An old friend and fencing comrade, the excellent Jon Brammer, pointed out that I had mentioned but not followed up upon the master of arm’s examination I took in Prague. Apologies.
While happy to write about fencing, I find it difficult to write about myself, so I’ll be brief and say that I passed and share some photos.
While there were a number of Carlisle, PA, adventures with my friend and host, Patrick Bratton, among them were a few with other coaches and some of his students. As another example and proof for the value of cross-fertilization in fencing, I’d like to talk about the morning I spent watching a fantastic lesson by an Olympic coach, the excellent Tony Alvarez.
Excellence in Coaching: Tony Alvarez
I’ve known about Tony since the Pandemic–he worked with Patrick online in the epee class with Maitre Robert Handelman we all took–but this was the first time I had met him in person. Knowing my background, or at least my current focus, he was quick to remind me that the lesson sample I was about to watch was modern. While I cannot say I enjoy modern sabre, I do recognize that there is much to learn there despite the problems, if for no other reason than smart fencing coaches like Tony adapt well.
I’ll not lie–I have been quick to criticize modern sabre, and I likely still will, but this said I gained a new vantage point on it thanks to Tony and Patrick this past Monday morning, and I’m grateful for that. First, and to honor Tony’s skill, he showed very few actions, but actions used in different measures and tempi, in different set-ups.
He started with actions in the box, between the two en garde lines, then outside the box. Watching Patrick and Tony, both of whom know what they’re doing, made it seem as if very little had changed since the days of my early training save in one respect: speed. The modern game relies on speed in a way that one could mitigate more easily before the end of proper edge-alignment in sabre. There simply is not time to make some actions, most especially ripostes, in every instance.
Everything is a distance game played at the right time and correct speed. Here’s the pinch–that has always been true. What differs is method and tool. A lighter, fast weapon that can score with any part of the blade demands tighter timing. This is one reason the age of competitors has dropped so significantly in the past three decades.
I learned A LOT watching Tony teach, and his advice for working with children–the majority of his clientele–is invaluable.
Quick Studies-A Radaellian Lesson with one of Patrick’s Students, “J.”
One of the things I most looked forward to was working with Patrick’s folks. One student, a young high-schooler, wanted a sabre lesson and the last day at the fort we were able to have a short one. Important things to note: this young man started fencing last August; he is a big man, but super quick and flexible (day one in Justin’s Besnard class he dropped effortlessly into a de la Touche lunge…).
I gave him a very traditional outline, but with Radaellian elements, meaning we started with some point in line/disengage work, then some parry/riposte to warm up. Then, I took him through two set-ups with feints. Finally, as a cool down, we did a stop-cut/parry-riposte drill. He made all of it look easy.
I have adult students who struggle with some of these set-ups, but J. looked like he had been doing these drills for years. Even in the cool-down he opted to use an arrest half the time, an action that takes considerable point-control and timing. I was so impressed and told him so.
J. is as good as he is because he has a great coach, and, because J. is motivated, keen to fence, and found the right place to learn. I have written a lot about the importance of the universals in teaching, of starting with and honing fundamental actions, and J. is proof of how sound an approach that is. Moreover, J., and Patrick’s other students, are working within a mixed community, diverse in many senses but also in the sense of fencing styles and influences. It shows.
Why is this important? It’s important because it reveals another layer of diversity within Patrick’s club–put simply, his students are getting tools for their toolbox not only from different stores, but different lines of work. In the U.S. now there are people keen to erase diversity and downplay its importance. They do this out of fear and ignorance, for there is no science, reason, or morality behind any of their claims.
A diverse club is a healthy club, one guaranteed to push people and help them grow, and not just in terms of their ability to lunge or parry well. Exposure to people different from us, in large ways and small, reveals that they are people like us, just fellow humans trying to make their way through life.
Diversity fosters strength–it is harder to accept the idiocy of race-politics, for example, when one spends a lot of time with different “races” etc. and therefore knows what politician A or pundit B says is complete horseshit.
Working in Pennsylvania, and in an area rather “red” as it were, what Patrick has achieved at Sala della Spada is remarkable. Under his roof you will find not only the usual notions of diversity, but also political diversity. Now, like many of us, politics is not a topic there is time for in a salle, so they focus on fencing, but everyone in the club knows that they are working with people who see the world differently in key ways and work together nonetheless. In this there is hope. It is hard to remain divided when we spend with people ostensibly on the “other side” from us. We find our common humanity, we find common ground. If nothing else, we all love to fence.
I had the great pleasure to visit old friends and make new ones a few weekends ago in Winnipeg, Canada, at the Historical Fencing Coaches Clinic sponsored by Storica Defensa. I’ve been to a fair number of coaching clinics, many Olympic, far fewer historical, but this one stood out, and no, not just because I am a Storica Defensa coach. This two-day event showed what is possible, and, perhaps a better path than typical in historical fencing.
In part, it was the mix of coaches, both in terms of experience and position, and in terms of background and focus. We had two masters from the excellent Sonoma Military Masters’ Program, David Coblentz and Eric Myers; we had Prevot Tim Guerinot from Texas; and we had two of our SD coaches, Xian Niles and myself, representing our organization. If I had any complaint it was that time demanded we have two classes run at once–I really wanted to take each one, start to finish. Even recovering from RSV and nursing a damaged Achilles’ tendon, which meant I wasn’t fencing, didn’t allow me enough time to devote to each class as they were running.
It’s all in the Details
Granularity. This was the leitmotif of the event. With many attempts in historical circles to improve fencing, from judging to technique, what’s missing is granularity, the specifics, all the step-by-step movement and thought behind all that we do. Much as it pains me to say it, this is often due to the fact that those teaching possess only a surface understanding of what it is they’re trying to teach. To the untrained eye, for example, a cut-1 in broadsword or a disengage in smallsword look simple enough, but to make either well and with consistent effectiveness demands deeper understanding, at least if one is facing an opponent better than oneself who will take one apart for the slightest mistake.
Despite the triumph of ignorance now prevailing in my nation (what sensible nation keen for equality dismantles the very agency designed to oversee that?), education and learning are difficult. The moronic maxim “those who can’t, teach,” underscores just how poorly people understand how difficult teaching is.
A lot of people can: but few can teach.
There is also great merit in incorporating different teaching and learning styles. Not everyone learns the same way, not everyone teaches a topic the same way. To have classically trained masters as well as people more on the coaching side only strengthens the approach, especially if well-organized.
The Classes
Space and reader patience doesn’t allow for a full description of the classes, but here are the topics:
SAT
9am
Maestro Eric Myers: “Better Fencing through using and Exploiting Fundamental Concepts of Fencing, Part 1.”
Coach Xian Niles: Strategos
11am
Maestro David Coblentz, “Setting up Students for Success”
Prevot Tim Guerinot, “Intention, Provocation, and Second Intention”
2pm
Coach Jim Emmons, “Text & Technique–From Description to Practice”
SUN
9am
Maestro Eric Myers: “Better Fencing through using and Exploiting Fundamental Concepts of Fencing, Part 2”
Prevot Tim Guerinot, “Intention, Provocation, and Second Intention, Part 2”
11am
Maestro David Coblentz, “Helping Students make Good Decisions”
Coach Xian Niles, “Am I still Doing the Thing?”
2pm
Coach Jim Emmons, “Concluding Remarks” [1]
The success of this year’s event has encouraged us to make this happen again, and if possible, often. We haven’t settled on a yearly or biannual schedule, but one way or another, the value of this type of meet-up was obvious in the marked-improvement in the attendees even over two days.
Why this Matters
Historical fencing is not so much a community as it is a collection of micro-communities, and so when it comes to any future forecasting there must be some qualification. I cannot speak to 99% of the community–I work with a small fraction of it. This said, for that sliver of the pie, I have some ideas for where it looks like we are headed.
SD, because it doesn’t seek ownership or control, will continue to reach out to recognized authorities for help in improving coaching and fencing. Many of these people may hold a master of arms, many will not. Expertise comes in different forms, and the ability to recognize that, and harness it, is what makes an organization like Storica Defensa both flexible and strong. Moreover, some fencers respond better to certain teaching styles, and since our goal is student and coach success, this means including any skilled fencer with sufficient depth and knowledge to assist us.
Not everyone cares about qualifications. Worse, many ascribe the wrong set of rubrics to what they call qualifications. Again, this is not just my sorrow and frustration over the anti-expert and anti-intellectualism so pervasive in the United States–it is painful and terrifying watching how this anti-expertise idiocy is helping destroy the nation we were and might yet have been to create a plutocrat’s playground.
It is also a known fact within “HEMA” that many favor things like “HEMA Ratings” or the over-confidence of play-acting scholars. They can do whatever they like, but few such people will get an invite to help us, because failure to understand the relative nature of tourney success and aping actual scholars only takes one so far, and, not as far as we wish to go.
This said, there is a LOT of talent in the wider community, but few truly effective means of harnessing it. Different foci, geographical distance, jealousy, arrogance, and even the innocent failure to understand that there is more to all this than one sees do much to prevent not only better unity, but also the sort of improvement we see in better developed branches of fencing, Olympic most of all. THIS is why my comrades to the north created Storica Defensa–we need it.
As a final word, but an important one, it is vital to note that SD is not a vanity project, certificate factory, or attempt to overthrow any other viable and worthy program. Over time, as people see the events we put on, as they see how we run tournaments, how we approach teaching; as they see how their coaching improves, how their students improve; as they see the caliber of fencer we ask for help, as they see the maestri and other experts we have asked to oversee and guide SD; all of these things will be the proof of that. [2]
There has been, sadly, considerable suspicion around what we are trying to do, and I’m happy to say none of it has any foundation. We’re literally doing what we say we are doing. It says a lot, and little of it positive, that such suspicion so naturally arose around an honest effort to make things better. In some cases, personal beef with one or more organizers, fear, and concern for turf explains these concerns, but I suspect a lot of it too is just curiosity poorly expressed.
I know I speak for all of SD’s organizers and coaches when I say this, but let me assure you that
We are, though, doing the following:
NOTES:
[1] I had a class prepared for the afternoon slot on Sunday, but one part of teaching is reading a room. People were fried. At least one person, no kidding, was on a knee, head on their hand, looking like they needed a nap. There was also nothing in what I had planned to do that had not already been covered in depth by the other coaches.
So, I opted to scrap my class and sum up–this included a very brief reminder of how we can approach a given technique, in this case a beat attack, and build not only possibilities from it technique-wise, but also tactically. I could tell from peoples’ faces that they were a little confused that I had scrapped my class, but I lack sufficient vanity to put tired, mentally exhausted people through another in-depth class when what they really want to do is relax, free bout, or hit up our guest coaches for lessons. And, it turned out, that Javier, one of our attendees from Calgary, was celebrating his birthday that Sunday and wanted birthday bouts.
I never really know how well or poorly a class goes–few people offer a lot of feedback–but I stand by the decision.
[2] SD has approached and enlisted the help of several well-respected, certified experts to assist us as we grow. We have the honor to have the experience, knowledge, and guidance of:
Maestro Michael Knazko, Ars Dimicatoria/Barbasetti Military Sabre since 1895, Prague, Czechia, EU [Chief Advisor to SD]
Maestro Francesco Loda, PhD (x2), Cinecittà-RFA-UniTeramo, Rome, Italy, EU [Advisor]
Maitre Steve Symons, former President and CEO of the Canadian Fencing Federation (2004-2012), Winnipeg, Canada [Advisor]
I started the day off in a rapier lesson with one of the students with whom I’ve worked longest. I have often said that teaching is a two-way street, that both instructor and student—ideally—learn, grow, and improve as they work together. During one drill, my friend stopped, said “question,” and we stopped to chat. “Is there a reason you’re taking such a big second?” It was an easy observation, but one I had not made—was I? Was I taking too large a parry? He then asked “what else are you working on right now?” and then it hit me. What followed was a lovely chat about the ways in which different weapon tracks can “leak” into one another, something that can be a benefit, but in good cosmic equilibrium, can also work against us.
In this case, it was the latter, and I was grateful for his observation and said so. Focused as I was on the lesson plan, and on making purposeful mistakes, I didn’t notice an unintentional one, another insight Ken shared with me. There are many instances in which the instructor makes mistakes on purpose—it’s critical for teaching a fencer what to look for, how to take advantage of such issues, and it’s all valuable, but it’s sometimes a difficult thing to switch off, which is to say that a lot of us find ourselves struggling not to be in teacher mode when we’re bouting to bout.
The Drill
Here, the danger was not only my own overblown parry of second, but also undermining an otherwise valuable drill. At Ken’s level, we work on a lot of tactical set-ups, on second intention, traps, and ways to conserve energy. For me to drop the ball in any one section breaks the drill, and, potentially—were Ken not so aware—upsets the student’s learning. The drill in question started with a classic, workaday action:
Student: feint thrust to hand from 2nd or 3rd
Instructor: parries 4th
Student: disengages to strike outside of the hand or arm
Next, we added a second exchange:
Student: feint thrust to hand from 2nd or 3rd
Instructor: parries 4th
Student: disengages to strike outside of the hand or arm
Instructor: takes a half-step back, parries 2nd, thrusts with opposition
Student: transitions from 2nd to 3rd to block, ripostes over the instructor’s weapon
In taking my parry of 2nd so vertically, I made it a lot easier to hit me, something someone on their game would be less likely to do. After Ken’s correction, my parry reverted back to what it should be in this case, shallower, point closer to him, and danger way more real should he not cover.
Whither yon Leak?
It didn’t take me long to figure out what was happening. What I was doing in the instant was not so much taking 2nd as it was dropping into what broadsword sources refer to as an “outside half-hanging” parry, that is, a block defending the same area as 2nd, but which has the blade hanging more vertically. The “outside hanging” parry defends the upper half well in the same way.
For some time now I’ve been spending more time on “Old Style” broadsword. Thomas Page is the major source I am using, and the nature of that style of fight, never mind the change in heft and balance with a baskethilt, enables one to drop the blade more to parry in an outside half-hanger because the axis of rotation is the wrist, and, it’s thus quick for a riposte.
In rapier, such a deep parry is to invite a counter-attack or fail to cover a line, and so while there are similarities between them, they work differently. With Ken’s help, I now can start to work on better compartmentalizing these weapons.
Stopping the Leak
Awareness is the first step. Thanks to Ken, I am aware of that issue, and best of all, will double-check everything else I am doing.
Next, I drill both weapons with specific attention to the techniques unique to them. It always comes down to drill, more and more drill. I will also be far more mindful now, which is never bad, and with work not only will I fix some of these issues, but better serve my students.
As a coach of other fencers, and thus responsible for raising them up, challenging them, helping them reach the next goal, correct technique, just like proper timing, distance, everything, is a must. As a coach to other coaches, there is also benefit—each pitfall I encounter is another lesson for my colleagues, especially those starting out and yet unaware of problem X or issue Y. We are never finished learning, and, so long as we retain a “beginner’s mind,” we will continue to grow and be better able to make corrections as we discover places that require them.
In my sabre lesson this morning my student and I explored some options from the invitations in 3rd and in 4th. Like a feint, these actions (hopefully) encourage an opponent to attack where we want them to. Baseline, what we’re setting up is a parry-riposte. Against a newer, less experienced fencer, this might be enough, but a more advanced fencer will see the trap and have some idea where one might go with it. There are, happy to say, more options from this simple set-up than meet the eye.
Student’s Invitation in 4th
After the basic parry-riposte set up, a solid next step is an indirect riposte—this requires us to hold the parry before making the riposte. It is best used when our opponent is too quick to parry. For example, if we have made a few cuts to the head, even probing, or better yet from this same set up but slightly out of distance, an opponent might expect us to cut head and so they assume parry 5. If we see them do that once or twice, we can invite, parry, wait a sec, then as they preemptively parry head we strike in an open line. One of the safest strikes is to the lead arm, thrust or cut, as this keeps us back a bit and puts more steel between us and the opponent. One can, though, attack almost anywhere so long as one covers on recovering from the lunge.
Another option is a compound parry-riposte. This is closely related to the indirect riposte as it assumes similar conditions. Where the latter hesitates, the former feints. Following the example above, if one invites in 4th and parries 3rd as the opponent takes the bait, one then might feint head to cut arm, flank, or chest. The feint might be made to any line, but works best against a known proclivity. Here, again, some probing actions or false attacks can sometimes tell us which parries an opponent is quick to take.
These are all defensive responses set up via second intention. However, one question today was can one make a counter-attack from this set-up. Yes, and, no. At its root, invitations set up defensive responses, but this said there are ways to include a counter-offensive action given certain conditions. This part is critical. It is possible to make oppositions cuts into the attack from an invitation. These are similar to what we call “bearing” in Insular broadsword. Using the same example, from 4th, should your opponent attack a little out of distance or with a poorly extended arm—either one provides a bit more tempo to act—then from 4th one would but cut in such a way that one simultaneously closes the line as one lands. [1] From 3rd, one would cut across closing the inside line and landing at the same time (often this means striking the arm). It is not easy to set up as it requires the opponent to make specific mistakes, but if they do, this is a fun conclusion to the invitation.
Student Initiated Attack–Shutting Down the Trap
When we switched roles and I adopted the invitation, my student had a chance to explore ways to shut down the trap. Timing, speed, and choice of action all meet in a tight place when we succeed. Using the false-edge, for example, I did not expect, and it succeeded beautifully. Many fencers will be unprepared for that. It can made from farther away, again limiting the danger faced by the attacker.
The simplest option in springing the trap is to attack knowing they will parry-riposte, and then making one’s own counter parry-riposte. I didn’t want to complicate things, but in that counter parry-riposte one can do much the same as the person inviting: one can use an indirect riposte, compound parry-riposte, even an opposition parry and cut if conditions allow it. Naturally, one’s feet are critical in success. If, for example, my student lunged her attack, then I would take a step back to parry. If she recovered quickly, I would have to lunge to riposte; if not, I might do it from standing. Regardless, we need enough room–and thus time–to act.
We also discussed the difference between an obvious invitation, e.g. taking 4th, and an invitation disguised to look like either incompetence or inattention to the line. For the latter, one might invite in 4th barely exposing the outside line of the sword-arm. This can appear like a lazy or untutored guard. One can feign being tired and thus sell the lazy guard too. All about selling it, a major aspect of tradecraft. [2]
If we want to invite in similar fashion in 3rd, we might hold that guard a bit too far out exposing the inside of the wrist. Many of the same options we covered with an obvious invitation apply here too, but this style is more likely to work against a fencer farther along in their training.
When we switched roles, one effective and less risky attack she made was to thrust to the inside wrist when I adopted a lazy 3rd, allow me to parry, and then thrust with opposition (usually with an advance-lunge or redoublement). If I adopted a lazy 4th, she could feint to the outside, and when I parried in 3rd cut around and cut with opposition to the arm or chest, or, make a bandolier cut and step a little back and to the right. Getting good extension on the cut—which keeps one safer—means having enough distance to extend, thus moving more back and right versus in and right.
Tactical Application
This lesson was a mix of types–we covered technique, options, and tactics. Not every lesson need do this, and in fact many should not. Today I was working with an extremely gifted fencer, one with a deep foil background, and with whom I’ve been working sabre for several years. Even today, though, in the last drill she realized she was pulling her chest cut, so we stopped and spent the last ten minutes of our time just working on getting proper extension on her cuts.
The tactical considerations for using invitations should derive from whatever intel we’ve been able to gather about our opponent. Sometimes we have next to no time–we meet someone new in the ring or on the strip and have to triage our choices via testing, probing, and false attacks. Sometimes we have had a chance to watch them fence and see what they typically do, how they respond, and larger picture considerations–are they calm? Nervous? Excited? More defensive? Offensive?
Considerations of another fencer’s proclivities is vital, because no matter how sound or expertly an action might be, it might be the wrong one to use against that opponent or at that time. For example, if my favorite action were to invite in 4th, but my opponent is likewise a defensive fighter, then we’re as likely to run out the clock as anything else. Boring. If, however, I’ve made some assessments, have some idea of how they play, then I can pick actions which might work better. If they’re more defensive, then I’ll start with the more offensive options in the tool box.
This may seem obvious, and it is, but it’s easy to focus on something to our detriment. I know that more than once coming up I had learned a new, cool maneuver and couldn’t wait to try it out, but in my zeal tried it when there was next to no chance it would work. I have been extremely lucky to work with awesome coaches, and they would ask me, post bout, why I had tried it. They knew I was working on it, but had to remind me that not every action will work in every instance.
In terms of large, obvious invitations, they can work super well, but if they’re not–don’t use them against that opponent. Today, for example, my student is far faster than I am. Even playing the invitee role I struggled to parry some of her cuts; I know how to compensate for that, but even so had our lesson been a bout I would have realized quickly that obvious invitations were a super bad idea in fighting her.
Use the right tool for the job.
NOTES:
[1] Opposition Cuts: I do not spend a lot of time on them, but they do exist, even for systems that seemingly don’t include them. Where bearing doesn’t work well with a curved guard, it works super well with a basket-hilt’s flatter guard top.
Within a Radaellian context, opposition cuts normally mean making one’s molinelli in such a way that they simultaneously strike and close the line.
[2] Tradecraft: a universal of fighting, tradecraft refers to all the intelligence gathering and mind-games we play with an opponent. In addition, it is a game we play with officials too.
In addition to being one of my favorite works on sabre, Luigi Barbasetti’s The Art of the Sabre and the Épée (1899/1936) is a core text within the pedagogical system at Barbasetti Military Sabre (since 1895). Under the guidance of my friend and colleague, Maestro Michael Kňažko, I am steadily if slowly working towards further certification as a fencing instructor, and naturally much of the material we draw upon, and upon which I will be tested, consists of Barbasetti’s take on the Radaellian corpus. No matter how long I spend time with this text, I always find some new value in it, and/or come to understand something better than I did previously.
In another post I mentioned my long-standing dependence on Barbasetti, that it was the first book I read after leaving competition, and just how great the influence it has had in my approach to teaching. When I first started teaching on my own, which is to say without being ordered to by a master, I looked to Barbasetti and Del Frate for inspiration and lesson plans. My co-instructor at the time and I would sit down and pour over Barbasetti discussing lesson ideas, adaptation for new or more advanced students, and even now as I teach on my own this is a weekly practice.
In preparation for future examinations, but also because the book contains so much, I mine it weekly for drills, lesson plans, and exercises. This past week I decided to take my sabre students through a drill I had never had any of them do, a drill I have not used probably since 2016, namely, working from the invitation in 5th.
There is some fuzziness between the guard, invitation, and parry of 5th, and on first glance they may appear the same, but they are not. For the most part, 5th does not constitute a guard, least not one anyone typically uses—held above and out from the head, to hold it long would be tiresome and limit one to certain actions. Second and third are vastly superior guards. As a parry 5th is the stand-out, standard head parry, one of the first we learn. Though unusual, the invitation of 5th is valuable, and while seemingly too open to be realistic, this is a false conclusion. Moreover, the benefits for working out of 5th go beyond the tactical use of the invitation.
Here is, verbatim, the drill as Barbasetti laid it out:
In devising my sabre lesson this week this is the example with which I started. I changed a few things, added a few things, but this was the core of the drill. Post warm-up, the first thing I did was have the student invite in 5th. This meant that the student more or less assumed the parry of 5th. [2] I would attack, first with a thrust, then a cut, and the student would drop from the invitation of 5th to the parries of 2nd or 1st depending on where I was aiming. As two of the “first triangle” of parries, and working from the third, this is good foundational practice for covering those lines, and effecting good ripostes.
Next, we switched roles, so that the student made the attack. This portion of the drill was meant to help them work a simple feint. In 5th, everything below is open, and so there are myriad feints one might make. I had them start with a feint thrust from 2nd, and when I dropped to parry in second, the student made a molinello to the head. While this can be done from the lunge, I had them work this from advance-lunge range. This means that the preparatory action, the feint, was best made on the advance to force me to cover, and once I had, they could lunge with the actual attack. Since we spend so much time at this distance, it’s a good practice to put everything together in real time. From a stationary distance, we then moved back and forth and the student decided when to launch their attack, again, in an effort to resemble the conditions of a bout more closely.
The variation we added was a feint cut to the flank, which again I could cover in 2nd, and which allowed them a chance to cut to the top-inside of the arm or head. A critical aspect of this version is coverage after the attack. Increasingly I have added in counter-measures to prevent being hit by suicidal fencers. The fetish for the “after-blow” and the practice of doubling when one is ahead in competition, while insipid nonetheless provide an opportunity to pay better attention to the dictum “don’t be hit.” Ever. In this case, a student might cut to the head, then cover in 4th as they recover out of the lunge.
Next, the student feinted with a thrust or cut to the inside line to draw me into parrying in 1st. This version allowed the student to work on cut-overs, either with a thrust in 2nd and with opposition, or, a rising cut to the flank or bottom of the arm. To extricate themselves and avoid an after-blow, etc., a slight step left as they thrust with opposition or cut via molinello, moves them a bit offline, but also allows them a tempo to drop into 2nd or 5th depending on what response I give them.
Drills like this afford instructor and student a lot of options. They not only exercise fundamental actions, but also provide opportunities to work on getting to target and back out again safely. If a student is newer or struggling with the first action, one can stay there and work solely on that. If it is easy and they can perform the action with ease, one can build from there. Moreover, there are ways to make the lesson an exploration of tactical options, both offensively and defensively.
Often, and we see it in this case, the details provided in the drill are minimal, so the onus is on the instructor to know every aspect of each action, each idea, and how they can be combined and applied. As a final note, a drill such as this one provides a template for similar lessons, but in other weapons. My theme this week in smallsword was different—we worked almost exclusively on getting to target and back out safely—but looking over my notes I see that the actions I chose to drill all that were essentially the same actions I used in the sabre lessons, only with modification for the requirements of smallsword.
NOTES:
[1] Luigi Barbasetti, The Art of the Sabre and the Épée, New York, NY: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1936, 69. This is the fifth example in his section on feints with the cutting edge.
[2] In 3rd, for example, the invitation could be just being in guard, or, taking a poor 3rd, say leaving the inner or outer arm just barely exposed, the idea being to project a sense that one is careless and doesn’t know they’re open. One can merely take the parry position in 5th.
Drills are cornerstone of fencing education, and rightly so, but are also prone to certain problems. If left unattended, these issues can undermine the benefits of the drill. Typically, drills are something that one does, not something one talks about—this is as true of coaches as it is fencing students. We do not dwell on them, analyze them, examine them objectively as we often should—we learn them in good faith, we usually benefit, and so assume it all goes to plan. For the most part, proper and effective corrections allowing, this is true. However, it is not automatic.
Some time ago I wrote a short piece on the problem of artificiality in drills and whether or not some standard drills are “realistic” in the don’t-get-hit sense [https://saladellatrespade.com/2019/06/05/fencing-drills-and-artificiality/]. Here, I should like to discuss the issue of anticipation, specifically how students, facing a known and repeated sequence, often act preemptively. Usually this means that they make their action too soon and nullify the point of the drill. An example will help illustrate this.
Drill: Circular Parries in 4th
In this setup, one we might use with many different weapons, the two most likely places a student might act too soon are with the initial parry and with the second, circular parry. Of the two, it is the second, the circular parry, where this tends to happen more.
Ideally, parries are responses to a specific, concrete stimulus, the attack. It is a reaction. When we know where a blow is coming, as we do in a drill, it is easy to act on what we know will happen instead of what we actually see. A good coach will see this and correct it, especially if the student is not brand new. With newer, beginning students, we often pick one egregious fault to focus on, and tackle other issues in time. We might point out that the front foot is not aligned, or that they’re not extending first before lunging, but we do not provide a litany of woes each lesson as it is not helpful, but demoralizing.
However, with a student ready to make circular parries, as in the example covered here, we would be right to correct any anticipatory, not-reactive action. How we do this is as important as doing it. The first step is noticing it, which any coach should straight away. The second step is pointing out to the student, plainly and kindly. Some students will recognize it themselves and correct, others will when corrected, and still others may not see it or be unable, for whatever reason, to correct.
For those students who struggle, there are things we can do to help them help themselves. The first, and easiest thing to do, is to expose the anticipatory action—in the example here, the coach would attack, but not disengage. To expose the preemptory second parry, all the coach need do is slow down the speed of the attack. If the student is making the circular action too early, they will bump into the incoming steel. This is a good moment to point out the issue as the student will see, in real time, why acting too early defeats the purpose.
The coach might also change the measure, perhaps step farther in on the initial attack—while not wise from a tactical point of view, from a teaching point of view it will first reveal if the student isn’t maintaining good distance, and second will likewise lead them to encounter the coach’s weapon if the student parries too soon. Here as before one would then point out the mistake, have the student reset, and try again. If the student begins to keep distance and wait for the disengage, then the coach should revert to more appropriate speed and measure. [1]
There are times that students rush because they’re uncomfortable and perhaps not ready to make an action. That is okay. It is not always easy to tell, so a good approach is to simplify the drill. Again following the example above, start by having them work only on the initial parry 4; changes in measure and speed will help the student perfect the action and test their ability to adapt. Once they’re comfortable with this simpler action, one can try the more advanced version again.
It may help to bridge the gap between simple parry and the addition of a circular parry by having them drill the circular movement in isolation too. One way to do this is by playing “keep away” with the weapon. Coach and student, or two partnered students, take turns chasing the other’s blade—one has an extended line, the attacker; the other a bent arm on defense. When the attacker attempts to make contact/engage the blade, the other disengages and/or circles around to avoid the engagement. Next, the defender attempts to engage the attacker’s blade in the same ways, and the attacker attempts to avoid in turn. Exercises like this help one learn and perfect the motor movements necessary to disengage and perform derobements, but also are predicated on reacting to real-time stimuli—one can only avoid if one avoids the steel at the right time.
In sum, if one finds a student preemptively acting in a drill, slow the stimulus down, change up the measure and speed if necessary, and should it prove useful stop and return to simpler material. There is nothing wrong with the basics—in the end, we use those most, and the best fencing is normally a result of simple actions executed at a high level of skill.
NOTES:
[1] In option lessons, this is normal, that is that the coach normally varies things in order to hone the student’s ability. We start with an action the student knows, and then introduce it in increasingly more difficult tactical set-ups.
Today my friend and colleage, Jay, shared a video response to a concern several fencers aired on a fb page, namely, the problem with cultish programs. This is a real fear and justifiable given the fact that we do see groups who take advantage of members. It’s a shame, but it does happen. That could take many forms–perhaps students are charged for every little thing or to advance; perhaps they are expected to show absolute loyalty to some charismatic leader; perhaps they’re told not to fence with others because everyone but their own club is dangerous, or unskilled, or what have you. These are all red flags.
It’s important to me, and to Jay, because we work within an organization, Storica Defensa, that has already spooked a few people. There are, largely, personal reasons and/or prejudices that explain that, but some of those voices are loud and so we have done our best, all of us, to be as transparent as possible. There is no hidden knowledge we promise to “initiates,” there is no fee to advance, and each of the coaches is not only willing, but eager to demonstrate to potential SD fencers their qualifications. It’s only right we do so.
Moreover, we have been quick to state what we are not. None of us claim to be masters. We are not claiming any lineage, training, or certification we have not earned and/or which we cannot prove. We want everyone to know what they’re getting, and, why Xian and Jay created SD in the first place. Jay says it better than I can (see link below), but SD’s ranks do two things:
That’s it. As I often remind my own students, I didn’t invent any of the things I teach, but transmit what I learned to them. Sure, there are things I’ve added, tweaks here or there or suggestions, but these I always call out as such. None of us will be claiming to have invented the lunge… The why? is easily explained: historical fencing lacks these two things and desperately needs them.
[warning: this is a long post, but I wanted to address a few things fully]
On several occasions lately I have been asked about my role in Storica Defensa, and in some cases the same way police might ask a teenager why they’re loitering outside a convenience store. There is some inherent suspicion there, and in this case, for several reasons. First, and perhaps most obvious to the denizens of social media’s historical fencing pages, because one of the founders, Jay Maas, a friend of mine, upset a lot of people with satire initially a little too subtle that aimed at fault lines in reasoning, practice, and interpretation in “HEMA.”[1] It is not that Jay was wrong in his criticisms—pound for pound he has been correct—but that he ruffled a lot of feathers. Not everyone saw the satire, and so took his memes, comments, etc. as personal affronts. For the record, Jay knows that his previous (key word: previous) approach was not the best, and has made repeated, concerted efforts to mend things with people. [2] In many ways Storica Defensa (SD) is part of that—it’s a way to give back and rather than point out the flaws, address them and work to fix them. Second, and at the risk of upsetting some colleagues, especially those with certifications through either the USFCA or equivalent bodies, there is a sense that unknown or troublesome upstarts are infringing on their turf. Third, SD is new, not well-known yet, and those upset by it or fearful that it may affect their own programs, have misunderstood, and in some cases misconstrued, the purpose of SD.
As a person brought on early in SD’s formation, I would like to address these in turn, and explain from the inside what SD actually is. I do not join anything without consideration. Experience, perhaps especially negative experience, is a powerful teacher. More than once, either through naivete or enthusiasm, I’ve allied myself with people or groups I later regretted having joined. For a local example, some years ago an instructor at one school I attended on occasion, during a particularly difficult time in my life, attempted to humiliate me publicly more than once. It didn’t end well, but as the truth will out, his poor behavior with still others ended up destroying that school and relegated him to the sidelines. We repeat lessons we haven’t learned, and this was, for me, just such a repeat—do not put faith in people or groups who do not have your best interest at heart.
This is to say that I would not back SD if I didn’t believe in its mission or if I took issue with the organizers. I’ve known all but one of the four initial members a long time, and the fourth, Xian Niles, I quickly developed a deep respect for, even before learning of his fencing education. If I had had the least doubt that any one of my colleagues was up to no good or eager to undermine anyone else, I would not have agreed to help.
My Own Involvement with Fencing Organizations
My first exposure to the larger issues plaguing most sizeable fencing associations was with the USFA (United States Fencing Association) in the early and mid-1990s. For several reasons I have never been over-fond of the USFA. First, it’s expensive—especially for younger students. Second, it dropped the ball (along with the FIE) when the “flick” in foil and the idiocies attending electric sabre ruined traditional technique and tactics.[3] Third, it’s myopic in focus: all that matters to the USFA is the competitive world. For the vast majority of fencers in the U.S., being competitive fencers, there is little to no problem with the governing organization. Most of the time it is more or less invisible, there in the background. It works well enough for them, especially if all they know is the post-flick and flat-of-the-sabre-as-able-to-score world. That is fencing to them. [4]
In more recent years, while working toward a certification through the USFCA, I was annoyed to learn—post exam—that I had to join the USFA and jump through other hoops as well. This was not clear up front either on the website or in the test preparation documents. Having to go through SafeSport, while an extra cost, at least is something I can get behind because it’s important—as a coach, and moreover one who works with a lot of children, mostly female children these days, it’s crucial to be a part of the solution and to model good behavior. Everything SafeSport teaches “should” be obvious, but it isn’t and so while ticked to find out about a hidden cost, again, this one I understand.
In fairness, I had good experiences with the USFCA (United States Fencing Coaches Association) up to then, and was disappointed to learn that it was merging with the USFA. On the surface it’s a natural alliance and makes sense, but of the two there was a chance, a slim one, that the coaching wing might, might continue to entertain the idea of a broader view and remain inclusive. The USFA is almost solely concerned with Olympic aspirations and the competitive scene, but fencing is, and has always been, much more than that. Most fencing coaches are not training Olympians, but working in obscurity at the YMCA, your local P&R, or some college campus. The USFA gives next to no thought to them—the USFCA did, at least a little. If nothing else they allowed the late Walter Green to push “classical” fencing classes and viewpoints and allowed obscure coaches like me to participate in classes for my own improvement as fencer and coach.
On the historical side, which is far more decentralized, the “HEMA Alliance,” for example, was a good idea, but like its cousin in the sport world is more concerned with sport (largely longsword) than anything else. They offer an instructor certification course, but it is unclear just who is evaluating candidates, and of course, like the USFA more recently, one must pay to retain a certification after a few years. [5] Given that leadership in the HEMA Alliance has often been people very new to fencing, it raises serious questions about who they think is qualified to evaluate other instructors. Most competitive HEMA is dismally poor in quality so one must question just how high the bar for skill is. Put another way, if fans of a medical tv drama are teaching and evaluating surgeons, that’s bad.
In sum, I am wary of most fencing organizations, Olympic or otherwise. It’s not that they don’t include a lot of good, because they often do, but that for one reason or another they fail. It may be that I have just been unlucky with these organizations. They work just fine for many people, after all, and while they don’t work for me, I don’t condemn anyone who finds value in them. This said, I think we can do better; I think most every fencing organization with whom I’ve had contact can do better. One of the things that attracted me to SD was that built in is the notion that it’s a new group that will grow, evolve, and improve over time. One may well wonder why that is, and so, here is the single most important reason.
It’s about the Material—not Us
While SD contains personalities, SD is not those personalities. Cults of personality are popular in “HEMA,” but a terrible basis for a teaching program. Skill trumps popularity. Openness tends to be healthier than stodgy isolation. Transparency fosters trustworthiness better than hiding in the shadows. NONE of what we teach is ours—our interpretations of past fight-systems are, like museum artifacts, property of the human race. We may help explain them, teach people about them, but we do not own any of this. Be wary of anyone claiming to have a monopoly on truth, ability, or understanding. The nature of historical fencing is mutable, and must be as new or better information may change previous conclusions.
Our focus is on the material, in this case, the corpus of fencing theory and practice as put to paper over the last 700 years. The best preparation for tackling period sources, contrary to the prevailing opinion in “HEMA” is a solid grounding in traditional pedagogy and technique. Modern fencing, the sport, while it features some aberrations, still imparts a thorough grounding in universal principles and much of technique. Armed with this, a student of historical fencing will more easily unpack what the sources contain. Certainly, historical understanding of the period is a boon, but this can be obtained secondarily by leaning on the historians who work in the specific period of one’s interest. There are even a few such historians active in historical fencing.
Added to the source traditions and time-proven teaching methods, SD’s founding members, among others, have extensive experience in other martial arts systems. Though wary of “frog DNA,” of misapplying one system’s material to an older, extinct one, a broader, deeper understanding of a variety of approaches does much to inform one’s own. [6] Where individual responsibility for clear delineation might fail, collective attention to the dangers of comparison, another built-in feature of SD, does much to correct.
Storica Defensa’s Goals
The goal of SD is three-fold. First, we wish to improve the quality of teaching. Second, we wish to improve the quality of ability in historical fencing. And lastly, we want to sponsor and cultivate not only safer competitions, but also better run and judged competitions. These are three of the areas that currently suffer the most in the community. To tackle any one of these areas is a daunting task. However, they’re related—if coaching is better, the fencing will be better; if both coaches and fencers have a more sophisticated understanding of the Art, then judging will improve too.
So, here is what we are actually attempting to do at Storica Defensa.
Teaching:
Many, maybe most “HEMA” groups got their start as a tiny group of people, or an individual, who saw something about historical fencing and wanted to get involved. Some people have a background in the sport, others in the SCA, still others in martial arts, and many with no athletic background whatsoever. [7] The grass-roots nature of historical fencing’s development, therefore, has rarely included much if any training in traditional fencing pedagogy. In fact, given the misguided disdain for all things Olympic fencing, most people in “HEMA” outright reject modern teaching methods.
There are a handful of schools with credible masters who teach historical fencing topics, often among more modern lessons, but these are comparatively few and too often exclusive. Some are exclusive out of fear, others out of arrogance, some suffer both, but the result is the same—unless one pays their way in, kowtows to the right people, one is forever excluded. This is true regardless of skill, knowledge, or anything else save perhaps notoriety. Get enough Youtube hits, who knows, you too may be invited to WMAW. It tends to be a closed club, however, and unless there are political or social reasons to consider, or one has made a big enough splash to appear knowledgeable, outsiders are not welcome. They may attend, if they can afford it, but they will not do so as intimates of the inner circle.
I do not wish to knock WMAW—it is a solid event and would that we had more conferences that combine classes, lectures, free-play, and the all-important after-hours conversations where the real learning happens, but with all appropriate respect to those benefits, and to my friends and colleagues who teach there, it doesn’t do much good for the vast majority of historical fencers. This is, granted, a bias of mine: I want everyone to have access to what we do, with as few economic or social barriers as possible, but not everyone sees it that way.
The few teaching programs available State-side, staffed by many of the same who teach at conferences like WMAW, tend to be exclusive too. One must travel to their events, pay for participation (which makes sense of course), and take whatever it is they’re teaching. Most of these programs have a set curriculum, and few offer help online to reach those unable to travel. This is not to say that the instruction is bad, but you get whatever it is they are offering and that may or may not be what one wants. I back—for the record—any informed, skilled, and valuable teaching program, and in do not wish to denigrate them; here, I am simply pointing out that there are various barriers that prevent these schools from reaching a lot of people who really, really need their help.
SD seeks to be inclusive, to teach teachers how to share all this disparate, often difficult material better, wherever they are and whatever the topic. Much of this can be done online. There is not, at present, any fee to join. Should SD work out and grow, in time that may change as costs to operate increase, but the goal is not profit or fame, but improving instructors and fencers. Moreover, SD does not take over a club or impose its will and ruleset on anyone—it is completely voluntary, and, is set up to work with any program. Your club, this is to say, will not be subsumed but continue to be your club. In fact, we want people to study with other coaches, as many good ones as they can, because we all benefit in the end.
Quality of Fencing:
If you’ve read much on this site you will know I do not have a high opinion of most historically-oriented competitive events. Much of it is unsophisticated, sloppy, and devoid of anything more complicated than single-tempo actions. I have, on the other hand, done my best to promote those events where both skill and officiating is excellent—SabreSlash in Prague, Czechia, and The Rose and Thorns Historical Fencing Symposium, Auburn, California, USA, stand out in this regard. The solution to seeing better fencing is creating better fencing instructors, thus point one just above. However, not everyone wants to coach, so SD has a system to help competitors or recreational fencers improve their game.
One learns better having to teach a topic, so for those clubs interested each rank in SD can teach certain other ranks a degree of material if that club wishes to do that. This can be as simple as leading footwork drills. Each rank, each set of rubrics, all the training videos, are built on traditional fencing instruction, close attention to the source material, and decades of experience between the organizers, all of whom continue to take lessons as well. As new information or better interpretations pop up, the various curricula will change if and when necessary: we do not want to rest in any interpretation should it be superseded by a better understanding of that weapon or tradition. All of our training videos and personal instruction reveal a path forward, but we also believe it is important to investigate other (rational, well-supported) interpretations. In the aggregate, we all learn more and improve.
Proof is on the piste. Watching some members work towards the next rank, and then looking back at earlier footage, the improvement stands out. The system works. For those of you more competitively-minded, SD fencers are cleaning up in a variety of events in Canada (where we started), and, in some cases at events actively hostile to some of our members. To overcome bias, dislike, and less than fair judging requires a degree of skill deep enough that it is absolutely clear who got the touch.
Safer, Better-Officiated Competitions:
Having witnessed injuries in historical fencing tournaments I never imagined I’d see, and hearing of even more, there is a deep need to provide safer, better run matches. We do this for fun, after all, and trips to the ER, permanent injuries, and all the cascading consequences of maimed limbs, concussions, and pulled muscles shouldn’t be normal.
The SD events held in Canada in 2023 and 2024 have been not only injury free, but have highlighted the difference solid officiating makes. It’s common, for a number of reasons, for attendees to act as judges. Many do not have adequate time-in let alone sufficient training to judge the high-speed action of a bout. It takes years to learn to do this even moderately well. SD dedicates time teaching instructors, fencers, everyone, how to judge. Fencers in SD, from the off, are taught to analyze and evaluate bouts. It makes sense too as for historical fencing, we do not have a body of officials specifically trained to do this job. This is normal, or was, in the Olympic world, and works better than winging it.
SD’s ruleset is also system agnostic. General terms, such as “outside parry,” for example, might apply to sabre, smallsword, longsword, or spear. Specific categories, say smallsword or longsword, will have rules appropriate for these tools, but the basis is the same: hit but do not be hit. For some weapons the scoring is weighted (e.g. longsword, sword and buckler), for others—especially those that are high-speed (smallsword, sabre), it’s non-weighted. Considerable thought and experience went into these rules.
WhoTF Do we Think We Are?
It is important to explain why we think we are able to offer what we do, and, what if any process we underwent to validate the claim. This is a fair question, and it deserves an honest, clear answer. Transparency is a necessary ingredient in trust, and in the spirit of that, here in no particular order are some of the reasons we feel capable to offer what we do.
First, none of us is claiming any rank or expertise that we have not earned. We are not maestri d’armi.
Second, each of us brings considerable experience, not only in terms of teaching, but competitively.
Third, we have taken and continue to take lessons whenever possible. Fencing is a lifetime pursuit and we are never, ever finished learning, correcting, or perfecting.
What else?
Combined the two founders (Xian and Jay) and their advisors (Patrick and myself) have over a century of experience and instruction. Moreover, each of us has long experience not only with traditional fencing pedagogy, but also deep grounding in the source traditions. Any one of us, by the way, is willing to provide evidence for this should one wish.
Both Patrick Bratton and I have doctorate degrees. In and of itself that doesn’t mean much—neither of us has a PhD in fencing ;-)—but it does mean that we spent years and years learning to conduct formal, public research, to analyze sources, to deliver conclusions clearly in print or at a rostrum, and that we know a thing or two about teaching. My initial research was in ancient and early medieval history, especially early medieval Ireland and things Celtic, but when academia didn’t pan out I turned my research skills to fencing and now, almost exclusively, research the history and development of various aspects of the Art.
ALL of us have years of formal instruction in fencing, and as I said, continue to study with a master whenever we can. Some of us more or less acted as prevots/provosts at various times in our careers. For example, my last master had me work with his younger students and ready them for competition.
Xian, Jay, and Patrick not only teach, but continue to compete in historical fencing tournaments. This means, among other things, that they’re putting their money where their mouths are—if you require proof of their skill and suitability, of their knowledge of tourney life, there it is. I used to compete, but age, injury, and a demanding schedule don’t make it easy for me to train for tournaments. Serious competitors train for these things, and let’s just say that past a certain age, and with comprised limbs, it’s absolutely necessary to train well unless one wishes to go to hospital or miss months of fencing thanks to recovery. [8]
As for the ranking system we employ in SD, from Ibis to Oak, it owes much to both the French and Canadian armband systems in Olympic fencing. [9] In fact, a former president of the Canadian Fencing Federation, Stephen Symmons (Phoenix Fencing), was instrumental in helping us devise a system for historical fencing. Note well: SD ranks are stand-alone—at present, and so far as I know for the future, there is no plan even to try to establish some equivalency with older, well-known programs and ranking systems. [10]
Finally, and to correct misinformation out there:
Storica Defensa does not control members. They are encouraged to train under as many affiliated and unaffiliated coaches as possible in a number of different martial arts and compete at outside events under diverse rulesets. This includes at a club level. While we enforce safety at SD sanctioned events and affiliated clubs, they may also participate in non-SD activities.
All SD members are valued and encouraged to contribute to SD projects, organization and ideas for curriculum. SD is a living organization, it is not a strict tradition or hierarchy. Avoiding some of that language was intentional in the formation of the project. Collaboration with other people, coaches and programs is an important part of our vision. [10]
NOTES:
[1] The internet is notorious as an imperfect medium for communication. It is easy to misinterpret a comment or joke. This can be a hard lesson to learn, but the responsibility goes both ways—just as we need to be mindful in what we say and how we say it, so too as readers we need to take the time to evaluate and make sure we understand what we’re reading. When in doubt, ASK.
[2] It pains me to see Jay’s concerted efforts to mend things with people and to encounter people who either ignore that fact or for some reason don’t think it’s enough. This has happened twice in the last month.
[3] I have waxed long and boringly on these faults often, so will leave it at this.
[4] One reason Olympic fencing will never fix the problems undermining it is that on the one hand those who have succeeded via dubious techniques have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. Second, it’s been long enough now that an entire generation or two of fencers doesn’t know any better. All the garbage, as I stated above, is fencing to them.
[5] Just as we have people play-acting as scholars, so too do we have people without ability playing instructor. Got to crawl before you can walk, and in “HEMA” too many people only run.
[6] In the “Jurassic Park” sense of frog DNA as a misguided shortcut. A classic example is cutting competitions—much of the technique by so-called experts comes not from the manuals and treatises they claim to use, but from their experience in Japanese sword arts. There are many ways to cut through a target, but that doesn’t mean they’re all the same.
[7] One of the best things about historical fencing is the diversity. However, the same ethos is too often applied to pursuits like research and teaching where there are conditions. We should have a variety of viewpoints in scholarship, but all of them should be informed; we should have different approaches to coaching and learning, but the people teaching should have sufficient training to teach.
[8] The older the engine, the more maintenance it requires. Time, wear, and repair take a toll. The vintage auto one takes out once in a while will likely survive a day trip in the country, but one should not take it to Le Mans.
[9] For France, see for example https://www.escrime-parisnord.com/les-blasons; for Canada, see https://fencing.ca/armband-instructional-program/
[10] This is an important point to make. I have often expressed concern over people with dubious claims of authority and/or expertise, and thus am perhaps a little too ready to show my cards. I do though, because one must. So, if anyone reading this wishes to discuss my own credentials, etc., let me know and I will do so.
There are analogies with traditional fencing ranks, I know, but this has more to do with common roles and requirements. Put another way, the ranks we’ve devised are more job description than status marker. Need help getting ready for a tournament? Find a Lion or Fist. Have questions about devising a lesson plan or approaching a new weapon under study at your club? Ask an Oak.
In brief, the ranks divide into the following:
Competitive Ranks:* Ibis (green), Ram (blue), and Lion (red)
Coaching Ranks: Fist (bronze), Oak (black)
*these are coaching ranks as well, but more limited in scope.
For the most part, the ranks help determine where fencers will be placed in tournaments. So far, having people of similar skill levels compete against one another has worked out well. There are plenty of opportunities to push themselves in working with more advanced fencers too.
For the coaching ranks, Fists are high-level coaches who can teach fencers of all levels, and Oaks primarily coach other coaches. Each of us who have been granted the Oak rank underwent the same evaluation process that new candidates do. To earn the Oak rank a panel of at least 3 other Oak-rank coaches must meet and assess the fencer in at least 3 different weapons at all levels of coaching (Fist to Lion).
[10] SD Informational Brochure, 2, 3.
As so often happens, a student observation yesterday during the first practice session initiated not only a valuable learning moment, but also provided a reminder to me as a coach about the place of detail in teaching technique. How much detail and just when we share it are often part of a balancing act between sufficient explanation to help the student and overwhelming them with too much information. Experience tends to be a good guide to this, but it varies by student, and there are times we misread and unwittingly confuse rather than clarify things.
In discussing a thrust with opposition, the student commented that until that moment he had equated “engagement” and “opposition,” and that this is one reason, so he discovered, that he has struggled to make a glide/glizade work. The two terms can correspond, but they’re different–an engagement merely means that the two weapons are in contact in a specific line; opposition refers to a way of parrying or thrusting that shuts out the opposing steel.
The student, so he shared, had been simply thrusting straight out from guard, say from third, along the blade, but importantly without opposition. In effect, he was only aiding his opponent–performed this way, he was placing the weak of his own weapon into the strong of his opponent’s, basically handing them a parry. It’s not that I haven’t covered how to perform a glide over and over again, because I have, but that the concept hadn’t really solidified for him yet. Both his version and the proper one slide along the other blade, but they do so very differently.
It was a key “a ha!” moment for him, and immediately it changed not only how he fenced yesterday, but how he will fence, how he will drill, from now on. A leftie, the chances of doubling with a glide are greater, because both weapons are in the same plane. Armed with new information, well, better understanding of old information, he was able to adjust his hand to the right height and create the proper parabola to target.
Later, in the hours before my next class, I thought about what had happened. Occasions like this are important and can help us improve our methods. First, I wanted to establish that I had not neglected anything previously. Second, I reviewed my notes for the ways in which I normally introduce this action. One of the things I noticed is that I list terms, but realized that in class I may not always define them or do so adequately. I do my best, but familiarity with the information can blind us to the fact that an “obvious” notion may not be so obvious to others. A similar phenomenon can happen in demonstrating an action–even should we execute it perfectly, students may not understand the finer points that create good execution.
So, for next time, my plan with the glide in a new class is to be sure to define the most important ideas. In this instance, that means making sure they see a distinction between an engagement/contact and the leverage that the glide requires. I will do a better job pointing out the height of my hand, its distance from the line, and how the glide follows a parabola to target. This will bring in other, critical concepts vital for success, from the proper measure to the tempo inherent in the action.
Generally, when we lunge with the glide, the point is lower than the fist, hand just outside our own bodies, angled slightly in, and upon termination of the lunge the hand is somewhere between the chin and nose. Some masters show it higher than that, but it need not be unless one is fighting someone uncommonly tall. It’s normally best to be as efficient as possible. Having engaged the opponent’s weak with our middle, the hand makes a slight arc as we reach for target–this ensures that we maintain leverage for as long as possible, this leverage being vital for opposition. Another way to refer to opposition is that one is “closing out” the opposing weapon, keeping it offline and maintaining that deviation so as not to double.
I’ve used this hastily drawn image before, but it serves well to illustrate the angle from above:
Though in this example the blades are not aligned ideally, one will notice that the fencer at the bottom has their point off-target. Assuming the top fencer shifts measure, either with feet or the arm, to command their weak, then they might perform a glide, and at this angle, the bottom fencer’s point will continue to go off to the left.
The “Point”
This short post is meant to highlight a few things. First, that we always be careful that we explain things well, demonstrate them well, and keep an eye out for problem areas.
Second, the ability to add or remove detail to assist a student is important, but takes time to develop. Start small, start simple. With a more advanced fencer, but new to smallsword or whatever you’re teaching, a lot of basic concepts will likely already be there–in this case it may be demonstrating how the action changes from foil.
Third, very few historical manuals go into great detail or as much as we often need to teach, so a major part of interpretation and implementation is filling in those missing details. This is arguably one of the most important, but dangerous things we do, because we leave the page and have to connect the dots as best we can. For smallsword, given the similarities between it and aspects of traditional foil and epee, this is a little easier to do. However, it remains tentative much of the time, especially for actions that became obsolete. It means constantly checking the details we provide against the text and/or texts which include the relevant action.
We will sometimes get it wrong, but this is part of the process, and if we’re conscientious, honest, and open to correction or new information, we are far less likely to go wrong.
Capitale Escrime Historical Fencing 