Practical vs. Beautiful Fencing by Enrico di Ciolo

[~V~]

Originally Posted by Gav

It's funny that you should mention Paul...

I particularly like the way that you assume that I probably haven't tried such things.

Why is it funny?

I don't mean to beat this into the ground, but you are a moderator, right? I didn't assume anything. I don't know you from Adam's off Ox - how could I know whether you've tried PdA fencing or singlestick unless you tell me? I raised it as something you might try like I would reccommend to anybody else I talk to who shows an interest in fighting. If you have tried such things then it looks like we have some common ground, eh?

Originally Posted by Gav

Anyway, you confuse what I mean. If you are effective and 'artistic' that's cool with me. If you let the idea of being artistic get int he way of being effective then that is not cool. I don't equate art iwth lack of skill at all. I just rank ability above it. If you look rubbish, but get those touches - or kill people - then you I respect you a lot more than if you are obsessed with the Art and not effectiveness.

You wrote:

"It is skill not art that is important when you are defending yourself."

After I wrote (explaing again):

"I said that defensive fencing, as I take the core of fencing to be, has provided some of the most beautiful and engaging moments in fencing that I personally have witnessed."

This was after qualifying my use of the word 'art' with the definition:

"art = Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation"

Now I'm sorry, but it looks to me like you've beee mistunderstanding me the whole time, all the while tacitly proving my theory of defense vs. offense.

From my POV, you've been on the attack. I've been defending.

I see match point around the corner.

[~V~]

Originally Posted by jeff

The original post discussed on this thread (continued by the next several posters) touches on aesthetics versus utility, and makes no judgements about either offence or defence being more or less beautiful, nor which of classical fencing or sport fencing is more beautiful. ~V~, it's a pity that you took that interesting discussion point and turned it into a soapbox to get on to claim that your preferences of fencing are more beautiful

Right, I apologise for writing my opinon about aesthetics on an internet discussion board discussing the topic of aesthetics vs. utility. Mea culpa

BTW, I provided an example completely germaine to the topic once again. I just happen to think there is a correlationship between defense and effectiveness on the strip. But as the newcomer to this forum, I will gladly refrain from commenting if the purpose of the forum is not to post different opinions.

Also, I wasn't the one who brought up Cf vs. SF was I?

These are poor attacks guys, come on, establish some priority!

Originally Posted by jeff

(merely because you say so). I suggest that you get more competitve experience so you can better understand that neither classicism nor defence are the royal roads to success (if they were, then you could bet that high level fencing would be very classic in appearance, and mostly defensive in tactic).

Sounds like you guys have many axes to grind.

Originally Posted by jeff

Some fencers ...snip... That's part of what makes fencing interesting.

CF vs. SF: It's not being jaded, it's being weary of the same tired discussion without insight. One of the common ways this happens is when somebody with a CF background (and usually a beginner with "little competitive experience") posts on this board and makes pompous and foolish characterizations of SF as being only about athletics, or lacking in honor, or not really fencing, or some other nonsense.

Show us all where I said anything like that:

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

How far apart are skill and art? Scoring in sport fencing is an art in itself, and one that takes much skill. So is classical fencing, it has skills all of its own, and is still an art. Just like painting a master piece, it is art, but it takes much skill. Classical fencing is a derivative of sword fighting, which was, after all, about killing someone. Go deeper, its about winning. If you think of fencing itself as a tree, classical fencing and sport fencing break off and go seperate ways, and both are beautiful in their own aspect. To be so narrow minded as to reject the beauty/worth of one of them is to reject the nature of combat itself, as a fluid like, ever changing entity.

[Gav]

V

I know Mr MacDonald very very very well.

[~V~]

Originally Posted by Gav

*sense of humour failure*

Guilty. I've got a sore throat at the end of a long day - I could use a pint myself!

Originally Posted by Gav

I know Mr MacDonald very very very well. So well in fact that I can call Mr MacDonald (of MacDonald Armouries) and have a drink in the pub (should I wish - and I have - he's a throughly nice chap). The fact that he's teaches his own brand of [historical] Fencing in Edinburgh was a coincidence and so I said 'funny'. The fact that you mentioned him just prompted to comment on that fact.

Excellent. Sorry for my lapse of seriousness. Please enjoy the next pint you have with him very much. Have you seen his dusacks?

[striker]

Originally Posted by gladius

Thank you Matteo for translating the article by Maestro Enrico Di Ciolo one of the leaders of the Scuola Pisana of Italian fencing.

If I may interject my comment about "beauty" this is a very Italian trait where things/people/situations must be first and foremost elegant, "belle" even at the cost of being somewhat impractical and not utilitaristic. This is why Ferraris are made in Italy, but Volkswagens are made in Germany. The quoted article of Di Ciolo is against the "Italian" main way of thinking and doing things.

It may help to explain the extraordinary work and success of this school which consists of a father/son team, Maestro Antonio Di Ciolo (father) and Maestro Enrico Di Ciolo (son). An important component of the "Di Ciolo method" is in the "integrated" training of the fencer. The maestri bring in and work with specialists in specific areas like sport medicine, sport psychology and physiotherapy. Enrico (junior) is the team builder of these specialists who then work together to benefit and help the super champions like Puccini, Sanzo, Scarpa, Vanni, Vannini, Bianco, Martinelli, Rossi, and many more.

A characteristic of the Scuola Pisana by the Di Ciolo is to reinvent every day the so called classic fencing giving it a modern interpretation which adapts to change and time. They are always ready to review critically, without preconceived ideas, both the fencing techniques and the methods of physical training and customize them to the psychological characteristics of the individual fencer. They are eternally curious and try constantly to devise new solutions for any fencing situation. This continuous revision and adaptation to modern times is what makes them and their students consistently successful with the old and the new rules in foil.

Just to give an anecdotal example: we've had discussions on this board about the naming of parries in Italian which by now everyone knows is different from anywhere else in the world. I was told that Di Ciolo has a parry which he calls in the Tuscan vernacular "parata bischera" which can be translated in English as "parry for dummies." Don't try to find this terminology in the Italian classical texts! But you can ask Sanzo to show it to you before he returns to Pisa next week and starts his physical conditioning with Maestro Enrico before moving to Maestro Antonio for foil training in preparation of the World Championships in Leipzig.

matthewtrager thanks for posting the translation. Gladius you made
very insightful comments. It helped me have a better understanding
of the Italian school. My present Maestro also mentions something
very similar to what Di Ciolo is mentioning here. By the way my Maestro
still competes at local and USFA tournaments and teaches at the same
time. He keeps using the word "effective" and the phrase
"fencing well" - a style that can win a bout AND not instill bad habits
in the fencer.

What caught my eyes was this "reinvention" process that you mentioned:
"A characteristic of the Scuola Pisana by the Di Ciolo is to reinvent every day the so called classic fencing giving it a modern interpretation which adapts to change and time."

It would be very interesting to see how they have been able to adapt
what they have known from the past to train their fencers for the
future. I guess that requires a trip to Italy or taking a clinic with one
of their students.

[jBirch]

To yank back on topic, I was wondering what the Maestro meant by "beautiful fencing". Did he mean the classical "correct" fencing with "correct" posture and "correct" footwork? Or did he mean elegence and efficiency of motion resulting in clean touches? Or did he mean both? Is he arguing that a statistical game (where you try the actions with the highest probability of success) is better then a rational one (where you deliberately try to manipulate your opponent)?

Any insights into what precisely he is talking about when he uses the term "beautiful"?

James.

[Mr Epee]

My guess is that it's a pot-shot at the Germans :-)

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by jeff

Oh, I hereby register my protest with the nomenclature. CF vs. SF is a false distinction, as is the notion that one is a "martial art" and the other a "sport". CF people engage in tournaments and have rules that determine awarding of points: that makes it a sport. Neither CF nor SF have greater claim on being a "martial art", any more than full contact karate does compared to no-contact or kata. I would say the nomenclature should be "CF" and "Modern Fencing", and either, neither, or both can be sport or martial art. Off soapbox, Jeff....

OK How 'bout we call SF "Fencing" and CF "Prancing around pretending to live in another time period"?

Here Trolly Trolly Trolly...

[Mario Montalvo]

Hello everyone!

Today I found a very interesting discussion that touches me in a particular way because I was trained as a fencing master in the italian school. The escence of Maestro Di Ciolo's comments in my opinion it's that it is not important how you look when you fence but the results that can be achieved by doing that type of fencing. I had the oportunity to see fence Stefano Cerioni, Andrea Borella, and Mauro Numa to name a few,and each one of them had differences in their style(specially Numa who you could say had this so called "ugly fencing" but no one can deny his success on the international arena). The more a fencer can prepare him/herself technically, the more resources he /she will have to resolve the many situations we confront on the strip. The problem here, however, it's tactical. Can I win with a "colpo d'arresto''(stop hit) only , "botta diritta"(direct hit) only? The answer depends of who am I fencing. For example, if I fence with someone who has not yet achieved an advanced technical level and I can hit him using only a direct hit, why change then? The more complex the level of fencing your opponent has, the more you'll have to elevate yours. It's not a question of beauty or uglyness but one of simplicity or complexity. Finally, I disagree about letting a child win by using only a stop hit. Childhood it's the most important stage in the developement of a fencer. I as a fencing master, have to take advantage of the ability the children have to absorb knowledge. The creed it's to have fun without any kind of pressure of winning during this process of absortion, and to make sure the child learns the fundamentals of a weapon governed by the rule of convention that it's the foil. How can you tell a boy to stop hit the attack of his opponent when you are allways telling him to parry because the adversary has the right of way? At a an age of 8 or 9 years this could sound as a contradiction in terms. The other reason I disagree with Maestro Di Ciolo it's that there's always the danger of conditioning an action that at this level of fencing, could be turned into a mistake. It's a virtue on an eppeist to use the stop hit as his/her main resourse of couter- offensive actions, but we have to be very carefull when we discuss weapons governed by the rules of convention as are the saber and the foil.

Again, this it's only my point of view. As I allways say, there's no "verdad absoluta".

Always at your service

Maestro Montalvo

[jeff]

Maestro Montalvo, thank you for a very nice post, and welcome to the board. Grazie!

Drifter: that was very, very naughty of you... let's leave that kind of rhetoric to the other side...

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by jeff

Maestro Montalvo, thank you for a very nice post, and welcome to the board. Grazie!

Drifter: that was very, very naughty of you... let's leave that kind of rhetoric to the other side...

How about, lets ALL just leave that sort of rhetoric alone. It serves no Good.

Let us, instead, listen to and learn from each other in a respectful manner becoming rational beings..

[jeff]

A good idea. (hey, if we got rid of all the silly things said on discussion boards, would there still be an Internet? )

[Mario Montalvo]

Dear Jeff
Hi! You are welcome! It's allways a pleasure to participate in these forums specially with fellow fencers and other "maestri" who know so well the topics discussed. Believe me, I learn a lot from you guys and in the end that's the most important thing.

Allways at your service
ci vediamo
Maestro Montalvo