Nick Evangelista

[Carlos37]

I saw a fencer at my club reading a book of Nick Evangelista since he told me he wanted to know more about fencing.Do you think that´s the wrong book for that (I´ve heard in some other posts some nasty comments about Evangelista).?

[Tomas N]

AAAAAaaaagggghhh. Run away! Run away!

[statisticool]

Originally Posted by Carlos37

I saw a fencer at my club reading a book of Nick Evangelista since he told me he wanted to know more about fencing.Do you think that´s the wrong book for that (I´ve heard in some other posts some nasty comments about Evangelista).?

I'll get negative-repped for this for sure, heh heh, but I enjoy Evangelista's book The Inner Game of Fencing.

I personally (other experiences may vary) haven't found anything in that book that doesn't occur out there in the fencing world, and I have found his advice useful for improving my fencing.

I do have some disagreements, of course, fencers are freethinkers afterall. But overall I agree with his fencing thoughts.

But, if you want to read books about fencing, don't just rely on one book though. I'd recommend reading Evangelista's book, but then also that applies to as many fencing books you can get a hold of.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Evangelista knows quite a bit about his world of fencing. However, there are a number of places where his world of fencing are not the same as, say, my world of fencing. In the places where the worlds are similar, he might have useful things to say. However, he believes so strongly that his way is the ultimate right way that it is very difficult to separate where he diverges from modern olympic sport fencing, and it is often very difficult for new fencers to be able to figure out what are the good parts that can relate to modern olympic sport fencing, and which are the parts that will hurt them long run in the modern game.

You can't read them with a grain of salt, you have to read them with a Mountain of Rock Salt.

[epee rocks]

I've read one of his books (The art and science of fencing) and most of it I find correct. My main problem with it is that he states that you should never start on Epee, and in my expernce i've found that totally false.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Everyone should read it.

Fencing is a life sport. Reading for perspective will expand your understanding of the sport, even if you don't agree with the author. Its like that in everything, really.

Capitalists should read the works of Marx, Marxists should read the works of capitalist authors.

You never get dumber from reading a book.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

You never get dumber from reading a book--- Assuming you read it with a critical mind.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

You never get dumber from reading a book--- Assuming you read it with a critical mind.

Those who do not read with a critical mind need not worry about it.

[jeff]

All that wonderful openmindedness granted, and hooray for it, there's still the problem that a beginner might read an Evangelista book and not know which parts are real and which parts are bogus. Or being charitable, which parts will be simply wrong for the 99%+ of the world of fencing. It's hard for a beginner to have a critical mind when they don't know enough of the material to know where to be critical.

[Lemonaide]

I'm an open book to novel ideas.

The more you read, the more you know. I had a bunch of his books, as well as other authors on fencing, and have always enjoyed them. There is no other way to understand fencing without knowing what the famous fencers have done in the past. For example: Probably no one lunges like the former famous Aldo Nandi, but we all know what his lunge looked like from pictures. We practically never inquartata, but we all know what it is, we never supine, but we know what it is, we hardly ever fleche, but we know what it is.... and so on.

[Miglin]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

You never get dumber from reading a book--- Assuming you read it with a critical mind.

If only they put that kind of clincer on the Bible...

On topic: the more fencing books you manage to find time to read, the more knowledgeable you will be; it seems simple to me.

[mrbiggs]

There's no reason to read it. There are many books out there that more accurately describe the fencing world. If you read both, Evangelista's is superfluous. If you just read his, you'll be misinformed. If you just read the other books, you're not missing anything.

[piste off]

Originally Posted by Lemonaide

We practically never inquartata...

Not since H.S. Latin class for me.

Vestis virum reddit!

Rick

[Chuck F.]

It depends on what he is trying to get out of the book.

To be honest, I don't think that beginners would get a heck of a lot out of any book. In my opinion, hands-on experience and training with a decent coach should be every priority for a new fencer until they have enough experience to be able to read critically, as suggested earlier.

[EdGardner]

As a beginner who just read "Inner Game" I did not get alot out of it.

He seems to dislike the direction the modern sport is taking, has a very strong opinion about starting with foil and first principles, and manages to say both things at least once every other "chapter."

Its less a book and more a collection of "essays" some of which are somewhat emotional. I thought the first several "chapters" were interesting, reading about how he transitioned from student to coach, and the sorts of things that motivated him, but after that, it became a blur of often angry and/or condescending opinion.

Maybe I'll get more out of it when I am more experienced, but I spent most of the book feeling insulted either directly, or by proxy for the US fencing world. There are some things I did take away that were positive, mindset, the whole get a strong foundation thing, etc. And I imagine he speaks from some position of legitamate authority, but bleh. He could stand to take his own advice about fencing and what it can learn from eastern martial arts and philosphy and tone the attitude down a bit. He'd reach a wider audience and generate more support for his "cause."

My newbie-nickel

[jeff]

Originally Posted by EdGardner

I imagine he speaks from some position of legitamate authority, but bleh.

He certainly imagines that. That's where his authority resides - in his imagination.

(If somebody with real fencing or coaching credentials had written these books or magazine articles, it would be quite a different story. Obnoxious, but a reader could at least say "well, he earned the right to comment". As it is, Evangelista doesn't have any particular accomplishments as fencer or coach to bolster his authority.)

[statisticool]

Originally Posted by jeff

As it is, Evangelista doesn't have any particular accomplishments as fencer or coach to bolster his authority.)

I wouldn't exactly say any. I mean, he did receive permission to teach and become a fencing master under Faulkner. He has several influential fencing books out, arguably two of the most in modern times.

Master W. Gaugler wrote at least one forward for one of his books, and Master(?) C. Amberger has given him positive reviews as well.

I think if Evangelista were claiming to be some bada** in fencing, people should ask to see his tournament record or that of his students. But he's not, from what I can tell. He's just giving his thoughts on what he's learned over the years.

[jeff]

With all due respect, I don't consider having your teacher saying "you can teach now" to be credentials as either a fencer or a coach. The mark of a fencer is having fenced well, and demonstrating it by winning - and not just against club mates. The mark of a coach is to produce fencers that can do those things. Evangelista has no track record of either.

His books are popular - but I don't think they're awfully influential among serious fencers.

Getting other people to write forwards for your books also is not an indication of prowess on the piste. Mind you, these are people who have written for Evangelista's magazine, so they all publish together.

I would feel less strongly about this if his writing wasn't so vitriolic and demeaning of people who don't see things his way. The loudest arguments on this board don't hold a patch on some of the name-calling that appeared under his name in FQM.

[leapyear]

Evangelista hated the flick and the fencing that went with it, and he wanted nothing to do with it. But his criticisms don't count because... he didn't produce fencers who were successful at the kind of fencing he hated and wanted nothing to do with.

Huh?

[AdamH]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Interesting stuff, sort of like Ron L Hubbarb.