Re: Why do you think those techniques are forbidden?
Quote:
Originally posted by GeneChing
I'm very familiar with fencing up until about a decade ago... Nobody talked about the Spanish
My initial assessment to your remarks here was "Perhaps are you conflating modern fencing and historical european swordsmanship? The two are significantly different", and this seems increasingly confirmed as you elaborate.
If I was interested in elbonian boxing, I would go train in elbonian boxing. And if a bunch of boxers claimed I was weak and a coward because I was doing something other than they're doing, I'd think they're a bunch of narcissistic twits. And if they thought that nothing in the world counts unless it wins boxing bouts, I'd be convinced of it.
Returning to fencing: chinese swordsmanship hasn't won any olympic fencing bouts either, and I do that too. Do you take me as twice as weak and twice the coward for the affectation? Oh well.
It is a safe bet that at the moment you wrote that historical Spanish fencing was extinct, and each moment you've defended that assertion, that someone, somewhere was fencing with that method. Food for thought.
Sport versus recreationist fencing
How come Bruce Lee studied fencing and not the defunct Spanish school? Because it was not in existence at the time. It has been recently reborn from the research of Mr. Martinez and a few others. It was not handed down in an unbroken chain, from master to apprentice. It is a recreation of how it might have been.
Mr. Martinez is unusually and laudably forthcoming about his credentials on his website (a practice practioners of all arts would do well to follow) but a bit vague on those of his mentor, Maitre Rohdes; I would like to have known more about him.
"Sport" fencing has been handed down in an unbroken chain and evolved and modified into a fast paced martial *sport* (where Tai Kwan Do is heading and boxing already is). Martinez and his compatriots are the modern equivalents of the Victorians Hutton, Castle and Burton, recreationists in their own right, rebelling intellectually against the "sportification" of swordplay in a world coming to be ruled by gunpowder.
What's wrong with that?
Nothing. In fact, from a historical standpoint it is to be commended.
If your group allows modern fencers with modern (pistol grip) weapons to compete in your tournaments, then I salute you for your open policies; on the West Coast and in the Midwest, the Classicals are not so open minded.
Why can you not use your weapons in our modern tournaments? Because we are an international Olympic sport with rules that are applied world wide, just like basketball, just like motorcycle racing.
However, If you want to fence in a club against sport fencers, I'm sure that some (not all) clubs with an open floor policy would be interested in the experiment.
You would have to do what was common in the 19th and early 20th centuries and negotiate what target was valid and agree on weapons (remember during the time of the duel, weapons were of a similar weight and length so that ability would decide the match, not technology) but it is do-able.
I would guess that such interaction would bring a greater understanding of the relative philosophies of the two groups.
I certainly have had plenty of experience fencing with classical fencers (the few who come out to the clubs and tournaments) and as I wrote earlier, I have enjoyed crossing blades with them. But, even by the most basic rule of "hit and don't get hit" they are lacking. Why?
If you were going to be in a gunfight tomorrow, would you like a nice cap-and-ball Navy Colt (a fine revolver and very reliable) or would you rather have a 9mm Glock with a laser sight? Don't see too many cops or soldiers with percussion cap revolvers, as good as those pistols are.
Why? Because, like it or not, modern training and science have really improved the effectiveness of some basic human activities, like violence.
19th century training gets you slower movement and stiff posture. Modern training gets you speed and strength and absolute control of distance as well as simple hand techinque because the action is too fast to allow for such inefficient yet beautiful actions that make up the old school phrase d'armes.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed my classical training during my coaching education. You get to learn all sorts of fun and arcane moves. The modern game is too fast and athletic for much of that, though.
I am awaiting your riposte.
Re: Sport versus recreationist fencing
Quote:
Originally posted by decafyeti
If you were going to be in a gunfight tomorrow, would you like a nice cap-and-ball Navy Colt (a fine revolver and very reliable) or would you rather have a 9mm Glock with a laser sight?
A more germane consideration would be if I was going to be in a swordfight tomorrow. While this is not at all likely, were it to occur, I would prefer to have trained in an environment that addressed lateral movement, percussive techniques, and grappling, because they would be sure to occur in such an unstructured engagement.
But in any case, I have no interest in debating one school's superiority or another's. If the derisive remarks and allegations of extinction are dropped, then I have no complaint.
Fencing, reprise d'attaque
Debating the superiority of one school over another is what makes this fun! Also, the Spanish school is, as I have written previously, extinct.
What you are doing is the "Martinez School of What Spanish Fencing May Have Been Based Upon Thorough Research of Written Documents From The Time of Thibault". Which as I wrote before is cool in itself, but still it is recreated from books.
Why from books?
Because it died out. No living practioners. They were surpassed by the French and Italians who adapted their styles and continued the march into the present. Otherwise, Martinez could have gone to Spain and learned it from a practioner.
Enjoy it for what it is, historical re-creation with some apparently good scholarship behind it, a modern reconstruction.
Re: Re: Sport versus recreationist fencing
Quote:
Originally posted by Christopher M
A more germane consideration would be if I was going to be in a swordfight tomorrow. While this is not at all likely, were it to occur, I would prefer to have trained in an environment that addressed lateral movement, percussive techniques, and grappling, because they would be sure to occur in such an unstructured engagement.
But in any case, I have no interest in debating one school's superiority or another's. If the derisive remarks and allegations of extinction are dropped, then I have no complaint.
The vast majority of fencing masters today, with degrees conferred by the various, cooperative, international governing bodies are the direct decendants of masters who taught people to fight duels, not brawls. Duels have been extremely formal affairs for a couple of hundred years. While you may need the lateral movement, although in many instances that, too, would have been proscribed by the rules of engagement, it would be highly unlikely that grappling or smacking someone would be allowed. Duels are arranged affairs, with very clearly delineated rules of engagement. Duels with swords in the past ~100 years do not involve such dramatic breaches of etiquette as you describe, duellists being at least as concerned for their social status as their skin.
With some possible exceptions, classical fencing training today is, in some form or other, modern interpretations and derivations of past technique as described in extant literature. There are NO direct lines of instruction for Ancient Techniques of western swordplay. Since all such instruction would have to adapt with ever changing technology, the instructors of 15th century swordplay would have been outmoded by the instruction required to save your skin with 17th century sword technology. Of course, there is commonality - long, pointy metal sticks intended for piercing opponents - but you can't dress up "classical" fencing as anything like "true" technique until you or somebody invents a time machine and can prove your theory.
That's why sport fencers take issue so often with classical fencing. The assumption in a fighting sport has to be 'ok, you got game, bring it.' That doesn't imply ill treatment or rudeness, it just means, until you're willing to bring it, nobody is going to respect it unless you insulate yourself with cronies or lackeys. Like it or not, Olympic style sport fencing is the one western style fecning art that can trace it's origins back over generations. There are classical instructors who can claim some piece of that history, but once they take themselves out of mainstream and into isolation amongst "true believers", they've turned their back on the sport their internationally recognized, trainer of champions instructors lived for. Those originals, faced with a modernized game (if you could bring them to today) wouldn't hide in a gymnasium and proclaim their mastery - they'd get out on the strip and prove to all comers just who's got game. That's what made them champions; they brought the goods. In turn, that success as competitors made them teachers, instructors, masters. So they could, in turn, show others to bring game. No teacher worthy of the name, in any sport, would shield their students from the world, unless they were holding them back for reasons of age or maturity. But once unleashed, the student goes forth to try, play, learn, win, lose, whatever.
Fencing is fencing. Call yourself a fencer, even if all your pedagogy is out of a book, sooner or later somebody's gonna call you to bring some game. If you won't, what can people do but assume you can't?
Until the 'classical' gamers can bring some, they'll be marginalized by the fencing world. If they don't care, and want to live in my world and play in theirs, that's cool. Just drop the "fencer" moniker. Maybe "classical sword playerist" would work.
And finally: School, schmool. There aren't schools, today. Schools are defined today by noting that we need to: 'be better than those people'. The lines between "french school", "italian school" and "hungarian school" are all gone, except as a point of national pride for those people cool enough to have their own school named for their nation. Don't forget the "german school" and the "polish school". Since at least the '60's there's been the "russian school" and now there's the "chinese school" the "cuban school" and the "south korean school". And none of those "schools" are going to take smack from anybody, pick what school you want. They got game, and they'll bring it. The top school is whoever wins today. Tomorrow, different. But the "classical" school people? Not in the game. Well read, erudite? Can be. Historically accurate knowledge? Often. Tough bout? Not likely.
Of course, I guess a swordfight could just break out, I dunno, at the mall or something. Then, I guess, the grappling techniques might be handy. :-]
Re: Re: Re: Sport versus recreationist fencing
Quote:
Originally posted by Scrap Meister
Duels with swords in the past ~100 years do not involve such dramatic breaches of etiquette as you describe, duellists being at least as concerned for their social status as their skin.
Indeed, this is one of the main distinctions between classical and historical fencing, with the historical period being older than this 100 year period your describe, and into an era were use did occur outside the duel. And such a historic method is precisely, as I have noted from the outset, what I am talking about.
It seems like the consistent problem here is that you guys think someone is appropriating your method when they're not. Here's an example: you're criticizing the stance from the classical period perspective yet that wasn't the perspective in question.
Previously, it was noted critically that historical fencers are descendants of Hutton and Castle and not of the mainstream of fencing which has developed into modern theory - again, this is precisely what they say themselves.
Working with historical methods has been criticized here, yet again - as decafyeti pointed out, Martinez and the like are entirely up front with what they're doing.
All of these - all of your complaints from the beginning - have been based of all of your own entirely incorrect assumptions as to what is going on; that is to say - based on your ignorance.
Quote:
until you're willing to bring it, nobody is going to respect it
The historical method cannot be transposed onto the modern framework, because in so doing it would lose those very elements which distinguish it as historical. This was addressed above in noting the distinction between the classical and historical periods.
Historical fencers, by and large, have no interest at all in earning a modern fencers "respect"; in "proving it." They're attracted, and have typically gone to great length to participate in (as it is not so populous a field as modern fencing), those exact elements characteristic of the historic approach. The implication that it's somehow flawed until it can be done in the modern context shows a complete ignorance of this fact that it's the historical context which was of interest to begin with. This is like telling a soccer player he doesn't count as an athlete until he can win a football game. Most soccer players would not dignify such an absurdity with a response. As I'm regretting having done so in this case, and there seems little left to clarify (either you get it at this point or you're stilling clinging to that axe hoping to gring it), I'll withdraw. To give you all the benefit of the doubt, I will go inform those I know working on historical methods that they do not exist. If they vanish like mirages at this revelation, I'll return and apologize for my misunderstanding. Otherwise, good practice to you.
I am glad that those in this conversation new to fencing are intrigued by what the historical method has to offer. This seems to be the typical response, and gives us some hope for the future of these teachings.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sport versus recreationist fencing
Quote:
Originally posted by Christopher M
As I'm regretting having done so in this case, and there seems little left to clarify (either you get it at this point or you're stilling clinging to that axe hoping to gring it), I'll withdraw. To give you all the benefit of the doubt, I will go inform those I know working on historical methods that they do not exist. If they vanish like mirages at this revelation, I'll return and apologize for my misunderstanding. Otherwise, good practice to you.
Ok, now that cracked me up. :-]
I get it up to a certain point, and then my brain turns into a path that doesn't get it at all. It's totally my problem. It's why I can't dress up in costume for the Ren Faire, and know with certainty the life-through-fantasy-life of the SCA crowd isn't for me.
It is odd; after all, I like swords and I like history. The root of the problem for me stems from the fact that Castle, et al, based their teaching on their own conjecture of how it must have worked in the olden days. A lot of Historicals take their work as Truth. Some don't, and they'll pursue their own lines of conjecture from the same root source material or other original sources - mostly.
It's my own issue that currency and relevance are more important to me.
I don't intend to inflict wrath upon your head, and won't. You made me laugh, so I concede the touch. I'll just make one last remark about my own ignorance.
By a wide margin, the Classical and Historical fencers I've met or watched have struck me as posers. I've met far more Classical fencers, so I'll abstain from the Historical discussion henceforth.
There is extremely little margin for poser-hood in sport fencing. There is a wealth of poser talent amongst the Classical fencers I have met.
I admit, it colors my opinion overall.