Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

D'Artagnan1673 · 07-26-2002, 09:46 AM

hahaha

Saber-Psycho · 07-26-2002, 11:36 AM

Why is there even a question?
Isn't it obvious?
The other two weapons, (if you call them weapons)
are way too bouncy.
In Saber, it's nice fast clean attacks, lots of feints, fast thinking, lighting fast parries and you can whack them!
What else can i say?

Saber-Psycho · 07-26-2002, 11:38 AM

Why is there even a question?
Isn't it obvious?
The other two weapons, (if you call them weapons)
are way too bouncy.
In Saber, it's nice fast clean attacks, lots of feints, fast thinking, lighting fast parries and you can whack them!
What else can i say?

D'Artagnan1673 · 07-26-2002, 11:50 AM

On the contrary, epee is the real thing. No rules needed.

Next time Schlager7 posts, read his signature. It sums it all up quite well.

Inquartata · 07-26-2002, 07:38 PM

All three weapons are the reel thing. Unless you're using a bungee system.

Jisahn · 08-05-2002, 08:02 PM

It's not a matter of which weapon is superior. They compliment each other. Foil is the foundation. Epee builds on foil, and sabre builds on epee.

Aldo Nadi states that you cannot expect to master sabre, without mastering the first two weapons.

Inquartata · 08-05-2002, 08:45 PM

But who made Nadi infallible?

D'Artagnan1673 · 08-06-2002, 10:16 AM

Warning Jisan !!!!!!!! Thinking such old fashion notions will get you into trouble here. I know, I feel the same way you do:

darius · 08-06-2002, 10:46 AM

Feel any way you want, but you're plain wrong. You can learn to fence well starting with any weapon.

The basic technical skills translate across all three weapons. Each weapon has it's own timing and distance quirks, but the foundations are similar.

Why do we give beginners foils? It's smart resource allocation -- a collegiate club can't dedicate three beginner coaches, one in each weapon. Foil skills translate well: the point control necessary to win in epee, and the right-of-way knowledge necessary to win in sabre.

But what's most important is that they learn fundamental footwork, terminology, and basic tactics, and we could teach that in any weapon. It's just easier to do so in one, and then let them go with the more advanced groups after a semester.

darius

D'Artagnan1673 · 08-06-2002, 10:52 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darius:
Feel any way you want, but you're plain wrong. You can learn to fence well starting with any weapon....

Foil skills translate well: the point control necessary to win in epee, and the right-of-way knowledge necessary to win in sabre.

darius<hr /></blockquote>First of all, Darius, read the thread about Olympic fencers. Just because that is your opinion doesn't mean that mine is automatically wrong. An opinion is based upon observations and perspective, not fact. Two people can look at the same thing and come up with two opposite conclusions.

Also, it looks to me that you answered the question of why foil is taught first in your post saying that it shouldn't or does not necessarily have to.

darius · 08-06-2002, 11:21 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />An opinion is based upon observations and perspective, not fact. Two people can look at the same thing and come up with two opposite conclusions.<hr /></blockquote>Indeed. But I don't think we're looking at the same thing. You have an opinion; but just because one has an opinion doesn't make it correct.

Example: I can say the world is flat. However, we all know that is untrue. Just because I choose to call that "my opinion" does not mean it's right.

In your experience, have the best epeeists and sabreurs been the best at foil as well?

But perhaps I was overly harsh. Feel free to state exactly where you came by this opinion that a foil->epee->sabre progression was necessary and we'll have a discussion on our hands.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also, it looks to me that you answered the question of why foil is taught first in your post saying that it shouldn't or does not necessarily have to.<hr /></blockquote>Nice try, but you might try reading next time; we start in foil not because "that's the way it's done," "Nadi said so," or even out of any misguided opinion that "you have to master foil first." We do it because a single beginner coach can handle everybody, teach them all the same thing, and they'll still have a basis to be competitive if/when they move on to different weapons.

Given the appropriate resources, I'd have no problems starting people with the weapons they were most interested in.

darius

[ 08-06-2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: darius ]

three_hundred_fifty_five · 08-06-2002, 12:45 PM

Must... kill... horse... looks dead... must continue thrashing...

slosher · 08-06-2002, 02:08 PM

Made the switch from foil to epee a while back and one of the hardest things to learn (at least with my wild attacking instincts) was learning to be a lot more patient in epee.

I sort of get the sense though that these days, foil and sabre compliment each other real well (more so than epee and foil). The saber parries and the footwork work wonders in foil.

Philistine · 08-06-2002, 02:26 PM

My chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... My two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... My *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... My *four*...no... *Amongst* my weapons.... Amongst my weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

--Philistine.

Zelda · 08-06-2002, 03:28 PM

YAH!!! Monty Python rip offs!

Inquartata · 08-06-2002, 06:53 PM

Annnnd---scene!

Jisahn · 08-06-2002, 07:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
But who made Nadi infallible?<hr /></blockquote>Nadi was never infallible, but to not recognize his genius with a blade is unwise. This would be similar to saying that Mozart sucked as a composer. Nadi even gives credit to whom it is due to other fencers of his time ... even the French <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .

Jisahn · 08-06-2002, 07:39 PM

I agree with you in that, in modern times, few have the patience to "master" all three weapons consecutively. One can certainly be a magnificent sabre fencer without ever having touched a foil.

My point is that, because the weapons form a heirarchy (of sorts), it is a far simpler task for a foil fencer to venture into the realm of epee and then sabre, than for a sabre fencer to suddenly pick up a foil for the first time and use it effectively.

One might even say that sabre is not backwards-compatible with foil <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .

Mo · 08-06-2002, 11:28 PM

My point is that, because the weapons form a heirarchy (of sorts), it is a far simpler task for a foil fencer to venture into the realm of epee and then sabre, than for a sabre fencer to suddenly pick up a foil for the first time and use it effectively.

Why would a good sabrist ever even want to pick up a foil??
One of my kids started with foil, did epee then saber. The other started with saber and lives for saber. The one who started with saber would never switch and neither would the one who did foil and epee.
Going to another weapon after saber is just unnatural!!

veeco · 08-06-2002, 11:34 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jisahn:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
But who made Nadi infallible?<hr /></blockquote>Nadi was never infallible, but to not recognize his genius with a blade is unwise. This would be similar to saying that Mozart sucked as a composer. Nadi even gives credit to whom it is due to other fencers of his time ... even the French <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .<hr /></blockquote>I think I must have missed that part in his book. I challenge you to find a single sentence where he clearly says that someone is fundamentally better than him.

Yet I would definitely say that his brother Nedo, or Christian D'Oriola, or more rencently Romankov all have more impressive resumes than Aldo Nadi. What makes him so incredible I don't know. Maybe because he was cockier than the others he stuck within people's subconsious.