Correcting Common Misconceptions
Imbroccata
The following is submitted by:
Frank Lurz
Maestro di Scherma
on behalf of:
Dr. William M. Gaugler
Maestro di Scherma
Director, Fencing Masters Program
San Jose State University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Correcting common misconceptions: The "Gauglerian" Method,
"Vast" Differences Between National Schools, the Possibility
of Success as a Teacher without Formal Education in Fencing
Pedagogy, Does Italian Foil and Epee Technique Require an
Italian Grip, and Is the Italian Handle as Efficient for
Modern Fencing Competition as the Pistol Grip?
Since publication earlier this year of the second English
edition of my book, The Science of Fencing (Laureate Press,
1-800-946-2727), I have received a number of enquiries
concerning the origin of the material it contains, and
questions pertaining to differences between Italian and French
fencing theory, the possibility of success as a teacher
without formal education in fencing pedagogy, does Italian
foil and epee technique require an Italian grip, and is the
Italian handle as efficient for modern fencing competition as
the pistol grip? An E-mail message seemed the most efficient
way to reach my readers.
First, although it is flattering to have my name linked with a
system of swordplay representing four-hundred years of fencing
experience, I cannot in good conscience accept credit for the
system I describe in detail. There is no "Gauglerian"
method. The Science of Fencing represents the method of
pedagogy employed in the Scuola Magistrale di Scherma in Rome
(Masaniello Parise), with certain modifications based on the
precepts of the earlier Military fencing masters schools in
Parma (Cesare Enrichetti) and Milan (Giuseppe Radaelli), and
the Livornese school (Eugenio Pini and Beppe Nadi). I would
be very proud indeed to have been the originator of such a
beautifully- organized and well-developed system of
instruction. I wrote this work because I needed a textbook
for our Fencing Masters Program at San Jose State University,
and I was more than gratified when both the Germans and the
Italians decided to publish the same material in their
respective languages.
Second, Maestro Aldo Nadi once said that there is only "one
fencing." He meant, of course, that despite some differences
in fencing technique from country to country, the fundamental
elements underlying all swordplay are the same. My
forthcoming The History of Fencing: Foundations of Modern
European Swordplay (Laureate Press) underscores the
similarities between Italian and French fencing. It is
obvious that at the beginning of the nineteenth century the
two schools were still close in many respects. For example,
La BoessiereOs volume, Traite de lOart des armes (1818), shows
that the French masters employed the extended sword arm
typical of dueling practice, and insisted on engagements,
strong against weak or middle, that dominated the opposing
steel and took it out of line. Both features can be found in
the contemporary Italian school. The modern French numbering
system for parries was not in place until the second quarter
of the nineteenth century, as is apparent from GomardOs La
theorie de lOescrime (1845). He abandoned the older
designations, quarte sur les armes and demi-cercle. But the
Italians retained the traditional, and relatively simple,
system of four numbers, so that conversion is necessary when
Italian texts are read by French-trained
fencers. Consequently, the present numbers for Italian
invitations, engagements, and parries in foil and epee of
first (half-circle), second, third, and fourth correspond to
French high seventh, eighth, sixth, and fourth. In other
words, throughout my book read "sixth" for every invitation,
engagement, and parry of third where the hand is in fourth
position or supination.
Moreover, the distance between contemporary Italian and
Hungarian sabre technique is also, to some degree,
exaggerated. You have only to read Maestro Lukovich's,
Fencing (1986), to realize this. His own teacher was a pupil
of Maestro Italo Santelli, who graduated from the Scuola
Magistrale. And since the system of sabre instruction I
describe in my book is the sabre method that I learned from
Maestro Giorgio Pessina, whose father, Carlo, was the teacher
of Italo Santelli, and who was himself a student of Giuseppe
Radaelli, I am, in fact, only two generations removed from the
"father of modern sabre." Observing some of the most
prominent Hungarian and Russian fencing masters giving
lessons, it is easy to see the relationship between the method
of instruction they employ, and the Radaellian system out of
which their method grew. There are modifications, to be sure,
but the foundation is the same.
Third, our only hope for consistent positive results at the
senior level in international competition, in my estimation,
lies in the development of a cadre of professionally-trained
fencing masters, comparable in preparation to their European
counterparts. In this respect, the work that the United
States Fencing Association Coaches College accomplishes every
summer is an important step toward attaining this goal. The
well-intentioned amateur--no matter how dedicated and
hard-working he or she is--cannot, without serious
professional training, prepare world-class competitors. A
thorough knowledge of fencing theory and a well-organized and
rigorous training program are essential. Let me give just one
example of what must occur during the lesson. If the foil or
epee fencer is taught to execute the beat in fourth and
straight thrust, then he or she must also learn how to perform
a parry riposte in countertime, or a counterattack in
countertime, should the adversary elude the beat with a
disengagement in time. And at a later date, when the
preceding actions are mastered, the feint in time must be
added. These actions and counteractions follow in logical
progression and should be included in the advanced tactical
lesson.
Fourth, while I advocate, as Maestro Nadi and the older
generation of Italian masters did, an Italian foil and epee
grip, Italian fencing technique is not dependent upon the
Italian grip. Any type of handle will do; but just as French
masters, until recently, recommended, for good reason, use of
the French grip, so, too, Italian masters maintained that the
Italian handle offers certain advantages. The easiest way to
look at the matter is to consider function and disregard
nationality.
The Italian foil and epee grip is essentially a rapier handle,
which was the fruit of centuries of experimentation in the
search for an ideal dueling weapon grip. By trial and error
it was found that the handle with a crossbar, and exposed
portion of the blade (ricasso) was highly efficient: it
permitted the fencer to hold his weapon lightly but firmly; it
was extremely sensitive to touch, providing advance warning of
the adversary's intentions when blades were in contact; it
allowed the fencer to execute powerful transports and beats,
and strong parries; and it enabled him to direct his point
with extraordinary precision. By adding a wrist strap, the
efficiency of the weapon was increased even further, so that
it was common practice among duelists of the early nineteenth
century, Italian and French alike, to bind the weapon to the
wrist, generally with a large handkerchief.
And fifth, the Italian and French grips are without question,
in my opinion, superior to the pistol handle. Why then have
the Italian and French grips virtually disappeared from
international competition? Strange as it may seem, it appears
to be a question of fashion more than anything else. Fencers
ped one another until almost all were employing the same
clumsy and inefficient pistol grip. In fact, the nearly
universal use of the pistol handle is comparatively
recent. It became popular after the introduction of the
electric foil in the second half of the 1950s. Prior to that
time the pistol grip was used largely by fencers with a
physical handicap affecting their grasp of the weapon.
Fencing masters, although fully cognizant of the defects of the
pistol grip, were, nevertheless, reluctant to proscribe its
use, for fear of upsetting the younger generation of fencers,
who argued that they needed the pistol handle because it
provided a firm hold on the heavy, ill-balanced electical
weapon, and also because it allowed them more easily to employ
the unorthodox fencing actions increasingly used in electrical
competition . But there was yet another reason for the rush
to replace the traditional grips with the pistol
handle: younger fencers had little patience with the long and
tedious drills with the classical Italian and French weapons
for developing fine point control. Shorter periods of
preparation before free fencing and entering competition
became the new approach to instruction. After all, if you
could score touches, no matter how, why waste time acquiring a
level of skill that no longer seemed necessary for success in
fencing competition?
But there was reason for serious concern. The pistol handle is
generally grasped with the hand in third position, that is,
with the thumb at twelve o'clock, while the Italian and French
grips are held with the hand in fourth position or supination,
that is, with the thumb at three o'clock. If you thrust with
the hand in third position and precede the action by
withdrawing the arm to gain momentum--a cardinal sin in
classical fencing technique and dueling practice-- as is often
seen in contemporary fencing encounters, the resulting
movement is comparable to delivering a violent punch, as in
boxing. It is an uncontrolled and dangerous mode of
thrusting, and can result in serious injuries, while, at the
same time, exposing the attacker to a possible
counterattack. In contrast, thrusts that are performed with a
fully-extended arm, moving continuously forward, elbow locked,
and hand in supination, allow fine point control, and permit
the point to be fixed firmly on the target, and the blade to
bend consistently in the same direction. This is not only
sound fencing technique, it is also effective dueling
practice; indeed, until the advent of the electric foil all
hits were expected to be delivered in this fashion, with the
blade forming a graceful arc on the opponent's chest.
Should we then not listen to Maestro Aldo Nadi and to Maitre
Raoul Clery, two of the most successful and respected
professional fencers and teachers of the past, who condemned
use of the pistol handle, and advocated employing the
traditional Italian and French grips?
Note: I am also aware that there is a growing interest in
translating into English early Italian treatises among fencers
and individuals engaged in reenactment and recreation of
historical forms of swordplay for stage use. Since Italian
fencing terminology has not changed greatly over the
centuries, all that is necessary as a point of departure for
translation is a bilingual text; but, unfortunately, there is
none. However, my Science of Fencing exists both in English
and Italian language editions. Side by side the two versions
provide a bilingual text. A copy of the Italian edition, La
scienza della scherma (Bologna, 1992 - ISBN 88-08-16146-3),
can be obtained by writing or sending a fax message to
Zanichelli editore S.p.A., Via Irnerio 34, 40126 Bologna,
Italy, fax 39 051/249782.
William M. Gaugler
Director, Fencing Masters Program
San Jose State University
sabreur
In article <19971215234...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
imbro...@aol.com (Imbroccata) wrote:
> Third, our only hope for consistent positive results at the
> senior level in international competition, in my estimation,
> lies in the development of a cadre of professionally-trained
> fencing masters, comparable in preparation to their European
> counterparts. In this respect, the work that the United
> States Fencing Association Coaches College accomplishes every
> summer is an important step toward attaining this goal. The
> well-intentioned amateur--no matter how dedicated and
> hard-working he or she is--cannot, without serious
> professional training, prepare world-class competitors. A
> thorough knowledge of fencing theory and a well-organized and
> rigorous training program are essential. Let me give just one
> example of what must occur during the lesson. If the foil or
> epee fencer is taught to execute the beat in fourth and
> straight thrust, then he or she must also learn how to perform
> a parry riposte in countertime, or a counterattack in
> countertime, should the adversary elude the beat with a
> disengagement in time. And at a later date, when the
> preceding actions are mastered, the feint in time must be
> added. These actions and counteractions follow in logical
> progression and should be included in the advanced tactical
> lesson.
>
Thank goodness!
I've had the honor of fencing sabre under two Hungarian masters here in
Germany. Both had diplomas in all three weapons from the Hungarian sports
university--one was a member of the Hungarian national foil team, the
other won the Hungarian university sabre championship. Both have taught
exactly the progression of actions you describe--first master the beat
attack, then the beat attack complicated by an opponent's disengage and
cut in time, then continuing to both actions (the attack by the student
and the counter by the opponent) with composed (feint-attack) motions.
At the same time, they also teach the direct attack, then composed
attacks without the beat, but with the same complications.
Other variations include second intention invitations, followed by direct
attacks if the opponent does not react to the invitation, or with a
parry-riposte or pris de fer if the opponent does take the invitation.
Later, the same complications with stops, counters in time and composed
attacks are added.
An additional benefit of a trained cadre of instructors is that the
plethora of opinions on what constitutes an attack in sabre and foil is
greatly reduced. If everyone understands the conventions of the sport in
the same way, it greatly reduces the confusion and frustration associated
with wildly varying interpretations. In my mind, such confusion and
frustration also hold U.S. fencing back, because too many people are
progressing toward different (seen from the European perspective, wrong)
goals.
The definition of the attack is a clear example--there is still a
tendency to give the attack to the feet, rather than the extension with a
continous threat to valid surface. In the days before the crossover was
forbidden in sabre, this led to fencers simply running forward with the
armed hand held back against the chest (where it is clearly impossible
for the opponent to take the blade) until the opponent was in range, then
extending and cutting at the last moment--an action that is all but
impossible to counter. Unfortunately, in some quarters, this "attack"
continues to enjoy priority, although without crossovers, it is much more
difficult to simply run down the opponent. Directors are also less
likely to see simple forward motion without a threat as an attack,
although some still do.
Regards, MR
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Kalkin
On 15 Dec 1997 23:43:22 GMT, imbro...@aol.com (Imbroccata) wrote:
>The following is submitted by:
>
>Frank Lurz
>Maestro di Scherma
>
>on behalf of:
>
>Dr. William M. Gaugler
>Maestro di Scherma
>Director, Fencing Masters Program
>San Jose State University
[snip]
>And fifth, the Italian and French grips are without question,
>in my opinion, superior to the pistol handle. Why then have
>the Italian and French grips virtually disappeared from
>international competition? Strange as it may seem, it appears
>to be a question of fashion more than anything else. Fencers
Isn't that stretching the bounds of credibility just a teensy bit?
I've used the French and pistol grips extensively and, as with most
fencers I know, find the pistol more effective. One reason is that it
is easier to hold onto. This allows me to keep a more relaxed grip,
knowing that even if I receive an unexpected beat, the dang thing is
not going to get out of posistion in my hand. I actually manipulate
the pistol on disengages in much the same way as I did the French,
with the first three manipulator fingers. The difference comes in
binds and parries where I use the aid fingers a little more.
The French can be used effectively in epee (my weapon), especially by
people with strong hands, and who post at least occasionally.
I've played around with the Italian, but can't imagine using, and
haven't met anyone using this grip these days in a major competition.
I also don't see why a connection is made between the pistol grip and
incorrect form in the extension in the following paragraph.
My nitpicky response aside, I enjoyed reading this post.
Regards,
Kelly
[snip]>
>But there was reason for serious concern. The pistol handle is
>generally grasped with the hand in third position, that is,
>with the thumb at twelve o'clock, while the Italian and French
>grips are held with the hand in fourth position or supination,
>that is, with the thumb at three o'clock. If you thrust with
>the hand in third position and precede the action by
>withdrawing the arm to gain momentum--a cardinal sin in
>classical fencing technique and dueling practice-- as is often
>seen in contemporary fencing encounters, the resulting
>movement is comparable to delivering a violent punch, as in
>boxing. It is an uncontrolled and dangerous mode of
>thrusting, and can result in serious injuries, while, at the
>same time, exposing the attacker to a possible
>counterattack. In contrast, thrusts that are performed with a
>fully-extended arm, moving continuously forward, elbow locked,
>and hand in supination, allow fine point control, and permit
>the point to be fixed firmly on the target, and the blade to
>bend consistently in the same direction. This is not only
>sound fencing technique, it is also effective dueling
>practice; indeed, until the advent of the electric foil all
>hits were expected to be delivered in this fashion, with the
>blade forming a graceful arc on the opponent's chest.
I can't see the connection you are inferring between using the pistol
grip and incorrect for