One of the most significant pairs of rule changes in Olympic-rules fencing in recent years were changes specifically to return back towards swordsmanship. The FIE introduced them to try to put an end to "flick attacks" in foil, and whipping round the guard in sabre. The FIE felt that marching attacks ending in the flick had ruined the character of foil, and that the rule changes would force fencers to rely on more conventional (i.e. traditional) actions. The FIE tends only to make big changes every 10 to 15 years, so the evolution can be sometimes difficult to make out. But basically the last few decades have been trying to roll-back some of the non-swordsmanship changes that were introduced as unintended consequences of rule changes back in the 1980s.
Sounds like contrary to Judo, where the IJF tries to squeeze all meat out to make it more "viewer-friendly". I don*t think that was in the spirit of the father of Judo, Kano. But as in soccer, viewer numbers rule it all ...shame really. Good to hear that teh FIE has a different approach. (has it?)
@@Jugger_Coach Judo is still a real as hell though, which shows the other side of the "sportified martial art" argument; competition breeds excellence and weeds out the bushit "masters" who only teach their "secret techniques" to the gullible. Shame about the leg attacks, they were a victim of badly interacting with rules at the time and fears that judo would be removed from the olympics for looking too much like wrestling. Luckily, single and double legs aren't the absolutely dominant technique they are in wrestling cuz you can control someone from so much further away if they have grippable clothes.
@@internetenjoyer1044 Certainly true. Yet the "press argument" against certain techniques, as well as attack timing and such, is the thing that really bugs me. Trying to make a sport like this more "TV attractive" should not be a reason to ban techniques or change rules in sports like Judo (if "attractivity" really was the main argument).
@@Jugger_Coach If you're talking about the passivity rules and the rules about having to immediately use non standard grips, I kinda see both sides of the argument. Expert grapplers, especially when they have gi's to use, can both shut down each other indefinitely if they're trying to not get thrown first and foremost. Most grappling sports have rules against passivity for that reason; otherwise you'd have 20 minute bouts and it just wouldn't be practical. And is a ruleset that encourages it taking so long to use a technique more realistic in a "real fight", with all the uncertainty about other people jumping in etc, than encouraging behaviors that quickly end the contest (Given that Judo aims to simulate ending the fight with a high damage throw)?
Incidentally, I fully expect this video to get more dislikes than most videos I release. It's the nature of taking on a topic like this, but I think it's something I needed to say. I do also want to reiterate that I think modern sport fencing does some things fantastically well and HEMA can learn a lot from it.... however, the fact remains that modern sport fencing has totally forgotten what swordsmanship is actually about, whether it be to first blood or for military combat. This, I think, is a great shame for sport fencing, because a huge proportion of people who used to be drawn into sport fencing will now be drawn into HEMA instead. This is good for HEMA of course.
So far i can see, you don't talk any lies about it. Not just fencing, all martial arts are being domesticated to become a mere game that does not maintain its original objectives, techniques and art.
Agreed. I come from a Sports fencing background, still do Epee training to keep my foot work and point control up, but will never ever do competition or tournament stuff again. I am lucky in that who I train with is classically trained fencing teacher, so teaches and passes on the technique to do things correctly. Watching some of the new people come out of other clubs without any knowledge of strength/weakness of blade or any real control of distance (they kinda just barrel at you) really makes me cringe. To be fair, I have issues with the SCA Heavy "lightsaber bludgeons", metal weapons groups (not WMA or HEMA) and Battle of Nations for some of the very same reasons, its not swordsmanship.
Just like you sad Matt it’s a game, it doesn’t deserve the title of fencing, in other words a science of defense. As my teacher sad it, the only way that this ultra turbo fast competitive sport fencing can go on from here is nowhere, but where fencers as people can go is back in to history where try fencing and skill is. Did you know that the orthopedic grip was originally made for a person who had his wrist or fingers broken or had some sort or hand retardation from birth and all other are now using it regardless because its after all easier to grip the sword with it, how silly.
Perhaps, the same things can be said about archery, i think. Modern sport archery is just as far from the real archery, which is now called "traditional archery", as sport fencing from the actual fencing
I fenced 25 years ago and saw this happening. Our first coach retired 2 years in. She was European and focused more on blade work and technique and wouldn’t even let us use pistol grips at first. Then she was replaced by a newer, younger American coach right out of college who emphasized extreme athleticism as the way to win bouts. In a few years, our bladework began to suffer more and more. What l didn’t realize at the time was that this was a trend taking off nationwide. I’ll never forget the lesson I learned from going to the fencing club. We had a guy who was about 75 and fenced his whole life come every week. Nobody could beat him, even the super athletic young guys. It was because he had mastered his technique and bladework so well that people couldn’t hit him! It underscored the importance of control and technique over just the “rush in” raw athleticism (why I was never a big fan of saber fencing). That’s what I aspired to learn.
I had a similar experience, my 72 year old grandfather easily defeated 20 year old fencers with his superior bladework. It's sad in what state sports fencing currently is.
My philosophy on this (granted I'm a 'young' foil fencer by your terminology) is the following: Despite the fact that the bladework 'suffered' due to people focusing on footwork/athletics, the fact of the matter is that *athleticism beats bladework* . If it didn't, why don't we see 75+ year old masters sweeping the olympics every four years? It can't be right of way being wonky, because the best Epee fencers are also very fit, athletic and young (i.e Max Heinzer). Even the HEMA tournaments are filled with 20 somethings who are fit and have fast reactions. This isn't an accident. As an aside, I really don't understand the fuss around pistol grips. I'll be honest, if I were sent back in time to the 1700s and I had to fight in a duel, the first thing I'd do is befriend the local blacksmith and have him craft a simple pistol grip. It is objectively better for fencing by keeping your tip pointed the right way, particularly when you start to get tired. I can see the appeal of a brain over brawn cerebral focus on bladework (ala HEMA/classical fencing). It's romantic to think about an old hermit mastering the old ways being able to put a bunch of young whippersnappers in their place. But the fundamental truth throughout history is that youth, fitness and speed are far more consequential to how a fight turns out than technique. Technique starts to matter when both sides are equally fit. Your young american coach did more to improve the overall level of your team's fencing by emphasizing fitness and speed, rather than static bladework. To paraphrase /u/venuswasaflytrap, if you had to grapple either an average HEMA practitioner who has read their manuals or your average 220+ lbs NFL linebacker/Rugby player, who'd you choose? Thought so.
@@inscrutablemungus4143 I agree with you on some points. Fitness of a person as a whole biologically always lends an advantage even when we control for age and gender. It's why Olympians seldom compete beyond a certain age against younger peers. I do think if you have two people of equal fitness, technique is the deciding point. I don't mean to come in and knock athleticism in general-- some of my personal experience is colored by the fact that the age of the fencers being trained were teenagers, and so in that case, they didn't have a kind of experience or strategic discipline (with bladework OR how to use the athleticism to their advantage yet) in their approach towards the entire sport yet. In that case, you'd have people not thinking things through and just rushing in, making bad mistakes, and missing a lot of touches because they overrelied on footwork and strength but had poor point control or didn't understand right of way. In a professional setting with older collegiate fencers, I wouldn't be able to comment having no knowledge, but the bar is certainly raised by that point because only the most fit and technically savvy make it. I also don't know how fencing is handled in other countries, or the differences in HEMA, but I imagine American fencing has probably become profoundly divorced from actual practical self defense and become "faster" than when I did it. It's a good examination of the idea of "the art of defense" versus the practicalities of defense versus the change in equipment and weapons used over time. Also, no hate on the pistol grips from me! I think the point (no pun intended) I'm trying to make is something more around how we are taught the sport-- what is emphasized and what is not and the neurobiological roots of it (a long subject but nit specific to fencing in particular). We are now being taught "Here is how to do X task quickly without much practice or understanding for fast results" everywhere in society, and it shows up8n sports as well. That's probably more of the location of my argument as to why I dislike the idea of overemphasizing *just* the physical athleticism with technique or understanding in a sport.
Raw athleticism matters far less in olympic saber than I think you believe. Most important is timing and sense of distance. Ofc if 2 fencers have similar timing and distance, being more athletic gives an edge plus adds additional tactical options. However, at least in the US, pure strength and speed is 99% of the time not the deciding factor in a bout.
@@internetenjoyer1044 seriously underrated comment. It seems martial arts that don't have a sporty side to them lose connection to fighting at all, because they don't fight at all. "Cause muh technique is to dangerous to be used...."
@@Unknown-bp3mk I have no idea what you even mean. Do you mean that a lot of martial arts have tournaments? Well, that's good and I never said anything different. Is "twunt" an insult I don't know? What is the point of your comment?
@@petritzky Except even in some of the sportier martial arts, there are techniques they don't teach anymore specifically because they're too dangerous to be used in friendly competition. Most of the Japanese sports martial arts carved out the battlefield combat arts from taijutsu and samurai budo in order to not destroy the person across from you who the martial arts teach you is your friend. For example Aikido techniques can be extremely dangerous if done full bore or with malicious intent. People just forget that it's an adaptation of samurai martial arts to counter-grappling while armed. That's why many of the techniques involve grabbing the wrist, elbow, shoulders/collar. Aikido comes from the stance that you are armed with a sword and an enemy swordsman got past your guard and is attempting to disarm or control your weapon hand. That's why it doesn't work in MMA or most fighting situations because you aren't running around with a sword in your hand so people generally won't grab you like that which would allow you to initiate one of the wrist techniques. Every once in a while though someone WILL grab them in such a way as for the technique to actually be used and it's not a pretty sight for the person getting thrown or locked. Most battlefield based schools shouldn't be considered martial arts, they're martial training. Traditionally there is no sparring in them because you're learning techniques designed specifically to maim or kill other people and theoretically, the people training with you are your friends/clan members so you aren't supposed to be trying to kill them. Although some instructors did have a training portion where they'd have students fight each other and there were deaths and disabling injuries from it. The argument being that you did potentially get a better fighter out of it, but you're doing it at the expense of the total number of fighters you have at your disposal. There was a lot of this in early kenjutsu where a wooden sword strike to the hand ends up destroying the hand permanently or a student takes a hard blow to the head and is killed. The kendo gear we see today is a relatively modern invention and they still had to further modify it with shinai because a bokken can still kill you. Many of the modern -do schools were implemented because warfare became more infrequent so you had to have an outlet for that training. Traditionally, most of the -do schools were taken as supplemental to the core martial training you had. It's similar to the European systems. The wealthy had formal training for warfare and a separate system for dueling and fencing. The techniques you learned for warfare, with the basis of it being tight, formation combat are much different from the dueling and fencing. The wealthy were trained in both, and many of the warfare based grappling techniques wouldn't have been used in sparring because you'd harm or kill your training partner doing them.
I had the same reaction when I joined the fencing club in university. I was really looking forward to learning swordsmanship. Not the type of sword fighting I necessarily wanted to know, but close enough. Then in orientation, the coaches came forward, held up a foil and said "This is a pistol grip..." 'Disillusioned', I believe is the word.
The pistol grip derives from French officer weapons of the 19thcentury who had some of their fingers lost. So they developed this ind of grip in order using a sword with just 3 or 2 fingers
there is a reason it is called "sports fencing".. it is a good introduction.. and I guess it is really what you want to learn from swordsmanship.... it is called physical chess it is no longer involved in learning how to survive or win a duel.... but a sport in itself I guess....
History would suggest that most swords that were worth their salt really didn’t need a pistol grip for improved blade control. Unless of course literally all of those people were idiots and didn’t know a thing about sword design. Even though they were in a much better position to judge what made a good sword than me or you will ever be in. Having the luxury of seeing what worked in a real duel is something you ain’t getting it from playin electric tag with giant sowing needles. Nor will I or anyone else in HEMA ever have that while using blunted versions of historical weapons in a way that doesn’t result in death. We can talk about sword design all day, the fact we know what swords are good for chopping, which ones are good at piercing armour, and the fact fencers know what works best in their environment ain’t all that important. We ain’t killing anyone. Swords are literally only around for killing people and looking pretty.
@@lowlandnobleman6746 actually, such curvature in the grip has been well known and practiced for a while, the pistol grip is just the most extreme form. Most swords will have a less extreme version of the curvature.
I was a competitive saber fencer in college in the early 1980s and fully enjoyed it. In those days, saber fencing was "dry," (non electrical) and it allowed for something a bit closer to historical fencing. I saw some great tacticians of the saber from Italy's Michel Maffei to Hungary's Pal Gerevich to the great American sabreur, Peter Westbrook. But it's true, too, that even then I noticed we were more geared to outscore our opponents rather than protect ourselves from being touched. As as the narrator claims, I originally started to fence so that I could learn "sword fighting."
"In the old times it was better than the news" Said every old chap in the history of everything. Change is not god or bad, it simply is, and is up to us to adapt. Now, in this case, I thing that Matt is right: This thing has diverged enough from actual fencing to be something different, something new, and probably something that a master swordhumas of any culture would scoff at. But that's okay, since swordhumans are obsolete anyway, and we are free of doing whatever the hell we want with our cultural heritage. I think that we must always work to preserve our cultural nuances, understanding their context and evolution, but that doesn't mean that we can't enjoy them however we want. "Weapons derived sports lost their souls", you said. But they didn't, their soul simply changed with the soul of their practitioners. Deal with it, and if it bothers you, work to preserve the original meaning of the practice alongside the current one.
Look into IPSC and 3 gun. While the open classes have crazy competition only guns, there are classes with guns that you'd feasibly use in self defense.
I've done sport fencing for 9 years and you're absolutely right. As a kid my parents told me to practice a sport. I wanted to do swordfighting but knew nothing of hema (if it already was around in my country back then nobody knew of it) so started sport fencing. Now I've switched to hema because that was the thing I actually wanted to do. Sport fencing is very intense and requires a lot of skill but it isn't sword fighting. It shares some principles though, which I've taken over to hema; my trainers often say I'm very good at judging the distance to my opponent andat facestabbing :D
As a 12 year old child I VIVIDLY remember seeing sport fencing on tv and being completely disinterested because it didn’t look authentic. I was very interested in real swordsmanship but never had the opportunity. Japanese kendo also has similar issues.
HEMA tournaments have the same issue. The swordfish tournament was won by a russian, because he forced doubles (suicide attacks) once he was in the lead. "Playing tag" always happens if you have system that has points and several rounds for each combatant.
@@flaggschiffen (resurrecting an old comment, but oh well) Ironically, that’s why modern day right of way exists - to discourage suicide attacks from being a viable strategy.
Very true my friend. I went back to Judo a while ago and was utterly disappointed at how many effective (how can i say it in english, moves?) do not exist anymore for the sake of making the sport "better for t.v" Goddamit. It changes completely how you fight.
"Combat Judo" would actually be called ju jutsu...and no, not the Brazilian type. It may also be referred to as Bugei or Heiho....but that involved weapons and large-army strategy. Any art that takes the "surname" of "do" is a sport. All combat systems from Japan have the moniker of jutsu... ken jutsu, tanto jutsu, Aiki ju jutsu, hojo jutsu...etc.
This is so true. I've always liked martial arts, so when I was 14 I started practicing Taekwondo. Even if you learn a lot of techniques and have personal growth, it is now too focused on tournaments and sports. Sometimes, literally, you felt kinda forced to go to competitions in order to enjoy the martial art, using the same strategies and techniques over and over again.
Same thing that made me quit fencing tbh. They cared only about you going to competitions and paying for the equipment. It was all about making champions and the rest of the class were "dead weight that pays for it". It don't know if there is something called "competitive greed" but that is how i would define it.
That was my issue with karate when I was a kid. The instructor REALLY wanted me to do competitions and said I supposedly had a natural talent for it, but I didn't take up martial arts to do competitions. Literally, the very moment he mentioned competitions, it completely switched me off from it and I lost interest quickly after that. I feel the modernized emphasis of competitions deviates drastically from the original spirit of the martial art itself.
This is why when I spar with friends we make our own rules of engagement. Generally if the hit doesn't feel like it would incapacitate you, keep going.
Right-of-way rules in sport fencing actually comes from practical, real sword fighting experience. If two people are facing each other with sharp swords and both attack at the same time, you may stick your opponent but your opponent may stick you as well. Having stuck the other guy with your sword is not much consolation if you got stabbed too. The point of a sword fight is to survive the encounter. Right-of-way rules are meant to train the fencer to always perry the opponent's attack first, before counter attacking, therefore not getting killed.
As someone who has done Sport Fencing for 2 years and Kendo for 3 years I realize there can be a knee jerk reaction from our communities to precieved attack which I can understand. Both have the fundamentals of the original styles of sword fighting but have moved to be abstract sports. They still require an amazing amount of skill but they have techniques and strategies that would only be effective in a sporting context due to the nature of the practice weapons and not effective in real swordsmanship. Where I tend to tilt my head is when sport fencers start asserting that somehow they know more about real swordsmanship than treatises and first hand accounts covering periods when these weapons, the real weapons, were actually being used for combat. Saying things like the "Opponent would drop dead instantly from any thrust" which is very rare and almost always wrong, which can even be backed up by modern crime accounts. Or attacking HEMA for having "too many weapons" and therefore a less effective fighting art- which is nonsense, or citing that "any modern day Olympic fencers would come out of any sword fight unscathed" is really stretching things to absurdity. If you train with a much lighter and flexible practice weapon, likely never touching a real smallsword, in a way that you only care about stabbing your opponent first with fearless abandon, you're almost certainly going to die! You probably will take the other guy with you because you stabbed them quicker but now's there are just two dead guys, nobody wins. If you don't train for something and then are expected to do that thing that you haven't trained for, you aren't going to immediately pick it up. There needs to be a realization in these particular parts of the Sport Fencing community that Sport Fencing in the way it's practiced today is abstracted and isn't practical swordsmanship. If you're okay with that, fine, if not then make moves to change aspects of sport to be more realistic and quite frankly more enjoyable to watch. For example, the time period of striking first being raised to one second and after blows being counted against a point.
@@jonathanhou8712 Or throw dirt, scratch the eyes, kick the groin or any number of things we're taught to be considered underhanded but they'd actually do in a heartbeat if it meant that they got to go home alive at the end of the day. I've seen quite a few fairly talented MMA fighters get the piss beat out of them in street fights because the street doesn't have rules and that dumb mook you may be able to mop up in the ring will beat you to death or put you in the hospital when he pulls out a knife or some other weapon. This is why the military tries to make a very clear distinction between fighting and combat. You'll get trained in SOME ground techniques because a grappling match that leads to the ground is documented as fairly common in warfare, there is some worry though, that too many people are trying to do it on purpose because they're too into BJJs fighting success but relatively untested combat success. While I see a growing number of military personnel when I was still in that were gravitating and taking BJJ which isn't a bad thing in itself, too many of them were conditioned with the goal of taking the fight to the ground not realizing how extremely vulnerable they are shooting for a single or double if your opponent decided that they didn't want to play by the same rules. For example, had an senior NCO that did taijutsu with me and he got into a light sparring match with another guy who was a BJJ guy. The BJJ guy shoots for the takedown and gets a double and gets him on the ground but didn't realize that he had a huge red line across his throat. The NCO had a plastic knife with red dry erase marker all over the blade and had effectively slit his throat when he came in for the takedown. In taijutsu we learned to hide weapons on ourselves and he had hid the knife on him. The other guy was pissed that the NCO would bring a weapon into a sparring match and the NCO reminded him that in real combat, the enemy isn't going to play by the rules and to approach and train fighting and trying to apply it to actual combat will get you killed.
@@Talishar I'd like to also add on that some of the treatises that people who HEMA study focus on fighting to the death. A good example would be the teachings of Fiore. In the introduction of his treatise, he says, "I'll begin with grappling which there are two types: grappling for fun, or grappling for earnest, by which I mean mortal combat, where you need to employ all the cunning, deceit, and viciousness you can muster. My focus is on mortal combat, ...when you're fighting for your life." Alongside his teachings for moves for dueling, he shows a self defense moves like what a person should do if they were to be jumped in a bench, grabbed by the collar in the middle of a street, or when they only have improvised weapons to defend themselves with. Many combat sports and martial arts (including HEMA) focus on the first type of grappling Fiore talks about, which can miss what some of these systems were origionally made for, which is disabling your opponent and making sure they can't harm anyone while keeping yourself as unharmed as possable. People seem to avoid the more dangerous techniques since they can't use them in a tournament or in practice. I think in HEMA's case this is especially disapointing since HEMA is suppose to be an effective martial art (for the type of weapons people used in the time when the particular treatise was written). I worry that people who do HEMA might end up like the BBJ guy who when he practiced with a NCO guy got his neck pretend slit by a plastic knife. If people care to study a killing art like what Fiore and other masters teach they should know all the techniques the masters teach and be able use the weapons they learn as if they were in a life or death situation, not just the ones that can midigate an afterblow in a tournament or the moves that can be optimised for a certan ruleset.
@@josephlucas4024 That's why it should be important to establish the concept of a difference between martial arts and martial training. One is a lifestyle to improve yourself, the other is designed to end an opponent before they can end you so you can move onto the next opponent to end. This is probably the lamentation that a lot of the old soldiers of note in the past when they discussed dueling vs combat. Even dueling to the death is a far different beast to battlefield combat. The problem that you end up finding the hard way is that most life or death situations where people are trying to kill you are going to be more battlefield-like than dueling-like. It's going to be a chaotic mess where the adversaries you think you knew starting off may not be the ones you needed to keep an eye on. This then though does bring to light that many of Fiore's serious grappling techniques aren't what you'd be sparring with because you can seriously hurt your training partner with them. I highly doubt when Fiore was teaching them that they were doing it in full-bore sparring. It was probably a very slow and methodical approach to ensure the student understands the basic movements and motions and slowly sped them up till they were natural in flow. The only issue I see with HEMA is the same issue I saw with kenjutsu. The vast majority of the weapon techniques are relatively worthless because I'm not walking around with a sword or spear/staff everywhere. They're good to take note of should some odd circumstances find myself with a sword defending my life, but the likelihood of that situation ever happening is lower than me winning the jackpot a couple times over. At least in the U.S., firearms training and tactics would be the best form of martial training to learn and practice as that's going to be what's the most relevant. If Fiore were alive today, he wouldn't be wasting his time with swords and spears, he'd be learning everything he could on firearms. Most of those masters were smart and practical and would adopt the best technology and techniques of their time to give themselves the best advantage.
@@Talishar To be fair, if it's a sparring match with any, undisclosed weapons, I can bring a laser pointer, and say it was a lightsaber. Ssswish, you're dead. What your NCO did is a meaningless pissing contest. Unless the terms of the sparring are disclosed, the BJJ guy can also just walk across the room, pick up a chair, hurl it across the room, and send you to the ER.
I was trained in sport fencing in the 80's by someone who was very traditional*, my technique (such as it is) is much more like small sword than it's like current sport fencing. I discovered HEMA because I went looking for fencing videos and what I saw bore little relation to the way I was taught. It's incredibly fast and incredibly athletic but there's no "conversation with blades", no attack, parry, riposte, no binds, nothing, just a frantic jabbing, whipping and dodging. And to be fair, I'm sure I'd lose to someone using those techniques under modern rules with electronic scoring. I'd join a HEMA group in heartbeat if I didn't live in rural Australia, for exactly the reasons you said: I'd like to learn how to fight with a sword. As far as I can tell the nearest one is an nine hundred kilometre round trip from me. Sigh. *His instructor had Mensur scars.
Mensur scars!!! That's pretty tough. I fence epee and bring everything including smallsword into the bout (that I'm allowed to) and because epee has no right of way I can usually fence how I like.
The most likely outcome is we'd both be injured or die. A reasonably well trained sport fencer of today is likely to be significantly faster than me, even when I was at my (not so very) best. I was trained to be more cautious, to never over-commit. The tempo I'm used to is much more languid and closer than what I see in current bouts. Modern sport fencing cares only about touching your opponent first, everything that happens after 1/25 of a second from the first touch doesn't matter. In a bout with sharps it's likely that after a couple of successful parries and unsuccessful ripostes I'd get stabbed and then stab them as they hesitated after that successful "touch".
As one that fenced extensively through high school and university I think perhaps this is a little too dismissive of the skills that sport fencing builds. Understanding of tempo, precise footwork and strong body position through parry, riposte and lunge are all key parts of sport fencing and these translate critically to good 'swordsmanship'. As to the point that sport fencing registers insignificant hits. Well, when one fences foil we only score hits to the torso (a fairly vital area!) and the buttons on the end of our swords require at least 500 grams of pressure to register the hit. On such a small point this is more than enough to cause significant injury. If one watches any competition fencing its easy to see the force of the hits in the bend of a scoring blade. Translate this force to a more stiff small sword and your target is in some serious trouble! Furthermore, having subsequently spent some time attending a local HEMA club, I found the general level of skill (especially in footwork) far below the average of the sport fencing community. Were I to have to fight a 18th century style small sword duel, I think I would prefer to face the average sketchy movement of a HEMA practitioner over the average highly agile foil fencer.
Agreed. If HEMA practitioners tended to be actual athletes instead of their usual amateurism then it would be more interesting to see what a 'real duel' would look like. In peak days of fencing training we could run marathon distances, leg press 600+ easily, do 75-100 pushups, jump rope 2000 skips in minutes. I could've probably held a full squat for the entire LOTR trilogy ;) But above all else we were really good at poking that other guy in a mask! As 'unreal' HEMA claims fencing might be, at least those involved take the sport seriously.
except when you guys always double kill each other then how does any of your tempo parry riposte or anything else matter? also while a small sword is also stiff the point is a lot larger and on types besides the colichemarde then its usually larger from what ive seen. also depends on how good your local hema club is i have a club that claims its a hema school but is actually stage combat and fairly shitty. its like kenjutsu you get people who dont know shit trying to teach it, and then you get guys that could take your sword out of your hand and then proceed to kill you with your own sword if the need came about. also dueling is only one aspect of swordsmanship and its a fairly easy one to be good at as at least in european history duels were fought with equal weapons on fair and equal terms and ground. it all depends on context, and whilst sport fencing at some clubs is more realistic go take a look at olympic level fencing the guys who should be the best yet rush in and double suicide every single fucking time. the reason you see hema clubs as being less skilled or amateur is because its harder to do, foot work is more complex as generally you have to worry about being able to cut with your sword or actually position something lighter then a couple hundreds grams into place, even small swords which are light by sword standards are 500 grams plus. just cause you move your feet alot doesnt mean your foot work is good, take a look a rolan warzecha who has video of them doing bind practice with sharp swords, he says himself he often doesnt have to move more then 4 or 5 steps. also you guys only have to worry about one line, side ways movements arent allowed, which is the first step a real swordsman will take as its the easiest way to avoid most strikes with a sword and allows you to freely hit your opponent at the same time. go watch skallagrim's videos on richard marsden vs lee smith. swordsmanship isnt about being in the best shape its about being smart, hence why miyamoto musashi was beating people much younger then him without having to land fatal blows in the later portion of his life. these so called atheletes would die in a real sword fight to anyone competent with a sword. and if two of them tried dueling each other for real theyd both die seeing how common double hits are in sport fencing.
christopher rogers depends on who you are and how dedicated you are, you may have been in good shape but if i gave you something like a katana or a sword designed for cutting could you effectively weild that for the full duration of a long sword duel.....probably not, they use different muscles cool you can lunge far and not fall over however your arms would probably tire your core wouldnt be used to the movements and seeing as sport fencing has no side to side movement youd have a minimum of 2 other directions youd have to get used to moving in which also requires different muscles or your muscles to work in different ways. you also wouldnt know to move the sword by its balance point to reduce energy used to move the sword around quickly. it has so many aspects missing from proper swordsman ship, doesnt matter if youre in better shape if the other person simply makes a smarter move. you dont always even have to be faster if your opponent is predictable then it almost doesnt matter how much faster they are cause the human body can only move so fast. go watch richard marsden versus lee smith youll see what a real hema practitioner looks like. also dont forget how many people who do sport fencing and dont take it to the point of being a athlete but do it for fun. and if you want dedication to something then go to old school kenjutsu training or hema training like when they were in the time this stuff was used, you know where they trained full speed and full strength with live swords at the highest levels. something no sport fencer could do since they dont even have any idea of how a blade even feels in the hand. a foil acts nothing like a sword, cutting off any sort of sideways movement and counting double kills cause i hit you a fraction of a second sooner is dumb. your sport is basically a speed poking contest sure you need foot work and some feints to be sly but its not fencing as the whole point of fencing is to survive the duel or fight. id gladly take either you or the OP on in a sport duel, you bring your little foil and we shall see how you do when i smack it out of your hand with a bokken or a feder. you rush in knock your point to the side step in where your weapon becomes useless because the real things for small swords cant really cut, and then bam half swording or pommeling. hitting with a smallsword hilt is useless and something thats not allowed in sport fencing, you cant step sideways but i can even if you do step sideways or use the hilt as a weapon the real things are useless for hitting with, your blades cant cut and whilst they can thrust well i can simply grab the blade something else you dont practice in sport fencing. its a sport not a martial art, you cant really speak to something when your own sports best literally do nothing but double suicide every single time, theres no grapples theres rules that dont apply to real duels or fencing and a number of other flaws. cool you guys are atheletes, however your still shitty fencers by the actual defintion of fencing. maybe change your rules and get rid of those fancy ass sensor sticks cause you dont need them, maybe get a pressure sensor instead and you know try acting like these things are actual weapon simulators instead of oh hey lets run into each other like were jousting. thats what sport fencing is pretty much foot jousting. also try practicing with something thats the proper weight of the thing your meant to be simulating as ive held an actual smallsword and not one foil ive ever held has been the proper weight, which means its easier to control the point and less tiring which means you guys should never not even once in awhile except with noobs ever fucking have a double kill as you dont tire as fast your more nimble with those then youd ever be with a real sword meaning all your reactions should be faster and easier, meaning you guys shouldnt need any rules other then maybe no grappling and same size foils as those are the only two factors that could effect fairness, side steps play no part in the fairness factor so why arent they allowed? your sport has too many rules and got stupid. your super practiced lunge may be good and all but if i parry your blade to the side sweep your leg and plunge a sword in your chest what good does it do you? your precise foot work is based on a set of rules and turns to terrible footwork as soon as those rules disappear, why step back when a simple sideways step works better. your tempo is useless when you do nothing with it, you open yourselves up to double kills and the best in your sport do this every single time. and if youre going to say youre better then why arent you in the olympics winning and not getting double suicides with your opponent. its a sport, get over it, your sport doesnt teach swordsmanship, if you enjoy it then cool, but its still basically a high speed poking contest, the only concern is hit them first, but like i said in a real sword fight, your only concern is dont get hit, you dont even have to kill an enemy just disabling them is enough. all the points you brought up for why your sport is better only apply because of the rules in place, not trying to be rude but when you know nothing about swordsmanship other then what a sport thats literally useless for swordsmanship, what do you really know about the subject? youve practiced things that only work when certain rules are in place, rules go out the window in a real fight and in a duel historically there are still aspects and things that were done you dont practice for. while your busy with your fancy foot work someone with real training will just grab said blade since they arent sharp hold it and youre fucked. try adding a buckler or a maine gaunche and adding some hema back into your sport and maybe youll see what i mean.
bmxriderforlife1234 Actually the only weapon you can get a double hit and both be awarded a touch is the epee. The weapons with right of way have it because a hit to target area (a stab to the chest for foil, or a cut to the top half in saber) would debilitate or kill you. Epee on the other hand comes from the most recent dueling tradition of first blood. This is why double hits are awarded, presumably both of you stabbing each other's hand won't kill you. Stabbing into an oncoming attack coming towards you likely will. Right of way rewards correct actions.
has nothing to do with my point, double hits are essentially you guys both suicideing off each other. also since sport fencers dont aim for the hand it essentially robs you of the difficulty. fact is though sport fencing doesnt teach swordsmanship.
What's a sword used for? To kill!! Kill what!? The enemy!! With what!? A Sword!! Well done! Fall in!! --- What's a foil used for? Beep! Beep! Beep! Win!
I disagree a little bit. A sword are designed to overcome the oponent defenses. Killing or not is a people decision. On a historical knight tournament, the blades, maces and spears keep dangerous, but the action is not intended to kill. Or on a first touch or blood duel. What I mean is that it is perfectly possible to have a sport that keeps its original features and still be civilized and safe. This is exactly what the HEMA does.
CopernicoTube A sword is a weapon designed to minimize the enemy's capability to inflict force upon yourself. Which can both mean kill and maim. I was more parodying or copying the rather famous video which is on TH-cam about an angry Scotsman teaching recruits HOW TAE FECHT WITH A BAYONET! From the BBC history series "Soldiers" (Infantry episode)
CopernicoTube Well, I think the primary function of a sword through history has generally been to inflict a disabling injury to an unarmoured or lightly armoured enemy. With a secondary defensive function, and often a tertiary function as status-symbol, the status symbol element ironically deriving from the sword's lack of utility as a tool (agricultural implement, eating device, etc). The big functional divide I think is between slashing (likely immediately disabling, and showier) and piercing (possibly greater eventual lethality, at the cost of less immediate disabling effect). Both functions are useful, and of course many swords can do both.
"How many people are really thinking about disabling when they lift their weapon?" In an actual battlefield situation I'd say they are mostly thinking 'get him before he gets me', without much concern whether 'get' means kill or just wound; hence I said 'disable'. It's different with an assassin's tool such as a sniper rifle. When IRA snipers used Barrett .50 rifles to shoot RUC policemen, the function of the rifle was to kill; a wounded policeman would be a sub-optimal outcome from the POV of the sniper. Sometimes the primary purpose of the sword is literal killing; eg the design of the Roman gladius and its training focused on lethal stomach strikes up into the vital organs. The Roman way of war was essentially battlefield butchery. But historically that seems relatively rare; usually most of the actual killing is/was done to captives, after the actual fighting is/was over. The design & associated technique of eg a Viking sword was more about disabling limb strikes, followed by an execution strike to the neck of the incapacitated or captured opponent.
This is similar to modern archery and how I feel about it. Apart from hunting, modern archery is very nearly completely focused on target-shooting and pinpoint accuracy. However seeing many other people at the range, I feel that this focus on pinpoint accuracy from the get-go leads to many archers adapting many bad habits, and becoming very dependent on their bow and gadgets. For example many people are really clumsy and slow to nock a new arrow whereas I feel that by focusing on quickly nocking by feel alone allows for more concentration and time to be placed on accuracy down the line.
As a sport fencer, I agree with a lot of this video, but i think the current sport of FIE fencing does have merits in and of itself and an evolution. If i was to have a duel in 2014 with say a smallsword, i would pick the pistol grip every time. its just functionally superior for the thrust, minus a slight bit of reach if you're pommelling. I must agree that i think a lot of FIE rules are bullshit for various reasons. The priority system basically allows incredibly risky tactics to pay off in foil and sabre, but i think most serious fencers understand that epee, without priority rules, is the most authentic. I feel like there would be easy ways to fix a lot of these issues too, which bothers me. like for sabre, just adding like a rubberized coating so only the edge can score a point would be massivly better. maybe im thinking too into it but i think both have reasons for existing
Yes, I too think that there are some relatively small and easy ways to change sport fencing equipment and rules to make it more like the real fencing that it was originally supposed to be - I'll talk about this in a future video :)
good idea but it would still not add tooo much realism - i mean it basicly stays hitting each other without any defense - i would actually add the rule that you ONLY get the point if you are NOT hit for 2 or 3 seconds after you hit the enemy so you actually "survived" your maneuver - and maybe add a scoring system that a hit to the toe does not count as much as a hit to he heart. I think you would have to change a LOT to get sport fencing back to what it was originally. But to be honest i am glad things evolved as they did - this way we have more possibilites - in some countries they do full contact fights with steel (blunt) weapons in armor where the winner is decided by actually winning the fight like enemy gives up, is disarmed or actually knocked out or simply hit badly enough that he lies on the ground and the opponent (in a real situation) could stab him. In germany is a group who do this even with axes however they do have broken bones relatively often. Anyway if sport fencing would be more historically correct who knows what would have happened - i am relatively sad cause in my area most clubs for medieval stuff are actually show fighters so no chance to learn there either and the one hema club here only teaches longsword - quite a pain in the...cause i want to learn poleaxe and 2 handed axe
It would be interesting to see what real swordmanship would be like if sword fighting for real (as opposed than for sport) was a thing people did. What kind of equipment we'd have for that scenario if people still duelled to death with swords, for instance, or if it was still important in war.
Altrantis i guess like in most cultures the duell to death thing would have evolved into a duell of first blood and i guess the protective gear would have evolved while the weapon itself may have become even more "harmles" to prevent accidental deaths. In war...actually it is very hard to say. Basicly i guess weapon design would have changed a bit but overall it would not be too different from warfare in the last 2000 years as BASICLY the only thing that happened was armor getting better and weapons getting bigger. If we follow this scenario for fun we would now wield 3 meter long swords and wear full plate armor with protective glass in the eyeslits
Orkar Isber Actually blades are still used in combat and they have followed the same trend as firearms, that is to say they have gotten shorter. A long bladed weapon like a sword is superfluous on a modern battlefield, however a good fighting knife/bayonet or even a short machete is often carried for a last ditch close quarters weapon. A carbine is small enough that in hand to hand you're close enough to use a knife, so a fixed bayonet isn't used much. Besides, the point of a carbine is compactness and a bayonet counters that.
I agree completely. I started in olympic sport saber in college and it was ok but I alway thought it was too rules based like "Right of Way". Years later I took up Historic fencing for rapier and saber and really loved it. To me that is real fencing and sport fencing is just race to X number of touches.
Sport fencing is hella fun though. As for comparing it with real sword play I don't see the point, It's like comparing tanks to drag racers. They're both motor vehicles, but one is meant for war and the other for sport.
The only reason why I started fencing classes was because I wanted to learn how to sword fight. Quickly learned that fencing isn't "real" fencing. There aren't many, if at all, HEMA clubs here in the midwest USA. Only can hope that HEMA grows and becomes more mainstream so that one day there are some classes/clubs I can participate in. Until then, it's just backyard cutting and reading manuals on my own.
I've been 3 years in epee fencing (Sport) , and it is not that different from historical. It is true that sable and foil have attack preferences, but epee sticks to what fencing is about, score (or kill) fast, before the enemy has the oportunity to do so
@@RandomAllen not really, they count simultaneous blows and there's about half a second for said simultaneous blow to count, if the afterblow doesn't happen in that time frame its a point for the person who hit first. Similar to first blood duel works (which is what the original épée de combat (basically a sharp épée), which was an evolution of the smallsword, was used for), which is why épée has first touch and no right of way. Though in my experience with epee, which to be fair isn't all too much, it seems that it usually it happens that only one person hits. Comparing it to HEMA is something else though. It depends on the club in this case. If you're in a very competitive club and take part in tournaments then it's literally the exact same thing (afterblows don't matter once they're out of a specific time frame). However if you're in a more "art" focused club, counter hits will count.
I was an Olympic Fencer for five years. I believe that it is a Modernized sport to keep alive a dying art. As long as it creates even a spark of interest, it is not a bad sport.
Completely agree. Unfortunately as sports become more popular they diverge from their original principles to bring new people in to the sport for the sake of commercialism (often by becoming over cautious to safety) . Same thing has happened boxing, Judo, MMA and weight lifting among others. I really hope HEMA doesn't go the same way. The worst thing we can do is to believe it is immune, we need to be constantly vigilant to prevent this from happening.
These changes are usually small and incremental, each seemingly unimportant or sensible taken in isolation but they mount up until you have a completely different sport. The only example I can think of in HEMA is country backswording now requiring headgear. It used to be the first person to draw an inch of blood on the opponent's fore-head but with headwear it's now changed to a point scoring system. I'm happy with this but it's still a large change in the dynamics as even the lightest of touches counts as a point. In the future it may require gloves, vambrace, jacket and leg protection which would make it no better than fencing.
Jim Giant It's gotten so bad in Judo, the teachers are no longer called masters or teachers, they are called coaches. Kano didn't even approve of tournament fights because fighting for fame and money is counter to everything judo was born from. Nowadays only the most hardcore judoka knows anything about pressure points, and only the most hardcore karateka know anything about traditional Okinawan weapons. Most guys that practice Jujutsu know nothing about sickle techniques, swordsmanship, and disarming techniques. All they care about is ground wrestling. Traditional Jujutsu is full of eye gouging, fish-hooking, and biting. Brazilian Jujutsu has none of that. I doubt any of them even know how to fight dirty. It's saddening.
Nate theGrate The reason for BJJ not having any of that is that BJJ is derived from Judo, not JJ. That being said, a background in combat sports is a good thing. I do HEMA, but also kenjutsu, battojutsu and Judo. I would say that Judo is the best thing I have done with regards to becoming a better overall martial artist. You just have to take it for what it is. I can see why Judo has banned some techniques in competition, as it's freakin' dangerous enough as it is now AFTER the rule changes. I write this while recovering from a broken ankle from Judo... even watered down, it can hurt you like few other MA can.
Kunstdesfechtens I believe your story about how Judo has improved your martial arts. Only a fool would doubt it. Judo is an amazing art. As for BJJ, I am aware of its origins in Judo. The reason it uses the name JJ is because it was derived from Judo when it was still called KanoJuJutsu. It's not just the fact several moves are banned from competition that irks me, it's that they aren't taught all.
They are in my club, but I'll admit we don't spend much time on banned moves. At least they're shown, and are required for grading. You never know when they'll change the rules an allow them back in. :)
Sports fencing is the logical conclusion of fencing becoming sportive. What do you think is going to happen to all other blade-based martial arts over time? Kenjutsu turned into Kendo and Eskrima turned into a heavily regulated sport as well. HEMA will go down the same route, it will become sports fencing with a two-handed stick.
Couldn't agree more, Matt. I remember watching sport fencing in the olympics as a kid, and thinking "this isn't right... why aren't they defending? If this was a real fight, they'd both be so wounded it'd be pointless to have even fought."
They do not defend by blade action because statistically, it's a low percentage move. (In sabre, fewer than 1 in 20 hits are scored after a defensive blade action) So best to guard by distance, or take out your opponent before he can take you out. Ideally, both.
You basically explained logically my feelings about sport fencing. Ever since I was a kid I wanted to learn sword fighting so bad. But even with that burning desire inside me, I never could get into sport fencing. It was not a martial art, or indeed fencing, to me it's more like basketball or volleyball or soccer or any other "normal" sport. But recently I discovered HEMA, and that really made the difference ;)
Is there a name for "kendo" that has none of the fluffiness, traditions, or cultural attachment, and is just "learn to beat your enemies ass with this stick". I don't mind using training swords, and kendo has a flair I enjoy. For me, it's not like I think we're going to have a zompocalypse and I'll resort to a broadsword instead of a shotgun. I get the 'pointlessness' of it all. But if I'm going to exercise one way or another, doing something 'fun' and instinctual and raw and mean is a hell of a lot better than jogging.
Joshua Wardrop Well there is SCA fighting where they use real armor of their choice and beat each other with clubs made of thick rattan to simulate various weapons including swords. Scoring is based on a firm hit with the person hit expected to acknowledge the blow using the honor system. There are still judges to monitor the fights and give a decision when necessary.
i still love sport fencing, but you definitely hit the nail right on the head with this video and i agree 100% and i never really thought about that way until now and appreciate you making this and all of your other videos.
my thoughts exactly... it made me re think a lot of things I know from fencing... and even some from HEMA (s I tried some re-enactment stuiff for a yer or so ... it was fun but wierd..)
I do sport fencing and I only fence epee with a french grip. I don't really like the right of way rules. I thought the issue is pretty clear, if you hit first, you obviously had the right of way. If you both hit, then obviously no one had the right of way. And you both "score" points because you're both hit, although something needs to change when double hits are on different targets. As someone who used to do martial arts with a dao, the pistol grip on epee isn't right to me. I get no feel for the blade and I don't think it really improves point control. I would love to use the straight french grip (and I did use it this past year), but it really isn't possible against pistol grippers who don't use pistol grip for point control but for strength. I don't hold the grip at the pommel like other french grippers do, so I need a quite-bent grip to counter the pistol grip's strength and speed with manoeuvreability. I don't think it is necessary to heed the teachings of modern epee to win at modern epee, incidentally. I actually try to use martial arts techniques in my fencing (and I always get called out for using wrong technique). I'm by no means the best fencer in my club, but I'm near the top at the moment, using my unorthodox technique. And I have no problem handling the pistol grippers. I'm almost certain I'm the only french gripper in my state who doesn't hold the epee at the pommel. Long story short, yes modern epee is no longer fencing, but it's still possible to be reasonably good at it using martial fencing technique. You just have to learn to suck up not being able to be the best under competition rules, knowing you have
Kudos. It takes discipline to make sure that you keep to practical techniques even when the impractical ones sometimes have an advantage within the scope of some rules or some exercise. Putting your ego aside and putting yourself at risk is a recipe for great success in anything that you do. In training don't flaunt your strengths but lead with your deficiencies so that you can correct them.
It's all about whose standards you are trying to me. I fence epee in a similar way. I use a French grip the vast majority of the time and I try to keep my technique classical and make my touches firm and avoid doubles. Yes, the little 15 year old competitors in my club sometimes mop the floor with me, but I'm not in it for them or to be like them. I'm learning a technique. I'm 33 years old and I don't really care about winning medals at this point in my life (that's not to say I don't enjoy winning). I'm just trying to get some exercise, meet people and develop a skill.
***** Actually, I don't mind when a pistol gripper takes my blade that much as long as I'm not out of balance or position. That is because I find getting the feel of the opponent's blade is much more important for me, tactics wise, than to avoid contact. Often, it is just enough for the french gripper to maintain the position of the forte (at a reasonable distance) in order to keep the opponent's point occupied and to prevent disengages or glides and using that time to reposition the point for a different line of attack.
I agree with your dislike of right of way. I'm an epee fencer and I hate the idea of getting a double touch and losing the point. I also think it's stupid because if your opponent started their attack first and you managed to hit them, then your reaction was good and you earned it. But at the same time it makes sense for saber. Since any point on the blade gets a touch accidental hits happen all the time. They also allowed double touches in the past, but the way saber is taught, bouts were just doubles over and over again until someone got lucky or missed. A lot of saberists are skilled and a lot are good at just winning right of way. Either way it's how you fence. I prefer epee for other reasons too though. It's not just that I can't win right of way. I love the feeling of a toe touch, for example. And the way you can only hit with the tip of the blade, and the fact you have to hit hard enough to depress it, means you don't have to worry about the stupid "that wouldn't be a real hit" argument. Probably my favorite thing about epee though is that it's, in my opinion, the fighting blade of sport fencing. By that I mean that blade work, especially with the use of parries, is a lot more useful. Sure that's important in saber and foil, but in epee it can really make or break the bout for you. Saber seems to be a lot more "start your attack and run forward" recently. I'm not trying to bash on the other weapons; I respect them fully. I just feel that modern epee fencing really does teach swordsmanship, especially more than the other blades, because of the type of technique that comes into play. Oh and as for the talk about grips. I love my pistol grip. The difference isn't actually that great. Pistol just focuses more on the thumbs and index finger. The trick for point control with a pistol grip is to point your thumb at the target. Your thumb tail is pretty much perfectly in line with the blade and its a lot easier to make smaller movements with the grip. It really all comes down to personal preference. I'll admit I don't have much experience with French grip but I think I'll try them out a bit more soon. I'm six and a half feet tall with very long arms so it might be fun to use at a distance. Sorry for the essay lol.
I've noticed the same arc in shootings sports. After the elimination of heavier caliber rifles and pistols from Olympic competition. 3 gun (Modern and Cowboy) and long range (1000m) shooting really took off in North America with more tradition recurve and long bow archery gaining popularity. I can't speak for the rest world but I would like to know if other countries are doing the same. Now I look at Olympic Shooters and wonder if they ever learned to shoot without rests or those weird metal things on their faces. At least skeet and trap uses shotguns not so different than what may be taken into the field. I guess it's the purity of learning how to use weapons that serve a practical purpose we all share.
It seems that archers and shooters face the same problem when their sport becomes ever so focused on pin-point accuracy, their equipment evolves to serve those purposes. Unfortunately in doing so they largely remove the human from the interaction because human error is what the equipment is trying to remove. Those who start off in these sports with these rules and equipment never actually learn many of the fundamentals behind that sport and become dependent on the equipment (sights, releases and stabilizers in archery and that metal thing you mentioned).
Additionally all the blinking lights in sport fencing often lead the audience to just watch for which light goes off instead of looking at the actual fencers.
I agree with you that sport fencing is quite far removed from actual swordfighting to the death. But then, boxing is quite far removed from brawling as well. Boxing has many illegal punches and actions, and it's entirely possible to win a match on points without doing any actual damage. Still, it does teach athleticism and a correct way to punch. Yet it would be wrong to say thay it's no longer a true martial art. Similarly, sport fencing does actually teach you to look for openings and avoid getting hit, especially in early-game epee. Both of these things are very useful in an actual swordfight, just like knowing how to punch is useful in a brawl. HEMA and fencing are very different things with only a superficial similarity and I don't think it's useful to compare them because the intentions of both are fundamentally different. In sport fencing, the intention is to score points within the rules. In HEMA, the intention is to kill/disable an assailant like you would do in an actual situation, while remaining unharmed yourself. This is, however, also true for boxing, where the intention is to defeat a single opponent either by knocking him out or winning on points, while obeying a strict set of rules. Comparing this to krav maga, where the intention is to disable or escape from an assailant of group of assailants like one would do in an actual situation. If one ends up in a real life situation, one with training in sport fencing will be better able to handle a sword, even a differently weighted one, better than someone without training because they know the correct distances and openings to look for. A boxer would be better able to fight his way out of a situation because he knows how to punch and protect his head. Both boxing and fencing are no longer fights to the death, but they still train skills that would be useful in a real situation. To call sport fencing 'electric tag' goes a bit too far, in my opinion. (The reason I kept bringing boxing into this, incidentally, is because I wanted to show that not only fencing is drifting away from its roots)
Brawling dosent do shit in a fight. Im a profesional boxer and if u think some one can just 'brawl' me your rong. Can gurentee you i beat 99% of people in a bar on the street etc. And if u think winning on points isnt hurting or getting hurt u clearly havent fought in 8oz gloves and been jabbed and hit with straight right hands for 30 minutes. That shit leeds to brain damage and brain bleeds. Trust me
I would say fencing has strayed from its root way more than boxing has and fencing is more on the 'aikido' or 'wingchun' side of the spectrum than being on the 'hema' or 'mma' side which is still not real but way more real.
@Joshua M Nevin The whole "tag the other person first and get points for that" is weapon dependent and also not entirely true. Saber is objectively suicidal, with 90% of actions taking place within .3 seconds and both fencers getting hit. Foil has suicidal actions perhaps 1/3 of the time due to the rules and target area. Epee can be less suicidal than many HEMA weapons, I've seen matches that last several minutes with no contact.
Joshua M Nevin French and Italian grip epee swords are actually almost identical to the real counterparts in weight, length, and balance. Foils of the same grip variety are on the lighter end of real smallswords, but still have similar dimensions. Sabers are the least realistic out of the three, but if you’re used to light Italian sabers,then they’re not too bad. With the exception of saber, the rule sets work well in terms of discouraging suicidal actions, even for epee, where suicidal actions can be beneficial.
I must admit that I never liked the pistol grips much, which we used for the "electrified" sports fencing back then. All in for the Italian grip there. Yet what I do like about sports fencing is the formal footwork school: We spent sweaty ages to learn "walking" again - basic steps, cross-steps and lunges -- before we were allowed on the planche. That was not just "this feels about right maybe" footwork, but very precise. Which offered us a pretty good base in footwork, which I consider an essence in most martial arts. It even helps us a lot in Jugger training.
Kendo is even worse. While in sport fencing you're still using swords, albeit very light and useless outside the sport, in kendo you're fighting with sticks. Literally. Kendo rules are much worse than sport fencing - the later still considers a hit as a hit (even though there are some parry-riposte rules), while in Kendo the fighters are spamming attacks at each other until one of them does a "clean hit" - all the other hits, which would incapacitate and kill both fighters, are useless. Sport fencing is almost a slugfest (with training flexible swords), Kendo IS a slugfest (with sticks).
Rafaello Fareday Jonathan Allen Yeah, at least shinai and bokken are stiff. You can make cut-like strikes and thrusts with them. They're perfectly serviceable training swords. Not to say that kendo isn't corrupt, but the problem rests in the rules, not the implement.
Kendo is a fucking joke. The excuse to it being the way it is, and i shit you not, is that since the ownership of Katanas and Tatchis was banned in Japan in the 1800's, Kendo emerged as an ART FORM to honor those days. Mate you can come at me with each and every orientalist fast food thought on the book, you are not honoring shit. You're probably disgracing the Samurai.
@@ArtilleryAffictionado1648 Those “do” type martial arts always bothered me. It seems an odd thing to do to turn a fighting system into a pseudo-philosophy. I guess it’s a natural consequence of the 250 year peace of the Edo period. You’d have thought they’d have revived at least the sword-based “jutsu”s since they were using katana where westerners were using sabres thoufh.
very helpful video! I just found out my new school's fencing club does classical fencing and was a bit apprehensive about it because the quick, high speed Olympic fencers always looked really cool to me. This video sorted out a lot of the myths and questions about both styles and how classical fits between HEMA and modern fencing. I especially liked your comments about fencers being people who want to learn to fight with a sword because that really applied to me. Thanks for this informative video!
They are very good points, well explained and well made... As an added comment, I am one of those guys who wanted to learn swordsmanship and joined a hema club, when learning to fence - or sport fence, has never ever held any attraction...
Agree 100%. I started fencing (Classically) in 1964. My instructor started fencing in 1927, because boxing wasn't combative enough. He learned to fence from five European masters, (at least one of which fought duels with sharps, in Italy before coming to the U.S). Those preWWII teachers were long lived, so some of them actually were learning and teaching in the late Victorian and early Edwardian era.... And they viewed Classical Fencing as a martial art. The degeneration of Classical to Neo-fencing, (the latter what my instructor called "calisthenics with sticks") was terrible to see happen.... With the decline, in my area really kicking in, in the '70s & 80's.... Sadly, although I teach Classical exactly like my instructor, modern fencers see our fencing as old-fashioned, quaint, and sadly behind the times. HEMA folks (and we have been visited by some major names in that community) throw us in with Olympic fencing, and wonder when we are going to get serious about sword-fighting. Very frustrating.
I have to say that I agree with Matt's opinion on sport fencing. When I started fencing foil at university in 1976 I was taught what we might now call "classical fencing". We used a french grip & blade actions were effected with just the fingers. Our instructor taught us proper arm extension, how to parry efficiently, how to step smoothly & how to lunge correctly. Fencing was elegant & beautiful. I went on to fence competitive epee with the local fencing club until the late 80's. By that time the pistol grip was king. It was now only about scoring points & elite athletics. All the art had gone out of it so I sold my equipment & left. In 2009 I saw an online ad for the Hanwei Practical Rapier. I put it on my Mastercard & have been practicing the rapier ever since. However, as you all know, one sword begets another & so I've been practicing quite a bit with my Mastercard as well.
I love HEMA and modern fencing as well. I think in my opinion that epee fencing would be the closest to a real duel since there are no rules on right of way as well as the body being the whole target. Hence, with blades meant for thrusts only (going back to your other videos explaining uses on small swords and epees).
+Jonathan Collins Though in epee to score you only need to hit around 1/25th of a second before the opponent. In a real duel that would mean two stabbed people. Also, in epee a hit that lands anywhere first, scores, even if the thrust is in the toe. Not very useful if the opponent then runs their blade through your face :-)
@@scholagladiatoria thats kind of an unfair criticism. As some HEMA institutions have a very similar system. And some Olympic fencing clubs have something much closer to what you describe. In all honesty this whole argument is a bunch of generalizations that very rarely hold true.
I agree with your views articulated in this video completely. I've never trained in Western style fencing although I was long interested. Instead, I started to train in kendo while living in Taiwan and continued to study kendo for 14 years. As a result, I was also introduced to such martial arts as iaido and kenjutsu as well. Like all novices, I thought I was going to learn how to fight in a practical and useful way with a Japanese katana and kodachi. While certain basic elements of fencing with such weaponry remain in these disciplines and might be useful in a real fight, the reality one quickly bumps into is that if one attempted to use the skills learned in kendo in a real sword fight (I know this is highly unlikely in the modern era, but bear with me), one would wind up dead or injured and unlikely to inflict any harm on your opponent. This was the result of a deliberate collective decision by the post-WWII practitioners and Japanese masters of the art. As part of the demilitarization of Japanese society, traditional martial arts were modified to emphasize less about learning how to fight and kill with a sword, and far more about mental discipline. Then kendo began to grow outside of Asia and attract fans in the West. The result is that modern kendo, like your characterization of fencing has bifurcated into sport kendo and "serious" kendo. Modern sport fencing, is more like a game of tag, only without the aid of electronic scoring. Serious kendo or kenjutsu wants to be about practical swordsmanship but falls short, in my opinion. I think on one level that the emphasis on mental discipline is great. But for anyone seeking to learn how to fence, i.e. fight in a practical and useful way with a Japanese style sword, one will be disappointed if they think kendo, and/or kenjutsu is going to teach them much beyond certain very basic skills, e.g. how to hold the bokuto or sword properly and how one should do certain basic foot movements. BTW, I just discovered your videos. Please keep up the good work.
When I got into sport fencing and learned the right of way rules and hit areas for saber foil, and learned there was none for epee, it make me choose epee and never look back. I also use a french grip and love the idea that double scores are a thing (though the timing needs to be a bit wider to allow for it more). Epee is far more enjoyable because you actually have to focus on protecting yourself and not just initiating an attack and hoping the rules swing your way. My one criticism of the video is that he lumped epee in with them regarding some of the things he poo pooed.
I've had a desire to learn historical fencing for a while, specifically with the longsword (nothing more than personal preference), however the nearest teacher is practically on another planet. I've seen most of your longsword training videos, and they're a great resource for the basics, but I was wondering if you might know other trustworthy online resources I could learn more from. I appreciate the help in advance.
There has always been a divide between classical martial arts and sport martial arts. Every rule that you introduce in a sport martial art begins to warp the technique and tactics. Classical martial arts can devolve as well with too much adherence to mystical secrets and forms. If you let one inform the other you have a living and exciting art that recognizes the history and context while allowing contests to burn off the impractical techniques.
scholagladiatoria Matt, what are your thoughts on the current movement of turning HEMA in to a sport (tournament fighting)? It seems to be at the same historical crossroads you described, whereby some groups are focusing on the tournament fighting aspect of HEMA whilst others are focusing on the historical art of defense. There's been a lot of division over the last few weeks with the publication of the NY Times piece on Longpoint in the Eastern US regarding the historical vs the sport aspect of HEMA (well, that and the controversy surrounding the 100 man fight in Prague which I'd also love to hear your thoughts on, but that's unrelated and just coincidental timing). Is there really a division? Are some schools more focused on creating tournament HEMA fighters instead of expressing the historical art? Is the growing popularity of tournament HEMA good for the health of HEMA in general?
Knyght Errant at my school, we learn longsword in the liechtenauer tradition, our classes are broken up into 3 nights a week, Tuesdays are tournament training, Thursdays are the principles of longsword and Saturdays are techniques. Principles of longsword in my opinion are the best as they reach into the core of being a good swordsman. Personally, the tournament training does not interest me, as the instructor focuses on winning, forsaking the art.
In my opinion competition is what makes HEMA alive. It drives interpretation and the sense of competition, fighting someone you don't know is an aspect of the fight you will only get at tournaments. A lot of techniques only make sense when they are fast and the opponent is not willing to cooperate. The most important thing for competition are the rules. The rules have to incourage good historical fencing. That is the thing we have to keep in mind.
In my last years at my last club I started pushing toward having the martial aspect of things. We picked up full scale rapiers, and I pushed for gymnasium sabres but it's hard go get that in an epee club.
Saying what I have felt for years. I had a vert brief intro to foil when I was 11. The next time I saw sportg fencing with th eoffset epee bell and the ortho grips, I was completely put off. You have crystallised my thinking exactly.
+scholagladiatoria really interesting video. Modern fencing has definitely changed a lot since it became a sport, but the idea of it being simply a game of electronic tag, especially in epee is in my opinion a naive statement. There is definitely a great deal of skill involved in modern fencing, and I believe the reason many people don't follow through beginners courses etc. is actually because it is a lot harder than what they would expect, they realise the work they will have to do and go to historical fencing as it appears easier. Don't get me wrong, I think fencing has definitely moved away from historical fencing, especially saber and foil but I think you will find that pistol grips aside (use them but think the sport would be better without them just from a traditionalist viewpoint) that in particular epee fencing is very close to an actual duel, and is a lot more complicated and skilful than you make it out to be. In fact compared to the other types of fencing, champions usually only start happening in late 20s early 30s, which is different to say saber with most champions in early 20s. There is definitely a focus on athleticism and fitness over pure swordsmanship in modern fencing these days, but only because that's what works, and I am sure if historical fencers many years ago had access to this knowledge they would have been more successful fencers. That's the beauty of modern fencing, you use what works, and not what it necessarily says in the text book, which is true swordsmanship. Also, sometimes less blade work is actually more effective and more pure an art form e.g. use only what is necessary philosophy. Perhaps as a compromise there could be a distinction between 'historical fencing' and 'Olympic fencing'? Also have you read a really good book called epee 2.0? it is a book about a world fencing champion who technically wasn't that good but beats the world using essentially one move, where his strength is not his technique but brilliant and insightful use of strategy. Interesting contrast between the 'old' and 'new ways'. I guess probably the biggest difference between the two seems to be more of an emphasis on competition for modern fencing and mastery for historical fencing which isn't right or wrong, but could indicate why they went their separate ways. I guess they both have their flaws. Perhaps the end goal of each would be both mastery and practicality in thier respective goals
Scott Rawlins Hi, I certainly agree that modern fencing is skillful. However, I disagree that epee is more realistic. Stabbing someone in the toe fractions of a second before they stab you in the face is not realistic to any kind of duel, whether it be first blood or to the death.
Matt didn't say this explicitly, but another individual got close -- sport fencing has sanitized the original point (pardon the pun) of the whole discipline of the sword, which was to prepare oneself for combat. We see the same evolution away from real risk and danger with jousting -- originally a close second to combat, by the 16th century it had evolved into a game about breaking lances, not unhorsing your opponent. The tournament melee also went the same direction for the same reason. I agree with Matt that modern sport fencing is nothing but glorified, electrified tag. It is a bloodless sport by intention. By along the way, it also lost all of its magic. HEMA is in fact the real thing, and people know it when they see it or take part in it. It's also not silly like a lot of re-enactor combat, which trivializes the momentous and turns as many people off from the real experience of swords as sport fencing.
Yep, I think I've wanted to learn to fight with swords for a while now, but 'fencing' never seemed all that interesting. I got the same feeling about Olympic shooting/archery, where everyone uses super-technological monstrosities that take away most of the things that made the sport interesting in the first place.
It has been a great many years since I did fencing as a kid in school but thinking back your points have made me understand why I disliked foil and fell in love with saber. I only really learned the basics as I moved schools and city but had a very good teacher, starting out with pistol grip foils though was totally alien and once I tried saber I had no intentions of going back. Only being at a basic level there was no electrical scoring, no being taught how to play the rules to your advantage and so on, it was just learning guards and strikes and no doubt a bit of experimentation thrown in simply through "not having memorised the book" or having to correct rookie mistakes on the fly. When I moved city sadly I stopped sport fencing as it was something I had started alongside a friend just for fun, the idea of joining a club outwith school and on my own when I had no real intention of going into competitions just didn't feel right ... and then when I finally learned about HEMA 10 or so years ago life and location kept getting in the way, my local HEMA club focuses mostly on Italian Longsword which isn't really something I feel particularly interested in.
I'm not sure I agree with this at all. Athleticism and point control exist regardless of the venue. Once an Olympic style fencer learns they don't have to stay in front of you, they would likely have a far better chance. They are faster, have more explosive lunges etc.
This sort of criticism of sport fencing, that it's arbitrary or silly because it doesn't sufficiently mimic an actual sword fight strikes me as quite silly. It's like a chess player complaining that a real knight could move anywhere, and a tower shouldn't move at all. It misses the point. The benefit of sport fencing is that it has completely shed it's martial arts past. It is a SPORT. It no longer matters HOW YOU LOOK when you fence. If you get the touch, within the rule set, you get the touch. This can be extremely liberating. Imagine a soccer player having his/her goal rescinded because it was a "bad kick." If the ball goes in the goal it goes in the goal, and that's worth one point. Some people don't like it, and that's fine.
When I did sport fencing in school I was fortunate to have a very good teacher. We didn't utilize those electric scoring system, it was an honor system. If you wanted to become better why would you challenge a point someone had against you anyway? It makes sense that if you desire to improve your skill that you be honest, and scoring a point by 0.3 of a second or some other ridiculous figure... Electric tag is essentially the best thing to call it, it's completely lost touch with what it was intended to be in the first place.
I don't know what image you have of modern fencing clubs, but we don't use electric scoring during practice -- unless we're specifically training for a tournament. Most of the practice sessions in my club (well known varsity fencing school in the US) work on the honor system -- just as you described. Furthermore, the club that I went to in high school (again, very well rated in my state), still had most of the practice bouts done by honor for the sake of convenience -- and to instill good sportsmanship. Why do tournament bouts have electric scoring? Because when you have prizes on the line, people don't follow honor as much. Fighting in a tournament -- to a lot of people, especially as they become more competitive -- is more about winning than about getting better. Obviously, you need some impartial means of adjudication and electric scoring is objectively better than a human referee using red chalk stains because of a very simple reason: The electric system only goes off once you've scored a sufficiently heavy hit. For foil, the tip needs to feel a force of atleast 500 mg (~0.5 N). I fence HEMA, and the refs in some of my tournaments have dropped very convincing hits because they just weren't fast enough to pick up my action (EDIT: And yes, the honorable HEMA fighter felt my hit for sure, but didn't own up. I wonder why...). As a result, a fair number of HEMA tournaments in my side of the world have players who intentionally fence slower so that the refs can see their hits. How is this any different from sport fencers playing to the rules, O' Historically accurate one?
I haven't paid too much attention to modern sport fencing, but this sounds terrible. Sport fencing always felt unreal in how each person dealt blows, and this just kinda puts the icing on the cake. Good topic Matt. I don't know enough to reply to it, but I'd imagine this should stir some people up.
Having done (i'v since left it) sport foil fencing for about five years, i completely agree. I went into fencing to learn real swordsmanship. i was disappointed to find that's not what it was, but stayed because i found it fun anyway. Now i have a question, I left sport fencing because it was much too hard on my knees, but is HEMA any different in that regard? If i did long sword, or even rapier, for instance, are the movements different enough that i could get away with not having super strong knees?
Jonathan Allen That's exactly it, the impossibly long lunges were killing my right knee. With no particular need for a quick recovery we were pushed to reach as far as possible (not directly by the coach, but by circumstances mostly) our coach was really understanding though and suggested i just not lunge quite so far and focus more on "blade work", but by that point i had already injured myself and needed time to recover. Thanks for the info, so long as i don't have to put full body weight on a sharply bent right knee reaching past the foot i'm fine till it strengthens back up.
zoll2000 Hello commenter from 4 years ago, I notice you say your knee passes your foot and I am here to say that is a bad idea and not encouraged in fencing due to injury risk. In all seriousness, my fencing club and many others advise practitioners to avoid exactly that.
Though I know little of sportfencing myself, you hit directly the cause why I didn't approach it, while I was always interested in swordsmenship. And it took me even longer to find any way into what is called HEMA, what is exactly what I was looking for as a child already. So what I want to say to you is: Thank you. Thank you for your openmindedness, for the sharing of your thoughts and experiences. It is thanks to you that I can learn at least some basics of the millitary fencing that I long for so much, it is thank to you that I finally know just how to call it - I didn't know even that, fencing always got me into the wrong direction, which was sportfencing. Again and again, thank you for your output. I believe in time HEMA clubs will be a bit more common than they are today, and swordfighting will find it's way back into modern times.
In my 20 years experience with sport fencing and 6 months long sword HEMA, I can say that the kind of fun that each sport bring is not exactly the same. I am very curious about HEMA, therefore I watch this channel, but sport fencing gives me much more fun than HEMA. The reason for that I guess is both the physical and mental challenge that sport fencing demands at a very high speed. I could not get the same amount of adrenaline in HEMA that I am used to get in sport fencing. I could not either see other practitioners of HEMA being as high in adrenaline as sport fencers. Sport fencing is like chess at high speed.
Rudolf Hellmuth Maybe you need to find a different HEMA club! However, fun is subjective and naturally some people will prefer one activity to another.
Agreed, sports and martial arts are not the same thing at all. With a weapon or not. I discovered that with Kendo/Kenjutsu. I respect both and most of all, the dedication of any practitioner but they are two differents things.
Performance enhancing drugs are a huge part of every sport where lots of money is involved. You're never going to stop that, best thing would just be to allow it to happen rather than making the sports in to competition to see who can take the most drugs without getting caught. That being said training is still the most important factor.
If you whip your wrist with an epée, you can bend the blade around the opponents guard to tag their wrist... Bs maneuver but it's another example of how different it really is
how fast are you whipping your wrist with an epee to do that? I can see you doing that with a foil and it would work even better with a sabre as you can tap them on the wrist with the edge, but you must have a remarkably flexible epee to be able to do that.
I can´t agree more with you Matt. Swordsmanship is an entirely different animal. I regret not having the chance to practice hema in my town. Thanks for you videos. Jolly good job. Cheers!
it has become a goal in itself not a tract to a goal - or winning a duel (or surviving) as it was originally for I guess.... not often do you fence for 1 hit - usually bouts are the first to 5 hit (or 15 in a direct elimiation semi finals)
Very much agree. I tried fencing thinking I would learn how to use a sword and was very disappointed. I've been doing HEMA now for about 9 months and find it endlessly fascinating.
but also, I do give you credit for calling out sabre. Sabre fencing has changed sooo much because of the electrical system of scoring. And I also enjoy and like many of your videos. And I think you are very cool as well. No joke. I mean that sincerely.
Spencer Brasch Thanks - yes I think sabre is the most removed of the modern fencing weapons from actual swordsmanship. The right of way rule, which does come from common sense, has been grossly abused to change the art in modern sabre. And the lightness of the modern sabre, or rather the complete lack of mass in the blade specifically, means that it moves utterly unlike any actual sabre or cutting weapon. Lastly, the flick tap used in modern sabre cuts, with any edge-orientation, is nothing like an actual cut.
Im an ex-sport fencer and I did enjoy it, although I agree entirely that a) its not a very realistic representation of a sword fight b) you can still learn a lot from it. On the matter of pistol grips, what is wrong with a thrusting weapon using a pistol grip? It's not historical, it not supposed to be, but does it give superior handling to a traditional grip? Could a rapier-type sword with a pistol grip be considered "better" than a traditional rapier in a real fight?
That is actually an interesting point. I'm not a fencer, but watching some fights with real weapons (ie. stiff ones) I observed there's quite a lot of circular movement of the tip of sword to go around the opponent's blade and react to it (which must work differently for the sport fencing with the highly flexible blades). It seems to me that a pistol grip would impede those circular movements resulting in a poorer ability to react to opponent's blade.
@@erykczajkowski8226 On the contrary, pistol grips are far better for circular disengages and evasive coupes for light thrusting swords. Its much easier to keep the movement as small as you need due to the greater stability and strength, as well as the blade naturally sitting parallel with the forearm. You couldn't use it on a rapier, the balance would be wrong, but it wouldn't suprise me if it were an objective improvement for a smallsword.
I would like to mention that you do have a point on the disliking the right of way rule in foil and sabre fencing. However, epee is still the closest that you'll get to in sportsmanship since the lack of priority and its still very essential to control your opponent's blade in epee! Feel free to argue with me!
So im watching "Reclaiming the Sword" and see man in a goatee wearing a Scholagladiatoria shirt and think "hmmm that guy sure sounds familiar"....Just to realize in the next moment that it was you. I had no idea you were in that documentary
Tomasz Wota Matt is always sporting a faint 'name for them' side burns to his upperlips/jawbone. Which I always thought looked cool like the guy in the movie the Professional
scholagladiatoria Incidentally, while that was a decent documentary, I was disappointed it didn't demonstrate more examples of the realistic, historical inspired movie fight choreography it spent so much time talking about. A sadly missed opportunity.
Has anybody ever messed with smallsword vs foil or epee? Like if one took the guard and wacky grip of a modern fencing tool, put a solid blade with a sharp tip on it, and had a go versus a smallsword.
I too have a background in sabre and some foil going back more than 20 years when I was in University. Our professor was definitely into historical swordsmanship, however. He even studied Kendo in Japan, as well as some other arts with the sabre in Germany and other places in Europe, and he consistently taught us (I had him for four years) that hitting each other at the same time would mean that we are both dead. We also tended not to use electric equipment much at all - he was very old school. So I never liked the rules of fencing, or the point of it either. I completely agree with your video. And yes, the reason that I, and my brother, both went into fencing was because of that wonderful scene in The Princess Bride (it had just come out a year earlier). We wanted to learn swordsmanship, damn it. I'm just lucky that I had a professor who taught us the essentials of it under the guise of fencing. It wasn't HEMA, by any stretch, but all of the HEMA fundamentals were there in each and every class. (not that I ever took HEMA classes, but I have been watching your videos) All that I can say is that a lot of fencers are ignorant, stupid, arrogant pricks for thinking that theirs is the tougher sport, and the more philosophically sound. It isn't. Put a modern day sabre fencer up against a HEMA sabre fencer and we'll see who gets actually "cut" first - the guy who taps with the side of his blade, or the guy who knows what the hell an edge is and how to use it, while trying not to get hit at the same time. Modern day fencing? Absolute idiocy. You might as well call it "speed stick tag". It has absolutely nothing to do with swords, and hasn't since a very long time. I applaud HEMA groups for remembering what the hell a sword is for, and how to properly use one.
Here’s the thing, your argument though it has many points I agree with, is grounded on the assumptions that all people interested in sport fencing are also interested in historical technique, and that this evolution is inherently a bad thing. The reason why fencing evolved the way it did is largely because sword fights were no longer a practical thing to train for. It then became more of a sport than something your life would depend on. Fencing or even martial arts as a whole aren’t the only things affected by this. Equestrian training is not about preparing to ride into battle or ride your horse across the continent. Rowing isn’t about the maritime tradition. Archers don’t shoot at human targets anymore. Yes, if you want to learn how to fight the historical way, look to HEMA. However, if you are just looking for a fun and challenging sport, then there’s nothing wrong with it. And as you said, Fencing teaches a lot of the same/similar skills used in HEMA. The primary differences are the weapons and rules. Pitting the two against each other doesn’t help anyone.
I fence foil because there are no HEMA around me ( I would love to train Spanish Destreza). There is no circular motion, just back and forth. Foil's Priority rule makes it literally a game of tag with flimsy metal sticks. The pistol grip is a joke.
The circular motions still exist and are still used. But they are only used defensively, not offensively. Because they only work defensively. With one simple lunge, and without moving the rear foot, a fencer can cover a 180degree arc. The right-of-way rule for foil was introduced in the 1600s.
This is true until you participate in a melee or free-for-all and your opponents have the indecency of having things in their off-hand, graving, or simply ganging up on you. This, of course, have nothing to do with one-on-one matches. In the end, it all depends on context. The more restricted the scenario, the more the skill shines over dirty tricks and luck, at the cost off the beauty of chance and the diversity of techniques.
I'm hip to the effects of melée and free-for all. Most matches at my club are multi-person matches, with ganging up encouraged, and sometimes two-weapon use, or sword and shield. But generally speaking, melées and free-for-alls start off with antagonists facing each other. If someone tries to flank you, best to head them off, rather than let them in to your rear. As long as they are generally in front-ish of you, modern technique can be used unaltered. Because, as I said, the circular motions still exist and are still used in Olympic-rules fencing. This also means that you should be able to gain significant training in the defensive circular moves, from attending an Olympic-rules club. Olympic-rules matches are fought in a wide box, not on a tightrope. Foil's Right-of-Way (RoW) rules date back centuries - they pre-date Olympic-rules fencing by at least 300 years. They are there as a training method, to emphasise defense during your early training. This emphasis on training is why, classically, foil leads to duelling sword (epée de combat, now shorted to epée).
Gordon What kind of circular move are you speaking of? I thought ca mo meant the way you move on the piste - forward/backward, but not being able to circulate.
percyjackson gardwanier In a knife fight, a free hand lets you grapple, a second knife gives the other person a second knife to keep track of. That said, a second knife takes more training to use effectively, because most people aren't used to using both hands. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
That's what i was thinking but i noticed you could grapple with two knives .Maybe even more effectively than with one because you can cut with both arms.Also if one arm is hurt or the knife is dropped in the fight you still have another already with knife in hand.
A dagger can be used as a decent lever for grappling, but it's not as versatile for that purpose as an empty hand. That said, I doubt that two daggers at once saw much use - mostly because a single dagger is pretty simple to use effectively (provided you know how to fight decently with your bare hands) while the use of multiple weapons requires additional training that for most people in the west just wouldn't be worth the time and effort if you could just go ahead and learn to use a sword instead. That said, in some cultures, multiple weapons were used in civilian fights. Butterfly swords were designed to be used as a pair, for example, and escrima has combinations like spada y daga and daga y daga (sword and dagger, and dagger and dagger respectively) named by the Spanish conquistadors who landed there.
What don't you like about pistol grips and curved sword handles? Is it because you don't like them aesthetically, or because you think they're actually less practical for thrusting weapons than a straight grip? Because IMO these ergonomic grips make a lot of sense for thrusting weapons.
Casper Howell what swordsmanship? modern sport fencing teaches very little about using a real sword, dont believe me? pick up a REAL rapier or sabre and try using it like a foil or fencing sabre. you will loose.
To paraphrase Gen. Patton's 1911 fencing manual: "the involuntary spasmodic reaction induced from being run-through is usually enough to stop the deadly momentum of the opponents attack." Search the keywords 'Nicaragua knife attacker police'. The attacker charges like a wild animal and thrust his knife into three officers - which causes them to drop down instantly. This confirms what Patton wrote in his 1911 US Army manual. Perhaps Ol' Blood and Guts was speaking from personal experience. The man that puts the point on the other man first wins - period. Noone is more adept at doing this than a good modern fencer. They train to put the point on the opponent first - whether it is an opponent moving in or an opponent on the defensive. Armored knights realized this, and thus their primary weapon was the lance. As with modern fencing, they trained to put the point on the target as accurately as possible, and with as much velocity as possible. When there is something on the line - the future of a dynasty, a life, or even a trophy - this becomes the default form of fighting for those on whose shoulders rest fate. For some real amusement: you can go online and lookup 'thrust vs. cut' or 'modern vs historical fencing'. You will find proponents of reconstructed fencing arguing (and with a smug tone) with the likes of General Patton - who was not only a famous modern General with real combat experience, but a champion modern fencer and West Point graduate. Patton 'literally' wrote the (1911) manual on fencing for US soldiers! LOL What a quaint little cult. I speak with a little experience: I have competed and fought both formally and informally, in full contact and semi-full contact stick fighting. But if I were to start over, knowing what I know now, I would have invested that energy in to modern fencing. (The lauded Battle of Mactan involved just 49 Spaniards, 200 or so native allies vs. 1500+ Natives.) Modern FMA itself is influenced by European fencing.
+Dirk Kingston You need to read 'Swordsmen of the British Empire' - it contains hundreds (yes hundreds) of accounts of hand-to-hand combat in the 17th-19th centuries. Patton knew very little about swordsmanship in actual warfare. In contrast, people like Hodson, Gough and Jacob killed dozens of opponents with their own hands in actual combat - opponents who were themselves using swords and trying to kill them. Patton was a fantasist and believed that he was a reincarnation of Alexander the Great! His only experience with the sword was 20th century fencing competitions… As someone who has been wounded by swords and knives, and as someone who has studied hundreds of crime reports in my job, I can assure you that most people do not instantly stop when they are stabbed. They just carry on doing what they were doing in most cases, but it depends mostly on where exactly the wound is (1cm to the left or right can make all the difference), whether they realise they have been wounded and what their psychological condition is.
Nice troll with the Patton comment. Even your own Gen. Montgomery respected Patton - and he didn't much get on with anyone. Hell, the Nazis said Patton was a genius of tank warfare. I''m sure you think you could take Patton in a duel. While not go all the way while you're making a outrageous statements.
+Dirk Kingston I am a competitive fencer and you're trying to make fencing something it isn't; maybe in 1911 the techniques were far more relevant but these days I wouldn't bring an epee to a knife fight
In what ways do you consider epée de combat techniques to have changed from 1750 to the present? What aspects of current epée technique do you consider irrelevant to earnest encounters?
Funny. In the Olympics, the tip of a fencers blade is the 2nd fastest moving object (beaten only by a target shooter's bullet). As much as you armchair HEMA fan boys (ie, you don't practice a martial art, nor have you ever formally done so) like to say that a foil or epee are harmless the reality is quite different. If the sword breaks or the tip gets removed somehow it can result in accidents such as getting impaled by the seemingly harmless "metal stick"
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 And your point is? If you want to go to danger the most hazardous Olympic sport is Dressage. As far as I can tell no-one has said that people cannot be accidentally killed in sport fencing. What Mr Easton has said is that sport fencing no longer accurately reflects sword work. As to the speed of the tip, the athleticism of the fencers is well acknowledged. What does that have to do with its resemblance to swordsmanship? You have peirced your strawman to the heart. Rejoice in your victory.
@@robdarvall2726 deaths? No, not yet, Injuries? Absolutely. Anyway, let me ask you a question, are you familiar with Kendo? You know that they use a piece of Bamboo as a stand in for Katanas right? Well modern fencing is the same principle, the Foil is a stand in for the Smallsword and the Epee for Epee de Combat, with Saber standing in for dueling saber. Its the same thing, can someone get killed with the Kendo stick? Its certainly possible but hasn't yet happened, same goes for foil.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 I still don't see your point. No-one has argued that foils, epees, and sabres are not potentially dangerous. I am familiar enough with sport fencing, having done it for some years. The possible danger has nothing to do with the argument. People who are working in both systems are proposing that sport fencing no longer reflects sword work as it was actually practiced. That's the argument. Speed of tip, potential accidents, all are irrellevent.
I was a SCA/Adrian Rapier fighter for a few years then I took a fencing class. Took me a long time to get the idea of "right of way" "What to you mean he started first, I would of pierced a lung with that blow"
Yes, we'd both be dead. Hence right of way -- for training purposes -- so you'd lose the reflex of striking back against a strike and do it only when you were sure of an advantage.
No other martial sport I can think of has degraded the martial styles used for it quite like sport fencing. Modern sport fencing seems like more of a game children play than a real competition of skill. When I first saw it, I knew nothing of real fencing and thought, "if anyone actually did this stuff in a real fight, they'd get themselves killed without doing much to their opponent." Then I saw some real fencing and realized the difference
Do not make the mistake of assuming that just because it isn't swordfighting that it doesn't take skill. Sport fencing is a game. It's game that no longer resembles actual swordfighting, but it is still a skill-intensive game. Being really good at sport fencing requires lots of practice, athleticism, and mental focus, not to mention godlike reflexes. I don't have a problem with sport fencers doing what they do. I just have a problem with sport fencers thinking that what they do is sword fighting, or anything like it.
Graidon Mabson Agreed. This should be what viewers take from the video itself. There's nothing wrong with what they do, it's just not what they say it is anymore. Foil-tag would be a good name for it, IMHO.
Graidon Mabson Nooooo, of course it's an extremely athletic and skill-heavy sport. Nobody's gonna take that away from it. But like you said, it ain't swordfighting! Not any more than chess is waging war.
I've been involved in sport fencing (AFLA, USFA, Empire State Games in NY, Club level) for over 50 years. My master was taught by a master who learned in the 19th century, so I recognize I am a dinosaur. We were taught that the idea was to hit without being hit, and that the rules in foil and sabre were actually there to make you treat the toy weapon as though it were heavy and sharp. We used to comment that epee (without right-of-way rules) was more artificial than foil (where right-of-way is raised to the highest level) because hitting first had very little to do with surviving. I wonder if you have every fought a juried bout in sabre. Since you had to convince the director and judges both that something happened and that you were right to do it, it was a lot more faithful to the ideas you expressed. I stopped fencing sabre competitively when then starting changing the rules to match the equipment, instead of making the equipment work according to the spirit of fencing. In my heart of hearts I believe french grip should beat pistol-grip every time all other things being equal, but I don't think it is really the equipment that is the issue. The equipment just reflects the changes in the tides of coaching styles. It is sad but true it is easier to teach a fencer to fast than to be smart, so that is done at all levels, and then the rules are changed to handle the mess of double attacks. Let's flip a coin?! Also good fencing is 'dull' so let's penalize defensive strategies - don't want the TV audience (the what?) to tune out. Sorry I haven't had a chance to take up HEMA, in my 70's now I'm not sure it's the time. Anyway - I think you are right about the direction the sport has taken. Keep on keep'n on.
You clearly have a bias, as you're an advocate of HEMA. But, as you say yourself, there are abilities which people cultivate through sport fencing. You clearly copy modern fencing training formats for a reason! I agree that modern fencing is not "swordsmanship", in a Star Wars or Three Musketeers sense, but it definitely is a sport in its own right and I love doing it. All the parries, counter parres, counter attacks etc. are all forms of "swordsmanship", just as the flick is. What you don't like is that it's not like a traditional sword. Having said that, I'm all for people doing HEMA and I think it sounds like a lot of fun. But even if I tried it, I wouldn't abandon fencing, because I enjoy it immensely in its present manifestation. The fact that athleticism is so key to good fencing I think is only a plus.
I’ve been fencing saber for 6 years and some of the rules for scoring are B.S. I enjoy the faster speed of Olympic saber, and I see it as super strategic because of the restrictions. HEMA definitely focuses more on traditional style and I’d love to try it one day.
I am not so sure that I agree with what is being said here. If hypothetically I had a real duel with any kind of thrusting sword coming in 3 months and I had to train for it, I am not sure that I could find a better way to train for it than sport épée training. Sure, it's not a real sword fight, but the rules are not restrictive at all like the right of way rules of florett or saber. Ultimately, it's two guys trying to thrust their sword in their opponent, and trying to avoid being hit, how they do it is up to them. Who thrusts first gets the point. Sure, there are many things that diverge from real sword fighting, like for example the lighter weapon, the pistol grip, weak thrust needed to score a point (750 grams I believe), short amount of time between touches to determine who gets the point, just to name a few. However, the footwork, reflexes, distancing, coordination and speed that one develops in sport fencing cannot be equaled. In sport fencing you develop these qualities with full gear on at EVERY practice, against many sharp opponents. I have nothing against HEMA but you have to realistic, the level of athleticism is extremely poor as far as I can see. How do you think that a real rapier duel between 10 épée-olympians vs. the 10 best HEMA rapierists in the world would play out ? Give the épée-olympians 1 month to adapt to the rapier and to the reality of the duelling and I am sure that they will win 9 out of 10 duels. Why ? Because they have trained with the best, using the best methods, all their lives. Athleticism > All.
'I suggest that sword fighting is not taught, and that it ought to be. Fencing should be encouraged to the utmost, but fighting should be regarded, as it was by Silver, as a distinct subject, and of much greater importance in the majority of cases.' Col C G R Matthey 1898 So not just the last 90 years, Matt.
Totally why I stopped with sport fencing. Just felt like a big game of tag. Also, when i first saw the pistol grip I couldn't help but find it ridiculous. Other combat sports (boxing, modern savage, judo, must thai etc...) still seem leagues closer to their sources than sport fencing. With comparatively minor changes you can apply such combat sports to less controlled encounters. And, in the case of hema,I think even sportive tourneys are closer to the source matter. That being said I will certainly agree sport fencing is a great workout. I still do the practice footwork and sport-style lunges as part of a workout. Still, I am very hopeful hema will grow even more! (All styles too)
Sport fencing does not need to meet your requirements for "real" swordsmanship. It is a competitive or recreational sport meant to have fun. While I am playing sports, I rarely think about the real life applications because, why would I want to? Soccer has no real world value, but soccer is still respected as a sport. Somw people might, but I do not fence any more for the historical value than someone might eat a bigmac and complain that it does not meet the basic burger caracteristics.
Can I ask why you rarely see any seeking the bind in sport fencing? In some smallsword stuff (close enough to foil one would think) it seems much more prevalent. Sport fencing seems to be more, strike, strike, etc. with less bladework. Is it because of the faster pace of sport fencing, or is there some other reason? (I'm not running down sport fencing, but as a dude with an interest in historical fencing and no sport fencing background, I'm curious). Also I would think for military sabres, smallswords, spadroons etc. the footwork would at least be similar, is that the case?
Its because the competition meta does not allow it. If you check a pre comp foil/epee warm-up lesson you will see plenty of binds. Hell when you first learn fencing there is plenty of binds or parries in opposition . But at the higher tactical levels if you want to stand a whiff of a chance of getting to the final most actions need to be done with a absence of blade and from a much further distance away than any smallsword treatise advocates, because (counter intuitively for non sport fencers) there is reliance on the acceleration of the point being able to beat a limited human reaction time, which has a higher percentage on allowing one to be hit and not hit back. And in order to do that you cannot allow your blade to be taken. Its the same reason why sport fencers don't bother using closing the line after hitting thus preventing what HEMA terms 'afterblows'. Every sport fencing coach knows how to teach closing blade actions if necessary particulary for epee, but in a competition this 'more realistic' set of skills isn't used. Why? Because IT CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU AS A TRAP. Sport fencing at its highest levels is a tactical escalation of 'I know what you know what I know you are doing' . At a certain point in the mid 19th century it began to dawn that those pretty pretty "sentiment du fer actions" binding actions were actually less optimal that the old masters suggested. Furthermore if you actually check the old smallsword manuals there are nowhere near as many binding actions that modern smallsword proponents show. This is puzzling: why over emphasise a set of sword skills that were not that emphasised in the old treatise. I suspect its more to emphasise their difference from sport fencers. This is not to say that there are not HUGE artificiality in sport fencing, especially in Priority rules. But the lack of binding actions is not one of them.
@@inthedenoftigers5702 Thanks. That is a very good explanation! Sorry for the seemingly silly question but being a newb to historical fencing and having no background in sport fencing it seemed a glaring difference. It is hard to visualize the reason sometimes when just seeing the action, without background. And an understanding of the background and what led up to it is often not something one can easily learn by watching videos (as sadly is the only real option now during the current situation with many places closed incl. fencing clubs both historical and sport).
@@thelonerider9693 No worries. Its even more complicated than it seems. For example if you check youtube you would be forgiven for thinking fencers are constantly suicidal: TH-cam only shows the Direct elimination bouts and Finals, where athleticism, hair trigger responses and the fact the fencers already have fenced each other a number of times or pre-scouted each other, means will dispense with caution as they already know their opponents game plan and are just working the percentages. What you RARELY see on youtube are the Pool fights, where Fencers particularly epeeists, are often ultra careful, especially against unknown opponents. In a pool you might have one monster, one really good fencer, two mediocre fencers and a couple of unknown rabbits. In pool fights you may have to be really carefull because for a true contender allowing themselves to take suicidal hits may negatively affect their indicators. It 'does' matter if you win your fights 5-3 , 5-2, 5-1 5-4. The very fact you even took hits means you will have an exponentially harder route to the throughout the direct eliminations finals that if you got 5-0, 5-0, 5-0 etc. Its the difference between getting exhausted taking down a decent fencer in your DE and cruising your first couple of direct eliminations against weaker fencers Those binding closing actions to prevent afterblows are particularly important to know against the 'rabbits', as often their tactical depth isn't that great. Better to be safe and negate any chance of a double hit, because they won't have the tactical knowledge to use it covering actions against you.
Don't you really know that right of way in the foil comes from actual history? Foil was a practice/learning sword and right of way was used as a good way to teach people when to attack. And then, the talk about handles... How in the hell pistol grip disqualifies the epee from being an actual sword? Does the definition of sword includes the design specifications of the handle? Have you ever occured to you that maybe the historical swords were like that because it was easier to produce? Do you also disqualify modern weapons from being guns because they have easier to use handles? You may not like the sport aspect of modern fencing. The thing is, nobody needs swords to actually kill people. So, the only reason fencing (or sword fighting in general) to ever exist in 21st century is that it is a game. You are not becoming warriors doing HEMA as you imagine, you are just playing with swords just as modern fencers do. It is just in a different, more olympic sporty kind of way. But then, do you actually believe that since HEMA is more 'real', you would be able to kill a olympic fencer in a duel?
Matt's point is valid. I practiced "fencing" for a number of years and walked away for the EXACT same reasons. I have never met this man. We live in two different countries and are separated by thousands of miles of ocean. But I came to the same conclusion, just like many others. Fencing isn't fencing, it is something else. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who still believe it has some basis in swordsmanship-it doesn't. Maybe the footwork. Though, the "weapons" aren't treated as such and therefore should not be named that name. When you absentmindedly toss your sword on the ground to tie your shoe or fix an article of clothing, clearly your lack of respect indicates you don't view your tool as a weapon. The list can go on.
+toothANDclaw13 Of course it is valid as an opinion. He has every right not to like modern fencing. However some of his arguments defending his point are nonsensical. As I pointed out, the right of way is an actual historical practice, for example. Or the weapon design has nothing to do with what he was talking about. For what is worth, historical fencing weapons are also not really weapons in the strict sense, they are dull. They do not function as weapons are intended, to harm or kill people. You may argue that they can be used that way if sharpened, but so can the fencing weapons be produced to have the ability to kill people. The thing that bugs me is that you seem to forget the fact that, in the end, it is a hobby, a sport, a game. Historical fencing does not make you a knight. You may be romantic enough to see yourself that way or see your weapon as a part of your soul, and that is okay. But weapons are really tools and modern fencing is as real as HEMA fencing. It is like saying modern swimming is not swimming, there are no rules in real swimming. You PREFER historical fencing, that is okay, but preference does not make a good argument for it being objectively better.
+Pool First, claiming the concept of right of way is historical and thereby using it to defend its validity is nonsensical. People were doing that 50 years ago, ten years ago. It's still a rule that comes from a time when much of fencing had ALREADY started fall into degradation. Second, attacking someone's passion for an art using reductionist comparisons is cowardly and in bad taste. Ultimately, the content of this video is questioning the validity of Olympic sport fencing still calling itself fencing when it has clearly strayed very far from its roots. No one is attacking your reasons (or anyone else's for that matter) for participating in sport fencing. That's your business, not mine.
+toothANDclaw13 Its not 50 years old though. Its barely more modern than longsword. Foil has been used since 17th century as a practice weapon and you can see at the 6th paragraph it says: "During the 17th century several major changes occurred in fencing. The "fleuret", or foil, was developed in France as a lighter training weapon for dueling. Right-of-way, a set of rules which made the game a series of alternating attacks and defense, became generally accepted. With right-of-way, duelists were unlikely to impale each other, as they did not both attack at the same time. This made fencing safer and reduced the number of casualties to dueling." acfencers.tripod.com/briefhistory.html You could find other sources this came up after 5 minute google search. The part you clearly don't understand is that there isn't only 15th century longsword fighting in history. In reality, there were also a dueling period and modern fencing was a recreation of the dueling practice. Sure it has evolved somehow but you can't expect it to carry on 15th century practices. And who is not attacking the other's passion? Get a little grip of reality! All of the video is belittling modern fencing. Yes, modern fencing may not be really swordfighting but neither is historical fencing. Again, you are not being samurai's when you practice kendo just as you are not being knights when you do historical fencing. It is a fucking hobby. Be happy with your hobby instead of feeling superior for nonsensical reasons. And arguably, sports fencing has more of a right to call itself fencing since that is what fencing is in modern days, even in the dictionary the term fencing refers to competitive fencing. That is what happens to fencing when you don't try to kill each other.
I agree fully, modern fencing still takes its roots from what it once was. The pistol grip argument was a bit silly since, French grips and Italian style grips are manufactured. One could easily take principles from "real fencing" and apply them in a competitive situation. One could also get a grip and understand, its a sport, non lethal, why does it not deserve to evolve.
Why do they have the rule about "who first started attack"? Why don't they have the rule about afterblows? Why don't they make the weapon thicker so people who watch this can see the goddamn weapon?
These rules do actually emerge out of real saber dueling, though it is hard to tell now. The idea is, if you're in a real "fight to wound / kill" situation wielding heavy, sharp sabers and the other guy comes at you and is clearly delivering a serious cut at you, it would be suicidal to ignore such a serious attack so you can get in a blow of your own. As to the idea of a "thicker weapon" you can indeed find these. Hanwei makes a couple of them that, while straight rather than curved, make for much better saber fencing than flicking people with a metal noodle. Wielding one with enough oomph to land a substantial blow takes a bit more time, makes the exchanges feel more authentic and rewarding.
There is indeed a rule about after blows. It is called 'the box' that does not allow a hit x units of time (weapon specific for x) after the first hit was recorded. So after blows don't count because the bout has been stopped, by the referee AND the scoring box. Technology... Who knew?
Dickon Jayes I'm not positive on how it works for saber, but for foil fencing at least (and i'm pretty sure epee as well) the "hit box" is damn near instantaneous. To the point where the machine would catch a definitive touche but a judge wouldn't.
There should be at least a three second delay between hit and halt to allow for a double kill. Perhaps the scoring boxes could have two tones so you can tell the difference. Beep..................................Buzz You could have a number of additional hits by either person during that time and they should count.
One of the most significant pairs of rule changes in Olympic-rules fencing in recent years were changes specifically to return back towards swordsmanship.
The FIE introduced them to try to put an end to "flick attacks" in foil, and whipping round the guard in sabre.
The FIE felt that marching attacks ending in the flick had ruined the character of foil, and that the rule changes would force fencers to rely on more conventional (i.e. traditional) actions.
The FIE tends only to make big changes every 10 to 15 years, so the evolution can be sometimes difficult to make out. But basically the last few decades have been trying to roll-back some of the non-swordsmanship changes that were introduced as unintended consequences of rule changes back in the 1980s.
true
Sounds like contrary to Judo, where the IJF tries to squeeze all meat out to make it more "viewer-friendly". I don*t think that was in the spirit of the father of Judo, Kano. But as in soccer, viewer numbers rule it all ...shame really. Good to hear that teh FIE has a different approach. (has it?)
@@Jugger_Coach Judo is still a real as hell though, which shows the other side of the "sportified martial art" argument; competition breeds excellence and weeds out the bushit "masters" who only teach their "secret techniques" to the gullible. Shame about the leg attacks, they were a victim of badly interacting with rules at the time and fears that judo would be removed from the olympics for looking too much like wrestling. Luckily, single and double legs aren't the absolutely dominant technique they are in wrestling cuz you can control someone from so much further away if they have grippable clothes.
@@internetenjoyer1044 Certainly true. Yet the "press argument" against certain techniques, as well as attack timing and such, is the thing that really bugs me. Trying to make a sport like this more "TV attractive" should not be a reason to ban techniques or change rules in sports like Judo (if "attractivity" really was the main argument).
@@Jugger_Coach If you're talking about the passivity rules and the rules about having to immediately use non standard grips, I kinda see both sides of the argument. Expert grapplers, especially when they have gi's to use, can both shut down each other indefinitely if they're trying to not get thrown first and foremost. Most grappling sports have rules against passivity for that reason; otherwise you'd have 20 minute bouts and it just wouldn't be practical. And is a ruleset that encourages it taking so long to use a technique more realistic in a "real fight", with all the uncertainty about other people jumping in etc, than encouraging behaviors that quickly end the contest (Given that Judo aims to simulate ending the fight with a high damage throw)?
Incidentally, I fully expect this video to get more dislikes than most videos I release. It's the nature of taking on a topic like this, but I think it's something I needed to say. I do also want to reiterate that I think modern sport fencing does some things fantastically well and HEMA can learn a lot from it.... however, the fact remains that modern sport fencing has totally forgotten what swordsmanship is actually about, whether it be to first blood or for military combat. This, I think, is a great shame for sport fencing, because a huge proportion of people who used to be drawn into sport fencing will now be drawn into HEMA instead. This is good for HEMA of course.
So far i can see, you don't talk any lies about it.
Not just fencing, all martial arts are being domesticated to become a mere game that does not maintain its original objectives, techniques and art.
Agreed. I come from a Sports fencing background, still do Epee training to keep my foot work and point control up, but will never ever do competition or tournament stuff again. I am lucky in that who I train with is classically trained fencing teacher, so teaches and passes on the technique to do things correctly. Watching some of the new people come out of other clubs without any knowledge of strength/weakness of blade or any real control of distance (they kinda just barrel at you) really makes me cringe.
To be fair, I have issues with the SCA Heavy "lightsaber bludgeons", metal weapons groups (not WMA or HEMA) and Battle of Nations for some of the very same reasons, its not swordsmanship.
Just like you sad Matt it’s a game, it doesn’t deserve the title of fencing, in other words a science of defense. As my teacher sad it, the only way that this ultra turbo fast competitive sport fencing can go on from here is nowhere, but where fencers as people can go is back in to history where try fencing and skill is.
Did you know that the orthopedic grip was originally made for a person who had his wrist or fingers broken or had some sort or hand retardation from birth and all other are now using it regardless because its after all easier to grip the sword with it, how silly.
Perhaps, the same things can be said about archery, i think. Modern sport archery is just as far from the real archery, which is now called "traditional archery", as sport fencing from the actual fencing
CopernicoTube I agree with this completely.
I fenced 25 years ago and saw this happening. Our first coach retired 2 years in. She was European and focused more on blade work and technique and wouldn’t even let us use pistol grips at first. Then she was replaced by a newer, younger American coach right out of college who emphasized extreme athleticism as the way to win bouts. In a few years, our bladework began to suffer more and more. What l didn’t realize at the time was that this was a trend taking off nationwide.
I’ll never forget the lesson I learned from going to the fencing club. We had a guy who was about 75 and fenced his whole life come every week. Nobody could beat him, even the super athletic young guys. It was because he had mastered his technique and bladework so well that people couldn’t hit him! It underscored the importance of control and technique over just the “rush in” raw athleticism (why I was never a big fan of saber fencing). That’s what I aspired to learn.
I had a similar experience, my 72 year old grandfather easily defeated 20 year old fencers with his superior bladework. It's sad in what state sports fencing currently is.
My philosophy on this (granted I'm a 'young' foil fencer by your terminology) is the following: Despite the fact that the bladework 'suffered' due to people focusing on footwork/athletics, the fact of the matter is that *athleticism beats bladework* . If it didn't, why don't we see 75+ year old masters sweeping the olympics every four years? It can't be right of way being wonky, because the best Epee fencers are also very fit, athletic and young (i.e Max Heinzer). Even the HEMA tournaments are filled with 20 somethings who are fit and have fast reactions. This isn't an accident.
As an aside, I really don't understand the fuss around pistol grips. I'll be honest, if I were sent back in time to the 1700s and I had to fight in a duel, the first thing I'd do is befriend the local blacksmith and have him craft a simple pistol grip. It is objectively better for fencing by keeping your tip pointed the right way, particularly when you start to get tired.
I can see the appeal of a brain over brawn cerebral focus on bladework (ala HEMA/classical fencing). It's romantic to think about an old hermit mastering the old ways being able to put a bunch of young whippersnappers in their place. But the fundamental truth throughout history is that youth, fitness and speed are far more consequential to how a fight turns out than technique. Technique starts to matter when both sides are equally fit. Your young american coach did more to improve the overall level of your team's fencing by emphasizing fitness and speed, rather than static bladework.
To paraphrase /u/venuswasaflytrap, if you had to grapple either an average HEMA practitioner who has read their manuals or your average 220+ lbs NFL linebacker/Rugby player, who'd you choose? Thought so.
@@inscrutablemungus4143 I agree with you on some points. Fitness of a person as a whole biologically always lends an advantage even when we control for age and gender. It's why Olympians seldom compete beyond a certain age against younger peers.
I do think if you have two people of equal fitness, technique is the deciding point. I don't mean to come in and knock athleticism in general-- some of my personal experience is colored by the fact that the age of the fencers being trained were teenagers, and so in that case, they didn't have a kind of experience or strategic discipline (with bladework OR how to use the athleticism to their advantage yet) in their approach towards the entire sport yet. In that case, you'd have people not thinking things through and just rushing in, making bad mistakes, and missing a lot of touches because they overrelied on footwork and strength but had poor point control or didn't understand right of way.
In a professional setting with older collegiate fencers, I wouldn't be able to comment having no knowledge, but the bar is certainly raised by that point because only the most fit and technically savvy make it.
I also don't know how fencing is handled in other countries, or the differences in HEMA, but I imagine American fencing has probably become profoundly divorced from actual practical self defense and become "faster" than when I did it. It's a good examination of the idea of "the art of defense" versus the practicalities of defense versus the change in equipment and weapons used over time.
Also, no hate on the pistol grips from me! I think the point (no pun intended) I'm trying to make is something more around how we are taught the sport-- what is emphasized and what is not and the neurobiological roots of it (a long subject but nit specific to fencing in particular). We are now being taught "Here is how to do X task quickly without much practice or understanding for fast results" everywhere in society, and it shows up8n sports as well. That's probably more of the location of my argument as to why I dislike the idea of overemphasizing *just* the physical athleticism with technique or understanding in a sport.
Raw athleticism matters far less in olympic saber than I think you believe. Most important is timing and sense of distance. Ofc if 2 fencers have similar timing and distance, being more athletic gives an edge plus adds additional tactical options. However, at least in the US, pure strength and speed is 99% of the time not the deciding factor in a bout.
Many would argue that hema tournament fighting is going the way of modern fencing. It seems that sports and killing arts are a difficult marriage.
on the other hand, all "bullshido" martial arts that teach nonsense are those without a large sport element.
@@internetenjoyer1044 seriously underrated comment.
It seems martial arts that don't have a sporty side to them lose connection to fighting at all, because they don't fight at all.
"Cause muh technique is to dangerous to be used...."
@@petritzky loads of martial arts have there own tourneys u twunt
@@Unknown-bp3mk I have no idea what you even mean.
Do you mean that a lot of martial arts have tournaments? Well, that's good and I never said anything different.
Is "twunt" an insult I don't know?
What is the point of your comment?
@@petritzky Except even in some of the sportier martial arts, there are techniques they don't teach anymore specifically because they're too dangerous to be used in friendly competition. Most of the Japanese sports martial arts carved out the battlefield combat arts from taijutsu and samurai budo in order to not destroy the person across from you who the martial arts teach you is your friend. For example Aikido techniques can be extremely dangerous if done full bore or with malicious intent. People just forget that it's an adaptation of samurai martial arts to counter-grappling while armed. That's why many of the techniques involve grabbing the wrist, elbow, shoulders/collar. Aikido comes from the stance that you are armed with a sword and an enemy swordsman got past your guard and is attempting to disarm or control your weapon hand. That's why it doesn't work in MMA or most fighting situations because you aren't running around with a sword in your hand so people generally won't grab you like that which would allow you to initiate one of the wrist techniques. Every once in a while though someone WILL grab them in such a way as for the technique to actually be used and it's not a pretty sight for the person getting thrown or locked.
Most battlefield based schools shouldn't be considered martial arts, they're martial training. Traditionally there is no sparring in them because you're learning techniques designed specifically to maim or kill other people and theoretically, the people training with you are your friends/clan members so you aren't supposed to be trying to kill them. Although some instructors did have a training portion where they'd have students fight each other and there were deaths and disabling injuries from it. The argument being that you did potentially get a better fighter out of it, but you're doing it at the expense of the total number of fighters you have at your disposal. There was a lot of this in early kenjutsu where a wooden sword strike to the hand ends up destroying the hand permanently or a student takes a hard blow to the head and is killed. The kendo gear we see today is a relatively modern invention and they still had to further modify it with shinai because a bokken can still kill you. Many of the modern -do schools were implemented because warfare became more infrequent so you had to have an outlet for that training. Traditionally, most of the -do schools were taken as supplemental to the core martial training you had. It's similar to the European systems. The wealthy had formal training for warfare and a separate system for dueling and fencing. The techniques you learned for warfare, with the basis of it being tight, formation combat are much different from the dueling and fencing. The wealthy were trained in both, and many of the warfare based grappling techniques wouldn't have been used in sparring because you'd harm or kill your training partner doing them.
I had the same reaction when I joined the fencing club in university. I was really looking forward to learning swordsmanship. Not the type of sword fighting I necessarily wanted to know, but close enough. Then in orientation, the coaches came forward, held up a foil and said "This is a pistol grip..."
'Disillusioned', I believe is the word.
Technically he could be right. Such grips generally improve the users control over the blade.
The pistol grip derives from French officer weapons of the 19thcentury who had some of their fingers lost. So they developed this ind of grip in order using a sword with just 3 or 2 fingers
there is a reason it is called "sports fencing".. it is a good introduction.. and I guess it is really what you want to learn from swordsmanship.... it is called physical chess
it is no longer involved in learning how to survive or win a duel.... but a sport in itself I guess....
History would suggest that most swords that were worth their salt really didn’t need a pistol grip for improved blade control. Unless of course literally all of those people were idiots and didn’t know a thing about sword design. Even though they were in a much better position to judge what made a good sword than me or you will ever be in. Having the luxury of seeing what worked in a real duel is something you ain’t getting it from playin electric tag with giant sowing needles. Nor will I or anyone else in HEMA ever have that while using blunted versions of historical weapons in a way that doesn’t result in death. We can talk about sword design all day, the fact we know what swords are good for chopping, which ones are good at piercing armour, and the fact fencers know what works best in their environment ain’t all that important. We ain’t killing anyone. Swords are literally only around for killing people and looking pretty.
@@lowlandnobleman6746 actually, such curvature in the grip has been well known and practiced for a while, the pistol grip is just the most extreme form. Most swords will have a less extreme version of the curvature.
I was a competitive saber fencer in college in the early 1980s and fully enjoyed it. In those days, saber fencing was "dry," (non electrical) and it allowed for something a bit closer to historical fencing. I saw some great tacticians of the saber from Italy's Michel Maffei to Hungary's Pal Gerevich to the great American sabreur, Peter Westbrook. But it's true, too, that even then I noticed we were more geared to outscore our opponents rather than protect ourselves from being touched. As as the narrator claims, I originally started to fence so that I could learn "sword fighting."
I completely agree. Archery with the giant stabilizers, rifle shooting with the silly stances and glasses. Weapon derived sports lost their soul.
So true!!
"In the old times it was better than the news" Said every old chap in the history of everything. Change is not god or bad, it simply is, and is up to us to adapt.
Now, in this case, I thing that Matt is right: This thing has diverged enough from actual fencing to be something different, something new, and probably something that a master swordhumas of any culture would scoff at. But that's okay, since swordhumans are obsolete anyway, and we are free of doing whatever the hell we want with our cultural heritage.
I think that we must always work to preserve our cultural nuances, understanding their context and evolution, but that doesn't mean that we can't enjoy them however we want.
"Weapons derived sports lost their souls", you said. But they didn't, their soul simply changed with the soul of their practitioners. Deal with it, and if it bothers you, work to preserve the original meaning of the practice alongside the current one.
i think there's an important difference between modern archery and modern fencing:
one would be useful in combat, the other one would not.
Look into IPSC and 3 gun. While the open classes have crazy competition only guns, there are classes with guns that you'd feasibly use in self defense.
Not javelins, kinda hard to fuck them up though.
I've done sport fencing for 9 years and you're absolutely right. As a kid my parents told me to practice a sport. I wanted to do swordfighting but knew nothing of hema (if it already was around in my country back then nobody knew of it) so started sport fencing. Now I've switched to hema because that was the thing I actually wanted to do. Sport fencing is very intense and requires a lot of skill but it isn't sword fighting. It shares some principles though, which I've taken over to hema; my trainers often say I'm very good at judging the distance to my opponent andat facestabbing :D
As a 12 year old child I VIVIDLY remember seeing sport fencing on tv and being completely disinterested because it didn’t look authentic. I was very interested in real swordsmanship but never had the opportunity. Japanese kendo also has similar issues.
HEMA tournaments have the same issue. The swordfish tournament was won by a russian, because he forced doubles (suicide attacks) once he was in the lead. "Playing tag" always happens if you have system that has points and several rounds for each combatant.
@@flaggschiffen What year of Swordfish was that?
@@flaggschiffen that’s why I think continuous fencing is a good system
my friends and I just beat each other up with swords. It is fun.
@@flaggschiffen (resurrecting an old comment, but oh well) Ironically, that’s why modern day right of way exists - to discourage suicide attacks from being a viable strategy.
This happens in all combat areas. It happened with Judo and Karate and if not for the MMA, it would happen even faster in Jiu Jitsu
Very true my friend. I went back to Judo a while ago and was utterly disappointed at how many effective (how can i say it in english, moves?) do not exist anymore for the sake of making the sport "better for t.v" Goddamit. It changes completely how you fight.
combat judo, too many dangerous moves?
"Combat Judo" would actually be called ju jutsu...and no, not the Brazilian type. It may also be referred to as Bugei or Heiho....but that involved weapons and large-army strategy. Any art that takes the "surname" of "do" is a sport. All combat systems from Japan have the moniker of jutsu... ken jutsu, tanto jutsu, Aiki ju jutsu, hojo jutsu...etc.
@@Spider-Too-Too More like, "not viewer friendly enough".
Judo is still absolutely effective though, it's not really a fair to compare it to olympic fencing
This is so true. I've always liked martial arts, so when I was 14 I started practicing Taekwondo. Even if you learn a lot of techniques and have personal growth, it is now too focused on tournaments and sports. Sometimes, literally, you felt kinda forced to go to competitions in order to enjoy the martial art, using the same strategies and techniques over and over again.
Same thing that made me quit fencing tbh. They cared only about you going to competitions and paying for the equipment. It was all about making champions and the rest of the class were "dead weight that pays for it". It don't know if there is something called "competitive greed" but that is how i would define it.
That was my issue with karate when I was a kid. The instructor REALLY wanted me to do competitions and said I supposedly had a natural talent for it, but I didn't take up martial arts to do competitions. Literally, the very moment he mentioned competitions, it completely switched me off from it and I lost interest quickly after that. I feel the modernized emphasis of competitions deviates drastically from the original spirit of the martial art itself.
This is why when I spar with friends we make our own rules of engagement. Generally if the hit doesn't feel like it would incapacitate you, keep going.
Right-of-way rules in sport fencing actually comes from practical, real sword fighting experience. If two people are facing each other with sharp swords and both attack at the same time, you may stick your opponent but your opponent may stick you as well. Having stuck the other guy with your sword is not much consolation if you got stabbed too. The point of a sword fight is to survive the encounter. Right-of-way rules are meant to train the fencer to always perry the opponent's attack first, before counter attacking, therefore not getting killed.
As someone who has done Sport Fencing for 2 years and Kendo for 3 years I realize there can be a knee jerk reaction from our communities to precieved attack which I can understand. Both have the fundamentals of the original styles of sword fighting but have moved to be abstract sports. They still require an amazing amount of skill but they have techniques and strategies that would only be effective in a sporting context due to the nature of the practice weapons and not effective in real swordsmanship.
Where I tend to tilt my head is when sport fencers start asserting that somehow they know more about real swordsmanship than treatises and first hand accounts covering periods when these weapons, the real weapons, were actually being used for combat. Saying things like the "Opponent would drop dead instantly from any thrust" which is very rare and almost always wrong, which can even be backed up by modern crime accounts. Or attacking HEMA for having "too many weapons" and therefore a less effective fighting art- which is nonsense, or citing that "any modern day Olympic fencers would come out of any sword fight unscathed" is really stretching things to absurdity. If you train with a much lighter and flexible practice weapon, likely never touching a real smallsword, in a way that you only care about stabbing your opponent first with fearless abandon, you're almost certainly going to die! You probably will take the other guy with you because you stabbed them quicker but now's there are just two dead guys, nobody wins. If you don't train for something and then are expected to do that thing that you haven't trained for, you aren't going to immediately pick it up.
There needs to be a realization in these particular parts of the Sport Fencing community that Sport Fencing in the way it's practiced today is abstracted and isn't practical swordsmanship. If you're okay with that, fine, if not then make moves to change aspects of sport to be more realistic and quite frankly more enjoyable to watch. For example, the time period of striking first being raised to one second and after blows being counted against a point.
Olympic fencing doesn't cover grappling either, do they? True swords masters would always know grappling, in my opinion.
@@jonathanhou8712 Or throw dirt, scratch the eyes, kick the groin or any number of things we're taught to be considered underhanded but they'd actually do in a heartbeat if it meant that they got to go home alive at the end of the day. I've seen quite a few fairly talented MMA fighters get the piss beat out of them in street fights because the street doesn't have rules and that dumb mook you may be able to mop up in the ring will beat you to death or put you in the hospital when he pulls out a knife or some other weapon. This is why the military tries to make a very clear distinction between fighting and combat. You'll get trained in SOME ground techniques because a grappling match that leads to the ground is documented as fairly common in warfare, there is some worry though, that too many people are trying to do it on purpose because they're too into BJJs fighting success but relatively untested combat success.
While I see a growing number of military personnel when I was still in that were gravitating and taking BJJ which isn't a bad thing in itself, too many of them were conditioned with the goal of taking the fight to the ground not realizing how extremely vulnerable they are shooting for a single or double if your opponent decided that they didn't want to play by the same rules. For example, had an senior NCO that did taijutsu with me and he got into a light sparring match with another guy who was a BJJ guy. The BJJ guy shoots for the takedown and gets a double and gets him on the ground but didn't realize that he had a huge red line across his throat. The NCO had a plastic knife with red dry erase marker all over the blade and had effectively slit his throat when he came in for the takedown. In taijutsu we learned to hide weapons on ourselves and he had hid the knife on him. The other guy was pissed that the NCO would bring a weapon into a sparring match and the NCO reminded him that in real combat, the enemy isn't going to play by the rules and to approach and train fighting and trying to apply it to actual combat will get you killed.
@@Talishar I'd like to also add on that some of the treatises that people who HEMA study focus on fighting to the death. A good example would be the teachings of Fiore. In the introduction of his treatise, he says, "I'll begin with grappling which there are two types: grappling for fun, or grappling for earnest, by which I mean mortal combat, where you need to employ all the cunning, deceit, and viciousness you can muster. My focus is on mortal combat, ...when you're fighting for your life." Alongside his teachings for moves for dueling, he shows a self defense moves like what a person should do if they were to be jumped in a bench, grabbed by the collar in the middle of a street, or when they only have improvised weapons to defend themselves with. Many combat sports and martial arts (including HEMA) focus on the first type of grappling Fiore talks about, which can miss what some of these systems were origionally made for, which is disabling your opponent and making sure they can't harm anyone while keeping yourself as unharmed as possable. People seem to avoid the more dangerous techniques since they can't use them in a tournament or in practice. I think in HEMA's case this is especially disapointing since HEMA is suppose to be an effective martial art (for the type of weapons people used in the time when the particular treatise was written). I worry that people who do HEMA might end up like the BBJ guy who when he practiced with a NCO guy got his neck pretend slit by a plastic knife. If people care to study a killing art like what Fiore and other masters teach they should know all the techniques the masters teach and be able use the weapons they learn as if they were in a life or death situation, not just the ones that can midigate an afterblow in a tournament or the moves that can be optimised for a certan ruleset.
@@josephlucas4024 That's why it should be important to establish the concept of a difference between martial arts and martial training. One is a lifestyle to improve yourself, the other is designed to end an opponent before they can end you so you can move onto the next opponent to end. This is probably the lamentation that a lot of the old soldiers of note in the past when they discussed dueling vs combat. Even dueling to the death is a far different beast to battlefield combat. The problem that you end up finding the hard way is that most life or death situations where people are trying to kill you are going to be more battlefield-like than dueling-like. It's going to be a chaotic mess where the adversaries you think you knew starting off may not be the ones you needed to keep an eye on.
This then though does bring to light that many of Fiore's serious grappling techniques aren't what you'd be sparring with because you can seriously hurt your training partner with them. I highly doubt when Fiore was teaching them that they were doing it in full-bore sparring. It was probably a very slow and methodical approach to ensure the student understands the basic movements and motions and slowly sped them up till they were natural in flow.
The only issue I see with HEMA is the same issue I saw with kenjutsu. The vast majority of the weapon techniques are relatively worthless because I'm not walking around with a sword or spear/staff everywhere. They're good to take note of should some odd circumstances find myself with a sword defending my life, but the likelihood of that situation ever happening is lower than me winning the jackpot a couple times over. At least in the U.S., firearms training and tactics would be the best form of martial training to learn and practice as that's going to be what's the most relevant. If Fiore were alive today, he wouldn't be wasting his time with swords and spears, he'd be learning everything he could on firearms. Most of those masters were smart and practical and would adopt the best technology and techniques of their time to give themselves the best advantage.
@@Talishar To be fair, if it's a sparring match with any, undisclosed weapons, I can bring a laser pointer, and say it was a lightsaber. Ssswish, you're dead. What your NCO did is a meaningless pissing contest. Unless the terms of the sparring are disclosed, the BJJ guy can also just walk across the room, pick up a chair, hurl it across the room, and send you to the ER.
I was trained in sport fencing in the 80's by someone who was very traditional*, my technique (such as it is) is much more like small sword than it's like current sport fencing.
I discovered HEMA because I went looking for fencing videos and what I saw bore little relation to the way I was taught. It's incredibly fast and incredibly athletic but there's no "conversation with blades", no attack, parry, riposte, no binds, nothing, just a frantic jabbing, whipping and dodging. And to be fair, I'm sure I'd lose to someone using those techniques under modern rules with electronic scoring.
I'd join a HEMA group in heartbeat if I didn't live in rural Australia, for exactly the reasons you said: I'd like to learn how to fight with a sword. As far as I can tell the nearest one is an nine hundred kilometre round trip from me. Sigh.
*His instructor had Mensur scars.
Mensur scars!!! That's pretty tough. I fence epee and bring everything including smallsword into the bout (that I'm allowed to) and because epee has no right of way I can usually fence how I like.
The most likely outcome is we'd both be injured or die.
A reasonably well trained sport fencer of today is likely to be significantly faster than me, even when I was at my (not so very) best. I was trained to be more cautious, to never over-commit. The tempo I'm used to is much more languid and closer than what I see in current bouts.
Modern sport fencing cares only about touching your opponent first, everything that happens after 1/25 of a second from the first touch doesn't matter. In a bout with sharps it's likely that after a couple of successful parries and unsuccessful ripostes I'd get stabbed and then stab them as they hesitated after that successful "touch".
If you did fencing for years and don't think fencing is about parries and ripostes idk what to tell you mate
@@mrrgrrgrrcinematicuniverse5522 I don't think that's what they meant; they also said "no attack".
@@DavidSartor0there are also attacks in fencing 😂
As one that fenced extensively through high school and university I think perhaps this is a little too dismissive of the skills that sport fencing builds. Understanding of tempo, precise footwork and strong body position through parry, riposte and lunge are all key parts of sport fencing and these translate critically to good 'swordsmanship'.
As to the point that sport fencing registers insignificant hits. Well, when one fences foil we only score hits to the torso (a fairly vital area!) and the buttons on the end of our swords require at least 500 grams of pressure to register the hit. On such a small point this is more than enough to cause significant injury. If one watches any competition fencing its easy to see the force of the hits in the bend of a scoring blade. Translate this force to a more stiff small sword and your target is in some serious trouble!
Furthermore, having subsequently spent some time attending a local HEMA club, I found the general level of skill (especially in footwork) far below the average of the sport fencing community. Were I to have to fight a 18th century style small sword duel, I think I would prefer to face the average sketchy movement of a HEMA practitioner over the average highly agile foil fencer.
Agreed. If HEMA practitioners tended to be actual athletes instead of their usual amateurism then it would be more interesting to see what a 'real duel' would look like.
In peak days of fencing training we could run marathon distances, leg press 600+ easily, do 75-100 pushups, jump rope 2000 skips in minutes. I could've probably held a full squat for the entire LOTR trilogy ;)
But above all else we were really good at poking that other guy in a mask!
As 'unreal' HEMA claims fencing might be, at least those involved take the sport seriously.
except when you guys always double kill each other then how does any of your tempo parry riposte or anything else matter? also while a small sword is also stiff the point is a lot larger and on types besides the colichemarde then its usually larger from what ive seen. also depends on how good your local hema club is i have a club that claims its a hema school but is actually stage combat and fairly shitty. its like kenjutsu you get people who dont know shit trying to teach it, and then you get guys that could take your sword out of your hand and then proceed to kill you with your own sword if the need came about.
also dueling is only one aspect of swordsmanship and its a fairly easy one to be good at as at least in european history duels were fought with equal weapons on fair and equal terms and ground. it all depends on context, and whilst sport fencing at some clubs is more realistic go take a look at olympic level fencing the guys who should be the best yet rush in and double suicide every single fucking time. the reason you see hema clubs as being less skilled or amateur is because its harder to do, foot work is more complex as generally you have to worry about being able to cut with your sword or actually position something lighter then a couple hundreds grams into place, even small swords which are light by sword standards are 500 grams plus. just cause you move your feet alot doesnt mean your foot work is good, take a look a rolan warzecha who has video of them doing bind practice with sharp swords, he says himself he often doesnt have to move more then 4 or 5 steps. also you guys only have to worry about one line, side ways movements arent allowed, which is the first step a real swordsman will take as its the easiest way to avoid most strikes with a sword and allows you to freely hit your opponent at the same time.
go watch skallagrim's videos on richard marsden vs lee smith. swordsmanship isnt about being in the best shape its about being smart, hence why miyamoto musashi was beating people much younger then him without having to land fatal blows in the later portion of his life. these so called atheletes would die in a real sword fight to anyone competent with a sword. and if two of them tried dueling each other for real theyd both die seeing how common double hits are in sport fencing.
christopher rogers depends on who you are and how dedicated you are, you may have been in good shape but if i gave you something like a katana or a sword designed for cutting could you effectively weild that for the full duration of a long sword duel.....probably not, they use different muscles cool you can lunge far and not fall over however your arms would probably tire your core wouldnt be used to the movements and seeing as sport fencing has no side to side movement youd have a minimum of 2 other directions youd have to get used to moving in which also requires different muscles or your muscles to work in different ways. you also wouldnt know to move the sword by its balance point to reduce energy used to move the sword around quickly. it has so many aspects missing from proper swordsman ship, doesnt matter if youre in better shape if the other person simply makes a smarter move. you dont always even have to be faster if your opponent is predictable then it almost doesnt matter how much faster they are cause the human body can only move so fast.
go watch richard marsden versus lee smith youll see what a real hema practitioner looks like. also dont forget how many people who do sport fencing and dont take it to the point of being a athlete but do it for fun. and if you want dedication to something then go to old school kenjutsu training or hema training like when they were in the time this stuff was used, you know where they trained full speed and full strength with live swords at the highest levels. something no sport fencer could do since they dont even have any idea of how a blade even feels in the hand. a foil acts nothing like a sword, cutting off any sort of sideways movement and counting double kills cause i hit you a fraction of a second sooner is dumb. your sport is basically a speed poking contest sure you need foot work and some feints to be sly but its not fencing as the whole point of fencing is to survive the duel or fight.
id gladly take either you or the OP on in a sport duel, you bring your little foil and we shall see how you do when i smack it out of your hand with a bokken or a feder. you rush in knock your point to the side step in where your weapon becomes useless because the real things for small swords cant really cut, and then bam half swording or pommeling. hitting with a smallsword hilt is useless and something thats not allowed in sport fencing, you cant step sideways but i can even if you do step sideways or use the hilt as a weapon the real things are useless for hitting with, your blades cant cut and whilst they can thrust well i can simply grab the blade something else you dont practice in sport fencing.
its a sport not a martial art, you cant really speak to something when your own sports best literally do nothing but double suicide every single time, theres no grapples theres rules that dont apply to real duels or fencing and a number of other flaws. cool you guys are atheletes, however your still shitty fencers by the actual defintion of fencing. maybe change your rules and get rid of those fancy ass sensor sticks cause you dont need them, maybe get a pressure sensor instead and you know try acting like these things are actual weapon simulators instead of oh hey lets run into each other like were jousting. thats what sport fencing is pretty much foot jousting. also try practicing with something thats the proper weight of the thing your meant to be simulating as ive held an actual smallsword and not one foil ive ever held has been the proper weight, which means its easier to control the point and less tiring which means you guys should never not even once in awhile except with noobs ever fucking have a double kill as you dont tire as fast your more nimble with those then youd ever be with a real sword meaning all your reactions should be faster and easier, meaning you guys shouldnt need any rules other then maybe no grappling and same size foils as those are the only two factors that could effect fairness, side steps play no part in the fairness factor so why arent they allowed? your sport has too many rules and got stupid. your super practiced lunge may be good and all but if i parry your blade to the side sweep your leg and plunge a sword in your chest what good does it do you? your precise foot work is based on a set of rules and turns to terrible footwork as soon as those rules disappear, why step back when a simple sideways step works better. your tempo is useless when you do nothing with it, you open yourselves up to double kills and the best in your sport do this every single time. and if youre going to say youre better then why arent you in the olympics winning and not getting double suicides with your opponent.
its a sport, get over it, your sport doesnt teach swordsmanship, if you enjoy it then cool, but its still basically a high speed poking contest, the only concern is hit them first, but like i said in a real sword fight, your only concern is dont get hit, you dont even have to kill an enemy just disabling them is enough. all the points you brought up for why your sport is better only apply because of the rules in place, not trying to be rude but when you know nothing about swordsmanship other then what a sport thats literally useless for swordsmanship, what do you really know about the subject? youve practiced things that only work when certain rules are in place, rules go out the window in a real fight and in a duel historically there are still aspects and things that were done you dont practice for. while your busy with your fancy foot work someone with real training will just grab said blade since they arent sharp hold it and youre fucked. try adding a buckler or a maine gaunche and adding some hema back into your sport and maybe youll see what i mean.
bmxriderforlife1234
Actually the only weapon you can get a double hit and both be awarded a touch is the epee. The weapons with right of way have it because a hit to target area (a stab to the chest for foil, or a cut to the top half in saber) would debilitate or kill you. Epee on the other hand comes from the most recent dueling tradition of first blood. This is why double hits are awarded, presumably both of you stabbing each other's hand won't kill you. Stabbing into an oncoming attack coming towards you likely will. Right of way rewards correct actions.
has nothing to do with my point, double hits are essentially you guys both suicideing off each other.
also since sport fencers dont aim for the hand it essentially robs you of the difficulty. fact is though sport fencing doesnt teach swordsmanship.
What's a sword used for?
To kill!!
Kill what!?
The enemy!!
With what!?
A Sword!!
Well done! Fall in!!
---
What's a foil used for?
Beep!
Beep!
Beep!
Win!
I disagree a little bit. A sword are designed to overcome the oponent defenses. Killing or not is a people decision. On a historical knight tournament, the blades, maces and spears keep dangerous, but the action is not intended to kill. Or on a first touch or blood duel.
What I mean is that it is perfectly possible to have a sport that keeps its original features and still be civilized and safe. This is exactly what the HEMA does.
CopernicoTube
A sword is a weapon designed to minimize the enemy's capability to inflict force upon yourself. Which can both mean kill and maim.
I was more parodying or copying the rather famous video which is on TH-cam about an angry Scotsman teaching recruits HOW TAE FECHT WITH A BAYONET!
From the BBC history series "Soldiers" (Infantry episode)
CopernicoTube Well, I think the primary function of a sword through history has generally been to inflict a disabling injury to an unarmoured or lightly armoured enemy. With a secondary defensive function, and often a tertiary function as status-symbol, the status symbol element ironically deriving from the sword's lack of utility as a tool (agricultural implement, eating device, etc). The big functional divide I think is between slashing (likely immediately disabling, and showier) and piercing (possibly greater eventual lethality, at the cost of less immediate disabling effect). Both functions are useful, and of course many swords can do both.
"How many people are really thinking about disabling when they lift their weapon?"
In an actual battlefield situation I'd say they are mostly thinking 'get him before he gets me', without much concern whether 'get' means kill or just wound; hence I said 'disable'. It's different with an assassin's tool such as a sniper rifle. When IRA snipers used Barrett .50 rifles to shoot RUC policemen, the function of the rifle was to kill; a wounded policeman would be a sub-optimal outcome from the POV of the sniper.
Sometimes the primary purpose of the sword is literal killing; eg the design of the Roman gladius and its training focused on lethal stomach strikes up into the vital organs. The Roman way of war was essentially battlefield butchery. But historically that seems relatively rare; usually most of the actual killing is/was done to captives, after the actual fighting is/was over. The design & associated technique of eg a Viking sword was more about disabling limb strikes, followed by an execution strike to the neck of the incapacitated or captured opponent.
My goodness, it's good a considerable effect on morale!
This is similar to modern archery and how I feel about it. Apart from hunting, modern archery is very nearly completely focused on target-shooting and pinpoint accuracy. However seeing many other people at the range, I feel that this focus on pinpoint accuracy from the get-go leads to many archers adapting many bad habits, and becoming very dependent on their bow and gadgets. For example many people are really clumsy and slow to nock a new arrow whereas I feel that by focusing on quickly nocking by feel alone allows for more concentration and time to be placed on accuracy down the line.
As a sport fencer, I agree with a lot of this video, but i think the current sport of FIE fencing does have merits in and of itself and an evolution. If i was to have a duel in 2014 with say a smallsword, i would pick the pistol grip every time. its just functionally superior for the thrust, minus a slight bit of reach if you're pommelling. I must agree that i think a lot of FIE rules are bullshit for various reasons. The priority system basically allows incredibly risky tactics to pay off in foil and sabre, but i think most serious fencers understand that epee, without priority rules, is the most authentic. I feel like there would be easy ways to fix a lot of these issues too, which bothers me. like for sabre, just adding like a rubberized coating so only the edge can score a point would be massivly better. maybe im thinking too into it but i think both have reasons for existing
Yes, I too think that there are some relatively small and easy ways to change sport fencing equipment and rules to make it more like the real fencing that it was originally supposed to be - I'll talk about this in a future video :)
good idea but it would still not add tooo much realism - i mean it basicly stays hitting each other without any defense - i would actually add the rule that you ONLY get the point if you are NOT hit for 2 or 3 seconds after you hit the enemy so you actually "survived" your maneuver - and maybe add a scoring system that a hit to the toe does not count as much as a hit to he heart. I think you would have to change a LOT to get sport fencing back to what it was originally. But to be honest i am glad things evolved as they did - this way we have more possibilites - in some countries they do full contact fights with steel (blunt) weapons in armor where the winner is decided by actually winning the fight like enemy gives up, is disarmed or actually knocked out or simply hit badly enough that he lies on the ground and the opponent (in a real situation) could stab him.
In germany is a group who do this even with axes however they do have broken bones relatively often.
Anyway if sport fencing would be more historically correct who knows what would have happened - i am relatively sad cause in my area most clubs for medieval stuff are actually show fighters so no chance to learn there either and the one hema club here only teaches longsword - quite a pain in the...cause i want to learn poleaxe and 2 handed axe
It would be interesting to see what real swordmanship would be like if sword fighting for real (as opposed than for sport) was a thing people did. What kind of equipment we'd have for that scenario if people still duelled to death with swords, for instance, or if it was still important in war.
Altrantis i guess like in most cultures the duell to death thing would have evolved into a duell of first blood and i guess the protective gear would have evolved while the weapon itself may have become even more "harmles" to prevent accidental deaths.
In war...actually it is very hard to say. Basicly i guess weapon design would have changed a bit but overall it would not be too different from warfare in the last 2000 years as BASICLY the only thing that happened was armor getting better and weapons getting bigger. If we follow this scenario for fun we would now wield 3 meter long swords and wear full plate armor with protective glass in the eyeslits
Orkar Isber Actually blades are still used in combat and they have followed the same trend as firearms, that is to say they have gotten shorter. A long bladed weapon like a sword is superfluous on a modern battlefield, however a good fighting knife/bayonet or even a short machete is often carried for a last ditch close quarters weapon. A carbine is small enough that in hand to hand you're close enough to use a knife, so a fixed bayonet isn't used much. Besides, the point of a carbine is compactness and a bayonet counters that.
I agree completely. I started in olympic sport saber in college and it was ok but I alway thought it was too rules based like "Right of Way". Years later I took up Historic fencing for rapier and saber and really loved it. To me that is real fencing and sport fencing is just race to X number of touches.
Sport fencing is hella fun though. As for comparing it with real sword play I don't see the point, It's like comparing tanks to drag racers. They're both motor vehicles, but one is meant for war and the other for sport.
yes indeed... fencing wit the electric gear is great fun s you don't have to rely on hand judges to see if your point lands.....
The only reason why I started fencing classes was because I wanted to learn how to sword fight. Quickly learned that fencing isn't "real" fencing. There aren't many, if at all, HEMA clubs here in the midwest USA. Only can hope that HEMA grows and becomes more mainstream so that one day there are some classes/clubs I can participate in. Until then, it's just backyard cutting and reading manuals on my own.
I've been 3 years in epee fencing (Sport) , and it is not that different from historical. It is true that sable and foil have attack preferences, but epee sticks to what fencing is about, score (or kill) fast, before the enemy has the oportunity to do so
Maestrom001 Does epee count afterblows?
@@RandomAllen not really, they count simultaneous blows and there's about half a second for said simultaneous blow to count, if the afterblow doesn't happen in that time frame its a point for the person who hit first. Similar to first blood duel works (which is what the original épée de combat (basically a sharp épée), which was an evolution of the smallsword, was used for), which is why épée has first touch and no right of way. Though in my experience with epee, which to be fair isn't all too much, it seems that it usually it happens that only one person hits.
Comparing it to HEMA is something else though. It depends on the club in this case. If you're in a very competitive club and take part in tournaments then it's literally the exact same thing (afterblows don't matter once they're out of a specific time frame). However if you're in a more "art" focused club, counter hits will count.
I was an Olympic Fencer for five years. I believe that it is a Modernized sport to keep alive a dying art. As long as it creates even a spark of interest, it is not a bad sport.
Completely agree. Unfortunately as sports become more popular they diverge from their original principles to bring new people in to the sport for the sake of commercialism (often by becoming over cautious to safety) . Same thing has happened boxing, Judo, MMA and weight lifting among others.
I really hope HEMA doesn't go the same way. The worst thing we can do is to believe it is immune, we need to be constantly vigilant to prevent this from happening.
These changes are usually small and incremental, each seemingly unimportant or sensible taken in isolation but they mount up until you have a completely different sport.
The only example I can think of in HEMA is country backswording now requiring headgear. It used to be the first person to draw an inch of blood on the opponent's fore-head but with headwear it's now changed to a point scoring system.
I'm happy with this but it's still a large change in the dynamics as even the lightest of touches counts as a point. In the future it may require gloves, vambrace, jacket and leg protection which would make it no better than fencing.
Jim Giant
It's gotten so bad in Judo, the teachers are no longer called masters or teachers, they are called coaches.
Kano didn't even approve of tournament fights because fighting for fame and money is counter to everything judo was born from. Nowadays only the most hardcore judoka knows anything about pressure points, and only the most hardcore karateka know anything about traditional Okinawan weapons. Most guys that practice Jujutsu know nothing about sickle techniques, swordsmanship, and disarming techniques. All they care about is ground wrestling. Traditional Jujutsu is full of eye gouging, fish-hooking, and biting. Brazilian Jujutsu has none of that. I doubt any of them even know how to fight dirty. It's saddening.
Nate theGrate The reason for BJJ not having any of that is that BJJ is derived from Judo, not JJ. That being said, a background in combat sports is a good thing. I do HEMA, but also kenjutsu, battojutsu and Judo. I would say that Judo is the best thing I have done with regards to becoming a better overall martial artist. You just have to take it for what it is. I can see why Judo has banned some techniques in competition, as it's freakin' dangerous enough as it is now AFTER the rule changes. I write this while recovering from a broken ankle from Judo... even watered down, it can hurt you like few other MA can.
Kunstdesfechtens
I believe your story about how Judo has improved your martial arts. Only a fool would doubt it. Judo is an amazing art.
As for BJJ, I am aware of its origins in Judo. The reason it uses the name JJ is because it was derived from Judo when it was still called KanoJuJutsu.
It's not just the fact several moves are banned from competition that irks me, it's that they aren't taught all.
They are in my club, but I'll admit we don't spend much time on banned moves. At least they're shown, and are required for grading. You never know when they'll change the rules an allow them back in. :)
Sports fencing is the logical conclusion of fencing becoming sportive. What do you think is going to happen to all other blade-based martial arts over time? Kenjutsu turned into Kendo and Eskrima turned into a heavily regulated sport as well. HEMA will go down the same route, it will become sports fencing with a two-handed stick.
Couldn't agree more, Matt. I remember watching sport fencing in the olympics as a kid, and thinking "this isn't right... why aren't they defending? If this was a real fight, they'd both be so wounded it'd be pointless to have even fought."
There're reasons as to why they developed into sports. And yes, you can defend.
They do not defend by blade action because statistically, it's a low percentage move. (In sabre, fewer than 1 in 20 hits are scored after a defensive blade action) So best to guard by distance, or take out your opponent before he can take you out. Ideally, both.
You basically explained logically my feelings about sport fencing. Ever since I was a kid I wanted to learn sword fighting so bad. But even with that burning desire inside me, I never could get into sport fencing. It was not a martial art, or indeed fencing, to me it's more like basketball or volleyball or soccer or any other "normal" sport. But recently I discovered HEMA, and that really made the difference ;)
Is there a name for "kendo" that has none of the fluffiness, traditions, or cultural attachment, and is just "learn to beat your enemies ass with this stick". I don't mind using training swords, and kendo has a flair I enjoy.
For me, it's not like I think we're going to have a zompocalypse and I'll resort to a broadsword instead of a shotgun. I get the 'pointlessness' of it all. But if I'm going to exercise one way or another, doing something 'fun' and instinctual and raw and mean is a hell of a lot better than jogging.
Joshua Wardrop Well there is SCA fighting where they use real armor of their choice and beat each other with clubs made of thick rattan to simulate various weapons including swords. Scoring is based on a firm hit with the person hit expected to acknowledge the blow using the honor system. There are still judges to monitor the fights and give a decision when necessary.
bruh you joined a sport and were upset that it was... a sport?
i still love sport fencing, but you definitely hit the nail right on the head with this video and i agree 100% and i never really thought about that way until now and appreciate you making this and all of your other videos.
my thoughts exactly... it made me re think a lot of things I know from fencing... and even some from HEMA (s I tried some re-enactment stuiff for a yer or so ... it was fun but wierd..)
I do sport fencing and I only fence epee with a french grip. I don't really like the right of way rules. I thought the issue is pretty clear, if you hit first, you obviously had the right of way. If you both hit, then obviously no one had the right of way. And you both "score" points because you're both hit, although something needs to change when double hits are on different targets.
As someone who used to do martial arts with a dao, the pistol grip on epee isn't right to me. I get no feel for the blade and I don't think it really improves point control. I would love to use the straight french grip (and I did use it this past year), but it really isn't possible against pistol grippers who don't use pistol grip for point control but for strength. I don't hold the grip at the pommel like other french grippers do, so I need a quite-bent grip to counter the pistol grip's strength and speed with manoeuvreability.
I don't think it is necessary to heed the teachings of modern epee to win at modern epee, incidentally. I actually try to use martial arts techniques in my fencing (and I always get called out for using wrong technique). I'm by no means the best fencer in my club, but I'm near the top at the moment, using my unorthodox technique. And I have no problem handling the pistol grippers. I'm almost certain I'm the only french gripper in my state who doesn't hold the epee at the pommel.
Long story short, yes modern epee is no longer fencing, but it's still possible to be reasonably good at it using martial fencing technique. You just have to learn to suck up not being able to be the best under competition rules, knowing you have
Kudos. It takes discipline to make sure that you keep to practical techniques even when the impractical ones sometimes have an advantage within the scope of some rules or some exercise. Putting your ego aside and putting yourself at risk is a recipe for great success in anything that you do. In training don't flaunt your strengths but lead with your deficiencies so that you can correct them.
It's all about whose standards you are trying to me. I fence epee in a similar way. I use a French grip the vast majority of the time and I try to keep my technique classical and make my touches firm and avoid doubles. Yes, the little 15 year old competitors in my club sometimes mop the floor with me, but I'm not in it for them or to be like them. I'm learning a technique. I'm 33 years old and I don't really care about winning medals at this point in my life (that's not to say I don't enjoy winning). I'm just trying to get some exercise, meet people and develop a skill.
*****
Actually, I don't mind when a pistol gripper takes my blade that much as long as I'm not out of balance or position. That is because I find getting the feel of the opponent's blade is much more important for me, tactics wise, than to avoid contact. Often, it is just enough for the french gripper to maintain the position of the forte (at a reasonable distance) in order to keep the opponent's point occupied and to prevent disengages or glides and using that time to reposition the point for a different line of attack.
I agree with your dislike of right of way. I'm an epee fencer and I hate the idea of getting a double touch and losing the point. I also think it's stupid because if your opponent started their attack first and you managed to hit them, then your reaction was good and you earned it. But at the same time it makes sense for saber. Since any point on the blade gets a touch accidental hits happen all the time. They also allowed double touches in the past, but the way saber is taught, bouts were just doubles over and over again until someone got lucky or missed. A lot of saberists are skilled and a lot are good at just winning right of way. Either way it's how you fence. I prefer epee for other reasons too though. It's not just that I can't win right of way. I love the feeling of a toe touch, for example. And the way you can only hit with the tip of the blade, and the fact you have to hit hard enough to depress it, means you don't have to worry about the stupid "that wouldn't be a real hit" argument. Probably my favorite thing about epee though is that it's, in my opinion, the fighting blade of sport fencing. By that I mean that blade work, especially with the use of parries, is a lot more useful. Sure that's important in saber and foil, but in epee it can really make or break the bout for you. Saber seems to be a lot more "start your attack and run forward" recently. I'm not trying to bash on the other weapons; I respect them fully. I just feel that modern epee fencing really does teach swordsmanship, especially more than the other blades, because of the type of technique that comes into play. Oh and as for the talk about grips. I love my pistol grip. The difference isn't actually that great. Pistol just focuses more on the thumbs and index finger. The trick for point control with a pistol grip is to point your thumb at the target. Your thumb tail is pretty much perfectly in line with the blade and its a lot easier to make smaller movements with the grip. It really all comes down to personal preference. I'll admit I don't have much experience with French grip but I think I'll try them out a bit more soon. I'm six and a half feet tall with very long arms so it might be fun to use at a distance. Sorry for the essay lol.
And that's y épée is the slowest out of all 3 weapons and "by vote" is the most boring 2 watch
I've noticed the same arc in shootings sports. After the elimination of heavier caliber rifles and pistols from Olympic competition. 3 gun (Modern and Cowboy) and long range (1000m) shooting really took off in North America with more tradition recurve and long bow archery gaining popularity. I can't speak for the rest world but I would like to know if other countries are doing the same. Now I look at Olympic Shooters and wonder if they ever learned to shoot without rests or those weird metal things on their faces. At least skeet and trap uses shotguns not so different than what may be taken into the field. I guess it's the purity of learning how to use weapons that serve a practical purpose we all share.
It seems that archers and shooters face the same problem when their sport becomes ever so focused on pin-point accuracy, their equipment evolves to serve those purposes. Unfortunately in doing so they largely remove the human from the interaction because human error is what the equipment is trying to remove. Those who start off in these sports with these rules and equipment never actually learn many of the fundamentals behind that sport and become dependent on the equipment (sights, releases and stabilizers in archery and that metal thing you mentioned).
Additionally all the blinking lights in sport fencing often lead the audience to just watch for which light goes off instead of looking at the actual fencers.
I agree with you that sport fencing is quite far removed from actual swordfighting to the death. But then, boxing is quite far removed from brawling as well. Boxing has many illegal punches and actions, and it's entirely possible to win a match on points without doing any actual damage. Still, it does teach athleticism and a correct way to punch. Yet it would be wrong to say thay it's no longer a true martial art. Similarly, sport fencing does actually teach you to look for openings and avoid getting hit, especially in early-game epee. Both of these things are very useful in an actual swordfight, just like knowing how to punch is useful in a brawl.
HEMA and fencing are very different things with only a superficial similarity and I don't think it's useful to compare them because the intentions of both are fundamentally different. In sport fencing, the intention is to score points within the rules. In HEMA, the intention is to kill/disable an assailant like you would do in an actual situation, while remaining unharmed yourself.
This is, however, also true for boxing, where the intention is to defeat a single opponent either by knocking him out or winning on points, while obeying a strict set of rules. Comparing this to krav maga, where the intention is to disable or escape from an assailant of group of assailants like one would do in an actual situation.
If one ends up in a real life situation, one with training in sport fencing will be better able to handle a sword, even a differently weighted one, better than someone without training because they know the correct distances and openings to look for. A boxer would be better able to fight his way out of a situation because he knows how to punch and protect his head.
Both boxing and fencing are no longer fights to the death, but they still train skills that would be useful in a real situation. To call sport fencing 'electric tag' goes a bit too far, in my opinion. (The reason I kept bringing boxing into this, incidentally, is because I wanted to show that not only fencing is drifting away from its roots)
Brawling dosent do shit in a fight. Im a profesional boxer and if u think some one can just 'brawl' me your rong. Can gurentee you i beat 99% of people in a bar on the street etc. And if u think winning on points isnt hurting or getting hurt u clearly havent fought in 8oz gloves and been jabbed and hit with straight right hands for 30 minutes. That shit leeds to brain damage and brain bleeds. Trust me
I would say fencing has strayed from its root way more than boxing has and fencing is more on the 'aikido' or 'wingchun' side of the spectrum than being on the 'hema' or 'mma' side which is still not real but way more real.
@Joshua M Nevin
The whole "tag the other person first and get points for that" is weapon dependent and also not entirely true.
Saber is objectively suicidal, with 90% of actions taking place within .3 seconds and both fencers getting hit. Foil has suicidal actions perhaps 1/3 of the time due to the rules and target area. Epee can be less suicidal than many HEMA weapons, I've seen matches that last several minutes with no contact.
Joshua M Nevin
French and Italian grip epee swords are actually almost identical to the real counterparts in weight, length, and balance. Foils of the same grip variety are on the lighter end of real smallswords, but still have similar dimensions. Sabers are the least realistic out of the three, but if you’re used to light Italian sabers,then they’re not too bad.
With the exception of saber, the rule sets work well in terms of discouraging suicidal actions, even for epee, where suicidal actions can be beneficial.
I must admit that I never liked the pistol grips much, which we used for the "electrified" sports fencing back then. All in for the Italian grip there. Yet what I do like about sports fencing is the formal footwork school: We spent sweaty ages to learn "walking" again - basic steps, cross-steps and lunges -- before we were allowed on the planche. That was not just "this feels about right maybe" footwork, but very precise. Which offered us a pretty good base in footwork, which I consider an essence in most martial arts. It even helps us a lot in Jugger training.
Kendo is even worse. While in sport fencing you're still using swords, albeit very light and useless outside the sport, in kendo you're fighting with sticks. Literally. Kendo rules are much worse than sport fencing - the later still considers a hit as a hit (even though there are some parry-riposte rules), while in Kendo the fighters are spamming attacks at each other until one of them does a "clean hit" - all the other hits, which would incapacitate and kill both fighters, are useless.
Sport fencing is almost a slugfest (with training flexible swords), Kendo IS a slugfest (with sticks).
Rafaello Fareday Jonathan Allen
Yeah, at least shinai and bokken are stiff. You can make cut-like strikes and thrusts with them. They're perfectly serviceable training swords.
Not to say that kendo isn't corrupt, but the problem rests in the rules, not the implement.
Kendo is a fucking joke. The excuse to it being the way it is, and i shit you not, is that since the ownership of Katanas and Tatchis was banned in Japan in the 1800's, Kendo emerged as an ART FORM to honor those days. Mate you can come at me with each and every orientalist fast food thought on the book, you are not honoring shit. You're probably disgracing the Samurai.
@@ArtilleryAffictionado1648 Those “do” type martial arts always bothered me. It seems an odd thing to do to turn a fighting system into a pseudo-philosophy.
I guess it’s a natural consequence of the 250 year peace of the Edo period. You’d have thought they’d have revived at least the sword-based “jutsu”s since they were using katana where westerners were using sabres thoufh.
very helpful video! I just found out my new school's fencing club does classical fencing and was a bit apprehensive about it because the quick, high speed Olympic fencers always looked really cool to me. This video sorted out a lot of the myths and questions about both styles and how classical fits between HEMA and modern fencing. I especially liked your comments about fencers being people who want to learn to fight with a sword because that really applied to me. Thanks for this informative video!
They are very good points, well explained and well made...
As an added comment, I am one of those guys who wanted to learn swordsmanship and joined a hema club, when learning to fence - or sport fence, has never ever held any attraction...
Agree 100%. I started fencing (Classically) in 1964. My instructor started fencing in 1927, because boxing wasn't combative enough. He learned to fence from five European masters, (at least one of which fought duels with sharps, in Italy before coming to the U.S). Those preWWII teachers were long lived, so some of them actually were learning and teaching in the late Victorian and early Edwardian era.... And they viewed Classical Fencing as a martial art. The degeneration of Classical to Neo-fencing, (the latter what my instructor called "calisthenics with sticks") was terrible to see happen.... With the decline, in my area really kicking in, in the '70s & 80's.... Sadly, although I teach Classical exactly like my instructor, modern fencers see our fencing as old-fashioned, quaint, and sadly behind the times. HEMA folks (and we have been visited by some major names in that community) throw us in with Olympic fencing, and wonder when we are going to get serious about sword-fighting. Very frustrating.
Well Roark, if I had access to classical fencing, I'd do it. I'm sure it would help my HEMA practice. Not all HEMA folks are anti-classical fencing.
I have to say that I agree with Matt's opinion on sport fencing. When I started fencing foil at university in 1976 I was taught what we might now call "classical fencing". We used a french grip & blade actions were effected with just the fingers. Our instructor taught us proper arm extension, how to parry efficiently, how to step smoothly & how to lunge correctly. Fencing was elegant & beautiful.
I went on to fence competitive epee with the local fencing club until the late 80's. By that time the pistol grip was king. It was now only about scoring points & elite athletics. All the art had gone out of it so I sold my equipment & left.
In 2009 I saw an online ad for the Hanwei Practical Rapier. I put it on my Mastercard & have been practicing the rapier ever since. However, as you all know, one sword begets another & so I've been practicing quite a bit with my Mastercard as well.
The reason is literally in the title, it's a sport, it's not even meant to be realistic
I love HEMA and modern fencing as well. I think in my opinion that epee fencing would be the closest to a real duel since there are no rules on right of way as well as the body being the whole target. Hence, with blades meant for thrusts only (going back to your other videos explaining uses on small swords and epees).
+Jonathan Collins Though in epee to score you only need to hit around 1/25th of a second before the opponent. In a real duel that would mean two stabbed people. Also, in epee a hit that lands anywhere first, scores, even if the thrust is in the toe. Not very useful if the opponent then runs their blade through your face :-)
+scholagladiatoria Well of course haha
There was one notable fencer who called Epee "the most unforgiving of all sword combat" back in the 19th century
@@scholagladiatoria thats kind of an unfair criticism. As some HEMA institutions have a very similar system. And some Olympic fencing clubs have something much closer to what you describe. In all honesty this whole argument is a bunch of generalizations that very rarely hold true.
Dueling was to first blood though. A hit to the hand or arm would settle a duel of honor in most historical cases
I agree with your views articulated in this video completely. I've never trained in Western style fencing although I was long interested. Instead, I started to train in kendo while living in Taiwan and continued to study kendo for 14 years. As a result, I was also introduced to such martial arts as iaido and kenjutsu as well. Like all novices, I thought I was going to learn how to fight in a practical and useful way with a Japanese katana and kodachi. While certain basic elements of fencing with such weaponry remain in these disciplines and might be useful in a real fight, the reality one quickly bumps into is that if one attempted to use the skills learned in kendo in a real sword fight (I know this is highly unlikely in the modern era, but bear with me), one would wind up dead or injured and unlikely to inflict any harm on your opponent. This was the result of a deliberate collective decision by the post-WWII practitioners and Japanese masters of the art. As part of the demilitarization of Japanese society, traditional martial arts were modified to emphasize less about learning how to fight and kill with a sword, and far more about mental discipline. Then kendo began to grow outside of Asia and attract fans in the West. The result is that modern kendo, like your characterization of fencing has bifurcated into sport kendo and "serious" kendo. Modern sport fencing, is more like a game of tag, only without the aid of electronic scoring. Serious kendo or kenjutsu wants to be about practical swordsmanship but falls short, in my opinion. I think on one level that the emphasis on mental discipline is great. But for anyone seeking to learn how to fence, i.e. fight in a practical and useful way with a Japanese style sword, one will be disappointed if they think kendo, and/or kenjutsu is going to teach them much beyond certain very basic skills, e.g. how to hold the bokuto or sword properly and how one should do certain basic foot movements. BTW, I just discovered your videos. Please keep up the good work.
When I got into sport fencing and learned the right of way rules and hit areas for saber foil, and learned there was none for epee, it make me choose epee and never look back. I also use a french grip and love the idea that double scores are a thing (though the timing needs to be a bit wider to allow for it more).
Epee is far more enjoyable because you actually have to focus on protecting yourself and not just initiating an attack and hoping the rules swing your way.
My one criticism of the video is that he lumped epee in with them regarding some of the things he poo pooed.
I've had a desire to learn historical fencing for a while, specifically with the longsword (nothing more than personal preference), however the nearest teacher is practically on another planet. I've seen most of your longsword training videos, and they're a great resource for the basics, but I was wondering if you might know other trustworthy online resources I could learn more from. I appreciate the help in advance.
There has always been a divide between classical martial arts and sport martial arts. Every rule that you introduce in a sport martial art begins to warp the technique and tactics. Classical martial arts can devolve as well with too much adherence to mystical secrets and forms. If you let one inform the other you have a living and exciting art that recognizes the history and context while allowing contests to burn off the impractical techniques.
Indeed.
Even the medieval german school of wrestling makes a clear distinction between streetfighting and sport.
scholagladiatoria Matt, what are your thoughts on the current movement of turning HEMA in to a sport (tournament fighting)? It seems to be at the same historical crossroads you described, whereby some groups are focusing on the tournament fighting aspect of HEMA whilst others are focusing on the historical art of defense. There's been a lot of division over the last few weeks with the publication of the NY Times piece on Longpoint in the Eastern US regarding the historical vs the sport aspect of HEMA (well, that and the controversy surrounding the 100 man fight in Prague which I'd also love to hear your thoughts on, but that's unrelated and just coincidental timing). Is there really a division? Are some schools more focused on creating tournament HEMA fighters instead of expressing the historical art? Is the growing popularity of tournament HEMA good for the health of HEMA in general?
Knyght Errant at my school, we learn longsword in the liechtenauer tradition, our classes are broken up into 3 nights a week, Tuesdays are tournament training, Thursdays are the principles of longsword and Saturdays are techniques. Principles of longsword in my opinion are the best as they reach into the core of being a good swordsman. Personally, the tournament training does not interest me, as the instructor focuses on winning, forsaking the art.
In my opinion competition is what makes HEMA alive. It drives interpretation and the sense of competition, fighting someone you don't know is an aspect of the fight you will only get at tournaments.
A lot of techniques only make sense when they are fast and the opponent is not willing to cooperate.
The most important thing for competition are the rules. The rules have to incourage good historical fencing. That is the thing we have to keep in mind.
In sport fencing you salute the judge and opponent
Nowadays tennis problably represents swordfighting closer than fencing... :)
In my last years at my last club I started pushing toward having the martial aspect of things. We picked up full scale rapiers, and I pushed for gymnasium sabres but it's hard go get that in an epee club.
Saying what I have felt for years. I had a vert brief intro to foil when I was 11. The next time I saw sportg fencing with th eoffset epee bell and the ortho grips, I was completely put off. You have crystallised my thinking exactly.
+scholagladiatoria really interesting video. Modern fencing has definitely changed a lot since it became a sport, but the idea of it being simply a game of electronic tag, especially in epee is in my opinion a naive statement. There is definitely a great deal of skill involved in modern fencing, and I believe the reason many people don't follow through beginners courses etc. is actually because it is a lot harder than what they would expect, they realise the work they will have to do and go to historical fencing as it appears easier. Don't get me wrong, I think fencing has definitely moved away from historical fencing, especially saber and foil but I think you will find that pistol grips aside (use them but think the sport would be better without them just from a traditionalist viewpoint) that in particular epee fencing is very close to an actual duel, and is a lot more complicated and skilful than you make it out to be. In fact compared to the other types of fencing, champions usually only start happening in late 20s early 30s, which is different to say saber with most champions in early 20s. There is definitely a focus on athleticism and fitness over pure swordsmanship in modern fencing these days, but only because that's what works, and I am sure if historical fencers many years ago had access to this knowledge they would have been more successful fencers. That's the beauty of modern fencing, you use what works, and not what it necessarily says in the text book, which is true swordsmanship. Also, sometimes less blade work is actually more effective and more pure an art form e.g. use only what is necessary philosophy. Perhaps as a compromise there could be a distinction between 'historical fencing' and 'Olympic fencing'? Also have you read a really good book called epee 2.0? it is a book about a world fencing champion who technically wasn't that good but beats the world using essentially one move, where his strength is not his technique but brilliant and insightful use of strategy. Interesting contrast between the 'old' and 'new ways'. I guess probably the biggest difference between the two seems to be more of an emphasis on competition for modern fencing and mastery for historical fencing which isn't right or wrong, but could indicate why they went their separate ways. I guess they both have their flaws. Perhaps the end goal of each would be both mastery and practicality in thier respective goals
Scott Rawlins Hi, I certainly agree that modern fencing is skillful. However, I disagree that epee is more realistic. Stabbing someone in the toe fractions of a second before they stab you in the face is not realistic to any kind of duel, whether it be first blood or to the death.
+scholagladiatoria agreed
Matt didn't say this explicitly, but another individual got close -- sport fencing has sanitized the original point (pardon the pun) of the whole discipline of the sword, which was to prepare oneself for combat. We see the same evolution away from real risk and danger with jousting -- originally a close second to combat, by the 16th century it had evolved into a game about breaking lances, not unhorsing your opponent. The tournament melee also went the same direction for the same reason.
I agree with Matt that modern sport fencing is nothing but glorified, electrified tag. It is a bloodless sport by intention. By along the way, it also lost all of its magic. HEMA is in fact the real thing, and people know it when they see it or take part in it. It's also not silly like a lot of re-enactor combat, which trivializes the momentous and turns as many people off from the real experience of swords as sport fencing.
Yep, I think I've wanted to learn to fight with swords for a while now, but 'fencing' never seemed all that interesting. I got the same feeling about Olympic shooting/archery, where everyone uses super-technological monstrosities that take away most of the things that made the sport interesting in the first place.
It has been a great many years since I did fencing as a kid in school but thinking back your points have made me understand why I disliked foil and fell in love with saber.
I only really learned the basics as I moved schools and city but had a very good teacher, starting out with pistol grip foils though was totally alien and once I tried saber I had no intentions of going back. Only being at a basic level there was no electrical scoring, no being taught how to play the rules to your advantage and so on, it was just learning guards and strikes and no doubt a bit of experimentation thrown in simply through "not having memorised the book" or having to correct rookie mistakes on the fly.
When I moved city sadly I stopped sport fencing as it was something I had started alongside a friend just for fun, the idea of joining a club outwith school and on my own when I had no real intention of going into competitions just didn't feel right ... and then when I finally learned about HEMA 10 or so years ago life and location kept getting in the way, my local HEMA club focuses mostly on Italian Longsword which isn't really something I feel particularly interested in.
I'm not sure I agree with this at all. Athleticism and point control exist regardless of the venue.
Once an Olympic style fencer learns they don't have to stay in front of you, they would likely have a far better chance. They are faster, have more explosive lunges etc.
This sort of criticism of sport fencing, that it's arbitrary or silly because it doesn't sufficiently mimic an actual sword fight strikes me as quite silly. It's like a chess player complaining that a real knight could move anywhere, and a tower shouldn't move at all. It misses the point. The benefit of sport fencing is that it has completely shed it's martial arts past. It is a SPORT. It no longer matters HOW YOU LOOK when you fence. If you get the touch, within the rule set, you get the touch. This can be extremely liberating. Imagine a soccer player having his/her goal rescinded because it was a "bad kick." If the ball goes in the goal it goes in the goal, and that's worth one point. Some people don't like it, and that's fine.
Well said Matt. I think you've quite nicely summed up what so many of us feel there. Bravo :)
When I did sport fencing in school I was fortunate to have a very good teacher. We didn't utilize those electric scoring system, it was an honor system. If you wanted to become better why would you challenge a point someone had against you anyway? It makes sense that if you desire to improve your skill that you be honest, and scoring a point by 0.3 of a second or some other ridiculous figure...
Electric tag is essentially the best thing to call it, it's completely lost touch with what it was intended to be in the first place.
Maybe we could use "Electric Duel", as that may sound nice enough so that Sport Fencers may pick it up for themselves.
Edward
What was it intended to be in the first place?
I don't know what image you have of modern fencing clubs, but we don't use electric scoring during practice -- unless we're specifically training for a tournament. Most of the practice sessions in my club (well known varsity fencing school in the US) work on the honor system -- just as you described. Furthermore, the club that I went to in high school (again, very well rated in my state), still had most of the practice bouts done by honor for the sake of convenience -- and to instill good sportsmanship.
Why do tournament bouts have electric scoring? Because when you have prizes on the line, people don't follow honor as much. Fighting in a tournament -- to a lot of people, especially as they become more competitive -- is more about winning than about getting better. Obviously, you need some impartial means of adjudication and electric scoring is objectively better than a human referee using red chalk stains because of a very simple reason:
The electric system only goes off once you've scored a sufficiently heavy hit. For foil, the tip needs to feel a force of atleast 500 mg (~0.5 N). I fence HEMA, and the refs in some of my tournaments have dropped very convincing hits because they just weren't fast enough to pick up my action (EDIT: And yes, the honorable HEMA fighter felt my hit for sure, but didn't own up. I wonder why...). As a result, a fair number of HEMA tournaments in my side of the world have players who intentionally fence slower so that the refs can see their hits. How is this any different from sport fencers playing to the rules, O' Historically accurate one?
I haven't paid too much attention to modern sport fencing, but this sounds terrible. Sport fencing always felt unreal in how each person dealt blows, and this just kinda puts the icing on the cake. Good topic Matt. I don't know enough to reply to it, but I'd imagine this should stir some people up.
Having done (i'v since left it) sport foil fencing for about five years, i completely agree. I went into fencing to learn real swordsmanship. i was disappointed to find that's not what it was, but stayed because i found it fun anyway. Now i have a question, I left sport fencing because it was much too hard on my knees, but is HEMA any different in that regard? If i did long sword, or even rapier, for instance, are the movements different enough that i could get away with not having super strong knees?
Jonathan Allen That's exactly it, the impossibly long lunges were killing my right knee. With no particular need for a quick recovery we were pushed to reach as far as possible (not directly by the coach, but by circumstances mostly) our coach was really understanding though and suggested i just not lunge quite so far and focus more on "blade work", but by that point i had already injured myself and needed time to recover. Thanks for the info, so long as i don't have to put full body weight on a sharply bent right knee reaching past the foot i'm fine till it strengthens back up.
zoll2000
Hello commenter from 4 years ago, I notice you say your knee passes your foot and I am here to say that is a bad idea and not encouraged in fencing due to injury risk.
In all seriousness, my fencing club and many others advise practitioners to avoid exactly that.
Though I know little of sportfencing myself, you hit directly the cause why I didn't approach it, while I was always interested in swordsmenship. And it took me even longer to find any way into what is called HEMA, what is exactly what I was looking for as a child already. So what I want to say to you is: Thank you. Thank you for your openmindedness, for the sharing of your thoughts and experiences. It is thanks to you that I can learn at least some basics of the millitary fencing that I long for so much, it is thank to you that I finally know just how to call it - I didn't know even that, fencing always got me into the wrong direction, which was sportfencing.
Again and again, thank you for your output. I believe in time HEMA clubs will be a bit more common than they are today, and swordfighting will find it's way back into modern times.
In my 20 years experience with sport fencing and 6 months long sword HEMA, I can say that the kind of fun that each sport bring is not exactly the same. I am very curious about HEMA, therefore I watch this channel, but sport fencing gives me much more fun than HEMA. The reason for that I guess is both the physical and mental challenge that sport fencing demands at a very high speed. I could not get the same amount of adrenaline in HEMA that I am used to get in sport fencing. I could not either see other practitioners of HEMA being as high in adrenaline as sport fencers. Sport fencing is like chess at high speed.
Rudolf Hellmuth Maybe you need to find a different HEMA club! However, fun is subjective and naturally some people will prefer one activity to another.
Yeah, once you get good it’s basically auto pilot, you think a bit before the action get into the action and before you know it is done
I feel the same exact way about HEMA
Agreed, sports and martial arts are not the same thing at all. With a weapon or not.
I discovered that with Kendo/Kenjutsu. I respect both and most of all, the dedication of any practitioner but they are two differents things.
what is the most preferred uniform for attending hema lectures, orchis or elvish? personally i like the gondor suits
+Galimah I dunno. The teacher is usually dressed like Sauron
Where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?
Yep, it's same thing with cycling. It's not anymore about training and riding your bike, it's all about how much EPO you can inject.
Performance enhancing drugs are a huge part of every sport where lots of money is involved. You're never going to stop that, best thing would just be to allow it to happen rather than making the sports in to competition to see who can take the most drugs without getting caught.
That being said training is still the most important factor.
Jim Giant ...which eventually leads to further-evolved super-athletes...
I think I smell the new Christopher Nolan movie cooking
It would make a good movie, even documentries about PEDs are pretty interesting.
If you whip your wrist with an epée, you can bend the blade around the opponents guard to tag their wrist... Bs maneuver but it's another example of how different it really is
+Paul Paul Indeed!
how fast are you whipping your wrist with an epee to do that? I can see you doing that with a foil and it would work even better with a sabre as you can tap them on the wrist with the edge, but you must have a remarkably flexible epee to be able to do that.
+Paul Paul which epee are you using ? I haven't seen this ever.
+Paul Paul
You can flick all day with a foil! Its a joke!
Yes Foils you can as you can with feders
I can´t agree more with you Matt. Swordsmanship is an entirely different animal. I regret not having the chance to practice hema in my town. Thanks for you videos. Jolly good job. Cheers!
Agreed. Sport "fencing" seems to have lost sight of the fact that it was supposed to represent the use of weapons!
it has become a goal in itself not a tract to a goal - or winning a duel (or surviving) as it was originally for I guess....
not often do you fence for 1 hit - usually bouts are the first to 5 hit (or 15 in a direct elimiation semi finals)
Very much agree. I tried fencing thinking I would learn how to use a sword and was very disappointed. I've been doing HEMA now for about 9 months and find it endlessly fascinating.
but also, I do give you credit for calling out sabre. Sabre fencing has changed sooo much because of the electrical system of scoring. And I also enjoy and like many of your videos. And I think you are very cool as well. No joke. I mean that sincerely.
Spencer Brasch Thanks - yes I think sabre is the most removed of the modern fencing weapons from actual swordsmanship. The right of way rule, which does come from common sense, has been grossly abused to change the art in modern sabre. And the lightness of the modern sabre, or rather the complete lack of mass in the blade specifically, means that it moves utterly unlike any actual sabre or cutting weapon. Lastly, the flick tap used in modern sabre cuts, with any edge-orientation, is nothing like an actual cut.
Your absolutely correct. I've competed in sport fencing myself & I've found that I much prefer H.E.M.A.
Im an ex-sport fencer and I did enjoy it, although I agree entirely that a) its not a very realistic representation of a sword fight b) you can still learn a lot from it. On the matter of pistol grips, what is wrong with a thrusting weapon using a pistol grip? It's not historical, it not supposed to be, but does it give superior handling to a traditional grip? Could a rapier-type sword with a pistol grip be considered "better" than a traditional rapier in a real fight?
That is actually an interesting point. I'm not a fencer, but watching some fights with real weapons (ie. stiff ones) I observed there's quite a lot of circular movement of the tip of sword to go around the opponent's blade and react to it (which must work differently for the sport fencing with the highly flexible blades). It seems to me that a pistol grip would impede those circular movements resulting in a poorer ability to react to opponent's blade.
@@erykczajkowski8226 On the contrary, pistol grips are far better for circular disengages and evasive coupes for light thrusting swords. Its much easier to keep the movement as small as you need due to the greater stability and strength, as well as the blade naturally sitting parallel with the forearm. You couldn't use it on a rapier, the balance would be wrong, but it wouldn't suprise me if it were an objective improvement for a smallsword.
I would like to mention that you do have a point on the disliking the right of way rule in foil and sabre fencing. However, epee is still the closest that you'll get to in sportsmanship since the lack of priority and its still very essential to control your opponent's blade in epee!
Feel free to argue with me!
So im watching "Reclaiming the Sword" and see man in a goatee wearing a Scholagladiatoria shirt and think "hmmm that guy sure sounds familiar"....Just to realize in the next moment that it was you. I had no idea you were in that documentary
***** Yeah, I get around!
goatee? No friggin' way.
Tomasz Wota Matt is always sporting a faint 'name for them' side burns to his upperlips/jawbone. Which I always thought looked cool like the guy in the movie the Professional
scholagladiatoria Incidentally, while that was a decent documentary, I was disappointed it didn't demonstrate more examples of the realistic, historical inspired movie fight choreography it spent so much time talking about. A sadly missed opportunity.
Has anybody ever messed with smallsword vs foil or epee? Like if one took the guard and wacky grip of a modern fencing tool, put a solid blade with a sharp tip on it, and had a go versus a smallsword.
I too have a background in sabre and some foil going back more than 20 years when I was in University.
Our professor was definitely into historical swordsmanship, however. He even studied Kendo in Japan, as well as some other arts with the sabre in Germany and other places in Europe, and he consistently taught us (I had him for four years) that hitting each other at the same time would mean that we are both dead. We also tended not to use electric equipment much at all - he was very old school.
So I never liked the rules of fencing, or the point of it either. I completely agree with your video. And yes, the reason that I, and my brother, both went into fencing was because of that wonderful scene in The Princess Bride (it had just come out a year earlier). We wanted to learn swordsmanship, damn it. I'm just lucky that I had a professor who taught us the essentials of it under the guise of fencing. It wasn't HEMA, by any stretch, but all of the HEMA fundamentals were there in each and every class. (not that I ever took HEMA classes, but I have been watching your videos)
All that I can say is that a lot of fencers are ignorant, stupid, arrogant pricks for thinking that theirs is the tougher sport, and the more philosophically sound. It isn't. Put a modern day sabre fencer up against a HEMA sabre fencer and we'll see who gets actually "cut" first - the guy who taps with the side of his blade, or the guy who knows what the hell an edge is and how to use it, while trying not to get hit at the same time.
Modern day fencing? Absolute idiocy. You might as well call it "speed stick tag". It has absolutely nothing to do with swords, and hasn't since a very long time. I applaud HEMA groups for remembering what the hell a sword is for, and how to properly use one.
Here’s the thing, your argument though it has many points I agree with, is grounded on the assumptions that all people interested in sport fencing are also interested in historical technique, and that this evolution is inherently a bad thing.
The reason why fencing evolved the way it did is largely because sword fights were no longer a practical thing to train for. It then became more of a sport than something your life would depend on.
Fencing or even martial arts as a whole aren’t the only things affected by this. Equestrian training is not about preparing to ride into battle or ride your horse across the continent. Rowing isn’t about the maritime tradition. Archers don’t shoot at human targets anymore.
Yes, if you want to learn how to fight the historical way, look to HEMA. However, if you are just looking for a fun and challenging sport, then there’s nothing wrong with it.
And as you said, Fencing teaches a lot of the same/similar skills used in HEMA. The primary differences are the weapons and rules. Pitting the two against each other doesn’t help anyone.
I fence foil because there are no HEMA around me ( I would love to train Spanish Destreza). There is no circular motion, just back and forth. Foil's Priority rule makes it literally a game of tag with flimsy metal sticks. The pistol grip is a joke.
The circular motions still exist and are still used. But they are only used defensively, not offensively. Because they only work defensively. With one simple lunge, and without moving the rear foot, a fencer can cover a 180degree arc.
The right-of-way rule for foil was introduced in the 1600s.
This is true until you participate in a melee or free-for-all and your opponents have the indecency of having things in their off-hand, graving, or simply ganging up on you. This, of course, have nothing to do with one-on-one matches.
In the end, it all depends on context. The more restricted the scenario, the more the skill shines over dirty tricks and luck, at the cost off the beauty of chance and the diversity of techniques.
I'm hip to the effects of melée and free-for all. Most matches at my club are multi-person matches, with ganging up encouraged, and sometimes two-weapon use, or sword and shield.
But generally speaking, melées and free-for-alls start off with antagonists facing each other. If someone tries to flank you, best to head them off, rather than let them in to your rear. As long as they are generally in front-ish of you, modern technique can be used unaltered.
Because, as I said, the circular motions still exist and are still used in Olympic-rules fencing.
This also means that you should be able to gain significant training in the defensive circular moves, from attending an Olympic-rules club. Olympic-rules matches are fought in a wide box, not on a tightrope.
Foil's Right-of-Way (RoW) rules date back centuries - they pre-date Olympic-rules fencing by at least 300 years.
They are there as a training method, to emphasise defense during your early training.
This emphasis on training is why, classically, foil leads to duelling sword (epée de combat, now shorted to epée).
Gordon
What kind of circular move are you speaking of? I thought ca mo meant the way you move on the piste - forward/backward, but not being able to circulate.
Scholgladiotoria can you please talk about using 2 knives at once. I don't know if it was used historically and I wonder why not ?
If the opponent has a sword/spear etc he can stand several feet away and just poke you full of holes would be my guess, reach advantage.
My apoligies, i forgot to mention if you were in a hand to hand or knife to knife situation?
percyjackson gardwanier In a knife fight, a free hand lets you grapple, a second knife gives the other person a second knife to keep track of. That said, a second knife takes more training to use effectively, because most people aren't used to using both hands. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
That's what i was thinking but i noticed you could grapple with two knives .Maybe even more effectively than with one because you can cut with both arms.Also if one arm is hurt or the knife is dropped in the fight you still have another already with knife in hand.
A dagger can be used as a decent lever for grappling, but it's not as versatile for that purpose as an empty hand. That said, I doubt that two daggers at once saw much use - mostly because a single dagger is pretty simple to use effectively (provided you know how to fight decently with your bare hands) while the use of multiple weapons requires additional training that for most people in the west just wouldn't be worth the time and effort if you could just go ahead and learn to use a sword instead.
That said, in some cultures, multiple weapons were used in civilian fights. Butterfly swords were designed to be used as a pair, for example, and escrima has combinations like spada y daga and daga y daga (sword and dagger, and dagger and dagger respectively) named by the Spanish conquistadors who landed there.
Hear hear. Well said.
What don't you like about pistol grips and curved sword handles? Is it because you don't like them aesthetically, or because you think they're actually less practical for thrusting weapons than a straight grip? Because IMO these ergonomic grips make a lot of sense for thrusting weapons.
I'm sad... They have no opportunities to learn ANYTHING with the sword other than fencing where I'm at.
corn cob because fencing is THE BEST way to learn swordsmanship, unlike the ridiculous sports of HEMA and Kendo.
Casper Howell Please explain why electrified tag is better than martial arts that follow historical manuals.
Mattias Bengtsson
please explain why people just slamming blades around is better than actual swordsmanship?
Casper Howell Answer my question instead of avoiding it.
Casper Howell what swordsmanship? modern sport fencing teaches very little about using a real sword, dont believe me? pick up a REAL rapier or sabre and try using it like a foil or fencing sabre. you will loose.
To paraphrase Gen. Patton's 1911 fencing manual: "the involuntary spasmodic reaction induced from being run-through is usually enough to stop the deadly momentum of the opponents attack."
Search the keywords 'Nicaragua knife attacker police'.
The attacker charges like a wild animal and thrust his knife into three officers - which causes them to drop down instantly. This confirms what Patton wrote in his 1911 US Army manual. Perhaps Ol' Blood and Guts was speaking from personal experience.
The man that puts the point on the other man first wins - period. Noone is more adept at doing this than a good modern fencer. They train to put the point on the opponent first - whether it is an opponent moving in or an opponent on the defensive.
Armored knights realized this, and thus their primary weapon was the lance. As with modern fencing, they trained to put the point on the target as accurately as possible, and with as much velocity as possible.
When there is something on the line - the future of a dynasty, a life, or even a trophy - this becomes the default form of fighting for those on whose shoulders rest fate.
For some real amusement: you can go online and lookup 'thrust vs. cut' or 'modern vs historical fencing'. You will find proponents of reconstructed fencing arguing (and with a smug tone) with the likes of General Patton - who was not only a famous modern General with real combat experience, but a champion modern fencer and West Point graduate. Patton 'literally' wrote the (1911) manual on fencing for US soldiers! LOL
What a quaint little cult.
I speak with a little experience: I have competed and fought both formally and informally, in full contact and semi-full contact stick fighting. But if I were to start over, knowing what I know now, I would have invested that energy in to modern fencing. (The lauded Battle of Mactan involved just 49 Spaniards, 200 or so native allies vs. 1500+ Natives.) Modern FMA itself is influenced by European fencing.
+Dirk Kingston You need to read 'Swordsmen of the British Empire' - it contains hundreds (yes hundreds) of accounts of hand-to-hand combat in the 17th-19th centuries. Patton knew very little about swordsmanship in actual warfare. In contrast, people like Hodson, Gough and Jacob killed dozens of opponents with their own hands in actual combat - opponents who were themselves using swords and trying to kill them. Patton was a fantasist and believed that he was a reincarnation of Alexander the Great! His only experience with the sword was 20th century fencing competitions… As someone who has been wounded by swords and knives, and as someone who has studied hundreds of crime reports in my job, I can assure you that most people do not instantly stop when they are stabbed. They just carry on doing what they were doing in most cases, but it depends mostly on where exactly the wound is (1cm to the left or right can make all the difference), whether they realise they have been wounded and what their psychological condition is.
Nice troll with the Patton comment. Even your own Gen. Montgomery respected Patton - and he didn't much get on with anyone. Hell, the Nazis said Patton was a genius of tank warfare. I''m sure you think you could take Patton in a duel. While not go all the way while you're making a outrageous statements.
+Dirk Kingston I am a competitive fencer and you're trying to make fencing something it isn't; maybe in 1911 the techniques were far more relevant but these days I wouldn't bring an epee to a knife fight
In what ways do you consider epée de combat techniques to have changed from 1750 to the present? What aspects of current epée technique do you consider irrelevant to earnest encounters?
I'm still gonna do fencing cuz its the closest thing I have to HEMA in my area. Hopefully I can actually do HEMA in the future.
Same, also or fencing is more like swordsmanship than on olyimpics.
My friend, I'm interested in your comment about the fencing schools losing students to HEMA. I'd like to know how much percentage wise?
Submitting a new name for modern fencing.
"Stick tag 2: electric boogaloo"
Car Antenna Jousting
Funny.
In the Olympics, the tip of a fencers blade is the 2nd fastest moving object (beaten only by a target shooter's bullet). As much as you armchair HEMA fan boys (ie, you don't practice a martial art, nor have you ever formally done so) like to say that a foil or epee are harmless the reality is quite different. If the sword breaks or the tip gets removed somehow it can result in accidents such as getting impaled by the seemingly harmless "metal stick"
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 And your point is? If you want to go to danger the most hazardous Olympic sport is Dressage. As far as I can tell no-one has said that people cannot be accidentally killed in sport fencing. What Mr Easton has said is that sport fencing no longer accurately reflects sword work.
As to the speed of the tip, the athleticism of the fencers is well acknowledged. What does that have to do with its resemblance to swordsmanship?
You have peirced your strawman to the heart. Rejoice in your victory.
@@robdarvall2726 deaths? No, not yet, Injuries? Absolutely.
Anyway, let me ask you a question, are you familiar with Kendo? You know that they use a piece of Bamboo as a stand in for Katanas right? Well modern fencing is the same principle, the Foil is a stand in for the Smallsword and the Epee for Epee de Combat, with Saber standing in for dueling saber. Its the same thing, can someone get killed with the Kendo stick? Its certainly possible but hasn't yet happened, same goes for foil.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 I still don't see your point. No-one has argued that foils, epees, and sabres are not potentially dangerous. I am familiar enough with sport fencing, having done it for some years.
The possible danger has nothing to do with the argument. People who are working in both systems are proposing that sport fencing no longer reflects sword work as it was actually practiced. That's the argument. Speed of tip, potential accidents, all are irrellevent.
I was a SCA/Adrian Rapier fighter for a few years then I took a fencing class. Took me a long time to get the idea of "right of way"
"What to you mean he started first, I would of pierced a lung with that blow"
Yes, we'd both be dead. Hence right of way -- for training purposes -- so you'd lose the reflex of striking back against a strike and do it only when you were sure of an advantage.
No other martial sport I can think of has degraded the martial styles used for it quite like sport fencing. Modern sport fencing seems like more of a game children play than a real competition of skill. When I first saw it, I knew nothing of real fencing and thought, "if anyone actually did this stuff in a real fight, they'd get themselves killed without doing much to their opponent." Then I saw some real fencing and realized the difference
Depending on whether or not you consider kendo fencing, I would say kendo is just as bad.
kokofan50 agreed... kendo is like sport saber's Japanese step-brother...
Do not make the mistake of assuming that just because it isn't swordfighting that it doesn't take skill.
Sport fencing is a game. It's game that no longer resembles actual swordfighting, but it is still a skill-intensive game. Being really good at sport fencing requires lots of practice, athleticism, and mental focus, not to mention godlike reflexes.
I don't have a problem with sport fencers doing what they do. I just have a problem with sport fencers thinking that what they do is sword fighting, or anything like it.
Graidon Mabson Agreed. This should be what viewers take from the video itself. There's nothing wrong with what they do, it's just not what they say it is anymore. Foil-tag would be a good name for it, IMHO.
Graidon Mabson Nooooo, of course it's an extremely athletic and skill-heavy sport. Nobody's gonna take that away from it. But like you said, it ain't swordfighting! Not any more than chess is waging war.
I've been involved in sport fencing (AFLA, USFA, Empire State Games in NY, Club level) for over 50 years. My master was taught by a master who learned in the 19th century, so I recognize I am a dinosaur. We were taught that the idea was to hit without being hit, and that the rules in foil and sabre were actually there to make you treat the toy weapon as though it were heavy and sharp. We used to comment that epee (without right-of-way rules) was more artificial than foil (where right-of-way is raised to the highest level) because hitting first had very little to do with surviving. I wonder if you have every fought a juried bout in sabre. Since you had to convince the director and judges both that something happened and that you were right to do it, it was a lot more faithful to the ideas you expressed. I stopped fencing sabre competitively when then starting changing the rules to match the equipment, instead of making the equipment work according to the spirit of fencing.
In my heart of hearts I believe french grip should beat pistol-grip every time all other things being equal, but I don't think it is really the equipment that is the issue. The equipment just reflects the changes in the tides of coaching styles. It is sad but true it is easier to teach a fencer to fast than to be smart, so that is done at all levels, and then the rules are changed to handle the mess of double attacks. Let's flip a coin?! Also good fencing is 'dull' so let's penalize defensive strategies - don't want the TV audience (the what?) to tune out.
Sorry I haven't had a chance to take up HEMA, in my 70's now I'm not sure it's the time.
Anyway - I think you are right about the direction the sport has taken. Keep on keep'n on.
You clearly have a bias, as you're an advocate of HEMA. But, as you say yourself, there are abilities which people cultivate through sport fencing. You clearly copy modern fencing training formats for a reason!
I agree that modern fencing is not "swordsmanship", in a Star Wars or Three Musketeers sense, but it definitely is a sport in its own right and I love doing it. All the parries, counter parres, counter attacks etc. are all forms of "swordsmanship", just as the flick is. What you don't like is that it's not like a traditional sword.
Having said that, I'm all for people doing HEMA and I think it sounds like a lot of fun. But even if I tried it, I wouldn't abandon fencing, because I enjoy it immensely in its present manifestation. The fact that athleticism is so key to good fencing I think is only a plus.
I’ve been fencing saber for 6 years and some of the rules for scoring are B.S. I enjoy the faster speed of Olympic saber, and I see it as super strategic because of the restrictions. HEMA definitely focuses more on traditional style and I’d love to try it one day.
I am not so sure that I agree with what is being said here. If hypothetically I had a real duel with any kind of thrusting sword coming in 3 months and I had to train for it, I am not sure that I could find a better way to train for it than sport épée training.
Sure, it's not a real sword fight, but the rules are not restrictive at all like the right of way rules of florett or saber.
Ultimately, it's two guys trying to thrust their sword in their opponent, and trying to avoid being hit, how they do it is up to them. Who thrusts first gets the point.
Sure, there are many things that diverge from real sword fighting, like for example the lighter weapon, the pistol grip, weak thrust needed to score a point (750 grams I believe), short amount of time between touches to determine who gets the point, just to name a few.
However, the footwork, reflexes, distancing, coordination and speed that one develops in sport fencing cannot be equaled.
In sport fencing you develop these qualities with full gear on at EVERY practice, against many sharp opponents.
I have nothing against HEMA but you have to realistic, the level of athleticism is extremely poor as far as I can see.
How do you think that a real rapier duel between 10 épée-olympians vs. the 10 best HEMA rapierists in the world would play out ?
Give the épée-olympians 1 month to adapt to the rapier and to the reality of the duelling and I am sure that they will win 9 out of 10 duels.
Why ? Because they have trained with the best, using the best methods, all their lives.
Athleticism > All.
In a real duel would you go for a double hit? Very unlikely (unless it is worth the risk).
'I suggest that sword fighting is not taught, and that it ought to be. Fencing should be encouraged to the utmost, but fighting should be regarded, as it was by Silver, as a distinct subject, and of much greater importance in the majority of cases.'
Col C G R Matthey 1898
So not just the last 90 years, Matt.
Medieval Martial Arts Good quote :-)
Totally why I stopped with sport fencing. Just felt like a big game of tag. Also, when i first saw the pistol grip I couldn't help but find it ridiculous. Other combat sports (boxing, modern savage, judo, must thai etc...) still seem leagues closer to their sources than sport fencing. With comparatively minor changes you can apply such combat sports to less controlled encounters. And, in the case of hema,I think even sportive tourneys are closer to the source matter. That being said I will certainly agree sport fencing is a great workout. I still do the practice footwork and sport-style lunges as part of a workout. Still, I am very hopeful hema will grow even more! (All styles too)
If you ever go to Dublin, please try jugger, I'd like to know your opinion on it.
Sport fencing does not need to meet your requirements for "real" swordsmanship. It is a competitive or recreational sport meant to have fun. While I am playing sports, I rarely think about the real life applications because, why would I want to? Soccer has no real world value, but soccer is still respected as a sport. Somw people might, but I do not fence any more for the historical value than someone might eat a bigmac and complain that it does not meet the basic burger caracteristics.
Can I ask why you rarely see any seeking the bind in sport fencing? In some smallsword stuff (close enough to foil one would think) it seems much more prevalent. Sport fencing seems to be more, strike, strike, etc. with less bladework. Is it because of the faster pace of sport fencing, or is there some other reason? (I'm not running down sport fencing, but as a dude with an interest in historical fencing and no sport fencing background, I'm curious).
Also I would think for military sabres, smallswords, spadroons etc. the footwork would at least be similar, is that the case?
Its because the competition meta does not allow it. If you check a pre comp foil/epee warm-up lesson you will see plenty of binds. Hell when you first learn fencing there is plenty of binds or parries in opposition . But at the higher tactical levels if you want to stand a whiff of a chance of getting to the final most actions need to be done with a absence of blade and from a much further distance away than any smallsword treatise advocates, because (counter intuitively for non sport fencers) there is reliance on the acceleration of the point being able to beat a limited human reaction time, which has a higher percentage on allowing one to be hit and not hit back. And in order to do that you cannot allow your blade to be taken. Its the same reason why sport fencers don't bother using closing the line after hitting thus preventing what HEMA terms 'afterblows'. Every sport fencing coach knows how to teach closing blade actions if necessary particulary for epee, but in a competition this 'more realistic' set of skills isn't used. Why? Because IT CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU AS A TRAP. Sport fencing at its highest levels is a tactical escalation of 'I know what you know what I know you are doing' . At a certain point in the mid 19th century it began to dawn that those pretty pretty "sentiment du fer actions" binding actions were actually less optimal that the old masters suggested. Furthermore if you actually check the old smallsword manuals there are nowhere near as many binding actions that modern smallsword proponents show. This is puzzling: why over emphasise a set of sword skills that were not that emphasised in the old treatise. I suspect its more to emphasise their difference from sport fencers. This is not to say that there are not HUGE artificiality in sport fencing, especially in Priority rules. But the lack of binding actions is not one of them.
@@inthedenoftigers5702 Thanks. That is a very good explanation! Sorry for the seemingly silly question but being a newb to historical fencing and having no background in sport fencing it seemed a glaring difference. It is hard to visualize the reason sometimes when just seeing the action, without background. And an understanding of the background and what led up to it is often not something one can easily learn by watching videos (as sadly is the only real option now during the current situation with many places closed incl. fencing clubs both historical and sport).
@@thelonerider9693 No worries. Its even more complicated than it seems. For example if you check youtube you would be forgiven for thinking fencers are constantly suicidal: TH-cam only shows the Direct elimination bouts and Finals, where athleticism, hair trigger responses and the fact the fencers already have fenced each other a number of times or pre-scouted each other, means will dispense with caution as they already know their opponents game plan and are just working the percentages. What you RARELY see on youtube are the Pool fights, where Fencers particularly epeeists, are often ultra careful, especially against unknown opponents. In a pool you might have one monster, one really good fencer, two mediocre fencers and a couple of unknown rabbits. In pool fights you may have to be really carefull because for a true contender allowing themselves to take suicidal hits may negatively affect their indicators. It 'does' matter if you win your fights 5-3 , 5-2, 5-1 5-4. The very fact you even took hits means you will have an exponentially harder route to the throughout the direct eliminations finals that if you got 5-0, 5-0, 5-0 etc. Its the difference between getting exhausted taking down a decent fencer in your DE and cruising your first couple of direct eliminations against weaker fencers Those binding closing actions to prevent afterblows are particularly important to know against the 'rabbits', as often their tactical depth isn't that great. Better to be safe and negate any chance of a double hit, because they won't have the tactical knowledge to use it covering actions against you.
Don't you really know that right of way in the foil comes from actual history? Foil was a practice/learning sword and right of way was used as a good way to teach people when to attack.
And then, the talk about handles... How in the hell pistol grip disqualifies the epee from being an actual sword? Does the definition of sword includes the design specifications of the handle? Have you ever occured to you that maybe the historical swords were like that because it was easier to produce? Do you also disqualify modern weapons from being guns because they have easier to use handles?
You may not like the sport aspect of modern fencing. The thing is, nobody needs swords to actually kill people. So, the only reason fencing (or sword fighting in general) to ever exist in 21st century is that it is a game. You are not becoming warriors doing HEMA as you imagine, you are just playing with swords just as modern fencers do. It is just in a different, more olympic sporty kind of way.
But then, do you actually believe that since HEMA is more 'real', you would be able to kill a olympic fencer in a duel?
Matt's point is valid. I practiced "fencing" for a number of years and walked away for the EXACT same reasons. I have never met this man. We live in two different countries and are separated by thousands of miles of ocean. But I came to the same conclusion, just like many others.
Fencing isn't fencing, it is something else. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who still believe it has some basis in swordsmanship-it doesn't. Maybe the footwork. Though, the "weapons" aren't treated as such and therefore should not be named that name. When you absentmindedly toss your sword on the ground to tie your shoe or fix an article of clothing, clearly your lack of respect indicates you don't view your tool as a weapon. The list can go on.
+toothANDclaw13 Of course it is valid as an opinion. He has every right not to like modern fencing. However some of his arguments defending his point are nonsensical. As I pointed out, the right of way is an actual historical practice, for example. Or the weapon design has nothing to do with what he was talking about. For what is worth, historical fencing weapons are also not really weapons in the strict sense, they are dull. They do not function as weapons are intended, to harm or kill people. You may argue that they can be used that way if sharpened, but so can the fencing weapons be produced to have the ability to kill people.
The thing that bugs me is that you seem to forget the fact that, in the end, it is a hobby, a sport, a game. Historical fencing does not make you a knight. You may be romantic enough to see yourself that way or see your weapon as a part of your soul, and that is okay. But weapons are really tools and modern fencing is as real as HEMA fencing. It is like saying modern swimming is not swimming, there are no rules in real swimming.
You PREFER historical fencing, that is okay, but preference does not make a good argument for it being objectively better.
+Pool First, claiming the concept of right of way is historical and thereby using it to defend its validity is nonsensical. People were doing that 50 years ago, ten years ago. It's still a rule that comes from a time when much of fencing had ALREADY started fall into degradation.
Second, attacking someone's passion for an art using reductionist comparisons is cowardly and in bad taste.
Ultimately, the content of this video is questioning the validity of Olympic sport fencing still calling itself fencing when it has clearly strayed very far from its roots. No one is attacking your reasons (or anyone else's for that matter) for participating in sport fencing. That's your business, not mine.
+toothANDclaw13 Its not 50 years old though. Its barely more modern than longsword. Foil has been used since 17th century as a practice weapon and you can see at the 6th paragraph it says:
"During the 17th century several major changes occurred in fencing. The "fleuret", or foil, was developed in France as a lighter training weapon for dueling. Right-of-way, a set of rules which made the game a series of alternating attacks and defense, became generally accepted. With right-of-way, duelists were unlikely to impale each other, as they did not both attack at the same time. This made fencing safer and reduced the number of casualties to dueling."
acfencers.tripod.com/briefhistory.html
You could find other sources this came up after 5 minute google search. The part you clearly don't understand is that there isn't only 15th century longsword fighting in history. In reality, there were also a dueling period and modern fencing was a recreation of the dueling practice. Sure it has evolved somehow but you can't expect it to carry on 15th century practices.
And who is not attacking the other's passion? Get a little grip of reality! All of the video is belittling modern fencing. Yes, modern fencing may not be really swordfighting but neither is historical fencing. Again, you are not being samurai's when you practice kendo just as you are not being knights when you do historical fencing. It is a fucking hobby. Be happy with your hobby instead of feeling superior for nonsensical reasons.
And arguably, sports fencing has more of a right to call itself fencing since that is what fencing is in modern days, even in the dictionary the term fencing refers to competitive fencing. That is what happens to fencing when you don't try to kill each other.
I agree fully, modern fencing still takes its roots from what it once was. The pistol grip argument was a bit silly since, French grips and Italian style grips are manufactured. One could easily take principles from "real fencing" and apply them in a competitive situation. One could also get a grip and understand, its a sport, non lethal, why does it not deserve to evolve.
Is the Italian Grip fencer using HEMA or Sport Fencing?
Why do they have the rule about "who first started attack"? Why don't they have the rule about afterblows? Why don't they make the weapon thicker so people who watch this can see the goddamn weapon?
These rules do actually emerge out of real saber dueling, though it is hard to tell now. The idea is, if you're in a real "fight to wound / kill" situation wielding heavy, sharp sabers and the other guy comes at you and is clearly delivering a serious cut at you, it would be suicidal to ignore such a serious attack so you can get in a blow of your own.
As to the idea of a "thicker weapon" you can indeed find these. Hanwei makes a couple of them that, while straight rather than curved, make for much better saber fencing than flicking people with a metal noodle. Wielding one with enough oomph to land a substantial blow takes a bit more time, makes the exchanges feel more authentic and rewarding.
There is indeed a rule about after blows. It is called 'the box' that does not allow a hit x units of time (weapon specific for x) after the first hit was recorded. So after blows don't count because the bout has been stopped, by the referee AND the scoring box. Technology... Who knew?
Dickon Jayes
They disallow afterblows? It makes sense from a scoring/sporting perspective, I suppose, but not from a martial one.
Dickon Jayes I'm not positive on how it works for saber, but for foil fencing at least (and i'm pretty sure epee as well) the "hit box" is damn near instantaneous. To the point where the machine would catch a definitive touche but a judge wouldn't.
There should be at least a three second delay between hit and halt to allow for a double kill. Perhaps the scoring boxes could have two tones so you can tell the difference. Beep..................................Buzz You could have a number of additional hits by either person during that time and they should count.
is there anywhere i could buy hema gear online?
Buk Lau The HEMA Shop, Corsair's Wares, SPES, Regenyei Armoury, HEMA Supplies (facebook page) - yes there are several.
do you think they would ship to canada?