|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Nov 17, 2017 13:41:53 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. It says that apparently in the large majority of fights your personal skill set and system worked. Where it didn't work must be analysed by the fighter afterwards. What else could you expect of a tournament? Every fight is largely a test of the whole person, not just of a system, as Timo writes. The system comes into it, but for the most part it's the fighter who matters. What would you want a tournament to show?
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Nov 17, 2017 14:04:22 GMT
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. Again, it depends on what you want to achieve with a tournament. I do not think they should be expected to portray reality as much as possible. The fechtschul tournaments back in time didn't either. To me, tournaments are a high intensity testing ground for my own skillset and training. Fighting people who really do not hold back and do their best to win. That is the goal for me, not coming as close to reality as possible because I do not believe that is possible in a competetive setting. In the end, "reality" is a very foggy word anyway because we really don't kow what reality is regarding sword fighting. (also, tournaments are very intense experiences... I remember standing there on the mat at the Swordfish eliminations with the best fighters in the world around me and it was just super awesome.) "Oftentimes, aggressors can overwhelm a more technically competent fighter". Very true and you also see this is any HEMA tournaments, even when going for multiple exchanges. The good thing is (and this is what I like telling everybody who complains ;) ): nobody says a tournament must be "like this". Everybody can make his own tournament, invite people and have a go at it with the own ruleset.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Nov 17, 2017 17:31:33 GMT
True, and a good point to remember. I've seen some intra-HEMA efforts to do a mixed fighting experiment. One is the mosh pit at Swordsquatch, where anyone can fight anyone with anything within the western traditions. Nobody keeps score other than the opponents, and it's done for training and education. It's proven to be very popular. A more formal version was at WMAW in 2015. I don't know if they did it this year or not. Everyone from every discipline could fight everyone else from every discipline in three round bouts. Nobody kept formal score, but the participants voted for each other in a number of categories.
If equipment discrepancies could be resolved (ie wood vs. steel, steel vs bamboo, thrust vs. slash only protection), then there's really no reason this couldn't be done with mixed global styles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 17:40:42 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. It says that apparently in the large majority of fights your personal skill set and system worked. Where it didn't work must be analysed by the fighter afterwards. What else could you expect of a tournament? Every fight is largely a test of the whole person, not just of a system, as Timo writes. The system comes into it, but for the most part it's the fighter who matters. What would you want a tournament to show? I could have sworn I already stated what I'd want a tournament to show: demonstration of a command of source material. I think the simplest and most likely objective way to get there is to judge participants based on their execution of technique. If I were to start seeing clean and technically interesting sparring I'd be willing to re-evaluate the position, but whenever I decide to take a look at what folks are doing I'm not really seeing a whole lot that I'd want to emulate. When I see counterarguments against skill and strategy and appeal to brute strength or increasing speed, it kind of reaffirms that sparring isn't likely to take someone there. At least in test cutting, if someone fails to cut through a target they realize they need to work on their technique - the answer isn't to swing the sword faster or make a scarier grimace and push harder into the target. It'd be nice to see that kind of thinking propagate to other areas.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Nov 17, 2017 21:17:23 GMT
"demonstration of a command of source material"
But isn't the best demonstration of this showing that you can do it against an uncooperative opponent in a stressfull situation? Showing it as a pre-arranged partner drill (as I understood that's what you would like to be in competitions) isn't all that telling I think. Of course you won't find as complex a sequence in free fighting as you will in a pre-arranged drill (like one of the Stücke) but I find a perfectly executed "simple" technique like an Absetzen against a guy really not wanting to play along much more impressive than a long drilled sequence between to cooperative partners.
I wasn't saying that if a technique fails in sparring you should swing faster or push harder... not necessarily anyway. There are plenty of reasons a technique fails. Lack of speed is just one possible reason. I don't see where I appealed to brute force. But I realize that brute force does in itself present a sizable challenge to deal with. And in my experience what really seperates the top guys from the ok ones is the sheer speed with which they operate. It's not that they use some really fancy and complex technique but they have impeccable timing, excellent basics and are blindingly quick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 22:00:37 GMT
You did not, Lukas. But just a few posts ago, Vecna wrote "4) Strength, conditioning, cardio, and the will to smash your opponent, all play a far bigger part than technique" I know we don't all agree with this, but it seems to come up a lot. Adhering to the correct technique in the correct context will win 100% of the time if the technique is sound. If it is not successful there are only three reasons: The practitioner did not perform the technique correctly The practitioner used the wrong technique for the circumstances The technique was not sound and does not work Most commonly it would be flawed execution or failure to recognize the correct situation. If using a proven and sound system, the third possibility should be very rare.
I look at tournament exchanges that do not seem to reflect the material or approaches advocated by sources, and see more often than not the kind of thing that resembles "not combat but rather a mindless peasants' brawl". I don't see much point or value in it. Seeing who can strike harder and faster isn't really that interesting to me.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 17, 2017 22:08:04 GMT
It's not that they use some really fancy and complex technique but they have impeccable timing, excellent basics and are blindingly quick. A big part of being "blindingly quick" isn't raw speed, but timing. A technique delivered when you can't avoid it seems quicker than it really is. This takes judgment and deception. Add to that a lack of telegraphing (itself part of deception), and you have "blindingly quick". Deception is very important. Control of distance (especially deceptive control of distance). Timing. It's very hard to judge these skills (and other tactical skills) on the basis of demonstration of basic techniques (solo or pre-arranged with a partner).
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 17, 2017 22:20:57 GMT
Adhering to the correct technique in the correct context will win 100% of the time if the technique is sound. If it is not successful there are only three reasons: The practitioner did not perform the technique correctly The practitioner used the wrong technique for the circumstances The technique was not sound and does not work Most commonly it would be flawed execution or failure to recognize the correct situation. If using a proven and sound system, the third possibility should be very rare. Unless the "correct context" is tautologically defined as the context in which the technique will succeed, this isn't true. It isn't usefully true in a "fight" (sparring in training, tournament match, "real" fight), because that tautological context is very rare. The opponent also has the option of using correct technique. If correct technique works 100% of the time, then the attacker using correct technique has a 100% chance of attacking successfully, and the defender using correct defensive/counter-attacking technique also has a 100% chance of defending and countering successfully. This doesn't add up. One could say that this is your option 2, "wrong technique for the circumstances", but in this case, against a skilled opponent, almost all technique you might try has a large chance of failure, so would be "wrong".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 22:44:27 GMT
It does sound tautological but that isn't what I was trying to get at.
If I have a good key, it will open the lock every single time if I insert it straight and turn it the right way. If I try to stick it in sideways or push it up and down or left to right instead of rotating it, I'm not opening that lock. If I try to compensate by pushing harder or jerking it around, I'm not only not going to accomplish my desired results but most likely break it off and make my problem a lot worse.
If I have a shoddy soft key, it isn't reliable and even if I am carefully insering and turning it, it will fail me. If I somehow manage to get lucky and open the door, it is still a lousy key and I can't count on it. Just because it worked that one time doesn't make it correct or good.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 17, 2017 23:58:25 GMT
If I have a good key, it will open the lock every single time if I insert it straight and turn it the right way. Thus, a lock is very different from an antagonistic opponent. If I try to compensate by pushing harder or jerking it around, I'm not only not going to accomplish my desired results but most likely break it off and make my problem a lot worse. Same thing in fighting. While all else being the same (in particular, skill: technical skill, tactical skill, timing, judgment, etc.), the faster and stronger fighter has an advantage, trying to compensate for defective technique by "jerking" (pushing harder, trying harder, muscling techniques) usually leads to worse technique and makes things worse. This happens even with unarmed fighting, but IMO is more noticeable in armed fighting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2017 1:48:51 GMT
Gentlemen, I just want to go off topic for a moment and state without reservation that these conversations are not an attempt to talk over you or to disparage you or your viewpoints. I would hope this goes without saying, but sometimes it is important to state it as clearly as I can. If I respond to you or one of your points, either in a direct quote or by reference or inference, it is out of respect. We can disagree, we can disagree vehemently, but if I didn't have respect for you as a person, or your statement as an opinion, I wouldn't bother with replying. I definitely don't want to go over the line and cause offense, I sincerely hope that if any of us cross paths we could sit down for a beer, coffee, or water, and have a positive experience and walk away without personal ill will. I can come across strongly, I do try to temper that and am not always successful. I have a personal distaste for weasley tit-for-tat and try my very best to avoid engaging in it. I sometimes fail in that endeavor and that is a personal flaw that I try to overcome, though it might not come through. I don't state this to excuse myself. If anything I write goes across a line for you, feel free to tell me publicly or privately as suits you. Again, I don't wish for any mal-intent, and if it causes an adverse response I am prepared to own it and apologize in all sincerity publicly or privately. These matters can be very important to us on a personal level and I do not wish to affront any of you. I don't care about being right or "winning", I want to express an opinion, understand and be understood.
It is a big world, and there is room for more than one point of view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 3:02:16 GMT
So with that being said, continuing on.
The opponent can be as antagonistic and uncooperative as they want. To go back to my dumb lock and key metaphor, when the technique doesn't work it means the lock changed. If I keep trying to force the key I was trying to use in the new lock, it isn't going to work because now it's the wrong technique for the circumstances. I have to either change the circumstances back, or adopt a new approach.
If it's too difficult for me to figure out what to use and when to use it, then I need to spend more time working on understanding and executing my techniques, not just try to swing faster and hope I get lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 19, 2017 9:53:06 GMT
I have to either change the circumstances back, or adopt a new approach. Sure. The wonderful world of tactics: deceiving your opponent, reading your opponent, judging what will work, etc. If it's too difficult for me to figure out what to use and when to use it, then I need to spend more time working on understanding and executing my techniques, not just try to swing faster and hope I get lucky. Sure, for "understanding". "Executing", maybe not, unless you mean it in a very broad sense. The problem isn't the technique (the key), but the circumstances (the lock). In the context of the thread, I don't get your point. The surface point is obvious, and I agree. But given your comments on tournament fighting in this thread, and earlier comments on sparring, I don't see what is behind the surface point. Development of this kind of skill is one of the main points of sparring, and testing of this skill is a common motive for those who compete in tournaments for learning and development (and those who compete in tournaments specifically to win need to have this skill highly developed). The importance of this kind of tactical skill is the "why" of sparring and a large part of the "why" of tournament fighting. Sparring is poor for developing technique, but excellent for developing tactical skill. Similarly, it's a big part of good tournament fighting performance. (Conversely, fighting doesn't provide a good platform for judging technique, which is a major reason why many martial arts tournaments have judged demonstrations of technique, such as kata/forms competition.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 15:07:10 GMT
There's clearly a significant and likely insurmountable disconnect between what I'm looking for and what other people apparently want and enjoy. The good news is I have no means of taking anyone's sparring away.
I'd like to see a tournament among sword practitioners that emphasizes clean technique. If you look at a cutting competition, people don't win just because the target falls in six different pieces.
I'd also like to see Bloßfechten that is actually Bloßfechten. If we want to test our unarmored fighting skills, let's drop the armor and do it.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Nov 19, 2017 20:33:26 GMT
What is technique, though? The more I work in HEMA the more I think the idea of waiting for the perfect naturally occurring zwerch is missing the point of these methods. They were, ultimately, a way of understanding how to fight. A training tool to break down an impossibly complex series of movements into something that CAN be understood and passed down. When you're actually in a fight you can't expect these sequences to show themselves very often. And the point of fighting is not to do a little dance when they do happen to occur. We know chasing technique is a terrible idea in non-cooperative sparring or competition. It pretty much always fails.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 21:46:45 GMT
I was chatting with a friend last night, and something he said kind of summarized some of my thoughts: "If there's any of the four R's, you're not fighting: Rules, rounds, rings, or referees". The only way that I can really think of to see how you, I, or anybody else could really fight would be to get up and do it. And that's ridiculous. I don't really want that, and I bet the folks organizing tournaments don't want that either, they want excitement and safe fun that doesn't involve having to look up what their liability policy actually covers.
From my perspective, the point of fighting is to remove the other party's willingness or ability to inflict harm. It's really on them to determine how far things have to go before they get to that place. The point of fighting for me isn't to put my sword on them for a score on the board and then stop when the judge awards a point, or to give up just because they got their sword on me.
I don't care how well I can fight. The interesting part is how well I can embody and execute the concepts and methodology of whatever system I'm exploring. If a sparring match doesn't provide a good environment towards that end, it's useless to me.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 19, 2017 22:37:29 GMT
I'd like to see a tournament among sword practitioners that emphasizes clean technique. As I was just saying, the "problem" is that a lot more than clean technique affects the outcome of fights. Clean technique is part of it, but it certainly isn't emphasised. As far as technique is concerned, the emphasis is on "effective" technique rather than "good" technique. There are solutions. Don't just judge contact, but also include "clean technique" as a criterion for a hit to score. This is already done in some tournaments. See swiss-hema.ch/articles/rules-survey/ for a survey of some tournament rules. What they mean by "clean technique" might not be what you mean by "clean technique". Often this is judged only so far as to insist on "effective" technique (sufficient follow-through, landing without being partly blocked), but in principle, one could insist on clean textbook technique. This is already done outside HEMA (e.g., in Kendo, and in various unarmed MA), where more than just "effective" is needed for a hit to score. Where hits are scored, "clean technique" is usually a hurdle. Good enough "clean technique" is needed, but once it's good enough, the hit earns the 1 point. Better "clean technique" will still only earn that same 1 point. Where hits aren't scored - the round as a whole is judged - then there is more room for better technique leading to a higher score. Judged rounds (rather than scored hits), with "good technique" as a criterion. I don't think this would generate enough positive interest to become big in HEMA tournaments. I wouldn't want to judge such a competition - IMO, "effective" is good enough. Insofar as textbook technique is effective, it will be rewarded (and already is rewarded). One major issue is that "good" is style-dependent. "Effective" is not. For an all-styles competition, "effective" as a criterion works, but "good" should be judged in the context of the particular style/school. (I see a lot of nonsense generated by "good" technique being judged. E.g., kata/form competition in unarmed MA where higher points are given for doing kicks to above head height when the textbook form/kata has them mid-section - I'd call that bad technique, not good. That's only dipping one's toes into the waters of bad technique being called good - it gets much, much worse. E.g., XMA. At least one can work to avoid this kind of thing by developing an appropriate standard of judging "good".) I'd also like to see Bloßfechten that is actually Bloßfechten. They hit targets that would be protected by armour if armoured, and they hit them with technique that would not work if armour was worn. IMO, easily qualifies as Bloßfechten. If the competitors want to wear protective equipment to avoid injury (including permament and possibly fatal injury) and/or the tournament organisers insist on such protective equipment, it does make it harder to perform. Also bad if you feel that the point should be to test fearlessness, pain tolerance, toughness, etc. There are alternatives. E.g., But if you want to stick with steel weapons, or with plastic/bamboo/wood weapons that aren't ultralight or floppy, protective equipment is needed (to avoid injury and blood).
|
|