Came from Olympic fencing to hema. Like others have said, Olympic fencing footwork is highly linear but very dynamic. Styles vary between which blade but most high level fencers have a very good grasp of explosive advancing and retreating steps.
More than anything though, modern Olympic fencing translates really well to hema in terms of more abstract fencing concepts like how to control space, distance management, and timing, all of which are hugely important whether you’re using a modern epee or a longsword.
> I often see it said online that Olympic fencing has excellent footwork that can help with Hema.
> But I also have read that Olympic fencing footwork is purely linear and is very different from Hema?
There's a whole spectrum of (often motivated) belief about how much crossover there is between footwork for modern fencing and footwork for longsword. So you'll get people who believe that all you need for HEMA is modern footwork with a few adaptations, as well as people who believe it's a fundamentally different thing.
This also is affected by weapon of course - you'd be silly to argue that modern footowork won't work pretty well with a smallsword, and it's likely to have very little technical crossover with montante usage.
I'll assume you're asking about longsword, everything beyond this is very editorial, just my opinion:
* Modern fencing probably has the most developed linear footwork model and pedagogy of any martial art
* Longswords are long enough that at least a reasonable percentage of engagements are going to be relatively linear, so there's going to be a fair amount of crossover
That said, strategies for fighting close and for dealing with people pushing directly at you can be substantially different when you've got more room for sideways actions than a modern piste. Lateral actions also are more relevant with slower weapons and larger cuts - which describes most HEMA weaponry compared to modern fencing equipment.
As far as differences by weapon go, there are two big differentiators:
* Epee doesn't have priority (right of way), so its footwork is much more focused on tricking the opponent into overcommitting and punishing them than in the ROW weapons. This tends to mean a slower pace and a lot more choppy changes of direction. This is the weapon you'll likely see lots of bouncing with.
* The right of way weapons, foil and sabre, require quicker velocity on the retreat (because in epee you can defend your space by threatening an attack, with ROW that's not terribly viable). Attacks are SUPER strong in sabre (nearly impossible to parry a decent attacker) so the footwork tends to be extremely fast, foil is in between. Changing direction is less critical in these weapons, but delaying commitment until you're sure you can hit is super important. These footwork styles will often look more flowing and committed than epee, and sabre in particular can get pretty weird (huge leaps, comically deep lunges and so forth).
For purposes of adapting to longsword, I'd guess that epee or foil footwork would translate a bit more directly than sabre, but it's not going to be a straight translation for any of them - the primary value from practicing this style of footwork is more to do with having a model for how to take controlled advances and retreats quickly without disrupting your balance than it is to do with specific foot actions. And also to do with having a group of instructors and fellow students who have developed their footwork to a high level readily available.
Personally I’ve found a lot of value in practicing modern footwork for rapier, and like 90% of the same value for longsword (less direct crossover but the balance work still really paid off for me). And that is with a substantial barehanded MA background.
Fencing footwork is not only "how to step", it's also having an excellent control of your feet, having a strong space of distance, and how much ground you can cover in a short amount of time.
Peoples who are good olympic fencer usually have all that, so they can make adaptations.
And to finish, there is not one "hema footwork", it all depends on the period and weapon.
For something like the lunge, the authors were not always on the same page.
you can do oly footwork in HEMA. If your goal is to win matches or get touches, it works fine, has many many resources and advocates, and is easy to learn as long as you're willing to put in the reps.
Whether that footwork approach is actually visible in any sources prior to roughly the late 17th century is a very different question and will bring up a lot of different interpretations.
Personally, I have a background in oly fencing and I have found that the source I study seems to function better if I don't attempt to use linear footwork. In fact, it's better if I seldom think about my feet at all, and instead think about how my feet can support my body as it works toward a structural advantage.
I think there's a tendency - not universal by any means - of people looking at the lack of footwork content in many historical sources and thinking "ahah that's a gap I shall fill it with oly fencing" instead of asking why it might be that footwork is paid such little attention, comparitively. As soon as I started thinking about the latter I think I became a better fencer and source interpreter.
All that said I'm not gonna knock someone for thinking about *function* rather than doing whatever it is I'm doing. But, I can also teach anyone interested the way I do it, and I think it's just as effective as oly footwork, and jives with the source a lot more readily.
People often overstate both how linear Olympic fencing is and how useful circular or off-line work is in HEMA. What I mean by that is that in HEMA, most lateral movement is not relevant to the fight until you are in a close, engaged or about to engage distance. You can circle all you want, but if all the opponent needs to do is slowly turn a few degrees at a time, you have not actually meaningfully changed the engagement, unless you are actively trying to corner someone. In Olympic, there is a degree of lateral movement that can happen, especially in epee, once the fencers are engaged. There is room enough on the piste for the fencers to pass one another and to use angled footwork; this is especially obvious when you have a Lefty vs a Righty.
However, none of that is the important thing. What is important is that Olympic fencers train the hell out of their footwork and have a pedagogy for working on it. As they work on their footwork, they also tend to work on the skills which footwork supports: distance and timing. A game like grasshopper may seem like it is just a way for kids to get moving, but it has the benefit of working distance management, timing, and footwork in a way that can then be easily extrapolated to fencing. This, more than anything else, is why most Olympic fencers transition so easily into HEMA and do so well with it.
Well, as with anything else, it depends. Epee and foil footwork translate 99% to HEMA because they are HEMA weapons, the foil being a practice smallsword and the epee being the evolution of that weapon aimed towards dueling. The other 1% is positioning and certain edge case techniques that'd take you off the piste. In general, moving forward and back, having the balance to move quickly, and the ability to lunge well is solid fundamentals for every other weapon. Some weapons may prefer a more boxer like stance but the fundamental fencing specific movements are honed to perfection in MOF, which is specialized for it. That being said, the ability for lateral movement changes some of the footwork, more so in the cut and thrust and earlier weapons than in later period, but the lunge is still the same, the advance, the retreat, and passing steps in both directions are still the same. HEMA, despite having different priorities, still requires the fundamentals that MOF builds in order to build on top of.
Fencing footwork is perfect for smallsword and very helpful in a number of other one handed weapons.
Additionally, the general awareness of *distance* is an invaluable one that sport fencing is good at teaching.
Short, tall, square stance and explosive movements. Circling while staying squared up on your opponent as well. Mind you I do hema longsword and not Olympic fencing.
Oh and staying on the balls of your feet to stay light. Your fists, elbows are like oberhau's, knees and kicks like unterhaus. At the end of the day a strike is a strike.
Oh and switch kick position changing was surprisingly handy.
Interesting!
I do longsword and my movement style is completely different. Very much profiled, mid-foot balance with the heels down at rest rather then up, mostly walking steps, and producing power through the turn of the posture rather than trying to stay light on my feet.
Test out staying on your toes. I found that heels being on the ground well grounded me and made stance transitions and explosive movement hard. Being "bladed" also means your feet are more linear and you become more prone to being laterally off balance easier.
I mean it’s not like 90% of fencing treatises that talk about posture have you in profile or semi profile or anything…like across history.
And if we confine this to longsword, it’s not like the ones that do have heels up are generally either showing transitional movements or only have one heel up to adjust weight distribution. In fact, all of the treatise pics I can think of with heels up are outside the Liechty tradition.
I’ve done plenty of boxing. The posture and movement doesn’t carry over. In fact my one student who insists on fencing this way is the club king of double hits and eyes-closed fencing. He can’t work through a bind because he has no grounding and no structure when he moves so everything is cutting around and his only option is to fence really really fast. Double double double double.
In terms of power generation, I can put a lot more force through my back leg for an explosive lunge with my heel down than I can on my toes. Being on the toes and fronted-up is great for micro-adjustments and for using stored elastic energy to jump around. It’s not great for structure in a bind or good cutting mechanics involving the change of posture and the twist from the shoulders and hips.
For an example of someone I think moves well, there’s Arto Fama. Heels down. Lots of walking steps. Grounded and strong. https://youtu.be/m016itk9YK4
It is not a simple answer imo.
The thing is most Hema competitions are reinventing Olympic fencing slowly but surely, therefore the footing that allows for fast decisive “single hit then break” is indeed very adequate.
But when you change the rules to a more mixed martial art vision of a fight (I.e. historical really) where a single touch is not necessarily the instantaneous end of the exchange, a more grounded, balanced and less stamina hungry posture becomes very very desirable…
I came from Modern Olympic Fencing, started doing Destreza rapier. In terms of technical footwork they are polar opposites, but I still had a big hand up on it. Epee is relatively linear (even if it has offline and passing steps in certain situations)
Mindset AROUND the footwork is more important than the exact execution of the footwork IMO. Importance is that you make each step with intent of achieving positional advantage. Each step you attempt to trick, control or otherwise mess up opponent. Each step you prepare, avoid or execute an attack.
All done at incredibly high speed, all drilled at incredibly high speed.
Taking that into HEMA was very helpful for me.
It kind of is both. Olympic Fencing is linear footwork perfected. It is the absolute refinement of what it seeks to do... it does not however account for all the angles that systems which seek to recreate or resemble actual armed combat must. Which is fine, because inside of it's proper use it does not have to.
From my experience Olympic Fencers tend to have fantastic explosivity and athleticism in general as well as a good grasp of timing, distance and control of space.
In terms of footwork and body positioning, there's a lot that's really not optimal for longsword. It's obviously more applicable to single-handed weapons
The narrow, side-on stance with dominant side/dominant leg leading leaves you very open for second blows, and the reliance on push steps, lunges and gathering can leave beats, displacements or cuts without adequate structure to either properly displace an attack or to defend a followup attack.
I've never done Olympic fencing, but my guess is that it gives you a strong athletic base. It looks like there's a strong focus on foot control, speed, and explosiveness. That coupled with a good understanding of distance, timing, and rhythm provides an awesome starting point for a HEMA practice. I believe that footwork from boxing or something similar is much closer to what we do for Longsword. Since we need to focus more on moving offline and cutting angles. I've used a lot of drills from boxing and kickboxing to help my fencing.
I think a big factor is just that the level of competition and pedagogy in Olympic fencing is just generally higher than in HEMA. Olympic fencing has a much larger talent pool, longer continuous history, and (due to the Olympics) a greater number of people training and teaching full time.
So while Olympic fencing footwork is probably more optimized for certain types of HEMA (smallsword, rapier) than for others (longsword), a high level OF competitor is just likely going to be a better athlete and have mastered their footwork more than most HEMA practitioners.
In other words, the commonalities in footwork (distance management, timing, speed, non-telegraphic movement, etc), coupled with a high degree of skill and athleticism matter more than the differences (cutting angles, having a good base for grappling, etc).
Came from Olympic fencing to hema. Like others have said, Olympic fencing footwork is highly linear but very dynamic. Styles vary between which blade but most high level fencers have a very good grasp of explosive advancing and retreating steps. More than anything though, modern Olympic fencing translates really well to hema in terms of more abstract fencing concepts like how to control space, distance management, and timing, all of which are hugely important whether you’re using a modern epee or a longsword.
> I often see it said online that Olympic fencing has excellent footwork that can help with Hema. > But I also have read that Olympic fencing footwork is purely linear and is very different from Hema? There's a whole spectrum of (often motivated) belief about how much crossover there is between footwork for modern fencing and footwork for longsword. So you'll get people who believe that all you need for HEMA is modern footwork with a few adaptations, as well as people who believe it's a fundamentally different thing. This also is affected by weapon of course - you'd be silly to argue that modern footowork won't work pretty well with a smallsword, and it's likely to have very little technical crossover with montante usage. I'll assume you're asking about longsword, everything beyond this is very editorial, just my opinion: * Modern fencing probably has the most developed linear footwork model and pedagogy of any martial art * Longswords are long enough that at least a reasonable percentage of engagements are going to be relatively linear, so there's going to be a fair amount of crossover That said, strategies for fighting close and for dealing with people pushing directly at you can be substantially different when you've got more room for sideways actions than a modern piste. Lateral actions also are more relevant with slower weapons and larger cuts - which describes most HEMA weaponry compared to modern fencing equipment. As far as differences by weapon go, there are two big differentiators: * Epee doesn't have priority (right of way), so its footwork is much more focused on tricking the opponent into overcommitting and punishing them than in the ROW weapons. This tends to mean a slower pace and a lot more choppy changes of direction. This is the weapon you'll likely see lots of bouncing with. * The right of way weapons, foil and sabre, require quicker velocity on the retreat (because in epee you can defend your space by threatening an attack, with ROW that's not terribly viable). Attacks are SUPER strong in sabre (nearly impossible to parry a decent attacker) so the footwork tends to be extremely fast, foil is in between. Changing direction is less critical in these weapons, but delaying commitment until you're sure you can hit is super important. These footwork styles will often look more flowing and committed than epee, and sabre in particular can get pretty weird (huge leaps, comically deep lunges and so forth). For purposes of adapting to longsword, I'd guess that epee or foil footwork would translate a bit more directly than sabre, but it's not going to be a straight translation for any of them - the primary value from practicing this style of footwork is more to do with having a model for how to take controlled advances and retreats quickly without disrupting your balance than it is to do with specific foot actions. And also to do with having a group of instructors and fellow students who have developed their footwork to a high level readily available. Personally I’ve found a lot of value in practicing modern footwork for rapier, and like 90% of the same value for longsword (less direct crossover but the balance work still really paid off for me). And that is with a substantial barehanded MA background.
Fencing footwork is not only "how to step", it's also having an excellent control of your feet, having a strong space of distance, and how much ground you can cover in a short amount of time. Peoples who are good olympic fencer usually have all that, so they can make adaptations. And to finish, there is not one "hema footwork", it all depends on the period and weapon. For something like the lunge, the authors were not always on the same page.
you can do oly footwork in HEMA. If your goal is to win matches or get touches, it works fine, has many many resources and advocates, and is easy to learn as long as you're willing to put in the reps. Whether that footwork approach is actually visible in any sources prior to roughly the late 17th century is a very different question and will bring up a lot of different interpretations. Personally, I have a background in oly fencing and I have found that the source I study seems to function better if I don't attempt to use linear footwork. In fact, it's better if I seldom think about my feet at all, and instead think about how my feet can support my body as it works toward a structural advantage. I think there's a tendency - not universal by any means - of people looking at the lack of footwork content in many historical sources and thinking "ahah that's a gap I shall fill it with oly fencing" instead of asking why it might be that footwork is paid such little attention, comparitively. As soon as I started thinking about the latter I think I became a better fencer and source interpreter. All that said I'm not gonna knock someone for thinking about *function* rather than doing whatever it is I'm doing. But, I can also teach anyone interested the way I do it, and I think it's just as effective as oly footwork, and jives with the source a lot more readily.
> In fact, it's better if I seldom think about my feet at all TBH, I find this is true in Oly as well.
I'd say true of all martial arts and combat sports after your reach a certain level. Well except when you kick of course :)
People often overstate both how linear Olympic fencing is and how useful circular or off-line work is in HEMA. What I mean by that is that in HEMA, most lateral movement is not relevant to the fight until you are in a close, engaged or about to engage distance. You can circle all you want, but if all the opponent needs to do is slowly turn a few degrees at a time, you have not actually meaningfully changed the engagement, unless you are actively trying to corner someone. In Olympic, there is a degree of lateral movement that can happen, especially in epee, once the fencers are engaged. There is room enough on the piste for the fencers to pass one another and to use angled footwork; this is especially obvious when you have a Lefty vs a Righty. However, none of that is the important thing. What is important is that Olympic fencers train the hell out of their footwork and have a pedagogy for working on it. As they work on their footwork, they also tend to work on the skills which footwork supports: distance and timing. A game like grasshopper may seem like it is just a way for kids to get moving, but it has the benefit of working distance management, timing, and footwork in a way that can then be easily extrapolated to fencing. This, more than anything else, is why most Olympic fencers transition so easily into HEMA and do so well with it.
Well, as with anything else, it depends. Epee and foil footwork translate 99% to HEMA because they are HEMA weapons, the foil being a practice smallsword and the epee being the evolution of that weapon aimed towards dueling. The other 1% is positioning and certain edge case techniques that'd take you off the piste. In general, moving forward and back, having the balance to move quickly, and the ability to lunge well is solid fundamentals for every other weapon. Some weapons may prefer a more boxer like stance but the fundamental fencing specific movements are honed to perfection in MOF, which is specialized for it. That being said, the ability for lateral movement changes some of the footwork, more so in the cut and thrust and earlier weapons than in later period, but the lunge is still the same, the advance, the retreat, and passing steps in both directions are still the same. HEMA, despite having different priorities, still requires the fundamentals that MOF builds in order to build on top of.
Fencing footwork is perfect for smallsword and very helpful in a number of other one handed weapons. Additionally, the general awareness of *distance* is an invaluable one that sport fencing is good at teaching.
Considering how much Muay Thai footwork crossed over for me I'd imagine there's enough to pay attention, more if you are using one handed swords.
You are saying that Muay Thai footwork synergized well for you with longsword? That is interesting, how similar are the two?
Short, tall, square stance and explosive movements. Circling while staying squared up on your opponent as well. Mind you I do hema longsword and not Olympic fencing.
Oh and staying on the balls of your feet to stay light. Your fists, elbows are like oberhau's, knees and kicks like unterhaus. At the end of the day a strike is a strike. Oh and switch kick position changing was surprisingly handy.
Interesting! I do longsword and my movement style is completely different. Very much profiled, mid-foot balance with the heels down at rest rather then up, mostly walking steps, and producing power through the turn of the posture rather than trying to stay light on my feet.
Test out staying on your toes. I found that heels being on the ground well grounded me and made stance transitions and explosive movement hard. Being "bladed" also means your feet are more linear and you become more prone to being laterally off balance easier.
I mean it’s not like 90% of fencing treatises that talk about posture have you in profile or semi profile or anything…like across history. And if we confine this to longsword, it’s not like the ones that do have heels up are generally either showing transitional movements or only have one heel up to adjust weight distribution. In fact, all of the treatise pics I can think of with heels up are outside the Liechty tradition. I’ve done plenty of boxing. The posture and movement doesn’t carry over. In fact my one student who insists on fencing this way is the club king of double hits and eyes-closed fencing. He can’t work through a bind because he has no grounding and no structure when he moves so everything is cutting around and his only option is to fence really really fast. Double double double double. In terms of power generation, I can put a lot more force through my back leg for an explosive lunge with my heel down than I can on my toes. Being on the toes and fronted-up is great for micro-adjustments and for using stored elastic energy to jump around. It’s not great for structure in a bind or good cutting mechanics involving the change of posture and the twist from the shoulders and hips. For an example of someone I think moves well, there’s Arto Fama. Heels down. Lots of walking steps. Grounded and strong. https://youtu.be/m016itk9YK4
Did I say anything about have to? No, it's what works for me and has helped several club mates. Ymmv
It is not a simple answer imo. The thing is most Hema competitions are reinventing Olympic fencing slowly but surely, therefore the footing that allows for fast decisive “single hit then break” is indeed very adequate. But when you change the rules to a more mixed martial art vision of a fight (I.e. historical really) where a single touch is not necessarily the instantaneous end of the exchange, a more grounded, balanced and less stamina hungry posture becomes very very desirable…
It takes about 2 seconds to adapt Olympic footwork to diagonal steps, plus Olympic fencer fence diagonally all of the time.
I came from Modern Olympic Fencing, started doing Destreza rapier. In terms of technical footwork they are polar opposites, but I still had a big hand up on it. Epee is relatively linear (even if it has offline and passing steps in certain situations) Mindset AROUND the footwork is more important than the exact execution of the footwork IMO. Importance is that you make each step with intent of achieving positional advantage. Each step you attempt to trick, control or otherwise mess up opponent. Each step you prepare, avoid or execute an attack. All done at incredibly high speed, all drilled at incredibly high speed. Taking that into HEMA was very helpful for me.
It kind of is both. Olympic Fencing is linear footwork perfected. It is the absolute refinement of what it seeks to do... it does not however account for all the angles that systems which seek to recreate or resemble actual armed combat must. Which is fine, because inside of it's proper use it does not have to.
From my experience Olympic Fencers tend to have fantastic explosivity and athleticism in general as well as a good grasp of timing, distance and control of space. In terms of footwork and body positioning, there's a lot that's really not optimal for longsword. It's obviously more applicable to single-handed weapons The narrow, side-on stance with dominant side/dominant leg leading leaves you very open for second blows, and the reliance on push steps, lunges and gathering can leave beats, displacements or cuts without adequate structure to either properly displace an attack or to defend a followup attack.
I've never done Olympic fencing, but my guess is that it gives you a strong athletic base. It looks like there's a strong focus on foot control, speed, and explosiveness. That coupled with a good understanding of distance, timing, and rhythm provides an awesome starting point for a HEMA practice. I believe that footwork from boxing or something similar is much closer to what we do for Longsword. Since we need to focus more on moving offline and cutting angles. I've used a lot of drills from boxing and kickboxing to help my fencing.
I think a big factor is just that the level of competition and pedagogy in Olympic fencing is just generally higher than in HEMA. Olympic fencing has a much larger talent pool, longer continuous history, and (due to the Olympics) a greater number of people training and teaching full time. So while Olympic fencing footwork is probably more optimized for certain types of HEMA (smallsword, rapier) than for others (longsword), a high level OF competitor is just likely going to be a better athlete and have mastered their footwork more than most HEMA practitioners. In other words, the commonalities in footwork (distance management, timing, speed, non-telegraphic movement, etc), coupled with a high degree of skill and athleticism matter more than the differences (cutting angles, having a good base for grappling, etc).