Are saber and foil fencing at risk of extinction?

[gladius]

Riccardo Bonsignore asks this provocative question on Schermaonline.com. http://www.schermaonline.com/scherma...ticle&sid=2437

The reason--at the XVI Mediterranean Games in Pescara, Italy, from June 26 to July 5, MF and MS events have been canceled due to lack of registrations.

Bonsignore is the VP of AMIS, the Italian Association veteran fencers, and he is concerned about the numbers[*] at foil and even more at saber events, in particular women's saber.

He refers to FIS data which seem to confirm the chasm developing and growing year after year between epee and the other two weapons.

Internationally, he says, there are nations which do not even practice foil and saber.

Why?

Several causes, but he considers the FIE rules as the main culprit--the rules render saber fencing crazy and foil fencing boring while the public moves to other interests and drags away the youth.

[*] These are the data from FIS: numbers of Italian nationally ranked senior fencers

453 MF
247 WF

396 MS
190 WS

1541 ME
795 WE

Since in Italy the admission criteria to the national senior championships are limited by a closed number of qualified fencers, >20% of WS and <3% of ME nationally ranked fencers can compete at the senior national championships.

These are that data for the Master (i.e., veterans) Ranking (all categories combined):

107 MF
38 WF

93 MS
37 WS

321 ME
103 WE

Riccardo is a rare example of and epeeist in a special lair of hard core saber fencers at his club. He quotes the legendary Maestro Ryszard Zub who often says that "there is fencing and there is saber."

Riccardo thinks that there is epee and then there is fencing.


This "provocation" attracted several comments: here is a sample of the more interesting.

Comment #1 by Rapier, ( AKA Giovanni Rapisardi, a cultor of classic medieval sword combat)

Fencing should be to touch without being touched. What is the merit [in a classic combat sense] if I touch first, or during an attack, but I am also touched?

The current rules (ROW) for foil and saber are inventions (originated by the French school) which have nothing to do with a true combat.

Epee also should have few improvement toward realism (establish a hierarchy in the targets and increase the time for the double touch), however it remains the most "realistic" weapon.

Maestro Zub is quite right: epee as a sport is fencing and so is foil, at least as far as pure academic theory. But saber, which should be the other "arma da terreno" in its competitive form today is pure nonsense.

To those who do not agree let me ask: if you were without a mask and bare chested, in front of a pointed and sharp weapon would you fence like you do on the strip today?


Comment # 2 citing Giorgio Scarso, FIE VP

Scarso is adamant: there is no chance for foil and saber to disappear from the national and international fencing horizon and even the current situation does not warrant such dire predictions.

For the scarce participation (and consequent annulment) of the MF and MS events at the Mediterranean Games, Scarso blames the NOC which don't send athletes to competitions where they don't stand a chance to get any medal. At these games the majority of countries cannot hope to break the stranglehold of Italy and France, and to a certain extent Spain.

Scarso says also that these "strong" countries should do more to promote fencing in a proactive way, setting aside for once the goal of medals at any cost and giving a chance to medal also to countries where fencing is not so advanced (yet).

This should translate in a change in the country's sports policy (the national olympic committee--CONI for Italy) which should send to competitions like the Meditrerranean Games their second string fencers to give space and better hopes to get a medal to those countries where fencing is not so advanced or popular.


Comment #3 Maestro Giancarlo Toran

When the FIS was born, exactly 100 years ago, the FIE did not exist yet and each country was making its own rules. Sometime, for the early Olympic games, no agreement could be reached and it could happen that a country would not participate in a certain specialty for this reason. For example, Italy did not participate in epee in Stockholm 1912 because it could not agree with the rule establishing the length of the epee or the way how to hold it (grip).

France had a greater political weight and could impose its point of view. In epee the French were considered the strongest; in foil they considered themselves equal to the Italians; in saber, Italians and Hungarians did lay down the rules...but up to a certain point.

However, it is also true that epee and foil of that period had little in common with those of today. The first Book of Rules for competitions by the FIS called for competitions in foil and saber "da sala" (in a club environment) and in epee and saber "da terreno" (on the playing/combat field). And the Italian epee "spada da terreno" was always the Italian foil, but with different rules.

Toran cites the first Book of Rules published on the first FIS bulleting in 1910. For "salle" competitions they had qualification rounds followed by a round-robin round: in the first, equal importance was given to effectiveness and aesthetics; in the latter, only effectiveness was judged. In scherma da terreno championships only round-robin format was used and the criterion for judgement was based exclusively on the effectiveness of the fencing.

And for saber (sciabola da terreno):

The rounds were fought with bouts to two touches. The fencer who first touched his opponent with two touches was declared the winner. Maximum duration of the bout, excluding time used in discussions, was 8 minutes, including 2 minutes rest after the first 4 minutes of the bout. If after this time no fencer was touched, both were given a loss. Ditto when both fencers were touched twice. With a single touch, victory was given to the one who touched his opponent. In case of parity, the decision was left to the next touch in a bout lasting max 2 minutes. If at the end the two opponents were still even, each one was given a loss.

For fencers with equal points after the rounds, the tiebreaker was a new bout of maximum 4 minutes without rest. All valid touches were net hits with the point, cut, and undercut, deemed capable to cause injury, irrespective of the target hit....

The convention rules (ROW) were imposed later and did transform saber fencing. FIE under Roch did the rest. Referees with these rather illogic rules do what they can and most people are unhappy.

I think that once you have certain rules and a weapon/instrument, you can fence with anything: sword, stick, fist, words...even with today's foil and saber. Fencing is one and comes before the instrument/weapon and relative rules to which it adapts. It is essential to understand this and to explain it clearly and unambiguously is fundamental to understand other opposition sports. This would improve and make totally modern the entire sport of fencing.

It is hard for the public to understand the logic behind and the application of today's rules for foil and saber. There are other sports with many and complicate rules and yet these sports are very popular. But in our case even the experts don't understand that much, and they don't mind saying it. Imagine what this does for the public and the fencers who would like to understand. This is why we have the low numbers for foil and saber in spite of all FIE efforts to broaden the appeal of fencing in many new countries.

Today, the FIE policies are much more than yesterday in Italian hands. Can we hope?


Comment # 4 by the OP, Riccardo Bonsignore

How can a sport discipline, without clear and unambiguous rules even for its own very few and selected experts, which therefore moves further away from the possibility of being understood by the public and to capture an audience, even think of being able to survive?

My opinion is ZILCH chance to survive, and it's only a matter of time.

I also have faith in the FIE [new] policies, but the calming tones of its #2 as referred above don't diminish my worries, quite to the contrary...

The FIE cannot miss this boat and must do something and must do it right away and most importantly it mustn't minimize a problem which gets ever more severe.


Comment # 5 by alcol (AKA Maestro Alberto Coltorti)

...I just want to add the point of view of one deeply involved in saber and reiterate what Maestro Toran has said.

If today I were to start my working career as a saber Maestro, I would select a weapon other than saber. You are baffled by the turn taken by the refereeing process. Nobody understands a thing any longer, athletes, referees and coaches, and nowadays when you teach saber fencing you can practically ignore the convention of rules which until few years ago were considered essential dogmas...


[Note: Maestro Coltorti is considered an authority in saber. He will conduct a seminar in central America in July to educate and develop saber coaches in this part of the world under a promotion of the FIE and FIS to expand the sport of fencing.]

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by gladius

The reason--at the XVI Mediterranean Games in Pescara, Italy, from June 26 to July 5, MF and MS events have been canceled due to lack of registrations.

So...on the strength of a single tournament...a sweeping conclusion about all of fencing!

Breathtaking logic!

Bonsignore is the VP of AMIS, the Italian Association veteran fencers,

Well, there's your explanation. Veterans are often heard to yearn for the "good old days", and often think that everything has gone to hell since their salad days...

I speak from experience.

He refers to FIS data which seem to confirm the chasm developing and growing year after year between epee and the other two weapons.

That's bound to happen. Limited people will naturally gravitate toward the easiest discipline to understand. The complex ones will only attract those with the intelligence and depth to understand them.

Internationally, he says, there are nations which do not even practice foil and saber.

And on Mars, they practice none of the three! It's the end, I tell you!

Riccardo thinks that there is epee and then there is fencing.

So epee is not fencing?

Now I'm tempted to agree!

The current rules (ROW) for foil and saber are inventions (originated by the French school) which have nothing to do with a true combat.

Whereas, had they just been invented by an Italian, that would be allright, then? Heh.

To those who do not agree let me ask: if you were without a mask and bare chested, in front of a pointed and sharp weapon would you fence like you do on the strip today?

No, and neither would the epeeists. Shall we consult Aldo Nadi's account of his duel for confirmation?

A very funny fellow! But I give him credit for his curmudgeonness.

[Phrogger]

Interesting topic. Are there U.S. statistics for how many registered members are in each weapon?

[Coldfire]

Interesting post. While I don't think sabre fencing (I can't speak to foil ) is going extinct, I think the discussion brings up a question of refereeing. It seems as if the current rule interpretations allow for a wider range of more subtle judgement calls by the referees, making it harder for there to be a universal consensus, which would explain why even the "experts" don't agree.

Perhaps rule changes that leave even less to interpretation by the ref would solve this?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Phrogger

Interesting topic. Are there U.S. statistics for how many registered members are in each weapon?

You can extrapolate from the ratings list what fencers are rated in each weapon, though that statistic is only loosely related to how many people fence each weapon.

I don't know if the U.S. has means to even figure out such a statistic. What does it mean to fence a weapon? A single tournament? A certain level of skill or rating acquired? It seems to me that what weapon you fence comes from self-identification and nothing else.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by gladius

[b]
Comment #1 by Rapier, ( AKA Giovanni Rapisardi, a cultor of classic medieval sword combat)

This is the first problem.

Fencing should be to touch without being touched. What is the merit [in a classic combat sense] if I touch first, or during an attack, but I am also touched?

This is the second problem.

He is talking about what he feels fencing should be, not what the current state of affairs is. The fact is, if we want to make things closer to combat, we have a lot further to go than that! For starters, the weapons must be modified greatly to resemble anything resembling combat...

Here's the thing: if you want combat, you go the SCA or similar organization. That's not what modern fencing is. It is a sport. It has it's origins in combat... but it's not meant to be a combat simulation or training for duels anymore.

The current rules (ROW) for foil and saber are inventions (originated by the French school) which have nothing to do with a true combat.

Absolutely ridiculous. If anything, they have MORE to do with true combat than modern epee fencing. Still not much, though.

It's fairly (not completely, but fairly) widely accepted that ROW emerged as a method of teaching those with aspirations of dueling that one must first defend oneself before one goes galavanting into a blade. It's common sense manifested into a set of rules.

The fact is, NONE of the modern weapons are remotely close to combat, and none is closer than the other.

Epee also should have few improvement toward realism (establish a hierarchy in the targets and increase the time for the double touch), however it remains the most "realistic" weapon.

It's no more realistic in epee, and there are already organizations that exist to keep the history of fencing. You should be promoting to make that more widespread, not to turn a modern sport to it's stone age.

Maestro Zub is quite right: epee as a sport is fencing and so is foil, at least as far as pure academic theory. But saber, which should be the other "arma da terreno" in its competitive form today is pure nonsense.

They are all nonsense, tacticly speaking! None are weapons, and none simulate combat anymore. They each have their roots, and the current rules, while a far cry from combat, reflect their different origins.

To those who do not agree let me ask: if you were without a mask and bare chested, in front of a pointed and sharp weapon would you fence like you do on the strip today?

Would an epee fencer be any quicker to answer "yes" to this than a saber fencer?

Comment #3 Maestro Giancarlo Toran

When the FIS was born, exactly 100 years ago, the FIE did not exist yet and each country was making its own rules. Sometime, for the early Olympic games, no agreement could be reached and it could happen that a country would not participate in a certain specialty for this reason. For example, Italy did not participate in epee in Stockholm 1912 because it could not agree with the rule establishing the length of the epee or the way how to hold it (grip).

Which is why there are so many interpretations about today. Different schools of thought evolved in different places around the world. There has been much more cooperation recently than in modern fencing's infancy... but there are obvious differences region to region.

I honestly didn't bother to read the rest of the wall of text, but some of the, IMO ridiculous comments, I felt the need to address...

[NGV]

I imagine that at least some of the difference between numbers of epee fencers and the other weapons could be explained by the fact that older fencers can more easily stay competitive in epee. A comparison of the numbers of under-21 fencers in each would be more useful.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by Coldfire

Interesting post. While I don't think sabre fencing (I can't speak to foil ) is going extinct, I think the discussion brings up a question of refereeing. It seems as if the current rule interpretations allow for a wider range of more subtle judgement calls by the referees, making it harder for there to be a universal consensus, which would explain why even the "experts" don't agree.

Perhaps rule changes that leave even less to interpretation by the ref would solve this?

Interestingly enough I have spoken to several high level referees that feel that the state of saber fencing and refereeing is far more stable than the state of foil fencing/refereeing. The fencers themselves actually do a lot to contribute to the consistency of the weapon.

[Greg]

If you are looking at vets, then there may be a trend toward epee since it is fenced somewhat slower than the other weapons. As you get older, your not too thrilled about having to make lunges and lots of fast footwork. Epee is also really intuitive. That is, its easy to understand since there are fewer conventions. Whoever hits first, anywhere gets the point. Foil and sabre are far more complicated and difficult to understand for the beginner and the spectator.

[jessicasimpson]

judging by the amount of arguments durring bouts, I don't think the fencers understand the rules of foil and saber

[oiuyt]

Internationally the numbers are higher in epee in part also because of the results of the bad old days of officiating.

A number of smaller countries have chosen for various reasons to focus on a single weapon. In many cases that single weapon was epee. Epee was/is less vulnerable to bias, favoritism, and outright cheating. For a new country it was easier to get a fair shot.

So we have a bunch of Scandanavian and Baltic countries with an epee tradition and relatively little foil or sabre (Denmark and Iceland are exceptions among the Scandanavian countries).

Similarly there's more epee in the Middle East (annual world cups in Quwait and Doha).

This isn't because of crazy rules in the conventional weapons. It predates any recent fluctuations in rules or interpretations.

-B

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by gladius

Riccardo Bonsignore asks this provocative question on Schermaonline.com. http://www.schermaonline.com/scherma...ticle&sid=2437

The reason--at the XVI Mediterranean Games in Pescara, Italy, from June 26 to July 5, MF and MS events have been canceled due to lack of registrations.

Bonsignore is the VP of AMIS, the Italian Association veteran fencers, and he is concerned about the numbers[*] at foil and even more at saber events, in particular women's saber.

He refers to FIS data which seem to confirm the chasm developing and growing year after year between epee and the other two weapons.

Internationally, he says, there are nations which do not even practice foil and saber.

Why?

A few points:
1. The results of one competition is not enough data to give a firm prediction on this.
2. A number of nordic countries have limited the number of weapons. The fencing federations of Estonia and Norway have independently come to the conclusion that it is the best use of their limited resources to only compete in epee. Iceland came to a paralell conclusion in favor of sabre.

That said, I think that if one is to do a reasonable prediction of whether a sport will go extinct, then one should look for any previous sport which has gone excinct. I do not know of any sport which has gone extinct on a global scale - a sport, in contrast to a species, can be revived. However, there is a next best thing - sports which have been booted from the olympic games. In a f.net thread back in 2005, I posted the following compilation:

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

PAST SPORTS LIST
(from http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/past/index_uk.asp)
Cricket
Power boating
Croquet
Rackets
Golf
Rink-hockey
Jeu de paume
Roque
Lacrosse
Rugby
Pelote basque
Tug of war
Polo
Water skiing

BBC lacked some sports: club swinging, sculpture, and single synchonized swimming. Since then, baseball and softball have been booted.

In addition to this, a number of sports and events within sports have been booted and then reinstated, tennis being a prime example.

Several of those sports are in no risk of extinction. The following have yearly recurring Swedish championships, which means that they are not so far extinct:

Golf
Lacrosse
Tug of war
Water skiing
baseball

Of the rest, I have seen the following on TV or in newspapers recently, so they are not in any immediate danger either:

Cricket
Power boating
Rink-hockey
Lacrosse
Rugby
Polo
single synchonized swimming
softball

The list is now whittled down to:
Croquet
Rackets
Jeu de paume
Roque
Pelote basque
club swinging
sculpture
single synchonized swimming

Crocket survives at least as a non-competitive game, and Pelote is presumably alive in Basque. SSS is (was) an event within a presently extant Olympic sport.

Left as possibly extinct sports are:
Rackets
Jeu de paume
Roque
Club swinging
Sculpture

I leave it for the following posters to google up whether these sports are competitively extinct, whether there are any other extinct sports. Also, whatever similarities between foil&sabre and the extinct sports (if any) there are which bode ill for the ROW weapons.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[gladius]

In his previous post Maestro Coltorti had mentioned the fact that a group of Italian clubs who practice with great success saber had decided to put together a detailed study of the current saber situation and had sent this study to the FIS for consideration and discussion. He also had expressed the wish that such paper be given the proper attention and consideration since it involves the FIE, the FIS, and all referees. Not looking into this now could discourage current saber fencers and handicap the recruiting of new saber entusiasts. Riccardo immediately asked to have a copy of such document/study.

Maestro Coltorti replies that this may be part of the agenda at the next EC meeting of the FIS. The document was sent to the FIS president, to the FIS EC member in charge of refereeing, and to the president of the Italian FOC. He then makes this statement.

"In the opinion of many the situation [with saber] is serious to the point that it discourages the practice of this weapon. For this reason the clubs [whose main emphasis is saber] decided to directly involve the top of the FIS and Italian FOC.

To make this document public before the FIS has the opportunity to examine it could stimulate a public debate but it could be a sterile debate, based on previous experience with this public approach. By going directly to the FIS we want to elevate the tone of the discussions. Therefore it may be better to wait and see what will come out and then talk in public."


I have two comments:

1. The situation in saber is serious, says Maestro Coltorti. But obviously what the hell does he know compared with the common wisdom of most members of this forum?

2. Imagine if any group of clubs in US were to do something similar and send their study to the USFA (same officers as the FIS). How soon would you expect a reply or action?

[oiuyt]

And imagine the outcry for transparency if the answer to a request for a publicly-mentioned report was "Sorry, this is too important and essential to the future of our sport to distribute generally."

-B

[dcrocket]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Crocket survives at least as a non-competitive game, and Pelote is presumably alive in Basque. SSS is (was) an event within a presently extant

I am not an non-competitive game, no matter what anyone says! And I am doing significantly better than just "surviving", thankyou.

[crquack]

Epee is cheaper and easier to score. I knew at least two clubs which only fenced electric epee essentially for that reason.

If that were not the case I would be fencing sabre now.

[gladius]

Just to continue my trip overseas, visiting France, here is something specific to foil and its need to be "saved" (recent article on Escrime-info.com)

http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...p?storyid=1136

What about saving foil?

Foil is a weapon which has been sick for many years. In spite of the fact that it is the weapon with which one usually starts fencing (even though this is not always the case) it is often abandoned by fencers as they grow older and by others who are disgusted by the status of this weapon in competitions. We've had several examples of this: http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...orumpost250208 and http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...orumpost250129

The disease (malaise) started when a much more "physical" style of fencing then what we had previously took center stage. Forward motion and movements became more important (following the trend in saber) and certain techniques were developed like for instance the "coups lancés." This disease could have slowly disappeared as was the case of the insurgence of other diseases when foil went electric, but in this case it grew more than ever.

The disease essentially derives from refereeing. The calls are more and more misunderstod and become more and more unpredictable depending on the referee. In fact the referees adapted progressively to the new way of fencing [foil]. Unfortunately, instead of applying the rules in a rigorous manner we started to propose interpretations of the rules without following neither the spirit nor the letter of the rules. The main problem comes from the concept of attack.

The original rules of foil are of an incredible perfection. Nevertheless, we still see flagrant disagreement in the analysis of "phrases d'armes" even if just talking theory. This already supersedes what are the differences in perception and memory between referees (see http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...orumpost249842 and the following discussion).

The FIE reaction was to change the rules. The blocking time was diminished and the contact time was increased. A shorter blocking time causes a peculiar problem since foil is supposed to follow a precise convention. Now, by forcing the fencing time to become an electronic time, we pushed foil further away from the essence of the rules (the true rules) which have always been based on the well defined phrase d'armes. The effect on foil at high level is particularly evident in women's foil which doesn't seem to have gained in all this. It seems also that the increase of the valid target to a portion of the bib is nothing but further escapism from this disease which continues ever so virulent.

No doubt, the FIE changes are destined to aggravate this situation [and this is so because] once more we are in the hiatus which exists between the fencing time and keeping a phrase d'armes (it is the phrase that precisely defines the order in priorities). For example, we can very easily execute a parry-riposte and still be right according to t.56 to t.60 in the rules, but in reality be wrong because the blocking time is very short and the riposte cannot score the touch.

Furthermore, all the changes in the rules were inspired only by what happens at the high level of fencing but they did not take into consideration at all the pedagogical aspect of foil. Since the phrase d'armes disappears because the blocking time is too short, what beginners learn becomes obsolete. From now on we'll tell the student: this is how you do in theory but in practice it is only the remise that counts!!! Therefore the theory does not correspond with the practice any longer.

Thus, we see that this disease has its origins at the heart of the rules between the technical and practical part [i.e., theory and actual practice].

As we stated earlier, the origin of the disease and the technique going astray, are connected with a difficulty which relates to the attack and its definition. Fencers have started to attack with the point which was no longer aimed towards the valid target (example: the coups lancés) or to make an attack with the impulse of the forward motion, but with a retracted arm.

The rules should have given the solution to this problem, but we started instead not reading the rules or to read them wrongly. Consulting the rules is no longer an obvious act for the referees (see http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...=10565&forum=9 ) and we are happy instead to refer to some interpretations of the rules instead of the rules themselves (see http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...orumpost250172 ).

After giving quite a bit of thought (see http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...er=ASC&start=0 ) to the definition of an attack, it seems that the rules had a very relative imperfection. The rules do not correspond to the philosophy which we find in the fencing treatises. Nowadays quite often, rather than applying the strict logic of the rules, we go off the tangent by taking some concepts from the treatises. Hence the hiatus in the interpretation.

And yet, we said this before, the rules are perfect. They are perfect if we are happy to use only what the rules say and only that. Thus, to be frank, we could well drop the notion of going back to the treatises and consider them indispensables from the pedagogical point of view or for a more clear and deeper study/analysis.

If we read the rules carefully, as far as attack and priority, we can be happy by keeping these two concepts which are sufficient to define the situation:

• an attack is the extension of the arm while threatening continuously the valid target of the opponent, before launching a lunge or a fleche (t.7)

• the point in line is a special position whereby the fencer maintains the extended arm and threatens continuously with the point of his weapon the valid target of his opponent. (t.10)

If we enunciate clearly these two gestures/movements which as far as foil are covered in t.56 to t.60, we can conclude that: displacements don't really matter in the analysis of the phrase d'armes, only the arm counts. If we have an extended arm and we move forward, it is an attack according to the rules, and if we have an extended arm and we don't move or we move backward, is a point in line. In both cases we have priority.

Therefore, the only possible conclusion if we follow the rules ad litteram is: displacements, legs, carry no importance whatsoever to determine priority, only the arm counts.

Unfortunately, the referees don't judge by watching the simple extension of the arm, but more and more give weight to the displacement forward.

Now, if you move forward with a retracted arm you don't allow the opponent to parry. If we cannot parry, then the pharase d'armes makes no sense whatsoever. The only thing that matters are a series of displacements and not what we do with the blade, i.e., to extend it to threaten or to parry.

In conclusion, here are the solutions to save foil.

• make again the fencing time a subjective evaluation (by the referee) by eliminating the blocking time. Foil is a conventional weapon which must obey the rules of the phrase d'armes. The electronic scoring apparatus must not play a role in judging priority. Therefore the blocking time must be suppressed to let only the referee decide the priority and the fencing time. The scoring machine should be only an indicator that the touch is valid or not (hit the target or not)

• apply the rules clearly pure and simply. The message must be clear as far as the interpretation of the rules. The rules state that the arm's extention is enough to get priority and it does not matter if we move forward or back. Therefore, the referee must focus on the arm's extention, that's all. And the referee must be instructed accordingly. The easier the principle, the easier its application. Just saying, watch the arms, will make refereeing much easier.

Thus, the reforms made so far by the FIE to save foil do nothing but harm. All we need to do is go back to the fundamentals because we are now living through an identity crisis of a weapon.


Note: I maintained the links to other French postings on Escrime-info for accuracy. I do not bother with the translation since nothing unique or not previously referred to is mentioned (and to remain within the limits of the characters count). However if this were really interesting, I'm open to do it.

The purpose of sharing all this is that around the world debates and discussions are going on and people don't feel that offended if one uses strong words like "extinction" if applied to this or that weapon for this or that situation.

[Pieter]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Absolutely ridiculous. If anything, they have MORE to do with true combat than modern epee fencing. Still not much, though.

Er, no. When you watch modern fencing, foilist and sabreurs can go as far as to entirely ignore an opponents blade. Epeeists are far less like to do that.

The fact is, NONE of the modern weapons are remotely close to combat, and none is closer than the other.

Epee is the closest... Again, less galavanting about.

Would an epee fencer be any quicker to answer "yes" to this than a saber fencer?

We'd lose foot touches, but for the most part I'd be more willing to do it in Epee than in Sabre or foil (Oh, the safety of the wrist)


Granted, I still think the OP's arguments are wrong, but these irked me.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Pieter

Er, no. When you watch modern fencing, foilist and sabreurs can go as far as to entirely ignore an opponents blade. Epeeists are far less like to do that.

Er....

[Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by gladius

All we need to do is go back to the fundamentals because we are now living through an identity crisis of a weapon.
:

More like a mid-life crisis.