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/ 
Linear Mode
