Schools of Fencing

[Ormus]

man, you really need to do some reading. It was all about kill or be killed back then. People would do ANYTHING TO WIN. umm cloak and dagger, grabbing a blade with the off hand. There was no rules or a code of honor like there is now. People started actually putting rules into dueling upon the emergence of the small sword(>1750) and has been stated many times. All this stuff about honor and most of the techniques classical fencers employ start from the time of the small sword.

I did not say that the Medieval Age was full of honour and chivalry, I said that it was emblematic of it. I suppose I should have added a line about "through the eyes of posterity." One member said that I was wrong in my assertion that fencing as ever had any ideals of honour and that the concept of honour was invented after the "Victorian" period. I simply corrected him pointing out: (now clarified) Through the eyes of posterity the Dark Ages are more known for ideals of chivalry. Certainly I am no fool and know of the atrocities commited by crusading knights(as one member derided me for) as well am I familiar with the tactics employed by early fencers. Perhaps those that were so quick to retort with, "You need to do some reading Ormus!", should first have used care when reading my post, and not assigned meaning that was never there in the first place.

[oiuyt]

Sorry that you don't consider "not being absolutely terrible because you want to conform to Victorian ideals" a valid approach to a sport.

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:

Honor, at least what most CF fencers define as such, is mainly an invention of the Victorian period in order to romanticize a previous era. Seriously, get over yourself.

I did not say that the Medieval Age was full of honour and chivalry, I said that it was emblematic of it. I suppose I should have added a line about "through the eyes of posterity." One member said that I was wrong in my assertion that fencing as ever had any ideals of honour and that the concept of honour was invented after the "Victorian" period. I simply corrected him pointing out: (now clarified) Through the eyes of posterity the Dark Ages are more known for ideals of chivalry.

So basically you're now redefining your position to say that Telk was right? That the "honour and chivalry" of the Medieval Age was an invention of the Victorian period ("through the eyes of posterity")?

And yet you think this continues to bolster the arguments that you've been making?

-B

[Ormus]

And what's that got to do with anything?

It is an arguement to this statement:

As far as modern fencers having no sense of distance, I'm not going to dignify that with a response.

I guess I need to spell it out. Frequently crashing into your opponent is an exhibition of a very poor sense of distance. Since the popularization of sport fencing corps-a-corps is much more common, this is a sign that distance is not as well practiced as it was thirty or forty years ago.

[Ormus]

So basically you're now redefining your position to say that Telk was right? That the "honour and chivalry" of the Medieval Age was an invention of the Victorian period ("through the eyes of posterity")?

And yet you think this continues to bolster the arguments that you've been making?

-B

No sir, you are failing to understand. I am saying that the true spirit of fencing should be one of honour. When I lose a bout, I don't curse and rant and rave or throw my masque on the piste. I am dignified in defeat, I shake my opponents hand and say, "Good bout!".

The competitive nature of sport fencing has turned it into a degraded forum of sore losers and haughty and gloating winners who will do anything to win. In non-competition bouts one has to acknowledge a touch, and lying about it only demeans you, your opponent, and the idea of fencing itself. Without sharps the only way to determine a touch is throught honesty, dignity, and honour.

To me, the reason that I fence is not to win, it is because I love to fence.

[HDG]

It is an arguement to this statement:

I guess I need to spell it out. Frequently crashing into your opponent is an exhibition of a very poor sense of distance. Since the popularization of sport fencing corps-a-corps is much more common, this is a sign that distance is not as well practiced as it was thirty or forty years ago.

Deliberately closing distance is not the same as lacking proper distance.

[RITFencing]

Deliberately closing distance is not the same as lacking proper distance.

Exactly. We just don't really view corps a corps, especially after a touch is scored, to be such a bad thing (except in foil and sabre, of course.)

Also, just to be a pedantic little jerk... do you actually have the numbers to back up your claim, or are you just inventing a ratio that sounds good?

[RITFencing]

No sir, you are failing to understand. I am saying that the true spirit of fencing should be one of honour. When I lose a bout, I don't curse and rant and rave or throw my masque on the piste. I am dignified in defeat, I shake my opponents hand and say, "Good bout!".

The competitive nature of sport fencing has turned it into a degraded forum of sore losers and haughty and gloating winners who will do anything to win. In non-competition bouts one has to acknowledge a touch, and lying about it only demeans you, your opponent, and the idea of fencing itself. Without sharps the only way to determine a touch is throught honesty, dignity, and honour.

To me, the reason that I fence is not to win, it is because I love to fence.

You have an awful lot to say for someone who has never been to a competition. Go sink a few years of blood, sweat and tears (and there will be plenty of each) into your training and then go bust your balls for every touch at a few div 1s and then tell us about competition. I know many fencers (myself included) who will acknowledge when a touch is scored against them, and when they did not actually score. In fact, I saw Seth Kelsey acknowledge in the final bout of the div 1 men's epee championships tell his ref that no, he had hit his own leg and not his opponent. He lost the bout, I believe, by 1 touch. Please, tell me how he was not competing with honor. Or honour. I really want to know. If you think that wanting to win is the same thing as wanting a medal, you are wrong. Dead, dead wrong. Most fencers I know would never want a medal or trophy that they had to cheat to get. Each victory is only worth what you had to do to earn it.

Also, please tell us how everyone is dignified in practice, because of course NO ONE ever curses in practice bouts, and I've certainly never seen people lie about whether they were hit... pah.

You say you love fencing for fencing, and not to win? So you don't try to score touches in bouts? Fencing, like any other activity where there is an opponent, is about winning. You try to defeat the other guy on the end of the strip. In practice you may have other objectives, like work on a specific technique, or whatever, but in the end, the point of it is to hit the other person without being hit. Classical, sport, doesn't matter. That's what we're all learning to do. If you're not into that, I suggest you take up Tai Chi (which is a great thing for people anyway, and I highly recommend it.)

I'm done with this. I should learn not to feed trolls. Especially when they open with sweeping and insulting statements about something they don't do and don't know a damn thing about. Enjoy my ignore list.

[RITFencing]

Back to our regularly scheduled thread, here's something I've been curious about.

In the German (or at least the tauber) system, prise de fer actions are made with a 1-2 tempo, with the one being the blade action and the 2 being the hit. This provides for a very strong taking of the blade that is difficult for the opponent to power through. In the French system, however, they are taught with one tempo, to make a quicker hit and give the opponent less to disengage, but a weaker overall blade action.

I have recently had one very high level coach tell me that the German tempo is fine on defense, but that on offense, he much prefers the French because he finds the German too easy to disengage. This certainly makes a lot of sense, and I would never call him wrong about epee fencing, but I'm wondering what other people's experiences have been, since there is certainly no one right way to fence, especially when we are talking about epee.

I'm especially interested in this from the coach's perspective; in fact I think jBirch started a thread in a similar vein some time ago. What do you teach to your students and why? Do you end up teaching both and letting them decide? If so, which one comes first?

[oiuyt]

No sir, you are failing to understand. I am saying that the true spirit of fencing should be one of honour. When I lose a bout, I don't curse and rant and rave or throw my masque on the piste. I am dignified in defeat, I shake my opponents hand and say, "Good bout!".

No sir, it is you who is failing to understand.

I addressed your shifting position on the dating of how conduct in the Medieval Ages is viewed. You went from claiming that it was how things were done then to, effectively, agreeing with Telk's statement that it was an artifact of how Victorian-era people viewed it in rose-tinted retrospect.

Nowhere in my post did I mention a role hono[u]r ought to or does play in contemporary times, specifically with a view towards swordplay, competitive or otherwise.

Without sharps the only way to determine a touch is throught honesty, dignity, and honour.

I don't know about that. The pretty lights, annoying buzzers, and referees help as well. :)

-B

[RITFencing]

I don't know about that. The pretty lights, annoying buzzers, and referees help as well.

Now, Brad, let's be reasonable... the refs don't always help.

[wahrman]

There is still a bit of my own blood on both my lame and my shoes from a recent PCS foil tournament.

Go sink a few years of blood, sweat and tears (and there will be plenty of each) into your training and then go bust your balls for every touch at a few div 1s and then tell us about competition.

I got into a heated discussion during the 2006 Boardwalk about a toe touch that the ref said was floor. I said it was good. Finally the ref gave in and gave my opponent a touch he had well earned.

Sure that wasn't a Div1 championship but it was important to both of us.

I know many fencers (myself included) who will acknowledge when a touch is scored against them, and when they did not actually score. In fact, I saw Seth Kelsey acknowledge in the final bout of the div 1 men's epee championships tell his ref that no, he had hit his own leg and not his opponent.

What?! You and I have never cursed at each other in practice. Oh wait...

Also, please tell us how everyone is dignified in practice, because of course NO ONE ever curses in practice bouts, and I've certainly never seen people lie about whether they were hit... pah.

[the ancient one]

"...
A fully extended arm threatens the opponent and establishes priority over a bent arm. Come at me with bent arm and you will meet my stop hit right in your bib! After a couple of bouts we will see if you still think a bent arm is a good attack..."

Out of curiosity I looked at the 2006 AFA rules and note that passages including the bib as target are struck out. Does this mean that Ormus is even too "classical" for the classicals?

[oiuyt]

[Discussion stub regarding views of how to construct a beat attack]

Perhaps a new thread? In the coaching section?

Let's leave this one for the troll-baiting and avoid the risk of having the multiple conversations overwhelm each other.

-B

[RITFencing]

Perhaps a new thread? In the coaching section?

Let's leave this one for the troll-baiting and avoid the risk of having the multiple conversations overwhelm each other.

-B

I know that's more coaching, but it's been something on my mind for about a week now, and this IS a thread about the differences between different schools of fencing.

[oiuyt]

this IS a thread about the differences between different schools of fencing.

I think the word you're looking for there is "WAS".

-B

[RITFencing]

I think the word you're looking for there is "WAS".

-B

You're right, my old English teachers would be angry at me for using the wrong tense.

Of course, if things got back on track, then I would be proven correct...

[Durando]

In the German (or at least the tauber) system, prise de fer actions are made with a 1-2 tempo, with the one being the blade action and the 2 being the hit. This provides for a very strong taking of the blade that is difficult for the opponent to power through. In the French system, however, they are taught with one tempo, to make a quicker hit and give the opponent less to disengage, but a weaker overall blade action.

RIT, this is a rather well set-out portrait. Since the French priviledge change in distance and tempo, there is a scarcity of prise-de-fer actions, especially at the beginning of the bout. The Hungarians fence as per Tauber in terms of prise de fer on the offensive. Some of the actions I practiced in Szombathely seem completely suicidal and out-of-date (prise en quarte, advance, advance, hit). Such an action assumes an incompetent, insistent opponent.

If there is one generalizable aspect of the French epee school (speaking from a somewhat shallow experience) it is an approach that looks for the opponent's complicity in creating a touch. (This is a notion more complex than it seems on the surface.) The Hungarians, at least the ones I have worked with, remain mired in provocation/counter-time tempos. They aren't good at seeing the opportunity just before and after. It makes the fencing I saw this summer seem very conservative, amost bereft of creativity on the attack.

I think, actually, this explains quite a lot of American midlevel epee fencing. Nobody risks setting up a direct attack and, as such, they will not commit to any real action unless they have a ham-handed prise de fer. It is a popular style because it is effective at regional levels; it sells like fun. But, at elite levels, it becomes much less effective.

It is interesting to note that the Germans seem to be changing over. There are a number of German fencers who are deadly at remises as they come back on guard.

[RITFencing]

It is interesting to note that the Germans seem to be changing over. There are a number of German fencers who are deadly at remises as they come back on guard.

I know a very high level coach who draws a lot from the Tauber system, and I can certainly affirm that statement. In his words: "Mister Remise is our friend." I've started to work remises on the recovery after a lunge into my lessons, and I think it's a great action, particularly if the fencer has opposition on the opponent's blade.

[KD5MDK]

Now, Brad, let's be reasonable... the refs don't always help.

We provide the honesty, dignity and hono[u]r the fencers are sometimes needing to borrow.

So it's always there, it just rotates who from.

[RITFencing]

We provide the honesty, dignity and hono[u]r the fencers are sometimes needing to borrow.

So it's always there, it just rotates who from.

Well, we certainly try to, at any rate. At least it's funny when we don't.