Discussion in 'Armory - Q&A' started by Danny, Apr 3, 2011.
Just want to update my fencing knowlage.
No....because there are far too many variations.
If you can find the old American Fencing catalog, they had drawings of a number of different ones....probably the best place to look, if you can find it....I don't see it on their site anymore.
There are pistol grips, and there are french grips. To list all the pistol grips that exist would take a long time. Even the top 10 would be rough.
That said, vaya te como sientes
Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grip_(sport_fencing)
Here's another, with photos but no description: http://www.amfence.com/html/grip_pics.html
Woefully incomplete and incorrect. The cetrulo is not illegal for competition, although it is dumb and should not be used.
Again incomplete, but better.
To the OP, what Purple and Alexander said. There are like a billion types of orthopaedic or pistol grips. To make matters worse each vendor/manufacturer might call any given grip something very different from what another manufacturer calls it, and even when they agree the specific design of the grip might be different enough that it's almost it's own distinct grip.
It's probably easiest to say that there are three types of handles for foil, four for epee and nobody cares about sabre.
Foil: Visconti, Belgian and other
Epee: French, Visconti, Belgian and other.
The AmFence (American Fencers Supply Co.) Catalog, in PDF, is slightly (~174kB) too large to attach to a post, so I've taken screenshots of the pages describing the grips for all of the weapons.
While it is by no means "officially" authoritative, I think it would be fairly accurate to say that the names and depictions used are generally representative of what is used by the (US) fencing community - that is, if someone (especially if they're from the US) asks about a particular type of grip, they're probably referring to what is depicted in the AmFence Catalog (unless otherwise specified).
THAT'S the one I was referring to...thanks!
Though... I am curious as to why the "Schultz"-type sabre guard (fourth attachment, lower-right corner) is labeled as not legal for USFA competitions; I don't see anything in M.5 (general rules regarding guards for all weapons) or M.24 (specific rules for sabre guards) that would justify that (assuming the guard in question fits inside a 15cm x 14 cm x 15cm box, is composed of one piece, is convex and externally smooth, and is properly insulated)...?
That's not true, in Paris at the world cup there was a vendor selling orthopedic sabre grips! I saw it with my own eyes!
I don't remember myself, having not seen one in years. Don Clinton or one of the other longer term armorers might know...my guess is it was either the guard wouldn't fit through the gauge, or the knuckle bow was too wide....although I don't know why that would be an issue...
black cards. :blah:
It's true, I've seen the sabre ortho advertised. It's also still true that nobody cares about sabre
Fixed for you
In answer to a few of the questions above.
There is a handle made by a French company that was supposedly for all 3 weapons, was ruled legal by the FFE. Since then it has been ruled illegal by the FIE and if you go to their website you can find it if you look, but it is no longer listed under accessories for each weapon.
The suggestion about American Fencing is good. I have seen some call a form of spanish handle a centrulo. I use American Fencing's picture of the various handles.
If you notice one thing on the Shultz guard and that is how wide the guard is going to the pommel. When testing it was customary to put through the diagonally through the Gabarit. This gained a little bit for the guard to go into the corner. The Shultz could not do that as it was too wide.
I have not worked an International for a few years. In December they made a change to m.24.2, which I don't know if it will affect how Sabres are tested. They added the blade being parallel with the longitudinal axis of the gauge. To me that doesn't change the way it should be tested. It just clarifies it.
I did, indeed, notice that the Schultz has an asymmetric "knuckle bow" as its defining characteristic.
I was under the impression that the sabre guard had to be no more than 15cm from front to back ("front" being the direction of the knuckle bow and the blade's cutting edge, as seen when looking along the axis of the blade), 14cm from side to side, and 15 cm from retaining plate to where the knuckle bow meets the pommel.
Between m.5 and m.24, I could not see anything that would disallow asymmetric knuckle bows, or anything stating that the knuckle bow had any minimum or maximum requirements for the side-to-side dimension; what's to stop someone, rule-wise (other than overall weight of the weapon), from creating and using a Schultz (or something much like it), or even a bakset hilt (albeit a solid one) for a sabre and trying to enter a sanctioned tournament with it?
(Then again, a solid basket hilt for sabres might be a really good idea, as it could dramatically reduce - if not outright eliminate - the likelihood of the injuries to the hand and arm that have become an issue...?)
Also... wouldn't placing the guard in the garbit diagonally potentially allow technically illegal weapons (guard too big from front to back and/or side-to-side) to pass (as the diagonal of a 15 cm by 14 cm rectangle is 20.52 cm)?
I'm trying to remember the gabarit procedures for sabre....I think as long as the guard fit through the gauge and the blade was vertical (as Don said above), if it fit, it fit. I don't remember an orientation of the guard relative to the short or long side of the gauge.
Don...am I remembering that right?
Where did you hear that the guard had to be 15 cm front to back and 14 cm side to side? Why not 14 cm front to back and 15 cm side to side? You didn't find that in the rule book! If you check the current FIE rulebook you will find in bold 'pass through' (French 'passer', Spanish 'pasar'). It is to show that misconception is wrong.
The addition to the rule in December was to close the loophole of passing the guard through with the blade at an angle. The blade must be parallel with the longitudinal axis. You notice it doesn't say parallel to the sides of the guage.
I do like you idea of a solid basket hilt, but I doubt it would be popular. It is my opinion that the sabreist would want more freedom to angle and move than would be alive. Would some sabreist comment on this?
I did, indeed, find it in the rulebook - USFA Rulebook, Sept. 2010 Edition, page 121 (the 135th page of the PDF); there is a diagram labeled "Dimensions of the Sabre", with a companion diagram labeled "The Guard".
The same diagrams exist in the current FIE material rules as figures 1 and 2 on page 14 (the 14th page of the PDF).
The latter of these depicts what appears to be a top-down (along the axis of the blade) view of the guard, with the position of the hole through which the tang passes (and the position and shape of the reinforcing plate) implying that the orientation of the view is such that the blade's forward edge - and, thus, the knuckle bow - is being directed toward the bottom of the page (giving it the same orientation as its companion diagram, and making it consistent with the analogous diagrams of the other weapons).
Given this orientation of the guard, the labels on the diagram - indicating a width-wise (from one side of the page to the other; corresponding to being from one side of the guard to the other, given orientation) maximum of 14 cm, with the other dimension (from the top of the page to the bottom of the page; corresponding to being from the back of the guard of the guard to the front (knuckle bow), given orientation) having a stated maximum of 15 cm.
Thus, where I got the impression that the sabre guard had to be no more than 15cm from front to back ("front" being the direction of the knuckle bow and the blade's cutting edge, as seen when looking along the axis of the blade), 14cm from side to side, and my confusion when you mentioned putting the guards through the gauge diagonally, as doing so would allow guards with greater front-to-back and/or side-to-side dimensions than what is depicted in the diagrams to pass...
I did also look at the current FIE material rules, as suggested; it states in M.24.2:
Admittedly, I am not fluent in French, but it looks like the same article in the USFA rules is, outside of the recent clarification for the longitudinal axis, a literal translation:
Also, I do not recall where the edges of the gauge itself had been previously mentioned, as the rule clearly specifies the axis, rather than the sides, as the reference.
However, the gauge/garbit is defined as being rectangular and of a given length, width, and height, which makes it a rectangular cuboid (as opposed to a non-rectangular rhombohedron); as such, each side is parallel with two axes (the ones that define the dimensions of the side) and orthogonal to the remaining axis.
I, too, would be interested in what the sabreurs would think about a bakset hilt...
Thank you Stormbringer. You wrote a clear and well thought out post. Considering your post, I feel also that the new rule was to correct the use of placing the guard on the diagonal.
One of the additions to the latest FIE rulebook is to add to some of the diagrams that they are for guidance purposes only. It is not on all diagrams yet, but I expect they may get around to this and having the rules in place is a first step.
Thank you again.
Separate names with a comma.