Feel free to submit your own footage to be featured on the channel. Please send footage either as a video file or a youtube link to HEMAFightBreakdowns@gmail.com
As someone who competes in HEMA but also cross-trains epee, I began to understand how in some ways HEMA scoring is very performative, as score is based on what the exchange looks like. In epee, you can slouch and look defeated all the time but if the lights are indicating you scored, then you scored.
Judging is a skill that needs to be practiced to get good at it, and when fencing in a tournament, you have to fence for the judges to help them see what you are doing.
Just to clarify some stuff: the first exchange fencer on the left would definitely be late based on the rule set. The second rights blade lands the thrust, left is still attempting to parry. Your point on body language and selling your actions is definitely correct though. The hand acknowledgment we’d need a better angle. As hand cuts wouldn’t score there is a chance the tip did stab the wrist but we have a bad angle. I would almost guarantee that would not have been called so acknowledge something like that at your own risk. The last exchange the call made is lefts thrust getting through to the leg with rights cut late and or off target. One point left. Beyond that, several good points made on how fencers can help make there fencing easier to judge. Definitely don’t throw a trillion afterblows and expect people to parse them out.
Yeah I was asked if I could judge sword&buckler at Ascalon and I flat-out said no, rapier&dagger is even harder. Really good points in here about both how to judge better, and how to be an easier fencer to judge for. I definitely agree self-calling needs to go away, for club sparring it's great to indicate hits to your partner but in a competitive setting I never want people to have to do the mental gymnastics over whether or not they should call an iffy hit.
Such a great video. I have been thinking about whole idea of stopping an exchange, throwing afterblows etc. but never dug too deep. This video has real interesting and what I believe good arguments behind the points it's presenting. Keep up the great work brother!
This was a very thought provoking video. I don’t think I agree with you on the self-call situation, but the argument that you make about influencing the judges and undermining their confidence was a a very interesting one. As someone who has judged a few fights, and is not confident in my judging, I can totally see this happening. Still, there are a lot of times where the self call can help judges clarify sequence. I also really like the point about making sure that you don’t stop in the middle of an exchange because you think it’s over, I had that conversation today, in fact. Finally, I’m not super keen on using a grapple to close out an exchange. But I get your point. I find too much of tournament HEMA is a collision, rather than nice sword work, so I’d rather see people retreat with a counterattack, and/or good cover.
Judging and Arbitrating do have a learning curve....having a good grasp of the culture and dynamics of the tournament competitive scene and also having a good understanding of the rules for the event are all a must. Some sets of rules are extra crappy....I do believe that whenever possible good corner /side judges lead by a ring arbiter is the best to go. Useless discussion should be minimized...the head ring arbiter decision should be final.
My two cents as someone who instructs mostly for the H in HEMA and not tournaments: Tournament rulesets rarely ever represent first blood duels but try to take into account what blows would be "disabling", but this opens a HUGE can of worms. What is the dueling to the death context we're representing here that doesn't allow grappling because it's "too dangerous" (something I've heard time and time again)? Being incentivized to make hits obvious and clear increases the injury rate. I've never seen more hand injuries than in tournaments, partially because fighters want to make absolutely sure that their hit gets counted. I, along with most HEMA guys I know, work with our hands for a living. That risk is not something I can justify. I appreciate that judging a contact sport with no knockouts is very hard, but the rules certainly don't help this fact. Afterblows/doubles are just the tip of the iceberg; I often feel like what the rules are even trying to accomplish as far as their historical context is confusing, if it's even mentioned at all.
That's a lot of problems, but what about solutions? Well, if we ARE talking about fights to the death, don't break at a single hit. We have this broken assumption that hits are necessarily representative of significant wounds, when you can pull up modern examples of people being shot, stabbed, what have you, and continuing to fight tooth and nail; often living. Have the fight go continuously for 3-5 minute rounds until the round is over or one fighter has achieved a dominant position from which they can decidedly end the fight a la TKO in unarmed combat sports. Be that controlling the sword arm and delivering repeated blows to the head, full mount, a deliberate, aimed thrust to the neck... harnisfechten rules without the armor. The judges only come in if, after 3 rounds, neither fighter has gained this dominance.
@flamezombie1 so best wrestler wins? That type of ruleset would reward closing rapidly under cover and transitioning to wrestling over sword fighting.
@@Swandolamroth The main thing it would encourage is more bind work. If you can bind successfully and get several thrusts online to the neck or head, that’s probably it.
@@flamezombie1 wrestling is the core foundation of the swordarts, and my club already has a reputation for our willingness to close. My concern is that, even with my poor skill, i can successfully close and win under the one hit tournament style we have now, then the meta game of tournaments will change to just wrestling with swords.
For the last exchange, red fencer walking away after the cut to his arm was the right thing to do if you consider it a martial art. To not self call at all is focusing too much on the sport aspect.
HEMA judging is really hard. Open question: are there tournaments that employ video capture/analysis as the judging support? Why this is not more widespread thing - while it would take time to analyze the videos, it sometimes could take less time than judges aligning on what actually happened.
There are some that use video review but the time and money it takes to implement is huge. Video reviews stop fights dead in their tracks for much longer than the exchange and normal deliberation.
My 2 cents as someone who runs a tournament annually, participates in tournaments, and judges/directs. Cost, logistics, and resources are all weighted against that activity. Quality high speed cameras are expensive and the video files they create are large in data size. Each ring would need more than one camera for angles and most tournaments have 2+ rings running at a time. Cameras need power, storage, operators, etc and HEMA already has a shortage of staffing and resources and many clubs don't have quality, secure storage as they rent and share athletic spaces so in between tournaments we have to find places to keep them. Tournaments also regularly run long, adding video review will only worsen that. Finally there is the more subjective reasons. Like the spirit of HEMA and what people do and do not like about it vs sport fencing. The concept of whether video review is good for any sport. There are a lot of strong opinions out there that mainstream sports are made worse by the presence of video reviews. An argument could easily be made that it would make both watching and participating in a tournament worse for HEMA by breaking cadence and tempo, causing delays, etc. judge deliberation rarely takes long and the presence of video footage may actually increase the number of deliberations as a subconscious effect of knowing it's there.
I both run/judge HEMA tournaments and (separately) run slow-motion replay systems for other sports. In HEMA we generally don't have time to offer playback for scoring purposes- very useful for highlights packages, but unless it's for a final and each fencer gets one chance to request a video review during the final, it would slow down the matches too much.
3 месяца назад
I think there is a difference in throwing points to the opponent, and acknowledging a hit. I agree that handing the points to the opponent is bad - you really are acting as a judge, which you should not. However, acknowledging that I was hit is totally fine, in my opinion. By acknowledging being hit I provide the judges with another piece of information, but it should still be up to them to make the decision. I am not saying "the opponent deserves a point", but rather "the opponent's attack did land". The judges then deliberate on this new information, and either do or don't give the opponent the point. I have acknowledged countless hits which the judges then disregarded for low quality, being out of tempo, or for any other reason. I think a judge should be "strong" enough to discard an acknowledgement, if they deem it appropriate. In the rulesets under which I mostly fence generally have this explicitly stated - the fencer can acknowledge a hit (and how to do it to make it safe and clear), but the judges are under no obligation to turn it into the point for the opponent. This is an excerpt from the ruleset of a small longsword tournament our club organizes: "A fencer has the right to acknowledge a hit they have received by stepping away from the opponent and raising their unarmed hand with a verbal acknowledgement of the hit at the same time. However, the judge is not obliged to award a point for such hit, but they must be able to explain their decision." Of course, the judges must have some experience and be strong enough to discard such acknowledgement. It may not work (well) with novice judges. It also heavily depends on how the judging process actually looks like. I'm used to a main referee, who has the responsibility to make the final decision, with a few assistant judges, and unless the situation is really obvious, they get together and actually talk the situation through. There are systems where this does not happen at all, or very rarely, and there is "voting" instead (like in Helsinki). In such environment the acknowledging could also be a problem. (And I find the "voting" system of judging as significantly worse than the former one, but that's for another discussion.) All in all, I have fenced at tournaments where acknowledging is forbidden, where it is allowed but did not happen that much, and where it is allowed and did happen regularly. And I (almost) always find the atmosphere at the tournaments from the third category much more friendlier, welcoming, nicer, and just have much better feeling from them overall, and did not at all have the feeling that self-calling was a problem. It is just good sportsmanship, in my opinion. I am happy to discuss further, if interested. There are some points that also come into play, but didn't mention. Thanks for the video!
3 месяца назад
Just to add a clarification, by acknowledging a hit I do not mean acknowledging any touch, but only what I personally felt that could be a valid hit. The rest of my initial comment still stays, it is (should be) still the judges' job to give or not give the points.
There seems to be a rather poor fencing quality in the US, maybe also in other places, but I see more often in the States. If anyone thinks this is how rapier fencing should be like, then I'm sorry to break it to you but that's how Olympic épée looks, not rapier: there's ZERO blade control, ZERO distance management, not a single attempt to bind, and over relying on the dagger for thrust deflection. The problem doesn't lie on bad judging, but really fencing. It looks as if in America fencers train for speed and scoring points however you can instead of trying to be technically clean.
It's like the "H" in HEMA is just kind of a suggestion. Fighting areas are too small, people start too close, bouncing around all the time, no attention to tempo, no ability to recover from delivering an attack, just rush a lunge from larga and swing when you get parried. It's ugly, and reckless, and I'd hate to think that George Silver actually made a good point somewhere.
I think you are right in many aspects, but I disagree with your assertion to always through afterblows, This leads to messy and doubly fighting where neither fencer cares about defense or respecting their opponents attacks, but gamifying the ruleset, which I believe is counterproductive to the HEMA community. As the attacker/person who scores a hit, I agree that they shouldn't just stop, they should continue with defending/offending actions while withdrawing. As defending yourself/following up your attacks, hopefully results in cleaner exchanges that are easier to judge for reasons you've stated. But as the defender/person who got hit. If you've recognized that you got hit and then consciously throw an afterblow, I believe you are engaging in un-sportsman like conduct, and are being disrespectful to your opponent/trying to game the rules for points. If the afterblow is thrown as an "I see my opponent attacking me, so I'll respond by attacking!" This again is bad, leading to doubles and is a result of not respecting your opponents attack and disregarding the martial validity of the exchange, while also being un-sportsman like. If, as the defender you try to do an active, 1 tempo counter to defend and attack, (such as a zwerch) but it fails and results in a double or afterblow, you tried to do a thing to defend yourself while providing offence, but were unsuccessfully, hopefully you can get it to work good next time. As the defender, I believe that if you recognize that you've been hit with a good attack you should withdraw (while defending yourself) in acknowledgement of the hit, NOT self calling, but providing the judges with a clean break where they can call the hit if they deem it valid. If they don't call it then, you've safely disengaged and can advance back in to continue with a clean \ exchange. if the attack feels light, incidental or not quality, then I agree with you and you should keep going and leave it to the judges, but you then run the risk of the exchange becoming messy. I also believe that as the attacker, if your opponent calls does self call, you should always call it back attack's you recognize as being poor quality, flat or otherwise incidental, assuming the judges don't do that. It should be fairly obvious to you as a fencer if you made contact without the intention of making contact or you've barely touched or hit with the flat. If you're unsure, absolutely, leave it to the judges. But accepting points for strikes you KNOW are bad, is again, un-sportsman like. I do agree that withdrawing or closing to a grapple are good ideas (assuming you can control the grapple and it doesn't become messy) and are great ways to clean up exchanges and make judging them easier. I also agree that selling your attacks is good, make your thrusts and cuts obvious to see. As a whole, I think we as HEMA practitioners should strive to fight clean exchanges, and avoid doubles/aferblows, as this is (to sound a little pretentious) the epitomy of "The Art" as described by many of the masters. I am unsold on the idea that self calls are bad for the community as a whole, but I recognize your arguments are good, I am just not fully convinced they are bad. As a fencer you can still cleanly withdraw from the exchange if you feel contact, as I mentioned above, not to self call, but give the judges an opportunity to make a call while the exchange is clean. so I think, at the very least, there is room for both ideas to co-exist. Leave calls to the judges, but cleanly withdraw when you recognize you've been hit.
I think most HEMA rulesets are designed around the idea that you don't know if any single attack will truly disable your opponent, so you must either strive to hit them where it really hurts, or ensure they don't hit you back, whether that's by locking them out or waiting until they're preoccupied with a nonthreatening action before attacking. The defender, by throwing an afterblow, is checking if you have done one of these things, and if you haven't then you'll get less points. I personally think that's fine, and regardless of if you agree or not I don't think you can claim it's bad sportsmanship. Don't hate the player, hate the game, if you think afterblows are bad then you can make a game that doesn't have them and play that instead.
Every sport everywhere has the concept of continuing to play until the bell, whistle, buzzer, etc. the same should remain true in HEMA. If the halt isn't called keep fencing.
OK, but if you don't count afterblows, then what you said about the defender potential behaviour to land said afterblow, becomes possible for the initial attack. Which is worse
@@jonathanrose5490 I agree, I never said to stop fencing, I said to safely withdraw. If an exchange isn't going well for you, it is a good idea as a fencer to withdraw, so that you can then continue in the onset. It also works out that, after withdrawing and continuing in the onset, the judges get an opportunity to call halt if they want, if they don't you're in the onset, your safe, and you can continue the exchange in what is a more advantageous position for yourself. But there is a tendency in tournaments I've attended, where strikes thrown after halt was called get counted, despite rules saying nothing past halt should be considered. Yes judging is hard and it's difficult to unsee what happened after halt, and many judges are fencers in the tournament all with different backgrounds and are used to different rules, it can be very confusing, I've been there I get it. if you recognize you've gotten hit, regardless of quality, it probably means you're in a bad position and likely to get hit again probably with better quality. The strategic move should be to withdraw into the onset. Continuing to throw strikes however, will probably lead to a messy exchange that's hard to judge.
@@daaaah_whoosh I feel like you either didn't read all my comment or didn't understand my point. Or maybe I'm not understanding yours, but it seems like we're mostly on the same page. When I say afterblows are bad, I am primarily referring to the martial perspective, If you get hit with an afterblow, a double, or if you're hit at all, that is bad for you. I was describing/encouraging fighting in a way that prevents people from doubling/afterblowing you, as you yourself has advised. I would call this good fencing. So we're on the same page right?. I'm also NOT saying someone fighting in the nach shouldn't attack or use indes to seize the vor. which seems to be what your describing by advising a defender to throw an attack, this is fencing smart, so we're once again on the same page? Something I DIDN'T claim was that tournaments with afterblow rules are bad. but while I'm on the topic, tournaments that have rules that define what an afterblow is are rarely consistent on enforcing them equally, and I've seen many an afterblow land after halt was called, a tempo or two after the first strike, that the judges allow as an afterblow, despite rules that say something along the line of "late afterblows, and afterblows landed after halt was called should be disregarded". Regardless of weather this is good, bad, or something that should be changed, it is a part of why judging is hard, you as a fencer can fence in a way to prevent your opponent landing afterblows, which we both advised for, and negates the need to change the rules so point null, by fencing clean it makes judging easier. Maybe we have different definitions on what an afterblow is, I'm not referring to the action a defender is currently doing the moment they get hit, but rather after they get hit, finished their current action, the hit registers with them as being solid, and not something questionable, maybe halt was called, maybe not. But in this situation withdrawing into the onset is not only the strategic best choice (for if you got hit once you're probably in a bad spot and will likely get hit again) it also shows respect for your opponent and their strike by allowing the judges time to call halt, which I would describe as good sportsman like conduct. Which I hope you don't disagree with. In my eyes, to act in a way that isn't good sportsman like behavior is being un-sportsman like, maybe you disagree and think there is a middle ground that is neither good or bad sportsmanship. But if someone was not striving to act in a way that embodies good sportsmanship, I think reflection should be taken on what their actions say. Hopefully I've made myself a little more clear.
In a way, it could be argued that hema tournements shouldnt have competitions for weapon sets that cant be judged accurately, or they narrow down the parameters of the competion to a point where it can ne judged. Examples could include limiting targets to certain areas, dagger only being valid as a parry device, awarding points based on style and clarity, etc. Yes, this doesnt replicate a duel, but neither does a competion bout to 10 points. By focusing on narrow aspects of fencing, it is easier to judge those aspects we are looking for.
hey judge can you judge my larp please its very important to me. total soyboy attempt at turning something kids do for fun into a 'sewious competishun'. go watch rick and morty again
Got it, hitting people with steel weapons is a soyboy thing. soon I'm going to be out of things to do, just last week I was told watching cartoons was childish and unmanly.
