This Nick Evangelista Character

[schlager7]

Reading is a two way street. The reader is just as important to the final equation as the author. One of the few redeaming aspect of the Christopher Reeves Superman movie was Gene Hackman's remark that some could read War and Peace and come away thinking they had read a simple adventure story, while another could read a bubble gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.

As well, not every book should be read for the pure pragmatic result of improving your game. I've read and enjoyed every fencing book I have come across (some quite old and useless if the only purpose is to improve your game).

I will go on record as saying I have read and enjoyed Nick Evangelista's books. I guess someone will want to flame me on it, but screw 'em. I'm a big boy and it's my money.

[epeefencer74]

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.

I recommend this book also. This book also has a great fencing shorthand system that I find useful for recording bouts and planning lessons.

[MikeHarm]

I thought Nick's Fencing, The Inner Game book was awful. It looked like he was shooting for a Tao of JKD kind of format but just didn't pull it off. The Art And Science of Fencing I really enjoyed, the writing style of it worked for me. In fact, it kind of drew me back into fencing when I had been away for it for a year or two reading it.

It would be interesting to see if some of his ways of fencing work better under the new timing now.

[FriendlyMonkey]

The art and science of fencing was the first book I ever read
about fencing. It's a great book, well written especially for someone
just getting into fencing!


I don't see why ANYONE "hates" this guy, the only thing I disagree with
him on is pistol grips hehe


-FM

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I for one would like to see how long he would last in a bout against say, Sasha Romankov... I think he would get slaughtered, truely slaughtered.

[Manethrin]

For the ones who read the inner game of Fencing. Did you answer THE question right? Im only half way through, but I am enjoying the book. He does seem to have a heavy animosity torwards flicking, I agree with him on some points, but not on others. I think those who rely on flicking to score touches are going to get very far. I admit that a occasional flick, when placed right and timed right is Ok, but if done to score touches constantly, it isn't fencing. I fenced people that flick the tip so hard that it barely touches my target area, and it sets the light off and that pisses me off. I mean you should score touches as they should be scored by lunging and touching the opponent with the tip as it should be. Point control and blade economy should be highly valued, but they seem to be declineing in popularity.

[Manethrin]

For the ones who read the inner game of Fencing. Did you answer THE question right? Im only half way through, but I am enjoying the book. He does seem to have a heavy animosity torwards flicking, I agree with him on some points, but not on others. I think those who rely on flicking to score touches are going to get very far. I admit that a occasional flick, when placed right and timed right is Ok, but if done to score touches constantly, it isn't fencing. I fenced people that flick the tip so hard that it barely touches my target area, and it sets the light off and that pisses me off. I mean you should score touches as they should be scored by lunging and touching the opponent with the tip as it should be. Point control and blade economy should be highly valued, but they seem to be declineing in popularity. I don't quite agree with the pistol grip, though I have noticed that the people that fence with pistol grips, have a slightly harder beat force. Simple enough to defeat though...so I have no complaints there.

[MikeHarm]

How is that different from 99.99% of all the other fencers Romankov might face who weren't on the olympic team though?

On his question from his Inner Game book, while his answer is a fine one I would pick a different strategy. Instead of not doing what the fencer was using to win, I would give it to him as bait and counter the action he was using off of it. Its much more devastating psychologically.

I for one would like to see how long he would last in a bout against say, Sasha Romankov... I think he would get slaughtered, truely slaughtered.

[Epeecurean]

On his question from his Inner Game book, while his answer is a fine one I would pick a different strategy. Instead of not doing what the fencer was using to win, I would give it to him as bait and counter the action he was using off of it. Its much more devastating psychologically.

I haven't read anything by Evangelista and am not in a hurry to do so. (I'm more looking forward to reading Aladar Kogler's 2nd edition of 'One Touch at a Time' out now and Zbig Czajkowski's book 'Understanding Fencing' coming out in January!) I'm curious about the question though, what was it?

[ThatReallyHurt]

For the ones who read the inner game of Fencing. Did you answer THE question right?

Nope - I guessed "fake an injury".

The book aside, my coach tells me that's not really a good answer for most things in fencing, either.

[jjrenaud]

I for one would like to see how long he would last in a bout against say, Sasha Romankov... I think he would get slaughtered, truely slaughtered.

i agree that the ideas of Mr Evangelista about fencing are a little bit old fashion.is it necessary because of this to do a challenge between him and a great fencer?
It's not because you're a very good fencer that you're a good master.Of course high level fencing give you a lot of experience on the pist, but to be the best fencer doesn't mean the best master, in France i know a lot of very good master who haven't been world champion, ex: Patrice Menon in foil, Michel Sicard in épée, and they're national coach.If patrice Menon was better fencer than Brice Guyart, it's him who'll be olympic winner, but he is not, he's just a very good coach.
For Mr Evangelista, i don't know if he had got good results with his students, but if it's the case maybe his ideas aren't so bad.And if he hadn't got world winner, but only a lot people who love fencing now, for me it's enough.

I'm not a fan of his ideas, but i couldn't say it's bad if i don't know the result of his way of teaching.

[Inquartata]

What bothers me about NE is his intolerance toward anything that he doesn't deign to recognize as "real fencing". Not content to build up classical fencing, he must at the same time knock down the modern styles. Rather like the attitude depicted in this cartoon:

http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_d...sortBy=popular