USFA website redesign goes live

[Inquartata]

Some of it I like, some not.

I preferred the prominent position of the "New stuff" section of the old site. The new site also loads MUCH more slowly. And---define "soon", please, folks. How long are we going to wait for all the pages to be up?

[foildad]

The new site is pretty pathetic. As others have said, it should not have been launched in it's current state.

My biggest gripe is that there is no mention of or link to the www.usfaryc.org page. The RYC season is starting in two weeks but the membership has no way of knowing about it.

Its too bad Peet didn't get a chance to do it. I'm pretty sure he would have gotten it right.

[Feraud]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

As I have understood it, you dont want to injure their horse so that after you kill them you can take it as a prize of war.

Period sword instruction manuals for cavalry contain many techniques for both attacking your enemy’s horse and defending your own. The horse itself was the most vulnerable part of a mounted soldier so the cavalryman was instructed on how to attack and parry blows directed at his mount. So this restriction of target certainly doesn’t have any origin in military swordsmanship. There’s a set of rules published for mounted sporting contests but it actually restricts the target to only the body, like foil.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Feraud

Period sword instruction manuals for cavalry contain many techniques for both attacking your enemy’s horse and defending your own. The horse itself was the most vulnerable part of a mounted soldier so the cavalryman was instructed on how to attack and parry blows directed at his mount. So this restriction of target certainly doesn’t have any origin in military swordsmanship. There’s a set of rules published for mounted sporting contests but it actually restricts the target to only the body, like foil.

I agree that the modern sabre target has nothing to do with cavalry, horsemen or combat sabre technique, but only because the modern sabre fencing target was invented de novo as a sport convention.

I still do not entirely buy into the theory that attacking the leg and the horse was either very wise or very likely in cavalry combat. The paintings that depict sabre guards warding the leg or the horse may as well have been intended to protect against the blows of infantrymen as other horsemen; indeed I think it rather more likely than not. As noted by others, striking at the opponent's leg from the saddle leaves one's upper body open, and it's a fool's bargain to wound the other fellow's thigh and get your own head lopped simultaneously. Moreover, the cavalryman was likely to have a bewildering array of "stuff" hanging around his legs, from scabbards to sabretaches, to carbines to ( in the case of some units ) picks and shovels. He was likely to wear high leather boots, and many saddles were extended to curve around and protect legs. It is one thing to strike at these from the ground, where one's weapon is still raised and one may have a reach advantage, and spears and halberds are very good for attacking horses. It is another to attempt a chancy, low percentage target from the vantage of a horse, especially a moving one.

Then there's the "if they could strike at each others' horses, would they?" angle. Though the international unity of the social station of horseman had eroded somewhat from the feudal situation with the rise of nationalism and the change from the idea of chivalry to that of honor, there remained a substantial sense of "fellowship" amongst the cavalrymen of the 18th and 19th centuries. As armies grew larger, good horses were always in chronic short supply, and a cavalryman without a horse was....a footslogger. A lower class of soldier, in other words, by the military social standards of the day. A cavalryman was a gentleman, an infantryman, unless an officer, was not; and there was no very great enthusiasm for descending in social station. As scarce as mounts were, I think it unlikely that there was much enthusiasm for further reducing their numbers intentionally, either. It seems to me that there was probably an unspoken agreement that if the enemy did not try to kill our horses, we will extend them the same courtesy...

Two cavalrymen fighting on foot would of course be another matter. The thigh may well have presented the occasional choice target. ( Though I doubt there were many toe touches seen. )

IMO Amberger has a strong thesis that the modern sabre target is unconnected to the cavalry sabre target---writings of the time explicitly say as much---but a much weaker one that the combat cavalry sabre target included legs and horse as a matter of course. ( Of course, of course. )

[Feraud]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I agree that the modern sabre target has nothing to do with cavalry, horsemen or combat sabre technique, but only because the modern sabre fencing target was invented de novo as a sport convention.

I still do not entirely buy into the theory that attacking the leg and the horse was either very wise or very likely in cavalry combat. The paintings that depict sabre guards warding the leg or the horse may as well have been intended to protect against the blows of infantrymen as other horsemen; indeed I think it rather more likely than not. As noted by others, striking at the opponent's leg from the saddle leaves one's upper body open, and it's a fool's bargain to wound the other fellow's thigh and get your own head lopped simultaneously. Moreover, the cavalryman was likely to have a bewildering array of "stuff" hanging around his legs, from scabbards to sabretaches, to carbines to ( in the case of some units ) picks and shovels. He was likely to wear high leather boots, and many saddles were extended to curve around and protect legs. It is one thing to strike at these from the ground, where one's weapon is still raised and one may have a reach advantage, and spears and halberds are very good for attacking horses. It is another to attempt a chancy, low percentage target from the vantage of a horse, especially a moving one.

Then there's the "if they could strike at each others' horses, would they?" angle. Though the international unity of the social station of horseman had eroded somewhat from the feudal situation with the rise of nationalism and the change from the idea of chivalry to that of honor, there remained a substantial sense of "fellowship" amongst the cavalrymen of the 18th and 19th centuries. As armies grew larger, good horses were always in chronic short supply, and a cavalryman without a horse was....a footslogger. A lower class of soldier, in other words, by the military social standards of the day. A cavalryman was a gentleman, an infantryman, unless an officer, was not; and there was no very great enthusiasm for descending in social station. As scarce as mounts were, I think it unlikely that there was much enthusiasm for further reducing their numbers intentionally, either. It seems to me that there was probably an unspoken agreement that if the enemy did not try to kill our horses, we will extend them the same courtesy...

Two cavalrymen fighting on foot would of course be another matter. The thigh may well have presented the occasional choice target. ( Though I doubt there were many toe touches seen. )

IMO Amberger has a strong thesis that the modern sabre target is unconnected to the cavalry sabre target---writings of the time explicitly say as much---but a much weaker one that the combat cavalry sabre target included legs and horse as a matter of course. ( Of course, of course. )

I suppose it’s still the easiest way to explain the saber target to non-fencers.

[JEC]

The results of the Veteran's World Championships in USA soil have not been posted as of yet despite the USA team getting several medals (2 silver and 6 bronze)

[cornflower]

FINALLY. I thought the USFA's old website hardcore sucked. Even www.fencing.ca was TONS better. The new one is pretty good compared with the previous one. The old one was hard to use... and FRAMES... UGH. The new one is streamlined, simpler and easier to use... although I agree that they should have uploaded it all at once instead of having 'coming soon'.

The only thing that really sucks are all the dead links in the drop-down menu. Eeeeew.

[esskreemr]

Looks like many of the 'available soon' links are now available.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Looks like many of the 'available soon' links are now available.

Tried clicking on the point standings? "Page not found"....

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Tried clicking on the point standings? "Page not found"....

I said many, not all.

[foildad]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Tried clicking on the point standings? "Page not found"....

So when the link is established, will it be to last year's point standings, as the old site does, or will they figure out that it is time to purge the fencers who have aged out now that it is a new season?

[Inquartata]

Good question. I do not have the answer. The ways of the USFA are beyond my ken...

I know they had updated them after Nationals, though.

[Goofy]

The National Rankings links work now, and they point to the 'Updated July 22, 2005' pages.

[JEC]

Slowly but surely, the new website is taking form. More links are being added (not longer under construction) and the event days are posted for all the NACs (but not JOs or Summer Nats). Some of the links go back to the oldsite, such as rankings. The USFA webmaster is one of Fencing Net members and it appears that he is trying to take the constructive comments from the thread. If you like something, let's add to his reputation. After all, this is positive reinforcement. If you do not like something, clearly explain why in the thread. If there are new suggestions of links to add, let's suggest them.


Suggestion:
In the same way that there are several "related organizations" (which should include the USFCA website, and perhaps the Mexican and British Fencing Federations), a tab for useful links might include: this website!

[DHCJr]

There is also a link now to the Regional Youth Circuit Website and they now have the 2005 rule book. I wrote them about both of these. They do seem to be listening. The only other thing, I asked for was a way to contact the committees and officers. A simple way would be to have each committee or officer have a USFencing.org e-mail address, that would be passed on when their term is ended. That way when there is a change, they can just start off where the last left off. There is no worry for the fencing community, that they sent their e-mail off to the wrong person.

[mlr2fence]

I noticed that the list of entrants for the Miami NAC is now posted but only alphabetically. Does anyone know if they will update it to include entries by event and division like on the old site? It sure would be alot easier than scrolling thru and counting to find out how many are in an event.

[JEC]

You could copy and paste in EXCEL and then sort by each category. The oldsite ( http://oldsite.fencing.org ) does not include the listing.

[JEC]

Let's see:
758 fencers
119 in Div. 2 ME
85 in U17ME

The problem is that you need to add the entries in the three columns.

[mlr2fence]

Originally Posted by JEC

You could copy and paste in EXCEL and then sort by each category. The oldsite ( http://oldsite.fencing.org ) does not include the listing.

Sorry, guess I wasn't clear. Previously for each NAC they would post the entries by event, division, and alphabetically. I was just wondering if that was going to still be included in our 'new and improved?' website.

[JEC]

Originally Posted by mlr2fence

Sorry, guess I wasn't clear. Previously for each NAC they would post the entries by event, division, and alphabetically. I was just wondering if that was going to still be included in our 'new and improved?' website.

We hope so!