There is a great deal of discussion online and in person regarding a practice used widely in the SCA called "Calibration." Calibration is in essence a way to limit the amount of force of our hits on one another, and is used to try to ensure a mutually understood method of freeplay. While the SCA uses it, you won't find too many people in the HEMA community using it, and I felt like I should outline why, and to relay some of the thoughts on ensuring mutual respect and safety in the Lansing Longsword Guild.
In essence, what I’m arguing is that calibration is not an effective measure of the quality of a hit in a HEMA context. This is because the shared fiction of fencing in HEMA is different than that of the SCA and, more importantly, the weapon simulator used has completely different mechanical and geometric properties. I’m going to explain what I mean by “shared fiction.” Shared fiction is the fantasy headspace that we all enter into when we agree to fence one another. The default, for HEMA, is “blossfechten” or “open-fencing” or more simply, unarmored fencing. This implies that we are pretending that each fighter is wearing normal street clothes, without a helmet or other pieces of armor, and that the fight is “earnest” or will end when one or both men are maimed or dead.
There can be differences. For instance, I have recently begun fencing often under a “fechtschule” ruleset, in which the shared fiction is that while both fighters are unarmored, the fight is in a sporting context, not an earnest one, and the fight will end when a strike lands with sufficient force to form a “bloom” on the opponent’s head. So what does this mean in relation to calibration? Calibration is a uniform assessment of an appropriate application of force. It says that strikes with such and such loosely defined force count as quality, while those that go above or below that metric do not count - as either unsportingly hard or too weak to damage the other fencer.
In the shared fiction of the SCA, this makes sense. The shared fiction there is that each fencer is armored and fighting in earnest. In order for a blow to damage an opponent, it must present enough percussive force to either cut through the armor or to break bones underneath (or so I’ve been told - those with SCA experience please correct me if I am wrong). So an assessment of the amount of appropriate force makes sense.
It also makes sense in relation to the weapon simulators commonly used in the SCA. Wooden sticks wrapped in tape with complex hilts to help protect the hands stand in for swords. Given the nature of the tool, it is difficult if not impossible to assess the cutting potential of a cut, and so calibration assesses the force applied. It is a decent way to control for quality and to keep fencers safe. But the limitation is that calibration is solely concerned with the amount of force applied. How much force needs to be exerted in order to score an acceptable hit? The question almost always becomes “how hard should I hit?” The flipside is, I think, the more important question: “how hard does a hit need to be for me to recognize its maiming/killing potential in the shared fiction of the bout?”
This is where the shared fiction differences between the SCA and HEMA are most opposed, I think. A lethal or debilitating blow on a man wearing armor is going to be different than that with a man without. But this is also where things like structure of the cut, edge alignment, and intention come into play. It is not enough to simply touch the other guy, even outside of armor, but to touch with the sharp edge aligned along the same axis as the motion of the sword, swung with control and intent, at a specific part of the body. Because of the different weapon simulators used in HEMA, either blunt longswords or feders, we can relatively easily assess whether or not a cut was aligned properly, or whether it hit with the flat or was otherwise arrested in its harmful potential. It comes down to honest assessment on both fighters parts. That assessment should be done with at least a passing understanding of the sword’s potential as a lethal tool. It is, inherently, a tool, and the tool should be used with an understanding that its edge and point should be utilized in a manner that engages those elements most favorably. A sword does not need to move very fast in order to cut effectively. This is why many cuts - especially to the hands or arms - would be considered very light by SCA standards. But providing, again, that the cut’s structure was sound - and not just a lazy tap - the cut should be considered effective.
But again, this is relative. It’s why you’ll see friendly bouts with HEMA guys frequently including little chats in the middle of the fighting area. “Hey I felt something on my hand, but I’m not sure if it was good or not, what do you think?” “Nah man, it was incidental, just tapped it on the way out with my flat, no good.” And then they go back to fencing. Or, even better, after an exchange, one fencer might just say “Nope, my hit was bullshit, keep fencing.”
This requires honesty and a commitment to quality fencing on the part of both fencers, something I think all fencers and clubs and fencing organizations should strive for.
That’s why we don’t use calibration as the method of distinguishing a good hit. Both fighters attempt to assess the quality of each blow as it happens. Most are easy - either it hit or it didn’t, either the edge was aligned or it wasn’t, and it was either intentional or not - but some get thorny, and that’s where the goal of the bout comes into play. What’s the point of the current bout? Is it for fun? For training a certain set of concepts or techniques? To “win”? Each of these impose a subtly different structure on the nature of the bout, and each will have their own level of intensity, and their own strictures on what would make an acceptable hit. In any type of friendly bout, a messy exchange gets tossed out. No big deal, no worries, no hurt feelings or bruised egos. Fencing is difficult, and even the best fencers take doubles or incidental contact. Move past it. No one here should be fighting friendly, club-level bouts with their ego at stake. All bouts should be done with an eye toward improving each other’s fencing as honestly as we can. Meyer talks about the use of skill and craft in a bout, with two opponents striving against one another: "ein wunderbarliche kampf" or "A wonderful struggle." He does not see, outside earnest fencing, the need for anything but skill, dexterity, and craft in opposing your partner.
In terms of assessing a hit: I understand that ambiguities are frustrating, and I understand that not having a quantitative standard can be confusing, but the reason they are not there is because fencing is difficult and chaotic, and any attempt to standardize a level of force is bound to be gamed for advantage, which will further insulate us from what we want to do with HEMA. Furthermore, assessing a hit based on force alone is ineffective, given the sophistication of our weapon simulators. If you feel like you took a hit that wouldn
So, moving forward:
It is always acceptable to tell your opponent that they are fencing too hard
It is always acceptable to tell your opponent to stop
It is always acceptable to tell your opponent that they are hitting too lightly
It is always acceptable to tell your opponent that you didn’t feel their hit
It is always acceptable to tell your opponent that you thought their hit was garbage
It is always acceptable to tell your opponent that you thought your hit was garbage
It is always acceptable to tell your opponent that you don’t want to fence them, for any reason
Anything you do to another person requires that person’s consent. What we do comes with the inherent risk of injury, which is why gear requirements are so strict, and why verbal communication between fighters is so important.