The concept of knights and men-at-arms leisurely sparring against each other in the middle of a castle courtyard to pass the time of day is one which has often been taken for granted in modern fiction, yet a contradictory view that knightly combat was clumsy and brutish has arguably persisted within scholarship and amongst the general public for even longer. Such conflicting notions arise from problems regarding the veracity of when, where, and how men-at-arms trained for combat and practiced their fighting skills. Indeed, there remains significant doubt over whether or not military men actually did practice individual combat skills outside of battle or tournaments, reflected in the scant discussion of training and practice within the corpus of research on medieval warfare. This uncertainty is reflected in Michael Prestwich's comprehensive study of medieval warfare, which offers only brief comments about the training of archers in the fourteenth century, noting that practice was not necessarily highly regarded. John Beeler and John Carter have also expressed skepticism, asserting that for the early Middle Ages at least, the only training a knight usually engaged in was the practical business of actual battle. Further doubts have been raised by the observation that some men, particularly John Hawkwood and Robert Knollys, began their military careers as archers, presumably developing their skills in arms through a combination of talent and practical experience rather than regular exercise in knightly combat.

This lacuna in the study of chivalric training practices has largely stemmed from a lack of firm evidence in medieval sources for regular training, a problem that Helen Nicholson, Sydney Anglo, and Richard Barber have explored in some detail. However, the idea that men of the military elite were indifferent as regards regular training, even though their pride, status, or livelihood were closely related to martial prowess, has sat uneasily with a number of scholars. James Hester and John Clements have both sought to overturn this belief in the last decade, pointing out that the regular training of men-at-arms is an area that has long been neglected. Steven Muhlberger has remarked that “warriors in the fourteenth century must have talked endlessly and in detail about combats they had witnessed or about famous fights that had involved their friends, companions or relatives,” suggesting the popularity and importance of battle skills to men-at-arms.