|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 19, 2005 11:56:39 GMT -6
Gladius on Fencing Net ( flamberge here) translated and posted an excerpt from an Italian fencing site. Below is an excerpt of his excerpt that caught my attention: www.schermanet.it/modules.ph...order=1&thold=0I often wonder whether Roch understands anything about fencing. Not that I am an expert but -- just to use a metaphor -- you don't need to be a chef to realize that adding salt to a cake will not make it sweeter.
For example, his next proposal to be submitted to the FIE Congress will be to eliminate the double touch in epee to make this weapon more dynamic and quick. Now, those who practice epee, know very well that the tactical characteristics of this weapon without the double touch will lead to take fewer risks, to wait for the opponent to make a mistake, and hence a more static bout.
When applied to the real world of competition the new foil timings also got the opposite effects. Now only half of the bouts end up at 15 before time runs out, while previously in general they did not go past the second period.
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on Jul 31, 2005 19:49:40 GMT -6
I can't get to the link...this may just be me tho
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 31, 2005 20:40:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Aug 2, 2005 10:15:15 GMT -6
Well, not to nitpick and I couldn't resist... but salt is actually a critical component of cake. And in fact, a pinch of salt at the right time will actaully allow other flavors to come forth. Basic cooking 101.
So the metaphor is flawed, even if the sentiment behind it isn't too far off base.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Aug 10, 2005 12:15:27 GMT -6
Not to go further on the lame' body-condom thread, my question is why remove the double-touch from epee.
1.) The possiblility of the double-touch is absolutely integral to the nature of epee. To eliminate a double-touch you have to give the light and point to one fencer or another, which means determining priority, which means FOIL.
2.) The only other option to eliminating the double-touch is to use double-touches as negating each other, such as at la belle. I think if you start with this position from the beginning of the bout it will most certainly NOT make epee more exciting and likely drag bouts out far longer.
I just don't see how the double touch is non-telegenic. If every touch counts, the uninformed audience member has a very easy time understanding the game.
I know. It's really all a ploy for the "reel-less" system championed at the Olympics in sabre.
Were the reels really a distraction? Unless they malfunctioned, who noticed them after the initial hook-up?
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Aug 15, 2005 20:46:46 GMT -6
Personally, I believe the esteemed president of the FIE has not the slightest clue what would make fencing more "telegenic."
Surely epee's basis is so siomple one need do nothing to it to make it incredibly easy to follow. As schlager7's tag line so eloquently states it, "epee is truth."
|
|
|
Post by Illy on Sept 7, 2005 16:23:02 GMT -6
Ah yes, "Epee is truth" Epee, in my opinion, is meant to be the modern day weapon most closely mimicking the original European fencing. As many of you know, in the olden days, epee was the dueling weapon, foil was the training weapon, and saber was used mainly in the cavalry, though at times among pirate raiders as well. These three weapons and styles were set in their different rules not by officials and federations, but by the common sense and practicality of the duel. Foil: The blade in foil was thin and used primarily for the practice of form and technique, as it is used today. The blade was also made frail to protect the students from the risk of the blades puncturing the practice armor used in lessons and mock dueling. In private lessons that rich lords engaged in with their trainers, the only area that could be properly guarded was the torso, so naturally, that was the made the official target. Foil today, has grown into much more than the training weapon for epee and is now the most popular fencing weapon to date. It has its own ever changing rules and regulations (which I am still desperately trying to follow) as well as its own equipment, etc... Saber: Used primarily by the cavalry and occasionally pirates of the day, its rules were practically dictated by the times. It is obvious that the general “poking” motion of foil and epee would be a waste of aim and energy when on a horse. Of course, no one in their right mind would aim for the legs when fighting a duel in that situation. Therefore, the target area was dictated as the torso up, and the physical motion became the traditional saber slash. Saber has been very well preserved in its original state, the only modern changes being the right of way and the obvious fact that we no longer duel with horses. Epee: It was, and still is, the true essence of dueling. Duels fought in epee were staged on honor and virtue, the rules of both modern and old being nearly identical. We are all familiar with them, all target area is open, no right of way, and double touches are still present. Think about it logically… If two men were engaged in a duel to the death and both hit each other at the exact same moment, would both hits count? But now, what if they were both hit in different places; One in the heart and the other in the shoulder? Who would be the victor? I believe it is safe to say that the one hit in the shoulder would be the one to survive. Just like in our modern era, if the score of a bout is, let’s say, 14:13 and a double touch is scored, the victor would be the fencer with 14 points. The concept can be similarly translated into an older situation. If, in the olden times, one fencer had scored more hits over his rival, therefore losing less blood, and he and his opponent both score a simultaneous touch (presuming no vital points were hit by either in this final touch) the victor would be the one who had scored more previous hits. The same holds true in this day and age. In my opinion, our ancestors knew what they were doing. The double touch is an essential part of modern day epee and of olden time fencing as well. If a move is that crucial in original fencing it should, of course, be preserved. It is not only a tactical maneuver but a practical one at that and virtually unavoidable in a bout. Sometimes, I think we complicate things too much, and looking to and trusting our predecessors can, at times, offer a simpler and more efficient solution to what we had previously envisioned. My point: Keep the double touch. And don’t complicate things.
|
|
|
Post by Oliver on Sept 7, 2005 21:33:33 GMT -6
On a side note...
Saber doesnt necessarily originate from the cavalry - and some pirates. It's influenced from a number of cutting weapons - especially the italian dueling sabre.
Even the cavalry sabre (which evolved from the Polish/Hungarian saber which evolved from the hun/mongol sabre) evolved from the chinese sabre or Dao (not a cavalry weapon) about 1000 BC.
Just jumping in the defense of my disparaged weapon. ;D
|
|