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

But remember how we got to this point. Maestro Martinez was arguing that electric scoring in and of itself diluted the art of fencing; I was arguing that it didn't. I was arguing that the lack of pressure-sensing equipment in modern sabre fencing doesn't hurt the realism of the sport. Modern sabre fencing is based off of the dueling in German universities, where the purpose of the duel was to draw blood, not to deliver a killing blow, not British dueling. My argument was that modern sabreurs hit hard enough to draw blood if they used a real dueling sabre, so the lack of impact-force-measuring equipment in sabre does not, in itself, dilute the art.

 

Tiresome--"My art builds self-reliance, self-confidence, and builds both the mind and body and yours does not" diatribes are ALWAYS tiresome, whether they come from karateka talking about boxing, kung fu masters talking about Brazilian ju-jitsu, or classical fencers talking about modern fencing. All the experience in the world doesn't change that. The diatribe wouldn't be any more palatable coming from Hidetaka Nishiyama's mouth than it would be coming from your friendly neighborhood sensei's mouth.

Blathering--nonsensical and foolish talk. A person doesn't have to be a fool to say something foolish. A person may make great sense while talking about most everything, yet still say something nonsensical about a particular topic. Maestro Martinez's statement that modern fencing is not a martial art is nonsense. And his argument that only classical, not modern, fencing can teach self-reliance, self-confidence, and build the mind as well as the body is also nonsense. His argument that modern fencing is not a martial art because it relies on a particular ruleset and teaches some stuff that doesn't work outside of that ruleset is foolish because the same is true of fencing for dueling. His argument that a sport cannot be a martial art is foolish because he himself points out that his martial art hosts tournaments.

I'm not going to apologize for either. These were not attacks on himself as an individual, but the words that he wrote on that page about modern fencing and why it isn't a martial art and what that means about what it can teach. And I maintain that both terms were entirely accurate. If you think the terms were inaccurate, defend what was said on the website, not the author himself, because I'm attacking the words, not the author.

 

Then you are being foolish by ignoring a potential source of information even if you disagree.

That or just rude.

Either way I don't think I need to continue with this thread.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

Again, I'm not ignoring everything he says. He had good information about the history of fencing and I took that as well-informed as accurate. I would never question his knowledge of classical fencing or his ability at it. I'm not disparaging the individual or rejecting everything he says. But I fail to see what any of that has to do with the fact that he was off-base in asserting that another art, besides his own, is not a "martial art" and cannot cultivate the secondary benefits of martial arts training that classical fencing can.

Do you actually agree that modern fencing is not a martial art and cannot cultivate the secondary (mental and self-confidence) benefits of martial arts training? If not, why are you defending the fact that he said so?

I realize that you may not want to continue further with this discussion, but if you change your mind, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that issue, as it kind of drives right back to the original purpose of this thread.

 

I agree with you mitlov, I don't believe that any art in itself provides these thing but it is the instructor and club culture that breeds the benfit. I think that any physical activity can provide significant benefits.
However, I also agree with Maestro Martinez that modern fencing is not a martial art. Many of the skills developed can be used in martial arts but the same could be said for a dancer. I am not even sure I would place it in the martial sport arena since martial sports usually have a contact element in them. TBH I would place modern fencing as a true sport. Like Javelin or hammer throwing which have martial histories they no long contain that martial element.
This is not a slur on modern fening but a simple fact that a modern fencer is simply not conditioned or trained for combat. Though I am very sure that quickly they could be converted to excellent martial artists. There is a rule that in combat we do not rise to our aspirations but fall to the level of our training. Singlestick is an excellent training tool for understanding the difference. A good whack from 40" inches of ash soon shows up any deficiencies in conditioning.

The Bear.

 

Besides the "lack of contact" (which I'll address below), what elements of a "martial art," if any, do you think are missing from Olympic fencing? Since tone of voice doesn't carry well over the internet, let me be clear: I'm not flaming or being adversarial, but instead just feeling out your position and disagreeing where I disagree.

As for the "lack of conditioning for combat," I wouldn't say that. I traditionally walk around with several bruised ribs and a half-dozen nickel-sized yellow bruises scattered over the left side of my chest; I get a new set every practice. After my epee tournament in May, most of my left deltoid was black...a shot that hit me odd left a heart-shaped bruise three inches across. An epee shot to the mask can snap your head back and ring your bell pretty well. An epee point that goes into the crook of your elbow oddly can cause all sorts of havoc...it's like hitting your funny bone but five times worse. I can't imagine that someone training in classical epee gets any more bruised than we do, and they're a "martial art," right?

Honestly, talking from first-hand experience, fencing epee is at least as bruising as studying Shotokan karate, and I've never heard anyone question whether Shotokan is a martial art.

And if we want to talk more extreme, my first coach once had to floor it to a hospital with a student run through with a broken blade in the back seat (pierced a lung...he made it, but barely). No, I wasn't there at the time, I didn't know the student, but as long as we're giving examples. Never heard of anything like that at the schools I trained with in karate, taekwondo, or taiji. I realize that's an extreme example, not something you witness in nightly practice or hopefully ever, but it can happen.

For the record, I'm not disagreeing that single stick would leave you FAR more bruised than epee...but I've never before heard the argument that something isn't a martial art if it leaves you less bruised than single stick would. i.e., Okinawan karate isn't as bruising as boxing is, but it's still a martial art.

 

Not the damage that matters Mitlov but the training to fight not score. There is a completely different emphasis on training. In fact most WMA school completely fail to apply it themselves and many historical schools are little more than modern fencing with classical weapons. If you want to feel the difference, I am sure there are schools where you can give it a go. I don't know your location but I you would be most welcome at my school to see the difference.

The Bear.

 

This brings in an interesting point. What exactly is it that makes something a martial art?

I teach English Martial Arts, we have a grading system, we have a syllabus that builds skills over the course of several years, we have solo and paired drills, we have pre-arranged sparring, we have full speed free sparring and we have both techniques suitable for competition, and techniques that aim to maim or kill. We have formal training sessions and even a kind of uniform. However I have a huge problem trying to persuade people that what I do is a proper "Martial Art". The main issue is that it isn't oriental and I don't profess to help you develop magical ninja mind bullets.

So what is it that makes something a martial art?

(Mods, please feel free to make this a separate thread itf it would be better that way...)

 

I think it is relevent to the discussion Oz.

Personally, I believe a martial art is a system of training designed to be used in actual combat. Even if it is archaic and will never actually be used. Therefore training focuses on not trading blows and ensuring the life of the practioner. In a martial art, you mess up, you die. It is a very difficult regime to create artificially and to maintain that sense of danger.

The Bear.

 

Is it that simple though? How about purely competitive arts such as Kendo? How about "internal" arts?

How I define a martial art seems to be vastly different to how the public as a whole define martial arts. To me is it is simply a systematic approach to teaching a method of combat. To Joe Public it seems to have to be from somewhere other than here, it must have underlying philosophy, it must promise unbeatable techniques at some undefined point in the future, it must be connected with some sort of archetypal magical warrior (ninja, samurai etc).

 

I class them as martial sports. Like MMA, Muay Thai etc.

Internal Arts SHOULD be martial arts.

Indeed but HEMA is hampered by a predeliction for most of it's practioners of having the need to dress up. Therefore we get tarred with the re-enactment brush. Not helped by many of the "big" names writing their books dressed in period clothing.

The Bear.

 

My personal opinion is that over the next few years there will be a widening split between those people who focus on HE and those who focus on MA. With the re-branding of the Company for Historical Combat as the English Martial Arts Academy a year or two back I have firmly laid my claim to be part of the MA brigade.

How it will pan out only time will tell.

 

A man after my own heart OZ.

The Bear.

 

OK, you've coaxed me into one more post (and I admit that I'm more irritable lately due to a 3 week long headache created by a sinus infection).

Here's the truth, you can post the dictionary definition of "blather" all day long and imply that it's not insulting, but the connotation is inescapable. It's insulting and I think that you know that or else you'd not have bothered with the literal definition. That puts me on edge. There are some folks who deserve disrespect, who have earned disrespect. And I'm all in favor of being insulting and disrespectful to them. I'll join in with gusto. But Maestro Martinez isn't one of them. Quite the contrary, he's earned respect.

Now as far as the whole "Sport vs Martial Sport vs Martial Art" thing, I've been having this "discussion" since, what?, 1998 or so? First time I remember having it online was back on the Arador's original nearly-web forum comparing what the SCA does to Martial Arts. Is it a Sport, Martial (inspired) Sport, Martial Art, or something else? IOW, I've been having (and re-having) this debate a really long time. Most often, if enough time and effort is put into it, most of us can come to some sort of amicable conclusion, even a consensus and sometimes even agreement! But what I've found is that there's ALWAYS the debate. And when it starts, no one ever agrees. I've found that it is all in how a person defines the terms. Some people define Martial Art and Martial Sport so similarly that there's no effective difference and other people see a clear division between the two. Very often they actually agree on the concepts underlying but, because of the unstated and unknown difference in their definitions, there is immediate conflict when one dismisses an activity as "Sport, not Martial Art."

I just really, really didn't want to have another 12 post long thread hammering out the fact that we really agree on most of it just are using different, slightly conflicting terms. I just did that a week or three ago (and I'm grumpy).

And then this gets seasoned with your statement that either I agree with you or I can blink'n well defend the statements of the article that you disagree with? Gee willikers, I don't have to agree with them to not be insulting to someone whom I believe has earned respect.

Further I get lectured about how Judoka or Boxers might feel about their chosen past-times being called a mere sport. Got a surprise for you, I practice both, so I already know. Got another surprise for you. We Judoka and Boxers don't CARE if someone thinks what we're doing is "just a sport."

I believe that modern sport fencing is a Martial Sport (no I don't feel like defining the difference today - catch me tomorrow, or maybe next week after the antibiotics have kicked in and I don't feel like growling). It's not a Martial Art.

However, I also feel that there's a lot of chewy goodness in modern sport fencing. They learn stuff that is important to and readily transfers to Classical Fencing, knife fighting, stick fighting, and a bunch of other "real martial art" stuff. Yes, they are constrained by rules. But they are also, typically, easily liberated of them as well. When they want to be (which doesn't seem to be often).

So, while I personally, believe that modern Sport Fencing is more of a Martial Sport, that doesn't mean I don't think it has benefits. However, I also know when to freaking listen to people who deserve to be listened to.

As I have said repeatedly throughout this thread, I don't have to agree with everything they say in order to pay attention and learn something.

Now, I'm going to go over there [points to a random corner], nurse my headache, and be generally grumpy.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

Mitlov,

See what I mean about the amorphous nature of definitions between Sport, Martial Sport, and Martial Art? Emaaoz, is an experienced, established instructor and he (rightly) believes that he should spend time defining the differences for himself and his students so that everyone can be on the same page.

From what I see here this is following a standard pattern in which most will eventually agree on concepts, and maybe even terms as defined in the thread.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

Quoted for Truth.

 

I'll respond to this point now, the rest of the discussion maybe after work. Yes, the discussion of what a martial sport is, and whether it's a subcategory of martial arts (which I believe) or separate from martial arts (what Bear believes) has been done before, but in the end, many discussions have. emaaoz asked the question, and I'll be happy to weigh in on it with my opinion when I have a bit more time.

Now, as to what angered you...yes, I used insulting terminology about comments on Maestro Martinez's webpage, and I know it, and I don't apologize for it.

Someone may earn respect as a master of their art, and like I've said countless times, I have never once challenged his knowledge of, or ability at, classical fencing. Nor did I challenge his comparison of the tactical differences between classical and modern fencing, even though I thought his statement that modern fencers let themselves get hit was hyperbole (nobody ever willingly gives up a touch; that's not how you win; a good competitor goes into every point hoping and intending to cause just their light to illuminate).

But he did something that (for example) Bear didn't do. He said that modern fencing cannot teach self-confidence, self-reliance, or mental cultivation. He attributed all these secondary benefits to classical fencing and then said modern fencing necessarily has none of them as it's a mere sport. Now, I know first-hand that's dead wrong, because I benefitted from all those secondary benefits from modern fencing when I was in high school. And all of Martinez's knowledge and ability and talent at classical fencing CANNOT be used to back up his comment's about modern fencing's lack of secondary benefits, especially in light of my first-hand experience to the contrary.

The commentary that fencing does not teach self-confidence, self-reliance, mental cultivation, etc was bashing another art, and it was doing so in a very self-serving manner (arguing that people should train in his art and not another art on a website promoting his school instead of any sort of discussion forum where a reader could see contrasting experiences from modern fencers who have reaped those benefits first-hand). I don't like it one iota when people do that. No one, not even a champion of their art, should promote their art by badmouthing other arts with false statements. My response was rude, just as my response would be to a karate instructor who said that wrestling inherently can't teach self-confidence or self-reliance.

As for "he's earned respect"...earning respect at one thing does not give someone carte blanche to say anything about anything. As one extreme example, Brock Lesnar has earned my complete respect as a martial artist. When he talks about conditioning, or about strategy, I listen. But when he starts talking about gay rights, I think he's full of horse dung and I'll say so. When Martinez started talking about how modern fencing cannot teach self-confidence, self-relience, or mental cultivation, he stepped into an area where he has not earned respect, and where I knew from first-hand experience that he was wrong.

If you think I'm just a rude hothead with no respect for my elders or some such, well, I've been called worse! I stand by my comments, though hopefully even if you disagree, you at least understand where I'm coming from.

 

I think this is a good definition. I'd add that I think that definition includes people who study the method of combat first and foremost:

(1) for real-world combat that they anticipate occurring (i.e., MCMAP);
(2) for sport competition (i.e., boxing, wrestling, fencing, kendo);
(3) for historical preservation and appreciation (i.e., learning a method of real-world fighting that doesn't actually occur anymore, from longsword dueling to jousting to Koryu Japanese swordsmanship);
(4) for general health purposes (many internal arts practitioners); and
(5) for fun, recreation, learning self-reliance and self-confidence, etc (overlaps with all four previous categories).

While I understand where Bear is coming from, I think the problem with saying that martial sport is separate from martial art is that the boundaries between the two are never clear. What happens when classical fencers or traditional karateka host a tournament? Tournaments are sport; are they no longer martial artists? What happens when a student of a sporting art, whose coach is teaching it to him for sport, realizes that it would be useful outside the sport and uses it as such? i.e., a bouncer or bodyguard learning boxing and wrestling, maybe even competing in it, but with the intent that it will help him do his job. Is he training in martial sport or martial art?

By saying that all these things are spectrums within the overall category of martial arts, instead of mutually-exclusive categories, we avoid all these tough calls where boundaries aren't clear.

 

The more I think about this, the more I another shot at my response to this, because it ties in right with the original post.

On one hand, you have Fabrice Jeannet, three-time Olympic medalist in epee, known for his calm, calculating, conservative fencing. What does he do all day every day? In a sentence, he pokes an opponent with a meter-long metal rod while avoiding getting poked himself.

Jeannet doing his thing:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpo7O8SVRVQ"]YouTube- Beijing 2008 - MEI - GOLD - Tagliariol ITA v Jeannet F FRA - 1 of 2[/ame]

On the other hand, you have Maxim Chmerkovski, professional ballroom dancer and choreographer. What does he do all day every day? In a sentence, he moves to music rhythmically in an aesthetically-pleasing manner with a partner.

Maxim doing his thing:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERuTXVjTr5s&NR=1"]YouTube- Maksim & Karina Rumba Live! With Regis & Kelly[/ame]

Now, let's say these two challenge each other to a 19th-century-style epee duel. If modern fencing isn't even a martial sport, if it's just good athletic training with no more applicability to dueling than dancing does, the odds of either guy winning should be around 50%. But where would you bet your money? What do you think the odds would be? I think Jeannet would prevail in the duel 99 or 100 times out of 100, because in a sentence, a 19th-century epee duel is poking an opponent with a meter-long metal rod while avoiding getting poked yourself, and that sounds remarkably similar to what Jeannet has trained to do.

Yes, all sorts of details are different, and the risk of getting seriously hurt when you get poked is far far higher, but to say that there's not TONS ore carryover from Olympic epee to epee dueling than from dancing to epee dueling is pure hyperbole.

 

I'm only in this thread to have my name associated with such a quality discussion. Quality by assocation!

actually... great thread guys. To all involved I'm lovin' the convo and that it's not descended into a flaming mess of stupidity by now.