Showing posts with label Fencing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fencing. Show all posts
Monday, 7 July 2014
On Unusual Fencing Forms
At this weekend's Midwinter Coronation event in Politarchopolis, there were several rapier tourneys held, which, given the fact that the participants were out there for fun for the most part, and a requirement that weapons forms not be repeated, ended up with several unusual weapons forms used. I thought I might give a brief exploration of some of those I've seen, both this weekend and at other events, along with some of my schemes.
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
On My Fencing Training Plans
I have decided to use the new year as a trigger for improving my training at the noble art of defence, and I thought I would outline the things I plan to work on and hope to achieve.
Is that just because we have no real need for "armour fitness" as they do, because what we wear is so much lighter?
I don't think so...
My main fitness focus this year will be leg fitness, to improve the speed of my footwork, and the range of techniques available (there are just too many positions I can't use for the simple reason that there's no way I'm getting my 115 kg out of that position once I get there). I'll also be aiming for some arm muscle improvements, but also a great deal of stamina training (as best as I can).
There is a definite trend in my training group, especially among those who teach and train us, to focus on developing a broad understanding of advanced and fancy techniques. This is all well and good, in its place, but as the main area of instruction? I feel that it's coming at the expense of gaining a better grip on the fundamentals of technique.
There is a push in the local heavy fighting community at the moment to bring a greater focus on the fundamentals, as the core and basis of any fighting technique, and I believe that it would be of great value to import this focus to the fencing world.
I have several well-identified weaknesses in my technique, and I must say, none of them are "not enough advanced techniques". My weaknesses are all critical areas of the fundamentals. Attacking straight down the line. Not using footwork to position myself for advantage. Poor point control. Poor parries. Not covering the line. Moving straight backwards. Not being assertive in the fight. There's no amount of complicated advanced technique that will cover those gaps, no matter how much Italian you use to describe it.
Fitness
This is one of the biggest areas which tends to get ignored in most rapier training I've experienced. Most of my discussions with people have tended to work on the assumption that, so long as you can hold your sword up and keep your feet moving through the bout, your fitness is fine for fencing. This is a stark contrast to the heavy fighting community, where fitness is required and encouraged.Is that just because we have no real need for "armour fitness" as they do, because what we wear is so much lighter?
I don't think so...
My main fitness focus this year will be leg fitness, to improve the speed of my footwork, and the range of techniques available (there are just too many positions I can't use for the simple reason that there's no way I'm getting my 115 kg out of that position once I get there). I'll also be aiming for some arm muscle improvements, but also a great deal of stamina training (as best as I can).
Technique
There is a reasonably heavy focus on technique over fitness in the parts of the fencing community I've been exposed to, and that's all well and good, but I've decided I would like to take it in a different direction for my own development.There is a definite trend in my training group, especially among those who teach and train us, to focus on developing a broad understanding of advanced and fancy techniques. This is all well and good, in its place, but as the main area of instruction? I feel that it's coming at the expense of gaining a better grip on the fundamentals of technique.
There is a push in the local heavy fighting community at the moment to bring a greater focus on the fundamentals, as the core and basis of any fighting technique, and I believe that it would be of great value to import this focus to the fencing world.
I have several well-identified weaknesses in my technique, and I must say, none of them are "not enough advanced techniques". My weaknesses are all critical areas of the fundamentals. Attacking straight down the line. Not using footwork to position myself for advantage. Poor point control. Poor parries. Not covering the line. Moving straight backwards. Not being assertive in the fight. There's no amount of complicated advanced technique that will cover those gaps, no matter how much Italian you use to describe it.
Thursday, 16 January 2014
On Tourney Formats
There are a great many formats which tourneys, either of rapier or heavy combat, may take, each with their own intricacies, advantages, and disadvantages. This won't be a comprehensive list, since you can make up a tourney format on the spot if the mood strikes, but it will cover the more common ones (or, the ones I have experience with).
The advantages/disadvantages listed are somewhat biased to my experience as a herald and a fencer, but I've tried to consider all the effects they may have.
Each round, fighters are paired up with someone they haven't fought yet (if possible), and if there's an odd number, one fighter is given the bye (which may be fought against a designated person not otherwise participating, but need not be). Each bout goes to a single kill. If a fighter is defeated twice, they're eliminated from the tourney, so the field starts to narrow sharply after the second round.
A common variation on this is to alter the number of losses required for elimination, or to fight the final pairing as a Best-of-Three (or five, &c.). Double kills can either be taken as a loss for both, or refought.
This format requires a lists officer to be in attendance and monitoring the progress, recording losses and determining the next pairings. Often, the herald will assist by recording each bout's results.
A double elim tourney has the drawbacks of requiring an attentive lists officer (who needs to be both recording results and working out the next round at once), one per field if multiple fields are running, and can rather limit the amount of fights that the participants get each. Advantages can be the speed of the tourney, as rounds get successively shorter, and the definitive result at the end (thus its use for many Crown Tourneys).
The single kill, double elim tourney tends to have the highest formality, with every bout announced and salutes made. This doesn't mean that others can't have this level of formality also, but they tend not to as often.
The fighters line up, then the line splits in half and the fighters pair up with someone from the other side of the line. The fights are done with multiple going at a time, if space allows (so, it requires a larger field than a plain single kill, double elim tourney). If the first bout is won, that fighter goes to the winner's circle, and if lost, to the loser's circle. The second round is fought in among each of these circles. The winner of a fight in the winner's circle stays in that circle, while the loser moves to the loser's circle. The winner of a fight in the loser's circle stays in that circle, while the loser is eliminated from the tourney.
In terms of a double elim tourney, the winner's circle can be seen as "two lives remaining", and the loser's circle as "one life remaining".
The speed tourney requires almost no lists or herald intervention, other than to start it, though the multiple fights mean that more marshals are required, and there can be some confusion among the fighters if they're unfamiliar with the format. It's also very quick, as the name implies, and has almost constant action, so is better for spectators, though can be somewhat unsatisfying to those who want to fight more, as with a double elim.
A round robin has the drawbacks of the amount of time required, as each round stays full, but is easier on the lists officer, as they can prepare the full list of rounds in advance, and then just need to record scores. It also allows more bouts for each fighter, as they face every other fighter once.
Essentially, the fighters form a queue, and then fight the rest of the queue in order, then join the back of the queue (which gives them a break between their round on the field, and their next fight).
Meatgrinders are long, but take almost no lists intervention past counting victories (a common variation is whether to count only victories during that fighter's round holding the field, or all victories). The herald's interaction is also greatly reduced, just making sure the fighters know who's up next.
Every fighter will face each other fighter twice, once each as the attacker and defender. My first tourney took this format, and with 10 fencers, that made for 90 bouts (10 rounds, each of 9 bouts). About three hours long. While it's hard to go unsatisfied after a meatgrinder, be careful about setting them during summer, when fighters may overheat.
All fighters take to the field, and fight a series of individual bouts among themselves as they choose (or it may be treated as a full melee, depending on the preferences of the participants). If defeated, the fighter leaves the field. However, when a fighter is defeated, all those that they had sent off the field themselves are brought back to life. The winner is the last fighter standing - and thus, the person who necessarily defeated all of the others themselves, without dying in the interim.
Because of this, the winner of a Valhalla tourney is undoubtedly the true victor, even if by endurance rather than sheer prowess. However, because of the constant resurrections, the Valhalla tourney can take several hours (or ten minutes, it all depends), and grows with numbers much more fiercely than other formats. It's possible to get only a single fight in a Valhalla tourney, if you're the first victim of the victor, and they're on particularly fine form, but it's unlikely.
I'm aware there are a great many other formats, but as I've not participated in them (or perhaps they were unmemorable to me), I shan't list them at this point.
The advantages/disadvantages listed are somewhat biased to my experience as a herald and a fencer, but I've tried to consider all the effects they may have.
Single Kill, Double Elimination
This one can be considered the baseline tourney format, and is certainly the most common in Lochac.Each round, fighters are paired up with someone they haven't fought yet (if possible), and if there's an odd number, one fighter is given the bye (which may be fought against a designated person not otherwise participating, but need not be). Each bout goes to a single kill. If a fighter is defeated twice, they're eliminated from the tourney, so the field starts to narrow sharply after the second round.
A common variation on this is to alter the number of losses required for elimination, or to fight the final pairing as a Best-of-Three (or five, &c.). Double kills can either be taken as a loss for both, or refought.
This format requires a lists officer to be in attendance and monitoring the progress, recording losses and determining the next pairings. Often, the herald will assist by recording each bout's results.
A double elim tourney has the drawbacks of requiring an attentive lists officer (who needs to be both recording results and working out the next round at once), one per field if multiple fields are running, and can rather limit the amount of fights that the participants get each. Advantages can be the speed of the tourney, as rounds get successively shorter, and the definitive result at the end (thus its use for many Crown Tourneys).
The single kill, double elim tourney tends to have the highest formality, with every bout announced and salutes made. This doesn't mean that others can't have this level of formality also, but they tend not to as often.
Atlantian Speed Tourney
The speed tourney, which apparently came out of the Kingdom of Atlantia, can be seen as a variation of the single kill, double elim tourney, designed to increase the speed and decrease the lists work.The fighters line up, then the line splits in half and the fighters pair up with someone from the other side of the line. The fights are done with multiple going at a time, if space allows (so, it requires a larger field than a plain single kill, double elim tourney). If the first bout is won, that fighter goes to the winner's circle, and if lost, to the loser's circle. The second round is fought in among each of these circles. The winner of a fight in the winner's circle stays in that circle, while the loser moves to the loser's circle. The winner of a fight in the loser's circle stays in that circle, while the loser is eliminated from the tourney.
In terms of a double elim tourney, the winner's circle can be seen as "two lives remaining", and the loser's circle as "one life remaining".
The speed tourney requires almost no lists or herald intervention, other than to start it, though the multiple fights mean that more marshals are required, and there can be some confusion among the fighters if they're unfamiliar with the format. It's also very quick, as the name implies, and has almost constant action, so is better for spectators, though can be somewhat unsatisfying to those who want to fight more, as with a double elim.
Round Robin
In a round robin tourney, each round the fighters are paired up with someone they haven't fought yet. There are no eliminations, and a round robin of N fighters will have N-1 rounds, as each fighter faces each other fighter once. The winner is the one with the highest number of victories, or may be decided in a final bout after the main rounds.A round robin has the drawbacks of the amount of time required, as each round stays full, but is easier on the lists officer, as they can prepare the full list of rounds in advance, and then just need to record scores. It also allows more bouts for each fighter, as they face every other fighter once.
Meatgrinder
The meatgrinder format has been gaining possibilities, and is a sure way to make sure fighters get plenty of action. An example of a meatgrinder for five is thus: The fighters are numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. In round 1, fighter 1 takes the field, and faces fighters 2, 3, 4, and 5. In round 2, fighter 2 takes the field, and faces fighters 3, 4, 5, and 1. And so on for rounds 3, 4, and 5.Essentially, the fighters form a queue, and then fight the rest of the queue in order, then join the back of the queue (which gives them a break between their round on the field, and their next fight).
Meatgrinders are long, but take almost no lists intervention past counting victories (a common variation is whether to count only victories during that fighter's round holding the field, or all victories). The herald's interaction is also greatly reduced, just making sure the fighters know who's up next.
Every fighter will face each other fighter twice, once each as the attacker and defender. My first tourney took this format, and with 10 fencers, that made for 90 bouts (10 rounds, each of 9 bouts). About three hours long. While it's hard to go unsatisfied after a meatgrinder, be careful about setting them during summer, when fighters may overheat.
Valhalla
The Valhalla tourney format is a semi-melee, even more so than the Atlantian speed tourney. It requires no lists officer, and likely no herald.All fighters take to the field, and fight a series of individual bouts among themselves as they choose (or it may be treated as a full melee, depending on the preferences of the participants). If defeated, the fighter leaves the field. However, when a fighter is defeated, all those that they had sent off the field themselves are brought back to life. The winner is the last fighter standing - and thus, the person who necessarily defeated all of the others themselves, without dying in the interim.
Because of this, the winner of a Valhalla tourney is undoubtedly the true victor, even if by endurance rather than sheer prowess. However, because of the constant resurrections, the Valhalla tourney can take several hours (or ten minutes, it all depends), and grows with numbers much more fiercely than other formats. It's possible to get only a single fight in a Valhalla tourney, if you're the first victim of the victor, and they're on particularly fine form, but it's unlikely.
I'm aware there are a great many other formats, but as I've not participated in them (or perhaps they were unmemorable to me), I shan't list them at this point.
Wednesday, 31 July 2013
On Whether Martial Arts Are Sports
A question that's come up a few times, both in my SCA experience and my previous martial arts training, is whether martial arts can be considered as sports.
The debate is often phrased disparagingly and aimed at other martial arts, to differentiate your own, clearly superior form from theirs. In the Taekwon-Do school of which I was a member, it was used to differentiate their own, "pure" form of the art from the other, clearly lesser, sporting forms. In the SCA, there are occasional flare-ups on both sides of the debate, between those who see tournaments as competetive sporting activities and those who see tournaments as almost moving meditation.
The first matter in establishing a position on this is defining what we mean by sport. The OED defines sport thusly: "4. a. An activity involving physical exertion and skill, esp. (particularly in modern use) one regulated by set rules or customs in which an individual or team competes against another or others." Given this definition, competition is implied, but not strictly required.
So, for the Taekwon-Do school mentioned, its activities do involve physical exertion and skill, but given the near-fanatical objection to any entry into tournaments (sometimes even phrased as entering tournaments being a road to expulsion from the school), it is the competition implied that's objected to. However, I'd argue that there is great competition within the school, as reaching a belt sooner gives seniority, which in the hierarchical ranking present in the school, can be quite important to those of a competetive bent.
Within the SCA's martial activities, the matter is somewhat more clear. There is physical exertion to a great degree, skill beyond what I can even comprehend some days, and open and exciting competition. For the most part of the participants, it's therefore a sport under this definition.
There will always be exceptions to the competetive side, such as those who choose not to enter tournaments, and focus instead on bettering themselves and others. However, even in their case, the exertion and skill is clearly present.
Despite what your own focus within the martial art of your choice may be, whether it is tournament play, melees and war fighting, or just improving your own coordination and skill, I believe that it is a sport.
Please note, I do not include any of the denigrating meanings of sport. I use my fencing as moving meditation, and sometimes to my cost. When I fight, my mind clears completely, reactions and training take over and I find myself filling a gap in my opponent's defence before I've consciously seen it.
The debate is often phrased disparagingly and aimed at other martial arts, to differentiate your own, clearly superior form from theirs. In the Taekwon-Do school of which I was a member, it was used to differentiate their own, "pure" form of the art from the other, clearly lesser, sporting forms. In the SCA, there are occasional flare-ups on both sides of the debate, between those who see tournaments as competetive sporting activities and those who see tournaments as almost moving meditation.
The first matter in establishing a position on this is defining what we mean by sport. The OED defines sport thusly: "4. a. An activity involving physical exertion and skill, esp. (particularly in modern use) one regulated by set rules or customs in which an individual or team competes against another or others." Given this definition, competition is implied, but not strictly required.
So, for the Taekwon-Do school mentioned, its activities do involve physical exertion and skill, but given the near-fanatical objection to any entry into tournaments (sometimes even phrased as entering tournaments being a road to expulsion from the school), it is the competition implied that's objected to. However, I'd argue that there is great competition within the school, as reaching a belt sooner gives seniority, which in the hierarchical ranking present in the school, can be quite important to those of a competetive bent.
Within the SCA's martial activities, the matter is somewhat more clear. There is physical exertion to a great degree, skill beyond what I can even comprehend some days, and open and exciting competition. For the most part of the participants, it's therefore a sport under this definition.
There will always be exceptions to the competetive side, such as those who choose not to enter tournaments, and focus instead on bettering themselves and others. However, even in their case, the exertion and skill is clearly present.
Despite what your own focus within the martial art of your choice may be, whether it is tournament play, melees and war fighting, or just improving your own coordination and skill, I believe that it is a sport.
Please note, I do not include any of the denigrating meanings of sport. I use my fencing as moving meditation, and sometimes to my cost. When I fight, my mind clears completely, reactions and training take over and I find myself filling a gap in my opponent's defence before I've consciously seen it.
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
On Why I Fence
The subject of why people do the various things in the SCA that they do comes up now and then, and the particular one lately that I have seen is "why do we fence?" It's an interesting question, and I've been thinking about it, and as best as I can tell, here are my reasons.
The only sports I've ever enjoyed participating in have been martial arts (the question of whether martial arts are sports or not is a complicated one which I won't answer right now). I started in Taekwon-Do, where I spent five years in a non-tourney based school. I was feeling rather dissatisfied with the school's politics when I joined the SCA, and after one fencing lesson, I found myself not bothering to go back to Taekwon-Do training, and haven't since.
I enjoy the confidence building and sense of individual achievement that comes with participating in some form of martial arts. As a physical activity in general, my personal fitness has also improved, along with co-ordination and concentration.
There is some attraction in the grading system present in many martial arts, including the belt ranking hierarchy of Taekwon-Do or the Guild of Defence ranks of fencing, though it wasn't a conscious part of my decision to participate in either activity.
Why fencing, instead of heavy combat? Partially, it's based on my period of interest, which is mainly the 16th century, when the combat of war was becoming pike and musket, and gentlemen with rapiers roamed the taverns and alleys. Partially, it's the lack of armour and increased mobility. After five years bouncing around a Taekwon-Do hall in pyjamas, clanking about in plate wasn't as appealing. Partially, I must admit some influence from swashbuckling movies and the like. I had also previously planned to take up modern fencing (before joining the SCA), but never got around to it.
Initially, I had planned to do both heavy combat and rapier equally. But, when the expense of starting two different combat forms at once loomed over me, and I had to pick between them for which to start first, the deicision basically boiled down to which one I had more fun doing. In the days before the formal beginner's course for heavy combat, I was already approaching full speed fencing combat, and there was... some basic pell work in heavy combat. I chose the one that let me fight sooner.
Eventually, I plan to take up heavy fighting, but gear is expensive, and it's a big time commitment, so energy has been hard to come by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)