Fencing as Martial Art?
KRobb97471
as a viable martial art? I ask because I am a filipino martial arts practioner.
FMA emphasises the bolo, similar to a machete, the sword, the knife and the
stick (usually a rattan cane 28-30 inches in length), along w/ empty hand
application. The FMA have been significantly influenced by Spanish swordplay,
especially espada y daga (sword and dagger).
Does anyone today practice european blade based arts as a basis for a self
defense program?
Robert
jeffery
you want to take it as a serious martial art form with self defense applications I
recommend studies of the 1450 to 1700 masters of European rapier play. My exposure
to filipino escrima and knife work tells me that it would modify and translate over
very well to rapier. The largest group of people doing period rapier combat that I
am aware of is the SCA you should be able to find a group holding practice near
you. Also there is the Martinez academy back east which is a fencing sol - see the
November 99 issue of martial arts legend Weapons of the Martial Arts.
KRobb97471 wrote:
Showed one of the students here several uses for the demivault. (That's a
compassing step with the left foot moving behind the right shoulder accompanying a
parry or counter attack with a thrust) Showed him the applications rapier verse
rapier. Then using a dagger against a rapier, dagger verses dagger. Now your
talking about stepping in really deep and off to the side with these last two and
pivoting your hips much more. this leaves your right leg in front of his ready to
bring back into a sweep. We then showed him the empty hand application blocking
the right punch with the left open hand and grabbing while steeping in with the
demivault footwork then applying the right hand under the armpit and sweeping with
the right leg thus dumping opponent on his head in front of you.
Ain't JuiJitsu great.
Jeff
Zebee Johnstone
jeffery <jef...@mind.net> wrote:
>I have studied several Japanese arts and teach European rapier play locally. If
>you want to take it as a serious martial art form with self defense applications I
>recommend studies of the 1450 to 1700 masters of European rapier play. My exposure
>to filipino escrima and knife work tells me that it would modify and translate over
>very well to rapier. The largest group of people doing period rapier combat that I
>am aware of is the SCA you should be able to find a group holding practice near
>you. Also there is the Martinez academy back east which is a fencing sol - see the
>November 99 issue of martial arts legend Weapons of the Martial Arts.
>
The SCA doesn't practice it as a martial art, but it can be a place
to experiment in and get some ideas from. It's important to realise
the mindset of any place you go to, to save disappointment and
miscommunication.
Whichever place you go to, the mindset depends on the people who mold
the group, and in the SCA this depends very heavily on who is the mover
and shaker in the local area, the SCA has no quality control :)
The SCA is a framework for people to investigate aspects of the middle
ages and renaissance. How they do it and to what level is up to them.
So while it most certainly is possible to get what you are looking for
- an investigation of fencing as a martial art - it's not guaranteed,
it depends on the interests of the people in your local group.
I'd suggest checking Kim Moser's Classical Fencing Resources,
at http://www.kmoser.com/classicalfencing.htm
for ideas and contacts.
The classical fencing people are mostly based on 19th duelling,
but many are also very interested in the earlier styles.
Zebee
Sarah Bronson
along with his wife and other instructors, teaches Classical and Historical
Fencing. They are careful to emphasize that they teach a martial art, not a
sport. You learn how to duel, not how to win at fencing competitions. They
offer instruction in foil (Italian and French schools), eppee (Italian and
French schools), sabre (Italian), rapier (Italian and Spanish), and
smallsword (French and Italian)
Here is the information:
Martinez Academy of Arms
website: www.martinez-destreza.com
e-mail: mart...@martinez-destreza.com
Phone: (201) 330-8670 (9-5 EST)
Mailing address:1417 37th Street, North Bergen, NJ 07047
KRobb97471 <krobb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000205101253...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
Christian Vivo
Combat Association). Their primary purpose is to study European
swordsmanship during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance as a martial art.
Their URL is http://www.thehaca.com/. You might also find some information
at the Sword Forum International site. They have a section devoted to
Historical European Swordsmanship. Their URL is
http://www.swordforum.com/main/.
--
Chris Vivo
sab...@earthlink.net
"The sword is a moment of a man's history, frozen forever, captured in
steel."
- Randal Graham.
Kitty
how would you define martial art?
Are you implying that arts, or ares means only skill or technique? Is sport
not art? -- the process in scoring is not art? the process of understanding
of rules and have a duel occur is not art? From some reading, I found the
definition of arts being artificial (art cannot be natural). But if in a
competition, one has the control over the game, then the game is
artificial--it's under control; it then is art. Is there no control by both
sides in a game? Can we call it cooperative art?
I think the main thing you think sports differs from martial arts is that
sports emphasizes on winning, scoring. Then WHAT IS a good game?
If flickering or whipping cannot "kill/score", then why would people
do/develop such? I've seen people flicker while not letting the opponent
even touch'em. If flickering can do no harm to one's self in some cases,
can we not assume that it is also usable in an actual duel?
It's just like the case of practising versus out in a competition. One does
no jabbing when practising, but do anything that one can do before a halt in
the official competition. But on the whole, the fencing community fences
for the sake of fencing; they put in hours to improve their techniques, not
just solely for winning.
Let's talk about in the old days, what do people fence for? for land? for
money? for women? for fame? for status? Why can anybody define such as
martial art before but not now?
If making development in technique can be called martial arts, then what is
the purpose of developing technique in the first place?
For all of us fencers, can anybody say that he/she fences solely for fame
and score, but not the practice and the process of development?
I think, Fencing is MARTIAL ARTS. The word Martial tells the fighting part
of it all right.
-Kitty
----Original Message Follows----
Well, I'm basing my information on what I saw at the Martinez Academy. Ramon
was explaining to me that without the element of fear, and with the
introduction of electrical scoring, fencers at competition are much more
aggressive than a person would normally be in a duel, and use techniques
that would be deadly in a real duel. The way he put it was "in the modern
sport of fencing, the goal is to score points. To do that you have to use
aggressive tactics. The goal of a duel is to avoid getting killed. It is
more defensive than offensive."
He and his wife dueled each other at the end of the class, and I could see
that the movements were slower and more conservative than what I saw at my
other fencing club, where fencing is taught as a sport.
I'm not saying that fencing isn't "real." Of course it is real. It is real
fencing. What I'm saying is that fencing has become a sport, and is no
longer practiced as a martial art.
The best proof is the "flick." Good for scoring points in a bout. Trying it
in a real duel where your life is on the line is not only a waste of time,
it leaves you wide open and would get you killed.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kitty Lee <kit...@hotmail.com>
To: Sarah Bronson <sbro...@mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: Fencing as Martial Art?
> I think this depends on personal views. Since there actually is a sport
> call fencing w/ games and trophies that people "play" after(and that
there
> are not that many that doesn't attend competition)....It should be more
fair
> to say martial art and sports both applies, I think.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sarah Bronson" <sbro...@mindspring.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Fencing as Martial Art?
>
>
> > Maestro Ramon Martinez has salles in Manhattan and New Jersey at which
he,
> > along with his wife and other instructors, teaches Classical and
> Historical
> > Fencing. They are careful to emphasize that they teach a martial art,
not
> a
> > sport. You learn how to duel, not how to win at fencing competitions.
They
> > offer instruction in foil (Italian and French schools), eppee (Italian
and
> > French schools), sabre (Italian), rapier (Italian and Spanish), and
> > smallsword (French and Italian)
> > Here is the information:
> > Martinez Academy of Arms
> > website: www.martinez-destreza.com
> > e-mail: mart...@martinez-destreza.com
> > Phone: (201) 330-8670 (9-5 EST)
> > Mailing address:1417 37th Street, North Bergen, NJ 07047
> >
> >
Samuel N. Lillard
several martial art weapon forms (actually there is a Hung Gar form using
the western sabre). However, I am convinced that western fencing is by far
the most effective and devastating of all martial arts weapon forms. Every
aspect from body position, movement and weapon design make this sport the
number one martial art weapon form. Lastly, it is the only marital art I am
aware of in which you can practice with full force (Kendo has an argument).
The only problem in using the art of fencing for self defense is that you
would have to carry the pointed or edge weapons around which is illegal for
most of the US. Probably best to follow the wisdom of my martial arts
teacher, Dr. Wu. He said self defense has 5 aspects. Awareness, speed,
stamina, skill and technique. Dr. Wu said for true self defense you only
need awareness speed and stamina. If you become aware of danger, leave with
great speed and stamina.
Samuel N. Lillard
Home: slil...@columbus.rr.com
Fencing: http://home.columbus.rr.com/salliearamis/
Work: myf...@netset.com
Law: www.lillardlaw.com
Zebee Johnstone
Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
>I think the main thing you think sports differs from martial arts is that
>sports emphasizes on winning, scoring. Then WHAT IS a good game?
>
To me, the main thing is not scoring, it's rules.
The compromises you make that turn a lethal fight into a non-lethal
one.
For example... Right of Way.
Originally designed as a trianing tool to teach someone that in lethal
fight, you must get your opponent's sword out of the way before you launch
your own attack. A good idea, not required though, just a good idea.
Same same foil target area. A training tool, but not used in lethal
fight, if you want to attack someone with a sharp sowrd, you hit where
you can.
Pistes, footwork rules, types of weapon. The modern foil flick is an
artifact of modern foils. Can't be done with weapons from before the
Great War. Light modern fingerplay and some of the guards and parrys
and some of the modern moves that rely on fast timing can't be done with
a 16thC blade.
The more rules you have, the more it is a sport and less a martial art.
The more rules, the more artifacts of those rules. Think of a
boxing match compared to a bar fight. Or a boxer vs someone who
can kick, punch, grapple, groundfight.
Sure - towards the end of the duelling era they had a fair few rules,
by then the sport and the killing art had merged and one influenced
the other. Duelling was the sport with a bit more at stake. Compare a
1920s duel to a 1550s one.
Still comes back to what you are after.
"I want to know how to fight with a sword" is a start, but only a start.
How it's done in the mdoern game with lots of rules and artificial
constraints? How it was done in the 1920s? How it was done in the 1880s?
THe 1740s? The 1680s? The 1600s? The 1550s? The 1470s? The 1380s?
Earlier?
Each of those eras also had a sport version of fighting with
swords. They used different weapons, they had rules designed
to allow people to use mostly the same moves but not
kill each other.
But the more rules you have that constrain your weapons, your
footwork, your target, your blows, the further you are away
from fighting with sharps in a situation with no rules.
Zebee
Kendo Club
:[fencing is the] number one martial art weapon form
Hmmph. I think the escrimadors in the crowd would argue long
and hard with you on that point. AFAIK the filipino styles are
the only ones teaching weapons with a direct, practical, no-goofy-
interpretation-required application to real-world fighting.
:[fencing] is the only marital art I am
: aware of in which you can practice with full force (Kendo has an argument).
Kendo is full speed, full force. Judo is also full speed, full force.
Both are within the framework of a set of rules which are designed for
the participants' safety, but then the same can be said about fencing.
I might add that wrestling and boxing also are full-force martial arts,
again with rules for safety. Oh, and kyokoshinkai karate, too.
Neil
Bryan J. Maloney
krobb...@aol.com (KRobb97471) wrote:
> Forgive me if this is inapropriate for this venue. Is fencing still practiced
> as a viable martial art? I ask because I am a filipino martial arts
practioner.
> FMA emphasises the bolo, similar to a machete, the sword, the knife and the
> stick (usually a rattan cane 28-30 inches in length), along w/ empty hand
> application. The FMA have been significantly influenced by Spanish swordplay,
> especially espada y daga (sword and dagger).
>
> Does anyone today practice european blade based arts as a basis for a self
> defense program?
Maestro Ramón Martínez of NYC might be just the guy who would want to look
up. He happens to also consult and work with a Filipino martial arts
school in NYC. His school's URL is "http://www.martinez-destreza.com/"
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> Now it comes back to the beginning of the question...what is martial art?
> how would you define martial art?
>
> Are you implying that arts, or ares means only skill or technique? Is sport
> not art? -- the process in scoring is not art? the process of understanding
This is known as "quibbling". A good politician ought to be able to get
as many lengthwize slices from a hair as one can get inch-thick boards
from a twelve-foot thick log, but politics is not always the best model
for discussing swordsmanship.
> I think the main thing you think sports differs from martial arts is that
> sports emphasizes on winning, scoring. Then WHAT IS a good game?
Actually, that IS the main difference between a pure sport and a martial
art. A martial art can have a sporting expression, but so long as merely
winning bouts or ramping up the score is not the ultimate goal, it can
remain a martial art.
> If flickering or whipping cannot "kill/score", then why would people
> do/develop such? I've seen people flicker while not letting the opponent
The flick was invented in the 20th century, primarily as a response to the
introduction of electronic scoring equipment. It is not a duelling
technique.
> even touch'em. If flickering can do no harm to one's self in some cases,
> can we not assume that it is also usable in an actual duel?
Fine--you find me an actual duel account wherein it was used and I'll
believe you.
Bryan J. Maloney
> bring back into a sweep. We then showed him the empty hand application
blocking
> the right punch with the left open hand and grabbing while steeping in
with the
> demivault footwork then applying the right hand under the armpit and
sweeping with
> the right leg thus dumping opponent on his head in front of you.
>
> Ain't JuiJitsu great.
Don't you mean "La Opera Nova" of Achille Marozzo?
While "chop chop, all is same" isn't true, the basic mechanical
underpinnings are far more universal than many people realize.
Zebee Johnstone
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <87l8q1$22o$1...@news.service.uci.edu>, "Kitty"
><kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
>> can we not assume that it is also usable in an actual duel?
>
>believe you.
Nadi's account of his duel has a blade flicking into his hand around his
guard, but that's more a whipover sort of thing rather than the modern
"fly fishing" flick.
Experiments have shown that a flick can penetrate, but it does seem to
be an artifact of the heavy tip of a mdoern electric foil, plus the more
flexible blades.
I can't recall - has anyone here tried flicking with a modern foil
meant for dry work, one without the heavy tip?
Those who have handled duelling epees say they won't flick like a modern
foil, and a smallsword definitely won't... So either no one thought
of using a flexible blade, or there were reasons why they were not
useful in lethal fight.
Zebee
Bryan J. Maloney
> Those who have handled duelling epees say they won't flick like a modern
> foil, and a smallsword definitely won't... So either no one thought
> of using a flexible blade, or there were reasons why they were not
> useful in lethal fight.
Flick against an adrenaline-pumped (and therefore pain-desensitized)
maniac who has no qualms about sharing his grave with someone else? In
foil bouting sans glove (foolish forgetfulness--not at a tournament), I
took scrapes to the back of my hand that left permanent scars. I didn't
notice a one while they were being delivered.
David W. Neevel
>
> I was talking weapons forms. Judo verse Sabre would be a short match. And
> since we all want to digress into "my art is better than yours." Let me
> start with enthusiasm. The western Sabre takes down the Kendoist every
> time. Western Sabre, being a one hand weapon, has greater reach than the
> more powerful Japanese sword held mainly with two hands. And the Sabre
> verses those Filipino drum sticks - no way. viva la Sabre.
>
My money's still on a reasonably alert 75-year-old granny with a
Mossberg ;-).
-Dave
Paolo Damiani
>I can't recall - has anyone here tried flicking with a modern foil
>meant for dry work, one without the heavy tip?
I don't recall either, but one of my best flicking weapons is a dry Italian
foil with a Scaroni blade. The blade however is very light.
It's actually a Catch-22 situation:
If we need to really know how well a blade flicks (meaning can land tip down on
target with penetrating force) it should be electric (or you have to be Fat Boy
Ed and have a carcass or whatever he used to test a sharp weapon on, I think he
did the tests. If I'm wrong, Ed, I apologize for implicating you unnecessarily
in a flick matter).
OK everyone:
"Step AWAY from the flick discussion. Step AWAY slowly!!!"
Paolo
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He is a man of splendid abilities but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks
like rotten mackerel by moonlight.
Remove "antijunk" to e-mail
Stephan Khinoy
> Lastly, it is the only marital art I am
Samuel N. Lillard
since we all want to digress into "my art is better than yours." Let me
start with enthusiasm. The western Sabre takes down the Kendoist every
time. Western Sabre, being a one hand weapon, has greater reach than the
more powerful Japanese sword held mainly with two hands. And the Sabre
verses those Filipino drum sticks - no way. viva la Sabre.
Samuel N. Lillard
Christian Vivo
between modern sabre fencing and Filipino Escrima. Remember, modern sabre
fencing as practiced now, uses a highly modified weapon. It is much lighter
than an actual sabre, and is capable of moves that are impossible with a
real weapon. The techniques used in sport sabre fencing today do not
translate into techniques that can be used with a real sabre. (I collect
vintage swords, and the finger and wrist manipulations used in sabre fencing
were impossible to use with real sabres in my collection.) Escrima on the
other hand, uses sticks these days not just as weapons, but as training
tools on how to use the short swords and knives that were in use in the
Philippines in the sixteenth century. These days, escrima techniques can be
used with machetes (bolos in the Philippines) and knives. These techniques
were used by some Filipino guerillas against the Japanese during WWII.
Sabre fencing as practiced today with light, sport weapons is a far cry from
the techniques used by soldiers and duellists of the past with real sabers.
Escrima can still be utilized by its practitioners to disable and kill,
either with a stick, empty hand or short sword.
--
Chris Vivo
sab...@earthlink.net
"The sword is a moment of a man's history, frozen forever, captured in
steel."
- Randal Graham.
Samuel N. Lillard <slil...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%2Mn4.3771$0d4....@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
Zebee Johnstone
Christian Vivo <sab...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>As a sabre fencer and escrimador, I can tell you there is a huge difference
>between modern sabre fencing and Filipino Escrima. Remember, modern sabre
>fencing as practiced now, uses a highly modified weapon. It is much lighter
>than an actual sabre, and is capable of moves that are impossible with a
>real weapon. The techniques used in sport sabre fencing today do not
Umm... whch "sabre"?
The curved army/cavalry weapon, or the straight light single
edged "duelling sabre" derived from the backsword?
I don't think that the familar curved officer's battle sword
is the same thing as people were using to fight "sabre
duels" which is the style that modern sabre derives from.
Zebee
Kendo Club
What you said was that "fencing is the only marital (sic) art [to
practice full contact]".
Also, it would help if you would quote some of the post you were replying
to so that we can all see the context.
: Judo verse Sabre would be a short match.
I wasn't aware that we were discussing a cross-discipline match. But so
long as we are, judo vs a sport sabre would indeed be a short match. The
judoka would take a welt going in, then toss the sabreur on his head.
Sharp steel would of course be a different situation :).
: The western Sabre takes down the Kendoist every time.
Funny, I see the kendoka ignoring any wussy touch he might get
coming in, knocking the sabreur flat on his ass and then
raising welts all over his unarmoured body while he struggles to his
feet. Oh, we're talking about a fantasy match with real weapons designed
for different environments, cultures, styles of play and armour levels?
That particular discussion would be pointless.
Neil
Remise
:[fencing] is the only marital art I am
: aware of in which you can practice with full force (Kendo has an argument).
======
My occasional wife is a competitive shooter, as well as being a fencer.
She has, on occasion, been known to practice both with full force, not to
mention somewhat disturbing accuracy. Ouch, that Ruger!
FatBoyEd
Are these geeks back at the dreaded F-thread. You know, this thread started off
just fine,but degeneration ensued. I don't think dueling and martial art sare the
same.Any dumb ass with too much alcohol in the brain could duel. You just call
someone something or other and off you go.You get a second pick yer weapon- you
soooo know i would pick a flicky epee for the deed- and have at it..A Martial ( In
the old days this referred to Mars, the god of war) art, to me, would be something
long and drawn out like the way the Greeks,Romans,Chinese,Japanese - insert your
favorite group of mass murderers here,would instruct their minions in the way of
making the other poor dumb bastards they were at war with to part with their
lives,wordly possessions, territory,whatever.The critical thing is that you learn
something- technique,skills,etc- so you can go out and APPLY the damn thing, at the
risk of your life and limbs. So as such , should you be able to time travel and
bring back a Centurion,a Samurai, and a duelist, i would bet that those guys would
be chuckling quite a bit at our self appointed Martial Artists. So what I am saying
is that I am such the woozie because i like to fence in the modern way. No way Jose
is fencing a martial art.
FatBoyEd
Kitty
such thing as a constant rule. But let's get back to the question of
martial arts -- are you saying that martial arts should be lethal (ie.
natural fight?) and that as it gets less lethal, it becomes less "martial
art?"
What I was talking about was the fencing we have now. The comparison with
the old days is just for comparison, not meaning we cannot create a sport
right now, and it can never be consider martial art.
It doesn't even matter if we call it modern fencing or whatever era fencing
as you would like. The question given was: "fencing now as martial art or
not."
-Kitty
"Zebee Johnstone" <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrn89t9oi...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Sun, 6 Feb 2000 17:57:58 -0800
> Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >I think the main thing you think sports differs from martial arts is that
> >sports emphasizes on winning, scoring. Then WHAT IS a good game?
> >
>
jeffery
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> In article <389C7F5C...@mind.net>, jeffery <jef...@mind.net> wrote:
>
> > bring back into a sweep. We then showed him the empty hand application
> blocking
> > the right punch with the left open hand and grabbing while steeping in
> with the
> > demivault footwork then applying the right hand under the armpit and
> sweeping with
> > the right leg thus dumping opponent on his head in front of you.
> >
> > Ain't JuiJitsu great.
>
> Don't you mean "La Opera Nova" of Achille Marozzo?
>
> While "chop chop, all is same" isn't true, the basic mechanical
> underpinnings are far more universal than many people realize.
>
Nope meant JuiJitsu which is where i learned it originally. though Marozzo
works too. But my point was to illustrate the cross over between martial arts
forms. they all work on basic body mechanics. Also that swordplay
definitely transfers over to empty hand techniques.
Jeff
Kitty
more general than saying one individual person. And yes, it would depend on
the person's perception of the fencing community as a whole--this would
bring in personal point-of-view, and of course a certain regional
community's different styles. It ultimately comes down to the personal
level.
I'd say some's intention is more into scoring, while some are more into the
discussion of technique. However, my point was to point out that even
people runs into eachother, flicks or whatever, there's still techniques and
skill involved in the training.
One can send a orchid plant to a show for some competition, it doesn't take
away any aesthetic mean of the plant in its self; one can be involved in
fencing sportive competition, but one does also train and talk about skills.
One can shape a plant into some shapes that fits the guidelines of flower
show; one can use rules to bound the fencers' actions. The ultimate goal is
still in the martial fighting, while the process is "artistic/skillful."
I'd say, if a person does go through some training and fence with even a
mean of thinking, then the "skill" programmed inside is "showing" and thus
makes the event artful.
"Tristantrout" <trista...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000208231114...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> Zebee from Down Under wrote:
>
> >Sport - game with rules and scoring.
> >
> >Martial art - skillset designed to work in true fight.
> >
> >The major thing with modern fencing is that it has *rules* that
> >limit the way things are done. It's a sport.
> >
> >Same as Tae Kwon Do as taught in many places is a sport.
>
> You know, a short time ago this would have been a concise summation of
my
> opinions. Then I read the essays at www.koryu.com (an excellent Web site!)
and
> decided we've all been quoting Don Draeger second-hand. Some people think
of
> judo as a martial art; some think of it as a sport; some (including the
Library
> of Congress) put all martial arts under "sports." Most people think of
modern
> electrical fencing as a sport; some look at tae kwon do and judo and Bruce
Lee
> and Adam Crown's Web site and say, "Hey, fencing is a martial art, too!"
The
> same goes for the old "kendo vs. kenjitsu" argument. Other than they're
from a
> completely different cultural context, I think a large part of the
difference
> is pedagogy.
>
> In my opinion, it's a question of intent. When you've crossed the
fuzzy
> line between doing something for Reason A and started doing it for Reason
B,
> then it's tautological to say that your purpose has changed. The text was
> originally the same for both the most rigorously academic foil fencing and
the
> flick-o-matic school; it is the interpretation that changed. However, one
> caveat: The interpretation of the text must be handed down and preserved
in the
> manner of an intellectual tradition, for two people, given the same text,
be it
> the Bible or th FIE rules, can draw radicaly differeing conclusions. (Else
how
> to explain the difference between Protestantism, with its myriad
offshoots, and
> Catholicism, when both ultimately rely on Jerome's Vulgate?)
>
> --Tristan Trout
>
Kitty
dance, sculpture...etc. Fencing rules can then be seen as a form of the art
under the category martial. If there's no rule, one can simply fight
without worrying even about using a sword or whatever...how about fighting
with bare hands and call it fencing then?
The reason we call fencing fencing is because it has a set of rules, and the
rule changes through time. It might have been looser before, and it gets
tightened. But the form is essentially the same (it shouldn't matter if
even the form got changed), as long as the artistic element is still there,
it is martial art.
As said before, if we create a new martial game, and there involves some
skills that involves thinkings, it is martial art.
"Zebee Johnstone" <ze...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn8a1oht...@tabor.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:09:06 -0800
> Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >
> >It doesn't even matter if we call it modern fencing or whatever era
fencing
> >as you would like. The question given was: "fencing now as martial art
or
> >not."
> >
>
> Sport - game with rules and scoring.
>
> Martial art - skillset designed to work in true fight.
>
> The major thing with modern fencing is that it has *rules* that
> limit the way things are done. It's a sport.
>
> Same as Tae Kwon Do as taught in many places is a sport.
>
> Zebee
>
Kitty
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-07020...@potato.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <87l8q1$22o$1...@news.service.uci.edu>, "Kitty"
> <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> > Now it comes back to the beginning of the question...what is martial
art?
> > how would you define martial art?
> >
> > Are you implying that arts, or ares means only skill or technique? Is
sport
> > not art? -- the process in scoring is not art? the process of
understanding
>
> This is known as "quibbling". A good politician ought to be able to get
> as many lengthwize slices from a hair as one can get inch-thick boards
> from a twelve-foot thick log, but politics is not always the best model
> for discussing swordsmanship.
I think I based this definition of art from a required text I read in an
arts class. The process of scoring and the process of developing
techniques/skills are all manipulations by man. That is art.
>
> > I think the main thing you think sports differs from martial arts is
that
> > sports emphasizes on winning, scoring. Then WHAT IS a good game?
>
> Actually, that IS the main difference between a pure sport and a martial
> art. A martial art can have a sporting expression, but so long as merely
> winning bouts or ramping up the score is not the ultimate goal, it can
> remain a martial art.
>
Yes, I agree. I believe most fencers do aim for good game, instead of just
getting scores....umm, I can't account this for every single one person
though.
> > If flickering or whipping cannot "kill/score", then why would people
> > do/develop such? I've seen people flicker while not letting the
opponent
>
> The flick was invented in the 20th century, primarily as a response to the
> introduction of electronic scoring equipment. It is not a duelling
> technique.
>
> > even touch'em. If flickering can do no harm to one's self in some
cases,
> > can we not assume that it is also usable in an actual duel?
>
> Fine--you find me an actual duel account wherein it was used and I'll
> believe you.
Fine--find me an actual fencing duel that happens in this world at this
moment that fits your definition of a duel and I'll believe you.
Christian Vivo
and in the 19th century were fought with lighter, straight bladed weapons.
The radical changes in technique that accompanied the development of this
new style of weapon, such as those developed by Radaelli is what developed
into the sport we practice today. However, the weapon has become much
lighter in the past 100 years, and with that change has come a change in
technique. Though we still see many cuts made with the arm, most cuts now
are made with the fingers and wrist. As the objective now is just to touch
the opponent, this is all that is necessary. We are trained in a sport that
has a martial history, but it is a sport none the less. I fence and train
in a sport when I fence saber, not in an art that I expect to use in a duel
or on the battlefield.
Chris Vivo
sab...@earthlink.net
"The sword is a moment of a man's history, frozen forever, captured in
steel."
- Randal Graham.
Zebee Johnstone <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrn89ve7q...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
Zebee Johnstone
Tristantrout
>Sport - game with rules and scoring.
>
>Martial art - skillset designed to work in true fight.
>
>The major thing with modern fencing is that it has *rules* that
>limit the way things are done. It's a sport.
>
>Same as Tae Kwon Do as taught in many places is a sport.
You know, a short time ago this would have been a concise summation of my
Tristantrout
>again with rules for safety. Oh, and kyokoshinkai karate, too.
And Muy Thai. But in Kyokoshinkai, you don't punch to the face.
--T.T.
Zebee Johnstone
And in boxing you don't punch below the belt, grapple, or
fight on the ground.
In wrestling you don't punch or strike in any way, and there are
rules about holds and what you can and can't grab.
They are also designed to take place in the artificial environment
of the ring - specific space, soft flat surface.
There's an interesting thread on rec.martial-arts.moderated about
this as we speak :)
Zebee
Zebee Johnstone
Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
>I believe there is something called "art form."--like oil painting, opera,
>dance, sculpture...etc. Fencing rules can then be seen as a form of the art
>under the category martial. If there's no rule, one can simply fight
>without worrying even about using a sword or whatever...how about fighting
>with bare hands and call it fencing then?
>
>The reason we call fencing fencing is because it has a set of rules, and the
>rule changes through time. It might have been looser before, and it gets
>tightened. But the form is essentially the same (it shouldn't matter if
>even the form got changed), as long as the artistic element is still there,
>it is martial art.
>
Umm.. the reason we call it fencing is because it is derived
from "The Art of Defence" which was how to defend yourself.
The original Masters of Defence were expected to be able to fight
with swords of various styles including two handed ones, as well
as use shields and the staff.
If you talk to people who recreate the 19thC duel, then modern
sport fencing is not a martial art. It's a sport.
yes, some *movements* are similar, just as they are similar to
16thC dance.
But the *mindset* is not. And as any martial artist will tell you,
mindset is the point.
Zebee
Samuel N. Lillard
Mr. Vivo above. Fencing is not a self defense art. Dueling was vulgar,
brutal, ugly and best left to the past as pointed out by Aldo Nadi in his
description of his duel. The "sport" of fencing however, is one of the most
beautiful art forms known to man - embracing all aspects of the human
condition. Truly it is the art of skill not of kill.
For those of you who actually practice a martial "art" to actual use on
a fellow human being. Know and practice well the art of not contending.
This is the true path of the martial artist.
--
Samuel N. Lillard
Home: slil...@columbus.rr.com
Fencing: http://home.columbus.rr.com/salliearamis/
Work: myf...@netset.com
Law: www.lillardlaw.com
"Kendo Club" <ae...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> wrote in message
news:87peug$mt1$2...@missing.link.ca...
Bryan J. Maloney
Lillard" <slil...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> Neil: Your point is well taken. I need to reverse myself. I agree with
> Mr. Vivo above. Fencing is not a self defense art. Dueling was vulgar,
You say that in light of Angelo's work? You say that in light of Mr.
Hope's work? Prove that Olympic-style fencing is the only thing that can
be called fencing.
--
Bryan J. Maloney
> forms. they all work on basic body mechanics. Also that swordplay
> definitely transfers over to empty hand techniques.
Empty-hand countercut seconde--defends adequately against an attacking
dog, I once discovered.
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> > This is known as "quibbling". A good politician ought to be able to get
> > as many lengthwize slices from a hair as one can get inch-thick boards
> > from a twelve-foot thick log, but politics is not always the best model
> > for discussing swordsmanship.
> I think I based this definition of art from a required text I read in an
> arts class. The process of scoring and the process of developing
> techniques/skills are all manipulations by man. That is art.
> > A good politician ought to be able to get
> > as many lengthwize slices from a hair as one can get inch-thick boards
> > from a twelve-foot thick log, but politics is not always the best model
> > for discussing swordsmanship.
> Yes, I agree. I believe most fencers do aim for good game, instead of just
> getting scores....umm, I can't account this for every single one person
> though.
Look at your words: "aim for good game". When that becomes the language,
it's a sport.
> > Fine--you find me an actual duel account wherein it was used and I'll
> > believe you.
> Fine--find me an actual fencing duel that happens in this world at this
> moment that fits your definition of a duel and I'll believe you.
> > A good politician ought to be able to get
> > as many lengthwize slices from a hair as one can get inch-thick boards
> > from a twelve-foot thick log, but politics is not always the best model
> > for discussing swordsmanship.
Find a SINGLE instance from ANY duel account that presents the flick as an
effective technique.
Joseph Haig
> Those who have handled duelling epees say they won't flick like a modern
> foil, and a smallsword definitely won't... So either no one thought
> of using a flexible blade, or there were reasons why they were not
> useful in lethal fight.
>
I may be wrong here (it won't be the first time) but I thought a duelling epee
was basically a 1" strip of metal sharpened at the end. That's not going to
flick no matter how much you wave it around.
Bye,
Joe.
Bryan J. Maloney
<jh...@maths.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> I may be wrong here (it won't be the first time) but I thought a duelling epee
> was basically a 1" strip of metal sharpened at the end. That's not going to
> flick no matter how much you wave it around.
The _epée du combat_ of the 19th century had a triangular/hollow blade of
similar shape to a modern "dry" epee, only somewhat heavier and
significantly stiffer. Check out a good museum collection.
HMS Lion
convinced that there are three, not two, areas of fencing/martial art.
1. Sport fighting. Sport fighting is characterized by extensive rules
that disallow certain techniques on safety grounds, and overvalue other
techniques due to pecularities in equipment and scoring. Sport fighting is
strongly oriented toward competition, and competitive results. There is
limited emphasis on the applicability of techniques to a defensive situation.
Modern FIE fencing and tournament sparring are examples of sport fighting.
2. Style fighting. Style fighting is characterized by a strong emphasis
on purity of form and technique. Competitions may be held, but cleanness of
method is valued over pure competitive results. Techniques are derived from
defense techniques, but may have diverged. Classical fencing and katas are
examples of style fighting.
3. Martial fighting. Martial fighting is characterized by a strong
emphasis on making techniques work in the field. A martial fighter may never
actually use the methods (no fight = no lose = undefeated = great warrior), but
everything is directly related to "Can I save my skin with this?" The only
restrictions in competition are those necessitated by safety. Good
self-defense classes cover martial fighting. In the fencing world, martial
fighting is just barely getting started, and is still largely linked to
classical fencing.
Think about it.....
V/R:
Mike McDaniel
John Twernbold
> Prove that Olympic-style fencing is the only thing that can
> be called fencing.
You've made this same statement a number of times, Bryan. I think we can assume
from the background of a regular like Samuel Lillard and the context of his
writing that he was referring to sport fencing. C'mon, did you *really* not
understand he was talking about sport fencing? Or are you just being pedantic?
John
Bryan J. Maloney
<jtwer...@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
> writing that he was referring to sport fencing. C'mon, did you *really* not
> understand he was talking about sport fencing? Or are you just being pedantic?
He said "fencing", no qualifiers.
jeffery
Jeff
Kitty
> In article <87qv9f$e4q$1...@news.service.uci.edu>, "Kitty"
> <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is known as "quibbling". A good politician ought to be able to
get
> > > as many lengthwize slices from a hair as one can get inch-thick boards
> > > from a twelve-foot thick log, but politics is not always the best
model
> > > for discussing swordsmanship.
> > I think I based this definition of art from a required text I read in an
> > arts class. The process of scoring and the process of developing
> > techniques/skills are all manipulations by man. That is art.
>
> > > A good politician ought to be able to get
> > > as many lengthwize slices from a hair as one can get inch-thick boards
> > > from a twelve-foot thick log, but politics is not always the best
model
> > > for discussing swordsmanship.
>
>
>
> > Yes, I agree. I believe most fencers do aim for good game, instead of
just
> > getting scores....umm, I can't account this for every single one person
> > though.
>
> Look at your words: "aim for good game". When that becomes the language,
> it's a sport.
>
you can see anything in your viewpoint your way: I won't object to that all
right.
> > > Fine--you find me an actual duel account wherein it was used and I'll
> > > believe you.
> > Fine--find me an actual fencing duel that happens in this world at this
> > moment that fits your definition of a duel and I'll believe you.
>
> > > A good politician ought to be able to get
> > > as many lengthwize slices from a hair as one can get inch-thick boards
> > > from a twelve-foot thick log, but politics is not always the best
model
> > > for discussing swordsmanship.
>
>
> Find a SINGLE instance from ANY duel account that presents the flick as an
> effective technique.
I thought you brought up the word "duel" in the first place. If you can
find the sort of "duel" that you introduced to the group, please let us
know.
Kitty
> In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:33:37 -0800
> Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >I believe there is something called "art form."--like oil painting,
opera,
> >dance, sculpture...etc. Fencing rules can then be seen as a form of the
art
> >under the category martial. If there's no rule, one can simply fight
> >without worrying even about using a sword or whatever...how about
fighting
> >with bare hands and call it fencing then?
> >
> >The reason we call fencing fencing is because it has a set of rules, and
the
> >rule changes through time. It might have been looser before, and it gets
> >tightened. But the form is essentially the same (it shouldn't matter if
> >even the form got changed), as long as the artistic element is still
there,
> >it is martial art.
> >
>
> Umm.. the reason we call it fencing is because it is derived
> from "The Art of Defence" which was how to defend yourself.
Ok, fine then. Let's call bare hand fighting fencing from now on.
> The original Masters of Defence were expected to be able to fight
> with swords of various styles including two handed ones, as well
> as use shields and the staff.
>
> If you talk to people who recreate the 19thC duel, then modern
> sport fencing is not a martial art. It's a sport.
Ok, if you want to distinguish the difference between duelling and
fencing -- good.
But now, if those people are not fencers, why should they have the say to
define whether fencing is sport or not?
>
> yes, some *movements* are similar, just as they are similar to
> 16thC dance.
Again, even if it has nothing similar, and let's say it's a whole new brand
of fighting...does it necessarily mean that modern fencing is not a martial
art. If people now create a new art of fighting, does it mean, due to its
lack of historical background, that it is not martial art?
>
> But the *mindset* is not. And as any martial artist will tell you,
> mindset is the point.
mindset is the point of difference from the old type of fencing. Mindset
does not say that fencing now is not martial art.
btw, who are the martial artists you're introducing us? --do you mean,
fencers?
>
> Zebee
Zebee Johnstone
Samuel N. Lillard <slil...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>Neil: Your point is well taken. I need to reverse myself. I agree with
>Mr. Vivo above. Fencing is not a self defense art. Dueling was vulgar,
>description of his duel. The "sport" of fencing however, is one of the most
>beautiful art forms known to man - embracing all aspects of the human
>condition. Truly it is the art of skill not of kill.
>
Hrmm... gets a bit iffy in the late 1800s that idea.
German duels did seem to be nasty brutish and short, even the sabre
ones. The German idea of duelling was to prove one's own readiness
to die in one's tracks, they did their best to *eliminate* skill.
Even the non-lethal mensur was about standing up and risking
injury.
But around 1890 two French fencing masters fought with sharp blades and in
20 minutes neither had touched the other. This was considered a sign of
their magnificent skill.. They were *trying* but they didn't manage to.
I dunno that's brutal and ugly. The people who wrote of it thought it
beautiful beyond belief.
Nadi fought one duel. Agesilao and Aurelio Greco fought many and didn't
see it as brutal at all, but as the pinnacle of their skill. Nadi got
spooked, that's very clear from his book. He thought he was hot stuff,
and he lost his bottle....
In the 1700s, duelling was considered a proper pastime for a gentleman
in many places, and to gain the skill was important.
There are many things called "fencing" from the highly stylised
rules-bound modern foil sport to the recreation of 16thC "defence"
including grappling.
Whether any of them are a "martial art" probably depends rather heavily
on the ruleset and the mindset. To some people Tai Chi is a meditative
solo dance. To others, the same moves are kata for a fairly lethal
martial art.
I don't think modern electric foil fencing is a martial art. I think
classical foil used as an instruction tool for smallsword is.
Zebee
Zebee Johnstone
Joseph Haig <jh...@maths.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> Those who have handled duelling epees say they won't flick like a modern
>> foil, and a smallsword definitely won't... So either no one thought
>> of using a flexible blade, or there were reasons why they were not
>> useful in lethal fight.
>>
>
>was basically a 1" strip of metal sharpened at the end. That's not going to
>flick no matter how much you wave it around.
>
My fencing master's description of the epee du combat that he saw in
the Greco fencing salle where he trained was that it was a "normal"
epee blade with the point ground down to needle sharpness. He says
the blade was a bit stiffer than his own Italian hilted electric epee,
but not incredibly so. Certainly too stiff to do a fly fishing flick
but Ok for the whipover type touch that nadi described.
He also says it was rather clearly a weapon when he held it.
Zebee
Eric Dew
Allow me to put in my worthless $0.02.
I categorize sports into the martial arts type and non-martial arts type.
(Sure, there are other ways to partition sports into different categories,
but with regards to martial arts, there is essentially two: martial arts
and non-martial arts.)
A sport is of the non-martial arts type if
a) competitor competes against a neutral standard (e.g., track,
shooting, etc., where the standard is time for track, weight
for lifting, distance for discus, target for shooting, etc.)
b) competitors compete against each other, but there is a "turn"
element involved.
Case b) is exemplified by many of the ball sports such as baseball, football,
tennis, where the one "owning" the ball has his or her or their turn, and
the other waits for his/her/their turn.
Martial arts sports are those which pits competitors head to head (as
opposed to some third-party standard -- sorta like the difference between
casino poker and casino blackjack: in the former, you compete against
other players, in the latter, you really are competing against the house),
and lack the element of turns.
So, for example, in boxing, once I punch the guy, I'm not obligated to
wait for the other guy's responding punch before I throw another. Similarly
with fencing: there's no turn involve. And this is true even for foil
or sabre with the right-of-way rule. While I am obliged to parry if my
opponent initiates an attack, I am not required to parry. Or, if I attack
and am parried, I am not required to make my own counter-parry before
resuming some sort of an attack. I can make an immediate remise and
squirm my way to a one-light hit, or I can reprise the attack and not
wait seconds or hours for the riposte which isn't coming.
This all assumes, of course, that people accept that martial arts is a
sport, or consider martial arts in its sports frame of reference.
EDEW
Tristantrout
>skills that involves thinkings, it is martial art.
I imagine by "thinkings" you mean the pedagogy, science and technical aspects
of a martial art, and I agree with you: a martial art can be seen as a set of
fighting skills codified intoa pedagogy. I certainly think that thinking while
actually "performing" is detrimental to technique, though!
The issue is "game," which can be taken in a number of ways. "Game" can
encapsule everything from wargames simulating a transcontinental nuclear
exchange, to the popamatic bubble in "Trouble." Foil fencing, in one school of
thinking, may be a "game," in another, it is conditioning for mortal combat.
Scientific? Yes. Frivolous? Possibly (albeit not in my thinking).
--T.T.
Tristantrout
>a fellow human being. Know and practice well the art of not contending.
>This is the true path of the martial artist.
Aside from the Way of the Peaceful Warrior stuff, many martial arts do not
see violence as their end or their means. The Japanese arts, for instance, have
been very influenced by the Zen concept of taking a particular skill to extreme
levels of mastery as a means of self-improvement. One learns elegant violence,
but with the aim of perfecting the self, not harming others. Of course, many
martial arts (arnis de mano, for instance) are also pugnacious and practical in
the extreme.
Fencing concepts are also effective in self-defense situation. This goes
double if you have an umbrella.
--T.T.
Tristantrout
>Well stated. I agree wholeheartedly.
>
>Jeff
Chris Amberger also has an excellent discussion of this in "The Secret
History of the Sword."
--T.T.
Zebee Johnstone
Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
>"Zebee Johnstone" <ze...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:slrn8a24s1...@tabor.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU...
>
>>
>> sport fencing is not a martial art. It's a sport.
>
>Ok, if you want to distinguish the difference between duelling and
>fencing -- good.
>But now, if those people are not fencers, why should they have the say to
>define whether fencing is sport or not?
Umm.. "If you talk about modern car racing, it's not like driving
on the road". So the car racers are not driving?
I used the words "modern fencing" for a reason. It's fencing, same
as classical fencing is fencing, same as the use of the backsword
in 1600 was fencing.
Same as you can drive a buggy, a car, a golfball, or a tentpeg.
>>
>> But the *mindset* is not. And as any martial artist will tell you,
>> mindset is the point.
>
>mindset is the point of difference from the old type of fencing. Mindset
>does not say that fencing now is not martial art.
>
Umm.. tell me. Have you ever studied anything that calls itself
a martial art?
May I suggest you go over to rec.martial-arts.moderated and ask
people there if modern sport fencing is a martial art and if
not why not. They are much more able to define things like this
than I am, as they spend more time doing it :)
Modern sport fencing is a sport. The mindset and tactics are
sport oriented. To quote Nadi "Young man you must never be touched.
If you are touched, the blood spurting from your wrist may be
sputing from your chest." In modern sport fencing, to be touched
can be part of the tactics.
Modern sport fencing is a sport. It does not have the mindset of
a martial art. It may be possible to use some of the moves as
a form of martial art, which is what the classical fencing people
are doing.
Zebee
Zebee Johnstone
Eric Dew <ed...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>Case b) is exemplified by many of the ball sports such as baseball, football,
>tennis, where the one "owning" the ball has his or her or their turn, and
>the other waits for his/her/their turn.
Umm.. so a football game such as rugby where everyone piles
on the guy with the ball and stomps him is a martial art? This
may explain a lot :)
Sure - you have to have a ball to score. But then you have to
have right of way to score in foil don't you?
Zebee
Dirk Goldgar
Well, no. You can make it a one-light action, or you can hit a tempo
ahead.
--
Dirk Goldgar
(if replying by email, please address to
<di...@NOSPAMagcsys.com)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Christian Darce'
hms...@aol.com (HMS Lion) wrote:
> Looking at this thread (and at the original post which started
it), I am> convinced that there are three, not two, areas of
fencing/martial art.
Its actually a bit more complicated that that. Here is a widely
accepted listing of the types of fencing.
There are several terms used at present to refer to the practice of
various forms of "historical fencing" or Western non-sport swordplay .
These may be the study, reenactment, replication, or performance of any
number of styles and methods of European swordplay ranging from ancient
times to the 19th century. They may be practiced as martial arts, artial
sports, fantasy games, or performance arts. To bring clarity to this
sometimes confusing picture, HACA presents the following list of
definitions are provided:
Historical Swordsmanship – the practice and study of Medieval and
Reenaissance fighting methods as true martial arts. It is concerned
with the realistic reconstruction and replication of historical Western
combat skills under antagonistic conditions (without any choreographed
or staged elements). This is the primary focus of efforts by HACA and
similar organizations. This definition also includes the study of
pre-Medieval or "Ancient" swordplay (i.e., Greek, Roman, Celtic).
Additionally, it invariably involves the study of diverse armors and
weapons other than the sword as well as often considerable unarmed
fighting techniques.
Classical Fencing – Current definitions for just what constitutes
"classical fencing" vary considerably as the "classical fencing
community" is diverse. For some it is seen as training for personal
"duel" with the 19th century epee du combat. For others it is
"gentleman's encounter" --a ritualistic form of 19th century duel which
may or may not include seizures, disarms, grapples, or strikes. Others
see it as simply fencing using pre-modern traditional grip foils and
epees (and sabre to a lesser extent) following the methods prior to the
advent of electric equipment and international competitive rules. There
is also considerable interest in the practice of the late 17th and early
18th century small-sword. The general idea is to return to more of
fencing’s gentlemanly dueling intent and martial content to revive the
state of modern sport fencing.
Sport Fencing – the modern 20th & 21st century competitive sport of
Olympic and collegiate foil, epee, and saber, conducted either with
electric or "dry" practice equipment. It is an athletic, exciting,
quick international game with rules devised early this century and now
far removed from its martial origins. This sometimes referred to by some
as "modern" fencing, even though it goes back to the 19th century, and
it is also sometimes even called "Traditional" fencing despite that it
does not predate the last century.
Theatrical Fencing – stage-combat or performance fighting is a tool of
acting intended to create an effective illusion or performance for
entertainment through rehearsed choreography or arranged movements
relying on a foundation of martial techniques and principles (which also
typically includes armors and weapons other than the sword as well as
some unarmed fighting techniques). It is a respected performance art,
not a martial art.
Arranged Performance Fighting
A distinct activity which can be clearly distinguished from both
theatrical fencing and historical swordsmanship, it combines elements of
arranged drills and preset routines of techniques for the direct purpose
of demonstration and education --as opposed to an exclusively martial
study (as with historical swordsmanship) or entertainment and dramatic
storytelling (as with theatrical fencing). Fight sequences are conducted
for display by delivering techniques in-range, at speed and with intent,
but stopping prior to injury. Some weapon-to-body contact is employed
for purposes of illustration as are certain exaggerated movements or
assumed reactions/results.
Mock-Fighting & Martial Sports - various other approaches to historical
Western swordplay that are not easily classifiable and which do not fit
into the above categories of mock-fighting. While "combative arts",
martial sports range considerably in their historical accuracy, physical
intensity, complexity of rules, and martial content. Their many forms
include the simulated battle presenttaions of reenactment or
living-history groups, or the play-fighting of live-action role-playing
games. Other manners of simulated historical Western combat are
concerned with conducting knightlytournament bouts, large-scale fighting
scenes, or personal duels of honor. They also can differ considerably in
their goals and motivations.
HMS Lion
I'm afraid that you have misapplied the term "martial". Any martial art is,
by the definition of the term "martial", a method of fighting. Shooting,
fencing, archery, and karate are all martial arts.
That being said, you have illustrated a good point. Martial skills with
ranged weapons demand good technique on your part, without regard for what the
opponent is doing. Close in work, such as fencing or karate, demands a direct
interface with the opponent.
There are probably significant doctrinal implications of this. Clearly, there
are training implications.
V/R:
Mike McDaniel
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
There are hundreds of accounts of duels extant. Go look them up and find
a single one wherein the flick has made a major difference.
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> Ok, if you want to distinguish the difference between duelling and
> fencing -- good.
> But now, if those people are not fencers, why should they have the say to
> define whether fencing is sport or not?
But we are fencers.
> mindset is the point of difference from the old type of fencing. Mindset
> does not say that fencing now is not martial art.
Actually, that makes all the difference.
Kitty
> In article <87thd4$8m6$1...@news.service.uci.edu>, "Kitty"
> <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> > Ok, if you want to distinguish the difference between duelling and
> > fencing -- good.
> > But now, if those people are not fencers, why should they have the say
to
> > define whether fencing is sport or not?
>
> But we are fencers.
I thought what people was trying to say was duelling as martial art while
fencing is not.
Do you duel or fence?
If you duel and fence at the same time, then you're martial artist?
If you fence only, then you're not?
If you duel, then you are?
If you never fence, and you duel only, then you're not a fencer.--if so, you
shouldn't have a say in whether fencing is M.A. or not.
If you never duel, and you fence only, then you're a fencer? (then what has
fencing to do with this business of duelling in the first place?)
Can one both be a dueller and a fencer?
Are most fencers purely fencers and never duel?
Or, are most "fencers" duel and never fence?
If the practice of duelling and the so-called "modern fencing" always come
together(don't take extreme cases)(meaning commonly practised by the fencer
community), and be practiced by this population calling themselves duellers
or fencers nowadays, can we or can we not call this whole big chunk of
population, and this two fencing and duelling business as one thing called
"fencing?" --in such case, if duelling is a part of this newly defined sense
of "fencing," then fencing IS martial art --by the way people interpreted it
before my message.
Kitty
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-10020...@potato.cit.cornell.edu...
So flick has made a major difference in modern fencing, is that what you
mean?
And flick disqualifies modern fencing as martial art, is that what you mean?
How about lunge, does that then qualify modern fencing as martial art?
How about cutover?
How about direct thrust?
are those not technique?
In addition to the coffee taste that you're use to, one occasionally put in
some chocolate(less than 1/10th of the total concentration)--and that
disqualifies the whole cup from the coffee category - - -
Kitty
"Zebee Johnstone" <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrn8a4mqd...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 9 Feb 2000 21:13:49 -0800
> Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Zebee Johnstone" <ze...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
> >news:slrn8a24s1...@tabor.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU...
> >
> >>
> >> If you talk to people who recreate the 19thC duel, then modern
> >> sport fencing is not a martial art. It's a sport.
> >
> >fencing -- good.
> >But now, if those people are not fencers, why should they have the say to
> >define whether fencing is sport or not?
>
> on the road". So the car racers are not driving?
>
> I used the words "modern fencing" for a reason. It's fencing, same
> as classical fencing is fencing, same as the use of the backsword
> in 1600 was fencing.
>
> Same as you can drive a buggy, a car, a golfball, or a tentpeg.
>
driving.
One can fence in a duel or in a competition, and we call both fencing.
The question posted was "whether if fencing is martial art?"
One who participates in duels and competitions regularly are fencing, and
they practice martial arts as fencer.
I'd say, most people do fence skillfully and not just blindly jab. Drivers,
no matter with license or without a license, has to have these basic
technique of driving to drive regularly. The difference is: driving in
general, doesn't require development of thoughtful new skills to do(it can
be a sport, but never art). While fencing requires thoughtful movements
everytime, skills , and therefore is art.
One can also bring this into the talk of whether other sports can be
considered a sport of their discipline; while I have definitely no expertise
of those, I won't get into such discussion.
>
> >>
> >> But the *mindset* is not. And as any martial artist will tell you,
> >> mindset is the point.
> >
> >mindset is the point of difference from the old type of fencing. Mindset
> >does not say that fencing now is not martial art.
> >
>
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:bjm10-10020...@potato.cit.cornell.edu...
> > In article <87thd4$8m6$1...@news.service.uci.edu>, "Kitty"
> > <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> > > Ok, if you want to distinguish the difference between duelling and
> > > fencing -- good.
> > > But now, if those people are not fencers, why should they have the say
> to
> > > define whether fencing is sport or not?
> >
> > But we are fencers.
>
> I thought what people was trying to say was duelling as martial art while
> fencing is not.
Which people? What does each mean by fencing? You seem to be confusing
many disparate people into one. I say that FIE-style fencing is not a
martial art because it has become obsessed with "getting the point" and
"game". Other styles of fencing very well could be martial arts.
> Do you duel or fence?
The duel can be seen as an application of some styles of 'fence. I have
never formally duelled, but I have applied some of my fencing in actual
physical encounters.
> Can one both be a dueller and a fencer?
The best duellists had to have fenced since learning to duel by means of
duelling would generally be fatal.
> If the practice of duelling and the so-called "modern fencing" always come
> together(don't take extreme cases)(meaning commonly practised by the fencer
If talking about the FIE style, they don't. FIE style fencing is a pure
sport, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It has completely
shed its duelling history, thus divorcing itself from the last vestiges of
its martial heritage. Thus, it is a pure sport, with no need to consult
any reality but its own internal consistency.
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> So flick has made a major difference in modern fencing, is that what you
> mean?
> And flick disqualifies modern fencing as martial art, is that what you mean?
A claim was made that the flick would a good technique to use in a real
duel. I challenged the claimant to come up with a single instance wherein
it made a major difference in a duel. That is all. That is it. A
specific claim was made, I asked for specific evidence. It has never
appeared. Instead, somebody decided to start whining at me.
Kitty
while
> > fencing is not.
>
> Which people? What does each mean by fencing? You seem to be confusing
> many disparate people into one. I say that FIE-style fencing is not a
> martial art because it has become obsessed with "getting the point" and
> "game". Other styles of fencing very well could be martial arts.
>
FIE-style fencing become obsessed with "getting the point?" I thought we're
talking about living human being practising some activities, and we're
trying to define whether those should be counted as martial art.
Human exists before rule book does. Rule book guides the process, rule book
does not define the process. Therefore, when we discuss about fencing,
we're not observing fencing from the rule book's point-of-view; instead, we
observe to what people does. If FIE's rule changes one day, it doesn't
necessarily mean that people will do fencing by its rule. Rules are created
by man, but not all man.
The question then becomes: "Are most fencers obsessed with getting the
point?"
What will your answer be, if you're the one being asked?
Will your answer always be yes?
> > Do you duel or fence?
>
> The duel can be seen as an application of some styles of 'fence. I have
> never formally duelled, but I have applied some of my fencing in actual
> physical encounters.
>
> > Can one both be a dueller and a fencer?
>
> The best duellists had to have fenced since learning to duel by means of
> duelling would generally be fatal.
>
> > If the practice of duelling and the so-called "modern fencing" always
come
> > together(don't take extreme cases)(meaning commonly practised by the
fencer
>
> If talking about the FIE style, they don't. FIE style fencing is a pure
> sport, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It has completely
> shed its duelling history, thus divorcing itself from the last vestiges of
> its martial heritage. Thus, it is a pure sport, with no need to consult
> any reality but its own internal consistency.
>
Kitty
> > mean?
> > And flick disqualifies modern fencing as martial art, is that what you
mean?
>
> A claim was made that the flick would a good technique to use in a real
> duel. I challenged the claimant to come up with a single instance wherein
> it made a major difference in a duel. That is all. That is it.
Let's clear up one point: someone thought that I claim flicking is a "GOOD
technique" to use in a real duel. IN FACT, I never did make such claim.
All I put down was that flicking CAN BE a usable technique for any fight,
including duelling, and modern fencing; nobody can rule out this possiblity.
On the contrary, somebody tried to claim that there isn't ANY SINGLE duel
account where flicking is effective.
I was asking the claimant to provide a more precise example due to the sort
of scrutiny this claim places upon all the participants of the fighting
school (wow, ruling out all the possibilities??). Instead of answering my
request, I found a rather circumventing answer, not clear, so I wrote back
to confirm.
> specific claim was made, I asked for specific evidence. It has never
> appeared. Instead, somebody decided to start whining at me.
Please accept my apologies if my last reply sounded rude.
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> The question then becomes: "Are most fencers obsessed with getting the
> point?"
So long as the tournament remains the primary focus of the FIE, then it
will have to be the case. So long as producing "Olympians" remains a
major focus of the USFA, yoobetcha.
> What will your answer be, if you're the one being asked?
Is there more than one style of fencing?
Kitty
> this possibility"
>
> "But we have no accounts of duels where it was used!"
>
I was trying to focus on the question "Whether fencing is martial art?"
that's the sole reason I brought out the topic "possibility of flicking."
If you would like to discuss about the historical truth of whether flick
existed, I'd say it inappropriate to address it under this thread. Tell you
what, I absolutely agree with whatever you have to say about flicking.
My point (addressed a few postings back), as I first started this flicking
business talk, was to point out that, no matter what action one creates for
defending one's self martially, the process of development is already
satisfying the criteria to be listed as a martial art.
I would like to stress again, that martial art is an art. ART DOES NOT
necessarily have to be BOUNDED to its historical context. I have written
this again and again already: if one create a new form of martial art,
without basing such creation upon history, IT CAN STILL BE a martial art.
Therefore, I'm not interested in any detailled talk of duelling or flicking.
I'm focusing on the fencing that modern people do and are practising in the
year 2000 modern days. I responded to those only because people brought it
up, please understand this point.
--Kitty
> "So?"
>
> Lets define "flick". The one Bryan and I are talking about is
> the "fly fishing" style used in modern foil sportfencing.
>
> To be done, it requires a very flexible blade (relative to say
> a smallsword or epee d'combat) that has a heavy tip on the end.
>
> So first thing to discover is "was such a blade ever usedin a duel?"
>
> If not, then "can such a blade be used in a duel?"
>
> To know that, you'd have to decide on what a "duel" is. Let us say
> it's a fight in which each combatant it out to kill the other
> or injure them severely enough to make them unable or unwilling to
> continue.
>
> Would a sword suitable for flicking be a sword you would wish to take
> to such a fight, especially if your opponent didn't have one?
>
> Hard to know, especially as I dunno any volunteers :)
>
> So we only have accounts of duels to go on, and surviving
> weapons.
>
> The accounts indicate that a whipover type light cut (not a crippling
> or fatal injury, just a cut) was possible and used. The weapons
> indicate that's the only kind of flick possible.
>
> Accounts from participants of duels are rare. Accounts describing
> duels are less so. There are books written by people who fought
> duels, written in the duelling period, so presumably if it worked
> they'd mention it. (Not a completely tenable position as I dunno
> that many modern books mention the flick do they?)
>
> NO account I have read - participant or spectator - mentions the
> use except Nadi's talk of the whipover that nicked his arm. No book
> written by those who fought duels or trained for duels that I
> am aware of mentions the flick.
>
> Against that evidence, you'd need to show a book or account that does,
> or come up with a sword design that could be used in a duel, would
> flick, and would not suffer unduly thereby.
>
>
>
> Zebee
Kitty
> you can say "driving" and mean an electric wheelchair, an F!
> car, a golfball.
that's different. Fencer do fence and their fencing may include more than
one "thing" at one time; compare with driving, driving does not include
electric wheelchair. One may play by the FIE rule, while at the same time
play by his own rules, his thoughts, his moral?, his values(of hitting a
certain area as a goal per se), his whatever...and the meaning behind can be
aesthetic, artistic, whatever.
The main thing to think about is: whether if most people still include the
artistic mean, or the martial art mean in their fencing?
Of course, that depends on how one define martial arts; there's not really a
ground for debate on one's personal perception. But for the sake of
discussion, we discuss and exchange ideas about this.
And I had mentioned before, the defn I read from an arts book says that "art
is never natural, involves manipulation, skill/technique." This will be my
ground of argument. While this may be different for other people, I have no
way to work further if this ground of discussion is not agreed by others.
But...for the sake of discussion, we discuss again.
>
> IS FIE fencing with electrical equipment and current rules a
> martial art?
>
> I believe no, I believe it is a sport that is derived from a martial
> art.
I agree, FIE fencing rules may not be as liberal as one think a martial art
should be. But FIE fencing is not the sole fencing that one practises, of
course. A fencer, when practising, doesn't always play by the FIE rule;
sometimes a fencer may make up rules amongst themselves at a salle and use
that as a mean of practice or for fun....this happens; another example,
fencers generally do not jab on eachother in a club fencing, because it is
not to one's sportsmanship to do so....these almost certainly exist kinds of
customs, thus makes the quality of fencing differ from the solely FIE
version for all. And so, I believe it will be unfair to judge on "whether
fencing is martial arts" solely by the FIE mean.
>
> It has moves in common with the martial art, same as sport oriented TKD
> does with it's martial art counterpart, same as meditiation oriented
> Tai Chi does with its martial art counterpart.
So this means you're basing your definition of martial arts upon the other
definitions (defined by you) of existing martial arts? I disagree with
this. I think Tai Chi is martial art, too. But surely, you have the right
to think it this way, thinkings are always personal.
> But... the full range of moves in use in FIE fencing are not suitable in
> a martial art, FIE rules forbid moves that have been used in the martial
> art (crossover steps for example) and the mindset is that of a sport,
> not a martial art, and the weapons used are designed for the sport,
> and have differences to the art.
This way, you're already defining "the art." How can we discuss any further
with an already defined definition?
>Sport salles do not emphasise form
> as you can see from pretty well any photo of modern sport, the "fencing
> photo of the week" is probably a bad example as it's deliberately hunting
> the awful/weird stuff, but you can still see a lot elsewhere.
This definition is not valid and unfair. If modern fencing has new
evolutions/developments, one claim it different from the "old style," and
claim it not martial art. On the other hand, if modern fencing go back to
the very natural fighting for winning (ie. winning a life, or winning a
trophy, or winning a mate?), one says it awful and ugly...
This definition is creating a no-win situation for modern fencing...very
unfair.
>
> Classical fencing using dry gear is I think closer in feel and
> practice to what I consider is a martial art. They are focussing on
> the movements and forms with "what if they were sharp?" in their minds
> which is the biggest difference to sport fencing where a touch is
> just one of up to 29. They focus more on form and on discipline
> and reject moves that have no martial application but are artifacts
> of the sport.
Ok, I agree that this. But let's focus back onto modern fencing.
>
> So... I believe that modern sport fencing is a martial sport, derived
> from a martial art but not one. Classical fencing is a martial art.
> They have movements in common, same as much historican fencing looks
> a lot like historical dancing, but just as dancing is not fencing,
> sport fencing is not a martial art in my opinion.
>
But who drew the line between classical fencing and modern fencing in the
first place?
Is there a general notion that classical fencer does not fence modern
fencing and vice versa? I don't believe so. I'd rather think that fencer
generally does both and practice both sometimes. That can account for what
I meant "fencing (as a whole)" is martial art.
> Zebee
jeffery
> Lets define "flick". The one Bryan and I are talking about is
> the "fly fishing" style used in modern foil sportfencing.
>
> To be done, it requires a very flexible blade (relative to say
> a smallsword or epee d'combat) that has a heavy tip on the end.
> Would a sword suitable for flicking be a sword you would wish to take
> to such a fight, especially if your opponent didn't have one?
Not in my book, sounds like a good way to get your weapon broken.
> The accounts indicate that a whipover type light cut (not a crippling
> or fatal injury, just a cut) was possible and used. The weapons
> indicate that's the only kind of flick possible.
>
> NO account I have read - participant or spectator - mentions the
> use except Nadi's talk of the whipover that nicked his arm. No book
> written by those who fought duels or trained for duels that I
> am aware of mentions the flick.
This description sounded like a fairly standard epee attack to the wrist to me -
definitely not what people call the flick.
Jeff
Zebee Johnstone
Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
>Let's clear up one point: someone thought that I claim flicking is a "GOOD
>technique" to use in a real duel. IN FACT, I never did make such claim.
>All I put down was that flicking CAN BE a usable technique for any fight,
>including duelling, and modern fencing; nobody can rule out this possiblity.
>On the contrary, somebody tried to claim that there isn't ANY SINGLE duel
>account where flicking is effective.
>
htmm.. "teleportation can be a good technique, nobody can rule out
this possibility"
"But we have no accounts of duels where it was used!"
"So?"
Lets define "flick". The one Bryan and I are talking about is
the "fly fishing" style used in modern foil sportfencing.
To be done, it requires a very flexible blade (relative to say
a smallsword or epee d'combat) that has a heavy tip on the end.
So first thing to discover is "was such a blade ever usedin a duel?"
If not, then "can such a blade be used in a duel?"
To know that, you'd have to decide on what a "duel" is. Let us say
it's a fight in which each combatant it out to kill the other
or injure them severely enough to make them unable or unwilling to
continue.
Would a sword suitable for flicking be a sword you would wish to take
to such a fight, especially if your opponent didn't have one?
Hard to know, especially as I dunno any volunteers :)
So we only have accounts of duels to go on, and surviving
weapons.
The accounts indicate that a whipover type light cut (not a crippling
or fatal injury, just a cut) was possible and used. The weapons
indicate that's the only kind of flick possible.
Accounts from participants of duels are rare. Accounts describing
duels are less so. There are books written by people who fought
duels, written in the duelling period, so presumably if it worked
they'd mention it. (Not a completely tenable position as I dunno
that many modern books mention the flick do they?)
NO account I have read - participant or spectator - mentions the
use except Nadi's talk of the whipover that nicked his arm. No book
written by those who fought duels or trained for duels that I
am aware of mentions the flick.
Against that evidence, you'd need to show a book or account that does,
Zebee Johnstone
Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
>I was trying to focus on the question "Whether fencing is martial art?"
>that's the sole reason I brought out the topic "possibility of flicking."
"fencing" is too broad. Too many things are "fencing", same as
you can say "driving" and mean an electric wheelchair, an F!
car, a golfball.
IS FIE fencing with electrical equipment and current rules a
martial art?
I believe no, I believe it is a sport that is derived from a martial
art.
It has moves in common with the martial art, same as sport oriented TKD
does with it's martial art counterpart, same as meditiation oriented
Tai Chi does with its martial art counterpart.
But... the full range of moves in use in FIE fencing are not suitable in
a martial art, FIE rules forbid moves that have been used in the martial
art (crossover steps for example) and the mindset is that of a sport,
not a martial art, and the weapons used are designed for the sport,
and have differences to the art. Sport salles do not emphasise form
as you can see from pretty well any photo of modern sport, the "fencing
photo of the week" is probably a bad example as it's deliberately hunting
the awful/weird stuff, but you can still see a lot elsewhere.
Classical fencing using dry gear is I think closer in feel and
practice to what I consider is a martial art. They are focussing on
the movements and forms with "what if they were sharp?" in their minds
which is the biggest difference to sport fencing where a touch is
just one of up to 29. They focus more on form and on discipline
and reject moves that have no martial application but are artifacts
of the sport.
So... I believe that modern sport fencing is a martial sport, derived
from a martial art but not one. Classical fencing is a martial art.
They have movements in common, same as much historican fencing looks
a lot like historical dancing, but just as dancing is not fencing,
sport fencing is not a martial art in my opinion.
Zebee
Tristantrout
>If you fence only, then you're not?
>If you duel, then you are?
You know, you could be a martial artist who studies, say, karate, and never
get in a fight in your life...
--T.T.
sab...@my-deja.com
I have to say that your list is probably the most even-handed non-troll
that I have seen on this issue. Congratulations.
Regards, Mark Ray
a "sport" sabreur
In article <87ussk$jl1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Dirk Goldgar
ze...@zip.com.au wrote:
> [re: the "flick" - DG]
> To be done, it requires a very flexible blade (relative to say
> a smallsword or epee d'combat) that has a heavy tip on the end.
Actually, I don't think a flick requires any particularly heavy tip,
though that may assist in creating an extreme version. I think it's
more in the flexibility of the blade itself. Certainly I -- not a good
flicker -- can flick with a French-handled, non-electric, standard foil
with only a rubber button on the end. It doesn't require a great deal
of effort or a special blade, just the knack.
--
Dirk Goldgar
(if replying by email, please address to
<di...@NOSPAMagcsys.com)
Bryan J. Maloney
> NO account I have read - participant or spectator - mentions the
> use except Nadi's talk of the whipover that nicked his arm. No book
> written by those who fought duels or trained for duels that I
> am aware of mentions the flick.
And that whipover was not a telling blow--Nadi was not defeated thereby.
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> Therefore, I'm not interested in any detailled talk of duelling or flicking.
> I'm focusing on the fencing that modern people do and are practising in the
> year 2000 modern days. I responded to those only because people brought it
> up, please understand this point.
But in that case, you are no longer discussing a martial art but a pure sport.
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> On the contrary, somebody tried to claim that there isn't ANY SINGLE duel
> account where flicking is effective.
Find one duel account wherein a flick has been effective. The definition
of "duel" is generally well-accepted: A formal meeting of two people
armed with real weapons (in the case of swords, that means sharp) with the
intent to do bodily harm upon each other. This precludes brawls, since it
is a formal meeting. As for "effective", "was the telling blow" or
"injured a participant so significantly that he could not continue" would
suffice.
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> And I had mentioned before, the defn I read from an arts book says that "art
> is never natural, involves manipulation, skill/technique." This will be my
Upon what criteria should others accept this definition? If there are
none you can muster, then there is no basis for communication.
> course. A fencer, when practising, doesn't always play by the FIE rule;
> sometimes a fencer may make up rules amongst themselves at a salle and use
> that as a mean of practice or for fun....this happens; another example,
You speak in terms of a game or pure sport, not a martial art.
> This way, you're already defining "the art." How can we discuss any further
> with an already defined definition?
That is the whole point of definition--to define.
> This definition is not valid and unfair. If modern fencing has new
> evolutions/developments, one claim it different from the "old style," and
> claim it not martial art. On the other hand, if modern fencing go back to
> the very natural fighting for winning (ie. winning a life, or winning a
> trophy, or winning a mate?), one says it awful and ugly...
>
> This definition is creating a no-win situation for modern fencing...very
> unfair.
How is it unfair? Why are you so intent on maintaining that FIE fencing
is a martial art? What is wrong with admitting that it is a pure sport,
self-referential and with no need to justify itself on any martial arts
basis?
> Ok, I agree that this. But let's focus back onto modern fencing.
Why? Is there only one kind of fencing?
Bryan J. Maloney
> Christian,
>
> I have to say that your list is probably the most even-handed non-troll
> that I have seen on this issue. Congratulations.
It's not even-handed in its its artificial division of Classical Fencing
from Historical Swordsmanship.
Jonathan Jefferies
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> My fencing master's description of the epee du combat that he saw in
> the Greco fencing salle where he trained was that it was a "normal"
> epee blade with the point ground down to needle sharpness. He says
> the blade was a bit stiffer than his own Italian hilted electric epee,
> but not incredibly so. Certainly too stiff to do a fly fishing flick
> but Ok for the whipover type touch that nadi described.
I have seen at least two varieties. The first was what I would regard
as a proper epee de combat and it was quite different than the epee de
sport that we use. Take an equilateral triangle and cut down into the flats
between each edge and you would have a fair approximation of its cross
section. But I have also seen a cane sword which was very much like the
epee de sport with the cross section being more of a V with the upper
ends of the V sharpened down to the bottom of the V.
> He also says it was rather clearly a weapon when he held it.
both were clearly weapons. The epee de combat felt much more lively
in my hand than the various epee de sport that I have owned. The cane
sword was much shorter and stiffer which may be related to its length.
I think by definition an epee is triangular in cross section. The epee
de sport's V shape seems to have been chosen with idea that the sword
should bend to protect the players. Whereas the epee de combat was apparently
intended NOT to bend. This suggests that the traditional epee de combat
could not be used to flick over the top - but based on my brief
exposure I do think it could be used to get around the guard and
into an opponent's wrist.
Jonathan
Jonathan Jefferies
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Nadi fought one duel. Agesilao and Aurelio Greco fought many and didn't
> see it as brutal at all, but as the pinnacle of their skill. Nadi got
> spooked, that's very clear from his book. He thought he was hot stuff,
> and he lost his bottle....
I think that is quite clear from the few photo's taken during the
duel. Nadi, the olympic medalist and champion of proper form, had his feet
misaligned like a first year student. AND IF I remember correctly,
another photo caught him lunging with his left foot off the ground.
Both photos were in "The Secret History of the Sword".
> I don't think modern electric foil fencing is a martial art. I think
> classical foil used as an instruction tool for smallsword is.
I would demur slightly and suggest that modern epee fencing is
as close to a martial art as sport fencing gets. Clearly foil
and sabre are more "comment combat" with all the rules as to what
is not a target. But then it may be that the "classical foil" you
refer to is different than what I've studied.
Jonathan
Kitty
"art
> > is never natural, involves manipulation, skill/technique." This will be
my
>
> none you can muster, then there is no basis for communication.
Nobody have to accept this defn., if you disagree please say so--and that
may stir up some uproar from the people with some expertise in arts....I
recognized that I'm not an expert on this talk, that's why I found it from a
book. Instead of making things up and pretending myself mastering
everything all right.
>
> > course. A fencer, when practising, doesn't always play by the FIE rule;
> > sometimes a fencer may make up rules amongst themselves at a salle and
use
> > that as a mean of practice or for fun....this happens; another example,
>
> You speak in terms of a game or pure sport, not a martial art.
I speak in terms of a martial art.
Please better prove your point.
>
> > This way, you're already defining "the art." How can we discuss any
further
> > with an already defined definition?
>
> That is the whole point of definition--to define.
Play with your definition in your world is fine.
>
> > This definition is not valid and unfair. If modern fencing has new
> > evolutions/developments, one claim it different from the "old style,"
and
> > claim it not martial art. On the other hand, if modern fencing go back
to
> > the very natural fighting for winning (ie. winning a life, or winning a
> > trophy, or winning a mate?), one says it awful and ugly...
> >
> > This definition is creating a no-win situation for modern fencing...very
> > unfair.
>
> How is it unfair? Why are you so intent on maintaining that FIE fencing
> is a martial art? What is wrong with admitting that it is a pure sport,
> self-referential and with no need to justify itself on any martial arts
> basis?
First of all, I disagree with such definition. Second, I believe fencing is
martial art.
Therefore, I defend my believe from what I think is an ill-defined
definition. There's nothing wrong with calling fencing a sport. But
there's something wrong, if truth is replaced by faults.
Under the definition set, nothing newly created can fit the definition of
martial arts. It surely is unfair and wrong.
> > Ok, I agree that this. But let's focus back onto modern fencing.
>
> Why? Is there only one kind of fencing?
I tried to be general, and people are upset. Now I make it specific, and
people are still upset.
How about this...we discuss if modern fencing is martial art and then go to
duelling and discuss on it's martial art membership? how's that?
Stephan Khinoy
smallsword blades were too stiff. The idea that guided the evolution of the
epee de combat was to let people defend their honor and display their
courage and skill -- but without excessive loss of life. The formal duel is
already a long step away from a fight to the finish.
My feeling is that you can flick even with a quite rigid weapon -- it
requires a different mental picture of the action. I'll illustrate this if
anyone cares.
Stephan Khinoy
Publisher, SKA Swordplay Books
Kitty
> > The question then becomes: "Are most fencers obsessed with getting the
> > point?"
>
> So long as the tournament remains the primary focus of the FIE, then it
> will have to be the case. So long as producing "Olympians" remains a
> major focus of the USFA, yoobetcha.
in such case, you understand that there's more than one style of fencing,
willing to take one or more as martial arts, while recognizing only the FIE
style as the "fencing" in our question of "whether it's in the martial arts
category?"
And I'd rather consider fencing as one whole thing (all the fencing that
people commonly practises nowadays) to answer the question.
>
> > What will your answer be, if you're the one being asked?
>
> Is there more than one style of fencing?
>
Kitty
sure. I didn't say that a martial artist has to be fencer; a typical fencer
though, should be considered a martial artist.
>
> --T.T.
Kitty
> In article <87vu0m$qq7$1...@news.service.uci.edu>, "Kitty"
> <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> > Therefore, I'm not interested in any detailled talk of duelling or
flicking.
> > I'm focusing on the fencing that modern people do and are practising in
the
> > year 2000 modern days. I responded to those only because people brought
it
> > up, please understand this point.
>
> But in that case, you are no longer discussing a martial art but a pure
sport.
Zebee Johnstone
Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
>
>sure. I didn't say that a martial artist has to be fencer; a typical fencer
>though, should be considered a martial artist.
OK, so what do yo uthink a typical fencer *is*?
What do they do, what do they concentrate on, what is their
aim, what are they thinking about, what is important to
them?
"typical" implies a set of characteristics that most "fencers"
have. So please give those, it owuld make it easier to decide
wher eyou are coming from.
Zebee
Kitty
fencer
> >though, should be considered a martial artist.
> OK, so what do yo uthink a typical fencer *is*?
>
> What do they do, what do they concentrate on, what is their
> aim, what are they thinking about, what is important to
> them?
Yes, that's the main thing we're grounding down toward. I don't know what
others think, but I think a typical fencer does both sports fencing and
skillful/thoughful fencing (both at the same time, or separately within the
same time period)--which leads to my conclusion of the fencing culture
having its martially artful element.
Debbie Henderson
to protect and defend. Boxing is not a martial art since it was never used
specifically in military defense. Fencing, and other traditional martial
arts are, because they were used to defend, attack or protect in
warfare/conflicts of the military. That is where the term originated.
Debbie
Kitty <kit...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:87l8q1$22o$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
> Now it comes back to the beginning of the question...what is martial art?
> how would you define martial art?
>
> Are you implying that arts, or ares means only skill or technique? Is
sport
> not art? -- the process in scoring is not art? the process of
understanding
> of rules and have a duel occur is not art? From some reading, I found the
> definition of arts being artificial (art cannot be natural). But if in a
> competition, one has the control over the game, then the game is
> artificial--it's under control; it then is art. Is there no control by
both
> sides in a game? Can we call it cooperative art?
>
> I think the main thing you think sports differs from martial arts is that
> sports emphasizes on winning, scoring. Then WHAT IS a good game?
>
> If flickering or whipping cannot "kill/score", then why would people
> do/develop such? I've seen people flicker while not letting the opponent
> even touch'em. If flickering can do no harm to one's self in some cases,
> can we not assume that it is also usable in an actual duel?
>
> It's just like the case of practising versus out in a competition. One
does
> no jabbing when practising, but do anything that one can do before a halt
in
> the official competition. But on the whole, the fencing community fences
> for the sake of fencing; they put in hours to improve their techniques,
not
> just solely for winning.
>
> Let's talk about in the old days, what do people fence for? for land? for
> money? for women? for fame? for status? Why can anybody define such as
> martial art before but not now?
>
> If making development in technique can be called martial arts, then what
is
> the purpose of developing technique in the first place?
>
> For all of us fencers, can anybody say that he/she fences solely for fame
> and score, but not the practice and the process of development?
>
> I think, Fencing is MARTIAL ARTS. The word Martial tells the fighting
part
> of it all right.
>
> -Kitty
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> Well, I'm basing my information on what I saw at the Martinez Academy.
Ramon
> was explaining to me that without the element of fear, and with the
> introduction of electrical scoring, fencers at competition are much more
> aggressive than a person would normally be in a duel, and use techniques
> that would be deadly in a real duel. The way he put it was "in the modern
> sport of fencing, the goal is to score points. To do that you have to use
> aggressive tactics. The goal of a duel is to avoid getting killed. It is
> more defensive than offensive."
>
> He and his wife dueled each other at the end of the class, and I could see
> that the movements were slower and more conservative than what I saw at my
> other fencing club, where fencing is taught as a sport.
>
> I'm not saying that fencing isn't "real." Of course it is real. It is real
> fencing. What I'm saying is that fencing has become a sport, and is no
> longer practiced as a martial art.
>
> The best proof is the "flick." Good for scoring points in a bout. Trying
it
> in a real duel where your life is on the line is not only a waste of time,
> it leaves you wide open and would get you killed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kitty Lee <kit...@hotmail.com>
> To: Sarah Bronson <sbro...@mindspring.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 4:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Fencing as Martial Art?
>
>
> > I think this depends on personal views. Since there actually is a
sport
> > call fencing w/ games and trophies that people "play" after(and that
> there
> > are not that many that doesn't attend competition)....It should be more
> fair
> > to say martial art and sports both applies, I think.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sarah Bronson" <sbro...@mindspring.com>
> > Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
> > Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 9:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fencing as Martial Art?
> >
> >
> > > Maestro Ramon Martinez has salles in Manhattan and New Jersey at
which
> he,
> > > along with his wife and other instructors, teaches Classical and
> > Historical
> > > Fencing. They are careful to emphasize that they teach a martial art,
> not
> > a
> > > sport. You learn how to duel, not how to win at fencing competitions.
> They
> > > offer instruction in foil (Italian and French schools), eppee
(Italian
> and
> > > French schools), sabre (Italian), rapier (Italian and Spanish), and
> > > smallsword (French and Italian)
> > > Here is the information:
> > > Martinez Academy of Arms
> > > website: www.martinez-destreza.com
> > > e-mail: mart...@martinez-destreza.com
> > > Phone: (201) 330-8670 (9-5 EST)
> > > Mailing address:1417 37th Street, North Bergen, NJ 07047
> > >
> > >
> > > KRobb97471 <krobb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20000205101253...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
> > > > Forgive me if this is inapropriate for this venue. Is fencing
still
> > > practiced
> > > > as a viable martial art? I ask because I am a filipino martial arts
> > > practioner.
> > > > FMA emphasises the bolo, similar to a machete, the sword, the knife
> and
> > > the
> > > > stick (usually a rattan cane 28-30 inches in length), along w/
empty
> > hand
> > > > application. The FMA have been significantly influenced by Spanish
> > > swordplay,
> > > > especially espada y daga (sword and dagger).
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone today practice european blade based arts as a basis for
a
> > self
> > > > defense program?
> > > >
> > > > Robert
> > >
> > >
>
>
Stephan Khinoy
forms of physical personal combat.or self-defense not currently used by
soldiers. Even a modern war can come down to unarmed single combat.
Stephan Khinoy
Debbie Henderson <debbie.h...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:8871sl$1ni$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Jonathan Jefferies
a fairly casual examination of a epee de combat. Didn't have
a chance to really try it out. ;) I've not really examined
a small sword but I do have a British infantry officer's sword,
1819 model which is essentially a crafted steel bar, no cutting
edge until you get about 8 inches from the tip which is shaped
like a knife. I would suspect it is all that a small sword is
supposed to be but perhaps a little larger. I have taken and
bent it into a U and let it spring back to shape. Now would
that be considered stiff?
But I agree you can "flick even with a quite rigid weapon". Or
at least a maestro could.
Jonathan
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> Under the definition set, nothing newly created can fit the definition of
> martial arts. It surely is unfair and wrong.
Not at all true. There are new martial arts being created as we speak, I
would surmise. AARMACS is a Russian martial art created in the 20th
century, for example, based on older Russian fighting styles with modern
military input.
> How about this...we discuss if modern fencing is martial art and then go to
> duelling and discuss on it's martial art membership? how's that?
If, by "modern", you mean the Olympic style, it is not a martial art
because the purpose is "game"--the techniques are optimized for the
purpose of scoring points in an explicitly and intentionally non-lethal
tournament, not for survival in warfare, spontaneous personal, or
ritualized personal combat.
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> And I'd rather consider fencing as one whole thing (all the fencing that
> people commonly practises nowadays) to answer the question.
Define the specific parameters of this "one whole thing".
Bryan J. Maloney
<kit...@writeme.com> wrote:
> Yes, that's the main thing we're grounding down toward. I don't know what
> others think, but I think a typical fencer does both sports fencing and
> skillful/thoughful fencing (both at the same time, or separately within the
The fact that one is skillful and thoughtful has nothing at all to do with
whether or not one practices a martial art. The problem is that the term
"art" is being errouneously mis-extended from its appropriate use with
"martial".
Bryan J. Maloney
"Stephan Khinoy" <skh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> courage and skill -- but without excessive loss of life. The formal duel is
> already a long step away from a fight to the finish.
I consider the late duel to actually be a blood ritual.
Stephan Khinoy
judicial duels of a much earlier time. So were the Viking holmgangs, the
subject of Ed's recent informative post. There's a steady impulse to
formalize and ritualize personal combat, to keep it within bounds, not to
let it get out of hand.
What I'm saying is that there's an infinite set of gradations between pure
combat and pure game.
Steve Khinoy
[I'd written: . . . The formal duel is
> > already a long step away from a fight to the finish.
> Bryan J. Maloney responded:
> I consider the late duel to actually be a blood ritual.]
Tristantrout
>though, should be considered a martial artist.
Well, again, what's their intent?
--T.T.
Zebee Johnstone
You? Me? Bryan? Eric? Maestro Gaugler? The current world epee
champion?
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."