[CFML] future of SF looks more like CF

[Christopher Lee French]

Interesting FIE articles on fencing101

http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthr...&threadid=8589

Cheers!
clfrench@email.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs from home.
Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping
& No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ybSovB/hP....kFAA/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/

[Brian D. Schenck]

--- Christopher Lee French <clfrench@email.com> wrote:
> Interesting FIE articles on fencing101
>
> http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthr...&threadid=8589
>
If you can, definitely read the article by Jeff Bukantz (from American Fencing)
on some of the thoughts against these changes. They present an interesting
counter-argument.


-Brian

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vhSowB/XP....kFAA/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]

>>But, does not Classical Fencing focus primarily on the technique?

Brian,

Both technical and tactical lessons are given in classical fencing. Both
are stressed and tested in classical events. Qualifying rounds weed out
those with poor form, poor attitudes, and poor technical mastery. Those
who pass the qualifying rounds compete against each other based on
touches alone or based on a combination of touches & form, depending
upon the salle or organization's tournament rules.

In the "classical" days students were often required by their masters to
spend the first year or two focusing only on mastering all the
techniques and combinations of techniques before being allowed to study
tactics and strategy. Only after they had completely internalized the
techniques (could perform them automatically without thought) were they
taught tactics and strategy. And then only after a long period of
tactical lessons and practice with the maestro were they matched up with
a training partner of equal ability for training in bouting dynamics
through the use of restricted bouts. It might be two or three years
before they were turned loose to free bout.

This classical progression insured that the fencers did not develop bad
habits from free bouting too soon. This insured the development of
highly skilled competent fencers who could draw upon the full classical
repertoire of techniques at will (or automatically), who could apply
them strategically, based on their opponents' responses. This also
produced very clean and efficient fencing. They didn't slap and flail
around like "most" sport fencers do when the start bouting. Thus no bad
habits to break.

People were more patient in the old days. Since they were willing to
commit a life time to mastering their favorite art, two or three years
of lessons and drilling before free bouting didn't seem too long to
them..

In our modern era of fast food restaurants, instant breakfast, and
drive-through banking, the popular mentality is "I want it now!" Most
people come into the salle these days wanting to be turned into Zorro in
three easy lessons. The truth is that it takes years of consistent,
dedicated training and private lessons to really reach one's potential
in Classical Fencing. But now that the prospect of death (from losing a
duel) is no longer a motivating factor in one devoting years of training
to fencing perfection most people are more interested in "getting into
the game" as fast as they can. They see the bouting and competing as the
fun part, and the drilling and training as a necessary evil.

One of the main differences I have seen in my twenty three years as both
a USFCA Fencing Coach and as a Classical Fencing Instructor are that
sport fencing coaches tend to allow their students to start bouting
much, much sooner than classical instructors. These days no one wants to
wait one, two, three years to "get into the game." High school and
college coaches don't have that much time to develop a winning team.
Most youth don't have that much patience.

However, to truly follow the original classical pedagogical progression
means to wait until ALL the techniques have been mastered, before
studying tactics & strategy, and to master those in restricted bouts and
carefully paired bouts before beginning free bouting and then a year or
two of free bouting before entering competitions.

These days most people want to hurry up and get into the game. Sport
fencing allows them to do so months/years sooner than classical fencing.
Thus many people are more attracted to sport fencing. Classical fencing
requires of a it's practitioners a high level of maturity, dedication,
and patience.

I'm not saying sport fencing is "easier". Sport also fencers have to
train long and hard to reach the pinnacle of that activity's elite
level. I'm just saying that the way both styles are taught (and I have
spent 23 years in both arenas so I know) it is much easier for sport
fencing clubs to turn out fencers with bad fencing habits (Non-classical
form) because they started bouting way too soon or simply attended free
bouting sessions only and didn't take regular lessons.

Classical fencing is taught and practiced as a martial art. Form is the
first thing taught and heavily stressed. You cannot progress beyond
novice level in classical fencing until you learn to fence with proper
form. By the time classical fencers begin bouting their form should have
been perfected over the preceding year or two of training. Hence it is
rarer to see fencers with poor from in classical salles.

Classical fencing is a martial art in which one must follow the
time-honored progression of technical lessons, then tactical lessons,
then restricted bouting, then free bouting, then competition. This
progression takes several years to complete. Private lessons, one-on-one
under the careful scrutiny of the maestro are the primary (and still the
best) method for transmission of the classical pedagogy. For hundreds of
years all fencing lessons were private lessons.

Group lessons are the norm today only because most fencers cant afford
to purchase a daily lesson with a fencing master. The instructor can
more economically teach a large number of fencers in a short period of
time through group classes. However, none of them get one-on-one
attention and thus bad habits can go unseen, take root, and can
developed.

Even Sport Fencing Coach, Master Charles Selberg has said that it takes
a bare minimum of three to five years of consistent training before you
really even "begin" to enter the "mental" (Tactical/Strategical) part of
the game.

I myself started bouting way too soon in my fencing career and that
caused me to reinforce and internalize bad fencing habits. After a year
of competing I could see that I had reached a plateau. I had relied upon
athleticism to overpower my opponents. I had gone as far as athleticism
would take me. Sure I could beat weaker fencers and newbies. But it
didn't work against those who had put in the time to perfect their form
and technique and fence with their head. I was going nowhere
competitively and very frustrated.

It was a very difficult decision for me to make because I loved bouting
so much. "The Game" was everything to me. But I decided to quit bouting
for one year. During that time I took only technical lessons, focused on
perfecting my classical form, technique, and point control. I was young
and impetuous and hated not bouting at first. It was a lot of work and
no fun. But I knew that it had to be done if I was ever going to reach
my potential as a fencer.

So I dedicated myself to it and stuck with it. At the end of that year I
decided to dedicate myself to strategy and tactics and only engaged in
restricted bouts (bouts where no score is kept, both fencers are working
on only one technique or a tactic, each transitioning them from the
one-on-one lesson format into a more realistic bouting situation). I
came to enjoy the training much more than actual bouting. After a total
of two years of this kind of training I had reinvented myself, from a
sloppy, poking, flailing, slapping, foot rolling, physical sport fencer
into a clean classical fencer. I then started free bouting again, and
then later competing again. I won the first two foil tournaments I
entered, beating the state Champion both times.

After an ego-driven period of time spent competing in numerous USFA
tournaments, I quit competing to focus on passing on the my favorite
pastime to others by coaching sport fencers and teaching classical
fencers in my own salle. I made sure all my sport fencers learned the
classical form. However, I played around with the amount of time and
training I made them under go before beginning to free bout. Over the
last 23 years of coaching I have noticed a direct correlation between
their competitive performance and the amount of technical and form
training spent prior to allowing free bouting. Those who waited the
longest performed the best after an initial period of technical training
and adjusting to free bouting. Using the classical foundation and
pedagogical progression I was able to produce State Champions, USFA
Divisional Champions, and fencers which placed well in the Junior
Olympics, the Summer Nationals, and several NACs (North American Cup).
At one time I owned four sport fencing clubs in Mississippi. I gradually
backed them down to just one.

Last year after years of ever growing disgust with the direction the FIE
and the USFA had taken the sport, and with the poor divisional fencing
and the bad attitudes I was seeing among fencers, coaches, and referees
I finally dropped sport fencing altogether from my salle's offerings. My
former assistants immediately started two sport fencing clubs in the
area to cater to the sport fencing crowd I had created years ago.

I continued to teach my preferred styles of fencing, the traditional
martial art styles of fencing; Classical Fencing (foil, epee, sabre),
Historical Swordsmanship (rapier, smallsword), plus Cane Fighting, and
Theatrical Fencing (Choreographed/Staged Combat) at my salle.

All of my Classical fencers are now required to go through the complete
Classical French Pedagogical Progression as was taught by the French
Fencing Masters in the French Military Fencing Academies of the late
1800s. The progression from Novice through Advanced takes between four
and six years to complete depending upon the dedication of the student
and the number of private lessons the student takes each week.

In my own training about every three years I take a year long break from
free bouting to refocus my daily training on technical perfection, point
control, and form perfection. I still love bouting, but I now love the
training and drills even more. Master Evangelista was right when he
wrote "fencing develops patience."

Blessings,
Rez

Rez Johnson, Md'E
AAI & USFCA Certified Fencing Coach (Foil, Epee, Sabre) Owner/Chief
Instructor Mississippi Academy of Arms Teaching Fencing in Mississippi
since 1980

Former Owner & Head Coach:
The Jackson Fencing Club
The Clinton Fencing Club
The Ridgeland Fencing Club
The Untouchables Youth Fencing Club





------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3ex...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/

[Bob Lyle]

"re purist dislike of flicks: Try to remember that this is a sport first and
not a historical portrayal of "real" swordfighting. Yeah, we might not have
seen many flicks in personal duels in the good ol' days, but (shrug) so
what?"

Which explains why sport fencing is in decline. They deny the martial
heritage (as which it would offer a refined altenative to boxing, wrestling,
and judo), and as pure sport it is less approachable than, say, tennis or
rhythmic gymnastics.

I do wish they would listen to "Jeff", though. "I'm not fond of the flick,
but what bothers me is the "loose interpretation of threat" that has come
up".

Bob Lyle


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian D. Schenck" <bdschenck@yahoo.com>
To: <classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [CFML] future of SF looks more like CF


> --- Christopher Lee French <clfrench@email.com> wrote:
> > Interesting FIE articles on fencing101
> >
> > http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthr...&threadid=8589
> >
> If you can, definitely read the article by Jeff Bukantz (from American
Fencing)
> on some of the thoughts against these changes. They present an
interesting
> counter-argument.
>
>
> -Brian
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
> http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/mOAaAA/3ex...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/

[Brian D. Schenck]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:38:23 -0800, "Bob Lyle" <blyle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

:>Which explains why sport fencing is in decline. They deny the martial
:>heritage (as which it would offer a refined altenative to boxing, wrestling,
:>and judo), and as pure sport it is less approachable than, say, tennis or
:>rhythmic gymnastics.
:>
Sport Fencing isn't in decline. That is a blatantly untrue statement that
has no evidence to support it. Quite the reverse, Sport Fencing is on the
rise. Membership in the USFA is increasing, participation in USFA
sponsored events is increasing, and US fencers are doing better and better
with each passing year. If this continues, the likelihood exists that Team
USA may earn a medal or two in fencing.

As for how these relates to "They deny the martial heritage", I would ask
how it does so. Specifically, how does Sport Fencing deny its martial
heritage?


-Brian

------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3ex...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/

[Brian D. Schenck]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:00:39 -0600, "Mississippi Academy of Arms"
<1@msfencing.org> wrote:

:>Both technical and tactical lessons are given in classical fencing. Both
:>are stressed and tested in classical events. Qualifying rounds weed out
:>those with poor form, poor attitudes, and poor technical mastery. Those
:>who pass the qualifying rounds compete against each other based on
:>touches alone or based on a combination of touches & form, depending
:>upon the salle or organization's tournament rules.
:>
I have no problem with grading of technique or form, or even evaluating
someone's persona and attitude on the strip. However, isn't the grading of
these things getting away from the martial aspect of fencing as well? I
believe it does to some extent -- especially since these things are not
necessarily easy to grade in a purely quantitative manner. There is a
qualitative aspect to them. If this grading of technique is taken to far,
in terms of causing one to "lose" when they would have won based on touches
and the purely mechanical aspect of fencing -- does this not also get away
from the roots of Fencing as a life or death matter?

I do not see this as being any different than Sport Fencing going in the
opposite direction and focusing on scoring the touch. Obviously, at this
point, technique is taught and reinforced to ensure the scoring of touches.
And while we may see this as a bad thing -- in a purely objective sense,
this is the environment that Sport Fencing operates in. Which is no
different than Classical Fencing operating in an environment that rewards
the practice of proper technique and good form.


:>This classical progression insured that the fencers did not develop bad
:>habits from free bouting too soon. This insured the development of
:>highly skilled competent fencers who could draw upon the full classical
:>repertoire of techniques at will (or automatically), who could apply
:>them strategically, based on their opponents' responses. This also
:>produced very clean and efficient fencing. They didn't slap and flail
:>around like "most" sport fencers do when the start bouting. Thus no bad
:>habits to break.
:>
I concur, I do not like this aspect of how Sport Fencers are taught. While
I do not necessarily agree with the specific time frame (i.e., years) and
believe it up for debate as to what time is best to introduce bouting, I do
agree that basics should be taught focusing on ensuring proper technique at
all times. And that proper technique practiced on the strip will work
better than simply pure athleticism. So, I agree with your experiences in
this matter, despite my experience being half yours! Personally, I have
also found it more rewarding to practice good technique as opposed to
simply winning. But, I've never been a fiercely competitive person either.


:>Classical fencing is taught and practiced as a martial art. Form is the
:>first thing taught and heavily stressed. You cannot progress beyond
:>novice level in classical fencing until you learn to fence with proper
:>form. By the time classical fencers begin bouting their form should have
:>been perfected over the preceding year or two of training. Hence it is
:>rarer to see fencers with poor from in classical salles.
:>
Sorry for the trimming, but I did want to keep the message down to a
reasonable length, and my comment here was short. Why is it that Classical
Fencing is viewed as a martial art, whereas Sport Fencing is not? Again,
if Classical Fencing does focus on the execution of proper technique, and
it is evaluated, why is this considered martial in nature? Agreed, Sport
Fencing does not adopt the approach the philosophy "As if they were sharp",
but is still does acknowledge the martial aspect of it.

The salute is still present (and I agree, that it must be executed
properly) and required of all fencers, the aspect of fencing as a
competition rather than life-or-death affair is no different than how
jousting became more about scoring of touches than about killing the
opponent. And basic fencing techniques are the same between the two. I
have asked the question before: but is this philosophical difference
between Sport and Classical so great that Sport ceases to be martial?
Nothing I've read or studied suggests this, and so I believe this opinion
more than fact.


-Brian

------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3ex...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]

> I have no problem with grading of technique or form, or even
evaluating
> someone's persona and attitude on the strip. However, isn't the
grading
> of
> these things getting away from the martial aspect of fencing as well

Not at all. Having good clean form and crisp precise technique is what
allowed duelists to survive. These skills are considered prerequisite to
bouting. Therefore they are reinforced by the rules of the qualifying
round in classical foil events. It's all practical. Since rolling of the
back foot increases one's chances of loosing balance, that is considered
a fault in a qualifying round. The qualifying round reinforces good
habits. If you want to "play the game" in the round that is scored only
by touches then you have to learn to fence using the time-honored
classical form or you'll get weeded out in the qualifying round.

Now sport fencers are allowed to compete using any "personal style" they
wish. You see many of them rolling their back foot, making bent arm
attacks, slapping (flicking) instead of thrusting, dropping their back
arm into the "elephant trunk" position, and many other breaches of good
clean classical form.

Requiring proper form in the qualifying round in no way takes away from
the martial aspect of classical fencing. Perfection of form is just the
first step in an extensive methodology and pedagogy which leads to the
perfection of classical fencing's martial application. Caution, balance,
timing, form were all important in duels if one wanted to survive. If
anything the duelists were interested in adhering as precisely as they
could to the form that would give them the best chance for survival.
Rather than throwing caution to the wind and fleching for instance.

By the Classical era the foil was an artistic theorizing weapon and had
lost it's martial aspects. Hence the epee began to be taught in the
salles. Classical epee is fought to one touch and thus is more "martial"
than classical foil. Unless of course you are using the "foil weapon" to
train in smallsword dueling techniques. But that's a whole nother thread
of discussion.

One thing about Classical fencing which a lot of people don't realize is
that it is not an evolving art as sport fencing is. When we practice
classical fencing we are practicing fencing as it was practiced in the
late 1800s. The rules of classical fencing do not change, nor it's
methodology or pedagogy. We are "recreating" fencing as it was done in a
very short period of history. The "golden" age of fencing in which we
feel it reached it's pinnacle of perfection. So we don't improvise or
innovate it. We replicate it.

There are a few groups today who are taking classical fencing and trying
to "renovate it" with new techniques, methodology, and rules. But at
that point is ceases to be the historical art known as classical
fencing. At the point one begins to renovate/innovate classical fencing
it has started on an evolutionary path similar to what happened with
sport fencing.

The masters on this list who can trace a lineage back to Aldo Nadi may
disagree with me on this, but Aldo was an innovator who broke from his
father's classical teaching. So while he was heavily influenced by the
classical training he received from his father, he began an evolution
away from classical fencing in his self-admitted re-creation of his of
his own intrinsic fencing style. The middle guard for instance and the
raising of the back heel are two such innovations he made in the
development of his own style. For pure classical fencers these
innovations are not considered classical form or technique.

>Why is it that Classical Fencing is viewed as a martial art, whereas
Sport >Fencing is not?

The dueling weapons in classical fencing are the epee and the sabre. The
foil had evolved into a theorizing weapon during the classical era. The
foil had originally been the practice weapon for the smallsword in the
1700s. But by the classical era it had evolved into a theorizing tool
for exploring second, third, and fourth intentions. Foil training by the
mid 1800s was no longer suitable for training one in dueling because the
dueling weapon of the day had evolved from the smallsword into the
longer Epee d'Combat. Hence the masters started teaching epee in their
salles to those who came to them for training that would prepare them
for a duel. So the epee (dueling sword) and the Dueling Sabre were the
only classical weapons that were actually trained in for dueling. Bouts
with them are fought only to one touch to simulate as close as possible
a real duel. One touch bouts force you to be more defensive. The first
goal is to survive the duel. Longer bouts such as sport fencing's DE
bouts which are fought to 15 touches emphasize offense because you can
take more chances make some mistakes and still pull it up in the end and
win.

Sport fencing is not considered martial art because of the way it is
fenced today and because of the training one engages in in sport fencing
today. Modern fencing does not correlate well with the original training
for dueling. Flicks would be laughed at as poor point control slaps.
Bent arm attacks would be considered a fool's folly. Rolling the back
foot would reveal lack of training under a master. Fleches would be
considered foolish suicide attacks. I could go on and on for pages
listing why sport fencing today does not correlate at all to the
original martial art of dueling.

There's really no need to defend classical fencing as a martial art
because all one has to do is study the history of dueling and fencing.
The original art was a dueling art. It was what was studying and
practiced by those who needed to survive a duel during an era when the
chance of having to fight a duel was high for an aristocrat.

Practice of the things which make you better able to survive a duel are
important in classical fencing. Measuring one's ability in those areas
is important.

In Iaido (samurai swordfighting) the students spends his lifetime
perfecting his cutting form. They believe the key to their art is in the
perfection of the form. So they practice the same cuts over and over
millions times throughout their life.

Classical fencers believe that perfection of the classical form which
allowed men to best survive a duel is one very important aspect of
classical fencing.

> The salute is still present..

Only by force in sport fencing. It was so often withheld by sport
fencers as an intentional slur against their opponent that the FIE/USFA
had to make it a serious penalty to not salute. Classical fencers salute
out of respect because we are acknowledging each other as equals. There
is no need to force us to do so by making it a "red card/black card"
penalty to fail to do so. Same with acknowledging touches. We don't want
to receive points for touches we don't feel we earned. That's why you'll
often hear a classical fencer decline a touch he made against his
opponent. He'll only accept his best. When was the last time you heard a
sport fencer decline a touch? They will take any touch the referee gives
them because their only goal is "win no matter what." "Use whatever
technique you can to win."

You know a common practice among SF coaches is to teach a psychological
form or cheating. They teach their fencers upon making a double touch
(both lights go off) to jump up in the air with their fist and give a
"victory yell". The idea is that by acting so confident that you were
the one who had right of way that you sway a "weak minded" referee into
awarding it to you instead of your opponent. There is a lot of tension
in SF bouts. Referees are not given the respect that CF judges and
directors are given. SF referees are under a lot of pressure and get
ridiculed often. Nervous referees are easy to persuade through this
psychological tactic. They don't want to be seen as a poor referee.
There are many very good referees in the USFA who don't fall for this
tactic. But there a re a large number on the local and divisional level
who do. This is a very common practice among USFA coaches. The idea in
SF again is to do whatever it takes to get awarded a touch, be it by
technique, slapping, or by using psychology to spoof the referee.

This whole idea of swaying the referee to give you a touch that you may
not have actually deserved is the opposite of the classical view of only
accepting touches you have earned. I always tell my students that I
would rather see them lose a bout than to accept a touch they didn't
feel was good. I have had a lot of successful SF students during my
coaching career. But the one I'm the most proud of was a young boy who
was fencing in the finals in a dry tournament. He made the winning touch
and would have won first place. However, he hesitated for a moment, then
turned to the referee and said "I decline the touch because it really
landed flat." The director allowed the bout to continue and the other
fencer beat him to win first place. At the awards ceremony as I gave him
his second place medal I told him and everyone else present that I was
more proud of him for being honest about that touch and winning second
place than I would have been if he had won first place. My fencers know
that I value honesty more than winning. Fencing success is transient.
There will always be someone who can beat you. But honesty in spite of
being penalized for it during an important event in one's life is the
true measure of human success.

So for true classical fencers winning the bout, winning the tournament
is not as important to us as fencing well and developing character.

Numerous sport fencing coaches have told me that fencing is only about
one thing, Completion: beating people, winning medals, and increasing
your USFA rating. Competition in sport fencing is an ego-driven activity
for most sport fencers. "I beat so and so. I'm an "A" rated fencer. I
qualified for the Nationals, etc...

Classical fencers are not concerned with the ego-driven goals of beating
people, winning medals, and increasing an organizational "rating."
They're concerned with mastering the art, it's from, it's techniques,
and fine tuning their execution of these so finely that they would have
the best possible chance of surviving a real duel.

>And basic fencing techniques are the same between the two.

You rarely see sport fencers using the full repertoire of classical
techniques.

> I
> have asked the question before: but is this philosophical difference
> between Sport and Classical so great that Sport ceases to be martial?

It's not just the philosophical difference (and there is a big one) that
makes sport fencing non-martial. It's primarily the practical
difference. Sure the most basic techniques are the same. But the art has
been altered and the techniques modified to suit the electric weapon and
machine. Sport fencing is a highly athletic and fast paced game of tag
which bears only vestigial similarities with classical fencing. The
sport fencing techniques practiced today would simply be much less
effective in a real duel. Actually they would probably instill a false
sense of confidence which would get one killed in a real duel.

Fleching at a sharp sword. Only a fool would do it. Flicking? Absurd!
Bent arm attacks? Again suicide. Poor balance, from rolling the back
foot. Dangerous at best. Not using the back arm as a counter balance on
the lunge or for a quick recovery again dangerous at best. Stop
thrusting without opposition? Dangerous. Taking the many chances that
sport fencers are used to taking from 15 touch DE bouts would be
dangerous. The fact is when you duel you will fall back to the way you
trained the most. If you are use to the overtly offensive game of modern
sport fencing then that's what you will do. If you are used to the
cautious defensive game of classical fencing then that's what you would
do. Sport fencing is at best a very poor preparation for a duel and at
worst most likely would get you killed from the false-confidence of
thinking your sport fencing techniques and tendencies would work.

It's all about practicality. Classical fencing is the style of fencing
that was used to train people for the duel. It worked. Sport fencing is
simply a fun game of tag which has evolved far away from it's original
martial art roots.

The same thing happened to many eastern martial arts when they started
hosting tournaments. The rules changed them from effective martial arts
into fun sports. If you practice pulling punches for several years and
competing in tournaments that reward such behavior then the first time a
street fighter throws a punch at you, you'll find your self pulling your
punches at him and being much less effective in defending yourself. What
you train you become. If you want to be an athlete study sport fencing.
If you want to be a martial artist (duelist) study classical fencing.


Sincerely,
Rez Johnson

Rez Johnson, Md'E
Mississippi Academy of Arms
Teaching Fencing since 1980



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vhSowB/XP....kFAA/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/

[Brian D. Schenck]

--- Mississippi Academy of Arms <1@msfencing.org> wrote:
> It's all about practicality. Classical fencing is the style of fencing
> that was used to train people for the duel. It worked. Sport fencing is
> simply a fun game of tag which has evolved far away from it's original
> martial art roots.
>
I appreciate the information you provided, it is certainly something that I
enjoyed reading, and I appreciate the time and thought you put into the
explanation. It does provide a lot of insight for me into what is, and isn't
considered to be Classical Fencing -- and why I signed up for the list. This
is what I was looking for, and I appreciate you explaining this to me.

While I still find myself disagreeing with your characterization that Sport
Fencing is not a martial art -- I do not find disagreement with your analysis
(you should certainly know as you have been there) of why it is not. I still
consider it to be more sport than martial in nature, but not without some
martial nature to it. And I still will not agree that this is enough to make
it "not fencing". If that is the opinion of those on the list, than so be it.
But I cannot agree with that.


-Brian

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

> ----- Brian,

I'm not one of those who limits the definition of fencing to the
original martial art version. I consider sport fencing, classical
fencing, historical fencing, theatrical fencing to all be different
forms of fencing. They are all valid, and fun, and provide their
practitioners with many years of physical, mental, and emotional rewards
and enjoyment.

While I personally hold to the definition that "martial" means "of or
relating to war" as being the most semantically correct, I also accept
in my salle the definition which claims any art which has a civilian
self-defense purpose as being a martial art. In classical fencing we may
not duel now, but we are studying an effective dueling art.

We live in an era in which "martial art" has the common meaning of any
art which had it's origins in a pure military or self-defense art but
which has now evolved beyond that into a tournament sport.

While I don't like that definition, it is here to stay so in that sense
sport fencing is a "martial art" just as is "kendo" the Japanese version
of sport fencing is a martial art.

It's not a far stretch from this definition though to also say that
target shooting, bow & arrow shooting, javelin throwing, capture the
flag, and football are also martial arts. I prefer not to go that far
and have chosen my definition of my salle. However, I understand and
accept other masters' opinions.

I'm just glad that people are finally becoming aware of the fact that
here in the West we have just as rich, if not more so, of a martial arts
heritage as our Eastern counterparts.

Sincerely,
Rez

Rez Johnson
Mississippi Academy of Arms
Teaching Fencing since 1980



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vhSowB/XP....kFAA/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/