Fencers Quarterly Magazine?

[esgrimista1]

Hi,
Anyone here subscribe to Fencers Quarterly Magazine? How is it? Worth it?
Im thinking about subscribing, but havent seen an actual issue.

[Peach]

An Evangelista publication, suffused with nostalgia for the good old days and rejection of newfangled modern techniques, with the occasional interesting profile of a fencer of yesteryear. They sent me free copies for a while because I was a veteran on the points list, I think, but I never found much that interested me, since I didn't start fencing until the good old days were good and gone.

[Craig]

Is it still published?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Craig

Is it still published?

theoretically, yes
though i think its more along the lines of a "fencers yearly" nowadays or a "fencers whenever we can afford it". it seems like its just evangelista and one or two others that write anything for it so they're having trouble filling the pages. from what i understand. i've never read one, personally.

[Purple Fencer]

I have....don't bother.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

I have....don't bother.

yeah, i read some of the stuff they put on the website...it was pretty funny, actually. i think they had a few articles up at one point in time, two of which struck me as hillarious. one was evangelista writing about gaugler, i think, basically saying what an awesome dude he was and why he was so awesome with the fencing.

anyway, if you ever want to maybe look into the magazine, here's a good <a href="http://fencersquarterly.com/freearm.html" target="_blank">sample article</a> thats pretty representative of their "angry old guys" style of writing.

[Rolls]

I used to subscribe to it and recently they sent a free copy to my parent's house.

It's about as bad as it gets. In fact, I would say it's 90% of what I hate about fencing.

Here's a post I made after reading some of the last issue. Bear in mind that I had to force myself to read it.

Fencers Quarterly Rant.

IMHO, this magazine does absolutely NO good for fencing.

Rolls.

[scarlet_woman156k]

Originally Posted by Rolls

I used to subscribe to it and recently they sent a free copy to my parent's house.

It's about as bad as it gets. In fact, I would say it's 90% of what I hate about fencing.

Here's a post I made after reading some of the last issue. Bear in mind that I had to force myself to read it.

Fencers Quarterly Rant.

IMHO, this magazine does absolutely NO good for fencing.

Rolls.

What's funny to me is he actually criticizes the USFA (proposing it be called the Whippo association), yet he sends free copies of the newsletter to USFA members on the vets points list as Peach mentioned above.

What the hell? Why doesn't he start his own association and feed his ego-tainted, blow-hole sermons to those who believe his holier-than-thou attitude has some sort of merit. He obviously needs to gratify himself by dismissing the "modern" style as being fencing. It's much easier to dismiss something as being wrong, than admitting to yourself that you just aren't good enough.

Seriously, he pisses me off. Selling his books by feeding off the new USFA members looking for guidence, then slapping them in the face at the same time by criticzing the modern, international style. @sshole.

[jeff]

I used to subscribe and let it lapse for the same reasons as the others. The same ranting, BS garbage issue after issue. When people like Jeff Bukantz wrote in, the editor was extremely rude, which I put in the category of "insulting those who are way out of your league". Read one issue, you've read them all, anyway.

[FoilyGeezer]

It was easier fencing back when the world was flat!

[Schiavona]

To be fair to Evangelista, I understand he's a pretty good goat farmer.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

To be fair to Evangelista, I understand he's a pretty good goat farmer.

OUCH!!! The attack arrives....no attempt to parry!!

[edew]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

To be fair to Evangelista, I understand he's a pretty good goat farmer.

No, that's Grothendieck. Evangelista is a poor goat farmer.

[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.

Before starting a flame war, let me just say that I think 'Olympic' and 'Classical' fencing both have their place. Neither do I find them mutually exclusive. I know Classical Fencers who do well on the sport piste and sport fencers who have the form and technique to perform well on the classical piste. 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. So, both schools of fencing have their place and I will leave it to you to determine which you would rather follow. It is ultimately up to the individual.

Regarding FQM: Is it filled with ascerbic criticism of modern sport fencing? Yes. However, most of the criticisms, while passionate, usually are based upon rather well constructed arguments for which I have not heard articulate or successful responses here or on other forums which deride Classical Fencing without knowing anything about it. Most 'arguments' degenerate to ad hominum attacks which are as bad as an attack without priority is in foil or sabre. As a fencer, I appreciate the criticisms and attemtpt to remove the criticised actions from my fencing, be it in the sport fencing or the classical fencing arena. On the other hand, while I appreciate the intelligently written articles, I would prefer that some of the rancor against sport fencing could be drained from the Classical Fencing community. I understand that they are lashing out against unwarranted attacks by sport fencers labelling them as 'kooks' or 'archaic' or as being thought to be involved with the SCA (most Classical Fencers have NOTHING to do with the medieval recreation movement or the SCA). But Classical Fencing has grown to such a critical mass that they should not feel threatened by these few poor representatives of sport fencing. Fact is, most sport fencers with whom I have had the pleasure of fencing, have been exceedingly polite and even interested in the different way classical fencers approach fencing. So, if you can be intellectually dispassionate, FQM has a lot of good information in it regarding teaching and techniques which most sport fencing coaches never teach, but which can be used quite well by both sport and classical fencers (If , as a sport fencer, you could not only get more points than your opponent, but also prevent them from getting many or any hits at all, that would be the best thing right? - think of the pools - as such, classical fencing does have some stuff that we can learn as sport fencers).

Regarding Maitre Evangelista: He gets a lot of flack in the sport community, but largely due to his contrary stance. Most of his detractors, however, have never met him, never seen him fence nor know anything about his actual teachings or ability. I would like to point out a few things: He is a Master fencer and he has been fencing and teaching fencing for longer than most of us. He has taught both sport fencers and classical fencers. He does know what he is talking about when he teaches... (I have had the pleasure of taking lessons from him and must say that he is an excellent and insightful teacher.) Regarding his skill, he is incredible to watch... his movements are so fast and so minutely executed... he is certainly amazing to fence as well as to watch. While I am not quite as negative about sport fencing, who knows, when I have been fencing and teaching for as long as he has, maybe I will think differently. You may not like a particular fencing Master, whether it is his style, personality, or whatever, but you do have to respect him.

-just my two bucks (two cents adjusted for inflation).

[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.

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. as far as i can tell, nobody here has said a negative thing about classical fencing. only evangelista, because he is the loudest voice in the fencing community that is pointed towards the unaware public and that voice is very loudly denouncing olympic fencing. 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?

[FoilyGeezer]

Cfaustus

That was a very well reasoned and balanced opinion, and one that I largely agree with (your viewpoints regarding the differences between Classic and Sport fencing). Having left the sport in the 70's when there was only one kind of fencing and returned in the 00's I came smack up against the differences between what I'd been taught and the way the sport is conducted now. That they are different, you'll get no argument from me. I understand the acrimony that older fencers feel toward the way the sport has trended.

I have been dressed down by classically trained fencers whom I have great respect for for "running up and down the strip like a monkey". I have dressed down younger fencers for not being able to land a point attack. I have had my classical game taken apart by skilled flickmeisters and had my flicks rendered null and void by classicists (albeit I'm not fencing at the highest levels of the sport).

At the end of the day, it comes down to the skill of the athlete and their ability to execute what they've been trained to do. I doubt that a look back at the relative scores of fencing bouts in the 50's would render much a very signicant gap resulting from any "willingness to be hit". I recall plenty of La Belle bouts in the 70's.

Ultimately though the argument of the proponent of one school over the other is like arguing that vanilla ice cream is inherently superior to chocolate ice cream. I think what most sport fencer's take umbrage with regarding Mr. Evangelista, is the degree of his rancor, and his expression of opinion as fact (right, the one true way...etc). There is a lot of stylistic latitude in this sport. We all choose what tools to use, and where to use them. I don't see that electrical fencing has "ruined" this sport, or that it has ennobled it's rejection. It's all good! It's the personalities (some on both sides) that tick me off!

[Rolls]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

Regarding FQM: Is it filled with ascerbic criticism of modern sport fencing? Yes. However, most of the criticisms, while passionate, usually are based upon rather well constructed arguments

No, I would say they are logically flawed arguments. In fact, I would say the ENTIRE basis of classical fencing is flawed. The idea that Classical Fencing is more represenative of the dueiling tradition is W-R-O-N-G, for one simple reason. Unless you have participated in a duel, then how can you make any claims about what is represenative of it. I would be willing to give classical fencing practitioners the benefit of the doubt if they had even studied video footage of a large number of duels.

I believe I can make claims about both classical and competitive fencing because I have participated in them both. Simply put, classical fencing produces bad fencers for a number of reasons. Competitive fencing pedagogy can often produce bad fencers too, but it has a much more likely chance of producing effective/successful fencers. By effective, I mean fencers who can beat other fencers, no matter the rules or conditions.

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.

[ThePoint]

I find it funny that some one like Nick who supposedly, as you say, want to focus on classical fencing with a martial art philosophy has yet to master his mouth. You call it passion, I call it arrogant and pompous. Yes, I know, poh-ta-toe, poe-tae-toe. Let’s look at this from your argument that he takes classical fencing with a martial arts approach. Don’t you think that someone who calls himself “maitre” should have by now, not only have a greater understanding of fencing but have a better understanding of himself? After all, the grandmasters in eastern martial arts not only have a greater understanding of their art but they knew themselves, they realized that they know nothing. That realization made them humble, never prideful, boastful or arrogant. So if you want to draw a comparison to martial arts with Nick’s philosophy of classical fencing, you are barking up the wrong tree. I think it is safe to say he is someone who is enamored with the notion of classical fencing with an average ability. The fact that he has better access to certain media makes him appear to be credible meanwhile those people who truly love, I mean truly love classical fencing, go about their own way and they don’t appreciate someone like Nick designating himself as the spokesperson for their art.

If he is so called a maitre, let him at least act like one instead whining like a little baby in his books and magazines, tell him to have some dignity for goodness sake.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

Before starting a flame war, let me just say that I think 'Olympic' and 'Classical' fencing both have their place. Neither do I find them mutually exclusive. I know Classical Fencers who do well on the sport piste and sport fencers who have the form and technique to perform well on the classical piste. 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. So, both schools of fencing have their place and I will leave it to you to determine which you would rather follow. It is ultimately up to the individual.

I think most would agree that there is room for sport, classical, historical, SCA fencing, and other variations.

Originally Posted by cfaustus

Regarding FQM: Is it filled with ascerbic criticism of modern sport fencing? Yes. However, most of the criticisms, while passionate, usually are based upon rather well constructed arguments for which I have not heard articulate or successful responses here or on other forums which deride Classical Fencing without knowing anything about it. Most 'arguments' degenerate to ad hominum attacks which are as bad as an attack without priority is in foil or sabre.

Now here's where you start to go wrong.

I've read Evangelista, one of his books, FQM, and various other articles.
Many of his criticisms are based on opinion, not well constructed factual arguments. So any discussion about his ideas immediately turns into ridiculous childish arguments.

Originally Posted by cfaustus

As a fencer, I appreciate the criticisms and attemtpt to remove the criticised actions from my fencing, be it in the sport fencing or the classical fencing arena. On the other hand, while I appreciate the intelligently written articles, I would prefer that some of the rancor against sport fencing could be drained from the Classical Fencing community. I understand that they are lashing out against unwarranted attacks by sport fencers labelling them as 'kooks' or 'archaic' or as being thought to be involved with the SCA (most Classical Fencers have NOTHING to do with the medieval recreation movement or the SCA). But Classical Fencing has grown to such a critical mass that they should not feel threatened by these few poor representatives of sport fencing. Fact is, most sport fencers with whom I have had the pleasure of fencing, have been exceedingly polite and even interested in the different way classical fencers approach fencing. So, if you can be intellectually dispassionate, FQM has a lot of good information in it regarding teaching and techniques which most sport fencing coaches never teach, but which can be used quite well by both sport and classical fencers (If , as a sport fencer, you could not only get more points than your opponent, but also prevent them from getting many or any hits at all, that would be the best thing right? - think of the pools - as such, classical fencing does have some stuff that we can learn as sport fencers).

On paper, the stuff some of them write is spot on. In practice, it doesn't work. Here's why I think that. I fenced against students of Gaugler. These students had a lot of training with him, had fenced competitively before, and attempted to do so after training with him.

The looked technically very good. Small point, small disengages, balanced, well executed lunges. They got knocked out very early every tournament. I fenced several in DE's and the best any of them got on me was 4.

That person in particular I remember when we first met. He had been fencing for 1 year longer than me, working with a competitive coach. He was a D. Then, he starts training with Gaugler. 2 years later, I'm an A and he's still a D.

Now, Gaugler and Evangelista are two different people, but very similar in their approach to fencing. I have yet to see any of Evangelista's students do well at any USFA event.

The theory may be the same, but the reality and the execution is very different.

Originally Posted by cfaustus

Regarding Maitre Evangelista: He gets a lot of flack in the sport community, but largely due to his contrary stance. Most of his detractors, however, have never met him, never seen him fence nor know anything about his actual teachings or ability. I would like to point out a few things: He is a Master fencer and he has been fencing and teaching fencing for longer than most of us. He has taught both sport fencers and classical fencers. He does know what he is talking about when he teaches... (I have had the pleasure of taking lessons from him and must say that he is an excellent and insightful teacher.) Regarding his skill, he is incredible to watch... his movements are so fast and so minutely executed... he is certainly amazing to fence as well as to watch. While I am not quite as negative about sport fencing, who knows, when I have been fencing and teaching for as long as he has, maybe I will think differently. You may not like a particular fencing Master, whether it is his style, personality, or whatever, but you do have to respect him.

-just my two bucks (two cents adjusted for inflation).

Evangelista gets a lot of flack because he talks about sport fencing. He has produced no sport fencing champions. He has no competitive success as a sport fencer. While I have not met him, I know several who have when he trained with Ralph Faulkner.

As a sport fencer, he was not all that.

So what makes him think he's an authority on sport fencing? When it comes to history, terminology, or classical technique I defer to Gaugler and others that are more well versed in the subject.

When it comes to sport fencing, Evangelista should do the same. Defer to others who know better.

Yet he criticizes sport fencing with same stale old arguments.
He's said nothing newin the past 7 years, just written more articles of the same. Offered no proof that he's right. Just his opinion with no results to back them up.

In fact, his arguments are so old, that they've been discussed here before many times, and there is'nt much more to say about him.

So I won't.