Gene handled that beautifully. I have a hard time keeping the sarcasm out of my replies (when Spanish Fly goes on about the fact that a handful of
recreationists having a weekend retreat in California makes their interpretation valid, I would have mentioned that there are several weekend workshops every year in California that purport to teach you how to levitate, no doubt using ancient pricipals as well).

These guys all suffer from the "the only world that exists is the little one that I can see outside my front door" and have no idea of the scope and depth of modern fencing because of the deliberately constricted views of a few posseurs. They argue for their limitations and they get them, every time.

The boxing analogy is very apt, I think. In both boxing and fencing (and for that matter, any sparring sport) you have immediate feedback if you do something
wrong or right. That is why boxing has developed as it has; the person who is still standing at the end of the match is right. You can argue against that until
you are blue in the face, but unless you are man enough to get in the ring and take on the pervailing style and win, you are just a whiner and a coward.

I have always fenced with any classical fencer that had the courage to pit his skill against mine and always had a very enjoyable bout and pretty much wiped
the floor with them. The sad thing is that several of the "Classical" instructors that I have met encourage their students NOT to fence outside of their little
enclaves. That does not teach their students to analyze and adapt, which are the hallmarks of a successful fighter.

They say they teach fencing as if they were going to fight a real duel, but neglect many of the realities of being in a fight: That faster and stronger people have an advantage. Better footwork, bigger advantage. More practice in analysis and adaptation, more success in a fight.

Much easier to form you own little associations and groups, exclude any practioner of the prevailing style, certify yourselves as "Masters", set up your
own rules and argue with other little groups about them, rather than adapting your style.

These are the people who would best enjoy forms/kata type work. Making pretty actions as the first priority, with actually hitting your opponent as a secondary priority. In the last two scuffles I enjoyed here in the Big, Bad City I can't say that I was concerned about my form or how the on-lookers would rate the my actions, but on the efficiency of subduing my opponent. Most of the "classical" espouse a martial stance and then do things that are counter to winning a fight: go to a limited target, go slow enough for people to see it, do not do any cross-training to get faster or stronger, adopt stiff postures, move at one tempo (I have yet to see any tempo change among the annointed).

Whew! That is my rant, and I'm sticking to it.