When did the "classical" fencing movement begin?

[Schiavona]

Reading the thread(s) dealing with "classical" fencing I started wondering about when and why did American fencing split into "sport" and "classical"?

I started fencing about the same time Nick Evanglista did. In those days we talked about French and Italian "styles" of fencing, footwork vs. bladework, point in line, why couldn't American fencers do any good internationally and the rare flick was called a sloppy coupe. The biggest controversy was when the newly renamed USFA adopted the British translation of the then current FIE rules. The attack in the ROW weapons had suddenly changed from "arm extended" to "arm extending". Oddly enough, I can't remember anyone saying that this was a change in the FIE rules. It certainly a big enough rule change for us at the time. Over the years I've wondered if the old AFLA rule book simply contained a mistranslation, extended for extending. Small enough in print, big in effect.

Is this when "classical" fencing was born? With the change from extended arm to extending? If anyone has any thoughts on this, please post.

[Christopher J Umbs]

It's hard to say since different people mean different things by CF. I know M. Martinez and his teacher M. Rohdes didn't consider themselves teachers of sport fencing. Farther back than that, I don't think there was an aknowleged split but I can find manuscripts going back to the 1500's warning about false teachers who only teach styles that are good for sporting contests. I'd imagine different teachers had different ideas about what constituted real fencing. The teacher of M. Rohdes was M. Cabijos who taught at the Saltus YMCA and once beat the epee champion Nunes with just a dagger. Another student of M. Cabijos was M. Sieja a famous SF teacher so to me it looks like Cabijo's two students at least started to go in different directions there.

I grew up doing SF in NJ and never heard of either the Rohdes Academy or the Martinez one right across the river. I'd say the CF movement (and the idea of something this disorganized being called a movement is funny) started with the internet and the ability of different teachers to find each other and pronounce each other non-classical

Right now, CF and HF are both more like Asian martial arts. I hope we're finally growing out of the 'my teacher can kill your teacher' phase, but we're still in the era of competing schools/organizations/rules etc... AFAIK, the AHF was the first CF organization to get up and rolling.

[Mr Epee]

The recent incarnation of Classical Fencing originated with the following:
"How could I lose? I am much prettier than this man. Fencing no longer respects my system of fencing, and ignores the lineage of my MASTER!!!"

To which the logical conclusion is:
Fencing is no longer fencing - I must save it!

A few Newsgroup flamewars later - Voila! Classical Fencing is Born.

Historically, I believe that Classical Fencing was first recorded by Miguel de Cervantes, a Spaniard, in 1605.

[dconraduy]

Schiavona, this is an excellent question. I suspect that the classical "movement" is a recent one (say, within the last 5-10 years) that exists partially because the techniques that are stressed had to be different than the ones stressed for sport fencing. I was trained by an old-school sport fencer that believed that good technique was, for the most part, universal. I held on to this same notion until I simply couldn't ignore the differences. My interest in CF is primarily due to my unwillingness to sacrifice the principles laid down by my mentor in order to succeed in sport fencing. Thus, a formal separation of training techniques is really necessary. I'm pretty confident that I'm not the only one with this dilemma.

Another reason for what could be considered a contributing factor to a CF movement is the Web. With the Internet, it is now more feasible for many more folks to exchange ideas and thoughts based on a decent-sized, freely available, scholarly body of knowledge germaine to the historical study of fencing and swordplay outside the context of Olympic-style fencing. I feel that CF is an outgrowth of mainstream fencing and is a recent phenomenon. The divergence of standards and the advent of the Web are both recent developments that I think feed a CF "movement".

[Mr Epee]

Interesting gem from C Umbs!

MASTER Cabijos had two proteges Sieja and Rohdes

Sieja becomes a successful teacher - serves as the head coach at Princeton (facility there is named after him) becomes the President of the US Fencing Coaches Association (back when it was important) and in an article published in 1960 he claims to have been instrumental in the wide spread implementation of electrical fencing in the United States.

Flash back to Rohdes:

His legacy is tucked away in the Classical Fencing Martinez cult where dry fencing rules supreme.

Reading between the lines here... doesn't it make sense that this was two boys fighting for daddy's attention/approval??? Sieja on a successful road, and Rohdes on a seperate road seemly intent on proving that Sieja's path is ruining Daddy's craft/legacy...

It wouldn't be the first time the story of two proteges turned out like this!!!

[cfaustus]

To dispell certain ignorance which appears to be loudly, if not universally, held on this forum, I offer the following assessment of CF from my perspective.

For those of you who do not know me I present the following background so that you may better understand where I am coming from (it is by no means complete, yet should at least give you an idea of where I stand):
Began sport fencing in 1990. Enjoyed it much at the time with the exception of a great number of egos which often spoiled events.
1992 - Went to Marquette U. where they had recently gotten rid of their equipment and were not interested in starting anything up again... fenced informally with friends to keep up some semblance of skill.
1997 - Went to St. Louis U. Law School. While looking for athletic activities to keep in shape I witnessed a couple fencers fencing in an athletic yet efficient and beautiful style that I had never seen before. I went down and found that one was David Achilleus. He was going to be starting a class on Classical Fencing. I signed up.
We formed the Classical Fencing Society that year.
Grew increasingly disenchanted with SF due to the personalities I encountered. I did not see sportsmanship being practiced in the SF I encountered and its sole goal of 'championship' became more shallow to me as I delved into my studies of Political and Legal philosophy.
Won my first CF tournament.
Began apprenticing to David in 1998.
Took lessons from M. Evangelista from 1998 - 2001
2000 - graduated from Law school and moved back to Wisconsin. Started CFS branch at Marquette.
2004 - After several members of this forum convinced me that there were in fact a great deal of sport fencers who did not support the rude and egotistical attitudes I had otherwise seen in SF, I decided to give it another shot by entering epee tournaments.
2005 - Won my division in Epee. Also, encouraged by a kind sport fencing Master, pursued certification under the USFCA - obtained Moniteur rank. I continue to be dismayed by the attitudes and down-right lack of sportsmanship I encounter in SF, although there have been several shining examples of truly good souls who keep me going. I do not feel that I could ever go back to SF as my sole fencing activity as it does not engage me at the level that CF does. This is simply my personal opinion and experience.

Now, over these 15 years, I have seen a lot of change and development in fencing.

First, most modern CF fencers call themselves such because the form/style fo fencing they practice is fencign as it it was practiced during the 'Classical' period of fencing. This period is defined as the high point of the art and science of fencing during a time in which its practice was meant to prepare one for the serious encounter. The time frame falls generally between the late 1700's and the early 1900's.

The important distinction in that definition is not the time frame, but rather that the practice was meant for the serious encounter. I point this out because even during the 'Classical Period' there was already a divergence in fencing between those who practiced for dueling/self defense and those who did so for sport. This can be seen in the writings of many of the Masters of the time who warned that certain of their techniques were not for the serious encounter but merely for the academic assault. Others begin to market fencing as an excellent form of physical activity regardless of whether one intends to actually defend oneself with the sword. So Masters began even then to distinguish among their students those who were doing it for exercise and those doing it as a martial art. The earliest occurance of the term 'Classical Fencer' that I can recall off-hand comes from Bazancourt who in fact is derriding CFers as being too academic. He is refering to the trend begun in the French school with the fleurette that was highly stylized and no longer truly related to the duel. Most modern CF practitioners, while respecting form which is logically used to defend oneself, may only follow those old CF techniques MERELY AS EXERCISES TO HONE technique. When they actually bout, their fencing is more realistic. Two examples: the heart shaped target - this was derided by Bazancourt as being too limiting and fopish play to say that only a strike in the heart was valid. I do not know of a single CF practitioner today who uses a heart shaped target sewn onto their jackets, but of course all foil recognizes a limited target. The idea is to simplify what one is practicing by agreeing to limit the target and force one to control the point more. The second is the parry by touch in foil. What I mean is that one does not need to completely drive the attacking weapon aside to remove its priority. Simply touching the opponent's attackign weapon is sufficient to allow one to riposte. The idea here is not realism, but rather, it is intended to hone reflexes, and to help attackers to make better deceptions of the balde. Barbasetti warns that this is excellent for the academic assault, but should not be relied upon in an serious encounter where the rules of right of way only exist in so far as one does not want to be hit so one should not do thing like throw themselves onto the opponent's extended line - even if the touched it. Rather, parry more sufficiently or use counterattacks, etc.

Modern CF began to solidify around 1996 when the internet made it possible to individuals and Masters from around the world to communicate with each other and realize that they were delving into the same facets of fencing. Some of these Masters came from lineages which were never truly part of the competative scene, others had been taught by Masters who taught the older techniques, but who also developed fencers for modern competition. Among the latter, I think that there were many who lamented soem of the changes which were happening in the competative arena which were dividing the martial and competative aspects further apart. Ultimately they made a choice. Some chose to follow the competative path, others chose to follow the martial path. And some fell in the middle. These middle fencers are people whom I often see who have been taught the martial way of fencing for the purpose of competative fencing. As such, their fencing does not quite fit into either camp.

Some of the Masters who decided to follow the martial path rallied under the banner of CF. Martinez, Gaugler and Evangelista were the primary voices discussing things at this time. Martinez formed an organization with links to Europe and began to run workshops to promote the art and science as he had studied it. Evangelista wrote books and published a magazine. Gaugler wrote books and articles and trained other Masters and coordinated with Masters in Europe. Other individuals who wished to study even older techniques began to be attracted to the CF community. Martinez having been trained in and studied some of the older weapons promoted this interest. Soon a subtle division began to form of Historical fencing... the martial study of weapons prior to the Classical period.

From this background emerges the various types of CF practitioners I have witnessed:

The 'duelist': Practices the CF style as a martial art. They may use elements of the academic CF but only as exercises to hone particular techniques and not as an over-all style of fighting. Primarily guided by 'if they were sharp'. Often one finds practitioners of other martial arts in this group trying to expand their knowledge and skill base. Duellists are generally interested in the depth of fencing. As such, they may from time to time engage in SF tournaments simply for the academic challenge of it. These guys train hard, are generally in good if not excellent physical condition and are dedicated to their art and its practice. However, as they are less interested in the purely academic aspect of CF and even SF, they may be bewildered by such things as insufficient parries in foil (they basically practice foil as a training tool for epee/smallsword and as such their parries seek to remove the threat completely before they riposte). They seldom have an interest in reinactment, the SCA, etc. They are thoroughly modern individuals who have chosen to study an older art. Most of the major CF organizations (Martinez, Gaugler, Achilleus) seem to follow this pattern to varying degrees.

The academic: practices the old CF techniques and ways... may often talk about 'if they were sharp' but their practice (which is largely focused on academic French foil) precludes this. May find academics in predominantly duelist groups.

The 'old gamer': was trained older (not necessarily 'Classical') techniques, but when the modern sport changed, they did not... so they attached themselves to the CF banner. They either have quit SF completely, or they compete in SF regularly but do not seem to enjoy it.

The reinactor: Ren Fair/SCA etc types who, because CF is older assume that it fits more into their interest in earlier times. Most of these are actually more interested in medieval weapons and as such seem to go more towards Historical Fencing. Occasionally one takes up the Classical weapons to improve their rapier game. Most of these are simple enjoying an older form of fencing as a recreation, much like recreational SF clubs. I have seldom seen many of this group stay for long with in 'duelist' dominated organizations... they usually just go off and join their local SCA chapter... otherwise, they 'convert' and stop doing SCA. This is simply an observation from my own experience, others may differ. Guys in this group are those who show up at SF tournaments with 'wenches' in tow.

The recreational dry fencer: These often get lumped into the CF category whether they want to or not. I have seen groups of this sort which are completely modern in their training.. they just lack the funds for electrical equipment. Others are using old SF technique and somehow equate or get equated with CF. Neither would generally be recognized by other CF groups as doing CF.

There are a great number of CF groups of all of these varieties. I have tried to be even handed in my observations and these should be taken as simply that: my personal observations. I hope this dispells some ignorance and helps further the discussion.

[Mr Epee]

BINGO - Smack!

[Schiavona]

Cfaustus, thanks for your informative post. I reconized many of the catagories you listed! Again, thanks!

[jeff]

I know M. Martinez and his teacher M. Rohdes didn't consider themselves teachers of sport fencing.

Not purely to be contentious (well, at least partially!) - I recall occasionally seeing a fencer from the Rohdes Academy at AFLA (the USFA's predecessor) competitions in the 1970s. For all I know, it was Martinez I met then, but I can't be sure after all this time. The results were not distinguished.

Martinez did teach sport fencing: one year at Polytechnic Institute of New York fencing team, a few years after I graduated from it. He subsequently studied at the American Fencing Academy that used to be at Cornell University. The Academy certainly was a sport fencing place, founded by Sudre and later run by Gillet - I again preceded Martinez by a few years and fenced at the club there (I was at Cornell for grad school). He later was fencing coach at Brooklyn College. This is documented at http://www.martinez-destreza.com/fenrmres.htm

So, yes: they did participate in the sports world.

[Christopher J Umbs]

Right... didn't mean to imply that he'd never done SF. I think we all look at it or try it at some point. I'm sure with the new timings there are some CF folks who are thinking about trying or going back to SF.

Chris

[jeff]

Certainly, Chris - but to be a salaried coach two years for two varsity college teams, and to spend at least two additional years at a fencing program that produced sport fencing instructors is hardly a little dabbling.

As far as CF people considering SF: the more fencers the merrier, I say, and may the best fencers win.

[PalmFrond]

I'm sure with the new timings there are some CF folks who are thinking about trying or going back to SF.

Perhaps...but from what I've seen and heard of classical fencing, from classical fencers, I think that there is an ideological rather than technical divide between CF and SF. I suspect that some (if not most) CFers will always regard electrical fencing as heretical and contrary to the true spirit of fencing, whatever that was.

[Drifter]

Perhaps...but from what I've seen and heard of classical fencing, from classical fencers, I think that there is an ideological rather than technical divide between CF and SF. I suspect that some (if not most) CFers will always regard electrical fencing as heretical and contrary to the true spirit of fencing, whatever that was.

Which again gets back to my orginal point, which I admit was lost in my ranting and such, and that is WHY is this sport the ONLY sport that has to deal with such insanity? 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. (CFer's don't try to pretend that one of your own did come here and start this flame war by posting an SFer's log about how he got beat at a CF tournament in which rules had been randomly picked from a 100 years of history to suit the CF belief as to what "fencing" should look and or feel like.)

The idea in and of itself is absolutely nuts when one remembers that the NEED for knowledge in a martial art that involved a sword became obsolete with the advent of gun powder and the sudden decsion by societies around the world to stop killing each other over absolutely stupid "matters of honor."

If taken for it's face value the suggested reason for practicing CF seems to be, "because it's a martial art" and "because we know what to do if the blade is sharp." Well I got news, if the blade is sharp you deserve to be shuned and ridiculed because in today's day and age you brought a knife to a gun fight and you'll be ending up in jail if you're not dead.

As for not liking the personalities in SF let's all try not to forget that YOU CAME HERE. This thread isn't happening on a fantasy fencing board. When you come over and post drivel like that log about a SFer losing in a CF tournament how do you think people are going to react? When you attempt to feed your ego by posting a "see our version is better than your version" messege of course you're going to get people happily slapping you down. Particularly when most of us here are aware that the overwhelming majority of people in the CF world are there because they found that real fencing didn't have anyone willing to let them feed thier egos on. (Oh excuse me, they found the personalities to "competative" for them.)

[mrbiggs]

The recent incarnation of Classical Fencing originated with the following:
"How could I lose? I am much prettier than this man. Fencing no longer respects my system of fencing, and ignores the lineage of my MASTER!!!"

Wow...why do you keep making these posts?

[fencingmetalfan]

The recreational dry fencer: These often get lumped into the CF category whether they want to or not. I have seen groups of this sort which are completely modern in their training.. they just lack the funds for electrical equipment. Others are using old SF technique and somehow equate or get equated with CF. Neither would generally be recognized by other CF groups as doing CF.

I would not say that at all. I take classes in dry foil and primarily fence dry, but I own electrical equipment for when I free fence. I don't know about Epee or Saber, but with dry foil a big emphasis is put on FIE rules. Most of the techniques I learn in dry fencing I am able to adapt when I fence electric.

[Fencing Mom]

I’m certainly not weighing in on this battle, but I would like to make an observation. The original question seems to have been answered the same way by both sides. Only the spin is different.

Schiavona's original question was, “When and why did American fencing split into ‘sport’ and ‘classical?’ "

Mr. Epee said it began when a fencer said, “Fencing no longer respects my system of fencing, and ignores the lineage of my MASTER!!!"

dconraduy said, “My interest in CF is primarily due to my unwillingness to sacrifice the principles laid down by my mentor in order to succeed in sport fencing.”

Mr. Epee said the fencer then said, “To which the logical conclusion is: Fencing is no longer fencing - I must save it!”

Dconraduy said, “Thus, a formal separation of training techniques is really necessary.”

Mr. Epee said, “A few Newsgroup flamewars later - Voila! Classical Fencing is Born.”

dconraduy said, “Another reason for what could be considered a contributing factor to a CF movement is the Web.”

[VERITAS]

Perhaps...but from what I've seen and heard of classical fencing, from classical fencers, I think that there is an ideological rather than technical divide between CF and SF. I suspect that some (if not most) CFers will always regard electrical fencing as heretical and contrary to the true spirit of fencing, whatever that was.

I'm afraid many untrained egotistical fools may try to pose as CFers and give the rest of us a bad name.

No CF ideology that I have ever encountered (and I have searched fairly thoroughly) considers electric scoring to be evil necessarily.

It is the precise definition of a hit. The SF requirement is less than would be needed to perforate an opponent with a sharp point.

As far as most CFers are concerned, electric competition is just another application of the principles of fencing.

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.

CF / HF practitioners can fence with accurate timing and distance with the foiled weapons without fear of injury.

In Karate, if you spar like that, you run out of partners awful fast! Each punch executed properly will likely maim your opponent and break your hand!

In grappling arts some throws can be attempted, but oftentimes follow-throughs cannot be properly executed for fear of spinal injuries, choking one's opponent, etc.

Good fencing instruction is vary useful therefore in building a real sense of timing and distance.

HF offers a western perspective on many forms of heavy weapons trainign, stick combat, and even wrestling.

There is a lot that carries over. A lunge with a foil is not much different from a lunge with a stick, a chain, [fill in the blank with weapon of choice] or even a punch.

That is a criticism of SF from the CF perspective, is that is less applicable to other martial arts.

[drseudo]

No CF ideology that I have ever encountered (and I have searched fairly thoroughly) considers electric scoring to be evil necessarily.

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.)

[VERITAS]

Perhaps...but from what I've seen and heard of classical fencing, from classical fencers, I think that there is an ideological rather than technical divide between CF and SF. I suspect that some (if not most) CFers will always regard electrical fencing as heretical and contrary to the true spirit of fencing, whatever that was.

Which again gets back to my orginal point, which I admit was lost in my ranting and such, and that is WHY is this sport the ONLY sport that has to deal with such insanity? 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.

Quite simply, because fencing is the only modern sport that comes to mind in this country that has a martial origin.

You see parallel conflicts in aikido, karate, judo, kendo, etc. where there is a split between those who encourage competition and abstraction from original martial purpose for recreation/artistic cultivation VS. those who wish to preserve the original martial form.

Hence Sport Karate VS Traditional/"Classical" Karate.

(Anyone more knowledgeable than I on EMA please correct me)

(CFer's don't try to pretend that one of your own did come here and start this flame war by posting an SFer's log about how he got beat at a CF tournament in which rules had been randomly picked from a 100 years of history to suit the CF belief as to what "fencing" should look and or feel like.)

Hmm...the flaming has been fairly one-sided, unless I am gravely mistaken whose "side" certain members are taking.

I am pretty sure the intent of posting that link was not to start a fight but to encourage a conversation.

The idea in and of itself is absolutely nuts when one remembers that the NEED for knowledge in a martial art that involved a sword became obsolete with the advent of gun powder and the sudden decsion by societies around the world to stop killing each other over absolutely stupid "matters of honor."

And yet Eastern schools of swordplay continue to flourish as well. Many enjoy it as a recreation.

Practical application are to be found anywhere and everywhere.

For example:

Military training in Bayonet fencing - historically the bayonet+rifle has been treated as a 4th fencing weapon and taught by fencing masters, basing its use on conventional fencing theory.

Knife fighting - solid background in fencing is very useful for all forms of bladed combat.

Chris Umbs - the CF Instructor who posted the link to the journal - has applied his rapier + dagger training very successfully to Filipino Escrima stick fighting tournaments.

Another fencer of Martinez's salle in NY is said to have defended himself against 3 hoodlums on his way home on the subway with his trusty umbrella!

Stick fighting - walking sticks, batons, nightsticks, improvised weapons of all kinds. Fencing applies. Whats more, foils bend. Thrusting with a stick will kill someone, so beginning with foil instruction can be very useful for point control, balance, footwork, timing, distance, basic parry & attacking theory and form, etc.

Sticks are cheap, found everywhere in some form, never require more ammunition, are silent, are [relatively] innocous, and their training applies widely to other weapons.

Footwork in Karate and Kickboxing (and most other hand-to-hand martial systems) is very similar to historical fencing footwork, i.e. non-linear. Rapier training, for instance, would be very useful.

Ever heard of Savate?

French kickboxing - "Hand & Foot Fencing" (!).
Kickboxing based on fencing - highly developed and quite comparable to the best of the orient.

Wing Chun Kung Fu "sticky hands" drills are very similar to Italian school binds/parries/transports.

Basic principles of timing and distance apply to nearly everything.

If taken for it's face value the suggested reason for practicing CF seems to be, "because it's a martial art" and "because we know what to do if the blade is sharp." Well I got news, if the blade is sharp you deserve to be shuned and ridiculed because in today's day and age you brought a knife to a gun fight and you'll be ending up in jail if you're not dead.

Not necessarily.

Knives have a number of advantages over firearms.

Knives are:

Cheaper.

Ever-present in various forms for various intended purposes.

Do not endanger innocent bystanders nearly as much.

Consider if you shot the bad guy, and bullet goes through his malignant carcass and hits someone who was just minding his own business?

Consider if you miss.

A knife can be a very effective deterrent with little risk to yourself or bystanders.

Knives [generally speaking] can be carried by anyone - firearms are more complicated legally.

Plus, as touched on above, blades aren't the only fencing applications.

As for not liking the personalities in SF let's all try not to forget that YOU CAME HERE. This thread isn't happening on a fantasy fencing board. When you come over and post drivel like that log about a SFer losing in a CF tournament how do you think people are going to react? When you attempt to feed your ego by posting a "see our version is better than your version" messege of course you're going to get people happily slapping you down. Particularly when most of us here are aware that the overwhelming majority of people in the CF world are there because they found that real fencing didn't have anyone willing to let them feed thier egos on. (Oh excuse me, they found the personalities to "competative" for them.)

Last I checked the URL says "Fencing.Net", not "SportFencing.net", "CompetitiveFencing.Net", "OlympicFencing.net", or anything else.

I think it would be just dandy if we could learn to understand and appreciate eachother.

Anyone who is not interested in discussion and a productive and friendly exchange of ideas is the one out of place on such a nicely run internet forum.

Anyway, thanks to those who have taken the opportunity to share knowledge and learn about eachother.

[drseudo]

Quite simply, because fencing is the only modern sport that comes to mind in this country that has a martial origin.

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.