You automatically assume that I consider fencing a sport. And further more, classical fencing style goes back much further than the Victorian period. As a matter of fact, the Victorian era is where dueling reached its steady decline.
Do you practice the lunge? Well the lunge was popularized by Ferro in the 14 century. I guess that makes all fencers stodgy and outdated? No, swordplay has adopted and held on to certain techniques for thousands of years, not because they are classic but because they worked when dueling with sharps. Just because certain methods and styles have been popularized within the last couple of decades doesn't make them part of the fencing canon. Modern fencing has never been a "popular" sport and never will be, it is not meant to be, because true fencing is much more than just a sport, it is an art.
Fascinating threadjack, Ormus. I have but two questions. Do you actually ride a big-wheel bike to practice? Can you say, in round figures, how much you spend per month on moustache wax?
Do you practice the lunge? Well the lunge was popularized by Ferro in the 14 century. I guess that makes all fencers stodgy and outdated? No, swordplay has adopted and held on to certain techniques for thousands of years, not because they are classic but because they worked when dueling with sharps. Just because certain methods and styles have been popularized within the last couple of decades doesn't make them part of the fencing canon.
So techniques that evolved because of their utility over 100 years ago are ok, but those that evolved more recently are not? Why?
And are you absolutely certain that the things you object to in sport fencing were not common practice 100 years ago? An article in American Fencing a little while ago suggested otherwise.
Quote:
Modern fencing has never been a "popular" sport and never will be, it is not meant to be, because true fencing is much more than just a sport, it is an art.
A Washington Post Article estimated that 400,000 people in the US fence. More popular than Football? Of course not. Popular enough and growing? Absolutely.
W
Last edited by Wafath; 08-21-2007 at 01:05 PM..
Reason: formatting
So, does this mean that the purpose of fencing is to win...I was under the silly old "victorian" delusion that the purpose of fencing was to learn and practice the proper art of swordplay.
I have heard a lot of things about the different schools of fencing, so now I wonder, "What are the different schools of fencing? what differentiates them from others?"
Here is a link to one famously successful fencers opinion on the schools:
So, does this mean that the purpose of fencing is to win...I was under the silly old "victorian" delusion that the purpose of fencing was to learn and practice the proper art of swordplay.
At least you successfully identify it as delusion.
So, does this mean that the purpose of fencing is to win...I was under the silly old "victorian" delusion that the purpose of fencing was to learn and practice the proper art of swordplay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD5MDK
Yes, to me the purpose of fencing is to win.
As with so many things, the purpose depends on what you want. If you learn to drive to get from point A to point B in safety, you go the defensive driving route.
If, on the other hand you are a competitive racecar driver, you will favor somewhat different styles of driving, no doubt with a very different tool (car).
Both are driving.
(And remember, "racecar" spelled backwards is "racecar").
__________________
"Sabre is Theatre. Foil is Art. Epee is Truth." - attributed to Al Peters
So, does this mean that the purpose of fencing is to win...I was under the silly old "victorian" delusion that the purpose of fencing was to learn and practice the proper art of swordplay.
Silly what we convince ourselves when we need to cope.
__________________ RebelFencer's Awesome Quote of the Week:
"Encouraging the average age of first intercourse to go below 16?"
-Army Fencer
It's so much fun when the classical fencers start makin a fuss about things.
Oh yea and i guess we better stop using the idea of parry riposte, cause that is rather new to fencing (circa late 1700s)
Scared is not the term that I would choose... I sensed that this thread was about to be turned into a flamewar (which it almost has) betwixst the CF v. SF. and in the spirit of avoiding a completely pointless arguement between the two sides, that will not give an inch to the other, I am just going to ignore the insults issued to me....
Or...I could behave like a true "delusional Victorian" swordsman and hand my glove to all who have insulted me and tell them to expect a visit from my second.
One of the "delusions" of fencing from the old days was the ideal of Honor. It was not customary for one fencer to demean another. Perhaps you could take a lesson from the traditions of fencing that you are so eager to dismiss as rubbish:
Scared is not the term that I would choose... I sensed that this thread was about to be turned into a flamewar (which it almost has) betwixst the CF v. SF. and in the spirit of avoiding a completely pointless arguement between the two sides, that will not give an inch to the other, I am just going to ignore the insults issued to me....
Or...I could behave like a true "delusional Victorian" swordsman and hand my glove to all who have insulted me and tell them to expect a visit from my second.
One of the "delusions" of fencing from the old days was the ideal of Honor. It was not customary for one fencer to demean another. Perhaps you could take a lesson from the traditions of fencing that you are so eager to dismiss as rubbish:
Durando, lemon_fresh, HDG and Rebelfencer.
Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, or did you not write something inflammatory as an opener?
"Sadly I have never seen a competition fencer using one of these styles.
So what school would the modern style of fencing fall into? Freearms hanging like noodles, bent arm lunges, useless bouncing-around-footwork and no sense of distance?"
You're the one who started it. Now that it's not going your way act like it's not what you intended.
Scared is not the term that I would choose... I sensed that this thread was about to be turned into a flamewar (which it almost has) betwixst the CF v. SF. and in the spirit of avoiding a completely pointless arguement between the two sides, that will not give an inch to the other, I am just going to ignore the insults issued to me....
Or...I could behave like a true "delusional Victorian" swordsman and hand my glove to all who have insulted me and tell them to expect a visit from my second.
One of the "delusions" of fencing from the old days was the ideal of Honor. It was not customary for one fencer to demean another. Perhaps you could take a lesson from the traditions of fencing that you are so eager to dismiss as rubbish:
Durando, lemon_fresh, HDG and Rebelfencer.
I am aghast! Thou hath made light of my honour. Now I bid thee to meet me at dawn so as to satisfy this dispute betwixst you and I. Ready thy second, for thy own blood shalt be spilt upon the grass which grows on the field of honour.
__________________ RebelFencer's Awesome Quote of the Week:
"Encouraging the average age of first intercourse to go below 16?"
-Army Fencer
Or...I could behave like a true "delusional Victorian" swordsman and hand my glove to all who have insulted me and tell them to expect a visit from my second.
Careful. That would give them choice of weapons, and that could put you in quite a pickle.
(People always seem so curiously hesitant when the choice of weapon is "chainsaw")
Zounds! Hold still you noodly armed rabbit! When I strap this on I will soon make my thrust against you with my botte secret and you won't soon forget it!
eeeeeeee
What is this strange light? Hold still! I was going to lunge! Are you not man enough to face me?!
ba-bump ba-bump ba-bump ba-bump
eeeeeeee
What again? If these were sharp you wouldn't dare to do that! No! It is not over! I am not even pinked! Come back!
__________________
"a braggart, a rogue, a villaine that fights by the book of arithmatick. Why the dev'l came you betweene us?.."
One of the "delusions" of fencing from the old days was the ideal of Honor. It was not customary for one fencer to demean another. Perhaps you could take a lesson from the traditions of fencing that you are so eager to dismiss as rubbish:
Durando, lemon_fresh, HDG and Rebelfencer.
I dont think honor really came into it when you had to draw your rapier against some guy who is trying to rob you in a dark alley (the whole point of the rapier was self defense). That whole duelling honor nonsense didnt really start showing up until the small sword came into use and you didnt need to carry a sword for self defense. There are also different definitions of what is and is not honorable. Im starting to understand why even ppl from SCA or ARMA, have trouble taking classical fencers seriously.
I wouldnt pretend that anything you/we do actually reflects the fencing done prior 1750's or even in an actual duel. Im sure youve read Aldo Nadi's account of his duel and if u havent, u should.
Last edited by lemon__fresh; 08-21-2007 at 05:25 PM..
So, does this mean that the purpose of fencing is to win...I was under the silly old "victorian" delusion that the purpose of fencing was to learn and practice the proper art of swordplay.
I thought the whole point of the "proper art of swordplay" was to win...
If I were in a real fight with sharps (and my first two options, which are "run away" and "cheat like hell" are eliminated for the sake of argument) I would really not give a crap if my technique was considered proper or not so long as I won.
An ugly parry that stops you from getting hit, in just about any form of fencing, is better than a pretty one that does not, and when the stakes are high (life and limb) then you had better believe that "just winning" will occupy 100% of each fencer's thoughts.
__________________
"If I were ever to challenge you to a duel, your best bet would be battle axes in a very dark basement." Misquoted from The Prisoner
"Technical excellence is the antecedant of tactical creativity." - Nat Goodhartz
But those things which belong neither to God nor to Caeser, feeleth free to writeth them off, for yea, they are deductable.
Perhaps you could take a lesson from the traditions of fencing that you are so eager to dismiss as rubbish:
Nah.
Honor still has a role in fencing even if the sport isn't built around a romantic notion of it: We don't cheat (you might not care for our rules, but we follow them); we don't swear on strip; etc. When we violate these rules, we are sanctioned for it.
If our form is not to your taste, well people who live in glass houses and all that...
If you'd really care to duel, I suggest consulting a good criminal attorney first.
I thought the whole point of the "proper art of swordplay" was to win...
If I were in a real fight with sharps (and my first two options, which are "run away" and "cheat like hell" are eliminated for the sake of argument) I would really not give a crap if my technique was considered proper or not so long as I won.
An ugly parry that stops you from getting hit, in just about any form of fencing, is better than a pretty one that does not, and when the stakes are high (life and limb) then you had better believe that "just winning" will occupy 100% of each fencer's thoughts.
Agreed, I think the throw dirt/projectile at my opponents face would be my move of choice
what differentiates them from others?
Linear Mode
