Practical vs. Beautiful Fencing by Enrico di Ciolo

[matthewtrager]

This is my rough translation of a comment by my fencing coach Enrico di Ciolo. Let me know if some parts are unclear since I had some problems with the translation (esp. motorial:in italian it means something involving movement). I hope you find it interesting. Matteo Trager

"Fencing well" does not mean "beautiful to see" but just "hitting" the opponent. To say that the important thing is to "fence well" doesn't mean anything. The concept of fencing well is abstract; the best fencer is the one who wins.
It's very different when you specify the kind of touches that an athlete makes. If a fencer does many types of actions it means that he knows the theory of fencing and applies it well. In the case of a fencer who wins only executing a few kinds of touches it means he is a great athlete, a good dueler. In the ancient times whoever killed his enemies won the war, today whoever touches his opponent wins the game. It's different if the fencer does "only" a few kinds of touches and doesn't achieve good results: we are in the presence of a cultural-motorial regression that has carried the fencer to the end of his sportive evolution.
Therefore if an athlete only does stop hits (“arresto”) but wins at high levels he is a great fencer because it means he's able to choose his timing very well and takes advantage of this talent; if instead an athlete that does only stop hits but doesn't get any good results it means he doesn't know much and has still a lot to learn. I must admit that at high levels there is nobody that only does stop hits, but often some champions prefer some actions more than others and they take advantage of it by repeating it with their experience.
And I perfectly agree with people who say about children that if in a competition they win with stop hits, no one can condemn them. When they won’t be able to do it anymore they'll change on their own, if they know enough about fencing to do so.
"Learn the art and put it away"; this is why I say that fencing is "utilitarian": if I win "only" with one action there is no reason why (in a tournament) I should change. If with an action I'm not able to touch I must adapt and change.
Excuse the venting, but often I hear people speak about "beautiful fencing" and "ugly fencing" instead of "fencing that works" and "fencing that does not work".
Fencing is "to touch": the better we know how to apply contrary moves, the more kinds of touches we know how to execute, but the concept is always the same: fencing is to win with contrary actions.
All the contrary moves are fine, it's enough they work with the right of way and they are effective. The motorial baggage, which is how much fencing an athlete knows, is important because it offers greater technical spaces to work on, but to have the feelings on some touches is natural and must be favored, not prevented.
Ciao
Enrico Di Ciolo

[cfaustus]

Very interesting statements. He certainly seems to be on to something regarding the evolutionary stage of fencing. And of course, 'winning' in the sport is the goal, however, as with all things, a 'whatever means necessary' approach is a slippery slope.

He makes a distinction between the fencer who fences well (i.e. wins) and the fencer who knows a lot of actions. He also mentions the type of fencer who does one or two actions very well. What he does not do is talk about the fencer who both knows many actions AND does many actions well. This, I believe is where 'beautiful fencing' comes in.

Beautiful fencing in this sense is not so much the goal but the natural by-product of the fencer's talent. Beauty with regards to any particular object is quite too subjective to define as each 'beholder' of the object puts different weight on various attributes. However, scientists do define the abstract concept of beauty, or rather, what we respond to as beautiful. In general, beauty is usually acknowledged in things having an intrinsic balance to them... a certain degree of proportionality, or even harmony. One might consider this to be a subconcious recognition of the Golden Mean ... neither going too far to one extreme or the other, but perfectly, controlledly balanced.

So with fencing, we could say that if someone performs an action with fine control, with neither an excess of large motion nor a too tightly confined motion, then that action may appear beautiful. The same can be said of displacements: one who moves just enough in order to either bring them in range to attack or move them just out of harms way from an opponent's blade has displaced beautifully. More still can the fencers balance be scrutinized, or his sense of tempo, or his control of cadence, or his choice of actions setting up the phrase, etc.

If a fencer does a wild action which they are not really controlling and hits occasionally, or even hits often against a certain set of opponents, chances are that this action will be sporadically successful or perhaps cease being effective at all as other adapt to the lack of control. On the other hand, if an action is controlled and effective, due to the control, it is likely to be effective again. The control is the key as the fencer may subtley change the action to suit the particular circumstances to allow the same action to be effective over and over again. This is what I think is being alluded to above when talking about elite competitors who do a few actions over and over. Of course, such fine control of an action can seldom be obtained but through rigorous practice of the action and then experience applying the action. Again this is mentioned above about the elite competitors.

But let us examine what we think of as beautiful again. If someone, say an artist (Of any particular medium of your choosing) is very good at doing one action, perhaps even perfectly, we are certainly valid in calling that perfect performance beautiful. However, if there is another artist who has mastered a number of techniques and then combines all these perfectly performed techniques to achieve their goal, this is not only beautiful, it is inspiring.

Also, the artist who is master of many techniques will still be able to achieve his goal even if he is barred from utilizing one or two of them. As one fences against better opponent's, having a larger pool of mastered techniques to draw upon can only be a good thing.

So, the 'beauty' of our actions can be considered a measure of our skill and the potential prolonged efficacy of our overall endeavors. We may not all be virtuosi of the blade, however, I can not think that if we really wish to rise ourselves to a certain level in this endeavor that we would be ill advised in attempting to master the 'beautiful' execution of as many actions as possible.

[OROD]

I think beauty in fencing is like beauty in aircraft design. There's a quote that goes like "for an airplane to fly well it must be beautiful", and I think that when fencing is good/effective it must also at some level be esthetically appealing. That is to say, for fencing actions to work well at high levels, they must inherently be well timed, in good distance, and properly executed.


.

[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.

[~V~]

I thought fencing was a defensive art and the goal was not to get hit, hmmm...

In fact, of all the fencing I've ever seen, the most beautiful emerged from the defensive fencer's ability to control each attempted attack.

M Labat has left us the most precise explaination of all :

"The beauty of an assualt appears in the execution of the design."

[Craig]

Originally Posted by ~V~

I thought fencing was a defensive art and the goal was not to get hit, hmmm...

The ultimate goal that I've seen stated that is close to what you put forward is that fencing is the art of hitting without being hit.

That's not really the point of the discussion, though. Looking at one of the most successful fencers - Valentina Vezzali. She has superb defense and offense and she makes a habit of making her opponent miss.

Her fencing, though highly effective, is not what I would call "beautiful fencing". When I watch her, I don't marvel at the beauty of the actions but I very much respect the effectiveness (utility) of what she does.

Craig

[fencerontheline]

Originally Posted by ~V~

I thought fencing was a defensive art and the goal was not to get hit, hmmm...

Fencing (as it's being described in the above passage) is a sport, and not an art. Perhaps by your vision, things are different, but as they are being described, it is as a sport.

[~V~]

Originally Posted by Craig

The ultimate goal that I've seen stated that is close to what you put forward is that fencing is the art of hitting without being hit.

Put another way its "to give and never recieve". The training is for not recieving - anyone with luck can stick their arm out and touch somebody.

Originally Posted by Craig

That's not really the point of the discussion, though.

I disagree. In the original translation-post the author states:

"Fencing is "to touch""

I am simply responding to that idea and its correlationship to 'beautiful' fencing, whether or not its effective may be yet another correlationship.

[~V~]

Originally Posted by fencerontheline

Fencing (as it's being described in the above passage) is a sport, and not an art. Perhaps by your vision, things are different, but as they are being described, it is as a sport.

If you employ the defensive art of fencing in a tournament would you not produce the effect of winning by a larger margin; would defensive actions producing a win of 0-3 be useful?

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

[Gav]

Originally Posted by ~V~

If you employ the defensive art of fencing in a tournament would you not produce the effect of winning by a larger margin; would defensive actions producing a win of 0-3 be useful?

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

I'll bite.

You obviously don't have much experience of competition. If defence was the sure way to win [an oxymoron surely] then stats would bear that. If the so-called classical style was as effective, or more, then so-called sport fencing then that style would prevail/ve considerd equal. The simple fact is that that's not true.

If you have studied any kind of martial philosophy, and not just romanticised propositions, you would realise that both, attack and defence, are required to be successful. At the end - if it works it works - this is what this master is a proponent of. If you want to be elegant and good - that's up to you - but realise that it's results that matter. I believe duellists would understand that.

If you take a literal translation of the etymology of 'fence' as a shortening of 'defens' then you are being over simplistic . I'm sure a few soldiers on this forum could enlighten you to the fact that; to limit yourself to one strategy is to be dead.

And please do not come to the forum and deliberately troll. Eventually you will find that the board will become a lonely place.

[striker]

Originally Posted by Gav

I'll bite.

...............................................
If the so-called classical style was as effective, or more, then so-called sport fencing then that style would prevail/ve considerd equal. The simple fact is that that's not true.

................................................
And please do not come to the forum and deliberately troll. Eventually you will find that the board will become a lonely place.

I thought the thread about differences between Sports and Classical fencing
was just closed five minutes ago. Are we at it again ?

Yes, we should never troll on the forum unless our public profile states
that we are a "A-rated" fencer.

[~V~]

Originally Posted by Gav

I'll bite.

You obviously don't have much experience of competition.

Obviously.

Originally Posted by Gav

If defence was the sure way to win [an oxymoron surely] then stats would bear that. If the so-called classical style was as effective, or more, then so-called sport fencing then that style would prevail/ve considerd equal. The simple fact is that that's not true.

If you have studied any kind of martial philosophy, and not just romanticised propositions, you would realise that both, attack and defence, are required to be successful. At the end - if it works it works - this is what this master is a proponent of. If you want to be elegant and good - that's up to you - but realise that it's results that matter. I believe duellists would understand that.

If you take a literal translation of the etymology of 'fence' as a shortening of 'defens' then you are being over simplistic . I'm sure a few soldiers on this forum could enlighten you to the fact that; to limit yourself to one strategy is to be dead.

And please do not come to the forum and deliberately troll. Eventually you will find that the board will become a lonely place.

Is this an example of becoming what you despise?

Is having a different POV trolling?

Are you so jaded by this whole SF/CF thing that you can't just talk about this type of thing openly?

Are you a moderator?

You have made gross assumptions and leapt to conclusions because I mentioned the words 'defense' and 'art' in my post. Nevermind that I just watched a fencer in April win a tournament with not a single touch against him. I guess he was just too busy hitting people to get hit himself.

I don't have a problem talking to you about fencing and I don't need anybody else to agree with me - I've been doing this too long to get upset over an online discussion group. Just do us all a favor and get a little more information before you make accusations.

[Gav]

I'm replying to this person's assumptions. I don't care if he is an A rated fencer (remember that I am from the UK and couldn't give a jot in any case). However, judging by his reponses here and elsewhere there seems to be some deliberate stirring going on. If there isn't - V can contact me and I will apologise. In any case I thought I was answering V's points?

I don't like the distinction classical and 'sport'. There is only fencing. The only seperation I make is 'historical' (I actually prefer archaelogical as it includes everything back to the bronze age) as I do believe that there is a real difference.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by ~V~

Are you so jaded by this whole SF/CF thing that you can't just talk about this type of thing openly?

Are you a moderator?

Yes.

I don't know if jaded is the right word. You appeared to have made a number of gross assumptions yourself, judging by your posts, so I reacted prevocatively. As I have said in another post - if I am wrong - I apologise.

If you want to duscuss CF v classical I suggest you revive one of the dead threads.

[~V~]

Originally Posted by Gav

Yes.

I don't know if jaded is the right word. You appeared to have made a number of gross assumptions yourself, judging by your posts, so I reacted prevocatively. As I have said in another post - if I am wrong - I apologise.

If you want to duscuss CF v classical I suggest you revive one of the dead threads.

I don't and I wasn't. I'm sorry, but is that not clear from what I actually wrote? 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. That was germaine to the original topic of this thread, nes pas?

Maybe this is an example of the attack failing?

Apology accepted.

[striker]

Originally Posted by Gav

I'm replying to this person's assumptions. I don't care if he is an A rated fencer (remember that I am from the UK and couldn't give a jot in any case). However, judging by his reponses here and elsewhere there seems to be some deliberate stirring going on.
.................................................. ......

Nope, I was not referring to ~V~ . I was referring to other "A-rated"
fencers who deliberately and consistently troll and stir. If you
monitor this forum on a continuos basis you know who they are.
Let's move on. Have a great day.

[Gav]

Well V, if you haven't had much experience of comeptition then I suggest you give it a go! Pitting yourself against an opponent is the ultimate test of skill.

Unless you would truly like to see if you can defend yourself against an armed [i.e. with sharps] opponent; in which case good luck! Let us know how you get on.

It is skill not art that is important when you are defending yourself. nes pa?

[~V~]

Originally Posted by Gav

Well V, if you haven't had much experience of comeptition then I suggest you give it a go! Pitting yourself against an opponent is the ultimate test of skill.

Unless you would truly like to see if you can defend yourself against an armed [i.e. with sharps] opponent; in which case good luck! Let us know how you get on.

It is skill not art that is important when you are defending yourself. nes pa?

Again, I think you're obfuscating things by associating the word 'art' with lack of skill. Why I can't say. Artists of all ilk that I know are highly skilled individuals.

BTW, I do pretty well with stripped to the waist PdA epee fencing - maybe you should give that a try. Its a different test of skill than a soft rubber button or a lightweight depressor, but to each their own.

Also, if you're in Scotland, maybe you cold stop by McDonald Armories for a little singlestick.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by ~V~

Again, I think you're obfuscating things by associating the word 'art' with lack of skill. Why I can't say. Artists of all ilk that I know are highly skilled individuals.

BTW, I do pretty well with stripped to the waist PdA epee fencing - maybe you should give that a try. Its a different test of skill than a soft rubber button or a lightweight depressor, but to each their own.

Also, if you're in Scotland, maybe you cold stop by McDonald Armories for a little singlestick.

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

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

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 I respect you a lot more than if you are obsessed with the Art and not effectiveness.

[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 (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