The ARMA and everyone else.

[Francisco Uribe]

"Fencing masters cannot exist", is the cry!

No that is not the point. What some of us argue is that there is a group of people who claim mastery on these extinct arts. without having demosntrated it, in front of qualyfied officials.

If that is your battle cry, then you deny the working knowledge of all fencing masters, in all history.

Please refer to my previous explanation. You will cleraly understand we do not deny the mastery of the past. Especially of those who had to demostrate their abilities openly and in front of a quayfied group of masters.
Can you claim to have done that? can you prove it?
Would you equate the competency of FISAS and yourself, to the bodies and candidates to master of old (Medieval and Rennaisance)?

It is not a neccessity for any great musician or composer today to be directly related by blood or academic lineage to the great musical artists of history. Such is the very same with the fencing master.

Any great musician or composer or artist has been related to competent teachers in one way or another. Even the ones that are considered geniuses like Da Vinci or Arrau.
In any case your statement is a direct contradiction to your claim of deriving from a living lineage.
So you come from a lineage when it suits the moment?

[Allen Johnson]

Mr. Johnson,

A point often raised, to which I might mention Domenico Angelo as only one example of many European fencing masters, recognised and reknowned as one of the very greatest and skilled of his day, yet never had cause to pierce or drop a man in his long and successful Life.

It is the real test and ultimate mark for a fencer to settle dispute without the need for bloodshed, for then he might mark his victory by strength and swiftness of mind, not blade.

If given no other choice but to defend his Life and skin by steel, of course he should have the neccessary requirements to do so, but again I say, that it has never been a requirement of fencing masters to establish or maintain a professional kill tally.
The qualification is in the Art of Defence, not offence.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

Thank you for your response.

I certainly see and understand your point- and I feel it is a valid argument. However, even if Angelo himself did not ever get into a fight of any kind, you know that there is that kind of experience in killing somewhere in his history...probably from whoever he learned the art from.

Take modern military personnel. They receive top notch combat training. They may go through their whole military carrer without firing a round in combat. However, they KNOW they are sitting in a good position, should the need arise, because of the collective combative knowledge in the military from those that have killed. Since we today are so distanced from this kind of bladed combat, there is no collective knowledge from which to pool information. So yes I agree that one could have been a master in the past, without killing, because of this unbroken collective experience, whereas today that does not exist.

I think I understand what you mean by "the real test and ultimate mark for a fencer to settle dispute without the need for bloodshed". However, I feel this is more of a philosophical approach rather than a real part of the martial skill. I realize that whenever you deal with people, there is going to be some ingrained philosophy. However, I do not feel this is the mark of a true fencer's ultimate victory. I understand that many people who are very adept at a martial art (both ancient and modern) tend to be less combative and more willing to seek a peaceful solution that people who are more unlearned and brash. Again, I see this as a life choice as opposed to a real part of martial skill.

I also see your point about masters not needing to keep a "kill tally". I believe you are partially correct- I'm sure some felt the way you describe. However, I think men today are pretty much the same as in the past. Men like stats and records. They boast and brag about accomplishments. Awards were handed out in battle for bringing down multiple enemies. Men have taken trophies in victory, everything from grisly fingers or scalps to painting kill tallies on the sides of their fighter planes. I have no doubt that for every person that did not associate himself with such activities; there was at least one who did. Even if the master himself did not acknowledge it, you know his pupils and the rest of the interested public probably did.

-Allen

[Seb Jowett]

Mr. Macdonald, You claim that the Masters of the art of Defence, that is the art of fighting, have a living lineage to the arts of the german masters. Well quite frankly, this claim is absurd. First, you are using a completely different type of weapon. (if you can even call fencing "blades" weapons.) Second, If you are talking about the Italian rapier masters, the styles are very different; in that with the rapier, you are trying to kill someone, where as with a fencing blade you are trying to touch them. Sure, you are a master of your art, but you are certainly not a master of any medieval martial art.

Mr Dexter,
I fearthat you are going to nay-say me as I am an active pupil of MacDonald, but frankly, you clearly labour under a missunderstanding. MacDonald teaches Historical Fencing. In my three years I have learnt varied weapons concentrating on Back Sword, Dagger, Longsword and Small Sword, I have also experimented with other styles such as Sword and Dagger, rapier and even quarterstaff. These are NOTsports weapons, we train to kill, and wheneverwe partake in a bout we fight as if with sharp weapons and aim to make killing blows, not to score points with a delicate touch.
I feel your missunderstanding comes from your understanding of Fencing as sports, Fencing is the term for ALL swordfighting, check any treatise and you shall find the term. Angelo for example is described as a Fencing Master by many, and that was a few hundred years beforesports fencing. Tough incidentally he also has a fair understanding of these 'weapons' also.

To Shane Smith, I point out that Paul MacDonald is highly respected and highly sought after for lessons across Europe and America, his reputation proceeds him in Historical Fencing circles and can easily be confirmed.


To Matt Anderson, MacDonald has studied swords and their use for nearly twenty years in total. Sarcasm does not become anyone.

Take it elsewhere, Paul. You’ll get no opportunity here for pushing your “secret ninja maestro lineage” scam. This tired “maestro lineage” claim with Martinez and Lupo has earned you little more than continued contempt and ridicule. It’s a farce, it’s a joke, it’s an embarrassment to this subject, and its’ a fraud. It insults our intelligence, makes a mockery of our heritage and diminishes efforts to reestablish the craft with integrity. It does a disservice to the sincerity so many are trying to bring to this craft. It may satisfy a handful of ignorant neophytes out there never trained in modern fencing who want some shallow prestige by association, but it doesn't work among real fighters and serious scholars. It will not be tolerated on the ARMA Forum. You should be ashamed. You are a bright guy and a nice guy, but your continued allegiance to this shredded "maestro" fraud shows you to be a fool deserving of no respect.

How insulting. Clearly anything that does not fit with your Club View is to be ridiculed and dismissed, a shame as within our Academy all clubs, including yours, would be welcomed with interest and seen as an oportunity to trade knowledge, skills and experience.

Here's where you lost me. You seem to be saying that by virtue of your title of Master, and because of your skill with 17th/18thc backsword, you are also competent to fence with and teach any and all weapons, such as longsword, sword and buckler, staff, pole weapons, etc? This I don't buy at all. Although many principles are similar and can be applied to many different weapons, there is no substitute for lots of training with a specific weapon. Certainly the old masters were indeed simply "masters of fencing" as you say, but that meant they had trained with and mastered many different weapons and probably played their prize with each after many years of training and bouting.

Please come to Edinburgh, MacDonald shall teach whatever you need to know.

To JeremyDillon, MacDonald is as religeous as a brick, and he does verys erious study in the forms of medieval weaponry of all forms from throughout the western world, with no hint of mystiscm, except when he is relating a historical belief held by a historical master. Though he does stress the balance between physical and mental skill and strength as equal, and I have seen fighters without this balance, it is telling in their style, for example a fighter who attacks constantly with bursts of speed has little composure and seeks to overwhelm his opponant, a man with balanced composure defends till the time is right, and thens trikes back.

To Mike Cartier, MacDonald too fights to ovecome the Hollywoodisation of Swordsmanship.

To all, Paul MacDonald, or MacDonald to everyone who knows him, does not use the term Maestro when describing himself, others use it towards him, the man is humble, honest, and honourable, and his reputation for these traits, and his ability to drink, are well know.
Also may I suggest that you do some research on Paul MacDonald, through which you will find he is one of the most highly respected and recognised practioners and teachers, or Maestro, of Historical Swordsmanship currently practicing in the world and is thus invited every year to numerous sword events where people eagre to learn attend his classes and seminars, the same people wh travel from various points about the world and travel to Edinburgh for private tuition and to attend the Academy.
Travel yourself to Edinburgh, or perhaps the Lansing Event in 2008, and you shall encounter Maestro MacDonald, and perhaps even learn something.

This should be no problem for Francisco Uribe, as he seems to reside there. I hope to attend next year, and look forward to any potential meeting there.

Yours
Seb Jowett.

[Francisco Uribe]

So Seb...
It is clear that you have a good opinion of Mr. McDonald. That is fine and respectable.

And it is also OK and desirable that you train to kill. Everybody that claims to do Martial arts should be doing that. And if that is the case I'm happy that at least on this we are all on the same boat.

There is no need to be a master to trade killing blows... that is not the point here...

But what do you make of his claims (very confusely made) of representing a living lineage and claiming mastery of medieval and renaissance weapons, conceded by a modern panel of people that in the best of cases can trace their lineage to 18th century?


I'm still waiting for a response to this question. Mr. McDonald knows exactly what I'm asking, but refuses to answer the matter at hand.

What if I tell that I have certification levels from the Chilean Fencing Federation, that still keeps teaching military 18Th and 19th century saber and the use of corvo from colonial times?
Anybody can make up stuff. Could you prove or disprove what I just presented?

It really bothers me that as a founder member of the IMAF, he may have agreed to James Loriega certification as master... specially considering that he is not a master of navaja himself, or ther are any masters for that type of weapon around.
Mr. McDonald may have simply not know about Loriega's fake claims, although that is doubtful. I'm very interested to know what Mr. Mcdonald will do now that this situation as came to light. I wonder if he will at least look into the matter. Maybe I'm hoping to much.

I will patiently wait for answers. I have heard many things about Mr. McDonald over the years. Very few of them flattering
All I want is to make an opiniona bout Mr. McDonald on my own and what best to have the man himself answering my questions in this public environment?
Unfortunatelly itseems that is easier to bleed a rock.

Seb, yes I've been to the Lansing reunion since they opened it to general public. It has been most... illustrative. I look forward to check out the next one coming.

[Mike Cartier]

oops i forgot to mention i met a long lost relative of Joachim Meyer in black forrest in Germany in my youth and he gave me secret hidden German longsword techniques and bestowed on me my Master rank.

Woirking towards my Grandmaster ranking now as soon as i can find the big leather puffy pants.

[Corey Roberts]

Much of this debate perhaps centres on the meaning of the word Maestro in modern italian. the De Mauro Dizionario della Lingua Italiana defines the word Maestro as the following:

ma|è|stro, ma|é|stro
s.m., agg.
FO
I s.m.
1a chi conosce approfonditamente una disciplina in modo tale da poterla trasmettere, insegnare ad altri: sommo, insigne m.; anche come appellativo di riverenza e ammirazione | solo sing., per anton., con iniz. maiusc., Gesù Cristo | m. dei filosofi, m. di color che sanno, Aristotele
1b chi eccelle in una particolare disciplina, in una scienza, in un’arte, tanto da imporsi come caposcuola, come guida: Cicerone fu considerato m. di retorica, i grandi maestri del diritto romano | estens., chi, distinguendosi per altezza di virtù, eccellenza e sim., si impone come modello, esempio da seguire: m. di vita, di comportamento, è un m. d’eleganza; anche con riferimento a qualità negative: essere un m. dell’imbroglio, del raggiro; iron., darsi arie da m., assumere un atteggiamento saccente
2a maestro elementare
2b chi insegna una particolare disciplina o attività pratica: m. di dizione; m. di equitazione, di sci, di nuoto, di ballo
[I have ommitted the rest of the entry ]

rather than translate the entire entry (which would waste everyone here 's time and is not necessary) I have bolded those sections which pertain to this debate and provide a rough (please excuse any errors ) translation of only the bolded text as follows:

1a one who is deeply familiar with a discipline in such a manner as to be able to pass on and teach [the discipline] to others...(used)as a title of reverence and admiration (respect)

1b one who eccels in a particular discipline science or art...

2b one who teaches a particular discipline or practical skill [activity] as in Maestro of diction, Maestro of horse-back riding, of skiing, ' swiiming, dancing ...


In the modern sence of the word Maestro would be best translated in English as Teacher, Instructor, or Expert in a given subject. The question then becomes Mr. Macdonald are you using the word Maestro in it's modern sense merely as "instructor" or "teacher" rather than claiming any historic title or mastery of Renaissance fighting skills. If you are using it merely to indicate such a meaning, than this is all well and good, so long as you make it absolutley clear to others that you are only using it in its modern sense of Instructor in a practical field. However, if in fact you are using it in its historical and archaic usuage, and actually claiming to be a legitamte "master at arms" and the modern repository of some sort of ancient lineage passed down through the Renaissance to the present than this is a claim which is dubious at best, and downright insulting and laughable at worst. I do not know you personally nor am I familiar with FISAS or IMAF or any of these organizations methods of instruction, nor do I personally know any students of FISAS or IMAF. All I can say is that anyone claiming some sort of "Mastery' over archaic and extinct combat arts, certainly needs to provide some kind of verification at the least. Yet the truth is, there are no organisations today, that can legitamatley claim some kind of unpolluted direct lineage to any Renaissance master. (and if there is legitamate reason to claim such than please provide the evidence and proof) Now on the other hand, if Maestro is being used merely as "teacher" "instructor" or "expert" than you should make that perfectly clear from the start.

[Francisco Uribe]

I guess you got a bull's eye, Corey.

For what I've seen so far none of the so called maestros goes around clrifying that "insignificant" detail to anybody. And as we can see here (at least in the case of Mr. Macdonald) they do claim claim to be repository of some tradition and knowledge.
I know that all of us ARMAteers would be lining up to take clases with a guy who could actually was able to demonstrate that with documentation and in action.
Heck, I bet JC would nominate such a guy the seniorest advisor!
I do not think that any of us would hesitate to take clases from somebody that is not just a real historical repository, but can beat ARMA SFSs... I would be the first in line.

But addressing the point, the manipulation of ideas, language and ambiguity that we are offered by Mr. MacDonald shows that it is not in his best interest to limit the use of maestro to teacher or instructor. Specially when he uses metaphysics to answer very, very simple questions.
If that was the case, and they wanted to avoid such "confusions" this maestro crowd would flee from the use of the word maestro as one runs off the bubonic plague.
Evidently that is not the case.

On top of that I always wondered why using maestro, instead of master?
It seems that appealing to the exotic creates more interest?
From my perspective, gives the effect of a "tourist trap"... that sort of nonsense should be avoided, I think.
But again, the ambiguity seems to serve a certain purpose... so the ambiguity is.... stimulated.

So yeah, I think there is a clear and meditaed exploitation of the term and what can be gained from its use.

[Brian Hunt]

"self serving"

Those two words in combination and regard to Maestro Martinez are greatly misplaced and mistaken. If you disagree with my words, you do not know the man.

If you do, then I dare you prove me wrong.

Mr. Macdonald,

I thought long and hard before replying to you in this thread because I am not sure that to do so is in my best interest to become embroiled in this type of debate, but I do not like to leave a challenge unanswered.

At no time have I claimed to have an association with Mr. Martinez, nor do I see how you come up with this idea yet alone challenge me to prove you wrong about something I haven't claimed. My stated opinion is one on the content of the article that started this thread and I stand by it.

Furthermore, if only people with a lineage have the right or the knowledge to teach these arts, as claimed by Mr. Martinez in that article, how can it be anything but an advantage and self serving when so few men like him claim such a title and a living lineage that meets his criteria but is one that I have seen little proof for other than statements that it goes back to the 1700's with no names to back it up.

Mr. Martinez and Mr. Sinclair have both talked about living lineages that go back to the 18th century. But I have trouble tracing it past Mr. Rhodes and his academy for fencing and ballet where Mr. Martinez is concerned and near as I can tell there were two different masters for Mr. Sinclair, Maestro H. Le Squezec and Maestro Italo Manusardi both of whom I have been unable to trace their lineage. I would love to see a well defined lineage to meet their claims, such as the one shown by Sean Hayes here http://www.northwestacademyofarms.com/aboutteacher.htm but who had this to say in his introduction for the Fabris translation by Tom Leoni about weapons outside the realm of foil, epee, and saber.

"As any student of European Classical Fencing, Asian Martial Arts, or any other living tradition knows, the essence of the art lives in the continued practice of it, and these details are passed on first-hand by the teachers of the arts. The further one looks back into time, the more study is required to discover what we can about the practice and implementation of these arts. There are solid theoretical and practical connections between rapier and classical fencing that have been transmitted through the centuries, but much detail is missing, because the masters who supplied that detail, sword in hand and in the sala d’armi, are long dead. Fencing lineage and the living tradition are important: they are part of a foundation of traditions, skills and philosophies from which the teacher develops his own traditions, skills and philosophies. But fencing has changed over time, and there are limits to what can be learned simply by being one in a line of several fencing masters."

and this is from a man whose bio says he studied rapier and dagger under Maitre Crown. This type of a bio would be a very nice start instead of Mr. Martinez's claims of a bestowed title just before his teacher died and no lineage that I can find that even states who taught Master Rohdes. Also, the whole IMAF is associated with BHFS, which is associated with FISAS, which is associated with the Martinez Academy, which is associated with Italian Ancient and Historical Fencing Federation, which is associeated with the Association for Historical Fencing, etc. starts to seem a bit insestuous to many outside observers.

I do not deny or have a problem with the idea of Classical fencing Maestros who are masters of the acknowledged three weapons of Classical fencing; the foil, epee, and saber and are the ones acknowledged as such by Mr. Martinez in his article. In fact I respect the hard work and dedication it takes to become such. I would not even be surprised to find someone with a claim to 18th century staff (which is a different animal than rennaissance or medieval quarterstaff due to it being gripped in the middle instead of at the quarter), or even possibly small sword since it is so closely related to the epee, and 19th century saber. Nor do I believe do most other ARMA members have a problem with the idea of sport or classical fencing masters, where the break down begins is the claims of mastery of the lost rennaissance arts of sword and shield, longsword, greatsword, sword and buckler, cut and thrust weapons, rapier, polearms of all types, etc. Plus the claims that you must have this type of knowledge and training spoken of by Mr. Martinez or the approval from someone with such training in order to be able to correctly translate or interpret the writings of the rennaissance masters.

As for a legacy to the rapier, IMHO it is a different animal than small sword or epee. Through my own studies I believe that when the dueling culture turned to the small sword that the lightness and shorter length of the small sword allowed for a different style of foyning fence than that used by the rapier and therefore the rapier is a different art all together than that of the small sword despite many similarities between the two. Therefore, as stated by Sean Hayes,

fencing has changed over time, and there are limits to what can be learned simply by being one in a line of several fencing masters.

so I feel that even those that have certifiable titles as Master with classical or sport fencing are in the same boat as the rest of us, and may at times even be at a disadvantage when translating and interpreting the manuals because they are trying to clearly see through a preconcieved lense created by their prior training.

Cheers.

Brian Hunt
GFS

P.S. I respect your hard work to try and keep swords from being banned in Britain, please keep up the good fight there.

http://www.paulushectormair.com

[Seb Jowett]

Well, not the trashing I was expecting, yet at least.

To Francisco Uribe, I acknowledge that the use of killing blows does not make a master, I know many killing blows but am only a student. As for the sabre, I found that having tried it I found it was not the weapon for me, for yourself though, if what you claim is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then all is good, for the survival of all weapons types is important in this world for not only our understanding but also that of future generations. As for the Chilean Federation, again, well and good, and having quickly researched the corvo I like the look of the dagger, especially the hooked end of the blade. An interesting looking weapon, with immediate advantages for the truly nasty cuts and slices.

As for MacDonalds claims, i have met other fencing masters in my time at the Academy, Italian, Spanish, Canadian and American, and all consider MacDonald to be amaster of what he teaches and respectfully address him as such, as he respectfully addresses them. His knowledge is, frankly, frightening, he has forgotten more than I believe I shall ever know, and his collection of treatises, photocopies, reprints and the like, originals are out of all our price ranges I feel, is impressive and, when placed end to end, ridiculousl long, but he has read and studies all of them and continues to do so that he may better understand and teach the techniques therein.

Still, this is largely irrelevant, I merely speak the truth as it stands, those who believe me shall do those, those who don't, won't.

I again invite you all to meet MacDonald and judge the man, and his skills in person. Granted, Edinburgh is quite far, and expensive, for you to reach, however every year MacDonald is invited to the Lansing event and every year he attends, is skills, experience and tuition in such demand that he is always fully booked. Meet him there in 2008.
However I understand, after some research, that this is unlikely on your part ofter Mr Uribe, a resident of Lansing, urged all members of the ARMA to avoid the event a few years back, for reasons that are not actually clear. (Perhaps you could explain that for me, for in my experience any gathering of like-minded people is always beneficial.)
A shame, as I feel you are all missing something valuable, and not just MacDonald, but all those masters and teachers in attendence who are there to train, share ideas and develop their overall knowledge of the art of fencing, and thus preserve the skills and knowedge for all time.

Yours
Seb Jowett.

[Francisco Uribe]

Well, not the trashing I was expecting, yet at least.

If you expect to be trashed... that could be arranged, I suppose. However we do not have the custom of being rude with the people that is able to conduct a direct discusion with logic and arguments, instead to just play with words.

To Francisco Uribe, I acknowledge that the use of killing blows does not make a master, I know many killing blows but am only a student. As for the sabre, I found that having tried it I found it was not the weapon for me, for yourself though, if what you claim is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then all is good, for the survival of all weapons types is important in this world for not only our understanding but also that of future generations.

Yes you now do not have reasons to think I'm not saying the truth.
But think of this... you meet me, you talk to me you interact with me, spar with me and after all that and some time you figure out that most of what I've been saying has no basis in truth and that I basically made up a lot of info.... specially regarding background.
That is what has happened to many of our senior members, and not just regarding Mr. McDonald, also with Mr. Martinez ... and now we can add Mr. Loriega's lies to the pile.

I do not believe that trust would survive under those conditions, don't you think?

As for MacDonalds claims, i have met other fencing masters in my time at the Academy, Italian, Spanish, Canadian and American, and all consider MacDonald to be amaster of what he teaches and respectfully address him as such, as he respectfully addresses them.

Seb, Seb, Seb... I hope you realize that it does not matter how many people address Mr. Macdonald (or any other for that matter), using the word master... that will not make him one.
Specially if the masters you reffer have the exact sort of silly claim to mastery that Mr. Macdonald sports.
In chile we have a saying ... "there is no goring among bulls"

His knowledge is, frankly, frightening, he has forgotten more than I believe I shall ever know, and his collection of treatises, photocopies, reprints and the like, originals are out of all our price ranges I feel, is impressive and, when placed end to end, ridiculousl long, but he has read and studies all of them and continues to do so that he may better understand and teach the techniques therein.

There are other more suited in this forum that could judge that. I bet that he knows a lot more that I do too.
And that is good that he has done well in that sense.

But again, this is no different from what a lot of other people, and not only in ARMA, has done. People who knows a lot more than what you and I will ever know. Nonetheless this other people does not claim mastery of any sort. Certainly not by their own right of study and practice and certainly not by lineage.

It is ludicrous that Mr. McDonald claims mastery by his own right in something that is still being recosntructed . Is also equallly ludicrous that he claim it trough a lineage (that to date remains umproven for him or others) that onley traces back to the 18th century.

Still, this is largely irrelevant, I merely speak the truth as it stands, those who believe me shall do those, those who don't, won't.

I will believe you if you present me with undeniable proof, but so far you have done nothing but give emotional support to Mr. MacDonald.
Could you present us with a set of credentials similar or equivalent to what Sean Hayes has?
Please remember that titles granted by other unreliable "masters" can not be taken seriously.
I tell you that Martinez and Sinclair can not be taken seriously after teh Loriega scam.

I again invite you all to meet MacDonald and judge the man, and his skills in person.

There are many who already have.
Myself I just wnat him to prove what he claims regarding his living tradition... why is that so much to ask, cosidering how near to his heart the subject his?

Granted, Edinburgh is quite far, and expensive, for you to reach, however every year MacDonald is invited to the Lansing event and every year he attends, is skills, experience and tuition in such demand that he is always fully booked. Meet him there in 2008.

However I understand, after some research, that this is unlikely on your part ofter Mr Uribe, a resident of Lansing, urged all members of the ARMA to avoid the event a few years back, for reasons that are not actually clear.

To be completly honest, I was about to pay and attend the Lansing meeting. I wasadviced by several people that would be a waste of money.
I did not go and I regreted for over a year.... my regret feelings were based upon on the same idea that you sport... it's fencing no? They do something similar, something I could learn.
All these doubts vanished the day I attended to the open sesions offered during the next meeting.

I can honestly say that attending that event is a waste of money and time for any student that has been involved in the ARMA study method.
So I have to adhere to the manifested expressions that I heard from senior ARMA members over the years.

But Seb, do not worry my words do not carry that much weight around here. If anything I invite people to see for their own eyes and judge these maestros based on their own experiences with them.
Me? I'm glad I did not waste my money over that weekend. I know I would have come out feeling robbed.

Now... what sort of clarification would make you happy regarding my experience in the Lansing event?
I would be glad to share my personal impresions.

(Perhaps you could explain that for me, for in my experience any gathering of like-minded people is always beneficial.)

You nailed it!
That is exactly the source of the problem.
We are not-like minded, and I'am very happy about that for us and very sorry for these "maestros"... although in a sense I'm sad for us since we have to drag their dead weight along as WMA community.

A shame, as I feel you are all missing something valuable, and not just MacDonald, but all those masters and teachers in attendence who are there to train, share ideas and develop their overall knowledge of the art of fencing, and thus preserve the skills and knowedge for all time.

I told you... I've seen them and talked to them and It seems can't get straight answers to simple matters.
That is very, very unsatisfactory.
For preserving... hmmmmm I wouldnt be so sure. The skills were lost. We are trying to recosntruct and truthfulness is escential on this task.
Unfortunately truthfulness is the least of the things that I see coming from some in the "maestro croud".

Using that philosophy, that Mr. MacDonald enjoys so much, I believe that since is a recosntructive effort, the focus is not that much on who is right and who is wrong on a given interpretation (and many think that this is what divides our WMA community). The real focus would be the integrity of the research and development, the way we conduct our efforts. Honesty and truthfulness should be the standard. As researcher and I cannot visualize it any other way.
Can you, Seb?

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Uribe and All,

It has become clear from following posts that my own words here are sadly being completely ignored, not given any amount of consideration before being overlooked and the same old questions being pointlessly raised again.

The same cry goes up, "but how dare they claim a direct lineage to the medieval or renaissance masters, etc"!!
I have never claimed this and do not claim this.

No fencing master today ever has or does claim this.

I have already here given good reason and logic as to why this is not neccessary or relevant for fencing masters to legitimately exist and profess the Art in the same manner today.

If anyone is still unclear as to these reasons, then please re-read my previous words and reasonings.

Too often have I seen closed minds and rumour-mills generate and gather momentum in the World of European martial arts and historical fencing. Too often have I also observed the sad effects that these false words and ideas have upon perfectly reasonable minds that are simply naieve or unthinkingly accepting enough to simply believe them upon first hearing rather than think for themselves or attempt to elicit the Truth of the matter.

Mr. Uribe, you have suggested that I and other professionals are liars and untruthful. These are strong words.
I can only again state that we see in the World what resides in our Heart at any time.
Mark your words man, and be certain before presenting them.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Sam Nankivell]

Mr. Uribe and All,

It has become clear from following posts that my own words here are sadly being completely ignored, not given any amount of consideration before being overlooked and the same old questions being pointlessly raised again.

The same cry goes up, "but how dare they claim a direct lineage to the medieval or renaissance masters, etc"!!
I have never claimed this and do not claim this.

No fencing master today ever has or does claim this.

I have already here given good reason and logic as to why this is not neccessary or relevant for fencing masters to legitimately exist and profess the Art in the same manner today.

If anyone is still unclear as to these reasons, then please re-read my previous words and reasonings.

Too often have I seen closed minds and rumour-mills generate and gather momentum in the World of European martial arts and historical fencing. Too often have I also observed the sad effects that these false words and ideas have upon perfectly reasonable minds that are simply naieve or unthinkingly accepting enough to simply believe them upon first hearing rather than think for themselves or attempt to elicit the Truth of the matter.

Mr. Uribe, you have suggested that I and other professionals are liars and untruthful. These are strong words.
I can only again state that we see in the World what resides in our Heart at any time.
Mark your words man, and be certain before presenting them.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

I am curious, no offense, but your argument earlier that most fencing is interconnected? Therefore, by knowing 18th Century Fencing, you can be a good teacher of Renaissance and Medieval Fencing. I believe your wording was that the "Art" does not change. Of course, I could have misinterpreted the statement, but that was the feeling I got from it.

As for the belief that maestros cannot exist today, that is just ridiculous. Of of course we have maestros who exist today and practice fencing (usually of the classical or sport variety), that isn't the thing in question. The statement ARMA makes is that there are no masters of Renaissance or Medieval fencing that exist today.

Classical fencing lineages (and therefore, masters) still exist because the skills needed in classical fencing were employed only until fairly recently (maybe 100-200 years ago? Perhaps even less?) However, the skills employed with Renaissance and Medieval weaponry have not been used for maybe 500-600 years, not to mention leaving us with without any direct lineages like classical fencing does. This creates a vast hole in our knowledge that can only be filled in by the texts they have left us and, of course, experimentation. I am not saying that skill in classical fencing cannot transfer to earlier forms, but the two are far too different to equate mastery in one with mastery in another. However, if you (or any others) are not professing mastery in more archaic forms of fencing, then frankly, there really isn't any disagreement between us. I can see that you are quite a skilled teacher of Historical fencing in addition to classical fencing, and I appreciate your work you do to increase our knowledge in this field.

I do however have one question for you Mr. MacDonald. Many people at ARMA have been talking about this Mr. Loriega and his "scam", which personally I do not know much about other then what more experienced members have told me. However, I am curious about what you have to say about this issue. Clearly you seem like a fairly honest man, so I want to hear your point of view on this subject which seems to be used against you and Martinez so often. It would certainly help to clear up any misunderstandings we have had.

[Sam Nankivell]

Mr. Uribe and All,

It has become clear from following posts that my own words here are sadly being completely ignored, not given any amount of consideration before being overlooked and the same old questions being pointlessly raised again.

The same cry goes up, "but how dare they claim a direct lineage to the medieval or renaissance masters, etc"!!
I have never claimed this and do not claim this.

No fencing master today ever has or does claim this.

I have already here given good reason and logic as to why this is not neccessary or relevant for fencing masters to legitimately exist and profess the Art in the same manner today.

If anyone is still unclear as to these reasons, then please re-read my previous words and reasonings.

Too often have I seen closed minds and rumour-mills generate and gather momentum in the World of European martial arts and historical fencing. Too often have I also observed the sad effects that these false words and ideas have upon perfectly reasonable minds that are simply naieve or unthinkingly accepting enough to simply believe them upon first hearing rather than think for themselves or attempt to elicit the Truth of the matter.

Mr. Uribe, you have suggested that I and other professionals are liars and untruthful. These are strong words.
I can only again state that we see in the World what resides in our Heart at any time.
Mark your words man, and be certain before presenting them.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

I am curious, no offense, but your argument earlier that most fencing is interconnected? Therefore, by knowing 18th Century Fencing, you can be a good teacher of Renaissance and Medieval Fencing. I believe your wording was that the "Art" does not change. Of course, I could have misinterpreted the statement, but that was the feeling I got from it.

As for the belief that maestros cannot exist today, that is just ridiculous. Of of course we have maestros who exist today and practice fencing (usually of the classical or sport variety), that isn't the thing in question. The statement ARMA makes is that there are no masters of Renaissance or Medieval fencing that exist today.

Classical fencing lineages (and therefore, masters) still exist because the skills needed in classical fencing were employed only until fairly recently (maybe 100-200 years ago? Perhaps even less?) However, the skills employed with Renaissance and Medieval weaponry have not been used for maybe 500-600 years, not to mention leaving us with without any direct lineages like classical fencing does. This creates a vast hole in our knowledge that can only be filled in by the texts they have left us and, of course, experimentation. I am not saying that skill in classical fencing cannot transfer to earlier forms, but the two are far too different to equate mastery in one with mastery in another. However, if you (or any others) are not professing mastery in more archaic forms of fencing, then frankly, there really isn't any disagreement between us. I can see that you are quite a skilled teacher of Historical fencing in addition to classical fencing, and I appreciate your work you do to increase our knowledge in this field.

I do however have one question for you Mr. MacDonald. Many people at ARMA have been talking about this Mr. Loriega and his "scam", which personally I do not know much about other then what more experienced members have told me. However, I am curious about what you have to say about this issue. Clearly you seem like a fairly honest man, so I want to hear your point of view on this subject which seems to be used against you and Martinez so often. It would certainly help to clear up any misunderstandings we have had.

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Nankivell,

It would be ridiculous of me to suggest that classical fencing techniques be employed with medieval or renaissance weapons.

I do refer to the Art not having changed, not having died, but surviving completely in the principles of Nature into which we are born as men and are able to study, know, employ and teach, and yes, equally as well and as effectively as they were centuries ago, for these are the principles of fencing, of the Art. Nature and man have not changed over time, only that of his own making.

Too many scholars today have become fixated and blinkered as a result of thinking that any fencing master or scholar with a knowledge and working ability in classical fencing can surely know and practice only that and nothing else!
What injustice of sensibilities is this?

It could not be considered as rational the similar notion that just because a man is seen riding a bicycle means that he surely cannot know how to ride a horse.

Obviously a different seat and operational knowledge is required for each mode of transport, the same as different technical knowledge is required for each weapon.
Personally, I am capable of riding a bicycle, motorbike, car, boat and aircraft. Many methods of getting there, but the Art is riding, the techniques lie in operating the specific mode or tool employed to express the Art.

Equally, I profess to teach the Art of Defence with many different weapons forms, but only those which I have personally spent the years in knowing and learning from source material and ultimately through experience in application according to the same Art, the Art which is the subject of my qualification.

I claim no tuitional lineage to any renaissance or medieval master, and that is as much as I should feel neccessary to repeat my words.

I can only hope that this might be clear enough for understanding.

Regarding the IMAF issue that has here been raised, the details of this were quite honestly unknown to me, as it is not my business to meddle or nosey into the affairs of associates or others who are more than capable of handling themselves.
But my recent direct enquiries do reveal that the details posted here are not True, but corruption of assumptions and false conclusions. This is no great surprise, as I have borne witness to the very same before, and on many occasions in this World, where men are willing to accept the rumours of another without employing first their own judgement.

Be wary of rumours, for they distract from Truth and real knowledge.

There can only be one Truth for any matter. All else is rumours.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Brian Hunt]

Mr. Macdonald,

The same cry goes up, "but how dare they claim a direct lineage to the medieval or renaissance masters, etc"!!
I have never claimed this and do not claim this.

No fencing master today ever has or does claim this.

Ok, I agree that no fencing master of today has a lineage that goes back to the renaissance masters. However, that has seemed to be implied by others than yourself in the past.

Too many scholars today have become fixated and blinkered as a result of thinking that any fencing master or scholar with a knowledge and working ability in classical fencing can surely know and practice only that and nothing else!
What injustice of sensibilities is this?

I don't believe that a classical fencing master should be limited to teaching only the weapons of foil, epee, and saber. What I do feel is that they should not claim to be masters of the medieval and renaissance weapons since they are in the same boat as the rest of us when it comes to reconstruction of these arts. Plus, just like the rest of us they should be prepared to back up their research and their interpretations of the older weapons with facts and why they make the choices they have made. When it comes to the medieval and renaissance weapons, this means that those who have legitimate claim to the title of Master in classical fencing are as much "self made" men with the older weapons as the rest of us. Mastery of foil, epee, and saber does not endow a person with a better or superior understanding of the writings we all study (this implied assertion is one of my main disagreements with the contents of Mr. Martinez's article that started this thread).

Equally, I profess to teach the Art of Defence with many different weapons forms, but only those which I have personally spent the years in knowing and learning from source material and ultimately through experience in application according to the same Art, the Art which is the subject of my qualification.

This is the same with the rest of us who teach, we only teach that which we have studied and refined through research and experimentation. I have also taught foil, epee, and saber in college fencing clubs but have not earned the right to be called master or even competed enough (not enough money to travel to tournements when I was younger) to have gained a USFA rank though I fenced enough in a club environment for several years and learned well enough to teach the knowledge I had gained to others. The same goes for my work with weapons such as the longsword, sword and buckler, rapier, etc. And I continue to refine and attempt to perfect my understanding of the arts of defence.

I do refer to the Art not having changed, not having died, but surviving completely in the principles of Nature into which we are born as men and are able to study, know, employ and teach, and yes, equally as well and as effectively as they were centuries ago, for these are the principles of fencing, of the Art. Nature and man have not changed over time, only that of his own making.

Capo Ferro himself said that fencing is an Art because it allows one to control nature. But I feel that the Art does not come out of nature but comes out of man's need to control nature. However, I disagree whether or not there have been changes in the Art of fencing over the course of time. I believe that while there are similarities between classical fencing and the older renaissance arts, there are differences as well. For instance, the use of dual time as opposed to single time actions that predominate classical fencing styles. As I have stated before, I believe that the Art changed with the advent of the small sword and continued to change and decline with saber in the 19th century (I choose the word decline because of the over simplification of swordwork for the purposes of teaching military saber). IMHO lighter shorter weapons allowed for the emergence of the parry-repost, something that doesn't work well with with a heavier longer rapier or a heavier sword than a light saber. Footwork changed as did the application of cuts. Footwork continued to change until we have the specilized form of linear footwork that exists in sport fencing today. The focus of a lot of sword work came to be upon that of the personal dual and bouting in the various salles. Therefore while parts of the older arts contiued (such as range, timing, and similarities of certain actions) IMHO the Art as a whole had become different in the 19th century than the art of the 16th and 17th centuries. Europeans are pragmatists, and a lot of the Arts that we study were lost when guns became the predominate weapon of choice for combat thus the need for reconstruction that we engage in.

Be wary of rumours, for they distract from Truth and real knowledge.

There can only be one Truth for any matter. All else is rumours.

Truth is subjective, your truth may not be someone elses. What really matters are facts that can be proven and researched. Truth is just someones assertations of how they view things to be. Views are always distored by ones personal filters. As for rumors, they are taken care of by open discussion and the presentation of known facts but like roaches they will always be lurking out of sight.

Thanks for being wiling to engage in open debate and good luck with your studies.

all the best.

Brian Hunt
GFS

http://www.paulushectormair.com