No Cant?

[the ancient one]

I think the repetitive stress injury possibilities are more motivating.


http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/avail...ricted/etd.pdf

There has been a lot of research on the "human factors" topic, just not on fencing.

[whtouche]

If you don't bend the tang of your blade, and your coach asks you to hit them with a straight extension, you may find yourself saying: No, cant.
:-D

[Inquartata]

Whatever grip you have, if you have an uncanted blade and you extend your arm without bending your wrist, etc, your point will always be aimed away from your (same handed) opponent's target, usually to some place in the air next to their back ear.

Let us remember that he asked about a French grip. I have no idea what you're on about. People needn't use some doctrinaire arm position, you know.

Honestly. You epeeists.

Watch some video of high level epee. All the best fencers use canted weapons, including the pommelers. That should give you most of the information you need.

And now go find some pictures of "high level epee" back in the 1930s and 1940s. See how many canted grips you find. Apparently all the best people thouight that straight grips were superior, therefore, straight grips are superior.

But you know, that's just as bad an argument as "all the best people cant, therefore canting must be superior".


By the way, I fence sabre, with no cant in my grips, and occasionally I use PIL, or even a point attack, and gee, it works somehow! Fancy that!

[prototoast]

And now go find some pictures of "high level epee" back in the 1930s and 1940s. See how many canted grips you find. Apparently all the best people thouight that straight grips were superior, therefore, straight grips are superior.

Considering that fencers today are significantly better than fencers 70 years ago, this would seem to support canting.

Canting isn't good because the best fencers do it, canting is good because it's good, and the best fencers do it because it's good.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

And now go find some pictures of "high level epee" back in the 1930s and 1940s. See how many canted grips you find.

There is the somewhat valid argument that if you have been fencing with uncanted BLADES (not grips : P) since the 1930s or 1940s, switching now might hurt those individuals more than it would help.

[telkanuru]

Some stuff

It's really funny to watch you blather about things you know nothing about. Thanks all the same.

[DangerMouse]

By the way, I fence sabre, with no cant in my grips, and occasionally I use PIL, or even a point attack, and gee, it works somehow! Fancy that!

Perhaps this is because you really don't need point control in saber.

[telkanuru]

Imagine how good he'd be if he actually canted his weapons.

[Goldgar]

Imagine how good he'd be if he actually canted his weapons.

Just remember the adage: Those who cant, do.

[prototoast]

Perhaps this is because you really don't need point control in saber.

I'd say it's rather because the cant that aids cuts and the cant that aids point attacks aren't the same cant.

[Inquartata]

Considering that fencers today are significantly better than fencers 70 years ago, this would seem to support canting.

Are they?

On what do you base this thesis?

Canting isn't good because the best fencers do it, canting is good because it's good, and the best fencers do it because it's good.

Again, by that logic they should ALWAYS have done it.

But once they didn't, then they did. Some day they may not again.

This sounds to me like fashion, not the discovery of an innately superior method.

Perhaps this is because you really don't need point control in saber.

Only when you use....you know...the point...

Just remember the adage: Those who cant, do.

It's "Those who cant, teach".

Because they think they know it all.

I'd say it's rather because the cant that aids cuts and the cant that aids point attacks aren't the same cant.

That's true, but does not change the fact that both are used in sabre. And since I don't put either sort of cant in my tangs, and STILL manage to use both sucessfully...that kind of refutes the idea that it's some essential, indispensable thing without which a fencer is lost...no?

[Zhais]

I'd agree, in that a cant isn't fully necessary...

The blades I have now are barely canted, yet I can still hit angled and straight attacks all the same (Yes, epee).

[prototoast]

That's true, but does not change the fact that both are used in sabre. And since I don't put either sort of cant in my tangs, and STILL manage to use both sucessfully...that kind of refutes the idea that it's some essential, indispensable thing without which a fencer is lost...no?

Let cant A be the ideal cant for a cut and cant B be the ideal cant for a thrust. It would then be pretty natural to put weightings a and b to those cants where a and b are based on the frequency with which you use each attack as well as the relative advantages to attacking with/without the proper cant. You end up with aA+bB=0. Another fencer could end up with a nonzero cant based upon his personal values of {A,B,a,b}.

For foil and epee, the situations where one would cant A (typical cant) swaps cant B (crudely I'll just call this every other cant, we could let B be a vector if we canted) so aA+bB~=A

[Dev]

Again, by that logic they should ALWAYS have done it.

But once they didn't, then they did. Some day they may not again.

This sounds to me like fashion, not the discovery of an innately superior method.

By this logic, sport would never evolve.

Baseball players in the dead-ball era used tiny, unpadded fielders' gloves. Presumably there was no leather shortage; it was possible to fashion the modern, larger gloves used by today's fielders. But they didn't; those original tiny gloves must be the best way to play baseball! We're doing it wrong!

[NGV]

Are they?
Again, by that logic they should ALWAYS have done it.

But once they didn't, then they did. Some day they may not again.

This sounds to me like fashion, not the discovery of an innately superior method.

And by your "logic," it's perfectly reasonable to assume that this will soon become a standard stance for top level boxers:



The fact that things used to be done differently provides no evidence against a claim that current practices are better.

[noodle]

Again, by that logic they should ALWAYS have done it.

But once they didn't, then they did. Some day they may not again.

This sounds to me like fashion, not the discovery of an innately superior method.

wonder how long it'll take them to change back to dry fencing, since, you know, its fashion and not the discovery of a superior scoring method.

[WGH]

And by your "logic," it's perfectly reasonable to assume that this will soon become a standard stance for top level boxers:



The fact that things used to be done differently provides no evidence against a claim that current practices are better.

Well modern boxing stance is really tailored to defend against gloves... not sure I would want to tuck into my forearms the same if fists were hitting them.

Hey! The technique changed as it became more sport than combat! Analogous much?

Also, they've been canting foils for a couple hundred years. And french grip epee's, though not as much because of the more centered guards. You just don't cant true-ricasso italian weapons, so I'd put forward the idea that the downfall of that grip and the full adoption of highly offset guards made canting epee as advantageous as canting foils.

[Inquartata]

It's really funny to watch you blather about things you know nothing about. Thanks all the same.

I don't really need to "know anything about it", since I actually have ( gasp! ) access to foils and epees with uncanted tangs, and it took me, oh, about three seconds of experimentation to discover that the categorical assertion you made was hogwash.

Really, did you think everyone is just going to nod in agreement at your obvious unassailable wisdom? That no one would bother to try confirming it?

Let cant A be the ideal cant for a cut and cant B be the ideal cant for a thrust. It would then be pretty natural to put weightings a and b to those cants where a and b are based on the frequency with which you use each attack as well as the relative advantages to attacking with/without the proper cant. You end up with aA+bB=0. Another fencer could end up with a nonzero cant based upon his personal values of {A,B,a,b}.

For foil and epee, the situations where one would cant A (typical cant) swaps cant B (crudely I'll just call this every other cant, we could let B be a vector if we canted) so aA+bB~=A

Aieee! He has spoken the mathematical spell of exorcism! I am banished whence I came!

And by your "logic," it's perfectly reasonable to assume that this will soon become a standard stance for top level boxers

But I cannot be banished for long!

The fact that things used to be done differently provides no evidence against a claim that current practices are better.

You are quite correct as far as that goes, but then, boxing is not fencing, and stance is not the same as tinkering with the tools...

I'd say a closer analogy is those old "short" basketball shorts vs the big loose ones fashionable today. Are you willing to bet that the modern ones are going to be worn forever? That there won't be a new fashion in 20 or 30 years?

[telkanuru]

I don't really need to "know anything about it", since I actually have ( gasp! ) access to foils and epees with uncanted tangs, and it took me, oh, about three seconds of experimentation to discover that the categorical assertion you made was hogwash.

Apparently you do, since whatever you did, it wasn't what I suggested.

[whtouche]

Well modern boxing stance is really tailored to defend against gloves... not sure I would want to tuck into my forearms the same if fists were hitting them.

Yeah, that would be painful. It's way better to block punches with your face.