Schools of Fencing

[Dev]

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.

Really? It's not a result of fencers' willingness to take greater athletic risks to land a touch, within the rules of the game? It's not because the character of sport fencing has changed to include more mobility, mobility that may (gasp) happen when two fencers move in opposite directions?

Oh, wait, this is probably part of the argument--that it's a bad thing. Now you've done it, guys! You ruined fencing!

I hope you're happy.

[Gav]

[QUOTE=Ormus;601163]It is an arguement to this statement: [\quote]

No it's not.

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.

My guess is that:

1. You've never seen any fencing at all.
2. You have absolutely no idea what fencing was like 40 years ago - see point 1. I guess your bigoted maestro/maitre/best mate down the pub (delete as appropriate) has filled your head with strange ideas.

-------

Moving the debate in another direction....

Can anyone tell me why these really weird notions of history (of fencing) are so prevalent in the US?

[oiuyt]

Moving the debate in another direction....

Can anyone tell me why these really weird notions of history (of fencing) are so prevalent in the US?

No, but we can start making up answers.

* Because we're a young country with (relatively) little history, so whatever we have or can make up we treasure. This results in not letting go whatever shreds we are "taught", but also no common tradition. In turn this means we get lots of variant "histories".

* Becuase we're geographically spread out, resulting in more backwaters where unique beliefs can take root and blossom into full-fledged stupidity.

* Because anyone who wants to can set up as a coach and teach whatever they want as the true fencing (urm, sorry, True Fencing).

* Becuase I (non-specific) want to be unique, (just like everyone else), so I have to have my own way of doing things and viewing the world.

* Because THEY are out there trying to get me and make me conform. I won't have it, I tell you! It wouldn't be "hono[u]rable" to cave to their demands.

* Because the people that get interested in fencing are the non-mainstream dorks, geeks, and nerds that don't do "real" sports. This then means that there are more non-conformists and crackpots involved.

* Because, as a society, we're more tolerant of differences, so those with unusual believes are more willing to share them. This both leads to more people being drawn into the weird notions and considerably higher visability, and therefore awareness that they're out there.

* It's all a conspiracy of the Rove-led Compasionate Conservatives. I'd tell you more, but they wouldn't like that.

Hey, this is fun. Everyone should make up their own list. Relation to reality not required. Start by assuming a premise (the more unreasonable the better) and then see where it takes you.

-B

[RITFencing]

That reminds me of the old "All hail emperor totalum!" thread, where I had a huge list of people I would have executed if I were made ruler of the world, from Scientologists to people who talk on their cell phones while driving.

[RkfdFencer]

I want to respond to this thread, but can't decide whether to rise to the troll-bait or prove my ignorance of the sublte differences in modern international style.

Can I do both?

Sport fencing has nothing to do with combat using an edged weapon of any kind. It is a game with rules; the point being to outscore the opponent. History of the sport or my reasons for participating are irrelevant to the original topic.

Are current differences in modern international styles simply variations in coaching preferences for tactics, or do they still follow what had been national development of the sport (Italian, French, etc.)?

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

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!".

.

Masque? WTF is a MASQUE???

You're making my head hurt.

[RITFencing]

Masque? WTF is a MASQUE???

I believe it is a pretentious misspelling of "mask" because everyone knows that things are better when you try to (not necessarily succeed in) use another language to describe them.

[Wafath]

Hey, this is fun. Everyone should make up their own list.

* Availability of coaches in the US outstripped by demand resulting in just about anyone being allowed to call themselves a coach and get students with no-one willing or able to shut them down for incompetence. *whistles innocently*

* The whole extended vs extending issue. A bad translation interpreted too literally by fencers & coaches who were otherwise isolated from the international fencing scene felt betrayed when brought back into the fold.

* Fencers who were too lazy (or unable to afford proper coaching or...) to train properly got tired of having their ass kicked, and took their ball and started their own game.

* SCAdians who don't understand the second and third words in their organization's name, and took themselves too seriously.

* A few honest coaches/instructors/historians trying to preserve or comprehend a particular historical detail having their gripes and works blown completely out of proportion by those who don't quite understand it.

the more unreasonable the better

Damn. Let me try again....

W

[lemon__fresh]

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.

Ughhhh man, u really need to research before you start making wide spread accusations. It seems like your just barely "treading water" in this argument, and the many responses to your posts explain why. At least 90% of the fencers i have competed against were there to win AND were respectful. Asking a ref about a call you dont think is fair helps you clarify to urself how you need to fence to win. Maybe you could try attending some USFA tournaments.

Perhaps you should recruit more classical fencing lackys to fuel your cause.

[Allen Evans]

While the Tauber system asks for a remise on the attack (in the higher level lessons, there are sometimes two remises on the attack) I suspect that the lack of remising on the defense is an intentional attempt to simplify the system for the beginner/intermediate fencer. Making a remise while leaving the space can be difficult, and I think the Tauber school dropped this as an unnecessary "complication".

To me, one of the differences between the two schools (Tauber and the traditional French school) is that the French school has many actions designed to punish the opponent's poor technique. Perhaps this is what Durando means when he says the school uses the opponent's complicity in creating a hit? In contrast, the Tauber school never includes this as a factor, since no matter how the opponent is trained, the Tauber system is designed to box in the opponent's options, control the opponent's blade, and score. You could be even MORE general and say that the French school is designed to defeat fencers and the Tauber school is designed to defeat actions. But I think that this might be a step too far.

Gav: why does this debate persist in the US? I think there are two fundamental reasons:

1. Fencing in the US continues to be stuck in the distant past in many parts of the country. This is true not only in terms of the way fencing is taught in the US, but also stuck in the past in the attitude towards fencing as sport, as opposed to a recreational pursuit for "gentlemen and ladies".

2. Many of the teachers of fencing in the US are poorly trained -- even as fencers -- if trained at all. Because of the size of the country, and the poor distribution of good coaches, the US has seen fencing -- using up to date ideas and methods -- grow quickly in urban areas, while other areas of the country have lagged behind. Conflicting methods (old and new, correct and incorrect) creates tension, and the internet allows a convenient place for people to shake their fingers at each other.

But this is guessing, on my part.

AE

[lemon__fresh]

I believe this applys well to the OTHER topic of discussion:

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.c...96_1963_117522

[the ancient one]

"...
Can anyone tell me why these really weird notions of history (of fencing) are so prevalent in the US?

You have come close to answering your own question.

"...
1. You've never seen any fencing at all.
2. You have absolutely no idea what fencing was like 40 years ago - see point 1. I guess your bigoted maestro/maitre/best mate down the pub (delete as appropriate) has filled your head with strange ideas.

I think it is hard for someone in Europe and nearby to grasp the cultural isolation that is possible in Middle America. Unlike "the continent" if you were to drive for days in the US all you would see is more Americans living amongst the same strip malls and fast food purveyors as yourself.

I am quite sure that many places in the US may have had a few fencers in the area (probably European transplants) 20 to 100 years previous and whatever knowledge they left behind was preserved in some form. Compare this to the John Frum Cargo Cult:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

So how is that for an "American School"?

Here in Northern California I once experienced the appearance in our club of 2 guys from Idaho with homemade red plaid wool fencing jackets and "Schlagers" which were reworked broken saber blades. (!) Really really odd. I was glad to see them go away after 1 night.

On a less extreme scale, 30 years back, I had the feeling that US international fencing success was being held back by antiquated notions about right-of-way and how things were called in the US vs Europe: i.e. Fence in a rather old-fashioned way to succeed Nationally, and something completely different or fail overseas. My impression only, there should be others more qualified lurking about who can affirm/deny this view.

[chefencer]

It was watching the FRA Men's Epee Team disengage the socks off the GER team in Leipzig '05 that gave me an appreciation of the significant differences between the two systems...

[Durando]

Are current differences in modern international styles simply variations in coaching preferences for tactics, or do they still follow what had been national development of the sport (Italian, French, etc.)?

Oh, I think there are certainly national tendancies (especially in the case of Italy and France) but only in countries where coaches' training is well-integrated into a national system. It is difficult to say what these tendancies are, because I think they are most prevalent in mid-range fencers who you don't necessarily get to see very often. The elite in any country, while exhibiting some of these tendencies, often have their own way of doing things.

[Durando]

I think it is hard for someone in Europe and nearby to grasp the cultural isolation that is possible in Middle America. Unlike "the continent" if you were to drive for days in the US all you would see is more Americans living amongst the same strip malls and fast food purveyors as yourself.

Living amid so much inauthenticity only sharpens the American thirst for purity (not the same thing as Brawndo, really, in spite of what your body might crave). This thirst builds dorks. Like the Idaho loons you had the misfortune to witness.

On a less extreme scale, 30 years back, I had the feeling that US international fencing success was being held back by antiquated notions about right-of-way and how things were called in the US vs Europe: i.e. Fence in a rather old-fashioned way to succeed Nationally, and something completely different or fail overseas. My impression only, there should be others more qualified lurking about who can affirm/deny this view.

I remember this question twenty years ago. And it certainly was the case that, in South Texas, directors called attacks only with full arm extension. Our foilists would always get creamed at nationals where the directing was a little less parochial. Would you agree with me, the ancient one, that the internet has made for an enormous difference? Or is it really the electrolytes?

[Durando]

I believe it is a pretentious misspelling of "mask" because everyone knows that things are better when you try to (not necessarily succeed in) use another language to describe them.

Comment tu fais chier...

[Gav]

The funny thing about that spelling of masque is that it doesn't actually mean what he thinks it means... Or at least it hasn't for around ohhhhh 100 years.

It means (generally) something completely different.

I'd point at a decent dictionary but the gesture is wasted on the internet.

[chefencer]

The funny thing about that spelling of masque is that it doesn't actually mean what he thinks it means... Or at least it hasn't for around ohhhhh 100 years.

It means (generally) something completely different.

I'd point at a decent dictionary but the gesture is wasted on the internet.

Hahaha! No wikipedia, Gav?...

[HDG]

The funny thing about that spelling of masque is that it doesn't actually mean what he thinks it means... Or at least it hasn't for around ohhhhh 100 years.

It means (generally) something completely different.

I'd point at a decent dictionary but the gesture is wasted on the internet.

Allow me.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:

I. Senses relating to performance.

1. a. A form of courtly dramatic entertainment, often richly symbolic, in which music and dancing played a substantial part, costumes and stage machinery tended to be elaborate, and the audience might be invited to contribute to the action or the dancing.
The masque became a clearly defined genre during the reigns of James I and Charles I; less sophisticated earlier spectacles are sometimes called entertainments to distinguish them from these Stuart masques, and post-Restoration spectacles such as Dryden's Secular Masque (1700) are not readily distinguished from other kinds of drama.

b. In extended use. Obs.

2. An entertainment in which masked participants dance; a masquerade, a masked ball. Also fig. Now rare.
In 16th-cent. use often difficult to distinguish from sense 1.
Quot. 1533 uses the word as if it were a familiar one, but the two pieces of direct evidence for its earlier use should both be regarded with caution: quot. 1548 refers to an event of 1512, and may suggest that the word maske was used at the time of that event, and the following quotation has not been verified in its original source:
1514 in J. P. Collier Hist. Eng. Dramatic Poetry (1831) I. 78 Johi. Farlyon Custod..apparatum omnium singulorum jocorum, larvatorum, vocat. Maskes, Revelles and Disguysings.

3. A dramatic composition intended for performance as a masque (sense 1).

II. Senses relating to performers.

4. A set or company of masquers. Obs.

5. a. Prob.: a masquerade dress, a domino. Obs. rare.

b. A masked person; a person wearing a mask or in masquerading dress; a masquer. Now arch.

[lemon__fresh]

ouch, poor guy