Flick hits - the future?
Mike Pandazis
I really think that all of this discussion about the provenance of the flick
is unhelpful. Maybe the flick was used at a certain time and in a certain
place, and maybe it wasn't. It doesn't matter.
What we are all interested in as sportsmen, fighters or spectators is a GOOD
CONTEST. So the point is this: is this move conducive to a good contest?
Of course, this criterion has problems. What do I mean by a good contest?
How can we judge whether or not the flick promotes it?
I won't try to answer these questions now, but I hope that others will...
Best regards
Mike
Bryan J. Maloney
<mp...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Of course, this criterion has problems. What do I mean by a good contest?
> How can we judge whether or not the flick promotes it?
Let's take the FIE's measure: Popularity of the sport.
Let's see, popularity of fencing has been declining steadily for several
decades. The use of the flick has been increasing steadily for at least
the most recent few of those decades.
Therefore, at best, I'd say, by the FIE's measure, flicks are at very best
neutral, but cannot be seen to be promoting matters.
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
Let's (temporarily) forget about the flick and look at the major
issues...
In article <7j144s$7hj$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
"Mike Pandazis" <mp...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> What we are all interested in as sportsmen, fighters or spectators is
a GOOD
> CONTEST. So the point is this: is this move conducive to a good
contest?
>
> Of course, this criterion has problems. What do I mean by a good
contest?
> How can we judge whether or not the flick promotes it?
I Think the above question needs to be properly defined. The word "Good"
has too many meanings and shades of meanings to be easily used in this
way. Here is an extract of some relevant definitions of the term "Good"
from Websters dictionary. (For non US participants, I know - I prefer
the Oxford too.... but the www.dictionary.com website only has
websters!)
WEBSTER DICTIONARY :
Adjective:
1. Possessing desirable qualities; adapted to answer the end designed;
promoting success, welfare, or happiness; serviceable; useful; fit;
excellent; admirable; commendable; not bad, corrupt, evil, noxious,
offensive, or troublesome, etc.
2. Possessing moral excellence or virtue; virtuous; pious; religious;
-- said of persons or actions.
3. Kind; benevolent; humane; merciful; gracious; polite;
propitious; friendly; well-disposed; -- often followed by to or toward,
also formerly by unto.
4. Serviceable; suited; adapted; suitable; of use; to be relied upon; --
followed especially by for.
5. Clever; skillful; dexterous; ready; handy; -- followed especially by
at.
6. Adequate; sufficient; competent; sound; not fallacious; valid; in a
commercial sense, to be depended on for the discharge of obligations
incurred; having pecuniary ability; of unimpaired credit.
7. Real; actual; serious; as in the phrases in good earnest; in good
sooth.
8. Not small, insignificant, or of no account; considerable; esp., in
the phrases a good deal, a good way, a good degree, a good share or
part, etc.
9. Not lacking or deficient; full; complete.
10. Not blemished or impeached; fair; honorable; unsullied; as in
the phrases a good name, a good report, good repute, etc.
Noun :
1. That which possesses desirable qualities, promotes success, welfare,
or happiness, is serviceable, fit, excellent, kind,benevolent, etc.; --
opposed to evil.
2. Advancement of interest or happiness; welfare; prosperity; advantage;
benefit; -- opposed to harm, etc.
Given the variability in the term, I suggest a different approach -
1) Let's define what the "Spirit of Fencing" is. What is the underlying
fundamental essence of what we do? In other words what is Fencing ?
2) What is it that attracts people to fencing, both to participate, and
to spectate.
Each of these will most likely lead to a slightly different definition
of "Good Fencing" - where the two converge is fencings "sweet spot" the
place where we (as fencers, Masters, assorted pointy steel object
handlers & kooks) should focus our efforts.
Bye for now & Happy Fencing
David Laloum
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Kermann
past few years.....damn!>
Colin Chock
decades. <
John Twernbold
false, but the logic seems a bit faulty. For example, it's possible that the
opposite is true: while fencing has decreased in popularity, the flick has
minimized that decrease. In other words, this decrease in popularity would
be even greater without the flick, because it's an action used and enjoyed
by many fencers. This is no more unreasonable than the claim that the flick
has been the cause of the decline in popularity of fencing.
Again, I'm just pointing out the logic flaw. Personally, I believe that the
flick has no significant causal relationship to the popularity of fencing,
either positive or negative. I agree with you that flicks are probably
neutral, but I disagree that they "cannot be seen to be promoting matters".
I'm sure we can find a correlational relationship between the decline of
fencing's popularity and thousands of other factors. How 'bout this one:
computers are killing fencing. It's simple--personal computer use has
increased, fencing's popularity has decreased. People spend more time
computing, less time fencing. It seems just as probable for the decline in
fencing's popularity as the increased use of the flick.
John
Kermann
they are only opposed by those who dont/cant flick
i love em
Mike Pandazis wrote in message <7j144s$7hj$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
>Dear all,
>
>I really think that all of this discussion about the provenance of the
flick
>is unhelpful. Maybe the flick was used at a certain time and in a certain
>place, and maybe it wasn't. It doesn't matter.
>
>What we are all interested in as sportsmen, fighters or spectators is a
GOOD
>CONTEST. So the point is this: is this move conducive to a good contest?
>
>Of course, this criterion has problems. What do I mean by a good contest?
>How can we judge whether or not the flick promotes it?
>
David Achilleus
Kermann wrote:
> flicks are fun there is no doubt about it
> they are only opposed by those who dont/cant flick
> i love em
>
NO, this is wrong. They are also opposed by those who study Form and
Technique according to the Art and Science of Fencing.
There is nothing applicable to either in the 'flick'.
If your going to flick, dont be a fencer, be a flyfisher.
DA
Bryan J. Maloney
<jtwer...@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe this to be flawed logic. I'm not claiming your idea is true or
I didn't say that flicks caused decline in popularity, merely that they
can at best be seen as neutral. If they were better than neutral, then
they would have lifted fencing up of their own influence.
Liz & Dan Gorman
> Let's see, popularity of fencing has been declining steadily for several
> decades.
Membership in the USFA has been increasing for several years now and measures
are being taken to keep national level tournaments from becoming too large. So
what is the basis for this claim? Please site references.
Dan
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
In article <7j1rjv$gok$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>,
"Kermann" <ker...@email.com> wrote:
> flicks are fun there is no doubt about it
> they are only opposed by those who dont/cant flick
> i love em
Please define exactly what action you are talking about when you say
"flick", and how it is executed.
The FIE rules do not have such a term, nor do they describe an attack
in this manner, and prior to entering a discussion, it is wise to
ensure that you are not simply arguing over differing descriptions of
the same thing!
Any standard Fencing text will provide a good definition of a direct
simple attack, the disengage, the coupe, attacks by one-two using the
disengage (or coupe), and combinations with lunges and steps. In
addition these are specifically mentioned in the FIE rules.
So - 1 what is it that YOU mean by "Flick" (as opposed to what I man by
"flick")
Kermann
lighten up!
stop trying to prevent people having fun.
David Achilleus wrote in message <3755245D...@gtw.net>...
>
>
>Kermann wrote:
>
>> flicks are fun there is no doubt about it
>> they are only opposed by those who dont/cant flick
>> i love em
>>
>
Kermann
and its all because i have learned to flick.
i am a newbie and have been fencing for 5 months and was getting frustrated
and wasnt enjoying fencing i would probably have given it up but now i enjoy
it so much i will never.
hence flicks have been directly responsible for drawing me to the sport.
Bryan J. Maloney wrote in message ...
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
In article <7j3ljf$jd8$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>,
"Kermann" <ker...@email.com> wrote:
> i have never enjoyed fencing as much as i have in the past couple of
weeks,
> and its all because i have learned to flick.
> i am a newbie and have been fencing for 5 months and was getting
frustrated
> and wasnt enjoying fencing i would probably have given it up but now
i enjoy
> it so much i will never.
> hence flicks have been directly responsible for drawing me to the
sport.
Good for you - but you have neither described :
1) What you mean by a flick
2) What was frustrating you
3) Why the flick removed that frustration
Without some information regarding the context it is a little extreme
to claim that a single action fixes all....
On the other hand if you fence in a context where all opponents are
unable to defend against the flick - and you therefore find yourself
winning many of your bouts....
Other example - if the directing and definitions of right of way are
such in your salle as to substantially favour the flick - then once
again....
We await your response(s)
Bryan J. Maloney
wrote:
> its a sport!
> lighten up!
> stop trying to prevent people having fun.
In that case, you see nothing wrong with me bringing a paint gun to the
next bout...
Bryan J. Maloney
> Membership in the USFA has been increasing for several years now and measures
> are being taken to keep national level tournaments from becoming too
large. So
> what is the basis for this claim? Please site references.
Aldo Nadi was able to draw capacity crowds when he appeared in the USA.
Name one fencer who can do that today.
Zebee Johnstone
Kermann <ker...@email.com> wrote:
>its a sport!
>lighten up!
>stop trying to prevent people having fun.
>
Hmm.. implying it's not possible to have fun without the flick?
Weird....
The central issue of course being that to some it's a sport, to some
an art, to some a game, to some an exercise.
And they are all going to have different ideas about what's "fun".
Add in the fact that they mostly have to interact rather than keeping
themselves separate and the arguments will be continual :)
I'm into it as "game" and I'm slowly moving towards "art". Part
of the "game" is competition (although not FIE style) but due to
the venues I play in, "art" and "game" are more highly valued than
"sport".
Zebee
Zebee Johnstone
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>Aldo Nadi was able to draw capacity crowds when he appeared in the USA.
>Name one fencer who can do that today.
The problem with that argument is that fencing isn't the only thing that
doesn't get people in anymore.
It's just as likely to have died from competition as from changes.
These days there are many things that compete for the limited
time people ahve to spend on entertainment. TV is the obvious one
(movies too, but they were big in the 30s). Vaudeville drew huge
crowds up till TV came along for example.
This leads to sport popularity increasing if people are exposed to
it on TV. Think of wrestling.... DUnno about the US experience
but in the UK in the 50s it was a popular live entertainment, the
circus would travel from city to city, the venues were packed, the
wrestlers ahd personal followings and were newspaper material.
TV came in and it declined as a live sport until the TV version was
modified and it regained popularity. But as far as I knoe it's
still a TV sport, it doesn't get the regular live audience and
it doesn't travel.
Classicists argue that classic fencing is more spectator friendly -
easier to follow, more like a sowrdfight. So it might be more TV
friendly than the current sport version.
Major problem being can you imagine any TV company picking it
up without the coloured uniforms? THey'd probably want LEDs on
the uniforms to light up when a hit was scored too...
Zebee
David Achilleus
> i have never enjoyed fencing as much as i have in the past couple of weeks,
> and its all because i have learned to flick.
> i am a newbie and have been fencing for 5 months and was getting frustrated
> and wasnt enjoying fencing i would probably have given it up but now i enjoy
> it so much i will never.
> hence flicks have been directly responsible for drawing me to the sport.
>
Well, let me share with you.
I tell my spadacinos that if you havent been fencing for at least 4-5 years you
have NO right
to complain about your technique or lack thereof.
Getting frustrated after 5 months is a bit insulting to the larger fact that
fencing is centuries old.
Not to mention that Masters and Fencers alike devote their LIVES to the Art; not
just
their spare time.
You, my friend, found a cheat, a shortcut, an excuse, a reason to stick around
when you might have
realised that you lacked the Discipline to continue learning along the lines of
Form and Technique.
It is a discredit to your Instructor that you are even bouting seriously after
only 5 months.
Now you will never have to worry about knowing the Art; you can fake it like the
rest.
DA
Zebee Johnstone
David Achilleus <aki...@gtw.net> wrote:
>
>It is a discredit to your Instructor that you are even bouting seriously after
>only 5 months.
Hmm.. I dunno. I think that to just bout and drill no more is silly,
but one thing bouting can teach you is how much you have still to learn :)
What's "bouting seriously" to you?
I spent 4 or 5 months drilling, then did some bouting, and discovered that
the drilling had given me some skills but I needed a lot more.
Now I'm sparring one night a week, drilling one night a week, and learning
on both nights.
It is certainly possible to pick up bad habits when bouting because of
the desire to win - and you can win against novices by techniques that
won't work against experienced people, and you will not be hit by
novices when an experienced fencer will pincushion you neatly.
But I don't think that bouting per se is a discredit to an instructor,
if the student either stops learning or concentrates on quick wins
instead of the long term skills, then that's a discredit to the student.
Bouting is experience, and it helps you to understand what you are being
taught, plus it gives you a reason to keep learning.
I doubt that someone whose only skill is a flick will get all that far.
Win early, keep fencing, and either learn new techniques or else find
that one trick ponies aren't much good.
I do think that a concentration on basic skills early rather than
needing wins to keep the motivation up is the mark of someone who
will go further in the art of fencing, but I also think that not
everyone sees it as an art.
Zebee
David Achilleus
I realise some may have read 'into' my last message some
things I had not intended; so I continue my thoughts.
First let me say that Fencing for me is more than hobby; I have been at
it
for no less than 12 years and I consider myself a student.
My comments, are therefore, perhaps a little more impassioned than
the idle hobby/rec/sport fencer.
My comment/criticism regarding the last 'flick' message was a strong
and urgant plea for the neophyte to reconsider what he/she may be doing
with respect to their fencing and how it relates to fencing in the
greater scope.
I recall these words from Maitre d' Armes Nick Evangelista:
Quote...
why has classical
fencing been
virtually
abandoned in the
latter
half of the 20th
century?
To be honest, its
very
nature manifests its
downfall in our fast
lane,
fast food world. To
follow
classical fencing
means
anything but an instant path to success. it takes
time to
learn the "language" of fencing, which is an
anathema to
those in a hurry. Who has time for dedication and
patience these days? Yet, when that control does
materialize, it is a formidable thing, indeed.
Ultimately, in
metaphorical terms, it is the difference between the
precision laser, and the crashing stick of
dynamite."
Please, if you are new to fencing, realise that it is a Complex greater
than your local usfa division may be willing to let you in on.
Study, learn the practices of other fencers and explore the rich
heritage
that is
Classical Fencing!
D. Achilleus
KABAL / CFSSDA
Fat boy Ed
David Achilleus wrote:
> Kermann wrote:
>
> > flicks are fun there is no doubt about it
> > they are only opposed by those who dont/cant flick
> > i love em
> >
>
> NO, this is wrong. They are also opposed by those who study Form and
> Technique according to the Art and Science of Fencing.
>
> There is nothing applicable to either in the 'flick'.
>
> If your going to flick, dont be a fencer, be a flyfisher.
>
> DA
David
You must be on hell of a fencer. How many world cup points do you
hold? Any one that can tell someone like Elvis Gregory or any of the
other "Flickers" in the world cup standings, what REAL fencing is all
about must have some serious qualifications. So what are they? Just
curious.
Fat Boy Ed
Fat boy Ed
David Achilleus wrote:
> Kermann wrote:
>
> > its a sport!
> > lighten up!
> > stop trying to prevent people having fun.
> >
>
> Here is an important distinction between your fencing and my Fencing.
> Mine is no sport, in the modern sense.
> I do not take it lightly.
> My fence is a serious discipline.
>
> How do you suggest I am able to stop you or anybody from having fun?
>
> By adhering to Form and Technique in my fence and hoping that the newer
> generation of fencers would reach for no lessor goal?
>
> D. Achilleus
> KABAL / CFSSDA
Dude
We may need to remind you that there are lots of ways to PLAY at
fencing. We all play one sort of game or another. What really shakes our
willy is folks who get too wound up on whatever THEIR particular form of
play takes ahold of THEM and the attempts to dictate to the rest of the
lot which form is the RIGHT one to follow. You've got
historic/renaissance/S.C.A/theatre arts/Classical/F.I.E.(olympic)/and
whatever it is you do, as quite valid forms. Now, some of us (fie) types
like to flick because we get right of way in a bout and as such we feel
quite comfortable having it in our repertoire. You ,on the other hand think
it is a deplorable horrific bastardization of your FORM. Then the answer is
simple. DO NOT FENCE WITH US. Cut up your FIE card and piss off.. You will
never be able to convince the rest of us that -whatever it is that you do-
to go over to your side until you kick our ass in an FIE bout. It truly is
that simple. Please pardon the negative feelings here, but ,Man, you really
need a reality check.
Fat Boy ED
ps. I've just pulled a back muscle and my entry to the U.S. summer National
Championships are in serious doubt, AND hydrocodone in not even making a
dent in the pain i'm feeling. I think i'm feeling a little
surly...............................
John Twernbold
>I didn't say that flicks caused decline in popularity, merely that they
>can at best be seen as neutral. If they were better than neutral, then
>they would have lifted fencing up of their own influence.
Right. I understood your original post, and it's still flawed logic. Perhaps
my post was unclear; I'll try to explain it again. (Again, I agree with you
that the flick's influence on fencing's popularity is probably neutral. I'm
responding because you apparently didn't understand why I believe your
assumptions are incorrect.)
Your premise is that flicks cannot be a positive influence on the popularity
of fencing; that flicks are "at very best neutral, but cannot be seen to be
promoting matters." You support this by pointing out that fencing's
popularity has been declining during the same period that the use of the
flick has been increasing.
It is possible (although unlikely) that the flick has had a positive
influence on fencing's popularity. However, this positive influence is
outweighed by the negative influences of other factors. Improbable, yes, but
it shows why your logic is flawed.
Still confused? Okay, let's try an analogy. You're in a boat with a leak,
and you're sinking. (Fencing's popularity) You bail out water (the flick),
but you're still sinking. Are you sinking because you're bailing water?
(negative influence) No. Are your actions having no effect? (neutral
influence) No. In fact, you're slowing the rate at which you are sinking due
to your efforts. (positive influence)
This is pretty much off-topic, so if you'd like to discuss this further,
email me. Remove the spam-block from my email address, of course.
John
John Twernbold
activities. David Achilleus appears to be a Classical Fencer. I think that's
great--it's a terrific thing. Kermann appears to be a Sport Fencer.
Wonderful; I'm a sport fencer, too.
The two groups are separate, and the sooner each realizes this, the sooner
we'll all get along. Telling the other group that they're doing their
activity incorrectly is as silly as baseball players giving pointers to
hockey players. They're different activities. Neither is any better or more
important than the other.
Can we all agree to disagree?
John
Kermann wrote:
>i enjoy myself and who the hell are you to tell me how fast i can progress?
>i am entering competitions and winning matches.
>it is people like you who are responsible for the lack of numbers in
>fencing.
>to me its fun i like it and ill keep on doing it despite your sad efforts
to
>try and stop people like me
>to hell with art its a sport and should be enjoyed
>
>
>David Achilleus wrote:
<snip>
>>You, my friend, found a cheat, a shortcut, an excuse, a reason to stick
>around
>>when you might have
>>realised that you lacked the Discipline to continue learning along the
>lines of
>>Form and Technique.
>>
>>It is a discredit to your Instructor that you are even bouting seriously
>after
>>only 5 months.
>>
Kermann
i am entering competitions and winning matches.
it is people like you who are responsible for the lack of numbers in
fencing.
to me its fun i like it and ill keep on doing it despite your sad efforts to
try and stop people like me
to hell with art its a sport and should be enjoyed
David Achilleus wrote in message <3755B4F7...@gtw.net>...
>Kermann wrote:
>
>> i have never enjoyed fencing as much as i have in the past couple of
weeks,
>> and its all because i have learned to flick.
>> i am a newbie and have been fencing for 5 months and was getting
frustrated
>> and wasnt enjoying fencing i would probably have given it up but now i
enjoy
>> it so much i will never.
>> hence flicks have been directly responsible for drawing me to the sport.
>>
>
>Well, let me share with you.
>I tell my spadacinos that if you havent been fencing for at least 4-5 years
you
>have NO right
>to complain about your technique or lack thereof.
>
>Getting frustrated after 5 months is a bit insulting to the larger fact
that
>fencing is centuries old.
>Not to mention that Masters and Fencers alike devote their LIVES to the
Art; not
>just
>their spare time.
>
>You, my friend, found a cheat, a shortcut, an excuse, a reason to stick
around
>when you might have
>realised that you lacked the Discipline to continue learning along the
lines of
>Form and Technique.
>
>It is a discredit to your Instructor that you are even bouting seriously
after
>only 5 months.
>
>Now you will never have to worry about knowing the Art; you can fake it
like the
>rest.
>
>
>DA
>
Kermann
Zebee Johnstone wrote in message ...
>In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:16:27 +0100
>Kermann <ker...@email.com> wrote:
>>its a sport!
>>lighten up!
>>stop trying to prevent people having fun.
>>
>
Eric Dew
>"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>
>> Let's see, popularity of fencing has been declining steadily for several
>> decades.
>
>are being taken to keep national level tournaments from becoming too large. So
>what is the basis for this claim? Please site references.
>
>
EDEW
Eric Dew
>
>I realise some may have read 'into' my last message some
>things I had not intended; so I continue my thoughts.
>
>First let me say that Fencing for me is more than hobby; I have been at
>it
>for no less than 12 years and I consider myself a student.
>My comments, are therefore, perhaps a little more impassioned than
>the idle hobby/rec/sport fencer.
>
>My comment/criticism regarding the last 'flick' message was a strong
>and urgant plea for the neophyte to reconsider what he/she may be doing
>with respect to their fencing and how it relates to fencing in the
>greater scope.
>
>I recall these words from Maitre d' Armes Nick Evangelista:
>
>Quote...
Here's my fast-food reason why classical fencing has disappeared from
modern fencing: anyone trying to use classical fencing in modern fencing
bouts will have his ass handed to him on a platter. The modern fencing
style is an evolution of strategies and techniques to beat the classical
style. No duh.
EDEW
David Achilleus
> its a sport!
> lighten up!
> stop trying to prevent people having fun.
>
Here is an important distinction between your fencing and my Fencing.
Zebee Johnstone
Eric Dew <ed...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Here's my fast-food reason why classical fencing has disappeared from
>modern fencing: anyone trying to use classical fencing in modern fencing
>bouts will have his ass handed to him on a platter. The modern fencing
>style is an evolution of strategies and techniques to beat the classical
>style. No duh.
INteresting - can you think of any examples of such tactics
besides the infamous flick?
Zebee
Mike Pandazis
David Achilleus <aki...@gtw.net> wrote in message
news:37560F1C...@gtw.net...
> Here is an important distinction between your fencing and my Fencing.
> Mine is no sport, in the modern sense.
> I do not take it lightly.
> My fence is a serious discipline.
>
> How do you suggest I am able to stop you or anybody from having fun?
>
> By adhering to Form and Technique in my fence and hoping that the newer
> generation of fencers would reach for no lessor goal?
What is this overarching 'Form and Technique'? There are many forms and many
techniques, and each person uses the style that best suits him/her. Your
real mistake is to attempt to impose your preferred style on others.
You think modern, competitive fencing is too easy to learn, some sort of
'short cut'? I totally disagree. The world's best in fencing, as in ANY
OTHER SPORT, are highly trained, skilful and athletic. The flick, like ANY
OTHER TECHNIQUE, takes time and patience to learn.
Don't knock what you don't understand.
Regards,
Mike
Mike Pandazis
I'd like to suggest some criteria for the GOOD CONTEST, just so as to bring
the thread back to subject.
(i) It should involve a high degree of skill.
(ii) It should require both natural talent and training, balanced in favour
of the latter.
(iii) It should allow contestants to draw on a wide range of qualities, both
physical and psychological.
(iv) It should acheive the above in a manner appreciable by the uninitiated
(but interested) spectator.
What does everyone think?
Mike
Colin Chock
-great word, spadacino.
>>Here's my fast-food reason why classical fencing has disappeared from
>modern fencing: anyone trying to use classical fencing in modern fencing
>bouts will have his ass handed to him on a platter. The modern fencing
>style is an evolution of strategies and techniques to beat the classical
>style. No duh.<<
>can you think of any examples of such tactics besides the infamous flick?<
-ducking and remising?
>THey'd probably want LEDs on the uniforms to light up when a hit was scored
too<
-technology can come up w/ that. be something to see...
>"art" and "game" are more highly valued than "sport". <
-I don't note a difference between "game" and "sport." (I tend to agree w/
those who say a game doesn't necessarily involve physical exercise, but a
sport does.)
-flicks make fencing a better game.
-improvement of refereeing goes a long way to quelling arguments about
flicking.
Aloha,
Colin
808/545-8750
ch...@prodigy.net
http://pages.prodigy.net/chock
http://members.aol.com/chock/page2/index.htm
David Achilleus
> i enjoy myself and who the hell are you to tell me how fast i can progress?
> i am entering competitions and winning matches.
> it is people like you who are responsible for the lack of numbers in
> fencing.
> to me its fun i like it and ill keep on doing it despite your sad efforts to
> try and stop people like me
> to hell with art its a sport and should be enjoyed
>
Have you ever heard of a book called
Revolt of the Masses?
Who the hell am I? Who the HEll are you?
I never told you not to have fun; I tried to give you a perspective on the art
that you obviously have yet to learn or comprehend.
Your attitude is exactly that of the modern fencer and is the true
cause for the decline.
In reality I am glad that the Art has become withdrawn and obscure to the
Masses.
It needs an incubation period; time to Heal from ther likes of your attitude.
For a green fencer you must now accept all that you must learn from the Art and
stop thinking that you are whole in it already.
DA
David Achilleus
> Here's my fast-food reason why classical fencing has disappeared from
> modern fencing: anyone trying to use classical fencing in modern fencing
> bouts will have his ass handed to him on a platter. The modern fencing
> style is an evolution of strategies and techniques to beat the classical
> style. No duh.
>
NO duh?
well, you are wrong, Im sorry.
You all are coming from way off base.
I was a sport fencer. I was a USFA member.
I competed and I won and then I lost.
And I found that losing at Nationals was not becuase
Classical Technique is inferior or vice versa, but modern fencing is such a
different animal of an electric tag game and so far removed from
Fencing that in order to make my Technique applicable
i would have to study to Win WIn WIn.
Sorry, winning is not better.
A better fencer knows how to recieve touches as well as give them.
Interesting that all of you are so quick to judge CF without ANY knowledge of it.
DA
David Achilleus
John Twernbold wrote:
Right. I understood your original post, and it's still flawed logic. Perhaps
my post was unclear; I'll try to explain it again. (Again, I agree with you
> that the flick's influence on fencing's popularity is probably neutral. I'm
> responding because you apparently didn't understand why I believe your
> assumptions are incorrect.)
>
> It is possible (although unlikely) that the flick has had a positive
> influence on fencing's popularity. However, this positive influence is
> outweighed by the negative influences of other factors. Improbable, yes, but
> it shows why your logic is flawed.
>
> Still confused? Okay, let's try an analogy. You're in a boat with a leak,
> and you're sinking. (Fencing's popularity) You bail out water (the flick),
> but you're still sinking. Are you sinking because you're bailing water?
> (negative influence) No. Are your actions having no effect? (neutral
> influence) No. In fact, you're slowing the rate at which you are sinking due
> to your efforts. (positive influence)
I think what Mr. Maloney was suggesting was that in terms of popularity, which
is a minor factor, the flick has done little; in terms of Technique is has doen
great harm.
DA
David Achilleus
> they are legal so why not?
>
its legal to spend your life as a mediorce fencer, so why not?
DA
Zebee Johnstone
I enjoy it as both a game and an art.
I like the dance when my opponent and I are feeling each other out and
getting so close in thought we are like kin.
I like the laughter and the comradeship.
I like the joy of realising I've finally done it right.
I am even liking the hard work of trying to learn.
I've got one hell of a long way to go. I'm pondscum right now, I
may evolve to the point where I'm walking on land, but that's a long
way off. But what I am slowly discovering is that the journey is
fun. Learning is fun. The discipline of learning and drilling
and trying is, in its own twisted way, fun.
IT most definitely should be enjoyed, but it can be enjoyed as a
game, as a sport, or as an art.
Zebee
Zebee Johnstone
Not in my game they are not :)
But the reason some don't like them is they may be legal but
they are not moral... They ruin the game which for them is not
"winning" but "fighting well".
Some equate the two, some don't.
Zebee
David Achilleus
First of all I need no reminding.
I speak as a convert from sport to Classical.
read on....
Fat boy Ed wrote:
> We may need to remind you that there are lots of ways to PLAY at
> fencing. We all play one sort of game or another. What really shakes our
> willy is folks who get too wound up on whatever THEIR particular form of
> play takes ahold of THEM and the attempts to dictate to the rest of the
> lot which form is the RIGHT one to follow.
gee, really? This is exactly my major complaint with sport fencers!
Look at the postings on this list and show me where fencers arent trying to
dictate!
> You've got
> historic/renaissance/S.C.A/theatre arts/Classical/F.I.E.(olympic)/and
> whatever it is you do, as quite valid forms. Now, some of us (fie) types
> like to flick because we get right of way in a bout and as such we feel
> quite comfortable having it in our repertoire.
OK. Something major must have happended if the flick gives right of way.
Show me even in the FIE rules where right of way does not begin with a fulkl
extension of the arm with the blade in line of valid target?
You guys are just now witnessing what happens when an attack is redefined by
foot motion!
Come on.
You let those bastards do whatever they want and push you around and you comply
all in the name of Competition?
> You ,on the other hand think
> it is a deplorable horrific bastardization of your FORM.
Not of MY Form, of THE Form.
> Then the answer is
> simple. DO NOT FENCE WITH US. Cut up your FIE card and piss off.. You will
> never be able to convince the rest of us that -whatever it is that you do-
> to go over to your side until you kick our ass in an FIE bout. It truly is
> that simple. Please pardon the negative feelings here, but ,Man, you really
> need a reality check.
As ive said before, its you who need the reality check.
I have fenced 'your' style. Have you fenced mine?
DA
Zebee Johnstone
Colin Chock <Ch...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>can you think of any examples of such tactics besides the infamous flick?<
>-ducking and remising?
Hmm.. I'll have to leave that to the classical guys. My fencing master
showed me seomthing I think is close to that to me, but he wasn't teaching
me "classical fencing" but "things useful in the SCA".
>
>>"art" and "game" are more highly valued than "sport". <
>-I don't note a difference between "game" and "sport." (I tend to agree w/
>those who say a game doesn't necessarily involve physical exercise, but a
>sport does.)
>
I see "sport" as far more serious, with the main and perhaps
only point being to win.
FOr me, "game" is a bunch of things, of which only one is winning. And
that isn't that high in the priority stakes. THe "game" I play is SCA
fencing, so I am not just playing with swords, I'm also likely to be
acting, entertaining, re-creating, or being very silly. Or all of the
above. Nowhere near as serious as sport.
When it does get serious, it's in the direction of art not sport.
Zebee
Craig Harkins
talking about here. His views, being those of one who competes at the
NACs, are not agreeable to the "no flick - let's fence dry because
electric is the bastardization of fencing" camp that is at the other
end of the spectrum represented in this group.
As a sport fencer, I know how to give and receive touches. I have
coached youth and junior classes and led many hours of drills to make
my team and club mates better fencers.
Once on the strip in a competition, or training for a specific
competition, winning is what counts. Otherwise, I would not go to the
competition.
Sport fencing has evolved over the past few years so that it is more
athletic than 10 or 15 years ago. When I started fencing many years
ago, the top levels of US fencing were far less athletic than they are
now. The techniques and tactics that have evolved over this time
period have emphasized the increased athleticism and the increased
strength and speed of the modern fencer. This evolution makes it much
easier for a modern fencer to beat an older fencer trained on older
techniques in a competition.
Cheers,
Craig
On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 07:29:56 -0500, David Achilleus <aki...@gtw.net>
wrote:
Casper
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:.
>
> Aldo Nadi was able to draw capacity crowds when he appeared in the USA.
> Name one fencer who can do that today.
>
>
OK: miss Venezuela :-)
--
-----------------------------------------------------
When Walking on thin ice you might as well dance
Casper de Swarte
Fencing Foundation Groningen
C.de....@bioledu.rug.nl
---------------------------------------------------------
Casper
laloum...@jpmorgan.com wrote:
> Please define exactly what action you are talking about when you say
> "flick", and how it is executed.
>
> The FIE rules do not have such a term, nor do they describe an attack
> in this manner, and prior to entering a discussion, it is wise to
> ensure that you are not simply arguing over differing descriptions of
> the same thing!
>
> Any standard Fencing text will provide a good definition of a direct
> simple attack, the disengage, the coupe, attacks by one-two using the
> disengage (or coupe), and combinations with lunges and steps. In
> addition these are specifically mentioned in the FIE rules.
>
Oh please...most fencing actions aren't described in the holy FIE-rulebook,
that doesn't mean they do not X-sist. Next thing you know will be having
bi-monthly discussions about the legal-status of a contra-sixte.
>
> So - 1 what is it that YOU mean by "Flick" (as opposed to what I man by
> "flick")
I have to agree with you here. I think a LOT of the characters in the never
ending story of the Flick do not even know how a flick is properly
executed.
Casper
Kermann wrote:
> i enjoy myself and who the hell are you to tell me how fast i can progress?
> i am entering competitions and winning matches.
> it is people like you who are responsible for the lack of numbers in
> fencing.
> to me its fun i like it and ill keep on doing it despite your sad efforts to
> try and stop people like me
> to hell with art its a sport and should be enjoyed
It's good that you are enjoying yourselve. Hell, if you weren't after 5 months
you ought to quit fencing.
But...
The flick is one of the hardest coups to master. It takes perfect point control
and timing to execute a flick correctly. Maybe you should focus your attention
to more widely applicable fencing techniques before moving to the stuff only the
best of us do halfway descent.
Otherwise you might find yourself stuck at the bottom at tournaments in the
future and that'll be a lot more frustrating as learning a good lunge.
Douglas M. Jole
> i have never enjoyed fencing as much as i have in the past couple of weeks,
> and its all because i have learned to flick.
> i am a newbie and have been fencing for 5 months and was getting frustrated
> and wasnt enjoying fencing i would probably have given it up but now i enjoy
> it so much i will never.
> hence flicks have been directly responsible for drawing me to the sport.
Just make sure that you don't become a "one-flick"...er..."one-trick"
pony. You need to make sure you can do it all, and counter it all as
well. I'm curious to know what was frustrating for you before.
____________________
/ Douglas Jole \
| Folklore Dept | What we don't need is a fountain of youth;
| Memorial University | what we really need is a fountain of smart.
| Of Newfoundland |
| | Thig crioch air an t-saoghal,
\_____________________/ Ach mairidh ceol agus gaol.
Homepage-- http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~g76dmj/
Bryan J. Maloney
> Probably Bryan meant popularity of dry re-creational fencing.
No, I mean the popularity of fencing. When was the last time a fencing
bout filled a major opera house or theater with spectators in the USA?
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Bryan J. Maloney
> Major problem being can you imagine any TV company picking it
> up without the coloured uniforms? THey'd probably want LEDs on
> the uniforms to light up when a hit was scored too...
TV companies don't insist that boxers wear LEDs.
Douglas M. Jole
> (i) It should involve a high degree of skill.
> (ii) It should require both natural talent and training, balanced in favour
> of the latter.
> (iii) It should allow contestants to draw on a wide range of qualities, both
> physical and psychological.
> (iv) It should acheive the above in a manner appreciable by the uninitiated
> (but interested) spectator.
> What does everyone think?
Sounds like the WWF fits the bill to me! :)
But seriously, those look adequate to me. I don't know that the good
contest should require a high degree of skill (see #1 above), but it
should require some skill, however we might define that.
Eric Dew
>In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 3 Jun 1999 04:20:14 GMT
>>
>>Here's my fast-food reason why classical fencing has disappeared from
>>modern fencing: anyone trying to use classical fencing in modern fencing
>>bouts will have his ass handed to him on a platter. The modern fencing
>>style is an evolution of strategies and techniques to beat the classical
>>style. No duh.
>
>besides the infamous flick?
>
Sure, more aggressive use of distance, non-conventional parries, use of
squirming around in a counter-attack, attack with absence of blade (which
pre-dated flicks, so it isn't a flick). But the number one tactic is more
aggressive use of distance and motion.
EDEW
Tom Melluish
David Achilleus wrote in message <3756785D...@gtw.net>...
>OK Fat Boy...
>
>First of all I need no reminding.
>I speak as a convert from sport to Classical.
>
>read on....
>
>Fat boy Ed wrote:
>
>> We may need to remind you that there are lots of ways to PLAY at
>> fencing. We all play one sort of game or another. What really shakes >>
our willy is folks who get too wound up on whatever THEIR particular >> form
of play takes ahold of THEM and the attempts to dictate to the >> rest of
the lot which form is the RIGHT one to follow.
>
>gee, really? This is exactly my major complaint with sport fencers!
>Look at the postings on this list and show me where fencers arent >trying
to dictate!
David, you seem to be the one who is talking about the One True Form, rather
than any of us sport fencers...
>
>> You've got
>> historic/renaissance/S.C.A/theatre arts/Classical/F.I.E.(olympic)/and
>> whatever it is you do, as quite valid forms. Now, some of us (fie)
>> types like to flick because we get right of way in a bout and as such >>
we feel quite comfortable having it in our repertoire.
>
>OK. Something major must have happended if the flick gives right of >way.
Show me even in the FIE rules where right of way does not begin >with a
fulkl extension of the arm with the blade in line of valid target?
>
Right of way begins with the extending arm with the point threatening valid
target. Its perfectly possible to flick fulfilling these conditions,
although it's not the flick which grants right of way, it's the extension of
the arm.
Quoting from the USAF '99 rules (I don't have my BF ones with me, and
they're out of date anyway):
'The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and
continuously threatening the the opponent's target'
>You guys are just now witnessing what happens when an attack is >redefined
by foot motion!
>
No, the attack is defined in terms of the arm and point (and edge in sabre.)
>Come on.
>You let those bastards do whatever they want and push you around and >you
comply all in the name of Competition?
>
No, we try to develop our technique in order to succeed in competition. And
who are 'those bastards'?
>> You ,on the other hand think
>> it is a deplorable horrific bastardization of your FORM.
>
>Not of MY Form, of THE Form.
>
There are those capital letters again...
>> Then the answer is
>> simple. DO NOT FENCE WITH US. Cut up your FIE card and piss
>> off.. You will never be able to convince the rest of us that -whatever it
>> is that you do- to go over to your side until you kick our ass in an FIE
>> bout. It truly is that simple. Please pardon the negative feelings here,
>> but ,Man, you really need a reality check.
>
>As ive said before, its you who need the reality check.
>I have fenced 'your' style. Have you fenced mine?
>
I think what Ed means is: Stop telling us what to do. Please.
>
>DA
>
Tom
Eric Dew
>
>OK. Something major must have happended if the flick gives right of way.
>Show me even in the FIE rules where right of way does not begin with a fulkl
>extension of the arm with the blade in line of valid target?
Nope, can't find it in the rule books. The rule book does say the right of
way for an attack begins with the EXTENDING of the arm towards the target.
Doesn't require a full extension. Indeed, the full extension practically
ENDS the attack.
>
>You guys are just now witnessing what happens when an attack is redefined by
>foot motion!
Never has, never been. Look, I've received calls against me because all the
referee saw was foot motion without hand motion, despite the perception by
myself that my hand IS moving towards the target. No referee would call an
attack based on foot motion. No referee I've seen, from novice to experienced,
have consistently called attacks based on foot motion.
>
>Come on.
>You let those bastards do whatever they want and push you around and you comply
>all in the name of Competition?
>
>> You ,on the other hand think
>> it is a deplorable horrific bastardization of your FORM.
>
>Not of MY Form, of THE Form.
>
There is no THE form. Form evolves all the time. There is no absolute
correct form. Otherwise, there is no game.
>> Then the answer is
>> simple. DO NOT FENCE WITH US. Cut up your FIE card and piss off.. You will
>> never be able to convince the rest of us that -whatever it is that you do-
>> to go over to your side until you kick our ass in an FIE bout. It truly is
>> that simple. Please pardon the negative feelings here, but ,Man, you really
>> need a reality check.
>
>As ive said before, its you who need the reality check.
>I have fenced 'your' style. Have you fenced mine?
So you can't hack the modern fencing style. Some give up and play chess.
I wouldn't call that fencing either.
EDEW
Eric Dew
>In article <edewFCq...@netcom.com>, ed...@netcom.com (Eric Dew) wrote:
>
>> Probably Bryan meant popularity of dry re-creational fencing.
>
>No, I mean the popularity of fencing. When was the last time a fencing
>bout filled a major opera house or theater with spectators in the USA?
Maybe it's because fencing hasn't been HELD in major opera houses or
theaters lately. As one who have been investigating venues for NACs and
local and sectional level tournaments for the past 6 years, I know it is
not feasible to hold events in such places. They are now well too expensive.
If you look at the economics, even operas can't make enough money on the
gate receipts alone at opera houses. In many cases, if there is a major
opera star like Domingo et al., HE takes 100% of the gate receipts. The
opera company makes the money based on donations and endowments. The USFA
currently isn't ready for that. It has nothing to do with the sport, but
with the marketing plan on the administrative side of the organization.
The current fencing tournament plan that USFA uses does not invite the
possibility of having audiences. When I was local organizer for the 1997
Summer Nationals, I had planned to have spectators, but the arrangement of
the strips and the grandstands prevented spectators from being seated (and
charged for seeing the event). Until the tournament and staging formats
are changed, we will not see spectators at a tournament. And it has nothing
to do the way the fencing is done on the strip.
EDEW
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
Perhaps you misunderstand.....
The definitions by which those of us who call fencing a Martial ART use
the term "ART" are (based on the websters definition appended below) 1,
2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 (and some would say a touch of 10).
Many of us also believe that fencing done properly also meets the
criteria of definition 4.
Depending on where you do your course, and the structure of that
institution, some of the Masters around also fit definition 5 - when I
did my certification it was as part of a department of physical
education.... and therefore not an "Arts" Degree. But in some
institutions Fencing may well be part of the Arts/Humanities.
The definition of Art - From Websters:
Art \Art\ ([aum]rt), n. [F. art, L. ars, artis, orig., skill in joining
or fitting; prob. akin to E. arm, aristocrat, article.]
1. The employment of means to accomplish some desired end; the
adaptation of things in the natural world to the uses of life; the
application of knowledge or power to practical purposes.
2. A system of rules serving to facilitate the performance of
certain actions; a system of principles and rules for attaining a
desired end; method of doing well some special work; -- often
contradistinguished from science or speculative principles; as, the
art of building or engraving; the art of war; the art of
navigation.
3. The systematic application of knowledge or skill in effecting
adesired result. Also, an occupation or business requiring such
knowledge or skill.
4. The application of skill to the production of the beautiful by
imitation or design, or an occupation in which skill is so employed,as
in painting and sculpture; one of the fine arts; as, he prefers art to
literature.
5. pl. Those branches of learning which are taught in the academical
course of colleges; as, master of arts.
6. Learning; study; applied knowledge, science, or letters. [Archaic]
7. Skill, dexterity, or the power of performing certain actions,
acquired by experience, study, or observation; knack; as, a man has the
art of managing his business to advantage.
8. Skillful plan; device.
9. Cunning; artifice; craft.
10. The black art; magic. [Obs.] --Shak
Bye for now & Happy Fencing
David Laloum
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
John Twernbold
he's been fencing for 12 years, and competed in the 1997 USFA Nationals. He
just needs to provide us with the name he used at this event.
(I did a search at the USFA pages that list all results from the 1997 USFA
Nationals--both Division I Nationals and Summer Nationals--and wasn't able
to find his name in any event, although I found many Davids, Daves, and
Davises. I'm assuming that "Achilleus" is just a nickname he uses in
newsgroups.)
In any event, I'm sure he's a far better fencer than me, for I am still a
newcomer to the activity.
John
Fat boy Ed wrote:
> You must be on hell of a fencer. How many world cup points do you
>hold? Any one that can tell someone like Elvis Gregory or any of the
>other "Flickers" in the world cup standings, what REAL fencing is all
>about must have some serious qualifications. So what are they? Just
>curious.
David Achilleus <aki...@gtw.net> wrote:
> thats baloney. I fenced at USFA Nationals '97 and they bareky checked the
mask.
> They only ASKED me if I had a plastron on.
>
> DA
John Twernbold
the first time, and am not sure it appeared to anyone but me. If you see
this more than once, I apologize.]
Fat boy Ed
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 3 Jun 1999 04:20:14 GMT
> Eric Dew <ed...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >Here's my fast-food reason why classical fencing has disappeared from
> >modern fencing: anyone trying to use classical fencing in modern fencing
> >bouts will have his ass handed to him on a platter. The modern fencing
> >style is an evolution of strategies and techniques to beat the classical
> >style. No duh.
>
> INteresting - can you think of any examples of such tactics
> besides the infamous flick?
>
> Zebee
Greetings Zeebee
We, here in california, usa, have several groups of fencers from the
Italian School of fencing. Their guru is a guy named Gaugler. They use
classical Italian form using only the italian foil. I have fenced some of
their students over the years and it is always the same bout they get close
using a static guard( very little footwork) followed by a direct attack
to high line 4, or an attempt at a one -two. Because we are so accustomed to a
much faster tempo( distance distance advance whatever) their attack seems so
slow and we parry riposte/take/flick/bind/prime with ease. I have yet to fence
one of their group that i would consider a challenge. Maybe i haven't met
their club champion yet.
This past season we held a "D" and under foil tournament, and several
Italian school guys showed up only to be dismissed in the first elimination
round. One of my students easily found solutions to the Italian fencers game,
and prevailed. My student had been fencing several months and the Italian
several years. Of course this means nothing since it is the relative talent of
the athlete rather than the instruction that is the true indication of how
well a fencer will do.
This brings up an interesting thought. Is there such a thing as CLASSICAL
EPEE?
We spend our time haggling over classical vs. modern foil. What a waste of
time!Maybe we can find something else to haggle over, just to spice things
up.I am so jealous of you Australians- the olympics are coming to town! I
haven't seen olympic fencing since the Moscow games.But i digress.
Tactics: against an Italian guard.
feint4, angulate 4 feint4,desingage8 feint4,circular d/g4
beat4 hit4 beat 6 flick 8 beat down flick back
against simple attacks:
parry4,riposte4 parry 5 riposteflank8 take circular6 flick back
bind8 ripostelowline bind8riposte high line cede8 flick back
prime riposte low line prime close quarter riposte to chest
There is all kinds of stuff one can use some classical some modern. Like the
grateful dead say..." gotta use the right tool for the right job"....
Move move, measure the distance your opponent can cover, measure the automatic
(panic) parry in distance traveled and speed by using an exploratory beat
feint. Choose a strategy based on reconnaissence. Try a new motto"a parry is
NOT defensive, it is OFFENSIVE, hence if you parry then you opponent MUST be
hit". That's all the time I've got. Gotta go.
All the best .................Fat Boy Ed
David Achilleus
Fat boy Ed wrote:
> We, here in california, usa, have several groups of fencers from the
> Italian School of fencing. Their guru is a guy named Gaugler.
Dr. Gaugler is not a guru; I find this a bit offensive and offer appropriate
counter-thrust.
> This brings up an interesting thought. Is there such a thing as CLASSICAL
> EPEE?
Of course. It seems that my main complaint with sport fencers today is their lack
of interest in the History of their pass temps.
CF is the Tchnique of Occidental Swordsmanship which CFers believe was perfected
in the 19th century.
We are not reenactors.
We practice the Art as a living tradition of fencing study as it has been passed
down by Masters since the Renaissance.
> Tactics: against an Italian guard.
>
> feint4, angulate 4 feint4,desingage8 feint4,circular d/g4
> beat4 hit4 beat 6 flick 8 beat down flick back
> against simple attacks:
> parry4,riposte4 parry 5 riposteflank8 take circular6 flick back
> bind8 ripostelowline bind8riposte high line cede8 flick back
> prime riposte low line prime close quarter riposte to chest
OK. here is another difference.
If you and I were fencing, regardless of electrics or no, and you were to flick me
or use any other actions which
a) betrayed the conventions of the weapon
b) endangered the action or fencer
I would not accept it as an attack.
I will enumerate on another thread
DA
John Twernbold
>No, I mean the popularity of fencing. When was the last time a fencing
>bout filled a major opera house or theater with spectators in the USA?
So for this message thread, when you talk about the popularity of fencing,
you're referring to its popularity as a spectator sport, then? As a
spectator sport, it would seem this popularity is waning, judging from your
implication that it used to fill opera houses and theaters with large
audiences.
It would seem that others are discussing its popularity as a participant
sport; as such, it appears its popularity is increasing in the U.S., given
Dan Gorman's statement that USFA membership numbers are increasing. Perhaps
it is not necessary for fencing to become a popular spectator sport in order
to become a popular participant sport. An example of this would be the other
sport I enjoy--racquetball.
I'd like to know more about the status of fencing in Europe for spectators
and participants. Can any of our European fencers (or well-traveled American
fencers) enlighten me?
John
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
ed...@netcom.com (Eric Dew) wrote:
> Here's my fast-food reason why classical fencing has disappeared from
> modern fencing:
What possible basis do you have for saying that ?
Several World Champions within the "Modern Era" (last 20 years) were
very much Classical Fencers both by training and by style (Magnan -
France, Romankov - Russia) - not only that they are the ONLY fencers to
have achieved WC and Olympic titles in their 40's - thereby
demonstrating the long term efficiency of Classical Technique.
NO "Modern Sylist" has achieved this level of success. An analysis of
the best consistent winners (as opposed to the occasional flash in the
pan that disappears just as quickly)- shows that most of them are
Classically Trained - and then adapt as they have to, to win within the
current rules/interpretation refereeing environment and equipment
limitations.
In article <edewFCq...@netcom.com>,
ed...@netcom.com (Eric Dew) wrote:
> anyone trying to use classical fencing in modern fencing
> bouts will have his ass handed to him on a platter. The modern
> fencing style is an evolution of strategies and techniques to beat the
> classical style. No duh.
No the so called "modern" style is not a style at all, but a mish mash
of tricks appended on a style and technique - there are fencers out
there that don't learn a proper style/technique first.... then they have
a limited repertoir of moves & actions, which when combined with good
Natural timing, can achieve success in weaker divisions, and
occasionally get up to National level.... but often gets chewed up and
spat out by the fencers at National and International level who have a
true classical basis for their fencing technique.
To quote Maitre Ioan Pop (Technical Director, FIE) :
"If the teaching is correct, the technique is adaptable to any change in
style. If on the other hand the coordination has been taught
differently, fencers will be incapable of returning to a correct
coordination conforming with the Rules.
It is wiser and more ethical to wait for results based on a good
technical base, rather than sacrificing a future champion due to having
sought to obtain early but ephemeral results in the Junior categories."
( I posted a translation of his letter some weeks back )
The "Fast Food" Technique has never produced a world beating chef...
that I am afraid consistently comes from classical cuisine training,
regardless of what style the chef then turns the skills to.
Classical Fencing technique is the basis, the foundation on which you
can then build.
With regards to the "Flick" - the rules will change, the fashion will
fade - Style is always in fashion, Fashion is not always stylish....
As long as some referees rule that an advance with arm bent constitutes
an attack - a method that many current adherents to the "flick" school
use - the top fencers will at times use it as a tactic regardless of
whether or not their underlying technique is classical.
However this is and adaptation encourage by poor refereeing, and
incorrect reading of the rules.... Fixing the refereeing, is the first
step, ensure that if the point moves away from the target, it is no
longer considered to be a threat ( I believe current interpretation
rules that there is some angle at which it is considered to no longer
constitute a threat) - once you limit the distance the point can go
while still constituting a threat, and you read the rules correctly,
that is to say "The Extending Arm" gets right of way not the step
forwards, that simple change would remove all the worst flick excesses,
leaving actions which look to me very similar to a Classic Coupe....
Bye for now & happy fencing
Zebee Johnstone
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <slrn7lb8vq...@zipper.zip.com.au>, ze...@zip.com.au wrote:
>
>> Major problem being can you imagine any TV company picking it
>> up without the coloured uniforms? THey'd probably want LEDs on
>> the uniforms to light up when a hit was scored too...
>
>
>TV companies don't insist that boxers wear LEDs.
Nope.. you can see them hit, the camera focuses lovingly on the
sweat flying, the impact of fist on flesh, the look of pain.
The gloved fist is quite large, the site the blow lands obvious.
Zebee
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
ed...@netcom.com (Eric Dew) wrote:
<SNIP>
> >>modern fencing: anyone trying to use classical fencing in modern
fencing
> >>bouts will have his ass handed to him on a platter. The modern
fencing
> >>style is an evolution of strategies and techniques to beat the
classical
> >>style. No duh.
> >
> >besides the infamous flick?
> >
of
> squirming around in a counter-attack, attack with absence of blade
(which
> pre-dated flicks, so it isn't a flick). But the number one tactic is
more
> aggressive use of distance and motion.
You are implying that Classical Fencers do not make aggressive use of
distance. Non-Conventional parries seems a strange category - after all
the classical repertoir includes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 in addition to which
there are within the classical repertoir the variations on those 8 such
as high 7 & 8, low 3,4,6 and also Sabre variations of the parries which
can be used to protect the back and sides from a cut/flick.... these are
all part of the Classic repertoir.... please describe the
non-conventional parries you are talking about and perhaps I or another
participant can provide you with a relevant reference in a Classic
Fencing text (preferably one at least 100 years old!)
Squirming around in a counter-attack, might be describing classic
Italian style body evasions such as the Passata Sotto - which is a body
evasion counter-attack, and part of the Classic Italian repertoir.
And as for aggressive use of distance and motion, this is an aspect of
fitness athleticism and character type - and certainly not limited to
any one style or technique.
One of the guys at our Salle is a Martial Arts Professional - I have
never seen anyone come at me more aggressively! Quite frightening seeing
him Sabre in hand... But the style and technique he is learning along
with the rest of us is Classical.
Perhaps your definition of the word Classical is at fault?
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
char...@mindspring.com (Craig Harkins) wrote:
> Eric has demonstrated time and again that he does know what he is
> talking about here. His views, being those of one who competes at the
> NACs, are not agreeable to the "no flick - let's fence dry because
> electric is the bastardization of fencing" camp that is at the other
> end of the spectrum represented in this group.
Fair enough - but lets not assume that just because some proponents of
Classical Fencing are of the "dry" persuasion means that we all are.
I consider myself a Classical Fencer, I have in the past competed in
Sports Tournaments and will again in the future - My current salle is
dry, but assuming that all CF'ers take that perspective is a little too
rich.
David Achilleus is obviously strongly opinionated, and not always
diplomatic in his assertions - but these are still a set of opinions.
Most (if not all) qualified fencing Masters are trained Classically, the
two US based Masters courses represent the two major influences in
fencing this century - East coast has a French based school, and West
coast has an Italian based school.... but both of these follow a
Classical pedagogie
<SNIP>
> Sport fencing has evolved over the past few years so that it is more
> athletic than 10 or 15 years ago. When I started fencing many years
> ago, the top levels of US fencing were far less athletic than they are
> now. The techniques and tactics that have evolved over this time
> period have emphasized the increased athleticism and the increased
> strength and speed of the modern fencer. This evolution makes it much
> easier for a modern fencer to beat an older fencer trained on older
> techniques in a competition.
I challenge that statement... perhaps the average athletic level has
been rising, but the level of top fencers has always been excellent -
D'Oriola (Olympic champ in both 52, and 56, and numerous times World
champ) was famous for being able to make lighting fast extended lunges,
and then being able to make enormous leaps backwards from that extended
lunge, taking him several yards back to land "en guarde".
Now if that isn't athleticism I don't know what is!!!
Magnan was world champ several times during the 70's, he was famous for
practicing with martial arts weights strapped to his wrists and ankles -
just to build up the muscles.
Fencing has always been an athletic pursuit, and fitness has always been
a valuable edge to competitors.... however fitness is no replacement for
technique, and I have often seen very fit young fencers thrashed by
elderly masters - usually as an object lesson in the reason why they
need to learn technique. Given 2 fencers of equal technique, the fitter
one will win. Given a choice between technical training and fitness
training many of the current generation will choose fitness training
because it is currently fashionable (all the trendy people work out at
the gym.... ) - so what w sometimes see nowadays is a competition
between the very fit poor technique and the not so fit good technique,
which is a battle that can go either way.
On the other hand when we see someone who has both, it is usually a
National or World Champion...... self evident really isn't it!
Bye for now & happy fencing
David Laloum
P.S. for those interested in a late 19th century style Classical Fencing
event, take a look at http://www.martinez-destreza.com/competition/
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
"Colin Chock" <Ch...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> -improvement of refereeing goes a long way to quelling arguments about
> flicking.
Hallelujah....
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
just for a change, we are in agreement.
Fencing is being promoted wrongly, or not at all.
How the hell are we going to get people to watch fencing, if we don't
even provide any spectator seating! (Duh!)
Also there is no promotion of fencing, no fencing culture to speak of.
For those of us who are sufficiently interested to go out and watch a
national event (if we aren't taking part in one capacity or another) -
we can't do it !!!
For the final of the 1992 Melbourne International Epee Challenge, the
Australian team set up a venue, with ranks of seats, about the size of a
small/medium theatre.
All the seats were sold out. (mostly to fencers and their
families/friends but still!)
At the 1991 event, the final was held during a formal black tie gala
dinner event - seats were considerably more expensive, about 70% sold,
and the event ended up making a loss.... Obviously our audience was not
ready for this.
These events need to :
a) be available to watch - ie have seats
b) be reasonably priced or free to spectators
c) be publicised in their local area
But I guess I am preaching to the choir here!
Bye for now & Happy fencing
David Laloum
P.S. - Classical fencing - whether dry or electric - makes a better
spectacle. sorry I just had to get that in!
In article <edewFCr...@netcom.com>,
ed...@netcom.com (Eric Dew) wrote:
> >No, I mean the popularity of fencing. When was the last time a
fencing
> >bout filled a major opera house or theater with spectators in the
USA?
>
john blair moore
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>
>
> > Major problem being can you imagine any TV company picking it
> > up without the coloured uniforms? THey'd probably want LEDs on
> > the uniforms to light up when a hit was scored too...
>
> TV companies don't insist that boxers wear LEDs.
>
>
The hell with the lights. I think the electric contacts should trigger funny
noises. BOINK! BLOOP! BZAAAAAH! CRASH!
Audiences would eat it up.
JBM
--
3 gratifying ways to waste time:
http://www.nuerble.com
http://www.3guys.com
http://www.meanwhile.com
john blair moore
John Twernbold wrote:
> Let's give Mr. Achilleus the benefit of the doubt. He has mentioned that
> he's been fencing for 12 years, and competed in the 1997 USFA Nationals. He
> just needs to provide us with the name he used at this event.
>
> (I did a search at the USFA pages that list all results from the 1997 USFA
> Nationals--both Division I Nationals and Summer Nationals--and wasn't able
> to find his name in any event, although I found many Davids, Daves, and
> Davises. I'm assuming that "Achilleus" is just a nickname he uses in
> newsgroups.)
>
> In any event, I'm sure he's a far better fencer than me, for I am still a
> newcomer to the activity.
>
>
David's name is a personal matter, and it's up to him if he want to share it. I
don't see that its necessary to the discussion for him to prove he was there.
For what it's worth, though, I can assure you he speaks truly.
I'm one of his pupils. It's a matter of great interest to me that I am 50, and
he is far younger than me.
I can tell you too that he is a fencer of excellence. A terror to oppose, and
a joy to watch.
JBM
Kermann
advantage, losing many fights because i was relying exclusively on feints
disengages and straight lunges.
Douglas M. Jole wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Kermann wrote:
>
>> i have never enjoyed fencing as much as i have in the past couple of
weeks,
>> and its all because i have learned to flick.
>> i am a newbie and have been fencing for 5 months and was getting
frustrated
>> and wasnt enjoying fencing i would probably have given it up but now i
enjoy
>> it so much i will never.
>> hence flicks have been directly responsible for drawing me to the sport.
>
>Just make sure that you don't become a "one-flick"...er..."one-trick"
>pony. You need to make sure you can do it all, and counter it all as
>well. I'm curious to know what was frustrating for you before.
>
Simon Axon
David Achilleus put on his kiddie hat and wrote:
>
> OK. here is another difference.
> If you and I were fencing, regardless of electrics or no, and you were to flick me
> or use any other actions which
> a) betrayed the conventions of the weapon
> b) endangered the action or fencer
> I would not accept it as an attack.
>
> I will enumerate on another thread
>
> DA
So if we don't play nice you take your ball away?
May I quote you? "A better fencer knows how to recieve touches as well as give
them." I presume this is unless he decides not to?
I'm afraid I have had no experience of "classical" fencing - I have had enough to
occupy me getting to my current execrable level in the modern sport - and I don't want
to get into a shouting match about how long I've been fencing - let's just say it's
longer than you, matey.
That said, any sport I can immediately recall has a defined set of rules, which
specify what is a success and what is a failure. That is how someone wins and someone
loses. It is not up to you to decide what you consider an attack, and therefore the
sort of - okay, let's compromise - the sort of movement to which you will concede a
hit. It is decided by the rules of the game. The rules are mainly to do with getting
your light on before the other guy, or at least prove it was your idea first. People
have discovered that they can get that light on quickly and reasonably effectively
(particularly against lesser opposition) by occasionally using a flick. Right or
wrong, it is currently allowed, and it is not up to you to decide otherwise.
Fine - if you don't wish to fence those who use or rely on this form of offensive
action, then that's entirely up to you, but don't try to compare modern fencing
directly with classical fencing, because from what I have heard, they *are*
significantly different, and what is considered correct by one side attracts giggles
at best, and patronising arrogance at worst from the other side. From what I've read
on here, that goes both ways.
Where modern fencers (I suspect) in the majority have respect for the way the
classical Art is practised, please do us the courtesy of returning at least a portion
of that respect, in recognition of a sport that is as different from your Art as
American football is from rugby.
--
SA
Simon Axon
of the Good Contest which should encompass all four (and probably some more I
can't think of right now).
Either:
1. The flicker doesn't really know what they are doing and has picked it up
somewhere (after all, it's as easy to practise flicking the top of the sofa as
it is to hit the front of it "properly")
2. The flicker is lazy, and instead of practising something which may be useful
and at least exercises his brain a little, he persists in the flick which,
although he has it down pat, is not improving his game, particularly when
fencing a lesser opponent, when he can drop a couple of hits without too much of
a problem
3. The flicker isn't really a flicker, as he only uses it when it is most
appropriate, and mixes it in with all the rest of the moves he knows - each of
which is used at precisely the correct opportunity.
Which of these would provide the Good Contest which includes Mike's four
criteria? I'd say it is probably over-use of the flick rather than the flick
itself which detracts from the Good Contest A significant part of GC is
watchability - on the other hand, I don't really mind - if both fencers are
flailing at each other in a constant series of flicks, I find it much easier to
drop off for my between-rounds snooze...
Mike Pandazis wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I'd like to suggest some criteria for the GOOD CONTEST, just so as to bring
> the thread back to subject.
>
> (i) It should involve a high degree of skill.
>
> (ii) It should require both natural talent and training, balanced in favour
> of the latter.
>
> (iii) It should allow contestants to draw on a wide range of qualities, both
> physical and psychological.
>
> (iv) It should acheive the above in a manner appreciable by the uninitiated
> (but interested) spectator.
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> Mike
--
Simon Axon
------------------
Day 01905 795335
Eve 01905 772213
Mobile 0370 997068
Fat boy Ed
David Achilleus wrote:
> Fat boy Ed wrote:
>
> > We, here in california, usa, have several groups of fencers from the
> > Italian School of fencing. Their guru is a guy named Gaugler.
>
> Dr. Gaugler is not a guru; I find this a bit offensive and offer appropriate
> counter-thrust.
>
> > This brings up an interesting thought. Is there such a thing as CLASSICAL
> > EPEE?
>
> Of course. It seems that my main complaint with sport fencers today is their lack
> of interest in the History of their pass temps.
> CF is the Tchnique of Occidental Swordsmanship which CFers believe was perfected
> in the 19th century.
> We are not reenactors.
> We practice the Art as a living tradition of fencing study as it has been passed
> down by Masters since the Renaissance.
>
> > Tactics: against an Italian guard.
> >
> > feint4, angulate 4 feint4,desingage8 feint4,circular d/g4
> > beat4 hit4 beat 6 flick 8 beat down flick back
> > against simple attacks:
> > parry4,riposte4 parry 5 riposteflank8 take circular6 flick back
> > bind8 ripostelowline bind8riposte high line cede8 flick back
> > prime riposte low line prime close quarter riposte to chest
>
> OK. here is another difference.
> If you and I were fencing, regardless of electrics or no, and you were to flick me
> or use any other actions which
> a) betrayed the conventions of the weapon
> b) endangered the action or fencer
> I would not accept it as an attack.
>
> I will enumerate on another thread
>
> DA
It is so obvious that we do not play the same game. Recently i was watching a really
cool video tape of the Schlager fraternities in Germany and boy, i felt like such a
woozie.
Here are these wackos who use sharp weapons and go until there is BLOOD on the blade
and they hope as hell that the blood is on yourOWN blade and NOT on your head. This
brings into perspective all this bullshit about what is or is not REAL fencing. We are
all posers in the grand scheme of things. Unless you have stood your ground with a
sharpie, you are one of us. Because I am too much a coward to hold the real thing in
my hand, there is no way I'd ever tell someone what is or ain't the real thing, And by
the way, I could'nt give a rats ass about the history of fencing. Like Wayne's friend
Garth always says , "Live in the now!"
, Fat Boy Ed
Fat boy Ed
laloum...@jpmorgan.com wrote:
> In article <edewFCq...@netcom.com>,
> ed...@netcom.com (Eric Dew) wrote:
> > Here's my fast-food reason why classical fencing has disappeared from
> > modern fencing:
>
> What possible basis do you have for saying that ?
> Several World Champions within the "Modern Era" (last 20 years) were
> very much Classical Fencers both by training and by style (Magnan -
> France, Romankov - Russia) - not only that they are the ONLY fencers to
> have achieved WC and Olympic titles in their 40's - thereby
> demonstrating the long term efficiency of Classical Technique.
>
> NO "Modern Sylist" has achieved this level of success. An analysis of
> the best consistent winners (as opposed to the occasional flash in the
> pan that disappears just as quickly)- shows that most of them are
> Classically Trained - and then adapt as they have to, to win within the
> current rules/interpretation refereeing environment and equipment
> limitations.
>
> In article <edewFCq...@netcom.com>,
> ed...@netcom.com (Eric Dew) wrote:
> > anyone trying to use classical fencing in modern fencing
> > bouts will have his ass handed to him on a platter. The modern
> > fencing style is an evolution of strategies and techniques to beat the
> > classical style. No duh.
>
> Bye for now & happy fencing
>
> David Laloum
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Greetings David
Romankov was a treat to watch. I totally buy your argument on the bent
arm attack. I love using it when i can get away with it. How do you feel
about the beat/ flick? Once the beat establishes right of way and the flick
in on its way, do you think it should be a PROPER attack? I personally try
to beat before i flick just to get that pesky right of way thing
established. Howboutit? Just wondering . I was watching last years world
championship and watched Elvis Gregory land this awesome flick on
Golibitsky. It was so far ahead in time and yet Golubitsky was contesting
it. How do you feel about flicks that are ahead in time? I hope you don't
say that they are ALL worthless.
Fat Boy Ed
Zebee Johnstone
I enjoy it as an art.
It's not as quick a fix as it is when it's a sport - says she who
just spent 2 hours being shown how much she doesn't know - but
it's still incredibly enjoyable.
I don't enjoy it is the object is winning. I enjoy the dance
and the learning about myself.
There are times it's a game, there are times it's an art, but
it's enjoyable no matter which it is being right then.
Zebee
Eric Dew
>In article <37568839...@tabloid.internal.mindspring.com>,
> char...@mindspring.com (Craig Harkins) wrote:
>> Eric has demonstrated time and again that he does know what he is
>> talking about here. His views, being those of one who competes at the
>> NACs, are not agreeable to the "no flick - let's fence dry because
>> electric is the bastardization of fencing" camp that is at the other
>> end of the spectrum represented in this group.
>
>Fair enough - but lets not assume that just because some proponents of
>Classical Fencing are of the "dry" persuasion means that we all are.
>
>I consider myself a Classical Fencer, I have in the past competed in
>Sports Tournaments and will again in the future - My current salle is
>dry, but assuming that all CF'ers take that perspective is a little too
>rich.
It seems from the several replies to my post about modern fencers handing
classical fencers' their ass on a platter that people are defining classical
fencing as any action which isn't the flick. Well, if that is the case,
then my answer to Zebee is well, there's the flick.
Personally, from other statements in other posts on these threads here,
I think the difference between modern fencing and classical fencing is
the emphasis on winning from the former and the emphasis on form from the
latter.
If you care about form, then you are (probably) a classical fencer. If you
care to win, or to fence to win, then you are (probably) a modern fencer.
EDEW
Zebee Johnstone
Eric Dew <ed...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>If you care about form, then you are (probably) a classical fencer. If you
>care to win, or to fence to win, then you are (probably) a modern fencer.
I think that's the real line.
The end, not the means :)
The end does define the means of course, for example if a sport fencer
wants his end, he has to "fence the director", and will be happy
in taking any advantage the rules give.
Whereas a classical fencer is more about getting it "right" and gets
his kicks from that.
Doesnt' mean that CFers don't like winning :) but it does, I think,
mean they often define it differently - not *just* the touch.
Zebee
Casper
>
> The "Fast Food" Technique has never produced a world beating chef...
> that I am afraid consistently comes from classical cuisine training,
> regardless of what style the chef then turns the skills to.
>
> Classical Fencing technique is the basis, the foundation on which you
> can then build.
>
Finally some words of wisdom. No one ever said you should abandon your
basis. Personally I think Maitres who teach their pupils the "fency" stuff
before they know how to do a decent parry-riposte should be shot on sight.
Our quarel with some so-called classical fencers is they are so closed
minded they do not eveolve beyond their basis. This is fine by me, you can
be a wold top fencer without the flick, but, these guys do not allow other
fencers to explore these possibilities.
>
> With regards to the "Flick" - the rules will change, the fashion will
> fade - Style is always in fashion, Fashion is not always stylish....
>
> As long as some referees rule that an advance with arm bent constitutes
> an attack - a method that many current adherents to the "flick" school
> use - the top fencers will at times use it as a tactic regardless of
> whether or not their underlying technique is classical.
>
> However this is and adaptation encourage by poor refereeing, and
> incorrect reading of the rules.... Fixing the refereeing, is the first
> step, ensure that if the point moves away from the target, it is no
> longer considered to be a threat ( I believe current interpretation
> rules that there is some angle at which it is considered to no longer
> constitute a threat) - once you limit the distance the point can go
> while still constituting a threat, and you read the rules correctly,
> that is to say "The Extending Arm" gets right of way not the step
> forwards, that simple change would remove all the worst flick excesses,
> leaving actions which look to me very similar to a Classic Coupe....
>
Some more words of wisdom (we should have discussions about the flick like
this all the time :-). The flick IS very similar to the Classic Coupe. In a
flick you just make better use of the flexibillity of modern blades. This
allows you to coupe over parry and to the back of the shoulder.
The problem is only very few fencers know how to do a halfway decent flick.
They just come running forward and slap their blade down from their elbow.
As long as directors let fencers get away with this you'll see some
oppostion to the flick.
The top-fencers you refer to flick as a flick should be done, point first,
extending arm, feet last. The not-so-top-fencers who insist an attack is
anything what hits and the not-so-top directors are the reason why we keep
having the same stupid discussion over and over and over again.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
When Walking on thin ice you might as well dance
Casper de Swarte
Fencing Foundation Groningen
C.de....@bioledu.rug.nl
---------------------------------------------------------
Craig Harkins
wrote:
>i have never enjoyed fencing as much as i have in the past couple of weeks,
>and its all because i have learned to flick.
>i am a newbie and have been fencing for 5 months and was getting frustrated
>and wasnt enjoying fencing i would probably have given it up but now i enjoy
>it so much i will never.
>hence flicks have been directly responsible for drawing me to the sport.
>
>
Good for you. If you are having fun, then that's what it is all
about. If your goal is to get a workout and have fun fencing, then it
seems like you are accomplishing your goal.
Others may say "bad for you, in my day we trained for 6 years before
picking up a rusty old weapon, and we liked it!" Well, if that's what
they wanted to sign on for, then that's fine. If they wanted to have
fun, then not so good.
I would suggest that to keep progressing you will have to combine
refining your current techniques with learning new ones. If you want
some suggestions on fencing games and footwork drills, I have some at
my site - www.fencing.net. (Shameless plug, but people seem to like
the exercises.)
Cheers,
Craig
Craig Harkins
Maloney) wrote:
>In article <37555085...@unix.tamu.edu>, ebg...@unix.tamu.edu wrote:
>
>Aldo Nadi was able to draw capacity crowds when he appeared in the USA.
>Name one fencer who can do that today.
>
But nobody could dunk a basketball then.
<g>
Cheers,
Craig
Craig Harkins
Maloney) wrote:
>In article <edewFCq...@netcom.com>, ed...@netcom.com (Eric Dew) wrote:
>
>> Probably Bryan meant popularity of dry re-creational fencing.
>
>No, I mean the popularity of fencing. When was the last time a fencing
>bout filled a major opera house or theater with spectators in the USA?
>
The women's world cup final held in Atlanta filled up the Egyptian
ballroom of the Fox Theatre with spectators. They were all dressed
nicely and sipping on wine as well. It was a very nice event.
Cheers,
Craig
Craig Harkins
>Hi Eric,
>
>just for a change, we are in agreement.
>
>Fencing is being promoted wrongly, or not at all.
>
Agree.
>How the hell are we going to get people to watch fencing, if we don't
>even provide any spectator seating! (Duh!)
>
>Also there is no promotion of fencing, no fencing culture to speak of.
>
>For those of us who are sufficiently interested to go out and watch a
>national event (if we aren't taking part in one capacity or another) -
>we can't do it !!!
>
Right. Finals are not scheduled a month in advance to begin at a
certain time so that spectators can wander in at the correct time.
Even if they were, there would be no seats left because of the fencers
that stick around after competing to see the event. This leaves the
casual observer with no way to get a good seat to see the event.
>For the final of the 1992 Melbourne International Epee Challenge, the
>Australian team set up a venue, with ranks of seats, about the size of a
>small/medium theatre.
>
>All the seats were sold out. (mostly to fencers and their
>families/friends but still!)
>At the 1991 event, the final was held during a formal black tie gala
>dinner event - seats were considerably more expensive, about 70% sold,
>and the event ended up making a loss.... Obviously our audience was not
>ready for this.
>
>These events need to :
>a) be available to watch - ie have seats
>b) be reasonably priced or free to spectators
>c) be publicised in their local area
>
>But I guess I am preaching to the choir here!
>
>Bye for now & Happy fencing
>
>David Laloum
>
>P.S. - Classical fencing - whether dry or electric - makes a better
>spectacle. sorry I just had to get that in!
>
>
>In article <edewFCr...@netcom.com>,
> ed...@netcom.com (Eric Dew) wrote:
>> >No, I mean the popularity of fencing. When was the last time a
>fencing
>> >bout filled a major opera house or theater with spectators in the
>USA?
>>
Craig Harkins
<g>
On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 07:36:14 -0500, David Achilleus <aki...@gtw.net>
wrote:
>Kermann wrote:
>
>> they are legal so why not?
>>
>
>its legal to spend your life as a mediorce fencer, so why not?
>
>
>DA
>
Craig Harkins
>In article <37568839...@tabloid.internal.mindspring.com>,
> char...@mindspring.com (Craig Harkins) wrote:
>> Eric has demonstrated time and again that he does know what he is
>> talking about here. His views, being those of one who competes at the
>> NACs, are not agreeable to the "no flick - let's fence dry because
>> electric is the bastardization of fencing" camp that is at the other
>> end of the spectrum represented in this group.
>
>Fair enough - but lets not assume that just because some proponents of
>Classical Fencing are of the "dry" persuasion means that we all are.
>
Okay. I'll agree with you here. I am basing my comments on my
experience, but I can see that there would be a lot of CF'ers who use
electric to score.
>I consider myself a Classical Fencer, I have in the past competed in
>Sports Tournaments and will again in the future - My current salle is
>dry, but assuming that all CF'ers take that perspective is a little too
>rich.
>
I see your points here, and I'm not so sure that we're that far from
each other.
My main point is that with the increase in the general athleticism of
the populace and the advances in sports medicine, psychology, and
fitness training there has been an increase in the athletic abilities
of those who train for competition in sport. I have no doubt that in
the past the highest level of fencer has been in great shape
physically. I believe, however, that the level of the top tier is
much higher than it was 10 to 15 years ago (using the US as my
example) based upon what I have seen here at the NACs and Nationals in
that time.
This has been the trend with all sports, not just fencing and has been
pretty well documented.
I will agree that the most athletic fencer will not beat a skilled and
experienced fencer. When I was a young pup, we referred to it as the
"sleaze factor". The older fencers knew we were young and cocky and
used it very well against us. I now use it very well against the
younger fencers I train with. (And the outbursts are quite amusing.)
I think that we really agree because my long rambling really can be
boiled down to one of your points: In a bout between two equally
trained/skilled (technique) fencers, the one with the greater
athleticism (fitness) will tend to win.
Wow - it's nice to know that we can have a discussion and not a flame
war. <g>
Cheers,
Craig
>Bye for now & happy fencing
>
>David Laloum
>
>P.S. for those interested in a late 19th century style Classical Fencing
>event, take a look at http://www.martinez-destreza.com/competition/
>
>
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
Good Response...
In article <3756C139...@humboldt1.com>,
Fat boy Ed <gray...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> > INteresting - can you think of any examples of such tactics
> > besides the infamous flick?
> >
> > Zebee
<SNIP>
> We, here in california, usa, have several groups of fencers
from the
> Italian School of fencing. Their guru is a guy named Gaugler. They use
> classical Italian form using only the italian foil. I have fenced some
of
> their students over the years and it is always the same bout they get
close
> using a static guard( very little footwork) followed by a direct
attack
> to high line 4, or an attempt at a one -two. Because we are so
accustomed to a
> much faster tempo( distance distance advance whatever) their attack
seems so
> slow and we parry riposte/take/flick/bind/prime with ease. I have yet
to fence
> one of their group that i would consider a challenge. Maybe i haven't
met
> their club champion yet.
> This past season we held a "D" and under foil tournament, and
several
> Italian school guys showed up only to be dismissed in the first
elimination
> round. One of my students easily found solutions to the Italian
fencers game,
> and prevailed. My student had been fencing several months and the
Italian
> several years. Of course this means nothing since it is the relative
talent of
> the athlete rather than the instruction that is the true indication of
how
> well a fencer will do.
> This brings up an interesting thought. Is there such a thing as
CLASSICAL
> EPEE?
> We spend our time haggling over classical vs. modern foil. What a
waste of
> time!Maybe we can find something else to haggle over, just to spice
things
> up.I am so jealous of you Australians- the olympics are coming to
town! I
> haven't seen olympic fencing since the Moscow games.But i digress.
> Tactics: against an Italian guard.
>
> feint4, angulate 4 feint4,desingage8 feint4,circular d/g4
> beat4 hit4 beat 6 flick 8 beat down flick
back
> against simple attacks:
> parry4,riposte4 parry 5 riposteflank8 take circular6 flick
back
> bind8 ripostelowline bind8riposte high line cede8 flick back
> prime riposte low line prime close quarter riposte to chest
>
> There is all kinds of stuff one can use some classical some modern.
Like the
> grateful dead say..." gotta use the right tool for the right job"....
> Move move, measure the distance your opponent can cover, measure the
automatic
> (panic) parry in distance traveled and speed by using an exploratory
beat
> feint. Choose a strategy based on reconnaissence. Try a new motto"a
parry is
> NOT defensive, it is OFFENSIVE, hence if you parry then you opponent
MUST be
> hit". That's all the time I've got. Gotta go.
Now that is a true fencing post! - also check out the posting with
regards to official interpretations from the FIE re-"Flicks"
(http://x21.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=0&AN=485598983.1
&mhitnum=0&CONTEXT=928508801.833683495)
Keep in mind that not all Italian style fencers are quite as Static....
in fact my experience with the Italian style is that it tends to be more
dynamic/aggressive than the French style.
The French tends to say - any time I parry I will hit you on a Riposte.
Italian tends to say any time you attack, I will counter attack with
opposition and hit you..... sort of similar but different.
This is my (limited) experience of fencing Italian style fencers...
bye for now & Happy fencing
David Laloum
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
Yeah, I love watching fencing when it is done that well!!
In article <37577747...@humboldt1.com>,
Fat boy Ed <gray...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
<Massiv SNIP - mostly my old posting!>
> Romankov was a treat to watch. I totally buy your argument on the bent
> arm attack. I love using it when i can get away with it. How do you
feel
> about the beat/ flick? Once the beat establishes right of way and the
flick
> in on its way, do you think it should be a PROPER attack? I personally
try
> to beat before i flick just to get that pesky right of way thing
> established. Howboutit? Just wondering . I was watching last years
world
> championship and watched Elvis Gregory land this awesome flick on
> Golibitsky. It was so far ahead in time and yet Golubitsky was
contesting
> it. How do you feel about flicks that are ahead in time? I hope you
don't
> say that they are ALL worthless.
An attack that scores is never worthless!!! But it has to fit within the
conventions of the game... so therefore any attack that may bend the arm
(coupe & flick) has to either minimise that flexing, and keep the point
substantially threatening the target in an extended(ing?) arm position,
or it has to be "in time" - if the defender sits there and doesn't
respond - that's his/her tough luck!
Time is however another interesting and contentious issue - mostly to do
with "fencing lawyers" rather than pure fencers.
Theoretically the fencing time is the time taken to do a simple action.
But what if one fencer does his simple action so slowly that the
opponent has enough time to hit, have a cup of coffee and then get back
on the piste again....
A degree of common sense would say - too bad for the snail... he should
be faster.... If their timing is close together then the debate becomes
far more contentious!
But if the timing seemed clearly in one fencers favour, given that the
phrasing is up to the director, there is no opportunity for a protest -
you can protest a reading of the rules but not a reading of the
phrasing.... if the director rules that it was "in time" then it was!
- I am also of the school of thought that says a perfect coupe should
not flex the arm at the elbow, and is executed with fingers and wrist
only!... which is a very french attitude - My current Maestro teaches a
more Italian style, and tends to flex slightly at the elbow - it still
looks very Classical, and the deviation from front is only marginal....
the issue is that you can only do a proper coupe that maintains right of
way for the attack, if you are at the correct distance - if you are too
close then it forces you to bend the arm and surrender right of way. If
your attack is still in time this does not matter, but there is a risk
involved.
The problem with flicks and coupe's is when they are done at the wrong
distance, or with bent arm, and then there is an attempt to claim right
of way... (bronx cheer...) you benda youra arm you loosa youra right of
way (as Chico Marx might have said if he was a fencer)!
Bye for now & Happy Fencing
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
In article <7j5n3c$pop$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
"Mike Pandazis" <mp...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I'd like to suggest some criteria for the GOOD CONTEST, just so as to
bring
> the thread back to subject.
>
> (i) It should involve a high degree of skill.
>
Yes - otherwise why watch it?
> (ii) It should require both natural talent and training, balanced in
favour
> of the latter.
Exactly in otherwords biased in favour of skill rather than strenght -
Fencing after all is a matter of outsmarting the opponent rather than
battering them into the ground.
> (iii) It should allow contestants to draw on a wide range of
qualities, both physical and psychological.
>
Absolutely
> (iv) It should acheive the above in a manner appreciable by the
uninitiated (but interested) spectator.
This is harder !
The major problem with Foil is the understanding required by the
conventions (right of way) - In fact no one has a problem with the Flick
as a competitive technique, the problem lies with the definition of
right of way and its association to the flick!
Right of Way is difficult to comprehend to the uninitiated, and was
originally devised as a means of teaching to right defensive instincts,
not as a combat technique.
To attract the audience, we must display more of a combat and less of an
academic discipline, therefore no right of way, and therefore Epee.
Note that although flicks are used in Epee they have less prevalence and
less debate due to a total lack of RoW debate! - Also Epeeists tend to
have a more "Classical Style" (an opinion and an observation based on a
couple of WC events I have watched/attended)
To Make things more visible for the spectators, we should have some
means of making the blades more visible from a distance, and making the
contrast between blade and fencing outfit greater, so as to make hits
more obvious both from a distance (where live seating is located) and
via Video/TV/Photography.
Another sport that could really do with some polishing up is Sabre -
This where the true potential of fencing as a spectator sport lies.
1) Sabre is a Cut&thrust weapon, which is what the uninitiated think of
when they think "sword"
2) Cuts are obvious - easy to see from a distance
3) The weapon looks more like what people expect a "sword" to look like
BUT :
Sabre needs to dump its pedagogical conventions, and return to some of
its duelling roots. Perhaps the relationship between Epee and Foil could
be duplicated with a "Duelling Sabre" event.
The use of the edge must be re-introduced - a sword without an edge is a
metal stick .... no romance to it!
This means that there is a technological challenge involved in creating
blades with electrical sensing of the edge, point and back edge, and
electrical insulation of the flat. (or perhaps vice-versa ?)
This might well result in a weapon substantially heavier than current
Sabres..... which is not a problem, heavier weapons & no conventions,
means slower more cautious play, which makes it clearer to the
uninitiated and makes it a better spectator sport.
For those of us who consider fencing to be a Martial Art, this makes a
whole lot of sense, duelling and combat sabres were heavier.... also the
Martial Art connection would be re-awakened, resulting in increased
interest in the sabre, and more coverage, spectators, and participants.
Any suggestions for how to make an appropriate blade ?
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
Casper <C.de....@bioledu.rug.nl> wrote:
> laloum...@jpmorgan.com wrote:
>
> > Please define exactly what action you are talking about when you say
> > "flick", and how it is executed.
> >
> > The FIE rules do not have such a term, nor do they describe an
attack
> > in this manner, and prior to entering a discussion, it is wise to
> > ensure that you are not simply arguing over differing descriptions
of
> > the same thing!
> >
> > Any standard Fencing text will provide a good definition of a direct
> > simple attack, the disengage, the coupe, attacks by one-two using
the
> > disengage (or coupe), and combinations with lunges and steps. In
> > addition these are specifically mentioned in the FIE rules.
> >
>
> Oh please...most fencing actions aren't described in the holy
FIE-rulebook,
> that doesn't mean they do not X-sist. Next thing you know will be
having
> bi-monthly discussions about the legal-status of a contra-sixte.
Hmm - I think I am being misunderstood!
The point I am trying to make, is that in reality, a correctly executed
flick is almost identical to a coupe - and the same rules apply!
> >
> > So - 1 what is it that YOU mean by "Flick" (as opposed to what I man
by
> > "flick")
>
> I have to agree with you here. I think a LOT of the characters in the
never
> ending story of the Flick do not even know how a flick is properly
> executed.
My stress on getting a description, is that a lot of people consider a
correct flick to include bending the arm to 90 degrees (point/blade
vertical), then bringing it down to strike the opponent.
And they also consider that they have right of way from the moment that
they retract the arm upwards, in preparation for bringing it back down.
To me, the retraction is not an extending arm... nor is a vertical blade
threatening the target, so right of way is not an issue.
If on the other hand we are talking about a beat to draw a reaction,
followed by a coupe/flick into the opposite line to hit.... if correctly
excuted, it is a very classical move - the only difference being in the
final action that prings the point into contact with the opponent being
slightly different in a flick to a thrust.
Many of the problems with the flick are caused by poor presiding /
directing at lower levels of national/divisional competition where
inexperienced (or misinformed!) directors are giving these bent arm
actions right of way against simple direct attacks on the preparation.
So my question with regards to "what do you mean by a flick" is
pertinent in ascertaining whether the speaker understands the
requirements of executing a flick that maintains right of way, and / or
understands that if that is not the case, the flick must be "in time" to
score.
Douglas M. Jole
> >I'm curious to know what was frustrating for you before.
Kermann replied:
> not knowing how to flick, seeing others do it and knowing they had this
> advantage, losing many fights because i was relying exclusively on feints
> disengages and straight lunges.
So you had been fencing for 5 months, and were you up against other
fencers who were fencing for the same amount of time, or longer?
I agree, it is indeed frustrating the first time you meet an opponent with
a good flick. Learning to counter them helps quite a bit, too.
It seems to me, and many others here, that the key to the problem is the
recognizance of right-of-way, and what establishes it.
Just like non-flick attacks, a flick can be a valid attack, or a
counter-attack (in time or out of time) depending on what seems to be the
variable whims of the way many referees are watching the bout.
It's good that you're still in the sport and having fun, though. That's
why most of us really fence, because we like doing it, for different
reasons.
Douglas M. Jole
> I think that we really agree because my long rambling really can be
> boiled down to one of your points: In a bout between two equally
> trained/skilled (technique) fencers, the one with the greater
> athleticism (fitness) will tend to win.
And perhaps the obverse: that in a bout between two equally fit
fencers,the better trained/skilled one will win.
ha...@no.spam.efn.org
> Fair enough - but lets not assume that just because some proponents of
> Classical Fencing are of the "dry" persuasion means that we all are.
>
> I consider myself a Classical Fencer, I have in the past competed in
> Sports Tournaments and will again in the future - My current salle is
> dry, but assuming that all CF'ers take that perspective is a little too
> rich.
>
> David Achilleus is obviously strongly opinionated, and not always
> diplomatic in his assertions - but these are still a set of opinions.
Thanks for the sane comments. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion,
but I always give far more weight to the person who expresses them in a
reasonable manner. I suspect most other people do so also.
For the record, not all of us classical fencers get bent out of shape at
the words "sport", "electric" and "flick". Flick all you want - use an
electric weapon to do it (I have several of them myself) - and I'll find a
way to beat you with classical technique . . . or die trying ;-)
Sabre-style parries work wonders, as does good use of distance and fast,
fancy footwork. Of course, proper direction helps out ;-)
I think it's a misconception among many sport fencers (and some classical
fencers) that classicists care more about form than about hitting/not
being hit. The closer to technical perfection that your form and your
fencing actions are in the safe circumstances of the lesson, the closer
they'll be when the heat's on in the fencing bout - but when the heat's
on, you use those hard-earned techniques to control distance and tempo, to
confuse your opponent and open lines, and to *hit*, not to look pretty.
Don't spend your strip time thinking about the exact height of the armed
hand or the precise placement of the rear arm. If you're efficient,
you'll look good, but always remember that it's a *fight*, not a beauty
pageant.
--
Sean Hayes
Bryan J. Maloney
> squirming around in a counter-attack, attack with absence of blade (which
> pre-dated flicks, so it isn't a flick). But the number one tactic is more
Attack with absence de fer is a very old and very classical tactic--used
in the French school. As for unconventional parries--there are nine
"standard" parries in my Maitre's school, and many of them have "high" and
"low" variants.
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Bryan J. Maloney
<gray...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
> feint4, angulate 4 feint4,desingage8 feint4,circular d/g4
> beat4 hit4 beat 6 flick 8 beat down flick back
> against simple attacks:
> parry4,riposte4 parry 5 riposteflank8 take circular6 flick back
> bind8 ripostelowline bind8riposte high line cede8 flick back
> prime riposte low line prime close quarter riposte to chest
Everything you posted that doesn't involve a flick looks like classical
French foil.
> Move move, measure the distance your opponent can cover, measure the automatic
> (panic) parry in distance traveled and speed by using an exploratory beat
> feint. Choose a strategy based on reconnaissence. Try a new motto"a parry is
> NOT defensive, it is OFFENSIVE, hence if you parry then you opponent MUST be
There must be no parry without a riposte. Very French. Probing your
opponent is also very French, very classical.
Bryan J. Maloney
> In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:08:24 -0400
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >In article <slrn7lb8vq...@zipper.zip.com.au>, ze...@zip.com.au wrote:
> >
> >> Major problem being can you imagine any TV company picking it
> >> up without the coloured uniforms? THey'd probably want LEDs on
> >> the uniforms to light up when a hit was scored too...
> >
> >
> >TV companies don't insist that boxers wear LEDs.
>
> Nope.. you can see them hit, the camera focuses lovingly on the
> sweat flying, the impact of fist on flesh, the look of pain.
>
> The gloved fist is quite large, the site the blow lands obvious.
So this is a call to bring back the broadsword? Works for me!
Todd Merrifield
supposedely relegates it to the pedestal of an art and science. If you define
these terms it becomes evident, as Mike stated, that "The Form", is a figment of
someone's tunnel-visioned view of fencing.
Fencing as an art relates to the creativity which is at the fencer's disposal,
ie. attacks, defences, etc. As an artist the fencer draws upon the skills they
have developed without thinking; much like a artist strokes the canvas with the
brush. Anyone can paint by numbers, the artist paints by feeling. Which
produces the most beautiful and inspiring works? When you paint by the numbers,
it is possible to use the wrong color, or accidently stray outside the lines; in
other words the result is imperfect when held up to the "standard" and the
result can never be more than a picture painted by numbers, a work of art,
maybe, just like the hundreds of others that were painted. A free hand
painting has the potential to be even more "off of the standard", there are no
boudaries to follow, color choice is the decision of the artist/painter. The
artist has a general "picture" in mind but doesn't really know what the mountain
that is being painted will turn out because each brush stroke is an unconcious
thought (at least at the highest level), when s/he is finished the form of the
mountain is evident, but the artists "perspective" has changed it so that it
differs from the painting of the same mountain that an artist in Japan painted.
This is where true works of arts surface!
You can either fence "by the numbers" or "freestyle". We know that certain
techniques, tactics, and training work in fencing, just like certain color
patterns go with each other, certain brush strokes are used for shading,
foreground, background, etc. This is the science of fencing, taking what works,
distilling it down to its essential components (hokkam's razor) and developing
it further while always searching for more efficient ways. No doubt the
ballestra was developed in this same fashion. While the fencer is bouting, s/he
must analyze the opponents offence and defence continually adjusting his or her
attacks and defences. Much like a chess match the fencer must probe the
opponent's strengths and weaknesses and make decision as to how to use them
best. The science of fencing requires thoughts, decisions, and actions.
Fencing is an art, but are all fencers artist? Hardly, but then all painters
are not neccessarily artist either! It takes years of practice with the basics
(The Form?) of fencing before you can truly fence without thinking. That is
when the fencer becomes an artist, when moves flow like water over your opponent
with little conscious thought.
When you combine the two elements, arts and science, you have fencing, "chess
with swords", "the dance of death".
I've often stood mesmerized by a championship bout. The fencers engaging in what
often looks like dancing until the final point is scored. I've seen many
different techniques, flicks that are beautiful, flicks that are horribly done,
bad judging, good judging, bad fencing technique, good fencing technique, and
everything in between. This is the sport aspect of fencing. Much as a painter
displays his/her paintings at an exhibit, and a scientist dessiminates his/her
findings in a journal, the fencer displays his/her art and science in
competition. Not every artists sells, not every scientist publishes, and not
every fencer finishes in the top ranks. Olympic style fencers train for hours
each day to hone their art and science. Not all of us have that amount of time,
but we try.
So to end this e-book, perhaps we are all just harps being strummed by a cosmic
wind, hell, maybe your a butterfly dreaming that your a man (ha, ha), There may
just be one Mountaintop to reach, but there are many paths upon which to reach
it.
"Classical" fencer? Fine! FIE?Olympic style fencer? Great! Sabre, foil,
epeeist, Terrific! Lightsabers? Wow, send me pictures! Can't we all just get
along!
Todd
Wow,
Mike Pandazis wrote:
> What is this overarching 'Form and Technique'? There are many forms and many
> techniques, and each person uses the style that best suits him/her. Your
> real mistake is to attempt to impose your preferred style on others.
>
> You think modern, competitive fencing is too easy to learn, some sort of
> 'short cut'? I totally disagree. The world's best in fencing, as in ANY
> OTHER SPORT, are highly trained, skilful and athletic. The flick, like ANY
> OTHER TECHNIQUE, takes time and patience to learn.
>
> Don't knock what you don't understand.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
Stephan Khinoy
exhibitions. He succeeded a few times, helped by a Time magazine article. But he
never managed to draw repeat audiences. His explanation was that there were no good
fencers in America and that Americans were barbarians who were incapable of
appreciating the finer things of life.
Fencing has unquestionably increased dramatically in numbers of participants since
I started in the late 50's. It remains a somewhat esoteric sport (and the same
colleges that try to drop crew or wrestling programs also try to drop fencing, and
for the same reasons) but I see no evidence that its popularity has declined.
Stephan Khinoy
SKA Swordplay Books
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> In article <37555085...@unix.tamu.edu>, ebg...@unix.tamu.edu wrote:
>
> > Membership in the USFA has been increasing for several years now and measures
> > are being taken to keep national level tournaments from becoming too
> large. So
> > what is the basis for this claim? Please site references.
>
> Aldo Nadi was able to draw capacity crowds when he appeared in the USA.
> Name one fencer who can do that today.
>
Todd Merrifield
I would like to personally thank Mr. Laloum for his enlightened perspective
towards fencing.
That being said: After reading this thread, I'm a little bit confused. I think
that the definitions for "Classical" and "Modern" fencing need considerable
refinement. To some "Classical" means without electric, to others it means
adhering to the conventions of the fencing phrase; namely, right of way, and
techniques. "Modern" in the same line means with electric to some, and score
first, worry about right of way later; am I on the right track? Still others
seem to believe that if you flick you're "modern" if you don't you're
"classical". So "classical" fencers can't or won't flick (by flick I mean
using the momentum of the blade to whip the tip in thus successfully placing
the point on the opponent with sufficient force to register a hit)?
I compete regularly, but most of my fencing is done dry. I use parries (more
than eight, I'd say), ripostes, counter-attacks, stop-thrusts, coupes, beat
attacks, glides, disengages, feints, derobements, advances, retreats, hop
forwards, hop backwards, glides forwar/backward, lunges, fleches, passato
sottos, and other techniques too numerous to name. I practice (time dependent)
3-5 days a week. I have quite a collection of fencing movies and always look
for more. I read anything where the word fencing is mentioned (unless its
preceded by oak, chainlink, field, pasture, vcr, tv, etc). I collect fencing
materials, I read fencing books, I peruse fencing websites (and newsgroups). I
tell everyone about how great fencing is. I believe in the rules of right away
(if you start an attack your opponent must deflect or avoid your blade before
scoring, point in line must be deflecte, etc.). Do I sound Familiar? Am I a
"classic" fencer or a "modern" fencer. Oh yeah, I use the flick too, and
devote some of my training time developing and refining it but I don't believe
it has unequivocable right of way. "Classical" or "Modern"?
My point is, if "modern" fencers" are different from "classical" fencers, it is
the fault of the directors who are allowed to freely interpret the rules. The
FIE or USFA needs to explicitly state the definitions in the rules and then
make sure that the refs are making the right calls! Does anyone have a rule
book from the pre-Olympic era? I would love to read it! Fencers who win adapt
to the directors. Adapt or lose! The same thing would apply during a duel with
sharps, Adapt or DIE! If I'm attacking you, my arm is bent but straightening,
are you going to let the point of my sharp land before you do something about
it? I could only hope!!! OK, lets say we're fencing with "modern" dry blades,
how does it change??
Suggested rule clarifications:
Omit: any action with a bent arm is a preparation.
Replace with: any action with a flexing arm is a preparation.
definition of flexing: flexing is movement about a joint in which the bones on
either side of the joint are brought closer to each other. Opposite of
extension.
Clarify: coupe
coupe: simple attack in which attacker's sword passes over the sword of the
opponent and the point of the attacker's sword lands within one fencing time.
Who cares if arm is bent or not??
I'm know there are many others but I've got to go!!
The foundations are extremely important. Learn them well, practice them
often. Fencing should be a lifetime pursuit, just like anything else worth
doing.
Todd
Zebee Johnstone
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>So this is a call to bring back the broadsword? Works for me!
>
me too!
I've saidit before - fencing in the round, no right of way rules, whole
body target, cuts and thrusts, slower weapons.
Maybe an offhand weapon as a variant?
Zebee
--
Zebee Johnstone (ze...@zip.com.au) Proud holder of aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"You don't own an Italian motorcycle
- you merely have the privilege of paying its bills."
Bryan J. Maloney
MY KUNG FU IS BETTER THAN YOUR KUNG FU!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bryan J. Maloney
wrote:
> refinement. To some "Classical" means without electric, to others it means
> adhering to the conventions of the fencing phrase; namely, right of way, and
> techniques. "Modern" in the same line means with electric to some, and score
To me, Classical is closer to the latter than to the former. I also am of
the opinion that the Classical schools do not have the flick in their
repertoire, because the flick is an innovation introduced after duelling
had become a mere curiousity, if that.