The whole concept of a convention is unrealistic in a duel.
Depends on the duel. Both the Norse holmgang and later medieval judicial duels were sometimes conducted using traded blows...which is certainly a sort of ROW convention.
Depends on the duel. Both the Norse holmgang and later medieval judicial duels were sometimes conducted using traded blows...which is certainly a sort of ROW convention.
You are correct, I should and will correct myself, in a fight.
Lee was talking about how unrealistic RoW is in a fight.
Some ritualized combat is very different, with a peculiar set of rules that apply (no movement, trading blows, etc...). However, in the type of duel that is being disucssed, RoW is unrealistic.
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.
1st: Nadi competed in a time when competitions reflected certain realities of combat. Psychologically duelling was far removed from competing, but the techniques are the same and the weapons are the same.
Gaugler is concerned with teaching good fencing in the tradition of the Southern Italian School of Fencing. History is useful when it points the fencer in the right direction, and "how fencing looks" can be an indication of its efficacy to a trained observer, as I am sure you well know.
Nadi did duel with a sharp weapon. He did not have to prove stylistic superiority in competition or dueling. He proved actual superiority.
To that end, he adopted a personal mixed style involving some Italian and some French methods. So some purists may consider less of a martialist for concerning himself with competition, but his competitive success was due to classical training from age four.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyamoto
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.
Hmm...perhaps we are thinking of different styles/approaches to TKD?
The practices and competitions I have watched have been anything but contact.
Sure TKD practitioners wear all those foam protective pads. That is my point!
Those pads limit the effects of kicks. They distribute and absorb the impact, which would otherwise be more concentrated and precise.
But I must counter:
Have you ever practiced classical fencing?
Have you ever entered a classical tournament?
Have you ever watched any classical fencing training or competition?
There are far fewer legit CF schools and competitions than there are TKD ones. (Assuming that at least 1/4 of the TKD schools are decent.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata
Depends on the duel. Both the Norse holmgang and later medieval judicial duels were sometimes conducted using traded blows...which is certainly a sort of ROW convention.
Very good point - thank you.
Not to mention the German fraternity mensuren dueling, with its specic regulations of distance, weapons, methods, protective gear.
And the strict Code Duello existing in one form or another throughout Europe, regarding who was allowed to challenge whom, the weapons that could be used, the exact protocols of scheduling and carrying out the encounter, who could fight for someone else, etc.
Depends on the duel. Both the Norse holmgang and later medieval judicial duels were sometimes conducted using traded blows...which is certainly a sort of ROW convention.
I suppose that would make the coin toss a bit of a nail biter.
1st: Nadi competed in a time when competitions reflected certain realities of combat. Psychologically duelling was far removed from competing, but the techniques are the same and the weapons are the same.
Nadi did duel with a sharp weapon. He did not have to prove stylistic superiority in competition or dueling. He proved actual superiority.
To that end, he adopted a personal mixed style involving some Italian and some French methods. So some purists may consider less of a martialist for concerning himself with competition, but his competitive success was due to classical training from age four.
To which I respond:
Today, the non-fencer is inclined to associate fencing with dueling. A fencer does not. The former sees glamour in dueling while the latter knows it is only a grim business. Furthermore, no one takes up fencing because of dueling. True, the same weapons are used in both. Yet, but for the technical foundations, they constitute two different worlds hardly compatible with each other. One is a world of hate, courage and blood; the other, one of courtesy, courage and skill.
The duelist's objective is to injure his adversary as soon as possible (any delay would enhance the enemy's morale) without being wounded at all; the fencer's, to defeat his opponent with no particular hurry*, as long as he scores at least a fraction of a second before he may be touched himself. In a duel, the fencer is compelled to execute an ultra-careful form of fencing which, indeed, is an almost unworthy expression of the vast science he knows. No matter how courageous and great, the all-out movements with which he nearly always scores in a bout would be unthinkable in a duel, because far too risky. In other words, and paradoxically enough, modern dueling lacks almost entirely the color and action of modern fencing.
...
When these few seconds of uncertainty and uncontrollable fear and doubt are over, you counterattack, and touch, precisely where you wanted to touch - at the wrist, well through the glove and the white silk. But during the violent action of your adversary, his blade snaps into yours, and its point whips into your forearm. You hardly feel anything - no pain anyway; but you know that after having touched him, you have been touched too. "Halt!" shrieks the director.
Caring not for your own wound, you immediately look at your opponent's wrist, and then up at his face. Why on earth does he look so pleased? Haven't you touched him first? Yes, but this is no mere competition. He has indeed every reason to be satisfied for having wounded you - supposedly a champion - even if he nicked you after you touched him.
...
I am more than ever convinced that from a fencer's point of view a duel is inconclusive. His is a sport of skill - not of kill. To win a bout, he must accumulate a sufficiently large score to offset the occasional lucky touch that can be made against him by any opponent.
The above is a passage quoted directly from Nadi's first person account of his duel.
Notice something? They share a technical foundation, but this is not the same as the identical techniques. Especially since he then says that such all out techniques would be unthinkable in a duel. In other words, he is a sport fencer in theory and spirit.
Note some other things:
An apparent flick by his opponent.
Him not realizing that even though he got the touch first he was still touched.
In other words, he wasn't trained for a duel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERITAS
Hmm...perhaps we are thinking of different styles/approaches to TKD?
The practices and competitions I have watched have been anything but contact.
Sure TKD practitioners wear all those foam protective pads. That is my point!
Those pads limit the effects of kicks. They distribute and absorb the impact, which would otherwise be more concentrated and precise.
No. The pads protect the wearer from injury. The kicks, and punches must be delivered with force to be considered effective. It's very similar to boxing using the feet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERITAS
But I must counter:
Have you ever practiced classical fencing?
Have you ever entered a classical tournament?
Have you ever watched any classical fencing training or competition?
I've seen and met Gaugler. Fenced some his students (at some USFA comps), they didn't last long against me. It's not like I'm a champion or anything either.
I fenced, practiced, and learned to fence dry for the first four months of my fencing career, does that make me having practiced classical fencing? I fenced several dry tournaments. I mean, I had to make the touch visible. I learned on a french foil, but I was taught that this was merely learning the basics.
I just realized what may be the root of a misunderstanding:
I do not propose that CF is a superior martial art to all others. I suggest for some unique reasons it is on par with most, and better than some.
Why else would Bruce Lee bother with fencing?
It is currently somewhat incomplete by most standards, as legitimate western empty-hand combat systems are a little hard to come by.
The root of the misunderstanding comes from several points.
What exactly is CF? Training as for a duel? I'm fine with this concept and thought.
In that case, Nadi, and most of the people that CF'ers mention are not CF'ers.
Bruce Lee took sport fencing and applied the theories to a fight.
Is it possible to train in fencing as a martial art? Yes. Do most CF'ers? I wonder. Gaugler certainly doesn't. He's more focused on recreating a style, than training his students to survive a duel.
If CF is fencing dry, and includes Nadi and fencers of that era, then I'm sorry, but it really just seems like trying play basketball with a basket that doesn't have hole in the bottom because that's how it was originally played. In other words, trying to play a sport to a set of romaticized, outdated rules.
What exactly is CF? Training as for a duel? I'm fine with this concept and thought.
In that case, Nadi, and most of the people that CF'ers mention are not CF'ers.
In a sense there are as many definitions of fencing as there are fencers.
CF in its most broad sense I think is fencing training based off of combat reality.
You do not need to be preparing for a duel personally to benefit from knowledge gleaned from thousands of such encounters.
Nadi learned fencing classically. He applied it to competitions. He did very well, partly because in that time competitions were more grounded in combative reality than they are now.
One could learn fencing from a modern sporting approach and apply it to street fighting or dueling or miltary combat. Not likely to be effective, however.
You might be able to find coaches/masters who teach very good classical method, and call it a sport. That is their term or their application.
Vice versa - you could have a modern sport expert decide to begin non-electric training with more realistic weapons and rules, and continue practicing unrealistic technique and tactics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyamoto
Bruce Lee took sport fencing and applied the theories to a fight.
That is your opinion and your definition - have you read the book(s) he read or trained with the people he trained with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyamoto
Is it possible to train in fencing as a martial art? Yes. Do most CF'ers? I wonder. Gaugler certainly doesn't. He's more focused on recreating a style, than training his students to survive a duel.
Gaugler most emphatically does - in my definition. A serious kendoka or karateka or TKD practitioner does not need to be a soldier, a prizefighter, a duelist, or live in a bad neighborhood to appreciate and study a unique and real martial art.
The style he is teaching - already is created and never died, so why say "recreate"? - has stood the test of time, and is shown to be a legitimate preparation for dueling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyamoto
If CF is fencing dry, and includes Nadi and fencers of that era, then I'm sorry, but it really just seems like trying play basketball with a basket that doesn't have hole in the bottom because that's how it was originally played. In other words, trying to play a sport to a set of romaticized, outdated rules.
CF is not a sport. CF is not by definition fencing dry. (It works nicely at sea, too).
Seriously, CF can be applied to the electric scoring, and there are just as many ways to make mistakes without the electric scoring system as there are with it.
The rules are not outdated. They are not dated. That is the concept of 'classical'.
They do not change because they are based on a fundamental constant: martial truth.
Bruce Lee pointed out that we all think about the same, and have two arms and two legs. No wonder that similarities arise in martial arts, and there are some principles that apply everywhere and anywhere.
Timing & Distance being a prime example.
The reason why a truly classical method is superior is not because it is old or new, fashionable or unfashionable, romantic or unromantic, etc.
It is because it works.
A classically educated individual can apply the principles and general skills he or she has learned to many, many more things.
(By the by, interesting example you chose in basketball - maybe there is a subtle connection. Naismith was a fencing master...)
Thank you for some interesting and thought-provoking questions.
In a sense there are as many definitions of fencing as there are fencers.
CF in its most broad sense I think is fencing training based off of combat reality.
You do not need to be preparing for a duel personally to benefit from knowledge gleaned from thousands of such encounters.
That's fine, but the sport of fencing hasn't been about that for quite some time. Read Nadi's observations above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERITAS
Nadi learned fencing classically. He applied it to competitions. He did very well, partly because in that time competitions were more grounded in combative reality than they are now.
What does this mean to you? That Nadi learned classically? He was trained in the sport of fencing using a foil, epee, and sabre. If this is your definition of classical training, then almost all fencers started out learning classically. I know that's how I started out. The guard, the parries, the terminology, the technique, etc...
And maybe you missed the part about how he talks about how unreal fencing is compared to using a sharp weapon. How the techniques, goals, and philospohy are diametrically opposed. Or when he mentions that no one learns fencing to duel. You should reread that post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERITAS
One could learn fencing from a modern sporting approach and apply it to street fighting or dueling or miltary combat. Not likely to be effective, however.
Hm. That's exactly what Bruce Lee did. Learned modern fencing, and applied it to fighting. It is very effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERITAS
That is your opinion and your definition - have you read the book(s) he read or trained with the people he trained with?
Having read much of his life, his teachings, met his brother who was a sport fencer (electric equipment and all) I can tell you he never learned what you seem to deem classical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERITAS
Gaugler most emphatically does - in my definition. A serious kendoka or karateka or TKD practitioner does not need to be a soldier, a prizefighter, a duelist, or live in a bad neighborhood to appreciate and study a unique and real martial art.
The style he is teaching - already is created and never died, so why say "recreate"? - has stood the test of time, and is shown to be a legitimate preparation for dueling.
Recreate is appropiate. I've fenced against Italians, and they fence nothing like what Gaugler teaches. Italians have moved on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERITAS
CF is not a sport. CF is not by definition fencing dry. (It works nicely at sea, too).
I'm fine with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERITAS
The rules are not outdated. They are not dated. That is the concept of 'classical'.
They do not change because they are based on a fundamental constant: martial truth.
You should reread my post. I'm fine with fencing as a martial art, but sorry, the people you claim to be 'classical', just aren't on the same wavelength.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERITAS
Bruce Lee pointed out that we all think about the same, and have two arms and two legs. No wonder that similarities arise in martial arts, and there are some principles that apply everywhere and anywhere.
Timing & Distance being a prime example.
The reason why a truly classical method is superior is not because it is old or new, fashionable or unfashionable, romantic or unromantic, etc.
It is because it works.
A classically educated individual can apply the principles and general skills he or she has learned to many, many more things.
Unfortunately, in this case it is romantic and fashion. If one wants to learn to defend oneself, one takes self defense courses, or the equivalent combat training. If one wants to learn how defend oneself with a sword, learning the way they it was done in Southern Italy during a certain time period, well, that's not about defense, but art, or even art hsitory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERITAS
(By the by, interesting example you chose in basketball - maybe there is a subtle connection. Naismith was a fencing master...)
Not really. I love lots of sports besides fencing. Basketball being one. I could just as easily have mentioned football, or tennis.
[quote=miyamoto]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. [quote=miyamoto]
Of course, the duel has normally had its own conventions - in its latest form, halting after a touch to disinfect blades and ask if either is content, for instance.
The ROW simulates the respect that an attacking blade demands of a rational opponent. Epee presumes that both fencers are fanatics, willing to trade mortal wounds; Foil and sabre, that they are rational. Neither is a perfect simulation as both sorts of behaviour could, presumably be encountered in a duel.
The FIE ROW-rule as written requires the arm should not be bent ("raccourci") and that an action executed with a bent arm be considered a preparation, because a threat that one stakes one's life upon had better be clear and convincing. Now if SF used the rules as written .... In despair, the FIE has tried to get past the habit of Sport fencers and referees to fudge the issue of extension by cutting the timings.
The sport is full contact. Nothing is pulled. My friends (who competed, I did not) would come home with broken noses, missing teeth, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyamoto
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?
Many pro-boxing matches - most I suspect - are decided on the basis of points or rounds; It is not a sport famed for the transparency of its scoring processes. As for pro-wrestling - it's rehearsed, choreographed and rigged - otherwise it would involve much less action and far more fatalities.
IMHO there is no reason why SF cannot retain/regain its relationship to combat while retaining the objective scoring that allows free development, expression and exploration of the possibilities of swordsmanship.
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.
Of course, the duel has normally had its own conventions - in its latest form, halting after a touch to disinfect blades and ask if either is content, for instance.
The ROW simulates the respect that an attacking blade demands of a rational opponent. Epee presumes that both fencers are fanatics, willing to trade mortal wounds; Foil and sabre, that they are rational. Neither is a perfect simulation as both sorts of behaviour could, presumably be encountered in a duel.
The FIE ROW-rule as written requires the arm should not be bent ("raccourci") and that an action executed with a bent arm be considered a preparation, because a threat that one stakes one's life upon had better be clear and convincing. Now if SF used the rules as written .... In despair, the FIE has tried to get past the habit of Sport fencers and referees to fudge the issue of extension by cutting the timings.
Sorry to repost this but my reply to this passage became tangled with the quote - haven't worked interpolation out yet.
And that is why you are dangerous to the sport, yourself, and those around you. I could not have explained it better. Get out of the little fantasy world you've built for yourself and realize that kind of thinking ISN'T NEEDED IN THIS WORLD ANYMORE!!! Such kind of insane statements will end you in prison or dead from some stupid "Fantasy" fencing accident!
And that is why you are dangerous to the sport, yourself, and those around you. I could not have explained it better. Get out of the little fantasy world you've built for yourself and realize that kind of thinking ISN'T NEEDED IN THIS WORLD ANYMORE!!! Such kind of insane statements will end you in prison or dead from some stupid "Fantasy" fencing accident!
Dude, read the thread. A challenge was made in a somewhat joking manner and Veritas simply accepted it with the same amount of bravado as the challenge was given. This is all banter. I don't expect any dueling will actually occur from this exchange.
... Although it might serve well to give satisfaction to the insults you have hurled.
__________________ "Si tu no sabes todas las acciones es como si un músico no supiera tocar todas las notas." - Fernando Chiriboga
"If you do not know all the actions it is like a musician who does not know all the notes."
Martial Art - an endeavour whose primary purpose is individual psychological enlightenment through movement rooted in military science. Aikido, Tai Chi, Yoga, Danse de la Rue, Iaido, Fencing Etudes, Historical Fencing.
Combat Art - an endeavour whose primary purpose is to hurt/maim/kill any number of other combatents as quickly and efficiently as possible. Marine Corps Quick Kill, Mensur (maybe), actual dueling, street fighting (gangland), Self Defense courses.
Combat Sport - an endeavour whose primary purpose is to achieve a superior score by following rules whose purpose is to simulate a structured combat. Fencing (SF and CF), Karate, TKD, Judo, Kendo, Olympic Wrestling, Boxing, Savate, UFC.
Yes, each helps one learn the other in that all combat boils down to four things:
Distance
Timing
Psychological Manipulation
Position
with Technique being a fifth, kinda, that leverages the four basics into an effective whole.
Combat sports are generally superior to martial arts/combat arts for training distance and timing. Technique is focused on what works for scoring points.
Martial arts are better at teaching individual psychological stability (ie// not being manipulated) and position. Technique focusses on what is the most effective way to accomplish the desired goal (throws, locks, strikes, avoidances). Often requires pristine control of distance and timing.
Combat arts are generally better then martial arts/combat sports for teaching psychological offense ("desire to win", aggression) and defense ("focus on the goal", "ignore the pain"). Technique is simple and devastatingly effective.
Before we get into the whole "but, but, but" game, each of these areas excels at this speciality, but all of them teach and require some element of the basics. Some specific training places cross over between each in order to more effectively communicate the whole of combat. Some Aikido, for example, uses scoring. Some Aikido uses full contact punches/kicks.
James.
__________________
If it's stupid, but it works, it's not stupid.
This thread has obviously gone way off track. I believe the original question has been answered. If you have anything more to post regarding the ORIGINAL QUESTION please do so. Otherwise, let us please move on. I am sure we can bicker between entrenched opinions somewhere else. I am sadly certain that this won't be your last CF bashing session or our last opportunity to dissuade you of your ignorance of the topic.
This is not the Thread you are looking for...
Move along...
__________________ "Si tu no sabes todas las acciones es como si un músico no supiera tocar todas las notas." - Fernando Chiriboga
"If you do not know all the actions it is like a musician who does not know all the notes."
Dude, read the thread. A challenge was made in a somewhat joking manner and Veritas simply accepted it with the same amount of bravado as the challenge was given. This is all banter. I don't expect any dueling will actually occur from this exchange.
... Although it might serve well to give satisfaction to the insults you have hurled.
Yes I was well aware it was intended as a joke, but yet here you are perpetuating the EXACT SAME TYPE of veiled inuendo in your last sentence as the other person was earlier. THAT IS WRONG IN TODAY'S AGE! THERE IS NOTHING THAT ANYONE HAS SAID OR COULD SAY ON THIS THREAD OR ANYWHERE ELSE THAT MERITS THE NEED FOR A DUEL!!! Or don't you believe all people are entitled to thier own opinions? (That is another historically accurate opinion that thankfully has fallen by the wayside.) That is what I've been saying all along! The mindset that somehow you SHOULD be practcing for an eventual stepping out IS NUTS!! And is a phenomenal example of just how outside of reality you've gone. Please rein in your fantasies before you do any more harm.
Yes I was well aware it was intended as a joke, but yet here you are perpetuating the EXACT SAME TYPE of veiled inuendo in your last sentence as the other person was earlier. THAT IS WRONG IN TODAY'S AGE! THERE IS NOTHING THAT ANYONE HAS SAID OR COULD SAY ON THIS THREAD OR ANYWHERE ELSE THAT MERITS THE NEED FOR A DUEL!!! Or don't you believe all people are entitled to thier own opinions? (That is another historically accurate opinion that thankfully has fallen by the wayside.) That is what I've been saying all along! The mindset that somehow you SHOULD be practcing for an eventual stepping out IS NUTS!! And is a phenomenal example of just how outside of reality you've gone. Please rein in your fantasies before you do any more harm.
You need to chill. Apparently sarcasm and teasing are lost on you. If you can't take a joke, even when followed by the appropriately chosen cartoon icon sticking its tongue out, then I am sorry and will cease conversing with you because you are taking this WAY too seriously.
__________________ "Si tu no sabes todas las acciones es como si un músico no supiera tocar todas las notas." - Fernando Chiriboga
"If you do not know all the actions it is like a musician who does not know all the notes."
Hey all... Internet at work is out, so I haven't had time to keep up on all of this, but I do want to make one point.
If you read the AHF rules, you'll find no mention of RoW. What you will find, is Priority. It seems the same, but is different in application. In SF a good fencer will use RoW to his advantage and attack in an unsafe way - relying on the rules to protect him. At class, we say 'you never have a RIGHT to attack'. We train to avoid double hits. In competition, however, you have to have a way to adjucate the phrase so.. in the hopefully unlikely event of a double hit, the director can use the priority rules to see who was more at fault (both fencers are at some fault for stupid fencing already). You can hit without controlling the opponent's blade as long as you hit a full fencing time ahead, but most hits tend to be with the line closed. Like so much else, it's more a difference in the mindset of the fencers than how the rules are written. We do tend to start off AHF tournaments with the assumption that the fencers aren't feeling suicidal that day and will fence in a manner that respects the opponent's blade. That's really what we mean by classical form. You won't get a penalty for letting your back arm fall past a certain angle or for having your feet out of line, etc... we just want the fencers to respect the steel. If you don't want to fence that way, that's more than fine and we often point folks to various SF schools in the area if we think that's what the person is looking for.
Linear Mode
