Is modern fencing far remove from real fencing ?

I need to clarify. I was not saying that fencing is a cause of torn ACL.
I was musing on how fencing doesn't appear to put strain on the knee in
such a way that would normally cause a torn ACL. And because of this
exercise in the non-ACL tear plane, it puts the fencer at risk for
getting a torn ACL in another sport. The planeral muscles are strong,
but the lateral muscles / tendons are not.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

A friend of mine tore his MCL (I think, I know it wasn't the ACL) in
epee when his opponent stepped on his foot as he was twisting to
infight.

Another tore his ACL when he was retreating and stepped on the reel.

--Delia

"Wolf" <bussone@vt.edu> wrote in message news:<PGydnSPLaYhe0LaiXTWJkw@giganews.com>...
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ACL injuries usually from twisting
> > and/or sudden changes in direction? I wouldn't think that that would be
> > very common from fencing, even if the knee wasn't getting a workout in
> > that direction (sympathies to those who have suffered it though).
> >
> > -Ed Ploy
>
> Best way to tear your ACL is to plant your foot and then have someone kick
> the side of your knee. You stress the muscles and ligaments until they fail,
> often taking the PCL with them, as it suddenly takes all the load.
>
> Best to not try this at home, however. The best orthopedic surgery is the
> one you don't have.
>
> -Bill

In article <bgjh3r$5pd$8@titan.btinternet.com>, "William Black"
<black_william@hotmail.com> writes:

>I don't have a fencing background but I have met a couple of sport fencers
>who do 'historical fence'.
>
>The main problem I think is mind set, sport fencers seem to think that
>taking risks in an attack so taking the odd 'hit' is acceptable practice,
>the rest is essentially learning a different way to stand and move, and of
>course, the increased weight of the weapons.

I also have friends who fence 'outside the box', and have certainly caught wind
of this argument before, in numerous places; and the thing that people touting
the 'historical', or 'classical' perspective over the 'modern' or 'sport'
fencing perspective seem to overlook is that if, for whatever asinine reasons ,
you really WERE looking at sharps flashing, and it was a given that someone was
not going to walk away, well, there's really no logical reason to assume that
the ultra-conservative approach is the safest! particularly if you feel the
other is really not as good as you: excessively avoiding the obvious risk
merely lays you open to the hidden risk that you will give the opponent the
time and opportunity to learn whatever he needed to learn to defeat you, and in
the bargain, you may merely create an more favorable opportunity for him by
tiring yourself.

Additionally, they tend to forget that a 'risky' move is a lot LESS risky when
my opponent hasn't seen it much: Yes, it is risky to do that which you do not
do well: don't assume that because you do not do it well, that it can not be
done well, and therefore not really entail said risk, which, of course ALL
fencing moves have!

The 'risky sport fencing moves' argument is really a classic example of false
logic: fact is whenever these conservative/classical fencing guys get together,
and bout, half the time, someone loses! That's really a pretty risky
proposition, if you ask me!
And no, I am not kidding!

Have fun, fence!