I think this reveals a profound lack of knowledge and experience about what a fencing master actually did historically or does today. There is a bit too much Hollywood baggage in this discussion for my taste because there is nothing particularly glorious or kingly about running a fencing school which is what the title really means. Masters are not little old bearded men trashing ninjas by the hundreds. In fact masters often sacrifice their own competitive edge because they spend the larger portion of their time teaching. (The really good competitive artists in my experience are the younger provosts.)
I am not this guy.
In the classical tradition a master would run the school with a few provosts and a collection of instructors to assist with the workload. It is simply how you run a school and there is nothing weird or supernatural about it. If you are running your own school, you are doing the work of a fencing master.
There will be good fencing masters and bad ones. Fencing masters can and will hiss at each other like cats across the backyard fence just like any other two people enthusiastic about a particular field. Some masters will be lifelong friends and I’ve found that extremely rewarding. Helping guide Kevin Murakoshi through the process of his multiple examinations gave me a great sense of the circular nature of life and teaching. I have ensured that my work doesn’t end with me and I’ve empowered another teacher to go out into the world and make something good.
Now what you should understand is that I know a lot of masters working in the community but I only know a few people who are certified. I think that is a damn shame. I also find the process of examination and certification extremely powerful and rewarding so I’m strongly in favor of that experience for any teacher who runs a school. With that in mind I think schools should consider certifying masters and get beyond the mumbo-jumbo of Hollywood nonsense and restore the title to the work-a-day role that it really occupies which is something akin to a head football coach at your local high-school. Different certifications will produce different levels of talent and I’m comfortable with that provided that the process is public and verifiable.
This is me getting hit with a foil.
This is me getting hit with a rapier.
This is me being hit and disarmed at the same time. (I obviously suck at my job,)
(And, this is me being hit over and over again without ever getting a shot in.)
I earned my certification by being hit thousands upon thousands of times by students. Most fighters won’t know the difference between an in-time cue or an on-command cue. Amongst fencing teachers we can have thirty minute discussions and arguments on how best to cue a student’s attack. Fighting put me on the path to being a teacher but it wasn’t what was required for me to certify. Engendering success in the people around me so that they meet their goals is more important to me than my personal win-loss ratio. Building a historical swordplay community is the real prize that I keep my eyes on.
In order for the community to provide a healthy second and third generation we need lots of schools to experiment with lots of ways of certifying the next generation. That’s dynamic. It has conflicts and feedback and tension and a drive to compete with your sister schools. That is healthy.
In short, don’t panic… “master” is just a normal teaching credential. The USFCA certification is not my thing but I think certifying programs are where the community needs to go generally as we mature. I look forward to the HEMA Alliance program, and the USFCA program (conditional on Ken’s input), and perhaps other programs as well. This gives me a great deal of comfort to know that we’re creating a self-sustaining life-cycle for the art. We need teachers and I want them all to be good. They won’t all be good but I can try to put my finger on the scales when I can to help tip the balance towards quality.
It is my distinct pleasure to announce to the community that Dr. Ken Mondschein has been chosen as one of the USFCA’s first historical fencing masters. It is my opinion that Ken has worked his entire life to become the person who could fulfill this need in our community.
Maitre d’Armes Historique
Maestro Mondschein holds a PhD in medieval history and is a Fulbright scholar which places him within the ranks of the scholastic elite.
He is a classically trained fencer with a ready knowledge of western fighting theory. In this field, he has taken multiple public examinations from an accrediting fencing body which provides him knowledge and experience necessary to examine instructors.
He is one of the most prolific modern authors for historical martial arts including two translations of primary sources. These works are enriched both by his academic expertise but also grounded in his classical tradition. This combination provides a modern reader with immediate access to the historical material.
His knowledge is broad. Maestro Mondschein is equally at home in full harness on horseback as he is on the classical strip. With academic and applied knowledge both broad and deep he embodies a Carrancine spirit of excellence within our community.
It is my opinion that through some miracle of blind luck, the USFCA chose perhaps the most qualified master to begin their program for historical instructor certification. I personally had reservations about the USFCA’s historical instructor certification program but at his core Ken is one of us and he understands what this community is about. No process for certification will be perfect but it gives me a great deal of reassurance to know that he is part of this project. When I think on my concerns, each one is addressed by, “Ken, will fix this.”
My congratulations to Maestro Mondschein for he well deserves this. Likewise my congratulations to the USFCA; I don’t think they yet fully realize the potential of the master they have chosen to start their program but I heartily approve. I don’t expect the USFCA to be the only program to certify instructors but I expect it will be a good one with Maestro Mondschein doing the work.
When a classical instructor from my tradition introduces new techniques each fencing action is taught individually with a focus on form, distance, and timing. Too much emphasis on individual actions can create fencers without depth or the ability to react tactically within the moment.
One of the teaching methods used later in the process is the building of extended phrases of actions to challenge the student. The instructor continually pushes the student with progressively more difficult actions executed in situations more like actual fencing.
By creating an extended sequence, the student is asked to perform at a higher level. Form, Distance, and Timing are still critical and actions executed in extended phrases help to prepare the student for the rigors of the bout.
Our students have been working on these attacks in different situations for the past 9 weeks. At times a focus on technique can feel scripted. While important, technique building work (like repeated lunges in the Italian tradition) may not reflect the action-reaction dynamic that occurs in actual fencing.
By developing a sequence of actions, we provided the students with a glimpse of how a fight could progress and gave some sword-in-hand insight into different choices that could be made in the phrase based on the adversary’s action.
“If he does this, you can respond with this.”
“If he does this instead, consider this response.“
Asking your fencers to consider different tactical options and to think critically about fencing theory in actual practice will create better fencers. Learning to read and adapt to your adversary is one skill that requires attention and practice. There is no substitute in a sword fight for good problem solving skills!
Creating an Extended Phrase
My goal was to include each Spanish attack once during the different mutations of the phrase.
A Guide to My Fencing Notation
Each action is notated once in sentence form as I would call it in a lesson. Then I briefly notate the action again by Movements which is a more Spanish approach. The Spanish notation provides us information about time as well.
Example:
“X. Sentence describing some fencing action…”
Movement 1 – do this
Movement 2 – do that
HINT: Count the Movements and you are also counting the tempo. Spanish notation is fairly sophisticated in its ability to simultaneously describe an action and the timing. In Pacheco’s work he often notates an Italian action and then breaks down his tactical responses movement-by-movement. Compare this method to the Bolognese example of notating from starting guard through motion to final guard and you will see a similar idea.
If the notation or jargon looks intimidating, consider peeking at my previous articles to help decode the action.
If there is some interest in this particular phrase, I will do what I can to post a series of videos showing how they can be executed.
The Lesson
Note: All lessons begin and end with a formal salute.
This lesson was performed by pairs of students alternating roles. As the sequence progresses the instructor (the fencer receiving the touch) either invites to initiate the action or responds to the student’s invitation.
Understand the difference between skill-building and fencing
This lesson includes some unrealistic actions. The most heinous example is the initial invitation that removes the point from the line of the diameter. This would be expressly condemned in the Spanish texts because the movement serves no purpose but to create an avenue for the adversary’s attack.
As an instructor, I might use this offline motion as an in-time cue (a motion cue) intended to immediately provoke the student’s attack.
Example: Thrust executed in time
In time as the instructor invites on the outside line, thrust to the chest with a transverse step to the left.
Movement 1 – Instructor invites with an offline movement left (fingernails up). Student thrusts with a transverse step left.
As the instructor, I certainly want my student to capitalize on a movement of this kind. In this case, we are using the 1-movement thrust. In the lesson below, I use the 2-movement half reverse instead.
On the student’s side it is perfectly reasonable to assume that at some point during a bout, the adversary might deviate your weapon from the line of the diameter (perhaps with a beat). Knowing how to respond when your point has been deviated from the line is valid training and creating this initial disadvantage provides us with a key training opportunity for placing an atajo over the incoming attack.
I should also point out that the thrust has fewer movements (1) than the other attacks (2-3). In the sequence below, there are numerous instances when a thrust would be a faster response than the various cuts. Again, the intention is to force the student to execute certain technical actions like the cutting attacks and placing an atajo under stress.
Thrust (Line in Cross)
1. From the student’s atajo on the outside line, thrust along the diametric to the chest with a curved step right.
Movement 1 – Student executes a thrust with a forward movement and a curved step right.
Half Reverse
2. From the instructor’s invitation on the outside line, half reverse to the outside cheek with a curved step to the right.
Movement 1 – Instructor invites with an offline movement left (fingernails up). Student chambers the half reverse with an offline movement left.
Movement 2 – Student delivers the half reverse with an aligning movement and a curved step right.
Half Reverse & Thrust (Line in Cross)
3. From the student’s invitation on the outside line, the instructor executes a half reverse to the outside cheek with a curved step to the right which the student intercepts with an atajo on the outside line followed by a thrust along the diametric to the chest with a curved step right.
Movement 1 – Student invites with an offline movement left (fingernails up). Instructor chambers the half reverse with an offline movement left.
Movement 2 – Instructor delivers the half reverse with an aligning movement and a curved step right which the student intercepts with an atajo on the outside line.
Movement 3 – Student executes a thrust with a forward movement and a curved step right.
Half Reverse & Half Cut
4. From the student’s invitation on the outside line, the instructor executes a half reverse to the outside cheek with a curved step to the right which the student intercepts with an atajo on the outside line followed with a half cut to the inside cheek and a transverse step left.
Movement 1 – Student invites with an offline movement left (fingernails up). Instructor chambers the half reverse with an offline movement left.
Movement 2 – Instructor delivers the half reverse with an aligning movement and a curved step right which the student intercepts with an atajo on the outside line.
Movement 3 – Student executes a half cut with an aligning movement and a transverse step left.
Half Reverse & Circular Cut
5. From the student’s invitation on the outside line, the instructor executes a half reverse to the outside cheek with a curved step to the right which the student intercepts with an atajo on the outside line. In response the instructor seeks to increase degrees of strength in the engagement with a movement of increase and attempts to gain an atajo on their own outside line. The student eludes the movement of increase with a circular cut to the inside cheek with a curved step to the right.
Movement 1 – Student invites with an offline movement left (fingernails up). Instructor chambers the half reverse with an offline movement left.
Movement 2 – Instructor delivers the half reverse with an aligning movement and a curved step right which the student intercepts with an atajo on the outside line.
Movement 3 – Instructor uses a mixed violent and aligning lateral movement in an attempt to execute a movement of increase and place an atajo on his own outside line. In response the student executes an offline movement left to escape the engagement.
Movement 4 – Student chambers the circular cut with a violent movement.
Movement 5 – Student delivers the circular cut with a natural movement with a curved step right.
(Movements 3 & 4 may be combined into a mixed movement offline and violent to elude the engagement and chamber the circular cut simultaneously.)
Half Reverse, Circular Cut, & Half Reverse
6. From the instructor’s invitation on the outside line, the student executes a half reverse to the outside cheek with a curved step to the right which the instructor intercepts with an atajo on the outside line. In response the student seeks to increase degrees of strength in the engagement with a movement of increase and attempts to gain an atajo on their own outside line. The instructor eludes the movement of increase with a circular cut to the inside cheek and curved step to the right. The student intercepts the circular cut with an atajo on the inside line and executes a half reverse to the outside cheek with a curved step to the right.
Movement 1 – Instructor invites with an offline movement left (fingernails up). Student chambers the half reverse with an offline movement left.
Movement 2 – Student delivers the half reverse with an aligning movement and a curved step right which the instructor intercepts with an atajo on the outside line.
Movement 3 – Student uses a mixed violent and aligning lateral movement in an attempt to execute a movement of increase and place an atajo on his own outside line. In response the instructor executes an offline movement left to escape the engagement.
Movement 4 – Instructor chambers the circular cut with a violent movement.
Movement 5 – Instructor delivers the circular cut with a natural movement and a curved step right which the student intercepts with an atajo on the inside line.
Movement 6 – Student uses an aligning lateral to deliver a half reverse with a curved step right.
(Movements 3 & 4 may be combined into a mixed movement offline and violent to elude the engagement and chamber the circular cut simultaneously.)
Half Reverse, Circular Cut, & Circular Reverse
7. From the instructor’s invitation on the outside line, the student executes a half reverse to the outside cheek with a curved step to the right which the instructor intercepts with an atajo on the outside line. In response the student seeks to increase degrees of strength in the engagement with a movement of increase and attempts to gain an atajo on their own outside line. The instructor eludes the movement of increase with a circular cut to the inside cheek with a curved step to the right. The student intercepts the circular cut with an atajo on the inside line. The instructor responds with a movement of increase attempting to place an atajo on their own inside line and the student responds with a circular reverse to the outside cheek with a transverse left or a circular step left depending on the distance.
Movement 1 – Instructor invites with an offline movement left (fingernails up). Student chambers the half reverse with an offline movement left.
Movement 2 – Student delivers the half reverse with an aligning movement and a curved step right which the instructor intercepts with an atajo on the outside line.
Movement 3 – Student uses a mixed violent and aligning lateral movement in an attempt to execute a movement of increase and place an atajo on his own outside line. In response the instructor executes an offline movement left to escape the engagement.
Movement 4 – Instructor chambers the circular cut with a violent movement.
Movement 5 – Instructor delivers the circular cut with a natural movement and a curved step right which the student intercepts with an atajo on the inside line.
Movement 6 – Instructor uses a violent and aligning lateral movement in an attempt to execute a movement of increase and place an atajo on his own inside line. In response the student executes an offline movement right to escape the engagement.
Movement 7 – Student chambers the circular reverse with a violent movement.
Movement 8 – Student delivers the circular reverse with a natural movement while stepping transverse left or curved left depending on the distance.
(Movements 3 & 4 may be combined into a mixed movement offline and violent to elude the engagement and chamber the circular cut simultaneously.)
(Movements 6 & 7 may be combined into a mixed movement offline and violent to elude the engagement and chamber the circular reverse simultaneously.)
My lovely wife is pregnant with twins and the first trimester officially ends on Thursday, February 25, 2010. Of course, you want to see the pictures and I won’t deny you.
Baby Pictures
Here is the latest Ultrasound from this last Thursday:
Our twins at Week 11. (Click for High Resolution.)
Things seemed to be going fine with the Ultrasound when the doctor noticed some strange behavior.
Twin A turned to face Twin B so as to minimize his profile.
Fortunately, I was there and was able to interpret what was happening inside Mary’s tummy.
From Twin A's invitation in 4th, Twin B attempted to find the sword on the outside line in 3rd with his hand in 2nd. Twin A, executed a cavazione di tempo, but executed it as a feint. Twin B counterattacked in 4th only to be parried by Twin A in 4th who responded with a riversa to the outside cheek. Twin B eluded the cut to the outside cheek by lifting his hilt into Italian sabre parry of 7th and then in a sudden transition Twin B attempted to pass and seize the off hand of Twin A with a Spanish Movement of Conclusion. Perfectly in synch with Ettenhard's theory, Twin A eluded the circular footwork with circular footwork of his own and the phrase ended.
Seriously Now…
When Mary and I got back from Spain, we got our lives back into a semblance of order and then gave it our best shot. We got pregnant almost immediately and had a bit of a scare at 7 weeks when we thought we were out of the game for awhile.
We were scheduled for an emergency ultrasound and that’s when we discovered not only was Mary still pregnant, but that there were two little hearts beating in there. We’re incredibly happy and things are going very well for us now.
Because of the earlier scare, we have been keeping this quiet but with the first trimester ending next week we’re lifting the veil of secrecy. My blog has been remarkably quiet of late and that’s because a good deal of our effort has been consolidated into writing up our experiences as we go through the pregnancy on Mary’s blog. Until today, these entries have been password protected with only immediate family having access.
The due date for a typical pregnancy would be about September 9, 2010. With our twin pregnancy, we expect the twins to arrive sooner, sometime in mid August.
Mary’s Baby Blog
We’ve been blogging about the whole thing since we found out and you can read about it here:
If you want to read all the posts (which is not required by any stretch of the imagination), start on January 1, and use the calendar on the right to select the different dates.
We’re having a wonderful time working our way through the process.
William provides Italian sabre feedback at WMAW 2009
I recently witnessed an Internet discussion on fencing that rapidly degenerated into bad blood. Using my best sarcastic voice, I hereby state, “It may surprise the world to learn that fencers are notoriously cocky and prone to confrontation.”
Any fencing teacher can watch a fencing match and provide valid criticism and feedback. Regardless of the quality of the fencing in question, how your criticism is delivered tells the world what kind of person you are. More specifically, they get a window into how you might treat your own student.
If your goal is to humiliate and punish the student you are certainly welcome to say whatever you like, but I have a three-point system for delivering feedback based on my experiences training for the fencing master’s program.
Puck’s 3 Rules for Corrective Feedback
Precise – Feedback should not be vague. “Fix your arm” is not an acceptable correction from a fencing teacher. That could mean anything. You do not want the student trying to guess what they should correct. “Extend your weapon arm first during the lunge;” “In the guard create a straight line from elbow to weapon tip;” “Close the line when striking.” These are all specific corrections tightly focused on the problem.
Concise – Nothing breaks up the tempo of a fencing lesson like veering off into an extended discussion of tangential theory. There is a place for extended discussion, but on the floor a short and precise explanation preserves the flow of the lesson. Don’t let your fencer’s legs cool off while you wax poetic about the joys of striking in countertime. Importantly, don’t lecture while the student is on guard. If you are going to provide anything more than short feedback, put them into a resting posture like first position. Don’t spend sweat and energy having your student hold a guard as you prattle when you could spend that energy on fencing actions.
Nice – This seems obvious, but it bears repeating. Don’t be a jerk when you deliver your correction. As a fencing teacher, you are engaged in the process of creating a skilled fencer. Like any person responsible for creation there will be challenges in the process. It is a poor artist that wrecks his own canvas. There is often a natural and friendly antagonism between the fencing master and the student, but the goal of the teacher should always be to build the student and not to destroy them.
Both fencing and teaching are very rewarding. Nothing worth doing is easy all the time, but if we can take a bit of time to treat each other with respect and focus on building better fencers we will all benefit.
