Food for Thought

[Mike Cartier]

I think Jake is right that we may not be seeing the full art in the videos and only getting snapshots at best. I would know more if i was watching the tournaments in their entirety.I beleive Jake if he says he is seeing more of the art in the tournaments, thats a very hopeful sign.

Great points there too Andy

[Mike Cartier]

So thats it? Jake says there is more art in the tournaments these days, and thats that. You are satisfied then?
alrighty then, way to maintain the status quo, there anarchy man. WTF

Well no I wasn't saying that actually but thanks peeing in my corn flakes there Capt Jackass , was just saying that its a good sign that tournaments can be working for the art and that there is more happening than what we are seeing. I think it goes in with what Jake has been saying all along about lots of people doing lots of tournaments all with different rules to keep it real. We will try to inject some of this KDF art sensibility to our Dixie Krieg event when we plan it with an eye to all this we are discussing here.

That is if I don't stab you with a pen first

We will have to brainstorm and see what we can come up with. I would wager listening closely to Matta Galas' research on the Belgian school should help us alot too, your research too for that matter.

[Jake Norwood]

In my opinion what Mike is saying is something that I agree with whole heartedly, that the tournaments should always be a tool to train with and not the end goal of our training.

I think that tournaments have the potential to teach all of us quite a bit about the art that we practice. They are great for showing our strong points, and for setting a high bar in athleticism, speed and competition. However, at the same time if we look critically at the fights they will also so us our weak points as well. Which as Mike pointed out might be a narrowing of techniques and a lack of control. This is not a bad thing, but instead an opportunity to train harder to improve the art overall. Winning a tournament is great, but showing one’s art and winning a tournament is fantastic.

Tournaments can be not only exciting and fun, but if used properly will be a key tool in propelling HEMA forward. The thing we must not forget is that they are a tool to help us perfect our art, just like cutting practice, drilling, research, ect. It will be a sad day for HEMA if the tourney becomes the goal, instead of a path and we devolve into stick whacking instead of displaying the true noble and knightly art that the masters have handed down to us.

Yes.

Both issues are valid, and I think represent the earliest years of modern HEMA tournament fighting pretty accurately, as well as quite a bit of fighting I saw at WWOC last year. A lot of that has to do with ruleset, which is something I think continues to improve. Even more has to do with the skill of the fighters. I’ve addressed the latter already, so I’ll hit the former, briefly.

Tournaments are games. Like all sparring they have rules, but in a tournament you’re trying to win, where as in free sparring you may be experimenting. Both serve important functions, as I think Jayson points out.

The “trying to win” thing is a blessing and a curse, right? So if competition is a training tool and a “pressure test” for certain (not all) techniques, then the rules should reward good stuff and punish (or at least not reward) bad stuff.

For example, in FechtAm this year, we saw the following changes to the rules:

• No more “lightsaber rule;” judges could discard a hit they felt was insufficient
• Afterblows counted differently from double-hits. An afterblow negated the other fighter’s point, meaning that while you couldn’t win using this as a strategy, you also couldn’t win by using reckless attacks and not defending yourself in the abzug. This is based on historical models, too.
• 5 double hits (in the longsword) meant an automatic loss for both parties. This is like Kron’s “ghost” rule (it’s identical, in fact). It worked extremely well, even though I really hated being one of the guys knocked out of the tournament in the final stages on account of this rule. I could talk about this at length, but ultimately, it’s a good thing.
• Do to a fluke in the way the rules were written, Talhoffer-style kicks to the torso scored a point

The result? Buffalos were doubly punished (double hits were very bad, and a sloppy blow that could be after-blowed counted for nothing), and so we saw much, much less of that than ever before. Thanks to the afterblow rule, fights continued until the ref stopped them, instead of the horribly un-martial practice of stopping either as soon as you’ve been hit once or as soon as you’ve hit another guy once. The result was cleaner, more technical fights, even at the lower levels.

The kick-rule was, I think, a mistake that the organizers chose to just “go with” since it had been announced as such. The result, though, was we saw more kicking to the midsection a la Talhoffer. One guy, Eric Wiggins, must have done it 6 or 7 times, including once to Axel (even Axel was impressed). Thus the desire to win, combined with good rules, resulted in positive results. Likewise, the reduction in ankle-shots and other reckless attacks and buffalo behavior comes from the same combination of desire to win + good rules.

However, it’s still really, really difficult to differentiate a “good hit” from one that isn’t, so some folks are “winning” using less effective strategies (or what we think of as less effective). I will note that those folks aren’t the ones that make it to the end, but they tend to do pretty well in the early stages, which means they’re something that most fighters have to deal with.

I think the best route for most tournaments is to ask, “what are we focusing on here?” The more focused the rules are, the more game-like it becomes…but also the more useful (potentially) for training. It’s a balance, and I’m certain there’s no “true” path (but there are plenty of false ones…).

Jake

[ashultz]

No lightsaber rule saved me from at least one point that I know of. I was fighting one of the locals, I can't remember his name now, and had managed to crowd him to the edge of the ring so I decided to try to push him out. Instead he turned with me and we ended up wrestling, which neither of us was that great at. I ended up in a crappy position behind him which a better wrestler might have been able to work but I had nothing... so I stuck to him like a limpet, knowing that the wrestle was only slated for a few seconds. He attempted over the shoulder flailing which technically touched me but the judges were having none of it, so we ended up separated, no point.

The next time we ended up close I had a good position to throw him, but ran out of time as he evaded it. We ended up 4-4 going to sudden death and then having to do about six more exchanges as each time we had nothing conclusive or an afterblow or timed out wrestling. Finally I realized I was completely out of steam and tried a left handed trick shot to the arm to get it over with he was having none of that, avoided it and returned before I could recover.

I still think most fights even by our bests don't show that much of the art. In some ways they never will - there is stuff you can do when you will not die or be maimed if it fails that you would never do if your life was on the line. There are also moves which are great art which are not good tournament choices. For example when we were testing before the tournament I learned that most halfsword thrusts are basically invisible to judges - you can plant your point in their eye (well, their mask), but the judges cannot see it well in the mass of arms, there's no big movement to cue off, and it's unlikely to rock them back. Depending on angle, one judge might be able to see that they happened. Conversely, if you really sell a parry - make it look good - the judge will see that rather than the fact that the blade actually reached your head.

[Jake Norwood]

Hi Kevin.

Please excuse me responding in-line. Keeps it easier to not miss stuff.

I think I understand Mike well, actually. Mike definitely knows fighting, kaos, and the lot of it. My comment was more directed to his observations regarding tournaments, not observations regarding the hau, buffaloes, and improving training, etc. (with which I generally agree).
Jake

But this is the crux of the matter, someone's ability to observe the Art or lack thereof, and is precisely what I am referring to. What we are seeeing from the videos is not to be belittled in any way, but rather, it highlights a cross section of the Spectrum of HEMA today, and the more artful strikes are missing for the most part. And to name names, and show examples would only serve to injure already delicate egos. So I think this discussion can't go the full measure. Why is the Leger Zufechten missing, where are the high strikes. Where is the Zucken? Do you see what I mean? There is so much to the art, we know this from reading and practicing, So why then do we not see this in the tournaments? Especially if they are being used to measure someone's level of understanding. I could go on and on.

First, regarding Mike’s ability (or anyone’s) to view the art and judge the artfulness he’s seeing I’m not questioning. However, when you’ve only attended one tournament it’s hard to say “tournaments.” There are some sweeping generalities that, while largely accurate, are based on a limited cross-section and minimal personal experience.

To be frank, I think the problems that Mike is addressing in tournaments have very little to do with tournaments at all, and everything to do with the low quality of fighter that fights in most tournaments…to which I add my name, Axel, Anders, Jay, etc. In other words, the best ‘tournament fighters’ are also some of the best ‘fighters’…and the best have a long way to go before they’re good at performing “the art” under pressure as such.

To address your specifics, I see the leger in zufechten, I see the high strikes, I see the zucken. I see them all in the higher echelons of competition, though still not yet in the number and quality I hope to see next year, or the year after, etc.

Your desire not to call out specific names to protect egos is generous and respectful. I volunteer any and every of my tournament videos (I’d prefer you use the most recent ones, frankly) for dissection. Better yet, I hope we can do a comparative analysis of my fighting in Houston last year to this year. Likewise, tourney videos are public fights. There’s no hiding or protecting folks that fight on film! Bring it on, Hammer!

I also believe that You, are defining the Art by the Tournaments. Because Mike has only attended one event, he is incapable of commenting about the level of intent that is used in the Tournaments? Is that what you are implying?

Well…yeah. Not really. Sort of. I have never, ever been in sparring matches that equal tournament matches in “level of intent.” Now, to be fair, I’ve been in tournament matches that didn’t match a great deal of sparring in intensity. In the end, it’s all about what the fighter brings. “the tournament” isn’t a living thing. It’s a collection of fighters, currently one of fighters of two dozen different skill levels.

My reading of Mikes original post, actually, was that tournaments were forcing too much intent. I think that is absolutely true of junior fighters. And most competitors in most tournaments are junior fighters. That’s worth remembering.

This is the greatest fear that we have about the tournaments. That they will serve as a Bar or standard by which others can measure the physical level of their understanding. Attempting to define the Art by competition in a Tournament? are we doing that now?

This is a super-valid question! Clearly, it’s no secret that I’ve had a good experience in the tournament “scene” and that I think well of it. I’m biased, and it’s obvious. My personal experience is that tournaments improve fighting by motivating training and putting fighters into a no-shit, no-compromise environment. So I will be honest in that my appraisal of a fighter includes how they perform in competition, public, judged sparring. But its not the only thing. I think Mike Edelson, who didn’t perform as well as he would have liked in Longpoint’s tourney, is a good swordsman. He has a solid understanding of technique (and how to teach it). He cuts well (not an easy skill). He spars well, too.

However, I expect that as Mike competes again, he’ll do better. And he’ll be motivated to do better. For me—personally—HEMA is first and foremost about learning to fight. I want to fight the way “they” did, and I want to do it well. I want to do it well against people who don’t want me to, who aren’t trying to help me, and who want to hit me (but not kill me…I’m not that hard core). I want to fight people that I wouldn’t have chosen to fight. And I want to not spend my mental RAM counting my own hits or deciding if a blow was good or not. Tournaments are good for all of that.

**I raise the question: how is a tournament fight different from any other sparring match between the same fighters. If you and I face each other at Dixie Krieg in freeplay, and we face each other in a tournament, how will those matches be different?**

whats happens next? That folks will forego the disciplined training. Being lured by the prospect of only having to defeat someone from Right Vom Tag, throwing Schneller oder Zeckrur snipping strikes. Mostly what I saw in the latest tounament videos was non committal in the attacks. Sniping from out of range, rarely reaching the second intent, and then when it was, the judges halted the mess. We know about that, that's not foreign to us even though we have only participated in One, single, solitary HEMAA Tournament.

How are these matches different from videos of the same people sparring in non-tournaments? Is the problem the tournament, or the fighter?

If I were to go to tournament and whoop up on someone, as you say, what would that prove to me? Do you think that we should care about that ability? We learn more from getting whooped up on.

I think the masters cared. I agree that you learn a lot getting whooped up on. In a tournament, the only guy who doesn’t get whooped up on is the one who wins. The other 36 fighters all got a handy lesson!

I think its fun to compete. But through the use of the Art. The art should be measured and points awarded for demonstrating that usage in a Tournament. That way it is encouraged as opposed to discouraged through competition. It really should be a self decision. WIthin each of us to decide if the Thing is worth winning by hitting and not getting hit, or by demonstrating to ones self, that the Art is more comprehensive than one hit wonders.

I think we agree a lot, here, Kevin. I think we’re on the same page, or within a page of each other, because this whole section is something I agree with completely. The disconnect—or at least where we’re not quite lined up yet—is in how this is best accomplished. You’re absolutely right that competition should prop up the art, not whittle away at it. Games teach things. Good games teach better things.

To interject, though—the art isn’t much good to someone who can’t even avoid getting hit by a “one hit wonder,” though. We all have a long way to go, still, I think. And it’s awesome. How boring would this all be if we’d all already “arrived”?

And there is no way to not sound douchy about this or Supremist. If it comes across that way, then thats a shame. Why should we suddenly decide that the tournament is the only true test of one's physical understanding? Thats Bullshit. Thats only One method. Why should the Art that is used in such a limited and confing way, be the determining factor of someone's understanding of it? That seems like f**** up thinking to me.

You don’t sound douchy to me. You’ve got legit concerns about this whole enterprise. I appreciate you bringing them into the discussion (if three people are in a room and they all agree, then you don’t need two of them…).

Let me be clear about my personal stance on the matter. Tournament fighting is not the only true test of one’s physical understanding. It’s one metric of maybe a dozen total (and about four or five physical ones I can think of).

Ultimately, though, I think that fighting all comers, in public, is a major test of one’s physical understanding, and it’s a pretty damn good BS detection tool. I am highly suspicious of any fighter who claims ability but who won’t fight uncooperative, “unknown” fighters in a public venue. I’m not saying that such folks can’t fight, but you won’t catch me claiming that they can, either. Now this kind of public display doesn’t need to be a tournament (MFFG, for example, has always put their sparring clips online), but tournaments are a convenient place to gather a bunch of folks like that in one place!

Tournaments make events about fighting, and not about posing. I love that.

I understand, that you understand this. I dont think that you dont.. But I think that you inlfuence alot of this today, and hopefully this doesnt alienate people. so Its great to have you sharing your opinions on this, here thank you. Its something i am still trying to understand, where the Tournaments fit into my Art. I dont like using them as the adjudicator of my Art. It is vain. Mike has great plans for encouraging the Art n Tournaments. And I wholeheartedly embrace them. It is after the benefit of being in this Guild.
Kevn Maurer
MFFG

We’ve talked about this before. My influence in the community actually isn’t something that thrills me. It makes it tough to have personal opinions, because people assume they’re the same as the Alliance’s opinions or whatever. And they’re not! I lost more than one vote in GC meetings, I assure you.

This is also why I write this horrid, multipage posts discussing my positions. Because, like it or not, I do have some of this influence (apparently not enough, or we’d all be tournament-heads by now, right? ). Not everybody is going to buy into the tournament scene, in its current form or even as it improves. That’s cool. We’re a martial arts organization. The art is central to all of us, or should be.

What I do know is that Dobringer (or whoever wrote 3227A), Talhoffer, Mair, Thibault, Meyer, and several other masters of both the “Ernst” and “Schul” fechten varieties participated in competitive, rule-bound, sportive fencing for fun, for recruitment, and to hone skills. Which is exactly what I want to use it for!

Best,

Jake

[Jake Norwood]

There are also moves which are great art which are not good tournament choices. For example when we were testing before the tournament I learned that most halfsword thrusts are basically invisible to judges - you can plant your point in their eye (well, their mask), but the judges cannot see it well in the mass of arms, there's no big movement to cue off, and it's unlikely to rock them back. Depending on angle, one judge might be able to see that they happened. Conversely, if you really sell a parry - make it look good - the judge will see that rather than the fact that the blade actually reached your head.

This is a solid, valid example of the “bad” stuff. Thrusts from the winding, or in, low, from the half-sword are really hard to see, and may not get called…making this a place we need to improve badly.

I’m less convinced on the parry thing—that’s a fluke I’ve seen happen, but I never seem to get away with it.

Really, the biggest thing we need to improve is judging. God bless our judges, but judging is incredibly difficult, and there’s a lot of stuff that will get lost for some time, still.

[Jeffrey Hull]

This whole discussion is very informative - and I am not being sarcastic.

Would request one thing : Where may one read the "Anders Linnards Shut the f*** up rant".

[Jeffrey Hull]

Hey - thanks for that URL. I had no idea about AL's "essay" over there at Schola Gluttonis.

Anyway, I would like to point out that this particular point:

5. If you have a lot of opinions on people fighting in tournaments, but never fought in a competition yourself, then shut the f*ck up.

Directly applies to the flawed admonishment by ARMADA director of such tourneys.

[Jake Norwood]

One question that has been naggin me though, can we in the MFFG have access to any original sources that would date the Belgian Franco rules. Especially the ones that directly influence the tournament rules of today? Can we see how close to 1570, these rules and practices were being used? I am trying to understand the context of how these fit in to the art I study. Is it just Matt Galas that has access to this data? DO I need to learn to speak and read ancient Walloon, or Flemish? I will if I have to.
Kevin maurer
MffG

Dude, you and me both! Several of us have been pushing Matt to publish for a long time. He knows more than probably anybody in the world on the subject, but he's a researcher and a practitioner more than a "scholar" in the publishing sense of the word.

His sources for the Franco-belgian stuff come from the archives of the guilds themselves, mostly found in old academic libraries like the one in Louven, Belgium.

It may be that you could reach out to Matt, perhaps extend some of your German Fechtschule research (which he's looking at a lot right now), and see if he will pass on his scans (or whatever he has) of the stuff. He's not an information-hoarder, so I don't forsee much resistance. It's more an issue that he'd rather be doing the research than documenting it (total bummer for us...he better write it all down, with good footnotes, before he can't anymore, dammit!).

I'm actually trying to work out a way to present some of this Franco-Belgian stuff in a class at WMAW, so maybe I can convince him to pass some of it on, first!

Jake

[Mike Cartier]

That shut the F*** up rant is awesome