Nick Evangelista...

[DanInMI]

I have read his book (the Inner Sport of Fencing)...I find much of what he has to say to be very compelling, although I am not exactly a convert to his philosophy.

Here is my question. He makes quite a few claims about having been a fencing coach for 30 years, and having coached several champions. Does anyone know of any champions that credit Evangelista as having been the major influence on thier fencing? Even any highly rated fencers?

[jeff]

Not me.

I've seen a lot of material from Evangelista about how current fencing is ridiculous and irrelevant to "real fencing", but nothing saying "I trained So-and-So". If he produced successful competitive fencers he probably would feature that in his magazine. It would be very effective if he could do so "See, I teach proper traditional style, and produced champion fencers who are successful using it."

The flick and current styles of directing in foil are pretty recent artifacts. At least 20 of his 30 years of fencing predate the arrival of those ideas, giving him plenty of opportunity to have produced meaningful results on the strip.

[wflaschka]

Evangelista is a respected voice among non- and new- fencers, IMHO mainly because his voice is the loudest. He has the most books, and these books have the coolest covers. Ergo he is highly influential.

I don't know of any of his products (students), either. When he lists his credentials, he always talks about his teacher Ralph Faulkner, and the fencers Faulkner produced.

[neevel]

There are a number of ways to parse "coached many champions".

One of your students could win the Div II/III qualifier in a small, weak division-- yes, you coached a champion but I wouldn't go around claiming to be able to tell Ed Korfanty what's what based on that.

A kid who took one of your beginners' classes when they were 10 might move to NYC shortly thereafter, start taking lessons with Simon Gershon or Misha Petin, and eventually win a national championship. Again, you technically coached a champion, but to claim any significant credit for that would be an act of unmitigated, mind-bending gall.

As for the question of being competitively successful using "classical" techniques, the Men's Foil gold medal bout for the Junior World Championship two years ago was between two fencers whose form and technique would produce few complaints from even the most hide-bound traditionalists (albeit with much more dynamic and explosive footwork than many classical fencers I've seen). Producing a couple of competitors at that level would be a far better advertisement than 1000 pages of fulminations and rants.

-Dave

[darius]

Producing a couple of competitors at that level would be a far better advertisement than 1000 pages of fulminations and rants.

But walking is so much more strenuous than talking.

darius

[fencingguy]

I just recently read a few of the numerous rants (I hesitate to call them chapters) in Evangelista's the Inner Game of Fencing, and found them to be an interesting insight into his psyche as opposed to that of fencing. The majority of his arguments were based on either false information, or observations of probably very low level "modern" fencers. I have to leave for practice now, but I will edit this tomorrow with more comments.

Edit: There really isn't too much more to say, it looks like everyone below has covered it. The only point I'd like to add is that the guy lives in the middle of the Ozarks, and I've never heard of ANYONE good coming out of there recently. So the pool of people Evangelista has to observe falls right into line with what he'd like to believe.

His commentary on fencing being an art is a nice thought and although I agree that fencing teaches discipline, patience, and a host of other nice things, you do not have to follow his suggested methods to get there. If you did I think most of us would still be doing footwork, wondering when we'd be able to pick up a weapon.

[neevel]

Originally posted by fencingguy
I just recently read a few of the numerous rants (I hesitate to call them chapters) in Evangelista's the Inner Game of Fencing, and found them to be an interesting insight into his psyche as opposed to that of fencing. The majority of his arguments were based on either false information, or observations of probably very low level "modern" fencers. I have to leave for practice now, but I will edit this tomorrow with more comments.

NE's standard method of arguing a point in print:

1. Make assertion.
2. Set up straw-man in opposition to that assertion.
3. Flame away.
4. Get into copyright fight with Ann Coulter over who used a particular string of invective first.

-Dave

[a517dogg]

Nick Evangelista is a piece of trash, plain and simple. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of fencing.

[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.

[Maeve_Mari]

Ha! It is queer that he's such a braggert. "Students have gone on to become fencing champions!" and "Numerous awards and medals!" Thirty years of self-admiration and adulation, yet he has made of living of it.

The foremost Salle Mari anyone? Ha!

[ReverseLunge]

Nick Evangelista is the David Carradine of fencing. The guy is a legend in his own mind.

[Spike]

When I started fencing (less than a year ago), I read all of the fencing books at my local library and among them was The Art and Science of Fencing. I enjoyed the book and bought The Inner Game several months later. In the mean time, I have learned a lot about the sport of fencing and not just the fantasy I had when I first started. The Inner Game was not relating to what I was learning at the club. The book also felt like a rant, but I still like his ideal that it is not all about getting the touch, fencing is still about the art and not getting touched.

So those of you who have read the Evangelista books and suggest not reading them, then suggest others for us newer fencers. I love to read technical books and fictional books about fencing.

Spike

[Peach]

I recommended the Art and Science of Fencing to my mother, who enjoyed it thoroughly, but she's never going to fence.

[Victor]

He's a hot air bag.
The only reason he's got books on the market is because no one else has made the effort. I'm pretty sure my pet terrier has opinions about fencing that are just as insightful and useful as Nicky's.

[a517dogg]

Aladar Kogler has written stuff. Read that, don't read Evangelista's waste of trees.

[DanInMI]

Um...I wasn't really trying to start an Evangelista bashing thread. I really am interested in knowing who his top students have been.

Like I said, I am not exactly a convert to his way of thinking. Especially the "how you score the touch is more important than IF you score the touch" philosophy. That is BS. The fencer that scores the most touches is the better fencer (at least at that moment in time.)

I would not, however, say that his books are a complete waste of time, he does stumble upon the truth occasionally. (sometimes he even draws the correct conclusion for all the wrong reasons)

[wflaschka]

I agree whole-heartedly that Evangelista is "out there" and not representative of serious sport fencing. He's not my cup of tea.

I have to say, however, that he's able to make fencing exciting, mainstream and accessible to a whole lot of people.

This is not in the mission of, say, a Kogler, who is writing advanced treatises. If Kogler is the "Scientific American" of fencing writers, then Evangelista is the "People Magazine." We need more "People" style writers to balance Evangelista's viewpoint.

[HilandDoug]

Neevel wrote:

"NE's standard method of arguing a point in print:

1. Make assertion.
2. Set up straw-man in opposition to that assertion.
3. Flame away.
4. Get into copyright fight with Ann Coulter over who used a particular string of invective first."

And I burst out laughing here at work, causing everyone to look at me and guess that yes, I am not working!!!!

[a517dogg]

man... we really SHOULD have a Evangelista bashing thread. I just have less than no respect for anything he does or says.

[MikeHarm]

With all the NE bashing, I'm surprised noone has made a videogame off it. I could see one where it was like slugamole with little Evangelista's popping up spouting his phrases where you scored points by flicking him in the head would be very popular with a lot of folks.