This week I don't have a common writing mistake as much as an observation I've made.
There are different kinds of fighters out there (especially when it comes to fencing).
There are those who look at fencing as a sport. They rarely bother to learn any historical facts about fencing (outside of the sport field or some tidbit of knowledge to impress a non-fencer if they ask) and they don't concern themselves much with learning anatomy or why the places they are aiming at are "on target".
Then there are those who focus tightly on one particular style or school of fencing. They learn a certain number of moves that apply to that style, but they don't bother to learn WHY those moves work. WHY they are effective, or perhaps aren't. All they can do is parrot those moves over and over again. They may get very good at them, but if you through something new at them, they don't know what to do. This is as far as many Classical fencers get.
And finally there are true warriors. Those who look at a certain style and figure out what makes it work. They take it apart, piece by piece, trying everything. If it doesn't work, they toss it, "historically accurate" or not. If it does, they keep it and maybe try to make it better. Theses are people who learn how to fight, not how to recreate some old historical document.
Yes, some of those old historical documents have good ideas, but some of them are incomplete and you know they didn't write EVERYTHING down. You have to allow yourself to make adjustments, not be tied down to "historical accuracy."
Of all the kinds of fighters, the true warrior is the only one who can quickly adapt. The only one who can actually use their knowledge outside of a class room or dueling circle if they need to. Those are the ones I'm most interested in studying and, hopefully, one day becoming.