When did the "classical" fencing movement begin?

[VERITAS]

I hate to drop the E-bomb this early in the thread, but our old friend Nick Evangelista seems to think none too highly of electric scoring, and he's as CF as they get. I don't have my copy of 'Inner Game' in front of me, or I would hit you with some quotes. He doesn't refer to it as 'evil,' of course, but the idea is conveyed clearly enough.

(A less refined soul, perhaps, would suggest that NE is one of the 'untrained egotistical fools' of which VERITAS spoke. But I have too much class for that.)

You do indeed have more class than that. Thank you!


I will now quote (for the 1st time ever on f.net) N. Evangelista's brief section entitled "Electric Problems" from his book on fencing thought The Inner Game of Fencing

"The electric scoring machine was made for the director, not the fencer. If you are going to fencing successfully within the electric scoring process, you need to keep the preceding statement in mind, or you will certainly mess up your fencing. The problem comes from paying too much attention to the electric box and not enough attention to your own fencing.
Because of the nature of the apparatus, it is very easy to become conditioned, in the same manner as Pavlov's famous dog, to look for the machine's responses as a reward for your fencing actions. With buzzers and flashing lights, the machine signals its approval, giving you validation, so to speak. So, after ever action, you cast a questioning glance in the direction of the box, "Did I do OK?" Of course, when this is done, the fencer is not paying attention to his opponent. It is very easy to be hit during this moment of hesitation.
I've seen instances in which both fencers, locked in a poking battle, will suddenly turn and stare expectantly at the scoring machine. The box's signals are very alluring, almost psychologically addicting, much in the same way video games use lights and sounds to give players a psychological hit.
If you find yourself engaged in this type of behavior, you must consciously put some distance between you and the scoring machine. If you haven't yet been hooked up to the box, be wary when you are. Don't let it become your master.
Again, the scoring box is for the director, not you. Your job is to fence."
[p. 222, The Inner Game of Fencing by Nick Evangelista]

You can draw your own conclusions - this quote is all the discussion he gives under the heading of "Electric Problems", in this work at least.

The advice he gives seems sound and applicable to SF coaching as well as CF.

[VERITAS]

Boxing, anyone?

But seriously, it's interesting that a chief argument people make in favor of CF is that it would come in handy 'in real life,' whether that phrase refers to a contrafactual situation in which people duel with real swords or a possible situation in which you might be called upon to fight off street toughs with an umbrella... when, at the same time, those same people reject the extensive physical conditioning that is intrinsic to SF and that would come in handy if, in fact, you were to find yourself in a real scrape.

We now return to your regularly scheduled, non-CF-flamewar thread.

Sure - good point. There are also HF types who deplore the modern condition of boxing, preferring an older more martial style.

And there is the semantics of calling boxing a martial sport/combat sport, but good point.

Please do not misunderstand - CF trains very hard. Even the fencers who may never compete or have serious ambitions of martial ability, but rather enjoy the recreation will train hard with the rest of us.

Try comparing a SF sabre with a CF Singlestick / Heavy Sabre.

Much, much heavier. Moulinelli becomes wonderful exercise!

Or, for instance, the enguard generally taught in CF requires much better conditioning than the SF enguard.

Again, do not confuse the serious CFer with the SCA wannabe types.

[drseudo]

"The electric scoring machine was made for the director, not the fencer. If you are going to fencing successfully within the electric scoring process, you need to keep the preceding statement in mind, or you will certainly mess up your fencing. The problem comes from paying too much attention to the electric box and not enough attention to your own fencing.
Because of the nature of the apparatus, it is very easy to become conditioned, in the same manner as Pavlov's famous dog, to look for the machine's responses as a reward for your fencing actions. With buzzers and flashing lights, the machine signals its approval, giving you validation, so to speak. So, after ever action, you cast a questioning glance in the direction of the box, "Did I do OK?" Of course, when this is done, the fencer is not paying attention to his opponent. It is very easy to be hit during this moment of hesitation.
I've seen instances in which both fencers, locked in a poking battle, will suddenly turn and stare expectantly at the scoring machine. The box's signals are very alluring, almost psychologically addicting, much in the same way video games use lights and sounds to give players a psychological hit.
If you find yourself engaged in this type of behavior, you must consciously put some distance between you and the scoring machine. If you haven't yet been hooked up to the box, be wary when you are. Don't let it become your master.
Again, the scoring box is for the director, not you. Your job is to fence."
[p. 222, The Inner Game of Fencing by Nick Evangelista]

You can draw your own conclusions - this quote is all the discussion he gives under the heading of "Electric Problems", in this work at least.

The advice he gives seems sound and applicable to SF coaching as well as CF.

I remember this passage now, and how much it irked me the first time I read 'Inner Game.'

The comparison to Pavlov's classical conditioning (as opposed to sport conditioning??), as should be clear to anyone who's studied it, is rather silly. Pavlov's dog, of course, came to associate a neutral stimulus (bell ringing) with a positive stimulus (dinnertime). NE's implication, it seems, is that fencers are in danger of associating a similarly neutral stimulus (light/buzzer) with a similarly positive stimulus (scoring the touch).

But this is nonsense. Getting a light on sometimes means you score the touch, but not always. In fact, just about as often, it means nothing, or that you didn't score the touch--if you're on the losing end of an attack-counterattack, for example. But no one's claiming that fencers are being conditioned not to like buzzers/lights.

(Of course, the above paragraph applies only to F/S. The case could be made, I guess, that epeeists are conditioned to respond only to the box, and not to the inherent thrill of victory, the physical sensation of getting a hit, etc. But the case is not a strong one.)

You can tell that NE has no idea what he's talking about, incidentally, when he mentions that fencers look to the box for a 'reward' for their fencing actions, thus confusing classical and operant conditioning. And if we assume that he means operant conditioning, then what are fencers being conditioned to do? Fence? Get touches? They were doing that already! You can see that down this path madness lies.

[miyamoto]

Regarding the martial utility of fencing that has been called into question, Bruce Lee found much truth in fencing principles that he believed was lacking in the "classical" (read traditional and stagnant in this case) eastern martial arts that he rejected.

What is there in fencing to be found not in Karate (or TKD, or Aikido, or Kung Fu, or Jujutsu, etc.)

The best answer I have found is that fencing preserves full-contact fighting.

Bruce Lee took sport fencing. He didn't take a class on martial fencing, but the sport. He talked about principles in fencing that carried over, but he also mentions how unrealistic (and how one must ignore) RoW is in his book.

Also, TKD is full contact.

[miyamoto]

I remember this passage now, and how much it irked me the first time I read 'Inner Game.'

The comparison to Pavlov's classical conditioning (as opposed to sport conditioning??), as should be clear to anyone who's studied it, is rather silly. Pavlov's dog, of course, came to associate a neutral stimulus (bell ringing) with a positive stimulus (dinnertime). NE's implication, it seems, is that fencers are in danger of associating a similarly neutral stimulus (light/buzzer) with a similarly positive stimulus (scoring the touch).

But this is nonsense. Getting a light on sometimes means you score the touch, but not always. In fact, just about as often, it means nothing, or that you didn't score the touch--if you're on the losing end of an attack-counterattack, for example. But no one's claiming that fencers are being conditioned not to like buzzers/lights.

(Of course, the above paragraph applies only to F/S. The case could be made, I guess, that epeeists are conditioned to respond only to the box, and not to the inherent thrill of victory, the physical sensation of getting a hit, etc. But the case is not a strong one.)

You can tell that NE has no idea what he's talking about, incidentally, when he mentions that fencers look to the box for a 'reward' for their fencing actions, thus confusing classical and operant conditioning. And if we assume that he means operant conditioning, then what are fencers being conditioned to do? Fence? Get touches? They were doing that already! You can see that down this path madness lies.

The passage also fails to mention that this only an issue for scrubs. At the last sectional event I went to, not one touch in bout I was in, watched, or somebody mentioned was scored this way.

In the Olympic, world cup, and championship tapes I have not one fencer stops to look at the box. Oh sure, they look at the ref, but the good fencer knows when they hit.

[Schiavona]

Several posts have mentioned Aikido as being like CF, I believe, and Karate like SF. Aikido is nothing like fencing, CF or SF. As far as I know, Aikido isn't like any other martial art. There isn't any competition in Aikido, never was. Aikido is all about defense. There aren't any attacks, just defense. It is the most practical self defense style I've ever seen. Some belt tests have 4 people attacking the tester-at the same time!


Back to the thread.

Another question; In CF, is right of way arm extended or arm extending as in SF?

Thanks.

[VERITAS]

Several posts have mentioned Aikido as being like CF, I believe, and Karate like SF. Aikido is nothing like fencing, CF or SF. As far as I know, Aikido isn't like any other martial art. There isn't any competition in Aikido, never was. Aikido is all about defense. There aren't any attacks, just defense. It is the most practical self defense style I've ever seen. Some belt tests have 4 people attacking the tester-at the same time!

My teacher's teacher studies both Aikido and CF - especially Northern Italian. He has explained and demonstrated a number of fascinating similarities.

Aikido involves using an opponent's energy in an attack against him by redirecting it. Much of the application of timing and distance in counterattacking is similar to any martial art, but in specific the taking someone off balance is much like the Italian school's bladework.

I apologize for such a poor explanation - I wish you could see his demonstration and hear his explanation.

From what I saw, and from my experience I would say Aikido has more in common with CF than Karate does.

Another question; In CF, is right of way arm extended or arm extending as in SF?

Thanks.

Very good question - thank you.

Right of way is arm extended (AND point threatening target, of course).

Full extension is of course unnecessary in very close distance where a partial extension suffices, but an attack from a normal distance requires full extension.

If you attack a skilled CFer arm extending, you will often be counterattacked before arm is extended.

[VERITAS]

Bruce Lee took sport fencing. He didn't take a class on martial fencing, but the sport. He talked about principles in fencing that carried over, but he also mentions how unrealistic (and how one must ignore) RoW is in his book.

The book he read and the way he trained was with a mind towards CF - fencing as a martial art. It would seem that back then the terms CF vs SF were not in use, and the sport competitions still somewhat resembled reality.

Bruce Lee pooh-poohed a number of traditional training tools at various stages in his career for his personal development. Kata being the famous example, and you say RoW as well.
Ok, fine.

For the rest of us who are not Bruce Lee, we can use a conventional training tool that builds us up and prepares us. Obviously at some point that means going beyond RoW restrictions as understood by some, and developing counterattacks.

Also, TKD is full contact.

I apologize, perhaps the terms I used are not terribly clear.

TKD does not go full contact to the death. You would kill someone with kicks if you sparred that way.

In CF the rules are designed to reflect the realities of combat. So using a CF grade foil, I know that a certain degree of bend in the blade means that I have penetrated an opponent. The safety of the equipment allows for very realistic applications of timing and distance.

All empty-hand systems in their bouting require pulling punches, cumbersome and unrealistic pads, absurd scoring systems, or ...lethal encounters.

That is why Bruce Lee was interested in western fencing, boxing and wrestling as in these areas some aspects of martial truth are preserved.

[VERITAS]

I remember this passage now, and how much it irked me the first time I read 'Inner Game.'

The comparison to Pavlov's classical conditioning (as opposed to sport conditioning??), as should be clear to anyone who's studied it, is rather silly. Pavlov's dog, of course, came to associate a neutral stimulus (bell ringing) with a positive stimulus (dinnertime). NE's implication, it seems, is that fencers are in danger of associating a similarly neutral stimulus (light/buzzer) with a similarly positive stimulus (scoring the touch).

But this is nonsense. Getting a light on sometimes means you score the touch, but not always. In fact, just about as often, it means nothing, or that you didn't score the touch--if you're on the losing end of an attack-counterattack, for example. But no one's claiming that fencers are being conditioned not to like buzzers/lights.

(Of course, the above paragraph applies only to F/S. The case could be made, I guess, that epeeists are conditioned to respond only to the box, and not to the inherent thrill of victory, the physical sensation of getting a hit, etc. But the case is not a strong one.)

You can tell that NE has no idea what he's talking about, incidentally, when he mentions that fencers look to the box for a 'reward' for their fencing actions, thus confusing classical and operant conditioning. And if we assume that he means operant conditioning, then what are fencers being conditioned to do? Fence? Get touches? They were doing that already! You can see that down this path madness lies.

Maybe M. Evangelista misunderstands Pavlov's experiments - I have never read much 1st hand info on them - or possibly we may misunderstand what he wrote.

Fencers would be conditioned to stop fencing and look each time they think they scored - this is a bad idea no matter what theory of teaching you subscribe to.

I do not necessarily agree with everything he says or the way he says it, but the point of the passage quoted is that Master Evangelista does not consider electrical scoring apparatus to be evil or heretical necessarily.

As I understand from reading his other works, Master Evangelista considers electric scoring to be sometimes distracting and never necessary. For what he teaches, electric scoring is superfluous.

If you read his book The Art and Science of Fencing, he relates anecdotes in which he himself fences with the electric scoring system.

What he takes issue with is SF pedagogy more than the method of scoring.

[sarmaticus]

Name one other sport which has a group of "classical" individuals maddly trying to prove that thier version of the sport is the "True" version.

Real Tennis springs to mind.
Fencing is a broad church and it ranges from antiquarian purists to those who like to play touch (tag, in Americanese) with a fly-fishing rod.
In between are those of us believe that fencing should derive its logic from combat but are happier to have as much as possible adjudicated by objective means.
There are those who use the barrage to test their express and test their technique; others who use what technique they must to get the hit. Fencing can be appreciated for its form, for its physicallity or even for the inane delight in winning.
Fencing competition has been increasingly marred by idiotic behaviour - which is a matter of a general lack of culture rather than electronic scoring. What the latter has made less prevalent is the, "veteran call" as regards to touches and the "deaf" opponent that Nadi mentions.
I don't see competition in itself as the fault; it is a test of sportsmanship and as one regards being a good sport as more important than being a winner, competition can be both in earnest and civilised - the milieu of snooker is an example of this.
I don't see any reason for antipathy between approaches to what is after all a personal form of expression.

[jeff]

- Aikido is not a traditional form: Morihei Ueshiba based it on, but diverged from, older Japanese martial arts (banned by US forces during post-WW II occupation) that were explicitly more "military" and lethal. So, even Aikido is a hybrid, modern form, rather than a historical one. Not to take away from it in the least, but it's similar how fencing evolved from lethal encounters.

- Evangelista clearly is against mainstream fencing pedagogy, but he's just as clearly against electrical scoring. I don't buy his books, but I used to subscribe to Fencers Quarterly Magazine (I let it lapse when I couldn't stand the ranting and rudeness - even in responses to polite letters to the editor). Looking at back issues I have, I see numerous references to what is called "Pandora's box" (Spring 2001 issue, page 4) and the negative effects he claims it has on both director and fencer. This is one of the most recurring themes in Evangelista's writing - you can see it in any issue you pick at random.

I find it a little mystifying: Like Schiavona, Evangelista and I are roughly contemporary, and therefore he fenced "on the box", just like everyone else did (Foil was electrified in the Olympics in 1956, I think - well before any of us were on the scene). If things have gone to hell in a handbasket in the past few years, it certainly can't be the machine's fault. It's just as much sense to say that dry fencing produces the Pavlovian reaction to turn and glare at the judges behind you (a behavior old-timers will recognise) as to say that electrical fencing produces the Pavlovian response of staring at the box. At the very least can't be intimidated or biased in favor of a friend.

Frankly, I think things have deteriorated, at least in foil, but in my opinion it's the popular and recent acceptance of the "bent arm moving forward is an attack" that is the problem, It's not the flick, which has been around for a long time without the name, and not the "extending arm" vs. "extended", which also was around in reality for a long time (that's how I was taught to look for the beginning of acquiring ROW - back in 1970 directing class). I realize this is controversial, but it's an opinion that's within the bounds of SF opinion. It also has nothing to do with the electrical machine: anyone who thinks so is confusing the basic notions of materality and validity of a hit.

- Bashing: who does it. CF vs. SF is an evergreen thread on this conference, but at least there's plenty of other stuff that shows up. It's really a minority subject when you think about it. Go over to the classicalfencing forum on Yahoo Groups, and you'll see that SF bashing shows up in the vast majority of posts. If I ever have a block of time to waste I'll do a statistical analysis of the posts there, but if the subject isn't "why SF stinks" there's almost no activity.

[miyamoto]

The book he read and the way he trained was with a mind towards CF - fencing as a martial art. It would seem that back then the terms CF vs SF were not in use, and the sport competitions still somewhat resembled reality.

Just because he learned to fence dry, doesn't mean that the he learned the weapon as a martial art. Nadi fenced dry, and he learned the sport. Lee learned the sport, and applied the theories to combat. This is why he talked about the unrealism of Row.

I apologize, perhaps the terms I used are not terribly clear.

TKD does not go full contact to the death. You would kill someone with kicks if you sparred that way.

In CF the rules are designed to reflect the realities of combat. So using a CF grade foil, I know that a certain degree of bend in the blade means that I have penetrated an opponent. The safety of the equipment allows for very realistic applications of timing and distance.

All empty-hand systems in their bouting require pulling punc
hes, cumbersome and unrealistic pads, absurd scoring systems, or ...lethal encounters.

Sorry, fencing (with blunt weapons and safety equipment) isn't any more real than TKD. TKD is the same in spirit as fencing. Full contact, and if not for the pads and rules, someone would be seriously injured or dead.

Is it any wonder that many martial artists consider modern TKD a martial sport?

The Koreans used to dominate TKD, because they would send the children to sport schools where the TKD students would train as if they were going into combat. Then they would put pads on and spar.

That is why Bruce Lee was interested in western fencing, boxing and wrestling as in these areas some aspects of martial truth are preserved.

Yes, some aspects of combat are preserved in the sports you mention above.

[drseudo]

Maybe M. Evangelista misunderstands Pavlov's experiments - I have never read much 1st hand info on them - or possibly we may misunderstand what he wrote.

Fencers would be conditioned to stop fencing and look each time they think they scored - this is a bad idea no matter what theory of teaching you subscribe to.

Right, but what I'm saying is that this never happens. In trying to show how bad and wrong electrical scoring is, the only evidence that NE can marshal is a made-up psychological phenomenon--conflating classical and operant conditioning--and one example of some beginners looking at the box after a touch. Just saying that something is 'conditioning' does not make it so.

I do not necessarily agree with everything he says or the way he says it, but the point of the passage quoted is that Master Evangelista does not consider electrical scoring apparatus to be evil or heretical necessarily.

As I understand from reading his other works, Master Evangelista considers electric scoring to be sometimes distracting and never necessary. For what he teaches, electric scoring is superfluous.

If you read his book The Art and Science of Fencing, he relates anecdotes in which he himself fences with the electric scoring system.

What he takes issue with is SF pedagogy more than the method of scoring.

No, he doesn't in fact think that the box is 'evil.' By 'evil,' the person who originally characterized NE's views clearly meant 'bad for the game, wrong, unnecessary.' I don't think anyone actually wants to ascribe a moral dimension to the use of the box... do they?

And your point about 'SF pedagogy' is kind of obfuscatory--yes, NE is mostly concerned with how SFers play the game, but he sees electrical scoring as symptomatic of what's wrong with their methodology. So it's all fairly interconnected.

[VERITAS]

Just because he learned to fence dry, doesn't mean that the he learned the weapon as a martial art. Nadi fenced dry, and he learned the sport. Lee learned the sport, and applied the theories to combat. This is why he talked about the unrealism of Row.

Have you read Nadi's books? Have you read the works of Maestro Gaugler, a prominent student of Nadi?

Can you honestly say that their teaching approach is anything like the modern SF one?

The CF approach is defined as designed for combat. Ergo, if Bruce Lee extrapolated the best points from the fencing books he read for the purpose of furthering his combat study, his spirit is of CF not SF.

RoW is very unrealistic when directing is sloppy, fencing is sloppy, hits that are far to insignificant to count in the real world are "counted" by an electric box, and the purpose of having RoW conventions is completely lost.

Sorry, fencing (with blunt weapons and safety equipment) isn't any more real than TKD. TKD is the same in spirit as fencing. Full contact, and if not for the pads and rules, someone would be seriously injured or dead.

Is it any wonder that many martial artists consider modern TKD a martial sport?

The Koreans used to dominate TKD, because they would send the children to sport schools where the TKD students would train as if they were going into combat. Then they would put pads on and spar.

Again, I am afraid I must not have stated my point terribly well, as it seems to have eluded you.

A TKD practitioner can never in sparring execute a proper kick with appropriate follow-through on a partner - that would be very dangerous.
So the weapons - hands and feet - are padded, and blows are pulled.

In fencing, the weapons retain their aerodynamics, handling, and our sentiment du fer remains the same. With fairly simple protective equipment, well trained classical fencers can fence their best without any sacrifices of safety or realism.

There are a few flaws. For instance, the weapons do not pierce, so we do not get much practice withdrawing a weapon from a wound. You can also use a live blade with a target to practice this.
But overall the system is truer to reality than any other martial art scoring system that I know of.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

There is only one way to solve this.



A duel, using sharps, a classical fencer vs a sport fencer. Classical fencing, I have slapped you with a glove.

[VERITAS]

Look me up if you are ever in Wisconsin, DFP.

Point d'arrettes can be arranged...


Charley



EDIT:

BTW, what would you consider to be a fair weapon for comparison?

I initially thought epee because 1) It is the dueling sword and 2) it is the most similar in both CF & SF.

But maybe some other weapon would work better...

SF Foil & Saber are really different from CF Foil & Saber fencing in nearly every way - teaching, instruction, directing, fencing, the very nature of the weapons in the case of saber...

[drseudo]

There is only one way to solve this.



A duel, using sharps, a classical fencer vs a sport fencer. Classical fencing, I have slapped you with a glove.

How about a 'who looks better in a bandana' competition?

[VERITAS]

Now look, that would not even be fair.

SFers severly lack experience with bandanas while some CFers train with them from day one.

Although I have never gotten into wearing one for fencing or anything, I wonder why that is considered absurd. It isn't nearly as weird as the rest of the stuff you wear while fencing. Knickers for example.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Epee would be preferred. We can use french, italian or pistol. The only "protection" would be a mask.

Look me up if you are ever in Wisconsin, DFP.

Point d'arrettes can be arranged...


Charley



EDIT:

BTW, what would you consider to be a fair weapon for comparison?

I initially thought epee because 1) It is the dueling sword and 2) it is the most similar in both CF & SF.

But maybe some other weapon would work better...

SF Foil & Saber are really different from CF Foil & Saber fencing in nearly every way - teaching, instruction, directing, fencing, the very nature of the weapons in the case of saber...

[miyamoto]

Have you read Nadi's books? Have you read the works of Maestro Gaugler, a prominent student of Nadi?

Yes I have. Nadi was a sport fencer. Gaugler is interested in history and how fencing looks.

Nadi was trained to show his technical, tactical, and stylistic superiority over his opponents. Not try to kill them with a sharp weapon. He had all the ego and bad attitude that CF'ers always complain that SF'ers supposedly have.

Can you honestly say that their teaching approach is anything like the modern SF one?

Nadi's teaching techniques were SF at the time he was fencing. Do you think Phil Jackson's techniques for coaching basketball were the same as Red Auerbach's? They are only separated by 40 years, yet their techniques are very different.

The CF approach is defined as designed for combat. Ergo, if Bruce Lee extrapolated the best points from the fencing books he read for the purpose of furthering his combat study, his spirit is of CF not SF.

You seem incapable of grasping the point. Lee was a martial artist, who trained and learned the sport of fencing for a short time. He did not train with a coach who taught him how to use sharp weapons. He realized that the sport had some great tactics that could be applied to any combat. In other words, sport fencing built up his understanding of fight.

RoW is very unrealistic when directing is sloppy, fencing is sloppy, hits that are far to insignificant to count in the real world are "counted" by an electric box, and the purpose of having RoW conventions is completely lost.

Incorrect. The whole concept of a convention is unrealistic in a duel. This is why epee fencing, or the duelling sword, was never fenced with RoW and to only one touch.

Again, I am afraid I must not have stated my point terribly well, as it seems to have eluded you.

A TKD practitioner can never in sparring execute a proper kick with appropriate follow-through on a partner - that would be very dangerous.
So the weapons - hands and feet - are padded, and blows are pulled.

In fencing, the weapons retain their aerodynamics, handling, and our sentiment du fer remains the same. With fairly simple protective equipment, well trained classical fencers can fence their best without any sacrifices of safety or realism.

Have you practiced TKD? Have you entered a TKD tournament? Have you watched one?

The sport is full contact. Nothing is pulled. My friends (who competed, I did not) would come home with broken noses, missing teeth, etc...

This is why they were helmets, padded chest plates, forearm, and shin guards.

There are a few flaws. For instance, the weapons do not pierce, so we do not get much practice withdrawing a weapon from a wound. You can also use a live blade with a target to practice this.
But overall the system is truer to reality than any other martial art scoring system that I know of.

It's on par with pro boxing? I think not. Nothing really beats the scoring of pro boxing. One person is unconscious and the other is still standing. Or how the Ultimate Fighting Contests? Or wrestling?

As for TKD vs. fencing, they are much the same. A number of referees, judges, etc... watch and score the points on a visual basis. Same as in many martial arts tournaments, only in fencing you have someone determine who started first. Sorry, CF fencing isn't any better than other martial arts.