And what if we are all wrong?

Have you ever wondered that what we learn in fencing may be all wrong? We
all compete against opponent who fence with about the same technique we use.
But what if this technique who we all think is the right one prove not to be
the most efficient one? Sometimes I try to think about differents ways to
fence but nothing really come in mind. I even tried to use some basis of tai
chi sword in use against a sabreur. What if a foillist fought a sabreur (dry
fencing).

JP

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:00:24 -0400
Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
>
> Have you ever wondered that what we learn in fencing may be all wrong? We
> all compete against opponent who fence with about the same technique we use.
> But what if this technique who we all think is the right one prove not to be
> the most efficient one? Sometimes I try to think about differents ways to
> fence but nothing really come in mind. I even tried to use some basis of tai
> chi sword in use against a sabreur. What if a foillist fought a sabreur (dry
> fencing).

Well.. over the last 500 years, lots of people who were using sharps
worked out how to use them and stay alive.

Naturally the environment matters - the technique used is going to
depend on weapons and rules and constraints.

I know that if I use say Capo Ferro's instructions, they don't work as
he says they should against someone who comes in with a bent arm and at
an angle he doesn't use. But it doesn't take much to take his concepts,
and use them to cope with what the opponent does. But I have to know
the concepts bone deep, not just a set of techniques/stances/reactions.

Foil is a very restricted weapon, a training tool. It's not designed to
be all things to all men.

Silver has a good set of instructions on handling different weapons
types, but would his sword - a 2lb+ weapon that can chop your arm off -
be useful against a modern light weapon?

Zebee

Trim Plus Expert wrote:

>Have you ever wondered that what we learn in fencing may be all wrong? We
>all compete against opponent who fence with about the same technique we use.
>But what if this technique who we all think is the right one prove not to be
>the most efficient one? Sometimes I try to think about differents ways to
>fence but nothing really come in mind. I even tried to use some basis of tai
>chi sword in use against a sabreur. What if a foillist fought a sabreur (dry
>fencing).
>
>JP
>
>

In one form or another, this has come up on RSF. Religions have formed,
died and been refounded on this topic.

From my point-of-view, any weapons form that you are proficient enough
to defend yourself against, should be able to get you the moment's
breathing room to get away. Not to win, but to escape the danger you are
currently facing. My reasoning is: if you can defend yourself from
someone with an equal skill in your form, you should be able to confuse
someone in another form long enough to run. I've done in when
transitioning from FIE to SCA style (single and case, Rapier and
Schlager), from Foil to Epee and from Epee to Sabre. Note that I am not
highly skilled in any of these forms. I have never gotten an FIE
'letter' or authorized (SCA term). I do confuse, befuddle, learn and
even teach other fencers. Most of all I have fun.

To your original question, who would you put your money on? Aldo Nadi or
Miyamoto Musashi? Two experts in two different styles.

You're on a good path, let us know how it goes.
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=MUSASHI%2C%252520MIYAMOTO/104-1856872-2715901>


--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

I often wonder, late at night -- what if Napoleon had had Char B's at Waterloo?
Just half a dozen of them, even.

B.C. Milligan

In article <jhVcd.32$yn1.38154@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

> Have you ever wondered that what we learn in fencing may be all wrong? We
> all compete against opponent who fence with about the same technique we use.
> But what if this technique who we all think is the right one prove not to be
> the most efficient one? Sometimes I try to think about differents ways to
> fence but nothing really come in mind. I even tried to use some basis of tai
> chi sword in use against a sabreur. What if a foillist fought a sabreur (dry
> fencing).


In athletics, there is kind of a Darwinism of ideas. People try stuff.
Some of it is deemed "crazy" or "insane," and people scoff. Some of it
works, and other people adopt it.

Rules change, and people come up with new techniques. Some of them work,
and some don't. The ones that do work are copied and eventually become
standard (witness the "flunge," which AFAIK didn't exist before the ban
on the fleche in saber).

In short, you can try anything you want, but the stuff that's used now
has passed muster for years, and it had better be good if it's going to
work and be accepted.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article <cl1r3l$19g$1@news.monmouth.com>,
Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:

>
> To your original question, who would you put your money on? Aldo Nadi or
> Miyamoto Musashi? Two experts in two different styles.
>


Which is what made the Highlander series kind of comical. One guy has a
two-handed sword, the other has a katana or a rapier (the latter being
particularly silly when the object is to behead the opponent!). Given
that swords are designed for very specific uses, these fights would have
been entirely one-sided.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:37:58 -0500
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Rules change, and people come up with new techniques. Some of them work,
> and some don't. The ones that do work are copied and eventually become
> standard (witness the "flunge," which AFAIK didn't exist before the ban
> on the fleche in saber).

Yup - the environment changed, so "what works" changed.

There are things that work in epee that won't in foil and vice versa.

There's a lot of folk who do well in foil who would probably get cut
about a lot in a duel with sharp curved sabres, where lots of things
are different.

A rapier v longsword fight is going to depend a lot on the skillsets and
mindsets. If the longsworder is a German blitzkrieg type, then the
rapierist will probably have to employ Cobb's Traverse and get the hell
out, but if not then they might be able to tempt the cut, step and
deflect, and attack. I'd not be betting too much on it, but I've tried
it with shinai vs DelTin and it can be done. (although I dunno I'd have
the guts for it if using sharps...) Fiore taught how to take a two
hander with a dagger, so anything's possible.

I think what playing with dissimilar weapons shows is the difference
between understanding concepts and drilling actions. If you understand
mechanics and distance and arcs of influence and deflection and timing
and have some idea of strengths and weaknesses, then you can adapt. If
you have just drilled what works for your setup, without the background
of why it works, then I thnk you'd be out of luck.

My fencing master learned to deal with offhand weapons and different
sword lengths very quickly, but the first couple of fights he found his
modern fencing reflexes got in his way. Once he'd re-oriented himself
then he was back to being untouchable

Zebee

> To your original question, who would you put your money on? Aldo Nadi or
> Miyamoto Musashi? Two experts in two different styles.
>
> You're on a good path, let us know how it goes.

If there had been a duel between these two I wouldn't know who to put my
money on. I think Musashi had the advantage on the experiance of killing but
this is to be played with extreme cauting. My best bet would be a double
kill. I would see the scenario like this. Musashi would have enough
determination to move in for a decisive killing cut but would probably get
punctured a couple of time in the process. Having the chance to see his
opponent dead, but passing out soon after.

But I know it's not the case of a duel here it's a question of style. Each
system has it's own benefits and is probably maxed out to be the most
effictive in a specifically given situation. I know a rapier or smallsword
would probably hold itself well against a greatsword, axe or mace. But I
would have serious doubts if my opponent is heavy armorded. My best bet
would be to run away. But here I don't want the always same idea of
comparing weapons. I do not want a religious duel occuring.

I put back my style on question, Is knee bent better or should I adopt a
more straith position like in kendo. Is the arm bent the best defending
position or should I adopt a stance like in La Destreza. What would be the
correct feet positionning. First I think that the most important concept in
fencing is distance and timing, by itself, this alone will keep you safe and
your opponent in danger. Especially when you are against someone with a
different weapon and style.

Finally my opinion on this is never taking something for granted, there is
always the room for improvement. But the greatest improvement is to be on
ourselves as human beign.

JP

So the idea of getting better, would be not to be too much drilled on
something so we might have lower chance on getting caught in a unknown
situation and having a faster adptation. The key is beign a better thinker
not having better automatic response worked over and over.

Thank you again everyone, I am getting better and better since you all help
me.

JP


"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> a écrit dans le message de news:
slrncn95ia.kuf.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:37:58 -0500
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Rules change, and people come up with new techniques. Some of them work,
>> and some don't. The ones that do work are copied and eventually become
>> standard (witness the "flunge," which AFAIK didn't exist before the ban
>> on the fleche in saber).
>
> Yup - the environment changed, so "what works" changed.
>
> There are things that work in epee that won't in foil and vice versa.
>
> There's a lot of folk who do well in foil who would probably get cut
> about a lot in a duel with sharp curved sabres, where lots of things
> are different.
>
> A rapier v longsword fight is going to depend a lot on the skillsets and
> mindsets. If the longsworder is a German blitzkrieg type, then the
> rapierist will probably have to employ Cobb's Traverse and get the hell
> out, but if not then they might be able to tempt the cut, step and
> deflect, and attack. I'd not be betting too much on it, but I've tried
> it with shinai vs DelTin and it can be done. (although I dunno I'd have
> the guts for it if using sharps...) Fiore taught how to take a two
> hander with a dagger, so anything's possible.
>
> I think what playing with dissimilar weapons shows is the difference
> between understanding concepts and drilling actions. If you understand
> mechanics and distance and arcs of influence and deflection and timing
> and have some idea of strengths and weaknesses, then you can adapt. If
> you have just drilled what works for your setup, without the background
> of why it works, then I thnk you'd be out of luck.
>
> My fencing master learned to deal with offhand weapons and different
> sword lengths very quickly, but the first couple of fights he found his
> modern fencing reflexes got in his way. Once he'd re-oriented himself
> then he was back to being untouchable
>
> Zebee

Rufus T. Firefly writes:
> I often wonder, late at night -- what if Napoleon had had Char B's at
> Waterloo? Just half a dozen of them, even.

He'd do a lot better with half a dozen cheap walkie-talkies.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

I do wonder, what if Hitler has prepared his troops for rude winter
conditions? We could possibly be speaking German now....

No, I like rather thinking about something that hasn't happened yet.

JP





"John Hasler" <john@dhh.gt.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
876556wpbk.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org...
> Rufus T. Firefly writes:
>> I often wonder, late at night -- what if Napoleon had had Char B's at
>> Waterloo? Just half a dozen of them, even.
>
> He'd do a lot better with half a dozen cheap walkie-talkies.
> --
> John Hasler
> john@dhh.gt.org
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI USA

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:24:11 -0400
Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
>
> If there had been a duel between these two I wouldn't know who to put my
> money on. I think Musashi had the advantage on the experiance of killing but
> this is to be played with extreme cauting. My best bet would be a double
> kill. I would see the scenario like this. Musashi would have enough
> determination to move in for a decisive killing cut but would probably get
> punctured a couple of time in the process. Having the chance to see his
> opponent dead, but passing out soon after.

Given Nadi's own account of his duel, I suspect he'd be slain within the
first second or two unless he ran like hell. Especially as he had no
experience with how to deal with a weapon he couldn't move with his own.
Parry of fifth's sorta useless you know?

> system has it's own benefits and is probably maxed out to be the most
> effictive in a specifically given situation. I know a rapier or smallsword
> would probably hold itself well against a greatsword, axe or mace. But I

Depends... if by greatsword you mean two handed longsword, the bods who
know, like Silver, say that the longsword man wins. If you mean a big
bugger like a Landschnect's pike chopper, then maybe the point types get
in first, but they'll have a high chance of death as they come in even if
they managed to avoid the first cut as the big sword comes back withthe
false edge. Especially if they haven't seen how such a thing is used.
They can't easily deflect or block, they have to void, and then get in
close enough to use the weapon. If by axe you mean handaxe yeah,
ditto most maces. If you mean pollaxe, then that's a staff with a
nasty end, and your swordsman better know exactly what he's about or
he's chopped liver. Also going to depend a lot on what "rapier" you are
thinking of. Swetnam's four foot monster? Di Grassi's sidesword?

> would have serious doubts if my opponent is heavy armorded. My best bet
> would be to run away. But here I don't want the always same idea of
> comparing weapons. I do not want a religious duel occuring.

Study Fiore, then go in under the weapon, and wrestle. Once he's on the
ground, point through the eyeslot. Does mean you have to survive that
first few seconds and have very good distance sense indeed. Fiore taught
it, said it was possible, and had an excellent reputation in his own time,
so for a trained brave fighter I expect it is possible.

>
> I put back my style on question, Is knee bent better or should I adopt a
> more straith position like in kendo. Is the arm bent the best defending
> position or should I adopt a stance like in La Destreza. What would be the
> correct feet positionning. First I think that the most important concept in
> fencing is distance and timing, by itself, this alone will keep you safe and
> your opponent in danger. Especially when you are against someone with a
> different weapon and style.

If you are facing a large slashing weapon, then what are the things it
can do, what can you do against them?

If it's a long weapon that can both cut and thrust, what are your options?
What weight is it, what are its defences, what are its strengths and
weaknesses?

What weapon are you using, what are its strengths and weaknesses?

Things like straight vs bent arm are well down the track. First, you
have to define your problem then what techniques to use become obvious
is you know the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Read Silver on how to face a long rapier with a shorter cutting weapon.
His Brief Instructions and Paradoxes of Defence are a very good lesson
on how to go about thinking about these things.

Study the men who did this for real. It's more useful than trying to
figure it out for yourself when you have no proving ground to test your
theories.

Zebee

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:42:46 -0400
Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> So the idea of getting better, would be not to be too much drilled on
> something so we might have lower chance on getting caught in a unknown
> situation and having a faster adptation. The key is beign a better thinker
> not having better automatic response worked over and over.

Some responses, very basic ones, are going to work most of the time.

But in the end, if you expect to fight a certain kind of fight, drill
for it. If you don't know what kind of fight you will fight, practice
many different things and styles.

What works well for me as a basic set of actions and reactions with
"longish pointy thing with or without something in the other hand, no
cutting" works badly against "shorter cutting things". IN other words
if I go into a fight with the cautious probing testing methods of rapier
with my sword out in front but I'm using shortsword and buckler, then
the one Im facing who is fast and agressive and siezes initiative will
do me every time. Ditto longsword. But what I had to change was not
foot position but mindset and focusing on what the weapon I was facing
could do and how.

If you want to win modern fencing bouts, train for that. If you want to
be good in other styles, learn what the bones of those are, and look for
the common things. Practice practice. Because in the end, you can only
do what you have trained to do.

Zebee

> Given Nadi's own account of his duel, I suspect he'd be slain within the
> first second or two unless he ran like hell. Especially as he had no
> experience with how to deal with a weapon he couldn't move with his own.
> Parry of fifth's sorta useless you know?
>
>

I dunno, given Nadi has learn't from his experience of that duel he would
probably hold good against the aggressive fighter who was Musashi. Even
perfectly timed has Musashi were, he is probably the one who more obviously
would underestimate his adversary. Playing like that against a weapon as
agile and deceptive as a rapier is a dangerous game. Nadi would have
probably learned not redo the same mistakes has in his previous duel while
he got stabed and play a game more cautious without allowing his opponent to
hit him. While Musashi would wait trying to force in for the single killing
blow. That could lead to a longer duel than when he fight an agressive
opponent and react for the kill. A katana best chance against a rapier would
be to end things quickly but at the proper moment. Rushing on a man holding
a rapier is a losing game. But it could give enough time to Nadi to have
already inflicted a fatal wound. My best bet still remain a double kill or
maybe a very fast death of Nadi and at last it could end on a well place
time-hit with opposition of the blade by Nadi.





> Study Fiore, then go in under the weapon, and wrestle. Once he's on the
> ground, point through the eyeslot. Does mean you have to survive that
> first few seconds and have very good distance sense indeed. Fiore taught
> it, said it was possible, and had an excellent reputation in his own time,
> so for a trained brave fighter I expect it is possible.
>



>
> Things like straight vs bent arm are well down the track. First, you
> have to define your problem then what techniques to use become obvious
> is you know the advantages and disadvantages of each.
>
> Read Silver on how to face a long rapier with a shorter cutting weapon.
> His Brief Instructions and Paradoxes of Defence are a very good lesson
> on how to go about thinking about these things.
>
> Study the men who did this for real. It's more useful than trying to
> figure it out for yourself when you have no proving ground to test your
> theories.
>
> Zebee

He'd do a lot better with half a dozen cheap walkie-talkies.
=====
Hey, unfair! The guns in the PZ-III couldn't penetrate the Char-B from the
front.

Mr. Black, on the other hand, completely devastated my fantasy. I have never
figured out, though, why probably the best-trained army Napoleon ever had
(many of them were veterans who had been swept up and captured in 1814 and then
released) was defeated by force of unmotivated Dutch and Belgian troops joined
by an English army that was --in large part -- composed of troops that had not
fought in the Peninsula or elsewhere.

Oops. I am way off topic here. Whom do you think was the better swordsman -
Napoleon, or Wellington? We know Blucher was the best drinker.

B.C. Milligan

"Rufus T. Firefly" <remise@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041022160144.18603.00002984@mb-m07.aol.com...
>
> Mr. Black, on the other hand, completely devastated my fantasy.

It's always nice to be loved...

I have never
> figured out, though, why probably the best-trained army Napoleon ever had
> (many of them were veterans who had been swept up and captured in 1814 and
then
> released) was defeated by force of unmotivated Dutch and Belgian troops
joined
> by an English army that was --in large part -- composed of troops that had
not
> fought in the Peninsula or elsewhere.

Several reasons.

1. Nappy was ill, his piles were so bad he had to go and lie down for a
bit, and his subordinates proceded to throw it away.

2. His army had been on the march for days and had fought two battles and,
while victorious were getting tired.

3. Wellington got to pick his own ground, and he'd picked it years before.
He was a 'defensive' general and got to do what he wanted when he wanted and
where he wanted, and he fought the defensive battle he had planned for
years.

> Oops. I am way off topic here. Whom do you think was the better
swordsman -
> Napoleon, or Wellington? We know Blucher was the best drinker.

A person who's piles are so bad that he can't sit a horse comfortably and
has to go and lie down and rest in the middle of the day against a man with
a reputation for being a bit of a womaniser and serious party animal and who
fought a duel when he was 60 (in 1829).

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

As far as I am concerned, Waterloo was lost by Jerome and Ney, but anyway, back
to fencing. I am worried about the apparently demise of Santelli. When your
phone is disconnected, and you are a business, that is like, you know, a hint,
or something.

B.C. Milligan

Amy & Joseph Kormann wrote:
>
[snip]
> To your original question, who would you put your money on? Aldo Nadi
> or Miyamoto Musashi? Two experts in two different styles.

The big M. Modern fencing is for sport, while the ancient
Japanese art was used in life-or-death battles. The techniques and
defenses are designed with those different situations and goals in
mind.

Of course, you can always test this theory with the local
Kendo club if you ask really nicely...

"Rufus T. Firefly" <remise@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041023210209.06333.00001705@mb-m19.aol.com...
> As far as I am concerned, Waterloo was lost by Jerome and Ney, but anyway,
back
> to fencing. I am worried about the apparently demise of Santelli. When
your
> phone is disconnected, and you are a business, that is like, you know, a
hint,
> or something.

I'm still mourning the loss of 'France Lames'.

People go broke, I'm afraid it's the world we live in...

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

Rufus T. Firefly wrote:
> We know Blucher was the best drinker.

Ney!