Parry or non-parry?

zebee@zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote in
news:slrnb4ovbb.ac1.zebee@zipperii.zip.com.au:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:37:20 -0700
> R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>>I hesitate to send this as it serves no purpose than my own amusement
>>but WTH.
>>Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm, as
>>one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern" fencer
>>using an orthotic? grip so this may be outside your experience.
>
> Bryan? *giggle*

Whenever you do something like that, I always have to do a mental gear-
shift, since I come from the land where anybody with a name beginning
"Zeb-" is presumed to be a very rural man...

In article <3E4B0815.3070408@qwest.net>, "R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> writes:

>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.

Well, I suggest you look harder, and think about it:
A. It's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush, and
B. It's not like your loved ones won't have to deal with these sorts of issues
in the real world, as well.
(Sounds like lif lessons to me...)

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

What are you talking about?
There is free speech on this group - you're not threatening anyone, or
maligning anyone in specific; type on!

In article <3E4B0815.3070408@qwest.net>, "R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> writes:

>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.

Well, I suggest you look harder, and think about it:
A. It's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush, and
B. It's not like your loved ones won't have to deal with these sorts of issues
in the real world, as well.
(Sounds like lif lessons to me...)

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

What are you talking about?
There is free speech on this group - you're not threatening anyone, or
maligning anyone in specific; type on!

In article <e_92a.47546$zF6.3149895@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Tom"
<t.buesing@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>proper style is out.

(Maybe I'm trolling here, but...)
Please explain what you think proper style is, and why it is proper.

Don't get me wrong: There's things about the way things are viewed & taught
these days that I don't agree with, but that goes for the way things WERE
viewed & taught 'back when...'

Thank you.

In article <e_92a.47546$zF6.3149895@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Tom"
<t.buesing@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>proper style is out.

(Maybe I'm trolling here, but...)
Please explain what you think proper style is, and why it is proper.

Don't get me wrong: There's things about the way things are viewed & taught
these days that I don't agree with, but that goes for the way things WERE
viewed & taught 'back when...'

Thank you.

Ok, I will weigh in with a comment about this one point. In my
numerous searches for old weapons - antiques? - I have come
across numerous variations of the foil being incorporated
in sword canes. While I have no first hand knowledge of
their being used, I think one can rationally assume
that that was the intent.
A short meander down London's Porto Bello road any saturday
morning looking at any sword canes that are offered for sale
will possibly convince you.

J.

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:51:01 -0700
> R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
> Oh? Never heard of it, can you give me an instance to look up? Not
> fiction, but an actual episode?
>
> Every single thing I've read says that the modern "foil" is a training
> tool. A foiled - that is bated/dull - blade is a different thing,
> the weapon Hamlet was facing Laertes with wasn't a square section
> flexible blade...
>
> The foil as we understand it seems to have been a smallsword training
> tool, with the epee having come from the smallsword itself, although
> the Italians were using (according to the Baron de Bazancourt writing
> in 1860) rapiers and daggers when he was a young man, and their modern
> weapons hark back to this with the rapier style hilt.
>
> I don't see why anyone would *bother* to sharpen a foil. If you are
> going to use a sword to wound someone, use one built for the purpose,
> specifically one that's sturdy enough for the job of hitting bone.
>
> Zebee
>
>

Ok, I will weigh in with a comment about this one point. In my
numerous searches for old weapons - antiques? - I have come
across numerous variations of the foil being incorporated
in sword canes. While I have no first hand knowledge of
their being used, I think one can rationally assume
that that was the intent.
A short meander down London's Porto Bello road any saturday
morning looking at any sword canes that are offered for sale
will possibly convince you.

J.

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:51:01 -0700
> R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
> Oh? Never heard of it, can you give me an instance to look up? Not
> fiction, but an actual episode?
>
> Every single thing I've read says that the modern "foil" is a training
> tool. A foiled - that is bated/dull - blade is a different thing,
> the weapon Hamlet was facing Laertes with wasn't a square section
> flexible blade...
>
> The foil as we understand it seems to have been a smallsword training
> tool, with the epee having come from the smallsword itself, although
> the Italians were using (according to the Baron de Bazancourt writing
> in 1860) rapiers and daggers when he was a young man, and their modern
> weapons hark back to this with the rapier style hilt.
>
> I don't see why anyone would *bother* to sharpen a foil. If you are
> going to use a sword to wound someone, use one built for the purpose,
> specifically one that's sturdy enough for the job of hitting bone.
>
> Zebee
>
>

In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:17:20 -0800
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>Ok, I will weigh in with a comment about this one point. In my
>numerous searches for old weapons - antiques? - I have come
>across numerous variations of the foil being incorporated
>in sword canes. While I have no first hand knowledge of
>their being used, I think one can rationally assume
>that that was the intent.

"the foil"?

As in a square sectioned blade, with a noticeable flexbility?

(and I note that something sold in a tourist market isn't going to be a
useful pointer to something used in earnest 150 years ago. If you think
it does, I have a beautifully inlaid flintlock pistol that was bought
in that very same road, that would kill you if you ever tried to load
and fire it.)

I also note that a swordcane is no more a duelling weapon *or* a "foil
that was sharpened" than a sawnoff shotgun is a duelling pistol, despite
them both being firearms used to kill people. I can use a fence picket
to defend myself with, is a fence picket a duelling sword?

Yes, a swordcane by its nature has a narrow blade. Short, and probably
mostly for thrusting.

You can just as easily say it's a short epee.

The foil as known in modern times, or say back to the 1840s wasn't a
duelling weapon. The square-sectioned, flexible tip, thrusting only,
sword we call "the foil" wasn't used.

That some swordcanes have a small light blade doesn't change that.

As to why it's not used, that I'm not sure of. I believe that for a
training weapon the square section was cheaper and easier to make, and
certainly easier to make with suitable flex for training so you could
drive the sword home without hurting your training partner. That same
property makes it a liability as a fighting sword.

My fencing master has handled the duelling sword used by Agesilao Greco in
the early 1900s, and aside from the needle point he says it was noticeably
stiffer all along its length than the epees used in modern competition,
even the stiffer ones used in his very traditional salle.

(Nadi says he used his familiar fencing epee without the button, which
surprised me, I presume that one *was* sharpened before use. Greco's
was apparently specially made for the job, but Nadi fought once, Greco
many times.)

There was no reason to take the relatively cheap and unsuitable training
tool and duel with it. Especially any time after the times when
swords were customarily worn, as any fight would require preparation.
Why sharpen a cheap training tool when a decent sword was easily available
in the time it takes to organise a fight?

One thing I have learned in studying history. "Might have" doesn't
mean "did". The famous example is that they had indigo dyed twill,
rivets, and brass buttons, in the 1500s. This does not mean they wore
buttonfly blue jeans...

If you want to assert that blue jeans were worn in the 1500s, you have
to prove it was so, not say "they could have".

Ditto the assertion that foils were sharpened and duelled with.


Zebee

In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:17:20 -0800
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>Ok, I will weigh in with a comment about this one point. In my
>numerous searches for old weapons - antiques? - I have come
>across numerous variations of the foil being incorporated
>in sword canes. While I have no first hand knowledge of
>their being used, I think one can rationally assume
>that that was the intent.

"the foil"?

As in a square sectioned blade, with a noticeable flexbility?

(and I note that something sold in a tourist market isn't going to be a
useful pointer to something used in earnest 150 years ago. If you think
it does, I have a beautifully inlaid flintlock pistol that was bought
in that very same road, that would kill you if you ever tried to load
and fire it.)

I also note that a swordcane is no more a duelling weapon *or* a "foil
that was sharpened" than a sawnoff shotgun is a duelling pistol, despite
them both being firearms used to kill people. I can use a fence picket
to defend myself with, is a fence picket a duelling sword?

Yes, a swordcane by its nature has a narrow blade. Short, and probably
mostly for thrusting.

You can just as easily say it's a short epee.

The foil as known in modern times, or say back to the 1840s wasn't a
duelling weapon. The square-sectioned, flexible tip, thrusting only,
sword we call "the foil" wasn't used.

That some swordcanes have a small light blade doesn't change that.

As to why it's not used, that I'm not sure of. I believe that for a
training weapon the square section was cheaper and easier to make, and
certainly easier to make with suitable flex for training so you could
drive the sword home without hurting your training partner. That same
property makes it a liability as a fighting sword.

My fencing master has handled the duelling sword used by Agesilao Greco in
the early 1900s, and aside from the needle point he says it was noticeably
stiffer all along its length than the epees used in modern competition,
even the stiffer ones used in his very traditional salle.

(Nadi says he used his familiar fencing epee without the button, which
surprised me, I presume that one *was* sharpened before use. Greco's
was apparently specially made for the job, but Nadi fought once, Greco
many times.)

There was no reason to take the relatively cheap and unsuitable training
tool and duel with it. Especially any time after the times when
swords were customarily worn, as any fight would require preparation.
Why sharpen a cheap training tool when a decent sword was easily available
in the time it takes to organise a fight?

One thing I have learned in studying history. "Might have" doesn't
mean "did". The famous example is that they had indigo dyed twill,
rivets, and brass buttons, in the 1500s. This does not mean they wore
buttonfly blue jeans...

If you want to assert that blue jeans were worn in the 1500s, you have
to prove it was so, not say "they could have".

Ditto the assertion that foils were sharpened and duelled with.


Zebee

Thank you for your support. :-)

Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
> Ok, I will weigh in with a comment about this one point. In my
> numerous searches for old weapons - antiques? - I have come
> across numerous variations of the foil being incorporated
> in sword canes. While I have no first hand knowledge of
> their being used, I think one can rationally assume
> that that was the intent.
> A short meander down London's Porto Bello road any saturday
> morning looking at any sword canes that are offered for sale
> will possibly convince you.
>
> J.
>
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:51:01 -0700
> > R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
> >
> >>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
> >
> >
> > Oh? Never heard of it, can you give me an instance to look up? Not
> > fiction, but an actual episode?
> >
> > Every single thing I've read says that the modern "foil" is a training
> > tool. A foiled - that is bated/dull - blade is a different thing,
> > the weapon Hamlet was facing Laertes with wasn't a square section
> > flexible blade...
> >
> > The foil as we understand it seems to have been a smallsword training
> > tool, with the epee having come from the smallsword itself, although
> > the Italians were using (according to the Baron de Bazancourt writing
> > in 1860) rapiers and daggers when he was a young man, and their modern
> > weapons hark back to this with the rapier style hilt.
> >
> > I don't see why anyone would *bother* to sharpen a foil. If you are
> > going to use a sword to wound someone, use one built for the purpose,
> > specifically one that's sturdy enough for the job of hitting bone.
> >
> > Zebee
> >
> >
>

Thank you for your support. :-)

Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
> Ok, I will weigh in with a comment about this one point. In my
> numerous searches for old weapons - antiques? - I have come
> across numerous variations of the foil being incorporated
> in sword canes. While I have no first hand knowledge of
> their being used, I think one can rationally assume
> that that was the intent.
> A short meander down London's Porto Bello road any saturday
> morning looking at any sword canes that are offered for sale
> will possibly convince you.
>
> J.
>
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:51:01 -0700
> > R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
> >
> >>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
> >
> >
> > Oh? Never heard of it, can you give me an instance to look up? Not
> > fiction, but an actual episode?
> >
> > Every single thing I've read says that the modern "foil" is a training
> > tool. A foiled - that is bated/dull - blade is a different thing,
> > the weapon Hamlet was facing Laertes with wasn't a square section
> > flexible blade...
> >
> > The foil as we understand it seems to have been a smallsword training
> > tool, with the epee having come from the smallsword itself, although
> > the Italians were using (according to the Baron de Bazancourt writing
> > in 1860) rapiers and daggers when he was a young man, and their modern
> > weapons hark back to this with the rapier style hilt.
> >
> > I don't see why anyone would *bother* to sharpen a foil. If you are
> > going to use a sword to wound someone, use one built for the purpose,
> > specifically one that's sturdy enough for the job of hitting bone.
> >
> > Zebee
> >
> >
>

Hi Zebee,
I'm afraid you're dancing around the issue or obfuscating it.
I'm not speaking of replicas as your flintlock probably is
but rather tools from the 1800's. Anyway, I don't remember
anyone advocating dueling with a sharpened foil. And I didn't
mean to imply that all cane swords were made using foils.
And I rather suspect that cane swords weren't
used for dueling except under unusual circumstances. My
belief is that they were hidden weapons. I seem to remember
the laws forbidding them in the state of California referring
to them as hidden weapons. As to why they would use a foil
blade - well cheap, easily obtained, and possibly easy to
make stiff. Also the square cross section made it easy to
fit the cane to it. Try looking at it from an
engineering/manufacturing point of view.

As regards your comments on epee's I am an epeeist and am
quite familiar with what the french term "epee du sport" and
have handled a couple of "epee du combat" and am familiar with
the difference. You acknowledge that epee weapons used for
sport/training have also been used in combat so why the
issue with the foil being used as a weapon. Sharpened it
most closely resembles a long ice pick and the formerly
common ice picks have often been used as a weapon. As to stiffness
I'm sure you can make it as stiff as desired.

J.

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:17:20 -0800
> Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
>>Ok, I will weigh in with a comment about this one point. In my
>>numerous searches for old weapons - antiques? - I have come
>>across numerous variations of the foil being incorporated
>>in sword canes. While I have no first hand knowledge of
>>their being used, I think one can rationally assume
>>that that was the intent.
>
>
> "the foil"?
>
> As in a square sectioned blade, with a noticeable flexbility?
>
> (and I note that something sold in a tourist market isn't going to be a
> useful pointer to something used in earnest 150 years ago. If you think
> it does, I have a beautifully inlaid flintlock pistol that was bought
> in that very same road, that would kill you if you ever tried to load
> and fire it.)
>
> I also note that a swordcane is no more a duelling weapon *or* a "foil
> that was sharpened" than a sawnoff shotgun is a duelling pistol, despite
> them both being firearms used to kill people. I can use a fence picket
> to defend myself with, is a fence picket a duelling sword?
>
> Yes, a swordcane by its nature has a narrow blade. Short, and probably
> mostly for thrusting.
>
> You can just as easily say it's a short epee.
>
> The foil as known in modern times, or say back to the 1840s wasn't a
> duelling weapon. The square-sectioned, flexible tip, thrusting only,
> sword we call "the foil" wasn't used.
>
> That some swordcanes have a small light blade doesn't change that.
>
> As to why it's not used, that I'm not sure of. I believe that for a
> training weapon the square section was cheaper and easier to make, and
> certainly easier to make with suitable flex for training so you could
> drive the sword home without hurting your training partner. That same
> property makes it a liability as a fighting sword.
>
> My fencing master has handled the duelling sword used by Agesilao Greco in
> the early 1900s, and aside from the needle point he says it was noticeably
> stiffer all along its length than the epees used in modern competition,
> even the stiffer ones used in his very traditional salle.
>
> (Nadi says he used his familiar fencing epee without the button, which
> surprised me, I presume that one *was* sharpened before use. Greco's
> was apparently specially made for the job, but Nadi fought once, Greco
> many times.)
>
> There was no reason to take the relatively cheap and unsuitable training
> tool and duel with it. Especially any time after the times when
> swords were customarily worn, as any fight would require preparation.
> Why sharpen a cheap training tool when a decent sword was easily available
> in the time it takes to organise a fight?
>
> One thing I have learned in studying history. "Might have" doesn't
> mean "did". The famous example is that they had indigo dyed twill,
> rivets, and brass buttons, in the 1500s. This does not mean they wore
> buttonfly blue jeans...
>
> If you want to assert that blue jeans were worn in the 1500s, you have
> to prove it was so, not say "they could have".
>
> Ditto the assertion that foils were sharpened and duelled with.
>
>
> Zebee

Hi Zebee,
I'm afraid you're dancing around the issue or obfuscating it.
I'm not speaking of replicas as your flintlock probably is
but rather tools from the 1800's. Anyway, I don't remember
anyone advocating dueling with a sharpened foil. And I didn't
mean to imply that all cane swords were made using foils.
And I rather suspect that cane swords weren't
used for dueling except under unusual circumstances. My
belief is that they were hidden weapons. I seem to remember
the laws forbidding them in the state of California referring
to them as hidden weapons. As to why they would use a foil
blade - well cheap, easily obtained, and possibly easy to
make stiff. Also the square cross section made it easy to
fit the cane to it. Try looking at it from an
engineering/manufacturing point of view.

As regards your comments on epee's I am an epeeist and am
quite familiar with what the french term "epee du sport" and
have handled a couple of "epee du combat" and am familiar with
the difference. You acknowledge that epee weapons used for
sport/training have also been used in combat so why the
issue with the foil being used as a weapon. Sharpened it
most closely resembles a long ice pick and the formerly
common ice picks have often been used as a weapon. As to stiffness
I'm sure you can make it as stiff as desired.

J.

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:17:20 -0800
> Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
>>Ok, I will weigh in with a comment about this one point. In my
>>numerous searches for old weapons - antiques? - I have come
>>across numerous variations of the foil being incorporated
>>in sword canes. While I have no first hand knowledge of
>>their being used, I think one can rationally assume
>>that that was the intent.
>
>
> "the foil"?
>
> As in a square sectioned blade, with a noticeable flexbility?
>
> (and I note that something sold in a tourist market isn't going to be a
> useful pointer to something used in earnest 150 years ago. If you think
> it does, I have a beautifully inlaid flintlock pistol that was bought
> in that very same road, that would kill you if you ever tried to load
> and fire it.)
>
> I also note that a swordcane is no more a duelling weapon *or* a "foil
> that was sharpened" than a sawnoff shotgun is a duelling pistol, despite
> them both being firearms used to kill people. I can use a fence picket
> to defend myself with, is a fence picket a duelling sword?
>
> Yes, a swordcane by its nature has a narrow blade. Short, and probably
> mostly for thrusting.
>
> You can just as easily say it's a short epee.
>
> The foil as known in modern times, or say back to the 1840s wasn't a
> duelling weapon. The square-sectioned, flexible tip, thrusting only,
> sword we call "the foil" wasn't used.
>
> That some swordcanes have a small light blade doesn't change that.
>
> As to why it's not used, that I'm not sure of. I believe that for a
> training weapon the square section was cheaper and easier to make, and
> certainly easier to make with suitable flex for training so you could
> drive the sword home without hurting your training partner. That same
> property makes it a liability as a fighting sword.
>
> My fencing master has handled the duelling sword used by Agesilao Greco in
> the early 1900s, and aside from the needle point he says it was noticeably
> stiffer all along its length than the epees used in modern competition,
> even the stiffer ones used in his very traditional salle.
>
> (Nadi says he used his familiar fencing epee without the button, which
> surprised me, I presume that one *was* sharpened before use. Greco's
> was apparently specially made for the job, but Nadi fought once, Greco
> many times.)
>
> There was no reason to take the relatively cheap and unsuitable training
> tool and duel with it. Especially any time after the times when
> swords were customarily worn, as any fight would require preparation.
> Why sharpen a cheap training tool when a decent sword was easily available
> in the time it takes to organise a fight?
>
> One thing I have learned in studying history. "Might have" doesn't
> mean "did". The famous example is that they had indigo dyed twill,
> rivets, and brass buttons, in the 1500s. This does not mean they wore
> buttonfly blue jeans...
>
> If you want to assert that blue jeans were worn in the 1500s, you have
> to prove it was so, not say "they could have".
>
> Ditto the assertion that foils were sharpened and duelled with.
>
>
> Zebee

In article <3E4EECF5.8030005@alamedanet.net>,
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:

>
> As regards your comments on epee's I am an epeeist and am
> quite familiar with what the french term "epee du sport" and
> have handled a couple of "epee du combat" and am familiar with
> the difference. You acknowledge that epee weapons used for
> sport/training have also been used in combat so why the
> issue with the foil being used as a weapon. Sharpened it
> most closely resembles a long ice pick and the formerly
> common ice picks have often been used as a weapon. As to stiffness
> I'm sure you can make it as stiff as desired.
>


He means the blade.

--Harold Buck


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

In article <3E4EECF5.8030005@alamedanet.net>,
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:

>
> As regards your comments on epee's I am an epeeist and am
> quite familiar with what the french term "epee du sport" and
> have handled a couple of "epee du combat" and am familiar with
> the difference. You acknowledge that epee weapons used for
> sport/training have also been used in combat so why the
> issue with the foil being used as a weapon. Sharpened it
> most closely resembles a long ice pick and the formerly
> common ice picks have often been used as a weapon. As to stiffness
> I'm sure you can make it as stiff as desired.
>


He means the blade.

--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 Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:44:21 -0800
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>Hi Zebee,
>I'm afraid you're dancing around the issue or obfuscating it.

eh?

>I'm not speaking of replicas as your flintlock probably is
>but rather tools from the 1800's. Anyway, I don't remember
>anyone advocating dueling with a sharpened foil. And I didn't

Here it is;

========
From: "R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net>
Reply-To: rse2@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: Parry or non-parry?

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.
========

>mean to imply that all cane swords were made using foils.
>And I rather suspect that cane swords weren't
>used for dueling except under unusual circumstances. My
>belief is that they were hidden weapons. I seem to remember

Yup. So why cite them in a discussion of the existence of people
duelling with foils?

The thing being objected to is right there, quoted above.

Bryan and I asked for proof of this, as it's quite against everything
we have learned.

Saying "they might have" and "but swordcanes sometimes" isn't
answering the question Bryan and I have asked.


Zebee

In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:44:21 -0800
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>Hi Zebee,
>I'm afraid you're dancing around the issue or obfuscating it.

eh?

>I'm not speaking of replicas as your flintlock probably is
>but rather tools from the 1800's. Anyway, I don't remember
>anyone advocating dueling with a sharpened foil. And I didn't

Here it is;

========
From: "R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net>
Reply-To: rse2@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: Parry or non-parry?

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.
========

>mean to imply that all cane swords were made using foils.
>And I rather suspect that cane swords weren't
>used for dueling except under unusual circumstances. My
>belief is that they were hidden weapons. I seem to remember

Yup. So why cite them in a discussion of the existence of people
duelling with foils?

The thing being objected to is right there, quoted above.

Bryan and I asked for proof of this, as it's quite against everything
we have learned.

Saying "they might have" and "but swordcanes sometimes" isn't
answering the question Bryan and I have asked.


Zebee

Gentlemen, I believe that many of you are missing the spirit of foil
and its rules, in your interpretation of the parry. Right of way
exists, because no duelist would allow himself to be impaled, even if
it meant that he could take his opponent with him.

In this spirit, a parry that fails to displace the point is not a
parry at all. This attempted parry lends you no protection, and the
reasoning behind right of way suggests that you must first deal with
the existing attack. You have not defended against the incoming
attack, as it is just as capable of skewering you as ever.

A parry is not for show. It must be a defensive action. If it fails
to defend you from the incoming attack, then it is a mal-parre.

Gentlemen, I believe that many of you are missing the spirit of foil
and its rules, in your interpretation of the parry. Right of way
exists, because no duelist would allow himself to be impaled, even if
it meant that he could take his opponent with him.

In this spirit, a parry that fails to displace the point is not a
parry at all. This attempted parry lends you no protection, and the
reasoning behind right of way suggests that you must first deal with
the existing attack. You have not defended against the incoming
attack, as it is just as capable of skewering you as ever.

A parry is not for show. It must be a defensive action. If it fails
to defend you from the incoming attack, then it is a mal-parre.

In article <b5d27558.0302170932.2cd21a@posting.google.com>,
apaul@comcast.net (Lion) wrote:

> Gentlemen, I believe that many of you are missing the spirit of foil
> and its rules, in your interpretation of the parry.

The spirit is not relevant. Only the current implementation and
interpretation of the rules today is relevant to a competitive fencer.

>Right of way
> exists, because no duelist would allow himself to be impaled, even if
> it meant that he could take his opponent with him.

Wrong. Right-of-way exists because too many duellists ddid exactly that.
Foil was invented to teach people to defend themselves instead of
killing the other fencer but dying in the process.

But then foil evolved. It's not the same game now, just as modern
American football bears little resemblence to its ancestor, soccer. Go
tell the NFL that they should do something because of the spirit of the
game of soccer, and share their response with us.


> In this spirit, a parry that fails to displace the point is not a
> parry at all. This attempted parry lends you no protection, and the
> reasoning behind right of way suggests that you must first deal with
> the existing attack. You have not defended against the incoming
> attack, as it is just as capable of skewering you as ever.
>
> A parry is not for show. It must be a defensive action. If it fails
> to defend you from the incoming attack, then it is a mal-parre.

As someone else said, a referee is not a protractor. It's simply not
possible at high speed to tell conclusively whether the point was
displaced, so no one bothers.



--Harold Buck


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