Re: [CFML] Classical perspective (was: Why isn't Classical fencing in

[James Buck]

Warren

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.

Cheers
James

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren and Jackie Cabral [mailto:sword_teacher@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:24 PM
To: stuydaze
Cc: classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CFML] Classical perspective (was: Why isn't Classical
fencing in the Olympics)


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]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/





------------------------ 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/

[Jeff Savit]

Nice to see some activity here. It was pretty moribund on this group
for a while. I'm sorry to have missed the original conversations, but
it's too much to the heart of things for me to ignore. Of course, it's
important to continue a tedious argument between people holding
irreconciliable differences; otherwise, why bother having an Internet at
all? (the last bit is a joke, guys)

I read much of the tone as smug and self righteous. 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.

Before I respond, two points: First, I completely respect fencing with
classic styles, whether a historical weapon, or dry foil, sabre and epee
wielded as it was in (pick your favorite decade) 1870 to 1960, or
fencing practiced exclusively as a martial art. I utterly respect that.
More power to you. I also share distaste for some recent fads (last 10
years) I hope will fade. I started fencing in 1969. I do not flick.

Second, to the original question that started the thread: classical
fencing is very unlikely for the Olympics. Fencing in general is barely
holding on (as has been mentioned), and it's hardly likely that a much
less popular dialect would gain TV and sponsorship money, which is what
it's all about. Not to mention that the officers of the FIE and USFA
probably have a low opinion, if any, of CF and its proponents, along the
lines of "who are these nobodies?" Noisily telling sport fencing people
that they're fake probably does not gain friends either.

Some back and forth collected from the threads, and then conclusions:

>Maestro Gaugler wrote an excellent article for American Fencer back in
>the mid 90s that, correctly, noted the electric scoring apparatus
>purpose changed from determining whether an invalid hit occurred to
>determining whether a VALID hit occurred. That subtle change also
>rewrote right of way rules to permit such garbage as the beat attack,
>and the tap-n-go parry. The director watches the box rather than the
>strip, and points are awarded based upon the dictates of the box. Sad.

This paragraph is wrong on multiple levels. Gaugler's line is cute and
pithy, but he's wrong. Good directors don't do those things, and bad
directing has always been with us. Read Nadi's (Gaugler's teacher)
self-serving 80 year old complaints about judging and directing. There
was always a high error rate in manual judging, whether by bias or
missed touch. They often only saw touches they expected or wanted to
see. The machine removes these errors from questions of materiality.

It's completely untrue that the ROW rules were rewritten to permit beat
attacks and "tap and go". "tap-n-go" has always been valid: we call it
a "prise de fer" or "presa di ferro". It's totally traditional and the
rules have always permitted it. I just checked the 1957 AFLA rules
book. When I first studied to be a director over 30 years ago, Giorgio
Santelli gave a demonstration of how a properly made light tap in foil
was enough to parry and protect the target, and gain right of way.

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. In epee, of course, parry-riposte with
opposition and bind attacks are still taught and used: the machine
*enforces* the penalty for releasing the blade and being hit on remise.

If you really care about "if it were sharp" thinking, you would welcome
electrical fencing because it includes touches that would be lethal but
would never be seen or called by side judges: shots to the back, low
lines, kidney, under the arm. Electrical fencing in that case makes it
more realistic. There's a contradiction in CF between fencing "as if it
were sharp" and "only count actions that stick, and the judges see the
blade bend upwards". Plenty of lethal hits do neither, and won't be
seen by a side judge. Electrical fencing with good directing is far
more realistic than dry, for these reasons.

>Lack of good training for directors and a reliance on the scoring box
>have made it so that many phrases are interpreted incorrectly, and that,
>in my opinion, has resulted in an almost total lack of recognizable
>phrases in modern fencing- why bother?

Those of you who claim that, or that "calling of actions is becoming
even more geared to the machine and not to the fencing as we know and
love" should study the USFA referee study guide. It has plenty of
questions to disprove that claim. Better yet, see if you can pass the
test and get your director's rating, and then start officiating at USFA
meets. There are things I really dislike about current foil directing,
but it's recent, and is absolutely NOT about which light went on first.
Instead, it's an excessively relaxed notion of what constitutes a
"threat", and the FIE is reviewing it. More on that some other day.

>"A classical fencer is supposed to be one who observes a fine position,
>whose attacks are fully developed, whose hits are marvellously 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 how to attack, parry and riposte, and that students at competent
schools aren't taught how to fence. What SF schools and clubs do you
actually visit? Do you ever fence with them? I see beginners at Salle
Santelli and the NYFC getting completely proper lessons. You could go
to the NYFC program on Saturday and see a line of adolescents doing
sensitivity drills for sentiment du fer. There are more technically
adept teenagers now in NYC than there were 30 years ago. I was
directing high school competition last season in NJ, and was surprised
at the level of skill I saw, in both boys and girls. It's NOT all
flicks or an advanced game of tag.

>Where is the scholarship that documents the advantages of newer actions
>over older actions? Where are the maestros of modern fencing who are
>recognized by their peers?

There's a lot of literature, though much is not in English. What do you
think the Soviet block was doing in those sports institutes during the
cold war? How did people like Aladar Kogler get doctorates? Wby did
the French, Italians, and Hungarians adapt their games? The proof was
in the most authoritative laboratory: fiercely contested competition at
the highest levels of fencing. The maestros are there, creating fencers.

By the way: the reason for wide actions in high level modern
foil isn't because the fencers are incapable of more linear motion.
It's a very effective tactic to either a) make it harder to defend
target in angulated attacks; b) draw a wider parry which can then be
deceived in the final action; or c) provoke a stop-thrust which can be
picked up in a pris-de-fer for second intention. If you believe that
good SF fencers can't do a straight lunge, you are in denial. They have
additional tools in the toolkit, is all. (I have mixed feelings about
this, but it's not that there's a lack of skills).

Similarly, sport fencing rarely uses actions like Passato Sotto, for the
simple reason that it's a trick with limited value beyond occasional
surprise. Otherwise, a good way to get impaled.

It would be interesting to have a rational discussion of which classical
techniques are effective, or haven't been superceded. You can argue,
for example, that it's too risky to do a particular action (say, riposte
without opposition) - but life is risk, and fencing explicitly so: all
fencing actions have a risk of one type or another. Let's discuss them
rather than sneer. And remember that the science of Bio-mechanics did
not exist 100 years ago.

>>You'd never see bouts where the more experienced fencer let his
>>opponent do all the work, where the younger, more athletic fencer is
>>left panting and sweating, and the older fencer never breaks a sweat.
>>
>My word. I was training a guy the other day who was 15 years my junior
>and many times fitter than me. He kept commenting about how fit I was,
>because he was puffing and panting and I wasn't. He also commented on
>my economy of motion and seemed genuinely surprised when I pointed out
>the link between how puffed we each were and how much energy we were
>expending.
>>>> (and several other posts conflating skilled age vs. youth with CF)

A young, athletic competitor can be sometimes be stymied by a wise old
blade, but this has nothing to do with CF vs. SF. Dan Bukantz told me
of beating a much younger Magnan before the latter became 2-time World
Champion. Albie Axelrod became US foil champion at age of 50, and was
tough for many years afterwards (he's also adamant that beat, "slap"
parries are better than opposition parries). On a less lofty level, I
depend on this when I fence! This is also an exception: the race may
not always be to the swift, but the smart money bets that way.

>Based on my training, and that of my Fencing Master, and his Fencing
>Master, and so on, I believe it to be false.
>I have several times seen people claim that there no longer exists a
>"continuous line" of fencing masters, but that is not so. (Linda)

I'm dubious about claims of a continuous thread of "classical fencing"
from master to student, in the US at least, or at least would like to
hear proof. Several people teaching CF emerged from the American
Fencing Academy that used to be hosted at Cornell University. Adam
Adrian Crown describes the school very nicely in his site's FAQ. I was
at Cornell for other purposes before he got there, and I fenced at the
club and remember it warmly. Nice as it was, it was completely
conventional sport fencing, not CF or "fencing as a martial art". The
most accomplished alumnus of that school is Buckie Leach, who has
produced current world-class SF fencers. For what it's worth, Crowne's
FAQ warmly recalls his experiences at that school, describing SPORT
fencers and masters of high quality, circa 1980. So, it should not be a
simpleminded equation "SF is bad; CF is good". Let's stop that, please.
Linda, is this the lineage you are a student of?

>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)

I saw it at the last competition I attended, the Garden State Games in
June. It's not that rare an event, but the etiquette is different now.
With electrical scoring there's no need to concede on the basis of
materiality (helping out the side judges), and acknowleding a touch on
validity usurps the director's job, and can cause offense. The norms
have changed - be polite, but let the director do his/her job. Also,
you may be wrong, as presumably you're busy fencing and can't see all
the action. Nonetheless, it does happen. Let's drop the assumption
that sport fencers today are rude. If we're going to stop rudeness, we
should start with editor responses to letters to the Fencers Quarterly.

>I do it because it still works, right now, today, the way it has for
>those hundreds of years. (Linda)
>
>>>> and:
>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... (J.)


Hear, hear! If you think your fencing is superior, go compete and prove
it and thereby gain glory. Get electrical weapons and see how well you
do. If you want to mentally adjust your score to cancel out the effects
of actions you feel shouldn't be allowed (say, flicks), then by all
means do so. Or fence sabre or epee, which don't have the same
controversy. Or fence foil anyway remembering that if it were sharp and
you were dueling, you would have to defend against people with wild
actions for your own safety. That flick would penetrate your skin "if
it were sharp". (Evangelista claims it penetrates skin even when blunt!)

You absolutely should be able to get moderate success in SF. If you
can't do that, then you should undergo some serious self examination.
Once you've proven you can duke it out and win (this was Christian
D'Oriola's answer), then you have earned some right to argue. Until or
unless you can demonstrate achievement along those lines, or produce
some fencers who can, it would be well to demonstrate a higher degree of
humility. Get out of that self-enclosed, hermetically sealed closed
loop of sliming SF - but refusing to prove yourselves on the piste.

And, returning to the question of CF in Olympics, that would be the only
way to ever convince other fencers that CF isn't a marginal clique of a
small number of individuals with exaggerated notions of their ability.

I apologize for the length (heck, why have lots of 50 line posts when
you can put it all into one).

Happy fencing, Jeff


------------------------ 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/

[Jeff Savit]

Hi Rez,

I'm glad we agree on some points, and will respond to your comments (with as
little quoting as possible, just to save space. ">>" is me, ">" is him, ">>>"
is stuff I first quoted, typos are me). To everyone already bored with this,
my apologies for continuing this, and for this post's length.

>>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 (etc!)

I agree with your conclusion: they're both real, fun &etc. That's why I'm
*here* on this list. Personally, I haven't run into any SF fencers smearing
CF, either in person or on fencing101.com, where I spend a lot of
fencing-related web time. Our experiences vary. As I mentioned in my post, I
entirely respect people doing classical and historical. It's also much closer
to what I was taught (I'll summarize that later, since you asked).

We agree on the beat business. Perhaps the original poster will explain
what was meant by that.

>>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. (followed by reasons).

I have no problem with that either! People are absolutely entitled to choose
their own interests, for goodness sakes. I just object to people who have NOT
made such an effort who nonetheless feel entitled to pass sweeping and
derogatory observations about it.

The fact that you competed, directed, and prepared fencers for USFA stuff
means that you're doing what I suggest CF people do - and hence have EARNED
the right to your opinions. I'm all in favor of people doing / have done
what I urge them to do.

>>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.

I was with you up to the last part - 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. When competing at your tournaments, such fencers will be
graded on _your_ aesthetic standards, rather than the objective standard
of "did they hit". Form is a means rather than an ends in SF (another
reason to bring up "if it were sharp" as the criteria) rather than
"did it look the way the director wanted it to").

When I trained in Kung Fu, I really hated when I was judged by somebody from
Tae Kwon Do. Not that they were evil or their style was inferior, but their
expectations were different. Would Bobby Russell or Witold Woyda have done well
in your tournaments? (picking two beautifully classical SF fencers). If "yes",
then it proves that SF can also be CF; if "no", then I question the validity
of a process that would exclude fencers of their calibre.

- For another story from Asian martial arts: when Tae Kwon Do and Shotokan style
guys fight in the same competition, 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.

- Withholding or awarding points based on style should not be necessary if
classical style is efficient and effective. Some of the posts that I was
responding to said "I do classical style because it's what works" or words
to that effect. Let's award touches based solely on what hits. I referred in
previous note to the conflict in CF between "as if it were sharp" and "only
count stuff that matches our style". I think this illustrates it. Teach
classical, and let the best fencer win.

>>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.

Besides the above argument, I'll add the following. Bobby Russell comes to mind.
Nazlymov, D'Oriola. Michael Marx, Ed Ballinger. Peter Westbrook. The list goes
on. But are we talking about SF fencers with classical form (I think the answer
clearly must be "yes") or a different subspecies "CF". I think there's still
classically trained SFers, and I would be delighted to see the pendulum swing
back to more classical style in SF. Again, that's why I read this list.


>>>>>>"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 ...
>
>> I made no such pretense, nor was ... (material related to Rondell quote)
>> 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.

I didn't mean to imply you were making such a pretense. Other posters made it
very clear that _they_ believe that current fencers have poor skills. Also,
somebody else also used the same quote from Rondell (Kim Moser, I think), and
I no longer remember which I was responding to. I object to the notion that
SFers lack firm parries, precise ripostes, & etc.

I have no argument with your discussion of the word's origin or its use since
'70s. I use it in similar context. I differ with you in some degree here:
good SFers have good point control - they do in fact hit where they
intend. What they don't do is assume classical en-guarde positions, and they
don't all use traditional footwork as their primary means, and (sadly) they
don't always extend as they develop the attack. I want to see advance-lunge,
balestra-lunge, and fleche (including sabre!), not marching attacks or the
"flunge". 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.

>>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. (more personal details follow).

Rez, you have my respect. You describe a career of accomplishment
in fencing. Its surely not a coincidence that you also are not one of
the people making intemperate comments sliming all of SF. Not all the
posters on this list have been as qualified or as moderate.

Since you ask...

My own background is as an amateur, and mid-level competitor. I have had the
privilege of learning from and fencing with wonderful fencers in the SF
and Olympic worlds, and the irritation I have stems from hearing that world
described in disparaging terms. I may be a lesser light (or no light at all)
from that world, but I know some of that world and believe it deserves far more
respect than I hear on this list.

I started fencing at Salle Santelli in 1969, training under one of Giorgio's
students (Israel Colon, an NCAA champion circa 1960), with the occasional word
from Giorgio (who terrified me - not because he ever did anything harsh, but
because I was in awe of him). In college I was trained by Al Kwartler (3 time
Olympian - '52, '56, '60, 1959 Pan American champion, several times nationally
ranked 2 or 3 in both foil and sabre, director at Olympic finals, AFLA officer).
Al was taught by both Giorgio and Ed Lucia. He taught me classical Italian foil,
and I used that handle - which I hated - until Giorgio interceded and I went
back to a combination of French and pistol. 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 :-)

After Cornell, I trained more under Kwartler in foil and sabre, and then
joined the NYFC, where I trained under Semyon Pinchasov for the balance of my
active competitive years, in contemporary Eastern European style. This gives
me, I think, a pretty good perspective on Italian, French, and Russian/Eastern
European styles. Now I am full-circle back at Salle Santelli taking lessons in
foil and epee from Jerzy Grzymski, who was selected by Giorgio to continue the
teaching at the Salle. There is NOTHING incompatible between classical foil
technique and what I learned from Semyon or am now getting with Jerzy, BTW.

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). I even won some of my bouts with (some of)
them. I had a "B" classification in foil, if anyone cares. Good but not great.

I haven't competed in CF competitions because I'm semi-retired, period. I've
just started doing a little competition locally in the last year or so. I'm
pushing close to 50 for goodness sake, and have limited time due to other
obligations. I am tempted, believe me. However, some of the attitudes
expressed on this list (and in Evangelista's writing) have made me less than
eager to compete in CF. 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. 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.


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

Not my question, but I agree with your answers. I've been fortunate to live
near strong fencing.

>>>> 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.


Hear, hear! I WANT to see MORE SF fencers using classical style. There is
no reason for anyone to claim the two don't coexist, as I tried to say in
my prior post, and as you can deduce from the list of fencers I cite.

(I personally train French, and then compete with pistol (except some French
with epee) as I hate being disarmed. :-)

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

Happy fencing all - more fencing, and less *****ing!
Jeff

PS: IMPORTANT NOTE! IMPORTANT NOTE! Jennifer, your mail to me at your
infolore.org address bounced when I replied to you. I got gobbledegook saying
both "too busy" and "relaying not allowed". I'll try again and see what
happens. Could you e-mail me again with a different mail address if that
doesnt work? Or, with your permission, I'll post your (nice) e-mail to the
list here.




------------------------ 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/

[Jeff Savit]

Hi Rez,

Thanks for the nice note. Yes, it was a golden era, and I was fortunate beyond
merit. What I want to say, in the spirit of "your mileage may vary" is that
experiences like that still exist.

Anyhow, thoughtful comment deserves thoughtful response, so in that spirit I'll
reply (until I run out of steam near the end, see below!):

>Remember when Olympic figure skaters had to pass a qualifying round
>actually performing figure eights in the ice ?

I actually thought of making that analogy, but figured I'd already thrown so
much metaphor in that it was time to stop laying it on...

>Classical and sport have different goals and different rules why mix them
>together. Let each go it's own direction.

Again, we're completely in agreement. (Metaphor alert!) The classical and the
jazz violinists tend not to play the same gigs, but they're both music.

The *only* reason I posted was because people were making derogatory comments in
the posts starting August 28. I object to some of the remarks I read there (and
in posts I've read other times), hence my own sharply worded post.

In *your* competition, you're free to choose the rules that apply. If SFers show
up at a CF tourney they should accept the rules or not compete. Likewise for the
the reverse. And, no whining!

>SF has changed a lot in the last 40 years.... 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... (etc)

Yes, quite true - and you could happily have that conversation in a purely
SF-related discussion group, or at the Salle. That needn't be a CF vs. SF thing.
Controversy exists within SF as well - including over changes over ROW (Question
to everybody here; have you all seen Iaion Pop's diatribe about current foil
directing, and the FIE actions under study now to fix it? I'll go look for the
reference and post a link.)

I don't mind scoring "touch against" vs. "touch for" - it was just a real pain
to get used to after the change. "Touch left! No, sorry! I meant touch right!"
What a pain, but we got over it. I'm actually happy with that now. The subtle
cut the the hand in sabre? You bet - I agree with you there. It's not enough
for me to go into revolt though, and sabre directing is much fairer and more
accurate than it was in the Good Old Days. Really.

In fact, sabre in general is in pretty good shape now, even compared to the
glory days. I think you'll agree that in sports that lack an objective criteria
that spans generations (eg: time to run 100 yards) you always get that argument
over whether this generation is better or worse than last generation. I was
officiating at a college match 20 years ago when an ex-Olympian also directing
dissed Peter Westbrook's style ("I would have skewered him en brochette" if I
recall). I was polite enough to not contradict him. What's the point?

I'll come back to this point later ("then vs. now"), but in the meantime

>remember when we didn't get carded for crossing over forward in sabre,

Yeah, I think it's stupid. Goddam lawyers. Ditto with a rule for hand shaking.

>remember when we came on guard in advance-lunge distance with blades crossed
>and we actually used pre de fer actions on the blade,

Pris de fer still in use; I think we're arguing this one on a separate subthread

I never came on guard with blades crossed. That would make me *very* unhappy as
being well within my comfort zone for proper distance. :-)

In the interest of time I'm going to skip down a bit.

>Third and Fourth intentions could get you killed or seriously wounded...
>...
>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...

Absolutely - which makes arguments about "that would get you killed if it were
sharp" somewhat besides the point (unintended pun) for foil, then or now. This
weakens the arguments some people make about today's foil being unrealistic,
since lovely but dangerous phrases like the above are pruned away. To that
point, the next quote from you:

>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.

In CF that's the case - but while that's a legitemate conclusion, it's just as
legit to conclude that the test of the fencer's performance is specifically who
wins _under the conventions of foil_ That's why there's "point karate", "no
contact", "light contact" and "full contact". They're different games. (I think
we're still agreeing here).

>D'Oriola, Michael Marx, Ed Ballinger. Peter Westbrook were all trained in an
>era where good, clean, fencing form was still being taught.

I mentioned my heroes, but you would see good form from people like Longenbach
(Zaddick, that is), and Dan Kellner and many others besides. But that's besides
the point. If the question is "is it reasonable for CF to include form within
the competitive criteria and SF to exclude it" then the answer surely is "yes".
They're different leagues, and have different rules. One has the designated
hitter, the other doesn't... If it's rephrased as "Is SF a degenerate style
because good form isn't mandatory?" then I would have to say a strong "no".

>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.

Hard for me to be so sure. As I mentioned previously, I've been directing and
fencing locally, and I've seen some very good fencing. I was very surprised to
see some quality fencing at the high school level, and I've even seen some
pre-high school fencing (I direct at Salle Santelli youth competitions) with
nice skills. So, there's some stuff I see that's very unpleasant, but I also see
a population of technically strong *pretty* fencers that I know for a fact
didn't exist when I was a teen fencer. So, in all honesty, it's a mixed bag.

I'll amplify a little: Between 20 and 10 years ago I saw no such deterioration.
It's only after a hiatus from 1993 to 1998 that I saw anything to get upset about.

{Off topic]
I had one incident of shock while directing a New Jersey high school meet for
girls teams: Their school was able to fund boys and girls teams in 3 weapons
(and just think how expensive sabre is now), and they even were running a junior
varsity match while I was directing varsity. What blew my mind was when the next
kids started hooking up on their *spare reels* (they already had 2 out for each
of varsity and JV) while the bout was still running, so they could be in
business faster by switching reels. In my underfunded high school and college
days, we were thrilled to get by with ONE working set of equipment. Wow! Their
school districts must have great funding. By the way, they had some good
fencers, too.
[End Off topic bit]

No argument on what the Olympics care about. Pity. I never did get to see
fencing on TV, so it's crummy now as it was crummy then.

>>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.

It's late and I need to finally go home, so I'm going to skip this one, but this
is a juicy subject and I will give it the attention it deserves tomorrow or the
next day. The crux will be that (1) my threat begins when I start moving my
lethal point towards you and straightening the arm/elbow, not suddenly becoming
a threat when my elbow is straight (2) if you start after I've started - and I
don't do something harebrained like yank my arm back or make my extension take
multiple tempos, then your threat is later than mine, hence you're the counter
attacker into an attack that is about to land in your chest. There is no need
to wait to start the lunge until the arm is straight, and you can shave a little
time off the attack by overlapping the time you're making the extension and the
lunge. I explicitly do not include bent arm "attacks". BTW, this is not for
beginners: they need to work out the simpler mechanics of 'extend then lunge' By
the way, this is what Kogler teaches.

(If I've said that unclearly I'll try again. It is late and my composition is
getting sloppier)

I've read http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/Grim.shtml by Crown and know
of the list of people he quotes. Not all pedagogy is unchanged. Also, I've got a
comment tomorrow on his '"Well, isn't "not bent" the same thing as "straight?"'
when commenting on the rules. The answer is going to be "read the original
French" and 'is "bent" a verb or an adjective?'. That will be some more fun for
tomorrow, when I elaborate on the above.

Hmmm. I was on a roll and said most of what I wanted to say on that already. Go
ahead and start working with it if you like ;-)

More tomorrow - I'll catch up with the rest of your points then. Let's have fun
with this.

regards to all, Jeff

PS: Albie was *TOUGH* to fence, as you know. In his prime he was damn near
untouchable. And, of course, he's a real character both on and off the strip.
I'll think of an anecdote to share for my next post. Ah, I know: the time I had
to direct him against another Olympic team member when I was only around 18. Oh
boy, that was stressful... stay tuned for it. I have a few Albie stories to share.

PPS: Thanks for the kind comments Rez. I was very lucky to participate in those
days and with those people.











--
Jeff Savit, Sun Microsystems
Tel: 201/498-8306
email: Jeff.Savit@sun.com


------------------------ 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/