How does professional duelling work as a sport in the wizarding world?

My thoughts:

It’s a worldwide sport – think soccer/football – open to everyone eleven years and older. There are three separate, age-based divisions. 3rd Division are children duels with duellists aged 11-13yrs old. There are strict restrictions on the type of spells that can be used and victory is generally decided by ‘touches’ rather than incapacitation – each spell that affects your opponent is a ‘touch’. 2nd Division is duellists aged 13-17yrs old with the victory conditions being based on incapacitation or ‘touches’ depending on the tournament rules. The spell restrictions are more relaxed than in 3rd Division but still strict. 1st Division is for duellists 17yrs and older with tournaments decided by incapacitation or submission. There are few spell restrictions.

Serious injury is a very real possibility in 1st Division duels and deaths aren’t unheard of. In every division a duellist must know the counterspell to any spell they cast. Tournament rules can vary according to the region and the organising body, with some regions having fewer restrictions than others. There are multiple types of arenas including platform and pits/rings.

Established professional duellists sometimes form their own duelling clubs where they mentor young duellists in return for a cut of their prize winnings and endorsement deals. Contracts between a trainer and a student can run the gambit from being a fair split of the profits to the student signing themselves into virtual slavery (just like real life contracts between up and coming sport stars and top class coaches).

 

I think it's more like professional Boxing honestly. There are trainers and bouts and different divisions for different ages. That's how I've always imagined the system set up.

 

I envision the duelling itself as being a mix of 19th century pistol duelling, with the set distance between duellers and a formal code duello, and competitive fencing.
Combatants wear protective clothing, and scores are given based on 'touches' like you said, stances, economy of wand movement and smoothness of transition from one spell to another, and tempo. A knockout via stunner or otherwise should get a rather sizeable number of points.

 

Honestly, I think Jbern's depiction of dueling in Lie I've Lived is the best depiction I've read of it.

While I like most of what you said, the bold part I disagree with in particular. I'd actually see points being far fewer if one concluded the match with such a simple cause-and-effect choice of spell. A stunner is designed to do exactly that, and it takes little to no effort to actually take the opponent out beyond aim and luck. Its a quick and dirty choice when one is pressed and out of bigger cards to play, especially when up against a superior duelist. In such a case your only hope is that you manage to take them out at the same time they take you out.

Usage of more advanced fields of magic, depending on the time taken and the actual performance of/mastery shown therein I would think should net a better score in most instances. On the opposite scale is if all of that fancy wand-work goes to waste; if you can spin out a bunch of minor transfiguration's that do their job pretty efficiently as opposed to one large, perhaps unwieldy vehicle of will, you get a higher base score. But if your minor transfiguration's are scorched into a fine ash moments after they are sent out to do their job, you get a big fat zero, and the same if the large golem is split right down the middle or tumbled off of the dueling platform.

The point of that is to stop people from just showing off. It doesn't matter how good the thing may look or how impressive it is to turn a conjured desk into a lion if it can't actually get the job done.

On-the-fly counter-transfiguration - or any basic counter-charm that turns your opponent's efforts back against them in short order - would probably be the best showing of skill and the largest reward of points.

 

A knockout via stunner doesn't need to gain you many points; it's a knockout, not victory via points.

Of course if knockout doesn't end the duel, then you are free to show off as much as you can to gain points while your opponents is unconscious, but I don't really see what would be the point in that.

 

arkkitehti, say for example, we were in a duel and you were, naturally, getting owned. If I'm ahead by a decent number of points, but somehow get sloppy with a shield and get knocked out, awarding you the victory wouldn't make that much sense. Duelling, especially professionally, should be fifty percent showmanship and maybe ten percent about knocking the other guy the fuck ou t.
Zenzao, I agree almost totally with what you said, jbern's TLIL and all, but I still maintain that a knockout should get a decent heap of points, it is still combat after all, and if one performs all the flashy, things-ive-never-seen-done-with-a-wand-before magic, and still gets K.O'd with a basic stunner, then he doesn't actually deserve victory.

 

Huh? If it's a professional sport, 99% of the final score should be about... winning. And if you knock your opponent out to the tune that he can do fuck all but lay there unconscious... I'd say you won. Who cares if it's simple or whatever? Hell that should be an argument in its favor: if you're shitty enough to get caught by a stunner, you deserve to lose.

 

Well yes, ultimately the goal of duelling would be to make your opponent unconcious, immobilized or bereft of wand. As a sport though, doing those should get you a reasonable amount of points, not outright victory. Because if it did, duelling would probably be bludgeoner after blugeoner. Which would suck.

 

Make it like Quidditch then.

A knockout through blunt force trauma is 50 points, non-negotiable minimum. Extra points for style.

A stunner or similar is worth 100, because it requires getting through their defenses. Again, more points for style.

 

Say about 50 points for inducing unconciousness, disarming, petrifying or otherwise immobilizing opponent. And 5 to 15 points for style- advanced/obsure magic, non verbal stuff, clever maneuvers e.t.c.

 

That's like saying Spain should win in football every time even when they lose because they have the best control of the ball.

Dueling is by definition a combat sport. Points come into play only for safety reasons, i.e. to define a winner without having to continue the fight until either one of the competitors cannot continue anymore. And frankly I don't see wizards being safety conscious enough go for such sissy rules in the first place. Hell, Quidditch played by Schoolchildren involves hitting others with metal balls midair...

Dueling is not a spelling bee.

 

We get a semi-close look at a 1379 duelling contest in Wonderbook: Book of spells. Video here if you want to watch. Here's my attempt at a transcript for those who don't.

 

It works however you want it to, considering there is no canon version.

 

I like to imagine duelling as a sport as quite different to duelling as combat, which is in turn quite different to honour duelling (now banned). Like, there are special standardised duelling spells that are used, not general use spells.

One idea I've had (that we'll see in Alexandra Potter, eventually) is that duelling as a sport just uses three spells: a standard attack spell (like a punch), a standard distraction spell (appears the same as the attack spell, but just delivers a disorienting noise and light) and a standard blocking spell (which can block both of the above). Winning, therefore, becomes entirely about technique: how powerfully you can cast the spells, casting speed, your timing, instincts, etc.

Rules for victory are similar to boxing.

 

There were a number of really good passages about sport dueling in the Alexandra Quick series; Inverarity really showed how students with minimal skills grew into accomplished duelists through practice, research and the occasional assist from one's awesome mentor.

 

Also, Expelliarmus is five syllables.

 

Going with the boxing comparison ...

Duels are fought over a number of two minute rounds (the exact number of which varies depending on the age group). If the duel is still going at the end of the last round victory is awarded on the basis of points - points are awarded for spell-choice and effectiveness of the spells - just like boxing. However, if one duellist is knocked out or left unable to continue then victory is awarded to their opponent, essentially a KO or TKO.

That said, I think Black Hat's description is pretty good. Though, I'd add another two age groups - 17-24 and 25-30 - and from 30yrs onwards is a single division.

 

I would not be surprised professional dueling actually comes in at least two forms: a strictly regulated, traditional form (something akin to Queensberry boxing or fencing) and a much more entertaining spectacle that's more loose and flashy (like professional wrestling or ancient gladiatorial games). We do see some evidence for gladiator-like spectacles: the Triwizard Tournament's first task is not terribly different from Ancient Rome's man-vs-beast hunts. It would also explain, to me anyway, why common witches and wizards bought Gilderoy Lockhart's stories. If they are used to seeing flamboyant fighters vanquishing foes in these entertaining duels then it would not be too hard to accept that Lockhart could do the same in the real world.

Then there's the fact that there's a whole department in the Ministry — which appears to be the magical equivalent of a cabinet position — for "Magical Games and Sport" suggests to me that they must regulate more than Quidditch and the periodic Triwizard. Having a sport with such a spectrum of rules could help explain why the department wasn't consolidated (though ascribing logic to the organization of the Ministry and wizards in general might be a futile exercise).

 

In Harry Potter and the Litany of Blood jon3776 gives a description of professional duelling that uses the point system. Competitive duellists also have a locking charm placed on their wands that reduces the strength of their spells, an idea which I think could be incorporated into descriptions of lower level/children's competitive duelling.

Personally I'm in favour of Black Hat's description for the most part.

 

I'd use this.

Personally, I'd keep the number of rounds low to keep interest high - in lower age groups, there will only be 1 round since the kids don't know many spells so they'll almost always result in a KO anyway.

Once you get to 15 or so, bring the round # up to 2, a knockout in a round means a bunch of points to the other guy.

Then at 17+ you get into the real pro-style. All 3 rounds, just like the pro-circuits. And I'd say anyone 17 or older can compete in the professional circuits, but there aren't age brackets there. Again, rounds are 2 minutes long (keeps the descriptions from dragging on and on!).


Sort of reminds me of pro-bending in Korra!