4 ms·

Not necessarily "quite a bit" different; various HEMA forms seem to have done quite a good job of reproducing combative styles very well, within their limitatio

Not necessarily "quite a bit" different; various HEMA forms seem to have done quite a good job of reproducing combative styles very well, within their limitations. Of course, this requires rules sets which are designed primarily towards the goal of producing sword bouts which look like a fight with sharps, and participants who are keen to achieve the same effect. When those conditions are not met then the fight will indeed diverge from the techniques and tactics of the "real thing". Modern fencing is an excellent example of this - it's a fine sport requiring great skill and stamina but it does not resemble fighting with sharps. There are many HEMAists who will avoid tournaments out of a concern for the effects that competitive rules sets and the pressure to win may have upon their art, and there are others who don't mind. It is a topic of constant debate within the community. As usual, this is relevant: http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/four_focuses.html http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/four_focuses.html

Retric 10y ago
I strongly disagree with that link. Training for combat is more than just a few simple brutal takedowns. Understanding and implementing minimal force is a vary real and important skill set. Further many people study sports and get a completely biased understanding of fighting. This can be dangerous for them, but also anyone else they take a swing at while not wearing pads. People spend years learning a mix of the useless and horrifically dangerous. They then ingrane twitch reflexes to do something often with little thought as to what it actually does in a real world context.
- gvurrdon 10y ago
  With which part do you disagree strongly? If it is that the description of the first focus omits mention of other important factors such as de-escalation and use of minimal force then I would agree that those should be included. The rest of your comment, e.g. "...many people study sports and get a completely biased understanding of fighting..." suggests that you are in agreement with the general thesis of the article, i.e. different focuses bias the selection of tactics and techniques taught and training for one focus may be of limited use for another.
  - Retric 10y ago
    I agree that there is a range of goals. But mostly just treating things as separate silos. They all have different focuses and cover different bases. Where a 6'6" guy who takes boxing may feel it meets his minimal needs for fighting in the modern world, a 5'2" female may enjoy the sport but reasonably feel the need for something more effective on the side for self defense. There is also things like learning to fall which have utility in a wider context or some like archery also cover hunting etc. There is also a range of risks, as boxing is far more likely to result in head trauma than tai chi. Judo risks joint injury etc. Basically, rather than silos I feel a list of outcomes and a 0 - 5 scale much better maps to reality. PS: Further, people tend to use whatever they have in whatever context they are put in. Fall off a horse and know judo?
    - gvurrdon 10y ago
      If I understand correctly what you mean then it is a valid point, but I think the writer of that article is discussing something different. For example, consider the art of foo-jitsu, which is mostly based around kicks and so suits tall people and is good for sport, or bar-fu, which involves shorter range open-hand striking and has some good ground fighting techniques, making it good for self-defence or for shorter people, according to the sort of classification I think you mean. Based on this description you would pick the system depending on your goal. The focus article proposes that either of these arts may be used for any focus, depending on the attitude and goals of the teacher. So one could go to a foo-jitsu school that uses the same principles of art and base syllabus as the typical sporting classes found in the style but is oriented towards defence (its students never get involved in tournaments, for example), or a bar-fu class where the instructor has turned it into ground wrestling sport and concentrates on winning trophies. So, it is therefore possible to pick a class based on the characteristics of the system and find that the focus of the class is not quite what one wanted. The article states that there may be more than one focus but there should be one or two primary ones. Of course, I may have misunderstood exactly what you mean; apologies if so.

Retric 10y ago

I strongly disagree with that link. Training for combat is more than just a few simple brutal takedowns. Understanding and implementing minimal force is a vary real and important skill set. Further many people study sports and get a completely biased understanding of fighting. This can be dangerous for them, but also anyone else they take a swing at while not wearing pads. People spend years learning a mix of the useless and horrifically dangerous. They then ingrane twitch reflexes to do something often with little thought as to what it actually does in a real world context.

gvurrdon 10y ago
With which part do you disagree strongly? If it is that the description of the first focus omits mention of other important factors such as de-escalation and use of minimal force then I would agree that those should be included. The rest of your comment, e.g. "...many people study sports and get a completely biased understanding of fighting..." suggests that you are in agreement with the general thesis of the article, i.e. different focuses bias the selection of tactics and techniques taught and training for one focus may be of limited use for another.
- Retric 10y ago
  I agree that there is a range of goals. But mostly just treating things as separate silos. They all have different focuses and cover different bases. Where a 6'6" guy who takes boxing may feel it meets his minimal needs for fighting in the modern world, a 5'2" female may enjoy the sport but reasonably feel the need for something more effective on the side for self defense. There is also things like learning to fall which have utility in a wider context or some like archery also cover hunting etc. There is also a range of risks, as boxing is far more likely to result in head trauma than tai chi. Judo risks joint injury etc. Basically, rather than silos I feel a list of outcomes and a 0 - 5 scale much better maps to reality. PS: Further, people tend to use whatever they have in whatever context they are put in. Fall off a horse and know judo?
  - gvurrdon 10y ago
    If I understand correctly what you mean then it is a valid point, but I think the writer of that article is discussing something different. For example, consider the art of foo-jitsu, which is mostly based around kicks and so suits tall people and is good for sport, or bar-fu, which involves shorter range open-hand striking and has some good ground fighting techniques, making it good for self-defence or for shorter people, according to the sort of classification I think you mean. Based on this description you would pick the system depending on your goal. The focus article proposes that either of these arts may be used for any focus, depending on the attitude and goals of the teacher. So one could go to a foo-jitsu school that uses the same principles of art and base syllabus as the typical sporting classes found in the style but is oriented towards defence (its students never get involved in tournaments, for example), or a bar-fu class where the instructor has turned it into ground wrestling sport and concentrates on winning trophies. So, it is therefore possible to pick a class based on the characteristics of the system and find that the focus of the class is not quite what one wanted. The article states that there may be more than one focus but there should be one or two primary ones. Of course, I may have misunderstood exactly what you mean; apologies if so.