Feedback on using sabre coaching methods for longsword

After Tyrnhaw 2024, a group formed to work on fencing and coaching, using methods from the Hungarian ‘school’ of sabre coaching.

Even though this is a fundamentally conventional-fencing1-specific approach, yet our group keeps growing with HEMA/Longsword competitors with different backgrounds and goals, and they seem to be coming back for more.

I have asked the group to write about how this kind of training benefits them, or helps them in their work as a hema fencer or instructor:

Bence Gombás, instructor: 

I think it is amazingly good because it is a much more effective and accurate teaching methodology than the usual hema-teaching. It puts the real situations first, taking into account how a fencer and his opponent move in real life.

In a fencing lesson, it is possible to work personally with a particular fencer, to personally improve his/her movements, to give advice, to work out together tactics that will be most suitable for that particular fencer. In many cases, certain things cannot be taught in pairs practice because the fencers will not know exactly how to give blade, how to move, to get the practice environment right.

Another great advantage of the sabre system is that it deals with concepts that are only present at the level of mention in hema sources. The reason for this may be that the author is withholding information intentionally, but it may also be that the contemporaries could not articulate it in the way it is articulated in the modern fencing system (the reason for this may be that the modern fencing tradition is virtually unbroken, and the hema was reintroduced after half a millennium of fracture). Such is the case with the concept of tempo or correct preparation. Hema sources in many cases when dealing with complex actions are usually always in a bind, but in all cases they are at a short distance.

In contrast, the modern fencing system mostly works with this in the long to medium distance. Complex attacks are launched from long range with timing appropriate to the situation. Basically, modern fencing theory takes great care what happens before there is a possibility of a bind. This is a dimension that is not represented much in hema on a larger scale at competitions, and only to a very limited degree when considering historical sources. However, I think it was certainly part of contemporary fencing, if not expressed (or perhaps not intended). For me, the relationship between hema and modern fencing theory is like historians trying to rebuild a castle based on old descriptions. I don't think they approach it as just applying what is written down, but using what is written down along with the basic modern physics that the people of the past intuitively knew and understood. But these may not have been written down, but passed on by word of mouth. Just think about it, the work you do today, in the age of information, could you learn from documentation/description alone? Or do you need a competent person to help you understand it?

Also, one last point that came to mind: hema education nowadays consists of passing on from one coach to another the teaching methodology (I'm not talking about technical, bookish knowledge, but the means of knowledge transfer) that the club founders came up with 20-30 years ago. This material has evolved over the years with everyone adding their own. There is no framework beyond what fencers need to know by specific milestones. It's not a system, so it's also difficult (if not impossible) to pass on when training new coaches. Usually the way a new coach is trained is to wear the red (or yellow, pink etc) shirt until he learns the habits of his club himself.  The modern fencing system provides a clear path for the training of coaches.

Tamás Gergey, longsword fencer: 

I broadly agree with everything that has been said. 

I'd add that much, perhaps, that a lot of the trivia and subtleties about fencing are not captured in the hema books, and you can either get these skills from experience or from modern fencing. However, modern fencing is backed up by hundreds of years of collective fencing knowledge, as opposed to, say, longsword manuscripts. Which in their own way are unquestionably brilliant, but on the other hand, there is a lot of things that modern fencing has now, that they probably didn't have. E.g. at dawn in wet grass in leather shoes I will definitely not do super cool footwork, which I can do in a modern cushioned heeled rubber-soled shoes in a sportshall. 

Also, the conventional rules of hit priority2 are quite an optimized system, which indicates who made the lesser mistake in the given situation, who made the right decision and executed the technique correctly. 

But let's say in a live situation, it doesn't matter who made the minor mistake if you both die. These things will affect the attitude towards duels and the image of fencing. You won't be endlessly optimising tactics to make the lesser mistake in a given situation.

However, in a modern sporting situation with modern equipment, it is a very useful methodology and teaches valuable things about pace, distance, interpretation of actions, preparation for the Row, which in many ways are HEMA compatible and not available elsewhere. 

Of course, there is also the difference that the longsword by its nature is not strictly a double tempo weapon, unlike the sabre/epee, so the conventional rules of priority, too, can be applied with a small stretch. E.g. the smallsword as it made its way to modern day fencing didn't even evolve into RoW, it became Combat. Probably because there is a lot of displacing thrusts, working in engagement, and the like.

I think that RoW is a very useful and necessary thing in longsword, but it is not an ultimate goal and not a solution for everything.

Réka Csizmadia, instructor:

I agree with both of my fellow fencers who spoke before me, and I’d like to add a few more thoughts of my own.

I’ve already incorporated elements of this training into my beginner group lessons, particularly in paired exercises. I’ve mainly adopted the "stepped" progression—starting from a static position, then from a step, then with a step-lunge, and finally from movement, structuring each practice block accordingly. Of course, this method isn't as effective as one-on-one coaching, but it does allow me to bring a larger group of people to an acceptable skill level in less time.

Since integrating the structured approach we’ve been learning, I’ve noticed that my exercises have a much better framework. The technical drills now follow a logical progression, always building on previous steps, and I usually finish with a decision-making task at the end. During sparring, I make an effort to ensure students actively apply what they’ve been practicing—taking it from drills into live situations.

Thanks to the layered structure of the training, they seem to understand much better why each element is important and how it fits into the bigger picture, compared to when my teaching was less structured. An additional benefit is that if we, as instructors, need to step in for each other, we can easily pick up where the other left off. Since we use the same system, we both know what the next logical step would be, making transitions seamless.

1. dubbed 'Vor' in the European HEMA scene

2. often referred to 'Right of Way' or in short, RoW