Nick Evangelista...

[neevel]

It's worth reminding folks that even among Classical fencers, the precise definition of what CF is varies. Some take to heart the idea that they are doing it as a martial art-- focus on what would really be the best idea if the weapons were sharp and the intent lethal, understand that form ultimately must be borne out by function, and that scoring rules for competition-- whatever they may be-- need to be seen as an intrinsically inaccurate approximation of a real encounter.

Others, knowingly or not, view CF as being competitive or academic fencing as it was done "back in the day" (for some, before ca. 1940, for others before ca. 1900). Scoring rules such as right of way, while different from current competitive fencing, are viewed in a legalistic, absolute light (as they must be to ensure fairness in a regulated competitive sport). "Standard" form is a priori assumed to be always superior, and thus valued above tactical deviations or innovations that might genuinely prove more effective in a particular situation. Folks who ascribe to variations of this definition are playing for points (be they touches or style-points) as much as modern competitive fencers, just to a different set of rules. Some of those rules and the consequences thereof (such as what counts as an adequate touch, being more cautious about launching strongly committed attacks or attacks with only a vaguely presented threat) may be closer to "real" duelling practice, others (valuing standard form over demonstrable functionality, being more interested in a complex phrase than scoring a hit, relying on the fully-straight-arm ROW standard to get away with risky stop-hits) may not be.

-Dave

[Gav]

Not this again. Neevel has put it well, Rory has put it more entertaingly. Need anymore said?

What I really dislike (and I mean REALLY) is these classical idiots who somehow think that they:
[list=1][*] have a beard[*]a large belly[*]like obscure black metal[*]hang out with a bunch of classical/sca/reenacters[/list=1]

that:
[list=1][*]They can hold down a conversation about Fencing with me.[*]Know more about the history of swords and 'swordsmanship' than I do.[*]They have they have the right to tell my girlfriend that theirs is the true way and that somehow what I do is mere 'sport'. And that my girlfriend [being naive] believes them.[/list=1]

I'm all against book burning and progroms but sometimes it crosses my mind that it would be easier to cull these idiots [them and bloomin' new agers].

For the record:

I have a beard.
I do some vaguely IT stuff.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673
If you hate a lot of flicking but want to fence competitively, try epee. Sure, there is still flicking, but not near like you will see in foil.

or, y'know, sabre.

there's NO flicking in sabre.

; )

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by DanInMI
BTW....I throw the question out there again.

Does anyone know of ANY champions that were trained by Evangelista?

Geeze, i thought I would get at least one person that would say they knew a guy that knew a guy that trained under Evangelista that won an event somewhere.

Well, but to be fair, this is not the best of criteria. There are a lot of very modern sport-type fencing coaches who have never produced any champions, either....although most of them don't insist that theirs is the best, the ONLY way to fence nevertheless.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Well, but to be fair, this is not the best of criteria. There are a lot of very modern sport-type fencing coaches who have never produced any champions, either....although most of them don't insist that theirs is the best, the ONLY way to fence nevertheless.

I agree with you completely but, to be fair, Evangelista CLAIMS to have coached several champions on his website and in his books.

[jeff]

Somebody claiming to epitomize the best of fencing (while claiming that everyone in modern fencing is phony) should have a documented record of competitive success, either on-piste himself or through his students. Saying that today's competitions are judged wrongly provides an excuse for nonexistant performance he can offer to uncritical beginners, and lets him criticise people who are far, far superior fencers and teachers. What a clever trick.

[dnichols]

How come the two posts from Scotland are so much funnier than everybody else on this board combined?

[DanInMI]

Well....EVERYONE knows the Scots are hilarious.

How about that "Billy Connolly?" That guy is a scream.

[mtarascio]

Everyone interested in fencing should be allowed to participate regardless of whether it is classical or sport fencing. Each serves a different purpose.

That said though, I would love to have the opportunity to fence one bout with Nick or one of his students (classical fencing tournament rules). We could use director and judges of his choosing. Maybe put up $500 each to go to the winner.

Don't know where he lives, but we could meet half way.

By the way, I have never done classical fencing.

[pammie003]

According to his book, he lives in the Ozarks.

Anyone know anything about this Tom Cragg is who wrote the forward for The Inner Game of Fencing ? And, by the way, this book was more of a rant than an instructional book about "form, technique, strategy, and spirit" as it claimed to be. Some useful info, but not much. Save your money.

[star00girl]

Oh I love his books! I'm currently reading "The Art and Science of Fencing" he has a great way of getting the readers attention and expressing his ideas clearly. Very well written books

[mongo]

... but I like Rush Limbaugh and being a rank (albeit old) amateur in the sport, I did like "The Art and Science of Fencing." I admit that I have read nothing more of Mr. Evangelista's work.

[Rolls]

Well, regardless of what you think of his ideas or his ability to coach, he IS one of the most prolific fencing writers of our time and (I would say) of anytime. Today, it's hard to get a single book published period, much less 3 or 4. And let's not forget that fencing is a subject that's probably even more difficult to get published.

Also, I do think he has done a great amount of historical research. For instance, has anyone looked at the Encylcopedia of the Sword? There's a wealth of historical knowledge there. The only other fencing author who comes close to his number of published works that I can think of is Gauglier.

Rolls.

[Christopher J Umbs]

Originally posted by Rolls
Today, it's hard to get a single book published period, much less 3 or 4. And let's not forget that fencing is a subject that's probably even more difficult to get published.

Not sure that I agree with that. Like you said, M. Gaugler has a few out and M. Crown has one out as well. As for historical fencing, check out http://www.chivalrybookshelf.com/. It's starting to look like anyone can get something puplished.

Chris

[Rolls]

Well, to be certain, it's easy today to do small publishing (you can go to Kinko's and have something bound and then sell it on your own website), but I'm talking about a major run, that's an investment on the part of the publisher. Granted there are other authors in particular Gaugler, but there aren't many. Even three is not that many. Plus, I think Gaulger is the only author that can match Evangilista as far as number of works.

Rolls.

[edew]

It's very easy to write a book on fencing when you're not spending time actually coaching and teaching people how to fence.

Academics have no place in fencing, much like academics have very little place in high-tech.

[Inquartata]

I have gotten several books from Chivalry Bookshelf, and they are all both (a) fairly obscure and (b) professionally published
( no Kinko or vanity press specials here ). They were also fairly expensive due to the small runs, but very nice hardbound works, and general fencing has I would think a larger potential market than that for, say, reprints of old scholarly studies of medieval battlefield grave contents...

[Rolls]

Let me clarify, I'm not syaing anything about the knowledge of Evangilista. I'm just saying as an author on fencing, he's one of the most successful.

I've heard of some people seeing copies of his books in their local Barnes and Nobles. That's not something that many FENCING writers can claim.

But to say publishing a book is easy belittles what professional writers do. They have to work hard and most of the time it is a full time job.

Rolls.