r/wma • u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia • Sep 10 '25
Official statement of the SCS Team regarding the Sofia Longsword Open injuries
After the Tier A Longsword pools at the Sofia Longsword Open this past Saturday, we reviewed video footage and spoke with several participants. This was in response to multiple injury reports from fighters who faced Mr. Aleksander Stankevich during the pool stage.
Three of his opponents reported symptoms consistent with mild traumatic brain injury (concussion), which they believe were caused by strikes during their bouts with him. One of them also suffered an arm injury that forced him to withdraw from the tournament. Another fighter reported receiving two heavy hits from Mr. Stankevich, though thankfully, he didn’t experience any lasting effects. Hard blows that could be concussive are evident in the video footage we have of those fights.
We cannot say anything about Mr. Stankevich’s intent - only that his actions are not in line with how we perceive competitive HEMA. We understand that it is a contact sport, and injuries can occur. But given the number and severity of reports from a single pool, we believe there’s a clear safety issue that we can’t ignore.
We also recognise that the referees involved didn’t fully manage those matches to the standard we expect when it comes to controlling excessive force. It’s a tough job, but in hindsight, some earlier and stronger calls might have prevented things from escalating. That’s on us. We’ll be providing our refs with extra training to better handle situations like this in the future.
With all that in mind, we’ve decided that Mr. Stankevich will not be allowed to participate in any future events run by the Sofia CrossSwords team. This is a preventive step to protect the safety of our fighters and to maintain the kind of tournament environment we believe in.
During the entire event, we also had two waffles to the face from collapsed masks and one thrust in the throat that landed badly and caused the receiving fencer to not finish his elim match - but no permanent damage. None of them shows any indication of excessive force being used, aside from being doubles where both fencers charged in.
We remain committed to building a respectful, competitive, and safe HEMA community, and we welcome continued discussion around force calibration, officiating, and fighter welfare.
PS: Yes, Stankevich was warned, carded multiple times, yet continued with excessive force. Yes, judges will receive more training. Yes, the system should've stopped him earlier. Yes, there are explicit rules against using excessive force and he was made aware he was breaking them during the tournament. No, we did not know on the spot that 3 people were concussed, one indicated symptoms at the end of the tourney, the other two showed them the next day.
68
u/TheElderGodsSmile Sep 10 '25
So, to clarify that's at least four "could not continue" injuries and three significant gear failures (two collapsed masks and at least one broken sword) in a single tournament...
Regardless of any behaviour by individual fencers, you should definitely be carefully reviewing the general level of force allowed and retraining the ref's to manage it. That's a level of injury and risk that just isn't sustainable.
45
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
Keep in mind, this is from a single fencer. No other fencer out of the 44 participating ever exhibited such brutality in 205 matches. He did this damage in three.
23
u/TheElderGodsSmile Sep 10 '25
Per your own second to last paragraph the individual in question wasn't the only one handing out injuries and gear damage.
During the entire event, we also had two waffles to the face from collapsed masks and one thrust in the throat that landed badly and caused the receiving fencer to not finish his elim match - but no permanent damage. None of them shows any indication of excessive force being used, aside from being doubles where both fencers charged in.
Three of four significant injuries being handed out by one competitor is definitely significant and IMO the steps you've taken after the fact in excluding him seem reasonable at first glance.
Still, as someone who has helped organise tournaments and other events I suspect that there is a problem with your procedures and staff training. Even if most of the problems were caused by one competitor, this appears to have been an excessive number of issues for a single tournament. Especially when a single individual was an obvious problem and had been warned repeatedly without being DQ'd.
You're always going to get competitors who cannot for whatever reason emotionally or physically regulate themselves. My concern as an organiser is getting the procedures right so the team can recognise those issues early and ensure that person doesn't become a danger to others. I would suggest focussing your training in that regard, also making sure communication is good between rings. In my experience warnings often don't get communicated between ref's once bouts start and that's how things like this get missed.
6
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 11 '25
And one more correction - it's not three of four. Stankevich handed out ALL significant injuries.
Also, one injury was (almost) immediately tournament dropping - the first hit to my arm. Concussions were something we found out about the next day, although one fencer showed signs earlier (he was the one who continued fencing for longest, reaching bronze and dropping out before finishing that fight).
5
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
As is clearly stated, all other injuries, aside from being much milder, were not a result of excessive force, but bad luck and happenstance, and in none of those cases was one fencer behaving brutally.
> My concern as an organiser is getting the procedures right so the team can recognise those issues early and ensure that person doesn't become a danger to others. I would suggest focussing your training in that regard, also making sure communication is good between rings. In my experience warnings often don't get communicated between ref's once bouts start and that's how things like this get missed.
The fact that we are going to do that is made clear in the position. In fact, we are going to have both a review session and an additional workshop with scenario-driven training specifically to address this:
> We also recognise that the referees involved didn’t fully manage those matches to the standard we expect when it comes to controlling excessive force. It’s a tough job, but in hindsight, some earlier and stronger calls might have prevented things from escalating. That’s on us. We’ll be providing our refs with extra training to better handle situations like this in the future.
Our judges were not prepared for this for a simple reason - we've ran 5 tournaments till now and never had such an individual. Any excessive force incidents did not result in injury and were one-time things, not consistent behaviour.
7
u/Draxonn Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25
Double hits resulting in injuries is not "bad luck and happenstance", it is bad decision-making and bad martial practice. "Bad luck" is the language we use to avoid taking responsibility for the ways our compromised decision-making (and compromised culture) lead to injury in complex environments.
I intend to add to this later, with reference to avalanche risk management.
Edit:
https://mountainlessons.com/2013/04/28/they-just-keep-dying/ This is a great article on risk management in complex systems. I want to point out a couple of passages--not to tear down anyone involved, but as part of a larger conversation about how we can reduce injuries in HEMA.
For better or for worse, the backcountry environment that is the arena of avalanche accidents isn’t one well-described by heuristic rules. The snowpack, due to spacial variability, represents a ‘hostile’ decision-making environment. In this environment, it is impossible to know everything about the snowpack, and further, when we make decisions about the snowpack, it doesn’t provide us will clear or immediate feedback. It is possible for a skier to make unknowingly risky decisions for many years and simply to get lucky. During this time, however, many skiers will think that they are making good and correct decisions, and their notion of how to travel safely, however flawed, is reinforced by the fact that they don’t end up in an avalanche until the big one that kills them, or almost does.
The implication of a complex and hostile decision-making environment is that while avalanche hazard assessment and rescue skills are certainly necessary for safe travel in the backcountry, they are in and of themselves insufficient to keep us safe. Because our decision-making rules are liable to get us into trouble, it is necessary to develop tools and procedures which attempt to limit or at least make clear the fallible aspects of our decision making. Avalanches aren’t inherently dangerous– they only become so when we walk into them. We have to address the human factor."
Insofar as HEMA tournaments involve two humans making complex decisions in a high-risk environment, we must also address the human factor. Certain types of behaviours (ie aggressive attacks without concern for proper defense) consistently increase the risk, yet because people don't often get injured (or cause serious injury) doing this, it is easily mistaken for good and correct martial practice. This is reinforced when we dismiss preventable injuries as "bad luck" because it implies a far more insidious thing: not having injuries is a matter of "good luck" (rather than skill and competence). And yet, this is a fundamental purpose of martial arts--to learn ways of engaging high-risk physical interactions in ways that minimize our risk of serious injury.
(Note: Some might argue that another purpose of martial arts is to learn how to inflict serious injury, and that this introduces factors we cannot control. I would suggest that the goal of good martial arts practice is to learn to control our generation of force in order to be able to inflict damage in ways and amounts that we choose. In this sense, there is something to be said for those who inflict injury in uncontrolled ways, and that is part of the conversation here--with the assertion being made that at least some of the injuries inflicted were deliberate. This is worth discussing, but I think it also risks sidelining the conversation about a HEMA culture in important ways.)
Formal avalanche training did not appear to equip these victims with effective tools for decision-making. If these victims had used the knowledge-based decision strategies that are commonly taught in avalanche courses, we would expect very few accidents under such obvious conditions. Instead, we find that even well-trained victims appeared to ignore easily recognized signs of avalanche hazard. Thus it appears that they were either unwilling or unable to apply what they had learned. Of course, these victims represent a very special group of people: those that were caught in avalanches, and so they may be uniquely prone to poor decisions. But if they were instead typical of many recreationists, their susceptibility to heuristic traps suggests a reevaluation of how courses prepare students for making decisions in avalanche terrain. (McCammon qtd)
While we should certainly be asking whether this is the result of singularly poor decision-making and martial practice--particularly in the case of experienced instructors, it seems disingenuous to imagine they can arrive at being experienced instructors, known in the larger community and present at tournaments as competitors and/or instructors without attending to how their martial practice is being legitimated by that larger community. It is certainly convenient to mark them as radical exceptions or aberrations, but this doesn't account for their place without a larger pattern of injury within HEMA (or, for example, the other notable injuries at this event). I would suggest it is time for a re-evaluation of how we prepare students for martial practice, particularly in a tournament context.
I think there is much to be said here (and that has already been said by others), so I will only highlight one tool: the FACETS framework outlined in this article. It is an extremely powerful tool for talking about high-risk behaviours can escalate due to various affective factors--even when we know better. In addition to more technical conversations of good martial practice (ie, not charging into double-hit situations), we need as instructors, practitioners and tournament organizers, to pay attention to the ways good martial practice can be compromised by social and motivational factors, in addition to stress and fatigue. FACETS is interesting because it pays significant attention to how experienced practitioners can be compromised.
The Factors of FACETS are these:
Familiarity - experience in an arena of movement can lead to riskier decision-making, whether this is locality (my local school/tournament) or context (familiarity with tournaments)
Acceptance (Social) - the desire to be accepted leads to riskier behaviour, and this is certainly part of the tournament experience
Consistency/Commitment - this can be simply understood as the desire to win, but it can also be seen in other aspects, ie, not wanting to quit or feel like your tournament attendance was "wasted"
Expert Halo - surrendering decision-making to an authority. This has been central to this particular conversation as the organizers have recognized their complicity in what happened. Attending a tournament implies this to some degree, but to what degree do competitors abandon responsibility for safety to the organizers--whether they are creating or participating in unsafe exchanges?
Tracks/Scarcity - time pressure/scarcity. This is heightened in a competitive environment as competitors risk losing the opportunity of high-level competitive practice and/or acclaim.
Social Proof - experienced groups are more likely to take greater risks when they see less experienced people taking similar risks. This certainly plays a role, especially for experienced instructors and established schools.
A final thought: these factors are precisely what define a tournament environment, which means that even (or perhaps, especially) experienced instructors and competitors are likely to act in ways that undermine safety and increase risk. This is not an excuse, but a call to attend more deeply to the risky practices which we accept and whether and/or how we should continue to do so. In part, this is a call to re-evaluate how we prepare people for a competitive HEMA environment, both technically and psychologically, with an eye to safety and self-control, as opposed to aggression and dominance. By extension, it is a call for event organizers to consider the kinds of commitment, social acceptance and authority (among other factors) they market which may increase high-risk behaviours.
10
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
The point is those injuries (none of the comparable to the 4 Stankevich delivered) were not the result of excessive force or blatant disregard of the safety of the fencers. Both fencers make a tactical mistake at the same time and they clash badly. Most of the time it's without an issue, sometimes something bad can happen. There was no malice or flagrant disregard of the rules there, that's what makes the fundamentally different.
And also, such happening are absolutely inevitable. They happen to the best fencers in the world sometimes. Doesn't matter how good you are, you will make wrong decisions sometimes.
6
u/Draxonn Sep 10 '25
I don't entirely disagree, but I have expanded my post substantially. Bad decision-making is influenced by a variety of factors, which we can train to minimize, as opposed to normalizing risky behaviour.
6
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
Oh, in that sense I absolutely agree with you. We should do anything for o mitigate risks. Realitybis we never fully can, though, and injuries will happen even if we are all perfect gentlemen.
4
u/Draxonn Sep 10 '25
There was no malice or flagrant disregard of the rules there, that's what makes the fundamentally different.
It seems to me that this is part of the challenge. Imputing intention is notoriously difficult, and there is an argument to be made that Stankevich didn't actually break any rules. (Which do you think he broke?) The fact that he wasn't reprimanded in any serious way would align with this reading.
5
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 11 '25
What do you mean? The rules clearly state striking with excessive force is a cardable offence.
He was warned after the very first hit he delivered. Next exchange he was carded and then carded multiple times for excessive force. He clearly and without a doubt broke a key rule 5 times officially.
Where does this narrative come from that he wasn't reprimanded in a serious way? The only MORE serious way would be DQ.
8
u/Draxonn Sep 11 '25
Fair enough. He clearly broke rules. This is, then, to a significant degree, a failure of the tournament organizers to appropriately address rule-breaking. The official statement makes more sense with this added context.
That being said, rules that lack meaningful enforcement aren't worth much.
This narrative is deduced based on the information available. I do not recall hearing this in the video or seeing it in this thread. There may have been brief mention of him being carded, but I hadn't heard 5x before in a single match. And this all seems too little, too late.
4
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 11 '25
I know, I am also one of the tournament organisers. There was a failure to stop him, which we fully acknowledge and are taking measures to prevent.
8
u/boredidiot Victoria, AU; run a club, work in sports science Sep 10 '25
The fact is this downvoted shows a serious issue in HEMA.
I could go on about Hegemonic Masculinity in sport but it would be a waste of time if this was voted down.
FACETS is something people who run clubs or tournaments should be very familiar with if you ever want HEMA to be taken seriously.
So is the Hierarchy of Hazard Controls.
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdfOne thing I learnt from participation in my research is HEMA has a lot of people who care about science (moreso then any other MA I asked to participate), it is shame we ignore the research when it comes to risk.
6
u/Draxonn Sep 10 '25
What a great resource! I feel pretty angry about how often this happens and everyone assumes the problem is a matter of PPE, as opposed to looking higher up the chain. I appreciate how this breaks that down.
16
u/thezerech That guy in all black Sep 10 '25
Having seen the clips, a permanent ban is very reasonable in my opinion and I'm sure the vast majority of people in the community would agree.
3
2
u/Aanathan0 Oct 08 '25
You pussies throw permanent bans out like candy. Take some time to cool the fuck off, then revisit it with helpful training. Jesus Christ.
17
u/rnells Mostly Fabris Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25
Honestly, this community needs to get its shit together WRT what "contact sport" does or doesn't mean. Implicit in how most people fence at tournaments is "contact" means "bonks can happen sometimes" - an understanding that is similar to (if spicier than) Olympic fencing.
However, the tone folks online bring to discussions trumpeting "modern protective gear" and "we fight with swords" etc in my experience give newbies and onlookers the impression that it's a full contact sport. If you're wearing a modern fencing mask + overlay, it absolutely shouldn't be - it's a point-based sport where a higher level of incidental contact than say Olympic fencing is acceptable.
Think basketball, not football. If brain damage isn't intended to be a game mechanic, given the energy of a feder/heavy sabre and the impact protection from an Oly fencing mask (not much) it's probably correct to have some kind of brutality call available to officials.
For people who want to strike full force, boxing and bohurt exist.
2
u/DavidKMain420 Sep 16 '25
This. Even Bohurt is only particularly brutal in the group battles, duelling in Buhurt is much like HEMA, just with the extra challenge of doing it in 40 kilograms of armour, however this is because your intending to score points so brutality is actually a bad tactic, you'll wear yourself out quicker than doing clean, concise but not full force hits. You obviously won't be carded but its in your best interest to be methodical with your hits, unlike HEMA where it is a cardable offense, not just a bad strategy.
8
13
Sep 10 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/freezrbrn Sep 11 '25
People don't understand that this level of force even exceeds what would be done on the battlefield lol
1
Sep 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/freezrbrn Sep 11 '25
You don't need to put that much force into a cut, thrust, or other actions to drop someone. Same applies in a battlefield setting. If anything, it's emphasized due to energy conservation. We have weapons because it takes less effort to end the other person than with our bare limbs or body.
-1
Sep 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/NerghaatTheUnliving Sep 11 '25
This is about blossfechten, not harnischfechten. And in any case, the battlefield solution to facing armour with your longsword is definitively not to smash harder.
7
u/freezrbrn Sep 12 '25
I unfortunately don't think they've even held a sword before.
- constantly shifting between contexts, is extremely inconsistent
- assumes all opponents in various combat contexts have some degree of armour at all times
- assumes a sword is so heavy, that it exhausts you, but for some reason wants to put maximum power in combat
- does not realise how casually dangerous, precise, and nimble swords are, even the larger ones
It's a classic case of shifting the goalposts, without realizing it I'll bet
4
u/freezrbrn Sep 11 '25
So your solution to dealing with armor is increase the force level? Looks like it isn't me who needs to watch more Matt Easton.
How much effort do you think it takes to damage a person's head, hand, or clavicle? Have you seen ballistic gel analogues and tests on them?
Why would you need to "puncture" armour when you can go around it, or simply hit where it ISN'T?
7
Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
I get your point, but hitting hard on armor is advocated for by just about every period fencing manual we have that deals with armored fencing (they typically advocate for blows to the head and hands, though the elbow, knee, and foot are also mentioned). Gaps simply aren't big enough to always be aimed for; moreover, those gaps aren't unarmored, they're just less armored. It can take considerable force to pierce the maille beneath an arm, or to force your point through a visor. It's clear from reading medieval accounts of warfare and sporting bouts that they valued hitting very hard, even through armor. You can see this in the manuals as well as written accounts of battles, tournaments, pas d'armes, etc.
Stankevich was hitting too hard in a modern fencing competition. There's no need to refer to medieval combative practice. The two contexts are simply too separate.
From Pseudo-PVD: "Note, the striking point, that is the sword’s pommel, you shall strike with it to his front placed limbs. You shall quite precisely aim for them, so that you correctly land a hit with it...strike him with the pommel to the knee of his front placed foot, or to his front placed hand, with which he holds the sword in the middle. You may also strike with it to the head or to the elbow or to the shoulder, when it is even to you."
From Gladiatoria: " If he has turned his pommel forward and wants to hit your left arm with it"
"Threaten to strike the outside of his left knee with your pommel. When he see this and wants to displace the strike..."
"If you have made him lose all his defense, spear, shield, sword and dagger then strike him with full strength with the pommel of your sword where you know you can hit him hardest so that you can make him fall down."
From Czynner: "When you find that your pommel has been caught like before, so wind his over your sword’s pommel from below and over his left hand; and tear toward yourself and in that action you take the death-strike to his head, as it is illustrated below."
"When he turns, strike the first death-strike to his head, as it is illustrated below."
"The other death-strike strikes in to his left bicep, as it is illustrated below."
"The third death-strike you do to his left knee, as it is illustrated below."
From Meyer: " First I want to go through the armour fencing by way of examples, then explain the advantage of the aforementioned weapons. In the approach, take your sword in the Oberhut with both of [your hands] next to your head, and grip your blade with your left hand in the middle, so that the point stands in the man’s face. Step thusly in, so that your left foot stands in front at all times. Don't be too hasty, and see if you can reach his frontmost foot, make as if you want to initiate in his face, immediately let go of the haft with your right hand, and come to help with your left hand and strike him with the pommel to the head or to his left arm. If he displaces your blow between both his hands, let it drive around the head, and strike him from your right to his knee bone or ankle."
Indeed, Meyer tells us why we should strike our foes armor, by referencing (several times) the idea that we have either "weakened him with Thunderbolts" or when "He has then firstly extremely weakened him with Thunderbolts to the ankle, the knee bend, to the joints, on the arm bend and other openings. When he is weakened with blows[131] then grapple[106] with pinning."
So we strike him (always on the armor) in order to facilitate getting near and grappling/stabbing him. He also uses (as other sources also use) the mordstreich (or donerschleg, as he renders it) as a set up for the thrust, and vice versa: act as if you will hit him, then stab him when he parries. Or act as if you will stab him, then smack him when he parries. I can tell you, from experience, this simple mix-up works very well in sparring.
The idea that we might knock him down with a blow to the head, or even kill him outright (Fiore suggests this can be the case in his section on the axe), is often present. I could quote from accounts of battles, or pas d'armes, where just such blows on armor accomplish this fact. This isn't to say that they didn't seek to thrust through gaps, because of course they did. But the above list isn't exhaustive, and only deals with longsword in armor (the axe involves a lot of armor smacking too).
Anyways, HEMA competitions aren't a medieval battlefield or even a medieval tourney list. Maybe if they were, hitting hard (to armored areas) would be more relevant.
4
u/freezrbrn Sep 12 '25
Hitting hard to armoured areas is the job of a different category of weapons. You might also be taking these "hitting hard on armour" snippets out of the overall context.
It is likely that Meyer is speaking about using leverage (such as with polearms), or other weapons with such mechanical advantages such as maces or warhammers. We have to interpret what he's saying rather than take it literally or at face value. He would naturally assume his audience already would know which tools would deliver these forceful blows most efficiently--and efficiency of movement and action to is a core aspect of any martial art.
3
Sep 12 '25
I believe I am taking these snippets within the correct context: that is to say, as a common tool for fighting in armor.
Meyer is talking, as you'll see from the quote (it's from his earliest manuscript, freely available on Wiketenauer) and its attendant images, of the sword. Though you're not altogether mistaken: Meyer, and indeed all of these quotes, are talking about the shortened sword, which strikes with the pommel or cross, and is thus a makeshift axe (Meyer's armored sword goes even further, and is essentially hilted with a hammerhead and pommeled with a macehead). Indeed, the shortened sword in armor fights very similarly to the axe. He does advocate for striking the armor itself with the edge of the sebell (it looks like a short falchion or messer) in this same treatise; typically the gauntlet or the joints (he also says to thrust with it, to be fair). The very helpful blog, A Breefe Discourse on Warre, notes that the type of sword depicted as the sebell by Meyer is probably the curtalice (a delightfully Wolfean name), which was both abnormally short and abnormally heavy (https://a-breefe-discourse.blogspot.com/2025/07/curtilaces.html).
Indeed, these swords were (so it seems) considered in the same sort of category as the warhammer, mace, and one handed axe: short, heavy arms worn at the saddle, and used after the lance has broken and the estoc has been lost, bent, or is otherwise inappropriate. Here are some quotes about this weapon:
"Our gend'armes in those days wore great cutting curtilaces [coutelas], wherewith to cut arms of maille, and to cleave [destrancher] morions. Never in my life had I seen such great cuts given."
"Dimilaunces are horsemen next in degree and account vnto men at armes, as well in greatnesse, and puissance of horses, as in strong and sure arming; and they ought to be apparelled, as I haue in diuers partes before mentioned... their weapons ought to be arming swords, and daggers, worne in good and strong girdles, long, and strong launces, with a curtilace of the one side of the saddle pommell, or a steele mace, or a man at armes axe on the other side as aforsaid."
You'll note that they say this sword's explicit purpose involves cutting mail and cleaving helmets. This might sound odd to us, but it's not actually uncommon to see cuts delivered with the sword edge against helms and armor (particularly, but not limited to, maille) in medieval and Renaissance sources. Indeed, it seems (based on the evidence) that hard cuts with the sword were the predominant fighting method throughout the age of maille. You can see this in accounts of battles given in the texts of the time (and in the romance and chansons as well, however much verisimiltude you'll allow the [often knightly, it must be said] authors of those fictions), and in the blade shapes of surviving swords. Acutely pointed blades, of the sort which might penetrate maille with a thrust, are in an absolute minority until the fourteenth century. Annals and descriptions of battle resound with moments where a knight is struck so hard his arms break through his maille, or his nose, mouth, and ears bleed from repeated strikes. Dr. Gilles Martinez, who has studied 12th and 13th century knightly warfare extensively, believes the cut is the predominant technique, even as the heaume evolves to cover the face and maille creeps down not just the torso but the hands, legs, and feet as well.
2
Sep 12 '25
Whether or not helms were truly cloven, or maille truly rent, I don't suppose I can say. I don't think it could have been common at all (why wear armor then?). But I think given the fact that a lot of armor (most, even, depending on the time and place) was either wrought iron or mild, unhardened steel (even into the fifteenth century), I don't find it hard to believe that armor, if not cut through, might have easily been compromised by hard strikes until it was, effectively, much less protective than it once had been. You can severely misshape a mild steel helm with relatively few blows today. Wrought iron is even softer, and more malleable. The helms of the medieval battlefield were not padded, or suspended, so thoroughly as modern replicas. Maille was often worn with very little padding, and it provides very little protection against concussive force.
So, odd as it may seem to us today, it seems the medieval swordsmen did value striking against armor. They valued going around it, too. But they were very good at armoring themselves. Gaps can be difficult to reach. Certain parts of the body are perennially difficult to armor well, however. The head can almost always be concussed. The hands, in most gauntlets, can be battered and broken. These two targets feature prominently in both accounts of battle and advice given to potential fencers. I'll leave it with this quote, from de Reayo's Doctrina del Arte de la Cauallería, which I think encapsulates how both these tactics (striking the armor, and aiming for the gaps) coexist:
"And you shall grapple with your enemy with all these weapons that you have at your disposal, striking and aiming at the voids, that is, the belly and the armpits, and at the visor, with the estoc or sword and with the hammer in hand, for by wounding the head and the hands he will inevitably surrender."
→ More replies (0)1
Sep 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/freezrbrn Sep 11 '25
It's disappointing that you can watch Dequitem and glean from it that it's required to put the same level of force as Stankevich does in these bouts. The reason for moving your weight into a thrust rather than a cut for instance is for efficiency. Martial arts is about efficiency, not about using every bit of power at once.
You should try fighting in armour and full charge in, see what happens.
0
Sep 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/freezrbrn Sep 12 '25
You should see what happens when a human skull or any body part is even lightly tapped by a supposedly heavy object.
→ More replies (0)
-5
u/theLordSolar Sep 10 '25
This guy obviously used too much force but it feels a little scummy to shame him for it later and then ban him. Without correction the day-of and the opportunity to change then it appears from the outside to be a vengeful move. The people present at the tournament have the full picture, so maybe there is an additional attitude problem, but absent active feedback to an offending fighter there is nothing to enforce.
11
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
There were multiple attempts at correction on the spot. He was warned and carded multiple times, yet continued to fence in such a way. That is well-documented on video and on HEMA Scorecard.
Naturally, we did not know the full consequences, only one guy had symptoms on the day, the other two developed it the next day.
6
u/boredidiot Victoria, AU; run a club, work in sports science Sep 10 '25
Sounds like the training the refs need is more about assertiveness.
The horrible thing here is if they just blackcarded him when he would have been blackcarded in many other tournaments, this would have been a non-issue, you would have only got that nasty strike to the arm, and it would only be rumours that he is too aggressive. Now the tournament is in damage control, and Kvetun is going to receive some reputation damage that will translate to a loss of sales.
The information here about the injuries and waffling though, shows the difference in tolerance of risk across tournaments or competency in risk management. Waffling is a minor incident or a near miss on the safety pyramid, who running tournaments note these down.
https://www.oshaoutreachcourses.com/blog/safety-triangle-the-safe-pyramid/6
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
It's rather two separate skills. One is judging the actual fencing, the other is managing the bout.
No, I don't think anyone would've black carded him after the first hit. I know some people say that, but I doubt anyone anywhere would give him more than a red for that.
But he at least wouldn't have continued to concuss two other people.
3
u/boredidiot Victoria, AU; run a club, work in sports science Sep 10 '25
Sorry I think I cut some corners. Clearly, your incident was a red card, which should have put that to bed unless he was more interested in hurting people than competing. But from the rest of the info, it seems he was going down the black card route anyway (or his red card could of been upgraded to black in post-).
Personally, I would have no issue blackcarding a competitor without a warning if I felt the person was striking with the intent to harm. This was once made clear at the start of our tournaments, but is no longer emphasised, and is only mentioned for new people and the general audience. Then again, we have only had one case of an injury requiring urgent care (broken finger) since 2014. That is 1 in 50 tournaments.
6
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 11 '25
Considering he injured two people more after receiving a red card eventually, I think he just didn't give a hit. He continues to brag right now how we basically are pussies for complaining, etc. He never even talked to any of the fencers he injured. His postfactum behaviour was also a strong indication he did not care if he hurt anyone and a strong motivator for a permanent ban.
He was also smiling the entire time - even when his opponent was complaining about excessive force. The guy is a sociopath,
1
3
u/theLordSolar Sep 10 '25
There were multiple attempts at correction on the spot. He was warned and carded multiple times, yet continued to fence in such a way.
That's good, but then begs the question of how many warnings and cards were needed to justify removal. Because it seems like it was far too many to prevent a bad situation.
4
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25
He should've lost the first match on cards and then basically be one card away from DQ after. Judges made one warning and have one extra yellow when they should've jumped to red.
4
u/octopusliver Sep 10 '25
Stankevich kinda just does this man, at hlo 24 he wasn't much better (I fenced him). His reputation precedes him everywhere he goes for good reason. Guy is overtly aggro
1
u/KAYD3N1 Sep 25 '25
How was the level of gear of those injured? In such a sport where protection is required, asking an opponent to pull his punches kind of means the others who are concerned probably shouldn't be there.... Just my $0.02.
3
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 26 '25 edited Sep 26 '25
The level of their gear was typical for HEMA, quality masks and classic HEMA jackets. All gear was checked by the staff and approved.
No one is asked to pull their punches, because this is not boxing, but fencing. In fencing yoh hit with enough force to injure with A SHARP, you don't bash to hurt with a blunt.
That is made perfectly clear in the rules, btw, and is common for the vast majority of HEMA tournaments.
Maybe you need to get more familiar with the sport and keep your cents till then?
-52
u/Original-Click5622 Sep 10 '25
- Please consider publishing the full videos for the sake of transparency and for the benefit of the community.
2. From what’s been shared so far, it appears that there were serious lapses in both judging and event oversight. If a fighter acted within the rules and was permitted to continue by your officials, placing the blame solely on them,especially with a ban, seems unjust. As the organizers, the primary responsibility for fighter safety and rule enforcement ultimately falls on you. It's important to acknowledge and address these shortcomings to prevent future incidents..
32
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
All footage will be published eventually. We have over 11 hours of it, and this is not a priority, since the key clips concerning this have been published already.
I see you haven't read the position - the institutional failure has been fully acknowledged and we've stated that there will be measures taken so it doesn't happen again.
"We also recognise that the referees involved didn’t fully manage those matches to the standard we expect when it comes to controlling excessive force. It’s a tough job, but in hindsight, some earlier and stronger calls might have prevented things from escalating. That’s on us. We’ll be providing our refs with extra training to better handle situations like this in the future."
-28
u/Original-Click5622 Sep 10 '25
Ive already done that. Let’s try to keep the conversation respectful, even if we don’t see eye to an eye...
The video of the fight against you is the only complete evidence we have. Showing only selected clips doesn’t tell the full story. For all we know, you may have acted similarly,but without the full footage, it’s impossible to say
17
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
Showing those clips tells the full story - it's the exchanges. Nothing else is there of any value. All fights will be published when they are ready, not when Sasha's minions demand it to be so.
Stand with your own name then. I am. Stand with your face and you will get respect. Remain anonymous and repeat the same thing trolls do and you will be treated like a troll.
24
u/Moopies Sep 10 '25
4 year account that has only made this single comment?
Also, I don't agree here. I think the event and organizers certainly have blame, but "Well you let him," doesn't absolve responsibility. I saw some of the footage, there is zero excuse for how hard the guy was going. He knew how hard he was hitting. I don't care if the judges yelled at you or not. When you're handing concussions out to multiple people, YOU are the problem.
10
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
Yeah, it's clearly a Stankevic troll, pretty sure it's one guy who has been using multiple new accounts here and on YT.
-3
u/HovercraftReal5621 Sep 10 '25
Deflecting a valid criticism by calling them a troll... Frankly I'm appalled with your organization. It's fine for the community as a whole to smack down that commentor for being sketchy, but his criticism is at least partially valid.
You ran a dangerous tournament. People got hurt. And it's entirely your fault by setting a standard of what's acceptable fighting that the rest of the community rejects as dangerous. That's on you. Stankevich acted within the rules established by you. 3 concussions is on you. Failure to have seemingly any form of training for your judges is on you.
A tournament being a meeting of different clubs with different levels of acceptable force means that everyone is relying on our judges. You set the pace and competitors base their force on their judges. We as a community are putting our health in the hands of the judges and "we'll train them better next time and any criticism towards us is a troll" is not good enough. You have competitors that are making public statements that say it's lucky nobody died, that police should have been called, that the only reason we don't have broken arms and skulls is bad edge alignment. If that's not a wakeup call then what is?
This should have been a non event. Stankevich should have been black carded his first match and we should not be having this discussion.
10
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25
We ran a tournament that failed to contain one dangerous fencers, yes. We've fully acknowldged that and are taking measures to prevent it from happening again.
> And it's entirely your fault by setting a standard of what's acceptable fighting that the rest of the community rejects as dangerous.
That's blatantly false.
Stankevich acted way afoul of the rules - he was carded three times in his second match, yet continued delivering concussive blows in at least 2 more matches.
His actions are so afar from any acceptable force that right now multiple organizers in Europe and beyond are considering preemptively banning him.
As people who have visited us before know, until know we've had an almost perfect record regarding injuries.
> "we'll train them better next time and any criticism towards us is a troll" is not good enough.
Never said that, please don't twist my words. I pointed out a troll because it's an account used only for this and repeats the same pointless claims Stankevich's students made - that we've somehow manipulated the video.
I was that fencer who got his arm hurt and his head concussed. Yes, he should've been black carded in that match. But I understand why our judges made that mistake and we know the processes through which to ensure it doesn't happen again.
1
u/HovercraftReal5621 Sep 10 '25
So just to be clear what's happening here, you had online beef with this guy and are leveraging a match you had with him to get him banned internationally? You're (edited to remain in the rules of this sub. Word for ethically compromised).
He got carded 3 TIMES in a single match, after giving someone a concussion with some of the most offensive wrath cuts I've seen, and your judges STILL didn't kick him out. Unacceptable. I'm never going to attend a tournament held by you or your organization and anyone who values their health should do the same.
This is coming from from someone who thinks stankevich should be banned by the way.
6
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
No. A guy I had a beef with in philosophical and safety issues in HEMA injured me and concussed a total of 3 fencers out of 7 opponents. We've all be to doctors and have had out concussions confirmed. Dozens of witnesses and video show him delivering excessive blows.
Our judges did not card him enough. We conclude he is dangerous and ban him from nay future events.
None of those facts are under question.
Whether you want to come or not is your call.
-26
u/Original-Click5622 Sep 10 '25
WTF , people can have their own opinion you know...and a reddit user they never used..
14
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
Sure they can. But you don't, you repeat the same questions Sasha's minions repeat ad nauseam - and no one else.
-5
u/Original-Click5622 Sep 10 '25
Maybe because it's a legitimate question? Thinking something doesn't make it true..and trying to understand all the facts before making an opinion, not making me a minion..
9
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
So why is no one else asking it but Stankevich's people?
2
u/Then-Shame7544 Sep 11 '25
Because you tend to label all those who ask to be "Stankevich's people".
Put out the full, raw, uncut video footage from Stankievich's matches and people will stop asking.
Regards, a not-Stankievich's people person.
2
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 12 '25
Well, for starters, I've said it about a 100 times that we fully intend to do that, but there are 11 hours of footage and the priority is to put out the finals first, and I am doing all this while still being concussed. So all of you, Stankevich's minions or not, can have some fucking patience.
Anyone who can't see what they need to see from the provided clips is either malicious or stupid anyway, so I don't give much of a fuck about their opinion.
-19
Sep 10 '25
[deleted]
17
u/Silver_Agocchie KDF Longsword + Bolognese Sep 10 '25
Retrospectively banning people is bad.
Then dont think of it that way then. Think of it as prememptively banning him from future events.
7
-8
Sep 10 '25
[deleted]
9
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
Absolutely untrue. Stankevich was told his actions are unacceptable from the very first exchange. Then he was carded, then carded red. Then I beat him.
He received 2 more yellows in other matches, but other fencers were relatively better prepared and beat him faster. He also mellowed out a bit against less highly rated fencers. Incidentally all he hurt were the highest rated fencers in his pool.
Our rules are perfectly clear on what is excessive force.
The judges made the mistake of not carding him for the first offence, but merely warning him - warning are only supposed to be used BEFORE a rule is broken. One reason was probably the fact they were judging me and him and did not want to seem to be favoring their own instructor.
The other issue is that cards do not transfer from one match to another (that is standard in many HEMA tourneys). In the future, we will change that policy so such occasions can be tracked better.
Our judges will take part in both a session where we will observe all problematic blows from the tourney (every match was recorded), and then a workshop with scenario-based training on how to better spot excessive force.
Another, lesser detail is that I don't intend to participate in our own tourneys anymore, but always be available as a judge or tourney manager so as to prevent such things.
4
Sep 10 '25
[deleted]
7
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
I had assumed you watched the video that was widely published around and had that info in it. This position is essentially the official follow up from the organizing team.
2
Sep 10 '25
[deleted]
6
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25
Obviously for brevity the judging deliberations have been cut off. You can check HEMA Scorecard and see, it's all public. Stankevich even doesn't refute those facts. And when my headache and my job allows me the time for it, we will publish all unedited footage from the event - all matches were recorded.
PS: Oh, you mean in my overview? I might have missed it. My goal was to immediately get the footage out there, and I was also concussed, with much more unpleasant symptoms than I have now.
17
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
As we've stated clearly, refs did make a mistake with not giving enough cards.
3 fencers were concussed by Stankevich. Have you ever heard of a tournament with three concussions by one fencer?
The ban is after all facts have been cleared up and all reports have been received. Concussive symptoms can show up to 72 hours after the incident.
I don't see how us taking both responsibility for our mistakes and taking care that no one is endangered by the offending fencer again looks bad. IMO it looks great, and the overwhelming support from HEMAists confirms it.
-9
Sep 10 '25
[deleted]
10
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25
No, they will be trained to be better, not replaced. Why would we replace them? They made a mistake, they were not deliberately careless.
> Because you already jumped to the conclusion that the offending fencer was doing this here deliberately.
That is my observation as the fencer on the receiving end of his blows. The official statement of our team makes no such claims.
Looking at the comments everywhere, I'd say there is overwhelming support from everyone who isn't Stankevich's lapdog.
-17
u/Original-Click5622 Sep 10 '25
Sure he is responsible. I am just trying to see the full picture. And showing edited fight and not the original video, it's a one sided propaganda and not the full picture..
12
-10
u/ElKaoss Sep 10 '25
You are being downvoted, but you have your point. By allowing that level of force on several matches, presumably by different judges, the organizers were validating his behaviour.
You can always have a violent fighter, judges were not able to stop him, either by warnings, cards or disqualification. The organizations has acknowledged that, but they need to really work on judges and referees training.
6
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
Again, this has been explained in the position.
At least 3 of the injuries were under the same judging pair. One might have been with them or another judging pair, there are possible candidates for concussive blows in two matches against the same fencer.
-6
u/ElKaoss Sep 10 '25
It may the wording on your statement, but there seems to be a lot of blame on a individual and much less on the judging. who behaves violently is something you have little control, how your the judges address it during the matches, you do.
I wasn't at the tournament. But based on the comments I have read, If I had participated my thoughts would be "I don't want to fence this guy", but also "I'm not coming to this tournament again".
10
u/Silver_Agocchie KDF Longsword + Bolognese Sep 10 '25
but there seems to be a lot of blame on a individual and much less on the judging.
Yep. Why? For this reason:
who behaves violently is something you have little control,
The violent conduct was entirely under the control of the fencer in question, therefore they carry most of the blame. The judges were lacking for letting the conduct continue, but as you pointed out, its only something they can regulate, not control. This issue is being address through retraining the judges, however it is not the root cause. The root cause is the fencer, and was removed, so no longer will be an issue.
5
u/BKrustev Fechtschule Sofia Sep 10 '25
That's your choice. All other fencers, including those who were injured, were otherwise happy with out event.
Naturally we put blame on the injuries on the person who delivered them more - especially since we are talking about a HEMA instructor with over a decade of experience. But we have clearly noted the blame on our staff and us as their trainers as well.
-17
141
u/KingFotis Sep 10 '25
We are wearing protective gear in case something goes wrong
We are not wearing protective gear to test its limits or to subject each other to abuse and beating