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/ 
Linear Mode
