here's a topic

here's a topic

Post by Donald C. Sn » Wed, 02 Dec 1992 07:28:01


As a first topic on this list, I'll ask this.

Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
three :-)

How do other people feel about this?

--
=======================================================================


Radiation Oncology     ||        (and)                 ||          

=======================================================================

--
=======================================================================


Radiation Oncology     ||        (and)                 ||          

=======================================================================

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by Sean M Bur » Wed, 02 Dec 1992 08:51:28


Quote:
>Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
>order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
>three :-)

Well, I'd agreee with the speed and technique, but I don't really think
fencers have any more ***lust than any other contact sport, and probably
less than some.

Also, I'd add intelligence to that list because you have to very quickly
(within about a 3-4 minute bout) assimilate (sp?) your opponent's style and
technique, and counter with your own.

--Sean Burke
Ohio State Fencing

--
Sean M. Burke   \ "Love is what goes on while you're NOT horny. . ."


IRC: Hanz (No, I won't pump U up.)\__________________________________________

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by Drew W. Saunde » Wed, 02 Dec 1992 08:53:47



Quote:

>As a first topic on this list, I'll ask this.

>Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
>order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
>three :-)

>How do other people feel about this?

It's been ages since I've fenced, but back when I did (sabre for
Stanford, foil in High School), I paid a lot of attention to timing
and distance.  One could argue that this would follow under
"technique" as pointed above, but I'd call technique the skills of
sword handling and footwork, rather than the sense of timing and
distance.  One of our fencers, Steve, was unusually tall and
thin for a sabre fencer, and rather "***y."  He would use this to
his advantage by attacking from what any normal human being would
consider to be out of range and stretching to get the barest touch.
This would probably stand up to the changes brought about by
electric sabre, though I've never fenced electric.  A sense of
timing will work for even a fairly slow "seasoned" (not polite to
say old to someone who is armed, not is it) fencer against a much
quicker younger opponent who is lacking experience.  A quicker,
younger, experienced fencer, though, is another story entirely.

Drew

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by phil » Wed, 02 Dec 1992 10:32:32


|>
|> As a first topic on this list, I'll ask this.
|>
|> Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
|> order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
|> three :-)
|>
|> How do other people feel about this?
|>
|> --
IMHO,
it only takes an arm and two legs to be able to fence.
To be a good fencer, though, I think you need intelligence and technique
above all. (I have seen people fence amazingly well and be 10 times slower than
their opponent)

|> =======================================================================


|> Radiation Oncology     ||        (and)                 ||            

|> =======================================================================
|>                                                              

-philo.
--
.....................
dakhlak.... hawn nazl s suruur?
                                (Ziad)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by Joseph Beckenbach {Adapter Software Release Eng » Wed, 02 Dec 1992 10:07:19

In his article Donald C. Snow writes:

Quote:
>Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
>order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
>three :-)

        I wasn't too speedy, but I had enough technique to get by and
a civilized and aware ***lust.  (Epee, NCAA A Division, 5th in division
my junior year in college.)  I dropped away to graduate.

        To keep them, you've got to hook them, and get them past the point
where they're thinking "I can't do this" to "I can do this".  No tips on this,
sorry.  I found that giving me an epee during the first week, and doing much
more than just footwork drills my first months, was enough to keep me going.
(The sixth session I held a blade, I lost 5-0.  Sigh.  But what can you expect
as a freshman new to the sport against a senior from a stronger school?)
And, once I understood what emotions were going on during the fight, and worked
with them instead of against them, I was fine.

                Joseph Beckenbach
--
----

        (speaking from, but not for, Ultra Network Technologies)

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by Randy Clinton Paffenro » Thu, 03 Dec 1992 02:00:15




Quote:
> >Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
> >order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
> >three :-)

> Well, I'd agreee with the speed and technique, but I don't really think
> fencers have any more ***lust than any other contact sport, and  
probably
> less than some.

> Also, I'd add intelligence to that list because you have to very quickly
> (within about a 3-4 minute bout) assimilate (sp?) your opponent's style  
and
> technique, and counter with your own.

> --Sean Burke
> Ohio State Fencing

> --
> Sean M. Burke   \ "Love is what goes on while you're NOT horny. . ."

long."

> IRC: Hanz (No, I won't pump U  

up.)\__________________________________________
I must agree strongly with the requirement for intelligence.  I can't
tell you how many times I have seen people ignore how their
opponent fences or how the director directs.  I have seen many
people (including me :-) ) using their favorite attack or combination
several times, with it not working once, and ending up being down
3-0.

Now I also want to mention something that I was taught about the
Speed vs Technique thing.  Someo of us are physically faster
than others, but just because you are slow does not mean that
you can never be a good fencer.  Good technique can make up for a
lot of speed.  For example if you are sort of a slow beginner, but
you do your parry 4 as small as possible, then your repost (sp?)
will be faster then someone who may be physically much quicker
then you are.  Another example, for the slightly more advanced
fencer, is correct parry selection.  If your are attacked in a low
line ( say 7 ) and you try a counter 6, even if you make the parry,
no matter how fast you are, you are going to have a hard time
getting the repost.

So, I guess that you need intelligence and a good combination
of speed and technique to be a good fencer, with technique becomeing
more important at the higher levels of fencing. (Oh, and ***lust
is good for sabre fencers :-) )

Well, I guess that I ramble, but I am sort of e***d that there is
finally a fencing newsgroup :-)

                        Peace,
                                Randy

----------
Randy C. Paffenroth
Mathematician and Sabre Fencer

Bunda!?

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by A. Jing Hip » Thu, 03 Dec 1992 00:03:34


|>
|> As a first topic on this list, I'll ask this.
|>
|> Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
|> order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
|> three :-)
|>
|> How do other people feel about this?

I would add two things to the list: strength and endurance.  The first is
especially important for epee fencing.  I was always pretty quick, and I
was taught technique, but I really had to work to build up my arm strength
and my endurance, because anybody who was nearly as fast I was, but stronger
than I was, could take my blade *miles* out of line and skewer me before
I could respond.

The endurance thing was to prevent me from fencing with my elbow resting on
my hip after a few bouts.

I could talk about point accuracy, but I'm assuming that's part of "technique".

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |

+--------------------------------------------------+
|"Most dogs are nicer than most people."           |
|                                   --Andy Rooney  |
+--------------------------------------------------+

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by K. Roge » Thu, 03 Dec 1992 07:34:33


Quote:
>>Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
>>order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
>>three :-)

>>How do other people feel about this?

>It's been ages since I've fenced, but back when I did (sabre for
>Stanford, foil in High School), I paid a lot of attention to timing
>and distance.  One could argue that this would follow under
>"technique" as pointed above, but I'd call technique the skills of
>sword handling and footwork, rather than the sense of timing and
>distance.  One of our fencers, Steve, was unusually tall and
>thin for a sabre fencer, and rather "***y."  He would use this to
>his advantage by attacking from what any normal human being would
>consider to be out of range and stretching to get the barest touch.

I used to cheat in this way back when I used to fence (15 years ago
now, ackk...)  While at 6'2" (189cm) I'm not unusually tall, my arms
and legs are unusally long for my height (37" inseams and sleeves).
It's usually good for a point or two on a new opponent.  An important
hint is to make sure your jacket sleeves are long enough to fit your
body so you don't look like Frankenstein with 2" of wrist past the
cuff.  One look at that and the opponent is tiped off that you're part
orangutan.

Quote:
>A sense of
>timing will work for even a fairly slow "seasoned" (not polite to
>say old to someone who is armed, not is it) fencer against a much
>quicker younger opponent who is lacking experience.

Yup.  My first instructor was in his late 60's (slow), had half my
lunge distance and sported a huge gut (big target) to boot.  I
couldn't touch him to save my life for the 4 months I fenced with him.
He kept telling me I'd be really dangerous if I ever got coordinated,
which used to***me off so I was even worse than usual.  He, of
course, could touch me as he pleased.

Quote:
>A quicker,
>younger, experienced fencer, though, is another story entirely.

I would have liked to have fenced him after I did get more coordinated
at a lean, mean 19 years old.  I was never very good but I could've
used plain speed and reach to compensate for lack of finesse at that
point.  Truely good fencers with raw power *and* finesse are awesome.
--
Keith Rogers

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by Simon Roon » Fri, 04 Dec 1992 02:30:03


Quote:
>> >Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
>> >order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
>> >three :-)

>> Well, I'd agreee with the speed and technique, but I don't really think
>> fencers have any more ***lust than any other contact sport, and  
>probably
>> less than some.

>> Also, I'd add intelligence to that list because you have to very quickly
>> (within about a 3-4 minute bout) assimilate (sp?) your opponent's style  
>and
>> technique, and counter with your own.

>I must agree strongly with the requirement for intelligence.  I can't
>tell you how many times I have seen people ignore how their
>opponent fences or how the director directs.  I have seen many
>people (including me :-) ) using their favorite attack or combination
>several times, with it not working once, and ending up being down
>3-0.

I know wot you mean, but I wouldn't call this intelligence as
such... I don't think much more INTELLIGENCE is needed than in most
other sports, it's plain cop-on, ind instinct.
OK, I'm NOT saying you don't need intelligence for fencing, just
that instinct overrides it during an exchange, and you just need
cop-on not to fall for the same thing again and again.
Basically it depends on your definition of intelligence *:)

Quote:
>Now I also want to mention something that I was taught about the
>Speed vs Technique thing.  Someo of us are physically faster
>than others, but just because you are slow does not mean that
>you can never be a good fencer.  Good technique can make up for a
>lot of speed.  For example if you are sort of a slow beginner, but
>you do your parry 4 as small as possible, then your repost (sp?)
>will be faster then someone who may be physically much quicker
>then you are.  Another example, for the slightly more advanced
>fencer, is correct parry selection.  If your are attacked in a low
>line ( say 7 ) and you try a counter 6, even if you make the parry,
>no matter how fast you are, you are going to have a hard time
>getting the repost.

My only argument with this would be that it's not parry selection,
but riposte selection. If you parry counter-sixte, against a
left-hander in high sixte, you CAN'T just do a straight riposte,
even though the parry itself is totally successful.

Quote:
>So, I guess that you need intelligence and a good combination
>of speed and technique to be a good fencer, with technique becomeing
>more important at the higher levels of fencing. (Oh, and ***lust
>is good for sabre fencers :-) )

Now this I can't disagree with.

Quote:
>Well, I guess that I ramble, but I am sort of e***d that there is
>finally a fencing newsgroup :-)

Yeah. Me too. I always knew one would come along, but...

Quote:
>                    Peace,
>                            Randy

War,
 Noims.
 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by Randell Jes » Fri, 04 Dec 1992 05:45:06

Quote:


>|> Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
>|> order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
>|> three :-)
>IMHO,
>it only takes an arm and two legs to be able to fence.
>To be a good fencer, though, I think you need intelligence and technique
>above all. (I have seen people fence amazingly well and be 10 times slower than
>their opponent)

        I'd agree with philo.  Technique and intelligence are more important
than speed or strength, and "***lust" (or will to win) almost doesn't come
into it at all.

        Raw speed and brute force will help you overpower beginners, and maybe
some low-intermediates.  After that it will certainly work against you to rely
on those over technique (especially relying on force).  Obviously speed is
an advantage, everything else being equal, but a smarter fencer or one with
better technique will usually beat a faster but less skilled fencer.

        Except against the very best fencers in our club the coach (and
top student) could basically walk towards you - no speed at all - and score
(all the while saying "find it! find it!" as you missed parry after parry).

        "***lust" is likely to merely cloud your thoughts when you need to
be analyzing the opponents reactions so you can find a way to take advantage
of them.  Against beginners you may be able to psych them out by being
agressive, but against intermediates they should be able to nail you if you
let "***lust" factor into your fencing.

--
To be or not to be = 0xff
-
Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.

Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by Dick Ki » Sat, 05 Dec 1992 06:34:43


Quote:

>As a first topic on this list, I'll ask this.

>Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
>order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
>three :-)

>How do other people feel about this?

The ***lust part bugs me.

My abstraction is:

  Here is a sport you might want to play.  The main rule is if you succeed in
  stabbing the other guy you get a point.

 which is no different in principle from

  Here is a sport you might want to play.  The main rule is if you succeed in
  throwing the ball through that hoop you get two points.

The fact that the manner of scoring bears a superficial resemblance to a way
people used to kill each other a few centuries ago doesn't really impress me or
interest me.  I realize that certain rules such as foil right-of-way are
justified in terms of the weapons' former killing properties, but so what?

It's also hard to justify the 40-50 millisecond rule for double touches in epee
when electronically scored, in terms of the weapon's previous use as a dueling
weapon.  In the Real World, pinkey touches barely count and double touches are
double touches even if they land a tenth of a second apart, but these rules do
make a much better game, so we use them.

-dk

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by Dick Ki » Sat, 05 Dec 1992 06:42:32


Quote:

>As a first topic on this list, I'll ask this.

>Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
>order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
>three :-)

>How do other people feel about this?

Let me add:

I think cunning is more important than in most sports, although perhaps not
more important than in other martial arts.

-dk

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by Simon Roon » Sat, 05 Dec 1992 21:28:04

Quote:
>>As a first topic on this list, I'll ask this.
>>Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
>>order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
>>three :-)

>>How do other people feel about this?

>The ***lust part bugs me.
>My abstraction is:
>  Here is a sport you might want to play.  The main rule is if you succeed in
>  stabbing the other guy you get a point.
> which is no different in principle from
>  Here is a sport you might want to play.  The main rule is if you succeed in
>  throwing the ball through that hoop you get two points.
>The fact that the manner of scoring bears a superficial resemblance to a way
>people used to kill each other a few centuries ago doesn't really impress me or
>interest me.  I realize that certain rules such as foil right-of-way are
>justified in terms of the weapons' former killing properties, but so what?

Nice *:)

Quote:
>It's also hard to justify the 40-50 millisecond rule for double touches in epee
>when electronically scored, in terms of the weapon's previous use as a dueling
>weapon.  In the Real World, pinkey touches barely count and double touches are
>double touches even if they land a tenth of a second apart, but these rules do
>make a much better game, so we use them.

From what I heard, the reason this was originally introduced is
because that's the speed the original epee boxes used to work at
(roughly), and they never bothered updating it. They hardly used use
this rule when fencing steem.

IOSsnmn

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by Douglas You » Tue, 08 Dec 1992 03:25:17


Quote:

>|>
>|> Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
>|> order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
>|> three :-)

>I would add two things to the list: strength and endurance.  The first is
>especially important for epee fencing.  I was always pretty quick, and I
>was taught technique, but I really had to work to build up my arm strength
>and my endurance, because anybody who was nearly as fast I was, but stronger
>than I was, could take my blade *miles* out of line and skewer me before
>I could respond.

I don't understand how strength is important.  Removing blade from line
doesn't require strength and you can't stop it just by gripping your
weapon like a brute!  Speed, technique, awareness, quick-thinking: these
will save you from an attack, and allow for your response.

Endurance is important, and especially in a long bout or a long tournament.
I have seen our a couple of our fencers knock the pants off the best of
our opponents in preliminary rounds, only to fizzle in the finals for lack
of energy.

--
---)----------                                                ----------(---

        Chico Fencing Club        California State University, Chico
---)----------                                                ----------(---

 
 
 

here's a topic

Post by A. Jing Hip » Tue, 08 Dec 1992 07:39:04

|


| >|>
| >|> Back at CMU, we had a saying that a person required three qualities in
| >|> order to fence: speed, technique, and ***lust. (and we taught all
| >|> three :-)
| >
| >I would add two things to the list: strength and endurance.  The first is
| >especially important for epee fencing.  I was always pretty quick, and I
| >was taught technique, but I really had to work to build up my arm strength
| >and my endurance, because anybody who was nearly as fast I was, but stronger
| >than I was, could take my blade *miles* out of line and skewer me before
| >I could respond.
|
| I don't understand how strength is important.  Removing blade from line
| doesn't require strength and you can't stop it just by gripping your
| weapon like a brute!  Speed, technique, awareness, quick-thinking: these
| will save you from an attack, and allow for your response.

The Georgia State champion back in the mid '70's was 6'8" tall, fast as
lightning, and strong as an ox.  I fenced him frequently and rarely even
touched him, much less won a bout.  A move that would take most other
opponents' blades two feet out of line would not cause his blade to
waver more than inch or so, and it was simply because his wrist and
forearm were *so* strong that that he simply resisted the force of your
blade against his.

This ties in nicely with the "French grip" discussion that's going on.
I was taught that French grips would help your accuracy, while pistol
grips would help your strength.  After fencing for a bit with a French
grip, I found that I had quite good accuracy with the dip, but that
my blade could be taken more easily than I liked.

I switched to a Belgian pistol grip and, after a bit of point practice,
ended up winning a few championships and taking a second place overall
at the Southeastern Sectionals.  From there, I went to a German pistol
grip, had to work on my accuracy yet again, but my opponents had to
put a lot more behind their moves to take my blade out of line.  I know
that a lot of this has to do with the extension on the hilt that comes
down over the heel of the hand almost to the wrist (the grip doesn't
magically make one stronger), but I figured "hey, whatever works for
*me*".

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |

+--------------------------------------------------+
|"Most dogs are nicer than most people."           |
|                                   --Andy Rooney  |
+--------------------------------------------------+