Talk:Fencing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Does anybody else find the section on care of electrical equipment 1) Not written in an encyclopediac style and 2) Belonging in a new entry? I mean, the entry on fencing ought to be about the sport, and informative to people learning about it. It isn't a how-to or instruction manual. I won't say an entry on "Electrical Fencing Equipment Care" is entirely amiss, but it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Kd5mdk 05:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it not encyclopedic, but I'm guessing it was cribbed directly from a copyrighted text. It looks like the kind of thing you'd find in a "user-friendly" guide to equipment maintenance and repair. It is probably therefore a copyvio and should be deleted, but I'd prefer to do that after positively identifying the source. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's possible the text was added by Strydermike as it appears to be in his style and may represent an older version of his web page on the subject. If this is true then it isn't a copyvio, but your original point stands. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the article is long enough as it is without the section on care of equipment. Thesquire 09:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Should the article perhaps be split in two, one on modern sport fencing, and one on classical fencing?

Edited

November 29, 2004

This is incorrect:

Like the épée, sabres originate from more deadly backgrounds. However, in the original fights with sabers, slashing was considered a mounted way of attacking while thrusting with the tip was considered a more deadly, but slower, way of attacking. Early in sword history, it was concluded a stab wound, although smaller, is much more damaging and deadly than a simple slash, except where the removal of body parts is concerned, where blood loss may be more deadly than a stab to an organ. However, in mounted combat, to stab an opponent would mean the loss of the weapon, so a curved blade that could easily slide into the opponent and out, causing a laceration, was much more ideal. The saber's point may have been meant for combat on the ground, if the rider was dismounted, voluntarily or forcibly.

-KM

Edited March 13, 2004

Cleaned up some history - the last IP is mine. KM.

Edited last April 10 2003, Ken Mondschein, editor@corporatemofo.com

---

I think "sabre" is a more usual spelling, at least in the US. I didn't get a redirect when I looked it up on Wikipedia. Google gives 91,700 for the -re spelling versus 69,000 for -er (with "sword" to weed out irrelevancy, so there are doubtlessly Type I errors. --Calieber 03:24, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary says "saber" is the preferred American spelling, and "sabre" is chiefly British. -- Ortonmc 03:33, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In common usage, that may be the case. However, in Fencing one is more likely to use the more traditional spelling "sabre", just like one is likely to acent "épée". Observe that the American USFA itself uses these traditional spellings, the American Heritage Dictionary notwithstanding. — Miguel 20:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

TWO METER RAPIERS?? That entire paragraph was nonsense and was deleted. The claim about rapier duels invariably or usually being fought "to one point" is also a bunch of fantasy. Having read many a duel account, it is quite apparent that rapier duels were probably NEVER fought to "one touch". Instead, they went on until one combatant or the other surrendered or was unable to continue.

damn, that's lame. two meter rapiers sound pretty exciting. ✈ James C. 16:03, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

---

One Hit Épée

There is a variant of epee that is popular at least in the UK - the one hit epee competition. The idea is that you fence everyone in the competition, but only the first hit counts, then you move on to the next person. Double hits count as double losses - you don't get a point for it. In many ways it resembles more the original dueling aspect of fencing. This is also the type of fencing included in the Modern Pentathlon. Shall I include a brief paragraph about it in this article? HispanoCelt 11:10, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Ortonmc 05:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One hit epee is also the fencing part of the pentathelon.

Notable classical fencers and fencing masters

Which of these are notable classical fencers and fencing masters and why? Let's see which are real and which are vanity. - Tεxτurε 20:45, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Adam A. Crown
• William Gaugler
• Sean Hayes
• Ramon Martinez
• Nick Evangelista
• Chris Umbs
• David Achilleus

Well, for what it's worth, I think Nick Evangelista is certainly prominent. I've heard of Chris Umbs, but can't speak to his actual notability. Kd5mdk 8 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

Problem is, this list includes some wuo are classical fencers, not the modern sport (Olympic) type this page is really aimed at...Evengelista being a notable example.

Electronic scoring equipment

Added "The rule changes have been controversial, primarily on two accounts: some argue that "flicks" or "whip-hits" are a valid method of scoring a touch, and others contend that the changes cause scoring anomalies where touchs which have obviously landed do not register." to the section on the foil timing change. For "only the most expensive contests bother to ground the piste", I would say at least 50% of competitions I've been to do this, likely closer to 80%. Does anyone have a source on this?

I wouldn't say "only the most expensive", but I'd say 50% is more right. I've edited that to make it a little more clear. Certainly 80% do not if we count local competitions. However, any serious tournament will have at least some grounded strips. I know the largest tournament in Texas gets by with 4. I also corrected the sentence on "wireless" scoring, which does not actually use transmitters at all. The official lights are mounted on the fencers masks, and it has only been adopted for sabre. Lights connected by a transmitter are for spectator information only and not considered by the officials. Kd5mdk 07:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

footwork and maneuvers?

• parry (all types)
• riposte
• fleche
• advance, retreat?

no section explaining these items?

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --fvw* 14:17, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

I'm feeling lazy, and don't wish to lookup the formatting needed to setup a page. However, if somebody wanted to create a page about Fencing moves, Actions, Priority (not Right of Way) or something, I'd be happy to contribute. Kd5mdk 8 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

• Working on it now... Glossary of Fencing Terms Daev 08:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Done! It is still very rough and needs some attention. I will read it through eventually to see if everything seems right. Please feel free to fix it up and contribute : ) Daev 09:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

other notes

• Points of attack and engagement.

The new FIE timings have not prevented flick attacks, but have made it considerably harder to score even a direct hit. Annoying. Also made some notes at Talk:Epee

I changed it a bit, see Electronic Scoring Equipment, above

Also, the article [electronic scoring] states that foil and epee have a microswitch which makes a circuit. This is technically incorrect. At epee, the microswitch makes a circuit. At foil, the switch breaks the circuit, thus there is no travel measurement for foil as there is for epee.

S.

Well...actually, there IS a travel for foil (it's still on the books...rule M.11(4)..1mm), but it hasen't been enforced for years...I doubt most fencers are even aware of it.

• Following the great social revolutions of the late eighteenth century, gentlemen no longer commonly wore swords, and so the épée, carried to the field of honour in a case, was developed as a means of settling disputes.

The epée has no historical basis other than resembling a rapier. The author must have been confused; the epée is and always has been a weapon used in modern times for the sport of fencing. I've removed the previous statement, but correct me if I'm wrong. --SunWuKong 06:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's debatable. "Épée" is just the ordinary French word for "sword", and other histories I've seen trace its ancestry from the European small sword -- as the linked article implies. It at least shared the triangular cross-section in the blade. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This sounds wrong...

"In the modern, occasionally used practice of "flicking," the flat of the blade strikes the air, bending the tip forwards to strike the opponent on his or her back. "

Blade striking the air? I don't think so. At least at the club that I go to, foil fencers flick by getting real close to their opponent (by parrying or sometimes even binding the other's blade) and reaching over and slapping the foil at an angle on the opponent's back. This is also how our coach (former NCAA fencer) flicks. Anyone disagree?

Also... I myself am a sabre fencer and, I've always heard that sabre originated from the Hungarian cavalry. The reason that the target area is waist and above is because cavalrymen ride on horses (you don't want to injure the horse). Comments? Peaceman 2 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

I think that the wording can use some clearing up but I think that the general ideas is correct. The weapon functions as a whip. I know about the flicks you mentioned... but I have seen flicks performed in other ways such as whipping the blade on an opponents parry four/three... in sabre this works really well as the arm is target. I've often seen it counted as a mal paree. I've also seen them done if foil where a fencer doesn't need to be in close combat with the opponent and the hits are usually on the shoulders. Hope this helps.

--rkstaylor 15:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The sabre isn't particularly Hungarian, although the Hungarian Hussars used it as did most other Eurpoean cavalry after the 17th century. Although it was the Hungarians who introduced it to Europe, they themselves got it from the Turkish scimitar, and the weapon was really made famous by the Polish Hussars who, more than the Hungarian, inspired the development of this kind of cavalry across Europe. We associate the sabre with Hungary because of that country's dominance in the weapon for much of the 20th century, but the style for which they were known was brought there by Italo Santelli. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Consolidated Article on Fencing Actions?

I was looking at the entries on remise, redoublement, riposte, etc, and it occurred to me that rather than leaving them undefined, stuck in wiktionary, or verbosely described in an attempt to make them wikipedia worthy, we might combine all of them and other terms into a single entry on fencing actions. What do people think of that? Kd5mdk 03:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gauntlets

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost positive that it's still required for sabre fencers to wear a gauntlet on their weapon hand. It stops at the wrist, though, and does not cover the hand itself. Peaceman 20:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a gauntlet, because to me that sounds like a piece of metal armor to protect the hand. Sabre fencers are required to have an "overglove" or "manchette", which guarentees that the target area extends down to the bones at the top of the wrist (name forgotten). Sleeves of the lame are not sufficient. This requirement can be met in two ways: 1) by having a tubular piece of elastic & conductive material which overlaps the lame and regular fencing glove, or 2) a special sabre glove which replaces the regular one and has conductive material built into it. In any event, this stuff probably best belongs in a specific article on sabre fencing. Kd5mdk 06:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, okay. I have one of those special sabre gloves...it's pretty sweet. Well thanks, I just wanted to clear that up. Peaceman 00:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

A minor correction on the manchette...when the back of the hand was removed as target a few years back, you COULD get away with a simple lame sleeve that started at the wrist and was long enough to make contact with the rest of the lame. However, within a year the requirement was changed...you must have the old part that covered the back of the hand (although that part is now non-conductive) and you have to have the fingerloop to hold it in place.

The reason? Safety...and for the same reason the cuff of the glove must cover at least half the forearm...to keep a blade from going up the sleeve.

Untitled

I plan on overhauling this entire article and making it a featured article. If you're interested in helping, by all means say so either here or on my talk page. Linuxbeak | Talk]] 23:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Your plan is a good one. I can help edit. Problem: The SCA always breaks into articles and changes them to put their activities in the light they want them to be shown in. The "SCA" article, for instance, is useless. -KM

Count me in :) -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 19:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't help, but indeed, I believe this article could be great, good luck on the overhaul!

I'm up for this. How do you suggest we proceed? Kd5mdk 08:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm game. How about this for a plan:

1. Expand The emergence of modern fencing section into a proper history section, broken down according to geographical location and historical period, for each region/period giving a bit of information about typical weapons and famous practitioners (linked to "notable fencers"?).

2. Reduce the number of entries under [Contemporary] Fencing philosophies to a manageable number. Classical fencing is, essentially, a subcategory of historical fencing. SCA fencing does not really represent a distinct "kind" of fencing - it is either historical or sports fencing done in a live action role play setting.

3. Build a clearly organized section on modern Olympic fencing, something along the lines of:

a) Who and when laid down the FIE rules;

b) What the different weapons are;

c) Protective clothing (and general safety concerns);

d) Priority rules;

e) Dimensions of the piste;

f) Refereeing/scoring apparatus;

g) Cardable offenses;

h) Typical structure of competitions;

i) Wheelchair fencing.

4. Do a small section on coaching.

5. Reorganize the "notable fencers" according to what they've done (rather than where they are from and what ideological camp they belong to). How about

a) Fencers who have had a truly spectacular international competitive career, like Gerevich, Mangiarotti, Romankov etc.

b) Famous fencing masters, i.e. people who have written widely read books or trained a significant number of internationally successful fencers.

c) Other fencers who have made it into history books (mostly, for reasons which are nothing to do with fencing).

I don't think that extensive discussions of technique or equipment are a good idea. Our purpose is to create a layman's reference rather than a fencing textbook. The overwhelming majority of people who come to view the page will be "uninitiated", and you do not want to put them off with miles and miles of minutiae. Stuff like fencing footwork can be tucked away into separate entries. I also suggest, we get rid of the list of national associations. This information is readily available from the English version of the FIE website. Cat-o-nine-meows 05:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I DO think we ought to have extensive discussions of technique/equipment in other pages, and I also think we should briefly discuss more important stuff (disengages, etc.) here. I'm also a little concerned with the status of Classical fencing. I think it deserves its own place- it's definitely not a separatist movement like the SCA or historical fencing generally. There are a lot of classical thinkers out there who continue to argue for reform within the sport fencing community (like Evangelista, and there are plenty of sport fencers who have strong classical backgrounds (like myself, or practically anyone who uses a French grip these days).

I do hear where you're coming from in that I recognize that there are crazy classical fencers out there who want to abandon modern sport fencing to what they see as its terrible sin and create their own little world, presumably to be more or less the same as the historical fencing movement, but I think that the reformist people, and the classically-influnced sporters mentioned in the above paragraph justify Classical's listing as a style. KrazyCaley 19:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain exactly what I'm trying to say. Sports fencing and historical fencing really are different philosophies: historical fencers want to recreate a viable martial art; sports fencers want to play a game losely based on a martial art. A fair number of people who call themselves classical fencers want to practice the martial art rather than the game, which basically puts them in the same camp as the people who do stuff like broadsword and buckler. This is not in any way a put down - I think, these people do serious historical work with serious historical sources.

When it comes to sports fencing, all modern fencing is based on "classical" (i.e. old) techniques. Arguing about whose technique is more "classical" is pointless and divisive. It is incredible conceit on the part of people like Nick Evangelista to claim some sort of a monopoly on the history of fencing. There are plenty of "modern" fencing masters whose work is steeped in old traditions. A fencer once turned up at David Tyshler's club in Moscow and announced that he comes from a "classical fencing" background, to which Tyshler's response was "Oh? Is there another kind?"

As for SCA, so far as I know, it is much more about roleplay than fencing. Different groups seem to promote different kinds of fencing: some are basically happy with variations on the sports fencing theme; others take a more historically thorough approach; others still do what is probably best described as stage fencing. Cat-o-nine-meows 12:10, 31 January 2006 (GMT)

The problem, as I see it, is there is a quite tangible difference in approaching the SPORT of fencing. I agree with you that "classical" fencers who want to abandon sport fencing and do their own thing are, in reality, just another subset of historical fencing. I further agree with you that all sport fencing is based, to some degree, on the classical approach. However, within sport fencing, there are drastically different philosophies and ways of learning and participating in the sport itself. How are we to describe the difference between an individual who uses unorthodox techniques, began with saber, develops their personal technique through bouting rather than drilling, yells in joy after every touch in an attempt to convince the referee, etc., vs. a fencer that religiously started with foil, then maybe branched out to epee, does his or her salutes completely, to everybody, develops technique through drilling over bouting, and so forth? It seems to me that there is a recognizable difference between these two types of fencer; and certainly there are plenty of people who fall between these two examples. While it may not be the most accurate verbiage, the current convention in the sport is to call the latter kind of fencer one who adheres to the "classical" approach, Tyshler's valid criticism of this usage not withstanding. Perhaps "traditional" would be more appropriate, but no one uses that term. KrazyCaley 17:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as I understand, what you are basically saying is that, while all sports fencers play the same game, when it comes to the technical repertory and methods of training, there exists some sort of an orthodoxy, which classical fencers do adhere to and the rest do not - and therein lies the division. Right?

My problem is, how do you define what that orthodoxy is? Whose classical fencing? What period? What techniques do we count as "allowed"? Aldo Nadi, whom a fair few classical fencers consider their patron saint, talked about how turning the body to minimize the target was a totally acceptable thing to do in the "modern sport of fencing" (over sixty years ago) and poured scorn on all those fuddy-daddy types who held onto the outmoded belief that it was unmanly and amounted to cheating. So, does it come under "unorthodox techniques" or not? These arguments have been raging within the fencing community as long as it has existed. What is "proper" fencing? If you go by George Silver (or Shakespeare), it is definitely not what Italians do! Who says that foil is the "proper" starting point? Who defines the "proper" salute? I have learnt four different versions from four different venerable sources. As for the ideas that free fencing is not the most effective form of training and that technique must be drilled in, particularly where beginners are concerned, they are not unique to classical fencing - they are widely acknowledged truths. "Individuals who develop their personal technique" very rarely have much competitive success (although there are some notable exceptions).

It is true, in fencing, as in virtually every other sphere of life, there is a traditionalist versus reformist debate, and it is fair to say that the convention is to use "classical" in reference to some broadly conservative approach to technique and protocol. All this definitely warrants a mention. The question is, are classical fencers really that different from other fencers within the sport? Historical fencers, Mensur fencers and theatrical fencers all fence with completely different weapons and for completely different reasons. Are classical fencers as different as that? Cat-o-nine-meows 0.3:09, 2 February 2006 (GMT)

General Changes

I've removed references in the "Right of Way" section to "counterparry", which was misused. A counterparry is to parry with a circular motion, not the parrying of a riposte. However, after you have parried the riposte, the next step is to counter-riposte. It isn't consistant, but that's the way it is. Kd5mdk 07:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

We need to get some new images of the grips... The current ones are shamelessly ripped from the good 'ol folks over at Triplette. I can get pics of spanish offset and visconti, but I don't have any french's, so If someone could do that, it would be great. digitalme

I use the French and have a digital cam, will upload. KrazyCaley 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. KrazyCaley 07:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Question- Anyone know where the heck we can find a useable picture of an Italian grip? Or do we even need one, since it's more or less irrelevant these days? KrazyCaley 19:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Found and put in a user-created one from the foil article. KrazyCaley 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just restored the old Etymology section that was lost through vandalism. Cat-o-nine-meows 15:45, 14 February 2006 (GMT)

I've just rewritten the Electronic Scoring section. I have, to the best of my ability, tried to preserve all the information that was there before hand. I've restructured and slightly simplified the technical bits (again trying not to lose any of the information). I've also added a bit of detail about the recent timing changes, the motives behind them and the disputes surrounding them. Cat-o-nine-meows 15:56, 19 February 2006 (GMT)

I've reverted back to the earlier spelling of Onishchenko. There are various spellings in circulation, but this one is the most phonetically correct. I'll put in a note concerning the variations in spelling in the article about him. I'm also changing Romankov's first name to the correct transliteration "Alexandr".Cat-o-nine-meows 13:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the "Practice of Fencing" section and added a few extra details. I've also rearranged the sections inside the article along a more logical progression. Cat-o-nine-meows 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Boris and the magic épée

I've added a tiny reference to Boris Onischenko / Onishchenko / Onishenko (there's a variety of spellings on the net and in wikipedia). I don't know anything about fencing, so I didn't add an awful lot. The Guardian article The 10 greatest cheats in sporting history reckons that his misdeeds led to new rules about grips.

slightly inaccurate....it's not that the grips themselves were made illegal, but the there could be no covering on the grip that might hide a awitch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.30 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck for the overhaul! Andjam 15:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems Jon Henderson is a Letterman fan, except there is no number nine. The plot thickens ... Andjam 15:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked the reference desk, and they reckon it is Boris Onishchenko, with a suggestion to redirect Onischenko to Onishchenko. Andjam 12:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I've got my gear ready (I'm a fencer). I'm going to get a digital camera and have photos taken so we can get good photos of a bout, a fencer, the equipment, etc. Let's get started :-) Linuxbeak | Talk 16:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made a Featured Article in the past (see Civil Air Patrol), so the process should be pretty straightforward.

Featured Article push status

You will find the article that is being overhauled at Fencing/Featured article overhaul.

Steps completed

1. Start a new article -- Done, obviously. The article exists and we have a basic framework to it. However, I am personally under the impression that it could do with some changes. That's where the next step comes into play.

To do

1. Research and write a great article

A "POV" recommendation: as a fellow fencer I most definitely recommend you the book "By the sword: A History of Gladiators, Musketeers, Samurai, Swashbucklers, and Olympic Champions" written by Richard Cohen. It's a pretty good read and has the plus side of tons of sources quoted. Sadly my copy is stashed several hundred km away from me :-( -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, and I'll look to see if my university's library has a copy. I personally own two books on fencing: The Art and Science of Fencing and The Inner Game of Fencing, both by Nick Evangelista. I'll be using them as sources. If you have any more suggestions, please say so. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A warning to you - Nick Evangelista is generally considered a representative of the "classical fencing" movement, and his opinions are widely held to be irrelevent and wrong by the sport fencing community. Therefore, it is important to take everything he says with a grain of salt when it comes to the modern practice of sport fencing. Kd5mdk 07:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Understood. I'll look for other sources in addition, then. Thanks! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Evangelista, though IS a leader of that part of the classical movement that argues for a "retakeover" of sport fencing by classical ideas, and he has a lot to say on sport fencing that is valid, so don't discount him entirely. Everything he says about the execution or nature of particular techniques is solid. Where you run into POV trouble is in his complaints about modern sport fencing- he thinks the pistol grip is trash, etc. etc. The problem is that there aren't a lot of "sport fencing" books out there- sport fencing is kind of in the fencing world's zeitgeist more than anywhere else. KrazyCaley 18:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very interested in helping this article receive featured status. This is a solid article, but it could be a lot better. I'll begin making some changes in the near future, starting with expanding the glossary and putting some more details into the discussions of the rules. KrazyCaley 18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Check against the featured article criteria
2. Get creative feedback (Peer review)
3. Apply for featured article status
4. Featured articles

Oh, the rules! In "By the sword" (see my comment above) there is a memorable quote by somebody from the International Olympic Committee a few years ago. It went something like "half of your rulebook outlines rules that are aimed at preventing people from cheating, are you sure there's nothing wrong with your sport?" Discussing the rules will certainly be interesting. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. On a related note, I'd love to include the story of the fencer whose opponent kept getting on-target touches despite not even making contact. Eventually the fencer exposed his cheating opponent by making a really convincing feint of a fleche from long distance, and the opponent did a stop thrust that obviously hit nothing, yet the box indiciated an on-target. Later they found a weird little switch INSIDE the guy's grip that let him get an on-target whenever he wanted. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this story is either apocryphal or impossible to reference. If anyone out there knows where I can find something like this, it'd be a pretty amusing thing to put in to any discussion of the rules. KrazyCaley 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, wasn't that part of the "Boris and the magic epee" saga? I'm pretty sure I've read about a similar incident somewhere. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds very much like the Boris incident. As I heard it... Fencers have a tendency to argue calls, but this particular British fencer was well known for his sportsmanship, so it was very strange that he would vehemently deny being hit by his opponent, so the director was more inclined to beleive there was something fishy going on.--Whpq 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I've heard the Boris saga repeated under a ton of different names, and I've heard the offender's nationality reported as Czech, French, and German. I'm still trying to find a reliable source that will tell the real story.

The real story is that it happened at the 1976 Olympics, and there's a link right here in the Wiki article.

Good enough for meKrazyCaley 02:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Spanish grip still legal?

Could someone tell me if the spanish offset grip is still legal under fie rules? William Scales 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Extremely illegal, actually. KrazyCaley 18:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the version with the pommel a la french grip, but the version that is shown in the article. I recently took mine to an NAC and had no problems with it, but I've heard rumblings that it is no longer allowed, and last time I checked, Triplette was no longer selling them. --digital_me 16:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be on the way out, in either case. Does FIE or USFA have a comprehensive online rulebook? KrazyCaley 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They have a rulebook, but the rules governing the grips seem abiguous at best. They say (I think) that a weapon with orthopedic aids may only be held in one position, and if you're really good, you *can* post with the spanish offset, but it's not practical. Also, I saw something about your thumb has to be within 2CM of the bellguard, but that should be covered. But again, they probably *could* knock you on these, but I'm just not sure. --digital_me 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just make a note about the Spanish grip being of dubious legality. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is...if the grip has prongs like a pistil grip AND a French pommel, it'll be illegal.

Similarly, if yhou can post and STILL get a finger around a projection, it'll be illegal, because you're NOT trading power for distance like if you post with a French grip.

This is why the rules are a touch vague...you can't really ban a grip by name (like the Gardere), but must do so by it's characteristics.

The idea is to have it so the grip in and of itself does not allow for a significant advantage over the other fencer....the playing field must be as level as possible.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.191 (talk • contribs) .

European vs. European-originated

I changed this because there are plenty of non-European countries that have developed their own branches or styles of sport fencing technique, but it is true that all these branches and styles have their origin in Europe. Any thoughts? KrazyCaley 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

About the weight used

"This force, larger than the foil's force, is meant to simulate the force required to draw blood from an opponent, to connect epée to its classical roots."

I removed this sentence from the article until I, or anyone can find something to back this up. I am an epee fencer, and I've never heard this, but who knows. --digital_me 16:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that before, but never saw it anywhere authoritative. Sniffing around. KrazyCaley 19:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see how this "makes sense" but I haven't read it anywhere else either. It was a good idea to remove it until we can come up with a source. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A-ha. Evangelista in Art and Science of Fencing, in a section on reasons for classical conventions, says this, though he does not mention the specific weight. KrazyCaley 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

500 grams is the approximate weight of a foil....750 grams the approximate weight of an epee....and sharp point would not need that much force to draw blood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.191 (talk • contribs) .

Post v. Pommel

I've never heard it called "pommeling." The verb "to pommel" is one I've only heard in the context of a hypothetical bashing WITH the pommel, not the thing commonly known as posting. If this is actually a legitimate term, we should probably stop reverting, but honestly I've never come across that way of putting it in my fencing life. Has anyone else? KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always called it "posting". I've never actually heard of pommeling, but I suppose it could be a less common word. authraw 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of "pommeling" either. Hbackman 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

KrazyCaley has the correct definition. It's not something you would do in modern fencing unless you a) had a French grip and b) wanted a black card. You see it occasionally in stage fencing and historical fencing, and was actually used in older-style duelling and warfare. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You talking about posting, or bashing with the pommel? Because I see posting all the time. But I think that you're talking about bashing with the pommel. --digital_me 19:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And I've never heard of "pommeling" either. --digital_me 19:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant he had the definition of "pommeling" correct, from which we get the modern verb "pummel". TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as the dictionary difinition is concerned, you guys are right. The OED defines "to pommel" as "To beat or strike repeatedly with or as with a pommel; to beat or pound with the fists; to bruise". However, "pommeling" is used to describe the practice of holding the sword at or near the pommel by the majority of fencers this side of the pond. Cat-o-nine-meows 11:28, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

Uhhh...TCC? You seem to imply that pommeling/posting earns a black card....there is NO penalty associated with the action (although there may be one for switching from a full grip to posting DURING an action). Black cards are for brutality, manifest cheating, etc...posting is NOT cheating.

Posting serves no real purpose in foil, as it has nothing to do with right of way. It DOES have validity in epee because of the lock-out time...and to a lesser extent in sabre (I HAVE seem people grip a sabre all teh way back...although the extra reach is minimal compared to posting a French)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.191 (talk • contribs) .

I learned to fence in Georgia, and here it is called pommeling. Just say, "Posting, or pommeling, is ..." 131.96.149.151 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article overhaul

I've just gone and overhauled the featured article skeleton. It's still not polished, but there's only so much I can do in one night. Should we combine the two streams, or keep working on the other for now? I feel like I'm the only one who's still interested in pushing for featured article status. Isopropyl 06:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should keep them seperate for now, at least until we get the structure nailed down. I think that this second page gives a little more freedom for editing, since we don't have worry about immediate usability. --digital_me 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My time is somewhat limited these days, but I am wiling to pitch in on the featured article. From an effort standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to concentrate on the feature article separately, and simply let the current article stand unless there are some egregious changes? Whpq 12:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also willing to help, I have tons of free time this weekend. --digital_me 20:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Italian grip

Someone claimed under the Italian grip section that it's illegal because it could be used to break your opponent's blade. This is untrue. The Italian grip is illegal because it applies undue torque to the wrist, often breaking it. I have reverted the edits. Isopropyl 03:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's illegal? I was under the impression that people simply didn't use it because of the cost involved (custom ordered blades, etc...) Then again, I could be wrong. --digital_me 16:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The Italian is NOT illegal...you still see it (albiet rarely) in USFA competitions. Someone show the rule where it woul dbe illegal. The modern game does not lend itself to the Italian grip, but that does not make it illegal. Cost of blades is another factor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.191 (talk • contribs) .

The Italian grip is illegal in the most recent edition of the USFA rule book -- rule m.4 . xander 207.213.160.29 23:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The words "Italian grip" do not appear in the rules. What is specifically outlawed in both USFA and FIE rules is a cross-bar that extends past the guard, which effectively outlaws any Italian grip I've ever seen. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but look at section 6 of rule m.4 -- a grip with orthapedics (like an Italian grip) must fix the hand in one, and only one, position, and when the hand is in that position, the thumb must be within 2cm of the guard. It is possible to post with an Italian grip, which means that more than one position is possible; and in that second position, the thumb is not within 2 cm of the guard. Thus, while it is not specifically mentioned by name in the rules, the Italian grip is illegal because it has orthapedics and allows the hand multiple positions on the grip. xander 207.213.160.33 21:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it highly questionable that the Italian grip is "orthopedic". They're defined as a grip that fixes the hand in a single position. The Italian plainly doesn't do that, although certainly there's only one correct way to use it -- but the same might be said of a French grip. Added: On actually looking it up, I see that an orthopedic grip is effectively defined as any special shape that fixes the position of the hand. The regulation is that there can be one and only one such position. I suppose I can see how an Italian grip might fit this definition, but it's a matter of interpretation. One could say the same thing about the curve in the French grip, after all. The FAQ on the USFA website specifically contemplates legal Italian grips. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a subject of dispute, and, I recon, that's how we should present it. The way it was argued by Barry Paul, who runs the Leon Paul firm, is that a handle which is designed to fix the hand in a position where the thumb is more than 2 centimetres away from the guard is illegal (i.e. it would be illegal to use a pistol grip with an excessively long stalk but not a gardere). What I was told about the Italian grip by the folks who run Allstar UK is that the grip itself is not illegal, but strapping it to the wrist, which used to be common practice, is. You could argue that they are manufacturers interested in promoting their less popular products... Having said all that, I agree with Beefnut — I think, all this stuff should go into a separate entry instead of cluttering up the main article. Cat-o-nine-meows 13:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at M.4....specifically, M.4.6, which covers ortho grips...

"6. If the grip (or glove) includes any device or attachment or has a special shape (orthopaedic) which fixes the position of the hand on the grip, the grip must conform to the following conditions.

(a) It must determine and fix one position only for the hand on the grip.

(b) When the hand occupies this one position on the grip, the extremity of the thumb when completely extended must not be more than 2 cm from the inner surface of the guard."

Clearly, the Italian is not designed to fix the hand in one position...therefore, it is NOT an orthopaedic grip and this part of the rule does not apply to it.

Thus, the Italian IS legal for competition at any event, up to and including FIE Worlds.

The term "orthopaedic" for pistol grips is a result of the grip's origin...created to help a fencer grip his weapon after having lost a finger or two.

The Gardere is a totally different matter, and is the grip that best demonstrates the intent of the rule. Depending on how far back you move your hand, you can be fixed in any of 4 or 5 positions....and every one of them gives you added reach without surrendering control (as you would if you post with a French). Barry Paul has managed to push the Gardere into legaility, but ONLY at domestic UK tourneys...it would not fly at an FIE or domestic US tourney.

As US Level One armorer Donald Clinton is fond of saying...don't just quote the rule...UNDERSTAND the rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.81.231 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 16 May 2006.

Use of the term "Director"

Can anyone who is knowledgeable in this sport clarify for me the use of the term "director" as an alternate for President of Jury or Referee? Is it just a synonym for "referee" or are there differences? I am trying to disambiguate the link to something more specific than Director. Aguerriero 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the term "director" should be used when bouts are being reffered by a non refree-certified fencer. Usually this would happen at local level tourny where it would be impractical to get certified referees. At least this is how I have seen most people (including myself) use the term. --digital_me 04:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd dab it to "referee", although in Spanish we used the term "judge" (juez) regardless of certification. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is in the US, and I can't vouch for anywhere else. BTW, that second comment above was mine. I've never heard president of the jury in modern fencing (after all, we have no jury to preside over...) --digital_me 04:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

When I got into this sport in 1981 the position now called "referee" was the "director" regardless of whether the person was certified or not. I don't remember when "referee" became current, but it was some time after I left college. Unfortunately, I don't know about the prior history so I can't say for sure whether "director", "president", or "referee" is the older term, but my impression at the time was that the change to "referee" was part of the effort to make the sport more accessible to the American public. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, "referee" is the official term, but colloquially everyone here (New England) continues to use "director". This is at all levels that I've fenced at, amateur and college. I don't think I've ever heard "referee" used, actually. I'm not sure which the article should use. Isopropyl 05:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If the rules make consistent use of one term we should mention that (and probably use it for the article) making a note that other terms are colloquial but still used. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, too, at all levels and on both coasts, I've only heard "director" and never "referee". Thus, even if the rules use the latter term, until it actually becomes more mainstream, we ought to use "director". --Beefnut 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The English translation of the FIE rules makes use of the term "referee" consistently. The use of the term referee is now much more common, but being a recent switch in nomenclature, you still have other terms in use. For the article, I would say use the official term "referee". Whpq 21:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, "director" is an older term that has fallen into disservice in the last many years. I believe it comes from a time when there were no electric boxes. A bout would have a jury of two judges and a director. The role of the judges was to ensure that touches were reported, and to aid the director in enforcing rules (i.e. the boundaries of the strip). The director's responsibility was to call the action and award touches. With the introduction of electric boxes, judges were rarely, if ever, required, and bouts were officated by a single person who basically takes on the role and positioning of the director. However, as this person was also responsible for monitoring things that the judges formerly monitored (again, strip boundaries, covering target), they are more than "just" a director. As the English translation of the FIE rulebook does use "referee" to the exclusion of all else, I would suggest that "director" is something of an anachronism, and used only informally, while "referee" is the officially endorsed term. xander 207.213.160.105 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon, sir/madam, but the above comments clearly show that "director" is still very much in use. In the dry fencing system that you refer to, the "president of the jury" is the correct term, as he or she presides over the four judges who monitor the action. Also, you may want to review dry fencing rules; judges do not simply watch out for strip boundaries, as they also play a role in the awarding of touches. Thank you for your comments. Isopropyl 01:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Without disagreeing that the article should reflect the official rules, I want to mention that the change had nothing to do with electric fencing, or if it did -- which does not tally with my recollection -- it was specifically the introduction of electrical sabre. "Director" continued in use for many years after electrical scoring was introduced for foil and épée. (In Olypmic fencing that happened in 1956 for foil and 1936 for épée.) Nor is it true that judges were no longer required with electrical scoring. At least when I was competing in épée, it was not uncommon to use "floor judges" when a bout took place on an ungrounded strip. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My old club and coach constantly used the term "director" while the rest of the referees in my division (Virginia) insisted on being referred to as "referees". RECblue8 18:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fencing masters?

I'm only a complete newbie to fencing, but I'm curious as to why there needs to be a separate list for US fencing masters? Surely you could equally start making a list for every country then? Unless there's a particular reason why the US deserves special mention, perhaps the list should be removed or combined with the international list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.1.151 (talk • contribs) .

I've just rearranged the fencing masters and split up all the modern ones according to their country.Cat-o-nine-meows 03:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This section needs clarification

I found this in the sabre section, and can't really understand it:

Unlike foil and épée, in modern sport sabre, the crossover is not allowed. This rule change was made so that referees would not have to try to determine right of way when both fencers simply fleched, or ran at each other. However, recently some sabre fencers have been using a technique known as the "flying lunge", or "flunge" for short. This attack starts like a fleche, but the fencer pushes off from the ground, and flies forward. The legs almost cross at the high point of the jump, but then the front leg is brought forward to catch the fencer.

Ok, first off it defines this technique in jargon terms. It starts off saying that a "crossover is not allowed". Well what is a crossover in the first place? Do you mean crossing over of the legs as in a normal walking gait? And what, exactly is the "flech" that the flunge is modifying? If it is, as the article seems to state, simply the matter of running at each other, why is there even a term for this? And if I read the flunge correctly, one of the two fencers is jumping into the air and then doing something with his/her legs (the description is unclear). Are they striking the other fencer with their leg? Or by "catch" do you simply mean they land on their forward leg? If its the later, the wording should be changed to say that.

Maury 13:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could have looked at the glossary, which is linked from the top of the article. That's always a good place to go, and it has definitions of the fleche and crossover (cross). A fleche is not simply running at each other, but you would know that if you had read the glossary. The definition of a flunge is perfectly correct, and it isn't the fault of the authors of the article if you simply did not read the glossary. The description is quite clear, but maybe some images of a flunge would be helpful in your understanding. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any. However, you can try your own search to see if you can turn up any images. --digital_me 20:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

The new images for valid target area are sweeter than high fructose corn syrup. Props to whoever found them! Isopropyl 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! I raise my glass (well, not really :P) to whoever found them. The old ones sure were ugly!

They are nicely drawn but not very technically sound. The fencer looks ever so slightly off balance (for one thing, he clearly has most of his weight on his back foot). Is there a reason for why we cannot use the pictures in the FIE Rules and Regs? They are clear, stylish and unlikely to spark too much debate about technique. Cat-o-nine-meows 11:50, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

Yes. It's illegal. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely this would come under "fair use", provided we attribute the source etc. Cat-o-nine-meows 14:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, although fair use is a gray area. However, it's better to use a free alternative if one is available. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gauntlet/Right of way

First off, I've never heard "gauntlet" used to refer to a glove. Maybe it's a colloquial term for the manchette?

Second, the "new right of way" section that was added seems dubious at best. When I direct, I still call forward motion without intent as a march; I recognize priority when the fencer initiates an attack by moving his point relative to the opponent's target area. I haven't heard anything about giving forward motion priority. Isopropyl 04:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

From the applicable section of the current edition of the FIE rules:

(t.7.1) L'attaque est l'action offensive initiale exécutée en allongeant le bras et menaçant continuellement la surface valable de l'adversaire, précédant le déclenchement de la fente ou de la flèche (Cf. t.56 ss, t.75 ss). ("The attack is the initial offensive action executed by extending the arm and continually menacing the adversary's target area, preceding the release of the lunge or flèche." My translation without reference to existing English language rules.)

I refer those who believe in the existence of the new rule to t.56 for foil, and t.75 for sabre, which describes what constitutes an "attaque correctement exécutée" (correctly executed attack). In every case in both weapons, it says a valid attack occurs when the arm is extended (quand l'allongement du bras). Of particular interest is t.56.2.d, which explicitly states that for foil, advancing with a bent arm is not an attack but a preparation.

This is not to say that some directors don't act otherwise. Some are quite insistent about it. That doesn't make them right. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I agree with the rules above, but not what was added to the article:

"A new rule that has been put into practice is recognizing the forward movement of a fencer as right of way. This makes it considerably more difficult to score an attack in preparation, because it is necessary to take right of way from the advancing fencer by making blade contact. Otherwise, it will continue to be the advancing fencer's attack, and therefore his point."

The problem I have with the section posted to the article is that it refers to the "forward movement of a fencer" and not the fencer's arm or point. As you say, moving forward with a bent arm is not an attack, and the director would be correct to call it a march or a preparation. I'm glad we agree :) Isopropyl 06:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you. I provided a cite in case of a re-revert. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

There has been discussion on the right nomenclature to use (referee vs. director, and glove vs. gauntlet). It does not make sense to litter the article with parenthetical equivalents. I've removed the gauntlet reference. The English translation of the FIE rules uses the term "glove" with the term "gauntlet" to refer to the extended protective cuff.Whpq 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Need help on the external pages

The Foil page, the Sabre page, and the Épée page, are all in horrible condition. I've done quite a bit of work on the Sabre page, seeing as that's the only weapon I'm profficient in, however I think a lot of work needs to be done on all of the pages. In particular, I think we need some pictures for the Sabre page, and some better ones for the Foil and Épée pages, since most people won't get much from what's there. Vjasper 19:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved Épée to Épée_(Fencing), as per the naming of the other two external weapons pages.--digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Creating a new page for "anatomy of weapons"

To be straightforward - that section is pretty boring (at least the discussion on grips), and I believe keeping it in this "overview" fencing article will cause readers to lose interest. I'd create a new article for that material, but I don't know what would be an appropriate title. My gut tells me to move all the stuff on grips to a page called "grip (sport fencing)", and to remove the title "anatomy of the weapons" and clean up any mess afterwards. Comments? --Beefnut 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems like something logical to do, I would be willing to help with that if we decide to go forward with it. Grip (sport fencing) or Grip (fencing) would probably work well. We definitly need a section on the anatomy of the weapons, but the grip crap is just bogging it down. Hopefully, this will also allow us to add lots of nice details about all the grips. --digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs to go somewhere else. Perhaps it could be broken up into a series of Wiktionary entries. Failing that, "Hilt (Sword)" could be a good title.Cat-o-nine-meows 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Footwork

Something about the footwork section strikes me as odd. No offense to whomever wrote it, but I think it deserves to be looked at more closely. Isopropyl 21:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it. Sorry, I didn't have time to post a note up here at the time. I also let a few typos through, but I think I've now picked most of them out. What I basically tried to do was rewrite what was already there (minus the minor confusion between the fencing stance and the en garde position) in a way that would make more sense to a non-fencer or a novice. Is there a problem with what I wrote? Please discuss before reverting, because I honestly don't think the old version was that great.Cat-o-nine-meows 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything. I guess I'm just kind of unfamiliar with seeing the mechanics spelled out is all. You're right, the previous section wasn't glowing. Isopropyl 23:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Épée

I have just rewritten the Épée section. The old version contained one or two inaccuracies, and the wording was a little imprecise - hence all the disagreements and reverts over "light" versus "heavy". If people want to keep the weapon entries short, some of the details I included might be better off in the dedicated entry. (Pavel 15:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

Clothing

Might I suggest updating the kevlar reference?? Kevlar is no longer used, as it breaks down in chlorine and UV light (so if you wash an old kevlar FIE uni in the washing machine, then hang it in the sun to dry, you've screwed it twice).

There are other, newer ballistic fabrics such as Dyneema which ARE used in FIE gear because they don't have kevlar's weak points (that's what we get for using a fabric for use outside it's intended usage....but after Smirnov, kevlar was the only game in town)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.30 (talk • contribs) 2 April 2006 (UTC)

High School Fencing

Is it fair to say that high school fencing is mostly in New England? There is a pretty big conference in the Greater Chicago Metropolitan Area and another big one near Columbus, Ohio. Peaceman 02:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean high school fencing as in high schoolers who fence for a club, or high schoolers who fence for their high school? Because in Colorado, there are tons of fencers who are in high school, but fence for clubs. AFAIK, the only HS with a fencing "team" is Regis, but that's a club, and they never go to tournaments. -digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it's mostly confined to New England and New Jersey for whatever reason. I come from the Midwest, and to us fencing is what you use to keep the cows in. Isopropyl 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

lol whatever...it's just that my high school's team competes with other high schools from the local area and nearby states and such so I thought it might be worth mentioning. Peaceman 03:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following until it can be clarified. High school fencing is quite prevalent in Colorado/New Mexico/Arizona, so either the section should not be reinserted, or it should be edited.

Section follows:

== High school fencing ==

The practice of competitive fencing on the high school level is considered a small, local sport of the North Eastern region of the United States, particularly New Jersey and Long Island. The majority of ::schools in these areas do not have fencing programs, and it is traditionally run at only some schools. The sport of fencing is considered rather costly on the high school level, as many competitive high school ::teams are of private academies, who strive to excel at the sport through use of recruiting programs and talent scouts.

Instead of fencing for a school at this level, most fencers choose to fence for a club.

Section ends.--digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also a middle/high school fencing league in Southern California, drawing public and private school teams from Los Angeles, San Diego, and occasionally out of state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.81.231 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Foil

Just redid Foil - mostly rewording, also added a little information about history and removed some more contentious and less relevant bits (Pavel 18:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

A proposal for splitting out the anatomy of the weapons

The fencing article is currently clogged by the anatomy of the weapons section. I would suggest that this section be split from the article, so as to give it a more thorough and encyclopedic treatment. I would be more than happy to take care of this, but I need to know what the consensus is, I.E. what sections should be split, how they should be represented in the main Fencing article, etc... I am looking for an intelligent discussion here, because this issue has really been bothering some other people, as well as me.--digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Penalties

The description of the penalty for stepping off the side of the piste is incorrect. Stepping off the side of the piste is penalised by your opponent gaining 1m of ground, which is a huge difference - it means stepping off the edge of the piste within your own 2m warning area will almost certainly result in the loss of a hit. Also it's 'refusal to salute' not 'failure to salute' that gets you a black card. GBM 08:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you know if this same 1m penalty applies if you go off the edge of the piste during a fleche? Because whenever I've been fencing and have gone off/have had my opponent go off as a result of a fleche (which is almost always how you go off the side), we've just started back where we were (assuming no touch was scored.)--digital_me^(t/c) 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends. The one metre penalty applies any time you step off of the strip while in front of your opponent. So, if you step off of the strip before passing them, you will be penalised. If you step off afterwards, you will not be penalised. While there is an official definition of "passed" (I believe it is when the hips pass, but it may the shoulders *shrugs*), it is pretty much up to the referee. Most refs won't penalise you for going off during a fleche, even if you do so before you pass, as long as it is not terribly blatant.

Picture

Could anyone find a more revelant picture than the one the graces the begining of this article? There are far better pictures then a woman on poster not wearing her equipment for a tournament more than 100 years ago.--24.13.240.36 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also for the Historical fencing section, please get a better picture. Historical Fencing is far more developed than that photo suggests.

I, for one, quite like the picture at the beginning of the article. It is easy on the eye and has some sense of history, which is one of the major selling points of fencing. It is also quite "non-denominational", in that it doesn't promote any specific weapon or style of fencing. Incidentally, so far as I can tell, the woman is actually wearing full kit by the conventions of the time.

Completely agree about the Historical Fencing picture. (Pavel 10:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Not to mention the Epeebegin.jpg picture. Horrible photo. Bad form on both fencers and having noncompliant uniforms. Bunbury (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I Completely agree. There are some fantastic fencing photos out there, we ought to replace all of the high school quality photos with some olympic ones. --69.118.102.57 (talk) 14:44,

16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the picture is misleading to people who might be interesting in starting the sport for the first time, it could even be off-putting. I have no problem with the picture itself, but I think the article would be much better served with a photograph of what fencing is about today.

Wow.

2 things: 1. Even as a fencer myself, this page is incredibly boring and full of trivial and overly technical information. Poorly written as a whole. It really needs a complete and utter do-over. In saying that, I understand that most fencing information you find on the web is similar: badly written, and aimed at parents who want to know what the hell is going on. Or new fencers who want to know what the hell is going on. Lots of numbers, explanations, attempts to clear up what are some of the most ridiculously ambiguous and ever-changing rules of any modern sport. This article, however, shouldn't be modelled after anything like that. It's cool that you have the exact lockout times, but is it needed? 2. Lots of subtle jabs at the way foil's going. And generally, all the mentions of how fencing's rules change frequently are scattered throughout the article in their specific little catagories. Maybe make one, distinct header discussing the state of flux the sport is in?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiliquiern (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Links

Is it just me or does it seem like the link to National Fencing Academy is advertising? RECblue8 18:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following web-page provides a very nice introduction to the sport, which may serve as a template for editing. The illustration of the referee's hand-signals would likely be useful. http://www.usfencing.org/do/contentItem?contentId=13 Rhydderch69 04:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling standard

I reverted the change from "maneuver" to "manoeuvre" because the former was not incorrect; it's standard American spelling. Looking over the article, there appears to be an unsystematic hodge-podge of American and British spelling conventions. (For instance, "penalize" and "penalise" are both used, a large majority being the former.)

Personally I don't care which one is used, but one should be selected and adhered to. Absent that, correcting spelling "errors" that are really differences in convention is pointless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard seems to be to use the spelling appropriate to the nationality of the subject of the article (e.g. United States would use American spelling, and United Kingdom would use commonwealth.) WP:MOS says that "[if] there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." Looking back, RjLesch appears to have been the first significant contributor (as far as I can tell) and he was American, so I think that American spellings should be used, because of what the MOS says. If there isn't any significant opposition to this, I'll see about switching the article over in a week or so.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The official rules for sport fencing from the FIE are written in French. The authorised translated rules for English are provided by the British Fencing Association. Any usage and teminology in the article should be consistent with the official rules. -- Whpq 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Much as I love the Queen's English, my impression is that the governing body of the sport in the United States translates the FIE rules itself. Certainly the "official language" used in international competition is French, (or the language of the host country) with no special status granted to English of any flavor. I suspect this brings us back to the MOS.Rhydderch69 05:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite correct. The FIE website provides PDFs for the French laguage rules and a link to the British Fencing Association who do the English translation. The USFA provides a set of rules which govern fencing in the US, and can be different from the FIE rules. And as stated in the editor's note This current edition is based, in large part on the British translation of the FIE Rules. -- Whpq 10:00, 7 August 2006(UTC)

Fair enough, my impression is incorrect. Do you think it's wise to revert to British spellings? Either way, counter-conventional spellings will leak in (not to mention contributions from SCA enthusiasts). It would seem that the best solution is one that minimizes this leakage.Rhydderch69 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. I respect Wiki guidelines and would have made this american spelling based on RjLesch's original contribution. The argument that Commonwealth English is the first official translation of the French is also a good one, though and that would about balance it, except that the Commonwealth english spellings are closer to the original french, eg "manoeuvre". This tips the balance for me. I would like to make it Commonwealth english.

IceDragon64 20:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, on the other hand, if we are talking about getting LESS technical, does it really matter which form of English the FIE rules are put in? This isn't a rulebook after all, it's simply an article on fencing, and should be kept very general (as the article seems too technical as it is). However, I agree it is still a tough call. My vote would be American English, due to the original main contributor....

(Also, sorry, I'm a bit new to wikipedia and only noticed Edit Summary after making changes. Only 2 minor ones. 1) when describing the jacket I added that in saber fencing, crotchless jackets are also legal and used and 2) One of the descriptions of saber target area had mentioned the 'palms of the hands'. Changes to 'the hands' as off-target.) Saberswordsmen1 13:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is Cuba

In the Notable Fencers section I did not see Cuba represented. Are there no Cubans who should be listed here? Cubans used a different style that often confounded opponents not familiar with that style. For example, a parry would be made where the point of the foil was still pointed at the opponent's torso -- often the opponent would then just walk onto the tip and lose that point. --SafeLibraries 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to write a section on Cuban fencers, personally, I had never heard about this style, and I don't think many others have, judging from the lack of such a section in the article. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It might well be of interest to begin a section on the history of sport fencing and the competing styles: one could mention the original French, Italian, and Hungarian styles, but more relevant to the character of modern fencing would be the "utilitarian" styles introduced by the "sports machines" -- Cuba being one of them, but the USSR, China, and to a lesser extent Germany all built a very new game: the "flick" in epee can be traced to a Soviet, as can the intensive focus on footwork.Rhydderch69 05:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fencing WikiProject?

I have noticed that the topic of fencing has quite a few related pages now, and I think that it would benefit from having a WikiProject to organize writing of articles and such. If you're interested in this idea, leave a message here, and if the idea gains enough support, I'll get this started.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'd participate in such a project. Twisted86 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes as would I Patar knight 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Are people still interested in doing this?Billsmith453 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Did this ever happen? I'd be interested. Baron ridiculous (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Fencing and User:Patar knight/WikiProject Fencing. Take your pick, but both are inactive. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable fencers

Split it off, into, say, list of fencers or something along those lines? Isopropyl 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article would certainly benefit from splitting off the notable fencers. Instead of a list, I would suggest a category. If the fencers are truly notable, then they should have their own article. Then each of articles can have the appropriate category tagged to it, and you essentially have a self-maintaining list. As it is, most of the entries have a large assortment of details that would either make for a reasonable small article, or at least a decent stub. -- Whpq 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure most notable fencers have enough information about them to make a whole article, though--I mean, their only claim to fame could very well be "won X many awards" with little other information. In any case, I definitely agree with splitting off the section into a List of notable fencers article. --authraw 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow, that's not a red link! In that case, I think it's pretty clear that the contents of that section should be merged into List of notable fencers. --authraw 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the list was part of Linuxbeak's effort to improve the fencing article that didn't move forward. I would hazard a guess that there are entries from the fencing article that aren't in the list article and vice versa, so some form of merge will need to take place if we go with a list. I'm still not convinced that is the best idea. I don't dispute that there will be entries with scant information, but that's what a stub is for. Let's use that as a seed for others to contribute and expand the articles on the individual notable fencers. -- Whpq 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Whpq here, this should be a category, and as he said, there will be stubs, but all great articles start as stubs. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 18:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done the merge, and I'm going ahead with a category to simplify things; I'm thinking Category:Notable fencers. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Make sure it's a subcat of the main fencing cat. Isopropyl 21:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did that. I think I got most of them... if I missed any, please add them. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Philosophies section

I have been bold.

Specifically, in the Philosophies section, I:

• Defined modern fencing. Some may quibble about the use of the word modern. However, that is how this branch of fencing refers to itself, and it is, in fact, the product of the modern era (as opposed to Olympic fencing, which belongs to the postmodern era). This is an emerging branch of fencing with a new national organization. As the president of said organization, I do not feel comfortable writing a WP article about the organization, but I certainly feel okay about writing about the sport. More to come on modern fencing.

• Removed what I felt to be a non-NPOV statement about Olympic fencing regarding frequent changes in the rules. Aside from NPOV, is such a statement appropriate in a summary paragraph that is primarily targeted (presumably) at non-fencers? I would suggest/request that where there is a need to differentiate, the term Olympic fencing be used instead of sport fencing, as modern fencing is also definitely a sport.

• Rewrote the classical fencing paragraph to remove some non-NPOV-ish language, but mostly to differentiate it from modern fencing.

• Edited the paragraph on wheelchair fencing. Previously, the implication was that wheelchair fencing required the ability to move the torso, which is not correct, as there are three different mobility classes, including one for no torso movement at all.

I hope that classifying the content into Olympic and modern (as well as the other forms) will help prevent future edit wars over definitions of terminology and fencing philosophy. With some luck, these two particular different forms of fencing can each recognize other and stop trying to force the other into being something other than what it is, just as many other sports have managed -- they are two different games.

I would appreciate feedback on my edits here on this talk page. Twisted86 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The concept of Olympic Fencing as a "postmodern" era activity is a view only held, as far as I can tell, by proponents of "modern fencing". Certainly as a national referee I have reconstructed actions, but I've never deconstructed them, or referred to Foucalt or Derrida. I am afraid that with the vast difference in scope between the American Fencing League and the USFA claiming "modern fencing" belongs to the AFL is hard to support. Kd5mdk 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. With all respect due to a national referee, I would point out that FIE/USFA fencing does meet several definitions of postmodernism, including the very fluidity of its concept of fencing. However, no insult to USFA/FIE fencing is intended by using the term postmodern. It is simply descriptive (the concept of modern/postmodern fencing is not mine, by the way, but that of Maestro Charles Selberg, author of The Revised Foil). Just as FIE/USFA fencing is simply not my cup of tea, AFL fencing is unlikely to be your cup of tea. There have been far too many trees and electrons sacrificed in the personal Pygmalion projects of proponents of both AFL-style fencing and FIE-style fencing (not to mention the 19th-century classical folks). Instead of continuing to fight, these two groups need to accept that fencing underwent an "evolutionary fork" in the 1980s (concept taken from Mitch Kief at Salle Auriol Seattle) and each let the other group be. So, in that spirit, that brings us to the following questions:

• What do you mean by "the vast difference in scope"? Size of organization? Philosophy? Something else?
• What would you propose instead of using the term postmodern?

Again, thanks for the feedback. Twisted86 06:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When I refer to "vast difference in scope", I'm referring both to the fact that the USFA membership dwarfs that of the AFL by probably an order of magnitude. Also, the USFA is the official National Governing Body of fencing in the United States, and the member of the FIE, which is as far as I know the only international fencing organization (if you discount the SCA). As far as what I would describe FIE/USFA fencing as, "sport fencing" or "Olympic fencing" would be the closest ideas I have, if simple "fencing" is insufficient. As it is, because the USFA dominates the fencing arena in the US, and the FIE and its affiliates dominate it internationally, I feel they have the best claim to "fencing" as a generic activity term. As Postmodernism indicates, postmodern is explicitly and intentionally set up in opposition to "modernism", which was a clear and preexisting concept, whereas I wouldn't say that current fencing practice was set up "in opposition" to anything. Kd5mdk 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your thoughtful response and clarification. I disagree with the statement that current FIE/USFA fencing practice was not set up in opposition to anything. It is an explicit reaction to the problems of hyper-competitiveness and sports nationalism — especially at high levels of competition — which led to notoriously biased juries. Electrification of the scoring process was supposed to largely eliminate bias and make fencing less subjective.

I think, however, that that is probably a question best left to the philosopher kings, as it sounds like we have reached consensus to use the terms "Olympic fencing" to refer to FIE/USFA-style fencing. How about if we use the term "standard fencing" to refer to AFL-style fencing? Obviously, when there is no need to differentiate between the two, "fencing" will suffice for both. Thoughts? Twisted86 19:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Standard fencing" implies that Olympic/FIE fencing is somehow "non-standard", which is untrue, and if anything, FIE/Olympic fencing is standard. I think we should call AFL fencing just that—AFL fencing.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 04:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall, good edits in the philosophies section. With due respect, though "postmodern" fencing seems rather too creative a description for a sport governed by a bunch of elderly Western Europeans and increasingly dominated by Eurasians. I've edited "Olympic Fencing" to be simply Olympic fencing... The idea of opposing Postmodern and Modern fencing seems nice in theory, but somewhat curious in practice. As to AFL fencing, I'm not sure that it doesn't represent, as the "A" suggests, a purely national POV, but I'll accept that that may be a purely personal concern on my part.162.84.166.243 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... The last two comments bring up good points, especially with regard to a national POV, which at this point (and for the foreseeable future) is certainly where the AFL falls.

I would also point out, however, that standard fencing is not a neologism. It's use goes back to at least 1940 (in the old AFLA rules) to differentiate the two scoring systems. The term is also used in both editions of Charles Selberg's Foil. I think with some digging, I could probably find more references. Standard fencing does have a specific meaning -- non-electrical fencing.

However, it is also not accurate to apply standard fencing exclusively to AFL fencing, but not to classical or historical fencing. So, I am comfortable with Olympic fencing and AFL fencing.

Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. It has helped me clarify my own thinking. The names of things, after all, are quite important. Twisted86 17:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some more copyediting and incorporated the suggestions from the above discussion. I also reformatted the section to use subheadings instead of bullets. Comments (and edits!) welcome, as always! Twisted86 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, very nice edit there, Twisted.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits by 195.179.14.236 (talk) to last version by The Fish

An IP edit was made today and reverted by User:Obli. The revert was marked as a minor edit.

While I do not agree with all of the edits made by the IP user, I also do not agree with the revert — especially when it is marked minor and no reason is given in the edit summary. 195.179.14.236 went to considerable trouble to try to pare the article down to some more manageable size. I'd be interested to hear Obli's reasons for his/her reversion. Twisted86 06:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I must have mistaken it for a blanking, which is also why I used to admin rollback, which automatically marks the edit as minor. Since this issue is 2 months old (sorry for not spotting this discussion earlier :)) I assume it's been dealt with. -Obli (Talk)^? 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Film about fencing

I am working on the List of sports films and I remember a film a while back about fencing. First blood rings a bell but I know that can't be right. Does anyone remember--Moonlight Mile 07:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

By the Sword, perhaps? (No Wikipedia article about it; the article of that name is about an unrelated novel by Mercedes Lackey.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sunshine is a must-add. Rhydderch69 03:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)