I’m well known for my support of bouting and tournaments within the historical fencing community. If you are unwilling to test your skill at arms in a competitive environment, you need to find another hobby or, at least, drop the pretense of studying a martial art. However, for all the fantastic effort being put into making tournaments work at the moment, there’s a number of factors which I believe have not been considered or not properly thought through.
The Approach
In the German longsword schools, this is known as the zufechten. The fault can almost certainly be laid at the door of modern sport fencing but we seem to have lost the art of how to approach each other in the fight. Almost all bouts and tourneys I’ve seen start with the participants within wide distance (or lunge range, depending on your school’s terminology), only a foot movement away from each other. I’d like to see the participants start much further apart — several metres in fact — in order to make this part of the competition. Do you run in to dominate as much of the arena as possible? Do you study your opponent as he or she approaches? Do you retreat away waiting for the perfect opening in which to strike? All of these aspects are lost in small or narrow fields of combat.
The Weapons
Should a tournament allow only one class of weapon, say rapiers, or permit a broad range of historical weaponry? It depends on what the tournament aims to do. Is it a test of a particular technique or school or is it a test of some idea of general martial ability? I’d like to see tournaments that concentrate solely on later rapier swordplay, earlier sideswords and on the various longsword traditions, I’d also like to participate in a competition which pitches, say, a rapier against a longsword.
The Mission Statement
Normally, I reckon these are rubbish and should be avoided. However, in this context, I think it’s vital to clearly articulate what the tournament is about, what it seeks to test (the basis of competition) and what weaponry is allowed. All else flows from these fundamentals: safety, scoring, etc.
I agree Chris.
One of the main issues of the approach is space… As in what is actually available to be utilized as the “field of battle”.
We have widened out our tourney area and moved the judges into the actual field of combat to give the combatants more room..
Having fought against us, you can attest to the early German Influence in our technique, as one of my students recently said “Silver says Fly-in Fly-out, GLECA says Fly-in Fly-through”.
Some people state that there are safety concerns with combatants rushing at each other from Wide Distance, but I just think more people haven’t thought outside the Fencing Square.. The old “If it ain’t broke” argument.
Most of our inter School Tourneys (Mainly between MSG and GLECA) involve whatever weapon you want to fight with.. Obviously some have advantages over others. Dom and I fight Rapier vs Longsword (guess which one I am using) and the technique of “stop-thrust” comes into play quite a lot.. As does thrusting into the hands, which we tend to try and avoid.
I think it comes down to what the tourney is trying to emulate. Battlefield Art? Or Duelling Art? Obviously the application is different in each case but there are certain things which have to be considered as a whole. I think that there are strong cases for same-same weapons fighting in a skill assessing context but in an adaptability context, fighting with a pencil against a Shortsword will show how you can apply the principles of the fight in an unfamiliar environment.
Also I guess that some may not want to risk fighting disparative weapons for fear of injury or lack of ability (ego bruising from loss)… But if your college breeds the ethos of “Learn through Loss” it has a positive outcome. Let’s face it. You will not win every bout you fight in.. So give it a go people.