When I began designing Lord Baltimore’s Challenge several years ago, I knew I wanted to find a way to encourage the type of fencing I myself enjoyed, and that meant creating a ruleset that brought out those features.
As a bitter-sweet perspective, we can imagine that not all thrusts and cuts are sufficient to stop a real duel, not even hits to the head. So one can imagine the judges missing a point to represent the intervention of Lady Chance when it comes to the impact a hit has on the opponent.
Yea... I wouldn't feel happy with loosing points in a tournament as you described. My rationalisation is the best way I can think to accept such outcomes and move on. ;)
I teach my students that we're not trying to recreate a realistic fight. There are too many historically documented stories of people taking a dozen stab wounds, or getting severely cut, and still living and winning their duels. We don't want to get wrapped around the argument of "but that wouldn't have killed me!"
So what I want to get across is "did they get past your guard and hit you with a positive pressure and good enough form? Yes? Then call it. They beat your defenses. That's what matters."
"...They beat your defenses. That's what matters." I like this perspective quite a lot, since in the end you can only work on improving your skill (so defence from a hit), not luck (the consequences of a hit).
This is a very good reflection on the perennial problem in fencing. Rules set various constraints on the fencers and then they will naturally evolve different techniques to maximize their results against these constraints. So rules writers need to determine what kind of event they are trying to create, try to write rules that promote that but then they really need to red team the rules and find people to help them find ways to stay in the letter of the rules but break the spirit of the rules. This is so painful and this process has made me give up numerous times. I then fall back into the safety of just fencing with people who are interested in the art over winning and that is much more fun. However, it does not allow us to be challenged by competitors who might help us grow in our capabilities. I am looking forward to seeing what you create!
Thank you, Maestro Sullins! And thank you for setting your own thoughts to paper some years ago on this subject.
I only compete anymore for the reason you laid out - to test bed some interpretations or to make sure I remember what I'm supposed to be doing when the adrenaline is up. It's a little ironic that I designed the LBC tournaments as something I would really want to fight in - but I'll never allow myself to do so. But so it goes...
As a bitter-sweet perspective, we can imagine that not all thrusts and cuts are sufficient to stop a real duel, not even hits to the head. So one can imagine the judges missing a point to represent the intervention of Lady Chance when it comes to the impact a hit has on the opponent.
Yea... I wouldn't feel happy with loosing points in a tournament as you described. My rationalisation is the best way I can think to accept such outcomes and move on. ;)
I teach my students that we're not trying to recreate a realistic fight. There are too many historically documented stories of people taking a dozen stab wounds, or getting severely cut, and still living and winning their duels. We don't want to get wrapped around the argument of "but that wouldn't have killed me!"
So what I want to get across is "did they get past your guard and hit you with a positive pressure and good enough form? Yes? Then call it. They beat your defenses. That's what matters."
"...They beat your defenses. That's what matters." I like this perspective quite a lot, since in the end you can only work on improving your skill (so defence from a hit), not luck (the consequences of a hit).
This is a very good reflection on the perennial problem in fencing. Rules set various constraints on the fencers and then they will naturally evolve different techniques to maximize their results against these constraints. So rules writers need to determine what kind of event they are trying to create, try to write rules that promote that but then they really need to red team the rules and find people to help them find ways to stay in the letter of the rules but break the spirit of the rules. This is so painful and this process has made me give up numerous times. I then fall back into the safety of just fencing with people who are interested in the art over winning and that is much more fun. However, it does not allow us to be challenged by competitors who might help us grow in our capabilities. I am looking forward to seeing what you create!
Thank you, Maestro Sullins! And thank you for setting your own thoughts to paper some years ago on this subject.
I only compete anymore for the reason you laid out - to test bed some interpretations or to make sure I remember what I'm supposed to be doing when the adrenaline is up. It's a little ironic that I designed the LBC tournaments as something I would really want to fight in - but I'll never allow myself to do so. But so it goes...