Classical fencing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classical fencing is the term used to describe one particular style of fencing in which one fences in a martially accurate manner with the weapons used. Emphasis is placed on training as if for a real encounter with sharp blades—with the goal being "to hit and not be hit". There is also a strong aesthetic sensibility concerning ideal technique.

A sense of the "ideal" classical fencer is provided by 19th century fencing master Louis Rondelle:

"A classical fencer is supposed to be one who observes a fine position, whose attacks are fully developed, whose hits are marvelously accurate, his parries firm and his ripostes executed with precision. One must not forget that this regularity is not possible unless the adversary is a party to it. It is a conventional bout, which consists of parries, attacks, and returns, all rhyming together."

Contents

[edit] History

Note: The study of the weapons and techniques of fencing prior to the 19th century is properly termed historical fencing.

As it is commonly understood today, classical fencing is best represented by the 19th and early-20th century national fencing schools, especially the Italian and the French schools, although other pre-World War II styles such as the Russian and the Hungarian are also considered classical. Masters and legendary fencing figures such as Giuseppe Radaelli, Louis Rondelle, Masaniello Parise, the Greco brothers, Aldo Nadi and his rival Lucien Gaudin are considered examples of this period.

Classical fencing weapons included the standard foil, épée (with a variety of different tips, including pointes d'arret), and sabre (including both blunted dueling sabres and, beginning in the early 20th century, modern sporting sabres).

During the classical period, fencing was used both for sport and the duel. Fencing was one of the original events in the Olympic Games and widely practiced at schools and domestic competitions. Additionally, there were professional fencers competing for prize money. Fencing tournaments were extremely popular events, with spectators flocking to see the most celebrated swordsmen battle it out on the strip. In many cases, fencers of the period trained for sport fencing the same way they trained for duels — indeed, many fought highly-celebrated duels.

Dueling went into sharp decline after World War I, following the wartime deaths of many members of the classes that practiced it, and the social changes following the war's mass carnage. After World War II, dueling went out of use in Europe except for rare exceptions. Training for a duel, once almost mandatory for males of aristocratic backgrounds, all but disappeared, along with the classes themselves. Fencing continued as a sport like boxing or karate, with tournaments and championships. However, the need to prepare for a duel with "sharps" vanished, changing the emphasis in training and technique.

Scoring was done by means of four judges who determined if a hit was made. Two side judges stood behind and to the side of each fencer, and watched for hits made by that fencer on the opponent's target. A director followed the fencing from a point several feet away from the center of the action. At the end of each action, after calling "Halt!", the director (or, formally, the president of the jury) would describe the action ("Attack is from my left. Parry and riposte from my right."), and then poll the judges in turn ("Does the attack land?"). The judges would answer "Yes", "Yes, but off-target", "No", or "Abstain". If the judges differed or abstained, the director could overrule them with his vote.

This method was universally used, but had limitations. As described in an article in the London newspaper, The Daily Courier, on June 25, 1896: "Every one who has watched a bout with the foils knows that the task of judging the hits is with a pair of amateurs difficult enough, and with a well-matched pair of maîtres d’escrime well-nigh impossible." There also were problems with bias: well-known fencers were often given the benefit of mistakes (so-called "reputation touches"), and in some cases there was outright cheating. Aldo Nadi complained about this in his autobiography The Living Sword in regard to his famous match with Lucien Gaudin.

The article in the Daily Courier described a new invention, the electrical scoring machine, that would revolutionize fencing. Starting with épée in the 1930s (foil was electrified in 1950s, sabre in 1980s), side judges were replaced by an electrical scoring apparatus, with an audible tone and a red or green light indicating when a touch landed. The scoring box reduced the bias in judging, and permitted more accurate scoring of faster actions, lighter touches, and more touches to the back and flank than were possible with human judges.

The advent of the electrical scoring apparatus had far-reaching consequences. The electrical scoring apparatus and the 20th century's overall modernization of athletic activities occurred alongside an increase in the emphasis on fencing as a sport. The electrical scoring apparatus encouraged an emphasis on the athletic and offensive (rather than defensive) aspects of fencing by altering the ways in which a touch would be considered valid. The result was an eventual schism between sport and classical fencing, both stylistically and philosophically. The divergence led to the emergence of self-identified 'classical fencers,' which solidified circa 1990. Previously, the common view was that there simply was fencing, rather than separate sport and classical variants.

The vast majority of fencing masters and fencers accepted the changes described above as a great improvement over visual judging and its problems with precision and bias. Electrical scoring became the mandatory judging method for competitions under the auspices of the Féderation Internationale d'Escrime (FIE), the international federation for fencing; in particular, modern, sport fencing, sometimes called 'Olympic' fencing.

At the time electronic scoring was introduced, all fencers were classically trained, but there were differences in accepting 20th century changes in fencing practice. The fencing masters who rejected these changes either preserved their tradition, abandoned it in favor of employment as fencing masters in sport fencing, or, as time passed, simply retired. However, enough classically-oriented fencers remained to keep traditional, classical fencing alive in schools throughout the world. Many of these people self-identify as classical fencers, but do not share the concept of classical fencing described in this article, preferring the early to mid-20th century style of competitive fencing (which, in the United States, is formalized and governed by the American Fencing League, or AFL). This should not be confused with the Amateur Fencers League of America (AFLA), which was renamed to the current United States Fencing Association (USFA) in 1981, which is affiliated with the FIE.

In the United States (and elsewhere), renewed interest in Western martial arts (beginning in the 1990s) has led some groups—often peer-led—to attempt to study classical fencing (e.g. from books or instructional videos) without the guidance of a classically-trained instructor, creating further variation in the classical fencing community. These groups, in an effort to become more historically authentic, sometimes shift their focus to older, pre-19th-century weapons and techniques — i.e. historical fencing.

[edit] Contemporary classical fencing

 Please help improve this section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.


Today, classical fencing clubs (and classical fencing instructors and masters) can be found in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Because there is no agreement as to the exact rules of classical fencing and because competition is de-emphasized, what competitions there are generally local or regional in nature, with the rules depending upon where the tournament is held.

However, there are a number of generalizations that unify contemporary classical fencing.

[edit] Object

Classical fencing is a frank encounter between two opponents. The object is to touch the other fencer without being touched. Even though the "weapons" are blunt, the fencers treat them as though they were in fact sharp.

[edit] Weapons

Classical fencing still uses the same weapons that have been used in fencing since the early 19th century—namely, the standard foil, standard épée (with a rubber or plastic tip or equipped with a pointe d'arret), and sabre (including both blunted dueling sabres and modern standard sporting sabres).

[edit] Safety equipment

Fencing, classical or otherwise, is an extremely safe activity, with considerable attention to ensuring safe equipment and practices. The weapons themselves are blunt, although they can have sharp edges if they break.

Safety equipment for classical fencing is essentially the same as used in Olympic fencing. It includes:

  • A fencing mask, typically made of a wire mesh;
  • A white fencing jacket, which may be canvas duck, stretch nylon, Kevlar, or some other puncture-resistant material; and
  • A fencing glove, which protects the hand and overlaps the sleeve of the jacket.

Fencers also usually wear specially designed fencing knickers, knee-high white socks, and athletic shoes. Depending on the formality of the setting and local custom, sweatpants may substitute for knickers and bare calves may be seen, although this removes the protection provided by the material of the knickers.

In addition, female fencers wear rigid breast protection in the form of cups or a chestplate (as do some male fencers, albeit a flat chestplate in that case). Male fencers often wear an athletic cup. Fencers of both genders wear an underarm protector as additional protection (on the side of the fencer facing the opponent) in the event of a broken blade penetrating the fencing jacket.

[edit] Right of way

The concept of right of way (often abbreviated as "ROW") determines which fencer alone should be considered touched if both fencers land a touch at about the same time. The main purpose of ROW is to penalize fencers for making actions that would get them wounded if the weapons were sharp, in particular, if they respond to an attack by making a counter-attack of their own without defending themselves. Sabre and foil are called "conventional weapons" because these right of way conventions are applied to double touches.

In simplified form, ROW gives priority to the fencer who first commences an attack, until the attack is parried, avoided, or misses. Classical right of way requires a fully extended weapon arm that continuously threatens the defender's target area in order for an action to be considered a valid attack. Any withdrawal of the weapon arm during the attack jeopardizes the fencer's claim to right of way. A counter attack made by the opponent before the final motion of a compound attack also may gain right of way, based on the rationale that a hit that lands before the final motion of an attack would have interrupted and prevented the attack. If both fencers attack at the same time, it is called a "double touch" or "simultaneous attack", and no touch is scored for either fencer. Neither fencer has gained priority, and neither gains or receives a touch.

In contrast, épée fencing, which attempts to simulate the conditions of a duel, considers both fencers to be touched if both are hit at the same time, regardless of who initiated the attack first. The reason is that both duelists would be hit and wounded in a simultaneous touch. Hence, the concept of right of way per se, as a formalism, does not exist in épée fencing.

This concept of right of way is one of the most difficult aspects of foil and sabre fencing for newcomers to understand. It is also the source of much of the controversy between mainstream modern (also called 'Olympic') fencers and classical fencers (see Controversy below), as the two styles have differing concepts of ROW, especially regarding what constitutes a valid attack.

[edit] Field of play

The field of play varies widely, but is generally linear. Contests may be conducted indoors or outdoors on a variety of surfaces. The fencing strip may be as narrow as three feet or as wide as 1.5 metres, with lengths varying between 10 and 20 feet.

[edit] Methods of judging

Classical fencing is always visually judged by a human jury. The number of judges and the criteria used to award points vary.

[edit] Pedagogy

Classical fencing is generally taught slowly, with basic mastery of simple skills demanded before more complex skills are taught. A well-trained classical fencer will have a very diverse repertoire of actions upon which to draw. Some schools explicitly have a conservatory goal, in which the entire system of fencing used by the school is taught in order to pass it down to future generations of fencers. This differs from modern sport fencing, in which emphasis is placed on teaching a relatively small number of the most useful techniques that can be executed efficiently in bouts.

[edit] Controversy

Classical fencing does not enjoy easy relations with the world of modern sport fencing. Proponents of each style of fencing accuse the other of various flaws in logic, history, pedagogy, and personality. Classical fencers feel they approach fencing as a serious martial art with strong ties to actual combat, while maintaining strict rules on style, while most modern fencers approach fencing primarily as a sport, much like boxing or karate, with the object being to score the most points by any means permitted by the rules.

The styles differ from one another in many ways, including their purposes, goals, strategies, tactics, scoring systems and pedagogy. Each style claims aspects associated with the other—classical fencers sometimes apply sport rules to competitions (particularly as to foil), often based on old versions of FIE rules used prior to the advent of electrical scoring, and modern fencers insist that their style is more results-oriented, realistic and therefore more like actual combat. Additionally, classical fencing has no central authority, and there are several different styles of classical fencing with somewhat incompatible rules and methodologies.

In general, and despite the absence of a central authority to enforce standardized practices, classical fencers contend that the use of modern FIE rules and electronic scoring fundamentally alters virtually every aspect of fencing, including its goals, techniques, and teaching methods. Classical fencers contend that the indispensable goal of fencing is defense—to survive a contest that could be fatal if it were conducted with sharp weapons. Accordingly, classical fencers emphasize the importance of not being touched—to "hit without being hit," and contend that the rules and tactics of modern sport fencing undermine this basic principle.

Modern sport fencers contend that it is a mistake for classical fencers to believe their style of fencing is, or was ever intended to be, a more realistic simulation of swordfighting, actually the province of historical fencing. They point out that classical fencing of the 19th century was primarily a gentleman's sport activity, described by Egerton Castle as "a superior sort of pastime" (See Richard Cohen's By The Sword, page xx, and the chapter titled A Pursuit For Gentlemen). The classical fencers named above were all famed sport fencers who rarely if ever duelled. The aesthetic sense conveyed by Louis Rondelle's "all rhyming together" quotation became more important than martial reality, and fencing was primarily done in fencing salons in a formalised, even genteel manner. Contemporary observers like Egerton Castle said that "things are done with the foil that would never be attempted in earnest with a sword". Dissatisfaction with the unsuitability of classical foil for fencing with sharp weapons led to resurgence of the épée (Cohen, page 198).

Some contemporary proponents of classical fencing readily acknowledge that a foil or sabre bout, inasmuch as it is governed by artificial right-of-way ("ROW") rules, is not intended to realistically simulate a duel. Nonetheless, martial reality influences both classical and modern fencing, although expressed in incompatible ways. ROW rules determine who should be penalized if a double touch occurs based on which fencer first initiated a valid attack. Classical foil, for example, requires a fully-extended arm for an action to be considered a valid attack that gains priority, and the arm must be extended before forward motion of the legs begins. Modern sport fencing only requires that the weapon arm be extending (rather than fully extended), and the offensive action with the arm is often made at the same time as leg motion. This disagreement leads to conflicts when practitioners of one style are judged under rules of the other.

Electronic scoring apparatus also formalizes the time period that determines if two hits are considered simultaneous, rather than use a human judge's perspective as in classical fencing (and in FIE fencing prior to the introduction of electronic scoring). The FIE currently defines the minimum time between valid touches to be 350 milliseconds for foil, 40 milliseconds for épée, and 120 milliseconds for sabre. Touches made by both fencers within that interval are recognized by the scoring machine and are judged according to ROW rules (in foil and sabre), or considered a double touch for both fencers (épée). Touches that land following a preceding touch by the opponent outside that time interval are "locked out" and do not register on the machine at all. In one sense this is not so different from classical fencing-the same process is followed for a simultaneous touch in both styles; however, the method for determining if two touches were simultaneous is quite different. The current lockout times were reduced from longer times in 2005, with some controversy, as described in the article on sabre. Classical fencers contend that these rules, which can only be implemented with the use of electronic scoring, encourage participants to be more aggressive and less concerned about defense than they would be under the classical approach.

Electrical scoring also records lighter touches, and touches to less-visible areas such as the back and flank, than would typically be recognized as valid or witnessed by human judges in a classical bout. Though such touches may be considered valid in some classical schools (and in the case of light touches to the chest, may even be considered "elegant"), they often go unobserved. Furthermore, the use of electronic scoring allows tactics such as the "flick"—a rapid, whip-like strike that triggers the electronic scoring machine, and thus earns a point, but would not constitute a fatal touch in a duel and is therefore not considered to be a legitimate tactic in the classical tradition.

Modern sport fencers contend that because duels were often fought to "first blood," and thus lethality not always a requirement, that the flick is a valid tactic since it would easily draw blood. The flick is controversial even within modern sport fencing, and did not emerge as a tactic until the 1990s. Rules were adjusted in the early 2000s to reduce its use, and it is only a factor in modern foil. Modern sport fencers also contend that electronic scoring is more realistic because it records potentially lethal touches to hard-to-see target areas that would have drawn blood from a sharp blade, yet are under-reported by the visual judging used in classical fencing.

Also, classical schools generally treat the foil as a training tool, used to cultivate a beginner's fundamental skills before learning other weapons, besides as an end in itself. In contrast, it is not uncommon in modern sport fencing for beginners to start in a sabre or épée and never use foil as the common basic training tool. There are exceptions in both camps. For example, Roger Crosnier, the British National Fencing coach, in his book Fencing with the Foil (Barnes, 1951), states, "I am among those who firmly believe that the technique of foil paves the way for excellence at épée or sabre.", and this philosophy still holds in many sport schools. Likewise, starting all beginners in foil is not universal in classic fencing schools, now or in the 19th century. For example, students frequently started in sabre in Hungarian and Italian fencing schools. Nonetheless, in general terms these are differences between classical and modern sport fencing training methods.

Finally, many classical schools require proper form for a hit to be considered valid—a requirement that causes disagreement when modern fencers compete in classical tournaments. They contend that such a requirement never existed on the dueling ground, where a fencer would bleed even if hit with an attack made with improper form. These disagreements are fundamental to the different styles and do not appear to be reconcilable.

In light of these fundamental differences, classical and contemporary sport fencing have evolved into different pursuits, despite using similar equipment. While FIE-style participants greatly outnumber classical fencers, classical fencing has developed a substantial core of fencers and schools. Despite this, it is unlikely that contemporary classical fencing will ever have more than a minor influence on FIE-style sport fencing. Classical fencing has a large enough base that seeks to retain a classical approach, so it is also unlikely that modern fencing will have much effect upon classical fencing.

Classical fencing also has an uneasy relationship with historical fencing. Historical fencing includes use of older weapon types such as rapier and smallsword as well as contemporary weapons, and can include grappling (wrestling), use of the unarmed hand, and other techniques prohibited in both sport and classical fencing, but frequently used when the sword was part of personal defense. Some historical fencing advocates consider classical fencing to be no more realistic than FIE-style fencing, and that both are sport activities using unrealistic weapons with techniques and conventions that were not typically used with sharp weapons in actual combat.

[edit] References

  • Richard Cohen, By The Sword, 1st ed. (Narrative Tension Inc., 2002), ISBN 0812969669
  • Egerton Castle, Schools and Masters of Fencing : From the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century, ISBN 0486428265 (2005), ISBN 1428609407 (2006). (reissues)
  • Roger Crosnier, Fencing with the Foil: Instruction and Technique (1951), ISBN 0571045944

[edit] External links

Languages