Deconstructing the Art and Science of Fencing - Posted

[Jacek.Bujko]

Hi there!

Was my previous message too long for posting or something like that?


-------

EDIT

My previous post was in moderation so click back to page 8, #156

[Gav]

Hi there!

Was my previous message too long for posting or something like that?

No. You've successfully posted your message so it's clearly not too long!

[DangerMouse]

Classical fencing does not work on the modern piste, and if someone used the tactics of the modern game in a classical tournament, she'd be red-carded.

I'm curious about this statement. What specifically are you calling modern tactics and what rules do you use that prohibit these actions?

[Ken Mondschein]

I'm curious about this statement. What specifically are you calling modern tactics and what rules do you use that prohibit these actions?

Metaphorically red-carded, I suppose. It's not like there's a unified classical fencing organization. Or uniform agreement on penalties.

I deleted my earlier post, BTW. It was vainglorious and just plain dumb. Some folks told me about this thread and I was going to chime in on the history and purpose of the rear arm, but this whole thread has kind of devolved.

[Ken Mondschein]

However, I'd like to repeat my earlier request: I'd like two volunteers to step forward to do a point-counterpoint on either the rear-arm issue or "classical fencing" in general for Swordmaster.

[erooMynohtnA]

Ok, I volunteer.

Regarding your post, the thread did a 360. It started out nice, got mean, then went back nice again, so I think you should just keep your content out there. Maybe it will end up a 520.

[DangerMouse]

Metaphorically red-carded, I suppose. It's not like there's a unified classical fencing organization. Or uniform agreement on penalties.

I deleted my earlier post, BTW. It was vainglorious and just plain dumb. Some folks told me about this thread and I was going to chime in on the history and purpose of the rear arm, but this whole thread has kind of devolved.

I just want to point out that I really was not being mean or calling you out or anything. You implied that there are specific modern tactics that are illegal in your organization and I figured a post that highlights the rules differences that would lead to a red card could really help clear up the difference between classical and modern fencing. Up to this point, our friendly Pole has been the only one to provide any specifics (use of back hand, one touch duels to recreate mental state, etc.) Another definition from the US would be much appreciated.

[WGH]

I just want to point out that I really was not being mean or calling you out or anything. You implied that there are specific modern tactics that are illegal in your organization and I figured a post that highlights the rules differences that would lead to a red card could really help clear up the difference between classical and modern fencing. Up to this point, our friendly Pole has been the only one to provide any specifics (use of back hand, one touch duels to recreate mental state, etc.) Another definition from the US would be much appreciated.

Well the use of the back-hand usually falls into the "historical" field in the states. Smallsword is one of those transition weapons so I guess it is possible to wedge it into either camp, but once you get into the current weapons (foil, epee, sabre) the backhand is out of the equation except the passata sotto. Similarly, one touch rules usually only apply in epee with double defeats. One touch to the torso/head is standard victory in smallsword and most of the historic weapons. Limbs sometimes count for a fraction and are sometimes off target. Depends on who you ask.

The illegality of modern techniques comes to the "style" requirement. A touch can be rendered insufficient if it is not delivered via a "valid" attack. Constant jabby remises are a common grounds for annulment, as is most of modern infighting. Really obvious flicks might get ruled out too. Some competitions disallow the fleche also (the AHF is one of those http://www.ahfi.org/rules/). You can also get thrown out for yelling, turning your back to walk to starting position, or in extreme cases wearing nylon.

[touchefriend]

Sigh......it must be nice to cover target like and have it be legal

[Jacek.Bujko]

I'm curious about this statement. What specifically are you calling modern tactics and what rules do you use that prohibit these actions?

Well it's rather the other way around - classical tactics might get You red-carded and thrown out in sport fencing. If we consider CF to be a "to hit and not be hit" fencing then things like disarms, left hand parries, fighting in a clinch, pushing and so on can be allowed in CF but result in a red card in sport fencing.

However there are some aspects of sport fencing that make You an i-don't-want-to-fence-with-that-guy kind of fencer, such as

-flicks, because CF considers modern, elastic blades to be as much as necessary evil. One can't flick with a stiff blade so it's frowned upon. Also - it's very difficult to judge whether the hit was valid without a scoring box.

-excess of emotion, screaming, shouting, turning Your back on Your opponent after the hit and so on. I think it's associated with the level of arousal during the bout, but many classical fencers don't like that.

-the I-hit-You-first attitude and the tactics stemming from it. Like making a beat in 4th - fleche against a point in line, scoring a hit and recieving a hit to the chest after the lockout time. Legit in SF, deemed "suicidal" in CF.

-Focusing on footwork rather that on bladework. Attempting to defeat one's opponent basing on pure endurance and perseverance.

-Trying to abuse the convention to win by whatever means

Thats all I can think of right now

Sigh......it must be nice to cover target like and have it be legal

Well first of all it's not that easy, second of all - the left hand is also a valid target area so it happens to be stabbed in the palm while trying to parry.
However if You fence classical foil then covering Your valid target area is as prohibited as in SF.

[Ken Mondschein]

I just want to point out that I really was not being mean or calling you out or anything.

It's more that I don't want to enmesh myself in this, the nine-millionth iteration of the same thread, when I have an equally large number of postdoc applications to do.

You implied that there are specific modern tactics that are illegal in your organization and I figured a post that highlights the rules differences that would lead to a red card could really help clear up the difference between classical and modern fencing. Up to this point, our friendly Pole has been the only one to provide any specifics (use of back hand, one touch duels to recreate mental state, etc.) Another definition from the US would be much appreciated.

I don't have an "organization" per se, but the differences between modern, classical, and historical fencing pointed out above are valid. Some of my philosophy concerning the differences between classical and modern fencing are on the FAQs on my Web site.

-Ken

[erooMynohtnA]

Well it's rather the other way around - classical tactics might get You red-carded and thrown out in sport fencing. If we consider CF to be a "to hit and not be hit" fencing then things like disarms, left hand parries, fighting in a clinch, pushing and so on can be allowed in CF but result in a red card in sport fencing.

What you're describing is what most people here would call historical fencing, not classical fencing.

However there are some aspects of sport fencing that make You an i-don't-want-to-fence-with-that-guy kind of fencer, such as

-flicks, because CF considers modern, elastic blades to be as much as necessary evil. One can't flick with a stiff blade so it's frowned upon. Also - it's very difficult to judge whether the hit was valid without a scoring box.

It's not the case that you can't flick with a stiff blade. You can flick with anything, but I understand why you would disallow them in a classical or historical context.

-Focusing on footwork rather that on bladework. Attempting to defeat one's opponent basing on pure endurance and perseverance.

Endurance and perseverance certainly have a lot to do with good footwork, but footwork traps are just as difficult in conception and execution as bladework traps.

[Inquartata]

At the risk of reigniting the bickering:

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

The above video is a very good example of what good, classical technique looks like.

If you'll allow me to critique, I really think that only the fellow on the right can be said to be fencing "classical sabre". He seems to be doing a fairly good rendition of the old Italian method, at least in the beginning ( he seems to switch to Hungarian toward the end---possibly fatigue, as the Italian guard can be tough on the endurance, especially with the old sabres ). Although his stance is not quite deep enough.

The fellow on the left looks to be doing mostly modern Hungarian sabre, with concessions to the weight of the weapons. Note that his left hand does not stay at his hip but tends to dangle and move in a very modern way.

There is not a single passe avant. Remember that it was allowed "back in the day". The footwork, aside from its more deliberate speed, is pretty close to basic modern sabre footwork.

There are very few molinelli from either fencer, though more from the right. ( For good reason Barbasetti called the molinello "the foundation of sabre". )

It's interesting that the participants are using Hutton sabres, by the way, inasmuch as Hutton himself was contemptuous of the Radaelli sabre, calling it "that silly little toy".

It's my experience that a lot of the better classical people deliberately avoid posting video because they do not want to get into this whole discussion. They have their ways and don't feel the need to justify them outside their circles.

Even worse when something slips out from a big name like Evangelista that makes the rest look stupid.

Yes.

There's a subset of the classical folks who just seem to get off in mocking modern fencing and irking its practitioners. But then, there are modern fencers who seem to get off on doing likewise to classical fencing ( not to mention SCA fencing! ).

Some of them can even be found on f.net.

[DangerMouse]

It's more that I don't want to enmesh myself in this, the nine-millionth iteration of the same thread, when I have an equally large number of postdoc applications to do.



I don't have an "organization" per se, but the differences between modern, classical, and historical fencing pointed out above are valid. Some of my philosophy concerning the differences between classical and modern fencing are on the FAQs on my Web site.

-Ken

After reading the FAQs on your site, it appears your definition of classical fencing focuses on training in one of two specific methodologies, Joinville or Scuola Magistrale, as well as a vague idea of aesthetics. Joinville's school became the French national training manual as used in the military. Having worked with a coach trained in that system (he was the assistant coach in charge of training the French military coaches around WWII) for the past 6 years, I would put forward that this is a very vague definition. I am a sport fencer, yet I am trained in one of the schools you identify as classical and find the aesthetics of high level modern fencing more pleasing than those of the classical fencing I have seen.

I am in no way opposed to classical fencing, but have trouble discerning any difference beyond the lack of electrical scoring equipment and a focus on a romanticized notion of aesthetics that is vague and highly subjective.

[WGH]

After reading the FAQs on your site, it appears your definition of classical fencing focuses on training in one of two specific methodologies, Joinville or Scuola Magistrale, as well as a vague idea of aesthetics. Joinville's school became the French national training manual as used in the military. Having worked with a coach trained in that system (he was the assistant coach in charge of training the French military coaches around WWII) for the past 6 years, I would put forward that this is a very vague definition. I am a sport fencer, yet I am trained in one of the schools you identify as classical and find the aesthetics of high level modern fencing more pleasing than those of the classical fencing I have seen.

I am in no way opposed to classical fencing, but have trouble discerning any difference beyond the lack of electrical scoring equipment and a focus on a romanticized notion of aesthetics that is vague and highly subjective.

That's because you have already named the differences. This is the main reason that there isn't a classical version of the FIE. Few can agree 100% on what "classical" is, though there is a general consensus toward the french and italian (or italian and hungarian for sabre) technique of the 19th and very early 20th century. The focus is on avoiding the touch and maintaining form (as well as playing to the judges eyes), but "form" is highly subjective. Infighting is waaay different since you are trying to make visible touches, that's for sure.

[Ken Mondschein]

Exactly. That's why I'm intentionally vague.

[Jacek.Bujko]

What you're describing is what most people here would call historical fencing, not classical fencing.


It's not the case that you can't flick with a stiff blade. You can flick with anything, but I understand why you would disallow them in a classical or historical context.


Endurance and perseverance certainly have a lot to do with good footwork, but footwork traps are just as difficult in conception and execution as bladework traps.

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"

If you'll allow me to critique, I really think that only the fellow on the right can be said to be fencing "classical sabre". He seems to be doing a fairly good rendition of the old Italian method, at least in the beginning ( he seems to switch to Hungarian toward the end---possibly fatigue, as the Italian guard can be tough on the endurance, especially with the old sabres ). Although his stance is not quite deep enough.

The fellow on the left looks to be doing mostly modern Hungarian sabre, with concessions to the weight of the weapons. Note that his left hand does not stay at his hip but tends to dangle and move in a very modern way.

There is not a single passe avant. Remember that it was allowed "back in the day". The footwork, aside from its more deliberate speed, is pretty close to basic modern sabre footwork.

There are very few molinelli from either fencer, though more from the right. ( For good reason Barbasetti called the molinello "the foundation of sabre". )

It's interesting that the participants are using Hutton sabres, by the way, inasmuch as Hutton himself was contemptuous of the Radaelli sabre, calling it "that silly little toy".

Sure, criticism is an opportunity to learn something new
I recorded this vid almost a year ago, I based our fencing style heavily on the Hungarian school. Right now I've divided our teaching program into two kinds of sabres - a light duelling sabre and a heavy sabre. We use more Italian school in the duelling sabre and more molinelli's in the heavy sabre.

I agree that my stance was too hight, that's a problem of mine, I quite often get hit in the thigh because of it. Yeah, fatigue indeed set in - those sabres weigh about 700g and were ill-balanced.

We do use modern footwork as much as we can - heck, if so many thousands of fencers can achieve tremendous mobility thanks to the sport way of teaching footwork then why should we discard it? However it is sometimes necessary to fence in heavy boots and on the grass to remind oneself what it's like not to fence in perfect conditions

About the left hand in sabre fencing - we used to have it dangling by the side at the beginning but right now we place it at the left hip or by the side but with some more tension.

[schlager7]

I recorded this vid almost a year ago, I based our fencing style heavily on the Hungarian school. Right now I've divided our teaching program into two kinds of sabres - a light duelling sabre and a heavy sabre. We use more Italian school in the duelling sabre and more molinelli's in the heavy sabre.

Have you seen the Sandor Posta video?

[Ken Mondschein]

Have you seen the Sandor Posta video?

He was 36 when he won his gold. That's unthinkably ancient nowadays.

[kalivor]

He was 36 when he won his gold. That's unthinkably ancient nowadays.

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.