[CFML] Decline of fencing

[schermatore]

Due to the numerous requests I have had to see the paper I mentioned
in an earlier post, I have decided to upload it to the files section
of this list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/classicalfencing/files/

I have also uploaded the PowerPoint presentation I gave at the
conference as it has some nice illustrations and complements the text.

I hope these files are of some use.

Sincerely

Dr. John Sullins
Military Master at Arms
Sonoma State University
California


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

[Neville Gawley]

I would be more of the opinion that the greater part of the
problem lies in the increased popularity of other "martial" practices.
The oriental martial arts now have a greater fix on peoples imagination
than fencing does, through the lure of the exoctic and our friend the film
industry. One benifit of this fix to those arts is that people accept the
idea that their contact will be limited until they reach a sufficient
skill level. In contrast most people baulk at the fact that they will not
be allowed to free fence on their first nights training.

As for the effect of the olympics, it is an oddity to find someone who has
seen olympic fencing.

I would agree with Mike Ansons comment about the "lack of floor space or
the hassle required to get it", with some sports clubs charging 40Euro per
hour for floor space and every other available space occupied by well
established groups it can be very difficult to get clubs off the ground.

As regard to the decline of fencing in Ireland, it has always been in a
bad shape, partly due to our fondness for duelling with pistols. As early
as 1906 the Irish fencing club was established in dublin with the sole aim
of promoting fencing as sport. Between then and 1952 there was a rash of
clubs starting up, Cork, Kilkenny, Shannon. Now however most of those have
dissappeared, there are no non-university based clubs outside the dublin
catchment and Cork and Maynooth are the only universities outside dublin
to have fencing clubs.

Regards
Neville Gawley
Limerick School of Arms
Classical Fencings beachhead in Ireland


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

[Neville Gawley]

Axel B Corlu wrote:
"One last word: I grew up watching swashbucklers although they were old
when I was a child; watched pirate films, watched Spartacus and any
Roman warfare film I could see; was very interested in all things that
involved a sword, like millions of people in this world. Many of my
friends were like me. Now, I am the only person among them who has
actually discovered fencing. There's a problem there."

With regard to the recent film "Pirates of the Caribbean", and
disregarding either the accuracy or quality of the sword fighting, one
notices a number of young children being bought toy swords on the basis of
their enjoyment of the film. I am quite aware that in a number of years it
will be some of these kids that will be coming searching for instruction
on the basis of that seed that has been sown.
In support of my previous post I refer to the article at the following
link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/featu...058949,00.html
which discusses Hollywoods' up coming fad of sword films, note that that
they are all Oriental sword styles and not Occidental.

Regards,
Neville Gawley,
Limerick School of Arms
Classical fencings beachhead in Ireland


--
Dueling: Premeditated self defense

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

--- Warren and Jackie Cabral <sword_teacher@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The very heart of the matter is "touch without being touched' vs. "touch
> before being touched". This is the very root of the problem between
> Classical vis-a-vis Sport, and changing the root changes the entire 'reason
> d'etre' if you will.
>
And yet, it is a thin line between "touch without being touched" and "touch
before being touched". As I've seen advocated in this group about proper
Classical Fencing technique is to attack into a bent arm attack. What is this,
if nothing else, than "touch before being touched"? I'm not discounting that
it would be proper to close out the line of the bent arm attack to ensure that
it cannot touch -- but the idea of attacking into this and the key difference
in timing here... It seems to me that presents a conundrum as well. Especially
since such an action would be proper in Sport Fencing!


> Once that equation was changed(i.e., it no longer matters whether one
> hits 'as if they were sharp' or not), then the whole idea and root of what
> fencing was all about was altered completely. This is what is meant
> by 'mutation'.
>
And as I have suggested in prior messages, if the focus on Classical Fencing
becomes more about technique than about whether or not one touches (again,
exacerbated by a fencer who does not demonstrate proper technique, yet manages
to score touches), then how is this the same idea as what you are calling the
root of fencing? It seems to me that this presents as much a deviation as
Sport Fencing has taken.


> This is what is so frustrating to those of us who choose to restore fencing
> to its root purpose. We are not judgemental, mean-spirited, etc..,etc.., but
> we are resolute in trying to restore true and validly constituted
> swordsmanship to our art. In this dialogue, I would think that the
> commentary and contributions on this discussion are appreciated by those on
> both sides of the issue. Personally, I don't believe there should be
> rancor on either side of the issue, and I don't see where this is happening,
> except by one's individual perception. Once again, the truth is never served
> by ignoring the facts.
>
There is a fine line between expressing fact and opinion. I have never ignore,
nor taken affront to, factual statements. I have repeatedly admitted that
Sport Fencing has broken from its traditional roots, and is clearly more sport
that martial art. But, this doesn't mean it isn't still a martial art.
Clearly we have martial arts which are more "style" than "practical", and we
know that those constitute martial arts. So, what is the definition of martial
art, and why does Sport Fencing NOT fit it?


-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]

>And yet, it is a thin line between
>"touch without being touched" and
>"touch before being touched".

Classical Fencing is not about "Touch before being Touched."
Classical Fencing is about "Touch without getting Touched at all."
And that's a big difference!

The goal is not to get touched at all since this is the best practice
for surviving a duel. That's why classical epee and sabre bouts are
usually fought to one touch. Foil being a non-dueling weapon, but rather
a theorizing weapon is usually fought to 3 touches rather than 5 or 15
to reinforce the defensive nature of the game over the offensive nature
of SF.

Sport Fencing is about "Touch one more time than you get touched and
you'll win." Not a very good game plan if the weapons were sharp, hence
the total lack of martial usefulness in SF. In a real duel to make 15
wounds on one's opponent while receiving between 1 and 14 wounds one's
self wouldn't be considered a victory.

It appears that the definition of martial art" lies at the crux of part
of this discussion.

1. Martial according to Webster means "of or relating to war, warriors,
or military." So originally a martial art was a military art used by
warriors or soldiers.

This definition cuts out all classical fencing (foil, epee, sabre) and
much historical fencing (rapier, smallsword) because these weapons were
civilian dueling weapons, not weapons used in battles.

2. Another definition of martial art allows any self-defense/fighting
art that used to be used by warriors/military men, such as jujitsu,
karate, which is still effective as a form of self-defense.

3. A third definition allows arts which originally had a true martial or
self-defense purpose but that have now evolved into sports.

Many Eastern martial arts have evolved into sports in which the emphasis
of training is on winning tournaments not on self-defense. In the
Eastern martial arts one now hears the terms such as the following
Traditional Karate vs. Tournament Karate to differentiate between the
styles which retain their self-defense effectiveness and those which
have evolved beyond usefulness in a street fight to a pure sport form.

Maestro Martinez's definition of martial art (pasted below) is closer to
#2 above and is the one that I believe most members of this list would
agree to.

"A martial art is a systematized form of personal combat for the purpose
of self defense, physical fitness, mental clarity, and spiritual
awareness.

It must be clearly understood that the practice of martial arts is not
limited to the various styles and systems of Asian origin. Different
forms of martial practices were engaged in by other countries and
cultures.

There is a vast difference between the practice of a sport and a
practice of a martial art. In the practice of martial arts the training
is primarily geared to self-preservation in an actual combative
situation. Pedagogy has been formulated to ensure that the most
effective, logical, and economic techniques are taught and learned. The
secondary aspects of this type of practice, the physical, mental, and
spiritual areas, are different levels that arise from the training.
These are then interconnected with the practice, aiding and
complimenting the development of a complete martial artist to a higher
level of mastery in whatever style or system.

When a martial art is turned into a sport it loses its very essence. In
a sport the goal is to win at a game. The techniques that are taught and
learned are geared to win the game using prescribed rules and
regulations, which are subjective. The participants in the sport develop
a style which is totally artificial, taking risks and attempting
techniques that would not be used in a serious combative situation."

Sincerely,
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:
> >And yet, it is a thin line between
> >"touch without being touched" and
> >"touch before being touched".
>
> Classical Fencing is not about "Touch before being Touched."
> Classical Fencing is about "Touch without getting Touched at all."
> And that's a big difference!
>
I do not believe that I ever said that Classical Fencing was about "Touch
before being Touched". I simply said that there was, potentially, a thin line
between the two. Again, as I said in my message, I have seen advocated on this
group to attack into a "bent arm" attack, with the idea that this attack will
be an "attack" before the other, by virtue of what the definition of an
"attack" was in Classical Fencing. Is not the advocation of this action the
same thing as "Touch before being Touched"? It certainly seems so to me.


> When a martial art is turned into a sport it loses its very essence. In
> a sport the goal is to win at a game. The techniques that are taught and
> learned are geared to win the game using prescribed rules and
> regulations, which are subjective. The participants in the sport develop
> a style which is totally artificial, taking risks and attempting
> techniques that would not be used in a serious combative situation.
>
And, again, while I appreciate the definition that you have provided, and
understand with and agree with the reasons that you have provided -- I simply
cannot draw the same conclusion as you, that Sport Fencing is not a martial
art. I agree, it is not as martial as Classical Fencing, and it is more sport
than martial in nature -- but it is still martial. Though I, myself, would
prefer it to be more martial and get away from the "silliness" that has cropped
up in it.


-Brian

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

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

[Mississippi Academy of Arms]

Brian,

> I do not believe that I ever said that Classical Fencing was about
"Touch
> before being Touched".


I apologize for implying that you did. I just wanted to jump on that one
quickly before any of our newer CF fencers starting thinking it was so.

I do want to say that in my discussions of SF and CF it is not my intent
to put down Sport Fencing. I am simply trying to draw the lines of
differences between the two as clearly as I can for those who are
interested.


>Again, as I said in my message, I have seen advocated on
> this
> group to attack into a "bent arm" attack, with the idea that this
attack
> will
> be an "attack" before the other, by virtue of what the definition of
an
> "attack" was in Classical Fencing. Is not the advocation of this
action
> the
> same thing as "Touch before being Touched"? It certainly seems so to
me.


In Classical foil fencing, "right of way" only "begins" at the moment
your arm reaches full and complete extension. Therefore it IS possible
seeing your opponent begin extending to start extending after him and
beat him to the extension, thus gaining right of way before him. You
have to be fast though for the director to see it.

The same is true in the case where a bent arm attack has been launched
(lunge begins before the arm has reaches full extension).

The above would be considered a stop thrust in SF because ROW is gained
as soon as the arm "begins" extending. Therefore it would be more
dangerous in SF. You'd have to "hit without getting hit" or land one
fencing measure ahead of your opponent, which isn't going to happen in
direct attacks but is possible against second and third intention
actions.

The differences between SF & CF ROW causes "stopping actions" to be more
successful in CF and "coupes" less successful.

As an aside: After many years of both refereeing in SF events and
directing in CF events I have to say that it is easier "for me" to see
who gains right of way in classical fencing than in sport fencing. This
is because in the former I'm looking for complete arm extension, while
in the latter I'm looking for the very beginning of the arm extension.
It's easier "for me" to see whose arm is out all the way first.

Of course in both styles of fencing we see "simultaneous attacks" which
get thrown out. However in my experience I have seen far less in CF
events than SF events.

All of the above is of course about foil. The differences between
Classical Epee and Sport Epee are something we see very little
discussion about on this list. I imagine most of our members are
foilists. This is understandable in a classical setting because most
classical fencers either focus entirely on foil (as was the custom of
most classical masters in the late 1800s) or they follow the classical
progression which means mastering all the foil techniques first before
starting on epee or sabre.

(I'd be interested in our moderator, Kim Moser setting up a survey on
our Yahoo Groups manager to find out how many of our members fence foil,
epee, sabre, smallsword, rapier, short/English sword, hand & a half
sword, long sword, two-handed sword.)

Classical epee is extremely different from sport epee.

Sport Epeeists like to say that their weapon is "the more realistic
weapon." However I dare to say that epee has evolved even further away
from it's classical roots than foil has.

Classical Foil (not to be confused with Historical Foil which was used
for smallsword training) was always a nothing more than a theorizing
weapon and was fought to 3 or 5 touches.

Whenever you allow more than 1 touch you make a bout less like a duel.
You have more chances. You can accept 2 to 4 wounds and still win the
"game." Not very realistic in a martial setting.

However in Classical Dueling Sword (epee) and Dueling Sabre you have
only one chance. Allow one touch and you lose the bout. So you have to
be much more cautious. Much more defensive. More realistic.

Additionally in epee (as in a real duel) there is no rule of right of
way to bale you out in the case of a double touch.

In modern epee we teach our fencers as a defensive technique to make a
stop thrust upon an incoming attack so that even if their opponent
scores they will probably also score a double touch. Since they are
fencing to 15 touches this is a good strategy.

However, this amounts to no defense at all in classical fencing or in a
real duel. It would be suicidal in a real duel to stop thrust into an
attack (with one classical exception which I'll mention in a minute).

In classical epee fencing a simultaneous touch and even a double touch,
(most people don't know the difference but there is one and it's in the
timing) are considered a double defeat, because you fence to only one
touch.

In SF epee in the Direct Elimination rounds(DEs) you fence to 15
touches. SO stop thrusting is bread & butter for the epeeist. Especially
if he can get one or two points ahead. As long as he is ahead all he has
to do is keep making that double touch. Those of you who are, or use to
compete in sport epee know what I'm talking about. It's much easier to
force a double than to make a single.

However, to receive any touch at all is anti-thema to classical fencing.
Hence modern epee is far, far removed from the original dueling art
where your first goal was "don't get touched at all!" And your second
goal was "end it as quickly and safely as possible by touching him
preferably in the wrist which is the closest and safest target."

Remember the dueling code of the aristocrat during the late 1800s had
changed from "duel to the death" to "duel to first blood". Hence a
thrust to the wrist was the safest way (safe distance) to end a duel
without one or both parties dieing.

So in classical epee if we stop thrust we only do so while using
opposition to close the line and keep our opponent's blade from landing
on us. This greatly minimizes our chances of getting hit with that
deadly double touch..

In the Modern Pentathlon by the way, they still fence epee to one touch.
Because of this Pentathlon style epee is the only concession I still
make to electric sport fencing. I have several former sport fencing epee
students who have converted over to Pentathlon style epee. However, I do
not consider it to be a true measure of the original art of dueling
sword, because the scoring machine and weapons register touches which I
would deem too light to count. Also the fact that the machine shuts out
the other fencer's touch after 1/32 of a second is also problematic,
since it's not true to the original art, where the second touch in a
double touch might land 1/2 second after the first touch and still
wound.

Of course it's a tough call to decide what the most accurate timing
should be for a realistic dueling simulation. Much debate has been had
over how long after receiving a thrust into your abdomen would you be
able to make a counter thrust into your opponent. Some say as soon as
the steel enters your body you'd react in such a way that your already
launched counter attack would loose steam and either fall short or be
too weak to seriously wound.

Others say that you'd be able to take the thrust into your body and
continue your counter attack to make a serious wound in your opponent.
Some even say that even seconds after being mortally wounded you'd be
able to make a serious mortal wound into your opponent.

Who knows? Different people would probably react differently. I know
that Master Lurz has written a paper which has been published somewhere
on the internet about the "dubious quick kill." He researched this
matter from a medical background. I think it may be on Master Crown's
website.

I have had some very revealing chats in this regard with a man who had
several "to the death" knife fights when he was in the military. He has
very definite opinions about what you can and cannot do while being
wounded with a sharp weapon. I think it all depends upon where you are
hit and how much your specific body can take.

Changing gears here. A note on Terminology:

One problem I have noticed with many of the classical fencers who have
not had prior SF fencing experience and who are learning fencing without
the benefit of a master, is that often they do not understand or use the
correct terminology when discussing fencing. This leads to a break down
in communication. There is a very specific set of definitions in fencing
which must be understood in order to communicate effectively.

For instance weeks of e-mails trying to get a fencer to understand that
a riposte is not a counter attack and to quit confusing people on a list
by referring to it as such in a thread of discussions. Sport fencers
who have been certified as referees often have a better grasp of the
terminology than their cf counterparts in spite of the rules being
slightly different. On the other hand many CF who come out of a SF
background don't realize that the definitions used for certain words in
SF were very different in classical fencing days.

Another for instance is in Classical Foil as it was taught in the late
1800s by the French Military Fencing Academies:

When teaching the One Two and the Double.

With the One-Two after the feint of the disengage when the opponent
attempts his Lateral Parry you would make a second disengage (keeping
the arm straight so you don't lose right of way). This amounted to two
disengages to two different lines. Hence the name One-Two.

However on the Double you are "doubling back" to the same line you
originally attack into using a "follow the blade movement" to deceive
the counter parry. In this case after the feint of the disengage when
the opponent attempts his Counter Parry you would make what many sport
fencers and coaches today call a second disengage(because you are
attacking with a change of engagement). However the "follow the blade
movement" really goes over the top and back underneath by following the
opponent's counter parrying blade and it was originally termed a
"deceive" by the original French Classical French masters. They did not
consider it a disengage. The French Military Fencing Academies defined
the disengagement as an attack "under the opponent's blade while in the
high line or over the opponent's blade while in the low line. Not a
"follow the blade movement." Yet I have heard even classical fencers
call it a disengage.

To be correct in Classical French foil, in a compound attack you
"disengage" against a lateral parry and you "deceive" against a counter
parry

A very BIG example is the many definitions of Remise, Reprise, and
Redoublement. I'm not going to get into these definitions here since my
fingers are tired of typing and it would take several more pages to
discuss. But note that that even though each of these words describes a
different action (similar but different) they have each exchanged
definitions with each other many times over the years from the 1800s
through the present.

All one has to do to see this is to give a brief look at those words'
definitions in the fencing literature. Comparing Master (Dr.) Gaugler's
well written and widely regarded terminology book, with Master Max
Garret's equally scholarly and widely regarded modern fencing text book
(Foil, Sabre, and Epee Fencing), with the USFCA's (United States Fencing
Coaches Association) terminology book, with Maitre Louis Rondelle's
Classical French fencing manual published in 1891.

Many classical fencers who came out of sport fencing into classical
fencing still use the modern definitions of reprise, remise, and
redoublement instead of the original classical definitions.

These are just a few problems I've noticed during the resurgence of
interest in classical fencing which has taken place over the last ten
years.

Sincerely,
Rez



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

--- Mississippi Academy of Arms <1@msfencing.org> wrote:
> I do want to say that in my discussions of SF and CF it is not my intent
> to put down Sport Fencing. I am simply trying to draw the lines of
> differences between the two as clearly as I can for those who are
> interested.
>
And I do want to apologize for ever implying that you had put down SF when you
have not. Whether one likes or dislikes SF is not a problem -- it's making the
thread about which is better or worse about the other that is a problem, I
feel.


> In Classical foil fencing, "right of way" only "begins" at the moment
> your arm reaches full and complete extension. Therefore it IS possible
> seeing your opponent begin extending to start extending after him and
> beat him to the extension, thus gaining right of way before him. You
> have to be fast though for the director to see it.
>
I still think that this is problematic between the two. While I understand the
CF focuses on the full extension of the arm for the attack (it's proper because
it is the best way to attack someone, especially with a weapon that is sharp
and the intent is to pierce cloth and skin), I still think that the extending
arm properly constitutes a threat and should be dealt with as such. Which is
why I prefer the SF definition of an attack, to an extent.

I agree, the entire, "bent arm" in SF abuses this rule completely and is not
appropriate -- but I can still why you need to define it as "extending" as an
arm at 90+% extension is a threat, and trying to determine which is "extended"
first... well, I think it causes more problems than fix them. By saying
"extending", it is more clear who "acted" and who "reacted". Obviously you've
found differently in your experience, but I think I would have a more difficult
time (especially as "completely extended" might vary based on the individual
fencer).

But right-of-way is so artificial to begin with, and I've never liked it.
Especially once I did compete in foil and found the blatant abuses to be very
unsatisfying!


> One problem I have noticed with many of the classical fencers who have
> not had prior SF fencing experience and who are learning fencing without
> the benefit of a master, is that often they do not understand or use the
> correct terminology when discussing fencing. This leads to a break down
> in communication. There is a very specific set of definitions in fencing
> which must be understood in order to communicate effectively.
>
I think I was that fencer... Anyhow, I agree, to me, a very large problem is
presented by not having the proper terminology down, and using it on a regular
basis. There are fine differences between each movement, and the timing of
them, and it is important to know those differences. Your illustration of the
one-two and how it is perceived by many different fencers is a very good one.
By not understanding the difference between each, it creates sloppy fencing and
misunderstanding of what actually happened... which further reinforces the
sloppy fencing as people perceive the incorrect action to be the proper one
(which is why I find that the "flick" in SF has gotten so bad, and why "threat"
is so loose... if I hear "eventually threatening" once more from a foilist,
I'll scream).

And thank you for recommending Dr. Gaugler's terminology book. While I found
it hard to see all the various definitions of the actions, it was still an
excellent read and very helpful on many levels. Between that and his book on
learning fencing (the name escapes me at the moment) for Foil, Sabre and Epee,
it has really forced me to rethink a few things I thought I knew.


-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/xlw.sC/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]

Brian,


Brian,

>Whether one likes or dislikes SF is not a problem -- it's
> making the
> thread about which is better or worse about the other that is a
problem, I
> feel.


I have a very definite preference and good reasons for it.

However, I agree that it is counter productive to argue which style is
"real" fencing or which style is the "better" style to study.

Which style is "martial" is probably a valid topic for argument, but
only between two people who have thoroughly studied, practiced, and
competed in both styles.

Anyone else's arguments would be based on personal bias, speculation, or
hearsay. For that reason I think it's beating a dead horse to continue
debating the "martial" topic on this list. Besides it really depends
upon which of several definitions you adhere to. As I mentioned in a
previous reply even the most strict definition of "martial art"
precludes classical fencing because classical fencing was never a
"martial" (military) art. It was strictly a civilian (dueling) art.
Historical fencing would qualify though because it focuses on some of
the weapons used in historical battles; cut & thrust swords and long
swords. Anyway I hope we can give the "martial" argument a rest now.

>I still think that this is problematic between the two. While I
>understand the CF focuses on the full extension of the arm for the
attack >(it's proper because it is the best way to attack someone,
especially with >a weapon that is sharp and the intent is to pierce
cloth and skin), I >still think that the extending arm properly
constitutes a threat and should >be dealt with as such. Which is why I
prefer the SF definition of an >attack, to an extent.

I understand your viewpoint and it's one I have given a lot of
consideration too over the years. In a real duel an extending arm with a
sharp weapon WOULD present a threat. That's why we have NO right of way
rules in epee. Epee is the dueling weapon. Foil is not a dueling weapon.


Foil training during the classical era was no longer effective
preparation for a duel. By the classical era (late 1800s) it had evolved
away from it's 18th century smallsword dueling roots to become a
theorizing practice weapon, a fun mental and physical game, and an art
form.

By that time it had become conventionalized with rules designed to
reinforce certain principles that the masters felt were important in
swordplay. Once the practice weapons were blunt and flexible and masks
protected face and eyes the fencers felt safe enough in bouts to make
simultaneous attacks and counter attacks without regard for defense. It
became a fast paced game of tag with fencer's saying "I touched you
first." "No I touched you first!" They soon realized that this was not
at all like the real duel they remembered. So they created rules that
they thought would force the sword play to be more realistic. The rule
of right of way was introduced to stress the importance of defense
(parry first, then riposte) over simultaneous attacks and counter
attacks. Makes good dueling sense. Cleaned up the game a good bit too.
Now they were parrying and riposting instead of counter attacking.

However, the very convention of right of way took away some of the
reality of the duel. By it's very nature it allowed (and thus rewarded)
ripostes made without opposition thus allowing double touches. Now in a
real duel no one in their right mind would parry and then riposte with
total disregard for their opponent's point.

However foil fencing rewards such behavior. Even if you get touched
first during your riposte, you get rewarded for the touch against your
opponent because you obeyed the rule of right of way, which gives
priority first to the attack, then to the riposte, and then to the
remise. Your opponent gets punished because even though his remise
landed before your riposte he didn't have right of way.

This is true in SF and CF. As long as you deflect the point away from
it's original line you have parried ("mal pare'" by the way is a popular
misnomer) and if you extend immediately afterward you have gained right
of way, in spite of the fact that your opponent may be replacing his
point in line.

However, in a real duel ignoring his remise (replacement) would be
suicide. A double touch in a real duel would be a double defeat at best,
and a double death at worst. In a real duel they would keep that line
closed by riposting with opposition or utilize a bind to neutralize the
opponent's blade while riposting.

A word about "mal Pare'" (bad parry). Some people in classical fencing
circles have started using it to describe a parry which gets remised
upon. However, in both SF and CF foil the riposte is always given
priority over the remise. So in the case of a double touch the riposte
counts, not the remise. If you use the word at all (and I haven't seen
it in any classical fencing literature) you should use it to describe a
parry that either did not close the entire line of attack in an
opposition parry or did not beat the opponent's blade out of the entire
line of attack in a percussive parry, and thus resulted in THE ATTACK
landing (not a replacement or remise landing).

Of course the word "mal pare'" this gets hotly debated in classical
circles (and occasionally in sport circles) because it's another
instance where dueling reality is ignored in foil. Any time you get hit
in a real duel you are wounded whether it was through an attack, a
riposte, a remise, reprise, or a redoublement. And that's why people
started using the term "mal pare'" to restore "duel reality" to a
classical weapon that was not a dueling weapon in the first place.
Realizing that they were getting hit with a replaced blade while
reposting they knew something was wrong, so they started saying it was
mal pare', and by that they meant that the parry was ineffective in
stopping the attack.

Failure to understand fencing terminology (for instance the difference
between an "attack" and a "replacement") and the rules effecting proper
analysis of a fencing phrase have caused more than a few
misunderstandings in fencing discussions in both classical and sport
groups.

Summing up, classical foil is best viewed as a complete art having both
an exhilarating physical component and a challenging mental game,
chess-like component which allows investigation into higher levels of
tactics and swordplay. Though not a classical dueling weapon itself it
is still an important preparatory practice weapon which teaches the
basic principles of fencing, most of which transfer to epee (the 19th
century dueling sword) and to the 18th century smallsword. All of the
foil strokes with slight modification are useful in classical epee.

So this is a long drawn out reply saying YES, if it was a real duel
EXTENDING of any degree would be seen as a threat. However, in the
classical art of foil where the goal is to focus on learning proper
form, techniques, and experimenting with second, third, and fourth
intentions, the rules force complete extension.

This is simply because it's the best practice for THE ATTACKER, to be
fully extended in a real duel. And in agreement with your correct line
of thinking, in a real duel it's wise for the one BEING ATTACKED to
consider the extending arm a real threat and be prepared. However the
real duel is best represented with no right of way rules and the use of
opposition attacks. Hence EPEE is the best representative of the real
dueling of the 1800s.

Foil much less so because of it's rules. In the classical "game" of foil
if your opponent is in the middle of extending you can beat him to full
extension and gain right of way. You are right Brian in realizing that
that action done without opposition would NOT be the practical thing to
do in a real duel with a sharp point coming your way. However it works
in the "game" of foil due to the conventions.

Now I already know what your reply to this will probably be:

"A Ha, so classical foil is not a martial art weapon."

Well that all depends upon which definition you choose to use and we are
now back where we started. :-)

I see the foil as an important training weapon preparatory to studying
the real dueling weapons: epee, smallsword, and dueling sabre. So in
that light, for my salle it is a martial art weapon.


> But right-of-way is so artificial to begin with, and I've never liked
it.
> Especially once I did compete in foil and found the blatant abuses to
be
> very
> unsatisfying!

Long live epee, the dueling sword !

PS: Note in my above discussion of foil, I'm referring to Classical foil
fencing. Not to historical smallsword fencing done using a foil.

Take care,
Rez

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

"Fencing like all arts, must be studied with passion and seriousness.
With the word "modernism they do not kill the great figures of fencing.
I do not believe in artificial phenomena; and the same thing is true in
music, painting, and even in the sciences. The great ones remain in
history, the small disappear, forgotten for always. The Duel is ours.
Long live classical fencing founded upon immortal customs."

Author: Eugenio Pini (Italian Fencing Master & duelist)
To: Italian fencing champion Aldo Nadi. Nov 29, 1932.
NOTE: Pini was Beppe Nadi's fencing master. Beppe Nadi was Aldo & Nedo's
father and a highly respected classical fencing master himself, despite
Aldo's departure from classical traditions.




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xlw.sC/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:
> A word about "mal Pare'" (bad parry). Some people in classical fencing
> circles have started using it to describe a parry which gets remised
> upon. However, in both SF and CF foil the riposte is always given
> priority over the remise. So in the case of a double touch the riposte
> counts, not the remise. If you use the word at all (and I haven't seen
> it in any classical fencing literature) you should use it to describe a
> parry that either did not close the entire line of attack in an
> opposition parry or did not beat the opponent's blade out of the entire
> line of attack in a percussive parry, and thus resulted in THE ATTACK
> landing (not a replacement or remise landing).
>
At the various referee clinics I have attended, I have actually heard it better
to simply not acknowledge a "mal pare'" or anything similar to that -- either
the attack was, or was not parried. Either it was sufficient to deflect the
line of the attack, or it was not sufficient. In your experience, or others,
is this appropriate? I've found that the principle reason for doing it is to
shy away from the "grey areas" that some SFers would like to exploit in
questioning the judgement of the referee (which is a big no-no, but is
apparently tolerated by some in that circle). On the other hand, I kind of
like the idea the parry was sufficient or there was no parry. Is there a
significant difference here or not?



-Brian

P.S. I will not make the obvious remarks about right-of-way and classical
fencing. Given I understand better the purpose for it, I have no problem with
it at all. I don't like shooting ducks in a barrel anyhow.

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

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

> At the various referee clinics I have attended, I have actually heard
it
> better
> to simply not acknowledge a "mal pare'" or anything similar to that --
> either
> the attack was, or was not parried. Either it was sufficient to
deflect
> the
> line of the attack, or it was not sufficient. In your experience, or
> others,
> is this appropriate

The USFCA (US Fencing Coaches Association) recommends not using the term
Mal Pare'. They say that if it's not sufficient to deflect the attacking
blade out of the line of attack then it's not a parry. It's an attempted
(but failed) parry. It is a gray area that has been explored a good bit
with CF.
The one thing this discussion always leads to is acknowledgement of the
fact that the President/Director/Referee must practice directing
contentiously and consistently to learn to see the actions well enough
to call the phrase correctly. My students call it the "hot seat" when I
place them in the roll of director in our judged practice bouts.
However, I consider directing to be an essential part of a fencers
education because that's where they learn to see and understand fencing
phrases.

Take care,
Rez





------------------------ 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/I3w.vC/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/