Incendiary threads are fun!

[telkanuru]

After reading that site I am no longer opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. If people can really be that stupid, it's best to end it all now.

[jeff]

Yeah, I didn't say I agreed with the logic, I just think I can follow it.

No problem - you were advancing a line of discussion; I didn't assume you advocated it.

For the definitions, of SF and CF, I think the distinction could be that CF claims to fence in a way that is martially accurate, as if the blades were sharp (a claim obviously open to dispute), while SF is a martial sport, like boxing and judo, with martial applicability and inspiration, but with sport as it's primary aim. As good as I can do before my first coffee...

[jeff]

I think that the distinction was being made between classical and historical fencing rather than classical and sport fencing (MUHSfencing's distinction, at least). Classical fencers being the ones with lineages that go back to the same ones as sport fencers within a few generations, but had a few more conservative people in between, and historical fencers being the ones who have the bad reputation of pretending to be knights.

Perhaps that's what MUHSfencing meant, I don't know. I don't disagree at all with your characterization of how CF and SF fencer's lineages compare. My point is that CF lineages are dubious with respect to authenticity. Not that they can't trace back their teachers, but that the people in their lineage didn't do CF or their style of fencing at all: Crown learning from Gillet, the San Jose CF school originating from Nadi. Martinez teaching Destreza (Spanish), but IIRC his teacher Rhodes was French school.

The Smith fencing team used to get confused with the SCA branch that met at Smith, generally not to our advantage. Usually it was people announcing to members of the sport fencing team that they'd seem someone fencing and doing something really stupid, at which point we'd have to explain that if they were wearing capes and had more than one sword each, that wasn't us.

Anna

That must have been really annoying. And we wonder why outsiders have lame impressions of fencing...

[Hauptman]

I don't disagree with all you've said, but there are other mitigating factors as well.

First off, I've personally met both good and bad fencers in both sport and classical fencing. And the percentages are not far off. But if you want to measure fencing strictly in a competitive way there are other mitigating circumstances.

Because secondly, it takes a lot of tournament experience to get good at competing; just look at any number of "club" fencers of either type who rarely compete.

Classical fencers, who are very few in number comparatively, tend to be older and involved in teaching programs as well; not focused on competition. Also, the amount of derision, pressure, and sometimes outright hostility that they receive by some sport fencers can make competing a very unpleasant experience. Inexperienced sport fencers receive large amounts of support and encouragement when showing up to events. Anyone using an italian grip and holding the rear arm up is likely to be abused.

As someone who has fenced as both a modern and classical fencer over many years, I am speaking from personal experience. Now to counter the other stereotype: are there loud-mouthed classical fencers who think they are god's gift and superior to all sport fencers? Yes, there are. But please don't judge the silent majority by a few outspoken idiots. Compare the attitudes and credentials of an Evangelista with someone like Dr. Gaugler and you see a world of difference.

I would just love to see the animosity toned down a bit (this is not directed at anyone in particular). Yes, there are classical fencers who are sad examples, but there are just as many sport fencers to be ignored. There's no need for the automatic hostility and derision. If they're bad fencers with big egos then go for it, but whether classical or sport is usually irrelevant. I've had wonderful experiences fencing both styles with great fencers and teachers alike. I choose to dwell on the positive and not the negative experiences I have had with fencers from both schools as well.

[mrbiggs]

Anyone using an italian grip and holding the rear arm up is likely to be abused.

I've never seen someone openly abused for fencing in a more classical style. I can promise you that they'll be judged as one of the worst fencers in the pool before the referee says fence, and it's probable that some of the other fencers will make comments behind their back. But sportsmanship is the same in modern fencing as it is in every other sport, and with a few exceptions, everyone who shows up at an event will be treated equally no matter what their style is.

As a matter of fact, the few times I've seen people openly hostile to a fencer simply because of their fencing style, it's because they adopted a highly unorthodox method that works very well against some opponents. If anything, this is the opposite of classical fencing.

[Sildar]

Perhaps that's what MUHSfencing meant, I don't know. I don't disagree at all with your characterization of how CF and SF fencer's lineages compare. My point is that CF lineages are dubious with respect to authenticity. Not that they can't trace back their teachers, but that the people in their lineage didn't do CF or their style of fencing at all: Crown learning from Gillet, the San Jose CF school originating from Nadi. Martinez teaching Destreza (Spanish), but IIRC his teacher Rhodes was French school.

Just for clarification, Maestro Martinez has always been up front about the fact that his Spanish fencing is his own reconstruction, and that he learned French and Italian fencing from Rhodes.

But to return to the original question, it isn't at present possible to come up with a clear definition of classical fencing precisely because several people are currently using the term to mean many different things, from old-school sport fencing, to training as if for a duel, and even a few people claiming that the term applies to some historical fencing also...

[jeff]

Just for clarification, Maestro Martinez has always been up front about the fact that his Spanish fencing is his own reconstruction, and that he learned French and Italian fencing from Rhodes.

I didn't say Maestro Martinez claimed otherwise, though it's easy to miss this distinction that he learned from Rohdes "one of the last fencing masters who taught fencing as a martial art", and that this style is separate from what he teaches as Destreza . What you say reinforces my comments: He reconstructed it; there is no lineage of teacher to student, and hence dubious with respect to authenticity and the people in their lineage didn't do CF or their style of fencing at all.

[Sildar]

Jeff,

You're confusing two separate issues here. His reconstruction of Destreza has nothing directly to do with the authenticity or lineage of the classical fencing he teaches; Destreza is historical fencing, as he has always said, and the French and Italian foil, epee and saber he teaches are Classical fencing styles which were taught by Rhodes.

[jeff]

I think I get the distinction, but I'm still not comfortable with it: Destreza is a historical fencing reconstruction, hence not a living art passed down to him, but he teaches it under the authority of being a fencing master because he was so designated by his teacher, Rohdes (note the correct spelling), who taught him something entirely different. We're supposed to remember that when he does Destreza it's a reconstruction and when he does French style it's not. Again, I'm not making an accusation of misleading, but it's a thin piste to stand on for claims of authenticity.

Maybe it's a distinction between CF (authentic) and HF (not) MUHSfencing was drawing, which naturally would lead to confusion when one person does both. It's not the crux of my argument; I've already expressed myself on CF that is neither authentic nor good fencing. It's only the latter part I really care about, to tell the truth.

[MUHSfencing]

Perhaps that's what MUHSfencing meant, I don't know.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of distinction I was trying to show. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. That particular differentiation hasn't come up much on here, but it is very relevant...

I don't disagree at all with your characterization of how CF and SF fencer's lineages compare. My point is that CF lineages are dubious with respect to authenticity. Not that they can't trace back their teachers, but that the people in their lineage didn't do CF or their style of fencing at all: Crown learning from Gillet, the San Jose CF school originating from Nadi. Martinez teaching Destreza (Spanish), but IIRC his teacher Rhodes was French school.

That must have been really annoying. And we wonder why outsiders have lame impressions of fencing...

Yes, the authenticity of classical fencing lineages is another question.

You have personal firsthand knowledge about Maitre Crown's training, and I have no information whatsoever, so I will not comment there.

About San Jose - their lineage is NOT through Nadi! Yes, Gaugler studied under Nadi, but he also studied under other maestri. As you have pointed out before Jeff, Nadi's was not a mainstream classical Italian fencing style. Gaugler's teaching is much more orthodox, I gather.

Check out this lineage chart to learn more on that:

http://www.scherma.org/comunicato/origins.html

Regarding Maestro Martinez - this is exactly where the "CF vs HF" difference matters. According to his site, Maestro Rohdes taught him [French & Northern Italian] Classical Fencing, among other things. Then Maestro Martinez researched the Spanish school of rapier, which is clearly classified as Historical Fencing.

EDIT: Oops. I really should know to read the whole thread by now... I see that Sildar has already addressed this last issue, and with greater authority and efficiency than I.

[MUHSfencing]

I've never seen someone openly abused for fencing in a more classical style. I can promise you that they'll be judged as one of the worst fencers in the pool before the referee says fence, and it's probable that some of the other fencers will make comments behind their back. But sportsmanship is the same in modern fencing as it is in every other sport, and with a few exceptions, everyone who shows up at an event will be treated equally no matter what their style is.

As a matter of fact, the few times I've seen people openly hostile to a fencer simply because of their fencing style, it's because they adopted a highly unorthodox method that works very well against some opponents. If anything, this is the opposite of classical fencing.

Yes - I must say, the vast majority the sport fencers I've encountered in organized competitions and free bouting have been very gracious and polite. There are very different ideas of decorum about some things, but basic sportsmanship is very rarely lacking.

The only animosity I'm seeing these days is over the internet, and is mostly based on miscommunication and misunderstanding, I think. I hope we can get over that soon.

[MUHSfencing]

But to return to the original question, it isn't at present possible to come up with a clear definition of classical fencing precisely because several people are currently using the term to mean many different things, from old-school sport fencing, to training as if for a duel, and even a few people claiming that the term applies to some historical fencing also...

That certainly fits with my limited perception of things.

Some might find it amusing that there is perhaps more actual animosity between various groups with differing interpretations of "classical" than there is with any one group and sport fencing...

Perhaps it is more productive and appropriate to the intent of the original post to explain the difference in focus between specific local groups. Cuz your students prolly don't really care what people on the other side of the country are doing anyway.

So all you need to do to be honest and fair is distinguish between particular training programs, instead of attempting to make sweeping generalizations that are inevitably flawed / incomplete.

[MUHSfencing]

No, there is none. The reason for it is that there is such a strong divide between the two fields that it is impossible to explain it without bringing emotional attachment into the mix.

And yes, they started it :-).

I definitely see where you're coming from - but I totally disagree on both counts.

Emotional attachment is not always that big a factor. There's lots of people who train in CF and sometimes compete in SF, or even vice versa, without significant spiritual distress.

And as for who started it, ok so apparently Nick E did --but he's not really classical...

The reason why its hard to explain is largely because there is not a universally accepted definition of CF, as Sildar said.

[Chuck F.]

Inexperienced sport fencers receive large amounts of support and encouragement when showing up to events.

Unless they're wearing bandanas.

Or sweatbands. Or use a strap on their glasses. Or masks with a design on them. Or colored masks. Or colored lame's. Or colored socks. Or uniforms colored in any way. Or brightly colored "Nascar"-style fencing t-shirts. Or shirts with a "corny" design or saying on them.

Face it, folks: fencers are not as open-minded as we like to think.

[jeff]

Yes, that's exactly the kind of distinction I was trying to show. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. That particular differentiation hasn't come up much on here, but it is very relevant...

No worries, and thanks for clarifying the point you were making. As you point out in a different post, there's a lot of miscommunication, so it's good to help clarify. Not a problem at all.

Yes, the authenticity of classical fencing lineages is another question.

You have personal firsthand knowledge about Maitre Crown's training, and I have no information whatsoever, so I will not comment there.

To be very careful, I'll clarify that, to prevent anyone thinking I'm misrepresenting: I knew the American Fencing Academy at Cornell, and fenced at the club there while at Cornell for (non-fencing) grad school. I left Cornell before Crown arrived, but knew the masters and prevosts and took lessons from and fenced with the prevosts. It was 100% sport. The only weapon done dry was sabre (which I trained in, because I didn't want to get into tedious arguments over my Italian training in foil at this French school) because sabre wasn't yet electrified! In all respects it was quite modern.

About San Jose - their lineage is NOT through Nadi! Yes, Gaugler studied under Nadi, but he also studied under other maestri. As you have pointed out before Jeff, Nadi's was not a mainstream classical Italian fencing style. Gaugler's teaching is much more orthodox, I gather.

Check out this lineage chart to learn more on that:

http://www.scherma.org/comunicato/origins.html

Here I do have first-hand experience. I've seen the lineage chart before, and thanks anyway - but that doesn't prove to me that what they do is authentic CF. My lineage chart wouldn't be all that different really (Santelli instead of his contemporary Pessina); which is one reason I feel I have the right to make comments about Italian style. One of their masters (I cringe typing the words) teaches a weekly class on my employer's premises, and I just had to go satisfy my curiosity and see it. It was awful. There were aspects that I imagine accurate for 19th century fencing (eg: use of parry 6), but it was missing essential aspects, like I never saw a simple chest cut used or taught! (Cut to 4 to a fencer using the same hand as you), no molinetto. What really bothered me is that the technical execution and tactical sense were amateurishly bad and martially wrong. What I saw was rubbish. I don't mind beginner errors, but I do mind instructors teaching the wrong things and being oblivious to severe flaws. Perhaps I should relate my experiences in a longer, separate post. I think that this substyle has diverged from real fencing in a way that would be unrecogniseable to their antecedents. Lack of competition makes sharp instruments dull over time, even if they started from a completely well-honed basis.

Regarding Maestro Martinez - this is exactly where the "CF vs HF" difference matters. According to his site, Maestro Rohdes taught him [French & Northern Italian] Classical Fencing, among other things. Then Maestro Martinez researched the Spanish school of rapier, which is clearly classified as Historical Fencing.

EDIT: Oops. I really should know to read the whole thread by now... I see that Sildar has already addressed this last issue, and with greater authority and efficiency than I.

Okay, we're all in sync, then.

[veeco]

I definitely see where you're coming from - but I totally disagree on both counts.

Emotional attachment is not always that big a factor. There's lots of people who train in CF and sometimes compete in SF, or even vice versa, without significant spiritual distress.

Perhaps it's because I've never asked, or because they "fly under the radar", but I don't think I've encountered any CF fencers at the events I compete in locally.

The reason why its hard to explain is largely because there is not a universally accepted definition of CF, as Sildar said.

If there is no universally accepted definition, perhaps it's because it doesn't really exist. After all, there is no NGB, and I've not heard of classical fencing outside of the United States.

In France, the closest thing I have found to classical fencing outside of the US (and I would even say it is closer to HF) is theatrical fencing. There actually are tournaments and national championships, under the auspices of the the FFE. If I recall correctly, there are a few categories, usually divided by historical period. Contestants are scored on the historical accuracy of their costumes, of the fencing, and quality of the show given. Some theatrical fencing teams spend years preparing their routines. It's quite fun to watch, but very different from sport fencing, or even any definition of classical fencing you might throw out there.

[Durando]

In France, the closest thing I have found to classical fencing outside of the US (and I would even say it is closer to HF) is theatrical fencing. There actually are tournaments and national championships, under the auspices of the the FFE. If I recall correctly, there are a few categories, usually divided by historical period. Contestants are scored on the historical accuracy of their costumes, of the fencing, and quality of the show given. Some theatrical fencing teams spend years preparing their routines. It's quite fun to watch, but very different from sport fencing, or even any definition of classical fencing you might throw out there.

I love watching these fencers. We usually have a show during whichever national event our club hosts (this year it is the épée championships!). There are training sessions given throughout the year in escrime artistique which are pretty well attended.

The CF community in the States would be a whole hell of a lot less obnoxious if they simply understood what they are about: re-enacting fencing of the 1930s. Would be so cool if they fenced with weapons and uniforms of the era (perhaps they do, already?). They're really a community of re-enactors as far as I'm concerned, little different from the men and women who bivouac on Civil War battlefields.

There's a legitimate place for them under the fencing tent, but not on the same piste as fencing as it is practiced in the twenty-first century. (I reject the term "sport fencing" just as I would reject the term "sport football," first imagining some crazy sect of football players who wanted to go back to a time before the forward pass.)

[MUHSfencing]

Here I do have first-hand experience. I've seen the lineage chart before, and thanks anyway - but that doesn't prove to me that what they do is authentic CF. My lineage chart wouldn't be all that different really (Santelli instead of his contemporary Pessina); which is one reason I feel I have the right to make comments about Italian style. One of their masters (I cringe typing the words) teaches a weekly class on my employer's premises, and I just had to go satisfy my curiosity and see it. It was awful. There were aspects that I imagine accurate for 19th century fencing (eg: use of parry 6), but it was missing essential aspects, like I never saw a simple chest cut used or taught! (Cut to 4 to a fencer using the same hand as you), no molinetto. What really bothered me is that the technical execution and tactical sense were amateurishly bad and martially wrong. What I saw was rubbish. I don't mind beginner errors, but I do mind instructors teaching the wrong things and being oblivious to severe flaws. Perhaps I should relate my experiences in a longer, separate post. I think that this substyle has diverged from real fencing in a way that would be unrecogniseable to their antecedents. Lack of competition makes sharp instruments dull over time, even if they started from a completely well-honed basis.

I, for one, would be most interested to hear about your experiences. Please do tell.

[MUHSfencing]

The CF community in the States would be a whole hell of a lot less obnoxious if they simply understood what they are about: re-enacting fencing of the 1930s. Would be so cool if they fenced with weapons and uniforms of the era (perhaps they do, already?). They're really a community of re-enactors as far as I'm concerned, little different from the men and women who bivouac on Civil War battlefields.

Thank you for providing an excellent example of the problem: lack of definition of CF.

I personally have zero interest in reenacting anything. I like my modern garments and safety equipment just fine. I like how modern technology can make weapon construction easier [ but we don't like that no one makes good blades (for our purposes) anymore ]

The one fellow I know who happens to enjoy historic reenactment as well as classical fencing wears the modern style white jacket & knickers while performing 19th century (=1800s) dueling technique.

[MUHSfencing]

Perhaps it's because I've never asked, or because they "fly under the radar", but I don't think I've encountered any CF fencers at the events I compete in locally.

Okay, I was being very loose with my language there. There are very few CFers of any definition, and so there can't possible be lots of them around from your perspective. They probably would not go under the radar, although its charitable of you to suggest that.

What I mean to say is that there have been plenty of examples in my experience of classical and sport fencers getting along just fine. We may disagree on technique, teaching, competition organization, and even fashion, but we need not be unpleasant about it. :-)

If there is no universally accepted definition, perhaps it's because it doesn't really exist. After all, there is no NGB, and I've not heard of classical fencing outside of the United States.

Yep. "It doesn't really exist" sums it up pretty well, lol. Various CF groups have tried creating national organizations but so far no one supreme NGB has emerged. Which may be in part because many CFers don't have a high opinion of the USFA, and wish to avoid a similar fate.

We aren't entirely sure we need a national governing body anyhow.

("I ain't got no body, and nobody cares for me!")

In France, the closest thing I have found to classical fencing outside of the US (and I would even say it is closer to HF) is theatrical fencing. There actually are tournaments and national championships, under the auspices of the the FFE. If I recall correctly, there are a few categories, usually divided by historical period. Contestants are scored on the historical accuracy of their costumes, of the fencing, and quality of the show given. Some theatrical fencing teams spend years preparing their routines. It's quite fun to watch, but very different from sport fencing, or even any definition of classical fencing you might throw out there.

Sounds fun, but as you say, very different.