Master of Fencing at San Jose State Univ

[Sfrozo]

"...Classical Italian Fencing looked like coming at you in the guise of a powerful attack married with speed & imagination. At least, in my opinion, that's what it ought to look like."

Well said. I think *good* classical fencing does just that, but certainly there are many poor classical fencers just as there are many poor non-classical fencers.

Thanks for sharing these experiences--living in northern California we hear about the SJSU program from time to time but very few people seem to know much about it.

Do you know anything about the maestri from Italy that visited the "graduation" at SJSU a few years ago (1999), Giovanni Toran and Saverio Crisci? Alex Beguinet, who was also there, we know. I've been curious about maestri, who they coach if anyone, what their respective records are, etc.

Again, thanks for the inside look!

[drayke]

Originally posted by sabreur
dnichols gets a gold star for a very nice reply.

Drayke--Ed Dew is one of the most respected members of this board (he didn't get the title of "expert" for nothing), and he's fenced a number of the folks out of this SJS program. I would not call his opinions "several times removed."

MR

I was looking for practical experience within the program. It is after all a coaching development program, not a competitive fencing program. No offense intended.

[drayke]

and, dnichols' reply was quite informative.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Sfrozo
True, coaches teach the flick (and how to slap around a good parry in sabre) but that does not make it "traditional" nor does it make it "good." It is a "technique," yes, but given the amount of discussion on this web forum alone I think you will agree that there is some serious disagreement about the flick--and if I may add the slap-around-the-bell-guard--being _good_ technique. If you define good technique as that which scores points (and you certainly free to do so) you should realize that not everyone--and not every maestro--is going to agree with you. In fact, to many fencers, your "good technique is that which wins bouts" is not only ridiculous, but ignorant.

...

Say what you will, there is too often (sadly) a disparity between good technique and scoring touches.

I prefer Bruce Lee's definition of technique, since it explains everything.

'Good Form is the most efficient manner to accomplish the purpose of a performance with a minimum of lost motion and wasted energy.'

It's important to remember that classical fencing technique follows this logic as well. Those techniques were the most efficient and effective ways to protect yourself from a sharp weapon, and stab your opponent with a similar weapon.

Modern sport fencers learn to score and defend efficiently and effectively, by flicking, whipping, thrusting, or otherwise placing the point on target.

To say certain technique it's not classical, or traditional or pretty to wacth is superfluous, subjective, and counter to the definition of good technique.

[Sfrozo]

This is getting off topic--perhaps a new string is needed if we wish to discuss this further?

"It's important to remember that classical fencing technique follows this logic as well. Those techniques were the most efficient and effective ways to protect yourself from a sharp weapon, and stab your opponent with a similar weapon."

Totally agree, but then classical fencers (from what I can tell), and Master Lee, have the philosophy of treating the bout (or fight) as if it were in earnest, not a game to score points.

"Modern sport fencers learn to score and defend efficiently and effectively, by flicking, whipping, thrusting, or otherwise placing the point on target."

So, would you say that the wind up to a flick is more efficient than a straight thrust?

"To say certain technique it's not classical, or traditional or pretty to wacth is superfluous, subjective, and counter to the definition of good technique."

I agree with you as to whether a bout is "pretty" or not--different strokes for different folks, but determining whether a technique is "classical" or "traditional" is another matter. Dynamic attacks like the flick or the slap to the bell-guard are really relatively new and certainly an outgrowth of electric fencing, not part of established, traditional fencing pedagogy (the great majority of texts on fencing, even with non "classical" techniques like the fleche, do not include the flick or attacks to the guard).

Now, let's hear more about Gaugler's program--thanks again to dnichols for his info! Interesting stuff.

[RSahm]

It has come to my attention that a variety of questions have been
raised about the Fencing Masters Program at San Jose State University
(SJSU). The person who originated the inquiry wisely asked, "Anyone
who has undertaken some of the course of study at the SJSU program, please post regarding your experiences. I'm interested in first hand
observations. "

One of those who responded at length had, indeed, undertaken "some" of the course of the study. However, because he participated for but a single semester, this individual's experience was limited to the
introductory phase of the course; his criticisms were based upon a
limited view of the whole. In contemplating his motivation one would do well to bear in mind that he failed to complete the program. Others with no knowledge of the program whatever also volunteered to comment, passing judgment on the program. The worth of their assessments should be obvious.

As one intimately familiar with the Fencing Masters Program at San Jose State University I will respond here to the original inquiry.

To begin, it should be understood that the purpose of the Fencing
Masters Program is to train teachers, not fencers. There is a profound difference between the skills needed to be a successful fencing competitor and those required to be a successful fencing teacher. Although each may augment the other, they are not the same. We at the Fencing Pedagogy Program maintain that success in any given discipline, whether it be fencing or anything else, does not automatically imbue one with teaching skills - a reality known well by those who have had to deal with the frustration of being enrolled in university courses taught by professors who, although eminently successful in their fields, were nevertheless poor teachers.

In the United States fencers constitute a pitifully small segment of
the U.S. population and the dearth of properly trained fencing teachersis part of the cause. The program at SJSU aims to play a role in filling that need. The faculty welcomes accomplished fencers who wish to optimize their effectiveness as teachers, and appreciates that their experience as successful competitors will serve them and their students well. However, enrollment in the Program is not reserved only for the select few. It is open to all fencers, whether they have been successful competitors or not. In this, our program is in no way different from that of the United States Fencing Association Coaches College. There are no other schools for training fencing teachers in the United States. The suggestion that our program, and by inference that of the USFA, are "failures" because they are open to anyone willing to learn ignores the fact that were only highly ranked fencers with extensive competitive experience allowed to enroll, there would be no teacher training programs in the U.S. at all.

With respect to the criticism that San Jose State University does not
have a "top ranked fencing team," the implication that this is so
because of some fault with the Fencing Pedagogy Program is entirely
without foundation. It is true that SJSU has no top ranked fencing
team - nor has it a fencing team of any other kind. Furthermore, the
assertion that the fencing team was disbanded as a consequence of
Maitre D'Asaro's early "retirement" from the university is altogether
untrue. Support for the varsity fencing program was terminated by the women's athletic director, who chose instead to use the funds for the support of a newly-created women's softball team. The demise of the fencing team had nothing whatever to do with either Maitre D'Asaro's departure, or the Fencing Pedagogy Program.

Regarding the assertion that the program's instruction "hasn't much
direct relevance to modern competitive fencing," it should be noted that Maestro Gaugler's book, "The Science of Fencing," is widely used in Europe in both the German and the Italian editions. After twenty years of sales in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the German publisher is currently preparing a revised edition, while the Italian edition continues to be on sale throughout Italy. Indeed, the technical material contained in Dr. Gaugler's volume is precisely the same as that currently used in the preparation of Italian fencing masters. Every master with a diploma from the National Academy of Fencing in Naples will have studied the material covered in "The Science of Fencing," and will have had to pass the oral and practical examinations demonstrating their ability to answer correctly the questions on fencing theory listed in this book, and to administer lessons, such as those described in the text. Moreover, present-day Italian world-class competitors take daily lessons, which follow the progression of actions described in the book.

Finally, as to the matter of "who" recognizes the Program's diplomas,
it is a matter of record that an official letter of recognition written by Maestro Niccolo Perno, past President of the Italian Fencing Masters Association (AIMS) and President of the International Academy of Arms, and his colleague, Maestro Enzo Musumeci Greco, Member of the Examining Board of the National Academy of Fencing at Naples (the national licensing commission for fencing teachers), is on file at SJSU. After evaluating our program in 1988, they wrote to the university's president stating:

"After careful examination of faculty credentials and instructional
materials, and after participation as voting members of your commission of masters for the 1988 examinations, we have concluded that your program for the development of fencing teachers is comparable in every respect to the best programs currently found in Europe. In our view the diplomas issued by your institution are worthy of international recognition."

Eleven years after this evaluation AIMS's current President, Maestro
Giovanni Toran, and Vice President, Maestro Saverio Crisci, both members of the Examining Board of the National Academy of Fencing at Naples, revisited our Program. Satisfied that its standards had remained intact, they willingly served as commission members on our examination board.

This year Dr. Toran wrote a new foreword for the revised English (2003)and German (2004) editions of The Science of Fencing. Following are excerpts:

"I first met Professor Gaugler in Naples during one of his frequent
visits to Italy, sitting in on the examinations at the National Academy of Fencing, where years before he had been awarded the diploma of Fencing Master....I could not imagine, at that time, that ten years later I would be invited to San José, California, as his guest on the examining commission of his school, a school which clearly bears the Italian imprint, and represents an island of Italian fencing methodology and tradition, in a sea of systems and nomenclatures....I still recall the seriousness and rigor of the examinations, the adherence to formal procedure, and the respect demonstrated by his students, who were all very well prepared."

This is not the first time I have had to respond to misinformation and deprecatory opinions about our Program, most of which come on a regular basis from the same individuals. I invite those with a serious interest in accurate information about the Fencing Masters Program at San Jose State University to obtain it from a reliable source. E-mail inquiries
may be directed to me at: stoccata@pacbell.net

Frank Lurz
Maestro di Scherma
Assistant Director
Fencing Masters Program
San Jose State University

[wflaschka]

Maestro Lurz, I love your reply. It's long, informative, and not unfriendly. (It's also a bit late.)

Lacking information and access, it is very easy for outsiders to look at such a fencing program and imagine an irrelevant, ivory-tower sort of affair. For those of you with an inside perspective, you may not feel the need to justify what you're doing. You don't need to provide justification, merely information.

I personally have dug around for information on the program, and this thread began because someone needed information. The information available was pathetic, a few pages and some photos of stiff-looking people. Lacking information, all we have is rumors and second hand accounts. Message boards are great for activities like this: for talking about a fencing program that refuses to communicate about itself.

In an internet age, you can either tell people about yourself, or have the people tell you about yourself. The SJSU fencing program (any fencing program) owes it to itself, if it's worth anything at all, to put huge hunks of information up, including description, philosophy, comments from prior students, success stories, everything. If you don't, the internet will.

This short-sightedness is not limited to SJSU. We have also discussed/invented information about the Rochester FC, NYFC, Metropolis, the Westbrook Foundation, for example. All of these organizations have a suicidal urge to not communicate what they're doing. None of them understand that for every fencer they train, there are 10 people jostling to watch. They think it's the 1980's still, which is about the last time in history one could see everybody who was in the salle.

[darius]

This short-sightedness is not limited to SJSU. We have also discussed/invented information about the Rochester FC, NYFC, Metropolis, the Westbrook Foundation, for example. All of these organizations have a suicidal urge to not communicate what they're doing.

But our webpage (rochesterfencing.com) is so awesome!!

Churning out web sites is what I do for a living. I'd rather spend my free time sharpening my fencing skills. Coaches at RFC are busy coaching, and parents are busy parenting.

I wouldn't call it a "suicidal urge," but rather a lack of pressing reason to advertise; both RFC and Fencer's Club are turning out top-notch fencers, and keep the lights on just fine. People seem to find out about us, since the youth and rec classes are nearly always packed.

What would you have us post on the internet? Our ultra-secret practice techniques? Pictures of Felicia?

darius

[wflaschka]

Hi Darius!

I guess I'm writing from a feeling of frustration with online fencing information overall. Even an enterprise as brick-and-mortar as a fencing salle needs to put a wealth of information up. This is especially true if the program is highly influential, and the information could raise the bar for American fencing.

Putting info on a website isn't just advertising for the salle (though that happens). It also "grows the brand" of fencing, strengthens the sport, and helps it expand. When a 1-yr student is stuck in the middle of Nowhere, USA, they will eventually think, "I've learned everything I can learn from my E rated coach." They may look for "next level" information online. They know they're not at an olympic level, but there's no informational upgrade path for fencing. A web search will yield a zillion "this is a lunge" websites, and a few "Italian rapier pedagogy" websites. There is nothing else, unless you're a bona fide web sleuth. If the 1-year student despairs, then we (fencing) have lost a toe-hold in Nowhere, USA.

For this reason I've worked with Michael on http://www.FencingFootage.com, and with Craig on http://www.WhatIsFencing.com and this site. Information strengthens the sport. I show a newbie a link to http://users.erols.com/dlittell/, and they go ga-ga over the articles. Nobody's heard of http://www.geocities.com/strydermike/, which has excellent best-practice fencing information.

As for Rochester -- in the past, I've looked for information. I've heard rumors that the training facility is wonderful. No pictures. No solid facts (are there really dorm rooms?)... nothing to aim for or inspire me as I try to make my own Fencing School of the South, here in Mississippi. I've had to sleuth out the tactical concepts that Bucky Leach uses so effectively... I've found one web page on the "getawaygo", and one PDF file. There are no video clips of the Zimmermans fencing (excepting one bout on Fencing Footage), and certainly no video clips of the next-level tactical concepts that Bucky's fencers employ. I've seen one picture of him, so I might recognize him if I wanted to compliment him and thank him for his work. Is he an accessible kind of guy? Since when did he start teaching in Manhattan (if that's true?).

We Americans can't recognize our greatest fencers by sight, because pictures are so few and far between. There's a thread on this board where people try to identify our greatest directors by sight. We don't know what our greatest coaches look like, and we certainly don't know their ideas about fencing. What are the three main points that Nazlymov pushes? -- I can request information from people who walk past him, but nothing from the horse's mouth. I didn't know that Romankov was teaching in America until a few months ago, and I'm more than casually interested in his career. I could've emailed him before I wrote his biography (link is here).

Generally speaking, many fencing orgs use the web as a pamphlet. This is not unreasonable, but it's too provincial for our needs.

For a dispersed interest group like ours, the web is identity, it is growth. We're not doing a good job putting info up. And so instances arise, like when SJSU (which has been working like heroes, churning out fencing knowledge (whatever the level)) glances out of their shell and sees a thread from August 2003, and doesn't understand why people are swapping anecdotes about what they do.

[Craig]

Originally posted by darius
What would you have us post on the internet? Our ultra-secret practice techniques?

Why yes, I would.

[Regret d'Vie]

Perhaps this is relevant and interesting to someone:

dnichols noted that Charles Selberg was on the original review panel.

I have a video tape of Maestro Selberg instructing a group of sabreurs. In this tape, he demonstrates the Italian sabre style, the Hungarian sabre style, describes the transition between the two, and emphatically declares why Hungarian is superior to Italian.

Maestro Selberg also wrote a fencing article entitled "On Fencing Masters and Teachers" (October/November/December - Volume 42, Number 1) in which he expresses views similar to those of Maestro Lurz: 1) that good fencing teachers and good fencers are not necessarily one and the same, and 2) that more trained fencing teachers are needed.

So, apparently (I'm speculating), Maestro Selberg sat on the San Jose board because he was a proponent of cultivating trained fencing instructors, and felt so strongly about this that he chose to overlook the Italian methodology (I'm only considering sabre methodology here, as I've comparatively little knowledge of Italian foil and epee methodology).

[darius]

I guess I'm writing from a feeling of frustration with online fencing information overall. Even an enterprise as brick-and-mortar as a fencing salle needs to put a wealth of information up. This is especially true if the program is highly influential, and the information could raise the bar for American fencing.

I feel your pain. Unfortunately, the trick is in the doing, and while RFC is successful, they're not so successful that they can hire professionals. Fortunately for us, fencing is a big word-of-mouth sport, and our results speak for themselves.

Would doing that help our club? Yes, and I'm nominally in the process of making a cool site for RFC. However, it's right at the bottom of the list of priorities, behind working, training, coaching, and spending the occasional bit of free time with the girl or the kitten.

Looking beyond our club, growing the "brand" of fencing, is a great thing, but it's a bit pie-in-the-sky for those of us concerned with the gritty details.

Generally speaking, many fencing orgs use the web as a pamphlet. This is not unreasonable, but it's too provincial for our needs.

If you're talking about doing more, putting together training resources and such online, well...

You understand why there are very few fencing books, and even fewer ones that are relevant to modern competitive training, right? Those who can teach, are busy doing it!

Writing that information in a publishable format takes time and effort. At least with a book, there is an expectation of compensation. If an RFC coach spent weeks detailing their methods for web publication, even that modest expectation is gone, with people able to pilfer at will.

Losing that competitive advantage is probably pretty minor -- you and I both know that the E-rated college coach isn't going to be able to take Buckie's curriculum and instantly challenge his students. But more important than that is the "perceived" advantage. As both a fencer and a coach, I'll spend a pretty significant amount of time and money to improve my skills in both. But maybe somebody who has access to all that information won't do something like go to that coach's camp. In that case, publishing that information hurts the coach.

Granted, our national coaches share information with each other, since they're putting their resources together to knock off the rest of the world.

We Americans can't recognize our greatest fencers by sight, because pictures are so few and far between. There's a thread on this board where people try to identify our greatest directors by sight. We don't know what our greatest coaches look like, and we certainly don't know their ideas about fencing.

If you watch lessons and bouts at NACs, you get a fairly good idea. Even better is attending a camp, and absorbing everything you see. I've got copious amounts of notes from the practices, camps, and lessons I've attended. And even more from interesting lessons I've watched.

Passing that information on is good, and I applaud the people who do that. This, and Dave Littel's site are both great! However, not all of us have the desire or the time to commit to such an undertaking.

As far as Rochester rumours go:

There aren't dorms, but the owner has a large house. Fencers have moved to Rochester to train. They live there, paying rent and board, walk to East High School, and then across the street to RFC for practice.

The facility is actually pretty unassuming, about 7k sq feet over a restaurant. But inside is what counts -- no showers or weights, just a common area, two locker rooms, and a large fencing floor.

Buckie moved to the Fencers' Club two-ish years ago. I've seen him back on the odd occasion for elite women's camps. Currently, the head coach is Nat Goodhartz. Colin Clinton, Margaret Martin, and Juliana Sikes all teach as well.

darius

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Regret d'Vie
I have a video tape of Maestro Selberg instructing a group of sabreurs. In this tape, he demonstrates the Italian sabre style, the Hungarian sabre style, describes the transition between the two, and emphatically declares why Hungarian is superior to Italian.

That tape is what motivated me to hunt up a copy of Barbasetti and to teach myself what I could of the Italian method. Whenever the pendulum of accepted wisdom swings so wildly in favor of one method and dismisses the other so completely, it's usually time to reconsider.

And what little Italian sabre I was able to distill without a coach confused the heck out of the people with whom I fence. It even won me a few touches in tournaments, applied at the right time. It's so thoroughly "discredited" and out of favor that no one even knows what it looks like any more, much less how to cope with it immediately...

[Regret d'Vie]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Whenever the pendulum of accepted wisdom swings so wildly in favor of one method and dismisses the other so completely, it's usually time to reconsider.

Agreed. True of most everything in life.

Originally posted by Inquartata
And what little Italian sabre I was able to distill without a coach confused the heck out of the people with whom I fence. It even won me a few touches in tournaments, applied at the right time. It's so thoroughly "discredited" and out of favor that no one even knows what it looks like any more, much less how to cope with it immediately... [/B]

Wow. Still use any of these methods? What's your take on it? Did you fence dry or electric? Hard to see how anyone can competitively fence Italian electrically.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by RSahm

Regarding the assertion that the program's instruction "hasn't much
direct relevance to modern competitive fencing," it should be noted that Maestro Gaugler's book, "The Science of Fencing," is widely used in Europe in both the German and the Italian editions. After twenty years of sales in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the German publisher is currently preparing a revised edition, while the Italian edition continues to be on sale throughout Italy. Indeed, the technical material contained in Dr. Gaugler's volume is precisely the same as that currently used in the preparation of Italian fencing masters. Every master with a diploma from the National Academy of Fencing in Naples will have studied the material covered in "The Science of Fencing," and will have had to pass the oral and practical examinations demonstrating their ability to answer correctly the questions on fencing theory listed in this book, and to administer lessons, such as those described in the text. Moreover, present-day Italian world-class competitors take daily lessons, which follow the progression of actions described in the book.

I have to disagree with this portion. I've fenced and seen fence many of the top Italians. I've seen their lessons. They are nothing like any of the lessons I've seen Gaugler's coaches give.

Furthermore, The students who work with Gaugler trained coaches fence nothing like any of the Italian fencers I've seen or fenced.

While the goal of Gaugler's program is to teach people how to teach fencing, the coaches from that program (except for a few individuals who were top fencers to start with) have yet to produce any fencers with national results in the US. Either the program fails to teach coaching effectively, or the focus of program is not about teaching how to coach modern fencing.

From what I've read of his book, and seen of the lessons, I have concluded that it's not about modern sport fencing.

[dnichols]

That the SJSU Masters program wasn't for me was clear to me quickly and for several reasons. I am, to this day, NOT a fencing master. One of the few correct and lasting decisions I made during college was to not follow that path. So, yep, I "failed" to complete the program. Not for lack of abilty to do so, but desire.

Some SJSU comments. At the time the Fencing Masters program started, SJSU did indeed have a nationally ranked collegiate fencing program. I represented the team at the NCAA championships in 1981 when Michael was named NCAA Fencing Coach of the Year. Michael's program produced collegiate champions, All Americans, National champions and Olympic team members - not me, but they were there. When Michael decided to retire (why did you put it in quotations?) the Athletic Director used his exit as an opportunity to reallocate funds to a less expensive sport that would support a greater number of athletes. It also got men out of the women's athletic department. The men's fencing program was funded by the women's athletic department, and you can imagine how much the Director of Women's Athletics liked that. As long as Michael was there with such a successful program, she couldn't touch it. When Michael announced his retirement, she drop kicked fencing over the roof. I agree that the Masters program had nothing to do with the demise of SJSU's NCAA fencing program; its demise had everything to do with Michael leaving, and I was personally in meetings when the Athletic Director said so.

Ralph, you've been teaching fencing for a long time. I respect you for that. Don't think that because we disagree on some points of view that I'm trying to belittle you or the program where you honed your skills. It wasn't for me, I don't agree with all the ways it does things, and I was taught to do things in a different manner, but this program brings fencers and fencing teachers into the sport, and for that it has my respect. If you read my posts on this topic, I hope you'll agree that all I did was answer a question from my own subjective point of view. There may be parts you don't like or think is only part of the story, but none of it is untrue.

To Regret: Selberg was presented with a competent sabre lesson by the Prevost candidates, so there was nothing for him to have to overlook. Believe me, he would have made it clear if he felt the lesson had been anything other than competent. They were not given with Italian cues or language. That wouldn't have gone over any better than doing it in French, German or Russian. It was (flag going up, me doing my best Sam the Eagle muppet impersonation) an American fencing lesson.

[Regret d'Vie]

Originally posted by dnichols
To Regret: Selberg was presented with a competent sabre lesson by the Prevost candidates, so there was nothing for him to have to overlook. Believe me, he would have made it clear if he felt the lesson had been anything other than competent. They were not given with Italian cues or language. That wouldn't have gone over any better than doing it in French, German or Russian. It was (flag going up, me doing my best Sam the Eagle muppet impersonation) an American fencing lesson.

Yes, I understood from your earlier post that "normal" lessons were presented at the prevost examination. I was actually speculating that Selberg overlooked the "classical Italian" methodology employed during the entire course.

I can't believe that he could have been unaware of the methodologies the program used, nor can I imagine that he could publicly advocate them based on his teachings and writings. The only other possibility that occurred to me is that Selberg deemed cultivating fencing instructors with adequate teaching skills more important than the specific fencing methodologies that were being taught.

Any thoughts on this?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Regret d'Vie
Still use any of these methods? What's your take on it? Did you fence dry or electric? Hard to see how anyone can competitively fence Italian electrically.

Yes, I still use them occasionally---mostly when my usual game isn't working against someone. I only picked it up about....five or six years ago, so it's all been electric.

From what I garnered---and again, I'm sure I'm missing a lot of the nuances, having only gotten it from reading---it's mainly the different angles and distances conferred by the guard position which has an effect. That, and a lot of the cuts are delivered with moulinets which, as long as you maintain proper distance and do them more with the wrist than the elbow, are nowhere near as easy to countercut as Selberg maintains; I suppose that's due to the fact that we aren't using the Radaellian sabre any more. The biggest drawback I've encountered is that the advanced, extended guard position leaves the blade vulnerable to beats---but the Italian is an attacking style ( as if that doesn't describe sabre generally! ) and the blade should be kept moving, which tends to ameliorate the vulnerability somewhat.

That said, it's by no means an irresistible weapon. People learn to deal with it soon enough, so it's main value is that it's something new to most modern fencers and it "gives them pause" for awhile. Meanwhile you pick up a few startlement touches. And it's easier to do closeouts with---very often opponent's attacks end up on my guard even as I hit with the counterattack ( or I guess you could call it the riposte ). Another legacy of the subtle difference in distance conferred by the guard, which requires an adjustment on the part of the opponent.

In all candour I have more success with the modern Polish style, but it is always useful to have a commodious bag o' tricks...

[Regret d'Vie]

Very interesting analysis, Inquartata. That inspires me to see what I can dig up on the subject.

[dnichols]

Originally posted by Regret d'Vie
Yes, I understood from your earlier post that "normal" lessons were presented at the prevost examination. I was actually speculating that Selberg overlooked the "classical Italian" methodology employed during the entire course.

I can't believe that he could have been unaware of the methodologies the program used, nor can I imagine that he could publicly advocate them based on his teachings and writings. The only other possibility that occurred to me is that Selberg deemed cultivating fencing instructors with adequate teaching skills more important than the specific fencing methodologies that were being taught.

Any thoughts on this?

You're quite right; Charlie knew of Gaugler's program and I'm certain he didn't agree with everything in the program. However, in the tests I was involved in (I was a stunt student twice), there was at least one person testing for Prevost who was not from the SJSU program; I think he came up from LA. It's not all that often those kinds of tests were given; I wouldn't be surprised to find they're still rare. Further to that, these were three Masters with USFCA recognized diplomas, so this was when SJSU's program had just gotten started and they still awarded a USFCA recognized Prevost. I believe the SJSU program at some point a long time ago decided against concerning themselves with USFCA recognition for the degrees they confer. Based on Ralph's post, they certainly have quite alot of other support, so I don't imagine they are much bothered by that. I don't know if that's changed. Ralph?

So, yes, I think Charlie, John & Ferenc were all there supporting the creation of a new generation of Prevost - people who would bring new fencers to the sport.