Change in Fencing Styles

[Himself]

Sorry, dunno if this is the correct forum to post this.

I fenced in college way back before most of the members were born (late 1970s). My 11-year-old daughter is interested in fencing, so I found this site.

I'm watching some of the bouts and the point control would have had our coach screaming. It's disappointing to see "hot dogging" at the pinacle of the sport now.

I'm feeling a bit like Rip van Winkle.

[LastLeftyofEL]

Is your daughter fencing people who just started like her? I mean, if she is just starting expect her to dig.

[jBirch]

Sorry, dunno if this is the correct forum to post this.

I fenced in college way back before most of the members were born (late 1970s). My 11-year-old daughter is interested in fencing, so I found this site.

I'm watching some of the bouts and the point control would have had our coach screaming. It's disappointing to see "hot dogging" at the pinacle of the sport now.

I'm feeling a bit like Rip van Winkle.

What do you mean by "hot dogging"? The modern game is a lot more focused on distance and timing and less focused on tight blade work then the classical game was.

Where the old game was focused on nice clean parry-riposte actions, the new game is focused on letting the attack fall short then "turning the corner" and charging in with a strong attack.

James.

[noodle]

Sorry, dunno if this is the correct forum to post this.

I fenced in college way back before most of the members were born (late 1970s). My 11-year-old daughter is interested in fencing, so I found this site.

I'm watching some of the bouts and the point control would have had our coach screaming. It's disappointing to see "hot dogging" at the pinacle of the sport now.

I'm feeling a bit like Rip van Winkle.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition
the "old" way of fencing is not always the "best" way to fence. the sport evolves.

Logical Fallacies: Misleading Vividness, Composition
"hot dogging" is relative and applying that term to all modern fencing is a far stretch.

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring
what does point control have to do with anything? top competitors all have extremely accurate point control, regardless of where their point is at any given time.



try linking some videos and giving us commentary on it to accurately share your opinions and allow us to give you input on what you're seeing.

[Fechter1]

Sorry, dunno if this is the correct forum to post this.

I fenced in college way back before most of the members were born (late 1970s). My 11-year-old daughter is interested in fencing, so I found this site.

I'm watching some of the bouts and the point control would have had our coach screaming. It's disappointing to see "hot dogging" at the pinacle of the sport now.

I'm feeling a bit like Rip van Winkle.

This is definitely the correct forum for you. Looooots of good information, and looots of good people (and some not so good ).

The sport has definitely changed even in the past 15 or so years. These days, a lot of especially younger fencers focus more on raw athleticism rather than complicated blade actions... (At least from what I've seen) Like James menntioned, distance and tempo are much more in the focus these days.

Welcome to the forum, and welcome back to the sport (you know you won't be able to stay away and just watch your daughter fence )

[fatfencer]

[QUOTE=noodle;668746]Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition
the "old" way of fencing is not always the "best" way to fence. the sport evolves.

Noods, I don't think he's arguing anything but just making some observations. He's not saying its the best, merely that he's surprised by the evolution and in what manner it evolved.

Logical Fallacies: Misleading Vividness, Composition
"hot dogging" is relative and applying that term to all modern fencing is a far stretch.

We both know what he means though, we dont hang our back arms up... theres a lot of shucking and jiving on the strip. Then theres flicks, etc.

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring
what does point control have to do with anything? top competitors all have extremely accurate point control, regardless of where their point is at any given time.

Speaking of 'logical fallacies' just how do you determine that these top competitors have 'extremely' accurate point control.

The phrase 'top competitor' isn't causal to 'point control' NOR do you likely have any cites/studies that support that top competitors go off-target less and hit more often exactly where they want to. This Noods is what we call an 'assumption'. You appeal to him asking for ev when you yourself present none. Not good.


You know Noods, for all the bull**** pseudo-logic/fallacies comments that people (you reading this INQ!!!) spew into F-Net, there isn't one example of 'perfect' argument advanced by any of us. Likely, not ONE example.

I wonder why is??? Can anyone post any argument, proposal, etc longer than two paragraphs with NO logical fallacies? I'm looking for real, meaningful, substantive, meaty args here, not a sentence or two.

Is there such an animal? The internet must have the answer. Perhaps f-net can find it for me so that I can tape it to my forehead and hopefully, learn by osmosis. Here I am, holding my breath and waiting...


FF

[Inquartata]

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition
the "old" way of fencing is not always the "best" way to fence. the sport evolves.

Logical Fallacies: Misleading Vividness, Composition
"hot dogging" is relative and applying that term to all modern fencing is a far stretch.

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring
what does point control have to do with anything? top competitors all have extremely accurate point control, regardless of where their point is at any given time.

Hooah!

Hope is reborn.

FF, you are right that there are few perfect arguments...and if there were THEY wouldn't conince anyone, either.

However, there are no perfect fencing actions. Does that mean we stop striving to get better? No. So too with our logic: it's a never-ending process of improvement.

Well, except for those who gave up on it long ago because it was too hard, or didn't work for them, or got bested too often.

[noodle]

Noods, I don't think he's arguing anything but just making some observations. He's not saying its the best, merely that he's surprised by the evolution and in what manner it evolved.

logical fallacies don't apply only to arguments.

We both know what he means though, we dont hang our back arms up... theres a lot of shucking and jiving on the strip. Then theres flicks, etc.

right, and the point i'm making is that, basically, so what? what does that have to do with anything? hence, logical fallacy. does fencing look different? yes, but is fencing somehow worse than it used to be, as it is implied? no. different is not a value-associated property.

Speaking of 'logical fallacies' just how do you determine that these top competitors have 'extremely' accurate point control.

The phrase 'top competitor' isn't causal to 'point control' NOR do you likely have any cites/studies that support that top competitors go off-target less and hit more often exactly where they want to. This Noods is what we call an 'assumption'. You appeal to him asking for ev when you yourself present none. Not good.

not an assumption.
top competitor is used to refer to people of high levels of skill in fencing who have produced good results on the national and/or international level.

to have this level of skill, one must be proficient in basic fencing actions. a basic fencing action is point control. not all high level competitors have the same level of accuracy and control in their tip, but i can guarantee they all have a better level than someone who is new, inexperienced, or not highly skilled in technical actions. "pinnacle of the sport" and implied poor point control do not jive together.

its like saying you're a great basketball player but you're bad at dribbling the ball. it doesn't happen. you might not be as good as another player, but its a fundamental of the sport, you're going to be "good" at it.

You know Noods, for all the bull**** pseudo-logic/fallacies comments that people (you reading this INQ!!!) spew into F-Net, there isn't one example of 'perfect' argument advanced by any of us. Likely, not ONE example.

I wonder why is??? Can anyone post any argument, proposal, etc longer than two paragraphs with NO logical fallacies? I'm looking for real, meaningful, substantive, meaty args here, not a sentence or two.

Is there such an animal? The internet must have the answer. Perhaps f-net can find it for me so that I can tape it to my forehead and hopefully, learn by osmosis. Here I am, holding my breath and waiting...


FF

i have no clue what these words you present here mean.

[Moroseth]

not an assumption.
top competitor is used to refer to people of high levels of skill in fencing who have produced good results on the national and/or international level.

to have this level of skill, one must be proficient in basic fencing actions. a basic fencing action is point control. not all high level competitors have the same level of accuracy and control in their tip, but i can guarantee they all have a better level than someone who is new, inexperienced, or not highly skilled in technical actions. "pinnacle of the sport" and implied poor point control do not jive together.

its like saying you're a great basketball player but you're bad at dribbling the ball. it doesn't happen. you might not be as good as another player, but its a fundamental of the sport, you're going to be "good" at it.

Thank you for saying this for me