[alphamale]

hey i'm staying totally out of the fencing debate, as i know nothing about it.

This being an MMA site however, i felt the need to point out that your comparisons were inaccurate.

if i went to fencingforums.com and incorrectly compared a parry to an armbar defense, id expect the same.

[esotamoc]

Originally Posted by alphamale

hey i'm staying totally out of the fencing debate, as i know nothing about it.

This being an MMA site however, i felt the need to point out that your comparisons were inaccurate.

if i went to fencingforums.com and incorrectly compared a parry to an armbar defense, id expect the same.

which comparisons are innaccurate? fencing doent really have anything in common with mma but it does share a lot with martial arts turned sports- like judo tkd and shares a similar history to boxing. what annoys me is when revivalist classical fencers invade various forums including fencing forums to promote their fantasy fencing. if you want to know about any classical techniques- there are hundreds of well educated european fencing coaches who have inherited their style and techniques from their masters and clubs and they are coaching the current olympic champions- most of the things they teach are classical anyway with some extra modern things for competitions. look at the results on the us websites to find a good club. if they r doing well- they prob have a good coach- a lot of top european coaches have imigrated to the us- look how fencing there has improved.

[sallehonolulu]

alphamale, please show me where my comparisons are inaccurate.

[esotamoc]

Originally Posted by sallehonolulu

alphamale, please show me where my comparisons are inaccurate.

salle honolulu- i read all your posts and checked out your clubs website- seems i owe you an apology. i thought u belonged to one of those classical schools but i was wrong. ur club looks pretty nice. anyway the point i really disagree on is that classical fencing is really necessary- if your coach knows his stuff and teaches you properly then there isnt anything to be gained from learning from them. unless you are interested in period historical reinactment. i have lived , trained and coached in europe for a long time so i know my stuff.

ps hawaii must be the best place to start a club

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by sallehonolulu

alphamale, please show me where my comparisons are inaccurate.

I did, in bold in my earlier post:

It’s nothing more than kiai, something everyone on this forum should be very familiar with.

You'll find the vast minority of people on this forum are interested or train in most forms of TMA (thats traditional martial arts), and as such the majority are under no obligation to be 'familiar' with Kiai. Those who are familiar with it have probably been introduced to it having seen the "kiai vs MMA" video that does the rounds.

TMA and MMA are NOT the same thing, and in many cases the participants are mutually exclusive. So your statement that people posting in the general discussion part of an MMA thread should be very familiar with an oscure TMA reference is flawed. Thats like me saying you should be familiar with some kind of archery term, because fencing and archery are both older styles of competition based on combat and both are olympics sports.


Epee is no more “anything goes” than MMA is “no rules.”


MMA hasnt been promoted as "no rules" by any mainstream, responsable promoter since the mid 1990's. This comparision suggests that the 'no rules' reference is current and relevant to MMA, and its neither.

Like i said, you obviously know a lot about fencing, but if you're going to make MMA comparisons on an MMA forum, make them accurate.
And especially dont automatically categorise MMA fans and TMA enthusists in the same group. Often the opposite is the case.

[esotamoc]

The closest fencing ever got to mma in recent history(to my knowledge) was in the private disputes between individuals of some kind of social standing who settled their with epee duelling swords usually to the first blood (although accidental deaths accured- both parties didnt want to be charged with murder). these fights had rules but were highly illegal and both groups would be ready to evaccuate on a monents notice if police were sighted.I have heard first hand accounts of these confrontations which accured right up until the 1950s. they used pretty much the same techniques that coaches teach today in epee- including foot hits. there were no classical schools back then- it is a recent revivalist movement amoungst nerds made possible via the internet.

modern fencing is like judo today.

classical fencing is not even comparable to tma as it doesnt have the same direct link to the traditions.

in any case, fencing can only be a sport as nobody uses real swords so its pointless training for it unless you have created a name for yourself begining with Sir.

my point? stay away from classical fencing groups unless you want to live out your fantasy.
peace etc

[sallehonolulu]

> ur club looks pretty nice<
Thank you; nice of you to say. You’re welcome to visit anytime you’re in Hawaii.

esotamoc, you and are just going to have to agree to disagree.

> what annoys me is when revivalist classical fencers invade various forums including fencing forums to promote their fantasy fencing<

If classical fencers are courteous in their posts, I wouldn’t call it “invading.”

> forget classical fencing- you can learn nothing from those dorks<

I think you can.

> unathletic nerds who are trying to revive an idealised old style of fencing through textbooks and dodgey coaches<

I recently attended the US Fencing Assn national championships in san jose; it was my ninth natls. one evening I drove to nearby san mateo to observe a classical fencing school. My opinion is that what I witnessed was a good class and the material they were practicing was good material. One of the pupils of that school competed the next day in the nationals; he does both classical and modern. I watched him compete and he did well. Whether he’s a nerd or not I can’t say, but he’s not un-athletic and his coaches (one of whom is a good friend of mine) are most certainly not “dodgey.”

>epee it is the closest to real fighting as you could get<

In some ways this is true, but not in other ways. Epee is more realistic than foil and saber in that the entire body is target and whoever hits first gets the point.

On the other hand, saber is more realistic in that you can cut as well as thrust.

And tho foil is on balance less realistic than epee, it is more realistic in that the target area is the trunk of the body and also in some respects BECAUSE of right of way: In epee, if your opponent nicks you on the wrist just before you plow your sword into his heart, he gets the point and you don’t. how is that realistic?

So my point is that epee is not necessarily the most realistic.

But my greater point is that each weapon emphasizes different athletic attributes, so it’s good to do all three. You can consider one to be cross-training for another.

>foil is gay. foil fencing was never a real weapon<

You may be technically correct that the foil was never a “real” weapon used in duels, but I want to give the readers of this forum my take on this: Foil is a direct descendant of a real weapon – the smallsword (AKA the short sword AKA the court sword); and the smallsword was in some ways the deadliest sword of all – think of knife-fighting with very long knives.
The foil was invented to practice for real smallsword swordfighting; therefore it was made in some ways more difficult than real swordfighting. After a time foil fencing became an end in itself, i.e. a game. And as a game, foil is magnificent. Of the three (foil, epee, saber) foil has been called the Master weapon because the games of the other two weapons are contained within foil.

Modern foilists have more skill than the “real” swordfighters they are descended from.

> the rules and way of fencing produce a game that has nothing to do with reality<

Not true. I’ll reiterate what I said earlier: In epee, if your opponent nicks you on the wrist just before you plow your sword into his heart, he gets the point and you don’t.

Not so in foil. In foil, you concentrate on your opponent’s torso; I wouldn’t say that “has nothing to do with reality.”

Also, the rule of “right of way,” which you are referring to has as its origin the principle of defending yourself before launching your own attack.

When I teach my fencing classes, I liken this to boxing: First you make your opponent miss, then you make him pay for it. In boxing you make your opponent miss by blocking or slipping the punch; then you “answer back” by immediately punching back.

The rule of “right of way” in foil and saber codifies this, i.e. makes it into a rule.

(It’s true that once something becomes a rule, it is subject to becoming an end in itself to the point where sometimes following it actually goes against the spirit in which it was conceived. But I would never go so far as to say “foil has no basis in reality.”)

>you need a couple of years just to understand right of way for foil <

If that’s your experience, fine, but I want to give the readers of this thread my dissenting opinion: It didn’t take me that long, nor does it take my students that long.

An example of where classical is better than modern:

In modern foil and saber fencing, one of the techniques is to start an attack and if your opponent counter-attacks, you finish your attack. if you both get hit at the same time, fine, because in modern fencing, only you score the point. Your opponent gets no point for counter-attacking.

But this is not a technique you should practice if you want to learn how to fight under more realistic circumstances.

I was giving a fencing lesson to one of the best martial artists in the world (who is well-versed in Filipino stickfighting) and started to teach him this technique. But he asked if we could skip this technique because it would not translate well into the real world.

Another example of where classical is better than modern:

Watch some Olympic saber fencing on TV or the Web.

First, notice that it is actually illegal to run forward; if you do, you are penalized. You are not thus constrained in classical fencing.

Second:

In saber fencing, almost every encounter leads to a point for somebody. After every encounter, pick which sabreur you think the point should go to. Count how many times you are wrong. Count how many times the expert commentator disagrees with the referee.
Classical saber fencing is more logical, easier to follow, and easier to understand than modern Olympic saber.

My point: Classical fencing does have things to teach that are not taught by modern fencing.

[esotamoc]

there is only fencing. classical fencing is a modern invention if you watch the mens epee olympic final you will see real cassical fencing- between the french jeannet and italian tagliarol. both their techniques( ie compound attacks, parry riposts and countre repostes- basically the kind of fencing that classical fencers try to emulate. i have trained with both of them in their clubs.) and styles have come directly from great maestri from both their respective countries. the classical fencing that you speak of was created by fencers who werent talented enough to be successful so they blamed the rules and fantasised about living in previous centuries.

btw the smallsword that u mention was not the most deadly - it was just the most fashionable and easy to carry for the18 cent gentleman. foil was practiced for training for the duel but then developed into something much more abstract and aesthetic. actions that were considered beautiful in foil were not really possible or sensible in a real confrontation.

your analysis of boxing is wrong- you can punch a guy anytime- u dont have to defend. also the power of the punch is a factor. foil is a game of tag with thin floppy ****l rods. right of way in foil gives too much confidence to the attacker whereas anyone no matter how skilled presents a threat with their point facing your target. in sabre ROW makes more sense as each attack needs a certain force when cutting so there is a longer delay between an atack and a renewal of an attack. wheras with the point in epee if an inital attack fails^ the point still threatens so the time difference in minimal.

a hit to the wrist can end a fight- and frequently did, as it incapasitates the opponents fighting arm making a deadly blow easier. also it is the closest taget which can be reached when your opponent cant reach your torso.

anyway- who was the worlds greatest martial artist who you taught fencing to- fedor? gsp? anderson silver? bj pen? it must be because you are in hawaii yeah? how was he- naturally gifted i bet!!

also- i have tried kendo and am training naginata in japan and the timing has a lot more in common with epee that foil or sabre.

[sallehonolulu]

> classical fencing that you speak of was created by fencers who werent talented<
Okay, well, we’ll just disagree on that.

>your analysis of boxing is wrong<
It’s not an analysis of boxing and therefore it’s not wrong. But whatever; feel free to call me wrong if you like.

> right of way in foil gives too much confidence to the attacker<
What is “too much”? The game of foil is a great game, and it isolates some aspects of fencing at the expense of others, so you can practice those particular aspects.

> who was the worlds greatest martial artist who you taught fencing to… naturally gifted i bet<
Yes, he certainly is naturally gifted. Sometimes I wish all my students were so gifted. (But the better thing to wish for is enthusiasm.)

In my last post I implied that modern saber is a flawed sport. On the one hand, it requires excellent footwork, timing, distance, and athleticism. On the other hand…well just watch this video.

YouTube - Covaliu X Pozdniakov Final Part 1

for those of you who don’t know electric fencing, if the red light goes on, that means the guy on the right landed. If the green light goes on, that means the guy on the left landed.

Even those of you who know fencing, watch and see how many times you agree with the referee when he awards the touch.

Why did the guy on the right get the first touch?
Why did the guy on the left get the second touch?
Why did the guy on the right get the third touch?
Why did the guy on the left get the fourth touch?
The guy on the right got the fifth and sixth touches because only he landed.
And so on…

This will demonstrate to you how hard it is to follow modern saber – even for the fencers themselves. I like modern saber; it has a lot to recommend it. But it is flawed; it’s not a good spectator sport, and it teaches things that martial artists shouldn’t apply to stick or knife fighting.

This opens the door for classical fencing.

One of the reasons for the growth of classical fencing is fencers who disagree with the official changes in the sport, the primary culprit being the allowance of the bent-arm attack.
as you have said, I am a modern fencer, not a classical one. But I agree with classical fencers on several things.

Anyway, esotamoc, I’m pretty sure you and I in our back and forth have gotten too technical for most of the readers of this forum.

So I’ll close this post by saying that you sound like an interesting and intelligent fellow, but your contempt for certain schools of fencing is in my opinion hurting your objectivity. Your emotion is coloring your reason.

We should endeavor not to underestimate our opponents.

I don’t think we’ll change each other’s minds, but I wanted to get my dissent to your strong opinion on the record so that readers of this thread get both sides.

[esotamoc]

hey- there's nothing wrong with emotional responses but anyway- i think we both like classical fencing styles but i believe it currently exists in modern fencing directly inherited from the past. also, i dont like bent arm attacks is foil or the difficulty in seperating actions in sabre but forming a seperate legue with unathletic reinactment nerds isnt the solution. pozdnyakov and covaliu would still be amoungst the best no matter what the rules were applied. i believe a lot of further changes are necessary in foil and sabre to make them more spectator friendly but u gotta go where the talent and proffessionalism is.

remember, fencing is no longer a real martial art as nobody carries a sword anyway. if you want to defend yourself with a stick or baseball bat then different techniques apply as fencing assumes you have a sharp ****l point or blade.

my main reason for these long posts is that someone who has an interest in mma wants to try fencing - not a renaissance fair dork. so in order not to give a bad impression of our sport(it might bt be too late) i want to try to put him in the right direction.
anyway. you have your opinion and know your stuff so i wont waste any more time.
peace and all the success in your salle