Deconstructing the Art and Science of Fencing - Posted

[jeff]

Yeah....

Problem is that this site is (with some notable exceptions) visited by people who know something about fencing and unlikely to be damaged by NickNonsense, while the book is bought by a general public that doesn't know a darn thing, and don't know the guy's a charlatan.

If only we could get the lay masses to come here and imbibe from our collective wisdom and while doing so make some $ for Craig, too.

[neevel]

Yeah....

Problem is that this site is (with some notable exceptions) visited by people who know something about fencing and unlikely to be damaged by NickNonsense, while the book is bought by a general public that doesn't know a darn thing, and don't know the guy's a charlatan.

If only we could get the lay masses to come here and imbibe from our collective wisdom and while doing so make some $ for Craig, too.

One approach is to do the same thing that Evangelista did: find a suitable book on fencing, and then get everyone we know to flood the user reviews for it on Amazon with glowing praise.

[Gav]

On this board we've seen videos of Crown, Achilleus, and now Nick and Bill. Each one of them had really bad fencing.

He was a Classicist? I seem to remember him being pretty knowledgeable about fencing generally...

[piste off]

http://soestfechten.programmierwerks...nheute_en.html

There are a couple of videos there, and some more here.

Can anyone make out what kind of shoes they are wearing? I don't think they are Nike Ballestras, so Adidas perhaps?

R-

[migopod]

He was a Classicist? I seem to remember him being pretty knowledgeable about fencing generally...

I think it were a different beast. There's the F.Netter of olde, and then there's this guy.

[jeff]

That's the one (the "this guy", not the knowledgeable f.netter with that handle). The one who's video was discussed at length at Traditional Fencing Video

[Bill]

A private e-mail alerted me to the feeding frenzy after you found an old website. Yes, you Downunder, yeah the sheila--you know where we are, so come and fence us. But it is odd: You are afraid to fence without your prosthetics. You need the box, weak hits to cloth, counting the double touch. You cannot distinguish a valid hit so use the light as a crutch. You cannot fence "as if they were sharp" and "to hit and not be hit." Yet I am a coward because I will not surrender to your Outback Pomposity? I am a Troll because I do not follow the USFA Party Line for Fencing Clones? I do confess I am not qualified to teach electric tag, and am glad you have acknowledged that. I prefer to teach a grownups game, you see.

I doubt you and any of your fellow geniuses will show up in little Soest. I am pushing 70 and will still kick each and every sporty butt if you do, and will not be gentlemanly to the sheila. However, the purpose of my little postscript is to thank you. You unearthed a retired website and videos of beginners with at most a year's experience, and rated them with some of the gurus of "classical" fencing wth years more experience than they. As a critic of those gurus myself, I will be sure those fencers read your comments. You have confirmed my judgment four years ago--that they will become excellent, real fencers. I sincerely thank you--and there is no sarcasm intended. You have really made my day.

[Gav]

That's the one (the "this guy", not the knowledgeable f.netter with that handle). The one who's video was discussed at length at Traditional Fencing Video

That's going back 3 years!

Check out my post (no. 40). There's some good advice there.

[LordShout]

Rant A:

If dueling every comes back into popularity your students will be the ones losing. They don't have footwork, they don't have speed, they'll be pottering around while a modern fencer steals the tempo binds in and than gets to watch as the "real fencer" gets administered to by the doctor.

Would we have to make some adjustments that you pointed out? Yes, priority would be given to not getting hit over making the R.O.W. touch. But in the end we would still win.

Rant B:

Once again, where are your good fencers on video? Show us. You might not like the 'flailing' nature of high level fencing but surely you have at least one video of your equivalent?

Rant C:

I doubt you and any of your fellow geniuses will show up in little Soest.

If I travel to Germany anytime soon I will be sure to stop by, however I'm a poor college kid right now and so I wouldn't hold your breath. Downunder on the other hand will certainly be in Germany sometime in the next year.

Rant D:

It is generally considered polite to limit your posting to 1-2 languages, yes I'm sure you speak many more but the idea is to communicate not obfuscate.

[Craig]

You need the box, weak hits to cloth, counting the double touch. You cannot distinguish a valid hit so use the light as a crutch. You cannot fence "as if they were sharp" and "to hit and not be hit."

Bill - I have seen that in dry (non electric) fencing, there are lots of hits that would not be counted that would result in a clear puncture wound to the kidneys or liver when using opposition to the flank. What we enjoy is the objectivity of the scoring box. The box does not care what club you are from, nor does it care what form you are using.

The box only cares if you hit with sufficient force to depress the tip. With sharps, if the force were enough to bend the blade, it would be enough to draw blood.

We value the objectivity provided. If you really want to talk about fencing with sharps, then one touch epee with an expanded lockout time and Pentathlon rules (double touch = double defeat) would be the most suited to what I gather your preferred style would be.

I have yet to see examples of "weak hits to cloth", unless you are talking about hits that snag on a uniform when one is wearing a fencing jacket 4 sizes too large. Yes, that does happen to beginners every now and again, but any competitive fencer has a proper fitting uniform that does not allow for glancing hits - you see we don't like to handicap ourselves with the equipment.

Still, I await some video of you or one of your masters or high level students in a real match so that I can do some analysis of your style and compare it to other styles I've sampled in the past. If you're not doing it yet, then invest in some video as it's a great way to highlight proper form and to enhance any athlete's or artist's training.

Craig

[Fiat Slug]

...you know where we are, so come and fence us.

Sigh. If a single bout can forever end the debate between modern vs. classical, then I'll pay for the airline ticket to fly someone to Soest.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Sigh. If a single bout can forever end the debate between modern vs. classical, then I'll pay for the airline ticket to fly someone to Soest.

Seconded.

[VERITAS]

That's the one (the "this guy", not the knowledgeable f.netter with that handle). The one who's video was discussed at length at Traditional Fencing Video

That's going back 3 years!

Time flies. If anyone's interested, this one's a bit more recent:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogDBsgIN7NU

[erooMynohtnA]

A private e-mail alerted me to the feeding frenzy after you found an old website. Yes, you Downunder, yeah the sheila--you know where we are, so come and fence us. But it is odd: You are afraid to fence without your prosthetics. You need the box, weak hits to cloth, counting the double touch. You cannot distinguish a valid hit so use the light as a crutch. You cannot fence "as if they were sharp" and "to hit and not be hit." Yet I am a coward because I will not surrender to your Outback Pomposity? I am a Troll because I do not follow the USFA Party Line for Fencing Clones? I do confess I am not qualified to teach electric tag, and am glad you have acknowledged that. I prefer to teach a grownups game, you see.

Bill, I enjoy reading your stuff. I think that you are contributing a lot to this thread. However, I don't think that fencers are scared to fence without a light. As Craig pointed out, objectivity is nice in a sport. I practice dry sometimes (rarely). The lessons I give are dry. I have tried to compete dry in a classical competition for fun, and was refused. I am not going to fly to Germany to fence you, although you are welcome to fly to America and fence me, if you like, but my experience is not that sport fencers are afraid of not using lights, but many classical fencers are afraid of open competition with sport fencers.

I also don't see why using pistol grips is a problem. If the French is superior upon mastery of its technique, wouldn't you want your opponent to handicap himself with the pistol? And if the pistol is superior, why would you not use it?

Time flies. If anyone's interested, this one's a bit more recent:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogDBsgIN7NU

I don't really think that's a bad video. Compared to modern saber, it's a little slow, but the floor seems pretty slippery and the blades are heavy, so I don't think a direct comparison is valid. They both seemed to at least have an idea of what they were doing, something the other videos here lacked entirely.

[LordShout]

That video isn't terrible it's merely bad. Are the blades heavier? Yes. Does that stop them from having good footwork or decent attacks? No.

[Craig]

I don't really think that's a bad video. Compared to modern saber, it's a little slow, but the floor seems pretty slippery and the blades are heavy, so I don't think a direct comparison is valid. They both seemed to at least have an idea of what they were doing, something the other videos here lacked entirely.

I think that video (cut and thrust sabre) is good. The weapons are heavier, which does put a limit on the blade feints that you can realistically execute.

I noticed that the fencer on the right scored well when he did use a feint-cut, real-cut attack.

Much more realistic to the "hit and not be hit" than dry foils, IMO.

Craig

[I_luv_saber]

I am a Troll because I do not follow the USFA Party Line for Fencing Clones?

troll

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

No, this is why you are a troll.

Time flies. If anyone's interested, this one's a bit more recent:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogDBsgIN7NU

FWIW, I think this is actually a decent example of classical saber fencing. It looks like fun, and I'd be happy to try.

[Phaeton]

I never took up fencing because I wanted to learn how to duel. The efficacy of either form of fencing in a duel is kind of tangential. I don't think I'll ever have the occasion to go through "trial by steel" or whatever trite and over-used cliche you want to use. I learned to fence because it's a great game (a special kind of conversation between two people), has a wonderful community, and is a lot of fun. I will continue learning for the rest of my life because of these reasons.

Look, I have nothing wrong with classical fencing. If you want to bash your friend over the head with a salmon while in fencing gear and call that some kind of "classical aquatic assault fencing", all the more to you. What irks me (and I imagine a lot of other sport fencers) is the amount of contempt and misinformation that comes out of the classical fencing community.

There are sport fencing clubs and organizations that do the same thing, and I dislike them as well. It isn't okay to run an organization based on contempt for others, and it isn't okay to vilify people over questionable claims. If you say you're the best, ignore outside influences or dismiss them, and then indoctrinate others you're hurting the community.

What I see a lot of is fencers that think their "classical" background has any connection whatsoever with real fencing showing up to tournaments and getting steamrolled by anyone with footwork and the slimmest understanding of ROW and tempo. That turns a lot of people off right off the bat. Honestly EVERY classical fencing organization has the obligation to say "We have nothing to do with sport fencing, and are a wholly different movement. If you're interested in the olympic sport go elsewhere. That need be the only mention. Dissparagement isn't necessary.

Sport fencing is only getting stronger. There's a real beautiful game to appreciate. (Go watch the 2005 Men's Sabre event in Leipzig. One of my favorite finals ever.) It may not be what you like or what gibes with your understanding of the world, but there's something to appreciate.

Honestly, Bill, I look at your posts and see a reactionary, to steal from German, weltanschauung. You may see the decline of civilization as a whole, but I see progress occurring on different levels (I am by no means a positivist, but with the percentage of the world literate and able to attend school, and with the recent growth of the liberal arts movement in the States, it's hard to say we're going backwards in all those areas.) Modern

In 100 years, we'll see who'll be around, sport fencing or classical. I bet it'll be sport. I bet it will have changed, and I bet, although the game will be different, there will be something still beautiful about it. I bet there'll be reactionary loonies then too. They'll fade away eventually.

Honestly, keep out of our business and we'll keep out of yours. We clearly aren't compatable at all. When Evangelista stops evangelizing classical fencing, and when you don't unfairly abduct people that want to be spot fencers, we'll be happy. When that day comes I'll stop making classical fencer jokes and point all the steel and glory people to you.

So call me the bastard child of the modern mentality, but I think it's sentimental (in the most negative sense of the word) and unhealthy romanticism (see Lord Jim for a good example of what I'm talking about) to look back to long for a past that wasn't and will never be. Talk about lineage all you want, that's not good enough justification for me. We aren't in a heroic society anymore (just because your great-great-great grandmother was knocked up by Zeus does not mean you should be king) and I damn well don't care about your historical texts. Take them, the attitude, and segregate yourselves to your hearts content.

[kuroutesshin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USFIk...response_watch

The above video is a very good example of what good, classical technique looks like. It's slower because the emphasis is on not being hit, I think, which is totally acceptable- because the tempo is still quite nice, and the way both fencers are executing their actions is so technical and precise it's really a pleasure to watch. It might not be as fast or energetic as a World Cup sabre bout, and the touches might not be as obvious, but it's still a beautiful example of fencing.

There is good in both the sport and martial aspects of fencing. And honestly, if given the choice between the sabre I saw above and the sabre my clubmates fence, I'd pick option A because it is more appealing to me.

Does that make me a classical fencer? I don't think so. The labelling is the worst part of this "debate" between the two camps. Phaeton had a good point, even if I disagree with the assertion that the two groups should have nothing to do with each other: be upfront about what you're teaching and why.

My addition: don't be negative about why you're doing it! Classical fencers, however they do it, should do it because they love fencing, not because they dislike what fencing has become. Similarly, sport fencers should fence for the same reason, not because they think classical fencing is stupid and outdated.

To be overly smarmy and syrupy-sweet, can't we all just get along?

[migopod]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USFIk...response_watch

The above video is a very good example of what good, classical technique looks like. It's slower because the emphasis is on not being hit, I think, which is totally acceptable- because the tempo is still quite nice, and the way both fencers are executing their actions is so technical and precise it's really a pleasure to watch. It might not be as fast or energetic as a World Cup sabre bout, and the touches might not be as obvious, but it's still a beautiful example of fencing.

There is good in both the sport and martial aspects of fencing. And honestly, if given the choice between the sabre I saw above and the sabre my clubmates fence, I'd pick option A because it is more appealing to me.

Does that make me a classical fencer? I don't think so. The labelling is the worst part of this "debate" between the two camps. Phaeton had a good point, even if I disagree with the assertion that the two groups should have nothing to do with each other: be upfront about what you're teaching and why.

My addition: don't be negative about why you're doing it! Classical fencers, however they do it, should do it because they love fencing, not because they dislike what fencing has become. Similarly, sport fencers should fence for the same reason, not because they think classical fencing is stupid and outdated.

To be overly smarmy and syrupy-sweet, can't we all just get along?

Nice. This is also pretty cool