Fencers Quarterly Magazine?

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by SaintDominique

Fencing a bout sans flicks and dry instead of electrical does not a classical fencer make. Thus, "classical" fencers who do interact with USFA events as often as not are coming from poor instructors to start off with.

In reality, there are probably no more than fifteen masters with a real classical lineage in the world, and their few trained provosts and instructors (I know of none in Alabama, so if you had a bad experience, Rolls, this might be why). People like Maestri Martinez, Gaugler, and Lupo-Sinclair are rare indeed. Most of them are content to do their own thing, letting the USFA and FIE do their own thing in turn --

Evangelista and folks like him are in the minority, I think; the minority just happens to be very vocal, since everyone else mostly keeps to themselves. Much as I respect Evangelista and his skill, I am not even certain that he can be called truly "classical," as Ralph Faulkner himself was a fully twentieth-century fencer.

I think a large part of the problem that 'mainstream' fencers have with the 'classical' fencers is that the, let's call them 'neoclassical', fencers they meet are students not of true classical instructors, but of disaffected fencing instructors. Boy, that's an akward sentence! I believe the turning point or break came for these people when the first copy of the USFA Rules came out. If you watch these neoclassical people, their arms are extended and locked before any movement on the attack. Just as I was first taught! The old AFLA Rule book said that to gain ROW the arm must be EXTENDED point threatening valid target. The USFA Rule book says arm EXTENDING. There I believe is the start of Mr Evangelista's schism. And I believe he is FAR from alone! I believe that there are many, many fencing instructors still teaching the old ROW and filling their student's heads with distain for 'Olympic' fencing. I really don't think they fence the way St.Dom describes. I think they're people like me and others on this board, who learned to fence under one set of rules but refused to adapt to the changes to the sport in their lifetime. So they take refuge under the term 'classical', feel superior as 'true believers' and lose in mainstream tournaments. As Buggs would say, "What maroons!"

[D'Artag-NOT]

Originally Posted by SaintDominique

It's rather counterproductive on the part of both communities to keep all this mud-flinging going, when there's so much left to learn...

Word, St. D.

[Rolls]

SaintDominique,

You are right that there is little classical instruction in Alabama. There is little fencing instruction in Alabama period. However, I have read some of Gaugler's books. I even recieved a partial scholarship to attend one of Martinez's rapier seminars (didn't make it unfortunately). I was a member of the AHF (American Historical Fencing) the first two years of its existence. And I read every piece of classical fencing literature that I could get my hands on for years. I feel like I have a strong understanding of classical fencing. I feel like I can execute correct classical technique and fence compently with it.

My only point is that the methodology taught by classical fencing does not work. It doesn't work in today's competitions. It doesn't work when fencing other classical fencers, and I strongly suspect that it would not work in a duel (I only suspect because I've never had the oppurtunity to observe one).

I'm not an advocate of modern fencing. I'm an advocate of fencing that works (i.e. gets the point on your opponent and stops his point). Classical fencing does NOT work and it certainly does not prepare one for a duel. I think a modern competitive fencer is infinitely more prepared for a duel than the best classical fencers.

I even think that classical fencing not only hinders its practitioners, but it also hinders fencing as a whole. Too many fencers are introduced to fencing through classical instruction or literature and are turned off by fencing. Too often fencing is described as a "martial art". I'm not exactly sure what that phrase means, but it's bad for fencing.

Rolls.

[D'Artag-NOT]

Originally Posted by Rolls

Too often fencing is described as a "martial art". I'm not exactly sure what that phrase means, but it's bad for fencing.

Interesting--my sister, who holds a black belt in tang soo do karate, and I have discussed this. It seems to me a martial art could be defined as a discipline that originated as a combat/battle skill and is now practiced as a sport or personal discipline. Karate, judo, jujitsu, and kendo are such disciplines that originated in Asia. Fencing is such a discipline that originated in Europe.

(I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the description of fencing as a martial art is "bad for fencing" if you weren't sure of what the phrase means.)

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by D'Artag-NOT

Interesting--my sister, who holds a black belt in tang soo do karate, and I have discussed this. It seems to me a martial art could be defined as a discipline that originated as a combat/battle skill and is now practiced as a sport or personal discipline. Karate, judo, jujitsu, and kendo are such disciplines that originated in Asia. Fencing is such a discipline that originated in Europe.

Martial art is defined by Webster as:

Any of several Asian arts of combat or self-defense, such as aikido, karate, judo, or tae kwon do, usually practiced as sport. Often used in the plural.

Realistically however, the term is argued about quite a bit.

The working definition seems to be that any discipline or sport that originated as a combat skill. The big arugment comes from whether the discipline is now an art or a sport. As in martial art, or martial sport.

I'm sure poster's here have experienced the online is fencing an art or sport debate before.

I'm always struck by similar arguments that I witnessed at my university's martial arts program. Two in particular always argued this same topic with each other. The sport focused one claimed to be a martial art, and the self defense focused one derisively referred to them as a 'martial sport'.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by cfaustus

You may not see many simple attacks with absence or many marching attacks, but that is because from a CF stand point, it is not worth getting a double hit even if you hit 'first'. You see, even when we fence with RoW, we are still thinking toward the more real scenario as in Epee. At least in our salle.

So, who gets the point in a double hit? Will it be 1-1, as in sport epee, or according to RoW, as in sport foil/sabre? Or is the whole concept of point scores alien to CF?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Rolls

My only point is that the methodology taught by classical fencing does not work. It doesn't work in today's competitions. It doesn't work when fencing other classical fencers, and I strongly suspect that it would not work in a duel (I only suspect because I've never had the oppurtunity to observe one).

It does not work when fencing other CF´ers? Then who wins? Or will all such bouts end in double defeat?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[RETLAG]

In essence, CF is a re-creation of how one fenced in the latter half of the 19th century when the object was to prepare for duels. This excludes even such famous early 20th Century fencers such as Aldo Nadi et al, as they also had the luxury of not facing a sharp weapon. In effect it's almost an historical re-enactment like those guys who like to go around re-enacting Civil War battles. That's a bit unfair because you already know how the Civil War battle ended. My point is that in completely turning your back on the last 100 years of sport fencing you're losing out on a lot of valuable lessons that fencers have painfully (albeit bloodlessly) learned. Yes, modern sport fencers take chances and use techniques (like flicking) that might not have been advisable in a real duel, but they also bring to the table such things as athleticism, speeed and mobility which would have stood them in good stead. How about those terrible pistol grips that Nick hates so much? Are they really effectively much different from the Italian grip. Both tend to tip the balance towards power rather than finesse, but I suspect the pistol grip is a lot more versatile and finger friendly.

I hope it will never happen, but if a classical and a sport fencer met in a real duel, having had time to prepare, I'd put my money on the sport fencer.

[Rolls]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

It does not work when fencing other CF´ers? Then who wins?

Good question. Usually, the first one to disreguard their classical training and start fencing.

A lot of fencers (classical and modern) learn one thing and then do something else to win. I think there's something wrong with that picture.

Rolls.

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

So, who gets the point in a double hit? Will it be 1-1, as in sport epee, or according to RoW, as in sport foil/sabre? Or is the whole concept of point scores alien to CF?

Double hits do occur. They are the inevitable outcome of two people who have the same impulse at the same moment. However, we really try to not have them happen. Depending upon the venue, the scores may be awarded both against (to aknowledge that both would be hit therefore a penalty should be against both fencers) or they may be both nullified to signify that neither fencer did what they were supposed to do as far as defensive offense. I prefer the former but I understand the pedegogical reasons behind the later and would even use such rules for beginners. You see, double hits, from our point of view are not a smart tactical or strategic maneuver. Most of the CF tournaments I have had the pleasure of attending score points AGAINST. The final 4 fencers are usually the four who recieved the fewest hits against them while vanquishing their opponents. Defense is primary, scoring is secondary. It is simply a different way of approaching fencing.

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by RETLAG

In essence, CF is a re-creation of how one fenced in the latter half of the 19th century when the object was to prepare for duels. This excludes even such famous early 20th Century fencers such as Aldo Nadi et al, as they also had the luxury of not facing a sharp weapon.

Um.. just a minor point, but Aldo Nadi was classically trained (he was the teacher of M. Gaugler), he DID fight a duel, and he won.

But what is important is the training in Classical Fencing. One learns more from it than just winning competitions. One learns more about life. I have studied Karate and Kobudo and I find Classical Fencing as it has been taught in our salle much more similar to the Eastern arts in philosophy and execution than any of my sport fencing training. Again, different salles/clubs will offer different experiences for both SF and CF.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

One learns more from it than just winning competitions. One learns more about life.

One learns quite a bit about life while competing.

Especially from the better coaches.

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by Rolls

Good question. Usually, the first one to disreguard their classical training and start fencing.

A lot of fencers (classical and modern) learn one thing and then do something else to win. I think there's something wrong with that picture.

Rolls.

I would like to respond to much of what has recently emerged in this discussion with a quote from Maestro Barbasetti's work on the Epee. I do not intend to be contentious, I simply find it interesting that this Master, who taught in the early part of the 1900's, was still concerned with preserving the reality of the duel. It is interesting to remember that Barbasetti was teaching peoples of German descent. The same people who came up wth the form of dueling called the "Mensur" to preserve what they deemed to be good about a duel to first blood while removing the lethality (so that they would be in accordance with Church and State wishes). The first five paragraphs he states the 'new' style of rules for Epee competition. Thereafter, you begin to see his personal view. Barbasetti taught fencers not only for sport, but also for self defense as well as teaching soldiers at military academies across Europe. He was well acquainted with both the exercise and martial art aspects of European fencing. Again, these are not my words, but those of a MASTER who knew both edges of fencing's sword.:

"IN ESTABLISHING a new style for the duelling epee, the rules and conventions governing the judging of the touches have been abolished.

In the numerous and varied cases of double touch, the first blow to reach a target which now includes the whole body-even when the difference in time is only the minute fraction of a second-is the only qne to be scored.

But the advantage in a double touch does not depend on the time factor alone; there is also the question of the comparative length of the thrusts. For example, in a simultaneous attack, if one of the adversaries is touched on the wrist and the other on the elbow, the touch on the wrist takes precedence because this part of the arm is nearer to the point of the adversary's weapon. This principle is applied to all similar cases.

The absence of conventions and the extent of the target tempt the fencers to use any expedient in order to make the first touch, without trying not to be touched themselves. It is on this account that there is a tendency to overdo the stop-thrust, particularly to the arm, which is the nearest target and the easiest to reach. In effect, it is sufficient to extend the arm forward, in line-the easiest method for the fencer who is not very well trained-in order to overcome the difficulties offered by a stronger fencer .

If worse comes to the worst-the majority of the epee fencers say, and they are not wrong at that-there is always the double, which leads to an argument. ...

All the foregoing has completely overturned the traditional tactics of assault, by reversing the funda- mental principles of swordplay in favor of the weaklings in the art of fencing.

All the real fencer has to do in order to adapt himself to modern conditions is to become more prudent, and to avoid any action unless he is sure of the success of his attack, such as tradition has always demanded.

Those who nurse the ambition to become strong fencers, must concentrate on the study of the attack by means of the simplest and most direct actions, having the chest as an objective, and consequently must develop the legs if they have a strong muscular system. Otherwise, they must specialize in the art of defense, studying the details of the parry in the second intention attacks, which are within the reach of everyone."

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by achilleus

One learns quite a bit about life while competing.

Especially from the better coaches.

I do not disagree. I am just saying CF training takes a different path in its instruction. Hopefully, the destination of both, that of a human being, is the same for SF and CF.

[Rolls]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

Um.. just a minor point, but Aldo Nadi was classically trained (he was the teacher of M. Gaugler), he DID fight a duel, and he won.

But what is important is the training in Classical Fencing. One learns more from it than just winning competitions. One learns more about life. I have studied Karate and Kobudo and I find Classical Fencing as it has been taught in our salle much more similar to the Eastern arts in philosophy and execution than any of my sport fencing training. Again, different salles/clubs will offer different experiences for both SF and CF.

I think saying that Aldo Nadi was classicaly trained is a stretch. He competed regularly. He fenced epee which at the time was considered unconventional an very modern. Just because he lived in an earlier time, does not make him a "classical" fencer. Also, it's my understanding that his duel was considered a draw. And I also understand that Gaugler received very little training from Nadi.

Rolls.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by achilleus

One learns quite a bit about life while competing.

Especially from the better coaches.

And don't forget the Peter Westbrook Foundation.

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by Rolls

I think saying that Aldo Nadi was classicaly trained is a stretch. He competed regularly. He fenced epee which at the time was considered unconventional an very modern. Just because he lived in an earlier time, does not make him a "classical" fencer. Also, it's my understanding that his duel was considered a draw. And I also understand that Gaugler received very little training from Nadi.

Rolls,

I have been reading your posts, and until the day when I have the pleasure of meeting you face to face so that we can discuss this more freely, I am going to have to agree to disagree with you. Quite simply, it appears that you had a very different, and obviously negative to you, experience with CF. A lot of what you seem to pressume or define as CF is not the CF which I have known and engage in. Therefore, we simply seem to be missing each other with our attempts at mutual enlightenment. I believe we are caught in a web of semantics and experiencial dissonance. I am very sorry for the negative impression you have been given by CF, however, please do not mistake your experience for the totality of what is CF.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Rolls

I think saying that Aldo Nadi was classicaly trained is a stretch. He competed regularly. He fenced epee which at the time was considered unconventional an very modern. Just because he lived in an earlier time, does not make him a "classical" fencer. Also, it's my understanding that his duel was considered a draw. And I also understand that Gaugler received very little training from Nadi.

In support of this view -- there was another thread which quoted from Nadi's book. In the quotes, Nadi acknowledged that his wirey and unmuscular frame would normally be detrimental -- but that he had created a technique centered around counter-time and stop-hits. Unless the fencer is famously a classicist, then this would make the fencer quite modern in approach.

It also implies that Nadi was fencing some folks with big, possibly uncontrolled actions, for him to squeeze in stop-hits in a mostly immobile distance game. This jibes with the photographs of foil from the 1896 Olympics

[SaintDominique]

I will have to agree with Mr. Cfaustus, again.

Firstly, I must say that you cannot learn classical fencing from a book -- indeed, you cannot learn any fencing from a book. If that is your basis, then it seems to me that you don't have the proper experience to make such a judgement. I'll grant that classical sabre will get you "killed" in a modern tournament, but I know of at least one occasion where a classical epeeist has taken out olympic veterans in USFA competition. Ultimately, it does indeed come down to the fencer and his skill, but rest assured that classical technique DOES work, and works very well. Why else would Aurelio Greco have faced THREE HUNDRED opponents in an epee competition without being hit ONCE? (300 - no exaggeration) Greco's style was imminently classical. If the technique were as inherently flawed as you suggest it is, no amount of fencing genius would be able to yield a score like that. It is arrogant to say that classical fencing doesn't work against classical fencing -- if it didn't, then why would those people have kept doing it for 100 years? Yes, things changed, but that has to do with changing conventions, rules, equipment (like losing 3/4 of a pound in the weight of your sabre!) and objectives. If you ever get the chance, pay a visit to Maestro Gaugler and you'll see what I mean.

Some controversy for you there, Noodle? Doin' my best to oblige.

As an aside, Nadi was classically trained, but by his own admission developed his own personal style, although I think that all fencers do this, to one degree or another. I agree that ultimately, you should use what works, and the formation of individual styles is what makes fencing so great -- all this variety of things to deal with! But there are indeed some really nasty classical techniques out there -- especially in epee...

And trust me, guys, there is plenty of speed and athleticism in GOOD classical fencing, too. Just as much, I find, as when I was competing in Junior Olympics and NAC's, etc., three or four years back. It is ultimately the same footwork and the same fundamental motions, after all -- intense is intense is intense.

Different strokes...
StDom

[jeff]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

Um.. just a minor point, but