Fencers Quarterly Magazine?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

The only root difference between the two schools of thought is a different desired outcome. Sport fencing is a complicated and subtle game in which the goal is to get more points than your opponent. This necessarily requires the athlete to do things and take actions which they would never do if they were actually fencing wth sharps. And that is fine. It makes sense in the scope of a competative sport. Classical fencers generally are not so much interested in the competative aspects of fencing, but rather the martial. They are interested in studying fencing as a western martial art. It has the history, technique, philosophy and traditions to be an alternative to the eastern arts. As such, being hit at all is undesirable. Therefore, they do not perform actions or utilize techniques which would be far too risky using sharps. They focus on form, because the form was proven as a means to minimize the risk to oneself in both offense and defense.

This actually helps highlight one of the problems that I have with classical fencing and most of its proponents. Classical fencing does a good job of neither fencing as sport or fencing as martial art. Classical fencing, despite the frequent claims of proponents, does NOT seem to have much to do with what one would desire if sharps were invovled. It is at least as rules-constrained and artificial as modern sport fencing. If one wants to fence the way one would with a sharp weapon, one should get involved in historical fencing rather than classical. If one wants to be invovled in fencing as sport, one should participate in modern fencing. Classical fencing is a midpoint that does a poor job of either of these goals (yet frequently claims to cover both, at times better than either historical or modern fencing). Personally I feel I shouldn't really care whether or not CF people delude themselves into thinking that what they're doing is any less artificial than what SF people do. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I just get bothered by seeing people stating things as facts that aren't, even when them being wrong doesn't directly affect me in any way.

I have no problem with people enjoying playing with archaic rulesets and technique. But it is NOT what you would do with a real weapon. It's also not what the sport has become, as sport.

At least cfaustus is right about distinguishing between the disciplines. Nothing wrong with SF, CF, and HF all being distinct, separate (although somewhat related) disciplines. It's when people (Nick E., Adam Crown, W. Gaugler, etc.) claim that CF is SF being done correctly that upsets the SF crowd. I'm purely a SFer. I don't want to do CF, I don't want to do HF, I don't want to do SCA (tried rapier for a year, VASTLY prefer SF) or boffer styles. Doesn't bother me that others do, to each his own. Just don't claim that what I'm doing is wrong and that I should be doing what you are.

-B :)

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by noodle

i will
what if we all write him a lot of letters/emails asking him to stop being such a jerk about sport fencing? stop stating unsupported opinion as fact in widely published and sold books (you can find his stuff in any bookstore). maybe if he gets a few hundred or thousand letters/emails, he'll consider it? and not mean emails either, polite ones. maybe his head will explode

The thing that's great about fencing, is the immediate resolution of conflict.

He's convinced that his approach to fencing is superior to Olympic fencing. He's convinced that he knows how to teach better than any Olympic coach.

With his skill and knowledge that he imparts on his fencers, they should be able to step onto any fencing strip and win.

They don't.

The results speak volumes about his opinions on sport fencing.

[noodle]

though this is true, what does john q public know about his personal results?
nothing. and thats the problem.
i don't want someone to pick up a book in barnes and nobles and go classical because evangelista said so. if they want to, kudos to them. but i don't want it to be evangelista's opinions that turn someone off of sport fencing.

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by noodle

to clarify: most people here have no problem with classical fencing or SCA or theatrical or anything else. each have their proper place in the world, just like there are many different styles of martial arts, different flavors of bubble gum, etc.

First, thank you for your gracious reply. I did not mean to say that anyone here had said anything anti-classical fencing. However, I do think it is important, especially to those who may be reading this topic for the first time to set the background for the debate. The differences, both real and apparent, between the schools must be cooly and respectfully acknowledged. That is all I was trying to do and I thank you for continuing in like manner.

Originally Posted by noodle

the problem that sport fencers have is the blatant disrespect evangelista has for sport fencing. read hte article i linked earlier. 3/4 of it is bashing aspects of sport fencing. the last 1/4 of it has value but most don't get that far down because they have to drill through 100 miles of BS to get to the substance.

I re-read the article you mentioned. It is not so full of sport bashing (certainly not 3/4), however, the tone is certainly evident and this is what I lamented about needing to dissipate from the CF community. It just draws attention away from some kernels of wisdom and sets otherwise compatriots at odds.

This is why I suggested trying to read the FQM with intellictual dispassion, to ignore the tone and dig for the wisdom, because it is there and it is worth it. At the same time, coming from the martial mind-set, many of the actions adopted by modern fencing are so irrational for a martial artist, that we have trouble constructively criticising them without a bit of derision. We should perhaps focus more on constructive criticism. I have been guilty of this in the past. I try not to do it anymore as I have simply come to believe that the goals of each type of fencing are so different that perhaps there is some competative reason for the actions performed by sport fencers. I simply do not chose to adopt those techiniques in my fencing in either arena.

Originally Posted by noodle

how would you, as an apparent classical fencer, feel if the tide was reversed and all the books on the market were sport fencing and 1/2 of all the books are spent telling people how silly and stupid (hypothetically speaking, ofc. take no offence) classical fencing is?

All I can say is that, that is precisely how classical fencers have been made to feel, until very recently. Fencing has been dominated by the domain of sport fencing. Growing up, and even well into the 90's when one looked for fencing instruction, the only option which was readily presented in schools, libraries, and community centers was the competative sport form. When classical fencing began to show a resurgence (mostly through various masters conected over the internet who realized that they were all following the same traditions) there was a need to distance and distinguish itself from the 'main stream' sport fencing. There was a lot of flack which CFers got at the outset... as any conservative group will experience after lying dormant too long in a liberal society. And at that time CFer's really had to fight, for existence as well as respect. As such, that is probably the root source for much of the unhappy sentiment by members of the Master ranks in CF. They have been fighting for and trying to preserve the old ways longer than most of us have been fencing. If you remember that they consider themselves not simply coaches of a sport, but masters of a martial art, you can begin to see how deep this obligation to be gatekeepers and safekeepers of the art lies in each of them. It is their honor bound duty. Many of the early attacks by sport fencers against CF were so rude, so un-intelligent and so obtuse, that they offronted this sense of honor. The art must be defended. It is an old way of thinking and living, but one, I believe, well worth exploring.

Well, it now appears that CF has won the battle for existence, mostly due to the hard work of those Masters who have kept the martial art and teachings alive. What CF needs to do now is work on maintaining the respect. And this is largely to be done by toning it down against sport fencing. There will always be hot heads on both sides who need to be put in their place from time to time. However, both sides can learn more from each other via dispassionate, respectful discourse (with our words and with our blades).

As far as Maitre Evangelista, perhaps because of my own up-bringing by a Mother steeped in Old World traditions, I can not help but remain respectful to my elder and superior. Perhaps his battle to ensure that the old ways remain with us along side the new ways, has made him a bit more bitter, but it does not lessen the truth of what he is teaching. In the same way, my brother who fought in Vietnam and my father who was in WWII are a bit more bitter about different things today. I respect what both did and what each went through, and while I may not always agree with how they phrase their opinions, I sure have learned a heck of a lot by sucking it up and listening to them.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

First, thank you for your gracious reply. I did not mean to say that anyone here had said anything anti-classical fencing. However, I do think it is important, especially to those who may be reading this topic for the first time to set the background for the debate. The differences, both real and apparent, between the schools must be cooly and respectfully acknowledged. That is all I was trying to do and I thank you for continuing in like manner.

oh, you're welcome i've had numerous style arguments in the wider martial arts community when i taught classes and i learned that you get nowhere when you get angry and disrespectful, no matter what your views on the subject are.

Originally Posted by cfaustus

I re-read the article you mentioned. It is not so full of sport bashing (certainly not 3/4), however, the tone is certainly evident and this is what I lamented about needing to dissipate from the CF community. It just draws attention away from some kernels of wisdom and sets otherwise compatriots at odds.

This is why I suggested trying to read the FQM with intellictual dispassion, to ignore the tone and dig for the wisdom, because it is there and it is worth it. At the same time, coming from the martial mind-set, many of the actions adopted by modern fencing are so irrational for a martial artist, that we have trouble constructively criticising them without a bit of derision. We should perhaps focus more on constructive criticism. I have been guilty of this in the past. I try not to do it anymore as I have simply come to believe that the goals of each type of fencing are so different that perhaps there is some competative reason for the actions performed by sport fencers. I simply do not chose to adopt those techiniques in my fencing in either arena.

when i do read articles in fqm, i do get a few things out of them. but like i mentioned earlier, most of them are so drenched in poison daggers aimed towards sport fencing that i often don't really care what the point is. i'm mostly up in arms over the insults. i'm going to do a project when i get home from work today. i'm going to take the linked article and reduce it down. i'm going to take out all the references and insults aimed towards sport fencing and remove all of the opinion that is used as fact (for example, the picture of the sport fencers. yes, they are off balance. not because they are sport fencers, but maybe because the picture was taken mid-step? it was. maybe they're new to fencing? they certainly look like they are). i just want to see exactly how long the article is, post-editing. just for comparison's sake.

Originally Posted by cfaustus

All I can say is that, that is precisely how classical fencers have been made to feel, until very recently. Fencing has been dominated by the domain of sport fencing. Growing up, and even well into the 90's when one looked for fencing instruction, the only option which was readily presented in schools, libraries, and community centers was the competative sport form.
...
snippy snippy for length reasons. read above if you're interested
...
I respect what both did and what each went through, and while I may not always agree with how they phrase their opinions, I sure have learned a heck of a lot by sucking it up and listening to them.

the problem that classical fencers encountered was mentioned as a negative point earlier and i'd like to elaborate.

classical fencing is called such because it is neither historical fencing nor sport fencing. historical fencing is the event where people are truly using fencing for self defense. they try to simulate a duel as close as possible without the actual killing or hurting and such. sport fencing is the evolution of historical (used to be present-day) fencing into a game. classical fencing is stuck in the middle of them, an evolutionary relic (i don't mean that in a bad way) that is neither where it started nor where it is now. it would be as if a neanderthal jumped out from inside a cave into the present-day world. he would not be able to live with modern man, nor would he be able to live with the gorillas in the congo. such is classical fencing. it is now what sport fencing was 100 years ago. sport fencers, in order to play the game better and win more often, evolved. so did the sport. some people didn't want to change, so they lost more often. so much, in fact, that they decided to not compete and instead perpetuate their current knowledge down unchanged and compete within their newfound community.
(edited to add that this is what i've gathered is the situation based on how much i've read and talked about the situation with others. i could naturally be wrong and anyone who wants to should correct me)

now, none of this is implying that classical fencing is any less valid of a form of fencing. i'm just explaining why classical fencing has had such a hard time: its neither here nor there.

[D'Artag-NOT]

Originally Posted by Rolls

I don't really care about the argument that much, I just want people to stop calling classical fencers "fencers". Hobbyist is a more appropriate term.

Rolls.

I suit up, I get up on the piste with a weapon in my hand, and I attempt to hit and to avoid being hit. Doesn't that make me a fencer? Do you have to subscribe to a certain school of training, a certain philosophy, or attain a certain level of competitive success before you're a "real" fencer?

I'm not saying I'm a good fencer (I'm not). I'm not a "competitive" fencer--in fact I'm a recreational fencer (not much choice, given my age and lack of athletic background), but neither you nor anyone else has the right to decide that I'm not a fencer!

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by noodle

though this is true, what does john q public know about his personal results?
nothing. and thats the problem.
i don't want someone to pick up a book in barnes and nobles and go classical because evangelista said so. if they want to, kudos to them. but i don't want it to be evangelista's opinions that turn someone off of sport fencing.

You can't prevent anyone from picking up any book, good or bad, so why bother? People will find their own path to fencing, be it sport, classical, historical, etc...

We should focus on promoting our sport, not taking out others.

[The0ne]

The problem I have is that Classical fencers act really smug about how much better their technique is even though they lose bouts. . . It's like they are in a special club that we are not in even though sport fencers mop the floor with them in competition.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by The0ne

The problem I have is that Classical fencers act really smug about how much better their technique is even though they lose bouts. . . It's like they are in a special club that we are not in even though sport fencers mop the floor with them in competition.

Do you fence so that the loser can tell you how great you are?

They are in a special club that we sport fencers are not in.

Just read Cfaustus' posts and you will realize that their goals and rules for fencing are different than ours.

I don't wish to join their club, and I gather that they don't wish to join ours.
So, what's the problem?

[jeff]

cfaustus, as noodle said, there's little disagreement that there are different styles of fencing and strongly-held opinions about which is best (look around this board and you'll see some powerful debates about SF). What is objectionable is the tone some CF'ers take - especially Evangelista. When I subscribed to FQM I had to restrain myself from writing to the editor due to the nasty, and frequently personal attacks made by the editor. Just as well that I didn't - I saw his vituperative, ad hominem replies to letters - polite attempts at rational discussion - that were longer than the letters themselves. "Editorial restraint" doesn't seem to be a strong point.

As far as his qualifications: more than a few of us on this board have fenced as long as he has or longer, and many of us with more distinction. My attitude when I first read him as "who is this nobody with such a big mouth?" A fencer shows his or her quality through victories on the strip, a maestro through the victories of his or her students. Evangelista has little accomplishment in either category; he should therefore carry himself with a little more modesty. He was of competitive age in fencing before the recent changes to fencing that he despises, so he had plenty of opportunity to thrive (if he was good enough) before things changed. In the meantime, he points fingers at other people's fencing without producing any of his own. He really should put up or shut up. If his methods are so much better, then he and his students should have great results. If he doesn't like current rules then let him restrict himself to epee, which has been electrified since before he was born. In any case.

When I started fencing there was no "CF" or "SF" - there was just "fencing". While I strongly disapprove of some of the changes in the last 10 years, the fundamental nature of fencing hasn't changed as much as Evangelista says, and he wasn't a noted fencer in the old days, either.

FWIW, CF isn't really thriving, as far as I can see. Go to the classicalfencing list (CFML) on Yahoo and you'll see how little traffic there is unless it's time for one of the periodic rants against SF (at which point I usually jump in and tell off the ranters). CF is caught in a dilemma: one the one hand it yearns for a (mythical) time of elegant fencing where a touch counted only if it was made with proper form, and at the same time adhere to the idea of fencing "as if it were sharp". Those are mutually exclusive ideas. But, if that's what people want to do, then more power to them.

[The0ne]

yeah, but they always end up trying to "preach" to me how their way is better, even though their way doesn't win any bouts. . .

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

Well, not being one to shy away from a contrary view (but then, what fencer would), I respectfully disagree with the previous posters regarding FQM and Maitre Evangelista.

You've set the house on fire!!!! Anyway, welcome to the board.

This thread was NOT about classical fencing, but about Evangelista, who has a special place in sport fencers' hearts... and Evangelista/FQM have come up enough that the current generation of posters is impatient with the topic. You'll have to search older threads for different arguments about classical fencing. There's even a nice thread where I make a wonderful attack on a classical fencing concept, and get my a$$ handed back to me.

But mostly, sport fencers don't think about classical fencers. Sport fencing traces its lineage smoothly back to pre-history, and you'll find threads here about fencing circa 2000's, 1990's, 1970's, 1890's, 1750's, because it's all interesting, and it's all ours. Some fencers focus their interest in different eras; they're just a part of our community.

Every now and then, we notice a bit of vicious animosity, some snide Rush Limbaugh-esque haranguing from some remote corner of fencing. It's Evangelista or a disciple, sounding like playground bullies who just got punched in the nose and are spitting venom from the ground.

The picture presented is that classical types spend all their time talking about how horrible sport fencing is, and they're locked in a life-or-death struggle for the beauty of the art. This probably isn't the case, and I hope it isn't. Sport fencers don't usually even know classical fencers exist.

[Rolls]

Originally Posted by D'Artag-NOT

I suit up, I get up on the piste with a weapon in my hand, and I attempt to hit and to avoid being hit. Doesn't that make me a fencer? Do you have to subscribe to a certain school of training, a certain philosophy, or attain a certain level of competitive success before you're a "real" fencer?

I'm not saying I'm a good fencer (I'm not). I'm not a "competitive" fencer--in fact I'm a recreational fencer (not much choice, given my age and lack of athletic background), but neither you nor anyone else has the right to decide that I'm not a fencer!

No, I wouldn't consider you a fencer. To me, there is no such thing as the "recrational fencer". When I was a kid in school, I often played basketball with my friends recreationally. I never considering myself a "basketball player". I think it's fair to say you have to actively compete in a sport to be considered part of it. So, if I joined my school's basketball team, I would have been a basketball player even if we were the worse team that ever existed.

No offense intended, but that's the way I feel (that's what gives me the right to state my opinion, I feel like it).

Furthermore, if anyone has ever tried participating in a "classical fencing competition" (they do exist; jusy few and far between), they will QUICKLY realize how pointless and baseless classical fencing really is. If you think that modern competitive fencing is subjective and filled with odd rules, then try a classical competition were the rules are more vague and the use of human judges creates the most subjective atmosphere possible.

[counterattack]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Do you fence so that the loser can tell you how great you are?

They are in a special club that we sport fencers are not in.

Just read Cfaustus' posts and you will realize that their goals and rules for fencing are different than ours.

I don't wish to join their club, and I gather that they don't wish to join ours.
So, what's the problem?

I think this is exactly the right attitude to take towards classical fencers. But the thread was started in regards to a particular publication, and the answer should be: don't read it if your goal is to become a better sport fencer, not because there is nothing at all you can extract from it, but because there are plenty of better ways to spend your time. Watch the World Cup fencers and their coaches instead.

[noodle]

i reworked the article previously mentioned to remove all sport fencing bashing and blatant opinion stated as fact. it went from 4 pages to 1.5. read it if you want. i bet it sounds a lot better now.

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by noodle

classical fencing is called such because it is neither historical fencing nor sport fencing. historical fencing is the event where people are truly using fencing for self defense. they try to simulate a duel as close as possible without the actual killing or hurting and such. sport fencing is the evolution of historical (used to be present-day) fencing into a game. classical fencing is stuck in the middle of them, an evolutionary relic (i don't mean that in a bad way) that is neither where it started nor where it is now. it would be as if a neanderthal jumped out from inside a cave into the present-day world. he would not be able to live with modern man, nor would he be able to live with the gorillas in the congo. such is classical fencing. it is now what sport fencing was 100 years ago. sport fencers, in order to play the game better and win more often, evolved. so did the sport. some people didn't want to change, so they lost more often. so much, in fact, that they decided to not compete and instead perpetuate their current knowledge down unchanged and compete within their newfound community.
(edited to add that this is what i've gathered is the situation based on how much i've read and talked about the situation with others. i could naturally be wrong and anyone who wants to should correct me)

Actually, it is this entire mindset which actually makes me wish they would call it NEO-classical. The reason for this is that there was an earlier classical fencing movement about 150-200 years ago. CF as I have enjoyed it and as I have seen it taught by the predominant Masters is more akin to this earlier movement. Let me explain. CF as it originally was embodied was an extreme refinement on the efficiency and rationality of actions in fencing... This usually had to do with fencing with a smallsword but extended to other weapons as well. As has happened throughout fencing's history, some of these CFers got so esoteric (The hearts on the jackets as the only valid target is an example) that they were soon blasted by the martial realists such as Baron de Bazencourt. These realists said (paraphrasing), "If I hit you anywhere else, do you not bleed?". They helped pull the pedagogy back to the reality of the duel and away from the esoterics of training. Ultimately it was not a focus on a weapon or a national style, but rather a way of teaching, a mindset, which set apart the CFers. The pendulum has now swung the other way. SF has taken fencing and made it something its own... tied to esoteric rules for the enjoyment by the masses. And so long as they enjoy it, wonderful! When competitions first began, however, fencers used the same technique and style tehy used for the duel, because it was all they knew... as technology entered, genereations passed, and fewer people could remember an actual duel, SF changed.

Neo-Classicists are attempting to do what you ascribe to the Historical community. They wish to retain the martial aspects but are also wary of the short commings of the earlier CF movement and are trying to retain the martial reality. I amtherefore in favor of a far more general application of the term CF. I believe you can and do find Neo-Classicists in SF, in HF and yes, perhaps even in the SCA. What the Neo-Classicists who are organized as a group tend to have in common is an unbroken link going back, Master to Master, to the days when the technique of fencing in a duel was the same technique one used for competition. As such, most of the pedegogy concerns itself with Foil, Epee, Sabre, Singlestick, and Smallsword. Usually, because of the history of the West, it is rare to find anyone who has unbroken ties to anything dealing with the rapier, although I understand that some do exist. Even more rare are those who have direct link to a medieval battlefield art such as German Zweihaender. Although these too, may do exist.

Usually, those who utilize their classical fencing training and other martial arts training to revitalize the older 'broken' lines, are known by others as "Historical fencers". In fact, almost every Historical Fencer I know has a CF pedegogical background. It is from CF that they get the respect for the form, technique and lethality of the arms they study.

There are fencers who take CF and go the other way. There is some thought in the CF community that once students attain a sufficient level of skill in the old techniques that they should have no problem engaging with SF fencers. The difference is, the degree of skill required to fence SF following the CF mindset of "hit without being hit", takes a lot more training. I am talking about epee here. (Sport foil and sport sabre are so different from what most CFer's do that they are almost different animals). This is the path I would like for CFer's to take when interacting with the SF community. Fencing CF against SFers is hard... it really pushes you... but it is SO rewarding... and you learn so much.. and ultimately, you become a better defender and a better fencer. I do believe that if CF follows this path, we will see some CFer's rising through the ranks of SF, but time will tell. In the meantime, let us all live and learn from each other!

*Again, this is just my Five Bucks worth and I realize there may be some out there who call themselves CFer's who do not share my opinion. I am drawing from my own experience, and that of the members of our salle, in the CF community, having communicated, fenced with and learned from members and/or Master's from all the major CF salles.*