Incendiary threads are fun!

[MUHSfencing]

I had a classical fencer come to my club one day. He had long bleached blonde hair so I think he was going for the Thor look. Or maybe Hulk Hogan... Anyway, I beat him in 15 seconds of stop time, 5-0 using one move: feint disengage. Maybe he was waiting for his moment to slice me in half like in Rob Roy, but alas, it never came.

hah!

That is a funny story.

Even more so if you've seen the movie "Rob Roy", where in the end the eponymous hero totally cleaves the pretentious classicist in twain. Great example of the arrogance of relying on one's supposed superiority, and not respecting the unknown potential of the unorthodox opponent.

[Grasshopper]

hah!

That is a funny story.

Even more so if you've seen the movie "Rob Roy", where in the end the eponymous hero totally cleaves the pretentious classicist in twain. Great example of the arrogance of relying on one's supposed superiority, and not respecting the unknown potential of the unorthodox opponent.

Old Japanese saying: The best swordsman in the land does not fear the second-best swordsman in the land. He fears the worst swordsman in the land.

[Grasshopper]

I feel a threadjack coming...

Well, then the economics say that the swoosh futures market, so maybe you could trade some swoosh options.

On the other hand, perhaps the physics point of view is that "conservation of swoosh" takes precedence, or maybe "swoosh parity". A decrease of swoosh in one place is equalled in swoosh elsewhere.

A fencers swooshes his foil in Tokyo, it changes FIE policy in France. Chaos Theory.

[OROD]

Old Japanese saying: The best swordsman in the land does not fear the second-best swordsman in the land. He fears the worst swordsman in the land.

I didnt know Mark Twain was Japanese.

.

[Grasshopper]

I didnt know Mark Twain was Japanese.

.

Neither did he. Think about it.

[oiuyt]

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.

Don't we just call that rugby? :P

-B

[KD5MDK]

But is it Classical Rugby (Union) or Sport Rugby (League)?

[VorpalCat]

<swooshing>

<more swooshing>

<pscientific swooshing>

*wonders how long it will be before Nike slaps a trademark infringement suit on this thread.*

[KD5MDK]

We'll have to switch to vooshing!

[Inquartata]

Vouldn't that be Svedish?

*Voof!*

[jeff]

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

Sorry for late response, and for waking the thread, but have been otherwise occupied with Real Life. So, here goes:

As mentioned, I visited a classical Italian sabre class taught by one of the San Jose CF "fencing masters". This is an adult beginner class. Only a few students had prior fencing experience. I don't expect beginners to have high levels of proficiency, so I don't rate a program based on bad beginners' form (however, when I see beginners with good technique, I attribute that to good teaching). What I do evaluate is the quality of the instruction: what the instructor teaches, their ability when they demonstrate a move, and mistakes they either correct or don't notice, and their ability to correct a mistake.

That said, what I saw was very bad. It is very hard to find anything positive to say. Problems fall into the categories of "things taught badly", "important things not taught", and "bad things taught". I restrict my remarks to technical issues, and not behavioral issues in the style described earlier by fencerchica, which also occured.

Footwork
- bad on-guard positions. Bad mechanics doing advances and retreats.
- Weak lunges. No lunge was better than a slow 3/4 lunge, including when demonstrated by the instructor.
- Nothing longer than a lunge. In particular, no advance lunge taught as a coordinated action.
- Nobody kept proper distance. Everybody was too close all the time. It made me twitchy just to watch.
- All actions were done from stationary position, eventually leading to a short lunge, but no motion till then.

Blade work
- After a parry, fencers opened the line (hand drifted to center) so making a stop cut into the riposte (then retreat and/or parry
the riposte) was too easy. The instructor never noticed this flaw.
- "Attack the blade" not "attack the opponent" mentality, even when in so-close-it's-scary distance.
Drills had repeated blade takings (see below), including binds, while standing still within lunge distance
- blade takings were mushy, even when done by instructor. Beats were made with flat of the blade not the edge. A beat should "click", not "smoosh".


The above are the kinds of problem I expect a "fencing master" should notice and correct.

There were strange omissions:
- No cut to chest or belly in the times I was there. (the attack you would make to hit a same-handed fencer in 4, or an opposite handed fencer in flank). Cuts were only made to head or as horizontal cut riposte to exposed chest after parrying head. Instead, point attacks and point ripostes, even when edge was obvious and easy.
- No stop cuts. Stop cut followed by parry riposte is not a recent innovation.
- Only very rare feints, and exclusively with point. Not one feint with edge followed by a cut in the sessions I attended. Feints were not made as convincing threats to draw a parry. Drills had "short feint, wait for scripted parry, disengage." (As a result, I made feint-cut over and over again in the open fencing periods)
- Strange omissions for classical Italian sabre: No molinetto (moulinet for you Francophones), No balestra or pattinando.


Pair drills and free-fencing:

Drills emphasized long sequences of actions with repeated blade takings. all within lunge distance. I'm not against complex drill sequences in principle, but progressions have to be tactically meaningful and develop skills useful for unscripted fencing. Some of the drills struck me as especially odd, but I didn't think to write any down till the last time I was there. Remember that all
examples are sabre:

One drill (all within lunge distance, no footwork except for lunge in final action)
- Attacker takes blade in counter 3, then does an "expulsion" in 3rd (forceful blade taking) followed by cut to head.
- Defender makes head parry 5, ripostes to head
- Attacker makes head parry 6 (!) and counter riposte.
Comments: All done too close. Repeated blade actions while in lunge distance. Use of parry 6 at least historically valid.

Another drill (also in lunge distance, no footwork except as noted)
- Attacker engages in 3.
- Attacker makes change of engagement to 2nd, and finally back to 3rd (done as a bind) and then makes head cut.
- Defender parries. Feints to 3 and disengage with point
- Attacker makes parry 3 and counter 3 corresponding to the feint and disenage
- Riposte to head
Comments: All done too close, etc. Who engages the blade in sabre, let alone repeated engagements, in hitting distance? Initial riposte should have been a cut.

Another drill:
- Cut head with lunge
- Defender parries 5, and makes riposte to flank
- Attacker parries 2 (!) and makes counter riposte with point (!)
Comment: Wrong parry to defend against the riposte. 3 is faster and covers the threatened target better. Just drop the hand and angle the guard and you're done. The counter-riposte from 2 would have been much more natural as a cut instead of point. I saw a student (the attacker) struggle with this: Coming from the cut-head position his elbow was off to the side and swinging like a rusty gate. I watched the instructor and student struggle for several minutes trying to correct this. I could have corrected it in a minute because I could see where the problem was and could show the right mechanics. Not my place to do that...

In the one free fencing period I was there for, I was able to hit at will, and not get hit in return. This despite being 50+, out of shape, and a foil fencer who picks up a sabre once or twice a year. I did train fairly seriously in sabre at one time, but my last sabre lesson was in 1981 or 1982. I wanted to fence the instructor, but was never given the opportunity.

That's my report. Sorry to be long-winded, but I had time to think about it (and I can touch type ). My overall impression is that this has some of the external forms of fencing, and of Italian sabre of 100 years ago, but lacks the essence that makes fencing more than a formal dance. It doesn't feel like a +martial+ activity at all, and certainly doesn't look like the mid-20th century Italian style I grew up on. This school teaches a form of light exercise that looks something like fencing, and manages (like Crown's "etudes") to avoid the messy and ego-deflating business of fencing uncooperative opponents who might make you look bad by hitting you over and over.

[mark_anthony]

A very interesting thread- classical Vs sport fencing ( I too don't like the "sport" but would almost rather substitute "real", but there, I've tipped my hand.

The classical people like to say they fence as if it were a real duel. I would like to know how many real duels, where people were actually trying to kill each other, were fenced in a nice linear way. So already "classical" fencing is an artificial entity.

I think it comes down to "classical" fencers liking the romantised style of fencing and bemoaning a certain loss of what they feel is elegance. But as the abilities of it's best participants grow, fencing changes with them. Many of the actions that may have even won duels 100 years ago would be far too slow and ineffective against top competitors today.

An example that comes to mind for me is the Passata di Soto. This is a very elegant move that I assume is appreciated by the "classical" fencers---but how many has anyone seen in competition? This elegant looking move has been surplanted by the less elegant but much faster and more manuverable and more effective squat. Sorry, some things are just better.

Maybe some competitions can have "style" points awarded separate and apart from touches. Points that don't interfere with actual wins, but recognize style - the "classical" people would love this. We could have "best style" award in a competition. It would reward those who may not have won, but had really beautiful lunges, moved well and were great to watch.

In fact if the "Classical" people are really serious, they should decide on just what is classical style (a big problem in itself) go to the competitions and just start giving "style" ratings to fencers and keep a data bank. The competitive nature of fencers in general will start making them want an "A" in style as well as their regular "A". Who knows, it may end up something like the double point system in competitive skating- technical and style.


Bottom line for me: John L. Sullivan may have looked great boxing --but he lost to Gentleman Jim Corbet.

[Phaeton]

A very interesting thread- classical Vs sport fencing ( I too don't like the "sport" but would almost rather substitute "real", but there, I've tipped my hand..

To quote everyone's favorite disappointingly shallow sequel to Morrowind: "Do you happen to know what the fine is here in Cyrodiil for [thread] necrophilia? Just Asking."