--- Warren and Jackie Cabral <sword_teacher@yahoo.com> wrote:
> While we all agree that foil was established as the practice weapon, this
> principle of 'legitimate threat' applies equally to a serious
> encounter...foil practice nicely provides description to the theory of ROW
> and lays out the reasoning for the actions taken during a particular phase.
> Foil, then, is the way fencing 'should' be fenced, while epee is what 'could'
> happen in, let's say, a grassy meadow at dawn without the theory, but with
> the instinct. In either case, they do have one thing in common--"hit without
> being hit".
>
I apologize for snipping some of your background information -- but this point
that you raise does make me more appreciate the idea of Right-of-way and why it
was developed and what it was meant to simulate. Respectfully I must ask, at
what point does this theory go to far from the real? That is, is too ideal a
Right-of-way possible, and would this, in turn, actually drive fencing further
away from what it is attempting to emulate? We already know this to be a
problem in modern fencing -- but is the "ideal attack", that is the attack with
the extended arm, too "ideal"?
This would be an interesting question to ask some of those who developed the
very foundation for Right-of-way with their own thoughts on what an attack
should be -- especially if modern technology were available to replay certain
actions for detailed analysis. Furthermore, given that many in the modern era
have done very detailed analyses of fencing, and studied it in a very
scientific manner... I would wonder if certain theories might be turned on
their heads.
> This brings us to the problem at hand. If Fencer 'A' is extending the arm,
> he/she COULD be in the process of attacking...then again, Fencer 'A' could
> also be in the process of a feint, a decision to immediately withdraw the
> action, a move to scratch his ...er..elbow,or virtually anything else one
> wishes to assume by this motion. So far, all we've determined is some sort
> of preparatory action is taking place, NOT a real threat. (It IS a pretty
> open-ended action, isn't it?) There have been lots of pros and cons on what
> the response could be, so I'm going to toss one in.
>
I would respectfully disagree that "all we've determined is some sort of
preparatory action". Jeff's original question, and further description was:
"2) Fencer A extends his arm, and *before the extension is complete* begins his
lunge. The mechanics of both motions are *same* as before, except overlapped
in time instead of done serially. That's the only difference. Oh, it completes
(say) 1/4 second faster, a valuable advantage making an attack. A lunge with
a continuously extending arm, and it is extended by the time he hits.
<some comments snipped>
Now, several things could have happened: Fencer A *probably* completed his
extension before B completed *his* extension. This would make everybody
happy. But, we probably won't see that, since we have two bodies hurtling
towards one another, and it's hard to see the exact angles of their arms under
those conditions. Or, Fencer A could be trying to play games with the
director, and only sloooooowly straightened his arm. In this unlikely case,
we walk over and smack Fencer A in the mask for being a jerk and making our
directing hard. So, we could ask "who completed the extension first?" Unless
A made excess motion or never completed his extension (in which case he
gets what he deserves), A probably completed the extension first anyway."
I think that several scenarios have been offered so far. And only one of them
is that of a preparatory action. As Jeff has further explained, he is
referring to an example where the arm is approximately 90% completed its
extension when the lunge is initiated, and that the remaining 10% is completed
prior to the lunge being completed and prior to making contact with your
opponent.
> What I had in mind was an action right out of the honored Italian School
> tradition...What about a full extension by Fencer 'B' against this 'extending
> arm' deal; going for a Time Thrust (perhaps using an action such as the
> Glide (filo) on the way in with that full extension (the Real threat!). This
> action would (a) pick up the opposing steel, moving it out-of-line (remember,
> Fencer 'A' still has that relatively weak bent-arm position), and (b)
> simultaneously allow Fencer 'B' to drive home his time thrust. Two points
> here...if Fencer 'B' by full extension had ROW in the classic way of looking
> at it, he/she wins. On the other hand, if under the ever-changing
> interpretations of ROW now being promulgated, Fencer 'B' did NOT have ROW
> (against that extending action by Fencer'A'), he/she certainly WOULD have it
> after the simultaneous parry/riposte Time action. Of course, this
> contribution of mine is only based on the scenario we have been provided
> with;that is, without other extenuating factors... Just playing this thing
> out, here, but it looks like a neat possiblility.
>
It works well, I think, because in this situation fencer "B" has taken the
blade of his opponent. Of course fencer "B" should "win" in this situation, as
the counter with opposition is an excellent action to use against an opponent.
However, I would respectfully ask that we do not consider the example using
opposition -- or even any blade contact at all. In the simplest model
possible, we should only consider the extension (extending) against an
extension (extended) for comparative purposes. Then we have a touch against
both fencers involved. This is where the question of modern versus classical,
and their outlook on Right-of-way, should be discussed.
-Brian
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.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/ 
Linear Mode
