Re: [CFML] Digest Number 659

I may be redundant but have not seen any messages about Richard Cohen's By
the Blade. This is a fantastic history of fencing and swordsmanship and I
recommend it to all the Classical Fencing members.Not only is it a great
history book, it's a treatise on the merits of the classical fencing
"movement". Cohen, a former British Olypic medalist shares a lot of ideas
with "classicial" fencers. While he believes the electric box is here to
stay, he feels it has been harmful to the sport in many ways and mentions
important efforts to correct for its negative impacts.

Jud

>From: classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com
>Reply-To: classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com
>To: classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [CFML] Digest Number 659
>Date: 25 Sep 2003 17:58:22 -0000
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier
>blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>There are 3 messages in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. RE: Extended vs. Extending
> From: "Robert L. Browning II" <browning5800@comcast.net>
> 2. RE: Central Invitation
> From: "Jennifer Walton" <jwalton@infolore.org>
> 3. RE: Central Invitation
> From: "Brian D. Schenck" <bdschenck@yahoo.com>
>
>
>_________________________________________________ _______________________
>_________________________________________________ _______________________
>
>Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:34:32 -0600
> From: "Robert L. Browning II" <browning5800@comcast.net>
>Subject: RE: Extended vs. Extending
>
>While you're perusing Aldo Nadi's text, consider pages 88-89 of On Fencing:
>
>"The simplest of all attacks is the straight thrust. From central position
>extend your arm smoothly straight forward, and as a continuation of this
>extension lunge without contacting the opponent's blade...With this first
>attack you have seen that the arm must extend before the right foot moves
>for the execution of the lunge-a rule that must remain engraved in your
>mind
>forever. Hand before foot, always. Equally important, arm extension means
>raising the hand to shoulder height." Yep, it's pitiful.
>
>It would appear that this unpleasant, though great, fencer stuck to the old
>ways. Is anyone going to suggest he was holding himself back by not going
>with the extending lunge?
>
>Again, my problem with most "beat attacks" into an invitation are beats
>followed by a bent arm (extending...doubtful) thrust into the opponent's
>counterattack (specifically, an arrest). Many of my students get
>frustrated
>with their arrests not getting priority over a faulty simple attack without
>right of way. Nadi also encouraged the central invitation, meaning that
>ALL
>lines were open, which is something I don't recall Gaugler teaching, and I
>don't follow. The beat itself against an invitation doesn't establish
>right
>of way, and the referee's (I'm hoping those that would call themselves
>directors know better.) inability to recognize an attack with right of way
>from fencers throwing their bodies against their adversary's point rewards
>sloppy fencers for their suicidal tendencies with too many points and
>matches.
>
>The gulf between what will keep a swordsman alive in armed combat and what
>earns points on a strip with big, flexible metal sticks is continuing to
>widen, and too many people new to our avocation will decide it's simply not
>worth it.
>
>Great thread, BTW.
>
>Rob
>
>Robert L. Browning II
>browning5800@comcast.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
> Robert said:
> > I'd find it ludicrous to see some director's exam showing videos
>asking,
> > "Whose elbow flexed first?"
>
> But, I would expect the director's exam to ask "who attacked first?",
>and
>even
> "who started first". It's far easier to see forward motion of the arm
>than
>to
> see the moment the elbow locked.
>
> Robert said:
> > encourages junk like the "beat attack" into an invitation
>
> Beat attacks are not junk, as I explained before, even under quite
>classical
> references. A beat is not a "mere grazing" either, as the USFA and FIE
>rules
> book make clear. Go look at Nadi's "On Fencing", pages 136-145, if you
>insist on
> using him as a source. It explicitly includes beat attacks into an
>invitation.
>
> I'll quote from Nadi again. Normally I don't like to because he's so
>unpleasant
> (despite clearly having been a great fencer). From "On Fencing" page 60:
>
> "The complete lack of imagination of the great majority of fencing
>teachers the
> world over makes them greet any innovation in the art with the same
>enthusiasm
> as a pig in a Mosque."
>
> Pity, isn't it.
>
> -
> Jeff Savit
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________ _______________________
>_________________________________________________ _______________________
>
>Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:57:09 -0700
> From: "Jennifer Walton" <jwalton@infolore.org>
>Subject: RE: Central Invitation
>
>And in another direction...
>
>Robert said:
>
> >Nadi also encouraged the central invitation, meaning
> >that ALL lines were open, which is something I don't
> >recall Gaugler teaching, and I don't follow.
>
>Nadi stated, "...and the torso, profiled without unnecessary strain
>anywhere, is offering the opponent a minimum target." (p50). It would seem
>to me that a central invitation would be a logical placement for the sword
>arm (also without strain) if profiling the body, and be the shortest
>distance to the target in comparison to his other invitations or contact
>invitations. Can you site where he "encourages" central invitation for a
>bout? (I'm not being nasty here, I really want to read what he says about
>it). Classical French texts place the body at a 1/2 turn (Crosnier, p31),
>and some of the most recent texts turn the body 3/4 (Pitman, Selberg,
>Garret). It is no surprise to me that the arm now has a preferred position
>of third (sixte) or second (octave), regardless of exposing a larger area
>of
>the inside target. (A sport fencer may argue that since the back is also a
>favored target with the flick, the profiled body doubles this area). For
>anyone, the strongest parry is to the inside.
>
>What is a surprise to me is why the absence of blade seems prevalent in
>sport fencing. What is the perceived advantage?
>
>Jennifer Walton
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________ _______________________
>_________________________________________________ _______________________
>
>Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Brian D. Schenck" <bdschenck@yahoo.com>
>Subject: RE: Central Invitation
>
>--- Jennifer Walton <jwalton@infolore.org> wrote:
>
> > What is a surprise to me is why the absence of blade seems prevalent in
> > sport fencing. What is the perceived advantage?
> >
>Primarily with the way that Right-of-way is called and what some referees
>are
>looking (or rather listening) for when determining who was attacking,
>riposting
>or whatnot. As has been said, and an unfortunately accurate assessment,
>the
>number of individuals who simply call based on the sounds being made during
>the
>bout is rather high.
>
>This results in nearly any blade contact being called a parry, even when it
>actually wasn't, simply because the referee heard something (i.e., there
>was
>incidental contact between the attacking fencer's blade and defending
>fencer's
>blade, without the defending fencer actually having control). So, rather
>than
>actually assessing whether Fencer A's attack was good, because Fencer B did
>not
>have control of Fencer B's blade, the assessment is, unfortunately, such
>that
>these individuals err on the contact having been a parry.
>
>However, this is really more true in Foil than the other two weapons. Both
>Sabre and Epee still utilize engagements on the opponent's blade, as
>absence of
>the blade can result in the opponent sneaking their point or edge in to
>gain a
>touch and cause the apparatus to lock out their touch (due to the timing of
>the
>apparatus). This is unfortunately not always an indication of what one
>would
>say constitutes good technique -- simply a matter of what is practical and
>scores touches.
>
>Apologies for waxing too far into the topic of modern/sport fencing.
>
>
>-Brian
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
>_________________________________________________ _______________________
>_________________________________________________ _______________________
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________ _______________
Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
http://msnmessenger-download.com


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