Re: Fencing question

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:11:21 GMT
Neil Hopkins <neil_hopkins@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, it's a void from classical rapier. You bring your left foot as far
> to the right as you can (keeping the heels in line), duck down onto
> your left hand under your opponents blade, skewer them and then spring
> back up. It's not easy ... :-)

Eh? Duck down?

Never seen that in any rapier or classical text.

Where did you get it from?

Zebee


--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

[Neil Hopkins]

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:20:34 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au>
wrote:

>In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:11:21 GMT
>Neil Hopkins <neil_hopkins@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, it's a void from classical rapier. You bring your left foot as far
>> to the right as you can (keeping the heels in line), duck down onto
>> your left hand under your opponents blade, skewer them and then spring
>> back up. It's not easy ... :-)
>
>Eh? Duck down?
>
>Never seen that in any rapier or classical text.
>
>Where did you get it from?

It's from di Grassi. He was a strong advocate of voiding attacks
rather than parrying them.
--
neil h.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." - John Lehman

[Trim Plus Expert]

>>>
>>> No, it's a void from classical rapier. You bring your left foot as far
>>> to the right as you can (keeping the heels in line), duck down onto
>>> your left hand under your opponents blade, skewer them and then spring
>>> back up. It's not easy ... :-)
>>
>>Eh? Duck down?
>>
>>Never seen that in any rapier or classical text.
>>
>>Where did you get it from?
>
> It's from di Grassi. He was a strong advocate of voiding attacks
> rather than parrying them.

Never heard about that either. What do you mean by voiding attacks (sorry I
am a french guy ;-) )

JP

[Trim Plus Expert]

"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:
QfGVd.44557$Vf6.1239443@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>>>
>>>> No, it's a void from classical rapier. You bring your left foot as far
>>>> to the right as you can (keeping the heels in line), duck down onto
>>>> your left hand under your opponents blade, skewer them and then spring
>>>> back up. It's not easy ... :-)
>>>
>>>Eh? Duck down?
>>>
>>>Never seen that in any rapier or classical text.
>>>
>>>Where did you get it from?
>>
>> It's from di Grassi. He was a strong advocate of voiding attacks
>> rather than parrying them.
>
> Never heard about that either. What do you mean by voiding attacks (sorry
> I am a french guy ;-) )
>
> JP
>

Ok think I got it ... to dodge it. I just tough about di Grassi a second.
;-)

JP

[Neil Hopkins]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:42:41 -0500, "Trim Plus Expert"
<trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

>
>>>>
>>>> No, it's a void from classical rapier. You bring your left foot as far
>>>> to the right as you can (keeping the heels in line), duck down onto
>>>> your left hand under your opponents blade, skewer them and then spring
>>>> back up. It's not easy ... :-)
>>>
>>>Eh? Duck down?
>>>
>>>Never seen that in any rapier or classical text.
>>>
>>>Where did you get it from?
>>
>> It's from di Grassi. He was a strong advocate of voiding attacks
>> rather than parrying them.
>
>Never heard about that either. What do you mean by voiding attacks (sorry I
>am a french guy ;-) )

Voiding (or Volte) is simply avoiding your opponents blade by use of
footwork and body movements, and ideally putting yourself in a good
position to counter attack. A good example would be a slope pace to
the right with a lunge - if you get the timing right you will avoid
your opponent and be ideally placed to hit him back.
--
neil h.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." - John Lehman

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:33:45 GMT
Neil Hopkins <neil_hopkins@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:20:34 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au>
> wrote:
>>
>>Eh? Duck down?
>>
>>Never seen that in any rapier or classical text.
>>
>>Where did you get it from?
>
> It's from di Grassi. He was a strong advocate of voiding attacks
> rather than parrying them.

I thought he was about doing both. He doesn't often parry in the modern
sense, with a beat of the blade, but he does close the line, and he does
do opposition.

Which bit has this inquartata plus ducking? I couldn't find it on a
quick look, so can you point me to it?

He's got it as a lengthening attack, the precursor to the lunge "and to
compass his hindfoot, towards the right side behind, to the end, that
the thrust may be lengthened and his body thereby covered, considering
he shall then stand right behind his sword."

When he defends a thrust in low ward "Therefore, when this thrust is given
within, it must be beaten inwards with the edge of the Rapier, requiring
the turn of the hand also inwards, and the compass of the hindfoot,
so far towards the right side, as the hand goes towards the right side."

that seems to be a standard inquartata, there's a thrust at your inside
line, turn the hand so the true edge is contacting his sword and push
it away as you move your body offline too.


Zebee`


--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

[Cal]

When you give a touch against someone for displacing a target (after being
hit off target), how do you tell between someone missing because of bad aim
or because the other fencer is guilty of displacing the target? I always
thought a touch earned from displacing the target was due more to the fencer
making abnormal movements to avoid a touch and being hit off target. But
what constitutes "abnormal" is very wooly.




"R. Mattes" <rm@mh-freiburg.de> wrote in message
newsan.2005.02.28.13.28.46.596669@mh-freiburg.de...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:01:01 -0800, Matt Eden wrote:
>
> > No, the person touched was not the one lunging, the person performing
> > the dig (or ducking) was the one touched. Sorry if I didn't make that
> > clear.
>
> Ah, then it was indeed a good call. I'm glad to hear that somewhere out
> there there are still referees that know this rule <sigh>. But i would
> never count on this in a tournament.
>
> cheers Ralf Mattes
>

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:34:37 GMT
Cal <ehlee_74@yahoo.net> wrote:
> When you give a touch against someone for displacing a target (after being
> hit off target), how do you tell between someone missing because of bad aim
> or because the other fencer is guilty of displacing the target? I always
> thought a touch earned from displacing the target was due more to the fencer
> making abnormal movements to avoid a touch and being hit off target. But
> what constitutes "abnormal" is very wooly.
>

IF you are in standard fencing position, then what bits are exposed and
thus protected by only your blade are known.

If the tip hits non-target bits that are in front of those bits, then
that's substitution.

If your head is where your chest should be if you were in proper fencing
stance, and you get hit in the head, then that's your fault. If your
head is where it should be and you get hit in the head, that's your
opponent's fault.

Those with sloppy form take note...

Zebee

[Don H.]

Hey Eric Mohl!!! Contact me at don at moonsilver.us ASAP!!

Or if anyone knows where Eric is, please let him know to contact me!

We were best friends in Finthen Germany.