Dear Maestro Hayes,
> However, I believe that modern epee does not even come close to
> classical
> epee. The electrical apparatus and the change from one-touch to 15
> touches
> has greatly changed epee technically and tactically, bringing it
> far away
> from it's classical roots and it's martial (dueling) effectiveness.
>>But Rez, I didn't say it was the same.
I know, but I felt the need to get that out on the list anyway because it
appears to me that the list is populated with a good many more sport fencers
and quasi-classical fencers than it did when Kim started it at the
suggestion of Masters Lurz and Martinez.
>>I said it was a good test of
>>your classical practice, and in an earlier post on this thread I said
>>that "defending yourself well against a good A-level sport epee
>>fencer is a very good test of your art."
You are right maestro, against an "A" rated epeeist it would be a very good
test of their ability to defend themselves. In the classical era, it has
been written that the untrained suicidal duelist was always a very dangerous
threat to the trained duelist, for he threw caution to the wind and rushed
in. Dealing with an "A" rated epeeists speed and unorthodox style would
definitely tax most classical fencers who are not used to having to deal
with such. I would venture to say that even dealing with a seasoned
competitive "E" rated fencer would even give most classical fencers a
startle.
>>Imagine for a moment that you're fencing a
>>duel against a man who doesn't employ your conventions, who takes
>>what in your view are suicidal risks. For the sport fencer, weighing
>>the odds involved in a 15 touch game to victory, these risks are not
>>suicidal - they're cooly calculated and well-played.
Yes, I know. And so the pressure is much greater on you than on him and that
would make it an extreme test of skill and endurance for a classical fencer.
This brings up a thought then, should we as classical fencers train only for
classical encounters or train for all potential encounters? In foil, because
of the drastic differences between classical and sport rules and
interpretations of priority (ROW), I would say there is no valid reason to
do cross training in sport and that it would actually hinder your classical
performance. However, in classical epee which is supposed to train one for
the realities and "possibilities" one might expect in a duel, maybe we
should rethink things a little. Maybe we should include some cross training
bouts against sport fencers, but without adopting their counter-classical
habits.
I think the word you used which started me off was "cross-over." When I hear
that word I think of it's use in the recording industry, say of a country
singer who crosses over into rock music. And so it seemed to imply to me a
classical fencers who also trains "in" sport fencing, who adopts it's
techniques and tactics. And I believe that would be detrimental to the
classical fencer.
I have seen many classical foil fencers (former students) get sucked into
sport fencing. At first they thought, if classical fencing is superior then
I should be able to beat the sport fencers at their own game (their mistake
was in these last four words "at their own game") and so they get caught up
in this dream. Then when they go to their first two or three tournaments and
get their sock beaten off they start getting embarrassed and then to save
face they start adopting sport fencing techniques and tactics to make
themselves more competitive in the sport realm. They start listening to and
believing the reasons given by the winning sport coaches for dropping the
"archaic" classical techniques they once cherished and when they do they see
themselves improving in the sport realm. And soon they are ardent sport
fencers who consider classical fencing to be archaic and ineffective.
I have seen it happen so many times in my life even with one of the most
ardent classical fencers I have ever know. He used to be my best friend, but
his attitude changed greatly under coaches who influenced him most. I used
to joke (half in jest, all in earnest) that he had gone over to the dark
side. But the transformation in his thinking, attitude, and his new found
hatred for classical fencing really made it seem that way.
And so these days I keep my students as far away from sport fencing as I
can, with the exception of occasionally letting them view some footage of
international tournament bouts so that they can see the lack of classical
form and different ROW interpretation being given by sport fencing referees.
The truth however when it comes to the right-of-way weapons (foil & saber)
is that a sport fencer will usually beat a classical fencer when the rules
they are playing by are sport and a classical fencer will usually beat a
sport fencer when the rules they are playing by are classical. Especially in
my academy where a foilist can received a penalty touch scored against him
for committing one of a number of form faults.
Epee though, as you indicate comes the closest. Yet I would still not
recommend "crossing-over" and training using the sport fencing techniques
and tactics. And I know you didn't mean or recommend that either.
I must confess that when I quit coaching sport fencing and got rid of all of
the Academy's electrical fencing equipment, I kept a machine, a pairs of
reels, and two electric epees and body cords for my self. And for a time, I
still engaged in weekly electric bouts with several of my former sport
fencing students and former assistant coaches. However, in my mind I played
the bouts (which we usually fought to 15 touches to simulate USFA direct
elimination rounds) as if they were instead 15 bouts each to one touch. So
while my opponent's were playing their usual sport game, for me, in my mind
everything was on the line for each touch. So I had a secret inner game I
was playing in addition to their game.
> Once one crosses over into sport epee they are no longer classical
> purists.
If they modify classical technique or develop the ability to fence to
the box (eg split-second machine timing, something a good sport
fencer knows how to employ to his advatange), then no, they are no
longer classical purists. I have no argument with you here.
> And the test would be an inaccurate test of classical epee ability
> because
> different tactics are necessary and employed due to the machine and
> the 15
> touches, than are employed in classical (one-touch, non-electric)
> epee.
>
> The usual tactic taught by sport epee coaches and seen in USFA
> competitions
> these days is to get one touch ahead of your opponent and then
> simply keep
> forcing double touches so that you stay one touch ahead of your
> opponent. In
> the sport version which is fought to fifteen touches these days, it
> does not
> matter if your opponent touches you 14 times (think 14 wounds) as
> long as
> you stay one touch ahead and win with touch number 15.
You've got 9 minutes. Can you make the score something other than
15-14, or worse, 15-0?
>>I once saw two sport epeeists fight 9 minutes
>>to a 4-3 conclusion. That's a very different story than 15-14, and a
>>good classical fencer ought to be able to rise to that challenge.
I definitely understand the difference, having myself been in bouts of both
types.
>>But Rez, *you* still have the challenge of touching without being
>>touched - it doesn't matter if the other guy plays to this mindset or
>>not, so long as you do.
You are right Maestro.
>>Look, I think competition is the absolute worst environment for
>>martial training, no matter whether it's foil, karate, or escrima.
Thank you. That's what I wanted to hear you say.
>>But for the person who wishes to focus on the martial aspect, it's a
>>good testing ground, so long as they hold to the principles of their
>>art.
I whole heartedly agree !
>>I know it's a wierd
>>idea to pass on "victory" and instead fence to see how well you can
>>use your art in odd, challenging circumstances. But that's what I'm
>>saying.
Many egos are not capable of it and their in lies the danger.
>>... Dr. Gaugler's "Science of Fencing... the Italian style was seen as
>>being closer to dueling practice, while the French style had become
>>somewhat more academic. And it is the French style which shaped modern
>>fencing.
I greatly admire Dr. Gaugler and envy your training under him. I have heard
this opinion expressed all my life. But I think it relates more to the foil
than to the epee/dueling sword. However, contrary to popular belief, the
French classical masters of the 1870s according to Louis Rondelle (1892)
taught attacks with preparation and counter attacks with opposition. Which
is the opposite of what I was always told, that these techniques were only
used by the Italians.
>>>> Anyway, I think from all of the above you can see how modern sport
>>>> epee is
>>>> far removed from its classical and martial (dueling) roots.
>>And I don't disagree. But I'm not talking about becoming a champion
>>through classical technique (though I believe such a thing to be
>>possible,..
It's possible, but extremely difficult in the current sport fencing climate,
and would require a very talented (natural talent and talent developed
through many years of very hard work) and determined individual.
>... and a former student of mine has become a fine A-level
>>sport epeeist using largely classical technique
"Largely" ? Meaning he did/does employ some non-classical techniques/tactics
in order to accomplish his "A" rating?
There is no question that the best sport fencers have a classical base.
The top American coach started in an article he wrote for the "Sword Master"
(A United States Fencing Coaches Association periodical) that the reason his
two students were the only Americans beating the Europeans in international
competitions was because he forced them to do only classical fencing for the
first few years of their training. He further stated that the classical
foundation, coupled with the modern game and an understanding and constant
adaptation to the way priority was being called is what enables sport
fencers to be competitive today. I agree. But they are no longer classical
purists.
>> I'm suggesting that it (competing against sport epee fencers)
>>can be a valid way to test one's command of the art.
I agree!
Blessings,
Rez Johnson
"Standing guard on old, forgotten roads, that no one travels anymore."
The Fencing Master, by Arturo Perez
Rez Johnson, M d'A
Headmaster: Mississippi Academy of Arms
President: United States Traditional Fencing Association
Certified Fencing Instructor: (USTFA, TFI, AAI, USFCA)
Certified Fencing Master Apprentice: (USTFA, USFCA)
Teaching Classical Fencing and Historical Swordsmanship since 1980
Modern Sport Fencing Coach from 1980 - 2002
Mississippi Academy of Arms
P.O. Box 955
Pelahatchie, MS 39145-0955
E-Mail:
1@MSFencing.org
Academy Website:
http://MSFencing.org
USTFA Website:
http://TraditionalFencing.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
Linear Mode
