Parry or non-parry?

Dear all:

I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but as a coach with a handfull
of headstrong foilists to manage, I do like to stay on top of things.
So, with lower lip clenched firmly between teeth I ask:

"What constitutes the parry?"

Now, before you start thinking "Who is this bozo?" (Ok, too late), let
me set up the scenario.

Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
arrives, A's remise arrives.

Fencer A says "I never felt or heard the blade contact." Fencer B
says "I parried." Independent observers agree there was defensive
blade contact by Fencer B.

Question: is B's action actually a parry? Or is the blade contact
inconsequential, as Fencer A's point did not appear to deviate from a
line with the target?

The referee called the action as described above, basically "Attack,
parry-riposte, remise. Parry-riposte for B arrives." There are those
who say "The referee said it, his opinion is inviolate as regards the
reconstruction of the phrase," and that alone should tell Fencer A he
was--in fact and in deed--parried.

Yet, as a coach, explaining this to a 19-year old hothead, this seems
insufficient, a cop-out even. (I observed the action in question and
agree with the referee's call)

Any help here?

Sincerely,

Thom Cate

tcate@zoo.uvm.edu

IMHO: the referee was wrong but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I have been playing with the idea of returning to fencing and have been
lurking for awhile on various boards and forums.
I must say the things seem to be worse not better. The sport is now a
game with whippy sticks. Any relationship to actual sword play is
purely coincidental.
I was taught that in order for a parry to "count" as such the threat
MUST be deflected out of line, period. We drilled parries so that they
always cleared the line through position not: "I touched the blade so
now I can safely reposte". We were also taught to continue an attack if
the defenders parry was insufficient to clear the line and not respond
to an anticipated, though inappropriate, riposte. (this is what you
describe your fencer did and lost the point, referee was wrong, at least
in the good old days). What would have happened with sharps?
One can not control what other's students do but one certainly can at
least drill one's own in proper technique. It will stand them in good
stead. I took many a hit from my coach after "bad" parries till I "got it".
I do recall some discussions of training directing weaknesses and
"tricks", like the flick, to win bouts, particularly at the collegiate
levels, at the cost of development of real fencing skill. But let's not
open that can either.
Classical fencing anyone?

Thom Cate wrote:
> Dear all:
>
> I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but as a coach with a handfull
> of headstrong foilists to manage, I do like to stay on top of things.
> So, with lower lip clenched firmly between teeth I ask:
>
> "What constitutes the parry?"
>
> Now, before you start thinking "Who is this bozo?" (Ok, too late), let
> me set up the scenario.
>
> Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
> A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
> arrives, A's remise arrives.
>
> Fencer A says "I never felt or heard the blade contact." Fencer B
> says "I parried." Independent observers agree there was defensive
> blade contact by Fencer B.
>
> Question: is B's action actually a parry? Or is the blade contact
> inconsequential, as Fencer A's point did not appear to deviate from a
> line with the target?
>
> The referee called the action as described above, basically "Attack,
> parry-riposte, remise. Parry-riposte for B arrives." There are those
> who say "The referee said it, his opinion is inviolate as regards the
> reconstruction of the phrase," and that alone should tell Fencer A he
> was--in fact and in deed--parried.
>
> Yet, as a coach, explaining this to a 19-year old hothead, this seems
> insufficient, a cop-out even. (I observed the action in question and
> agree with the referee's call)
>
> Any help here?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Thom Cate
>
> tcate@zoo.uvm.edu

I too am getting back into the sport after a 25-year hiatus and I agree with
R.S.E. that a parry which does not take the point off-target is not a valid
parry. But from what I've seeing watching the sample videos on
www.fencingfootage.com flicks are in and proper style is out. Is anything
being done to correct this? I'll be attending the Jr. Olympics in Colorado
Springs this coming weekend and I'll let you know what I see there.

Tom
t.buesing@att.net


"R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3E4928E9.8030601@qwest.net...
> IMHO: the referee was wrong but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
> I have been playing with the idea of returning to fencing and have been
> lurking for awhile on various boards and forums.
> I must say the things seem to be worse not better. The sport is now a
> game with whippy sticks. Any relationship to actual sword play is
> purely coincidental.
> I was taught that in order for a parry to "count" as such the threat
> MUST be deflected out of line, period. We drilled parries so that they
> always cleared the line through position not: "I touched the blade so
> now I can safely reposte". We were also taught to continue an attack if
> the defenders parry was insufficient to clear the line and not respond
> to an anticipated, though inappropriate, riposte. (this is what you
> describe your fencer did and lost the point, referee was wrong, at least
> in the good old days). What would have happened with sharps?
> One can not control what other's students do but one certainly can at
> least drill one's own in proper technique. It will stand them in good
> stead. I took many a hit from my coach after "bad" parries till I "got
it".
> I do recall some discussions of training directing weaknesses and
> "tricks", like the flick, to win bouts, particularly at the collegiate
> levels, at the cost of development of real fencing skill. But let's not
> open that can either.
> Classical fencing anyone?
>
> Thom Cate wrote:
> > Dear all:
> >
> > I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but as a coach with a handfull
> > of headstrong foilists to manage, I do like to stay on top of things.
> > So, with lower lip clenched firmly between teeth I ask:
> >
> > "What constitutes the parry?"
> >
> > Now, before you start thinking "Who is this bozo?" (Ok, too late), let
> > me set up the scenario.
> >
> > Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
> > A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
> > arrives, A's remise arrives.
> >
> > Fencer A says "I never felt or heard the blade contact." Fencer B
> > says "I parried." Independent observers agree there was defensive
> > blade contact by Fencer B.
> >
> > Question: is B's action actually a parry? Or is the blade contact
> > inconsequential, as Fencer A's point did not appear to deviate from a
> > line with the target?
> >
> > The referee called the action as described above, basically "Attack,
> > parry-riposte, remise. Parry-riposte for B arrives." There are those
> > who say "The referee said it, his opinion is inviolate as regards the
> > reconstruction of the phrase," and that alone should tell Fencer A he
> > was--in fact and in deed--parried.
> >
> > Yet, as a coach, explaining this to a 19-year old hothead, this seems
> > insufficient, a cop-out even. (I observed the action in question and
> > agree with the referee's call)
> >
> > Any help here?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Thom Cate
> >
> > tcate@zoo.uvm.edu
>

"R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3E4928E9.8030601@qwest.net...
> IMHO: the referee was wrong but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
> I have been playing with the idea of returning to fencing and have been
> lurking for awhile on various boards and forums.
> I must say the things seem to be worse not better. The sport is now a
> game with whippy sticks. Any relationship to actual sword play is
> purely coincidental.

Amen, Brother!


> I was taught that in order for a parry to "count" as such the threat
> MUST be deflected out of line, period.

Preach on!


> I do recall some discussions of training directing weaknesses and
> "tricks", like the flick, to win bouts, particularly at the collegiate
> levels, at the cost of development of real fencing skill. But let's not
> open that can either.
> Classical fencing anyone?

There really is a difference between the sport and the art of many
activities such as fencing and martial arts. People are taught how to win
the competition, not how to master the techniques. One year, my high school
forced (at least when I was there, don't know if it is still true anymore)
everyone on the team to fence with french grips only. Needless to say, the
Varsity fencers that year revolted because they couldn't use their precious
pistol grips, as they felt handicapped compared to other fencers. I
personally use a pistol grip on my foils and epees since I've been out of
school for six years, however there is no substitute for at least learning
the techniques properly on a french, then take advantage of flicking, light
blades, pistol grips, etc. Not only will it make a better fencer, it will
somewhat preserve the tradition behind the sport. Hell, in France you do
footwork for 5 years before you even touch a blade!

[Post rearranged to fix top-posting]

In article <3E4928E9.8030601@qwest.net>, "R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net>
wrote:

>
> Thom Cate wrote:
> > Dear all:
> >
> > I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but as a coach with a handfull
> > of headstrong foilists to manage, I do like to stay on top of things.
> > So, with lower lip clenched firmly between teeth I ask:
> >
> > "What constitutes the parry?"
> >
> > Now, before you start thinking "Who is this bozo?" (Ok, too late), let
> > me set up the scenario.
> >
> > Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
> > A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
> > arrives, A's remise arrives.
> >
> > Fencer A says "I never felt or heard the blade contact." Fencer B
> > says "I parried." Independent observers agree there was defensive
> > blade contact by Fencer B.
> >
> > Question: is B's action actually a parry? Or is the blade contact
> > inconsequential, as Fencer A's point did not appear to deviate from a
> > line with the target?
> >

In my experience, the referee will call this B's parry even if the blade
isn't deflected from the target. And this makes sense, since the referee
can't be expected to be able to see if the point was deflected or not.
Maybe when the foils have laser pointers tied onto the tip, but not now.

The referee listens for the parry.

> > The referee called the action as described above, basically "Attack,
> > parry-riposte, remise. Parry-riposte for B arrives." There are those
> > who say "The referee said it, his opinion is inviolate as regards the
> > reconstruction of the phrase," and that alone should tell Fencer A he
> > was--in fact and in deed--parried.
> >
> > Yet, as a coach, explaining this to a 19-year old hothead, this seems
> > insufficient, a cop-out even. (I observed the action in question and
> > agree with the referee's call)
> >
> > Any help here?

Tell him or her to figure out how the referee is calling the actions and
adjust to it.

> IMHO: the referee was wrong but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
> I have been playing with the idea of returning to fencing and have been
> lurking for awhile on various boards and forums.
> I must say the things seem to be worse not better. The sport is now a
> game with whippy sticks. Any relationship to actual sword play is
> purely coincidental.

Yes, fencing is a sport. There's also little relationship between
shooting as seen in the Olympics and gunfighting.

> I was taught that in order for a parry to "count" as such the threat
> MUST be deflected out of line, period. We drilled parries so that they
> always cleared the line through position not: "I touched the blade so
> now I can safely reposte". We were also taught to continue an attack if
> the defenders parry was insufficient to clear the line and not respond
> to an anticipated, though inappropriate, riposte. (this is what you
> describe your fencer did and lost the point, referee was wrong, at least
> in the good old days). What would have happened with sharps?

That's completely irrelevant, as the following example shows:

Foil: A attacks. B counterattacks. Both hit on target. Ruling: Touch for
A.

Real weapons: A attacks. B counterattacks. Both hit on target. Ruling:
Both dead.

Modern fencing has little to do with fighting with real weapons. Deal
with it.

> One can not control what other's students do but one certainly can at
> least drill one's own in proper technique. It will stand them in good
> stead. I took many a hit from my coach after "bad" parries till I "got it".
> I do recall some discussions of training directing weaknesses and
> "tricks", like the flick, to win bouts, particularly at the collegiate
> levels, at the cost of development of real fencing skill. But let's not
> open that can either.
> Classical fencing anyone?

No thanks.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:46:33 -0700
R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>to an anticipated, though inappropriate, riposte. (this is what you
>describe your fencer did and lost the point, referee was wrong, at least
>in the good old days). What would have happened with sharps?

Both would have died?

If it's "what if they were sharp" then the one who attacked and was
not knocked offline should have done something about the sword heading
for them and not relied on "but I got there first!"

If there's time enough for B to hit A, A stuffed up.

As it is a sport, the contact is enough as far as I can tell. Best to
tell the kids "It's a sport, so remove any idea of fighting from your
minds, play to the rules like everyone else".

If you want to teach them about fighting, then teach the ones making
the attack to deal with the sword pointing at them, and if the method
of dealing doesn't work, then don't keep attacking. Hit without being
hit - A failed the 2nd part of that...

Zebee

Here's a thought: Strong against weak?

Perhaps the referee couldn't see if Fencer A's point was deflected,
but he should be able to tell if Fencer A had to make another action
to fix the point. If he did, its Fencer B's touché.

> In my experience, the referee will call this B's parry even if the blade
> isn't deflected from the target. And this makes sense, since the referee
> can't be expected to be able to see if the point was deflected or not.
> Maybe when the foils have laser pointers tied onto the tip, but not now.
>
> The referee listens for the parry.

Thom Cate wrote:
> "What constitutes the parry?"

Please, people. The starting point is always the rule book.
"The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent
an offensive action arriving." (t.7)

Notice that it says nothing about blade contact. (All the rules that
talk about sufficient blade contact refer to removing a point in line.)
E.g., if you make the arm motion to place your blade in the position
of parry 4 at the same time as you retreat, and the attack (in 4) falls
so short there is no blade contact, you still have the right
to a riposte. The motion was done to prevent the attack from arriving;
the fact that the attacker wimped out does not deprive you of the parry.

If the parry is successful, right of way passes to the defender.
Here's where it becomes important that you are the coach, not the
referee: Was the parry successful? You may be as strict as you like
about that. I'd never use "visibly deviate" as a criterion. Foil points
move too fast for me to see. I'd watch the defender. Did he correctly
execute the motions? Was his distance correct? Or did he do a half-way
motion with his arm that barely made a clanging noise by pure luck?

Joe

tcate@zoo.uvm.edu (Thom Cate) wrote in
news:4c1bba3.0302110816.4c6a3a0@posting.google.com :

> Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
> A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
> arrives, A's remise arrives.

I was taught that this would be

"A attacks, B attempts parry, parry insufficient, A remises." There's
this little detail that "the merest grazing of a blade" is insufficient to
constitute a parry.

So by some of the arguments does a beat that fails to clear the line
succeed even if the attacker runs into the blade on his way to the target?
An attempted parry is a parry?
An attempted beat is a beat?
Is there any point to the right of way rules if they are going to be
interpreted like epee anyway?

Why not just call foil f'epee and use the same hit first you win rules
only with the limited target area.
That seems to be what we're talking about.

Joe weighs in with:
"The starting point is always the rule book.
"The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent
an offensive action arriving." (t.7)"

A's action certainly arrived. Therefore not prevented.

BTW Thom: did B retreat with that attempted parry or stand his ground?
Might make a difference as A's attack might have been short, even so I'm
still not convinced A did not have uninterrupted right of way. In which
case the "parry" might have been seen as a beat or taking of the blade
though rather poorly done.

I wrote a 2 page tirade quoting the likes of Patton and then decided not
to send it, you're welcome. It's all been said before by the many
proponents of "Classical Fencing".

Sport fencing is not real and barely related to sword play. Epee comes
the closest.
But geeze the officials ought to know and follow the rules. I see
laziness and a lack of honor and honesty here as much as anything else.
Gone are the days when opponents would acknowledge touches against them
I guess.
Another reason my grandchildren will probably not fence "Olympic" style.

Any classical fencers in Tucson?


Jonathan Hoffman wrote:
> Thom Cate wrote:
>
>> "What constitutes the parry?"
>
>
> Please, people. The starting point is always the rule book.
> "The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent
> an offensive action arriving." (t.7)
>
> Notice that it says nothing about blade contact. (All the rules that
> talk about sufficient blade contact refer to removing a point in line.)
> E.g., if you make the arm motion to place your blade in the position
> of parry 4 at the same time as you retreat, and the attack (in 4) falls
> so short there is no blade contact, you still have the right
> to a riposte. The motion was done to prevent the attack from arriving;
> the fact that the attacker wimped out does not deprive you of the parry.
>
> If the parry is successful, right of way passes to the defender.
> Here's where it becomes important that you are the coach, not the
> referee: Was the parry successful? You may be as strict as you like
> about that. I'd never use "visibly deviate" as a criterion. Foil points
> move too fast for me to see. I'd watch the defender. Did he correctly
> execute the motions? Was his distance correct? Or did he do a half-way
> motion with his arm that barely made a clanging noise by pure luck?
>
> Joe

In article <3E499997.3AE1254D@patriot.net>,
Jonathan Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net> wrote:

>
> Notice that it says nothing about blade contact. (All the rules that
> talk about sufficient blade contact refer to removing a point in line.)
> E.g., if you make the arm motion to place your blade in the position
> of parry 4 at the same time as you retreat, and the attack (in 4) falls
> so short there is no blade contact, you still have the right
> to a riposte. The motion was done to prevent the attack from arriving;
> the fact that the attacker wimped out does not deprive you of the parry.
>


Keep in mind that this can be called "attack is no, counterattack is
good," since the initial attack fails when the front foot hits the
floor. But calling it a riposte is common in saber.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

tcate@zoo.uvm.edu (Thom Cate) writes:

> "What constitutes the parry?"
[...]
> Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
> A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
> arrives, A's remise arrives.

Hm, the direct attack of fencer A didn't arrive, so I would say the
parry was sufficent enough and the reposte ok.

If the attack were performed correctly, it would had arrived, if the
parry didn't move the point out of line (parry not performed
correctly).

Or the other way around.

If fencer A says, my remise counts as the parry didn't move my point
out of line, fencer B can say, my parry-reposte counts as the attack
wasn't performed correctly and didn't arrive.

So, I would give the point to fencer B.

Cheers,
Rudiger

It all comes down to whether there was sufficient blade contact.
Fencer A doesn't think so, but the director (oops, referee) does, and
his opinion is the one that counts.

The post said:<quote>"Fencer A says "I never felt or heard the blade
contact." Fencer B says "I parried." Independent observers agree
there was defensive blade contact by Fencer B.</quote>

So, Fencer A doesn't believe there was contact at all, let alone
whether it was adequate. Whether any of us would have called it a
parry or a 'mere grazing' can't be resolved without having seen it.
But, there no conflict in _principle_ - just the question of whether
the director's judgement was good or bad. The rationale is entirely
traditional: for example, a pris de fer acquires right of way without
making an opposition parry that closes the line.

When I was taking my first directing course, Giorgio Santelli came
upstairs from his office to talk about "adequate parries". He said two
things that stuck in my mind: one is that there is no such thing as
mal-parre': either the attack is parried or it isn't (so, in dry
judging, only say "yes", "no", or "yes, but off-target").

Second, and apropos of this thread, he demonstrated via a light tap on
the blade and catching the tapped blade at the widest part of its arc,
that even a light tap - done correctly - deviates the blade from
target. He said "A director is not a protractor" who measures the
angle. In other words, it's solely the director's job to apply
judgement to the blade action.

In practice, it would be called for A if he hit at the same time as
the blade action (since the simultaneous hit and blade action proves
the blade wasn't deviated). If the blade action occurred before the
finale, then it's quite another story (see above). Since the original
post mentions a remise, it sounds like the initial offensive movement
did not land. Without the video tape there's no way to tell if B took
over right of way.

In article <6a855241.0302120823.56a29097@posting.google.com >,
jsavit@mail.com (Jeff Savit) wrote:

> When I was taking my first directing course, Giorgio Santelli came
> upstairs from his office to talk about "adequate parries". He said two
> things that stuck in my mind: one is that there is no such thing as
> mal-parre': either the attack is parried or it isn't (so, in dry
> judging, only say "yes", "no", or "yes, but off-target").
>
> Second, and apropos of this thread, he demonstrated via a light tap on
> the blade and catching the tapped blade at the widest part of its arc,
> that even a light tap - done correctly - deviates the blade from
> target. He said "A director is not a protractor" who measures the
> angle. In other words, it's solely the director's job to apply
> judgement to the blade action.
>
> In practice, it would be called for A if he hit at the same time as
> the blade action (since the simultaneous hit and blade action proves
> the blade wasn't deviated).

But here, if you call "mal parre'," it lets everyone know that, yes, you
saw the attempted parry, but it didn't stop the attack. Otherwise the
fencer who got hit is thinking "How could this guy not see/hear that
parry!?"

While you're probably technically right that you don't need the term, I
think it might be useful in practice.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

R.S.E. wrote:

>
> Any classical fencers in Tucson?
>

Are there any fencers in Tucson?? I was there
a while back and couldn't find a salle. Just
was wondering if the situation has changed.

J.

R.S.E. wrote:

>
> Sport fencing is not real and barely related to sword play.

A minor quibble:
My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
i.e. a way to teach. And from the very first it focused on form and
creativity as much as sword play. And allowing that it has morphed
over the years with the introduction of electric scoring I don't see
it being that out of step with what it was first designed for.
Just a philosophical point but I am told
that in Japan one can pinpoint the very higth of japanese
swordsmanship to a specific century, a specific year and even a
specific man. Whereas I prefer to believe this isn't true in the
west but that the very best may yet be next year. My point is that
the japanese model is tied to what was whereas I prefer to
believe that western study of the blade is still continuing.

Epee comes
> the closest.

which is one reason why I favor the epee. But even it has things I
find troubling, Such as the double. Really feel that any double
should be thrown out. Many epeists will play a game of get a couple
of points up and then double out.

> But geeze the officials ought to know and follow the rules. I see
> laziness and a lack of honor and honesty here as much as anything else.
> Gone are the days when opponents would acknowledge touches against them
> I guess.

Sorry but there's nothing new here. Read Aldo Nadi's description of
his bout in Paris and how he felt the french influenced the results.
If it's important to win then someone will go over the top.

> Another reason my grandchildren will probably not fence "Olympic" style.
My sympathies then.

J.

The action is quite clear as u described...so it's B right; unless A's
attack touch immediately when B is doing the parry, in that case is B's
mal-parè, A's right. But if it's so clear (noticeable tempo between the
actions) the blades' contact, then B's right. It doesn't matter the
deviation from the target!!!

If the problem is explaining this to a 19yo boy....well, that's fencing my
friend....the little particulars are more important than he thinks ;-)

Pier
ITA





"Thom Cate" <tcate@zoo.uvm.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4c1bba3.0302110816.4c6a3a0@posting.google.com ...
> Dear all:
>
> I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but as a coach with a handfull
> of headstrong foilists to manage, I do like to stay on top of things.
> So, with lower lip clenched firmly between teeth I ask:
>
> "What constitutes the parry?"
>
> Now, before you start thinking "Who is this bozo?" (Ok, too late), let
> me set up the scenario.
>
> Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
> A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
> arrives, A's remise arrives.
>
> Fencer A says "I never felt or heard the blade contact." Fencer B
> says "I parried." Independent observers agree there was defensive
> blade contact by Fencer B.
>
> Question: is B's action actually a parry? Or is the blade contact
> inconsequential, as Fencer A's point did not appear to deviate from a
> line with the target?
>
> The referee called the action as described above, basically "Attack,
> parry-riposte, remise. Parry-riposte for B arrives." There are those
> who say "The referee said it, his opinion is inviolate as regards the
> reconstruction of the phrase," and that alone should tell Fencer A he
> was--in fact and in deed--parried.
>
> Yet, as a coach, explaining this to a 19-year old hothead, this seems
> insufficient, a cop-out even. (I observed the action in question and
> agree with the referee's call)
>
> Any help here?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Thom Cate
>
> tcate@zoo.uvm.edu

Yup: see The Arizona Fencing Academy:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/arizonafencing/

Yvonne O. Gallego seems to have a pretty good reputation. She has
turned out some nationally ranked competitors and at least one women's
epee champion IIRC.
Not Classical though. Seems collegiate. They also have some problems
with their space and how "welcoming" they are to new folks. By
welcoming I do not mean that they are rude but that their location does
not allow casual observing. She does no marketing that I can find and
is difficult to talk to. Seems to be a small hard core type of place.
They need better facilities.


RSE

Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
> R.S.E. wrote:
>
>>
>> Any classical fencers in Tucson?
>>
>
> Are there any fencers in Tucson?? I was there
> a while back and couldn't find a salle. Just
> was wondering if the situation has changed.
>
> J.
>

Jonathan Jefferies wrote:

> My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
> i.e. a way to teach.

Sort of true. Some found that the foil could serve quite well in
combats and duels. Sharpen the point and voila not just a training
tool. The target is designated to assure the likelihood of really
finishing a real fight as opposed to the "first blood" honor rules of epee.

Have you seen and or read the Spanish novel or movie: The Fencing
Master? He and other use foils to "good" effect. Good movie and book too.

I have a passing acquaintance with the Japanese sword and its use. I
think that your analogy may miss slightly if one considers that during
virtually all of its history Japanese fencing has had one ultimate
outcome: to kill your opponent as quickly as possible. Most blows with
a katana would be fatal. Just as an interesting aside, Musahi, perhaps
that penultimate swordsman you mention, used a bokan or similar rather
than steel almost exclusively later in his career and people were trying
to kill him not just score points. He died of old age they did not.

I think that Kendo, with its european fencing like limitations on target
and strikes, while an interesting game requiring great skill, does not
realistically prepare one for combat with the sword any more than modern
foil prepares one for combat with a small sword. (try flicking with one)
Iado, Kenjutsu and some forms of Aikijitsu are intended as "real" combat
training and the dearth of bouting rules reflects this. Even Kendo is
played at full speed and full contact and any landed cut or thrust would
probably end the fight if not instantly fatal.
I recall a story, that may be true, of a Korean sword master (who may
still be teaching in Boston) who upon his arrival in Japan to test his
skills, faced the then leading Kendo masters. He, to put it bluntly,
cut them to ribbons. Figuratively of course. Combat is just different.

> which is one reason why I favor the epee. But even it has things I
> find troubling, Such as the double. Really feel that any double
> should be thrown out. Many epeists will play a game of get a couple
> of points up and then double out.

And in real life they would be bleeding all over the place and honor
would not be satisfied so it wouldn't happen.


> Sorry but there's nothing new here. Read Aldo Nadi's description of
> his bout in Paris and how he felt the french influenced the results.
> If it's important to win then someone will go over the top.
>
Yeah I know, its the same in all sports and yes I've read the Nadi
material too. Fascinating family in an interesting time.


>> Another reason my grandchildren will probably not fence "Olympic" style.
>
> My sympathies then.

I will not dissuade them but I will not encourage them either. I do not
see the life lessons that I want to teach in current fencing style and
competition.
Honesty, integrity, self reliance, honor, and civilized behavior.

Enough or I'll get in more trouble than I am already.

A most stimulating discussion. I've learned a thing or two, always a
good sign.

Thanks

>
> J.
>

"R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in news:3E4B0815.3070408@qwest.net:

> Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
>> i.e. a way to teach.
>
> Sort of true. Some found that the foil could serve quite well in
> combats and duels.

Who found this? There is the story regarding Jean-Michel (I think that's
his name) and the oaf, but Jean-Michel used an unmodified foil to
humiliate the oaf even further.

> tool. The target is designated to assure the likelihood of really
> finishing a real fight as opposed to the "first blood" honor rules of
> epee.

When Aldo Nadi duelled with epee, it was not to "first blood". Likewise,
many epee duels were not to "first blood". Many duellists scoffed at the
practice.


> Have you seen and or read the Spanish novel or movie: The Fencing
> Master? He and other use foils to "good" effect. Good movie and book
> too.

And this is based on what verifiable actual practice? After all, the
Disney version of the Three Musketeers shows a rapier used as a missile
weapon...


> And in real life they would be bleeding all over the place and honor
> would not be satisfied so it wouldn't happen.

Actually, "bleeding all over the place" seems to have been remarkably
common, according to actual duel accounts I've read.