Author: Jim Emmons

Following on the heels of the last post (about the place of calm in our study of the Art), the following may feel like overkill, but it’s related and as important. Among the deceased equines to which I regularly apply a cat o’ nine tails is the problem of ego. Ego gets in our way; it impedes growth. Over concern with how we will be perceived affects calm; it takes us out of the moment. With our own path to self-improvement, just as in most any larger venture, we tend to succeed best when we don’t get in the way.

Why harp on so much about ego and arrogance? It goes beyond my own study and experience with the martial arts or life-experience, though the combination has done nothing to shake my belief that arrogance and misplaced confidence are bad for us and everyone else. Great confidence can read, sadly, like competence—that’s how unfit businessmen become president for example—but they’re different, and there are consequences to a misguided and overblown sense of self, just as there is in placing our faith in someone else’s inflated sense of self.

The Font of Awesomeness-ness

Arrogance has a variety of sources, but at the root is low self-esteem. I’m not a psychologist, so I say that as an observer and fellow human who wrestles with ego like anyone else, but I think it holds. In some, arrogance is a mask, a persona they adopt to navigate social environments in which they’re uncomfortable (or maybe all environments). For others, too high an opinion of themselves derives from life-long coddling and commensurate insulation that never put any of the wonderful things they heard growing up to the test. Still others truly believe in their own greatness. Whatever the reason, the egotistical person is generally less inclined to listen, to consider other opinions, or play well with others. They always know better.

Miles Gloriosus

Arrogance is common in fencing as indeed it is in most combat sports. In part, it’s theater—Mariel Zagunis, for example, in the gold medal bout in Athens 2004, more convincingly ripped her mask off and screamed than did her opponent, Xue Tan (China), and went onto win. On the other hand, there are people who for one reason or another think they are the Chevalier St. Georges or La Maupin reborn.

Basis for this is emotional, not rational. On the one hand, typical big fish/little pond dynamics often weigh into things, especially with regard to individual clubs and in tournaments. On the other hand, it’s easy for some to convert an activity they enjoy into a sense of identity; the more narrow that identity is, the easier it is to take criticism poorly. It becomes a personal slight rather than a comment on the acquisition of a difficult skillset (learning to fence is not easy for anyone).

Big Fish  & Identity

One compounding problem that clouds the fact that emotion drives so much of this is the place of the false-positives people take away from events and practices that on the surface appear neutral. More often perhaps than anyone should I’ve mentioned the iffy waters of the tournament scene as the litmus test for skill. It’s not. There are a host of considerations about competition that undercut the lesson so many take away from these events.

Those without serious competitive experience tend to fall prey to the lie more than others. Those who do have that experience and claim it counts for more than it does generally have benefited personally and thus have a vested interest. No one who’s made a name for themselves is quick to question the legitimacy of how that name was made. Zagunis, for example, is very good at the game that sabre has devolved into, but would likely take it badly should someone point out issues with edge alignment, the place of doubles, etc. in her fencing. It’s human nature.

Leaving aside issues with rulesets and officiating, it’s the collective level of ability that defines what first place means. This is important. Too often each tournament is approached as if neutral, as if medaling by definition reveals the superior fighter. It “can,” but it’s not automatic, and superior… how? In relation to whom? Only to who showed up and who had less of a good day than the winner. First place at Event X really only provides data for that one day and that group of fencers. The outcome form the same pools next week could look very different.

An important caveat is that this is not always the case—proper training and knowledge of tactics (both on the strip/in the ring and as far as playing to the director go) will normally out. The mistake is assuming that this particular skilled fencer is the same as the attribute fencer. The former, through skill, can win through the application of skill; the latter relies mostly on reach, speed, or strength. They’re not the same. The more actual, high-level fencers (which can be evaluated) at an event, the more likely that victory in that event means something.

“HEMA” in particular suffers from this—many events, even large ones, might collect a lot of attendees, but the actual skill level is generally quite low. [1] To win at one of these events speaks to stamina, no doubt, but so much of it is a roll of the dice. Attribute fencers do extremely well, as most rulesets don’t and in many ways can’t adjust for physical advantage. A rapier fencer over 6’ with a 42” weapon is going to have an edge over the 5’4” fencer with a 40” blade. Even when that taller fencer makes some daft action, something suicidal, their reach will often win out. The trog that blasts through any guard because he can isn’t better, just less concerned for his opponent’s safety. After all, what’s a double if it helps one “win,” right? No one was hurt, at least hurt too badly, so what’s it matter? Stupid, yes, but evident in most tournament footage. How these same fighters reconcile being hit so often, especially with doubles, and the purported concern for realism in so-called historical martial arts, isn’t a mystery—there sense of self demands it. It must be “good” fencing because they won. Their sense of self, their self-worth, requires that they be the best and be recognized as such. However untrue that might actually be, it feels true, and in large degree too many people believe that what feels true is true. Extreme political stances, be it qanon idiocy or the belief that vaccinations cause autism, are prime examples outside of fencing. Effective self-reflection is a lot harder to do when those around one help feed the fires of fandom. Too few fencers examine their need for victory, but they should.

To compound matters, those who can afford to attend many events and do well, gather a data set of victories, and with it a subsequent belief in their own ability based on false premises. On the face of it, multiple victories appear meaningful, and in some degree it is for that individual’s own progress, maybe, but what does it mean beyond that? It depends on many factors. Are all tournaments equal? Was the level of skill that high at each and every one of them? What ruleset was in use? How did they game the ruleset? How good were the officials? Much of HEMA is judged by the other competitors, most as green as their colleagues, so how accurately they understand let alone see what is happening is an open question more often than not.

To reiterate: I’m not against tournaments. I’m not against competition when approached correctly. [2] Every competitor, every instructor involved in training them, must understand the nature of tournament fighting and adjust for it (a topic for another time).

The Would-be Maisters

Arrogance can be infuriating in a student or opponent, but it can be a recipe for disaster with a coach. This said, in many endeavors, and fencing perhaps first among them outside ballet, coaches are often extremely full of themselves. When that same proud instructor gets results, people tend to look the other way. This is a lot easier to get away with in the Olympic world. There are three weapons, and there are three-weapon masters; to achieve that one must have at least a solid grasp of each one. In “HEMA,” however, there is no such oversight program or board for an instructor’s competence, and even sadder, a fair degree of active hostility toward those from closely related certification programs who might, conceivably, bring up the teaching level. There are a lot of people teaching, but not all have ample background to do so well.

Thus, a second problem with ego is that extends beyond misjudging our own ability or knowledge—it reaches into misjudging and assessing that of others too. To use another contemporary example, a half-wit pundit may appear on tele utterly convinced of a position, but nothing about that confidence or the smug delivery says a single thing about the accuracy of the message. People see the delivery and take it for the thing itself.

In the martial arts, and specifically in this case in historical fencing, there are those who put great weight on people who for lack of a better term are “celebrities.” They are known, and for that reason alone some have faith in them. To be fair, there are times when that faith is warranted, but that faith should be measured against demonstrable skill, knowledge, and importantly, suitability to a topic. If I may, I feel confident to speak on things Radaellian sabre, French smallsword, or late period rapier, but know I have no business teaching Brazilian Jiu Jitsu or Mair’s polearms. I know what they are, and I’ve read about them, and know people who actively study those branches of the Art, but I myself am not qualified and shouldn’t do anything more than point an interested party to those people. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

An inflated ego can blind us to the expertise around us. A big head more easily leads us to see what we want to see, not what is actually there. More times than I can count I’ve seen a HEMA player discount a person of experience, skill, and smarts in favor of some Youtube personality. In the best cases, that celebrity (again, small “c”) is good at something and/or has some serious training under their belts, but anyone can set up a Youtube channel and unless one knows what to look for it’s easy to be taken in and fall prey to these would-be experts. Few, luckily, fall into the same category as the fake martial arts masters who look at a room full of students and knock them down through a glance chockablock full o’ chi, but all the same, some get close. There is a prominent tourney goer, for example, that has fetishized his off-hand. Apparently, no one has told him that unless there is a weapon in that off-hand, such as a dagger or buckler, that no one should be looking at it. Ever. There’s no reason too. IF people are falling for this hand sans puppet or marotte, that doesn’t mean that the puppeteer has done anything other than select an event where the average skill is so low that competitors don’t know this. Given that a new foilist learns not to pay mind to the rear arm should illuminate just how sad this is.

As a last example, there are prominent figures who have skill, but misapply it. Were I to offer a class on poleaxe based on late French foil play I would be doing my students a disservice. The universals apply no matter what weapon, but how they apply, differs not only by shape, heft, and purpose, but context too. However, there are well-known personalities who do exactly this, who take a weapon they are proficient with and create a methodology they then attempt to apply to unrelated weapons. At best it confuses things, at worst students—should they continue—will realize one day that their time, effort, and significant financial investment… would have been better spent reading the actual manuscripts, wrestling with the difficult material, and talking to those who have done so before them. There is no royal road to skill. Get your ego out of the way and do the work.

“If You’ve got a Black-List, I Want be on It”

His antiquated and unfortunate politics aside, Billy Bragg’s line seems an appropriate one with which to close. [3] I know, should some read this post, that they will take it personally and call me names. That’s okay. Go nuts. Some may even recognize the unnamed examples I’ve provided and take affront. That too is okay. I stand by what I said—ego needs make for poor choices and big egos make for poor role models.

Age and experience offer little consolation to us, but two things they do offer are perspective and less need for recognition. I’ve spent considerable time taking myself out of the way; I think it helps, not only in my personal life, but as importantly in the larger projects in which I choose to participate. A desire for public validation tends to distract us and detract from what it is we wish to do, and what’s more important, the work (if it is important) or that people know we were involved? As a coach, what is more important, my experience during a lesson or the student’s? What matters more, how that lesson appears to others, or the content of that lesson and its effectiveness in conveying information? The correct answer is the student’s experience, because otherwise why is one coaching?

I don’t need my name in lights, and don’t want it to be for that matter. I don’t need widespread recognition, because just trying to do the best I can for students and colleagues is work enough. I’m content to be one way-station on what my prove a long path for my students. If I help them when they need it, and it moves them forward to wherever they’re going, then I’ve done my part, whether they or anyone else remembers that I did it. I don’t need lots of medals, a social media presence, or any of the other stuff that would take my focus from what I do well and care about.

Not everything is about me, and in fact, very few things are about me. It’s not usually about you either. When we know who we are and what we stand for, that fact tends to stand out pretty starkly. Our egos suggest to us that everything is about us, but few things are; the belief that it’s about us is no more true at 30 than it was at 3.

Get out of your way.

NOTES:

[1] The average skill level in HEMA is poor. Those inside HEMA are accustomed to what they see and scale within that, but the bar never having been high, there is only so “good” most people get. I’m talking average HEMA here, not everyone. I’ve mentioned a number of excellent students of the Art in these posts, and will do so again. The point is that much of what people see, if they knew better, would not impress them.

[2] What tourneys are for is debatable, but in addition to being good fun—ideally, they are also an additional method of learning. Yes, it’s nice to win, but bouting is to fencing what a pressure cooker is to the ingredients in a dish.

[3] Billy Bragg is proof of something my graduate advisor often said in re Communism—the only place it was alive and well post 1989 was in one or two offices at Oxford or Cambridge. Mr. Bragg, whom I believe has a good heart, championed the pie-eyed politics of Marx, something I suspect easier to do even in Thatcher’s England than in East Berlin or the gulags of the former U.S.S.R.