Form Question

[Matt Eden]

I know in past years it was illegal to turn ones body so that their non
weapon shoulder crossed in front of their weapon shoulder, but recently
I've been hearing rumors that they changed this to make "in fencing" a
bit easier. I checked in the 2004 FIE book and the most it had to say
on the subject was that one's off hand arm could not be used to defend
or block an on target area. This COULD be construed as making it
illegal for someone to move their body so that their non weapon
shoulder has crossed in front of their weapon shoulder but it also
could not be. If someone either with the 2005 FIE rules or who has
first hand knowledge of this please reply I'd be much abliged!!

Matt Eden

[Mark C. Orton]

On 11 Mar 2005 18:24:55 -0800, "Matt Eden" <OutlawBlue9@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I know in past years it was illegal to turn ones body so that their non
> weapon shoulder crossed in front of their weapon shoulder,

This was true for a few years in foil, but not sabre and epee.

>but recently
> I've been hearing rumors that they changed this to make "in fencing" a
> bit easier.

The FIE repealed it recently, at the beginning of 2004 if I recall
correctly.

-Mark-

[DHCJr]

It used to be in T.46, but it is no longer there. As reported, that portion of the rule was dropped. If you check the USFA manual in the index, they still list the shoulder reversal.

But, they are translating the French Manual and they also have it in their index, even though the rule has been dropped.

One thing that is interesting, the rule book on the Leon Paul site, still have the old rule both in T.46 as well as what the referee is supposed to look for in T.36.

[Tim Schofield]

In article <DHCJr.1lslq8@timelimit.fencing101.com>, DHCJr
<DHCJr.1lslq8@timelimit.fencing101.com> writes
>
>It used to be in T.46, but it is no longer there. As reported, that
>portion of the rule was dropped. If you check the USFA manual in the
>index, they still list the shoulder reversal.
>
>But, they are translating the French Manual and they also have it in
>their index, even though the rule has been dropped.
>
>One thing that is interesting, the rule book on the Leon Paul site,
>still have the old rule both in T.46 as well as what the referee is
>supposed to look for in T.36.

The rules on the shop site appear to be an old version (dated 2002) -
I'm told there's a new version on the Leon Paul Forum site, and there's
certainly a new version on the British Fencing site
http://www.britishfencing.com/rules%20pdf%20files.html

(I always understood the British and US rules were very closely related,
but the index and T.36 remnants are missing from the British version).

Incidentally, I understand that the change relates to reversing the
shoulders. Turning your back is still forbidden (t.21). So, you can
now bring your left shoulder forward of your right shoulder if you want
(in some exotic behind-the head parry at close quarters, perhaps); but
you still may not turn to face away from your opponent before the call
of halt.

>--
>DHCJr


[snip sig]

--
Regards,
Tim S.

[DHCJr]

They were very related in 2000, not so now, except they are both translation of the same source. In 2000, the USFA rule book was 'Translated' from the British Rule Book. You could tell when they talked about Spools, earthing, etc. For 2004, the USFA did their own translation.

Thank you about the note on the index. Now if the French were as efficient as the British.

[Harold Buck]

In article <q8kUWwEU7LNCFA9y@oaktree.mail.foxtree.co.uk>,
Tim Schofield <tim@foxtree.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Incidentally, I understand that the change relates to reversing the
> shoulders. Turning your back is still forbidden (t.21). So, you can
> now bring your left shoulder forward of your right shoulder if you want
> (in some exotic behind-the head parry at close quarters, perhaps); but
> you still may not turn to face away from your opponent before the call
> of halt.
>


My understanding--this was second-hand, so it could well be an urban
legend--was that there was a woman foilist (Chinese, maybe?) that was
scoring a lot of touches by crossing forward with the non-weapon leg.
That is, she'd take her back foot and take a giant step forward, thus
dramatically increasing her range over a normal lunge, and she'd reverse
her shoulders in the process. This rule, the story goes, was intended to
eliminate this tactic.

Of course, I don't see why the shoulders need to be reversed to use this
tactic, so I'm not sure I believe the story.

--Harold Buck


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

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:53:38 -0500
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> My understanding--this was second-hand, so it could well be an urban
> legend--was that there was a woman foilist (Chinese, maybe?) that was
> scoring a lot of touches by crossing forward with the non-weapon leg.
> That is, she'd take her back foot and take a giant step forward, thus
> dramatically increasing her range over a normal lunge, and she'd reverse
> her shoulders in the process. This rule, the story goes, was intended to
> eliminate this tactic.

I guess I'd have to see someone do it, because I can't see how you
can increase your range with a single forward step of the leg on the
non-weapon side compared to a forward step of the leg on the weapn side.
The weapon shoulder can't get as far forward if the weapon leg is back.

What might do it is to attack on the pass, that is to have the weapon
side leg back, and then bring it forward in one big step. That is
slower by a bit than a proper lunge, but can foul up an opponent's sense
of distance. It's also got a lot of momentum behind it, quite possibly
more than even a proper lunge, as you have the whole body weight
swinging through.

On the other hand, Di Grassi in 1570 didn't lunge, instead he used a
really really loong inquartata step, moving the off leg so far around
the back it was almost in front of the weapon hand leg. This does
increase the range, although not as much as a lunge. It also gets you
way off line.

It doesn't really reverse the shoulders, at most it brings the
non-weapon side shoulder around to be equal to the other.

(It also requires you to be very flexible...)

My suspicion is the "reverse the shoulders" rule is about always keeping
the weapon leg forward, but I don't know why they'd think this
important. Unless bringing it back has other undesirables in foil, such
as bringing the off hand in front to block target or something, but
that's already illegal.

Zebee

[Harold Buck]

In article <slrnd3ecpt.8e8.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

>
> I guess I'd have to see someone do it, because I can't see how you
> can increase your range with a single forward step of the leg on the
> non-weapon side compared to a forward step of the leg on the weapn side.
> The weapon shoulder can't get as far forward if the weapon leg is back.
>


By my measure, it nets me about an extra 16 inches.

--Harold Buck


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

[Joseph Kormann]

Harold Buck wrote:
> In article <slrnd3ecpt.8e8.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
> Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>I guess I'd have to see someone do it, because I can't see how you
>>can increase your range with a single forward step of the leg on the
>>non-weapon side compared to a forward step of the leg on the weapn side.
>>The weapon shoulder can't get as far forward if the weapon leg is back.
>>
>
>
>
> By my measure, it nets me about an extra 16 inches.

I've had it described to me as a Chinese Lunge. From an en-guarde, rear
foot (left in my case) crosses the plane of the front foot and lands in
the normal perpendicular position. Crossing of shoulders isn't necessary
and actually can be detrimental. I've done it in bouts a couple of
times, it gains you extra ground without losing much tempo. The whole
attack is a bit slower and, IMHO, telegraphs if the opponent is paying
attention. I've seen someone use it during a practice, then launch into
a normal-sided lunge immediately after; leg strength and momentum.

I've heard rumor that the turning of shoulders ban came about by the
French to keep some sneaky, nasty Germans doing a behind-the-back
technique. As a righty, take the weapon, lower it down to the outside,
step into the opponent with the back foot, turn the shoulder and raising
blade to hit on the (was) inside. It looks like an infighting maneuver
for point-weapons.

Zeebee, can you clarify what an inquartata is?

-Joseph

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:38:35 GMT
Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@verizon.net> wrote:
> Zeebee, can you clarify what an inquartata is?
>

Stand on guard.

Sweep your back foot around behind your front foot, pivoting on the
front foot as you do so, keeping the sword point aimed at your opponent.

If you land the back foot about level with your front foot, then you
will have gained no distance, but you will have moved your body right
out of the line of fire. If you land the back foot closer to the
opponent than the front foot, you have gained some distance, the point
of the weapon will have advanced.

(And if you are too tense, you will go ow!)


Zebee

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:37:07 -0500
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnd3ecpt.8e8.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
> Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess I'd have to see someone do it, because I can't see how you
>> can increase your range with a single forward step of the leg on the
>> non-weapon side compared to a forward step of the leg on the weapn side.
>> The weapon shoulder can't get as far forward if the weapon leg is back.
>>
>
>
> By my measure, it nets me about an extra 16 inches.
>

Than a lunge? Or than a step with the weapon side leg?

Zebee

[Joseph Kormann]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Sweep your back foot around behind your front foot, pivoting on the
> front foot as you do so, keeping the sword point aimed at your opponent.
>
> Zebee

Sounds like something to be used when using a heavy-mass weapon, like a
Schlager. A foil is easy enough to move laterally to parry your
opponent, this would allow you to evade a touch while leaving the weapon
for self-impalation.

Neat trick. Thank you.

[Harold Buck]

In article <slrnd3frch.dt9.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:37:07 -0500
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article <slrnd3ecpt.8e8.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
> > Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I guess I'd have to see someone do it, because I can't see how you
> >> can increase your range with a single forward step of the leg on the
> >> non-weapon side compared to a forward step of the leg on the weapn side.
> >> The weapon shoulder can't get as far forward if the weapon leg is back.
> >>
> >
> >
> > By my measure, it nets me about an extra 16 inches.
> >
>
> Than a lunge? Or than a step with the weapon side leg?
>


A step with the non-weapon side leg seems to net me an extra 16 inches
or so over a lunge.

--Harold Buck


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

[Harold Buck]

In article <3PUZd.8836$Z07.3777@trnddc02>,
Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@verizon.net> wrote:

> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > Sweep your back foot around behind your front foot, pivoting on the
> > front foot as you do so, keeping the sword point aimed at your opponent.
> >
> > Zebee
>
> Sounds like something to be used when using a heavy-mass weapon, like a
> Schlager. A foil is easy enough to move laterally to parry your
> opponent, this would allow you to evade a touch while leaving the weapon
> for self-impalation.

I've used this successfully in foil.

--Harold Buck


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

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:31:01 -0500
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> A step with the non-weapon side leg seems to net me an extra 16 inches
> or so over a lunge.

OK, colour me boggled

I think I'd have to see a movied to understand what's going on.

Or trade my body in on a better model...

Zebee

[Harold Buck]

In article <slrnd3h25p.ebl.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:31:01 -0500
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > A step with the non-weapon side leg seems to net me an extra 16 inches
> > or so over a lunge.
>
> OK, colour me boggled
>
> I think I'd have to see a movied to understand what's going on.
>
> Or trade my body in on a better model...
>


Just think about how much further forward you can get your center of
gravity by crossing your feet forward over reaching out with the front
leg (as in a lunge). It more than makes up for the lack of extension you
get with the weapon arm.

--Harold Buck


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

[Joseph Kormann]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:31:01 -0500
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>A step with the non-weapon side leg seems to net me an extra 16 inches
>>or so over a lunge.
>
>
> OK, colour me boggled
>
> I think I'd have to see a movied to understand what's going on.
>
> Or trade my body in on a better model...
>
> Zebee

What's the nearest color to boggled? Somewhere near chartruse I imagine.

Think of the difference between your front foot and back foot. When you
lunge regularly, you're extending your front foot leaving the back foot
as an anchor. With this "Chinese" lunge, you're bringing your rear foot
around your front foot, using your front foot as the rear anchor. Now
your distance is the normal lunge distance plus what you gained by
switching feet. In Harold's case, I would guess his normal en-guarde is
approx 16 inches, because that's the amount of distance he gained by
switching his feet.

Is that clearer?