Yes that is an interesting thought. One of the points I was trying hard to
argue in that paper was captured by Bill Leckie's post, fencing and ethics
are deeply related. Electrical scoring was a rational response to cheating
and cronyism in international fencing. But what we have accomplished, I
argue, is to abdicate much or our moral responsibility as fencers with the
electric scoring apparatus. My other point is that the apparatus is not as
transparent as we like to believe and it specifically fosters a style of
play that takes advantage of the accidental qualities of the machinery, such
as the flexibility of the blade, weight of the tip, etc. Having said that,
though, I do think that it is at least theoretically possible to develop a
technology that fosters a more classical style. We are using essentially
last century technology and as you note there are better solutions using
information technology. This is worth exploring, but then again the low
tech solution works just as well and costs much less. It does require well
trained fencers and officials and both need a healthy dose of honor and
ethical behavior and I realize that all of this is in short supply.

John Sullins
Director
Sonoma State University
Fencing Master's Certificate Program

-----Original Message-----
From: classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:29 AM
To: classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CFML] Digest Number 947


There are 5 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: santelli
From: Jeff Savit <jeff.savit@sun.com>
2. Just a thought...
From: "kaiser_von_moss" <kaiser_von_moss@yahoo.co.uk>
3. Re: Just a thought...
From: flanconade@aol.com
4. Re: Santelli?
From: Amos Brooks <amosbrooks@earthlink.net>
5. Re: Just a thought...
From: James Koch <alchem@en.com>


__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:26:18 -0400
From: Jeff Savit <jeff.savit@sun.com>
Subject: Re: santelli

Sadly, I must confirm that Santelli's is no longer in operation. They
ran into financial difficulties that they were unable to recover from.
Very sad, as it was a great institution, both as vendor and fencing
club, and its founder, Giorgio Santelli, one of the true greats.

Jeff



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:16:18 -0000
From: "kaiser_von_moss" <kaiser_von_moss@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Just a thought...

I've just read "A Hit, A Very Palpable Hit: Electronic Scoring and the
Loss of the Art of Fencing" by Mr. John Sullins, and as I read, a
thought crossed my mind: Electric scoring is, nowadays, obsolete!

Due to the advances in computer technology, couldn't scoring be done
by sight, and verified by chronophotography? This is extremely
possible nowadays, with merely some simple software and a small
personal computer for the judge to check himself.
I do believe that this, as well as being extremely accurate, could
probably encourage the use of clear, defined tactics as opposed to the
unclear, dubious modern ways of scoring, as once again, we would be
relying upon the sight of the judge, and a more rational concept of
what a palbable hit is, as opposed to the many ways of "fooling" the
machine with flicks and other shabby tricks.

Just a thought, of course, but it could very well contribute to the
recuperation of the true fencing spirit.

Any comments?




__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:35:02 EDT
From: flanconade@aol.com
Subject: Re: Just a thought...

In einer eMail vom 7/10/2005 10:00:12 PM W. Europe Daylight Time schreibt
kaiser_von_moss@yahoo.co.uk:

Due to the advances in computer technology, couldn't scoring be done
by sight, and verified by chronophotography? This is extremely
possible nowadays, with merely some simple software and a small
personal computer for the judge to check himself.
I do believe that this, as well as being extremely accurate, could
probably encourage the use of clear, defined tactics as opposed to the
unclear, dubious modern ways of scoring, as once again, we would be
relying upon the sight of the judge, and a more rational concept of
what a palbable hit is, as opposed to the many ways of "fooling" the
machine with flicks and other shabby tricks.

Uh...my problem's with technological fixes in general. For instance, in
the
FIE--with stubborn opposition from Germany and Italy--the changes in
pressure and blade flexibility, introduced only so far in junior foil,
maybe,
supposedly, don't really address the problem. They don't because of the
imperatives of competition, which then....

The first part of it is: Shouldn't fencers KNOW what a hit is, and
shouldn't the officials? We train our beginners here in Soest from Day One
that they
must be able to give a rational account of how they achieved or received a
touch.Look, tech is snazzy and sexy these days, but what happened to the
quaint notion that humans are autonomous beings not controlled by machines?
Jeez,
the judge in your idea is actually like the proverbial tit on a boar
hog--useless. I mean, inertia would mean we wouldn't really be relying on
the
judge. Sorry, but life ain't that way, like your assumption.

That raises the ethical and definitional components of the issue: First,
what is a touch? I've taken on some of the best senior sport fencers in
Europe, and rarely felt a thing. Slaps and cloth catchers? Man, if
there's
yelling and screaming over mechanical fixes, they'd love screaming about
what a
touch was! And then there's the technique/rule dilemma that flows out of
that
and back into it. How does a quick pix address the bent arm in foil and
saber?
How does it deal with the "environmental" problem of the 14-meter
dragstrip
piste? All it does is give another layer of gizmos to allow people not to
think and make sloppiness virtual skill.

Ethically, doesn't looking for a snazzier tekky solution address the
ethical
problem? Nope. It simply avoids it all together (and we come back full
circle to the question of rational and autonomous, hence responsible
beings--with
a bow to Emmanuel Kant). Historically, fencing and ethics were
inseparable.


Contrary to the macho orthodoxy out there, which should be informed by
learning a little real history, honor and the duel by the mid- to late-17th
century were surrounded by extremely elaborate rules that started to
develop with
the obsolescence of the rapier--yes, you can find precursors and I've
read'em,
but to get fancy their epistemology is a bit different--and the
introduction
of lighter weapons.

Paradoxically, manners and the duel were inseparable in the development of
Western ethics and the containment if not elimination of violence, just as
early explorations of the mechanics of the sword were mirrored in humanist
ethics, and contributed to a community of scientific inquirers with shared
values.
The introduction of the foil very, very early is key to that. And it
wasn't
just 18th century dandies who didn't riposte into an unmasked lunge,
either.

Tech ain't-uh-gonna solve the problems caused by win-at-any-cost
nationalist
machismo, which is another mirrored phenom in the "warrior" ethos that
seems
to grip historical fencing.

Classical that ain't. The solution is get rid of technology and train
better
fencers.

Bill Leckie
Klassisches Fechten Soest
flanconade or _soestfechten@aol.com_ (mailto:soestfechten@aol.com)





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:07:54 -0400
From: Amos Brooks <amosbrooks@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Santelli?

Hi,

Alternatively you could locate your local SCA (Society for Creative
Anachronism, www.sca.org ) group and as long as you have some specifics
you could probably find someone that is competent at making adjustments
with an eye toward historical dress. While there are a lot of nuts in
the organization that want to be Conan it is also possible to find some
folks that are seriously interested in history and have become very
talented at sewing. From the above site you can find a group near you
and contact information for them.

Just a suggestion,
Amos Brooks


Ken Mondschein wrote:

>Santelli, alas, is no more. I recommend getting an American Fencer's
>quilted duck jacket and having a tailor modify it (if you can find a
>competent one in this day and age). One of our salle members has a way
>with a needle and did this for another one of our salle members, and it
>looks pretty darn sharp.
>




__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:07:08 -0400
From: James Koch <alchem@en.com>
Subject: Re: Just a thought...

I think it's a good idea, and despite the fact that some people dislike any
technological fix, it would definitely be worth trying. It likely wouldn't
be any worse that the current electric system, and might actually be a real
improvement. On the down side, at this point it's purely science
fiction. You would require multiple cameras, at least one from each side,
and likely another from above. These would have to track the movements of
the fencers. Then of course there is the issue of the software. What I
suggest is that you set up a low tech experiment using video cameras to
obtain a slow motion instant replay of a bout where necessary. This would
at least give you an idea of what all would be involved in terms of
hardware.
>
Jim Koch, Alchem Inc. "http://www.alcheminc.com"
>
>
>At 03:16 PM 7/10/2005, you wrote:
>I've just read "A Hit, A Very Palpable Hit: Electronic Scoring and the
>Loss of the Art of Fencing" by Mr. John Sullins, and as I read, a
>thought crossed my mind: Electric scoring is, nowadays, obsolete!
>
>Due to the advances in computer technology, couldn't scoring be done
>by sight, and verified by chronophotography? This is extremely
>possible nowadays, with merely some simple software and a small
>personal computer for the judge to check himself.
>I do believe that this, as well as being extremely accurate, could
>probably encourage the use of clear, defined tactics as opposed to the
>unclear, dubious modern ways of scoring, as once again, we would be
>relying upon the sight of the judge, and a more rational concept of
>what a palbable hit is, as opposed to the many ways of "fooling" the
>machine with flicks and other shabby tricks.
>
>Just a thought, of course, but it could very well contribute to the
>recuperation of the true fencing spirit.
>
>Any comments?



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________


----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier
blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links




------------------------------------------------------------------------





----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/classicalfencing/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
classicalfencing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/