tournament of the Pheonix

[Stacy Clifford]

The main value I can see in taking part in a competition for points on occasion is the opportunity to test your flexibility to adapt to different circumstances. A good fighter should have enough control to adjust his style to suit the needs of the moment without compromising his overall ability. The slippery slope is giving in to the temptation of training only for the needs of the competition to feel that high of winning and forgetting the reality of the art in its natural (deadly, no holds barred) form. The social rewards of being a "winner" can lead people to some strange and stubborn delusions. Personally I think "survivor" is a much more humble and grounded (not to mention stable) mindset to keep.

[Tom Reynolds]

Stacy Clifford wrote:

The main value I can see in taking part in a competition for points on occasion is the opportunity to test your flexibility to adapt to different circumstances. A good fighter should have enough control to adjust his style to suit the needs of the moment without compromising his overall ability. The slippery slope is giving in to the temptation of training only for the needs of the competition to feel that high of winning and forgetting the reality of the art in its natural (deadly, no holds barred) form. The social rewards of being a "winner" can lead people to some strange and stubborn delusions. Personally I think "survivor" is a much more humble and grounded (not to mention stable) mindset to keep.


Tom Reynolds wrote:

Agreed. Plus, standardized tournament rules in fencing are like standardized tests in education. Both are attempts to independently, objectively, QUANTITATIVELY measure success in learning. The student with the most points is the best student. But is the student in school to learn how to do science, or music, or whatever, or to learn how to take tests?

Standardized testing in education can be a useful tool if creatively employed with other tools. But if pursued too single-mindedly, it can lead to a slippery slope where education is pursued not for real understanding, but for the skill of getting high scores on tests. Which is also an emotional high, just like Stacy says.

But people who get high scores on tests are not necessarily the same people who succeed in "real world" applications of the subject on which they were tested. I am reminded of a TV show I saw a while ago, in which it was pointed out that one of the all-time high scorers on Jeopardy was a US Army lieutenant in his mid-thirties who had flunked the captain's exam something like three or four times. When questioned about it, he smiled sadly and said, "you have to understand. A 'Jeopardy mind' is not necessarily good for anything else."

Like standardized testing in schools, I think standardized tournament rules could be useful if designed and conducted properly. But part of that proper conduct is to remember that, like standardized testing in schools, being good at standardized tournaments is not always the same thing as being good at fighting in real world situations. There are lots of real world variables that simply can't be quantified.