Critical of Sport Fencing

[Jay Vail]

Sean, I've read these posts about breaking ribs and how that is so impressive in sport fencing. But I have to tell you from bitter personal experience that a blow with a sharp weapon does not take exceptional strength and power to penetrate layers of clothes and the body and do harm. Nor is it necessary to break a rib to get at the lungs and heart. Just this weekend I talked with a guy who'd been stabbed in the back. The blow initially struck a rib, but its forward impetus carried the point on to penetrate through the gap between the ribs. He was hit twice and was lucky to survive. As many have said here, the street is not the salle. Many misconceptions have arisen in the salle/dojo because the inventors have no experience with real world combat.

[Roger Soucy]

The heart is behind the ribcage. There's every chance your blade will hit a rib when trying to hit the heart.

There's a chance, yes, but the ribs are oval in cross section, so unless you hit directly in the center of a rib, the blade should slide between them on its own. And with any stiff bladed weapon, such as a rapier, a direct centered hit on a rib will break it. No question in my mind about that.

Since the strike and recovery is executed so quickly, you could push through the bone and make another strike.

You're making the assumption here that your weapon does not get stuck in the bone. Bone by nature tends to want to hold blades, delaying your recovery. Unless you can go straight through it and do enough damage, bones are bad.

I can't find any digital video of the little bugger, but PM with an e-mail and I'll send it off to you if I find any.

click on my name, my email's in my profile. Also, please, send me some info on this NY event in june.

[Scott Anderson]

To me the thought of breaking a rib is not very impressive. Fresh and living bone takes remarkably little effort to punch through with a reasonably sharp object. This is especially true of the somewhat smaller bones such as ribs. Last I tried it (with a freshly slaughtered goat we were butchering (this would have been about 5 years ago)), using a fire poker just to see what it would do as a weapon. I was able to punch through the hide and flesh, split a rib and get the tip into the chest cavity about a quarter inch with less effort than it takes to stick a knife into a board. After all it takes only what? 10-15 psi to break a bone of that sort? That being said I could reasonably break a rib by jamming my phone into someone reasonably hard.

SPA

[TimSheetz]

Wow,
I don't view the forum for a couple days and look what piles up!

Hey, Sean, there is no doubt that the seriousness and will power and discipline and dedication of ANY WORLD CLASS ATHLETE is worthy of respect and admiration. I don't think there is any who would disagree with me.

What I see is that we have been trying to compare apples and oranges.

Fencing with an apparatus that weighs a few ounces is NOT the same as fencing with something that weights pounds. It just isn't. Physics kind of makes it that way.

Fencing in a narrow long 'alley' against only one person armed with the same weapon as you is not the same as fighting one or more in a open area with various weapons.

Fencing to get a touch is not the same as fencing to practice a killing technique. It just isn't.

Please stop arguing your "points" (haha).

I mean the only reason that you don't read articles criticizing boxing is because boxers don't try to say to us that they are the culmination of unarmed arts in the western world. I mean they are aggressive and look to win and call their matches "fights". But they don't make any crazy assertions of grandiosity. They are boxers. They are good. They don't mess with you, and nobody messes with them. Unfortunately, sport fencers have not been the way boxers have been! That's why you see the articles.



That's my two cents.

Tim Sheetz

[Roger Soucy]

I'd also like to throw in this: How is modern fencing different from the "real thing"? [fencing.net/fencing101.com]

This is a site that you pointed out to us as having good information, and yet, they claim that the move from the larger cutting swords to smaller thrusting swords was simply because they were more deadly than the "heavy cutting weapons". Nothing on social changes at the time, armor changes, or anything else. Also, in many cases, these "Heavy cutting weapons" weigh the same as a rapier. Get some good reproductions, or better yet, get access to a collection of originals.

I have yet to find a cutting sword that's well made and truly heavy. Generally a rapier runs between 1.75 lbs. and 3 lbs. with 2lbs. or 2.5lbs. being about average. Though John has infinitely more experience here than me. An average cutting sword, say like a viking sword, which was used predominantly for cutting averages at around.. 2.5lbs. to 3lbs. Longswords, bastard swords, if made well, not much heavier at all. Granted small swords were lighter, but the smallsword was more of a social change to a sword rather than an effectiveness change.

These articles are the very reason why we fight so vehemently about this subject. Much of this information is just wrong. And we can prove it.

However, even this author claims that in many respects sport fencing and historical fencing are different beasts. I know you're arguing technique here, but without a solid foundation in what you're trying to do with the weapon, you can't argue which technique is better or worse.

If you're fighting for points, please, educate me on your techniques, I'm sure they're far more advanced than ours. But if you're fighting to maim or kill, then your on our ground. This is what we train for.

[James_Knowles]

In respect to the skull, the eyes, nasal cavity, and mouth offer fairly large openings.

It's not just that they're large opening.

If aiming for the head, one should aim for the eye/nose region because it's very soft with bone that is easily broken -- and that the brain is directly behind that region.

It's interesting to note that even in firearms training at FrontSight, they talked about avoiding the forehead becuase it's so hard (and at an angle) that you're not guaranteed to get a bullet through there and stop your attacker.

a simple broken bone has only a chance of stopping your opponent before he kills you

Even a solid thrust through the abdomen or chest won't guarantee success. A person's ability to continue fighting after being wounded is directly connected to his psychology, not necessarily the damage.

This is a topic discussed on the e-list some time ago.

[Roger Soucy]

Even a solid thrust through the abdomen or chest won't guarantee success. A person's ability to continue fighting after being wounded is directly connected to his psychology, not necessarily the damage.

True, but I think you'll agree that a broken bone has less chance of stopping someone than say a pierced lung, heart, kidney, etc.

[James_Knowles]

I'd also like to throw in this: How is modern fencing different from the "real thing"? [fencing.net/fencing101.com]

Very true, Roger. I read that article about a year ago and got a good chuckle.

Yeah, that's a misleading article and has some incorrect conclusions. To quote the article

lighter thrusting swords evolved because they were considerably more deadly than heavy cutting weapons.

That the rapier was "too muderous" was not due to its superior lethality, but because of the context off of the battlefield, and in civilian streets. One could think of it as the weapon of well-heeled street gangs. Here the word "murder" is appropriate, which IIRC doesn't appear frequently in texts discussing warfare -- after all, in warfare killing is not termed murder under ordinary circumstances.

Yes, foyning weapons are frightening for street fighting without armor. No, they're not a good choice for attacking armored soldiers -- which is why soldiers didn't use them.

The battlefield use of the cutting sword phased out because of the firearm, not the "considerably more deadly" civilian weapons.

I'm sorry -- I have the funniest cartoon going through my head now. Soldier... armor... rapier... *tink* *squash*

[Roger Soucy]

I'm sorry -- I have the funniest cartoon going through my head now. Soldier... armor... rapier... *tink* *squash*

lol - oh, I might just have to draw that one up.. hmm.. an ARMA comic, may not be a bad idea..

[Gene Tausk]

"I don't view the forum for a couple days and look what piles up!"

Get with the program, man!

"Please stop arguing your "points" (haha). "

Ooooh - dead meat at the next International gathering for that one, my friend!

"What I see is that we have been trying to compare apples and oranges."

Amen to that. Look, Sean, I am not a sport fencer and I have never fenced at all in my life except for a brief time in high school at our fencing club.

You are approaching this whole thing from the perspective of a sport fencer. To use a tired cliche, you are a hammer so you see every job requiring nails.

Let me give you an example I am familiar with. I competed in Olympic TKD for a number of years, including national events. I've won my share of events. Is Olympic TKD a fighting art? Of course it is. However, it is also a martial sport. Practitioners intentionally limit themselves to learning techniques that will score and not get them kicked out for violations of the rules. Olympic TKD stylists have a great number of kicks to use in tournament events. However, one kick that is never practiced for Olympic TKD events is the simple kick to the family jewels. This is probobly the most useful kick in a person's arsenal, with a close number 2 being a kick to the knee. Either of these techniques will put your opponent out of commission.

Why do Olympic TKD practitioners ignore these techniques? Because they cannot be used in a ring. Now, in a real "street" situation, these techniques can (and will) be used by anyone familiar with fighting. Why - because they work and a fighter, as opposed to a sportsman, wants them in his arsenal.

Now, I can brag to you that a 360 degree spinning wheel kick is an effective tool, just like you have been bragging about these amazing lunges that penetrate the human body with a flimsy sport epee. What do the two have in common? The spinning wheel kick, while effective, is not the best weapon to use "on the street" because a person is vulnerable to an attack while using it and if a fight is in a confined space (which they usually are), it limits the ability to do the kick. The lunge to which you are referring is great in a sport fencing context and may have martial applications. However, when one is practicing with a longsword (which is a historic weapon), this manuever as you describe it is not practical. It is also not practical with other weapons ARMA members train with. In ARMA, we practice with longswords because it is a historical weapon and we are trying to reclaim our historical fighting arts. You are talking about techniques which are intended for a specific, narrow field, namely sport fencing.

Olympic sport fencing is great if that is the area you want to pursue. Go for it. Please keep in mind, however, that you are learning techniques exclusively for the fencing strip. You are probobly not being taught to fall and roll correctly in your fencing classes, which is necessary for fighting. You are probobly not being taught disarming techniques in your fencing classes, which is necessary for fighting. Which, as I said, is fine. But, like my friends still in Olympic TKD, any technique which will get you kicked out for breaking the rules is simply not learned or not applied because it is not needed and is counterproductive for the sport itself. Why would you need to know disarming techniques for Olympic fencing? Using one on an opponent would probobly get you kicked off the strip. Am I right? Olympic TKD fighters generally are not taught to fall and roll effectively and get up quickly because in a ring you do not need this skill. In a fight, however, this is a critical skill.

You are learning a narrow set of skills to help you win a sporting event and good luck to you in that sporting event. Maybe I'll see you in the Beijing games in 2008 (unlikely since I don't watch fencing). Have at it. Touche! Have fun.

However, we in ARMA are not looking at fencing as a sport. We are looking at it as a martial art using historically correct weapons. Hence the difference.


----------->>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

[James_Knowles]

I wrote:

but did the historic lunge need to be as powerful to efficiently kill the enemy?

Sean wrote:

Well, look at it this way...

But you never answered the question. Nor have you presented any evidence (other than your Own Considered Opinion and anecdote) that a sport fencer's lunge is martially effective, let alone martially superior. That's what I'm getting at.

You poo-poo test cutting and make fun of John, but don't have a clue how much force it actually takes to drive a historically-accurate rapier through bone. You only have supposition based on what it takes to break a rib with a safety-oriented sport weapon.

What am I supoosed to conclude from that?

I've done test cutting and can attest that when a blade comes into penetrating contact with material a whole new set of physics becomes involved, compared to simply touching -- regardless of the amount of force behind the thrust. I also know that power does not equal effectiveness.

comes down to John not wanting to admit that there are some things he can learn from modern fencing...

Nooo... John has advocated cross-training in his books. I don't remember it anywhere being stated that "sport fencing has nothing to offer the historic martial artist." Both require extreme dedication and training to become highly skilled. Both require intensity and vigor to execute in the heat of a confrontation.

It is clear, however, that the two are very different. One cannot say that one is superior than the other, as they have different goals. Sport fencing technique cannot compete with historic fencing when fighting "no holds barred." Landing face down spitting grass with a dagger at your back is foreign to sport fencing. However, neither can historic fencing technique compete with sport fencing when playing by sport fencing rules.

If I'm wrong about this, I'm waiting for solid evidence.

[James_Knowles]

Safety is a goal, but on the World Cup level, it's dog-eat-dog ... a World Class sabereur draw blood, to a standing, cheering crowd

Thank you for making my point for me. Yes, it's a safe sport several centuries removed from a martial art. Just because a football player is injured before a cheering crowd doesn't mean football contains martially effective combat technique. (Ice hockey, now... just kidding.)

Now don't get me wrong. I respect the intensity, the requisite training and dedication, the refined skill... but I'm getting the idea that you don't have a good grasp of what "martial" means. If not, that's OK. I thought I did when I joined ARMA. Then my eyes started opening when I got clocked in the head full-speed with the pommel of a sword. Yes, the entire sword is a weapon... thanks for the lesson, Casper. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[James_Knowles]

They believed that in order to mimic combat conditions, a fencer should be prepared to stab through bone, and so they started improving the lunge.

I find it curious that there is no mention of studying the historic techniques or weapons instead of creating the Super Lunge. How about discovering what it takes to actually stab through bone by trying to stab through bone? How about using more accurate weapons?

This IMHO is due to the distortions produced by the sports fencing environment. You have to overcompensate because of the weapon's characteristics. You can overcompensate because of the controlled environment.

I started reading the ARMA articles and was surprised to find no mention of the more powerful lunging techniques.

If modern fencers create a non-historic Super Lunge to compensate for non-historic conditions, then scratch their heads why history-oriented martial artists don't use the non-historic Super Lunge when practicing history-oriented martial arts techniques... I can't help you.

[James_Knowles]

True, but I think you'll agree that a broken bone has less chance of stopping someone than say a pierced lung, heart, kidney, etc.

Heart... well, that'll quickly drop even somebody pumped on PCP.

I'm no so sure about the others. The damage may be terminal, but a determined fighter can keep on long enough to drag you into the grave with him.

It's an interesting subject to read up on.

[Roger Soucy]

Ok, this may seem pedantic, but:

Sean, you asked John for names and sources. He gave them. Multiple names and extensive sources. He then asked the same of you.

Unless I'm missing it I've seen no names or sources to back up anything you've said. I've looked over fencing.net a bit, and haven't seen much there to back you up either.

You've mentioned several times that you'd show us if you could find a video, or that you'd be happy to talk about what you consider relevant books, yet you produce no video, no book titles, no "reformed" instructors.

You even mentioned once that certain accounts exist, but would be in other languages. Well, most of us are studying manuals in foreign and even dead languages. Bring it on.

We're researchers here for the most part, we want books, quotes, names.