Doubling is unavoidable, but taking the chance to learn how the double happened may greatly change the chances of running into it again. There is a double I see that happens when you face the same person over and over in a tournament setting. I like to call it a laughing double, I see a lot of the times high level fencers even those in tier a tournaments when they face each other a lot they will double by doing the same move and it's not a mistake on either part they both thought they could get the better off each other but it was just a matter of both people having the same thought which is why it's laughable. Identifying the first step to better your fencing and I completely agree with most of what you said however in my club we still hold all doubles as a negative thing no matter how it happened but I like to take a chance in my sparring when a double happens to try to poke and prod and see who we think whose fault that was and usually it's my fault. Today's drink was a watermelon Red Bull very tasty.
The 1st type are the 'fun' doubles. I agree that these are more common for new fencers, but there's a realisation and growth that comes with them, so I consider them fun. They are also quite rare and disappear with experience.
Type 2 are bad. Sometimes an opponent tells me a double took place, while I refuse the idea and give them the point. Glancing your shoulder while you split my head in two doesn't sound like an equal exchange. In general, if I got a double, I see it as a personal failure, I failed to defend. I think this is a healthy altitude to have, more so than planing for them to game tournament rules.
Type 3 are the ones I'm ok with, but I shouldn't be. I perform a good attack, but I forget to defend on the way out. Sometimes this is due to being tired and not having the energy to also defend, seeing an attack but giving up on the defence to conserve the breath in later bouts. One can see why this is not a good thing to do. I am happy with pulling off the attack, and I consider the point to be over once that took place, but that's not how HEMA works (tournament or worse still, in the spirit of a historical setting).
As an addendum to Type 3, I consider I won in a double if I fail to defend, I get hit, but in the process, I punish the opponent (emphasis in the process, not after). So it's more an acceptance that I screw up in the defence, but with the drive to take you down with me. :)
One more thing, there are a lot of videos on Manciolino 'spada sola' that show doubles in the outcome of an attack. I'm sure they showcase this as a warning, but I take it as evidence of sorts that some styles of fencing are more prone to doubles than others.
Overall, doubles shouldn't be accepted. But this is a good rant! :)
I want to battle against the idea of "failed to defend" a little more. I think at times this is true, throwing an unwise attack at an unwise time that leaves you open, but all too often this term can be used to hold attackers hostage. If I cut at your head and you undercut my wrists instead of defending your noggin that gets bonked, who had more responsibility of defense?
Also, any notes on the format for this sorta weekly rant? Trying something new, and looking for feedback as I calibrate.
On the format... one singular point to make per rant, first expressing the issue and then sharing your position on it, compacted in under 10 minutes so I can decompress during a short break... all sound good to me.
There's a caveat, I guess, to what you're saying...
Now, I say doubles are bad, but I have a clear reason why they are so in my case. I take personal responsibility for my fencing, as I am trying to improve. I reject doubles for this reason, but for the same reason I would reject taking 'hostages'.
But I don't do tournaments. From that context, I can see how people can game the system and take 'hostages'. Yes, in a tournament setting, judges and rules need to account for this (but I can also see why doing so would be hard in practice; judges are people too).
I would say it's not even about gaming a tournament system. I've been to lessons where folks were talking about "true martial" HEMA, if this were real swords stuff, and said that if you thrust at someone's neck and they ignore you then you need to stop your attack and defend against them. I find this problematic no matter what setting you are in, in that it shifts responsibility in a way that throws out tooooons of what treatises actually say.
Seize the vor! Attack them so they must defend, and keep them in disadvantage! Press the opening and take charge of the exchange! No treatise adds on to this common advice "...unless they derp out and swipe at your ankles like a numbnuts..."
Ok, I see more of what you are saying. I think I try to "seize the vor" even when I shouldn't. I need to err on the side of caution to get better. But I would agree with you that you can't turtle in, either.
On the "derp out" of opponents, you should make a separate rant :), because:
1. We should expect opponents to be derps if they don't know what they're doing. And I think masters advise to first be cautious and gauge an unknown opponent before trying to create and press an advantage.
2. However, I am starting to dislike strange moves for the sake of getting a hit during free practice. I am trying to learn old systems. If the opponent disregards them just to score a cheap hit, it's not fun. I am robbed of the true art. And just because I am not good enough to punish those cheap hits, doesn't mean that they are good attacks. With a bit more skill, one would be able to punish them. But I can't achieve a higher skill level (fast enough) if opponents make the learning process harder.
Doubling is unavoidable, but taking the chance to learn how the double happened may greatly change the chances of running into it again. There is a double I see that happens when you face the same person over and over in a tournament setting. I like to call it a laughing double, I see a lot of the times high level fencers even those in tier a tournaments when they face each other a lot they will double by doing the same move and it's not a mistake on either part they both thought they could get the better off each other but it was just a matter of both people having the same thought which is why it's laughable. Identifying the first step to better your fencing and I completely agree with most of what you said however in my club we still hold all doubles as a negative thing no matter how it happened but I like to take a chance in my sparring when a double happens to try to poke and prod and see who we think whose fault that was and usually it's my fault. Today's drink was a watermelon Red Bull very tasty.
The 1st type are the 'fun' doubles. I agree that these are more common for new fencers, but there's a realisation and growth that comes with them, so I consider them fun. They are also quite rare and disappear with experience.
Type 2 are bad. Sometimes an opponent tells me a double took place, while I refuse the idea and give them the point. Glancing your shoulder while you split my head in two doesn't sound like an equal exchange. In general, if I got a double, I see it as a personal failure, I failed to defend. I think this is a healthy altitude to have, more so than planing for them to game tournament rules.
Type 3 are the ones I'm ok with, but I shouldn't be. I perform a good attack, but I forget to defend on the way out. Sometimes this is due to being tired and not having the energy to also defend, seeing an attack but giving up on the defence to conserve the breath in later bouts. One can see why this is not a good thing to do. I am happy with pulling off the attack, and I consider the point to be over once that took place, but that's not how HEMA works (tournament or worse still, in the spirit of a historical setting).
As an addendum to Type 3, I consider I won in a double if I fail to defend, I get hit, but in the process, I punish the opponent (emphasis in the process, not after). So it's more an acceptance that I screw up in the defence, but with the drive to take you down with me. :)
One more thing, there are a lot of videos on Manciolino 'spada sola' that show doubles in the outcome of an attack. I'm sure they showcase this as a warning, but I take it as evidence of sorts that some styles of fencing are more prone to doubles than others.
Overall, doubles shouldn't be accepted. But this is a good rant! :)
I want to battle against the idea of "failed to defend" a little more. I think at times this is true, throwing an unwise attack at an unwise time that leaves you open, but all too often this term can be used to hold attackers hostage. If I cut at your head and you undercut my wrists instead of defending your noggin that gets bonked, who had more responsibility of defense?
Also, any notes on the format for this sorta weekly rant? Trying something new, and looking for feedback as I calibrate.
On the format... one singular point to make per rant, first expressing the issue and then sharing your position on it, compacted in under 10 minutes so I can decompress during a short break... all sound good to me.
There's a caveat, I guess, to what you're saying...
Now, I say doubles are bad, but I have a clear reason why they are so in my case. I take personal responsibility for my fencing, as I am trying to improve. I reject doubles for this reason, but for the same reason I would reject taking 'hostages'.
But I don't do tournaments. From that context, I can see how people can game the system and take 'hostages'. Yes, in a tournament setting, judges and rules need to account for this (but I can also see why doing so would be hard in practice; judges are people too).
I would say it's not even about gaming a tournament system. I've been to lessons where folks were talking about "true martial" HEMA, if this were real swords stuff, and said that if you thrust at someone's neck and they ignore you then you need to stop your attack and defend against them. I find this problematic no matter what setting you are in, in that it shifts responsibility in a way that throws out tooooons of what treatises actually say.
Seize the vor! Attack them so they must defend, and keep them in disadvantage! Press the opening and take charge of the exchange! No treatise adds on to this common advice "...unless they derp out and swipe at your ankles like a numbnuts..."
Ok, I see more of what you are saying. I think I try to "seize the vor" even when I shouldn't. I need to err on the side of caution to get better. But I would agree with you that you can't turtle in, either.
On the "derp out" of opponents, you should make a separate rant :), because:
1. We should expect opponents to be derps if they don't know what they're doing. And I think masters advise to first be cautious and gauge an unknown opponent before trying to create and press an advantage.
2. However, I am starting to dislike strange moves for the sake of getting a hit during free practice. I am trying to learn old systems. If the opponent disregards them just to score a cheap hit, it's not fun. I am robbed of the true art. And just because I am not good enough to punish those cheap hits, doesn't mean that they are good attacks. With a bit more skill, one would be able to punish them. But I can't achieve a higher skill level (fast enough) if opponents make the learning process harder.