Interesting reference to old rules...

[erik_blank]

I got an invitation to the Redwood Coast Assault of Arms today, and while there is no financial way for me to attend even if I wanted to (I'm in PA and this is being held in CA), I was intrigued enough to look at what they were advertising.

After poking around on their competition page (I admit that I found it interesting from the old steam fencing that I was originally taught) I took a look at their foil rules. http://associationforhistoricalfenci...rules-foil.pdf

While these are real throw backs to what our "dear friend" Evangelista might be pining for...

All in all, I have to say that I felt like I was re-reading a lot of the stuff from the old AFLA rule book that was still in the lockers (but NOT in use) when I started fencing in the late (LATE) 80's.

[Bonehead]

Jesus...

Only standard non-electric foils will be permitted.

For a parry to be considered sufficient, the attacking blade must be clearly removed from its threatening position with the result that the defender is not touched. Mere contact against the attacking blade is not considered a sufficient parry. If an attack arrives due to an insufficient parry (mal paree), the attack is counted as valid. If the attack lands due to the attacking blade whipping around a properly executed parry (over steel), the touch is not valid.

The “fleche”, or any type of running attack, is prohibited. However, attacks by means of a passing step are permitted, since they are not executed as running attacks.

Thrusts must land clearly and distinctly on target. The blade must bend sufficiently
on impact to demonstrate penetrating power. Jabbing or punching actions are forbidden and do not qualify as thrusts. However, actions such as the appuntata or replacement of the point are permitted, as they are valid technique.

It's like their going out of their way to make it subjective. Between "qualifying as thrusts", "Sufficient Penetrating power", "Sufficient parry" and any number of other things, you might as well just ask the ref which fencer he thinks is gonna win before the bout.

Also:

When the director halts the action, both fencers must immediately assume first position (aplomb).

What a ****ing circlejerk...

[Purple Fencer]

Kinda reminds me of people who try to over-romanticize the sport...

[jeff]

It does look as if they are trying to recreate what they imagine as the dry fencing rules from the 40s, or at least prior to when foil was electrified, with a few modifications. Note that pistol grips are forbidden, and "merely attempting to score points" is frowned upon, and you're supposed to call touches against yourself. Interesting that passing the opponent and changing sides doesn't stop the action. The "assume the (first) position" thing seems excessive to me. To each their own, I suppose.

Bonus: we get Erik's e-mail address!

[OROD]

Anyone know why they call bouts "assaults"? Is this a historical term?

It seems like they're trying to have a competition without the competition part.

Each fencer must adhere to Classical foil technique in style and form.

Why? This only really makes sense if they're doing an exhibition or show of some kind. Also, who decides? Is there a video or something to show this "classical" foil technique? I agree with Bonehead, it's like they're intentionally trying to make it subjective.

Priority is determined by the attack. The attack in foil is the initial offensive action executed by FULLY EXTENDING THE SWORD ARM, which must precede any forward movement of the body and continuously threaten the adversary’s valid target.

LOL... I could understand if they're trying to simulate more "realistic" sword fighting, but this aint going to do it. In fact, if I'm in a swordfight against someone, I'd love for them to continually telegraph their attacks by always EXTENDING THE SWORD ARM before any forward movement of the body. How sad.

[OROD]

Enjoy "classical fencing" in all its glory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk-aKj0R65o

[erooMynohtnA]

It's like their going out of their way to make it subjective. Between "qualifying as thrusts", "Sufficient Penetrating power", "Sufficient parry" and any number of other things, you might as well just ask the ref which fencer he thinks is gonna win before the bout.

Also: What a ****ing circlejerk...

To be fair, a lot of that could be said of sport fencing as well.

Anyone know why they call bouts "assaults"? Is this a historical term?

An assault is a match. A bout is a match in which score is kept. However, I think this is a pedantic distinction that no one actually used (and is therefore beloved by the classical community).

[migopod]

Enjoy "classical fencing" in all its glory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk-aKj0R65o

I see your youtube link and raise you THUSLY

[OROD]

I see your youtube link and raise you THUSLY

I suppose I'll just never get it. I see no point (whatsoever) is what they're doing. It's not historically accurate to any actual fencing/swordfighting of any period that I can think of, it's not effective, it doesnt look like fun to do, and any bout between two top sport fencers is a hundred times more aesthetically pleasing to watch than this.

[edew]

I see your youtube link and raise you THUSLY

That's not fencing. That's two ITGs waving their d**ks in the vicinity of each other. It's like they're making actions independent of what the other person is doing. It's like two deaf-mutes "communicating" in ASL and chinese sign-language. With their eyes closed.

[edew]

Priority is determined by the attack. The attack in foil is the initial offensive action executed by FULLY EXTENDING THE SWORD ARM, which must precede any forward movement of the body and continuously threaten the adversary’s valid target.

You know, a really athletic fencer could have a field day by just making the fastest simplest attack into prep by letting the opponent start with the extension and then jump in quickly, complete the extension faster and make the lunge hit. Why bother parrying if one can extend fully sooner than the opponent?

[Purple Fencer]

You know, a really athletic fencer could have a field day by just making the fastest simplest attack into prep by letting the opponent start with the extension and then jump in quickly, complete the extension faster and make the lunge hit. Why bother parrying if one can extend fully sooner than the opponent?

Ahh.....like sabre?

[edew]

Ahh.....like sabre?

Ahh... not at all like saber.

[Bonehead]

To be fair, a lot of that could be said of sport fencing as well.

Yeah, there is a lot of subjectivity in the sport, what is an attack, was it covering etc. But there isn't really a good objective way to watch for those things, maybe we should change the game to make it that way, maybe the technology will come along.

But come on? Attacks by means of passing step, but no running? Thrusting is required, but jabbing is not allowed? It's got all the problems that sport fencing has, and piled on loads more.

[Gav]

This is a bit off topic but germane to the discussion. Some time back I remember reading an essay on duelling. It was quite long but it had an extensive bibliography and it attacked just about every assumption and cliche the so-called classicists make. I can't find it nor can I remember who wrote it... I want to re-read it for something I am working on. If anyone else can remember it can they post the link?

I see your youtube link and raise you THUSLY

Right there, I can see the majesty of the sword. It is obvious from watching these that two men - physically fit and adequately trained - why for centuries the sword became fetishised as an emblem of power.

Compare your video with this one from the Pathé archives (1923). I can certainly see the similarity...

[SubSevn]

Well as much as I think what they're doing is...odd, the very least we could do is compare the video of them using sabres to the video from 1923 (which is clearly sabre)...

[Bonehead]

Well as much as I think what they're doing is...odd, the very least we could do is compare the video of them using sabres to the video from 1923 (which is clearly sabre)...

I blame these people every time someone hears that I fence and does a pansy limp wristed dance in front of me.

[Gav]

I blame these people every time someone hears that I fence and does a pansy limp wristed dance in front of me.

And I would refer people back to actual video footage that clearly demonstrates that it wasn't every bloody fencer who did it back then - even in the early decades of the 20th century.

[Bonehead]

And I would refer people back to actual video footage that clearly demonstrates that it wasn't every bloody fencer who did it back then - even in the early decades of the 20th century.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/fencing-finals

Ha ha, that's my university.

[SubSevn]

I blame these people every time someone hears that I fence and does a pansy limp wristed dance in front of me.

That would imply that these people are getting more exposure than FIE/USFA fencing, if that's how people think fencing is supposed to be done.