|
Post by schlager7 on Mar 10, 2010 18:50:34 GMT -6
...one of the first...
|
|
|
Post by scottbrown on Mar 15, 2010 13:03:01 GMT -6
Man, Jon Waller was a young man back then! Fun stuff, thanks for posting.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Mar 16, 2010 10:55:08 GMT -6
Interesting, but how do they figure out who "wins?"
I mean, since no one actually "dies."
|
|
|
Post by scottbrown on Apr 4, 2010 8:45:23 GMT -6
I'm not exactly sure how these guys used to define who won or even that they tried. In todays historical fencing circles there are a few different approaches. Some folks don't/won't compete for a variety of reasons, the most common argument being that they are trying to revive a martial art and so defining a set of rules to define who wins will lead to a sport which is, to them, a bastardization of the "art". The main fear is that the 'sport' mentality leads to folks gaming the rules to win instead of adhering to sound martial principles which would save them in a so-called "real fight". It's a valid argument but flawed on many levels, most obviously being that competition was always a part of martial culture anyway. Not to mention that any free-play/fencing/sparring has an element of competition and even at the backyard level folks agree to certain boundaries (i.e. rules ) so it's really just a matter of degrees and comfort level. Historical fencing faces a lot of hurdles when it comes to competition making things complex. For starters, there are dozens of systems which, theoretically, makes for a lot of competitions/divisions; longsword, rapier, rapier and dagger, arming sword, sword and buckler, basket hilted sword, sabre, grappling, grappling w/dagger, whole families of polearms, dussack, smallsword, and so on. The current trend is to focus on a few of the more popular weapons and develop rule-sets around those. These being rapier, longsword, and sword and buckler right now although grappling rules are now being explored. In terms of rule-sets they currently fall into two basic categories, point-based and "gestalt". Point-based is fairly self explanatory although a variety of subtleties are still being explored and "Gestalt" refers to rule-sets that judge on things such as form and universal fencing principles regardless of style. Getting more complex, different folks want different rules based on their personal preferences for combat. Take the longsword for example, we may likely end up with two different longsword divisions. One will likely focus only on strictly blade oriented fencing while the other will likely include grappling as well. The idea being that most of the longsword systems include a lot of grappling techniques as part of the martial system and therefore should be included in the competitive side. However, others feel that todays practitioners sometimes largely rely on the grappling and conspicuously ignore the bladed aspects so by having a rule-set that disallows grappling we will, over time, develop better fencing, and therefore better representations of blade play, from modern practitioners. My prediction is that a point-based rule-set will endure eventually but it's a matter of evolution based on trends and understanding amongst other things. Much like the evolution of the modern fencing rules.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 4, 2010 9:48:59 GMT -6
If it is of any help let me share a part of the evolution of the rules of current Olympic fencing (foil, epee & sabre).
In the last quarter of the 19th Century, each fencing salle d'armes was operated uniquely and there were no national or international governing bodies. Some had catered to military men and/or social elites (either of whom might reasonably expect to defend their honor in a duel).
At the same time, parallel with this was the beginnings of the great trend toward "amateur athletics." In the US this saw the rise of the German Turn Vereins and (both here and in the UK) the rise of the YMCA. Fencing became valued for its qualities as an exercise for general physical well-being with, admittedly, a colorful backdrop.
This same trend in amateur athletics led, after several false starts, to the first modern Olympic Games in 1896 in Athens. Fencing was present at those games, and every summer Olympic Games since. At the first games, however, it was limited to foil and sabre and there were NO women's events. I find this last part rather strange since same period saw an absolute explosion in women, led by noted society ladies and celebrated actresses of the day, taking up the sport. It was considered, in our current vocabulary, cool and sexy.
Epee was also not present as it was not considered a "sport" weapon but the weapon for the gentleman's duel to first blood.
There were no universal rules and they had to be agreed upon in advance. This was made somewhat simpler than otherwise expected because only two nations, France and Greece, sent competitors to the fencing events.
We now consider it a given that, for instance, valid target in foil is the torso and that the head and extremities (arms, hands, legs, feet, buttocks) are not valid. That is universal... today. In the 19th Century, however, some salles encourgaged attacks to the upper weapon arm, as well. Some considered the lower weapon arm valid. Schools encouraging more presise control reduced valid target to only the front weapon-side quarter of the torso. Some schools allowed the crotch as target (In a duel you can cause a lot of blood loss there.). Other schools thought attacking the crotch was... ungentlemanly.
Once fencing attached itself to the Olympics, homogenization of the "rules of play" was inevitable, but hardly swift.
Consider the epee. In our rules the epee scores only with the tip, but any part of the body is valid, since its sharp counterpart was used in duels of a type that generally ended if blood was drawn anywhere. It also possesses no rules of "right of way," unlike the foil or sabre.
Epee, the duelling sword, was too "real" for the first games, but appeared as a competitive sport at the very next games in 1900. I have videos from 1911 and 1913 that illustrate both actual duels to first blood using epees with needle-sharp tips AND competitive sport epee fencing. By 1911 and 1913, a mere generation removed from the first modern Olympics, and contemporaneous with duelling, were see athletes going for touches on the lower leg (rather dangerous in a duel since it exposes the back) and "pommeling" or "posting" (holding the grip by the very back few inches.. gaining length but ones grip may initially suffer).
Indeed, a number of Olympic fencers of the first quarter of the 20th Century also participated in duels (Lucien Gaudin, Aldo Nadi, Nedo Nadi... ). So, obviously, a lot of sport fencers understood the differences between dueling and fencing as a sport, but became involved in both.
The Olympics of 1912 was notable for walk-outs by the French national team in one event (arguement over rules) and the Italian national team in another event (arguement over calls).
The 1924 Olympic Games in Paris became so heated that two actual duels were later fought as a result.
I will not comment on whether creating rules for competitions in the type of fencing you are involved in is a good idea or a bad one. I simply share this (extremely capsulated) bit of history with you to indicate this path can lead to some interesting destinations.
|
|