Nick Evangelista

[The Fish]

I'm not in the US, so I presume he's known outside the US

Okay, fine the poll is flawed. Geez.

[swordwench]

Forget the poll. When I first got into fencing, I didn't know where to turn for more help (i.e., hadn't found f.net yet), so I looked for books at my local library. All they had were 2 in the multi-town consortium - one by N.E. and one by him with his wife, the latter of which was all about women fencing. "I thought, Hey, COOL! I'm a woman, and I fence!"

The basic fencing one (just NE) was interesting enough, if you were looking for historical stuff. Which I wasn't. There was more historical information available in that area from my local SCA rapier group. So for sport fencing, it was pretty useless and his tone was beyond annoying and condescending.

I moved on to the women's book. All I remember from it was a long diatribe against women fencing while pregnant. OK, fine, I was recently post-partum and not interested in reproducing again in this lifetime. Then it went on about home remedies for all the bruising we endure. It mentioned running out and brewing up a concoction based on comfrey, an age-old remedy. Being the net-savvy wench that I am, I looked up comfrey all over the place, only to discover that oh sure, it has some good properties, but DO NOT USE IT in such concentration or get it anywhere near your mouth or an open wound unless you're really into liver damage and death.

After that, I politely filed the pair of them under "Fencing Luddites" and moved on.

[larry hurdiss]

i am totally new to fencing.
when i looked for books about it, several were authored by him.
i was once told, in a philosophy course, that some German philosopher wrote [ you can tell i didnt do very well in the course ]. "about which one does not know, one should not speak".
With regard to what he wrote, he does emphasize learning the basics of fencing. He learned with the French grip and prefers it. He goes fairly nuts about "style" rather than points.
But i havent seen many other books about basic or advanced fencing that logically counter his arguements.
i was lucky enough to attend the NCAA 2006 Championship this past weekend in Houston, and there were very few French grips in evidence.
But i would be very interested in the comments of any of our "regulars" who have read his books.
heck, he is just making money, selling books and praising the history of the art.

[TrainingDummy]

I just received his "The Inner Game of Fencing" for my birthday from my mom... I'll let you know what I think.

[Black Jeebus]

Well, I like a lot of people read his books when I was waiting for the next beginner's class to start. While a lot of the just straight up terminology proved useful, a lot of the information was not so useful. He tends to be a little- oh I don't know- derisive of modern fencing, and once I started hanging out with the modern fencers, and started being exposed to the culture (which I subsequently fell in love with...) I started to be irritated by a lot of what he said.

His info on things like explaining ROW, and which parries are for what, etc. is actually not bad. If you use the Art and Science for information rather than instruction it actually can be quite helpful even. In that one he actually doesn't mention most of the things he doesn't like about modern fencing (aside from like a two-three page tirade about pistol grips...).

[Morion]

Originally Posted by Black Jeebus

His info on things like explaining ROW, and which parries are for what, etc. is actually not bad. If you use the Art and Science for information rather than instruction it actually can be quite helpful even. In that one he actually doesn't mention most of the things he doesn't like about modern fencing (aside from like a two-three page tirade about pistol grips...).

You mean pistol grips aren't tools of the devil!?!?

[Black Jeebus]

No that's this guy. See he was nice enough to choose a name which would let us know what he does for a living!

[JasminaJ]

Never met Mr. Evangelista. I have several of his books. They are not well edited, and I have trouble making myself read them. Pretty inflexible thinking.
I took lessons from one of his students- in rapier, shortsword-years ago-at a Highlander convention. It was fun, but theatrical fencing isn't a real option for me. I did find I couldn't live without fencng-so indirectly Mr. Evangalista has done me a service. Don't buy his books.

[ThatReallyHurt]

When I was first looking at starting fencing, I read The Inner Game of Fencing. I found it to be a good read, and enjoyed the historical and classical aspects of it. I now own two of his books, and while I find his rants against sport fencing tiresome, I found that there are still a lot of things I can take away from the books; I got many questions for my coach out of those books.

But they are certainly not going to be overly helpful if you're looking to learn modern fencing without a coach around for direction... possibly harmful.

[Patterson]

i didn't know about him until now. Sounds like a guy who likes to get on his soap box and rant.

[TrainingDummy]

Sorry to resurrect, but I said I'd post after I read his "Inner Game of Fencing," so I am. Overall, many of his ideas in this book (the only one of his I've read) are sound, if a bit obvious. Fence to get better, not to win. Duh. As for his gripes about fencing, he has precious little to back them up. What the hell do pistol grips and flicks have to do with the "inner game" of fencing, anyway? Not much. He loves to talk about "good fencing" and "bad fencing", but never gives evidence that pistol grip fencers or flickers are inferior to french grippers who don't flick. I think that if fencers back in the day (dueling times, I mean) had pistol grips and deemed them superior, they would have used them. Again, this is hardly even relevant to what the book was supposed to be about (and is, for the most part). A question... he seems to believe that the Smirnov incident had alot to do with the "heavy, unyielding handhold created by the pistol grip." According to Evangelista, after the incident "there was a momentary outcry against pistol grips and even some talk of banning them; but that didn't go anywhere" (p. 138). True? I was under the impression that Smirnov's mask was the culprit.

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by TrainingDummy

. . .he seems to believe that the Smirnov incident had alot to do with the "heavy, unyielding handhold created by the pistol grip." According to Evangelista, after the incident "there was a momentary outcry against pistol grips and even some talk of banning them; but that didn't go anywhere" (p. 138). True? I was under the impression that Smirnov's mask was the culprit.

Let me guess,: Evangelista had something to do with this "outcry?" If the pistol grips were to blame, we would have lost more fencers since the 12k standard was implemented. Has a single mask been penetrated by and "evil" pistol grip since then?

[carlos]

He is a bad writer.

[Mergs]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

Let me guess,: Evangelista had something to do with this "outcry?" If the pistol grips were to blame, we would have lost more fencers since the 12k standard was implemented. Has a single mask been penetrated by and "evel" pistol grip since then?

I'm about 99.99% sure that one has. I know that it has been discussed in this forum at the time of the incident (about 2002 or 2003). Epee penetrated the mask, caught the fencer under the left cheek bone and exited near the left ear. Almost positve the person was using a pistol grip.

[mrbiggs]

The whole pistol grips are dangerous argument doesn't really make sense. First, he argues that French grips are truer to actual swordfighting. But if pistol grips give more thrusting energy, wouldn't they be more effective in an actual duel?

Anyway, the fact that something makes a sport the smallest amount less safe isn't a reason to abandon it. If baseball used wiffle balls, there would be nearly zero injuries at all. It's not worth it to use obsolete equipment to prevent one mask penetration in 40 years. Especially since we have FIE masks now.

[The Fish]

Okay so I asked one of my coaches what he thought of Mr Evangelista and he said something about him being a "weird person" and an.. uh.. Errol Flynn enthusiast. :-/

[Moses]

I can't say I despise him. "The Art and Science of Fencing" is rather informative and helpful for a new person, when taken with a grain of salt (which should be compulsory. Coaches have great variation in opinions and style, after all).

That being said, I flipped through his really thick book (it might have been "The Inner Game of Fencing" or whatever it's called) that someone left in our club's lobby and read some of the short sections he created about fencing concepts or important fencers of the early twentieth century.

I remember reading five or six sections in total.

Four complained about the state of 'modern fencing', three of which seemed to consist solely of condescension and whining (ignoring the title subject of the section almost entirely).

So I closed the book and never looked through it again.

...that being said, I much prefer a French grip over the pistol grips I've used, but I've tried very few variants.

So I'm indifferent (theoretically).

-Da Mose

[mrbiggs]

His books aren't all that bad sometimes, but he's really just diluting the 3 or 4 actually good books out there, written by qualified coaches.

[lemon__fresh]

Yea resurrecting this again (sorry), just wondering if any of his students actually compete and how well they do?

are there ANY good books on fencing?

[the maple epee]

I actually find him quite hilarious...

Since there is no option for that, THIS POLL IS FLAWED! But I do so love the fish.