Master of Fencing at San Jose State Univ

[drayke]

Anyone have experiences to share regarding the Master of Military Fencing program at San Jose State Univ. offered through the Open University?

Thanks.

[edew]

I've had many experiences fencing those who took classes taught by those who have gone through the Master Fencing Program at SJSU.

All I can say is, like lambs to slaughter. Like lambs to slaughter. Frightfully sad.

[Cerian]

My coach went through the program... However, I don't know what his experience with it was

[jeff]

Edew - are you saying that they're lambs to the slaughter when taking the programs, or L2tS when they leave the program and try fencing that way outside it?

[DanInMI]

hmmmmm
first clue: San Jose does not have a top ranked fencing team.

second clue: The Master of Fencing program is part of the theatre arts dept.

[edew]

The masters fencing program at SJSU teaches people to be coaches. Some of the coaches actually compete, but generally, they coach others. Those others are lambs to slaughter. The coaches are also as such when they choose to fence as well.

I thought the program was run under the military science (another oxymoron) department. It may just be placed in the Theater Arts just for the sake of putting it somewhere.

[neevel]

Gaugler's program is built around the early 20th century classical Italian school, and hasn't much direct relevance to modern competitive fencing. The descriptions I've heard from people who've dealt with him (including the Fencing Master at my club) paint a picture of somebody who would pontificate at length to Buckie Leach or Vladimir Nazlymov about the deficiencies of their approach to fencing, even though his best students would be hard-pressed to score even a single touch against their top students. If you're interested in learing to teach people about competitive fencing, look elsewhere.

-Dave

[Sfrozo]

A friend of mine sent me an article by a coach who attended the fencing program at SJSU--here is the link:

http://www.classicalfencing.com/arti...yMasters.shtml

Gaugler's program is pretty well respected, not only by the USFA coaches program (who has used some of his books), but also by the main schools in Italy (he is the leading exponent of the "Italian School" in the States). As Dave pointed out the focus there is on traditional fencing, not winning competitions.

[edew]

But even in the realm of classicial fencing, it doesn't do a good job. As I've said, I've met a number of fencers from the MFM program. I don't need fancy flicks to the back or absence of blade actions to score. All I do is wait a while, draw an attack, make a simple riposte. The techniques they use are of course slow as molasses. The tactics, however, are far too simplistic.

They start with a simple probing direct attack. Ok. So I know what's coming next, if I make an obvious lumbering simple parry, they'll make a simple disengage. So, I make a slow lumbering false parry, then a fast snapping second parry and boom. Riposte. Done.

So they think of the next step, a more complex action. I then hit them with a simple attack into preparation. It's like playing chess with a three year-old.

People who fence me know that I rarely make flick attacks. I might make a flick riposte, but only because it's so convenient. Almost all my attacks hit the chest or at least the front part of the target area. It isn't much work to do the same thing against MFM fencers.

[jeff]

So, it sounds like instead of well-executed Italian style sabre as might be recognised mid-century, it's stilted, slow and obvious. Pity, but that's kinda what I expected and that's why I asked the leading question.

Also, to neevel's point, it takes a lot of brass to try to dress down fencers and teachers that have a lot more accomplishment. Sheesh.

[Peregrine]

I lived a block from the SJSU campus for a year and didn't know they had a fencing program. However, it looks like I wasn't missing much.

[drayke]

Let me rephrase:
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 observation of the course of study, not several times removed opinions.

The article was very informative. Thank you.

Thank you.

[dnichols]

I attended the premier semester of Dr. Gaugler's program in 1981, or thereabouts. I only attended the first semester as I wasn't terribly driven to complete the program which, at that time, culminated (after 4 semesters) with an exam for Prevost, as recognized by the USFCA. Dr. Gaugler's knowledge of fencing history is vast (he is a professor of Art History at SJSU), and the program was very adept at teaching instructors the basic theories of class structure and lesson progressions, couched as they were in Italian structures from the turn of the (now) previous century.

I found the fencing instruction (as mentioned, "classical" Italian fencing, although I never saw any actual Italian fencers move quite so slowly) to be dull, slow and restricting. Also, I was and am uninterested in teaching with Italian words like "Via!" and "Hup!" (Aside: this is, no doubt a side effect of my years training with Mike D'Asaro who, when totally frustrated with a student would utter, in the most pitying tone, "Mama Mia." That was as much Italian as I, personally, could bear to hear.)

Of note, other people that started that first semester with me and went through the whole program and through it received their Prevost D'Armes were Greg Massialas, Peter Schifrin & Peter Burchard. Later semesters saw Cole Harkness, among others, completing the program.

It's important to note that none of the abovementioned would claim this program as the root of their fencing or competitive knowledge. All had extensive competitive experience prior to this program. (Greg was already an Olympian & Nat'l Champ) They attended for the promise of the Prevost exam, and so got what they wanted out of it. All of them were coached competitively by Mike D'Asaro, concurrent with their attendance in Dr. Gaugler's classes. (If there is one area that I felt Dr. Gaugler's program failed, it was by making it possible for novice fencers to attend a program nominally intended for experienced fencers who were ready to begin learning to teach. By doing so, I feel they created a parallel universe wherein the fencers they created solely within the confines of their rigid structure were deemed by them to be complete, competent fencers. I found this assumption to be without merit. This may all have changed in ensuing years. I'm speaking about the early to mid-1980s.)

When D'Asaro left SJSU, the University promptly canned the varsity fencing program, and I think that limited Dr. Gaugler's access to the level of competitor he had initially attracted to his program. My understanding is that after a few years, the Military Science department either got tired of funding the fencing program or simply folded up. Don't know if that department even still exists. Could be thriving for all I know. The Theater Arts Dept picked up Dr. Gaugler's program. I believe (old memory) Dr. Gaugler's program also now grants its own degree recognized by I don't know who, outside the auspices of the USFCA. That could have changed. Don't know.

Hope this helps.

[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

[edew]

Drayke has his point. I have not taken the MFM program. Doug did. I have fenced against those who learned from those who did take the program. So it is a bit "several times removed" but I think the information I provided is quite pertinent and relevant.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Sfrozo
As Dave pointed out the focus there is on traditional fencing, not winning competitions.

I have come across this concept before...I find it to be absolutely ridiculous.

Fencing is a competitive sport. It is "pure" competion, in that your opponent IS the target. Unlike many other sports which you may have some challenge even if you and your "opponent" actually collaborate. (ie. hitting a tennisball back and forth trying to keep it in play) There is absolutely no point in fencing if you are not attempting to score a touch against your opponent and your opponent is not trying to score a touch against you.

I believe that traditional fencing is the foundation of good technique, but good technique is that which wins bouts. If they don't win bouts, if they don't score the touchs, if they are not competitive, as coaches or as fencers, then it is not good fencing.

[neevel]

Originally posted by DanInMI
I have come across this concept before...I find it to be absolutely ridiculous.

I have to agree-- the fencers that are the end result of the SJSU program (remember, the ulitmate product of any fencing pedagogy program is still the fencers trained by it's graduates) seem to show deficiencies that go far beyond the problems of adapting from CF rules and interpretations to sport fencing. Even having to contend with the differing definitions of materiality and prioity for touches, a good classical fencer ought to be able to acquit him/herself reasonably well at lower- or mid- level competitions (particularly in epee, where ROW doesn't affect things).

-Dave

[Sfrozo]

My apologies Dave if I misquoted you--that was certainly not my intention. "Riciculous?" Seems I touched a nerve? I disagree with you however about "good technique is that which wins bouts"--if you have fenced sabre at all since it went electric then you know as well as I do that someone with no real technique but lots of aggressiveness can make touches. There is a difference between traditional technique and some of what we see scoring touches today. I need not beat the dead horse of the "flick," but if you think that is a "traditional" attack look again--the only "authority" on technique that I have found so far that treats this along side thrusting attacks (the foil is supposed to be a thrusting weapon--see USFA Rules 2000 t.46, p. 21) is: Maxwell Garret, Emmanuil Kaidanov, and Gil A. Pezza, Foil, Saber, and Epee Fencing: Skills, Safety, Operations, and Responsibilities (University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 1994), p.134-135.

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.

Is fencing competitive? Of course. Fencing is competitive, always has been, always will be, but that was not my point. The original poster wished to know more about Gaugler's program. I think it is clear, not only from those several times removed (like myself), but even those that have attended his program that his program is not geared towards making Olympians--it would seem his intent is to produce coaches that will possess the skills of the traditional Italian school. I cannot speak to the effectiveness of the training there as I have never competed against SJSU fencers to the best of my knowledge, but it would be relatively easy to see if the Italian schools which recognize him have churned out any top competitors. Say what you will, there is too often (sadly) a disparity between good technique and scoring touches.

[Sfrozo]

"Even having to contend with the differing definitions of materiality and prioity for touches, a good classical fencer ought to be able to acquit him/herself reasonably well at lower- or mid- level competitions (particularly in epee, where ROW doesn't affect things)."

And they often do . . .

Sforzo

[dnichols]

A couple additional points:

You have to consider that Massialas, Burchard, Harkness & Schifrin, as coaches & teachers, are effectively products of this program. At the time, it was a challenge to arrange a test for a Prevost degree, so the program Gaugler created helped fill a void. In that, it was most welcome. It started all these guys on their paths as Maestros. I think they all have them now. Unsure about Schif, only because his fencing coaching has been secondary to his career as sculptor and teacher. Don't know if he ever bothered.

I also attended the exams for some of these guys. I was the stunt student for the exam for one of them, maybe more. For the Prevost test I remember best, the 3 Maestro review panel was Charlie Selberg, John MacDougall and Ferenc Marki. During the exams, the Prevost candidate had to prove that they could competently give a decent beginning to intermediate fencing lessons. This meant that they gave lessons like you'd see anywhere, and carefully avoided the stiff, stilted "classical Italian" lesson as taught in Gauglers' program. No Via! Hup! anywhere. Charlie & John would have fallen all over themselves laughing and Marki would have left. They just gave lessons. I think this is one of the reasons that Gaugler eventually chose to confer his own degree; there weren't three 'unbiased' Maestros in the region that would have equated his coaching style to what they would have considered effective lessons, and the students would have failed. Of the three mentioned, I believe MacDougall, at least, studied with Nadi. Both he & Selberg probably faced Nadi's premier American student (sound effect of hand grenade being tossed and exploding) Jack Nottingham one time or another, so they had a fair idea of what Nadi's brand of 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.