Originally posted by yenhoi
Fencers dont train to use the actual sharp of their tool against resisting opponents. How much training time is devoted to poking blocks of wood?

But in the end, chess is still a better test

I disagree. What about Go? How can you get any "cleaner" then Go? Why does anyone care about Chess Champion names or columns? Because they care, not because of the nature of the game. Just because a guy is good at chess and people who know about chess know his name doesnt make him smart, it only makes him good at chess. A game. I dont accept your metaphor as accurate.
Gene didn't say "chess is the best test of martial brain skill". He said it was a better test than Risk. Risk is a game, like chess, only by Parker Bros and not nearly as old.

To your first point, of course not! No fencer uses a sharp sword to practice. No more than kendo uses sharp katana instead of shinai for bouting practice. That's why it's practice, and not murder or death. That's why fencing has such a long history - it's for practice. Practicing being good at hitting an opponent without being hit. That is the goal. Not hitting a block of wood. An opponent. Gene's point, if I may, Gene, was that a sharp epee can penetrate a block of wood fairly easily if well handled. Or pierce skin. Not that you'd want to do either for any practical reason. But the wood test is an interesting one. From it (I've done it, too) you learn by extrapolation how easily you could be punctured by such a weapon. Sorry, outmoded weapon. Just like every other sword is outmoded. By guns. That's why fencing has rules and is a game. It's outmoded. We do it for fun. It's entertainment. It has no practical, specific or useful day to day application. Not in most workplaces, not at the mall, not on the street, not at a bar. It will not help you, except as a learning experience that may inform other aspects of your concious thought and expression.

Consequently, we defend it's name from schisms and factions that attempt to influence others into believing that they are "fencing". Some do this well. "Historical Fencing"; fine - specific and clear. We can argue how accurate the history is until we're all blue. But it is distinguishable from western style fencing. So, we're good. "Classical Fencing"; somewhat clear, but practitioners often lay claim to being "how fencing ought to be" which is where conflict can arise. Worst is "Fencing"; instruction offered by charlatans and posers who either have no formal instruction or have corrupted what instruction they have had, and turned the game into something not quite right, but with the same name. That's where the confusion and frustration lies.

The thing I appreciate about CMA and other eastern MA schools is that, for the most part, they seem to pick cool new names when they spin off from a root stalk. A well known example is, of course, Jeet Kune Do. Bruce created something new. He didn't call it Wing Chun. It was different, he knew it was different, and he made an effort to differentiate it. When people walked in, I can't imagine anyone made the mistake of expecting Wing Chun. You went for his thing.

In fencing, if it's all called the same thing, how does someone interested in "fencing" know whether they're getting a trained expert in fencing or a charlatan?

You don't. It's just luck or fate or whatever. Most places are fine, but there are enough exceptions to make this arguement over use of the word happen all too frequently.

Fingers.... suddenly tired... cramping.... must stop.....