SCA Combat Curriculum Development - Skill Identification - Heavy

Having discussed the skills that every branch of fighting engages with, I am narrowing my discussion to the specifics of SCA heavy combat and its rule set.  For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that sword-and-shield combat will be the standard; however, great weapon and two-weapon work will likely get their own attention in the fullness of time.  Wherever possible, where terms that may not be obvious to a newcomer are used, I will use an example, not because I expect any newcomers are reading this, but because the goal of this project is to build a lesson plan.

From the ground up, the basic skills of SCA heavy combat are:

1. Stance
2. Footwork
3. Attack
4. Defense
5. Conditioning
   
6. Mental Preparation
   

Each of these deserves its own in-depth post about sub-skill identification and development, but identifying them is a sufficient starting point.  Ideally, any given lesson or drill should reinforce all of these in some form or another for all participants, with a specific focus on one or two depending on whether one is attacker or defender.

Note that this prioritization list is not by importance, but by proximity to the fighting surface.  Each of these should feed the others, and of these, mental preparation is probably the most important, because mental preparation includes knowing the rules and conventions of combat, both written and unofficial, and developing the combative mindset.  I've lost at least one fight because my brain wasn't in the fight at all when "lay on" was called, because I neglected that mental preparation, and I've seen fighters who won the fight before "lay on" was ever called because of that preparation.  In the first case, I forgot the fundamental rules of the game, and in the second, combative mindset was the key to their success.

One thing I have not listed here, because I am of two minds about how to place it, is equipment - knowing the tools for the job is essential for the job, after all, regardless of what the job is.  However, I am deeply divided because of the nature of the SCA itself - is heavy combat a combat sport, or an opportunity to exercise persona development?

The answer is that most fighters fall on a spectrum.  There are left and right limits that are definitely because it is a combat sport - a 100% authentic Norse kit is impossible because of the lack of joint protection on elbows and knees - but some will take a more combat-sport approach to that, some a more persona-based approach.  My approach personally is that putting on my mail shirt, which is totally superfluous by the SCA's ruleset, is part of the mental process of fighting.  Wearing my mail is a signal that I am looking for trouble, because I wouldn't wear it to market day or to work on the farm.  For similar reasons, despite the risks and the higher maintenance requirements, I wear brigandine finger gauntlets and use a crossguard rather than a basket hilt.  These are personal choices, and each fighter needs to determine for themselves where on that spectrum they fall.  Thus, there is no one right, prescriptive answer, even if there are a number of wrong ones.

Additionally, strictly for training purposes, large amounts of equipment are lesson-dependent or completely superfluous.  Helms are not needed for footwork, for instance, and may get in the way of noticing foot behavior.  Similarly, if the lesson of the day is slow work to recognize incoming shot vectors, or to recognize opportunities for a shot, bucklers block much less of both participants' field of view than full-size shields.  On the other hand, sparring requires full gear, and bitter personal experience says that work with exposed hands at any speed requires gauntlets.

Thus, because the skills cover how to use the tools, not what the tools are, equipment selection is a little beyond the scope of this conversation.  It is an excellent conversation to have, and I recommend doing it as part of a persona-development exercise and according to a plan rather than willy-nilly, but this isn't the place for it.

Now, with the basic skills identified, let's take the most basic drill I'm likely to use, and use it as a demonstrator.  To refresh the memory, both participants stand in measure and the following actions take place in the following order, slowly:

Assumed conditions: Fighters are static, in stance and in guard, in range, using bucklers, off-hand weapons, or small to medium shields.

Typical end state: Fighters each execute ten passes of this drill and then switch positions.  If both fighters can complete ten passes satisfactorily with no corrections, increase speed or introduce variations, starting with closure shot variation.  Conclude typically after five sets of passes.

Actions executed:

1. Attacker throws an onside head-level snap (for right-handed on right-handed, this is to the defender's shield-side).
2. Defender punch-blocks the incoming shot (note that two-weapon fighters, lacking a shield, can still punch-block with the off-hand).
3. Attacker rebounds through a teardrop return and throws an onside head-level snap.
4. Depending on iteration of drill, defender punch-blocks, parries, or counterattacks.
   

How does this drill address those skills above?

Bold items indicate places where I feel the drill has a specific focus, rather than an additional component.

Stance - Because the drill is meant to teach very basic levels of technique and mechanics, it is an excellent opportunity to study a student's stance, foot position, and body orientation.

Footwork - The drill at its most basic level is static.  Footwork is not a part of it, but rapidly becomes a part as it scales up.

Attack - The basic attack of SCA heavy combat is the shield-side snap - there are lots of other attacks, but if you can't deliver this one, the others will prove challenging to execute, let alone master.  This occurs twice per drill.  Additionally, the teardrop hip return, using the same hip to generate power on two consecutive shots, is part of the drill.

Defense - I have run this drill two ways - with punch-block and punch-block, and punch-block and sword parry.  The defender, because they are standing in range the whole drill, must defend or be struck.  Note that this drill falls apart a little in the face of a large, static shield, but those aren't the assumed conditions.

Conditioning - Part of teaching the rhythm of fighting is teaching breathing.  A fighter executing this drill properly should be able to do it in one or two breaths depending on speed and timing, exhaling on the strike both times to generate power.

Mental Preparation - This drill teaches what an inbound shot looks like, what the appropriate measure is, the timing of an exchange, and as it scales up it teaches targeting and appropriate reaction.

Thus, even on what I consider a day-one drill that can generally be done safely with minimal equipment and protective gear, executed at very low speed and power, five out of six of the elements identified earlier are in play, and because it is simple to change the drill from static in-range to a closure shot, footwork is the next logical step.

As a final note here, I'd like to point out that, unless it's a step-by-step list of things that must happen in order, like the drill order, my lists are not meant to be definitive.  They are my approach to the problem, not the only approach.  Another writer could equally easily decide, as period combat manuals tend to do, that stance and footwork were a single topic, for instance, or say, as Paul Porter did, that conditioning, while a vital skill, is something you need to develop at your own place and your own pace because there's not enough time in formal training blocks as-is.  I'm taking a slightly different tack, and assuming that I'm working with a willing but completely unskilled student, and that identifying student needs - such as conditioning - is part of the training process on both sides of the line.  I'm also assuming that my end-state isn't to produce a tournament-winning fighter, but a strong enough fighter to train on their own, and to be a fun fight when we spar, rather than both of us being frustrated.  That is, after all, my goal (as part of "a knight who makes knights") - to make more good fighters, not to make one super-fighter.