Recommendations on a Quality STIFF Sabre Blade?

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 06 May 2003 23:57:00 GMT
Bryan J. Maloney <cavaggione@sbcglobal.net.spam.must.die.com> wrote:
>"Cumulous128" <Cumulous128@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:AhadnXOhmuCpNCqjXTWc-g@speakeasy.net:
>
>> To a limited degree, that is correct. However, combat swordwork
>> is in
>> truth, significantly more mental than physical. And we're talking
>> about the limits of human nature. One cannot maintain perfect
>> technique 100% of the time, especially as one wears down. A person in
>> that position must choose where to allocate their resources, and that
>> is where they may be taken with such a strategy.
>
>You are aware of the experience that Zebee has as you lecture her, are you
>not?

Well, I've never told him, so he can't be.

And it's not as if I've been doing it for ages, only 5 years or so.
In fencing terms, I'm still a rank beginner!

The key, as all the masters say, is that one line of defence is foolish.
At its simplest, to rely on a parry invites a feint. A hard swung sword
can blow through a dagger parry, so use both weapons to block. *And*
move your body. Static blocks that can be beaten down by a strong man
with a heavy sword are also foolish. Step, deflect. Use the length of
the weapon to your advantage. Or take Lichtnauer's advice that the best
defence is an overwhelming offence...

If you only have one weapon, then moving is even more vital. Whether you
are using a longsword or you are down to your dagger. Indeed, spending
some time with just a dagger for defence will teach rather a lot about
strength vs technique.

Good technique has to be drilled until it's the only kind there is.
Hard, slogging, work. Many people who have physical strength prefer to
use that, and it does work against someone who has a low skill level.
But anyone who has been around a bit can tell you the stories of the old
experienced fencers who let the strong athletic ones wear themselves out.
They do it because for years and years, they have done the hard boring
drill.

Good technique certainly involves precision, and that does deteriorate in
a long hard fight. It also involves fencing intelligence, and that means
things like never relying on one defence, and observing your opponent,
including if they are trying to pattern you. Once your intelligence
deteriorates, then you are relying wholly on that hard slog of drill to
keep your technique working.

Strength might be useful against a novice. But as you can never
assume someone you face is a novice, it's better to work on the stuff
that always works. After all, strength is easy, and easy is always
more attractive, but leads you astray.

Zebee

[Bryan J. Maloney]

zebee@zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote in
news:slrnbbghju.uu2.zebee@zipperii.zip.com.au:

> The key, as all the masters say, is that one line of defence is
> foolish. At its simplest, to rely on a parry invites a feint. A hard
> swung sword can blow through a dagger parry, so use both weapons to
> block. *And* move your body. Static blocks that can be beaten down
> by a strong man with a heavy sword are also foolish. Step, deflect.
> Use the length of the weapon to your advantage. Or take Lichtnauer's
> advice that the best defence is an overwhelming offence...

From what she's posted (her Yahoo profile says "female"), I get the
impression that she may be working in relative isolation and basing
technical conclusions regarding Western techniques on what is available to
academic modern fencing--cf the example of blowing through what I presume
would be a repetition of parry in sabre quinte.

> level. But anyone who has been around a bit can tell you the stories
> of the old experienced fencers who let the strong athletic ones wear
> themselves out. They do it because for years and years, they have done
> the hard boring drill.

Evil old men and their Sith mind tricks.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 07 May 2003 01:34:22 GMT
Bryan J. Maloney <cavaggione@sbcglobal.net.spam.must.die.com> wrote:
>
>From what she's posted (her Yahoo profile says "female"), I get the
>impression that she may be working in relative isolation and basing
>technical conclusions regarding Western techniques on what is available to
>academic modern fencing--cf the example of blowing through what I presume
>would be a repetition of parry in sabre quinte.

It's odd, they are the second person I've come across who talks of
"combat fencing" to mean "pretty close to modern sabre, just without
the piste and right of way", who didn't realise there are people doing
historical fencing. There must be more than one such isolated person!
Makes sense, if all you've seen is strip fencing and figure there has
to be more to it, strip fencing is what you'll take as the model and
then try and expand it, but still be closer to it than someone starting
fresh or with the old manuals.

Quinte is fifth eh? meaning the parry above the head? I haven't
re-read the original post, I thought the idea was to tap high a few
times, than come in hard low. Apparently to make the opponent think
you can't hit hard I dunno anyone who would make that assumption,
seems a silly one to make. If your defence can't handle a hard cut,
what kind of a defence is it? And who on earth is silly enough to
relax a defence?

Mind you, a *defence* that relies on strength is no more
useful than an attack that relies on it.

>
>> level. But anyone who has been around a bit can tell you the stories
>> of the old experienced fencers who let the strong athletic ones wear
>> themselves out. They do it because for years and years, they have done
>> the hard boring drill.
>
>Evil old men and their Sith mind tricks.


Hell yeah. My fencing master tells of a master at his school who was
rather arthritic. would totter onto the strip, settle into stance,
and then calmly humiliate young hard men. They usually started off
cocky and slow, not wanting to hurt the old man and he'd touch them a
few times to make them re-evaluate, then they'd run in hard and he'd
touch them a few more times to make them think sabres teleport!

When you are 70-odd, you dont get to get by on speed and strength

Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

[Winter Trail]

France-Lame sabre blades are good and stiff (if you don't mind heavy, which
doesn't seem the case). Unfortunatly, France-Lame is going out of business, so
you'd better buy 'em up quick.

[Amy & Joseph Kormann]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>Hell yeah. My fencing master tells of a master at his school who was
>rather arthritic. would totter onto the strip, settle into stance,
>and then calmly humiliate young hard men. They usually started off
>cocky and slow, not wanting to hurt the old man and he'd touch them a
>few times to make them re-evaluate, then they'd run in hard and he'd
>touch them a few more times to make them think sabres teleport!
>
>When you are 70-odd, you dont get to get by on speed and strength
>
>Zebee
>
I've heard that told a couple of times about Maestro Santelli. He'd look
old, frail and fragile - until he settled into an en guarde. Then he
looked completely in his element. If I live that long, that's what I want.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

[William Marshal]

"Cumulous128" <Cumulous128@yahoo.com> wrote



> But aside from the time-honored
> strategy of wearing your opponent down, an opponent can be lulled into
> thinking that their defenses are more adequate than they really are - and
> that lapse in judgement can be taken advantage of in a strategic manner
> For example - a repeated pattern where a high cut comes in lightly as a
> false maneuver and then cuts with strength below. If your opponent comes to
> believe that they have deciphered this pattern in your swordplay, they may
> eventually get sloppy in their block of your high cut. One hard swing,
> properly timed and executed, will blow right through their sloppy parry.

Ah, now all is much clearer. I too was under the impression that you
were talking about modern sport sabre fencing...

I can't see too much profit, myself, in trying to mix sport fencing
gear with "realistic" techniques: the sport stuff is simply too unlike
the real thing, and you will not get the authentic experience. Even
the stiffest, heaviest sport weapons you will be able to find are to
light and whippy to mimic a real sabre, and a more true-to-type sabre
would not permit the speed which has come to characterise modern
fencing. In that respect a maraging blade may not be the best choice,
either. As others have said, you may want to get a schlager blade, or
even one of the heavier rapier simularor blades. I hear some people
have experimented with putting curves in them, even...


I do both modern and historical fencing, and it's really best not to
try mixing them unless you have no other option whatsoever. ( I
remember trying to parry a schlager with a VERY stiff epee at one
point early on, and getting a 90 degree bend for my trouble, so "I
feel your pain" in this regard!

Regarding the tactic you describe above: yes, it might be effective
did real
( or as close to real as we can come nowadays ) sword fights resemble
those in films, with extended back-and-forth "conversations" with
heavy blades. In my experience, though, most are resolved rather
quickly, with a few strokes each at most, and there is not time for
long, crafty "setting ups" of the sort you're contemplating. Are you
and your opponents experiencing lengthy phrases with no one getting a
clear hit?




> Where in tournament, speed and a light touch allows you to bend your blade
> around your opponent's and *touch* their lame, giving you the point - in
> combat, that will barely slow down the opponent who is in the process of
> taking off your head while you give him a light laceration that won't be
> felt until afterwards.

Indeed, indeed. That's a cardinal difference, to be sure. Although
again, if one reads the "period" manuals of fence one gets the
distinct impression that the masters, apart perhaps from Silver,
didn't think much of "downright blowes" as opposed to technique, ie
taking the parry at the proper place and angle on ones blade to
vitiate any amount of power in the foe's cut, or simply voiding
instead.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on 7 May 2003 19:02:59 -0700
William Marshal <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote:
>long, crafty "setting ups" of the sort you're contemplating. Are you
>and your opponents experiencing lengthy phrases with no one getting a
>clear hit?

I've experienced a lot of in and out and round about, but mostly it's
footwork and binds and using two weapons, rather than "phrases".

I've set people up, but not bash-bash-bash-BASH, more like "attack, be
parried, get out of the way, same attack, same result, same attack,
same result, start same attack, do something different".

>Indeed, indeed. That's a cardinal difference, to be sure. Although
>again, if one reads the "period" manuals of fence one gets the
>distinct impression that the masters, apart perhaps from Silver,
>didn't think much of "downright blowes" as opposed to technique, ie
>taking the parry at the proper place and angle on ones blade to
>vitiate any amount of power in the foe's cut, or simply voiding
>instead.

I think Silver was saying "downright blows" as distinct from this
poncy foreign thrusting business

He was a big man for technique too, just different ones.

Zebee


--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

[Bryan J. Maloney]

trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William Marshal) wrote in
news:dc7987e.0305071802.75e8518f@posting.google.co m:

> Regarding the tactic you describe above: yes, it might be effective
> did real
> ( or as close to real as we can come nowadays ) sword fights resemble
> those in films, with extended back-and-forth "conversations" with
> heavy blades.

Flynning, anyone?

A: Cut to opponent's inside low line (outside line if opposite-handed).
B: Parry 2, riposte to opponent's head.
A: Parry 5, riposte to opponent's inside (outside) low line.
Repeat while doing dialogue and giving the camera an open angle.

> quickly, with a few strokes each at most, and there is not time for
> long, crafty "setting ups" of the sort you're contemplating. Are you
> and your opponents experiencing lengthy phrases with no one getting a
> clear hit?

With weapons of proper mass, good sense says one or two tempos, then get
out of there.

> Indeed, indeed. That's a cardinal difference, to be sure. Although
> again, if one reads the "period" manuals of fence one gets the
> distinct impression that the masters, apart perhaps from Silver,
> didn't think much of "downright blowes" as opposed to technique, ie

Welllll, even Silver seemed a bit less hot on the "downright blow" when he
came to actually explaining what he meant by a proper sort of fight.

[William Marshal]

zebee@zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote

> I've experienced a lot of in and out and round about, but mostly it's
> footwork and binds and using two weapons, rather than "phrases".


Yeah---lots of circling and jockeying for position, a lot of tentative
thrusting and inviting, but few extended "conversations of the
blade"...



> I've set people up, but not bash-bash-bash-BASH, more like "attack, be
> parried, get out of the way, same attack, same result, same attack,
> same result, start same attack, do something different".

Yes again! I'm right with you.


> I think Silver was saying "downright blows" as distinct from this
> poncy foreign thrusting business
>
> He was a big man for technique too, just different ones.


Indeed, indeed...

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on 9 May 2003 13:01:45 -0700
William Marshal <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote:
>zebee@zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote
>
>> I've experienced a lot of in and out and round about, but mostly it's
>> footwork and binds and using two weapons, rather than "phrases".
>
>
>Yeah---lots of circling and jockeying for position, a lot of tentative
>thrusting and inviting, but few extended "conversations of the
>blade"...
>

Yeah. I' have had them, but they are not common. I am not sure why,
whether it's because it is usual to start out of engagement, or
whether such things are a product of "academic fencing".

The manuals all imply it's a case of "get in there, if it doesn't
work, get the hell out", which also makes sense. If the blades are
sharp and the opponent wants your blood, why give him the opportunity?

Mind you - that might be also because the manuals were written for
beginners, and that's the best advice you can give a beginner.

Zebee