No Cant?

[WGH]

I'm not going to carry on this discussion with somebody who already cants the blade.

Why does my personal preference matter? I have also fenced without a cant and in fact prefer almost none when I use french grip. I could fence with the blade canted 90 degrees and it wouldn't affect my contention that a cant is neither necessary nor ergonomically superior. I can only assume that you have either tired of the discussion or haven't a response. Either would be fine with me.

EDIT: Didn't notice the inside response at first. Just got home from fencing, kinda tired. The gun grip is a bad example because it has taken the same development path as the fencing grip. It started essentially straight and became angled. This affected the wrist in the same way that the switch from a straight grip to orthopedic grip affected the palm and back fingers. I don't know about you, but my wrist is also slightly altered between the two. I have never suggested that a gun and pistol grip are held the same way, just compared the different "cants". Note that there is a big difference between hindering attacks in 3 of the 4 target zones and not being able to shoot straight up as well (which I believe the contour actually helps, but no reason to get into that.)

It seems to me that there is a difference between cant and contour and that a gun grip lies in the latter area. It is obvious that you see the situation differently and that won't change. My fault for bringing the gun back up.. I just couldn't resist the idea of a barrel canted to the side. None of this changes my main contentions on canting relating to fencing nor changes my challenge for orthopedic research on canting in fencing. I wish that those points might've been the ones picked up rather than the lark.

[piste off]

"From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned."

Kant

[WGH]

"From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned."

Kant

Okay. The thread has been won. Awesome .

[Inquartata]

Um, i'm going to go with because the idea of putting an angle on a device so so your hand/foot can engage the target of greatest likelihood with the most natural position is so obviously a benefit everone from Kawasaki to Norelco realizes it? So obviously a benefit that people do it in fencing with their weapons, regardless of what grip they use?

Sigh...

And how many billions of people believe in God?

They couldn't possibly be wrong...could they?

But look, I'm not debating the value of ergonomics---although I think it's possible to overstate its benefits. I am debating one narrow assertion by Telk, which is demonstrable balderdash. Just one narrow assertion, concerning the behavior of a French-gripped weapon during extension. And all of your examples are completely irrelevant to that.

Uh, Telkanuru does use a French grip. At least he has every time I've fenced him or watched him fence.

A) I never said that he didn't, and

B) So what?

He made a categorical statement. So long as a single example where it is not true can be found, such an assertion must be false. His is demonstrably so, regardless of what sort of weapon he himself uses.

If I claimed that it's impossible to do a cut with an canted sabre, does the fact that I fence sabre make it true?

Why do you guys encourage Inq? He ruins discussions. Work around him so that people with opinions can be heard.

Please accept my humblest apologies! I am sure it's very unpleasant to have the happy groupthink disturbed by cognitive dissonance, and I am very sorry to have "ruined your discussion" by dashing a bucket of cold water over your comfortable complacency...

However, I must point out once again that 5 seconds of experimentation with an uncanted French-gripped weapon will obviate your having to choose between mere "opinions". Yes, I know that it's frightening to think that a cherished myth might thereby be weakened, and yes, I know that you already believe! ( hallelujah ) in the cant. And if people will insist on restricting their "discussions" to how something is great rather than admitting the possibility that it isn't great at all, or believing a statement because Telk says so, well...carry on.

PS I just confirmed the falsity of Telk's assertion once again. French-gripped epee with no bend, straight wrist, no fingerplay at all, just a simple extension, and I could not make the point go off target. In fact, far from going "over the shoulder" the point actually dropped every time I extended.

Try it for yourself. That's the basis of all science, is it not? As opposed to, say, faith?

Why can't we all just accept the fact that Inq is just the only one who is right? He seems to be comfortable with this fact.

Ha ha, but remember, I am the only one who appears actually to have tested Telk's assertion. The rest of you are going on predigested opinions and the fact that "everyone does it" as proof...

...or, he could be the only one that is wrong. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that, too.

Possibly, but nevertheless the hypothesis under consideration is testable, you know.

I like to believe that he just doesn't care and is just trying to stir up ****. It keeps my head from exploding with some of the posts.

Since I don't fence the pointy weapons, no, I don't care. You guys can bend your blades into spirals if it makes you happy, and then talk yourselves into believing that it makes you fence better.

I DO care about truth, logic and proof, however. So out of curiosity I tested Telk's statement and found it to be false, and reported same. This was followed, not by people doing likewise and trying it out for themselves, but by howls of indignation and wheelbarrows-full of sarcasm apparently in support of the idea that it couldn't possibly BE wrong...because...because...well, it just wasn't.

Just because I can't resist... The angle on the handle of the gun is completely dissimilar to a weapon's cant and is directly relative to the angle of the back prong of the pistol grip. Unless you know of a gun where the barrel is pointing at an angle, which I doubt would be very effective for absorbing recoil.

I already tried pointing out that pistol-grips are not terribly relevant to whether a French-gripped weapon took the point off target during an extension.

Good luck with your attempts.

the handle of a pistol is angled (not perpendicular to the barrel)

Ahem.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...olt-python.jpg

Anyway, yes, most pistol grips have some degree of angle. Not all; some, like the one above or, say, the Kel-Tecs, have grips which ARE perpendicular to the barrel, or nearly so. Some, like the Luger, are VERY angled indeed. But it's not to facilitate keeping the barrel on target as you extend your arm(s) to shooting position. It's because the palm of the human hand is shaped that way. A curved grip of the size of a pistol-butt is more comfortable formed that way. It helps manage recoil better. It improves control.

I still don't know why you think this somehow proves that any of the various angles make the muzzle stay on target when extending the arm to shoot better. Or how it relates to bladed weapons. A French grip is not shaped like a pistol-butt. It has a different purpose. It lies in the hand very differently.

By the way, you know, firearms developed angled grips centuries ago. But somehow, I guess that only we clever moderns have recognized the utility of bending our swords into angles. Now, you might think that survival would have been a more potent spur to the development of this so-crucial innovation than mere amateur sporting success. You might think that at some point rapiers or smallswords would have gotten the cants that make them ever so much more efficient at their jobs. But of course, you'd be wrong.

Why you'd be wrong, I'm not exactly clear. But I'm sure that somehow, in some way, you would be.

Doubtless you will explain it to this dull sabre fencer in short order. Perhaps it will have something to do with baseball bats, or the design of tractor gearshift levers...

Before your hurt yourself, please remember that you grip the handle of a pistol very differently than you handle the pistol grip of an epee.

OK, which is it? Is it "completely similar", or "very different"?

[samh]

Please accept my humblest apologies! I am sure it's very unpleasant to have the happy groupthink disturbed by cognitive dissonance, and I am very sorry to have "ruined your discussion" by dashing a bucket of cold water over your comfortable complacency...

However, I must point out once again that 5 seconds of experimentation with an uncanted French-gripped weapon will obviate your having to choose between mere "opinions". Yes, I know that it's frightening to think that a cherished myth might thereby be weakened, and yes, I know that you already believe! ( hallelujah ) in the cant. And if people will insist on restricting their "discussions" to how something is great rather than admitting the possibility that it isn't great at all, or believing a statement because Telk says so, well...carry on.

PS I just confirmed the falsity of Telk's assertion once again. French-gripped epee with no bend, straight wrist, no fingerplay at all, just a simple extension, and I could not make the point go off target. In fact, far from going "over the shoulder" the point actually dropped every time I extended.

Try it for yourself. That's the basis of all science, is it not? As opposed to, say, faith?

Inq, I didn't say you ruin discussions because you disagree with the most common viewpoint (I never said WGH ruins discussions and he has made some of the same arguments as you). I like that there are differing opinions because otherwise there would be nothing to discuss.

The thing that frustrates me is that you have a very finicky and particular way of discussing that, from my observation, tends to bring threads from the realm of discussion to flat out arguments.

I think you underestimate your own subjectivity at times. For example, take your "test" where you hit a target with an uncanted weapon and challenge others to do the same... I, along with many other foilists and epeeists, have done this (more than once even) and disagree with your conclusions.

I coach a university team and some of the people I coach use uncanted blades. On a couple of occasions I have even borrowed one of those blades for practice, and what happens? My accuracy, comfort, and parry 6 suffer. I've worked on getting some of the fencers to change their cants with some good results.

It isn't impossible, by any stretch of the imagination, to fence with an uncanted blade, but for me (and we can all only speak for ourselves) it is much easier and more comfortable to fence with a canted blade.

[Inquartata]

The thing that frustrates me is that you have a very finicky and particular way of discussing that, from my observation, tends to bring threads from the realm of discussion to flat out arguments.

You say that as though it were a bad thing.

So, basically, you have no problem with my arguments, just with the style of my arguments?

That has to be a fallacy of some sort.

I think you underestimate your own subjectivity at times.

C'est impossible!

But seriously, I think my choice of title really gives me away in this respect...

For example, take your "test" where you hit a target with an uncanted weapon and challenge others to do the same... I, along with many other foilists and epeeists, have done this (more than once even) and disagree with your conclusions.

OK, I'll tell you what: Let's meet at the next NAC or other tournament and try it together. ( Assuming that we can find an uncanted French-gripped weapon. ) Obviously one of us is either doing something wrong, or is mistaken. Perhaps only critical observation by "the opposition" will reveal who, and which...

I coach a university team and some of the people I coach use uncanted blades. On a couple of occasions I have even borrowed one of those blades for practice, and what happens? My accuracy, comfort, and parry 6 suffer.

Of course they do. You are used to canted weapons.

I have been forced to borrow canted sabres and have had the same experience. This does not demonstrate that canted weapons are better or worse than uncanted ones, just that we are uncomfortable with the unfamiliar.

I've worked on getting some of the fencers to change their cants with some good results.

Or maybe there was just a perception on the part of your fencers that if the coach said it was going to be better, it must be so, and therefore...?

It isn't impossible, by any stretch of the imagination, to fence with an uncanted blade, but for me (and we can all only speak for ourselves) it is much easier and more comfortable to fence with a canted blade.

And for me, the opposite. However, this is not what I have been arguing in this thread.

I have argued in the past that for all the hard evidence the belief that bending a blade changes performance may be completely illusory, a sort of fencing placebo effect. If so, it would apply equally to me, I should think, and my experience with canted sabres. But that is not what I've been on about in THIS thread. I have only been snorting at Telk's assurance that X, always and in every case, when according to my experiments this is clearly not so...

[oiuyt]

Or maybe there was just a perception on the part of your fencers that if the coach said it was going to be better, it must be so, and therefore...?

Confirmation bias seems even more likely than a behavioral confirmation effect.

-B

[Inquartata]

I was unable to detect any snark in that one. Who are you, and what have you done with Brad?

[glowstix]

PS I just confirmed the falsity of Telk's assertion once again. French-gripped epee with no bend, straight wrist, no fingerplay at all, just a simple extension, and I could not make the point go off target. In fact, far from going "over the shoulder" the point actually dropped every time I extended.

well then you're either holding it wrong, lying about not having a sharp angulation in the wrist or have some anatomical abnormality you're not telling us about,

[telkanuru]

His wrist is permanently broken, obviously.

[Inquartata]

well then you're either holding it wrong, lying about not having a sharp angulation in the wrist or have some anatomical abnormality you're not telling us about

Would you like to retract that one? I really don't like being called a liar...and it's not the sort of ad hominem you should be throwing around casually.

Anyway, I do know how to hold a French grip. I made sure that my wrist was straight. I took a guard position with the point on target. I extended. I did not bend my wrist, neither did I employ any finger maipulation. The tip dropped an inch or two, but stayed on target. It never hinted at an inclination to rise, much less go over the target's shoulder.

Now, I realize that some modern fencers like to take a guard position with the point aiming at the ceiling or somewhere in the east forty, but if so any problem putting the point on target is not the fault of a straight blade or grip...

[telkanuru]

Ask Delia to introduce us in Virginia Beach and I can quite simply demonstrate this to you in person, if you wish, but there is no way in which what you say is true.

[Inquartata]

Sorry, but it is. It just is...in the sense that Mt. Everest is, and that Alma Cogan...isn't.

I won't be at NAC F, barring a miracle, since usually I only do Div 1 when it's in conjunction with the Vet events. ( Portland last year was an exception. )

I'll be in Dallas, and of course, Nationals. I may get to the Cherry Blossom, or one of the ROCs back thataway...then again, I may not.

In any case, I am still chary of having my brains devoured.