WRAL.com56%

With swords, axes and shields, fighters go head-to-head in medieval combat world championship 14%

By JAMES BROOKS9%

7/24/2026, 12:13:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Appeal to Authority, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 16.1% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 785 faulty-reasoning hits from 671 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.4% and a BS Rank of 14% (18,902 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.40% of the article peer group.

SPØTTRUP, Denmark (AP)  With swords, axes and shields, competitors from 30 countries are going head-to-head in the grounds of a Danish fortress in a modern version of old-fashioned battle. 
The International Medieval Combat Federation's annual world championship roared into gear in northern Denmark this week. 
First staged in Spain in 2014, it features armor-clad competitors fighting with 14th-century medieval weapons. 
But it’s also a modern combat sport with safety rules and sporting conventions. 
A mixture of historical and modern techniques 
“It’s historically inspired,” combat federation spokesperson Kamila Studencka said. 
“It’s a mix of modern techniques with historical ones. 
We have something between full combat sports and fencing.” 
And while the swords and axes are blunted, the battles are anything but harmless reenactments. 
Studencka said some competitors are attracted by “the violence,” while others prefer the technical aspects of face-to-face duels. 
“Some people like the friendship and being a team member  to be a part of something bigger,” she added. 
This year’s championship is being held in the shadow of Spøttrup Castle, a formidable Danish fortress that was completed around 1520. 
The event has drawn fighters from 30 countries, including the United States, Canada, China, and Brazil. 
Brazilian competitor Rodrigo Sinckevicius, who traveled with a team of eight from São Paulo, said he previously competed in jiu-jitsu and other mixed martial arts, but when he first saw this kind of medieval combat, he “couldn’t believe it.” 
“People falling and grabbing and the sound of the steel cracking, it’s like something that you cannot fake,” added the 33-year-old, who works in sales back home. 
Duels and team events 
The four-day championships, which opened Thursday, see competitors battle in one-on-one “duels” made up of two one-minute rounds each. 
Opponents are eliminated after hitting the ground three times or when they submit. 
If neither happens, marshals declare a winner based on points scored. 
There are also chaotic mass-team events, known as “Buhurt,” in which up to 10 competitors on either side participate. 
Martin Gill, from Milton Keynes, England, said he first got involved “to hit someone in the face with an ax.” 
“This had that kind of niche appeal to it, that people were willing to consensually come up and say, ‘You can hit me in the face with the ax, as hard as you can,’” the 37-year-old geotechnical engineer said. 
The IMCF says fighters wear thick, shock-absorbing padded garments beneath the armor to distribute the force of impact, and that fights are strictly controlled by trained marshals who enforce the rules of engagement. 
It says that overall injury rates are comparable to those in mainstream full-contact martial arts. 
Gill said almost everything the competitors wear, including his 30-kilogram (66-pound) suit of armor, is historically accurate. 
Some outfits and fighting techniques are informed by the writings of 14th-century Italian knight Fiore Dei Liberi and German fencing master Johannes Liechtenauer. 
“We follow manuscripts as best we can,” said Gill. 
“Everything is legitimate techniques from all of their writings throughout the 14th century.” 
A growing sport 
Nearly 600 fighters are taking part in this week's championship. 
The sport, an unflinching blend of mixed martial arts, fencing, and historical reenactment, has been growing in popularity. 
Competitor Alex King, a 37-year-old financial crime specialist from Shoreview, Minnesota, said that when he first started three years ago, there were just 10 or so members in his local team. 
Now there are over 50. 
“In America, it’s definitely growing, with the short videos you see now highlighting the sport,” King said. 
“A lot of people have become interested.” 
The last big event in the U.S. featured over 40 teams, he added. 
Men and women compete in separate events. 
Miisa Kaivos, a 27-year-old bartender from Helsinki, Finland, said the women’s side of the sport is also “drastically growing all around the world.” 
“It’s amazing to see,” said Kaivos. 
“It’s always nice to come to these events and fight each other, and have that awesome girl power. 
 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.2%JAMES BROOKS: 1.7%WRAL: 3.4%Confirmation Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%JAMES BROOKS: 4.1%WRAL: 3.0%Availability Heuristic9.8%This article: 5.7%JAMES BROOKS: 1.9%WRAL: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic5.7%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%JAMES BROOKS: 0.6%WRAL: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias1.9%This article: 16.1%JAMES BROOKS: 5.4%WRAL: 7.5%Framing Effect16.1%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%JAMES BROOKS: 1.9%WRAL: 1.6%Optimism Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%JAMES BROOKS: 2.5%WRAL: 7.7%Negativity Bias7.6%This article: 5.8%JAMES BROOKS: 1.9%WRAL: 2.9%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%JAMES BROOKS: 0.9%WRAL: 1.2%In-Group Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%JAMES BROOKS: 0.6%WRAL: 1.4%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 3.1%JAMES BROOKS: 1.0%WRAL: 0.2%Primacy Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.6%JAMES BROOKS: 5.9%WRAL: 2.5%Appeal to Authority10.6%This article: 2.7%JAMES BROOKS: 0.9%WRAL: 1.5%False Dilemma2.7%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.2%JAMES BROOKS: 1.7%WRAL: 3.1%Hasty Generalization5.2%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.6%JAMES BROOKS: 2.5%WRAL: 6.8%Appeal to Emotion7.6%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.5%JAMES BROOKS: 0.8%WRAL: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.5%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.7%JAMES BROOKS: 0.9%WRAL: 0.1%Composition/Division2.7%This article: 15.4%JAMES BROOKS: 5.1%WRAL: 1.7%Anecdotal15.4%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.9%JAMES BROOKS: 0.6%WRAL: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.9%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%JAMES BROOKS: 0.4%WRAL: 0.1%Middle Ground1.3%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 1.3%WRAL: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.1%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.1%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.3%JAMES BROOKS: 0.4%WRAL: 3.4%Biased Writer Voice1.3%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 1.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAMES BROOKS: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

671 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers59%attributed speech274writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKamila Studencka • 9 words • 100.0% coverageKamila Studencka • 9 words • 0.0% coverageKamila Studencka • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKamila Studencka • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKamila Studencka • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRodrigo Sinckevicius • 39 words • 0.0% coverageRodrigo Sinckevicius • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMartin Gill • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMartin Gill • 39 words • 0.0% coverageInternational Medieval Combat Federation • 33 words • 0.0% coverageInternational Medieval Combat Federation • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMartin Gill • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMartin Gill • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMartin Gill • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAlex King • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAlex King • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAlex King • 17 words • 0.0% coverageAlex King • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAlex King • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMiisa Kaivos • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMiisa Kaivos • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMiisa Kaivos • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Miisa Kaivos

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words12% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote-0.4 ptsWriter: 0.4%Miisa Kaivos: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.