Schools of fencing

[achilleus]

This is a rather interesting debate...

A couple of observations:

1) Reposte is dead on. Tempo is not simply change in speeds. Tempo is timing and to a lesser extent speed. One can change tempo, for example, start slow, finish fast involves a change in tempo. The Italians are great at changing their awkward tempo.

2) Vezzali isn't that imaginative. It's not just Reposte's personal opinion. Many others feel the same way. She doesn't have the flair or style that her teammate Trillini does. I remember reading the FIE magazine when she won her first OG, they talked about the same thing. She's efficient, simple, and very very very good.

3) Grasshopper, if you haven't figured out Sanzo's attack after 9 years, give it up. It's time to focus on other things.

4) A lot of people on this thread are talking about what they like, or dislike about the actions. It's not about what you like, or looks good. It's about what works. The Italians have some stuff that works, including their attack. Take the stuff that works (not because it's cool, but because it works) and lose the stuff that doesn't (not because it's uncool, but because it doesn't work).

I'm always amazed (and saddened) at how many fencers fall into the trap of trying to emulate an action cause it looked cool. Or because the recent gold medallist does it.

[reposte]

Thank yuo for the concurrence Achilleus.
BTW, I reffer everyone to fencingfootage's page on the 1989 team foil match, Russia-USSR.
Try the clip titled "Romankov's stuttering clown attack" - if that's not an Italian tempo I don't know what is... oh... who do I see here whose name is on the commentary...? Our dear friend and co member Walter Flaschka... That's one for me Walter...

[reposte]

originally opsted by Achilleus:

In this day and age, with the so much interaction going on between fencers, it's hard to see definitive schools or systems. There is definitely some sense of nationalistic fencing identity however. Maybe not with the US, but with many countries.

true words, these.

However, let me just add that I do think that you can still tell a German fencer from any other - it's at its most notable at Junior and Cadet level.
They are extremely physical.
Later on they evolve to doing whatever suits he/she as an individual fencer.

The U.S is regarded as speaking the Russian protocol in fencing .

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by reposte

However, let me just add that I do think that you can still tell a German fencer from any other - it's at its most notable at Junior and Cadet level.
They are extremely physical.
Later on they evolve to doing whatever suits he/she as an individual fencer.

The U.S is regarded as speaking the Russian protocol in fencing .

Personally, I think the Germans actually have a school. I haven't fully considered whether they meet the parameters that Lukovich mentions, but having worked with some German trained coaches, it's a pretty clear and unique system that has it's roots in the Hungarian method. Especially for epee.

[reposte]

They do in foil as well, especially due to the fechtinternat structure that they have: A large quantity of fencers are trained at the same hands.

virtually the entire elite generation of German fencers are trained in three general bulks, making for a system...
I like their way of fencing even if it's not clasical or aesthetic: Fencing is war after all, and they fence like it's war...

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by reposte

They do in foil as well, especially due to the fechtinternat structure that they have: A large quantity of fencers are trained at the same hands.

virtually the entire elite generation of German fencers are trained in three general bulks, making for a system...
I like their way of fencing even if it's not clasical or aesthetic: Fencing is war after all, and they fence like it's war...

I soooo agree....

I'm not really concerned with aesthetics, but the results. What works. What doesn't. And why. That's where the beauty of fencing is.

[reposte]

Let me tell you something about Germans.
Think about European football, to be known henceforth as football on this post:
Everyone knows that Germany has the worst team in years: They lack talent that can put them forward like all the other magor football nations.
You know that England's tougher, Chech Republic's better, France is much superior - and yet, when it comes to the European Ch's, World Cup etc. – you know that England will lose – unless they have a once in a generation team, you won't bet on the Chech because Italy looks good this year and so on, but when it comes to Germany, everybody nodds their head and says, well, it's not a good team but with Germany you can never know…

My Club hosted in 2004 a Junior W Cup event that due to various reasons didn't attract many international fencers (it was two weeks before the JWC at Plovdiv, they scheduled the event well after the calendar of most top junior fencers was closed and the security status here took a blow a week before the event which resulted in many cansulations).
Amongst the fencers that did come were two juniors from Bonn, Peetz and Koerth.
They both made it to the final four, and had they not had to face off against each other – I think one of them would have taken gold (the one that fell, Peetz) seeing as the fencer that won the event didn't like to parry and Koerth was loath to attack, while Peetz who lost to Koerth did nothing but attack the whole time. Anyway, my point is:
Germany, like a modern Sparta hiding somewhere at the end of the Peloponesus – had sent two fencers – and they so naturally assumed their position at the finals…
It was clear to them: we are here for the medals, no questions asked.
They are winners, Germans at sports, no doubt about it.

[reposte]

I'm not really concerned with aesthetics, but the results. What works. What doesn't. And why. That's where the beauty of fencing is.

I am concerned with aesthetics unfortunately but I also think that beauty is efficacy and guts.
I think I'm just waiting to be more experienced in order to determine how much of a neo classicst fencer I can be at my best, and there are also the changes now in foil that may encourage neo classicism. Time will tell I'm not that experienced yet.
There's some part of me that wants to scream in my coach's ear "stop talking about the good old days! They don't work anymore! You're just making me fence like a Schizophrenic!"

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by reposte

The U.S is regarded as speaking the Russian protocol in fencing .

Oh, and this I'm not so sure is true.

It depends on the weapon. Foil and saber, for example this may well be true.

Epee is not. Paul Soter, our national men's epee coach is very very into the German system with his own tweaks of it. Witness his student Eric Hansen. Definitively not Russian.

Soren has worked with russian influenced coaches quite a bit, so I definitely see it in his game, but the others, I'm not so sure about.

Until the US really builds successful national training centers, or all the top fencer come from one location (like the saber group) it's tough to say we have a national identity.

For example, when Rochester had Buckie, the Zimmermans and Marsh, we had a very definitive style of fencing in WF. This is not the case anymore...

[reposte]

It depends on the weapon. Foil and saber, for example this may well be true

Stop there my friend, I only do foil and am qualified to speak exclusively on foil!

Like Figaro said: I never argue that which I don't know...

[veeco]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Until the US really builds successful national training centers, or all the top fencer come from one location (like the saber group) it's tough to say we have a national identity.

For example, when Rochester had Buckie, the Zimmermans and Marsh, we had a very definitive style of fencing in WF. This is not the case anymore...

Very true. I was at a training camp before the games in San Francisco where a lot of very good men's epee fencers were present. Gago, Soren's coach made the remark to me that if all these fencers were located in one city, spread across 2 different clubs (to keep the competitive spirit going) it would be paradise for men's epee fencing.

I'm sure he was just day dreaming, but having such a national training center for each weapon would be the next best thing, I think.

[jspierre]

Originally Posted by veeco

Very true. I was at a training camp before the games in San Francisco where a lot of very good men's epee fencers were present. Gago, Soren's coach made the remark to me that if all these fencers were located in one city, spread across 2 different clubs (to keep the competitive spirit going) it would be paradise for men's epee fencing.

I'm sure he was just day dreaming, but having such a national training center for each weapon would be the next best thing, I think.

Agree. Maybe the USFA has some responsibility here to make this happen. Not sure what people think? At the NYFC in this last quadrenial, it was really a training center, not your ordinary club: we had the USWE team, USMS team, USMF team, and a good number of the top-ranked USWF fencers. A dream come true for club members. On any given night, you had Tiomkin, Smart, Smart, Eim, James, Lee training on various strips, and coaches giving high level lessons.

This is not a pitch for making NY the center, but btwn the NYFC and the NYAC (aging but competitive NY men's epee mafia), you really had critical mass in one location to everyone's benefit.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by jspierre

Agree. Maybe the USFA has some responsibility here to make this happen. Not sure what people think? At the NYFC in this last quadrenial, it was really a training center, not your ordinary club: we had the USWE team, USMS team, USMF team, and a good number of the top-ranked USWF fencers. A dream come true for club members. On any given night, you had Tiomkin, Smart, Smart, Eim, James, Lee training on various strips, and coaches giving high level lessons.

This is not a pitch for making NY the center, but btwn the NYFC and the NYAC (aging but competitive NY men's epee mafia), you really had critical mass in one location to everyone's benefit.

They have tried, and they've run into a number of problems. Like for one, getting everyone to one place.

US fencers need jobs. Their life isn't training.

Also, who to staff the center? Take a look at our epee guys. They all have different coaches, and different fencing styles. You think they all want to work with the same coach? Most likely not. You think all coaches are going to want to move? Not all coaches are full time.

Then it comes down how to finance it all...

Really if the USA were the size of Germany, France, or Italy we wouldn't have many of the problems getting fencing going as we do...

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Really if the USA were the size of Germany, France, or Italy we wouldn't have many of the problems getting fencing going as we do...

I don't think it's so much size as fencing density. I think the USFA is doing what it can to improve the popularity of the sport in order to improve this issue.

[fluidfencer]

Thanks wflaschka and fencingguy for the observations. Yes, that's our coaches. Just a couple of observations/responses...

That Y14 fencer does love the flicks. I suspect that might change as he gets older, more mature, stronger. Some of ours gravitate toward that more than others. I believe they can adapt if we move to a the new box timing (another thread).

Coach Wang certainly does give lessons to women as well as men. If he had Coach Sun give the lesson I'm sure it had to do with the benefits of training with another women fencer/coach, and she gives most of the foil lessons.

Yes, Coach Wang yells a lot! I'm afraid that has ruffled some feathers in the more quiet-spoken South. When I ref, I send him to the end of the strip. I think the NY bout fencingguy mention involved his daughter, which probably accounted for things. I think his passion is an asset, can be frustrating for some, but take a second to say hello and you will understand him much better. The yelling doesn't fit his personality at all.

Coach Ma in NJ is a terrific guy. Our coach models some of what we do from him. I also look to Northern Colorado Fencers as a role model (Gary and Andrea have dome great things there)

Back to the thread... I enjoyed your observations on the Chinese approach. You are likely correct that our coaches have an americanized approach, because they have always taken their own path (or they won't have come to the U.S.). I can tell you some stories about their time in China. Probably a key comment wflashka made related to the changes in China from 2003 to this Olympic Games. China has had a streotypical feeder system for all sports, but I am not convinced that, at least in fencing, there is a rigid doctrine.

On a related note, we are making arrangements for 10 members of the Chinese sabre team, and five coaches, to come to Birmingham later this year. Everything is VERY tentative now.

Originally Posted by fencingguy

Is the birmingham coach the one who stands on the side of the strip and screams "YES!" after every action? Even when his fencer didn't hit? I directed for his student at nationals, and she got killed, with him screaming right in my ear for about 8 touches before I asked him to please move over.

On a different chinese coaching note, a good example of chinese coaching success would be Mr. Ma in South Jersey. He has been producing some excellent sabre fencers recently who should be doing very well over the next few years. From everything I've seen they're all intelligent fencers with a strong grasp of tactics and technique. He's done a great job.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by achilleus

1) Reposte is dead on. Tempo is not simply change in speeds. Tempo is timing and to a lesser extent speed. One can change tempo, for example, start slow, finish fast involves a change in tempo. The Italians are great at changing their awkward tempo.

I think we're running into language here. The word "tempo" can mean everything about timing, including multiple tempos within an action. Sometimes it's used to refer to an instance of fencing time. I like to use "tempo" in terms of its tactical sense, e.g., why tempo is used in the first place -- to generate surprise.

The phrase "change tempo, start slow, finish fast" -- works as a sentence. In the sense I use the word, it would be "Fencer used tempo to hit" -- which means there was a change in speed. Ultimately, there's little point in saying "slow tempo, then fast tempo" when "the tempo was slow then fast" is available... it allows the term tempo to be a high-level tactical element which can then be parsed into its elements.

2) Vezzali isn't that imaginative. It's not just Reposte's personal opinion. Many others feel the same way. She doesn't have the flair or style that her teammate Trillini does. I remember reading the FIE magazine when she won her first OG, they talked about the same thing. She's efficient, simple, and very very very good.

For my own part, I've called Vezzali's fencing successful, simple, and "dark" -- but I've never called it interesting.

3) Grasshopper, if you haven't figured out Sanzo's attack after 9 years, give it up. It's time to focus on other things.

I don't know if you guys are seeing what we're (me, G-hopper) talking about... I'm certain I haven't done a good job in saying why Italian is interesting to me.

These guys have been fencing for a while, but they only came on my radar when they started making their international opponents look like beginners (though not consistently). Of interest (some of these are mostly the same):

- Is the Italian approach a technique or a lucky combination of individual idiosyncrasies? Was it envisioned and achieved by a forward-thinking coach, or did it just show up?

- Is the Italian tempo nurture or nature? That is, is it being built along a program (e.g., we can use it), or is it inherent in their training method.

- If it is trained, to what degree does it rely on virtuoso skills by the user? That is, does it suddenly show up after an Italian reaches critical mass, or do you see the simplistic basics of the game in their U-14 fencers?

- Have the Italians indeed gotten a "speed boost" in International results based on this technique, or has it been a steady progression?

- If the progression has been steady, how come fencers like Bissdorf GER, Coutant FRA, and the China Team are completely blasted off the strip by it? Wouldn't they be ready for it by now?

- Sometimes it works well, sometimes it merely works. The tight improvisational nature of the game looks like it needs fencers to be "on." How do they fence when they're not "on" or the approach is tested to its fullest? (They fall over...)

But the first question that must be addressed is --
- What are the defining characteristics of the Italian game?

I don't think there's anything juvenile or hero-worshiping about asking these questions.

I'm always amazed (and saddened) at how many fencers fall into the trap of trying to emulate an action cause it looked cool. Or because the recent gold medallist does it.

This isn't my goal. One might as well say that Atronomers study the skies because they want to meet Captain Kirk.

The Italian stuff is not a flavor du jour. It appears to be structured, with a material end in sight, and it kills a lot of opponents. Will it change with the box-timings? Will it get even more useful? Can it be used to create a next-level style? &etc...

I can't think of any good reasons to not investigate this.

Originally Posted by reposte

BTW, I reffer everyone to fencingfootage's page on the 1989 team foil match, Russia-USSR. Try the clip titled "Romankov's stuttering clown attack" - if that's not an Italian tempo I don't know what is...

The stuttering clown is wholly Russian. There are tremendous differences between that Romankov attack and, say, a Sanzo short attack. There are big differences even between that Romankov and the Italian stop-n-start marches.

It might be fun and useful to go into the differences between the two...

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

I think we're running into language here. The word "tempo" can mean everything about timing, including multiple tempos within an action. Sometimes it's used to refer to an instance of fencing time. I like to use "tempo" in terms of its tactical sense, e.g., why tempo is used in the first place -- to generate surprise.

The phrase "change tempo, start slow, finish fast" -- works as a sentence. In the sense I use the word, it would be "Fencer used tempo to hit" -- which means there was a change in speed. Ultimately, there's little point in saying "slow tempo, then fast tempo" when "the tempo was slow then fast" is available... it allows the term tempo to be a high-level tactical element which can then be parsed into its elements.

Here's the thing, to say one has good tempo, or used tempo doesn't mean there was a change in speed. A stop hit in time is a touch that requires a good sense of tempo, but not neccessarily a change in a speed. Merely an extension at the right time and distance.

So, I understand Reposte's point. I understand what you're saying, but in these discussions, as the second posted mentioned, it's important to all use the same terms.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

For my own part, I've called Vezzali's fencing successful, simple, and "dark" -- but I've never called it interesting.

Never meant to imply that you did...

Originally Posted by wflaschka

I don't know if you guys are seeing what we're (me, G-hopper) talking about... I'm certain I haven't done a good job in saying why Italian is interesting to me.

These guys have been fencing for a while, but they only came on my radar when they started making their international opponents look like beginners (though not consistently). Of interest (some of these are mostly the same):
...[snipped for easy reading]
But the first question that must be addressed is --
- What are the defining characteristics of the Italian game?

Great questions, and yes one of the first step is defining the characteristics of the Italians. The actual first step is making sure were all using the same vocabulary so as to understand each other.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

I don't think there's anything juvenile or hero-worshiping about asking these questions.

Actually, that part of comment was not addressed at you, but others who posted.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

This isn't my goal. One might as well say that Atronomers study the skies because they want to meet Captain Kirk.

The Italian stuff is not a flavor du jour. It appears to be structured, with a material end in sight, and it kills a lot of opponents. Will it change with the box-timings? Will it get even more useful? Can it be used to create a next-level style? &etc...

I can't think of any good reasons to not investigate this.

I can think of a number of good reason to investigate them. Mostly to learn how to beat them.

[reposte]

There are tremendous differences between that Romankov attack and, say, a Sanzo short attack

Of course... Sanzo's attack is - well -short, direct two beat attack.
Romankov's attack is compound with long preperation. In that sense he's much more like Vanni.

However, I feel you might be confusing substence with appearance.
Vanni and Romankov may look different in their preperation moves, but the same principle governes both styles.
One of the thing that characterizes both Vanni and Romankov is that they use a long, change of tempo preperation and they both Parry counters because they are never (in a succesful attack) too close to the opponent before their own final extension/action.
I know Vanni does because I've seen him, and I was told by people who trained with Romankov that he too did that.
The thing is, in fencing, things may look different but the fencing logic is often the same with the major principles of an attack and defense and tempo.

I think that both I and I dare say Achilleus feel that there is a tendency to romanticize fencing by putting some fencers on a pedestal rather then seeing a more gray truth: What they are doing is in its essence the same things that you and I are tought to do, just their own way.
I think it is a gross mistake to even put Sanzo, Vanni and Cassara on the same level because their personal style is so different in essence as well as in appearance, not to mention to talk of an Italian Tempo.
By the way, I've never seen any other fencer use a "stuttering clown attack"
- so to call it Russian? Is that even an official attack? It's just Romankov's personal style nothing else. Same goes with "Spastication attack" from another web page on that site - all these are great subtitles to project what you want us to notice, but there are no real terms in fencing to decribe these attacks other then "Attack compose"

[wflaschka]

However, I feel you might be confusing substence with appearance.
Vanni and Romankov may look different in their preperation moves, but the same principle governes both styles.

One of the thing that characterizes both Vanni and Romankov is that they use a long, change of tempo preperation and they both Parry counters because they are never (in a succesful attack) too close to the opponent before their own final extension/action.

The substance of foil fencing doesn't change from fencer to fencer -- changes of speed to bring the opponent close, blade actions to open them up. The interesting stuff is in how the elements snap together.

The crux of the discussion is that some people think the Italians have an approach which is different from, say, the Germans, French and Russians. It's fine for a nay-sayer to say, "The italians have no tempo. They just change the speed of their actions" (from a prior post) -- but that's not even internally consistent, and doesn't reflect the certainty that the Italians have developed a different take from other nationalities.

So while Romankov and Vanni both might make an advance, they will do it at different times, prompted by different signals from the opponent, for different purposes.

What they are doing is in its essence the same things that you and I are tought to do, just their own way.

Exactly.