fencing in a circle?!?

[afc fencer]

I also thought that by switching to wirless in a ring or square this would allow team based fencing 2 v 2 3 v 3 and such

They also talked about that in the Escrime magazine, but i dont like the idea much. I think things would get a little confusing.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
that what mattered in thrusting weapons was the line between the fencers feet and the distance between them.

I would still have to take exception to this premise, and to any other which asserts that strictly linear fencing is bound to win out over any other sort on purely geometrical grounds. Thus far it has been so asserted several times ands in several ways, but no real evidence has been advanced to prove its truth. Mere assertion is not enough to win the day.

A straight line may be the SHORTEST distance between two points, but it does not follow that it is the BEST, or the fastest, or the wisest, or the one which will win in a fencing bout.

Nor does the "linear fencing became the norm so it must have been better" argument hold much water. The roadside ditches of history are littered with good ideas which lost out to more pedestrian ones. Think about it for a few minutes. Which, for example, is the "better" OS, Microsoft's or Apple's? And which has become the standard, for reasons having more to do with marketing and sharp business practices than innate technical "superiority"?

It's all about distance, in the final analysis, is it not? So let us say that your opponent makes an attack, and you step back out of distance. Bravo, his point cannot reach you now...but neither can yours reach him. To riposte you must get back into distance.

Now instead of stepping straight back, let us say that you take what many old fencing manuals ( including most Italian ones ) call a slope step, or in Spanish parlance a step along a chord of the circle, that is, forward and to one side. Now your opponent's point is past you and going away from you...while you remain in distance and can riposte effectively.

This is very difficult to explain in words. A demonstration would make it clear in seconds. I recall that when I first started fencing in the SCA I kept getting "killed" in spite of my superior skills vis a vis most SCAdians. And it was precisely because I was so hidebound by the conventional modern linear fencing custom and habit. My opponents were much more mobile in other planes; and until I got a demonstration of the mechanics and geometries of the older rapier styles I was all at sea.

As has been noted, rapier and modern fencing are quite different games. But the one gave birth to the other and in terms of broad principles the apple is still pretty close to the tree. A nonlinear capability would probably have little effect in foil, as the two targets are always at the same distance. In sabre and epee though fencing in the round might be very different.

Again, I would not care to see it myself---there are other venues in which that world can be explored. And regarding Mulligan's point about circling I agree that it has little utility---one simply cannot "get around" someone by trying to circumnavigate them, as the wheel you must walk is much larger than theirs---they can merely turn slightly and negate all your motion. It does not work in the SCA, where it is allowed, either. But fencing on a nonlinear ground is not synonymous with "circling". It merely offers the chance to move in more and different planes than does modern strip fencing. ( And BTW, the metaphor about "circling" fencers being "eliminated from the gene pool" is fundamentally flawed---the ascendancy of linear fencing had nothing to do with genetics or even methodological selection. One might as well say that the increase in the average height of Western European peoples since the Industrial Revolution occurred because more short people were "eliminated from the gene pool" than were tall ones, instead of for reasons of diet and medical advancement, et al. Nor can anyone truly know that in fact nonlinear duellists were killed in greater numbers than their linear counterparts in the first place; none of use were there, and the scanty records do not record any such phenomenon ).

[Sildar]

Originally posted by Mulligan
Changing the fencing piste would not change the sport that much. There would be a few idiots that start walking around in circles, and they would be promptly beaten by those that don't. Fencing evolved into the straight line sport because the duellists that attempted to walk in circles were eventually removed from the gene pool.

By MOST accounts the angular attacks that Sildar refers to were NOT effective against the lunge. If you require sources, just read a book on fencing (preferably one that doesn't have a guy in a fluffy french shirt on the cover.)

I have already stated that I don't think sport fencing should be fenced on a round piste for a number of practical reasons. However, some points raised above should be addressed.

To add to Inquartata's comments, I would submit these additional points:

Most of the accepted "facts" of popular fencing history (or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it mythology) come from books written by late 19th century fencing historians such as Egerton Castle. These gentlemen, being products of Victorian society, were very fond of the idea of "Progress," which to them meant that history was presented in psuedo-Darwinian terms as the tale of how primitive, savage ideas and cultures gradually were perfected as they came to resemble white Western European society of the 19th century, which was clearly the closest thing to perfection that there ever was. This attitude pervades most Victorian thinking, and indeed is still present in our society; note how many people misuse the term "evolution" to imply that something has become better in some sort of absolute sense, rather than to say it has adapted to new conditions. Thus, if you rely upon upon secondary sources from the late 19th century you will come away thinking that fencing was crude and barbarous and without any true skill when it was different from what the modern people did, and that it was enlightened, effective and logical as it became more similar to what the modern people did.

Aside from this overall bias, Castle (who wrote "Schools and Masters of Fence" in 1885) did rather sloppy research. For example, he claimed that one 16th century Italian fencing text didn't describe parries with the sword, when the text itself clearly does say to parry with the sword in several places. Such errors weren't uncommon in his book, and thus his conclusions are highly questionable. His book is large and covers a wide range of styles and time periods though, and thus he is still considered by many people to be the definitive fencing historian. Richard Cohen and others have accepted his questionable conclusions and repeated them in their own works, giving his opinions the appearance of validity.

Furthermore, Castle felt compelled to evaluate the effectiveness of systems and techniques he had never seen applied. There is nothing to suggest he ever fenced a trained Spanish duelist (as fencing was already becoming more a recreational activity than training for a duel, especially in England), and thus had nothing to base his opinions on other than his own cursory readings of things he didn't understand.

If you actually bother to read things written by people who lived in a time when Spanish fencers still thought a sword was likely to be used for self-defense, you find different views. The Elizabethan author Ben Johnson once wrote "Don Lewis of Madrid" (a Spanish Master of the school which used circling and angular attacks) was "the sole Master now in the world."

The fencing Master George Silver said the Spanish fencers were currently (in 1599) considered the best rapier fencers in the world, and he even specifies that they enjoyed a greater reputation than the Italians. He goes on to recount numerous occasions when Italian rapier fencers were defeated or killed by moderately skilled Englishmen who used broad-bladed cutting weapons against the Italians, calling the inherent superiority of thrusting over cutting into question as well.

The Belgian Master Girard Thibault, who studied Spanish rapier with Narvaez, later returned to Belgium and issued a challenge to all the other Masters of his country. He mopped the floor with all of them. In 1620, Louis XIII considered him one of the best fencers he had ever seen, and commissioned Thibault's book on fencing. There is little doubt, I might add, that Louis XIII had in fact seen Italian trained fencers who used linear lunges before, or that Thibault defeated several of them in his career.

I would humbly submit that the people who lived and fenced during the time when both linear and angular attacks and circling tactics co-existed probably are better qualified to comment on the effectiveness thereof than subjects of the British Empire who wrote about such techniques at a time when the sword was no longer carried for self defense. I hope I have clarified my position.

[sabreur]

I recall from somewhere, perhaps those 19th C English gentlemen, that linear fencing began as the rapier evolved (yeah, I know, the language of progress) into the smallsword.

The lighter, shorter weapon allowed double time actions (a parry-riposte in one tempo, as opposed to a parry in one tempo and the riposte in the next), which could not be executed with the longer, heavier rapier--today, as I understand, those who want to play with simulated rapiers have to unlearn the double time actions and learn to separate the parry from the riposte.

It is also far easier to follow an opponent displacing to the right or left with the point of a lighter weapon--if you want proof, try a displacement action against a good modern epeeist or foilist--you might surprise them once (which obviously could be all that was required in a duel), but they won't be caught out again. I believe, at some time in the past, the inimitable EDEW posted some rather caustic comments about the efficacy of the inquartata against a decent modern fencer.

Although it is unfashionable in some circles to speak of progress, and perhaps, it is the wrong language to use when speaking of killing implements, the fact is that weapons do progress. A bronze sword is better than a stone knife, an iron sword is better than both, and a steel sword is better than all. The small sword evolved and was adopted because the double time actions it permitted were superior to the single time actions of a rapier, in much the same way that a repeating, breach-loading rifle is superior to a single-shot muzzle-loader.

One final note: Silver was dead set against the rapier in part because of its excessive length--he spends a good amount of time discussing how to determine to select a broadsword of the right length. He has a section titled:

That the cause that many are so often slain, and many sore hurt in fight with long rapier is not by reason of their dangerous thrusts, nor cunning of that Italianated fight, but in the length and unwieldiness thereof.

He also dismisses the Spanish school.

IMNSHO, the rapier, especially in its more extreme incarnations, was more a fancy of fashion than anything else.

Cheers, MR

[Mulligan]

Sorry Veeco, I am sure you look great in them too.

[Mulligan]

I think we have finally solved it. Fencing on a straight strip came about through improved diet and advancements in medical techology.

[magma]

Originally posted by veeco
This is from a post on the subject in the forums of Escrime-Info. The person who posted this has diploma of "Maitre d'Armes" from the French fencing federation, which diploma requires an exam about modern fencing technique but also history of fencing (though this part is now taking less and less importance).



Basically, translated it says:
About the shape of the strip, the reason why we are fencing on a straight strip dates back from the 16th and 17th century. At this time certain schools were advocating moving on or around a circle, and hitting with the edge of the weapon. This type of fencing was indeed the direct descendent of the medieval battlefields.
Italians quickly proved that in a duel (which is 2 fencers facing each other without any external intervention), only the line crossing the feet of both fencers and the distance between them counts. At the same time they demonstrated that hitting with the point was a better technique than hitting with the edge (because you have to load your hit when hitting with the edge). Which is why even if we ever use wireless equipment and round playing fields we will see fencers choose a straight line across the circule and move alongside of it. At the risk of saddening the dreamers who advocate the round fencing area.

Wow, this is the stuff of duels. But leave it to the Italians to prove that the fastest way to a point is a straight line, and leave it to the French to dress it up a little. Well, back to the drawing board.

[Mulligan]

Originally posted by graphixaddict
Well...since ive never actually done any olympic fencing

Graphix, I would first like to say that I really enjoyed this post it is very thoughtfull. I hope that you try sport fencing. I think you will be an asset to the game. (Is the term "Olympic fencing" legitimate, anyone? I have seen that term used a few times instead of "Sport Fencing," or just "fencing." It is not a term I have seen or heard around here.)

Originally posted by graphixaddict
SCA fencers are big dorks it drives me crazy...

Well, unfortunately, there are a lot of big dorks in Sport Fencing too...they just leave thier dress up clothes at home.

Originally posted by graphixaddict
...when i first thought about wireless fencing i thought well damn why havent they already done that...

I thought the same thing , but i can imagine a lot of security issues with wireless fencing....hense opportunities for cheating.

Originally posted by graphixaddict
would allow team based fencing 2 v 2 3 v 3 and such...this is only some fantasy ideas but interesting i guess i enjoy the melees its exciting rushing into combat with 10 guys by your side and it adds who new demensions to the sport. I can feel the flames from that last comment already.
[/B]

Actually, THAT sounds like fun! I am in for that. I don't know how the scoring would work out. But that is a valid use of a round or square piste.

Originally posted by graphixaddict Another thing a think that i would take from SCa is the manneers or class of the game... [/B]

I can't agree more. That does vary pretty wildly from one club to another, however.

Part of the reason that I fence is because it is an activity that I can share with my two sons that still respects the concepts of sportsmanship, fairplay, and honor. (even the mention of these seem archaic and strange to most people these days.)

There are some clubs like, the one that I recently joined, which seem to have placed a proper amount of emphasis on this.

My brother, who also recently started fencing after a long hiatus, joined a club in his town. He was shocked to discover that the fencers thought he was "unbelievable" (as in: "Can you believe this guy?") for calling touches against himself. He also has commented about the "whining" of several of the fencers there.

Fortunately he seems to be rubbing off on them more than they are on him.

[veeco]

Originally posted by Inquartata
I would still have to take exception to this premise, and to any other which asserts that strictly linear fencing is bound to win out over any other sort on purely geometrical grounds. Thus far it has been so asserted several times ands in several ways, but no real evidence has been advanced to prove its truth. Mere assertion is not enough to win the day.

A straight line may be the SHORTEST distance between two points, but it does not follow that it is the BEST, or the fastest, or the wisest, or the one which will win in a fencing bout.

Aaaah! You and your: "I need evidence or proof!"

I don't have any proof other than what I mentionned, unfortunately, and I won't bother looking for it. Unless you come to me and we try it out, we won't have any proof. There!

Which, for example, is the "better" OS, Microsoft's or Apple's? And which has become the standard, for reasons having more to do with marketing and sharp business practices than innate technical "superiority"?

Irrelevant in terms of fencing. Computing is about what, 60 years old? Things haven't had the time to mature. Fencing is much older and had a much longer time to "evolve"

It's all about distance, in the final analysis, is it not? So let us say that your opponent makes an attack, and you step back out of distance. Bravo, his point cannot reach you now...but neither can yours reach him. To riposte you must get back into distance.

That is purely a sabreur point of view. When my opponent makes an attack, I just stick my arm out and hit him before he hits me

Now instead of stepping straight back, let us say that you take what many old fencing manuals ( including most Italian ones ) call a slope step, or in Spanish parlance a step along a chord of the circle, that is, forward and to one side. Now your opponent's point is past you and going away from you...while you remain in distance and can riposte effectively.

With the edge of the weapon, yes, however, with a point weapon, you cannot. With a point weapon all that matters is that you can wield (or yield? Let's say maneuver) your weapon and are you in range to hit with the point? If the answer is yes for you, then the answer is yes for the other guy too ;-).

[darius]

Now instead of stepping straight back, let us say that you take what many old fencing manuals ( including most Italian ones ) call a slope step, or in Spanish parlance a step along a chord of the circle, that is, forward and to one side. Now your opponent's point is past you and going away from you...while you remain in distance and can riposte effectively.

Hrm, sounds like a really effective thing to do against the people who rush forward threatening valid target with their elbows, point back over their shoulder somewhere.

I wonder if anybody will ever think of doing it in modern foil.

darius

[BugabooX]

I'd like to thank all of you for setting up this thread and arguing nonsensically for my benefit. Someone here must have known I was feeling a little depressed today and convinced the rest of you to play along. What a hoot -- it's been a real mood-lifter!
You guys are the greatest!

Oh, OK! OK! -- I've got one to try!
(ahem) ...
"So I understand white uniforms will be replaced with colored outfits soon. It's about time! -- Wearing white is just stupid."

[Dav3ey]

Only after Labor Day.

[I see dead people]

After reading all the outstanding arguements, I truely feel fencing is a hopeless sport - there is simply no way of improving it.

[Sildar]

Originally posted by sabreur
I recall from somewhere, perhaps those 19th C English gentlemen, that linear fencing began as the rapier evolved (yeah, I know, the language of progress) into the smallsword.

The lighter, shorter weapon allowed double time actions (a parry-riposte in one tempo, as opposed to a parry in one tempo and the riposte in the next), which could not be executed with the longer, heavier rapier--today, as I understand, those who want to play with simulated rapiers have to unlearn the double time actions and learn to separate the parry from the riposte.

Evolution is a correct description...if you use the term to mean adaptation to a new environment, rather than "Progress."

The parry-riposte section isn't quite correct, but I see what you're getting at.

A parry-riposte is always two tempos, fast or slow, because it requires two blade movements, even if they are performed without a pause in between.

Rapier defense relies mostly upon simultaneous counterthrusts which close the line, which are in fact done in only one tempo as they only require one motion.

Double time actions like the parry riposte were well known to most rapier masters, but they were less effective than single time counterthrusts with that weapon due to the way the longer and heavier rapier handled. In other words, no it wasn't ideal for parry-ripostes. However, it was designed primarily for counterthrusting.

It is also far easier to follow an opponent displacing to the right or left with the point of a lighter weapon--if you want proof, try a displacement action against a good modern epeeist or foilist--you might surprise them once (which obviously could be all that was required in a duel), but they won't be caught out again...(snip)...A bronze sword is better than a stone knife, an iron sword is better than both, and a steel sword is better than all. The small sword evolved and was adopted because the double time actions it permitted were superior to the single time actions of a rapier, in much the same way that a repeating, breach-loading rifle is superior to a single-shot muzzle-loader.

True. But to clarify I should point out that slight displacements of the body often complemented the blade action rather than being the only defense. In other words small lateral shifts of the body complemented the parries and counterthrusts. But this is difficult to describe in writing alone.

I concede that the list of edged weapons reflects overall improvements, but note that new materials were responsible for those improvements.

The rapier was a tool designed for a particular style of fighting; namely, counterthrusting while closing a line. A rapier fencer's first line of defense was, as Veeco says, sticking his point out to let his enemy run onto it. Several fencing masters who taught during the time when rapiers and smallswords coexisted wrote that a fencer should match their weapon to their style; a shorter sword is better for parry-ripostes, a longer sword is better for sticking the point out and letting the opponent run into it. Both styles can be quite dangerous. The passing of the rapier was largely due to the awkwardness of carrying a four-foot sword with long quillions down a busy street or through a narrow hall, and with the influence of social trends which had little to do with fencing.

Finally the idea of longer weapons being inherently inferior is again strange, considering that the Italians still commonly used blades 37" long or longer right up until the day that they were banned in the Olympics (under French rules). This is closer to the length of a rapier than to that of the smallsword, which normally had a blade 28 to 33 inches long. And oddly enough, French rules favored the parry riposte over the counterthrust in foil, which was far more popular in the old Italian school than in France. Hmmm....

One final note: Silver was dead set against the rapier in part because of its excessive length--he spends a good amount of time discussing how to determine to select a broadsword of the right length. He has a section titled:

That the cause that many are so often slain, and many sore hurt in fight with long rapier is not by reason of their dangerous thrusts, nor cunning of that Italianated fight, but in the length and unwieldiness thereof.

He also dismisses the Spanish school.

I suppose you could interpret it as dismissal. But he does say:

"The Spaniard is now thought to be a better man with his rapier than is the Italian, Frenchman, high Almaine (German) or any other country man whatsoever...

...And if any thrust is made, the wards, by reason of the indirections in moving the feet in (the) manner of dancing, as aforesaid, makes a perfect ward, and still withal the point greatly endangers the other. And thus is the Spanish fight perfect: so long as you can keep that order, and soon learned, and therefore to be accounted the best fight with the rapier of all other(s)."

That's a whole lot better than what he says of the Italians or any other rapier style.

IMNSHO, the rapier, especially in its more extreme incarnations, was more a fancy of fashion than anything else.

Cheers, MR

No more so than any other weapon in world history.

What I find most interesting is that you seem to imply that weapons of the past were selected on a whim, whether or not they were practical, and that the latest generation of fencing styles and weapons were chosen merely on the basis of practicality without any social or cultural biases influencing that choice, or the ever-present demons of politics and national pride.

I cannot think of any political theorist who designed a social order which did not place themselves at the top. Likewise I have yet to see anyone advance a Darwinian theory of history that did not place their own culture at the point of greatest perfection yet achieved. As such, and with a lack of clear and irrefutably objective evidence of the superiority of one fencing style over another, I feel that it is a bit premature to declare any one style "The Best."

[Mulligan]

Originally posted by BugabooX
"So I understand white uniforms will be replaced with colored outfits soon. It's about time! -- Wearing white is just stupid."

Ok True, wearing white is just stupid....but have you ever seen anyone wearing those face masks with the bright colors? They look like "The Power Rangers!"

LOL

[pkt]

All,

As to fencing in a round piste, our sport's cousin, kendo, are still fencing in a square arena. That said, the actions are still very much linear. Afterall, as I've always contended, there's only so much one can do with a stick. The kendoka do almost everything we fencers do: beat cut, beat fleche, point attack to the throat, etc.

If you have not seen sword fighting done in a square/round arena, rent any samurai movies and you can see the futility of trying to go to fencing in a square arena.

For a good defence of why it's futile rent Toshiro Mifune's 'Hidden Castle' it's directed by Kurosawa. There's a duel in it between a katana (sword) and spear. Very watchable. The swordsman did 'beat/cut' to the spear...

This is what I meant when I quoted Schiller's "Knowing another language is like having another soul."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: wearing white is stupid.

Have you seen some of the multi-coloured suites? They look like clown-suits...

http://www.fpe.pt/esgrima2002/photos.htm

PK

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
Aaaah! You and your: "I need evidence or proof!"

I don't have any proof other than what I mentionned, unfortunately, and I won't bother looking for it. Unless you come to me and we try it out, we won't have any proof. There!

Can you prove that?

That is purely a sabreur point of view.

What other points of view ARE there?

With the edge of the weapon, yes, however, with a point weapon, you cannot. With a point weapon all that matters is that you can wield (or yield? Let's say maneuver) your weapon and are you in range to hit with the point? If the answer is yes for you, then the answer is yes for the other guy too ;-).

Well...if you are facing another right hander in distance...and he turns his left side toward you ( reversing his feet, in other words )...you're both still in distance. But you can hit him, and he cannot hit you. So it is with some of the geometrical relationships which can be brought about with a cunning plan, er, a nonlinear action.

However, I must admit that finding the words to explain what is so easily demonstrated quite defeats me, so...I cannot PROVE it!

[Gav]

Actually pkt does make a good point about Kendo. They can use the point or blade (like a Sabreur) and have wide area to fence on (rather than a long narrow one like we do) ye they move in straight lines - practically. In Kendo the movements are so fast that sidesteping as a defenese without any blade action is suicide (well it would if they had a proper edged weapons). Similarly sidestepping as an attackis also tantamount to suicide. The end result is that they move in a straight line or maybe a slight diagonal - if someone decides to add in a little lateral movement in attack or defence.

I certainly think that modern fencers with their speed and agility wouldn't bother moving side to side. I can't imagine Sabruers bothering with sidestepping all that much either - there's too much target at stake and Sabre is <i>way</i> too fast.

I remember reading that Spanish fencers were considered to be excellent but this was reckoned to be down the their fitness levels. All that shuffling about with a heavy weapon was bound to make them extremely fit.