Confidence, Trust and Dependance

Confidence is a word that gets used a lot stage combat and especially in acting.
The idea of trusting fellow actors, so as to let the best working partnerships to develop etc. Whatever one thinks about this, I honestly don't believe that most actors find this level of rapport with other actors, if they do it happens with specific people and/or over a long time .
However acting is a collaborative effort, I know stage combat is to. however if someone screws up in a piece of physical work, especially a fight, there can be more serious results than "the scene doesn't work".

So trust? Trust, trust in what? If someone is attacking me, they should be doing so with some layers built in to make sure that if I fail to do what is necessary, they will not hit me.
Do I trust them to do so? No! What I should have is confidence that they are going to do all they can can to insure it is done properly. When they attack me, there are certain things I should do to for my own safety. Do they trust me to do those things? No! However they should have confidence that I will be endeavouring to do all those things.

So we shouldn't trust anyone?!? Well yes and no. I should trust in my ability to the appropriate things based on the situation. I should have developed my skill to a level where I am confident that I have layers built in so that if something is off there are others to insure the actions are done safely, even if I or my partner/s screw up in some way, that I have the control to modify or change my action to insure that and/or that we are doing the actions at a pace where we can control the flow and movement.

Our issue is that when one considers trust and when this trust seems to be full filled then we start to become dependant on the "other" doing what needs to be done, we start to let our guard down and that is when things become dangerous because someone doesn't do what they should in the moment.

A common "trust" exercise done in acting classes is to fall backwards and have another or others catch you. Now I have heard of these things going wrong, the person being caught getting whip lash etc. so even when it works from one angle it may not be from another. However it is a) an extreme example, you are really wholly at the mercy of the person/people catching. There are few times in my opinion when you are this much at the mercy of others in a "real" situation. b) the situation is set up to push a boundary, but it generally can be done in a very controlled way, there is little chance of things going wrong. As such it would in most cases be as hard for someone to fall backward on to a crash mat. As such it is wrongly labelled a trust exercise in my opinion, really it is a letting go exercise.

Trust is something that is built up over time and through developing of confidence in all involved, including one self . When a dancer for example, literally takes a leap of faith to be caught by another/s they will do so with more surety after a large number of repetitions, where things have not gone wrong, than they will on the first couple of attempts, even with people they know.

However, even then I should not recommend whole dependence, both parties should maintain awareness so that if things change they have the opportunity to modify the behaviour, to catch themselves or tuck and roll, have the confidence and the trust that they can look after themselves as and when it goes wrong.

Otherwise we would be left with what I would is an untenable situation. Do you as a river going out on a journey on the road, trust all the other road users around you? Do you depend on everyone else doing exactly as they should? Or rather do you maintain your level of awareness and your skills to make sure that you keep yourself and those around you as safe as possible.

Master at Arms

I was reading the BADC paper work and see that I am officially able to call myself a BADC Master at Arms! The top teaching title in the organisation...

La de da me! ;)

Worlds Conferance

I have become involved in a meeting that intends to discuss bringing a recognition and a form of unity across the certification of the major Stage Combat organisations around the world.

 

Representatives from the BADC(UK), SAFD (USA), FDC (Canada), NSFS (Scandinavia), and SAFDi (Australia), There are a couple of independent representatives, of which I am one.

 

The exact details are to be ironed out during this coming meeting.

 

My hope is that this will lead to recognition, officially, between the organisations when students have been

certified and then take that certification  to another country and wish to continue training.

 

This is an issue that students of ours have had in the past, having trained with us and been certified by the BADC they return to their home country and wish to continue to training. However they then find that they are expected to only only recertify in weapons they have already done but also go through the minimum hours of training with those weapons. In some countries they expect you to go through 30 hours for each weapon.

 

This makes no sense to me, someone who has already trained with a weapon and been tested it, is expected to spend 30 hours with a weapons they have already done exactly the same as someone who has never handled the weapon before.

 

That is a baseline. I can understand that on a case by case basis, some people will need more training especially when they have achieved a low grade level in in the training, but to make it a blanket necessity and requirement makes no sense to me.

 

On a related theme, a minimum of 30 hours per weapon before you can go in for certification?! An advanced process of 5 weapons? 150 hours. How many hours do most people get to train a week? 1 1/2 a week? That's 100 weeks! 2 closer though with breaks etc, closer to 3 years. Now we aren't talking about a martial art, we are talking about a performance skill. Not including the time that would have been spent on the level 1 exam, around 3 weapons, or level 2 weapons, and other 3.

 

Again this doesn't make sense to me. Teaching a Principle based system then improvement in one element or style, should improve the skills and competence in another, so in general the more training one does the quicker and more proficient one should become with newer styles.

 

It occurs to me that the minimum requirement for the hours in organisations that have no grading system in their certification process. With grades you can show the "skill" demonstrated in the exam. Without a stratified level system, the mandatory hours goes someway to insuring that everyone one is at a standard.

 

Anyway we will see what happens and I'll keep you posted.  

Richard III

FInished the London rehearsals of the fight for Richard III last week. Everything has shifted to New York for the tech'.
It was good to work with Mark Rylance and Tim Carroll again, last time was Richard II, also good to work with Kurt Egyiawan for the first time since he left Guildhall a couple of years ago.

New Year....

The new academic year has begun, met all the new students now or at least the ones that we will teach on a regular basis. All seem nice and by and large a little older/more mature.
Looks like it will be a good year ahead....

Also coming at the work in a slightly different way. Looking at making more rounded basis in technique before teaching/developing set forms to the students.

This has partly been due to an ongoing observation that despite all the success that we have had in getting more students through the combat exams and achieving higher grades. However when working with people in final year shows etc. we have noticed gaps in their skills and understanding. The things that they need to be able to use when they are using their skills in the ultimate task, performing on stage and developing the scenes etc. needs to be stronger.

So we have been looking at ways to change our approach to how we parcel the work for the students. Of course the Principles stay the same and some students a harder to teach or uncommitted regardless of how we parcel the information. However the goal is always the same, make the students the best they can be in the time we have them for.

Violence designer!

Came across that title reading a blog, by a self titled Violence Designer
It is hard to find a name for what we do. We know what a set designer does, lighting designer, movement director, voice coach, whatever. But for what we do it's not so easy. It's not so specific. Fight choreographer, Fight Co-ordinator,  Fight Director, action co-ordinator now Violence Designer!
Why is it so hard to give ourselves a name that sums up what we do and that everyone can understand?

Well first up have you looked at how broad a subject human violence and aggression is? The range of uses it is put to? How it is modified by culture, era, context within both of those. You need to understand the effects of clothing, armour, footwear, etiquette, general history and military history.

Then you have to understand the mechanics of the different kinds of violence, whether unarmed or armed. Body mechanics are the same for the human body around the world, but there are still many different paths to the same goal, and humans have come up with different ways of doing violence, even though much of those differences are in the packaging. Different era's favoured different kinds of violence over others, used different kinds of weapons in different ways or the same kinds of weapons in different ways, Give me a rapier fight! Well are they really using a rapier (define a rapier exacaly) What country? Italian, German, French, Spanish, English, Danish? What style in that country? There could be different styles in the same place at the same time? Note that the reasons for choosing a specific weapon more often have less to do with how effective it is for killing people and more to do with fashion, society or even things like how well does it match my outfit! A proviso, no weapon is ineffective as killing or maiming etc, however they are often only effective in a narrow range of circumstances.

Then we have to be able to all of this in a "theatrical" context, understand what is required of telling a story, to an audience on stage or through a camera. We need to be able to transmit that to actors. Actors who may not have training, or confidence in what training they or they may not have confidence in themselves, or the people they are working with.

We'll need to understand and work out and get people to trip and fall  and how it actually happens, get pushed and shoved and to do that to others. Get whipped, strangled with rope, hung, work out a rape a groping and all that as well as then get someone to have a fight! How to throw a punch, block one, take one and react appropriately to all the different things that could happen. Hide the tricks, sell the knaps. Tell someone how to react to poison, or what it might feel like to be punch or stabbed in the kidney as opposed say to the liver!
We have to fit the violence and action on to a stage, around a set, work with lights

What about where the fight comes from? The actors and director will have normally gone up to where the violence happens, maybe dipped their toes into the violence and then confidently moved on after. The problem is that actors and directors like most people don't actually have knowledge about the whys and wherefores of actual violence and aggression, how it develops, what really happens and the aftermath. SO we have to direct the lead up, the aggression and violence it self and the immediate aftermath and advise on the long term impact. After all if you don't set the whole context appropriately, then all that flows from and through it won't be appropriate. So we have to direct the story before during and after the aggression and violence that "we are there for". Oh and we have to do all that without rocking the boat, stepping on anyone's toes and keeping the actors and director happy and ego un-bruised
.
Of course we have also at the same time got to understand and consider and be able to to apply the sense of what the violence is part of and how it needs to serve the story.

Are we looking for the actuality of the violence and aggression? The reality? What is the reality of the story and the actuality of the time. The actuality of Shakespeare's play and what he wrote it for. R and J great... Elizabethan England! Whose? The actual Elizabethan England form 30 years plus of personal research and all that one has learnt from others who have studied it? The Reality to actors or the director? Or the reality of an audience?? Oh but wait, we are setting it in 1930 prohibition Chicago, that's our reality....

Or are we looking for Theatricality. Well "we" don't do theatricality! ;) At least not for its own sake. It's there if it suits the reality of the production. Of course there is the theatricality of eight performances a week for run lasting several months or multiple takes for a camera, and all of which have to be as safe and as well performed as every other!

SO! How do we come up with a job title that describe all that! In TWO words! ;) Answers on a postcard to.... OK Good luck and .... GO.

Now to be clear, I don't think there is one that sums it all up... Aggression and Violence, doesn't sum it all up, hell it doesn't even sum up what violence and aggression is, let alone everything thing we do. The technical crew and designers do technical stuff, the things the actor can't do while acting. The Directorial crew, Director, voice, movement choreographer etc. guide or tell the actors what to do. OR guide them in doing something they can already do and/or already understand. But we sit somewhere in the middle, where we are dealing with things outside of the actors control or knowledge and skills. while at the same time guiding them to do that through things they can already do. All the while in a story which isn't ours, being on the fringes of the production, coming on odd occasions to get people to naturally tell someone else's story.

So what will I call what I do when I am working in a play or for camera based story telling... I shall keep using Fight Director. People understand what it, or as much as anything else, it is an accepted term and of all the terms used it gets the closest for me, to what the job means.

Personally Violence Designer doesn't do it for me. Yeah the Violence OK I can get that part partly. Designer? Not so sure. Yes I can design the violence, but I don't see that as the job. Designer implies that I create the violence, and also that what I am designing is a construct of mine not something that it natural, normal and part of all of us. That's why direction still works for me. I direct the violence and the aggression like the director works with the rest of the play... when the action becomes physical I don't design it, I direct the actors to do things they can already do or at least direct them to adapting what they can do and make it more appropriate, safer etc.

My reason for not really liking the Violence part is that yes violence is part of it. But where does violence come from? Violence does just happen suddenly, it is part of a continuum of other activities most of which are viewed as normal, that leads to violence when certain of those aspects are mixed together in certain ways. "Violence" might be a better a description than "Fight" but it still doesn't cover everything by a long way. Is helping an actor to faint safely on stage Violence Design or what ever name we give it?
So I don't really like any of the names we have, but when you use them people understand what it means or at least most of it. Why change the name to something that is only marginally better and that has the down sides of being incomplete still and people don't know what it means!
I'll be sticking with Fight Director.

An open mind or a closed one?

Come with an open mind or don't bother coming at all.

We will have all encountered those people that come to a class, seminar etc. with a closed mind. They don't come to learn, they come to show you and prove to themselves their own superiority to you and what it is you are teaching. They resist the training. They ignore and don't follow instructions. They start doing their own thing. They will start teaching other students telling them how things should be done or telling them to ignore what  you have told them. When they do follow some of what you are teaching they will do things to break it, following other options so they can win, or tell you why they would do something else because their way would be better. They will continue to hold their position in the face of reasoned arguments, polite requests and even when you show them in practice why their way is not working.  Constantly countering what they try in practice, They will respond with "Well I would do blah blah" You them let them try it and they still can not make their part work, they continue to come up with more excuses. "If it was free sparing", "If he had masks", "wore more protection or less", "went faster/harder", "the weapons were sharp" and so on. I have encountered this attitude from beginners to those considered "respected" instructors. I should note that people can change, that someone who displays this closed minded attitude and can open up, normally at later date,  but I would also be aware that the change may not be firmly established

If you are one of those people, then please don't go to study with people you disagree with, don't waste your time or theirs. Going to someone else without an open mind will not change anything, turning up and telling someone that what they are doing is wrong has consistently proven to be a highly unsuccessful way of converting people or making them receptive to change.

Now I hope that if you are reading this blog that you are not one of those people.

However in this case you might well have these people turn up to "train" with you. In which case I would suggest that as soon as you realise that they are one of those people, you politely tell them that you would like them to leave the session or not attend if you realise before the time, as it is not for them and they won't get anything from it. If they have paid for the training, give then a full refund, if they haven't paid then they have no reason to stay once you ask them to go.

We have all had the situation where we haven't asked these people to leave. Perhaps because we are afraid that if they tell them to leave that the people will go away and talk badly about what you do to others. Trust me, these kinds of people will talk badly about you whatever you do. Even if you had a sudden conversion to their way of doing things they would walk about how you were an idiot for training the old system for so long and taking so long to realise and that you are useless at their way.
 Remember for this type, it is not about learning, it not even about improving within what they do, it is about them validating their own self image, and that validation it based upon their superiority and the inferiority of everyone else.

Consider again, when you teach, why are you doing it, what are you doing? You are giving people, open minded people who want to learn/train, your time and access to your knowledge. If you are wasting your time in a pointless discussion with someone who is not interested in changing and will not, then you are not giving your time to those that are those who are with an open mind, and those open minded peoples time, and money.

Do it with an open Mind or don't do it at all.

Communication, conflict, aggression and Violence

People communicate, we are social primates, we are wired for communication, so even when we think we are not communicating we generally are. Even the act of consciously intending to not communicate is communication as we are so geared to do it, opting out is something strong. When people communicate they do so to change their environment, to manipulate, to achieve their own ends through the assistance of others. 

When individuals or groups have intentions that that they are trying to communicate there will conflict....

Aggression and the violence that it may be connected to is a form of communication. There are fewer more forceful ways to convey or achieve your intentions and goals than through their application.

It needs to be understood that we all communicate in many different ways, many of them we and unaware of, both vocally and through body language. By developing an understanding of the unconscious ways we communicate and by understanding that violence and aggression are forms of communication people can develop an improved understanding of how to convey it. 

They can also understand how conflict leading to aggression and violence occurs and develops to gain a better insight to why they may or may not need to be communicated through their characters.

Someone was trying to kill me! No really they were

People are these days generally unfamiliar with violence, certainly the actualities of violence, as in 

their day to day lives they have no contact with it, at least in the higher end physical format. They generally therefore base the "knowledge" upon the fantasy that is sold to us in movies or the modified versions in combat sports.

Often when teaching or working on a production, when I ask what the objective or Intent is, I receive the answer, "They want to kill so and so". Sometimes this is true but more often it is not and I will address some reasons below. Even if the outcome is that someone dies, that of itself does not mean that the Intent from the beginning was to kill. More often than not a death is a side effect, accepted or unforeseen of attempting to achieve other outcomes through the application of violence.

Sometimes I will get answer, "no they don't want to kill". While in these circumstances the answer is generally right, the person doesn't really know why, they can't explain it clearly. Again what is listed below is an attempt to give some parameters to these questions.

As I have mentioned in other posts human use aggression, the threat of violence, and violence for many reasons, and will often go to great ,lengths to avoid it, even if it is the best or only solution to the situation they find themselves in.

What follows was inspired by Marc MacYoung , and my thanks go to him in this for putting a frame work that I could build upon, ideas that I have been expressing for years.

While an easy claim to make if one has been on receiving of a violent act, in all likelihood they were not intending to kill you. For that claim to have real justification at least of or more of the following six outcomes need to be true



The Six Possible Outcomes

The most likely outcome of someone actually trying to kill you is,

-1.You die.
People whose Intent is to kill will generally need to be in an extreme state of emotional arousal, so they are likely to act forcefully and aggressively. Even without the emotional state, in fact it is more likely with out the emotional state, the would be killer will have done al they can to stack the odds in their favour to insure they succeed. In these cases you are unlikely to know they Intend to kill you before it is too late or you will think that you are involved in some other form of lower level social violence or activity,until it too late to do much about, In these cases the person it likely to be dead or dying before they realise that is what is happening

The second possible outcome is

-2. You end up in the hospital or similar
This will be along time of being tended, weeks or months. If medical treatment allows in the time period, then it is likely that some form of extensive surgery would have been needed. In the days prior to antibiotics this where more people would die than as an immediate result of the actual violence. However people did survive extreme wounds

The third option is someone - usually the person on the receiving end of the attack,
-3. Ran away.
Logically there is no adverse effect to the this option, and it is a good and long lasting survival tactic, It is basically the Flight as opposed to the Fight, which will only kick in if the Flight response is not an option . The earlier one applies this tactic generally the better. As we say, running away is the easiest and cheapest martial art to learn. However many people leave it to late and by the time they decide to run they can't. We also have to consider that historically the option to run would mark one as a coward or dishonourable and the sense of self that this engendered could lead people to override their survival instincts

The Fourth option
-4. You attack back with equal force, you "Fight".
Using same or similar weapons you attack back, generally the involvement of weapons is a prime indicator that death/killing is a accepted possibility. If you raise the stakes and produce a weapon to counter theirs, which may just be a threat display, you have brought the situation closer to being a deadly encounter. However the flip side is, if they did intend to kill you this and the next two options have a good chance of inducing the flight (running) response in an attacker.

One needs to understand that most would-be killer have the intent for you to die. They are generally not willing to die themselves themselves This is why countering with what they are trying to do to you is a good game changer.

In effect what we are talking about here is fighting back, you are doing something but not really enough given the situation, though something is better than nothing

The fifth option is you
-5. Retaliate with such ferocity that the other person is injured, killed or runs away.
This is not fighting, this is counter assault or counter ambush. Here you have gone in to Full FIGHT mode, and are responding with a greater level of violence or aggression and rage than the attacker. Your Intent, concious or not has become to kill your attacker as well. Even if you do not succeed in actually killing them, they stop because they have taken sufficient damage to render them incapable of continuing. Normally however most would-be murderers will not wait that long. When suddenly faced with the same options they gave you, death or hospitalization or running, the would-be killer opts for running away or giving up, if they can when they have decided they have taken enough damage.

The sixth option is
-6. Someone else intervenes.
This intervention on their behalf or yours changes the dynamic and the power in the situation and results in some combination of options 1-5 listed above happening to you or your attacker. The intervention can be by more than one person. People may intervene in other acts of violence, but normally once the main act of violence is over. When it is clear the Intent is to kill people will often intervene because part of our hard wiring realises that killing, is bad and seeks to stop it.

While it is easy -- and it may seem dramatic -- to decide that the Intention was to kill it is very rarely the case. However if any combination of these six options, were not the results then person person was not trying to kill. It should also be borne in mind that in the performance, one can not play the Intention to kill as that becomes dangerous to the performers

We say this no matter what the target, or witnesses may claim after the fact. Be careful;

-What your (the performer) emotional brain tells you.

-What someone claims, a character in play or an actor, director or fight director

-What a fear monger tries to convince you. That is someone who does not understand violence or who has a specific agenda that rests on an over inflating the terrible nature of violence

If the six outcomes were not in play then the Intent to kill was not there.

So be careful of using information from later in the story to give insight into the attackers motivation, unless it was the attacker themselves. Rather apply the list.

Be aware. It is extremely common that someone may engage in life-threatening behaviour such as a brandishing a weapon or beating someone severely. The fact is that the person is not trying to kill you, as if that was their Intent they would have used these things to kill you. It is common for someone to do something that can cause extreme harm or even to be deadly, without the intention to kill. This is especially true with threat displays (which I will have to write a post about) and certainly when fighting with weapons was accepted or common place and when society accepted "duelling" with weapons as a way to solve differences and challenges to status and or dominance, in effect armed and formalised Monkey Dancing.

A good way to tell the difference between a threat display and a real Intent to kill is the number of times the behaviour/action is repeated. One wildly aimed shot with a firearm is different than someone clearly and deliberately aiming the gun at you and pulling the trigger repeatedly. Or someone swing a weapon a sword or weapon at you wildly or out of distance and closing purposely and cutting or stabbing repeatedly without pause. With the later options, sooner or later, it will change from being shot or stabbed/cut at to being shot, stabbed or cut. If the person means to kill you, they will in all likelihood keep shooting, stabbing or cut and will continue to do so multiple times and direct the attacks at vital parts of the body.

People with the clear Intent to kill usually will not stop until;

They've succeeded,
They believe they have succeeded or
The danger to them becomes too great to continue.

So next time you watch or read a scene where there is violence, consider the characters Intent, and ask yourself was it really to kill!?

Things they get wrong #1 Dead mans 10

This will be part of an ongoing series....
It will address areas that a commonly wrong or misrepresented in combat scenes, on stage or in film.
Too often people just drop dead, when hot by a "fatal" blow.
The only thing that will instantly stop life and body function is the so called "sniper shot" which severs the brain stem.
Otherwise the damage caused, while it may be fatal, will technically mean that the the person can still continue to function for a certain amount of time, from seconds to minutes or even hours.

The expression mentioned above, the dead man's 10, is reportedly from western gun fighters, basically it means that even after receiving a fatal shot, for example a bullet through the heart, I will still be able to function for at least 10 seconds.

However this doesn't mean that people don't drop down when hit. But when they do it is because of their reaction to being hit. Most of the time people give mentally before their body gives up.

So next time you see our read a fight where someone conveniently drops when hit, ask yourself, do you believe that is what the character would actually do?

Words are a shorthand....

Language is tricky, the same word can mean different things to different people or the same thing but in different contexts. This is more true when it comes to teaching, especially teaching something physical or movement based.

 A word or the words are what use to try to describe a context etc. is a short hand, the problem is that to truly understand the short hand you have to have seen the picture or felt and understood it to get it.

It's why students will eventually turn around and say something like... "You know.... I should do such and such" with a slight sound of accusation in their voice. Of course what they are telling you is something that you have told them time and again since their first lesson. The difference now though is that they have finally gotten it, it has clicked inside them and the concept has been revealed. The first thing they then need to do is tell someone about it. In this case it's the teacher who has been telling them all along.

I have also noted with people how have physical skills but who are new to teaching, that they use too many words when they start teaching and try to explain too many things at once. They have had their aha! moments and are keen to pass their revelations on, and think that if only someone could have revealed all this stuff to them they would have gotten it much quicker. They have not yet realising or remembering how long it took them to get there. They haven’t understood that it’s about saying the right things at the right time, speaking at the right time and doing things at the right time.

I'm not very co-ordinated... I'm clumsy

Students will often claim this when they find a move difficult or when they take time to improve areas of body structure etc.
They will often use it as a justification for why things don't change or improve.

If one asks them why they think they are clumsy the general response it that they bump in to things or drop stuff. I ask them if other people don't? Of course we all bump in to stuff and drop things. But some people get told they are clumsy when they do this and so they start to believe it and attach the label to themselves

Of course some people do do these things more often but in this case it more often than not die to Awareness or rather its sporadic application .

However the label of clumsy is easy as if I can say I am clumsy then it is something I am, not something I am responsible for, something that I can change.

We can all make claim to some defect or other, however there are very few things that can not be changed or over some with the will and a focus and mindset to make it happen

Facts and Figures 2013

This Academic year (2012-13) so far...
159 Students (including Rutgers and Guildhall)went through the various exams
Standard 61 Students (Plus 35 from Guildhall and Rutgers)
Advanced Modules 194 Modules (72 Students)
- 30 Students Completed Advanced
- 42 Students tested on ASW
Specialisations 27 (24 Students)
Of all the students taught at the three schools only 6 students took no exam, most of those were to do with physical conditions that meant they could not take part in classes

For comparison to last year

	2012	2013	Increase
Standard	135	159	15%
Advanced Complete	21	30	30%
Advanced Single Weapon	26	42	38%
Specialisations	19	24	20%

The gloved hand

I recently was reading a Stage Combat blog. One entry was about a new pair of stage combat gloves the writer had bought. Gloves seem to be a must in Stage combat in the US, though they are popular amongst other organisations and individuals.
I think I have mentioned that we don't allow anyone to use gloves to start with, though in certain circumstances with heavier weapons we do allow it in performance, though generally not in training...

I posted a question to the blog post, Why the need for gloves, that I had never received a satisfactory answer to this.
Posted below is his response

To protect your hands from the swords and the swords from your hands. Little dings on the hand that might have been bloody will just be bruises if you’re wearing gloves — especially when you’re using weapons without a big fancy guard, or working in styles with hand beats or half-swording. And any moisture or sweat on your hands will start the high-carbon steel rusting.

Below my reply

It is up to the individual, of course, but these reasons don’t and have never convinced me, The best protection for the hands is to not allow them to get hit in the first place, I almost never wear gloves when I fight and don’t get hit on the hands, In my experience of teaching for over 20 years and previously to that my fathers 30 years is that people look after unprotected hands more than they do when they wear gloves. The gloves give both sides a false sense of security, especially the gloves that most stage combatants wear as they are unpadded and do nothing against a meaningful hit. Though an increase of padding just makes things worse as an increased perception of safety leads to greater risk taking. Hand beats and half swording again can be done fine, even with non rebated weapons without gloves, I have seen no real reason to use them with rebated weapons. I also hear the arguments about chips on the blades etc, but that is not a problem with well maintained blades or those crafted properly.
In regards to moisture, depends on the person, but most people don’t get sweaty hands unless they are either gripping to tightly, or wearing gloves which hold in the heat. As to moisture and possible rust on the sword, that can be dealt with by a quick clean or wipe of the weapons after use, something that should be done anyway, IMO
Hands can get hit, but they are not being specifically targeted and with properly blade placement and parries etc. they are in no more danger danger than another body part. One could argue that same chances of things going wrong could be applied to mistakes leading to face or head hits, yet no one I am aware of recommends that stage combat should be done with fencing masks or eye protection.
It is my belief that the use of gloves is received wisdom, people do it because that is what is done, the reasons for them seems to make sense and no one questions it. Or they receive a hit on the hands, caused in part because of a lack of awareness due to feeling safer in gloves and poor technique and then praise the gloves for having saved the day, rather than looking at the fact that the gloves are a major part in why the hand got hit in first place.

Facts and figures 2012

At the BADC AGM at the end of 2012 there were several reports. Amongst them was one on the number of students that had been examined by the organisation over the year.
767 students went through the various exams
From our point of view the number of our students made some interesting info.

	Total in BADC	Trained by AoF	Percentage of total
Foundation	220	8	3.6%
Standard	425	135	31%
Advanced Completed	29	21	72%
Advanced Single Weapons	52	26	50%
Specialisation	23	19	82%

It is an interesting indication of what we are able to do, particularly  at LAMDA and especially at the higher levels of the process

Why don't things change....

You cannot simultaneously ignore problems and solve them.

This appears to be so obvious that it almost seems pointless to mention it... yet again and again people do just that.
When teaching one finds that students will ask if one can watch them to tell what they need to work on or improve. When you then point out a weakness, many times one gets the response.... "yes yes I know".

Well, no no! If they really knew it was wrong, they would have done several things. They would have recognised it and then in the moment done something to change it, and possibly done the movement again to effect the change in motion. They may also have told me before doing the movements that this thing was something you were having trouble with

The "yes yes, I know" response tells you that the person does not really know, rather have received the information in the past and so when you tell them again they think they know it.

Real knowing, knowledge, changes you and how you behave. Just receiving information doesn't DO anything,  how you use that information is what does something.

To affect a change in yourself you have to be Aware of it!

Fight Night 2013 and exam done...

ANother one done for this year...

95 people through the exam
76 fighters in Fight Night
16 Standards
100 Advanced Modules
27 Specialisations

A lot of work done during that last few weeks....

Overwhelmed but not crushed

Real learning takes place when what you can already do is overwhelmed yet you still succeed, or at least not crushed. You find the your comfort zone by constantly going beyond it.

why the gloves

A bug I have is gloves for stage combat. 

We don't let our students wear them, apart from in unusual circumstances.... 

But  others do, if you look at the States almost all of them, there are a few exceptions, wear long cuffed gauntlets.

Over here in the UK I have increasingly noticed the trend increasing, especially amongst some groups. These however are not gauntlets but generally they are fingerless gym type gloves.

I don't know what real purpose they serve? They offer no protection, and even if they do, learning with protection is counter productive and leads to increased risk taking.

On the occasions when we ask students to wear gloves, such as when they are preparing to perform heavy fights such as axe vs flail, where gloves would be be appropriate, the students, having become used to fighting without them are generally resistant to doing and will prefer to work without

I have heard people ask for gloves because their hands sweat... Personally I have never encountered anyone who hands got so sweaty that they couldn't hold the sword. Also putting gloves on is hardly going going to decrease your hands from sweating.... A problem is also that if you learn, wearing gloves, then that becomes the default and what you are comfortable with, if you then have to work with out gloves you have to adapt to that, and changes a habit is harder than developing one.

Another reason I have heard is sore hands or blisters.... Again that is a problems of gripping the sword too tight or having hands that are not used to being used... So correct the grip and allow the hands to toughen up.

So what are we left with? The cool factor, wearing gloves makes me look cool! Hey you are doing combat, you look cool already! If you don't then the gloves aren't going to help!