This Nick Evangelista Character

[SOA9286]

Ok, can someone please explain to me several things?

1.) Why is he universally hated?

2.) What do look out for in his book, Art and Science of Fencing?

3.) What's his real deal?

I picked up the book a few days ago, as a beginner its good to see things explained. However I can't help but notice nothing but the wonderful comments about him

Dylan

[telkanuru]

He basically is of the opinion that fencing was perfect about 30-50 years ago and everything since then is a travasty beyond proportion.

[jeff]

In addition to what telkanuru says: he's extremely rude in how he expresses his opinions (everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but you don't have to foam at the mouth expressing them and insult everyone who disagrees with you).

He never had much in the way of fencing accomplishments of his own to boast of in his own "golden era" days (what championships did he win? what champion fencers did he produce?). The real deal is that he has extremely modest credentials, and has made an livelihood for himself attacking the world of fencing from its outskirts.

SOA9286, I'm glad you like his book. I do here it is good for explaining things for beginners. Too bad he lets his emotions get away from him. However, please take things he says with a very large grain of salt. A lot of his advise is wrong, not only in today's fencing, but even in the fencing of the period he grew up in.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

nick evangelista is a supposed fencer who hates everything modern, including flicks, pistol grips, epee, saber, electric, the USFA, color, anything that makes it fun. He's a total idiot. I want to fence him some day, in a real duel. Cut him open to see a bunch of scum fall out, cause thats all he is, a scum bag.

[jeff]

Then again, you do get thoughtful and intelligent responses like those of D+F+P=Hadouken! Satire aside, Nick doesn't have the excuse of being a kid for his outbursts..

[achilleus]

Stop reading the book.
Pick up a good fencing book.

I like Foil by Charles Selberg.

Explains the basics clearly, and also includes great information on tactial approaches. Plus you won't have to worry about what extraneous crap you might have to forget or unlearn.

That said, I agree with Jeff's points above.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Stop reading the book.
Pick up a good fencing book.

I like Foil by Charles Selberg.

Explains the basics clearly, and also includes great information on tactial approaches. Plus you won't have to worry about what extraneous crap you might have to forget or unlearn.

That said, I agree with Jeff's points above.

Get epee fencing, a complete system, by Imre Vass. Either that or Magnum Libre by Rudy Volkmann. Nice guy, Nice book.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Get epee fencing, a complete system, by Imre Vass. Either that or Magnum Libre by Rudy Volkmann. Nice guy, Nice book.

My bad.

Good catch.

[cfaustus]

Just to attempt to balance the hatred this thread is going to inevitably produce, not everyone holds M. Evangelista with such disregard nor feel the need to malign him with false interpretations of his teaching.

He does not think everything in the past was perfect. He simply has a certain concept of what fencing is and is brave enough to state how recent changes have changed fencing away from this standard.

He does not hate sabre... If he did, he would not teach it. He simply feels, as many instructors do, that sabre should be preceeded by instruction in foil.

He CAN fence quite effectively and I am certain that he would give even our spirited friend D+F+P=Hadouken an adequate challenge.

He does often put aside diplomacy when voicing his opinions. These opinions are seldom very complimentary of what is seen in fencing today. Most of his pet peeves can be boiled down to one thing: he sees that in the push to make fencing a sport, the focus on scoring above all else has removed much of the martial sensibilty from actions which are taught by some coaches, accepted by some directors, and used by some fencers. While he often riles against these, I have never heard him make an ad hominem attack. He may call something someone does idiotic from a self-defense stand point, however, I don't think he would ever call someone an idiot.

Finally, many of the comments I have heard or read originating from M. Evangelista I have in recent months read here in reverse. One in particular sticks in my mind: M. Evangelista has suggested that due to the fact that competative fencing as it was being practiced at the time, had so removed itself from its martial raison d'etre that it should be renamed something more fitting of a sport or game... the name he suggested was 'Whipp-O'. I have seen and heard sport fencers go into fits over this suggestion. I have not spoken with him in quite a while, however, I wonder what he would say about the FIE changes, perhaps his tune will change. In the past months, however, in threads and discussions unrelated to M. Evangelista's suggestion, I have heard it suggested that classical fencing should not be called fencing followed by some less-than-whimsical suggestions as to what it might be named and not a drop of dissent. Glass houses.... glass houses....

The only thing that is fencing is fencing. It is one and indivisible. In the end only time will make the true path discernable to all....

[telkanuru]

Somehow I'm not surprised you agree with him, cfaustus

You are, however, in the distinct minority, for good or ill.

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Somehow I'm not surprised you agree with him, cfaustus

That is where you jump to conclusions. M. Evangelista and I have more than our fair share of differences regarding fencing.

I just feel that the usual diatribes against him are an injustice which I can not stand by without attempting to bring a more positive tone to the discussion.

[jeff]

That's interesting cfaustus, except I think there's a lot more tolerance among sport fencers (SF) towards classical fencing (CF) than the other way around. The classicalfencing mailing list on Yahoo is dead quiet (a handful of posts per week) unless, as happens periodically, somebody posts some ignorant and arrogant remarks about SF.

In Evangelista's magazine, to which I no longer describe, I've seen him respond to letters to the editor (him) in a completely offensive manner, including attacking Jeff Bukantz (somebody far superior to Evangelista in every regard) for the mere suggestion that the right thing to do about the flick is learn how to defend against it, and condescending to an elderly gentleman with decades of fencing experience for saying much the same. Be careful about getting in a war of words with the editor of a journal, as he always gets the last word. His poor behavior removes credibility from his arguments.

FWIW, Evangelista came from a sport fencing background, as did many of the other people in that world. For him to claim more legitemacy in "martial arts" than people who hook up to a machine is absurd. You can argue forever about which is realistic (and the answer is "neither") And, in Evangelista's day, the use of electrical scoring and pistol grips were well established. For him to carry on as if these were new innovations is simply not true.

I don't share your belief that fencing is one indivisible thing, and that the "one true path" will be seen by all. But, I think you were exercising satire at that moment...

[achilleus]

Cfaustus,

I dislike his books because he talks about things he doesn't really understand and presents it as fact. This is misleading, and does a disservice to anyone interested in learning.

For example, when he discusses pistol grips in his book. He uses a ridiculous analogy that to any one knowledgable on the subject reveals that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He passes his preference as irrefutable fact.

He doesn't understand flicks. How to do them, how to stop them, yet again he tries to talk like an authority on the subject using his preference for fact.

That plus his record in sport fencing doesn't give him a lot of authority.
It just shows his ignorance about the sport of fencing.

I don't hate him. I don't know him, only of him through his writings, and through people who fenced with him. And neither of those sources have convinced me that he knows anything about the sport of fencing. History? Maybe.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

he sounds like a classical fencer. Classicalists have 101 excuses as to why they lost to a contemporary fencer, but never the excuse that it was because the opponent fenced better.

[SOA9286]

Well one thing I watched out for was his opinion, but really, is this book THAT bad for a beginner? It did well in giving me diagrams for parries, different movements, etc, and has pretty decent descriptions.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by SOA9286

Well one thing I watched out for was his opinion, but really, is this book THAT bad for a beginner? It did well in giving me diagrams for parries, different movements, etc, and has pretty decent descriptions.

If your a beginner, how do you know what is his opinion or an accurate description?

I have very little complaint against his basics, but really, I mentioned it in another thread and I'll mention it now:

In the design business there is a very appropiate quote:

If I don't offer my clients ugly crap to choose from, then their homes will always look good.

I think it applies here. Why even give yourself the possiblity of picking up worthless crap? Why waste the time having to slog through crap and pick out what's useful when there are a plethora of good books? The benefit of the Evangelista book is that one can get it in Barnes & Noble. Thanks to the world wide web, you're not limited to just shopping there.

So how bad is it? It's a waste of your time if you are interested in competitve fencing.

[MondayNgt]

Originally Posted by SOA9286

Well one thing I watched out for was his opinion, but really, is this book THAT bad for a beginner? It did well in giving me diagrams for parries, different movements, etc, and has pretty decent descriptions.

I had a very lengthy response to the numerous other threads full of the atypical, canned responses on this very topic which raised my ire and I felt I needed to retort, but I stopped to ask myself if such opinions would benefit anyone in any way. The answer to that is "no." However, I feel because you are seeking seeking a straight and honest response to your question, that a response to you and you alone will be constructive.

You make your own decision on the matter, but my advice is that I wouldn't listen to a lot of the heated banter on said subject. Evangelista is too judged upon his personal opinions and very little upon his experience (shot down by people who admit never even meeting the man) and especially the lessons in his books. ("I hate his opinions, so what he says MUST be crap.") Before anyone is lead to wonder otherwise or attempts to smear my credibility in typical internet forum matter, yes I have met and spoken to Evangelista on several occasions before. No, he is not the arrogant *** clown in person like others make him out to be (quite humble, patient and down to earth, actually). No, I am not one of his students. No, I do not consider my own experience to be based solely upon his style or teachings. And yes, I think he's too opinionated sometimes.

But getting back on track, often "Art and Science" is brought up as an example of the venom he spews against fencing, yet one who has read "Art and Science" can state that there is little of that. There is a section towards the back that talks about electrical fencing and a few of it's pitfalls, but this spans only towards two pages and there is never an impression the author is attempting to be insulting towards anyone. One sentence even refers to his advice as helping you get ready for electric fencing. If someone was to substitute the essay-like/heavily opinionated "Inner Game of Fencing" or Fencers Quarterly Magazine, then I would most definitely see reason for debate. But that is not the case in this thread, nor countless other threads attempting to discredit this particular book.

Remember that nearly everything the author writes about is hardly exclusive; it's all about the same parries, compound movements that I've read in countless other books and have learned from many instructors. To discount that would be to discount not only other authors who teach the same, but the system of fencing itself. Of course, some books are better for others but I recommend this particular book for starters.

On that same token, some of the more positive individuals on this board has thrown out some great suggestions for alternative books for you (unfortunately, one of those currently out-of-print suggestions is kind of rare/hard to track down), and I suggest you get around to reading as much as you can. Practice hard, and learn to fence both modern and traditional fencers (a BIG mistake proponents of both camps fail to do). Most of all, just have fun with what you're doing.

This is all I will say on the subject.

[SOA9286]

Thank you. I started the first day of a 3 day clinic with Florida Club head Bruce Capin and he said that its pretty decent for beginners because of the wide use of terminology. I agree, it's helped me quite a lot, and I think that as with anything, if you take it with a grain of salt you can really benefit from it.

However, I still like the pistol grip better.

[hscoach]

For beginner foil and epee fencers I would recommend Elaine Cheris's "Fencing Steps to Success". The book is a fair price and is easy for a beginner to understand. I feel Elaine is up with today's modern fencing and has proven skills. Rudy's book is also very good for a beginner in all three weapons. Both of these authors are still seen participating in USFA events and have kept up with the times. I tell all fencers to stay away from Evanalista's books. I feel like he has not kept up with the times. If you compared him to an author about basketball the women would still be bouncing the ball 3 times and passing it.

[SOA9286]

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