Critical of Sport Fencing

[Roger Soucy]

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.

I'll grant you the stomach and the kidneys are less immediately deadly than the rest, and less optimal targets, but I suspect that a punctured lung would take you out of a fight real quickly.

Aside from the pain, which adrenaline helps with, you have now blood in the lungs. This causes choking and shortage of breath relatively quickly. With the increased heart rate from the adrenaline and exertion, as well as potentially labored breathing to begin with, I think a lung would limit you to one strike after being punctured before you coudn't effectively function anymore.

Also, the groin, due to the artery that runs through there (I forget which one) is one that will cause you to lose blood at an alarming rate. A deep stab to the groin and you'd better be at the hospital if you're going to be saved since there's no place to turnicate and you can bleed to death in a matter of minutes. Sure your opponent may get off a couple more strikes with decreasing power and focus, but if you've recovered you'll likely live.

Of course all this is suspect until we get a few willing volunteers. But I will grant you that the liver/kidneys/stomach are sub-optimal targets.

[Roger Soucy]

Ok, I just got an e-mail back from the USFA. They do not have a fencer by the name of Sean Fin. You seemed to want to check everyone elses rating, so I thought I'd check yours.

Maybe you're rated with another organization? or under a different name?

Here's the email:

We do not have a fencer by the name of Sean Fin listed as a USFA member.

Dawn Van Hoesen, Administrative Assistant
USFA Information
info@usfencing.org
Fax 719-632-5737
Phone 719-866-4511

Um.. Touché?

[James_Knowles]

Roger,

You make some great points.

I'm basing my comments mainly on reports of damage due to firearms in combat situations. Most of my information is police-related. Here there's a lot of solid evidence to work from, and the wounds are puncture-like wounds.

However, like you say -- there are a lot of variables that come into play. It's highly situational. Some targets are better than others. You thought you hit an artery, but missed by a fraction of a millimetre. He might have drugs in his system.

I think one point we can agree on is this. Be aware of your opponent. They might be out of the fight... they might not be. Do you want to bet your life on it?

[Roger Soucy]

They might be out of the fight... they might not be. Do you want to bet your life on it?

Nope. I want to recover. And have a back-up weapon. Armor would be nice. And throw in a few friends. Anything less than that and I'll keep at it till the only movement I see is post mortem.

[Roger Soucy]

I'm basing my comments mainly on reports of damage due to firearms in combat situations. Most of my information is police-related. Here there's a lot of solid evidence to work from, and the wounds are puncture-like wounds.

While true that firearms creat puncture wounds (mostly). I'm not sure you can use gunshot wounds as an example. The physics are much different and several differences exist.

• Unless you're dealing with a small calibur bullet, most exit wounds will be much more traumatic than a sword wound.
  
• using a small calibur bullet (say a .22) causes neater puncture wounds, but at a much smaller diameter than you'd get from say, a rapier.
• A bullet, hitting a soft fleshy area, generally penetrates completely and exits the other side. The initial pain can fade with shock, however a sword needs to be pulled back out (or wiggled a little), likely causing additional trauma.

Regardless, your points are valid. Given the variables of combat, no matter what the weapon, every fight will be different. Even the same exact wound will affect two different opponents differently. Nothing in combat should be taken for granted. I whole heartedly agree with you there.

[Guest]

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.

True, true. 750gm of pressure is all it takes.

[Guest]

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.

A fencing epee is not sharp, it's flat. I see what you're saying, but your example doesn't apply. Try breaking a fresh, living bone with a flat tipped, flexible epee blade. I think then that you'll appreciate the difficulty.

[Guest]

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

Yeah, I don't know what that guy was thinking either, Knowles. There's a saber fencer on fencing.net that has a sig that says, "You can't take heads with the tip," or something to that effect.

[Guest]

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.

I said: "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?"

But, you wanted to know: "but did the historic lunge need to be as powerful to efficiently kill the enemy?"

Okay. I'll break it down for you. The modern fencing lunge is faster because it's more forceful, and hence more powerful. If one is more powerful AND faster, then not only can one kill an opponent more quickly, one can do it more safely as you all should know how difficult it is to spar with an opponent who is superiorly faster than yourself. So, the short answer is "Yes, the historic lunge did need to be more poweful to kill efficiently."

You only have supposition based on what it takes to break a rib with a safety-oriented sport weapon.

Supposition? When someone comes back from a WC event and says someone broke his rib with a lunge, using a specific epee, the BF FIE epee, where is the supposition? American lunges are very different from the European type, and the BF blade is known for being a particularly stiff epee blade. Sport fencers know the difference from experience, not guess work.

[Guest]

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?

Just because I did not mention the research, does not mean there is none. The methodology for discovering the "super-lunge" came about from studies of 15th, 16th and 17th works. As for stabbing through bone, flesh, etc..., that was done with pigs. I'm sure there was a lot squeeling involved. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

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

What? He gave me TWO modern names, including Gaugler who doesn't count because he's not a true sport fencer and hasn't held a rating for years. Are we reading the same posts? I also asked for names of people he used in that newsletter he was sending out, and John never responded. He did give me lots of names of ancient fencers that I did not ask for. He also gave sources that are so old as to have no relation with modern sport fencing.

As for giving you names as to who created the new techniques of which I speak, uh-uh. You've got an instructor with a big chip on shoulder, and I don't like the idea of helping him out. In John's first reponse he decided to insult me several times...? He could have just "educated me," but he chose to insult me and my sport also. That speaks of a huge ego, and I'm not about to help make him a more dangerous person.

[Shane Smith]

Sean, would you please clarify and respond to Rogers question concerning your current status and organizational affiliation? I note that you seem to have missed that post in your exhaustive point by point responses. Thanks.

[Roger Soucy]

What? He gave me TWO modern names, including Gaugler who doesn't count because he's not a true sport fencer and hasn't held a rating for years.

Actually, I count three names, not including Gaugler in his post. Also, as far as I can tell in that post he was discounting anything Gaugler might say as inconsequential. I believe you read it wrong. John, if I'm mistaken, please, let me know.

As for giving you names as to who created the new techniques of which I speak, uh-uh. You've got an instructor with a big chip on shoulder, and I don't like the idea of helping him out.

Either by this you mean that giving us names would strengthen our points, or that you don't want these people attacked. I should point out that you came here asking questions I'm not sure you actually wanted answers to. No one here went seeking you out. Secondly, if these people are integrating viable combat techniques into sport fencing, I think we would all be pleased to hear such.

If you felt personally attacked, the easiest way to refute such is to provide proof to your claims. Which you specifically state you will not do. How then can we take any of your claims seriously?

[Guest]

They do not have a fencer by the name of Sean Fin. You seemed to want to check everyone elses rating, so I thought I'd check yours. Maybe you're rated with another organization? or under a different name?

The USFA has some very nice people... but, they're senile and hopelessly unorganized. If I see Ryan Ricks in D.C., I'm sure he'll be able to figure out if I'm lying my butt off about being a C-Rated fencer. Plus, I'll have my USFA card, and it has my rating on it- I'll let him see it when we meet.

[Shane Smith]

Are we to assume that you registered on the ARMA forum under an alias? If that is the case,that is expressly against the forum rules and you will have to re-register with your real and full name to maintain your posting privilege. The fact that you claim USFA affiliation yet they claim no such membership leads to only three logical conlusions. Which is correct?