> 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/ 
Linear Mode
