>> >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
>> 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
>> 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
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 *:)
>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.
>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.
>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...