My Aim is True

[Spratico]

Hi,
I have been fencing in clubs around my area for the last ten years. I was introduced to sport fencing through theater, for I have been teaching actors how to use historical weapons for more than twenty years. Occaisionally I would run into a fencer who was also an actor (thank god). In productions set past the 15th Century, most of the weapons used fencing actions that we use today(operative word 'most'). When I worked with a fencer they would ask me where I fence. I made up my mind to experience today's fencing. At this point I must tell you, that having researched hundreds of fencing treatises, and historical weapons being what they are, yes, I have used a crossbar and some type of strap, and yes, I did come across Maestro Aldo Nadi's book. So you can imagine my dismay when arriving at a local club with my Italian foil, I was told it was illegal and dangerous. I later found out the truth, from more honest fencers. I tried the pistol grips, and they cramped my hand, so, with the help of the epee coach there, snuck my It. foil in to free fence, and I had a much better time.
Please don't construe this as preaching or praising one fencing doctrine or another- I personally don't care whether you fence with a screwdriver handle. But I do think that fencing as a sport can inculcate more to people than other sports. This is because these virtues are imbedded in the rules of the sport. I am concerned about this attitude of, "If nobody calls it, it's not a foul." In foil especially, the conventions of the weapon gives regard and respect of your adversary. In my opinion form and efficiency are not mutually exclusive. I do think young fencers are bouting too soon, and in this Americans seem to adopt an, "instant coffee" approach to sports.
My loyalty to fencing will never be shaken, and I applaud you all for your spirit, enthusiasm, and energy.
Sincerely,
Spratico

[OROD]

I'm not sure what your point is. As far as the Italian foil, I'm not sure what you mean by that so it's hard to say. The Italian grip is not illegal, if someone told you this they most likely werent lying, just ignorant. But, maybe there were other aspects of your weapon that were indeed illegal. I'm also not sure what "If nobody calls it, it's not a foul" attitude you're talking about.

.

[Phaeton]

Why was I expecting a fanitical Elvis Costello fan or someone named Allison....

[Spratico]

Originally Posted by OROD

I'm not sure what your point is. As far as the Italian foil, I'm not sure what you mean by that so it's hard to say. The Italian grip is not illegal, if someone told you this they most likely werent lying, just ignorant. But, maybe there were other aspects of your weapon that were indeed illegal. I'm also not sure what "If nobody calls it, it's not a foul" attitude you're talking about.

.

I've been looking at the discussion regarding the It. foil grip, and there are many misconceptions about it. The 'foul' reference: maybe I'm not explaining myself well because I don't want to offend anyone's fencing sensibilities in regards to, say, flicking. But here goes: If, during a compound attack, you remove your point from the line of offense/direction, as in the begining of a flick, and your opponent extends his arm menacing your target, he/she has gained the ROW; this may not be as easy as it sounds, given any fast action, and it exists only if your opponent takes advantage of the opportunity.
I'm just concerned that what constitutes ROW in today's fencing has blurred the distintion between foil and epee. As for those who love their flick- You are your own boss while on the strip, and you may dance the Marengo if you want; It just doesn't seem efficient technically.

[Coldfire]

Originally Posted by Spratico

As for those who love their flick- You are your own boss while on the strip, and you may dance the Marengo if you want; It just doesn't seem efficient technically.

To each his own. If it gets touches who are you to judge given its legal?

[Spratico]

Again, I'm not talking legality, but efficiencey(sic?) I was on another thread, and someone said the flick as a riposte was logical, and I tend to agree. It's a cut-over(coupe) without the other blade.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Spratico

Again, I'm not talking legality, but efficiencey(sic?) I was on another thread, and someone said the flick as a riposte was logical, and I tend to agree. It's a cut-over(coupe) without the other blade.

I think you mean efficiency. Closer than a lot of people get; don't feel bad.

When you talk about it in terms of efficiency, however, are you thinking more in terms of energy spent on a given action? If so, you're right, the flick is much more strenuous on the hand/wrist/arm than just about any other sort of action. If you're talking about the motion of the tip to the target, you'd be right again.

However, if you're talking about energy required vs. utility of the action, there I'm not so sure. The flick, just like everything else in fencing, is another tool in the box. There are times when it can be used to devastating effectiveness, though this has been lessened somewhat with the recent timing change. Just like every other technique and tactic, it has its place, and a person can become a great fencer with or without making much (or any) use of it.

[Rabid Monk]

Welcome here, and to the world of sport fencing.
I must admit this part of your intro has piqued my curiosity

Originally Posted by Spratico

In productions set past the 15th Century, most of the weapons used fencing actions that we use today(operative word 'most').

How do you mean?
Are you simply referring to stage productions/Hollywood, or are you referring to the double-time action we use today?
It's true that around this time medieval swordsmanship started to focus more attention to stabbing motions (unless I got my centuries wrong), but at any rate the switch from cutting to stabbing is well evidenced by a change in sword blade styles (look up a guy called Oakeshot for more info)
But the double-time fencing we know and love only started to come about druring the 17th-18th centuries, as use of the smallsword became more prevalent. The lighter smallsword found favor in many schools, and then with societal changes etc etc took over for the single-time rapier. The advent of double-time fenicng also led to a linearization of movement, as distance took on a larger role in defensive tactics. Hence why fencers have pistes.


At least, that's my present understanding which is rapidly changing as I learn more.

So I'm curious about what your referring to. Consider this my method of picking your brain for knowledge gained during a carreer of teaching the stuff.

And once again: welcome.

[Spratico]

Most of the basic fencing actions we use today, even countertime and second intention, were understood by 1606 (Ridolfo Cappo Ferro); is this what you mean by double-time? Heavier rapiers meant more time-thrusts, parry-riposte being too slow. The Italian term being stesso tempo (same time). Parry and thrust together.
I'm a little skeptical about Oakshott; some of his sources are spurious at best. Roman Empire Soldiers knew the efficiency of the thrust; they had swords longer than the gladus.
Towards the end of the 1600's, I believe, is where we start to see the divergence between fencing as a martial art and as a sport/excersize. The French became compulsive in their academizing(?);the Italians retained pedagogy based on a martial application of theory.
As far as hollywood goes, until realism became popular, the silver screen is a bad representation of fencing. My faves so far: The Duellists(Harvey Kietel) Sunshine, and Polanski's Macbeth.
In reference to linearization, I can cirlce, ligate, traverse all I want to, but my final movement towards my adversary must end up being linear.

[Rabid Monk]

That's a far better response than I had hoped for.

As for what I meant by double-time; I was thinking of the actions of parry and riposte being seperate, instead of a single thing. But yes, I think you are right that it covers countertime and second intention too.

I've just recently stumbled onto the study of swords and swordsmanship, and as such most of what I'm learning is prone to change frequently and quickly with the introduction of new informtation. hence my eagerness to ry into your years of experience.
The Roman GLadius was indeed, to my understanding, a stabbing weapon. The Spatha (longer sword) is one I haven't heard much about, beyond it's name and the fact that it was longer. As to whether it was stabbing or cutting or chopping oriented, I'll take your word on.

I agree on fencing as we know it beginning to emerge in the late 17th century. My interpretation is that changing war technologies rendered battlefield sword less abundant, and they started to become gentleman's fashions. As such, it let into much study of their use, and much refinement. This is not to say the use of medieval swords was at all unrefined. I've seen and read enough for that particulay fallacy to be well driven from my mind. It was simply different.

In reference to what you said about Oakeshot: What sources are you referring to? So far, I've only got one of his works (Sword in the Age of Chivalry). In it, he has added a large appendix of corrections to the original manuscript, but so far i mostly refers to new discoveries since the book was printed, and errors on his part.
I've never heard anyone criticize his sources, so I'm now very curious as to what parts of his works I should be doing more background research on.

I look forward to reading more of what you have to say on this subject.
Cheers, Rabid Monk.