Happy New Year!

I guess I'm supposed to do a review of 2025 and a bunch of resolutions for 2026. I might get round to it, but haven't felt any particular urge to so I haven't yet.
Maybe that's my resolution for 2026: Don't do things just because there's a general expectation that I should.

Or not. So moving on, let's consider this question:

What comes first, the treatise or the tournament?

For some historical fencers the answer is obvious- we’re here to study the treatises. Tournaments are an occasionally useful tool to test our training methods and to a much lesser extent our interpretations. For others, it’s the other way round. We’re here to compete in tournaments, and the treatises are an occasionally useful repository of tips and tricks to help with that.

This is a false dichotomy, of course. Most “hema” folk lie somewhere between those two extremes. I think it’s worth examining your beliefs and assumptions in this area, as there is an entirely unnecessary and artificial distinction drawn between ‘historical’ folk and ‘tournament’ folk. I personally sit closer to the treatise end than the tournament end, but my own training priorities are (or should be) frankly irrelevant to anyone else. They don’t necessarily affect how or what I teach.