-----Original Message-----
>>While Rez' system for encouraging good form is praiseworthy, I worry
>>about the risk of creating fencers that look good, but aren't equally
>>effective on the strip (of course, no aspersion is intended on Rez's
>>students!)

None taken. I emphasize technique while emphasizing form. They go together.
However, tactics are taught last. By the time my fencers get to bout (two
years or more), the form and the correct execution of techniques and tactics
have been well engrained. So they have no problem fencing effectively on the
strip while using good form. They no longer have to think about form, it
just comes naturally due to the progression of training I put them through.
The progression I use develops well balanced competent fencers.

The only ones that seem to have problems with form in my tournaments are
former sport fencers who never developed good form before starting to bout
or compete. Bad habits are hard to over come during a bout. In my last event
all the former sport fencers failed to pass the qualifying round. Some of
them were very discouraged and went back to sport fencing because they
didn't want to take the time and energy required to clean up their fencing.
Others who failed to qualify came away determined to improve their form and
make it past the qualifying round next time.

So far my students have done quite well on the strip. In the last Classical
Foil tournament which I hosted one of my students won the event. She not
only fenced with beautiful form, receiving no form faults, she also received
zero touches, and made more touches than any other fencer. Everyone
commented on how beautiful her fencing was. She was grace in motion, yet her
technique was also flawless. Her timing and use of tactics were equally
exceptional. Even persons who had never observed a bout before commented on
how they could easily follow the action in her bouts. She had started out as
a sport fencer and had a poor competitive record. However, she switched to
classical fencing and began taking two private lessons each week for a year
with me. I corrected made her correct her form first before giving her
advanced technical and finally tactical lessons.

Unfortunately she moved off to attend school elsewhere. My students and I
greatly miss her. Whenever she is in town she drops by my salle and all of
my students who are qualified to bout lineup to fence with her.

>>If we grade form and not function, does function invariably result?

Function IS "graded" (awarded or punished) by touches during the bout.
The goal is still to touch without getting touched and one must use proper
technique and tactics to do that efficiently. It's simply done in the
context of good form, which should come naturally to any trained classical
fencer.

>>I think we've all seen fencers who had good form but couldn't
>>adequately defend themselves or mount an attack.

They shouldn't be bouting then.
They should return to perfecting techniques, tactics or whatever is holding
them back. It's the master's job to not let his student bout until he is
ready.

>Balance is needed.
>>Personally I think that form helps function, but doesn't outrank it,
>>even in the classical fencing schools of one hundred years ago.

Balance IS needed to be a good fencer.
Balance as stated earlier IS the result of my method of progression.

You must be getting me wrong here.

I do teach form, technique, and tactics, just in the proper timing of the
progression. Form is internalized first, then technique (actually along with
form), then tactics. Tactics are only introduced after the student has
internalized the form and technique. At that point he no longer has to
"think" about form or technique. His mind is them freed up to focus on
tactics and strategy.

So requiring proper form doesn't present a problem for my students, just as
it didn't present a problem for the classical fencers of yesteryear. Good
form was a given then and it is in my school now. It was also used as a
prerequisite to being allowed to compete in a foil tournament, in order to
keep the untrained "pokers" from polluting the event with their untrained,
unconventional, and hard to follow actions. Foil was and is a conventional
weapon for teaching proper fencing principals. Epee on the other hand is the
dueling weapon, free of conventions, this free from grading on form.

This program of training has produced more balanced fencers than I ever saw
when coaching and competing in sport fencing.

In sport fencing you have fencers who bout before learning the entire
technical repertoire and before completing a long period of tactical
training. In my school they spend years drilling and perfecting these things
BEFORE beginning free bouting and competing.

>>I also worry about grading on form once you get outside a school. If
>>it's your school you can say "this is proper form", and your students
>>have to conform to it. If it gets outside the school - say, at a
>>competition - then somebody else's notion of form comes into play.

This is true. But it isn't a problem in my school because our foil focus
isn't on competing with other groups. It's on perfecting martial skills. My
students, even my competitive ones, say that they enjoy perfecting their
techniques and tactics through the partner drills as much as (and for some
more than) bouting. When I coached sport fencing, competition was the focus
and my students competed in a regional tournament every two to three weeks.
Since competition ISNT the focus of my classical foil program, I only offer
two or three classical foil tournaments each year. We do have more epee and
rapier events since the focus on those weapons is not on form but on dueling
realities. For that one needs plenty of bouting experience.

So you see, the reason I do things this way in my salle is because I have a
different focus on what each weapon should teach based on the use of each
weapon during the classical era, which by the way, for my school I define as
Mid 1800s to around 1896. My focus and goals are vastly different from that
of the sport fencing coach. My focus and goals are also different from many
other classical fencing instructors, who see the classical period as
extending to the 1920s, or beyond. I see the classical era dieing out in the
1890s as a greater emphasis on athleticism and sport influenced fencing.

So for me, Aldo Nadi, as great a fencer as he was, and whose form was
flawless (except in his duel), was NOT a classical fencer. He improvised
upon the classical traditions his father taught. I see classical fencing as
fencing as it was taught during one small period in time. Not as an evolving
art which one can improve upon.

This is similar to many Tai Chi practitioners today who practice forms that
have remained unchanged for hundreds of years. Yes, I do know that there
have been some Tai Chi masters who have added to these forms and changed
them up, just as sport fencing has added to and changed up fencing. However,
there are still many who continue to practice the original Tai Chi forms.

>> So, if I was taught an en-guarde position that's
>>slightly different, will I get penalized? If I hold sixte or quarte
>>differently, do I lose out? (consider the differences between
>>classical Italian and French styles here).

No, of course not. As long as you fence using either the Italian or French
forms which were used during the classical era your fencing is considered
conventional. If however, you use an unconventional form the director will
halt the bout, give you a warning and another chance to use classical
technique and form. A slap (flick) by the way is a fault in my school, just
as is the fleche (however unlike in modern sabre I do still allow
crossovers).

The faults I grade against are universal.
1. A bent arm attack is a bent arm attack in both the French and Italian
schools.
2. Failure to use the back arm for counter balance and recovery (using the
Sport Fencer's Elephant Trunk) is incorrect in both the Italian and French
schools.
3. Rolling the back foot over onto one's ankle in an attempt to gain
distance in an incorrectly launched attack is incorrect in both schools.
(One should learn to judge their distance using a flat back foot, which can
slide if necessary, but should not roll over)

All of the form faults follow this pattern and are universal to the
classical French and Italian forms. As long as it meets one of these
national styles its correct.

>>A question to Rez: is your system purely binary and punitive (no
>>points off if you do form right, and points deducted if you do it
>>wrong),...

That's correct, we reward and reinforce proper form by punishing bad form.
In all of our bouts we count touches AGAINST the fencer touched (think of
them as wounds received) instead of for the person making the touch. Of
course if you have been a sport fencer for very long you will remember when
we awarded touches that way in sport fencing as well.

In the qualifying round we call the phrases and the touches we just don't
keep score. The qualifying bout last three minutes, enough time to ascertain
one's form. In addition to the line judges, a separate panel of judges are
watching only for form faults. They raise their hands when they see a form
fault. The director halts the bout and the offending fencer is told what he
did. The fault judges also have a score card for each fencer on which they
check off form faults as they occur. After the bout each fencer is called to
the judging table where his form faults are discussed with him. If he makes
three or more form faults he is eliminated at that point. Fencers who made
only one or two form faults are allowed one more qualifying bout in which to
prove they can fence clean. If they receive any form faults in this second
bout they are eliminated. If they received none they progress to the scoring
round.

During the scoring round all bouts are fought to three touches against the
person touched. In this round a form fault counts as a touch against the
person who committed it. So form is very important in our foul events.
However, as I mentioned earlier, form isn't a problem for most of my
fencers, because they spent several years internalizing the correct form.
They don't have to think about it and most of them prequalify for the
scoring round because they haven't received a form fault in their previous
tournament.

The emphasis on form is only a hindrance to those who have poor form from
developing and proliferating bad habits. In my salle this usually tends to
be those who have sport fencing backgrounds. In my salle it usually takes
sport fencers much longer to get to the bouting stage than those who have no
fencing background at all. They usually have much to unlearn and many habits
to retrain. Very few have the self-discipline to quit bouting and spend a
few years breaking bad habits.

When I coached sport fencing I offered the only fencing within 200 miles. I
owned three different clubs at the same time. My students competed in all
the regional events as well as the nationals, Junior Olympics, etc. I always
had students who placed in the top three in our Divisional Qualifiers and in
the State Championships. I had a fully equipped 4000 sf. fencing salle on
the busiest street in Jackson, (the capital of Mississippi) which I paid
over $4000 a month for in rent and utilities. I had over 50 regular members
who were competitive sport fencers. I also had classical, historical, and
theatrical fencers.

However, after many years of internal turmoil, I realized that one can not
serve two masters, because he will eventually come to hate the one and love
the other, as the proverb goes. This was the case with me and so I quit
coaching sport fencing to focus on my classical and historical programs.
Subsequently I lost most of my sport fencing students. My two assistant
instructors whom I was training for USFCA certification left to form sport
fencing clubs in two of the towns where I had previously owned salles.

A handful of devoted sport fencers remained with me and switched over to
classical fencing. However, I lost so many sport fencers that I could no
longer support my big salle and had to return to using other organizations'
facilities. My point in all this is that the majority of my sport fencers
did not want to spend the necessary time switching over to classical
fencing. It was a very difficult journey for those that did, and they
wouldn't go back to sport fencing now. Two different goals and mentalities.

>> Two people can both be "correct"
>>but one of them be much more fluid, graceful, able to execute at
>>speed, have accurate point control, etc.

That is why we don't grade subjectively based on who is more fluid,
graceful, etc.. That would not be fair to the person who was not as graceful
yet correct in form. We prefer the objective criteria which were universally
accepted by the classical masters of the era I mentioned.

>>I have to disagree that Santelli never gave tactical lessions.

He himself said as much in an interview.
I'll try to dig up the publication and quote it for you.

>> ... Giorgio gave lessons that had a
>>very strong tactical aspect, with Giorgio presenting different
>>alternatives that the student...had to respond to in a tactical context...
>>Set-ups, changes in distance, offering the blade, withdrawing the blade,
>>responding differently to attempted takings, and so forth. At that level
>>of fencing, Giorgio was not giving technique lessons.

You have accurately described a tactical lesson. However, since I never took
a lesson from Maestro Santelli, nor watched him give one, I can only go by
what he himself said, and he said that he never give tactical lessons.

What is your source on him giving tactical lessons? Did you ever take a
lesson from him or observe him giving one? Or did one of his students tell
you he gave tactical lessons?

Just because his fencers were tactically proficient (and they were) doesn't
mean they learned tactics directly from him. Nedo and Aldo were very adept
at epee, yet never took epee lessons. Their father forbid it. So they
amazingly studied and perfected their use of that weapon on their own. Of
course they already had an excellent foil foundation upon which to build.

>>It's also worth considering that Giorgio produced fencers that weren't
>>clones. Bobby didn't fence (or stand enguarde) just like Ed, or Ed
>>like Marty Lang, or Denise O'Connor like Carolyn Chesney, and so on.

Yes, it is the coaches job to help their students develop their own, I
hesitate to use the word, "style." Basically how to best use their own
individual attributes.

>>Personally, I think there's a band of acceptable form, rather than One
>>True Way to hold your hand and body, and as long as you're within that
>>band you're form is fine.

In my school the Classical French and Italian styles from the mid to late
1800s are themselves that band of acceptable form!

Enjoyed chatting with you.

Blessings,
Rez
------------------
Rez Johnson, M d'E
Headmaster: Mississippi Academy of Arms

Certified Moniteur d'Escrime (Fleuret, Epee, Sabre): Academie d'Armes
Internationale (AAI)

Certified Fencing Instructor (Foil, Epee, Saber): United States Fencing
Coaches Association (USFCA)

Fencing Master Apprentice of Past USFCA President, Robert F. Scranton,
Maitre d'Armes

Mississippi Academy of Arms
Virtute et Armis - By Valor and Arms
Teaching Fencing Since 1980
------------------




----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/classicalfencing/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
classicalfencing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/