That's silly. A word that you can't define is a poorly chosen one. The word "tempo" is a problem, not because it's an esoteric concept, but because it is used by different people to mean different things. In other words, it's a useless term. Better than trying to force a unified meaning out of it, one should use the assorted individual words that clearly express the ideas confused with "tempo". An easy place to start is to stick to the english language when expressing fencing ideas (to an english-speaking audience, of course).
To greater extent, I agree with you -- although one of the strengths of the English language is that some words have very ambiguous meanings and context often sets the definition. Because fencing has so many things that happen in it, and only a few English words to describe those things, there is the danger of getting bogged down in endless descriptions of actions and distances.
As I said, this is a draft document (I've turned it over to a coach/editor to go through) but I thought it was complete enough to give the link and generate some discussion. I'm going through it this weekend, actually, in light of some of the comments I've received, and tightening it up.
the word "tempo" is used in at least four different senses
Wouldn't want to always use the same tempo, now would you? Pretty much every coach out there tells their fencers to vary the tempo, no reason Allen shouldn't as well.... :)
-B
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
I just got done reading Epee 2.0, pretty much in one reading with kids yelling about. It is the kind of book you probably need to go through at least twice, as there is really a lot there.
A lot of current fencers may not see much in the book, as some of the things Mr. Harmenberg introduced are commonplace in today's epee fencing. It was interesting from my persepective, since I witnessed the influence over the last 3 decades and knew the source and some of the players (Vaggo, Czarnecki).
I am grateful for the book, as it is a much more interesting view into fencing than the typical 101 offerings. It also sheds light onto what was a big influence on today's epee fencing.
Rick
__________________ "Some people are born great fencers, some people achieve fencing greatness, and some people have it thrust upon them."
I would have liked to have seen the author explore the evolution of the system he develops over the course of the book. Does Haremberg feel that his system has evolved in any way? Has anything new come out to challenge it?
If anyone attended the talk he recently gave, I wonder if he mentioned this at all?
To greater extent, I agree with you -- although one of the strengths of the English language is that some words have very ambiguous meanings and context often sets the definition. Because fencing has so many things that happen in it, and only a few English words to describe those things, there is the danger of getting bogged down in endless descriptions of actions and distances.
As I said, this is a draft document (I've turned it over to a coach/editor to go through) but I thought it was complete enough to give the link and generate some discussion. I'm going through it this weekend, actually, in light of some of the comments I've received, and tightening it up.
AE
I read your draft and enjoyed it, as I have many of your articles. But the article really worked after your attempt to re-define tempo. Your attempt to re-define it left me feeling just as muddled as before.
If the basics of fencing are timing, distance, and tactics then why does tempo have to include all three? Can't we leave tempo as a factor of timing as it is in common usage and particularly in music? I see your logic in what you are trying to teach, and agree with it, but using the word "tempo" to cover all of that just makes it less easily understood for me.
As I said, I enjoy your articles, and this is just my personal impression; I'm sure others vary.
__________________
- Wisdom is the knowledge of how much you don't know.
We'll see if the editing I'm doing will help clarify the article much better. I'll put the finished product on the web site by the end of the month.
I've always been uncomfortable with defining the word "tempo" in fencing as it is used in music. It seems a little constricting and one-dimensional. But then, that's just me, and I confess to not having had much musical training.
Tempo seems to combine rhythm and speed and timing. I think it's a word that can be used in that way because it conveys something of the feel necessary to fencing.
Strictly defined, of course, it just refers to the pace of an activity. That's the dictionary definition.
It is very interesting. I really enjoyed how the MIT fencers took an engineer's approach to solving the problems of how to improve epee. The only thing he points out is that his methods have been widely adopted by most other top level epee fencers these days. Regardless, its a great read for any new or intermediate epee fencer seeking to improve. He really simplifies the sport down to several manageable points.
I would have liked to have seen the author explore the evolution of the system he develops over the course of the book. Does Haremberg feel that his system has evolved in any way? Has anything new come out to challenge it?
If anyone attended the talk he recently gave, I wonder if he mentioned this at all?
AE
Full disclosure: I publish the book.
I also attended the talks and yes, Johan has been asked that last question: has anything come along to challenge the "new paradigm?" He doesn't think so. Remember, he's talking about "Olympic touch" when the next touch is desperately needed by both fencers. People still fence using classical thinking, but the new paradigm answers it.
Probably an answer will come along, or fencing will stagnate. I hope to be around to let everybody know when it does.
Excellent book. Read it in an hour flying home. Ate up the content; yummy.
edit: Having just read 'Fencing is my Life', by Sergei Golubitsky and 'Angry White Pyjamas' by Robert Twigger, have to admit it was exactly what I was looking for, even for a foilist.
But let's set expectations for the individual reader's benefit: aye, it's alright.
I actually wanted to go and buy this book, does he really suggest 5 years of experience?
I have only been fencing for around 6month can anyone suggest a better book?
From Cues in Tempo on the same website (different article):
What is tempo? Everyone uses this word, but no one really defines it. I like what Coach Gary Copeland, of Northern Colorado Fencers Club says about tempo:
"This concept of the tempo is so elusive that many coaches don't even mention it. It is a concept that defies description, because it is not rooted in a fixed distance or motion. It is so variable, so transitory, that anything written of it doesn't quite describe it(1)
This term was fuzzy for me until I experienced it enough to understand its value. It takes being engaged with the opponent in an awake intensity that rests in the body's amassed and non-verbal understanding of what is necessary to...win, for a better word, and is carried by breathing and momentum. It happens between us, and is dependent on attention. At my level of experience, is is still rare, and fleeting, but is what I hope for at each en garde
__________________
I'm not runnin'.
It's a little different now.
'Cause one of us is goin'...
ONE OF US IS GOIN' DOWN ! Sick Puppies
I read and re-read the book, and I thought it was fantastic.
How many other auto-biographies are there from modern world champions and gold medalists?
For him to write the book was an act of extra-ordinary generosity.
If you're really an amatuer fencer, you ought to read this book, it's unique.
Oh, and one last word. Besides bouncing, steering, and the Sollee conjectures, there's something else that needs to be mentioned. In order to apply these things, you have got to be in great shape. Many people conviently forget this, but Harmenburg writes at some lenght about his training methods and they're not for the faint hearted. Hope you like sprints!
After reading the book I'm attempting to use the approach as best I can. We'll see this weekend how well I can make it work.
My wife got me the book for Christmas. I've been loving it - going back and re-reading much of it - but I'll have to agree with the author that one probably needs more than my meager few months of fencing to get the most out of it. But, as my fencing experience evolves, so probably will my appreciation - and interpretation - of the book. I also find myself motivated to read some of the more classical works on epee, so as to better appreciate the changes represented by the book.
How many other auto-biographies are there from modern world champions and gold medalists?
For what it is worth, I don't know if you consider Nadi "modern" but he wrote an autobiography, but I haven't read it so I don't know if it is any good.
Peter Westbrook wrote "Harnessing Anger," which I did read. It was interesting, but there was not a ton on fencing theory, and I think it could have used one more revision to add some details I thought should have been in there.
Canadian epeeist Sherraine McKay (now Schalm, I believe) wrote an autobiography called "Running With Swords." It is not much of a theory book, but it was an interesting read about what an Olympian's life is like.
I have with interest followed the discussions about my book that now enters the second year. The main driving force for me to write the book was a great disappointment with the lack of strategic/tactical discussions fencers to fencers and fencers to masters. What is discussed is mostly technical. I am now in the national team management committee (we pick out national teams) and I take part in preparing fencers for championships. I always start with the same simple 3 questions: What is your best move? What is the best move of your opponent? And how do you plan to navigate around your own best move and that of your opponent? I rarely get good answers to any of these very simple questions. (There are exceptions though) I would be interested in knowing whether the readers of this discussion feel that they have good answers to my questions. Maybe the fencers that I have asked are not representative for the general fencing population? I should mention that my main interest is epee.
In my book I have tried to describe the though process that I had to go through in order to win world championships and Olympics. I do not intend to have the final answers that are universally applicable for all fencers ever. I rather would like to point out that all fencers need their own though process. Writing about my own though process as honestly as I possible could and thereby addressing the issues that I feel are of importance, I hope to stimulate each fencer in their creation of their own though process. The objective is naturally to understand winning and losing in such a way that that the fencer may win in a predictable way.
Linear Mode
