I saw this one and chatted off-list with Rez before I commented so I
could be certain that this was somebody else's opinion before I
responded as strongly as I feel I must.
> > The Eastern European countries transformed fencing in the
> > latter half of the 20th Century with their emphasis on athleticism
> > and mobility, for example.
>
> It is much more accurate to say that they transformed the rules
> (read abandoned): priority given to bent arm attacks, priority to
> attacks from out of distance against the blade in line, priority
> awarded on the basis of foot movement, flicks, etc. In addition
> athleticism, while being emphasized, also was allowed to serve
> as a substitute for blade work.
The first part "The Eastern European countries transformed..." is right
on; I don't know who the author is (I'll be mildly embarrassed if it
turns out to be me, and that I'm praising my earlier post. C'est la
vie). The second part "It is much more accurate..." is a load of
bollocks. It's a malicious smear of an entire class of fencing masters.
Just speaking about the limited number of Eastern European masters I
know well (that is, some of those who came to the USA), I know for a
fact that Semyon Pinchasov (Russian. I trained under him at NYFC; he
produced McCahey, Tichacek, Bukantz, Lewison, Monplaisir and others -
that's multiple US champions, Olympic and Pan Am team members, plus "mid
level" guys like me), Csaba Elthes (Hungarian, produced almost all the
US Sabre team from 1962 onward, including Westbrook till his death),
Aladar Kogler (Czech. US National team coach), Branimir Zivkovic, Shimon
Gershon, Ed Elterman, etc - all Eastern Europeans - do NOT teach bent
arm attacks, etcetera. They've produced powerful and frequently
beautiful fencers up to the current day, who have earned respect around
the world, and earned places on US national teams for Olympics, Pam
American Games, and World Championships. I mention the ones I know well,
but there are others I know casually who are similar in providing
excellent fencing. I just watched the clips from the Athens foil finals
in 2004 with a Russian finalist. The characterization I quote above is
is insulting and wrong.
The names I mentioned above are real maestros who have frequently fenced
at championship levels themselves, and produced national and
international champions. Some of them come from families with multiple
generations of fencing tradition, rather than getting a diploma from an
academic course. It would do well for people intent on slandering them
to instead focus on improving their own teaching, and try to achieve
even a tiny, tiny fraction of the others' accomplishments. The
thin-skinned population I see in CF, so sensitive to "insult", would be
well advised to not indulge in insult themselves.
By the way: I asked well-informed people on fencing.net where the flick
originated, and I got the following responses: Germany, USSR, Spain,
"it's been here all along", and "it was inevitable on the machine so who
cares where it started". There may be truth to all the above. I found
the references to the flick starting in Germany to be the most
compelling because they named specific clubs and individuals who started
the flick movement. Not something I know for a fact, but I think it
refutes the smear against the Eastern Europeans.
This makes me think again on the other thread that recently came up
here, on the unsuitability of discussion groups that leads to experts
withdrawing from them.
It really makes a lot of sense: physical skills are difficult to explain
over a computer screen, and people with such skills may not necessarily
be particularly articulate in print. For the professional or expert
it's probably a dead loss: they don't get paid for rendering their
advice and it may not lead to new business.
Additionally there's the issue of dealing with the unwashed "ignoranti".
An expert has to cope with beginners who have just as much ability to
spout on the network as they do. But this cuts both ways: it also
exposes the big fish from a little pond who now has to express his ideas
in the larger marketplace, and cope with other people who may have as
much or more experience, and view their opinions with a decidedly cold
eye. Such people might point out flaws or ask questions it's
uncomfortable to have to answer. It's can be much more ego-satisfying to
avoid this problem altogether, and stay in one's dojo or salle
surrounded by fawning, uncritical disciples. It's too bad, really.
I've learned interesting things on this mailing list, about forms of
fencing that I don't practice or know much about, but nonetheless
respect. The value comes from the integrity, skill and devotion of the
practitioner - and I value those very highly and respect the people
living those principles and the arts they practice. It might be naive,
but I suggest people are best served pursuing their own art instead of
demeaning others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
 |  | |
|
Results 1 to 2 of 2
Thread: [CFML] Eastern European fencing
Similar Threads
| ||
