This Nick Evangelista Character

[JEC]

Originally Posted by jeff

You can argue forever about which is realistic (and the answer is "neither")

The closest to a real duel is a one-touch epee bout with double defeat if double touch. I do not think people will use CF stand or moves to do that, whereas a more cautious SF approach will prevail more often.

[Peach]

I bought Evangelista's book for my mother because it has pretty pictures and she will never fence, ever. It's perfect for her. However, I had to straighten her out about a few things after she read it.

I was sent Veteran Fencers Quarterly gratis for a while, and never found much of interest in it. Mostly there were articles about how the USFA was bad, and other (not terribly well-written) articles about fencers of the past in whom I wasn't all that interested--I may be veteran age but I didn't start fencing until I already was a "veteran."

However, I have to say that most books on fencing really aren't all that well-written. And though, being the kind of person I am, I read voraciously on the subject when I started fencing myself, I soon discovered there really is no substitute for simply doing fencing. You can't learn this bizarre sport by reading a book, and if you try you'll have a pretty goofy conception of it.

Though Richard Cohen's By the Sword, though I understand it contains some inaccuracies, is well-written and enjoyable to read.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by SOA9286

So Epee Fencing- A Complete System, and Fencing Steps to Success. That sound good?

I would also certainly add Epee Combat Manual, by Terence Kingston. Excellent diagrams from a 1st person perspective, and a clear and logical progession of skills.

[SOA9286]

Are these books on BN.com or Amazon, or are there any other retailers that you would suggest using?

[Rolls]

A hot topic to be sure. I've read and own many of his books. I once recommended them to other fencers, but I no longer do for couple of reasons.

1) His opinion on pistol grips and electric equipment is wrong. If you ever get to fence with a good competitive fencer, you will see them take a pistol grip and use it with complete control, the most delicate/sensitive touch, and NOT the brute force/uncontrolled stregnth that Evangilista talks of.

I used a French grip for years. While I thought it was a valuable teaching aid, I now fencer with more point control, better parrying ability, more weapon mauneverability using a Belgian grip than I ever could hope for using a French grip.

2) What things he does manage to get right (and only partially at that) are on such a basic level that you are much better off learning them from your coach. If you don't have a coach or other experienced fencers to learn from, give up. Contrary to whatever anyone tells you, it takes TWO to fence. There is NO substitute for a good coach. And there is NO substitute for learning from the experience of fencing a better fencer. If you don't have a large fencing community, that's ok because you can get the experience of fencing other fencers by traveling to competitions.

All in all, there's nothing wrong with reading Evangelista's book, but as you progress in fencing you will find them of little help or use. SO, I guess what I'm trying to say is there's nothing good about it either.

Rolls.

[ReverseLunge]

I actually met someone who trained with Evangelista under Faulkner. He told me that "Nicky" was never any good at fecning.

[Zara_athlen]

You dont have to be an A fencer to know how to teach or understand the sport.

I've read both of evangelistas books. The first one is extremely anti-modern fencing but the second one calms down alot.

My main problem with the book is that its 70 percent his writings and philosophies and maybe 30 percent fencing skills. The section on sabre and epee are just a few pages long its ridiculous.

Most importantly, there are few diagrams, and the diagrams he has are terrible.

He does however have tons of old pictures of 17th century duelers. That just is not terribly helpful for a new fencer.

I do not agree with his opinion but to be honest thats not why I would not recommend his book. I would say do not get the book because the book contains little value in terms of what it can teach you about fencing. If you want a book on a farmer from Montana who hates modern fencing then buy it. Otherwise buy Fencing, the modern international stytle or electril foil fencing, or Volkmans book.

[wflaschka]

The Evangelista books are excellent for bringing new fencers to the sport. A sizeable percentage of the beginners I've worked with tried fencing because of his books. They are very good for conveying a love and appreciation of the pursuit... it's up to the instructor/club to shift the romanticized notion of fencing into the reality of fencing.

I guess I have no problem recommending Evangelista books to people. But when certain concepts are quoted back to me, I have to pull out my, "That's true enough, but you're ready for the next level..." speech. I once tried the "Well you know he's a crazy man..." speech, and it didn't go over so well.

[edew]

Originally Posted by JEC

The closest to a real duel is a one-touch epee bout with double defeat if double touch. I do not think people will use CF stand or moves to do that, whereas a more cautious SF approach will prevail more often.

Maybe one-touch epee with double-defeat and a reset blockout timing of .5 seconds.

[drippingwet]

Do/would we ever get people like Romankov, Golubitsky, Sanzo etc writing fencing books, or do you reckon they wouldn't bother 'cause you can't learn fencing from a book?

[noodle]

relavent link?

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

Do/would we ever get people like Romankov, Golubitsky, Sanzo etc writing fencing books, or do you reckon they wouldn't bother 'cause you can't learn fencing from a book?

I think it's very possible [for someone] to write good fencing books. Fencing isn't unique in its complexity, there are lots of books about many topics that are equally ineffable. Tennis, golf, baseball, motorcycle maintenance.

A big example is cooking -- there are lots of recipe books (and we have Rudy Volkmann's "Big Book" as a sort of "Joy of Cooking"). But there are also bazillions of books about the "spirit" of cooking/eating -- there's a book which is a sort of ode to the Oyster, which I hope to read; Peter Mayle's Year in Provence book came up in conversation recently. I view Evangelista's books as less of a collection of recipes, and more of a lovesong.

There are many "how-to" fencing books, but we need more "why do it" fencing books. I think we don't have many of these books simply because the skill isn't there. Sure, they bring new fencers to the sport, and existing fencers would get a satisfied feeling reading them -- but it's difficult to write one without going all Jonathan Livingston Seagull or sounding completely fatuous.

Peter Westbrook's "Harnessing Anger" seems well received. Golubitsky did just publish a book; true to form it sounds like it's more about him rather than fencing, but it might fill a need.

[drippingwet]

Yep... more why and when than how, what, who and where. That's what I'm after. My coach, as many people in fencing, can tell me how to do a circle-6 or a beat disengage or whatever, much better than a book can, but I'm not sure that just any coach has the optimum knowledge of tactics/strategy that those students of high level masters might get. It would be nice if those masters would publish some 'why and when' books for those that aren't lucky enough to have personal access to such extreme heights in tactical/strategic thought.

[glowstix]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

There are many "how-to" fencing books, but we need more "why do it" fencing books. I think we don't have many of these books simply because the skill isn't there. Sure, they bring new fencers to the sport, and existing fencers would get a satisfied feeling reading them -- but it's difficult to write one without going all Jonathan Livingston Seagull or sounding completely fatuous.

yeah, but the foil actions CD is the closest thing to the "how and why" that's out there now. you need to inspire an epee coach to produce and epee actions CD...

[fencerontheline]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

Do/would we ever get people like Romankov, Golubitsky, Sanzo etc writing fencing books, or do you reckon they wouldn't bother 'cause you can't learn fencing from a book?

Sasha would never write a book on fencing.

[jspierre]

Being an outstanding competitive fencer and being able to write a good book are two different things. Maybe not mutually exclusive talents, but you don't see it too often. Richard Cohen may be an exception as he was the British National Saber Champion, and wrote a book that was unique in conception, and well done, on the whole and filled a niche on the subject.

I think the better fencing books (as instruction guides) are probably all written by coaches, not fencers that distinguished themselves competitively. Peter Westbrooks' book is an autobiography about his life, and anyway, it was co-authored (ie., Peter got a writer to work with him to tell his story). My theory why this is so is that outstanding fencers, like a lot of top athletes are non-verbal. They are visual learners and thinkers, people that compose visual pictures in motion that they can then translate into athletically-superior actions. Writing skills are located somewhere else in the brain.

There are a few professional athletes that have written good books, in part because they were very verbally gifted to begin with like Ken Dryden who wrote one of the few really readable book on the professional ice hockey while he was goalie for the Montreal Canadians. Jim Bouton's book on baseball also comes to mind. But too often, if you want to read a good sports book, find a good author that's covered the subject like On Fighting by Joyce Carol Oats, a seemingly unlikely author who wrote what I think is among the very best titles ever on boxing.

On the topic of books on or about fencing, there's a lot of areas that are open opportunities for anyone ambitious enough, and who has the talent and skill to write at least a good article, if not a book. How about international ref'ing experience? Or, how State-sponsored fencing dominated the sport during the period of the Cold War? Or, how about a book that puts side-to- side Kendo and western fencing by someone who has emersed themselves in both sports and has legitimacy and perspective to cover the topic together. Or even a book like why we hv the light Italian saber, and epee, and the transition from real military arms to civilian arms to the sport of fencing?

A biography of Romankov or Golubitsky would no doubt be very interesting to the fencing community. I thought Aldo Nadi's bio was a good read.

[Manethrin]

i say we gather all these auhtors together. Lock them in a room and let them fight it out. Then we go with whoever survives.

[Sildar]

Originally Posted by edew

Maybe one-touch epee with double-defeat and a reset blockout timing of .5 seconds.

Done it, it's a blast. Very intense. Wasn't electric though, we used the old style tri-prong points that grab the jacket like a sharp would. Most people fence much more cautiously that way.

Once again, I just want to make the standard disclaimer that Mr. Evangelista does not speak for all classical fencers. Most of the classical fencers I know aren't losing any sleep over the fact that other people are fencing electrically and flicking each other. I prefer to fence classically, but I have no desire to make everyone else fence the way I do. I'm not aware that the USFA has put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to join up recently, so my opinion is that if one dislike sport fencing, one doesn't have to participate in it.

[Manethrin]

I'm not really a heavy fan of Mr.Evanglista, but I don't get a feeling of animosity from him torwards sport fencing. Instead I perceive a feeling of animosity torwards, fencing just for touches and winning

[ThatReallyHurt]

Originally Posted by Manethrin

I'm not really a heavy fan of Mr.Evanglista, but I don't get a feeling of animosity from him torwards sport fencing. Instead I perceive a feeling of animosity torwards, fencing just for touches and winning

I've read "The Inner Game of Fencing" and some additional articles by Mr. Evangelista, and while he definitely seems to be slanted against modern fencing, I wonder if it's more a longing on his part for what fencing was originally. When I say originally, I don't mean 1970, 1940, or even 1896, I mean back when someone said "Hey - that's a great move you did there... what do you call it?", to which Capo Ferro replied, "Yeah, it does seem to help me reach a little farther. I dunno, it's kind of a lunging motion."

I agree with many of the people who've posted, there's absolutely no substitute for a coach, but I must admit - "The Inner Game of Fencing" was one of the books that helped solidify my infatuation with this sport. The 17th and 18th century era pictures, while completely useless as a teaching aid, further drew me into wanting to not just go and learn how to fence, but to ask my coaches about the "whys" of the sport. You know, things like: why do so many people use pistol grips (I use a French grip), why doesn't pronation and supination seem to be emphasised much, why doesn't anyone use an Italian grip, why am I learning the basics of corner judging if everyone only competes using electric gear... that sort of stuff. I find it helps "fill out" various aspects of the sport.

So... yes, I do agree with some people who say he has a slant against "modern" "sport" fencing. I don't, however, think that he's of the opinion that it's his way or the highway... in fact, (I don't have the book here to get a direct quote) in "The Inner Game of Fencing", I believe he mentions somewhere that if you're fencing, you're fencing, and you should enjoy being a fencer, regardless of skill, weapon, or style.