Fencing in the news....(well, boxing news)

[Carol]

Take a look at this article -- about how fencing is revolutionizing the
boxing world.

And, as far as fencing doesn't get televised, apparently, commentators
are familiar with fencing -- they are the ones that are pointing out
this new trend in boxing.

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/wail1200_eldon2.htm

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 01 Jan 2003 21:34:48 GMT
Carol <ca.donohue@verizon.net> wrote:
>Take a look at this article -- about how fencing is revolutionizing the
>boxing world.
>

I note that it says "don't bounce on your feet" More fencers
should take note!

Few sword and dagger fighters fight fully square all the time, unless they
are using a guard of invitation - "hit me there, you know you want to!".
Also, a sword is a lot longer than a dagger, you get the extension
even if you are fighting square, and the lunge makes a difference too.
THey also forgot to mention that modern fencers are highly profiled
because the rear arm isn't used. A boxer who fights with one hand only
would be seen as a bit silly He's clearly been talking to a fencer
with bugger all knowledge of the history of fencing.

I also suspect this thing about hand position. THey didn't say the
good ones had both hands down, the other hand was probably guarding.
If you have both hands, and you are not attacking with them, then having
them were they are guarding a bit of you seems sensible, although it
seems they are being taught to block their own vision which is odd,
that's not what my boxing instructor showed me!

It does make sense to have one hand highish and one hand lowish, as that
way you make them guess from which direction it will come, but if you
are standing profiled, there's only one hand they have to worry about.
If I have two weapons of the same length and have a profiled stance,
the rear one is not going to be doing any attacking, the opponent can
ignore it until I start bringing that rear foot forward, which is a
rather obvious move.

I am also amazed at the talk about distance. Knowing distance was
something my boxing instructor was hot on. Get in, throw your combo,
get out. Same as my fencing master says. Did I just have a weird
boxing instructor, or is the guy writing the article seeing some
pretty ordinary boxing? Difference between amateur and pro? Or maybe
more important, difference between boxing and fighting, as my
instructor was a navy man, and I suspect used his abilities in more
places than the ring?

Zebee

[Dirk Goldgar]

"Carol" <ca.donohue@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E136150.F81EB9C8@verizon.net...
> Take a look at this article -- about how fencing is revolutionizing
the
> boxing world.
>
> And, as far as fencing doesn't get televised, apparently,
commentators
> are familiar with fencing -- they are the ones that are pointing out
> this new trend in boxing.
>
> http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/wail1200_eldon2.htm

Very interesting, Carol. Although it's no secret that boxing and
fencing were once considered companion arts, I've always felt that
their styles diverged because of the difference between them in the
amount of force required to score an effective hit. That article
makes it sound as though this is not as significant a consideration as
I thought.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[Carol]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> I note that it says "don't bounce on your feet" More fencers
> should take note!

Better to have small, light footwork-- if you keep it so small
it would _appear to look like bouncing_, however, you would be
in constant ground contact to make a direction change and move.

> Few sword and dagger fighters fight fully square all the time, unless they
> are using a guard of invitation - "hit me there, you know you want to!".
> Also, a sword is a lot longer than a dagger, you get the extension
> even if you are fighting square, and the lunge makes a difference too.
> THey also forgot to mention that modern fencers are highly profiled
> because the rear arm isn't used. A boxer who fights with one hand only
> would be seen as a bit silly He's clearly been talking to a fencer
> with bugger all knowledge of the history of fencing.

The were talking about the boxers with this style, that they
keep a profile, and now that it is being talked about, people
are starting to understand why they seem to be fighting like a
southpaw -- by this stance, they are setting themselves up for a
stronger left punch.

> I also suspect this thing about hand position. THey didn't say the
> good ones had both hands down, the other hand was probably guarding.
> If you have both hands, and you are not attacking with them, then having
> them were they are guarding a bit of you seems sensible, although it
> seems they are being taught to block their own vision which is odd,
> that's not what my boxing instructor showed me!

The traditional way they were teaching was hands up to protect,
which of course blocked vision -- that is why what this set of
new boxers are doing is so revolutionary. They did mention one
guy who does have a style of keeping both hands down at times,
and relying on footwork to have his opponent's punch land short.

> I am also amazed at the talk about distance. Knowing distance was
> something my boxing instructor was hot on. Get in, throw your combo,
> get out. Same as my fencing master says. Did I just have a weird
> boxing instructor, or is the guy writing the article seeing some
> pretty ordinary boxing? Difference between amateur and pro? Or maybe
> more important, difference between boxing and fighting, as my
> instructor was a navy man, and I suspect used his abilities in more
> places than the ring?

No, you had a guy ahead of his times. Traditional teaching is
for two guys to stand at each other and slug it out until one
dropped. This guy is talking about the current batch of fresh
stars on the professional circuit -- these new guys are winning
because they are landing their punches and casuing their
opponent's to fall short and miss, hence they win on the
scorecard. The older traditional guys who depend on the KO,
can't get one, because these guys move out of the way, and they
can't even land a punch on them, so they lose on the scorecard.

This article started up a good debate on rec.martial-arts --
there are 2 camps: those who like the traditional way of the
fighting it out until the KO (they see it as more exciting), and
who think that what these new guys are doing is "cheating"
although it is within the rules -- and the new camp, who think
that this is a smarter way to box -- actually boxing and
thinking rather than just fighting and KO's.

[Carol]

Dirk Goldgar wrote:

> Very interesting, Carol. Although it's no secret that boxing and
> fencing were once considered companion arts, I've always felt that
> their styles diverged because of the difference between them in the
> amount of force required to score an effective hit. That article
> makes it sound as though this is not as significant a consideration as
> I thought.

Right -- they did diverge because of the strength; not so much
required, but rather, as expected by the participants -- boxing
was all-out-aggression-knock-the-guy-out, and fencing was a more
gentlemanly way to prove a point -- get-the-touch-but-don't-harm-the-poor-chap.

That's why there is a debate over this -- some people on
rec.martial-arts feel these guys are taking the sissy's way out.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:09:07 -0500
Dirk Goldgar <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:
>
>Very interesting, Carol. Although it's no secret that boxing and
>fencing were once considered companion arts, I've always felt that
>their styles diverged because of the difference between them in the
>amount of force required to score an effective hit. That article
>makes it sound as though this is not as significant a consideration as
>I thought.
>

Fencing was always an upper class thing, and boxing was too, public
schools championship and all that, but maybe done by all classes.
Amateur vs pro, with the pros being (as they always had been) lower class.

The rise in Police boys' clubs was probably part of the change in status.
Also, fencing started dropping off the radar after the Great War, I bet
as part of the changes in class attitudes in the 20s and 30s.

Fencing never was a sport/art that many did, it needs a lot more gear
than boxing after all. (This is England/Oz/US, Europe is different I
believe.) Once the things a "gentleman" needed changed with the
changing of the social structures, there were fewer reasons to do it
unless you really wanted to.

My fencing master says that in Italy they get a lot of people doing it
for re-creation, for enjoyment. Kids get taught it because it's
traditional in families, adults do it for relaxation. NOt all that
much competition from what I can understand. Highish dropout rates
but still a solid core of people. A part of national consciousness
(even if it's a very small part) in a way it never really was in
English speaking countries. Whereas boxing was very very English and
is part of the national consciousness.


Zebee

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Carol <carol.donohue@verizon.net> wrote in
news:3E1372A0.E3462ED8@verizon.net:

> No, you had a guy ahead of his times. Traditional teaching is
> for two guys to stand at each other and slug it out until one
> dropped. This guy is talking about the current batch of fresh
> stars on the professional circuit -- these new guys are winning
> because they are landing their punches and casuing their
> opponent's to fall short and miss, hence they win on the

You mean they are using old-fashioned pugilism of Sir Richard Burton's
day?

[Dirk Goldgar]

Hey, Bryan. Not the we usually agree on anything, but welcome back!

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.net.spam.must.die.com> wrote
in message news:Xns92F7F23ACC86Adogfaceinsightbbcom@206.141.1 93.32...
> Carol <carol.donohue@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:3E1372A0.E3462ED8@verizon.net:
>
> > No, you had a guy ahead of his times. Traditional teaching is
> > for two guys to stand at each other and slug it out until one
> > dropped. This guy is talking about the current batch of fresh
> > stars on the professional circuit -- these new guys are winning
> > because they are landing their punches and casuing their
> > opponent's to fall short and miss, hence they win on the
>
> You mean they are using old-fashioned pugilism of Sir Richard
Burton's
> day?
>

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:49:49 +0000 (UTC)
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
>news:slrnb19cvm.pqe.zebee@zipperii.zip.com.au.. .
>> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:09:07 -0500
>>
>> Fencing was always an upper class thing, and boxing was too, public
>> schools championship and all that, but maybe done by all classes.
>> Amateur vs pro, with the pros being (as they always had been) lower class.
>
>Go back far enough and it becomes all classes, read Silver.

sure, but by the time you have boxing as a sport, even before
Queensberry, it was an upper class thing.

Zebee