Western Sword Training

**Epeeist** · Posted On: 3/08/2011 9:39pm

I've found that sport fencing helps tremendously with my footwork and point control. However, I am a smallsword guy and epee and foil are analogues for this stylish and awesome weapon. I also study Destreza as sort of a home study and sport fencing helps me not all with that so your mileage may vary going from sport fencing to whatever weapon.

Oh, and I love the mordschlag even though I tend to prefer the Italian longsword stuff so I'm not in the dark like a lot of sport fencers are. That isn't to say that they're ignorant, they just like their sport and don't give a **** about reconstructing Capo Ferro or George Silver. Fair enough.

**william_cain** · Posted On: 3/09/2011 1:43am

We have a sport fencer in my larger HEMA group, KMA. Myles demonstrates the best of what sport fencing students can bring to HEMA study.

1 - He is completely honest about what sport fencing is, versus what HEMA is. The two can inform eachother, but are not eachother.

2 - His ability to read what I and others are going to try to do to him are excellent. Fighting him makes it difficult to feint - he is fast at seeing where your muscles are moving.

3 - His tempo and range are exceptional. He 'groks' when to make a strike and when to fend off one.

4 - His footwork is precise and quick. Watching him move is sheer pleasure.

5 - Profit.

6 - He brings an understanding of body mechanics to our study that really drives how he practices, and I've sought his advice on developing body mechanic drills for my own study group.

So yes, Olympic style sport practitioners can bring a whole lot to this art, and we would be idiotic to simply disparage them. On the other hand, what they do is not HEMA. Myles confesses this, and embraces the differences and still tries to find a way to promote both. He has invited me to study foil and epee (his favored weapon), and someday I firmly intend to take him up on it.

The truth lies not in excluding or uncritically embracing our sport fencing friends, but in honestly evaluating what they have to offer, and seeing where it fits into what we want.

**lklawson** · Posted On: 3/09/2011 8:05am

Originally Posted by Petter

It’s much harder to see how a 100g (!) fencing ‘sabre’ is anything like a real (~2 lbs?) cavalry sabre, say.

[...]

There are also some quirks of ruleset that make Olympic fencing very dubious as true swordsmanship, notably the “playing tag” aspect that whoever hits first, wins,

I am fairly convinced that modern Olympic Sabre was originally intended as a training mechanism for Dueling Sabers (where weapons were light and some duels were satisfied with first touch) and thus is only peripherally related to the Military Saber.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

**lklawson** · Posted On: 3/09/2011 8:14am

Originally Posted by Epeeist

I've found that sport fencing helps tremendously with my footwork and point control. However, I am a smallsword guy and epee and foil are analogues for this stylish and awesome weapon. I also study Destreza as sort of a home study and sport fencing helps me not all with that so your mileage may vary going from sport fencing to whatever weapon.

"Classical Fencers" whom I trust implicitly such as the Maestros Martinez and Jarred Kirby tend to hold that "Sport Fencing" is an excellent, indeed the preferred place to begin the study of Classical Fencing. Their argument is that Sport Fencing was originally intended as a training mechanism for these Classical weapons and, when properly administered by an informed and competent instructor, acts as sort of "Classical Fencing training-wheels" to the beginning student.

Oh, and I love the mordschlag even though I tend to prefer the Italian longsword stuff so I'm not in the dark like a lot of sport fencers are. That isn't to say that they're ignorant, they just like their sport and don't give a **** about reconstructing Capo Ferro or George Silver. Fair enough.

I've tried once or twice to get local Kendoka interested in cross-style training in Singlestick. I often get the same sort of response, distilling down to, "I'm don't Kendo. I'm not interested in other sword stuff." Which is OK, but can be a little frustrating sometimes. To each their own I guess. :)

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

**lklawson** · Posted On: 3/09/2011 8:15am

Yes, "Sport Fencing" can have a lot to offer and the "Sport Fencers" who are interested can break some of their sport-habits, (such as linear footwork) pretty easily. And they tend to have OUTSTANDING measure and tempo.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

**evilstan** · Posted On: 3/09/2011 11:20am

In the post I quoted he simply states "source material". It is impossible to know what he is referring to unless he specifies what he means. If he meant Capo Ferro or whatever other material he should have said so.

Also the "source material" in question has nothing to do with my point about sport fencing being legit and not dismissing it. I simply stated that olympic fencing should be respected and somehow everyone is afraid I have attacked the legitimacy of 17th century manuals.

If everyone here feels the differences between sport fencing and the manuals being referred to in the rest of this thread are that different someone should do a comparison and provide examples (if it hasn't already been done, if it has I would be interested in seeing it)

**william_cain** · Posted On: 3/09/2011 4:06pm

Alright two examples for you, one from foil and sabre, one from epee, that show you how fundamentally different sport fencing is from HEMA/classical fencing.

in foil and sabre, there are rules of right of way. In practice this means that whoever initiates the first attack has the right of way. If the second party parries, he claims right of way. Now, you may attack WITHOUT the right of way, and if you hit someone when you don't have right of way, you still get a point. However, you do not gain this point if they have right of way and you hit at the same time.

Similarly, consider the previously mentioned example in Epee. There is an attack in epee, since the whole body is a target, wherein you strike at the ground and flick your blade up under the opponent's foot. If you make this attack and score a hit, only a half second before he hits your face, you win the point.

There is -nothing- like this in any of the manuals. Attacking the feet like that is utterly ludicrous, clearly an invention of circumventing the 'game' that sport fencing has become. It has no actual martial value, but it is a valid maneuver in olympic style sport fencing.

Further, consider that in many of the period manuals in question (just off the top of my head I can name Vadi, Fiore, Ringeck, Von Danzig, Wallerstein, Capo Ferro) you have extensive systems of grappling, both unarmed, armed, and for fighting in armor. It wasn't tacked on stuff like "well, if you have the chance try this," but seen as a foundational part of the entire medieval martial arts culture. You learned how to wrestle, and you used it in a duel. You don't learn anything of the sort in Olympic fencing - it's strictly disallowed.

Now, I can understand the premise of wanting to -focus- on a particular aspect. Take Judo - we don't call it an incomplete martial art because it has no weapons, or because it doesn't allow striking in the game. It focuses on the grapple, and does so legitimately. In Shiai/competition, there are significant restrictions on what is allowed. But the techniques are still THERE, still taught. So you can't go for a double-leg in a tournament because of the rules agreed upon, but you still can learn how to do it out of the Judo syllabus.

Olympic fencing on the other hand is incomplete, because it excludes the fighting that was part of fencing from the very beginning, and has no mechanism whatever for incorporating or teaching it. They don't exclude it for the simple expedience of a tournament, they disavow it entirely.

So that is why HEMA fencers are cautious about the 'legitimacy' of sport fencing as a martial art at least - it is both incomplete and artificial.

**Epeeist** · Posted On: 3/09/2011 5:00pm

Originally Posted by william_cain

Alright two examples for you, one from foil and sabre, one from epee, that show you how fundamentally different sport fencing is from HEMA/classical fencing.

in foil and sabre, there are rules of right of way. In practice this means that whoever initiates the first attack has the right of way. If the second party parries, he claims right of way. Now, you may attack WITHOUT the right of way, and if you hit someone when you don't have right of way, you still get a point. However, you do not gain this point if they have right of way and you hit at the same time.

Classical fencing also has right of way. Unless you mean classical fencing to include Renaissance and Medieval swordplay and not the Classical Fencing of the early 20th and 19th centuries which is what many mean when the use the word classical rather than historical. Classical foilists of those days had right of way and it grew out of smallsword training. Right of way was intended to train a very important concept of smallsword about coming back to defend oneself rather than attacking into an enemy's attack. Also in smallsword there wasn't much grappling at all compared to say rapier or longsword. There was blade grabbing and wrist-grabbing but very little "wrestling" formally (I've seen one image of a fencer grabbing his opponent's blade then stabbing his opponent by striking around behind his own back) Although it was frequent for duelists to get locked in close and then some wrestling would be employed. Some perceived this as artless but in honor duels it would certainly happen. So as far as rapier/longsword historical fencing goes, yeah it kind of sucks. As far as classical and smallsword goes, I sing its praises except for things like flicks and electronic scoring.

Secondly, "martial value" is relative here. What smallsword duelists with dueling etiquette found martially viable in the 18th century is different from what Carranza or Silver would find martially viable. Training for street duels/brawls in Renaissance Florence is a COMPLETELY different notion of martialness than first blood duels in a shady Paris orchard.

In conclusion, we can't take HEMA and classical fencing to just mean medieval or Renaissance material. We also have to look at the smallsword guys, possibly up even through the Aldo Nadi days and the last sport fencers to actually fight duels. I would not give a sport fencer a chance of coming out on top in a fight with ARMA or martinez guys with rapiers, but I bet a lot of them could win smallsword tournies.

**william_cain** · Posted On: 3/10/2011 9:54am

Yeah, I meant historical fencing rather than 20th century 'classical,' typo there.

And I'm not sure I agree that modern sport fencers could actually win smallsword tourneys. I've seen some classical fencing matches, particularly with foil, where the smallest, lightest of taps is counted a parry, and a mutual hit is awarded to the one who gave the feathery little tap to his opponent's sword even though both blades score a hit to the torso. Right of way may have started as a training mechanism for learning to control an opponent's sword, but the evolution of sport fencing into the game it now is has nothing whatever to do with that concept, and the right of way concept breeds in 'bad' habits as far as HEMA fencing is concerned.

And yes, martial value is relative, but it can also be held up to a broad standard. The medieval and renaissance martial arts (which remained largely consistent, given the materials we have to look at - Meyer's longsword is very similar to Ringeck's, despite them being at fairly opposite ends of the longsword timeline). Comparatively, the smallsword era was relatively brief, and less related to the word martial inasmuch as it didn't apply to military effeciacy. The smallsword was a self-defence weapon and a duelling tool, with less battlefield application than other sword types such as the broadsword/backsword/sabre type weapons. I understand some officers did carry fairly robust smallswords, but they were hardly a piece of major battlefield usage. Also, by the time of the smallsword the gun utterly dominated the battlefield, so once again the martial value of the sword at all was significantly decreased in relevance.

Again, I acknowledge the fact that martial value is relative - we call Judo a martial art, but it's hardly the primary tool of a battlefield combatant today.

As I've said, I feel that olympic-sport fencing does provide some great tools to hema practitioners of all stripes, but that in equal measure it instills very odd, even bad habits that can be difficult to break. Above all, it is a martial sport, rather than a martial art, at least inasmuch as I look at it.

Cheers