Re: Fencing would gain a lot

[Trim Plus Expert]

Of course it would be better for fencing in general, but not for the fencers
who loves long matchs however the point of a defence training is to train
for encounters the may last only a few seconds, it would remain closer to
this principe. So would be better for what is fencing. But hard for fencer
to accept or fun for those who like radical changes.



"Rufus T. Firefly" <remise@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:20040629094544.19122.00000820@mb-m06.aol.com...
> You're talking, but you're not making any sense. Saying "fenfing would
> gain" is the same as saying "it would be better for fencing."
>
> ======
> He's not saying that. He's saying, "it would be better for fenfing."
There's a
> difference. I think. I just don't know what it is.
>
> B.C. Milligan
>

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:32:48 -0400
Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> Of course it would be better for fencing in general, but not for the fencers
> who loves long matchs however the point of a defence training is to train
> for encounters the may last only a few seconds, it would remain closer to
> this principe. So would be better for what is fencing. But hard for fencer
> to accept or fun for those who like radical changes.
>
>

Well.. you are making the assumption that everyone's in it as a martial
art.

They aren't - great numbers of people are in it as a sport.

The mindset is different, and to some extent the valued techniques are
different. The obvious one being how much you are willing to risk being
touched compared to touching, and whether you think a double touch is OK
if you touch first.

The different attitudes lead to very different games, different
competitions.

Best bet is to find the competition that suits you, rather than trying
to change the one that doesn't.

My guess is that most people who are only minorly into it will prefer
the sport version, if only cos they get to fence more! The classical
version requires a lot more training and work for less quick reward -
the fewer bouts you fence the fewer rewards you get. On the other hand,
when you get good you know you would survive a duel, and even though you
won't ever fight one, the knowledge is there. An achievement. Just not
one all that many people care about.

WHen I fence in a tournament I'll usually be fighting to one touch,
or maybe to 3 at most. It's nowhere near as satisfying as training
where I get to fence as much as I want

Zebee

[JDzik]

Trim Plus Expert writes:

>Of course it would be better for fencing in general, but not for the fencers
>who loves long matchs however the point of a defence training is to train
>for encounters the may last only a few seconds, it would remain closer to
>this principe.

I've got to say, I don't know of any martial arts competitions that are fought
to the first touch. (But this being Usenet, I'm sure someone will pop up with
at least three examples within two minutes of my posting this.) After all, a
boxing match lasts a lot longer than a fencing bout.

But, you know, you can achieve what you want by just changing the way you look
at a bout. Instead of viewing it as a continuous contest to 5 points (using a
pool bout as the model), view it as 9 bouts, each to first touch. The winner
is the guy who wins a majority of the bouts.

Voila, you have your realistic model without bugging guys like me, who like the
strategy that comes from fencing lots of points.

Joe

[Trim Plus Expert]

No such competitions exist near me, and I respect the love for sport
fencing, don't have much choice I love it too, but I think fencing should
remain as close as possible to its origins. If we look back before 1930
there had no such thing as sport fencing & martial art fencing, it was
simply fencing.


"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrnce3kqk.joo.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:32:48 -0400
> Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> > Of course it would be better for fencing in general, but not for the
fencers
> > who loves long matchs however the point of a defence training is to
train
> > for encounters the may last only a few seconds, it would remain closer
to
> > this principe. So would be better for what is fencing. But hard for
fencer
> > to accept or fun for those who like radical changes.
> >
> >
>
> Well.. you are making the assumption that everyone's in it as a martial
> art.
>
> They aren't - great numbers of people are in it as a sport.
>
> The mindset is different, and to some extent the valued techniques are
> different. The obvious one being how much you are willing to risk being
> touched compared to touching, and whether you think a double touch is OK
> if you touch first.
>
> The different attitudes lead to very different games, different
> competitions.
>
> Best bet is to find the competition that suits you, rather than trying
> to change the one that doesn't.
>
> My guess is that most people who are only minorly into it will prefer
> the sport version, if only cos they get to fence more! The classical
> version requires a lot more training and work for less quick reward -
> the fewer bouts you fence the fewer rewards you get. On the other hand,
> when you get good you know you would survive a duel, and even though you
> won't ever fight one, the knowledge is there. An achievement. Just not
> one all that many people care about.
>
> WHen I fence in a tournament I'll usually be fighting to one touch,
> or maybe to 3 at most. It's nowhere near as satisfying as training
> where I get to fence as much as I want
>
> Zebee

[Trim Plus Expert]

Thats whats Boxing is for , and I don't want to change it i just want it
to remain true. Progress isn't always foward, it's possible to progress
backward. If the sport fencing would evolve to fighting with 7 foot, whip
like rods with no parry at all would you still like it? Like ive read
somewhere, do you think that thoses who still run lives in the past, we have
car, no need to run. And what about horse riding? Things that people loves
never change. And like it or not, when you are fencing, you are doing
something that is from the past. Progress isn't supposed to change the very
core of something.



"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:no_one_knows-DD2000.09335930062004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <qCyEc.172332$207.1218054@news20.bellglobal.com> ,
> "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
>
> > No such competitions exist near me, and I respect the love for sport
> > fencing, don't have much choice I love it too, but I think fencing
should
> > remain as close as possible to its origins. If we look back before 1930
> > there had no such thing as sport fencing & martial art fencing, it was
> > simply fencing.
>
>
> So, like someone else said, if you want to live in the past, go ahead.
> You can do whatever you want. Just don't try to change sport fencing--a
> sport loved by tens of millions of Americans, and many people in other
> countries as well--because you choose to ignore progress.
>
> Heck, if you look back before 10,000 B.C., there were no swords, either.
> Maybe you can get people together to beat each other with rocks and
> clubs.
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

[Mark C. Orton]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:33:59 -0500, Harold Buck
<no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:

> So, like someone else said, if you want to live in the past, go ahead.
> You can do whatever you want. Just don't try to change sport fencing--a
> sport loved by tens of millions of Americans

If sport fencing is loved by tens of millions of Americans, then why
does the USFA have only 18,000 members?

-Mark-

[Harold Buck]

In article <40e7817c.46157971@news.verizon.net>,
ortonmc+rsf@erols.com (Mark C. Orton) wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:33:59 -0500, Harold Buck
> <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > So, like someone else said, if you want to live in the past, go ahead.
> > You can do whatever you want. Just don't try to change sport fencing--a
> > sport loved by tens of millions of Americans
>
> If sport fencing is loved by tens of millions of Americans, then why
> does the USFA have only 18,000 members?
>


Geez, I can't believe it took almost a week for someone to call me on
that! I'm glad someone spotted my little joke.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[Fencer91162]

>>
>> If sport fencing is loved by tens of millions of Americans, then why
>> does the USFA have only 18,000 members?
>>
>
>
>Geez, I can't believe it took almost a week for someone to call me on
>that! I'm glad someone spotted my little joke.
>

I belong to a club with 200+ members and I'm sure that 25% or fewer have USFA
memberships. Membership numbers only reflect the people that are serious about
competing, *not* the thousands that do it for recreation or excercise only.

Debbie B.