Fencing journal
Feb 28, 2012
Today we worked in invitation 4, parry riposte from there, then counter parry and feint disengage. I also worked on straight lunges during free fencing time. The drills were fine, and I looked at a few other things for defending an attack with disengage that should work against either that or a straight attack. However today was more about things that were said about fencing than things that were taught or practiced. The substitute coach was talking to one of the students about the difference between the "Martial Sport" of fencing, and the "Martial Art" of fencing. The difference he said was that the Martial Sport of fencing is about getting the buzzer to go off before your opponent's, and that is all. His verbiage was disdainful and dismissive of sport fencing as if he was discounting it, relegating it into a sport which is beneath his "martial art". That started me thinking of a couple of things. Firstly, that I am biased against any coach who would speak that way about a sport that's based on any martial art. I feel like they're missing something. Putting down sport fencing to try to elevate classical fencing actually doesn't accomplish that goal after all, it just makes you look dismissive. Secondly I thought about martial arts in general. Most martial arts are "practice" for real combat of some sort. Not that you would ever actually fight to the death in practice, but that you are practicing for the time when it might be a fight to the death/submission in the real world. Doesn't happen much today thankfully, and our armed forces don't learn fencing as it's no longer useful in combat situations due to guns and such.
To me the difference between sport fencing and what I call classical fencing are rules. Sport fencing has several written rules that I can use to prioritize my actions and score touches. Classical fencing has only one rule, which is don't get hit/killed. That's a rather important rule, and one that underlies much of the training. To illustrate the differences I looked at a specific action today, the attack with disengage. In sport fencing, if I attack with disengage and my opponent makes attempt to parry, misses and counter attacks I get the touch even if we both hit on target. Counter attacking into any attack is a mistake after all. In classical fencing with that same action, we both are dead because of the counter attacker's mistake. Which is better? Which is more authentic or lifelike? Which is more correct? Those are age old questions that in my opinion don't need answered. They've been beaten to death for the reason of one camp or the other wanting to be viewed as "right" or "better". The question that does need answered individually is, which do YOU like better? Then learn that, but don't bother disparaging the other as it's just as valid to those that like it better. I've seen both sides of the Sport/Art of fencing. I've learned from sport masters, and I've learned from classical maestros. Neither is "better" to me. Both are fun, both are engaging, and at their most basic they should be interchangeable. And so I don't disparage classical fencing, and I continue to like sport fencing more. I'm in a classical fencing class learning things that I never used in competition, and they are good things. I will incorporate some into my fencing, and some I won't. But I won't put down classical fencing as inferior as it's not.
All this came right after I had been talking to some students before class about calling our instructor "Maestro". Many feel that it's not necessary, and that it's too old fashioned. I look at it a little differently than they do so I voiced my opinion on it. When someone goes to grad school and gets their PhD, we call them Doctor, or Professor. We do it out of respect because they earned the right to be called that by persevering through their rigorous training. Maestro Hayes was the only graduate of the Fencing Masters program of San Jose State in 1999. The San Jose Fencing Masters program has been around since 1979, started by Maestro Dr. William Gaugler. (famous in even the sport fencing world) Since it's inception there have been 86 graduates. Of those 46 graduated with the title of Instructor, 31 graduated with the title of Provost, and 9 (only 9) graduated with the title of Master. Maestro Hayes is one of those 9. I explained to the group that was discussing it that to me he's earned the title. He knows more about Classical Italian fencing than anyone I know and although I "grew up" fencing sport fencing, there's still a lot for me to learn from him. And with that, I'm off my soapbox for this edition of "Carl's Fencing Journal".
PS: Jess, stop disengaging while you're lunging as it doesn't work well. It's thrust (with an advance step if needed to close distance), then disengage, then lunge. They're close together certainly, but they aren't at the same time.
Today we worked in invitation 4, parry riposte from there, then counter parry and feint disengage. I also worked on straight lunges during free fencing time. The drills were fine, and I looked at a few other things for defending an attack with disengage that should work against either that or a straight attack. However today was more about things that were said about fencing than things that were taught or practiced. The substitute coach was talking to one of the students about the difference between the "Martial Sport" of fencing, and the "Martial Art" of fencing. The difference he said was that the Martial Sport of fencing is about getting the buzzer to go off before your opponent's, and that is all. His verbiage was disdainful and dismissive of sport fencing as if he was discounting it, relegating it into a sport which is beneath his "martial art". That started me thinking of a couple of things. Firstly, that I am biased against any coach who would speak that way about a sport that's based on any martial art. I feel like they're missing something. Putting down sport fencing to try to elevate classical fencing actually doesn't accomplish that goal after all, it just makes you look dismissive. Secondly I thought about martial arts in general. Most martial arts are "practice" for real combat of some sort. Not that you would ever actually fight to the death in practice, but that you are practicing for the time when it might be a fight to the death/submission in the real world. Doesn't happen much today thankfully, and our armed forces don't learn fencing as it's no longer useful in combat situations due to guns and such.
To me the difference between sport fencing and what I call classical fencing are rules. Sport fencing has several written rules that I can use to prioritize my actions and score touches. Classical fencing has only one rule, which is don't get hit/killed. That's a rather important rule, and one that underlies much of the training. To illustrate the differences I looked at a specific action today, the attack with disengage. In sport fencing, if I attack with disengage and my opponent makes attempt to parry, misses and counter attacks I get the touch even if we both hit on target. Counter attacking into any attack is a mistake after all. In classical fencing with that same action, we both are dead because of the counter attacker's mistake. Which is better? Which is more authentic or lifelike? Which is more correct? Those are age old questions that in my opinion don't need answered. They've been beaten to death for the reason of one camp or the other wanting to be viewed as "right" or "better". The question that does need answered individually is, which do YOU like better? Then learn that, but don't bother disparaging the other as it's just as valid to those that like it better. I've seen both sides of the Sport/Art of fencing. I've learned from sport masters, and I've learned from classical maestros. Neither is "better" to me. Both are fun, both are engaging, and at their most basic they should be interchangeable. And so I don't disparage classical fencing, and I continue to like sport fencing more. I'm in a classical fencing class learning things that I never used in competition, and they are good things. I will incorporate some into my fencing, and some I won't. But I won't put down classical fencing as inferior as it's not.
All this came right after I had been talking to some students before class about calling our instructor "Maestro". Many feel that it's not necessary, and that it's too old fashioned. I look at it a little differently than they do so I voiced my opinion on it. When someone goes to grad school and gets their PhD, we call them Doctor, or Professor. We do it out of respect because they earned the right to be called that by persevering through their rigorous training. Maestro Hayes was the only graduate of the Fencing Masters program of San Jose State in 1999. The San Jose Fencing Masters program has been around since 1979, started by Maestro Dr. William Gaugler. (famous in even the sport fencing world) Since it's inception there have been 86 graduates. Of those 46 graduated with the title of Instructor, 31 graduated with the title of Provost, and 9 (only 9) graduated with the title of Master. Maestro Hayes is one of those 9. I explained to the group that was discussing it that to me he's earned the title. He knows more about Classical Italian fencing than anyone I know and although I "grew up" fencing sport fencing, there's still a lot for me to learn from him. And with that, I'm off my soapbox for this edition of "Carl's Fencing Journal".
PS: Jess, stop disengaging while you're lunging as it doesn't work well. It's thrust (with an advance step if needed to close distance), then disengage, then lunge. They're close together certainly, but they aren't at the same time.