When did the "classical" fencing movement begin?

[cfaustus]

No seriously... he wrote a long letter on another website about correct lightsaber technique... I didn't make it up.

Ok... can we say, 'out of context'. That was in relation to a student production that I got roped into because the guys doing it knew nothing about swordplay and they asked me to help them. The articles I wrote were not so much about 'correct lightsaber use' which of course is preposterous, but rather a tutorial for other amateur film/theatre students who might be interested in making their own productions. I wrote the article in reaction to the large number of ridiculous amateur films I had seen littering the net at the time in which kids were doing incredibly stupid and dangerous things. I was trying to give them a more solid framework upon which to begin thinking about incorporating swordplay into their productions.

Derriding me for this would be like derriding any fencing instructor who ever acted as a consultant in the theatre or attempted to try to make theatrical fencing a bit more interesting. Theatrical fencing is not CF, just as acting is not life.

I have nothing to hide. Here is one of the links: enjoy it
http://www.pulgaritrap.com/globalcontent/crew/smj.html

[Mr Epee]

Good for you!

I honestly don't have time to read it all , but I think it's funny because it fits very well with my picture of CF'ers. And isn't it my, and others, picture of CF that you are working so hard to change? That just reinforces it.

I'm getting bored with this topic, but if discussion continues then I will probably continue to participate... and while you feel that you have a good handle on how fencing, and what you do can coexist - you might want to teach your theories of tolerance to Crown, Lurz, and Evangelista, because they don't appear to share your appreciation of fencing.

[jeff]

Which is actually one of the reasons I stopped participating in the CF mailgroup YEARS ago. Much of what I ran into on that group was NOT, in fact, representative of CF as I had been taught it.

Which does you credit. Unfortunately, that type of rhetoric is extremely frequent among the different camps within CF. Not everyone: there are honorable exceptions of people pursuing their own interest without having to insult others. but it does seem prevalent.

For what it's worth, Lurz writes in similar style in Evangelista's magazine. Or, at least he did when I still read it.

[cfaustus]

Actually, I am trying to change people's conceptions of ALL of fencing.

I would love to see Olympic fencing's popularity improve. Which is another reason why I participate in it, have become certified by the USFCA, train SFer's (yes, I also train people in SF!) and post on this forum.

Working with theatrical groups to produce more realistic stage combat also helps improve people's concepts of fencing. Truly, the theatre or films is where most people get their initial perceptions of fencing from. Wouldn't you prefer those ideas to be slightly better formed?

I do not see the problem which you so eagerly try to dig up.

[Mr Epee]

Are you dismissing Crown, Lurz, and Lil Nicky E's constant rudeness with regards to fencing? You know exactly what I'm talking about.

Do you really want me to post the links?

Theater? - Ok
An Expose on LightSaber fencing? - More than a little nerdy.

[cfaustus]

Are you dismissing Crown, Lurz, and Lil Nicky E's constant rudeness with regards to fencing? You know exactly what I'm talking about.

I can only represent myself and my salle. I try to be as even keeled in my discourse as possible. I do not think name calling gets us anywhere. When it is used, it is unfortunate, regardless of who uses it. If the person using it has a good point to make, it inevitably detracts from that point and makes it hard for people to really pay attention to them. That is why I am trying so hard to present a more 'just' face of CF.

Theater? - Ok
An Expose on LightSaber fencing? - More than a little nerdy.

Whatever.

These guys asked me for my help. I accepted. I did the best job I could.

[Mr Epee]

Dude,

So you're saying that Evangelista is your master, but you have moved beyond his teachings - and therefore feel it is inappropriate for him to say what he does about fencing?

I'm not saying you shouldn't be a nerd. I'm saying that it fits with my view of CF.
-------

Edit: - Hey, I thought you were going to start ignoring me?

[cfaustus]

Dude,

So you're saying that Evangelista is your master, but you have moved beyond his teachings - and therefore feel it is inappropriate for him to say what he does about fencing?

I am not ignoring you because you have begun to be more reasonable. Some of your questions are not unreasonable, so I answer them.

As to Evangelista being my Master: He was at one point. He is no longer. M. Evangelista and the CFS are no longer associated with each other. All associations which remain on the net are old references which are either archival in nature or I do not have access to alter. This was a mutual dissolusion of association. David Achilleus is my primary Instructor/mentor. I will not say that I have moved beyond M. Evangelista's teachings; he is a Master and I am not. I will, however agree that I disagree with his public tone when speaking of SF. I feel that much of the energy spent demonizing SF could be better spent either refining/solidifying CF or attempting to change what one perceives as wrong with SF by example and intelligent discourse.

[KD5MDK]

This thread is filled with trolling and ugly attitudes.
However, I can't resist my own commentary on that "Classical Fencing website":
Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun and they have not.

[jBirch]

Don't care about the current turn in the conversation, but cfaustus? That lightsabre bit is both REALLY nerdy and REALLY cool. *grin* How the heck did you land that gig and where can I get a copy of the film?

And a technical question: why'd you go with German longsword and not Iaido/Kendo for the protagonist?

James.

[Schiavona]

- 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.

Jeff's post pretty much sums up how I feel about things. I started the thread because I was, and still am, confused about classical fencing. I have no expirence with somebody like Christopher Umbs, but I understand recreating something. In the shooting sports world, there are matches today that would look the same to someone born 150 years ago.

I'm having trouble with people like Evangelista, people who do effect the limited fencing we have where I live. These clubs teach fencing, have electric equipment, yet their instructors think of themselves as............, I'm not really sure what they think of themselves as, though they teach the FIE rules. The rest of the Division never sees any of their students or members in tournaments nor do they hold tournaments. If this were a state like CA or NJ or NY I wouldn't care less. Alaska has less than 600,000 people. We need all the interested people we can get.

Anyway, thanks for the posts! Sorry for the insults.

[striker]

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.

Chris

Chris, I have a few questions about the teaching methodology.

1) Are fencers trained in one-on-one sessions or are there group lessons
available to students where two students practice together ?

2) How long should the training go on before a beginning student
is encouraged to bout and participate in tournaments? I know that
this varies from instructor to instructor but I am just curious.

3) If I understand your post correctly, you mentioned that the emphasis
in the tournament is avoid double hits and consider the blades "as if"
they were sharp. I get the impression that hitting without getting
hit is the main goal and "form" is secondary or not important in the
tournament setting. Is this concept also extended to instruction as well?
If I am a good student who hits without getting hit, avoids double touches,
closes the line properly, I land convincing hits, but I do not follow the
proper form, will I be criticized for the lack of form ?

These questions allow me to compare and contrast some aspects
of teaching methodology between a CF salle and a SF salle.

[Christopher J Umbs]

Chris, I have a few questions about the teaching methodology.

1) Are fencers trained in one-on-one sessions or are there group lessons
available to students where two students practice together ?

It's like most SF salles I've been to. At the beginning, you might do group footwork with other new people. As soon as folks have their own armor, you usually get put into a group of other people around the same skill level doing the same weapon. From there, it's partner-drills + I, as the instructor, make sure that they get some time with me.

2) How long should the training go on before a beginning student
is encouraged to bout and participate in tournaments? I know that
this varies from instructor to instructor but I am just curious.

It really depends on the student... with no previous experience, I'd say 4 to 6 months for a formal tournament.

3) If I understand your post correctly, you mentioned that the emphasis
in the tournament is avoid double hits and consider the blades "as if"
they were sharp. I get the impression that hitting without getting
hit is the main goal and "form" is secondary or not important in the
tournament setting. Is this concept also extended to instruction as well?
If I am a good student who hits without getting hit, avoids double touches,
closes the line properly, I land convincing hits, but I do not follow the
proper form, will I be criticized for the lack of form ?

We feel that the best way to win is to use proper form, of course we also feel that proper form is that which allows you to hit without being hit. We also feel that you can only do CF against somebody else who is trained in CF. If we're facing someone who didn't know CF or wasn't keeping in the style we'd try to 'off them' instead, which is a separate skill from basic CF. We teach people how to fence against another trained opponent first, same in HF. Not everybody has the patience to wait that long, so you'll occasionally find somebody who claimes to be CF/HF trained dying in a CF/SF or HF/SCA tournament. In a formal serious tournament, I would kill my kids if they were sticking to some ideal platonic form while getting whomped on. We feel rules should encourage good swordsmanship, but the rest is up to the fencer. The only time people get penalized for form are for things like causing repeated corp-a-corps, jabbing (which is a fine line between that and just a bad remise, I grant), covering target, or fencing in such a manner that the judges and director are too obscured to follow the phrase. In general, we try to take the director and judges out of the action through a combo of clean fencing and calling one's own shots.

Chris

[cfaustus]

Well put Chris! As always!