|
Post by Cosmoline on Nov 15, 2017 18:26:14 GMT
If the swords are neutralized at close measure, it can become a pure wrestling match and the bigger person has a major advantage. But this just gives incentives for the smaller person to use long and mid measure techniques. At this point nobody in HEMA I know of has been "gaming" tournaments by moving into pure ringen. For one thing if you, as the big guy, decide you're going to move in close you are chasing technique. And that's fatal nine times out of ten. The fight takes you where it takes you if you're on the same level of skill. You have to be flexible in your goal and instantly shift plans as doors are closing and opening. Of course, there is some inherent unfairness if you're up against someone you simply cannot move. But that's life I suppose. I remember a guy tried to do a sword wrap and toss on me in a tournament and I just picked him up as he said "uh oh." But on the flip side I've lost count of the people who've nailed me by through superior speed and flexibility. So I think it evens out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 19:20:38 GMT
I might not be able to contribute much in the disciplines you guys are discussing, but I am enjoying your views. This is a pretty informative and great conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Nov 15, 2017 20:08:26 GMT
The art remains fundamentally about killing. There are alternative options in some texts to use less-than-lethal attacks, but this does not mean sword fighting in the treatises was about tournament play. Arguably if you look in some of the later period longsword texts the focus is removed from duels or battlefield combat, but even then the core concept remains getting yourself in a position where you COULD kill your opponent without getting killed yourself. If we start viewing the texts as abstractions about sword movement and forget they're drawn from a killing art, we start to merge over into Olympic fencing. We are trying to understand sword fighting from eras when swords were used in combat and personal defense. Not to turn the whole thing into a modern detoothed sport where everyone pretends nobody was ever dismembered and slaughtered with sharp steel. For example, we should never be winning matches by touch. The attack needs to have good edge alignment and movement to do serious harm absent blunted blades and gear. And we're not doing matches based on who could throw the other person in a bag, though that would be fun. Messer fighting in particular is incredibly dangerous and would likely have ended in death or dismemberment unless a superior opponent opted to use an alternate approach to merely humiliate. As the saying goes "Here they fight with messers. May God have mercy on them." Meyer is very late period, when longswords had faded from battlefield use and the gun was on the path to ascendancy. He was teaching middle class germans and petty aristos how to use the knightly weapons. Judicial dueling was also well on its way out, so the context of the training had changed from the 14th century. But even then, the core of Meyer's teachings remain Liechtenauer's verse and are all about delivering what would be deadly attacks without getting hit yourself. The referenced prohibition on thrusting between German fighters is cryptic and may mean any number of things. What we can say with certainty is that swords were used to kill a whole lot of people, and if you hit someone in the head with a sharp using any of the verse's techniques at speed you should expect the opponent to be dead or very seriously wounded. I didn't mean to imply the treatises focus on sportive tournament play. Not at all. Too many severed hands and split heads in them ;) But it is very clear that killing the opponent was far from the goal every time a sharp sword was drawn. Context matters, at Matt Easton would say and I consider it very important for us HEMA practicioners to understand that because it lets us see the treatises and, more importantly, the people behind them in a different light. I would argue a more realistic one. I would never suggest scoring hits by touch only, the martially sound principles that make sword fighting a martial art and distinguish it from olympic fencing must remain. I wholly agree with this: " the core concept remains getting yourself in a position where you COULD kill your opponent without getting killed yourself" but I consider it important to add that very often, the kill was not the desired outcome and a skilled swordsman is capable of making this distinction. Meyer may be late for longsword but he is very much in the right period for most of the other weapons he shows and I would not ignore his writing on the basis that it is already sportive in nature.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 15, 2017 20:23:45 GMT
Also, why does swordsmanship even "have" to be art? It's an "art" in the sense of being a martial art, which means an "art" in the sense of being skill acquired through practice, through training. As opposed to knowledge acquired through, e.g., reading or being told or being shown. Some skill makes up for a large difference in athleticism. A difference in athleticism matters a lot when skill is (close to) equal. The dominant role of skill, and that skill being acquired through training, is what makes it "art".
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Nov 15, 2017 20:24:07 GMT
Have you guys seen this video? While many say their technique is quite bad, they keep it that way to keep the fight from being too lethal. But judging by these guys, aggression can play a large part in a real sword fight. Especially when dealing with a sharp. Without saying something silly like "I would stab his heart before he slashed me", how would you guys react in this situation? It isn't a criticism. But rather just something to think about, or at minimum, some entertainment:
Personally, this video shed light on a lot of things for me, such as how I previously thought I would prefer sword and shield, but after seeing what a sword and shield duel looks like, I am more than happy to stick with a saber.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Nov 15, 2017 21:58:49 GMT
It's not even remotely a HEMA group. They're a notorious group of nogoodnicks. Their video does show that a significant surface injury may not even be recognized by your opponent. Otherwise it's not worth much. Other than showing how NOT to do sharps work.
That a sword and shield fight between idiots. It doesn't actually show us much. Other than what a sword and shield fight between idiots looks like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 22:22:12 GMT
Have you guys seen this video? While many say their technique is quite bad, they keep it that way to keep the fight from being too lethal. But judging by these guys, aggression can play a large part in a real sword fight. Especially when dealing with a sharp. Without saying something silly like "I would stab his heart before he slashed me", how would you guys react in this situation? It isn't a criticism. But rather just something to think about, or at minimum, some entertainment: Personally, this video shed light on a lot of things for me, such as how I previously thought I would prefer sword and shield, but after seeing what a sword and shield duel looks like, I am more than happy to stick with a saber. Wouldn't play. Live blade training is one thing, something like this is a whole other matter. Nothing silly about it, if we're gonna test skills like that, then it is no joke sword fight time, and it ends when he is smart enough to stop or rendered incapable of continuing.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Nov 15, 2017 22:23:34 GMT
cosmo: A swordfight against the average opponent*
I do not see them as a HEMA group. But those are some nasty injuries if they land on a tendon. Obviously fighting a trained opponent would be worst, but thats kinda my point here. A person can still learn from the idiot show these guys did. Plus not to mention that many duels in the past were based around first blood, which is what these guys kinda do.
A flailing idiot is a dangerous flailing idiot when you add a sword in his hands. And when the possibility to be cut is present, I seriously doubt you would be as confident as you are with blunts
jon: perhaps you heard about duels where the winner is decided by first blood right? The idea isn't to kill the person
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 22:28:43 GMT
cosmo: A swordfight against the average opponent* I do not see them as a HEMA group. But those are some nasty injuries if they land on a tendon. Obviously fighting a trained opponent would be worst, but thats kinda my point here. A person can still learn from the idiot show these guys did. Plus not to mention that many duels in the past were based around first blood, which is what these guys kinda do. A flailing idiot is a dangerous flailing idiot when you add a sword in his hands. And when the possibility to be cut is present, I seriously doubt you would be as confident as you are with blunts jon: perhaps you heard about duels where the winner is decided by first blood right? The idea isn't to kill the person Of course I've heard of them. I'm not interested in them. Edit to add that this can really drag us off topic, if we want to discuss those guys or things like it maybe a new thread?
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Nov 15, 2017 23:12:32 GMT
It wasn't meant to drag anyone off topic. You guys just kinda went full condescending right off the bat without understanding the context in which I brought it up in the first place, as usual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 23:42:33 GMT
I'm not being condescending at all!
I am definitely not impressed by it. It looks like a bunch of guys trying to show off how tough they are. The mensur like exchange was vaguely interesting, not really my thing but I could see some value in that. The free play, like most that I see, did little to nothing for me.
I can't remember which video it was, some longsword finalist bout but I don't recall who the guys were or what the event was, had a very nice moment with something like a shove or a throw, and it earned the guy a yellow card. I remember rather liking that exchange as a nice real and sincere moment, but for all that the guy got punished for it. I don't suppose anybody might recall that one? I want to say it was somewhere in the 2012~ era
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Nov 16, 2017 7:58:03 GMT
A flailing idiot is a dangerous flailing idiot when you add a sword in his hands. And when the possibility to be cut is present, I seriously doubt you would be as confident as you are with blunts jon: perhaps you heard about duels where the winner is decided by first blood right? The idea isn't to kill the person No question about it! It's actually a good drill to have someone unskilled in swords spar with you. But my point is you don't need sharps to establish these dangers. I've done quite a bit of sharps work and you're right it really does give you pause to have the weapon facing you. But the point of this work is to test techniques esp. bind work, NOT to try to hit or injure. First blood duels were a thing, but actual longswords or arming swords are a horrible way to do them. Something like mensur or sharpened feders or smallswords would be the preferred way. These weapons don't have the same capacity to dismember. It's just a good thing these guys have terrible form, because with the right angle even a mild slice can take a hand or arm right off. Personally if the stakes were that high I'd want to be damn sure I was proving some critical point that couldn't be proven any other way.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Nov 16, 2017 16:13:48 GMT
One rule I'd change from the usual tournaments: points. No first to five, or first to ten, or best of 15. Just one - if the technique "killed" one of them, the bout should be over. I feel this ups the adrenaline and importance of the fight to appropriately realistic levels. Not only that, with the speed of the matches, you could save on the venue costs
|
|
SeanF
Member
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by SeanF on Nov 16, 2017 16:35:44 GMT
Not only that, with the speed of the matches, you could save on the venue costs Unfortunately people tend not to want to spend money to fly to something if they could potentially only get one exchange. Though some tournaments (FNY comes to mind) do a whole ton of one exchange fights.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Nov 16, 2017 18:54:39 GMT
One rule I'd change from the usual tournaments: points. No first to five, or first to ten, or best of 15. Just one - if the technique "killed" one of them, the bout should be over. I feel this ups the adrenaline and importance of the fight to appropriately realistic levels. Not only that, with the speed of the matches, you could save on the venue costs :p Depends on what you want to achieve with a tournament. Usually the point of competitions is to find the best aethlet at a given time and place. The less luck is involved in the finding process, the better. In a fight to one point it is much more likely to have the worse fighter win compared to if you have multiple exchanges. Double hits are a big issue, too. If you're out after being hit once, every beginner can take out a top guy with suicidal behaviour. Now you can say "but isn't all that also the case in a "real" fight?". Maybe so, but I do not think tournaments can and should be expected to portray the reality of a sharp fight. They are sport and test a certain skillset. I find them very valuable as a fighter, even if tournaments themselves aren't the goal of your training because of the level of intensity and pressure they create. But I do not think they realistically depict an actual fight. Some aspects, yes. But not more.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Nov 16, 2017 19:36:41 GMT
This is a key point, and an existential one for HEMA bouts. The original idea, as I understand it, was to use tournaments to pressure test theories. So the goal was to revive the art by seeing what actually worked at speed with intent and with the pressure of a prize at stake. Mainstream athletic tournaments, in contrast, are designed as you say to see who the best athlete is. So to that end equipment and rules are created to standardize and level the playing field down to the pound and inch. By applying that to sword arts, we aren't necessarily learning more about sword fighting. As with modern fencing, the outcome is to show who is physically the most capable under the particular rules set. It's a test of a person above else. And while that's awesome, I don't see a lot of point in doing it when it comes to historical sword fighting. It's answering questions about personal athleticism and skill that aren't necessarily helpful to understanding what X system is, or in this case how X system would interact with Y system. I mean a mixed weapons fight will by its nature NOT be a level playing field. And a super athlete with a rondel can easily lose to an old fat guy with a spear.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 16, 2017 20:23:34 GMT
This is a key point, and an existential one for HEMA bouts. The original idea, as I understand it, was to use tournaments to pressure test theories. So the goal was to revive the art by seeing what actually worked at speed with intent and with the pressure of a prize at stake. Tournaments are good for this because (a) pressure, and (b) they're an occasion for top fighters, who don't regularly train together, to fight each other. Tournaments are bad for this because the efficient way is to game the rules. For pressure testing theories/methods/styles, non-competition hard sparring can be better. No added stress of competition, but no competition rules to game. And ... Mainstream athletic tournaments, in contrast, are designed as you say to see who the best athlete is. [...] It's answering questions about personal athleticism and skill that aren't necessarily helpful to understanding what X system is, or in this case how X system would interact with Y system. You can't separate the athlete from the style. A martial arts style doesn't fight; fighters fight. Individual skill and athleticism will matter. Tournaments test people, directly. They test systems indirectly, at best. I mean a mixed weapons fight will by its nature NOT be a level playing field. And a super athlete with a rondel can easily lose to an old fat guy with a spear. If everybody fights with the same combination of mixed weapons, it's a level playing field. Make each match, e.g., 7 rounds: longsword vs longsword, sword vs sword, sword and buckler vs sword, sword vs sword and buckler, spear vs longsword, longsword vs spear, dagger vs dagger.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Nov 17, 2017 0:13:30 GMT
Is the goal to tell if Joe is a better fighter than Mike, or to see who one style and weapon set mix against the other? Without insulting the HEMA competitors, almost nobody cares which one of them wins beyond themselves. Sometimes they don't even care. We have to really decide what the goal is ahead of time. Of course it's great to have generally fit people, but their skill in a particular type of fighting is more important for the purpose of pressure testing systems and techniques. So in my own ideal open tournament we'd have longsword vs. dagger, spear vs. sword and buckler, Japanese katana vs. Chinese jian, jian vs. side sword, etc. etc. That's what's interesting to me. Not whether one guy is a better athlete than another with a level field.
Of course, modern instincts are opposed to this kind of mixup. People want fair play and level playing fields. They want a contest of personality as much as anything else. So there's a lot of pressure to make whatever tournaments we have into something packaged and standardized with a focus on finding the best athlete.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 1:02:14 GMT
So you go to a tournament, and out of 100 you beat 80 of them. Congratulations, I guess you're now in the top 20% of swordsmen of this year's Fightcon or whatever. That doesn't say anything about your athleticism or your command of your weapon / fighting system.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Nov 17, 2017 2:07:47 GMT
One rule I'd change from the usual tournaments: points. No first to five, or first to ten, or best of 15. Just one - if the technique "killed" one of them, the bout should be over. I feel this ups the adrenaline and importance of the fight to appropriately realistic levels. Not only that, with the speed of the matches, you could save on the venue costs :p Depends on what you want to achieve with a tournament. Usually the point of competitions is to find the best aethlet at a given time and place. The less luck is involved in the finding process, the better. In a fight to one point it is much more likely to have the worse fighter win compared to if you have multiple exchanges. Double hits are a big issue, too. If you're out after being hit once, every beginner can take out a top guy with suicidal behaviour. Now you can say "but isn't all that also the case in a "real" fight?". Maybe so, but I do not think tournaments can and should be expected to portray the reality of a sharp fight. They are sport and test a certain skillset. I find them very valuable as a fighter, even if tournaments themselves aren't the goal of your training because of the level of intensity and pressure they create. But I do not think they realistically depict an actual fight. Some aspects, yes. But not more. Yes, but I think it would be closer to reality that way. Skill does not always prevail in the real world. Oftentimes, aggressors can overwhelm a more technically competent fighter. You see this in MMA, boxing, fencing, and various other combat sports. The "puncher's chance" is a reality of fighting, and I would like to replicate that in HEMA. The stakes are extremely high - not one's life, per se, but one's tournament life hangs by a single move - and so I think it would make for a very exciting match. Of course, I'm saying this thinking that the tournament should try its best to retain whatever realism it can get. In jousting tournaments of old, getting knocked out of your saddle ends the match, perhaps because in battle it would most likely end the ability of the knight to fight further. So while the best jouster has the best chance of winning, anyone has a fighting chance.
|
|