why is your primary weapon superior to the other two?

Mo · 08-09-2002 02:38 PM

I know I've added to this discussion with my pro-saber stance BUT people get a grip!

Everyone is sooo different, if you are a parent you know that kids coming from the same parents can be two TOTALLY opposite people!!
Some people are born to fence saber, some take to foil and some epee. They are all fencers and have to wear mostly white.
It all depends on the wiring of the person involved and even their ability to do wiring on their weapons.
The only criteria that makes one of the weapons superior is that it is superior for the individual. Let's not paint each other with the same brush.
That said, saber is still my favorite but my kids and hub really enjoy it and have tried all the other weapons!

**veeco** · 08-09-2002 03:29 PM

Of course, Mo, but that's what this thread is about: to prove the world that your choice of weapon is the best, that _you_ are right, and that _they_ are wrong!

**oiuyt** · 08-09-2002 03:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[refering to a feint in 4]
Epeeists, on the other hand, would laugh at my stupid attempt to hit their back shoulder and counter attack and hit me.<hr /></blockquote>I think this is the best statement in this whole thread. Doesn't have much to do with the conversation, but at least it made me laugh out loud....

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Having no exposure to the other disciplines might lead to some funny ideas about the other weapons but I honestly doubt that someone who was taught only Epee would be a bad Epeeist, a bad Sabreur definitely, a mediocre Foilist [at best], but a bad Epeeist? No.<hr /></blockquote>I've seen PLENTY of people who've only fenced epee that are bad epeeists. Of course it's fairly likely that if they'd only fenced foil that they'd be bad foilists, etc. as well....

When I started fencing I was on a (varsity) collegiate team that started with 2 months of footwork followed by immediately putting people into their destined weapon (chosen based on a variety of factors including the fencer's interest, natural body/movement types, psychological makeup, and where Coach thought we should be (I'll let you guess which was the heaviest weighted of the above)). I was a natural epeeist. I'm 6'3", I liked epee the most, counter attacking was my natural response (okay, that mostly developed after we were playing with weapons by which point I was in epee already), and when I first started, I moved like an epeeist. There was little chance that I was going to be anything else.

I fenced epee exclusively for 5 years (including after college). At that point I started playing with sabre and discovered that I really enjoyed it. A LOT. Now, while I still compete in epee as well (at a reasonably high level), I consider myself a sabre fencer. I primarily compete in sabre and don't practice anything else. At no point was I ever a foil fencer. This has not noticibly hurt the results that I get.

Would I be a better sabre fencer now if I had started in sabre? Quite possibly. Perhaps not. I've adapted my epee techniques into a fairly unique sabre style that fits well with what I can do and what I enjoy doing. Do I still lack some serious fundamentals in my sabre game (after 3 years of sabre)? No question. MOST of fencing will translate between the weapons. Fencing is fencing.

While it's a commonly heard expression that the best training for fencing is fencing, it's also true that the best training for sabre is sabre, the best training for epee is epee, etc. The largest benefit to starting everyone in foil (IMO) is that it makes the job of the teacher/coach that much easier. It is NOT beneficial to the student.

That the pro's outweigh the con's in most circumstances I would agree with. It doesn't hurt the student MUCH, especially since so much of the basics are in common between the weapons. The benefits include: giving the students more time to decide between the weapons; needing less equipment for beginners; being able to see and evaluate the students for the proper weapon over a longer period of time; and the fact that the instructor need only teach one group for longer, which makes oversight and similar logistics MUCH easier.

Once you start talking a year or more of a starter weapon before looking to switch to a final weapon, problems start coming up all over the place. By that point you're well down the road to building a fencer of the type of the first weapon. That means all KINDS of things that need to be unlearned, as well as all kinds of not-quite-but-almost basic things that have been omitted, deemphasized, or at the very least neglected where the student must now attempt to catch up to where s/he should have been had s/he just started in her/his final weapon. In actuality, this catch-up means a permenant gap between where s/he is and where s/he could have been. This gap frequently is quite small and should narrow as time passes, but there is no benefit to the student in having spent significant time in another weapon.

Okay, I'm picky about how I say things, I don't, in general, like absolute statements. At the risk of weakening the preceeding argument slightly I will add a benefit to the student. The experience in another weapon will help keep the student's mind open. I strongly believe that things that keep my students interested in fencing and make them think about fencing in general will help them. I want my students to know how to referee. I want them to know how to armor. These things will help them on the strip. Knowing something about the other weapons will also.

Spending significant time during this would be counter-productive. I don't ask my fencers to spend half of practice time fiddling with broken weapons so they get a better understanding of how they work will help them on the strip. Allowing a fencer to occasionally fence with another squad would serve my purposes (especially during the off-season, to the extent that fencing has one). Requiring an epeeist to become a competitive-level foilist before allowing them to work on their epee game would not help them. Not only would that time be put to more productive use learning to be a competitive-level epeeist, but, if epee is what my student wants to be doing, forcing him/her to learn foil should drastically increase the chances of him/her quitting and never learning ANY epee.

Foil is taught as the first weapon to so many people for several reasons. A) More people know foil, so more people CAN teach it. B) Tradition. C) Many clubs have more foil equipment available for loan to beginners due to reasons A & B so it's easier on the club. D) It's easier to teach a new load of beginners if they're all in one weapon, foil's usually the one picked for the above reasons. Some people believe that foil is easier for children to handle/learn with than the others, which yields this as an additional reason in some settings.

It's hard to teach people something which you don't know, most people will naturally be more willing to teach beginners what they're good at. See the thread where Sam (purplefencer) is looking for advice in teaching a new sabre fencer. If all you can teach is foil, it's reasonable to teach everyone foil.

Blind tradition is a fairly stupid way of choosing how to do things. Traditional ways are frequently that way because they work, but traditions are also frequently wrong. This is (IMO) the latter case.

Equipment availability is similar to reason A. If you have 15 students, 20 foils, 3 epee, and 2 sabres, you're better off teaching everyone foil, at least to start. At least they'll have equipment and others to practice with. In an ideal world where every club has an armory overflowing with brand new equipment this issue goes away, until then we're stuck with it.

Reason D overlaps with the other reasons. While a justifiable reason (again, IMO), it needs to be used with care. It should be recognized that decisions are being made, not because they are the best for the student, but because they make the instructor's task much easier. Frequently this makes the difference between nearly impossible and doable. This is very similar to the argument in favor of having group classes. Will a student learn as much in a group class as in an individual lesson? Almost always the answer is no. Are group classes a good thing? Yes. Group classes have added benefits that outweigh the penalty.

Okay, I've gone on WAY longer than I intended. Basically to sum up: my personal experience was in a program where I went directly into epee. After years of epee training I became a sabre fencer. While most of my fencing training and knowledge translated, I still have holes in my sabre game that I wouldn't had I started in sabre. I'm in favor of getting new students into their intended weapon fairly early on in the process although I acknowledge several (good)reasons why this might not be done.

And on (one of) the tangential threads in this discussion, I'm a sabre fencer who most certainly was NOT pushed or forced into sabre (Sorry, Veeco).

-B

(who's feeling REALLY long-winded tonight....)

[ 08-09-2002, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: oiuyt ]

**JEC** · 08-09-2002 07:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Beginning in Foil is a convention handed down from one Master to another throughout the history of fencing. <hr /></blockquote>The tradition broke - see above response. But seriously, if you ask L4/5 Coaches who have developed A fencers in more than one weapon. What is their response? (You might have a much larger and diverse sample). My limited sample (I have asked 2) told me to start with Foil and then go to Epee or Sabre. Do you think this is due to tradition or lack of equipment??? Have they not been critical of what they were taught? Clearly, they have been able to teach some fencers to be outstanding.

[ 08-09-2002, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: JEC ]

**D'Artagnan1673** · 08-10-2002 10:19 AM

I would love to be broken of the tradition of teaching foil first. In 1-2 years, I intend to start a fencing club at the high school I work at. While I am proficient at foil, my real love, passion and ability is in epee. I've been thinking this over quite a bit since I really can't stand teaching foil. I'd love to be able to bring my students, how ever few they may be, straight to the weapon that I can do them the most good at.

**JEC** · 08-10-2002 06:12 PM

For epee, if you are 6'3", you may not need foil, you have reach, but at 5'9" you sometimes want to get close for FOIL infighting!

**oiuyt** · 08-10-2002 07:01 PM

Epee infighting is different from foil infighting, there's no reason you can't/shouldn't learn to infight (for epee) better by doing epee. Infighting is a technique that should be taught to any epeeist, teaching it by requiring someone to become a foilist is counterintuitive at the least.

-B

**epeemike81** · 08-10-2002 08:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JEC:
For epee, if you are 6'3", you may not need foil, you have reach, but at 5'9" you sometimes want to get close for FOIL infighting!<hr /></blockquote>I LOVE infighting. it is an integral part of my game. I started on epee. when I infight in foil, I get carded for reversing shoulders...

I have to assume that if I learned to infight in foil, I would NOT reverse my shoulders, which would lose me touches in epee, since reversing shoulders makes landing that touch much easier. Also, infighting after a prime in epee is just a leg shot, so I would look REAL stupid doing the jump flick riposte to body thing.....

yet another example where learning foil first puts you at a DISadvantage....

-m

[ 08-11-2002, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

Mo · 08-10-2002 10:47 PM

Tradition is never a reason to keep doing something that does not work. The entire women's movement is based on bucking tradition!!
Long may it continue....
Learning foil first is not logical if you are set on being an epee or saber fencer!
Do what you wanna do!!

**Jisahn** · 08-11-2002 07:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673:
Allow me to paraphrase part of the introduction to Fencing with the Epee by Roger Crosnier. This book will not go into the proper stances and footwork because that should have been learnt in Fencing with the Foil. Before one can fence with the epee, they must first learn to fence.<hr /></blockquote>Funny, I seem to recall igniting a heated debate (sabre builds on epee, epeee builds on foil) with a similar quote. Only, I was immediately scorned <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .

**epeemike81** · 08-11-2002 08:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jisahn:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673:
Allow me to paraphrase part of the introduction to Fencing with the Epee by Roger Crosnier. This book will not go into the proper stances and footwork because that should have been learnt in Fencing with the Foil. Before one can fence with the epee, they must first learn to fence.<hr /></blockquote>Funny, I seem to recall igniting a heated debate (sabre builds on epee, epeee builds on foil) with a similar quote. Only, I was immediately scorned <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .<hr /></blockquote>And if you notice, we didn't think he was right either.

-m

**Gav** · 08-11-2002 08:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I've seen PLENTY of people who've only fenced epee that are bad epeeists. <hr /></blockquote>May I suggest that this has as much to do with the person teaching them Epee...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The largest benefit to starting everyone in foil (IMO) is that it makes the job of the teacher/coach that much easier. <hr /></blockquote>True to a point. Why start everyone off with a weapon in hand? Why not just start them off with footwork excercises (advance, retreat, lunge) and arm movements ("errr lung with the arm extended please" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ). If these are the foundations [and they are] then why does the shape of the weapon they will eventually hold matter? (with regard to initial teaching) I just wish people weren't so dogged about teaching Foil 1st - "You must do foil 1st!" *groan*

Also it's not true everywhere you go.

**epeefencer74** · 08-12-2002 01:15 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by counter riposte:
Primary weapon: sabre

Secondary weapon: Foil

Tertiary weapon: Epee
No activity weapon, distance emphasis, no right of way

<hr /></blockquote>Dear counterriposte, I have to disagree with you on epee being a no activity weapon. Epee when fenced well is replete with second intentions, traps, binds, prise de fers and counter attacks. It will utilise the whole piste and it is precisly because of it's lack of right of way that calls for all this work. No prizes what my primary weapon is.

Secondary: Sabre (but I fence it at epee distance)

There is no one weapon superior to all. All weapons have their own beauty about it, provided they are fenced well.

**epeemike81** · 08-12-2002 06:24 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gav:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr /> I've seen PLENTY of people who've only fenced epee that are bad epeeists. <hr /></blockquote>May I suggest that this has as much to do with the person teaching them Epee...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The largest benefit to starting everyone in foil (IMO) is that it makes the job of the teacher/coach that much easier. <hr /></blockquote>True to a point. Why start everyone off with a weapon in hand? Why not just start them off with footwork excercises (advance, retreat, lunge) and arm movements ("errr lung with the arm extended please" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ). If these are the foundations [and they are] then why does the shape of the weapon they will eventually hold matter? (with regard to initial teaching) I just wish people weren't so dogged about teaching Foil 1st - "You must do foil 1st!" *groan*

Also it's not true everywhere you go.<hr /></blockquote>Gav, you seem to be only selecting a few phrases....

I believe Oiuyt's main point was that he started in epee and turned out just fine and that it is only for convenience that most start everybody in foil. for example:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by oiuyt:
The largest benefit to starting everyone in foil (IMO) is that it makes the job of the teacher/coach that much easier. It is NOT beneficial to the student. <hr /></blockquote>Also, it seems like he does advocate starting w/ just footwork:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by oiuyt:
When I started fencing I was on a (varsity) collegiate team that started with 2 months of footwork followed by immediately putting people into their destined weapon <hr /></blockquote>just thought i'd mention it since the impression I got from your response was that you thought he was in favor of starting everybody in foil.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post.

-m

[ 08-12-2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

**epeemike81** · 08-12-2002 06:26 AM

mispost.

[ 08-12-2002, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

**D'Artagnan1673** · 08-12-2002 06:37 AM

Epee, like the conventional weapons, has tons of depth to it. If you watch the 1989 World Championship tape from fencingfootage.com, there is no way that you can say epee is non-activity. The weapon is fought it a furthur distnace and with more care and caution than foil or sabre. Also, epee draws many people because of the three weapons, it most closely resembles a duel.

If I remember correctly, what first interested me in epee was that you could hit anywhere and there was no right of way. It is true that there is no right of way, but that doesn't mean that right of way should be ignored. The rule isn't there, but the concept is.

Prior to electric scoring, the motto of the epeeist was, to hit and to not be hit, today the motto is hit a at least 2/25 of a second before the other guy. Perhaps in this first scenario, it was a better idea for an epeeist to have extensive knowledge and application of foil technique since although not enforced, right of way was still an important factor. In the dry days of epee, no doubt counter attacks were less prevalent as they were likely to beat the attack but not register with the sight judges as being an adequate amount of time between the two touches, resulting in a double defeat. I can imagine that many classical masters still have the first mindset, meaning that caution is more important to them. Therefore, a healthy dose of right of way would help their technique. However, the contemporary epeeist, who is only concerned with hitting a fraction of a second before, doesn't need a strong application of right of way since we does not adhere to it in principle.

Hey, that is just my take, so take it or leave it, but don't flame me because if I'm wrong, I'm just giving my opinion, not fact.

**D'Artagnan1673** · 08-12-2002 06:40 AM

Mike,

My club looses its share of new people by starting them only with footwork. Its as if they don't have the patience to endure a little drugery to gain a solid foundation. Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of starting with footwork then weapon, generally foil, but this discussion is starting to sway me. At any rate, I think that starting with footwork is a good way of weeding out people who don't have the passion to really work at fencing. I like the thought of a right of passage.

**epeemike81** · 08-12-2002 07:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673:
Mike,

My club looses its share of new people by starting them only with footwork. Its as if they don't have the patience to endure a little drugery to gain a solid foundation. Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of starting with footwork then weapon, generally foil, but this discussion is starting to sway me. At any rate, I think that starting with footwork is a good way of weeding out people who don't have the passion to really work at fencing. I like the thought of a right of passage.<hr /></blockquote>That is an aspect I DON'T like about starting w/ footwork. I think it is important to explain to potential fencers that they WILL be doing a set period of footwork only, and that this is very important to their development. They should NOT see it as a rite (not right) of passage, but as a neccesary step, much as somebody must know how to walk before they can run, let alone run while doing something with their hands. I do NOT want to weed ANYBODY out. I want all of them to stick with it, even if some have the attitude to go farther than others.

-m

**D'Artagnan1673** · 08-12-2002 07:23 AM

My point about weeding people out is that I don't like it when someone starts fencing and takes up our experienced fencer's time with lessons, drills, etc. only to quit after a short time.

It doesn't matter to us if a person is going to be great and compete at high levels, we just want a little commitment. Of course, this may be why the club has such a small number, roughly six on any given night.

**lochinvar** · 08-12-2002 09:22 AM

My primary weapon is epee. It is superior to the other two because:

1. Cheaper to compete. Don't need lame or fancy mask.

2. Easier/cheaper to maintain. Simple circuit, not as many things to go wrong. Parts are larger and more robust.

3. No right of way, so almost no arguements over who did what to whom and when they did it. The lights tell the whole story.

4. Corps-a-corps not a cardable offense.

Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Thread: why is your primary weapon superior to the other two?

Thread Tools

Display

Similar Threads

Fencing FAQ (part 2)

Fencing FAQ (part 2)

Fencing secondary weapon?

Weapon Care

Your Second Weapon????

Posting Permissions