Critical of Sport Fencing

[Guest]

Edge blocks are indeed entirely standard in saber.

You know this because you saw it in a book written by teachers that no serious fencer would ever read? Huh? When was the last time you trained with an Olympic level fencing coach who gave you this information?

Perhaps ARMA’s influence is finally having an impact.

The teachers in question have never heard of you. They teach what they were taught by people who competed long before ARMA was an institution.

Unless, you want to argue that all prior literature on the subject is now obsolete?

I'm saying that some are obsolete, and some should have never been written in the first place because the teacher's credentials are suspect. Peter Westbrook won Olympic bronze 20 years ago, but now in 2004 his techniques aren't even close to mimicking what they were like back in the 80's. Even though his old books are good, they can't be used for sabre anymore.

I know of only two out of dozens upon dozens of major works that disagree.

Send me a list of what you have that was written in 20th and 21st centuries. I, as well as many other fencers, don't consider 19th and 18th century techniques relevant to what would happen in actual combat. Fencers during that time were judged/rated on form, and not their combat finesse (with rare exceptions.) That's not realistic, and sport fencers don't like it any more than you do. However, I will work with you on the 20th/21st century stuff. Nothing from Gaugler or Evangelista, please. They are both insane. Anyone who claims that a fencer only needs to practice for 15 minutes, and doesn't need to be in good physical condition to be a good fencer is an idiot.

For that mater, I’m wondering just how is it that your fencing teachers expect you to parry with the flat of a modern sport saber that is no more than a few millimeters in width?

Sabre blades are "taller" than they are wider. So, it's pretty easy seeing as how the flat is wider than the blade edge. The sabre blades now are different than those used back in 80's. Essentially, sabre blades were foil blades turned on their side, but now sabre blades have an entirely different cross section. Sabre blades are around half an inch at the forte, and thin to about 7/16 of an inch in the middle, and about a 1/4 of an inch at the foible. So, clearly not a few millimeters. You can have the best, biggest library in the world, but if you're knowledge of fencing is from a time long forgotten, you can't claim to know fencing, let alone sabre, for what it is today.

I’ve had countless arguments on the matter with fencing teachers across the US over the last twenty years trying to explain why Medieval and Renaissance styles do not use edge on edge for direct parrying of cuts.

Who? I need names. Gaugler doesn't count for reasons I already stated. Let me know who you're debating, and I will get their records from the USFA. If someone is teaching something they should not be, believe me, the fencing community will deal with them for you. Don't get frustrated by it yourself.

It’s the other way around, in fact. If you have not delved deeply or read thoroughly on the matter, you are arguing over your head. The material critical of modern fencing is considerable from 19th century alone.

Stop reading what you want to read, and read what I'm saying. I know you've had your issues with sport fencing in the past, but don't let your frustration blind you now. I don't care about the 19th century, or the 18th, or even the 20th for the most part. The only books on sport fencing that matter are the ones written in the 21st century. Heck, you'll probably get better advice by ignoring the books, and just reading the forums on fencing.net. I know some fencers read books, but they were never considered very important - books are merely training aids. The best learning is in the salle. Fencing evolves too quickly for it be written about. Get away from the books, go to a NAC event and you'll see what I mean.

Even to make such an assertion you'd have to be extremely well versed in the historical teachings, and you clealry aren't.

Ah, that's funny. Because here you are debating sport fencing with me and you've never held a rating, so far as I understand. Also, you're missing the point (no pun.) Just because it was written, doesn't make the word true or representative of something as a whole. You read Gaugler, but he isn't representative of fencing, so why even argue against his points when they were never a part of elite fencing to begin with?

To counter my posts by mereley saying if we haven't been to a recent high level commpetition or comepted we can't say these things, is no valid argument.

Look at it this way. If this were a car discussion, and you claimed that all British cars are bad because you drove a Mini Cooper made back in the 1980's, I would ask you if you've ever driven a 2004 Jaguar XK. You can point out how the engine was underpowered, the car was confining and the compartant too loud, and be very knowledgeable and technical about it. But, if you've never driven a modern, top of the line British car made recently, then you can't claim to know anything about the subject of British cars. What I'm saying is, you know a lot about a bad chapter of fencing, but you can't claim to know anything about the good stuff of today because you've never even seen it. Y'know, pretty much everyone has been pretty polite and taken my words at face value when I say that fencing is a different animal at the elite level. I'm not trying to damage your business, and I think your students respect you enough that your reputation wouldn't be damaged in their eyes if you say that you don't know what modern World Cup fencing is. At least attend one World Cup before scoff at modern sport fencing. The World Cup and the Team World Championship will be held in New York from June 10th through June 13th. Take a trip up there so you can see what real sport fencing is.

20th century fencing authorities

Please PM me with a few names. I'll speak with some people. Perhaps, I'll be able to give you some information on these "authorities" that you wouldn't otherwise know.

My first saber instructor was the famed Hungarian, Louis Bankuti

Well, that explains it. Sabre fencing changed dramatically after 1979, and again, and again, and again... Sabre is an odd and scary animal that refuses to stay the same for more than five years. No wonder you're pissed about sport fencing, I would be too. Try epee. You'll be much happier with sport fencing if you do, at the very least you'll be able to more effictively say why it's not all that great compared to ARMA.

W. Gaugler claims to represent “classical fencing”

Not to start a political debate, but Bush says he represents the American people despite his approval rating being at an all time low of 43% as of yesterday. I'm saying Gaugler isn't Bush, he isn't Kerry, he's Ralph Nader. Gaugler represents 3% percent of fencers, and they are very, very different from the rest of us.

[Guest]

I believe John was referring to your statements here

Ah, thank you. I wasn't trying to insult ARMA, I was pointing out someone got excited and hurt another person unnecessarily.

If you try and use modern sport fencing as a guide to how things were actually done back in period, this is where we begin to have problems.

I'm going to try and find some videos of old fencing from the 1920's for you. The style back then was similar to the hop-about-the-piste form mentioned earlier. Fencing has improved upon that immensely. If you'd like, I can send you some modern fencing bouts right away. They are in .mov format and about .7 megs each.

[Guest]

I think what the underlying dynamic here is one we encounter occasionally: a modern sport fencer may take it as a personal insult when made to realize the collegiate/Olympic game is not a superior evolution over the historical fighting art.

If you can't break someone's ribs through their protection with an actual rapier, but a modern sport fencer can do it with a flimsy epee, I think there is something lacking with ARMA's techniques. I'm not debating tactics of the grappling/holding, etc... with you. I'm saying that a modern sport fencing can hurt you with techniques you've yet to understand. One of the videos on your site showed someone getting jabbed on the lower arm with a rapier - a RAPIER - and the guy wasn't hurt??? What? Were you guys wearing metal underneath your gloves? I saw a guy bend someone's mask mesh with an epee, and the mask was FIE certified. Those things are rated for 1600 newtons. Mr. Clements, I'm sure you can appreciate how difficult that is.

[John_Clements]

Sean, you are way out of your league here. You really don’t get the difference between playing a sport for points and martial arts weapon study. ARMA lunging techniques not having enough power to break bones??? That’s hilarious. Guy, were using weapons that weigh 2-3 pounds, not the featherweight toy swords that flick whip like car antennas of the sport game. We also practice with sharp blades and do test cutting on meat and bone? Have you ever stabbed raw meat or cut through fresh bone with a sharp blade? How about with an authentic 16th or 17th century rapier? I have…many times.

As an expert swordsman and an expert fencer –-not a sport fencer but a martial artist –I will freely criticize any sport or game I wish. Unless you’ve been on the receiving end of one of our non flexing rapier blades with a solid metal foiled tip—that doesn’t safely go “boing”—you have no clue how large a bruise it leaves and how much care has to be taken in sparring. If you’ve never been knocked on your rear by a fighter closing in on you with a 52-inch long 2-inch wide greatsword coming round to smack on your shin bone, you again have no experience form which to complain about our perception of the shortcomings of sport fencing.

[John_Clements]

Are your serious??? Yourself and “many other fencers, don't consider 19th and 18th century techniques relevant to what would happen in actual combat”???? But yet you think “what was written in 20th and 21st centuries” is???

That’s a stunningly naïve belief. It betrays a wealth of misunderstanding about the dynamic and the history of personal armed combat. I must wonder then what you’d think then of the relevance of writings and teachings of even earlier fencing…such as the 16th and 15th centuries?

And you wonder why we are so unimpressed with sport fencing.

[James_Knowles]

I think that the timing of this thread is interesting. Just my casual comments that are loosely connected. They may not even make any sense. I learn best by publicly putting my foot into my mouth. <img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" />

I've been mulling over how altering conditions away from the martial can radically affect the nature of a sport, when compared to the martial original (assuming that one exists).

As an experiment, the past two weekends I've gone back to my SCA roots to simply observe the sport, and to talk about the sport with the various members, since I've forgotten many details in the ten years since I left the SCA.

I've also gone back and done sparring with an old "sword tag" group I used to hang around with before I found ARMA.

There are some conclusions that seems almost self-evident:

• The adoption of rules alters dynamics of the confrontation.
  
• Adding small restricts can have tremendous effect on how the sport's dynamics are played out.
  
• Competitors and their conglomorative culture will automatically seek out methods to maximize their advantage within the context of the rules.
  
• Some technique must be distorted along the way. The greater the distortion of the artificial environment, the greater the technique must be distored to achieve a similar effect in the original.
  

I respect ARMA because it acknowledges these causal interactions, and attempts to minimize the distortions via multiple training techniques. After all, we go to war with firearms these days, not swords. We have no masters these days who have survived multiple military encounters with swords.

The SCA distortions are interesting and have been discussed before. Not until I chatted and observed did the technique distortions jump out at me. Holly smokes!

From my old sword tag group, I learned about psychological distortion. As with every orthodox system, there are not only rule distortions (shinai, no head shots, hit-it-and-lose-it rules, etc.). In that group I really found an appreciation for the interesting psychological rigidity that exists on a personal and group level -- that is evident in the SCA, EMA, and other sports.

Because the psychological rigidity does not fully take advantage of the boundaries, I've been able to soundly defeat people with historic technique -- including those who previously bested me with ease. It's not that I'm any good at all -- I'm not -- but that I was able to circumvent the conventional techniques and still stay within the rules. Their thinking was limited and predictable.

Why all that? Well, when I read the following quote,

When I look at ARMA's lunging technique, I can see that there isn't enough power in your lunges to be able to break bones with a sport weapon. [emphasis mine]

I found it interesting because I believe it's a great example of a distortion influenced by the design of a sport weapon vs. a historic rapier.

The historic lunging techniques advocated by ARMA may not be as "powerful" as the modern sporting lunge -- but did the historic lunge need to be as powerful to efficiently kill the enemy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe so. The historic rapier was a very stiff killing weapon designed to efficiently maximize kinetic energy transfer through the point, requiring less force than a modern flexible sporting weapon to kill. The modern flexible sporting weapon requires more force to achieve an effect that might simulate something akin to a historic result.

This can be readily demonstrated in a test cutting environment, and compare the amount of force required to penetrate appropriate materials and armor.

This speaks to me of several things:

• The safety goal was achieved in the rule and equipment changes.
  
• The technique alterations optimized for the artificial environment do not smoothly translate over to the unrestricted combat environment.
  
• This can become a viscious circle. Observe the SCA fighting for this. Heavier armor for protection requires heavier weapons and more power than historically required. The heavier weapons &amp;c. require heavier armor.
  

Does this mean the modern sporting lunge is superior? One must gague the word superior against the end goal.

The end goal of the historic technique was to maximize lethality while minimizing personal risk using a killing weapon almost surprising in its efficiency. This is a basic guiding principle for all martial combat. In this regard, the sport fencing technique is not in and of itself superior. It is centred around an inefficient weapon design for safety. To achieve comparable damage, disproportionate power must be injected into the lunge. Power in a martial encounter is manditory. However, inefficient power leaves one vulnerable.

If one restricts the discussion to one-on-one ritualized encounters, I don't have sufficient information to comment. That is an example of a conditional environmental artefact. We could play hypotheticals 'til the sun explodes.

The end goal of the modern technique is to allow everybody to go home, and go to work the next day. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> In this setting, yes, the modern sport lunging technique may be superior because it has been optimized for the artificial environment of competetive fencing.

[James_Knowles]

If you can't break someone's ribs through their protection with an actual rapier, but a modern sport fencer can do it with a flimsy epee, ... modern sport fencing can hurt you with techniques you've yet to understand.

OK... this "holier than thou" stuff is cloying. Stop getting defensive.

Really, picking one sample video of a training complaining that you didn't see broken bones is about as silly as me complaining that the last fencing competition I attended didn't leave dead bodies on the ground. Sheesh.

Broken bones during training are accidents. I shattered a finger bone during training last year because I was stupid. Ditto for the guy whose fingers I broke on a different occation. We recognize the mistakes we made.

I thought safety was the hallmark of sport fencing... do you now imply that broken bones during teaching sessions are the new standard of excellence? I know that you don't, and I know that you're brighter than that.

[Scott Anderson]

I have but one (or one base with several parts) question: What happens if you lunge so hard you could do damage like that and your opponent simply wasn't there to be hit? Would you even have time to recover before he killed you?

SPA

[Roger Soucy]

If you can't break someone's ribs through their protection with an actual rapier, but a modern sport fencer can do it with a flimsy epee, I think there is something lacking with ARMA's techniques.

That's a very good example of the differences in mindset between the sport and the martial art. A tough hit in sport fencing can break bones, yeah, that's pretty impressive. However, the rapier/smallsword, whichever you want to use as an example, was never a bludgeoning or impact weapon; it's made to pierce flesh and cloth and kill.

Now one might expect that by watching the videos a thrust has little or no power behind it because after getting nailed with a blunted stiff bladed rapier the victim could continue, but I can say with great probability (and please, if I'm wrong on this may the people involved in the video speak up) that the shot was pulled.

Generally, unless wearing plate, most of us tend to pull our shots when using steel (again, everyone speak up on what you personally do), the reason for this is simple, if we don't we could easily end up with broken bones, but more seriously, dead. These are real weapons, and even blunted are not safe to trade full blows with.

Also, if you read some of the posts in these boards you'll find several members who point out that three weapon rated fencing masks are often not protection enough.

You've refined sport fencing techniques, that's great. All sports should improve. In fact, please PM me and let me know more about this NY event in June. I live here and would love to go see it.

But no matter how you view it, an epee, foil, or saber is not a rapier or small sword. They feel different, their weight is different, and they handle differently. Simply being able to hurt someone with it doesn't make something a valid method of combat. Well, slightly it does, after all, I can kill someone with a baseball bat and a good homerun swing. But baseball is not a martial art.

-- edit was for gramatical changes --

[John_Clements]

I don't think any of what I wrote earlier is being properly digested.

If we spar with heavy wooden swords and with steel replica swords using lethal techniques and we don’t get hurt...it's precisely because we do so with considerable care and control so that no one gets killed or injured. That’s how it was done in the period we study. Otherwise, you get seriously maimed and die. This is especially true of grappling and dagger techniques. Ours is not a game. We are not trying to score points.

We’ve dented so many FIE masked over the years with our weapons we've had to invent new forms of helms for safety and learn to alter our force in sparring. We've bruised and bashed one another so often with wooden sticks, padded sticks, and steel blunts, that we know better how to control blows. Unlike sport fencers, we actually practice to make the most powerful blows possible with real sharp weapons ---we just don’t do it against one another in sparring. What part of that logic don’t you grasp? If we’d gotten injured in our sword sparring would that make you think more highly of it? Or would your then complain our sparring was too clumsy and offer statistic of how safe by comparison sport fencing is?

I really don't think you understand what it is we do or how weaponry in any martial art is practiced.

For you to suggest that the modern sabre fencing sport, which today does not use a real weapon to strike real blows from the full arm and shoulder at the whole body as the real historical versions did, but instead strikes above the waist just from the elbow down to slap with the hand and fingers, is technically superior to the military methods of the last century (when men actually fought to kill with big sharp blades), is aberrant nonsense.

What will you tell us next, that a combat jujitsu instructor isn’t qualified to complain about Olympic judo just because he was never a competitor in that sport?

[John_Clements]

Hi James &amp; Roger,

Your points are right on.
They echo what historical sources tell us.

One need not accept our opinion that modern fencing today is far different than the Renaissance fighting styles, or that sport fencing today is different from its past, or that more than a century ago it had already changed significantly from duelling skills to duelling game

For example, consider:

Commenting on the then practices of fencing classes in his 1734 treatise on the small-sword, the French master L’Abbat declared, “no one ought to do any thing with the Foil, but what he knows by Experience to be without Risque.” He added there was indeed a difference between classroom practice and actual fighting, noting how, “In some Cases, it is true, what is esteemed good in one, is not in the other.” (L’Abbat, p. 124).

Writing in the mid-1800s, fencing master and sword historian Sir Richard Burton stated with keen observation: “In the field…the object is not to touch often and brilliantly; the one thing needful is to touch once in any way you can”. He later added, “the faults which we would avoid in the salle d’armes are useful in the field”. (The Sentiment of the Sword, p. 121 &amp; 137).

Advocating the 19th century dueling epee, Burton also stated, “It is a mistake of the modern schools not to make more use of the true rapier in the lesson as well as in the assault. The weight is different, the blade is broad, straight, and comparatively unelastic, and the change of weapons gives aplomb to the hand. In the present day there are many salles that have never seen a pair of rapiers, and even duels are mostly fought with French foils, which I have called mere bent wires.” (p. 106.) Writing on the then differences between foil play and the epee duels, Burton also noted it was common in French fencing schools of the time to read, how blows or attacks “can be attempted once or twice in the [classroom] assault, but never in a duel, because of the great dangers involved.” (p. 98).

Commenting on Renaissance swords compared to the 19th century epee, Burton wrote “the weapons of those days were very different from what we use; they were heavy cut-and-thrust blades, single or double-handed.” Burton also observed, “The rapier of those times was by no means the light and handy weapon that it is now.” (p. 19).

In his 1861, Foil Practice, with a Review of the Art of Fencing, English fencer Captain George Chapman observed that: “Among the various actions which may be conveniently executed with the triangular or duelling sword there are many which cannot be so easily managed with a flat blade, or with the usual weapon of modern warfare, however light in weight that weapon may happen to be. Fencers among military men should be therefore cautioned against, indiscriminately attempting with the Sword the performances usually taught in lessons with the Foil.” (Chapman, p. 5).

Summing up the difference between the game of fencing in the classroom and the real art for dueling, Baron Bazancourt in his 1862, Secrets of the Sword, wrote of fencing considered from the view of pure self-defence, declaring:
“This is the real thing, battle in deadly earnest, complete with all the terrors and sudden crises of warfare. Instead of passes ingeniously complicated, and foiled by parries as scientifically elaborate, steel clashes with steel, intent on forcing somewhere a passage for the point. The game becomes a fight, and a fight all the more grim,” (p. 23).
We find other statements Bazancourt such as: “we must not lose sight of the fact that the early methods of the old masters, both in Italy and France, date from the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and that weapons employed in those days differed materially from ours in shape, weight, and function. The change of weapon has naturally led to a change of method.” (Secrets of the Sword, p. 20). He further goes on to declare: “If we could return to the past, and witness an exhibition of sword-play as it was understood by the professors of only fifty years ago, what contrast we should find with the style of our own day, even with our most severe classical style.” (Secrets of the Sword, p.80). Further, commenting on the long abandoned use of sword and dagger in the “ancient traditions of the Italian school”, Bazancourt adds: “They parried and attacked with either weapon indifferently, bringing one or other into play by voltes and passes, which have been dismissed from the theory and practice of modern fencing. The art which was adapted in those days to the double means of offence and defence, employed a system very different from that which prevails now.” (Secrets of the Sword, p. 164).

In the 1890’s the great historical fencing researcher, Egerton Castle, pointed out that “One of the results of neglecting the idea that the foil is but a light substitute for a sword, has been the introduction into foil fencing of complicated attacks and parries, which are really only practicable with featherweight foils, and would defeat their own ends if attempted with any other weapon”. (Castle p. 6). In this case Castle uses the word “foil” to mean in the older sense any light rebated practice blade for foyning fence. He added, “it is obvious that things are done with a foil which would never be attempted in earnest with a sword [rapier/small-sword]. Since the ‘science of the sword’ has become really the science of the foil, the best fencers have indulged in a play which is artificial”. What is so damming in Castle’s comments is that they were made more than one hundred years ago -–and by a man who had researched and studied the old styles. Castle footnoted his critique of then modern fencing by stating: “Of course rebated swords and foils have been in use for centuries, but they stood for swords, sword play was the object, and few things were attempted with “blunts” that would not be of practical use with “sharps.” In our days, however, foil play alone is generally the object.” (Castle, p. 7). A major criticism of sport fencing today is this very thing—multiplied even more so by electronic scoring apparatus reducing the art to a highly specialized game of “tag” of convoluted movements.

In the early 1890s, fencing author H. A. Colmore Dunn declared, “The old sumptuous style of fence…is not so very old, dating only from the latter half of the [18th] century; and yet, by reasons partly of this very nearness in point of time, the differences between the old and new strike one with the greater force.” He further observed, “The point of severance between the two styles is to be found in the simple and striking fact that on the dueling ground all hits score.” (Dunn, p. 29 &amp; 31).

“A swordsman, who in actual combat might easily wound and defeat his antagonist trained to a different method of defence and attack, might yet succumb to the same man in a bout with the foils where adherence to certain rules is imperative, where the contest is decided by touches, with a comparative indifference to…details of the utmost importance in a duel for blood.”
- Burdett, “Fencers and Fencing in America”, 1890.
Henry Ansot in his 1894 “The Metamorphosis of Fencing”, stated: “The way the ancients used to wield their weapons was very good then, but altogether too dangerous and brutal. What was good then is certainly out of date today.” (Ansot, p. 569).

In his introduction to his text on Elizabethan master George Silver, Captain Cyril G. R. Matthey in 1898 forcefully and unequivocally declared about fencing at the time, “I suggest that sword fighting is not taught and that it ought to be. Fencing should be encouraged to the utmost, but fighting should be regarded, as a distinct subject, and of much greater importance in the majority of cases.” (p. xviii). Captain Alfred Hutton, the famed military swordsman, fencing master, and fencing historian, declared it most accurately when in his 1898 text on sabre, bayonet, he similarly stated, “Those old masters taught fighting, we teach nothing but fencing nowadays”. (The Swordsman, p. 129).

In the 1930, fencing writer E. Baldwin-Cass stated: “Since the abandonment of the sword for fighting, the tendency to develop fencing as a science has perhaps carried us to a point where things are done with featherweight foils in play that would be decidedly unsafe with heavier blades used in earnest.” (Cass, p. 47, 1930).

Respected 20th century sport fencing master Charles Selberg rightfully admitted, “Fencing finds its origins in a far distant, brutal, and sometimes colorful past. Unlike many sports, fencing was born out of a grim reality that bears little resemblance to the sophisticated sport we enjoy today. While the modern electric game identifies only slightly with the dueling practices of the Renaissance…” (Foil, 1976, p. 1).

The famous Hungarian fencer, John Kardoss for example wrote in his 1955 book on saber fencing, conceded that, “There is a great deal of difference between the swordsmanship of the past and present-day fencing. Nowadays fencing is a means of spiritual and physical culture. The modern science of fencing is an independent art, and not as it was, a necessity in battles and duels.” (p. 2).

In 1784 the British fencing instructor and military officer, J. M. McArthur described “Should necessity, or the punctilios of honour, urge you to the field, to meet another in single combat…you will find perhaps more difficulties than you are at first aware of. For though your judgment and skill in fencing may be confessedly superior in every respect to an adversary, when engaged with foils on the playroom…hence arise many fatal mistakes to skillful fencers, in serious affairs, who, too confident of their superiority over an adversary, and not aware of the truths of chance that he may deliver...” (p. 142).

I could go on and on and on…

The phenomena of transitioning from earnest combat skills to a mere sport of scoring point in athletic contests only increased as time passed, and I’ve got 97 pages more of material like the above about this deterioration and degeneration of Renaissance martial arts during the 19th and 20th centuries ---as fencing (in its supposed “golden age” no less) changed from battlefield to duelling field, then from martial art to martial sport, in the process changing its character, its tools, its attitude, practices, and teachings.

Though evidently, some still haven’t realized this.

As one fencing text in the 1930’s put it: “In gaining speed, the evolution of fence has perfected those movements that may be made the fastest and discarded anything that tended to slow the play.” (Cass, p. 50). This is certainly the case still today with modern sport fencing, where at it highest levels of international contest and Olympic competition, naturally nothing is of any concern other than scoring a point by any means permitted under the rules. As with any other highly competitive and athletic sport, it is constantly undergoing revision and refinement. Concern for improvement and effectiveness is ongoing. But reflecting the actualities of historical dueling and real sword combat is certainly not one of them.

JC

[David Kite]

Incidentally, Mr. Fin, where are you located? Perhaps there are ARMA members near you and you simply haven't discovered them yet.

I realize you made this point early on, but I'm late getting here, and I'm sure I'll have some commentary once I've digested what's been said.

All the best,

David Kite
ARMA in IN

[Guest]

Guy, were using weapons that weigh 2-3 pounds, not the featherweight toy swords that flick whip like car antennas of the sport game.

I know how much a rapier weighs, I own one from A&amp;A. But, that's not important. As for the flicks, none were used. These were straight lunges. A flick can't break a rib (I've never seen anyone do it, but maybe there is someone that can)... maybe the collarbone, but certainly not a rib.

We also practice with sharp blades and do test cutting on meat and bone?

I'm sure it's very impressive to see you cutup a non-moving target, that isn't wearing protection.

Have you ever stabbed raw meat or cut through fresh bone with a sharp blade?

Only with my katana, and no it's not one of those stainless steel wall-hangers. I'm very protective of my A&amp;A rapier for about 760 reasons. Anyway, I'm not impressed that you can cut raw meat and bone - I see that happen on Iron Chef all the time. What I'd like to see you do is break the ribs of a moving target, that is wearing protection, using an FIE epee blade. I think the best way for you to do this is to get a USFA membership, go down to San Marcos and hope to meet John Moreau in an event. If you can break his ribs, I will eat crow.

I will freely criticize any sport or game I wish. You again have no experience form which to complain about our perception of the shortcomings of sport fencing.

Wow... You really can't see how much you're contradicting yourself. You've never fenced a top World Class fencer, but you can critique them as often as you like. I've never sparred a top ARMA expert, but I'm NOT allowed to critique how I like. Okaaaaay...

[Guest]

Are your serious??? Yourself and “many other fencers, don't consider 19th and 18th century techniques relevant to what would happen in actual combat”????

Nope. Too much style, and form and not enough on actually doing what is necessary to hurt a guy. Seeing as how you were criticizing the 18th and 19th century fencers for teaching to defend edge-on-edge, I wonder why you're defending them now.

I must wonder then what you’d think then of the relevance of writings and teachings of even earlier fencing…such as the 16th and 15th centuries?

Ah, now those were centuries. Fencers like the 16th and 17th centuries, particularly. Agrippa and Capo Ferro originated many of the forms still used today. I guess I'm a little biased towads the 18th century because that's when foil was invented by the French, and I hate foil... the jury is till out the French.

[Guest]

I learn best by publicly putting my foot into my mouth.

Actually, I think you did pretty good.

As an experiment, the past two weekends I've gone back to my SCA roots to simply observe the sport

I'd have been happier if you went to a NAC, but okay.

but did the historic lunge need to be as powerful to efficiently kill the enemy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe so.

Well, look at it this way... A sport fencer can advance more quickly, attack more quickly and hit much harder without sacrificing balance or recovery time. If said qualities can only help improve ARMA, why discount them as John is so apt to do? Why would someone in ARMA not want to learn techniques that can improve the combat effectiveness of ARMA? John keeps talking about stabbing things, he must know that a rapier doesn't penetrate bone every time. If a sport fencing lunge can help you get through someone's skull or ribcage more effectively, why oppose learning it? I thought ARMA was all about creating a strong martial art. See, I think this all comes down to John not wanting to admit that there are some things he can learn from modern fencing... Of course, that would also mean having to admit that there are things about fencing which he does not know, further complicating the issue. Oh, but he can stab a mean side of beef. What do I know? <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />