Musings on Agendas and Misconceptions in the Martial Arts
Of late I’ve taken to asking people ‘have you actually seen that? Do you have any first-hand evidence?’ when they hold forth about certain subjects. The answer, surprisingly often, is, ‘no, but everyone knows that….’
Sadly, it seems that ‘what everyone knows’ is often entirely wrong.
I have no major problem with people being wrong or having no idea what they are talking about, but sometimes it makes my work harder. In the martial arts world we have the three-way argument that ‘mixed martial artists are disrespectful thugs/traditional martial artists can’t fight/self-defence people are just making money by scaring people’. These are generalisations based upon the worst that each group has to offer, and none of these statements properly reflects reality. I’ve battled this one on several occasions.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, I am strongly opposed to subdivision in what is essentially a rather niche activity, and I feel that this sort of closed-mindedness can be counterproductive. At some future point I’ll get into the mainstream martial arts side of this, but for now let’s consider how it works in the fencing community.
My experience of telling Olympic-style, or ‘sport’, fencers about historical fencing is that the usual response is genuine but slightly baffled interest. Some are keen to learn more, some don’t get it and some really aren’t interested. But everybody I’ve spoken to was polite. I’ve literally never met anyone in the sport fencing community who was disparaging about historical fencing. Many had no idea what I was talking about, but nobody was rude.
Compare this to the attitude of many historical fencing/HEMA practitioners, who denounce ‘sport fencing’ for various reasons or proclaim that it does not teach swordsmanship. It can be quite hard to build bridges when ‘our’ community is so openly rude about the people I’m trying to talk to. And more often than not when I ask what these denunciations are based upon the answer is that no, the HEMA practitioner has never tried sport fencing, but they don’t need to because they have a perfectly good set of preconceptions.
Now, speaking as someone who taught sport fencing for over 20 years and quit competition – twice – because it was not what I wanted it to be, I know what I’m talking about. I know all about the flaws and how they came to be. I’m actually qualified to condemn sport fencing in a way that someone who has never tried it is not. I’m as HEMA as you can get these days. When I was teaching sport fencing I was trying to invent HEMA, not knowing it already existed.
And yet I fence foil at my local sport fencing class and I love it. How can that be?
The answer is that there is a great deal of merit in sport fencing – and incidentally, many HEMA groups commit exactly the same sins they denounce in sport fencers. It is true that what wins modern competitive bouts is largely divorced from true swordsmanship. Modern fencers play to the rules set and do what they need to in order to win. With an electric scoring system and artificial rules, there is a body of technique that wins medals but is not really traditional swordsmanship. To me, that’s a deal-breaker. I find that kind of fencing unsatisfying when I meet it in sport fencing clubs and HEMA tournaments.
Wait, what?
We get exactly the same thing in many HEMA groups – playing to a rules set in order to win medals rather than fencing as if the blades were sharp. I don’t like it wherever it happens, but it’s not confined to sport fencing. As the Bible says (sort of): get the stick out of your ass before you comment on the mote in the other guy’s eye. Or something like that.
So… by all means let’s despise the bastardisation of swordsmanship into medal-winning expediency. But let’s despise it equally everywhere and not vilify others for doing what happens in our own metaphorical house. And let’s not despise others based upon prejudice. If you’ve seen it happen on a widespread basis then maybe it’s worth disapproving but one isolated incident – e.g. a bad instructor or asshole competitor – is not sufficient grounds to condemn a whole field of activity.
And if you’ve not seen it at all, maybe you should not comment.
It has been claimed – I do not know on what grounds – that ‘sport fencing does not teach swordsmanship – HEMA does.’ Both halves of this statement are, according to my experience, largely untrue. There are plenty of HEMA groups that actually teach what amounts to ‘how to get points in a tournament’ which is not the same thing as swordsmanship. I have, err, ‘had things to say’ to competitors in HEMA tournaments who were essentially committing suicide (if the blade had been sharp) to get points. Bad fencers do this, but when a group deliberately teaches it as a way to win, that group is not teaching swordsmanship.
As to the first half of the statement, sport fencing has a strict coach training and qualification programme, and this includes the teaching of all the common strokes and parries. These are executed in a classical manner, i.e. as if trying to harm the opponent with a sharp blade. This is swordsmanship – done with a sharp blade it would be effective and keep the fencer alive.
It is true that this classical technique is overlaid with competition-specific material which is all about triggering the judging apparatus and convincing the referee to award a point. This is not swordsmanship, I concede, and I personally don’t like it at all. But claiming that sport fencing does not teach swordsmanship is simply wrong, and if that claim is based upon second-hand regurgitation of what someone else has said, well, maybe we should all know better.
So… it seems reasonable to like or not like something based upon what you have seen, but making sweeping statements about a related field of activity, perhaps based on nothing but prejudice, is counterproductive. We are unlikely to win many converts from the sport fencing world if we keep telling them what they have invested so much time and effort into is nonsense – especially when that criticism is clearly based upon ignorance.
It seems much more useful to restrict comments to ‘I have seen this and this is what I think about it’. We are all entitled to an opinion, but it seems only fair to base that opinion on what we actually have witnessed (and understood) rather than upon prejudice. It is also worth being polite. ‘I don’t like that because...’ is a valid statement. ‘That is bad’ is a judgement, and whether fair or not it is likely to alienate people with whom we really have no quarrel.
By way of example, let us compare two responses to the same situation. A former or current sport fencer comes into a historical fencing class to give it a try.
Option One is along the lines of: ‘You have relevant experience. That will be useful, though some of what we do is quite different to what you’re used to. Still, your background will give you a big head start…’ – i.e. respect for the fencer’s prior experience and a positive attitude to the situation.
Option Two is something like: ‘You’re a sport fencer? Don’t worry, we’ll teach you the real thing. These are proper swords, not those silly toys you’re used to.’ – i.e. disrespect for the fencer’s experience and a negative attitude to the situation.
It is rather obvious which of these is more likely to make the new student want to stay and learn historical fencing. There is also the non-trivial factor that when you are disrespectful to something a person has invested several years in learning to do, you are being disrespectful of their achievements, and therefore of the person. There is absolutely no need for this, and it drives potential students away.
By way of example: A very eminent instructor of historical fencing (who should have bloody well known better) came out with a denunciation of lifting the back heel. It's bad, he said, and added that 'sport fencers do it' as an illustration of that. Well, actually sport fencing instructors (all the ones I know anyway) try to teach their students not to do this, but more importantly SO WHAT???? If lifting the back heel is bad fencing in this style then just say so. No need to vilify some other activity that's only semi-related to rapier fencing. All that achieves is to perpetuate the 'sport fencing is bad' ethos pushed by some instructors and to annoy those of us who fence in both historical and modern styles. Again, it's needlessly creating an us-and-them situation.
When I hear a HEMA instructor having a go at sport fencing (whether or not they do so from a position of knowledge) I find myself wondering why they do it. Does denouncing a practice used (or which you think is used) in some other activity actually contribute anything to what you are currently teaching? Does it offer any insight into the present concept? Probably not. So why do it? Why not just do what you do and let its quality stand for itself?
This sort of thing is sadly too common; people pushing an agenda as part of their teaching. It is counterproductive and divisive, and also completely needless. Let us instead concentrate on what we do and its own merits. If something else is inferior then that will be apparent, and the message is actually more likely to get across when couched in less confrontational terms.
As well as being nicer, being respectful is also more effective.
And now, the obligatory plug….
For an examination of fight psychology and a nice collection of unarmed combat techniques (and what makes them work) we have Fight to Win
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fight-Win-Simple-Techniques-That/dp/080484268X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464106571&sr=1-4&keywords=fight+to+win
For a brief examination of European swords and swordsmanship, we have Cut and Thrust
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cut-Thrust-European-Swords-Swordsmanship/dp/1445639661?ie=UTF8&keywords=cut%20and%20thrust%20amberley&qid=1411981247&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
For a guide to putting holes in people with a smallsword, we have A Modern Manual of Smallsword Fencing
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Modern-Manual-Smallsword-Fencing-ebook/dp/B00TIWMIYM?ie=UTF8&ref_=zg_bs_362862031_47
And drawing upon my 27 years of coaching experience we have The Historical Fencing Master’s Companion
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fencing-Masters-Companion-Teaching-Historical-ebook/dp/B016PYNFRY/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1464106654&sr=1-1&keywords=fencing+masters+companion
Sadly, it seems that ‘what everyone knows’ is often entirely wrong.
I have no major problem with people being wrong or having no idea what they are talking about, but sometimes it makes my work harder. In the martial arts world we have the three-way argument that ‘mixed martial artists are disrespectful thugs/traditional martial artists can’t fight/self-defence people are just making money by scaring people’. These are generalisations based upon the worst that each group has to offer, and none of these statements properly reflects reality. I’ve battled this one on several occasions.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, I am strongly opposed to subdivision in what is essentially a rather niche activity, and I feel that this sort of closed-mindedness can be counterproductive. At some future point I’ll get into the mainstream martial arts side of this, but for now let’s consider how it works in the fencing community.
My experience of telling Olympic-style, or ‘sport’, fencers about historical fencing is that the usual response is genuine but slightly baffled interest. Some are keen to learn more, some don’t get it and some really aren’t interested. But everybody I’ve spoken to was polite. I’ve literally never met anyone in the sport fencing community who was disparaging about historical fencing. Many had no idea what I was talking about, but nobody was rude.
Compare this to the attitude of many historical fencing/HEMA practitioners, who denounce ‘sport fencing’ for various reasons or proclaim that it does not teach swordsmanship. It can be quite hard to build bridges when ‘our’ community is so openly rude about the people I’m trying to talk to. And more often than not when I ask what these denunciations are based upon the answer is that no, the HEMA practitioner has never tried sport fencing, but they don’t need to because they have a perfectly good set of preconceptions.
Now, speaking as someone who taught sport fencing for over 20 years and quit competition – twice – because it was not what I wanted it to be, I know what I’m talking about. I know all about the flaws and how they came to be. I’m actually qualified to condemn sport fencing in a way that someone who has never tried it is not. I’m as HEMA as you can get these days. When I was teaching sport fencing I was trying to invent HEMA, not knowing it already existed.
And yet I fence foil at my local sport fencing class and I love it. How can that be?
The answer is that there is a great deal of merit in sport fencing – and incidentally, many HEMA groups commit exactly the same sins they denounce in sport fencers. It is true that what wins modern competitive bouts is largely divorced from true swordsmanship. Modern fencers play to the rules set and do what they need to in order to win. With an electric scoring system and artificial rules, there is a body of technique that wins medals but is not really traditional swordsmanship. To me, that’s a deal-breaker. I find that kind of fencing unsatisfying when I meet it in sport fencing clubs and HEMA tournaments.
Wait, what?
We get exactly the same thing in many HEMA groups – playing to a rules set in order to win medals rather than fencing as if the blades were sharp. I don’t like it wherever it happens, but it’s not confined to sport fencing. As the Bible says (sort of): get the stick out of your ass before you comment on the mote in the other guy’s eye. Or something like that.
So… by all means let’s despise the bastardisation of swordsmanship into medal-winning expediency. But let’s despise it equally everywhere and not vilify others for doing what happens in our own metaphorical house. And let’s not despise others based upon prejudice. If you’ve seen it happen on a widespread basis then maybe it’s worth disapproving but one isolated incident – e.g. a bad instructor or asshole competitor – is not sufficient grounds to condemn a whole field of activity.
And if you’ve not seen it at all, maybe you should not comment.
It has been claimed – I do not know on what grounds – that ‘sport fencing does not teach swordsmanship – HEMA does.’ Both halves of this statement are, according to my experience, largely untrue. There are plenty of HEMA groups that actually teach what amounts to ‘how to get points in a tournament’ which is not the same thing as swordsmanship. I have, err, ‘had things to say’ to competitors in HEMA tournaments who were essentially committing suicide (if the blade had been sharp) to get points. Bad fencers do this, but when a group deliberately teaches it as a way to win, that group is not teaching swordsmanship.
As to the first half of the statement, sport fencing has a strict coach training and qualification programme, and this includes the teaching of all the common strokes and parries. These are executed in a classical manner, i.e. as if trying to harm the opponent with a sharp blade. This is swordsmanship – done with a sharp blade it would be effective and keep the fencer alive.
It is true that this classical technique is overlaid with competition-specific material which is all about triggering the judging apparatus and convincing the referee to award a point. This is not swordsmanship, I concede, and I personally don’t like it at all. But claiming that sport fencing does not teach swordsmanship is simply wrong, and if that claim is based upon second-hand regurgitation of what someone else has said, well, maybe we should all know better.
So… it seems reasonable to like or not like something based upon what you have seen, but making sweeping statements about a related field of activity, perhaps based on nothing but prejudice, is counterproductive. We are unlikely to win many converts from the sport fencing world if we keep telling them what they have invested so much time and effort into is nonsense – especially when that criticism is clearly based upon ignorance.
It seems much more useful to restrict comments to ‘I have seen this and this is what I think about it’. We are all entitled to an opinion, but it seems only fair to base that opinion on what we actually have witnessed (and understood) rather than upon prejudice. It is also worth being polite. ‘I don’t like that because...’ is a valid statement. ‘That is bad’ is a judgement, and whether fair or not it is likely to alienate people with whom we really have no quarrel.
By way of example, let us compare two responses to the same situation. A former or current sport fencer comes into a historical fencing class to give it a try.
Option One is along the lines of: ‘You have relevant experience. That will be useful, though some of what we do is quite different to what you’re used to. Still, your background will give you a big head start…’ – i.e. respect for the fencer’s prior experience and a positive attitude to the situation.
Option Two is something like: ‘You’re a sport fencer? Don’t worry, we’ll teach you the real thing. These are proper swords, not those silly toys you’re used to.’ – i.e. disrespect for the fencer’s experience and a negative attitude to the situation.
It is rather obvious which of these is more likely to make the new student want to stay and learn historical fencing. There is also the non-trivial factor that when you are disrespectful to something a person has invested several years in learning to do, you are being disrespectful of their achievements, and therefore of the person. There is absolutely no need for this, and it drives potential students away.
By way of example: A very eminent instructor of historical fencing (who should have bloody well known better) came out with a denunciation of lifting the back heel. It's bad, he said, and added that 'sport fencers do it' as an illustration of that. Well, actually sport fencing instructors (all the ones I know anyway) try to teach their students not to do this, but more importantly SO WHAT???? If lifting the back heel is bad fencing in this style then just say so. No need to vilify some other activity that's only semi-related to rapier fencing. All that achieves is to perpetuate the 'sport fencing is bad' ethos pushed by some instructors and to annoy those of us who fence in both historical and modern styles. Again, it's needlessly creating an us-and-them situation.
When I hear a HEMA instructor having a go at sport fencing (whether or not they do so from a position of knowledge) I find myself wondering why they do it. Does denouncing a practice used (or which you think is used) in some other activity actually contribute anything to what you are currently teaching? Does it offer any insight into the present concept? Probably not. So why do it? Why not just do what you do and let its quality stand for itself?
This sort of thing is sadly too common; people pushing an agenda as part of their teaching. It is counterproductive and divisive, and also completely needless. Let us instead concentrate on what we do and its own merits. If something else is inferior then that will be apparent, and the message is actually more likely to get across when couched in less confrontational terms.
As well as being nicer, being respectful is also more effective.
And now, the obligatory plug….
For an examination of fight psychology and a nice collection of unarmed combat techniques (and what makes them work) we have Fight to Win
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fight-Win-Simple-Techniques-That/dp/080484268X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464106571&sr=1-4&keywords=fight+to+win
For a brief examination of European swords and swordsmanship, we have Cut and Thrust
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cut-Thrust-European-Swords-Swordsmanship/dp/1445639661?ie=UTF8&keywords=cut%20and%20thrust%20amberley&qid=1411981247&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
For a guide to putting holes in people with a smallsword, we have A Modern Manual of Smallsword Fencing
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Modern-Manual-Smallsword-Fencing-ebook/dp/B00TIWMIYM?ie=UTF8&ref_=zg_bs_362862031_47
And drawing upon my 27 years of coaching experience we have The Historical Fencing Master’s Companion
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fencing-Masters-Companion-Teaching-Historical-ebook/dp/B016PYNFRY/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1464106654&sr=1-1&keywords=fencing+masters+companion
