Sport, traditional...differences?
David Stahl
years before coming to college, and I haven't had the time, a club, or transportation to keep
it up. I hope to go back as soon as I can.
I've been reading some of the posts about "sport fencing" and all the other styles (the names
don't come to mind right now). Can someone give me a little information as to what these
different "styles" are? I'm assuming it has to do with focus and training, but that's just a
guess.
Thanks for your time,
dave
--
David Stahl "You never know when some crazed rodent
othe...@angband.org with cold feet might be running loose
in your pants."
-Calvin and Hobbes
laloum...@jpmorgan.com
In article <7v2429$kd0$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>,
David Stahl <othe...@angband.org> wrote:
> I've been reading some of the posts about "sport fencing" and all the
other styles (the names
> don't come to mind right now). Can someone give me a little
information as to what these
> different "styles" are? I'm assuming it has to do with focus and
training, but that's just a
> guess.
Let me try to give you an overview:
Sports Fencing (SF)
The Olympic/FIE sport of fencing. In general (and I am massively
generalising) SF is focused on "winning". Fencing is looked on as a
sport/game, with the objective being to win - Techniques that enhance
ones chances at winning are looked at positively, those that reduce
these chances are looked on negatively.
Within this group there are those who support "Orthodox" fencing,
believing it to provide a more efficient technique for fencing, and
therefore an enhancer towards winning - and "unorthodox" fencing - which
I am not really qualified to describe, as I am heavily biased against
it... I will leave that to it's proponents.
Supporters of "orthodox" fencing, are also sometimes called "Classical"
Fencers - but see below for more specialised categories.
Classical Fencing (CF)
Classical Fencing, is fencing as it was in the era when swords were no
longer worn on the street, but were still used in Duelling. Depending on
which group you belong to in CF, the definition of which years are
included will vary. But roughly speaking the Classical Era, started more
or less with the French Revolution and Finished with WWII.
Within this era Fencing divided into several groups and these are
reflected in CF today :
Aesthetic CF
This is academic fencing, mostly foil, although some Sabreurs can fall
into this category too - Epeeists excluded!
Here it is the form that is everything, beautiful action, the
conversation of the blades, outclassing your opponent by out-thinking
them, all within the pure "form" of the CF style.
Martial CF
Same style/Form as the Aesthetic version - but in this case, the stress
is on "what if they were sharp" - looks similar to Aesthetic CF, but
tends to be more conservative, taking fewer risks... Epeeists apply
here! Double hits are considered double defeats - the change in mindset
leads to a compellingly different approach to Fencing
CF does not use electric scoring equipment (it was not used in period,
and it avoids the distortions introduced by the equipment itself).
Historical Fencing (HF)
This is all the forms and styles that are documented prior to the CF
period - Rapier, Smallsword, Rapier/Dagger etc...
These are based on texts extant from the 14th century forward.
Some people include medieval combat methods in this category as well -
but the category is limited to those techniques that have sufficient
period documentation to be reproducible.
Stage Fencing
This is not fencing at all - rather it is the actors art of projecting
the illusion of a fight at/to the audience. The very best stage fencing,
is based on either CF or HF - as these are authentic period techniques
and if the movie or stage piece wants to be authentic that is what they
should be using. However with very few exceptions, Stage Fencing has no
links to the periods being represented.
As is apparent above there is overlap between CF and SF technique - the
fundamental difference being mindset.
Many Fencers are involved in more than one of the above categories, and
many masters believe that "There is only one fencing".
Many of the styles have sufficient common ground, that learning one will
make it easier to learn the next.
Once you know several styles, you can apply tactics and approaches from
one to another, and thereby strengthen your tactical ability across the
board. But remember - it takes most people more than 5 years to
effectively learn a single style.... learning multiple styles with a
decent level of proficiency is a project that can fill a lifetime.
On a seperate but associated topic, there are two major schools/styles
of fencing that arose last century: French and Italian.
Both styles are represented in both CF and SF, and adhere to the rules
inherent within those areas - but their fencing technique is a little
different.
Seperations in schools/Style also exist in the HF arena, but it gets
more complex as you go back in time....
Bye for now & Happy Fencing
David Laloum
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
john blair moore
David Stahl wrote:
> . . . Can someone give me a little information as to what these
> different "styles" are? . . .
For an overview of how we in St. Louis practice Classical Fencing,
come look around KABAL at
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~nuerble/index.htm
There you'll find links to other Classical Fencing resources, and even some sections of fencing
humor.
jbm
--
3 gratifying ways to waste time:
http://www.nuerble.com
http://www.3guys.com
http://www.meanwhile.com
Tristantrout
>Aesthetic CF
>Martial CF
>Historical Fencing (HF)
David...
What the heck are you talking about?
- -A Man Named For a Fish
Tristantrout
>styles (the names
>what these
>different "styles" are?
Yes, certainly. What would you like to know about? Electrical? Barbed wire?
Chain Link?
Electrical fencing involves plugging our epee into a wall socket.
Barbed wire fencing involves something called a point arret.
Chain link fencing is something the SCA made up, because no one wore chainmail
and fenced... : )
--Fish Dude
Keith S. Massey
collegue, Dave Laloum... He defined classical and historical fencing thusly:
>Classical Fencing (CF)
>Classical Fencing, is fencing as it was in the era when swords were no
>longer worn on the street, but were still used in Duelling. Depending on
>which group you belong to in CF, the definition of which years are
>included will vary. But roughly speaking the Classical Era, started more
>or less with the French Revolution and Finished with WWII.
>Within this era Fencing divided into several groups and these are
>reflected in CF today :
>
>Aesthetic CF
>This is academic fencing, mostly foil, although some Sabreurs can fall
>into this category too - Epeeists excluded!
>Here it is the form that is everything, beautiful action, the
>conversation of the blades, outclassing your opponent by out-thinking
>them, all within the pure "form" of the CF style.
>
>Martial CF
>Same style/Form as the Aesthetic version - but in this case, the stress
>is on "what if they were sharp" - looks similar to Aesthetic CF, but
>tends to be more conservative, taking fewer risks... Epeeists apply
>here! Double hits are considered double defeats - the change in mindset
>leads to a compellingly different approach to Fencing
>CF does not use electric scoring equipment (it was not used in period,
>and it avoids the distortions introduced by the equipment itself).
I am amazed at this statement! The stated divisions of CF are misleading at
best and nonsense at worst. The distinction is meaningless, as the "aesthetic"
elements and the "martial" elements are intertwined. The form (aesthetic) and
the function (martial) exist because the form is the *most efficient way* to
perform the *function*.
Mr. Laloum furthermore states (in an effort to distinguish classical fencing
from what you earlier called "orthodox" sport fencing) that "CF does not use
electric scoring equipment (it was not used in period,
and it avoids the distortions introduced by the equipment itself)". It would
seem to me that he here characterizes Classical Fencing as "fencing unplugged,"
while it is in fact much, much more than that. The classical mindset involves
much more than simply having good form and looking pretty- this limits the
scope of the art in an unfair and unecessary way.
He also makes a far too broad characterization of what periods include
classical fencing... According to the AHF, classical fencing is "The second
half of the 19th century is the true classical period, but we may include the
whole of the 19th century in this era as this was the age when Fencing was
formally codified, systematized, and fully expressed in complete systems and
styles." The French Revolution is a historical period, and the WWII era is
modern. This is not simply a meaningless and pedantic distinction- the
weapons, styles, and mindset were markedly different in those periods than they
were during the classical period. A fuller definition can be found in the
mission statement section of the AHF website (www.ahfi.org).
He then goes on to state that Historical Fencing:
>This is all the forms and styles that are documented prior to the CF
>period - Rapier, Smallsword, Rapier/Dagger etc...
>These are based on texts extant from the 14th century forward.
>Some people include medieval combat methods in this category as well -
>but the category is limited to those techniques that have sufficient
>period documentation to be reproducible.
Once again, misleading... The Historical Era is the 17th and 18th Centuries,
and streches into the classical era, though the weapons taught "historically"
became somewhat marginalized as they were replaced by newer weapons. Though the
Ancient era continued through the Renaissance, the 16th century may, in fact,
be considered to be a long transitional period in which both "Ancient" and
"Historical" styles coexisted.
The 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries more properly belong to the "Ancient
Fencing" period. "The fechtbuch known as Cotton MS I-33, penned circa 1300, is
the first known treatise on Western swordsmanship. However, specifics on
styles, techniques, or methods that predate this are, due to the lack of
documentation, open to speculation. The term "Ancient," in the sense of "the
former order," is appropriate since, in this era, the art was undergoing
constant change and development in methods, techniques, and weapons. (Most
importantly, there was no clear distinction between civilian and military use
of the sword.) The ancient treatises do, however, contain clear descriptions of
timing, distance, binding, engagements, parries, feints, voiding actions, and
footwork. The basics of the later styles of the "Historical" period can be
traced to this era." (AHF) It is worth mentioning that this period is
considered "fencing" because is has manuals which make reproduction possible
and evidence a systematic approach to swordplay.
Hope this clears things up a bit... This is, of course, only the tip of the
proverbial iceberg, but I felt it important to put to rest any false
assumptions that may have been drawn from the previous post.
Sincerely,
Keith S. Massey
Secretary, AHF
Fat boy Ed
in your lap. I don't get the time delineation from the HFA, it seems so
Eurocentric. I'm in the middle of a really cool book on the western campaigns of
the Mongol under Subotai Bahadur, especially the Hungarian campaign. Brutal shit.
That must have been a classical versus modern battle for the ages. I just read of a
retreat from Pest where the mongols finished off a large group of Hungarians with
their "side arms" . As i recall the usual side arm of the Mongols was a scimitar
and i guess they sure knew how to use them. European fighting men at arms, with
their big ass swords were no match for those "Quick little devils" with their
whippy "little scimitars". All this sounds so familiar, donnit????? I think modern
fencing was started by the Mongols. I would call that the start of the modern
period. Mongols were pragmatic little weasels who couldn't care less about
tradition because all they wanted was to win, and cash in on taxes. I guess today
they would be investment bankers ;)
All the best Fat Boy Ed
Keith S. Massey wrote:
> -snipped_
Blah blah blah yakkity smakkity
Bryan J. Maloney
ks...@aol.comnospam (Keith S. Massey) wrote:
> Once again, misleading... The Historical Era is the 17th and 18th Centuries,
> and streches into the classical era, though the weapons taught "historically"
> became somewhat marginalized as they were replaced by newer weapons.
Though the
> Ancient era continued through the Renaissance, the 16th century may, in fact,
> be considered to be a long transitional period in which both "Ancient" and
> "Historical" styles coexisted.
Your distinction is not universally accepted and cannot be conclusively
proven. Your "historical period" would exclude all rapier except that of
the Transitional era (and "Transitional" as a term to denote an era of
swordplay has more than a century of currency, I can assure you, cf
Hutton, Burton, et al.).
> The 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries more properly belong to the "Ancient
> Fencing" period. "The fechtbuch known as Cotton MS I-33, penned circa 1300, is
They do not "more properly" belong therein, that is merely where some
people have chosen to invent a line.
Keith S. Massey
>proven. Your "historical period" would exclude all rapier except that of
>the Transitional era (and "Transitional" as a term to denote an era of
>swordplay has more than a century of currency, I can assure you, cf
>Hutton, Burton, et al.).
I fail to see how your definition is any more widely accepted than mine? As
for a defense of the periods in question, let us look at the rapier texts we
have and their dates of publication:
Agrippa, Trattato di Scientia d'Arme, 1553
Alfieri, La Scherma, 1640
Capo Ferro, Gran Simulacro dell'Arte Edell'uso della Scherma, 1610
Di Mazo, La Spada Maestra, 1696
Fabris, De lo Schermo, overo scienza d'arme..., 1606
Marcelli, Regole della Scherma, 1686
Marozzo,Opera Nova, 1536
Pallavicini, La Scherma Illustrata, 1670
La Seconda Parte della Scherma Illustrata, 1673
Saviolo, His Practice in Two Books, 1595
Texts on the Spanish School stretch from Carranza in 1569 to Rada in 1705.
All the texts I have cited are from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. What
is your evidence otherwise, Bryan?
>> The 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries more properly belong to the "Ancient
>> Fencing" period. "The fechtbuch known as Cotton MS I-33, penned circa 1300,
>is
>
>They do not "more properly" belong therein, that is merely where some
>people have chosen to invent a line.
Oh? And how do you support THAT statement? Given that fencing (as
differentiated from "fighting with a sword") requires as systematic and
reproducable technique, we cannot apply the term fencing to anything prior to
the first book we have on the subject- MS I-33, written at the dawn of the 14th
Century. That is, unless you have some treatise from Pre-1300 hidden away in
your attic?
Keith Massey
Secretary, AHF
Remove the 'nospam' to send me mail
Bryan J. Maloney
ks...@aol.comnospam (Keith S. Massey) wrote:
> All the texts I have cited are from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. What
> is your evidence otherwise, Bryan?
You put the 16th century into "Ancient", not "Historical".
>
> >> The 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries more properly belong to the "Ancient
> >> Fencing" period. "The fechtbuch known as Cotton MS I-33, penned circa 1300,
> >is
> >
> >They do not "more properly" belong therein, that is merely where some
> >people have chosen to invent a line.
>
> Oh? And how do you support THAT statement? Given that fencing (as
> differentiated from "fighting with a sword") requires as systematic and
The difference between "Ancient" and "Historical" is what I question. Of
course, you chose to take the statement I made completely out of context
and not respond to what I actually wrote.
> reproducable technique, we cannot apply the term fencing to anything prior to
> the first book we have on the subject- MS I-33, written at the dawn of
the 14th
> Century. That is, unless you have some treatise from Pre-1300 hidden away in
> your attic?
Quote specifically where I doubted the fact that I-33 is the earliest extant.
mary anne walker
classical vs. historical vs. sport vs. ??? not any notable name
calling or such...
--
Hasta le bye-bye,
Mary Anne Walker
************************************************************
"Opportunities multiply as they are seized." - Sun Tzu
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
"The Universe does not have laws. It has habits. And habits can be
broken." - Tom Robbins, Jitterbug Perfume
emf...@my-deja.com
I've been seeing petty arguements and other crap like this for months.
Don't people who fight over stupid sh** like this have anything better
to do other occasionally take their heads out of their asses and argue
over who's smells better?!?!?
I think David Laloum's answer more than answers the question asked by
David Stahl. He gave a long and fairly partial explanation and some of
you thing he should've written a short history of the sword in his
message. Seeing people nitpick his explanation to death just shows how
damn arrogant and shallow some people are. Always have to be right...
always has to be EXACTLY someone's way.
GROW UP PEOPLE!!!
In article <bjm10-29109...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
emf...@my-deja.com
them for keeping it that way.
What irritates me is how these things usually end up. From what I've
seen over the past months/years is that exchanges such as this strech
into more and more petty squabbling that drifts far from the subject of
anything fencing (of ANY sort).
I apologize for my outburst-ish message, but I hate sifting through 20
message petty argumentative exchanges (that should be done via e-mail)
to actually find something interesting. In this case that hasn't
happened yet, but I don't want it to either.
Down with nitpickers!!! Just enjoy whatever 'fencing' you do.
Emfuser
In article <381BC9...@rica.net>,
Tristantrout
>I fail to see how your definition is any >more widely accepted than mine?
I would suggest that, when discussing historical matters in a forum where
conventional terms may be misunderstood or altogether rejected, we simply make
specific reference to date and source. Eg: "Camillo Agrippa, in his mid-16th
century work, simplified Marozzo's twelve guards to a simple system of four."
--T.T.
Gordon
wrote:
Naaah - it's too sensible and useful to work. :-)
The Scottish fencing web site and mailing list
http://www.scottishfencing.8m.com
The Scottish student fencing web site and mailing list
- now incorporating the official SASF Championships results site
http://www.scottishfencing.8m.com/students/