Another Article of Interest.
The problem with fencing in the US...
...is that it has more mythology than kung fu even. Seriously. I worked professionally in fencing for a half decade - teaching and working as an armourer at American Fencer's Supply. I think when you start earning your living in something like fencing or martial arts, you quickly learn to cut through the bs because frankly, there's not much money in this kind of work and bs can be costly. So you get a very real economical sense of how much bs there is. You spend your time cutting, cutting, cutting, just to make rent money.
But enough about my issues :rolleyes: back OT. I think fencing holds a lot of martial artists. First, the sword combat. Fencing uses steel and there's something about the 'sentiment du fer' the feel of the steel, that you just don't get in kendo or CMA. Second, it's the notion that you don't have to be very powerful using a sharp. You just need to be fast and accurate. The sharpness does the work, if you know how to apply it. These points are technical, though, and I think where Lee really shined in his sutdy of fencing was theoretical. Fencing theory (except the aforementioned Spanish school :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) has the most elegant theory of combat I have ever studied. It's western - scientific and mathematical - like a computer program. It doesn't always apply to 'real' combat because it exists only in the realm of the specific rules of western sword duelling, but within that realm, it is suupreme. Unfortunately, the only people who really study fencing theory are fencing masters and the occasional theory geeks. Many instructors aren't even certified - unlike MA, there is one nationally recognized governing body for fencing masters so if you aren't certified through that, you aren't 'real'. There are some smaller bodies that do certification and their validity is contestable. Anyway, fencing theory is brilliant, so if you explore fencing, make sure to study the theory.
Re: The problem with fencing in the US...
Quote:
Originally posted by GeneChing
Fencing theory (except the aforementioned Spanish school :rolleyes: :rolleyes: )
What's wrong with the Spanish school?
Why did the brontosaurus die?
Too **** big, I'd guess. The standard notion of the demise of the Spanish school was that it became too theoretical. It was based mainly on arcane patterns of footwork apparently, what became known as mystic circles. Fencers would practice these footwork patterns with arm extended, drilling over and over again. From a CMA perspective, it makes a lot of sense, actually. And it did produce some fantasitc fencers centuries ago. But then, it got weighed down with theory to the point that astrological factors were calculated into duelling - sort of akin to consulting feng shui before battle (what Sun Tzu opposed some 2000+ years ago). Eventually the spanish school became too cumbersome. Most consider it lost. Revivalists are looked on with the same skepticism that we might look on someone who claims to have 'rediscovered' wing chun skirt fighting techniques.
I'd add that the weapon changed in the last century. As steel became stronger and more flexible, they moved to lighter weapons. Contrary to the myth, lighter and faster is better, especially with a sharp. You don't need power with a sharp - the sharp does all the work. You just need speed and accuracy. The Spanish school reigne with people were still using long rapier - and I do mean long, some up to 44+ inches.
FWIW, fencing is an Olympic sport and has been since it's inception. This means that the masters, judges and competitors are strictly certified and regulated on an international level. There are some wayward groups, sort of SCA types, who try to do their own thing like historical fencing, but even though some of them have done some great research, they haven't been able to make the slightest mark on the fencing world. As a weak metaphor, take boxing for example. A century ago, we boxed differently (see the Boxing article in our e-zine). While these ancient schools of boxing are interesting from a historic standpoint, you don't see Lennox Lewis adopt a classical guard position. Now, you can argue that in bare-knuckle days, the classic guard was more useful, just like you can argue in long rapier days, the Sapnish school was more useful. but you can aruge that until you're blue in the face - it won't do crap for you in today's ring (or today's fencing strip).
What's more, today's fencing is electrified, meaning that the weapons are rigged with electronic detectors to reveal unquestionably when a palpable hit has been scored. Now we can register hits that were too fast for the human eye, but would have produced blood on the field of play. That has changed the game significantly. Some argue that we've lost classical form (they do that 'til they're blue in the face too).