Excellent observations, here is my considered reply:
1) Absolutely. Fencing has changed more in the last 100 years then it did
in the previous six centuries. Most notably due to the fundamental shift in
what counts as a "good hit" and the adjudication of those criteria in the
bout brought on by the electronic scoring apparatus.
2) They did. I quote some of them in my paper. Few chose option "a" and
those that chose option "b" were marginalized by the sport. The great
majority were upset but strangely acquiesced to the FIE. To this day
various individuals (many of them members of this very list!) attempt to
form a separate group but this is much harder to achieve then it would seem.
3) Certainly this would be the logical choice but the fascination with quick
technological fixes has dominated the thinking of those in power and all we
see are more and more bad ideas that move the sport further from its roots.
I and others have had great luck in promoting classical events that have
been successful crowd pleasers. People love a good swordfight and if you
give them what they want they will come and cheer you on. This is a grass
roots effort and if enough of us fight our own local battles eventually the
momentum will swing. But there is still a long fight ahead. Still, if we
didn't love a good fight we wouldn't be involved in this sport would we?
Dr. John Sullins
Military Master at Arms
Sonoma State University
California
-----Original Message-----
From: fatfencer [mailto:m4rkm3w@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 6:47 PM
To: John Sullins
Subject: Re: decline of fencing
Lots of replys to a subject which has obviously been discussed in
detail on this site. Sorry to say that although the answers give a
certain in sight they also raise more questions. Here goes if
everybody else not bored yet?
1) Can the basis of fencing have changed that much over what appears
to be a period of no more than 70 years?
2) Surely if so a number of fencers must have foreseen the likely
out come and either
a) fought tooth and nail
b) split from the main body i.e Church of England / Rugby (union?)
3) In this world of money talks, and bearing in mind our fascination
with violence, as fencing became less popular (even if only by
percentage) fencing bodies would have tended to try to move back to
classical style, which lets face it to the novice cannot be less
interesting than sport fencing. If so why are sport and real fencing
so far apart?
Regards
QuestionMark noanswers
--- In classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com, "John Sullins"
<j_sullins@c...> wrote:
> I have been interested in this question as well.
>
> How can a sport that was once able to attract huge audiences
decline to the
> state that fencing is at today? I have researched this question
for a
> number of years now and my conclusion at this time is that amature
fencing
> is its own worst enemy. The decline in interest of this sport
happens in
> the late 40's and early 50's long after the decline of dueling so
that
> theory is out. But this period does mark the full scale adoption
of
> electric scoring to foil, epee being electrified around 1938.
This is also
> when the so-called "pistol" grips became more abundant as well.
> Additionally fencing by this period is fully dominated by the
Olympics and
> adapting the game to fit this venue and professional fencing dies
out
> altogether. These technological and social developments have
worked to take
> the sport from a compelling match of physical and intellectual
prowess to
> one that pits the speed and brute force of each competitor against
each
> other as measured by imperceptible lighting fast "touches"
registered by the
> electronic scoring apparatus. Hence the real focus of attention
in a bout
> is not the fencers, they are only a means to the end, it is the
lights that
> matter the most. So fencing is about a fun to watch as someone
leaping
> across the room to turn on a light switch. No wonder the crowds
have turned
> away. One has to stand in awe at the ability of the fencing
establishment
> to fail at selling romance, athletic skill and violence, three
things that
> people have always been willing to spend money on.
>
> This argument is very brief but I do have a longer paper that I
presented at
> the last Philosophy and Technology conference titled, "A Touch a
Very
> Palpable Touch: Electronic scoring apparatus and the loss of the
art of
> fencing" that I can pass along to those interested in a more
careful
> treatment of the subject.
>
> Dr. John Sullins
> Military Master at Arms
> Sonoma State University
> California
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:45:03 -0000
> From: "fatfencer" <m4rkm3w@n...>
> Subject: decline of fencing
>
> hello everyone, hope you all ok.
> Already typed this once but think i lost it.
>
> Does anyone have any theories/facts as to why fencing has declined
> so much in England and i assume the rest of western Europe. There
> are alot of fencing clubs in England but not in comparison to other
> sports i.e Karate / Judo. Fencing as a martial art is like hens
> teeth, but upto not many generations ago fairly important? Any
thing
> to do with duels being outlawed?
>
> Regards
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________ ___________________
___
>
__________________________________________________ ___________________
___
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
 |  | |
|
Results 1 to 2 of 2
Thread: [CFML] RE: decline of fencing
Similar Threads
| ||
