Santelli Quote: Fencing is Something you do...

[Jason]

i felt your previous post was too much of a wet blanket. realistic expectations are great. it's the unrealistic expectations that make the cool things happen.

my opinion.

i think a lot of people are very cynical when somebody basically says "i'm kinda old, but i wanna be in the Olympics, do you think i can make it?" I thought your post reflected that cynicism. so i was actually calling you stodgy.

Ah. You mistook the shining light of my optimism for something else.

[Superscribe]

Ah. You mistook the shining light of my optimism for something else.

that shining light isn't optimism, it's the need for Jesus in your life.

jus sayin.

[Inquartata]

Well, there is definitely some shining going on in this thread, I think we can all agree on that...

[jeremyb215]

You have a one handed economist in you?
Oh, what days we live in. ;-)

Person A: Good day, can you gentlemen perchance tell me how to cat strudel a knicker flipper?
Person B: Yep, no problem. 5.
Person A: Ah, cool. Thanks.
PurpleFencer: I have nothing to contribute, but I can't shut my pie-hole, so here I am. AGAIN!
GreyBeard: WHEELCHAIRS!!!
Person C: Close, but not quite. 7.
Person D: Well, lads, you're both wrong. The best way to cat strudel a knicker flopper is the french colonial method, and for that you'll obviously need a sith lord.
Person B: Oh, the french colonial method. Yes, that's probably your best bet.
Inquartata and IanSerotkin together: Epee sucks.
Person A: You all have given me a lot to think about. Thanks guys!

MrE: WTF?



I disagree. The consciousness construct in this context is problematic... let alone, the truth or falseness thereof.


Many questions are non-sense. Their mere formulation betrays a misunderstanding of the subject.
Example: How many seconds are there in a fencing tempo?

For my own part, I'm more interested in the sense/senselessness of these discussions. In the given example, it is the question itself that requires remedy, and because of that no answer can retain a sensibility in reply.

Additionally, a tremendous amount of conversation in comprised of axioms which are superficially sensical but under scrutiny hold water like sieve. That's fine - unless you start to build an empire of answers on them. Next thing you know you've got epicycles scribbled all around your Tactical Wheel.


Has economics suddenly become a mature science governed by short-run happiness maximizing utilitarian idealists?
I should probably check my inbox.

Interesting.

Maybe all we need is a little more time on the strip. ;-)

FWIW, I could use a little more time on the strip.

What about the questioner who is not seeking any particular concrete answers, but only hopes to foster a conversation and learn from the responses?

[Inquartata]

He, also, needs to be made aware that epee sucks.

[Mr Epee]

FWIW, I could use a little more time on the strip.

It's good for what ails ya.

What about the questioner who is not seeking any particular concrete answers, but only hopes to foster a conversation and learn from the responses?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking? Can you give me an example? Something not from the domain of equipment, rules, administration, etc.

If you stick around this sport long enough, you're certain to encounter folks who have either solved or are working on solutions to various aspects of the 'on-the strip' portion of the sport. These solutions frequently (always?) depend on 'if... , then...' formulations. Considering how many engineers and various software professionals we have floating around the sport, that probably shouldn't surprise anyone. Further complicating matters is the value our (general) society places on those types of formulations.

Take physical practice as a separate entity from the language game wrapped around it, and a different animal emerges from the foliage.

[jeremyb215]

It's good for what ails ya.


I'm not quite sure what you're asking? Can you give me an example? Something not from the domain of equipment, rules, administration, etc.

If you stick around this sport long enough, you're certain to encounter folks who have either solved or are working on solutions to various aspects of the 'on-the strip' portion of the sport. These solutions frequently (always?) depend on 'if... , then...' formulations. Considering how many engineers and various software professionals we have floating around the sport, that probably shouldn't surprise anyone. Further complicating matters is the value our (general) society places on those types of formulations.

Take physical practice as a separate entity from the language game wrapped around it, and a different animal emerges from the foliage.

When I started the "Question for the saber fencers" thread, I was not seeking a concrete solution to a particular problem, but different perspectives on the thought process of a fencer during the touch or phrase.
Were the responses valuable to me? I think so, but I'm well aware that the only way I'm going to get anything like an "answer" is to get on the strip with a saber in my left hand.

I think we concur on the difference between "discuss" and "do". We can talk about the proper en garde stance until the cows return to Capistrano, but it won't really make sense to the reader of the discussion until an actual attempt at en garde is made under the proper guidance.
Or am I missing your point entirely?

BTW: I'm pretty sure fencing is stuck with me.

[tbryan]

I think we concur on the difference between "discuss" and "do". We can talk about the proper en garde stance until the cows return to Capistrano, but it won't really make sense to the reader of the discussion until an actual attempt at en garde is made under the proper guidance.

I think that his argument is stronger than that: the discussion is a poor description of a shadow of the actual execution on strip. It's not just that someone can discuss and explain something without being able to do it. It's not just that some explanations don't make sense until put into practice. It's that the explanation is always going to be an insufficient approximation of what the fencer is really doing on the strip. That's fine, and we shouldn't abandon language in teaching fencing. But fixating too much on the verbal explanation can lead to an incorrect focus when the fencer attempts to "do".

I think that part of the problem is that there are individual technical fixes that coaches absolutely help fencers make. It helps for the coach be aware of all of those things so that he can identify and correct problems faster. But the coach cannot teach a fencer by explaining a 20-point list of things that the fencer needs to do correctly to execute an action well. That's a horrible way to teach a physical skill. Similarly, you can't really teach someone to coach by giving him that list.

At the same time, I think that some fencing books are useful. And I have found many discussions on fencing.net to be useful. But that works best when I can work with a fencer or coach on the strip to work through the material. And books or posts on fencing are only really help when you're on the right track already. Otherwise, you could read a stack of books, and it probably wouldn't help as much as a single good clinic.

[Agent_V]

snip...
And books or posts on fencing are only really help when you're on the right track already. Otherwise, you could read a stack of books, and it probably wouldn't help as much as a single good clinic.

A great post tbryan. Your last sentence reminded me of a quote of Erica Jong:

"Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn’t."

-Alexander

[tbryan]

A great post tbryan. Your last sentence reminded me of a quote of Erica Jong:

"Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn’t."

-Alexander

Thanks. But I must say that I don't think that the quote characterizes what I was trying to say. I have absolutely had the experience of someone offering an answer to a question that I didn't even know enough to ask. Intellectually, I understood the answer, but then it took months of conscious effort, incorporating the material into some private lessons that I was giving, before I really internalized it as part of what I do as a coach in lessons.

So, I didn't have the answer, and I didn't even know that I should be asking the question. The words probably wouldn't have made sense to me, but the words + demonstration was enlightening. With that, I could go back to reread some stuff, and it suddenly meant a lot more to me. After that, it was still several months before Mr. Epee would say that the material became part of my "lived work" of teaching fencing.

Again, I find the discussions here useful, but while we have Mr. Epee posting again, I doubt that we'll forget that the words are a poor way to convey much of what we need and want to express.

[Mr Epee]

I came across this article today by accident and thought it might be useful to anyone trying to muddle through this discussion.


Tacit knowledge: you don't know how much you know

[CDRMark]

OMG a 'Road to Damascus' moment!
Craig: Shut 'er down, imagine the upswing in productivity when we all get back to work, and WoW...
Cheers
Mark

[Inquartata]

You think that WoW is "productive"?!