[CFML] Classical perspective (was: Why isn't Classical fencing in the Olympics)

[stuydaze]

> 5) Classical fencers are slightly to blame for much of the
confusion that has resulted because of our efforts. We should
consider doing less complaining about sport fencing and
consider mastering our art to the extent that it beats modern
short-cuts.. If we truly master time and distance, we should not
have to worry about flicks etc.
(Mike Ludwig)

I don't even understand what motivates the griping about sport
fencing. I've never heard a sport fencer griping about classical
fencers. I fence in both arenas, and that, I think, allows me to
gripe about both, and i do, believe me. But I confine my
complaints about sport fencing to sport fencers, just the way I
confine my classical griping to classical crowds.

If a fencer from one school of thought (classical or sport) thinks
that his skills are superior to the other, why doesn't he just go to
& try a few friendly bouts? Could be enlightening...

> While I would love to take on many of the other points in this
thread, I feel that the five I have presented catch the essence of
the conflict. If I really had to wrap it all up in once concise
paragraph, I would have to say that based upon my research,
classical fencing and sport fencing are two very different children
of common parentage. One is about training for sharps, the
other is about playing a very advanced game of tag.
(Mike Ludig)

Very nicely said! (I don't know about the "training for sharps"
though. Training "with the mindset of sharps," maybe).

> Classical fencing is not a reaction to anything. It is a
continuation of fencing as it has been taught for hundreds of
years. By that I mean it is fencing taught correctly, as if the
weapons were sharp, and it does not include anything that could
not or should not be done with a real sword. There is a focus on
technical precision, not to "look pretty" but because that is what
keeps you from being hit.
(Linda Hyatt)

Gotta disagree with you, Linda. If this were 1930, that would be
try, but fencing's continued to evolve, maybe not for the better, but
it has moved on. Some teachers continued to teach what they
learned, against the tide. Generally the greater body of the art
kept up with the times.

> Modern sport fencing is a new development that includes
many actions that would not or could not be done with a real
sword. It is a deviation from correct fencing. (Linda Hyatt)

"Correct fencing" is an arbitrary term. The foil was never a
weapon, only a training tool, and the style of fencing that evolved
around it is particular to it. The way one fences with a saber isn't
the best way to fight with one, either. There's a correct & an
incorrect way to use a electric foil with a visconti grip, too.

>in my opinion, has resulted in an almost total lack of
recognizable phrases in modern fencing- (Linda)

How much experience do you have with modern fencing? One of
the motivations of electrical scoring, even back in the thirties,
was to help sort out the actions that the directors had difficulty
seeing, and to lessen "theatrics" (cheating). If you haven't been
able to sort out the phrases in a modern bout, you may just be
watching bad fencers. There's plenty of bad fencing in classical
fencing, too.

> Even as things evolved, there have been fencing masters who
still learn and teach older weapons. I don't believe "old stuff"
was thrown out. It may be that some did so, but not all. (Linda)

Know anybody teaching bastard sword, backsword, or dagger
fighting, who learnd it as part of an unbroken fencing lineage?
Know anyone who can trace their lineage to The London
Masters, Der Marxbruder, Fabris? With a VERY few exceptions,
everyone teaching the older stuff, including smallsword & rapier,
reconstructed most of what they know from historical sources.
There's nothing wrong with that.

> Yes, but most of them trace their lineage through fencing
COACHES now, not fencing masters. There is a world of
difference. (Linda)
What's in a name? I've met ignorant masters & expert coaches.
And coaches who were masters. It's the person that counts, not
the title. (years ago, I was studying a martial art, & the sensei's
boyhood friend--a Grandmaster of some particular martial art--
visited our dojo from Japan. Afterward, the Senseis & some of
the students went out drinking (I went home!). To show his
appreciation for a great evening, the grandmaster awarded the
students who went out that night blackbelts in his style.)

>A director/four judge system was in place well in to the 1970's,
and it was perfectly normal for a fencer to call a touch against
himself/herself. (When's the last time you heard of THAT in
Sport Fencing?!?!) (Warren Cabral)

My experience fencing with the four judge system in saber was
pretty bad, as I posted earlier. Five guys watching, almost never
really impartial, and none could agree on the action.
Accepting a touch against yourself is one of the best ways to "set
up a director," because if you accept the first touch in a bout, the
director will unconsciously look to you after each touch for
verification. It's a great way to cheat, and the main reason why I
feel combatants ought to keep quiet (except for the usual fencing
yells) during a bout.

>the first "foil" was a rapier training weapon and that is where the
term "foil" came from. (Sean Kiernen)

I was referring to "foil" as the "art of foil," not the object itself.
There have been rebated weapons going back to the Vikings, at
least.

Cheers,
J.



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Wolfgang Abbas, escrimador.com]

Hi Jeff,

i share your point of view in general,
but i have to add some notes.

Watching the discussions in this group
i consider it to be a 100 percent
American point of view.

Of course there are schools in Europe
that are teching no-sport fencing since
several hundreds of years.

I am a German and here are still families
with lineage to the marxbrueder that are
teaching in certain fraternitys. There
are several differnt kinds of fencing
fraternitys in Germany and some belong to
the Marxbrueder tradition and some not.
Few fraternitys teach the complete path
to interested brothers
(military fencing and German gymnastics=Turnen).

Should You ever come to Germany it would
be a pleasure to introduce You. Most of
these groups are very conservative and
have been very shy in the past. But with
every new Generation it went more and more
public.

But outside of Germany there is also a
rich tradition. I know traditional fencing
schools in Italy and Russia. I have heard
of schools in France, Spain, UK, Hungary.

The German fencing tradition was up-to-date
till WW2, but the Russian and Italian schools
are still in progress.

But there are a lot of fencing masters/coaches
that do sport fencing and know the military version.
I used sport fencing to work on my reactions
and penetration power. It is fun. German fencing
books from the 50s call basketball an excellent
side training for fencers. Early fencers did
gymnastics which was required to pass a masters
degree. When I brought a heavy sabre to my sport
fencing teacher gyorgi in Hannover he switched
from sport to military fencing in a second. I was
surprised and he just gave me a smile and said
something about hungarian old school.

There is more to fencing than just fencing.

Some years ago I met Michail Ryabko, head
of Russian martial art SYSTEMA, for the first time
and when he figured out that i am a fencer, he
challenged me for a little "game" with wooden dummys.
He is one of the most brilliant sabre fencers i have
ever seen. And he said most humble that he has a
certain dedication for the sabre but that there
are teachers that are much better in Russia.

I guess if someone is open minded it is no
problem at all to find real fencing masters.

Regards from Germany,

Wolfgang

BTW: There are still duells fought in Germany in various degrees,
starting with "till first blood" ...




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Warren and Jackie Cabral]

I'm sure that most of us could recall having bad experiences in both the electrical game, or in the 4-judge system. I had not intended to imply that it would have been a great way to 'cheat' in any manner, but that it was done with the intention to 'own up' to a received touch in perhaps a club-type setting, or in a practice-judged environment, not in an official tournament setting. Sorry if there was any confusion on this point. Nonethless, the practice has been resurrected recently...I believe that it has been successful at a few annual Classical Fencing matches during the NY State Wine Festival for a couple of years. Information on this could probably be gleaned from Maestro Adam Crown's website out of Ithaca, NY, if interested. It was actually carried one step further... there was only a director involved, and the participants were REQUIRED to acknowledge touches against themselves. The scoring fencer could refuse the touch, of course. It was held entirely 'dry' using only
traditional Italian or French-style weapons, and, in the article I read, it was successful not only because the fencers were especially careful to "hit without being hit", but because this allowed the spectators to follow the action (it may have been somewhat easier to follow a particular phase due to the cautious fencing), it re-emphasized 'honor' between swordsmen,and it brought back the notion of 'cooperation' among martial artists even while competing with one another. Behavior was described on the idea as exemplary, the crowd saw a good 'swordfight', and, personally speaking, it seems to me that the whole idea of bringing back 'dry' fencing in tournaments is simply a whole lot cheaper for everyone involved. Sounds like a pretty good way to do it.

With regard to the 'evolution' of fencing, I respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter what century or what fencing method is being discussed...the whole idea of using a sword (whether a foil for practice, a rapier, a sabre, a smallsword, an epee, whatever), the whole concept entails "hit without being hit", and that part NEVER changes. 'Classical' Fencing still embraces that concept...the Modern game does not. The Modern game has accepted a 'mutation', not an evolutionary concept. It is a totally different concept to be able to "make the light/buzzer go off" while having complete disregard for the key elements of attack and defense in the art of fencing; i.e., "hit without being hit". This is the crucial difference between the two. I don't think I can describe it any plainer than that, so I'll let it go there.

Regards,
Warren Cabral
stuydaze <stuydaze@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 5) Classical fencers are slightly to blame for much of the
confusion that has resulted because of our efforts. We should
consider doing less complaining about sport fencing and
consider mastering our art to the extent that it beats modern
short-cuts.. If we truly master time and distance, we should not
have to worry about flicks etc.
(Mike Ludwig)

I don't even understand what motivates the griping about sport
fencing. I've never heard a sport fencer griping about classical
fencers. I fence in both arenas, and that, I think, allows me to
gripe about both, and i do, believe me. But I confine my
complaints about sport fencing to sport fencers, just the way I
confine my classical griping to classical crowds.

If a fencer from one school of thought (classical or sport) thinks
that his skills are superior to the other, why doesn't he just go to
& try a few friendly bouts? Could be enlightening...

> While I would love to take on many of the other points in this
thread, I feel that the five I have presented catch the essence of
the conflict. If I really had to wrap it all up in once concise
paragraph, I would have to say that based upon my research,
classical fencing and sport fencing are two very different children
of common parentage. One is about training for sharps, the
other is about playing a very advanced game of tag.
(Mike Ludig)

Very nicely said! (I don't know about the "training for sharps"
though. Training "with the mindset of sharps," maybe).

> Classical fencing is not a reaction to anything. It is a
continuation of fencing as it has been taught for hundreds of
years. By that I mean it is fencing taught correctly, as if the
weapons were sharp, and it does not include anything that could
not or should not be done with a real sword. There is a focus on
technical precision, not to "look pretty" but because that is what
keeps you from being hit.
(Linda Hyatt)

Gotta disagree with you, Linda. If this were 1930, that would be
try, but fencing's continued to evolve, maybe not for the better, but
it has moved on. Some teachers continued to teach what they
learned, against the tide. Generally the greater body of the art
kept up with the times.

> Modern sport fencing is a new development that includes
many actions that would not or could not be done with a real
sword. It is a deviation from correct fencing. (Linda Hyatt)

"Correct fencing" is an arbitrary term. The foil was never a
weapon, only a training tool, and the style of fencing that evolved
around it is particular to it. The way one fences with a saber isn't
the best way to fight with one, either. There's a correct & an
incorrect way to use a electric foil with a visconti grip, too.

>in my opinion, has resulted in an almost total lack of
recognizable phrases in modern fencing- (Linda)

How much experience do you have with modern fencing? One of
the motivations of electrical scoring, even back in the thirties,
was to help sort out the actions that the directors had difficulty
seeing, and to lessen "theatrics" (cheating). If you haven't been
able to sort out the phrases in a modern bout, you may just be
watching bad fencers. There's plenty of bad fencing in classical
fencing, too.

> Even as things evolved, there have been fencing masters who
still learn and teach older weapons. I don't believe "old stuff"
was thrown out. It may be that some did so, but not all. (Linda)

Know anybody teaching bastard sword, backsword, or dagger
fighting, who learnd it as part of an unbroken fencing lineage?
Know anyone who can trace their lineage to The London
Masters, Der Marxbruder, Fabris? With a VERY few exceptions,
everyone teaching the older stuff, including smallsword & rapier,
reconstructed most of what they know from historical sources.
There's nothing wrong with that.

> Yes, but most of them trace their lineage through fencing
COACHES now, not fencing masters. There is a world of
difference. (Linda)
What's in a name? I've met ignorant masters & expert coaches.
And coaches who were masters. It's the person that counts, not
the title. (years ago, I was studying a martial art, & the sensei's
boyhood friend--a Grandmaster of some particular martial art--
visited our dojo from Japan. Afterward, the Senseis & some of
the students went out drinking (I went home!). To show his
appreciation for a great evening, the grandmaster awarded the
students who went out that night blackbelts in his style.)

>A director/four judge system was in place well in to the 1970's,
and it was perfectly normal for a fencer to call a touch against
himself/herself. (When's the last time you heard of THAT in
Sport Fencing?!?!) (Warren Cabral)

My experience fencing with the four judge system in saber was
pretty bad, as I posted earlier. Five guys watching, almost never
really impartial, and none could agree on the action.
Accepting a touch against yourself is one of the best ways to "set
up a director," because if you accept the first touch in a bout, the
director will unconsciously look to you after each touch for
verification. It's a great way to cheat, and the main reason why I
feel combatants ought to keep quiet (except for the usual fencing
yells) during a bout.

>the first "foil" was a rapier training weapon and that is where the
term "foil" came from. (Sean Kiernen)

I was referring to "foil" as the "art of foil," not the object itself.
There have been rebated weapons going back to the Vikings, at
least.

Cheers,
J.



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Christopher J Umbs]

--- In classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com, Warren and Jackie Cabral=20
<sword_teacher@y...> wrote:
It was held entirely 'dry' using only
> traditional Italian or French-style weapons, and, in the article=20
I read, it was successful not only because the fencers were=20
especially careful to "hit without being hit", but because this=20
allowed the spectators to follow the action (it may have been=20
somewhat easier to follow a particular phase due to the cautious=20
fencing)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever sport fencers start talking about the lack of popularity=20
for fencing, they usually start saying that the spectators aren't=20
sufficiently educated enough to follow the phrases and that many=20
have unrealistic ideas about what a sword fight should look like due=20
to Hollywood. I tend to disagree. I think most people have an=20
instinctual grasp of combat and, if the fencers are fencing with the=20
idea of preserving their lives, have an easy time following a=20=20
classical bout =96 not because it's slower, but because it just makes=20
more sense.

Chris


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. h=
ttp://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=3D5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier b=
lunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=20

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20

[Sfrozo]

I completely agree with Mr. Umbs--people _do_ know what a "swordfight" should look like and it is little wonder that people are uninterested in watching a modern match when that match looks so little like a sword fight. People would, from what I have gathered, much rather watch fencing in a movie (however much it is choreographed, unrealistic, etc.) because it is meant to resemble a fight between people who are trying to hit without being hit (I am not knocking theatrical fencing or putting it up as a paragon of fencing with sharps). Fencing will not have an audience until "fencing" as one sees it in the Olympics and similar venues is _fencing_ again. There is some excellent evidence that when a fencing match is closer to what it should be, the people will watch (7000 people attended one of the matches between Nadi and Gaudin . . . or was it Pini--I forget!, but the point is that 7000 is a lot of people).

[Brian D. Schenck]

--- James Buck <jjbuck@highland.net> wrote:
>
> You bring up some very good points. In Swordplay Alliance, it has always
> been common practice for combatants to acknowledge hits against themselves
> or to refuse a point they did not consider a "clean hit". In my opinion, it
> is a matter of honor between swordsmen. In addition to the practical martial
> benefits you mentioned, this creates an environment of respect and
> camaraderie that every classical fencer should experience.
>
That's good practice for any activity -- it is the hallmark of good, ethical
behavior (which is not, nor should be, exclusive to classical fencing). While
modern fencing may be criticized for its "evolution", this is not a practice
that has been left by the wayside. Yes, there are instances where it has
occured -- but those are more the exception than the rule.


-Brian

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
ReplayTV: CNet Ranked #1 over Tivo!
Instant Replay & Pause live TV.
Special Sale: 50% off!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/G93ZAD/.5q...SFAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Mississippi Academy of Arms]

Jeff,

> From: Jeff Savit [mailto:jeff.savit@sun.com]

> There's a real problem in classical fencing, and I don't mean fencing
>technique: I mean condescending attitude, and unearned assumption of
>superiority. I find this irritating and consider it defensive and
self->defeating.

I have found the same problem with sport fencers on their mailing lists
and at the numerous USFA events that I have coached at, refereed at, or
competed in. You will find fencers on both sides who say their style is
the only REAL fencing. What you find very, very few of are those who say
both styles are real fencing. The truth is they are both real, fun, and
valid for those who participate in them. To each his own. Though I have
coached many successful USFA athletes, I personally prefer classical and
historical fencing, because they are closer to fencing's martial roots.
They are also closer to the style of fencing I learned when I was young.

>Calling beat attacks garbage makes my jaw drop. What kind of fencing
do >you practice that thinks beats are junk? That's nonsense. Attack
by >battement is traditional classical foil, especially in Italian
style. >Furthermore, it is used *less* now in SF, since fencing with
absence of >blade has become dominant.

I agree. And in the French style as well. Rondelle and other French
classical masters taught beat attacks. The beat is a basic classical
technique and it even goes back in time farther than the classical era.

>Better yet, see if you can pass the test and get your director's
rating, >and then start officiating at USFA meets.

Some of us have been USFA referees for a long time. Several years back I
started and served as the moderator for the USFA Referee Guide mailing
list to help others understand the rules and pass their exams. At one
time I was working on a USFA project for Master Kolombotovich to convert
the Referee Guide into an online practice exam format.

Most of the people on this list have no desire to learn sport fencing,
or sport fencing rules, much less waste their time studying to become a
USFA rated referee.

This is because the rules used in classical events today are different,
often in direct contrast to those used in modern sport fencing events.
In classical fencing the weapon arm must be fully extended (as opposed
to beginning to extend) to obtain right. Classical bouts are usually
fenced to three or less touches. So unlike sport fencing bouts which can
go up to 15 touches, the focus is more on defense than offense. Many
classical events also have a qualifying round, in which fencers with
poor form; bent arm attacks, rolling the back foot, flicks (use to be
called slaps), etc. or disrespectful attitudes will be weeded out.

I have hosted many classical fencing tournaments over the years. The
sport fencers who have given them a try have ALWAYS failed to make it
past the qualifying round. To win in one of these events, the person
must not only be able to defeat their opponent, they must also be able
to do so without getting touched, and while using good classical form.

While I have yet to find any sport fencers who have been successful in
classical fencing tournaments, I have seen numerous classical fencers
win sport fencing tournaments.

> >"A classical fencer is supposed to be one who observes a fine
position,
> >whose attacks are fully developed, whose hits are marvelously
accurate,
> >his parries firm and his ripostes executed with precision." [p.
189]
>
> Let's drop the pretence that current fencers don't know how to attack
or
> make effective parries, as some posts insinuate. You are absolutely
> deluding yourselves if you think that competent sport fencers don't
know
> how to attack, parry and riposte, and that students at competent
> schools aren't taught how to fence.

I made no such pretense, nor was I deluding myself when I posted that
quote from French fencing master, Louis Rondelle's 1892 fencing manual.
It was simply a reply to Bob Lyle's statement that "No 19th Century
maitre d'armes used the word "classical." The fact is the word
"classical" was used during the 19th century by one fencing master of
what we now refer to as the classical fencing era, to describe good,
clean, precise fencing. That was my only point.

By the way, the term classical fencing was also used later in 1932 by
Italian fencing master Eugenio Pini in a letter he wrote to Aldo Nadi,
"With the word 'modernism' they do not kill the great figures of
fencing...The duel is ours. Long live classical fencing founded upon
immortal customs.

The term "classical fencing" was also being used in the 1970s and early
1980s by fencers in my area of the country to describe, good, clean
fencing, good point control, etc.

>What SF schools and clubs do you actually visit?
>Do you ever fence with them?

I have been coaching modern sport fencing in my own fencing salles since
1980. I have also been teaching classical fencing since 1980, utilizing
fencing manuals from the 1800s. Classical fencing and historical fencing
have always been my preferred styles.

At one time I owned the three only sport fencing clubs in the state and
hosted many USFA tournaments for our division. I am the fencing master
apprentice of Maitre Robert Scranton, the past President of the United
States Fencing Coaches Association, through which I received instructor
certification in foil, epee, and sabre and am continuing my training
toward master certification. My sport fencers have done quite well
winning state championships, divisional championships, placing well in
NACs, JOs, and at the Summer Nationals.

A year ago two of my assistant instructors started their own sport
fencing clubs, allowing me to drop sport fencing altogether, to focus
more time on Classical, Historical, and Theatrical Fencing at my Salle.

Now it's your turn Jeff.
What classical fencing schools do you actually visit?
Do you ever fence with them?
Have you competed in any classical fencing tournaments ?
And if not, what's your interest in classical fencing and this mailing
list?

> Where are the maestros of modern fencing who are
> >recognized by their peers?

Sport fencing is suffering in some (not all) USFA divisions from a lack
of well trained coaches and referees. However, there are quiet a few
maestros of modern fencing who are recognized by their peers in the
United States Fencing Coaches Association. Many of the older ones still
prefer the classical rules and style. However, according to most modern
fencing masters, in order to be effective on the highest levels of sport
fencing competition, one must master both the classical game
(techniques) and the modern game (techniques). Many who teach at the
USFA Coaches College also hold this view as well.

> Get electrical weapons and see how well you
> do.

I found classical fencing to be extremely effective in my own sport
fencing competition. My classical style and French grip never failed to
win USFA tournaments.

Sincerely,
Rez Johnson, Md'E


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Mississippi Academy of Arms]

Hey Jeff,

I enjoyed your reply, respect your views, and am jealous of your
coaching and training experiences.

> I don't feel that's a fair
> comparison;
> in fact, I think that's wrong, for the following reasons:
>
> - While SF doesn't preclude classical form, it's not necessarily what
they
> trained for.

[REZ'S REPLY:] I agree that SF shouldn't preclude the use of good, clean
classical form and technique. That's the way I was taught SF.

Since the qualifying round and/or special points for form were used in
the late 1800's most classical fencing competitions in foil today
require them.
Remember when Olympic figure skaters had to pass a qualifying round
actually performing figure eights in the ice ? Similar concept, weed out
ugly fencing, so that the resulting rounds will result in good, clean,
fencing and the directors will have an easier job following the action.
Bent-arm attacks make directing a pain. By the way, in the old days
fencers which had proven their form was classical, such as Nadi, were
automatically qualified and didn't have to participate in the qualifying
round.

Yes there are many sport fencers who have good, clean, classical form
who would undoubtedly do quite well in classical events. However in my
USFA division (and I suspect in others as well) there are few, due to
their coaching. Hence my experience of seeing none make it past the
qualifying round in classical foil events.

I have also seen some classical fencers who seem to have a very
difficult time learning to fence with good classical form. Classical
schools are supposed to emphasis form. Sport fencing clubs in our
division emphasize getting into the game as quickly as possible, hence
bouting starts way too soon, long before good form and solid techniques
are developed. This leads to sloppy fencing. I have been around long
enough to witness a general decline in SF.

>... it's often a problem for the TKD guys
> if
> it's officiated in Shotokan style and vice versa. Somebody can be
beating
> the
> stuffing out of his opponent and still lose when the official's style
is
> required. I think that's the wrong way to go and should be avoided.

[REZ'S REPLY:]
I agree. Apples and oranges should not be mixed. Classical and sport
have different goals and different rules why mix them together. Let each
go it's own direction.

SF has changed a lot in the last 40 years. I think you probably started
fencing when I did. Back then, right of way was interpreted differently,
many rules have changed. It's a much different game now. I like the old
game. Remember when we counted touches against the person being touched,
not for the person making the touch, remember that subtle little cut to
the back of the hand that counted in sabre, remember when we didn't get
carded for crossing over forward in sabre, remember when we came on
guard in advance-lunge distance with blades crossed and actually used
pre de fer actions on the blade, remember when defense was stressed
more, when coaches taught "touch without getting touched and you will
win" instead of "touch one more time than you get touched and you will
win." Remember when coaches didn't teach referee spoofing tactics to try
to take advantage of weak minded referees during a double touch.
Remember when we didn't have to have a rule enforcing the salute and
hand shake. Remember...

> - Withholding or awarding points based on style should not be
necessary if
> classical style is efficient and effective.

[REZ'S REPLY:] And in Classical Dueling Sword (epee) competitions, form
is not considered, nor are qualifying rounds used. It's make one touch,
without getting touched, and you win the bout.

However, in the 1800s foil fencing's rules and conventions evolved it
beyond being a training weapon for the smallsword, to become a
theorizing practice weapon, in which second, third, and even fourth
intentions were practiced.

Third and Fourth intentions could get you killed or seriously wounded
with a time thrust in a real duel. And even Aldo Nadi, though he taught
second and third intention as good for training the mind and the arm,
said that he never used them in his own foil competition, because they
were too risky.

Because of the conventional rules foil evolved further away from it's
smallsword roots. It became more of an art form. Because of this foil
was considered an insufficient preparation for the duels of the day,
which used the Epee d'combat. Hence, epee started being taught by a few
fencing masters, to those who came to their salle to learn how to
survive a duel.

Most classical fencers today, try to recreate the style of the late
1800s For them the Foil is the conventional, theoretical practice
weapon. The Epee is the dueling weapon. Since the classical foil is not
considered a real weapon, but rather a trainer for fencing theory, part
of the "test" of classical foil tournaments is to test the fencer's
performance of proper form not just who wins.

> >>While I have yet to find any sport fencers who have been successful
in
> >>classical fencing tournaments, I have seen numerous classical
fencers
> >>win sport fencing tournaments.

[REZ'S REPLY:] Note, I didn't say there were no SF that could be
competitive in a CF tournament. Just that I personally have not seen it
happen in any CF tournaments. D'Oriola, Michael Marx, Ed Ballinger.
Peter Westbrook were all trained in an era where good, clean, fencing
form was still being taught.

If you are still active in SF refereeing, coaching, and/or competing,
then I think you will agree with me that the game has suffered in many
divisions from a lack of good coaching during the last 10 to 20 years,
resulting in sloppy fencers. This is in general. There are still many
good coaches and many good sf fencer. But overall sf has greatly
declined in classical form.

Many sf's are becoming disillusioned with the constant rule changes
based on the IOC, FIE, and USFA's hunger for money (The Olympics is
primarily about making money now, and if it isn't TV friendly, it gets
cut) and the general disregard for form, the flick, etc. For this reason
many are baling out of the USFA and SF and moving to CF.

I would be interested to see the results of a survey of this list as to
how many of it's members are:

1. Classical fencers only who used to engage in sport fencing but became
disillusioned with it.

2. Classical fencers who have no sport fencing whatsoever in their
background

3. Fencers who participate in both classical and sport fencing

>I firmly believe the attack begins from ROW context when the
> extension
> starts, not when the extension completes. I would be very happy to
have
> that as
> a discussion topic so we can talk about why or why not.

[REZ'S REPLY:] That topic was hotly debated on the United States Fencing
Coaches Association mailing list, with Adam Crown, myself, and a few
others taking the classical view.

A simple review of the fencing manuals from the 1800's through the early
1900s fairly explicitly indicates that originally rule of right of way
was given at the point of complete extension. In a dueling situation,
the importance of getting the arm out before lunging can not be denied.

In the 1970s or 80s (I cant remember which) there was much discussion
as to the exact interpretation of the French phrase for
Extending/Extended in the FIE rules of that time. These days almost all
USFA refs give right of way when the arm begins extending. I have seen a
few older USFA refs who still interpret the rule to mean fully extended.
However, the USFA view is that all coaches and refs must accept and
adapt to whatever the latest interpretation is in the international
climate so that we can train our fencers to be competitive in the game
as it is currently being played internationally.

Classical fencers award right of way to an arm that has completed a full
extension per the old manuals.

> I started fencing at Salle Santelli in 1969, training under one of
> Giorgio's students (Israel Colon...

Jeff, I respect you as well. You had some great instructors, from which
I can tell your training was much closer to Classical fencing than that
of most sport fencers today.

> While at Cornell for grad
> school I
> switched to sabre from foil, mostly to avoid arguments with Gillet and
his
> staff
> about the proper way to make parry 4! There's this little disagreement
> between
> the French and Italian about what is quarte and what is quinte :-)

[REZ'S REPLY:] Yes. They are different. By the way, my fencing master,
Robert Scranton, was trained by Master John Jacque Gillet at Cornell,
and graduated from the Fencing Master's Academy there in 1980.

> I think, a pretty good perspective on Italian, French, and
> Russian/Eastern
> European styles.

[REZ'S REPLY:] You have had some eclectic, and enviable training
experiences.

> I have had the privilege of fencing many times with wonderful fencers
like
> Russell, Ballinger, Lang, Schmattola, U. Jones, Axelrod, McCahey,
> Tichacek,
> Lewison, J. Bukantz (not his Dad), Marx, Littell, Westbrook,
Mormando,
> Melcher, Nonna (to name a few).

[REZ'S REPLY:] How'd you do against Albie ?

> I haven't competed in CF competitions because I'm semi-retired,
period.

[REZ'S REPLY:] I'd venture a guess that you'd probably do quite well in
CF events, if your form is still clean, once you got use to the
different ROW interpretation.

> pushing close to 50 for goodness sake, and have limited time due to
other
> obligations. I am tempted, believe me.

[REZ'S REPLY:] I highly recommend you try a few so that you can speak
with authority about the differences between SF and CF events and
fencers. I think you will be pleasantly surprised to find most CF events
to be more like the fencing from our youth.

>However, some of the attitudes
> expressed on this list (and in Evangelista's writing) have made me
less
> than
> eager to compete in CF.

[REZ'S REPLY:] Strong personalities with strong opinions abound in both
CF and SF. Don't let them dissuade you from fencing.

By the way, I enjoyed reading Evangelista's books. His Fencer's
Quarterly magazine calls for a return to cleaner fencing.

>I'm on this list because I strongly prefer
> classical
> style in fencing. I have a strong aesthetic preference for it, and
wish
> the
> flick would disappear.

[REZ'S REPLY:] Glad to hear it.

At the same time, I do think that not everything is
> true because it was stated by a master 100 years ago. An open mind is
all.

[REZ'S REPLY:] There are many different views as to what classical
fencing is and is not.

1. Some say classical fencing is just good, clean, fencing (dry and
electric)
..
2. Some say it's fencing the way THEY learned in back in the good old
days (pick your decade as you said.)

3. Some say it's simply dry fencing.

4. Some say it's fencing as it was practiced in the mid to late 1800s
and is locked into the style of that time period and can not evolve any
further.

5. Some extend that time period to the 1920s or 1930s.

6. Some say it's fencing as a realistic martial art and can continue
evolving with whatever new ideas and techniques work.

It's important in discussing CF to know which view points the person is
talking from.

My viewpoint is Number 4.

> Now, imagine, all of us, if we could have civil, knowledgeable,
discussion
> of
> fencing - without being insulting. It would be fun, and maybe
enlightening.

I think so.
I enjoyed your reply and respect your views.

Sincerely,
Rez Johnson, MdE




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/