I am, at best, a mediocre tournament fencer. While I generally give my opponents a good run for their money, the last tournament I actually won was... eight? nine? years ago. Whereas on the melee field (a field barren of ritual, by just about anyone's standard), I am usually heralded by cries of, "Kill that guy!"

It might be that in my trying for consistency, I'm actually putting on my blinders and closing myself from options that I allow myself to see on the melee field. Maybe if I tried taking out some of the ritual from my tournament fighting (do I really need to spin around three times and spit into the wind before each bout?), I might find it is replaced by better flow and better fencing.

What about you? What are your rituals? And what purpose do they serve?

Did I get anything?

At a tournament recently, there was one fighter who caught my attention. Unfortunately, they didn't catch it for the skill of their fighting, or the quality of their finery, instead it was for their ability and propensity to talk. In their first bout, they were struck with a questionable blow, and when their opponent asked about it, the two fighters discussed the hit for a few minutes before deciding to throw it out. Unfortunately, the next pass lead to another questionable shot and another discussion. Again, it was thrown out and again they ended in a questionable shot. After I think five of these passes, the fighter in question finally decided they'd been killed and relinquished the field. Sadly this was not the last bout the fighter had that day that resulted in multiple questionable hits and multiple discussions. This scenario begs the question: what should a fighter do when throwing or being thrown a questionable blow?

So, what is a questionable blow? A questionable blow is any hit that the fighter receiving the blow is unsure about the validity or location of the hit. Some examples are draw cuts where you are unsure whether they were drawn with the edge or flat, light touches, hits to the edge of a target area, or thrusts that get stuck in clothing. While each of these types of questionable hits have their own quirks, they can all be handled in a similar fashion.

The question is: what does it matter? Well, if you're always on the receiving end and either ignore them or argue about whether they're good or not, the problem is one of reputation. There's a good chance if you're the one who's constantly going up against Joe Newby who can't tell the flat from the edge, that you will wind up with a reputation as a rhino-hider. And while it's possible to overcome such a reputation, it is far easier to avoid in the first place. And if you're the one who always seems to come up against Lord Stone the Unfeeling, the danger is one of disillusionment. Your opinion of those you face will begin to change from that of worthy opponents to a bunch of rhino-hiders who should go play heavy. It may even lead to the point where fencing - or even the SCA itself - loses its appeal, which is something none of us want.

Okay, so now that you know what a questionable blow is and how it can affect you, what do you do about it? Well, that depends on where it happens. If you're at a fighter's practice, you handle it differently than you would in a tournament or in melee. Likewise, the person throwing the blow in question will handle it differently than the fighter on the receiving end.

The simplest situation for dealing with questionable blows is at fighter's practice. Since fighter's practices are for training, it isn't unusual for a fight to be interrupted by discussion. So, if you're fighting and either throw or receive a questionable blow, stop and ask your opponent if it was good or not and discuss the issue. If you're both undecided, you can even ask any onlookers for their opinion. Then, when a consensus is reached, keep fighting, but try for cleaner hits.

When you enter melees, things become more complicated because of the increased pace and adrenaline levels. If you throw a questionable blow in a melee, and your opponent doesn't take it, it's best to assume the hit wasn't good, and just try for cleaner hits. If they ask about it, tell them what you think it was, but let them decide if it was good or not. If someone throws a questionable shot at you, don't take it if you think it probably wasn't good, but if you just have no idea, or if your opponent asks about it and you can't say for sure that it wasn't good, take it. This keeps the pace of the battle going and helps alleviate the occasional adrenaline-driven missed shot.

And then there are tournaments. These are usually one-on-one fights like fighter's practices, but they add in adrenaline levels almost as high as a melee and do it all in front of a crowd. And if that wasn't bad enough, tournaments are supposed to showcase the fighter's honor as well as their skill. What's that mean? It means that, whether you like it or not, at least 75% of your reputation as a fighter will come from tournaments. It is also right up there with fighter's practices for the likelihood of questionable hits.

So, what do you do about it? You use something called a graduated response. By this I mean that each time it happens in a bout, you react a little stronger than the previous time. The first time you throw a questionable blow, you throw that shot away: if your opponent asks, you take the shot back, and if they don't, you just assume the shot wasn't good and try for a clean hit. The second time, if they ask, tell them what you think, but let them decide for themselves, and if they don't ask, ask them ("Did I get anything there?"), but take their decision and, again, clean up your fighting. After that, if you think you them you hit them, ask them if the shot was good, and if they don't think so (especially if they say it was too light, or didn't feel right), stop the fight and recalibrate with your opponent. It could very well be that they didn't feel your shot through their fencing jacket and mail shirt. And if the problem continues, yield. By this time, you'll be frustrated - either with yourself or your opponent - and beginning to get tired. It's far better to lose a tournament honorably than to "resort to their level" or crank up the power to deal with a rhino-hider, either of which can get you thrown off the field.

Now I know some of you are saying, "But I wasn't rhino-hiding, he's sloppy as all get-out! All he got me with were slaps, pops and flats." You and I might know that, but the people watching the tournament might not, especially those two in the shiny brass hats, sitting in the fancy chairs and rubbing their chins thoughtfully. Believe me, you do not want them to decide who the winner is. So, if you're fighting someone and they hit you with a shot that's sort of eh, ask them if it was good. Or, if they ask you, go ahead and take it. If they throw another questionable shot that might have been good, but you're not sure, go ahead and take it. But if you're pretty sure it wasn't good, ask them about it, but feel free to argue the point ("It felt flat to me"). The exception is if they keep throwing really light shots. If they do, stop the bout and recalibrate. Maybe that extra layer of fur you added to your tunic is making it harder for you to feel the shots. And if that doesn't do it, go ahead and take the shots, sloppy or not. After the tournament's over, you can go ahead and discuss things with them and, hopefully work things out for the future.

I've talked about what to do about questionable hits, but not how to avoid them in the first place. While it is impossible to truly do away with questionable hits, the best way to avoid them is to fight clean. I know, I know, I said that already. But what is clean fighting? Clean fighting is hitting your opponent where you want with absolutely no question about whether it was good or not. This means drills and practice. I'm sorry, but there just isn't any other way. And if you're already a clean fighter and an opponent still calls your stuff iffy (when they call it at all), just remember: mask or cup. I don't care who they are, if they get hit in either the mask or the cup, they will call it. One last note: With both melee and tournament fighting, I've talked about calling shots light. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a light hit in rapier! Rapier is a touch weapon, so if you felt it, it was good.

So, as you stand there, facing Lord Stone the Unfeeling, just remember that a shot between the eyes works every time, and if it's Joe Newby you face, you were a beginner once, so give him credit for what he's trying to do.