BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: EBarnacle
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 06:43 PM

There's a copy of Evangelista currently on EBay. Price does not look too bad so far. Just enter "fencing book" in their search engine.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 05:37 PM

Great! I think you'll really enjoy it and get a lot out of it.

Nadi was quite the egotist, but he sure knew his fencing, and he writes well about it. He fought an actual duel when he was young, and his account of it in the book is a real gripper!

Barbara works at the library today. I asked her to bring me whatever she can find by Nick Evangelista.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 05:13 PM

Triplette Arms (www.tcafencing.com)and its offshoot, Zen Warrior Armory, carry Aldo Nadi "On Fencing" for $19.95, new. I'm gonna get me one.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 04:57 PM

Sell my soul to the devil? No, I just shucked out $3.00 for my copy of On Fencing at the University Book Store back around 1947 or so. I was a teen-ager at the time. I read the book sorta bug-eyed and slurped up every word Nadi said. Katherine Modrell, my first fencing teacher, had pointed out the obvious: that since I couldn't carry the attack to my opponent very effectively, I would have to build a strong defense and a fast and accurate riposte. When I hit the chapter "Free Will in Defense" in Nadi's book, it was like tripping over the Holy Grail. "Hot damn!" sez I. That's bloody brilliant! I love it!" I knew all the parries by then, of course, so I went to work learning the combinations Nadi suggested.

I'd really recommend getting the book if at all possible. Nadi explains it much better than I did above (actually giving a bunch of combinations to practice that sweep all lines), and gives several more ideas as well, such as playing it to the very edge, ignoring the feints, and parrying la finale only before riposting—much to the frustration of the attacker.

I wore out a couple of hard-back copies of the book, and managed, luckily, to get a copy of the paperback reprint when it came out a few years ago. Apparently it's no longer available, except at used bookstores, and some of them want the deed to your ranch and your firstborn child for a copy. OBSERVE.

In 1950, while at Halberstadt's in San Francisco, Gerry Biagini (who was on the U. S. Olympic team at the time—tall, skinny, faster than greased lightning, and a very nice guy) gave me a lot of clues about spotting when an attack was a split second away from being launched. "You don't have to watch your opponent's hand or blade. Well, in fact, you do, but you shouldn't really focus on it. Keep your eyes sufficiently wide-focused so you can take in his chest and front foot. No matter what kind of feints and razzle-dazzle he throws at you, his real attack isn't coming until you see his chest and his front foot begin to move forward at the same time." [he's actually launching his lunge—DF]. "Also," Gerry continued, "everybody has little mannerisms that they are not aware of. Keep an eye out for what he does unconsciously. Some guys chew gum or something like that because their mouth gets dry while fencing. When they stop chewing (sometimes while they're chewing, you can see their mask bob a little bit), look out. He's coming. Things like that can telegraph the attack."

I put that to work when I got back to Seattle, and one of the first things I noticed when fencing with Jack Nottingham (who had taken a year's lessons for Aldo Nadi) was that, just a split second before he would lunge, he'd lick his lips! And I could see him do it through the mesh of his mask. Tip off!

Anybody can hurl himself at his opponent and jab away like a mad chef with a shish-kabob skewer. But there's a real art to playing a defensive game.

          Agile as a cat in all his movements and crouching a little as he fought, [Captain Leach] advanced and retreated by little leaps, testing the other's guard at each disengage.
          Erect and easily poised, parrying closely, and making no attempt to break ground, de Bernis mocked his antics, and sent a shiver of laughter through the spectators.
          "Are we fighting, Captain, or are we dancing a fandango?"
                                                                —from The Black Swan, by Raphael Sabatini

Good fencing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Peterr
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 03:39 PM

A most unexpected thread. I haven't thought for years about the admittedly very amateur fencing I did in my early 20s. I do remeber losing to an opponent who had a left leg prosthesis above the knee. Rather like a ratchet, he could advance pretty well by not retire and had so had developed an amazing technique about 6 inches in front of his mask!

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 03:34 PM

Thank you Don. Even as a very raw beginner, I think I understand what you are saying. It sounds like a very good approach, especially for somebody like me who tends to get himself into trouble when being too aggressive. I'll try to keep your words in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 03:32 PM

Somehow, Don, I knew you had a botta secreta. Are you sure that, like Robert Johnston, you didn't sell your soul for it? 8-)

You know, that "practice, practice, practice" bit sounds sorta familiar....

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 03:01 PM

The "botta secreta" is (was) the much sought after "secret thrust" that would allow a swordsman to win every time. Some fencing masters centuries ago advertised that they could teach (for a price) a "secret thrust." In fact, one fencing master (sixteenth century, it think), advertised that he could teach someone to "thruft three feet further than any other fwordfman." Turns out that he had invented (along with lots of others about that same time) the lunge.

A botta secreta was almost invariably an unorthodox movement or a movement that simply hadn't been tried much before, and it was hoped by the possessor of a botta secreta that it would catch his adversary by surprise. Whenever a botta secreta actually worked, that was usually the reason. The major problem with the botta secreta was that once someone sees you use it, it isn't secret anymore. And it's the nature of fencing that there are no stunts or tricks that can't be countered or nullified one way or another. Newton applied to swordplay:   every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

However, there are certain approaches to fencing that are as good—or better—than a botta secreta that, even when other fencers see them in action, simply don't see what's really going on.

Since I no longer fence (I most certainly would if I were still physically able), and I am feeling expansive and generous at the moment, I will now reveal my botta secreta:   that which allowed me, bereft of quick footwork, unable to lunge, and having to rely almost exclusively on defensive actions, to do as well as I did, even against fencers who were far more physically able than I was.

Aldo Nadi, who, among other accomplishments was professional fencing champion of Europe for ten years, and who came to the U. S. and taught for many years in Los Angeles, wrote a book entitled On Fencing (a few copies still available here or there, but very pricey. Perhaps your local library has a copy). Many fencers, at least back in the late 1940s and 1950s, owned and read this book. Many studied it rather avidly.

But I was amazed at the number of fencers who practically used this book as their Bible who didn't grasp the import of the concepts that Nadi enunciated in a brief chapter toward the back of the book entitled "Free Will in Defense." [By the way, this book deals with foil fencing only]

In this chapter, Nadi points out that there are only a very limited number of possible attacks: the straight trust (obviously the simplest and most direct), the disengage (dropping your point under your opponent's blade and thrusting on the other side) and the coupé or "cutover" (withdrawing your blade over your opponent's point and thrusting on the other side—disadvantage, this draws you blade way out of line for a split second and leaves you exposed, giving your opponent a reasonable opening to counter-attack with a "stop thrust."). These simple attacks can be combined into compound attacks; two disengages in opposite directions ("one-two"), two disengages in the same direction ("doublé), the coupé-disengage—etc. Usually the first movement (or some subsequent movements) of a compound attack is a "feint," done aggressively enough to convince your opponent that it's the real attack in order to draw a parry, then deceive the parry (usually with a disengage) and end with the real attack. It is, of course, possible to put together a whole string of feints leading up to la finale, but the more complicated the attack, the less chance it has of actually succeeding.

But these compound attacks are designed to deceive certain specific parries or a specific series of parries. And the more complex a compound attack is (the more moves it contains), the more the attacker has to be certain of what parries the defender is apt to use. And unless the attacker is clarivoyant, there is no way he or she can be sure.

The defender, on the other hand, when he sees the attack coming, can execute almost any combination of parries, and his or her blade will sweep up or deflect the incoming blade, except for the specific compound or complex attack designed to evade that particular combination of parries!

Nadi suggest about a half-dozen combinations of parries (e.g., counter-of-quarte, septime, sixte, or it's mirror image, counter-of-sixte, seconde, quarte)—about a half- dozen combinations and their mirror images. And these combination parries, in turn, can be used in combination! He suggests a couple of other very effective defense tactics in the chapter, but combination parries is the meat of it.

I learned these combination parries, and, first in front of a mirror and later with partners, I practiced them assiduously, over and over again, like a musician practicing scales, until, when attacked in a fencing bout, I could turn my hand on like a little electric motor, and as soon as I felt my blade contact and deflect the attacker's blade, fire back a lightning riposte. It became almost like reflex. But not so much that I couldn't pre-plan which combination, or combinations, I would use, depending on the predilections of my opponent of the moment.

Free will in defense. Combinations, combinations, combinations. And practice, practice, practice.

It worked.

What made it work, and what made it a botta secreta was that people thought I simply had blazingly fast reflexes. They rarely, if ever, tumbled to the fact that my defensive tactic was built on pre-planning and assiduous practice.

It's not that I am so bloody brilliant. I just read Nadi's book and paid attention to what he was saying.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 01:10 PM

If you're really into "anything to win" you just do the Indiana Jones trick...

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 11:07 AM

Mack/misophist, I suspect that your coach was into the "anything to win" philosophy. Try a classical salle, or even historical fencing. Something that promotes and encourages parries, ripostes, remise and double as well as lunge and fleche.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: EBarnacle
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 10:35 AM

Not much speed or agility. In large, a matter of reading the opponent and anticipating/creating his/her errors. Play to your strengths and your opponent's weaknesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: mack/misophist
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 09:57 AM

I hope all you fencers are properly grateful for your speed and agility. I took a semester of fencing in college and was a total loss. The coach asked me not to come back. Other than that, I loved it. Reflexes seem to be something other people have.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 09:05 AM

Yes, the hospital kept him "alive" for three days while the Russians took the World Championship in his honor.

Wolfgang, is mensur still practiced?

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 09:02 AM

Wladimir Smirnov, Olympic champion and defending World Champion was killed during the 1982 World Championship in a fight with another Olympic and World Champion. Those accidents are very rare though.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 08:34 AM

Mensur, as far as I know, is still practiced in Germany. The neck is tightly wrapped in layers of silk, the eyes and nose protected by iron goggles, and the hands with heavy gloves. The participants face each other inside a circle, out of which you cannot step. There is little footwork, since the idea is to BE cut. The "winner" is the first person to make a bloody cut more than an inch long.

I've got a great scar on my outside of my right leg from where a guy (accidentally) cut me with a corn knife (small machete) when I was about 13. And another in my right eyebrow from where my mother dropped me on my head. These are plenty; I don't feel the need to participate in mensur.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 08:00 AM

Wikipedia has a good article on fencing, with information on the various forms.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: The Walrus
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 07:27 AM

"...The purpose of the German Schlager duels was to create fancy scars, aka Heidelberg scars, so that the German "gentlemen" could show off visible evidence of their bravery. The last six inches or so of the blade toward the tip were sharpened. No mask was worn and, when skin was broken, an irritant was rubbed into the cut to make a keloid type scar..."
I thought Heidelberg was the one place that they were used stabbing weapons rather than the Schlager (something to do with facial scars on theology students) - I'm sure I'll be corrected on this point.
"...No mask was worn..."
I believe there was, however, a modified set of goggles with a 'nasal' protecting the eyes and length of the nose (presumably 'out of play' areas).

Of formal duels, in the British Army of the Penninsula War, Wellington had to issue an order forbidding duels among his officers.

W

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Grab
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 05:41 AM

For "historical" fencing in the very near past, I'd advise checking out "Three men on the Bummel" by Jerome K Jerome, specifically the chapter where he watches the Mensur at a German university. It was written about 1900, IIRC. It's a fantastically funny book - except for that section, which pulls no punches.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: EBarnacle
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 10:52 PM

The purpose of the German Schlager duels was to create fancy scars, aka Heidelberg scars, so that the German "gentlemen" could show off visible evidence of their bravery. The last six inches or so of the blade toward the tip were sharpened. No mask was worn and, when skin was broken, an irritant was rubbed into the cut to make a keloid type scar.

Other European countries had different rules, including measurement of weapons to make sure that neither party was disadvantaged. The Royal Navy had a rule that officers were not allowed to challenge their superiors. cf, Mr. Midshipman Hornblower, in which Captain Keen explains to Hornblower that it is good to have fought a duel and even better not to do so again. He also explains the reason for this stricture as being that, especially on a foreign station, advancement would be too easy if officers killed their superiors off.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:10 PM

Regarding your question about duels, Ebbie...there were quite a lot of duels among officers in various of the armed forces here and there, and those were usually well supervised by superior officers, and yes, there were proper rules of engagement agreed upon beforehand, and usually adhered to. The price of not adhering was to have one's reputation and career ruined...if one survived, that is.

Some of those duels were with guns, others with edged weapons.

Duels among the nobility tended to sometimes be pretty well regulated too, I think. It all had to do with image, prestige, that sort of thing. Such matters were important to one's future career.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 04:54 PM

Ebbie, fencing is and was a sport. People DO get hurt, even killed, but the idea is to score points, not to kill people. The FIE has rules about everything from the weight and composition of the weapons to the publicity for major matches. Equipment must pass strict safety rules -- in 1982 a Russian (Smirnoff, I think) had the tip of a broken foil penetrate his mask and into his eye and brain -- and the FIE (Federation Internationale d'Escrime) has ever since become stricter and stricter about safety.

A duel is a organized, formal, fight in which the purpose is to wound or kill your opponent. It was surrounded by rules: the Seconds were to stand thusly, the surgeon was to be in attendance, weapons and location were mutually agreed upon, etc. Here's a link to the Irish Code Duello of 1777; and here is a link to American rules. It WAS possible to refuse to fight a duel.

A street fight with swords wasn't a duel -- it was a street brawl with edged weapons. The fight in "Romeo and Juliet" where Tybalt stabs Mercutio "under Romeo's arm" was Tybalt simply using a ploy to kill Mercutio. When Hamlet asks, "What is his weapon?" he is told "Rapier and dagger" -- meaning that Laertes fights with a rapier in one hand and a dagger in the other (there was also such things as rapier and cloak, rapier and buckler, and even rapier and rapier). There were (and are) no rules in a street fight: you hurt or kill the other person.

Hamlet's fight with Laertes would have been fought with genuine weapons, only with the points blunted. That's why when Hamlet is bloodied by Laertes' poisoned rapier Hamlet is surprised -- and why "they exchange rapiers." This was a move where the opponents basically were standing toe-to-toe, their weapon arms linked, and one snatched the other's weapon away -- like the unblunted tip, this wouldn't have been done in a friendly match!

By the way, fencing rules today don't permit the exchange of weapons...or a lot of other neat stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 04:52 PM

Now an additional bit of protection is required for bouting. It's a plastic shield for the underarm and side called the plastron. A little extra bit of shielding against a direct stab with a broken blade.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 04:43 PM

If you're properly equipped and dressed, and if you avoid the obviously idiotic (like fencing without a mask on), fencing is about as safe a sport as there is.

I'm not up on current advances in fencing equipment, but I wore a fairly heavy 12-ounce duck jacket (sort of turtleneck), padded in crucial areas (where you were likely to get hit—sword arm more padded than the other arm, etc., and it veed down between the legs with a strap that fastened in back. Along with it went a pair of close-fitting pants of the same material—all white, conforming to fencing rules. Gauntletted leather glove on the sword hand (also white). Regulation fencing mask—strong, close wire mesh, with a padded bib that provided additional protection for the throat. No cute little red heart on the left side of the chest, however; you see those only on calendar girls.

I've been hit in the chest a few times with the end of a blade that broke on the occasion when my parries were deceived, I got touched, and my opponent's blade snapped as it bent. It didn't feel good, but no injury. That doesn't happen all that often, though. I also got hit in the face once when about four inches of an opponent's épée blade (stiffer and heavier than a foil blade) snapped and the broken end hit my mask. The mask (a good, solid, three-weapon mask) held. It left a bit of a dimple in the wire mesh, but it came nowhere near coming through, however. That's one of the things the mask is for.

The only time I've ever been hurt fencing, and that was not seriously, was when I was fencing épée with a friend. We didn't have point d'arrêts on our weapons, but we didn't have them padded by wrapping them with a bit of adhesive tape either. The tip of the blade is blunted, looking sort of like a nail head. The tip of my friend's blade tore through my sleeve and plowed a six-inch welt into my forearm. Most painful. Kind of nasty abrasion, but it didn't actually bleed. It went away within a few days

But—it was my own damned fault. I was wearing a sweatshirt at the time, not my fencing jacket.

Good question, Ebbie. I'll have to get back to you on that (I just noticed your question as I was cutting and pasting this into the message box, and I've got a guitar student coming in a few minutes). Yes, there were indeed rules about formal dueling, and strict ones at that. As the Code Duello evolved over the years, it got really complicated toward the end of the nineteenth century.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 04:29 PM

When I was in high school, only the girls got to do fencing. They probably didn't trust the boys with swords. They were probably right.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Slag
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM

Fencing was kind of rare in my area (Central California) but I found a club and fenced for a couple of years while in college (foil). My long arms were about my only advantage over those more skilled. I wished I could have kept it up. Fond memories.

But if YOU do keep with it, as with virtually any sport, you get out of it what you put into it. Sportsmanship is paramount. Otherwise it ceases to be a sport and you might as well be fighting a real duel because that is the direction it takes without it. I'm sick of the "Win at any cost" mentallity that infects professional sport today. I've pretty much, tuned it out. Yup, that means "No Super Bowl" next Sunday.

Fencing (at least in the classical form) is also an art. It showcases blinding speed, poise, balance, form and high intelligence. It has history and tradition. It's a confidence builder. It should be taught, at least at the introductory level, at every highschool. That and Chess. Then, (in addition to the regular curriculum) will you truly be educated.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 03:41 PM

Question for ya: In the olden days of dueling, were there rules and traditions that dictated what was proper and seemly in fencing? In other words, say one's opponent turned his back, would that mean that the contest was over? Did the duel have 'rounds' or innings or time outs? Or if one opponent was clearly - wildly - out done in skill would that the better one refuse the duel or would he use the fact to kill or immobilize the other? Would a young man fight an old one?

Was it a 'gentleman's game', in actual fact?

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 03:39 PM

Fencing? Yeah, right! Gimme a flippin' break, eh? You are just, like, tryin' to impress women and make a big flippin' show of yerself agian, Rapeiare. I know you, man. You are like shameless, eh?

I'll tell ya what REAL fencing is, man. You get a hole flippin' big lot of stuff that is...hot. Know what I mean? I mean stuff that useta belong to someone else but it don't no more cos you took it when they wasn't lookin'. You gotta turn that stuff into cash fast so's you can buy beer and dope and smokes, right? So...you gotta find a man who will, like, pay you quick about say half of what he will get when he sells it all to other people who you don't know. You get the money and get flippin' drunk and stoned all week. THAT is fencing, man. What you do is a flippin' joke. NOOOObody who is cool does that anymore. Trust me on this.

I mean, JEEZ! It went out with Zorro, eh? It is sooooo like "yesterday". Know'msayin'?

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 03:28 PM

I know people can hurt themselves mucking around with fencing equipment. Hell I know people who knew exactly how to treat the stuff who still got hurt. I always had to salute my oponent and the judge(s) and I always thought that your left hand was just meant to be cocked in the en garde position. (Except not for sabre, blah blah bah.)

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 03:23 PM

On a very tenuously related note

The rooster on the farm has just died and the farmer goes to buy a new one. His last rooster was amazing and he's actually thinking about buying even more hens as well so he gets very picky. Finally the guy at the market says, "listen, there is one other rooster I've got. You'd have to be sure though- he's a randy little bugger. A lot of guys have brought him back- said they just couldn't handle him." The farmer agrees to take the rooster and sets him to work straight away. The rooster repetitively and energetically shags every hen on the farm. He moves on to the turkeys and even the ducks before collapsing in a heap in the yard. Minutes pass and still the rooster doesn't move. Vultures start circling overhead. The farmer is heartbroken. He paid a fair bit of money for the rooster and he was starting to admire the little fellow. He goes over to pick up its body. It opens one eye, winks at him and goes "ssshhhh!".

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 12:21 PM

Friend of mine just sent this, and I thought it apropos of this discussion:


A farmer went out one day and bought a brand new stud rooster for his chicken coop. The new rooster struts over to the old rooster and says, "OK, old fart, time for you to retire."

The old rooster replies, "Come on, surely you cannot handle ALL of these chickens. Look what it has done to me. Can't you just let me have the two old hens over in the corner?"

The young rooster says, "Beat it: You are washed up and I am taking over."

The old rooster says, "I tell you what, young stud. I will race you around the farmhouse. Whoever wins gets the exclusive domain over the entire chicken coop."

The young rooster laughs. "You know you don't stand a chance, old man. So, just to be fair, I will give you a head start."

The old rooster takes off running. About 15 seconds later the young rooster takes off running after him. They round the front porch of the farmhouse and the young rooster has closed the gap.

He is only about 5 feet behind the old rooster and gaining fast. The farmer, meanwhile, is sitting in his usual spot on the front porch when he sees the roosters running by. He grabs his shotgun and - BOOM - he blows the young rooster to bits. The farmer sadly shakes his head and says,

"Damn.....third gay rooster I bought this month."

Moral of this story? .........

Don't mess with the OLD FARTS - age, skill, and treachery will always overcome youth and cockiness!

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 11:11 AM

Innaresting. How many fencers (or ex-fencers) do we have among us? I was one, oon the Columbia College team, back in the dark ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: EBarnacle
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 10:56 AM

Many years ago, I betook my son to a noted NYC program. It's the one which turned out several olympic medalists last time around. As is usual, they started all the kids on foil. On my own, I worked with him on epee. Apparently the method they encourage is the charge. Once I showed him the simple parry and he hit himself on my point a few times, he got the idea and never lost another match to that technique.

He now teaches foil and epee at a local salle with his afterschool program.

My technique is based on my limited mobility due to bad hips, ankles and knees. While I do a step here and there, mostly I work with my wrist and arm and an occasional duck.

As mentioned above, the inclination seems to be away from full skill fencing to "go for the kill at all costs" type fencing. The only way to overcome this is to work at spreading the skills around and being better that the chargers.

30 years ago, when I worked with the Rutgers team in my spare time, I did not see that tendency. I suspect that, at least among American fencers, it is a response to the European domination of the sport. "If this is what it takes to win, we'll grit our teeth and do it, even if it isn't by the book."

Of course, this parallels the situation in basketball, where the rest of the world is focussing on technique and our players focus on being stars.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 09:43 AM

I'm not in the same class of fencing as Don, nowhere near. But I like fencing and do it for the mental and physical exercise and I don't plan to stop doing some form of it.

I took fencing in undergrad study as a drama course. Foil, of course, and we fenced in heavy sweatshirts, masks, and without gloves. No injuries because the instructor watched us like a hawk and set rules: for instance, you faced your opponent, saluted, masked, measured your weapons, backed a step or two, crossed blades (in en garde, with your left hand "cocked"), and only began when the judge's weapon brought the crossed blades up and s/he said, "Fence!" At the end of the bout you unmasked and shook hands.

There is none of this now. The umpire commands "Fence!" and the poking begins.

Yes, I'm glad that there is improved safety requirements, but the onus still comes down to the individual fencers.

Perhaps I'll start a subgroup of Classical Fencers.

Bardan, a fully functional modern repro colichemarde weighs 16 to 18 ounces (say an average of 0.48 kg). According to FIE rules the total weight of a foil cannot exceed 500 grams (or 17.64 ounces avoirdupois). In brief, the weight of a modern foil and the weight of its 18th Century functional ancestor is pretty much identical. As for not engaging in fights with pointed weapons, perhaps it might help if "sport fencers" remembered the past of their sport.

I have seen a case where two college students (male) were "just screwing around" with foils. They were masked but otherwise in street clothes. The tip of one foil broke and it wasn't noticed; the tip caught in the placket of one of the guys' shirt and ripped a line from his wrist to the his shoulder -- 200+ stitches were required to close the wound. (No, they were NOT in the fencing class. They simply decided to "screw around sword fighting" in their words. Their college careers were also abruptly terminated.)

A broken tip CAN penetrate even a Kevlar vest. If only in the interests of safety fencing weapons should be treated with respect!

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: redsnapper
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 08:25 AM

I found the same attitudes appearing Rapaire.

Unfortunately, shot/totally eroded medial meniscii have put paid to my fencing and a torn ligament in my left arm has temporarily (I hope) done the same for my archery!

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:46 PM

When I last fenced, (fairly recently), I noticed that people expected a feint as a matter of course. To the point where you could sometimes score a point by simply advancing into range and lunging. They stood there with a very bemused expression on their face.

More importantly, my take on things is that fencing is rather far from a real duel/swordfight at this stage and it's unreasonable to expect people to behave as if they are fighting in one. At the end of the day, no sword designed for offensive purposes was anywhere near as light as a foil and a lot of techniques would be impossible or inefective with a real sword. For another, what person would fight in a straight line if their life was at stake? No, if you want something more realistic join up with a good re-enactment crowd and find someone who'll sort of 'freestyle' (with blunt weapons obviously) rather than coreograph everything. I've known people who did that sort of stuff and it looked fairly taxing and realistic. They got the odd bruise but no real injuries either.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:51 PM

I confess, this subject really has me sorta tooted up!

I got interested in fencing when I was fourteen (several Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power movies and a Sabatini novel or two too many—Scaramouche, Master-at-Arms, The Black Swan, etc.) and stuck with it (yes, I said that, and I'm glad, do you hear, glad!) until, in my mid-twenties, when singing activities (gigs) started conflicting with classes, tournaments, and such.

My first teacher was Katherine Modrell, Pacific-International Women's Open Champion (French school), I had some lessons from Raymond Coates, instructor at the Washington Athletic Club (Italian school). I had an opportunity to take lessons for a few weeks from Hans Halberstadt in San Francisco (Italian School). Halberstadt was Olympic fencing coach at the time.

Even though I was physically handicapped (very restricted footwork due to polio at age two—I could move back and forth with some alacrity, but I couldn't lunge, so I had to concentrate on developing a strong defense and fast ripostes) and had been advised against competitive fencing, Halberstadt insisted that I enter an épée competition in which a former three time National épée champion (Fred Linkmeyer) and two members of the U. S. Olympic team (Gerry Biagini and Salvatore Giambra) were also entered. Astoundingly (no one was more surprised than I was!), out of twelve bouts, I lost only two (to Fred Linkmeyer and Sal Giambra) and wound up in a three way tie for third place. In the fence-off, I lost one bout to Jack Baker and ended up in fourth place. From that point on, I competed actively and enthusiastically for about eight years. I have no championships, but I have a quite satisfying collection of second and third place trophies and medals.

I also took a year's regular lessons from Jack Nottingham (how's that for a name for a fencer?), a pupil of Aldo Nadi (sort of a mix of both Italian and French schools—I used an Italian foil and épée, sometimes a Belgian pistol-grip).

With all that by way of my credentials to speak on the subject. . . .

During those ancient times (late 1940s to late 1950s), I used electrical scoring equipment only once, and that was in my first competition, the one Halberstadt insisted I enter. I didn't own an electrical épée, so I had to borrow one from the Olympic Club's "armory." All the other tournaments I fenced in, there were four judges and a director determining touches by eyeball, sans electrical scoring equipment. So for your touches to register, they had to be clean and unequivocal, and you had to clearly have the right-of-way.

[Very important:   the concept of "right-of-way" is based on the idea that, in a real duel, which a fencing bout is supposed to emulate, no one in his right mind would respond to a direct attack with a sharp blade, which unless stopped or deflected, will slither painfully and lethally through your lungs, by merely trying to stab the attacker a split-second before you, yourself, are shish-kabobed. If you did something like that, both of you would be laying there on the floor looking very much like a couple of stuffed olives transfixed with toothpicks laying on an hors d'oeuvre plate. If fencer A extends his sword-arm, point in line with fencer B's chest, and lunges briskly, and fencer B does nothing to defend himself, but extends his sword-arm in the hope that fencer A will run onto his point, and they both score, the point goes in favor of fencer A, because he initiated the attack and fencer B responded in a manner that no reasonable person in a real duel would have done. The fencer who initiates the attack has the 'right-of-way," and the attacked fencer is, quite reasonably, expected to defend himself as he would in "real life," and is penalized by losing the point if he doesn't do so. This rule holds (held) for foil and saber fencing. In épée fencing, simultaneous or near simultaneous hits were scored against both fencers.]

Within recent years, the judges (with real eyeballs) have been replaced by electronic scoring equipment. Rules of right-of-way have been abandoned in favor of setting the scoring equipment at an interval of 1/25th of a second   which is to say, if fencer A touches fencer B over 1/25th of a second (but, say, only 1/5th of a second) before fencer B touches fencer A, the second hit is locked out electronically and the point goes to fencer A—regardless of who initiated the attack. This has changed fencing radically.

It had been years since I'd seen any fencing (since even when they telecast the Olympics, they rarely—very rarely—show fencing events. But a decade or so ago, I watched several Olympic fencing matches. And I was appalled at what I saw. There was neither art nor science to it anymore. Two guys would stand back, out of distance, legs bent, but otherwise form so sloppy that I couldn't believe these were Olympic class fencers. Then, they would rush at each other and engage in a frantic jab-fest that looked like a couple of sewing-machines run amok! No attempts to parry or otherwise defend, just wild jabs. Usually in under a second a light would flash, and a point was awarded to one of the two—despite the fact that if two people had engaged in an exchange like that armed with real, sharp weapons, both of them would be on the floor either already dead or mortally wounded. It verged on the ridiculous. It verged on the disgusting!

No. If I were able to return to fencing, I wouldn't go near "modern sport fencing." I see little art or skill to it. It's simply "who can jab the fastest." I would locate my nearest classical fencing salle d'armes and indulge in the enjoyment of engaging in the real sport of fencing, which involves the development of the kind of skill that any true art does, along with the tactical sense and guile of chess, only at high speed. This, along with the additional vicarious adventure of imagining that my life is at stake and comport myself in a manner consistent with that assumption.

I have not read any of Nick Evangelista's books, an omission that, despite the fact that I am no longer able to fence, I plan to rectify for the sake of nostalgia if nothing else. But I have read several articles by him, and I agree wholeheartedlyi with what he says.

Don Firth

P. S. Under the assumption that electrical scoring equipment actually is an improvement (one does run unto blind judges from time to time), if the time interval between touches were set at half a second, or even as much as a full second, instead of the present 1/25th of a second, I think it would induce people to learn how to parry an attack before going on the offensive themselves and greatly reduce the wild and very unseemly jab-fests.

P. P. S. Also, I wonder what would happen to a jab-freak if his opponent just stood there, waited for the attack, and parry-riposted as I used to do. I doubt that a lot of the fencers I saw on the tube actually knew how to feint to draw a parry and then attempt to deceive it, or have even gone so far as to set up a second-intention attack:   launch a false attack in order to draw a parry-riposte, then parry that and counter-riposte.

P. P. P. S. Fencing is very physical, but primarily, it's a mind-game.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 08:23 PM

Mais oui, mon vieux! C'est un "jeu de ferre" avec une demoiselle belle.

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 07:15 PM

I used both the blade and the point -- which she found unsettling....

Yes, I imagine so. Isn't that fencing ploy known as "double entendre"?

Subject: RE: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 06:13 PM

Interesting timing, Rapaire. I've just started a fencing class at my local club. It's a lot of fun and the other guy my age (52) is there to have fun and because his son has been fencing for 2 years and he wanted to get in on it. Our instructor is very relaxed and not victory-oriented at this stage, but it is early. I'll be watching this thread with interest.

Jeff

Subject: BS: Sport v. Classical v. Historical Fencing
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 06:00 PM

I've been reading Nick Evangelista's "The Inner Game of Fencing" and find his point (not sorry!) about "just make the light go on" to be only too valid. I've seen the young fencers in the local club, and whether with foil, epee, or sabre they seem to want only to score regardless of form or sports(wo)manship.

I fenced sabre against a young woman who was VERY good, and beat her 5-3 because I used both the blade and the point -- which she found unsettling and, I think, nearly unfair.

In epee, fleche seems to be the rule instead of the exception. In foil, the fencers learn the flick (but not from OUR coach!).

So I've been reading. Should I forget sport fencing, writing it off as unsporting and just another winner-take-all game and take up historical fencing instead? Or should I hold out and keep playing with people my own age and hope that the things that made fencing the sport it was come 'round again?