Nick Evangelista...

[DanInMI]

hmmm Good idea MIKE....!

But perhaps, rather than whomping him with a mallet, you could flick him on the back with a foil. THAT would REALLY annoy him.

[DanInMI]

Ohhhh I miss read yours the first time....
we were thinking alike!

[CarlKnoch]

When I was first starting fencing I bought the Art and Science of Fencing. I read parts, but mostly I skipped his thoughts on what fencing was, and got down to the things I needed to know, like where is a parry 8? What are the different lines? I found answers, and it was fine.

While I disagree with his idea that classical fencing is "real fencing", and sport fencing is irrelevant, I too have wondered where his list of students who are champions is. I've also read about Faulkner, and wondered where the list of all the champions HE coached is.

I think that the point made earlier that no one else has made the effort to write as much about fencing as NE has it correct. He made the effort to get published, and most haven't.

Maybe someday someone from this very board will write a book that counters the Evangelista books in saying that it's okay to fence modern, and that it's still "real fencing".

[Maeve_Mari]

What a great idea it would be to bring the joy of fencing the mainstream though a videogame. I'd like to see the fencing champions flicked and foiled as they conquered the deadly referrees and scorekeeper.

You're right. No one else takes the time to write the books and it does generate excitement for the sport. Even if it is part fiction.

[broncofencer]

I have read one in parts, of NE's books and found it to be a dumbed down explanation of fencing as many of you said it works for non fencers and new fencers and even the new fencers get very little from it.

Someone did ask what other books are good for new fencers and when I first started in the sport I read Nadi's ON Fencing. It's dated but at least he has real experience and knowledge and is easier reading then some of the more technical books out there. Otherwise the best info is found on fencing club web pages. Some one shoukld take all these web page information and make a book even with no editing or anything it would be better than NE's stuff

[Craig]

Originally posted by broncofencer
Some one shoukld take all these web page information and make a book even with no editing or anything it would be better than NE's stuff

I started pulling threads out of the "archives" to do this. It's at that point that I realized just how much content there is. (Did you know that google has over 7,000 pages indexed from this site?)

I'm going to have to take a more concerted effort to go through all of the "I'm new" and "what should I expect" posts - There is a huge amount of good information for someone new to fencing in there.

Craig

[neevel]

As noted above, writing a decent book takes a lot of time and effort. Active, top-level coaches are generally too busy with the business of coaching (training their club/team, travelling with fencers to tournaments) to have time to write books. Thus, fencing books have a tendency to be either "retirement projects" by those who are winding down their involvement with active coaching, or written by people who really aren't participating at a high competitive level at all. Either way, the net result is that fencing books tend to be a little (or a great deal) out-of-date at the time they are published.

I generally recommend Rudy Volkman's book to beginners who ask for something-- it goes into a lot of detail on most techncal aspects, and Rudy's chapters on armoring are something of immense practical value for the novice fencer. Lukovich's books, despite being 30 years old, have a fair amount to offer to beginners, although they're a bit on the dry and dense side for someone wanting an easily digested introduction.

On thing which is clear is that, when someone does finally get a solid, comprehensive introductory book to modern competitive fencing written, they should emulate Evangelista in making a concerted effort (along with friends and students) to plug the hell out of it on Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble.com, and other bookseller sites.

-Dave

[drayke]

I'm just really curious of everyone so intent on trashing 'classical' vs 'sport' fencing; how many have actually been trained in classical fencing? And I don't mean taken a class of two, but fenced it for a few years or so.

Just curious.

[whtouche]

Originally posted by drayke
I'm just really curious of everyone so intent on trashing 'classical' vs 'sport' fencing; how many have actually been trained in classical fencing? And I don't mean taken a class of two, but fenced it for a few years or so.

Just curious.

I doubt it's so much a matter of people trashing 'classical' fencing, as it is a matter of rejecting or bashing 'classical' fencers who bash sport fencing.

[jeff]

whtouche is exactly right. Evangelista is so offensive, so rude that it generates a lot of animosity. The fact that these guys have few actual qualifications makes it more irritating. In his magazine (which I no longer subscribe to), Evangelista would go off on long rude tirades responding to polite and well reasoned letters.

People have posted on this site and said "this is why I don't like the flick" (for example) and argued that it's bad for fencing and should be removed. That's no problem: without different opinions there would be no point to having a forum. Boring. People can disagree without being disagreeable.

Since you're asking: I studied fencing that was classical in technique for many years, starting at Salle Santelli. Santelli, by the way, had no disagreement at all with electric foil. And he was a real Maestro, producing national champions and Olympic fencers. Unlike some noisy types we could mention.

[veeco]

Yes, but you don't understand! By placing himself and his school under a separate, "classical fencing" umbrella, NE can avoid the comparison with the better coaches and fencers.

I am sure that a lot of the real classical fencing crowd would consider NE no more than what sport fencers do.

[neevel]

Originally posted by whtouche
I doubt it's so much a matter of people trashing 'classical' fencing, as it is a matter of rejecting or bashing 'classical' fencers who bash sport fencing.

This is precisely the case. M. Ramon Martinez in New York teaches CF and HF, and obviously greatly prefers those disciplines to competitive fencing. What references he does make to competitive fencing in his writings are principally to state that it is a different thing from the martially-oriented swordsmanship that he teaches, and to provide some examples illustrating those differences. Unlike Evangelista, he appears to have no need to "validate" his art by denigrating the character, motives, and competence of those who don't practice it.

-Dave

[Christopher J Umbs]

Thank you, Dave


What would be a real test for him then is how well his fencers do in classical tournaments.....

Chris

[Legionnaired]

Originally posted by dnichols
I used to drive down to LA from Santa Cruz & San Jose around '80/'81 to attend tournaments at LAVC. Nick showed up a few times. He was hard to miss, what with the headband and all. I don't specifically remember him getting out of the first round, but I imagine it might have happened.

Great tournaments, though. They used to give Heizaburo Okawa a bye into the finals. And nobody complained. :-] The famous poster shot of Okawa vs Magnan? If you've seen it, you know what I mean - Heiza on his knees, backwards, upside-down, hitting. He could hit people that way whenever he wanted. It was cool - - to watch.

Any way I could get a picture of that? It sounds like a really cool move... something I could never do, but something cool to put on my wall .

[Windsor]

I heartily recommend the Big Book of Fencing by Rudy Volkman for all, I got it when I was just starting out so obviously I couldn't apply most of it but I find myself returning to it as a reference. Especially handy is the back part of the book which teaches one to trouble-shoot and fix/wire weapons, a basic guide at least. I learned to do it mostly from that part and I'm constantly surprised by the amount of people that don't/can't do their own armoring. Useful book!

[dnichols]

Originally posted by Legionnaired
Any way I could get a picture of that? It sounds like a really cool move... something I could never do, but something cool to put on my wall .

American Fencers Supply in San Francisco used to carry it. It's a blue & white poster. I don't know if they still carry it or not, but Matthew or Cole will know.

[foible]

Hello,

Ok, I expect to get skewered. I am a new fencer, new here, have never competed in an official tournament and don't know that I ever will. That's a big jump to make when you have only been fencing one year and you are 49 years old.

I am learning to foil fence in the classical style, Italian School. Just two weeks ago, I confronted my first modern style fencer and found much about it that seemed, dare I say, strange and pointless to me.

Although I can surely see the benefit to electric foils, I can also see where they tend to eliminate some of the idea that this is (was?) training to use a weapon. A graze with enough pressure on the tip to trigger the buzzer is a hit, even though, were it a weapon, it would leave no more than a scratch. The same with the flick. If this were a pointed weapon, what would this move accomplish? Little more than a scratch. I can see that in the world of sport fencing, where the goal is hearing that buzz, these things have accomplished their purpose and so are fine moves. I can also see where the flick takes skill to perfect and use. It is not an easy looking move.

On the other hand, the flick and grazes counting as hits seems really odd to me; very divorced from sword-fighting. And, I found getting whipped with the blade from a missed flick rather insulting, like getting slapped. I've no problem with getting brusies from getting "stabbed", but that whipping stung more than my shoulder.

Also, although the sport fencer in my class has only been fencing for four years and competeing for two, he in no way was wiping the strip with our instructor, as many of you imply is an easy thing to do against a classical fencer. Now, mind you, our instructor is not a stiff formal fencer and his preferred weapon is saber, which affects his foil fencing, but I didn't see where the techniques of sport fencing had any advantage over him.

My instructor glanced through the copy of Evangelistas' "Art and Science of Fencing" I had purchased and agreed with much of it, especially that the exclusive use of pistol grips can lead to heavy-handed fencing and that the focus is perhaps too strong on hearing that buzz. Although, again, I would say I see more concern over the hits that don't seem like hits ie: any little thing that causes that buzz being valid.

From what I have read here, many of you are as busy looking down your noses at classical fencers as Evangelista is at sport fencers. Is there no room for both? I want to fence as though my foil was a sword, I want the fact that I have a strong defence to be seen as worth something. I fenced a fellow student that all she wanted was hits, and she soon grew boring to fence against as she threw most form and style out the window in her near rabid persuit of hits. No "physical chess" on her part. Is there no room for the art in fencing? And, for those who want any pressure that trips that buzzer to be their goal, what is wrong with that if they are fencing like minded fencers. In official compitition where the points are the purpose, how else should it be?

I feel you all need to come up with sound explanations of why the modern sport fencing style (especially the flick) is so wonderful every bit as much as you all feel that Evangelista needs to come up with sound reasons why classical is so wonderful.

I will also say that I agree that it is strange that Nick Evangelista never names champions that he has trained, I found that odd myself.

Are there seperate compititions for sport and classical fencers? I can see where a fencer who has never had to contend with flicks would be at a disadvantage in a compitition against a fencer who uses them. But then, only with electric equipment as most flicks that were landed on me I couldn't even feel, although they set off my opponent's wrist unit. I found that my brain doesn't see the impending flick as a threat because it is coming from places that a direct thrust cannot, so I have no parrys or other moves against it. (I've only faced our new sport fencer twice) My instructor, who has experience against modern sport fencers, had no trouble defending or attacking against the flick, even though he doesn't even know how to perform it himself.

Well, I've written a novel. I hope someone will respond to this, and I hope in a civil and instructive manner. I'm not desiring a heated discussion, I'm seeking to learn.

foible

[Christopher J Umbs]

Originally posted by foible
From what I have read here, many of you are as busy looking down your noses at classical fencers as Evangelista is at sport fencers. Is there no room for both?

foible,

Speaking as a CF instructor, I feel that most of the sport fencers here are not bashing CF... just bashing CF people who can't keep their noses out of sport fencing. I don't worry about the flick because I don't do sport fencing. As far as I'm concerned, they can all paint their masks blue (oh, wait... they are already doing that ). However, if the folks at fencers quarterly wish to comment of SF, then they had better be prepared to back those words up. I have yet to see this. I feel that they would be far better served concentrating on their own CF skills and those of their students.

Are there seperate compititions for sport and classical fencers?

Yes, therefore there is no need to complain about how sport fencing is done.

Chris

[DangerMouse]

Originally posted by foible

Are there seperate compititions for sport and classical fencers? I can see where a fencer who has never had to contend with flicks would be at a disadvantage in a compitition against a fencer who uses them. But then, only with electric equipment as most flicks that were landed on me I couldn't even feel, although they set off my opponent's wrist unit. I found that my brain doesn't see the impending flick as a threat because it is coming from places that a direct thrust cannot, so I have no parrys or other moves against it. (I've only faced our new sport fencer twice) My instructor, who has experience against modern sport fencers, had no trouble defending or attacking against the flick, even though he doesn't even know how to perform it himself.

There are seperate competitions. Sport fencing is governed by the FIE and (in the US) the USFA. Classical fencing is mostly governed by the SCA (Society for Creative Anachranism), although there are other, smaller organizations. I think we would avoid a lot of problems if people viewed the two as seperate sports. Sport fencing IS about turning the light on in the most effective way possible. SCA/Classical fencing is about reliving history (I won't get into the accuracy because that is not relevant to this post). Which organization you join should depend on your goals.

In short, you should not enter a USFA tournament and complain about being beaten with flicks. Nor should you enter an SCA tournament and complain that your flicks were not being counted. I am not trying to argue for of against flicks in USFA/FIE competition. I am just saying that at the time of any given competition, you need to fence based on the current rules for the governing organization.

I'd like to think that the people on this board are not looking down their noses at classical fencing, although the board seems to be predominantly sport fencers. I think the problems arise when classically oriented fencers attack/belittle sport fencing (as Evangelista does) or when sport fencers belittle the classical organizations. I don't think anyone will argue that the two are seperate activities with different goals.

Sorry about the ramble...

Edit: beat to the punch by 4 minutes

[Christopher J Umbs]

Originally posted by DangerMouse
[B]There are seperate competitions. Sport fencing is governed by the FIE and (in the US) the USFA. Classical fencing is mostly governed by the SCA (Society for Creative Anachranism), /B]

Cor, DM.... CF and SCA have nothing in common. CF is 19th c. fencing with professional instruction and SCA is amatuers dressing up and vaguely trying to do pre 17th c. fencing (badly distorted by all manner of strange SCA rules).

Chris