"I always thought that fencing only focused on games and not traditional weapons"

Discussion in 'Western Martial Arts' started by Mitlov, Jul 9, 2010.

  1. Langenschwert

    Langenschwert Molon Labe

    Exactly. In a real fight with sharps, grappling becomes critical. After all, if you get to infighting, why thrust when you can smash the guy's teeth with the pommel? Thrust him when he's on the ground. Why let him use his sword arm when you can immobilize it? Or better yet, break it? Why let him use his blade when you can grab it safely? :) And if you must shorten the blade, do some half-swording.

    Best regards,

    -Mark
     
  2. koyo

    koyo Passed away, but always remembered. RIP.

    Elbow in the teeth..as near as we Scots can get to a Glasgow kiss.
     

    Attached Files:

    • ken.gif
      ken.gif
      File size:
      75.5 KB
      Views:
      48
  3. boards

    boards Its all in the reflexes!

    From "Cold Steel" by Alfred Hutton
    "The fencing sword bears the same relation to the foil that the sabre does to the single stick, being the exact reproduction in a harmless form of the fighting sword employed by the French in their affairs on honour......
    In contradiction to foil-fencing, in which hits are only said to count on a portion of the breast, every touch counts, which would if the weapon were sharp, cause a punctured wound.
    I have always regarded sword-play as being a much fairer and more straight forward game then foil practice, having seen many foil-fencers indulge in somewhat unseemly tricks in order too escape being touched on the "place d'armes," such as twisting the body, or covering the breast with the bent arm; I have known too, a man more than once deny a palpable hit in such an impudent fashion as to raise a laugh among the spectator; such devices in the case of a fight with swords might well involve fatal consequences. In sword fencing, the first object must be to avoid being touched at all, the second to give the oppenent what would be a disabling, though not neccessarily fatal wound." Here he is clearly talking about foil fencing not preparing you for the realities a life and death fight.
    Hutton was 19th century swordsman and soldier, so living in the time of the classical fencing era, and looks to me like he believes the foil is simply a training practice for the epee (ie real dueling sword made safe). He was quite critical of dueling training being of little to no use in war. He seems very definate on real sword fighting requiring you to defend yourself from injury before trying to kill the oppenent. I highly reccomend his books (two of which can be easily downloaded for free) if you are interested, Cold Steel being mainly about the sabre, including against small sword and bayonett, but also mentions, truncheon and knife.
    Every article I have read says that the foil was the training sword for the epee, and most definately not for the rapier. Have you read anything to say otherwise, or was it something you were taught during fencing?
     
  4. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    Hutton was the last gasp of Classical Swordsmanship and the Sword Fighting Gentleman. Though people I respect very much like his system, they readily admit that there are some issues with some of the things Hutton says. Not enough to render his entire work moot by any means, but enough to be careful.

    Among modern Classical Fencers, it is generally held that Foil is the basis for all of the modern systems of fence. Epee & Saber (three weapon) are built upon a foundation of Foil.

    No surprise (or argument) there. Duelling has little relationship to battlefield. There are some elementary components that cross over but the end goal and tactics for reaching it are far different for each.

    Well, yeah. It only makes sense.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  5. boards

    boards Its all in the reflexes!

    Yeah there are certainly issues, especially with his idea of pre-rapier fighting was like, and his belief (widely held at the time) that the evolution of the sword had reached its peak of perfection in the classical era. But I think his writings are good enough to use in this instance.

    Agreed, classical fencers do generally agree that foil is the basis, but I think this is more because foil teaches everything that is needed for both, where as if you start with sabre you wont have the necessary wrist control to perform epee and foil later, as well as performing things like disengagements as well with sabre.

    Yep. This was in reference to life and death fights needing the agressiveness seen in foil rather than the conservativeness of epee.

    You no doubt know far more than me, so glad you are responding here.
    I have been curious on one thing, his knife defence is based on a much earlier manual, do you know if he had any wrestling training prior to learning these?

    Cheers
    Jeff
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2010
  6. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    I don't remember where I heard or read it, if anywhere, or if it's just an assumption I made years ago. I think I made the jump that foil = smallsword and epee = rapier due to the relative sizes and shapes of the bellguards.

    Smallsword:

    [​IMG]

    Foil:

    [​IMG]

    Rapier:

    [​IMG]

    Epee (this one with a rarely-used Italian grip, but regardless, it's the bellguard I'm focusing on, not the grip):

    [​IMG]

    That doesn't make sense because the fencing sabre is not a "harmless" version of the single stick, or vice versa. Both are "harmless" versions of two very different swords. Fencing sabre = korbschlager; single stick = military sabre.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2010
  7. boards

    boards Its all in the reflexes!

    Um, it was that the single stick is the harmless version of the sabre rather than the other way around. Hutton is more based on a military sabre, but I was more interested in the part between foil and epee.
     
  8. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    If "sabre" in that sentence meant military sabre, the analogy still confused me because he's comparing weapons as follows: "fencing weapon X is to fencing weapon Y as fencing weapon Z is to military weapon."

    Both the foil and epee are fencing weapons, not real-life weapons. Neither is a "harmless" version of the other. And frankly, fencing foils and fencing epees are so different I have trouble believing that they were meant to be harmless versions of the same sword.
     
  9. boards

    boards Its all in the reflexes!

    I think this is the vital difference between classical fencing and modern fencing. In classical fencing epee and sabre are real weapons, while foil and single stick are training items (though single stick can be used as a weapon). Modern fencing they are not. The big arguments between modern fencing and classical are down to how much they have differed over the years. I'm not sure what else I can say on this, so I might leave it at that.

    Edit: This might give a better overview of classical fencings ideas on foil, epee, and sabre.
    http://www.martinez-destreza.com/fenfaq.htm#classical
    Towards the end it has a section on describing these 3 weapons.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  10. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    Doubtful. I'm a piker when it comes to Classical Fencing. I study Military Saber (and a smidge of the dueling saber texts) as an adjunct to my Bowie Knife work. But I do know some real experts on the material and I shut up and listen when they talk. I've managed to pick up a little bit. :)

    I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me a bit. Wrestling was a standard course among officers, as was dueling swords.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  11. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    The Maestros Martinez are some of the folks for whom I shut up and listen when they talk.

    :)

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  12. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Thanks for the link. I think we're agreed 100% on saber. The fencing saber is based upon the dueling saber, which is unrelated to the military saber (and single stick is the practice weapon for military saber). But I've got some questions about that link's summary of foil and epee, which seems to boil down to "foil is to teach concepts; epee is to simulate a duel."

    In looking further into the history of those two weapons, I've found other sites, including wikipedia's history of each weapon, that claim that foil was the practice weapon for 18th-century to-the-death duels, which is why arm and leg hits don't count and right-of-way (protect yourself before touching the opponent) is central. According to those sites, epee was the practice weapon for 19th-century first-blood duels. Smallswords got larger bellguards in the 19th century as people tried to avoid strikes to the hand that would lose them the duel; the full body became valid target and RoW was eliminated to create the sort of "sniping" style that would win a first-blood duel without killing anyone. Would you agree with that summary? It seemed slightly different, though not diametrically opposite, to the link you posted.

    As a side-note, I thought some of that anti-sport blathering on that link you posted was...well, I'll just call it tiresome. And although it's a tangent for why you posted the link, it goes right back to the original purpose of this thread, so I'll go ahead and say my peace. As just one example:

    (1) Modern fencing is not a martial art? So sport and martial art are mutually exclusive? Better not tell judoka, kendoka, MMAers, Thai boxers, etc...

    (2) Yes, modern fencers have to follow certain rules. So did participants in first-blood duels. And two out of the three modern fencing weapons (epee and saber) trace their roots back to first-blood dueling, not no-rules battlefield combat.

    (3) I fail to see how electric scoring is anything but good. It's an objective way of verifying if a touch landed, and if it landed on-target. In foil and saber, determining right-of-way is still the job of a live judge, but you're no longer stuck with the visual impression of a sixty-year-old judge to determine whether your touch landed, and whether it landed on-target. How could that be a bad thing?
     
  13. boards

    boards Its all in the reflexes!

    Pretty much, however the epee was the actual sword for the duel once the small sword became less popular. I think the foil was used at the time for training of the small sword and when the epee came in it became the training sword for it. The change from to the death duels to first blood duels is probably why the difference between foil and epee exists.

    Unfortunately that scathing attitude towards modern fencing is extremely common in classical fencing (I dont follow that attitude). HEMA fencers often have the same attitude towards both classical and modern fencing, because they have ever more rules and lose more things (like wrestling). But if you want to read a real scathing attack, have a look at George Silver (he lived around 1560 to the 1620s or so), he's pretty much foaming at the lips when he rants about the rapier in comparison to the good old english sword.:woo: I think modern fencing is great, and teaches brilliant principals, and modern fencers who take up classical will learn it much quicker.

    On point 2, foil has never been based a battlefield weapon, small swords were used for duels not warfare. Heavier weapons like sabres, back swords and basket hilted claymores were used at this time for war.

    On point 3 The argument against electronic scoring is that it can register hits below that which would be deadly or even dangerous. I haven't kept up with fencing rules but haven't they increased the pressure necessary to score?

    Here's an article on rapiers, (ARMA can be quite controversial in the HEMA society.:)), and gives a tiny bit of information on how it is used.
    http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm
    If you want to read more on rapiers, I suggest researching someone like Salvatore Fabris, Ridolfo Capofero, Francesco Alfieri or Vincentio Saviolo. Early rapier fencing is heavily focused on single tempo fight, like voiding and attacking, or attacking in a manner that also parries the blade. Later rapier fencing does start to bring in parry and riposte as you see in classical and modern fencing. Tom Leoni has a very good website on rapier fencing (specifically on Salvator Farbris).
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  14. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Yeah, that sounds right. I found this (low-res) video of what appears to be a duel from France in the 1940s. Is this the sort of dueling epee (as opposed to the practice-weapon epee) you're talking about?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iaLDNhvAnM"]YouTube- 1949 Epee Duel Vignancourt vs Nordman[/ame]

    :cool: To each their own. I think the "my way teaches real fighting better than your way" arguments in empty-handed TMA versus MMA debates are tiresome, but have at least a touch of validity, because someone might actually need to know "the best" way to prepare for empty-handed life-or-death battle. With fencing, though, where nobody's life in 2010 will ever hinge upon a duel with smallswords, epees, or whatever, it's mind-boggling to me that some people refuse to take a "live and let live" attitude toward different styles of fencing.

    Yeah, poor phrasing on my part. What I meant was that smallswords were a life-or-death dueling weapon instead of a first-blood dueling weapon, so a "no-rules" attitude is more understandable. If that video of the 1940s duel in France is legit, first-blood duels were as highly-regulated as modern sport fencing, even if the rules may have not been all the same rules.

    In epee, I think that argument is erroneous. The minimum weight required to depress the tip is 750 grams; this is checked before every competitive bout. If your tip can depress with less weight, your weapon is disqualified, you have to get a backup weapon and hope that your coach/friend/etc has time to adjust the springs inside the tip. My understanding is that 750 grams is more than enough to break the skin and win a first-blood duel.

    Foil is 500 grams. Is that enough to drive the point of a sharp smallsword into the torso of an unarmored individual? I dunno, I assumed it was, but I could be wrong. Regardless, the lame does an excellent job at distinguishing on-target touches and off-target touches. In both cases, I think you're better off with electric scoring than judges watching for a touch. The scandals surrounding live judging in Olympic TKD I think are the best evidence of the value of electric scoring in foil and epee, and it's even harder to reliably and objectively see touches land in fencing than kicks land in TKD.

    Sabre is the one and only weapon where I think the criticisms are valid, for two reasons. First, the current electric scoring system can't distinguish between the flat and the blade. Most touches are still scored with the blade simply because that's what makes the most sense mechanically, but there are a few techniques where you will use the flat or the back of the blade to score a touch. The second issue with electric sabre scoring is that there's no minimum weight to score (it's impossible to have one, as there's no spring involved; it's all just down to whether blade meets lame and completes the circuit). But this may not be as big of an issue as it immediately seems, because competitive sabreurs generally hit hard enough to leave a welt, so I suspect with a korbschlager they would break the skin, which is all it took to win a duel. Dueling sabres were never meant to kill, so it doesn't matter if the cuts lack force to kill so long as they break the skin.

    Thanks :cool:
     
  15. boards

    boards Its all in the reflexes!

    Yep thats what I'm talking about.


    Completely agree

    I think we are in agreement now

    Thanks for the weighting issue. When I was in Italy I actually had the opportunity to go to Jesi and see some of the fencing team from the Olympics (3 of the women from the foil team come from there and it has a very big fencing school) and you could see the welts from the sabreurs so yeah they definately hit hard enough to break the skin with a real dueling sabre. My god they were so fast.



    No worries
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2010
  16. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    It may be true. Or it may not be. In any case, I'd be more than careful about using info from Wikipedia. I can speak from personal experience on 4 different occasions in 4 different articles of major factual errors and editor bias which contradict plain, measurable, facts. Additionally, I've been witness to at least one editing war on a 5th page, specifically related to history of a western martial art tradition. Further, I've actually had a wikipedia article deleted by one of their roving cruft cutters for, get this, being too historically accurate (i.e., "the article was mostly quoted material"... The page was a description of a little remembered but once popular rule set for amateur boxing.). Apparently I was supposed to layer on a crap-load of personal commentary instead of just presenting the actual rules. :p

    I really don't know why I bother trying to correct wikipedia errors anymore, but I still sometimes do.

    On that particular side note, I'd recommend further discretion concerning referring to anything that Maestro Martinez writes as "blathering" or "tiresome." I have personal knowledge in this matter and know the gentleman in question. He has a verifiable instructor lineage ranging back to guys who actually did duel to first blood (or more) and his opinion and the traditions, both physical and oral, passed down to him are dismissed only foolishly. On a tangential note, the man moves indescribably slick. Watching him manipulate a blade is like watching a predator hunt: so deadly smooth it's almost casual. Another blade expert whom I deeply respect calls Maestro Martinez' style of movement and blade work the "Just Die" style.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2010
  17. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    This is one of the reasons that I wrote the article on test cutting in the WMA. There's absolutely no reason that you should have to guess. Go try it on some varying test media (I suggest pig or chicken) and find out.

    But the answer is, "yes," If the point is fairly sharp, that will easily penetrate bare skin and muscle tissue. Depending on how pointed and sharp, it may or may not penetrate heavy fabric. Additionally the fabric itself can have a big impact.

    Then they shouldn't have given them so much edge or a point.

    Perhaps this should be rephrased to something along the lines of "dueling sabers were intended for duels in which a kill wasn't as important as first blood and so were optimized for drawing blood, sometimes at the expense of lethality" or some similar statement.

    'Cuz, let's be honest here, the carotids and about half a dozen other point near the surface of the body do not really need the entire force of a military saber behind it and a simple draw cut with even a "mere dueling saber" at these points can be lethal. And that's without considering a torso thrust which dueling sabers were quite capable of.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  18. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    On Wikipedia

    This is a fair point, and one I generally agree with. I specifically mentioned I had read it on Wikipedia, not as proof that it was right, but to raise a flag that it may or may not have been correct.

    On Maestro Martinez

    I didn't criticize his fencing ability. Not one iota. Nor did I criticize his assertion that not everything that works in modern fencing works in a 19th century or 18th century duel (of course, the same is true going the other direction).

    What I criticized was his trash-talking about another martial art. Two things bothered me about his criticisms of modern fencing, and I feel perfectly comfortable picking apart those critiques, as they're unconnected with his fencing experience and ability:

    This is the typical "we 'build character' and you don't" argument that you hear some (far from all, but some) TMA folks direct at boxing, wrestling, MMA, etc folks. It's flawed there and it's equally flawed here. To poorly paraphrase something Koyo once said, the only way to build character is through sweat. And (this next sentence is mine, not Koyo's) there is at least as much sweating and overcoming adversity in modern fencing as there is in classical.

    My other problem with his page is this:

    That's all well and good if he's talking from the perspective of someone who isn't constrained by rules and is just learning a kill-or-be-killed, no-rules art for back alley ambushes or the battlefield. Problem is, duels are also full of rules, have referees, etc. The exact same criticisms that he levels at modern fencing could be leveled at classical fencing and dueling by someone who studies swordplay for battlefield combat. One person who follows arbitrary rules should not criticize another person who follows arbitrary rules because the latter person's rules, and the strategies used to to succeed under those rules, are arbitrary. Watching videos of 20th-century epee duels, they're just as formalized and just as regulated as sport fencing, even if the exact rules constraining the participants are different.

    On test-cutting

    I don't fence foil and I don't have any pressing need or desire to know whether 500 grams is enough to drive through someone's torso...I'll spare a perfectly good pig for another purpose ;) Still, for people who are interested, it makes sense to use that to test it out.

    On dueling sabres

    Their purpose was drawing blood, not killing. Killing was a side-effect that sometimes happened and everyone knew could happen. But that doesn't mean it was the purpose of a korbschlager. Killing is never the purpose of a first-blood duel; it's an unfortunate but sometimes-unavoidable side-effect that was not encouraged. So I think my language was accurate. Furthermore, my understanding is one of the reason dueling sabres became popular was because mortality in first-blood duels was actually lower than with a piercing weapon, because it's far far easier to treat a forehead cut or arm cut than a puncture to the torso.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2010
  19. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    I disagree with this because the historical record says otherwise. A duelling sabre was a civilian weapon which accounts for it's construction. This makes it faster, improves control but reduces durability. A military weapon has to last and handle a wide range of circumstances.
    The type of duelling you are describing is more the Mensur style where fencing was used as a form of character building. If you look at duelling in Britain however a very different picture emerges. Duelling is a very dangerous and fequently lethal form of combat.

    The Bear.
     
  20. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    Fair enough.

    So it may or may not support your thesis and you list it as a "this may or may not support"? I find that a bit of a confusing decision.

    That was a bit of personal commentary on my part to illustrate that he's "got the goods."

    That may have been your intention. However, what you actually did was refer to what he was saying as "blathering" and "tiresome." And I'm here to tell you that, even if you don't agree with it, you should not dismiss what he's saying. He has a pedigree and experience as well as inheriting a great deal of information (and skills) from his Maestro and lineage.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     

Share This Page