Deconstructing the Art and Science of Fencing - Posted

[Gav]

In 2007, a 34 year old won gold in men's sabre at the world championships. Given this, 36 is perhaps not best described as "unthinkably ancient" for an Olympic champion.

Kolobkov was 35 when he won the WC in 2005.

[K O'N]

Kolobkov was 35 when he won the WC in 2005.

Not such a big deal in epee, is it?

[Jacek.Bujko]

Have you seen the Sandor Posta video?

Sure did - like most of the vids You've posted (good job, by the way )
What about it?

[Gav]

Not such a big deal in epee, is it?

Do you actually fence much epee...
but that's not the point I am making anyway.

[K O'N]

Do you actually fence much epee...
but that's not the point I am making anyway.

It wasn't intended as a slight, Gav. I've been an epee fencer for 25 years. The common sentiment I hear is that saber rewards youth more, and epee rewards experience more.

I don't think we've had an epee fencer hold the Cadet, Junior and World Championships at the same time, have we? And Tikhomirov won a bronze in epee at the World Championships when he was 43, has anyone done that in saber recently?

But maybe the common sentiment is wrong. Grumier is pretty young, Tagliariol is pretty young. I don't feel like looking up the average ages of the last twenty or so world champions, so who knows.

K O'N

[piste off]

...

I don't think we've had an epee fencer hold the Cadet, Junior and World Championships at the same time, have we? And Tikhomirov won a bronze in epee at the World Championships when he was 43, has anyone done that in saber recently?

But maybe the common sentiment is wrong. Grumier is pretty young, Tagliariol is pretty young. I don't feel like looking up the average ages of the last twenty or so world champions, so who knows.

K O'N

Only four epeeists have ever won both the Junior and Senior World Championships, none were at the same time I believe.

There is a world of difference between epee at the highest levels and what most people are used to seeing here.

Still, it is the most forgiving in terms of age. You’ll also see the best athletes and the worst in the sport fencing that weapon.

R-

[DAchilleus]

Thank you all for the feedback on the Heavy Sabre video on YouTube. As I was one of the principles involved let me share some quick facts with you:
1) This assault took place on day 5 of a 6 day intensive workshop & at the end of the day (I think it was about 6pm - we started at 9am). Is this an excuse? Hell yes! I was tired. We had just finished a 5 hour training session. Apologies for not being at my most spry and energetic.
2) John Sullins (in black) is a formidable fighter. On day one of the week he had beaten me roundly with the light/modern sabres. One or two techniques in particular work for him almost automatically. In this assault I was playing very cautious as I did not want to get caught in that same trap. You will notice this when he (in black) lowers his sabre below the line of 2nd. I have to admit a certain glee at winning that last touch with a parry riposte
3) Heavy Sabres. This changes not only the manner and duration of your grip but it also translates into more kinetic energy being absorbed and transmitted through the weapon upon contact. Simple, efficient and conservative actions are mandatory - not stylistic affectations.
4) What you see is what you get. I am not trying to fence in any particular style or genre. That is how I fence (and honestly I rarely fence sabre). To say that I am going from Italian to Hungarian to Martian - I cannot answer. All I can say is that its fencing. Most of the techniques I use are taught by the Italian masters I train with. The decisions and choices are my own.
5) If you have any further questions I'd be happy to try and answer them.

Sidenote: I was shocked to learn via this thread that Leckie is still alive. Bill - I send my best to you and your good lady wife. I still think you're a good for nothing who can't fence his way out of a paper bag, but one must admire your commitment to the fantasy world you have built for yourself. Cheers!

Sidenote II: Not long ago I fought an assault against a new addition to the Evangelista School of Fencing. From what I personally recall of the ESF teachings this guy was doing everything by the book and exactly how Nick teaches. Sadly it doesn't work. The geometry we employ in our system was designed to defeat that of the EFS and it works. This may serve as a kind of metaphor for what fencers like me are trying to do vs others with different goals: you can jump around all you like but the simplest means to killing you is still a straight line.

Sidenote III: In July (the Sunday after the sabre video discussed above) I fenced in a little sport tournament in Davis, CA. I found most of the fencers there welcoming and the fencing wasn't too bad. There were a few cases of a guy fleching himself into the wall repeatedly or the windshield wiper effect, but in all it was ok. I think, that while some discussion is useful, we can all accomplish more by getting together and fencing. I have no need to convince anybody that what they are doing is wrong or that what I do is better. Maybe we do different things. Maybe you'd like to fence and find out.

Thanks again for the input.

DA

[WGH]

3) Heavy Sabres. This changes not only the manner and duration of your grip but it also translates into more kinetic energy being absorbed and transmitted through the weapon upon contact. Simple, efficient and conservative actions are mandatory - not stylistic affectations.

Not sure exactly what you are referring to with stylistic affectations, but I find use of the mollinelo significantly more important with heavy sabre than modern sabre. Granted my training was of Barbasetti's lineage, so I would think so. All that heft limits the speed and effectiveness of successive direct cuts after the parry while the mollinelo serves to parry and create/direct the momentum of the blade. Though I assume John would know more about the italian school than I, being from the San Jose program.

[DAchilleus]

Not sure exactly what you are referring to with stylistic affectations, but I find use of the mollinelo significantly more important with heavy sabre than modern sabre. Granted my training was of Barbasetti's lineage, so I would think so. All that heft limits the speed and effectiveness of successive direct cuts after the parry while the mollinelo serves to parry and create/direct the momentum of the blade. Though I assume John would know more about the italian school than I, being from the San Jose program.

By "stylistic affectations" I was pointing out that we are not "going through the motions" or reenacting some choreographed set of actions. This would be "fencing" for the sake of form or aesthetic. I personally do not agree with this approach. We train to incorporate the form because of a geometric certainty and that relationship to successful technical and strategic actions.

I like the molinello as well and completely agree with its usefulness as you describe. I can say again that in the scope of the assault captured in the video I simply did not want to incur additional risk based on what I knew about M Sullins' ability. I thought I had a good chance with a simple strategy based on feints and parry ripostes.

Do you currently train with somebody in the use of M Barbasetti's sabre techniques? I have discovered much variation in the presentation of his theory from teacher to teacher.

[DAchilleus]

Well as someone here mentioned - defining classical/historical fencing is a hard thing to do. We've been having problems with the terminology ever since and right now, our group uses these definitions:

Sport fencing - we all know what is it, the sport that's derived from ancient duelling

Historical fencing - it's the kind of fencing where fencers try to learn to fence just as people fenced years ago, in a particular period. It's based on reading the surviving manuscripts, using weapon replicas and so on.

Classical fencing - it's the kind of fencing where people fence with any weapon as if it was sharp, using whatever knowledge/skill they can to achieve the goal of "to hit and not be hit". We agree that the term "classical" is used only to show a layman that we're not talking about sport fencing (because that's the first thing they think of when they hear just "fencing").

Right now we are debating whether we should leave the term "classical" for the highly conventional foil fencing from 18-19th century and use some other word, term like "duelling fencing"

It is not difficult to define, it is difficult to agree

For example:

There are two ways to use the word "classical" to describe fencing. The first, and most widely used (and misused) is that of an historical period of time. To say, as in music, fencing "reached a classical era". The second way to sue the word is to describe not the fencing but the methodology of training and instruction, as in a "classical education". This refers to the tritium of grammar, logic and rhetoric.

I tend to use the latter. We teach traditional weapons classically.

Another issue to agree on or not is the word "weapon". The foil is not a weapon. Children and novices train with foils. After they have passed through sufficient training and can hold and correctly manipulate they can then begin to use a weapon.

I think you'll find that the adjective "traditional" is getting more play these days among those of us training with swords. Whether or not the methodology is "classical" remains to be seen. For example, I think that Nick Evangelista teaches classically in the sense that his fencing system has an inherent logic. But I do not think that it is traditional. His system does not translate well to the use of swords.

But this then is something nice once you accept the uncertainty of the autonomous fencing school. It will be a little different as you travel fencing from school to school. I'm OK with that personally because I believe good fencing is adaptable.

Good luck with your work.

[telkanuru]

For example, I think that Nick Evangelista teaches classically in the sense that his fencing system has an inherent logic.

The system of teaching sport fencing does not have an inherent logic?

[schlager7]

But this then is something nice once you accept the uncertainty of the autonomous fencing school. It will be a little different as you travel fencing from school to school. I'm OK with that personally because I believe good fencing is adaptable.

Just a side note. Prior to 30-something years of slow homogenization that began circa 1896 with the Modern Olympics, this was exactly the case. Styles and conventions were very different from one salle to another.

It was only with the creation of a universally recognized international competition that everyone wanted to do well in, that the creation of a single set of rules and conventions came into being.

[DAchilleus]

The system of teaching sport fencing does not have an inherent logic?

Not germane. My observation was specific to how the adjective 'classical' could be employed differently.

Or, are you asking me if I think the system of sport fencing has an inherent logic or not?

[DAchilleus]

@ schlager7:

Agreed. I think the fact that this is exactly how it still is in the world of non-sport fencing highlights much of the misunderstandings on both sides. However, I like my autonomy and find the work of others interesting.

BTW, thanks very much for your posted videos. We were all especially interested in the journalists dueling over the Marie Curie scandals. Very kewl!

[telkanuru]

Not germane. My observation was specific to how the adjective 'classical' could be employed differently.

So, you're saying that the adjective 'classical' can be used as a descriptor for a system of teaching fencing that has an "inherent logic".

The Tauber system would then become 'classical', but not 'Classical'?

Were you attempting to increase confusion?

[DAchilleus]

So, you're saying that the adjective 'classical' can be used as a descriptor for a system of teaching fencing that has an "inherent logic".

The Tauber system would then become 'classical', but not 'Classical'?

Were you attempting to increase confusion?

I suppose this is what I am saying but I have no information on the Tauber system itself. If you develop your own system of instruction and use as a foundation the ideas of grammar, logic and rhetoric (making a direct appeal to classical education) then I would have to agree that it is a classical methodology.

I agree with your distinction between upper and lower case, too. Some people in fencing lean towards idealization. Frankly I do not see the need to hold up the fencing of the 19th in general over any other. I have a great fondness for Rosarrol and Grisetti who published their treatise in 1803, but the fencing within reflects the fencing of the 18th century.

In my example I specifically picked Evangelista's system because in and of itself it does make sense. However, that is the how. My problem with his system is the what. What is he teaching? Nothing very traditional and less to do with actual swordplay than he may like some people to believe. Evidence the contradictions from his ubiquitous apologist, Bill Leckie.

Tauber looks like an interesting person. May I ask if there was a special significance to introducing him and his system? I have almost no information other than a cursory Google search. Thanks for the lead.

ps: no, not attempts to increase confusion. I think this issue has been allowed to become more confusing than is necessary. Classical Fencing was latched on to originally because many fencers wanted to differentiate themselves from Sport Fencing but also from the SCA and others (maybe more importantly for some). Hence the adjective 'classical' became a kind of rallying cry behind which hundreds flocked. Nowadays, when I travel and fence with these "Classical Fencers" I discover they didn't have the same intentions as the guys I had just visited. So you see, it really is confusing out there.

[telkanuru]

Exactly how do you teach fencing on the foundations of grammar, logic, and rhetoric without making your students do 30 minutes of elocution before open bouting?

The Tauber system is the German epee/foil system originating in the training facilities of Tauberbishofshiem, Germany, under coach Emil Beck, ca. 1970, and is really the first modern sport training system.

[LordShout]

I suppose this is what I am saying but I have no information on the Tauber system itself. If you develop your own system of instruction and use as a foundation the ideas of grammar, logic and rhetoric (making a direct appeal to classical education) then I would have to agree that it is a classical methodology.

Lets not be so pretentious as to believe that classical education has anything to do with logic. It's simply a collection of classes that properly educated someone to be rich, white and British. Of course I'm rather sad I didn't choose it as my major in college but I can always tack on the Latin and Greek later.

In my example I specifically picked Evangelista's system because in and of itself it does make sense.

No it doesn't. His system is trying to turn fencing into a traditional martial art where a belief system is implicit with the physical actions. The belief system he promotes doesn't mesh with the physical actions therefore it does not make sense.

[DAchilleus]

Exactly how do you teach fencing on the foundations of grammar, logic, and rhetoric without making your students do 30 minutes of elocution before open bouting?

Now I think you may be poking fun.

In fencing, the trivium (grammar, logic and rhetoric) are used top anchor the method of instruction leading towards comprehension and practical ability. therefore:

Grammar = the canon of techniques in fencing
Logic = strategy and tactics, the thinking process of using the above
Rhetoric = the act of engaging another fencer in the give and take of the above, i.e. fencing. (fencing as a dialogue, viz. the "conversation of steel")

This is how I the classical "trivium" at work in fencing pedagogy.

[telkanuru]

Now I think you may be poking fun.

In fencing, the trivium (grammar, logic and rhetoric) are used top anchor the method of instruction leading towards comprehension and practical ability. therefore:

Grammar = the canon of techniques in fencing
Logic = strategy and tactics, the thinking process of using the above
Rhetoric = the act of engaging another fencer in the give and take of the above, i.e. fencing. (fencing as a dialogue, viz. the "conversation of steel")

This is how I the classical "trivium" at work in fencing pedagogy.

No, now I'm thinking you're over complicating a rather simple thing.

You are saying that any system of teaching fencing that involves actually teaching fencing is a 'classical' system.

Gee, thanks. That's terribly useful.