Fencing

[GeneChing]

I don't see a connection. First of all, practicing something over and over is really the only way to get it. In fencing, it may be a certain combination, like a beat in 4 with ballestra, feint in 6, lunge. In boxing, it might be a right cross, left cross, right uppercut. You got to practice. Period. What makes CMA and many asian arts unique is the forms. Forms are really just elongated combos. CMA adds internal TCM principles too, but for the sake of this argument, let's just look at the combos. Originality in battle is not really important - you can always think of original ways to lose. Spontaneity, perhaps, is what you mean, at least in the context of appropriate spontaneity (again, you can spontaneously lose). You don't want to be a predictable 'robot' but this can come from forms practice or combo practice, if you practice it like a robot. It's all a matter of how you practice, what your intention is.

Now with the demise of the Spanish school, I suppose you could draw an analogy to some forms practice, but I'd difer on the point that the Spanish school didn't advocate it as a health practice like CMA. Sure, all sports say that they make you healthier - fencing too, even back then. But the TCM angle of CMA allows for the existence of, say tai chi, as strictly a health practice. That's very unique, really. You don't see cardio-kickboxing or MMA being taught at old folks homes and senior centers. Also there was the technological change, the ability to make better swords. That really didn't affect CMA in the same way that it did fencing. So while you can make an analogy, I think it would be a faulty one.

[Christopher M]

Have you trained in or 'touched swords' against the Spanish school?

Your description of it sounds like the popular polemics against it, rather than a description of the style itself. For example, the footwork is actually very simple - certainly no more complex than French or Italian footwork.

As for being defunct, this simply isn't the case. Every year there is a week-long retreat in California in Spanish rapier, and it is taught in a handfull of other workshops throughout the year, and of course regularly in New York. Of the various people who've been exposed to it through these events, I haven't heard a single negative review - and at each event, there are tournaments where Spanish practitioners hold their own against the more common Italian, French, and English stylists.

If you are arguing against historical work on swordsmanship in general, there is nothing unique in the Spanish case - the other European national styles have been just as lost as the Spanish ones. Like you say though - you can argue until you're blue in the face, and it doesn't change the simple fact that fencers trained in the Spanish style compete successfully against those trained in other styles.

As for a lighter, smaller blade being superior, I don't think the situation is quite so simple. As you noted, there is a dynamic interaction between the characteristics of the style, the characteristics of the weapon, and the environment in which they were being used. One of the things that permitted swords to become smaller and lighter is that their use became restricted to the duel - which means the wielder can reliably assume he'll be facing a weapon similar to his own. The rapier pre-dated this evolution, and has characteristics that reflect the necessity of facing a variety of large, heavy weapons.

Perhaps are you conflating modern fencing and historical european swordsmanship? The two are significantly different. There's no foreseeable way the Spanish style, or any comparable historical method, could have much of an impact on the modern fencing community - their weapons and methods are not permitted in the context of modern fencing rules.

BTW, the Spanish style did not just disappear. As in the other countries, the rapier style evolved into a smallsword style there straight through the 1800s.

For interest here are some pictures of Dan Inosanto studying Spanish rapier.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Thanks, Chris.. a fascinating link..

Be well..

[Christopher M]

People may be interested in checking out this for some hands-on experience in these traditions.

[decafyeti]

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.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by decafyeti
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.

I agree. You may note it's not the classical or historical guys doing the excluding here.

[GeneChing]

The so-called classical/historical guys don't play. They don't come out to compete. Consequently, they don't lose.

Now FWIW, we should note that modern fencing is quite different than CMA. It has a long history as a sport and a well documented body of literature that goes back for centuries. CMA's history is spotty at best and the methods of tournaments are fairly new; wushu has only been around since the 70's, sanda/sanshou since the 90's, UFC even hasn't been around that long and prior modern tournaments don't go back before WWII really, if even that far (I'd date it more around the Korean War for it to really take hold here in the USA). But fencing, we've all been playing the same mutually agreed upon game for quite some time. By all, I mean the entire world, not just the European nations, but everyone, including China (in fact, China had a great female Olympiad recently, gold medalist Luan Jujie.) Now, of course, there have been changes, most recently electrical scoring, but fencing has been part of the modern Olympics since its inception, not just as fencing alone, but also as part of pentathalon.

Now when it comes to the Spanish school, well, I find it kind of funny because no one was talking about it when I was fencing. I retired from fencing around the late eighties, so to find a new 'historical' school emerge since I've left the game is funny. To give you some perspective, I wasn't your average fencer. I was captain of the Epee squad for SJSU and am certified as a provost master both by the FIE and the U.S. Army ROTC. This means was not only a competitor (although I'll admit my competitive record was lackluster) but I also underwent an intensive two-year training program to get my provost degree which culminated in the submission of the thesis and a gruelling day-long examination. Of course, I taught fencing a little too, but again to be honest, not that much. Then I made my living making and selling fencing equipment for about 5 years at American Fencer's Supply. I had given up fencing around the time I was working there, focusing more on CMA. I left that company in the early 90's. At that point, no one was talking about Spanish fencing at all. It was sort of an aside note in the historical review that I underwent for my masters, but that's it. My only research into it was working on Thibault's Mysterious Circle, which I did for a shirt design and a mural for American Fencer's.

So when you talk about hands on experience, we're all for out. Come on out and play. I'm sure there's plenty of fencing tournaments that you can participate in. Rack up some gold. Then people will start to respect the school again.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by GeneChing
The so-called classical/historical guys don't play. They don't come out to compete. Consequently, they don't lose.

They can't compete with modern rules because modern rules forbids their techniques. They hold open tournaments which don't forbid modern techniques and which modern trained fencers can (and do) join. This seems like the modern guys doing the excluding.

I'm sorry you didn't hear about Spanish fencing. I'm not entirely sure what your point is: the world is not limited by your familiarity.

[Vash]

. . . first, great posts.

Second, I wanna do some Spanish fencing. It looks cool, and the Demystification article on it was certainly interesting.

[GeneChing]

Here's the point. I'm very familiar with fencing up until about a decade ago, about as familiar as you could be. I had to be, it's where I earned my living. Nobody talked about the Spanish because they weren't even on the map then. The revitalization of the Spanish school is very recent. No, the world may not be limited by my familiarity, but the fencing world is fairly narrow, so it's not hard to be that familiar with it all. Just look at the history of fencing, you won't find much mention of the Spanish school in the last century. Don't make me dust off my Thimm to cite some dates...

Let's look at boxing again. Imagine somebody wanted to use a technique forbidden by modern rules, like say 'elbows'. Of course, the international boxing world would disavow them because it wasn't boxing, so this elbow school did it's own open tournaments and called it elbonian boxing. Let's say be generous and say there are a 1000 people who participate in elbonian boxing. These elbonian boxers never manage to secure any significant wins in any international competition. How do you think the boxing world will react? They'd say "Why should we play this new elbonian boxing game? Why can't you guys play the original game? Is your style to weak to stand up in the normal game?"

The fencing world is much older than the boxing world. We have internationally accepted rules, internationally recognized certification programs for instructors, provosts and masters, and a worldwide following. In short, we are very well established in the world. Can you call your new game something else? SCA or something? Fencing is neatly defined. The whole use of the term "modern fencing' is a bit silly. There's fencing. Then there's people who do stuff with fencing swords. Just like there's boxing and people who do stuff with boxing gloves.

Plus you really lost me here -

They hold open tournaments which don't forbid modern techniques and which modern trained fencers can (and do) join. This seems like the modern guys doing the excluding.

- If some 'modern' fencers are joining, who's doing the excluding?

[boxerbilly]

Gene, you made outstanding and brilliant comments in this thread in regards to old and new in respect to Western arts. Then crossing over relation into traditional Asian arts. Great stuff.

Thanks.

[Oso]

you can't tell Gene stuff like that, man...it just goes to his head

[GeneChing]

[Christopher M]

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.

[decafyeti]

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.