Inflamed sense of superiority

[Moses]

Question: What is Classical Fencing?

Answer: The art of denigrating sport fencing.



Classical Fencing

-Da Mose

[RebelFencer]

Urge to kill rising...rising..

[Tiwaz]

Hhm

Pic 1)
fencer on the right, rear leg bent, front knee wrong posistion, over lunged.

fencer on the left, too close, heels out of alignment, unbalanced, parry too big, point out of line for reposte (unless he intends to do a flick of course )

Pic 2) both fencers poor distance. fencer on the left has a too wide on gaurd ,poor balance looks like he's parried from the elbow.

anyone care to add anything else?

[sabreteur]

Godz, what a great quote:

...who, colliding with her adversary, flogs her buttocks with the flat of her blade. Sport fencers view action such as this with great enthusiasm and admiration. From the classical fencer's point of view this sort of thing is seen as undisciplined, out-of-control, savage, and potentially dangerous.

Hahahahahahahaha! Issues they have. Many.

I'd say it's dangerous. If I were to do anything with another woman's buttocks the gf would freaking kill me.

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

anyone care to add anything else?

The lack of protective clothing..?

[swordsen]

The two pictures of "classical" fencing look alot like they were taken in a beginers class. The fencers are too close to each other. The one "deperately" parrying is doing so with way too large an action and either has way too wide a stance or was caught in middle of a big advance, either way bad footwork.

I must say he chose exciting pictures to show how sloppy sport fencing is. Of course many pictrures can be found of perfectly good straight thrusts being made too, but they aren't excitng so they don't get taken as often or distributed.
That being said some of the criticisms are valid. It does get dull when you get two fencers who believe fleche fleche fleche is the only way to play, or who love to get 6 inches away from their opponent and flick away. But most fencers don't do that so the arguement fails.

Oh well, further fuel for the fire.

[lefty_monster]

That article made me mad. That's all i'm gonna say for now...

[Goofy]

From the article/advertisement:

In defending "Olympic" fencing, today's "fencing athletes" insist that athough they have not been trained in classical swordsmanship, they are nevertheless fully capable of fighting a duel. While no one debates this assertion, examples like this one justify doubts as to whether they would be able to survive one.

Next time I'm challenged to a duel with 'live' rapiers I reckon we'll find out. But how about this: If you live in an area where the learning of 'classical fencing' is a requirement, MOVE!

[noodle]

so full of misinformation its rediculous.

classical fencers on the board, see what we have to put up with? would you really stand for a page similar to this except with reversed roles?

[mrbiggs]

It seems that they're saying that the main flaw of sport fencing is that we don't always try to parry when attacked. I would think that in a real duel, a counterattack, though risky, would be much more effective than it is in sport fencing.

[fencingmetalfan]

I saw two classical fencers on public access television one time. One of them, an instructor I might add, got his sword knocked out of his hand more than once by his opponent, and there wasn't much distance between the opponents at all. Don't know if this is really relevent... but I think it's proof that classical fencers can be impractical themselves.

[Sildar]

Personally, I think this kind of page is poor way to represent classical fencing, in the same way that Mr. Evangelista's manner of communication does little to win others over to his views. I would rather inform people about classical fencing based upon its own merits, rather than defining it against another activity. Frankly I am a bit confused as to why some classical fencers seem to feel the need to tear down someone else's sport rather than focusing on their own activity. If people don't like USFA/FIE fencing, they're free to not participate. As much as I like traditional fencing, I would much rather practice it than sit around spewing venom at sport fencers.

Originally Posted by noodle

so full of misinformation its rediculous.

classical fencers on the board, see what we have to put up with? would you really stand for a page similar to this except with reversed roles?

Yes, I see this sort of thing happening all the time with the roles reversed, even occasionally on public forums. I try to waste as little time as possible on such pointless "my kung fu is better than your kung fu" arguments. I don't lose any sleep at night over the fact that some people have different taste in hobbies than I do, but hey, whatever floats your boat...

[FriendlyMonkey]

Originally Posted by Moses

Question: What is Classical Fencing?

Answer: The art of denigrating sport fencing.



Classical Fencing

-Da Mose

Oh, these are the same people that scream and pretend they're olympic fencers fencing only eachother and not in a room full of other fencers who they distract and totally irritate by shouting and being their own self image of machismo.


End Rant. Sorry. lol.

Some good and amusing points on that page

[swordsen]

I came across this more rational evaluation of "classical" and "sport" fencing.

http://www.sallegreen.com/comparison.html

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by FriendlyMonkey

Oh, these are the same people that scream and pretend they're olympic fencers fencing only eachother and not in a room full of other fencers who they distract and totally irritate by shouting and being their own self image of machismo.


End Rant. Sorry. lol.

Some good and amusing points on that page

I hope you don't play or watch any sports, even recreationally. You must get annoyed at the b-ball players at the park who are constantly talking and yelling. Or softball games...

The list goes on...

[ReverseLunge]

Those people who claim to be "classical" fencers seldom are. Their style is usually sloppy and ineffective. They never make it to the World Cups or the Olympics because their fencing isn't up to par.

All high level modern fencers have mastered classical fencing. Of course.

These classical dorks are not even classical. They are fantasizers. Air guitar players.

Now if a Olympic champion were to denounce modern fencing and promote the classical then I would listen.

I am a pretty decent modern fencer myself and I can say with confidence that I can fence the classical way just as good or better than the Nick Evangelista or the SCA people. I can also say with confidence that most or none these classical folks can do some of the modern techniques that I can do. Most "classical" fencers were trained in a modern style salle I'm sure and the whole reason why they put down modern fencing is because they didn't make the cut. They got there butts kicked all the time and they fell apart during the intense drills. It was just too damn hard.

[downunder]

"Classical Swordplay: The fencer on the left desperately parries the blade of his opponent who,
with outstretched sword arm, lunges deeply from a considerable distance."


Who would call that a considerable distance? or a deep lunge?

I agree wholeheartedly with ReverseLunge on this.

[Tiwaz]

A few years ago i had the opportunity to fence a classical fencing coach at sabre at a demonstration he was organising. Whilst i was kitting up he launched into a prepared spiel about how classical sabre is a far more effective fighting technique than todays sport sabre. When i took my posistion on the piste he introduced me as a "sports fencer" and as such i was expected to loose due in main to my supposed inability to grasp the subtlties of sabre.
We went through all the formalities of fencing steam (dry) with a judge and a jury and got down to the business at hand.On the command fence the CF advanced with his blade in a theatrical high seconde to which i landed a nice neat stop cut on his wrist. As we continued to fence the CF seemed to be trying for a part in a swashbuckling film his actions were typicaly large and florid and to an extent ineffective. Of the three hits this guy managed to land on me two were from similtaneous attacks and one was a straight counter attack but the icing on the cake for me was the final hit where i parried his AIP mid flunge and landed a nice neat hit on the centre seam of his mask.

a small victory for sports fencers but one of the most enjoyable bouts i've fought.

[Ordway]

Originally Posted by swordsen

I came across this more rational evaluation of "classical" and "sport" fencing.

http://www.sallegreen.com/comparison.html

That definitely is much more reasonable, unlike the other one. (I was surprised to see that the first one was actually an official page of a classical fencing club, rather than a rant page from some random classical fencer - it strikes me as being in poor taste, somehow, to promote your activity specifically by mocking another version of it. I also don't think it's the least bit effective, as it creates a negative atmosphere ("look at THOSE losers") rather than a positive one ("look at how much fun WE are having").

OTOH, the Salle Green comparison page really points out that there are relatively few differences between CF and SF if you're reasonable about comparing things. The philosophy and schools of influence on technique would seem to be the main points of difference, but the rest are minimal. Things like "emphasis is on personal development of excellent technique, self-discipline and physical fitness" and "nformal assaults are fenced without counting touches for recreation and to assist in the development of technique" hold true for sport fencing practice as well, depending on the club and the specific needs and interests of the fencers at any given time.

It's funny - the first site claims that "fencing athletes" make the argument that they'd be able to win a duel... but honestly, I think that the main difference between CF and SF is that SF don't *think about* or care about whether they could win a duel or not, and CF fencers *do*. I practice to win in fencing as a sport... I have no interest in making claims about whether or not I'd do well in a duel. I suspect most SF are the same way.

In that sense, CF is more aligned with historical reenactment fencing (since we don't actually have duels nowadays). That's a value-neutral comment on my part - I'm not interested in historical/CF fencing, but I can see as it would interest people. But it really ought to make CF and SF simply two different activities, since they have two different objectives.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Ordway

It's funny - the first site claims that "fencing athletes" make the argument that they'd be able to win a duel... but honestly, I think that the main difference between CF and SF is that SF don't *think about* or care about whether they could win a duel or not,

I can't really comment on classical fencers since I don't personally know any, but I had the same reaction on reading that line. Most of the sports fencers I know who actively compete really don't think about dueling at all. They're just interested in getting in shape and improving their skill at the sport of fencing (as it is now). I have no interest in dueling with swords, and if someone really intended to attack me with a real sword, I'd run away and call the police! The few sport fencers I've met who also have a serious interest in the original martial aspects of swords normally keep their sport fencing and sword as weapon activities very separate.

From time to time, a sport fencer will make a remark concerning sport fencing's history...something like, "Imagine how different your tactics would be if the blade was actually sharp." My reaction is always the same. If my opponent's blade were sharp, my tactics would be very different. I'd get a gun.