Talk:Classical fencing

Unreferenced
This article is nearly devoid of any citations or references (at least within the article). The whole article needs citations added. I'm adding an "Unreferenced" tag until some more are added. I'll try and find some today, if I can, but for the amount of citations needed any help would be appreciated. Saberswordsmen1 (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The "fraction of a second" issue
The text added by the unnamed user on December 6, 2007 is misleading. Modern fencing also uses ROW for the conventional weapons (with some differences from CF), so it is NOT true to say "Olympic fencing awards touches that precede an opponent's touch by a fraction of a second". That sentence implies that the first person to hit gets the touch, and that is flatly not true. What the timing does is enforce the minimum times between double touches for the touches to be recognised as simultaneous, something done ad-hoc and subjectively in dry fencing. Jsavit 16:30, 06 December 2007 (EST)

Background info on fencing movements
Classical fencing article

The original article I came accross was very misleading. The SCA has no association whatsover with Classical Fencing and vice versa.

See these sites for further background on the various fencing movements:

SCA:

http://www.sca.org

Classical fencing:

http://www.cfssda.org/

http://www.fencingmastersprogram.com/

http://www.martinez-destreza.com/

http://www.classicalfencing.com/

http://www.scherma.org/

http://home.pacbell.net/parsec-e/

http://www.tcasfencing.com/

http://www.efn.org/~hayes/

http://www.classicalfencing.org/

http://classicalbladesociety.com/

http://www.baitedblade.com

http://www.sallegreen.com/

Jsavit 14:22, 10 August 2006 (ETD)

Explanation of dry vs. electric
I added explanation of dry foil and electric, with references to Nadi's complaints of bias and other problems with dry judging. I considered adding mention that the nature of a material touch changed also with electric, but am concerned it would be too off-topic (and besides, the flick is covered in the bottom section). Jsavit 16:14, 26 July 2006 (ETD)

ROW and balance in critiques section
I added some material today to fix some grammar and clarify (I added some run-ons, I think, but will get to them later) plus explanatory material on ROW which otherwise was unclear, and added balance to the critiques section. Also corrected the 'changed the rules' comment on sport fencing ROW; the original text was wrong Cfencer 20:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I shall add those links as soon as I get a chance. I have done a number of edits to get the info to be less partisan and more accurate. I actually intend to do a complete re-edit providing info on development of CF in the 19th Century, the development of the modern CF movement, and discussion of the many groups often improperly lumped under CF. Regarding clean up, I have tried to do some clean up in the portions I worked on. Is there anything specific you would like to be addressed? Cfaustus 15:26 12 April 2006 (Central)

Pedagogy
Since my training included much informal bouting or competition to develop a sentiment de fer, I have added some text explaining that there is a spectrum of training styles within the classical fencing world. --Maestromatt 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

CF vs. SF discussion
''Note: The text in this section was moved here from the article on September 6, 2006 by Twisted86. See comments below.''

Critiques of classical and Olympic fencing
Martial wins in classical fencing are generally achieved by defensive prowess alone. In many classical fencing tournaments, points are scored based upon lack of hits received, and the fencer who received the fewest hits is the winner. Seeding and promotion from round to round may be solely determined by lack of hits received rather than by counting hits made. This contrasts with Olympic fencing, which is more offensively oriented: bouts are won when one fencer hits the other a given number of times, typically five touches in "pool" rounds, and fifteen touches in direct elimination.

There is conflicting evidence as to which is actually the more traditional means to score a bout. For example, Aldo Nadi wrote (in On Fencing, 1943, page 250) "A foil bout is won by the fencer who first reaches the score of five touches", and his famous bout with Gaudin was set to 20 touches (The Living Sword, page 87). On the other hand, until the 1960s the Amateur Fencers League of America rules (which were based upon the rules of the Fédération Internationale d'Escrime) called for touches to be counted against the fencer receiving them (with the fencer reaching five first losing the bout).

Classical and Olympic fencers sometimes criticise one another's disciplines. The main objections claimed by classical fencers against Olympic fencing are:


 * Olympic fencing has lost meaningful connections with its origin as a martial art. By de-emphasizing defense, fencing has become an electronically judged game of tag rather than the simulation of life and death sword combat. In a duel, there is no buzzer to go off to invalidate a point received a split-second after a point is given.


 * Tactics like the flick that are enabled by Olympic fencing's electrical scoring system detract from realism. A real sword is in fact not flexible enough to be "flicked" around the opponent's back.


 * The majority of Olympic fencing schools teach a few basics and immediately encourage the novice to compete. Instead, many classical fencing curricula are long and highly technical, and competition is traditionally discouraged until a solid grasp of the theory and practice is achieved.

In contrast, many in the Olympic fencing world claims these shortcomings in classical fencing:


 * Many classical fencers are unwilling to compete—even in epee, which has few conventions to favor either style—to prove the quality of their fencing. In a duel, there are no side judges to count a touch—especially if it lands in a hard-to-see target area.


 * Classical fencers' insistence on form is unrealistic and martially unsound, and in many cases is based on a period when fencing was a stylish pursuit practiced in the salon rather than proven in the street. In a real duel there is no "style requirement" to invalidate a point that would have drawn blood from a sharp blade, and visual judging systematically under-reports potentially lethal touches to hard-to-see target areas. The flick is controversial even within sport fencing, with rules adjusted to reduce its use, and only applies to one of the three weapons.
 * Classical fencing training methodology is obsolete. Novices can potentially (although it is unlikely) undergo years of training without actually fencing and thus do not acquire the essential tactical sense, tempo, and combat-oriented attitude a fencer needs. Instead, Olympic fencing uses modern athletic pedagogy and emphasizes excellent execution of a small set of effective techniques, as would be seen in duels. Training for advanced fencers is long and extremely technical with emphasis on footwork and extremely fast and efficient execution. Regular competition is an essential part of honing and proving ability. (It should be noted that pedagogy varies even within the world of classical fencing. The level of technical or athletic training, as well as the amount of instruction required before competition, can differ greatly between schools.)

Another point of dissention is the style of grip (handle) used to hold the weapon. This conflict only occurs with the thrusting weapons, foil and epee, since all sabre fencers use essentially the same grip. Classical foil and epee fencers use only the traditional French grip or Italian grip, associated with the national schools of each country, while Olympic foil and epee fencers mostly use "pistol, or "orthopedic" grips. Classical fencers say their traditional grips provide precise control (French) or strong grasp for powerful blade actions (Italian) while the modern pistol grips encourage crude fencing with poor technique. Sport fencers feel that the pistol grips provide the proper control for both strength and control. French and Italian foil have almost disappeared from sport fencing, while the French grip is often used in epee since it permits changing the hand position for extended reach. Further discussion on the various grips is available in the French grip page. Also, a perennial conflict exists for determining priority of attack. "Right of way" (often abbreviated as ROW) rules determine which fencer should solely be considered hit if both fencers land a touch at approximately the same time. Sabre and foil are called "conventional weapons" because these right of way conventions are applied to double touches. In contrast, epee rules consider both fencers touched if both are hit at the same time. In simplified form, ROW rules state that the fencer who first commences an attack has priority until the attack is parried, avoided, or misses. Both Olympic and classical fencing use ROW, but with important differences. Classical rules require a fully extended weapon arm to gain priority for the attack. Olympic fencing, by comparison, recognizes an extending arm as sufficient, on the grounds that the point of an extending thrust is a threat before the arm is fully extended. Classical fencing advocates say that fencing rules were changed to permit "extending" to gain priority. Sport fencing say this was never true, and rules were changed decades ago to replace vague wording that did not sufficiently describe long-accepted practice. For example, the 1957 Amateur Fencers League of America (AFLA) rules said an attack "consists of a forward movement of the weapon", and "the rules do not require that the attack be made with a fully extended arm" (pages 141-142). Though these differences may appear miniscule to the non-fencer, they are subjects of substantial controversy.

Many Olympic fencers feel that until a classsical fencer achieves a reputation by showing skill in competitive situations, their claims against sport fencing should be dismissed as "sour grapes" by fencers without proven ability. The difficulty is that the classical fencers would have to prove their ability under the Olympic fencing rules they dispute.

This conflict does not seem to be going away. Some classical fencing advocates believe the solution is to try to reclaim the sport of fencing for classical traditions. Others think that classical fencing should separate from the existing sport fencing structure to form its own world.

Comments on the above text
I have moved the complete text (above) of the CF vs. SF discussion here so that it is preserved. I think the entire discussion is not very encyclopedic. I've replaced it with a summary.

I think a lot of the text above that is specifically about CF could be reworked into additional sections that describe what CF is on its own merits (instead of describing what CF is in comparison to Olympic fencing). I have stubbed out this concept in the Today section of the article. Hopefully other editors will expand on these stubs so that readers of this article will come away understanding what classical fencing is—as opposed to what it is not. Twisted86 09:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely keen on the above change, though I'll try to wrap my head around it. Not my original text structure, but I added quite a bit of the text. At this time, CF still has an identity crisis about what it is and is not (just today I saw conflicting posts on this very topic on fencing.net; CFML was rife with them), and much discussion does define CF in terms of how it differs from modern fencing. To that point it seemed worthwhile to balance the decidedly non-neutral POV (much of the original text in this article used to be of the form "CF rules! SF sucks!") and dissolve some of the not-historically-true myths attached to CF. This is alluded to in the current text, but all the concrete examples have been elided. If nothing else, it makes it (IMO) a less compelling read.  I also disagree that it's a "fact" that CF is nearly based on being a "serious martial art with strong ties to actual combat" - there are plenty of counter-examples in CF as more akin to the polite salle d'armes than combat, nor are they "opposite each other" in issues of ROW; the differences are often more subtle, and often based on misunderstanding. Let's discuss and see if we can gain concensus on how to best structure this (6 September 2006). Jsavit 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it. State the facts about CF, or at least approximations of the facts, and edit away. If you disagree with what I wrote, edit it (and better yet, supply references to support your edit).


 * What I have attempted to do is remove a great deal of opinion and try to get to the meat of a topic that is poorly defined. Is what I wrote ideal? Heck no! That's why I tagged the whole Today section as a stub. It needs a lot of fleshing out. I acknowledge that there is some good meat in what was cut out. That's why I moved it to the talk page. So, pull out the good stuff and weave it back in and let the opinions fall to the editing floor.


 * If folks feel that the Controversy section needs to be expanded, then describe the controversies about what CF is—not the controversies about how CF or SF is "right" or "wrong" fencing philosophy. SF and CF are different forms of fencing, just as Indy cars and stock cars are different forms of automobile racing. There's no need to promote one above the other.


 * If CF is a distinct style of fencing (and I believe that it is), then it needs to be able to stand on its own two feet and say what it is. The very nature of classical fencing makes it unlikely that there will ever be complete agreement on what it is in purely quantitative terms. But I think it is possible to describe it in general, more qualitative terms—and without referring to Olympic fencing in any substantial manner. Let's see what we can do, eh? Twisted86 06:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Jsavit 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I think the changes of last day or so have improved this. I've added my own text where I think the material was overspecific (things that apply equally to SF and CF ought not be labeled "classical", indeed, when I lifted them from SF texts! Agree that it was good to remove the rant (I expect you would do that, but it was fun to see such a revealing post linger a short time).  Quite disagree that CF inherently "unlikely to have complete disagreement".  I think that reflects the nature of the movement (if that's the right word for it) rather than the practice of CF itself. Of course it could be codified in a formal way, and some are even trying.  The difference is that the 'movement' lacks an FIE - at this time - to demand consistency. Not that the FIE quite has that in SF, but the goal is recognised.  I'm not in agreement that SF and CF are inherently different in the first place - quite a bit of what is described as CF is misunderstood SF of 100 years ago (eg: the extending vs. extended mistake). Out of courtesy I didn't put this in the article page, prefering to either defer substantial disagreements or work them out here. jsavit.


 * I agree that wwe're making progress! Regarding the unlikelihood of agreement (you had it right thee first time ), the FIE is a 20th century organization. Nineteenth-century fencing was riddled with disagreements because the FIE did not exist and every school of fencing (often local schools, not just national ones) had differing iddeas of how fencing should be conducted. Therefore, as long as CF is trying to connect to 19th-century fencing, there cannot be agreement on the rules. Once the rules become codified, CF is connected only to one particular aspect of 19th-century fencing. So, this isn't an analysis of the personalities of CFers—just a ccase of logic.


 * Regardless of what one thinks about the extended/extending debate or any other SF-CF debate, the fact of the matter is that CF is what it is. And I don't think there are any active SF referees who accept most of the differences espoused by CFers. Therefore, the two activities are different. They didn't start out different from each other, but they certainly are now.


 * Nice work. Happy editing! Twisted86 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, this article sure has come a long way since we talked about it two years ago. I applaud you on your work. I admit that I have been far too busy to have checked back and have not been as active in SF as in the past due to my increased training under M. Martinez. In reading the current article and due to our groups increased interaction with CF Maestri and other groups, one thing I think might be added. You properly note above that the lack of a unified authority in CF both makes it difficult to describe and also opens up numerous criticisms when generalities are made by either side. In an attempt to address this, it might be useful to state that while CF has no centralized authority, several schools exist which are differentiated by their lineage. For instance, M. Gaugler and his students teaching stems from the Scuola Magistrale and lineage from Nadi. This is descended from the Southern Italian Style of Parise. M. Martinez on the other hand studied under M. Rohdes. M. Rohdes studied under both Italian and French schools. The Italian style taught by M. Martinez is descended from the Northern Italian school going back to Radaelli. The French lineage is from Grissier. M. Martinez notes that there are/were other Classical French Schools whose technique differed from that taught to M. Rohdes. As such, this form of CF is much more akin to what we see with say Japanese Martial Arts, where differing technical lineages unify thought for a particular school, yet may differ or counter the technique of another lineage or school. Due to this, while the different lineages may have similarities, their (often intended) differences will probably prevent a Unified CF. At best you might find a group that teaches several different lineages through different masters - presenting them as not better than one another but simply appreciating their differences. If you would like, I would be happy to try to track down, by weapon and pedagogy what several of the main lineages are for reference purposes. Of course, this does not cover everything that calls itself CF, but I think it is a notable information which may help people understand CF a bit more easily. What do you think?

Also, a bit late, and perhaps adding to the confusion, many of these schools who have lineages through maestri (rather than peer groups studying manuals and dvds) began talking several years ago of a unified thought of CF and HF as 'Traditional Fencing' as opposed to modern/competitive/sport fencing. As such, there is less strife between CF and HF in these groups as several of these lineages taught both CF and HF weapons and techniques. The strife only seems to appear between groups that do one or the other out of a consensus of preference. This is as opposed to groups who do it because that is what their Instructor/Master teaches and does not presume to teach what he or she does not know, yet has respect for. Not sure how to word this or even if it ought to go into the article at all... then again, perhaps the entire idea of a strife between CF and HF is a personal observation and not really that suited for a Wiki entry?

Again, well done on what you have managed to re-arrange here. CFaustus Dec 16, 2007

whose term? references?
The definition of "classical fencing" used here is clearly that of http://classicalfencing.com/ I fail to find the term so used or defined anywhere else. There is a 2003 book by the author of the website, but it seems to stop there. This appears to fall under neologism, one A. A. Crown attempting to coin a term. --dab (𒁳) 17:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Schools who still exist until now
hi guys! I am looking for schools who teach the classical fencing, schools who have never started to train sport fencing. Do you know some?--85.3.78.27 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your implied dichotomy (i.e. a "classical fencing" school vs. a "sport fencing" school) is a false one. For example, Masaniello Parise's 1884 fencing treatise describes "real" fencing (i.e. a system to use with sharps), but it was the same system used for fencing as a sport. This co-existence of swordsmanship as an art for defense and as a sport is pretty constant. Rapier masters talk about about it in the 1600s, the Bolognese masters give explicit instructions about it in the 1500s, and Fiore alludes to it in the 1400s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marozzo (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)