Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

counter riposte · 08-02-2002, 08:29 AM

Hey all,

I just recently saw this book on fencing, however my coach believes that it is rather antiquated for use in modern saber.

Do any of you have this book, and if so, what is your take on it?

D'Artagnan1673 · 08-02-2002, 08:46 AM

Hehe, I am very tempted to get a copy of that book simply because its antiquated!!!!!

Considering the new styles and the new rules which govern the use of the foil and sabre, I guess that to a fair extent, Gaugler's work isn't of much help to the modern, competitive fencer. Still, I would imagine that the epee section would still be of use since little has changed in the weapon over the past years.

JEC · 08-02-2002, 09:34 AM

This book is not for the modern olympic fencer, except for historical context. It's about the Italian school of fencing using "dry" fencing. Not worth the expense unless you want to collect books or one likes "classic" dry fencing. On the other hand, Epee fencing by Vass, Fencing and the Master by Szabo, or Fencing: the modern international style by Lukovich are excellent books regarding training and modern olympic fencing.
<a href="http://www.fencing.net/cgi-bin/hzcat/hazel.cgi?action=serve&item=start.html" target="_blank">web page</a>
D'art. You were complaining about full supination not too long ago. I don't think it will help you at all. But read any of the other three books and you would get much more out of it.

[ 08-02-2002, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: JEC ]

neevel · 08-02-2002, 09:51 AM

Your coach is correct-- the classical Italian style that Gaugler teaches is not very relevant to modern competitive fencing, no matter how Gaugler or his proteges might insist or wish to the contrary. There's nothing wrong with reading it for it's own sake (though be forewarned that Gaugler is a prime example of the sort of dull, bone-dry writing so prevalent in academia), but don't expect to get much that you could apply on the competitive strip.

In general, you shouldn't expect to get too much out of any fencing book. Beyond the raw basics, they're invariably going to be at least somewhat out of date-- current top-level coaches are generally too busy actually coaching people to write books.

-Dave

D'Artagnan1673 · 08-02-2002, 10:41 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JEC:

D'art. You were complaining about full supination not too long ago. I don't think it will help you at all. But read any of the other three books and you would get much more out of it.<hr /></blockquote>JEC, I do not understand the meaning of your sentance there. Will full supination not help me, or reading the three books not help me?

JEC · 08-02-2002, 01:45 PM

It ("The Science of Fencing by Gaugler") would not help you. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

The other books that I posted are somewhat helpful, but there is no substitute for a great coach.

[ 08-02-2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: JEC ]

Inquartata · 08-02-2002, 07:32 PM

I dunno, I've gotten quite a bit of occasional mileage out of the Italian stuff I picked up from Barbasetti. Most modern fencers have never heard of Italian sabre, much less seen it---they tend either to have this "WTF?" reaction to it or to think you're just one of those eccentrics with a wierd guard and underestimate you. It can be worth a touch or two, until they figure it out---and sometimes that's all you need.

three_hundred_fifty_five · 08-02-2002, 09:31 PM

I agree with Inquartata, sometimes, you can use the old school stuff as one of your "trick up your sleeve" moves to finish off a bout.

Bebop and Rocksteady · 08-03-2002, 07:29 AM

I have it. I agree that some of his sabre technique would be tough to pull off like a sabre inquartata or parry 6, but not neccessarily useless. A lot of the stuff I've read in the sabre section I've seen used in bouts. Don't dismiss his stuff as worthless just because it's old.

attila · 08-03-2002, 04:27 PM

I haven't read the book. i have fenced his students. They suck eggs. And if the suck egges then probably their coach sucks eggs. And if he sucks eggs then his book...............

D'Artagnan1673 · 08-03-2002, 10:42 PM

I have a hard time believing that Gaugler's students could be as bad as you say. Someone else, maybe Edew but can't quite remember, has said something simular.

What do they do wrong?

As far as books, my two favorites are Fencing with the Epee by Roger Crosnier and Fenincg: Ancient Art and Modern Sport by C.L. de Beaumont.

achilleus · 08-04-2002, 09:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673:
I have a hard time believing that Gaugler's students could be as bad as you say. Someone else, maybe Edew but can't quite remember, has said something simular.

What do they do wrong?

As far as books, my two favorites are Fencing with the Epee by Roger Crosnier and Fenincg: Ancient Art and Modern Sport by C.L. de Beaumont.<hr /></blockquote>I fenced Gaugler's students, and beat the guy 15-1. This particular guy and I started out at the same time, and he won the first U tournament I went to. About a year later, he started working with Gaugler, and then a while after that I drew him in a tournament and beat him 15-1 using the same action, different footwork pattern.

This particular guy was one of Gaugler's better students at the time.

Gaugler knows his theory and history, but hasn't adapted to modern fencing. He is more interested in looking classical than being effective and efficient. And his students reflect that, standing with a classic on guard, nice small disengages and parries. However, they are so rigid in their guard and actions that they harly move, can't keep up with movement, and don't adapt well to tactics.

neevel · 08-04-2002, 09:30 AM

D'Art--

Be aware that just because someone _claims_ to be a major figure in fencing, it doesn't mean they are. As I mentioned, there's a a real vacuum when it comes to fencing books (especially English-language books), because active top-level coaches are for the most part too busy with the business of coaching to write books. That leaves the market wide open for some people who do have the time to write and publish books (or articles in American Fencing) to create the impression that they're a bigger fish than is the case.

Now, from the standpoint of teaching the Classical Italian style of fencing, circa 1920, Gaugler & co. may very well do a fine job, but it's of limited utility to the modern game. I'm not saying that, if you were to train hard with their style, it couldn't get you up to a D-classification or so in modern competitive fencing-- if the ability to have some fun and hold your own in smaller divisional competitions as an ancilliary to studying a classical style is where your interests lie, then it could be worthwhile to you. If you objectives are to be able to, say, make the top 32 of a Div II NAC or get up to being a strong C-classificaition or higher (let alone an A or B and being competitive at Div I NACs), then you should look elsewhere.

-Dave

[ 08-04-2002, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: neevel ]

D'Artagnan1673 · 08-04-2002, 06:55 PM

There is no denying that practicing the old style stance and footwork hinders the mobility that is necessary to fence competitively.

I've gotten to where my stance is pretty modern so the sake of the mobility it affords. Still, I think that in epee at least, there is room for the tradional stuff since its at least somewhat slower than foil.

I am simply amazed that Gaugler and his crew can't adapt their style to counter what the modern foilist will do. Its as if he doesn't give them any idea of what the competition does. They must practice amounst themselves where their controlled manner works fine.

D'Artagnan1673 · 08-04-2002, 07:13 PM

As far as my ambitions are concerned, a strong "D" or "C" classification is all I'm really after. As much as I love fencing, I don't have the time or the need to go really far in the fencing world. There isn't any money involved and I'm not a rich person.

achilleus · 08-04-2002, 08:15 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673:
There is no denying that practicing the old style stance and footwork hinders the mobility that is necessary to fence competitively.

I've gotten to where my stance is pretty modern so the sake of the mobility it affords. Still, I think that in epee at least, there is room for the tradional stuff since its at least somewhat slower than foil.

I am simply amazed that Gaugler and his crew can't adapt their style to counter what the modern foilist will do. Its as if he doesn't give them any idea of what the competition does. They must practice amounst themselves where their controlled manner works fine.<hr /></blockquote>Fortunately, high level epee is just as fast and athletic as foil, the only difference being no ROW of to protect you, so the fencers are more cautious. Don't mistake caution for being slow. If you were to fence the a strong epeeist, they would make short work of you.

I beat that particular Gauglerian in under 2 minutes.

And yes they practice amongst themselves, after all to practice the things they want to learn, they need to. Gaugler has no interest in competitive fencing, he lost the interest when he realized that he wasn't going to be able to turn back the clock.

D'Artagnan1673 · 08-04-2002, 08:21 PM

ROW can be looked on in another light too. The main way we look at it is that in foil, we have ROW to protect us in our attack. However, that ROW can be taken away and used against us. In epee, since we never have it, nor can the other guy.

Because of the lack of rules, I honestly have no problem fencing in something of a modern style in epee. Only when I am giving or taking lessons do I worry about form a great deal. When I bout, I bounce and keep my arm down to conserve energy for my attacks.

I guessed that was why Gaugler's crew were so ineffective in competition. My club ran into that problem the first time we went to a large Houston event, the 2001 Van Buskirk. Before then, I really had no clue how the rest of the world fenced foil.

neevel · 08-04-2002, 09:02 PM

One thing that's struck me about Gaugler is, he seems to be very enamoured of the technical bladework lesson (just about every article he wrote for American Fencing turned into a list of blade drills), and to think that bouts ought to perfectly reproduce the kind of blade actions and progressions you can find in technical lessons. This is not really possible. In a lesson, you're going to typically have a delimited "menu" of actions you're choosing from, and the coach is going to be giving the student distinct cues to work from. In bouts, opponents are not going to be constraining themselves to a limited range of actions, and they're not going to be giving you clear cues except when setting you up for something.

You obviously need the ability to execute clean, complex blade actions in a bout, but that's only one part of the overall skill set that makes a good fencer. If you elevate technical bladework to the exclusion of all else, you'll end up with an incomplete fencer, the equivalent of a savant who can do any given arithmetical calculation in a flash, but can't readily apply that ability to solving a practical problem, and can't move on to more abstract concepts like algebra and calculus. Technical lessons are important, since you need to be able to execute cleanly under pressure, but it's equally important to move students beyond that, into understanding strategy and tactics and how to integrate those technical actions into a practical, executable plan, and then how to assess what your opponent is doing and alter that plan or shift to a new one on the fly as required.

-Dave

D'Artagnan1673 · 08-05-2002, 08:47 AM

Gaugler and Evangelista are academic. They think that all fencing should be reproducable in the context of a lesson. If wish this were so, it would make fencing more exciting for me. Of couse, I am kind of anal that way.

However, fact of the matter is that fencing isn't that way anymore. If Gaugler's fencers want to prover their superiority, then they should learn how to use their techniques and strengths to counter the contemporary fencer. One thing they will have to give up is the ultra stiff and upright stance the classical fencer uses. I've given it up and still whip people with a French grip because I'm willing to adapt and find the positive aspects of both schools.

If Gaugler's, or any classical instructor, wants to show up a modern foilist, then he's going to have to develope some strategy besides feint disengage (I am speaking from experience). Footwork has to become much quicker. In my last foil tournament in April, I fenced a very tight, classical style and pulled out with 6th of 18. However, I could have won the whole thing if I had just fenced a little different in the pools. I fenced one guy who loved to flick or get real aggressive. I lost almost all 5 touches because I couldn't find his blade and I was unable to retreat quick enough to avoid his running attacks.

The other person I lost to in the pools, who won the whole thing, was a beatable person. I lost because I wasn't loose enough, and because I gave way too much ground during most of the points. I lost a crucial touch when a perfect riposte was annulled with a red card for me going off the strip. If I had simply fenced a little quicker in the pools, then I'd done much better.

When I hit the De's, I drew a tough fencer who'd done bad in the pools. Still, he was good and I had to use everything in my ability to beat him. I varied my coupe's and disengages. I also worked hard to retreat fast and wait for a good riposte. A classical fencer with very consise bladework AND quick feet can be formidable. My next opponent was 71 year old Peter from my club. I knew I hadn't a chance because Peter's a killer. By that time, I was moving much quicker, a smart fencer learns to adapt to his surroundings. Still no avail. Peter's simply too good at the running attacks for me to catch a riposte.

The moral of the story? A strong classical fencer who can control his actions and be flexible enough to embrace the speed of the footwork can be very dangerous. When I fenced this tournament, I had been out since August and only recently returned to fencing. When I did return, I put my back out and was only able to pick up a weapon one week before the tournament. If I'd been working hard all that time, no telling what I could have done.

So yes, to me its doable. The only thing is that the love for epee had been growing in the back of my head for a while. So I decided to move over the epee. Maybe one day I'll go back to the foil and prove a few things.

achilleus · 08-05-2002, 09:28 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673:
Gaugler and Evangelista are academic. They think that all fencing should be reproducable in the context of a lesson. If wish this were so, it would make fencing more exciting for me. Of couse, I am kind of anal that way.

However, fact of the matter is that fencing isn't that way anymore.<hr /></blockquote>Bouting and lessons are 2 different things. They have always been different. In the classical, dry fencing days, the fencers were less athletic so the footwork wasn't as fast. Also, no electric tip on the weapon made the point faster, and it was much easier to make complex blade actions, allowed for more technically correct actions during bouts.

This doesn't mean that all the actions were reproducable exactly like a lesson. Look at some old photos of Nadi in action. During the phrases, he's ooff balance, ducking, basically, fighting. out of distance however, he maintains his perfect on guard.

Don't be fooled by people who tell you that fencers of yesteryear were technically perfect as compared to today's fencers. Such perfection, while an admirable and worthwhile pursuit, is not possible.