Aldo Nadi(on gaurde position)

[Pommel]

I know it has just been implied throughout this discussion, but for those that haven't followed it closely I think we should make it clear that this was Nadi's FOIL guard.

My only other comment is that it seems to me that a great many modern fencers, in all weapons, don't adopt a static guard. Lots of people fence with the blade displaced so that attacks off it are impossible, or shift betweeen positions with rapid, generally circular motions. In Nadi's day and country where an actual duel was possible, and in fact occured, even a competitive fencer adopted a more conservative style that wouldn't create bad, or even possibly fatal, habits. Given the evolution of the sport I don't see the middle guard as a viable strategy.

Oh, and of course Bayer can beat Nadi! He's dead!

[MikeHarm]

Bayer Hunter:
From what I've read foilists from the dry fencing only era who were successful developed a particular habit that came back to haunt them when the weapons went electric. Because they were trying to make sure the judges saw that their touches landed, they used to flick their tip downwards when they landed to make sure it had a nice bend for the judges to see. What happened with this habit when things converted to electric was that it ended up in the point landing flat and not clicking so their beautifully done touches wouldn't register on the scoring machines. I've heard that a lot of top dry foilists were completely ruined in their ability to compete when things went electric from doing that and unable to adapt, this probably would of hapened to Aldo Nadi I think which would of given the modern sport fencers a huge advantage. I also think this explains to me some of the bitterness and anger you see in the writings about the horrors of electric scoring machines.

Mike

[Chris]

Originally posted by Christopher J Umbs:
I've got a friend (SF) who does the Nadi stance. I don't like the middle guard since I believe in limiting the number of responses that my opponent has.

Well, I, too, like that thinking*: fencing is about getting your oppoenent to do what you need them to do for you to defeat them, or at lesat WHEN you need them to do it...
* (this is the big problem with 'Nadians' - they aren't thinking enough about what they are doing - they just do something because he did it - or they THINK he did; also a lot of things he did worked for him because, A. His opponents hadn't seen it before, and B. He was a toothpick! 6 foot 1 in ~ 120 pounds.)

Therefore, my guard position is situational: I will change it, depending on how I am trying to hit my opponent, and/or how they are trying to hit me.

Originally posted by Christopher J Umbs:
However, the strangest thing I find about Nadi's guard is the back heel off the ground.

Why is this strange, other than the fact that you have probably been told that it's bad...if your heel stays on the ground, you aren't using the calf muscle, and much energy will be lost from your movement.


------------------
Fencing in Minnesota!
WWW.USFencing.org/CLUBs/clublist.asp?State=MN

[neevel]

You don't actually need to keep the heel completely off the ground, you just don't want to carry your weight on it. My heel's normally just touching the ground, but about 80-90% of the contact force is on the ball of the foot.

Mike--

Another contibuting factor to those flat touches in the early days of electric foil was the rounded 'pineapple-head' tip used in the first electric foil points. On anything other than a dead-on normal initial contact there was a good chance that the point wouldn't be depressed. They also tended to hurt more when you received a hard touch, since the force was only spread out over the small flat at the very end of the tip, rather than the wholly flat tip now used.


One bit of Nadi's technique that I've always interpreted as 'selling the touch' is the little carry-forward he advocates at the end of the lunge: continue pushing the knee out over the foot after landing, and lean the body a bit forward from the waist. The only purpose I can see to this was to exaggerate the bend of the blade from a touch (and make iffy-flat touches look a bit more valid).

As Chris Umbs has noted in the past, Nadi was most definitely a competitive fencer in his outlook, perfectly willing to exploit the rules of the game as they then stood to win (and, in the case of the upper-arm target in his expo bout with Gaudin, to blame them when he lost ). If you were to nip back in your TARDIS to 1920 and bring Nadi to a modern World Cup, I'm sure he'd be initally taken off-stride by the changes in the game since then. I'm also pretty sure that once he got on strip his competitive drive would take over and he'd start doing whatever he felt it took to win (and start making passes at the women foilists between bouts ).

-Dave

[Stryder]

Considering Nadi's personality, and his second favorite sport, he probably held his heel off the ground because it flattered the profile of his calf muscle and made the women swoon.

Skinny twerp like Nadi would have to!

[Chris]

Originally posted by Craig:
There are lots of accounts as to why Nadi was undefeated. Some say it was because he was just that good, others say it was because he would be very specific on who he would bout against.

Cheers,
Craig

(Don't get me wrong, I think he WAS among the very best, and might well have been in the present, although I don't think he would fence quite the same way as he did...)

People (men, that is) were also very specific about fencing HIM, which is partly a tribute to his skill, but also his reputation, and he also demanded a high purse for his appearance: he was for much of this time, a prize-fighter (normally, but incorrectly interpreted -at least in the U.S. - to mean boxer.)

So he didn't actually fence all that much, which meant it was pretty hard to scout him, too.

TTFN

Chris

[Chris]

As Chris Umbs has noted in the past, Nadi was most definitely a competitive fencer in his outlook, perfectly willing to exploit the rules of the game as they then stood to win (and, in the case of the upper-arm target in his expo bout with Gaudin, to blame them when he lost ). If you were to nip back in your TARDIS to 1920 and bring Nadi to a modern World Cup, I'm sure he'd be initally taken off-stride by the changes in the game since then. I'm also pretty sure that once he got on strip his competitive drive would take over and he'd start doing whatever he felt it took to win (and start making passes at the women foilists between bouts ).

-Dave

Hear! Hear!

I am sure he would aghast at our non-smoking policies, as well!

;-)

CLH

[Fencer2000]

Originally posted by The Bayer Hunter:
Cliff Bayer could kick the bejesus out of Aldo Nadi. I can just see his half 4 half 6 on guard and cat's feline reflexes crumble under the pounding of Bayer's flick attacks. Goooooood bye adulterer!!

Isn't the flick really an accepted form of cheating, like finding a way to make the score board numbers change during a basketball game without putting the ball into the basket?

That's my opinion anyway and I have met many 20+ year fencers who refuse to use it.

Adulterer? Boy, some folks really hate Aldo Nadi. His book, On Fencing, is full of interesting information and you can't read it without sensing his sincere love and respect for fencing. It's a good read.




[This message has been edited by Fencer2000 (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Craig]

Isn't the flick an accepted form of cheating?

Only in the way that dunking in basketball is an "accepted form of cheating".

[Fencer2000]

Craig,

That's a helpful analogy. Thanks.

[micromarty]

I recognize today's fencers are probably much better athletes than in the by-gone years of Nadi. I asked an old timer and lifelong fencer about Nadi recently and mentioned these posts. The reply wasn't complimentary to our best fencers, in particularly on the use of the flick. He went on to say that Nadi's long lunge was one of his best assets and said his timing was extraordinary.