How did modern fencing become so divorced from useful sword fighting technique?

[by-tor]

Every time I watch fencing, it occurs to me that almost all of the rules encourage behavior that you wouldn't want to do in a real sword fight.

From not being able to circle to not worrying about getting hit as long as you are first, there are just all sorts of things that would doom you in a real sword fight.

So, how did it come to be this way, given that it must have evolved from schools that did teach real sword fighting and not too long ago?

[Kinthalis]

Fencing stopped being useful in the battlefield, then in personal self-defense, and so it was just a matter of time before people focused their energies in developing a sport tradition loosely based on what they knew or thought they knew about the art.

Having said that, we probably have the technology to make trackable, watchable sport out of actual fencing, at least with some weapons, like the rapier.

[Peremensoe]

Fencing isn't derived from the battlefield, but from training for ruled and stylized dueling.

[chrisk]

Yes, as I understand it, the 'right of way' rules were developed to help make sure that duels didn't end in double mortality... if one person has to die because two simply can't live with each other, that's a regrettable but understandable loss. For both to die because they stab each other at the same moment - that's just a tragedy.

[Maeglin]

It's a long story with a pretty simple answer. Fencing in the first half of the 20th century was quite classical and not too dissimilar from 19th century technique. The biggest change in the sport occurred when electric scoring replaced judges. The change in gear radically changed effective sport technique, making fencing technique today have almost no connection the sport of even 50 or so years ago. Interpretations of right of way have also had some very counterintuitive results.

Right of way rules were important because the foil was a training tool for the smallsword, a weapon with which people actually dueled. Note that there is no priority in epee, a dueling weapon in its own right.

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

Fencing isn't derived from the battlefield, but from training for ruled and stylized dueling.

This is not quite true. Ritualized dueling postdates some of the most important discoveries of scientific defense with a sword. It wasn't needed on the battlefield; it was needed in the street. A gentleman needed a weapon to protect himself from the Romeo & Juliet levels of urban violence in southern Europe in the Renaissance. What we usually think of as dueling comes quite a bit later.

[jsgoddess]

My husband and I were watching some of the gold medal women's (foil? I think) fencing yesterday and yeah, it just seemed really goofy. I'm not saying it looks easy, just that the rules seem impenetrable and extremely subjective.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

My husband and I were watching some of the gold medal women's (foil? I think) fencing yesterday and yeah, it just seemed really goofy. I'm not saying it looks easy, just that the rules seem impenetrable and extremely subjective.

Try watching epee: it's as if the only rule is "stab the other fencer first." Nothing impenetrable or subjective; in a duel, one would've drawn first blood for the win, and, well, that's pretty much it.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

This is not quite true. Ritualized dueling postdates some of the most important discoveries of scientific defense with a sword. It wasn't needed on the battlefield; it was needed in the street. A gentleman needed a weapon to protect himself from the Romeo & Juliet levels of urban violence in southern Europe in the Renaissance. What we usually think of as dueling comes quite a bit later.

Cool. How have you come by this knowledge? You're a historian, IIRC?

The reference to electric scoring brings to mind the current controversies over instant replay across sports, electronic calling of balls and strikes, concussion and quarterback- protecting rules, etc...

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Try watching epee: it's as if the only rule is "stab the other fencer first." Nothing impenetrable or subjective; in a duel, one would've drawn first blood for the win, and, well, that's pretty much it.

Cool, thanks!

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Cool. How have you come by this knowledge? You're a historian, IIRC?

The reference to electric scoring brings to mind the current controversies over instant replay across sports, electronic calling of balls and strikes, concussion and quarterback- protecting rules, etc...

Yes. And a fencer. It's not really my area in general, but I was a (credited) helper in the translation of a key Italian rapier text once upon a time.

The change in fencing induced by electrification cannot be overestimated. George Patton was an excellent fencer in his youth and wrote an sabre drill manual in 1914. The sabre technique he discusses, with an eye to actual use on the battlefield, is closely related to contemporary sport epee fencing. So even as late as WWI, there were honest-to-goodness connections between sport and martial art.

Electrification cut this connection. Once upon a time, a judges were able to regulate something intangible about the nature of touches. If they looked insufficient (i.e., they didn't conform to what judges thought was good technique), they were discarded. But once that element of human judgment was taken away, there was nothing to anchor the technique to contemporary expectations. People then knew what fencing looked like because it had been perpetuated by historical schools, was still practiced in the army, and still had some of tenuous connection to the battlefield. So if a touch didn't look like fencing, it wasn't a touch.

The sense of good taste was probably already on the way out when electrification transformed the sport. Nevertheless, gear change hastened its death. The buzzer doesn't care what fencing looks like. It just registers hits at a sufficient pressure on the target area. Blades became softer and more whip-like. Human judges still had to determine the application of right of way rules, but when you use a sword that no longer works like a sword, what does an "attack" really mean anymore?

So once upon a time fencing was the preserve of the elite and aristocratic. Electrification democratized it, taking it out of the control of the elitist establishment. This is laudable in theory, but it further marginalized an already dying activity by making it, as jsgoddess says, really goofy. The fencing establishment's response to this years ago was to make masks out of lexan, so that you could see the fencer's faces. Somehow this was supposed to make it more accessible and fun to watch. The evidence speaks for itself.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

.....The sense of good taste was probably already on the way out when electrification transformed the sport. Nevertheless, gear change hastened its death. The buzzer doesn't care what fencing looks like. It just registers hits at a sufficient pressure on the target area. Blades became softer and more whip-like. Human judges still had to determine the application of right of way rules, but when you use a sword that no longer works like a sword, what does an "attack" really mean anymore?

In your spare time, could you explain the "right of way" rule in a way that the average Olympic fencing viewer (once every four years) could understand it? The announcers seem to be more interested is describing why the fencers are screaming after a point is scored.

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

In your spare time, could you explain the "right of way" rule in a way that the average Olympic fencing viewer (once every four years) could understand it? The announcers seem to be more interested is describing why the fencers are screaming after a point is scored.

Sure. The basic idea is a paradox of modern fencing.

The foil was never a dueling weapon. It was a training tool for smallsword, a real dueling weapon. Smallsword fell out of fashion, but foil continued to coexist along with epee and sabre, real 19th century dueling weapons. Foil was fun, but it was soon recognized that it was very "decadent." People could get away with doing things in foil bouts that they would never do with live steel.

So the idea of "priority" entered foil fencing. Priority basically says that if your opponent attacks you, you must deal with his attack first before launching an attack of your own. There are a few well-known ways of dealing with an attack. But the idea is, you want to prevent him from hitting you before trying to attack yourself. What constituted an attack was equally well-known and relatively obvious. Even a 19th century foil bore passing resemblance to a sword. It was stiff. People knew what an attack looked like. Parry (or something) first, then launch your own attack.

The goal was to prevent a double hit situation. If one hit immediately followed another, it was impossible to tell which landed first. But it hardly mattered; double hits were shit fencing so the point would be thrown out anyway.

Enter electrification. Now we can tell with great precision which hit landed first. And now swords don't look or behave like swords, so it is no longer immediate what an "attack" even looks like. Right of way is a complicated system of rules that govern what an attack is and how a fencer must respond to this attack before making an attack of his own. These rules and the interaction between rules and technique are very subtle. As long as you follow the right of way rules to the letter and score a touch a fraction of a second before your opponent, the point is good. Whether you've done this and not the hit itself is subject to human judgment. Even if you landed your touch first, if your opponent launched his "attack" prior to when you began your technique and you did not deal properly with the attack, you don't get the touch. So whether fencers conform to the letter of the rules in a bout is highly material. How judges interpret these rules determines what techniques are admissible and even what an "attack" actually is.

Does this help?

[John DiFool]

I wonder how dueling (with full armor) in say the Society of Creative Anachronism compares?

[Max the Immortal]

Does anyone here know how well kendo holds up when compared to practical Japanese swordsmanship?

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

This is not quite true. Ritualized dueling postdates some of the most important discoveries of scientific defense with a sword. It wasn't needed on the battlefield; it was needed in the street. A gentleman needed a weapon to protect himself from the Romeo & Juliet levels of urban violence in southern Europe in the Renaissance. What we usually think of as dueling comes quite a bit later.

I'm not sure how you think this contradicts what I said, unless you're just using "fencing" to mean "scientific" swordplay.

Yes, dueling comes later, with some derivation in street fighting. Fencing, in anything like the modern sense, later still, with some derivation in dueling. The OP is correct that elements that would be important in unregulated swordplay--on a battlefield or in the street--are not present in fencing. This is deliberate.

[Juggler]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

It just registers hits at a sufficient pressure on the target area.

Just one remark, the commentator on swedish television just said they have removed the sensors for sufficient pressure since they broke all the time. Now you just need a hit.

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

I wonder how dueling (with full armor) in say the Society of Creative Anachronism compares?

To my knowledge, the most successful SCA fighters are to a man ex-sport fencers.

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

Does anyone here know how well kendo holds up when compared to practical Japanese swordsmanship?

The native Japanese martial art is iaijutsu in its modern incarnation, iaido. Kendo is a sport.

[NoClueBoy]

Watching fencing on the Olympics, I'm somewhat surprised somewhat at just how fast it is. Not much of a spectator sport, unless you're another fencer I guess.

I'm enjoying Homer, tho.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

.....As long as you follow the right of way rules to the letter and score a touch a fraction of a second before your opponent, the point is good. Whether you've done this and not the hit itself is subject to human judgment. Even if you landed your touch first, if your opponent launched his "attack" prior to when you began your technique and you did not deal properly with the attack, you don't get the touch. So whether fencers conform to the letter of the rules in a bout is highly material. How judges interpret these rules determines what techniques are admissible and even what an "attack" actually is.

Does this help?

Yes, thanks. So, if I attack you at the same time you attack me, the "proper" (point scoring-wise) thing for me to do would be to block/redirect your attack before attempting to touch you or no points will be scored.

There also seems to be a "distance issue", for lack of a better word, where the match is stopped if the competitors remain too close to one another. I assume that's because it's difficult to touch someone with the point if you're close enough to touch them with your hilt. Since no one would be in a position to score a "proper" point, they may as well start over. Is that correct?

[N9IWP]

For an intersting (not suer how accurate) story about Fencing, read Phule's Company. Main charater starts a ragtag military band, and has a competition with an elite "show" company to see who wins a posting. In addition to parade marching and obstical course, they do fencing.

Brian

[YogSosoth]

I wish they'd have real sword fighting at the Olympics

[Mahaloth]

They need to film a version of Hamlet where they fencing goes as quick as it does in modern fencing.

[Max the Immortal]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

The native Japanese martial art is iaijutsu in its modern incarnation, iaido. Kendo is a sport.

Err, I meant that I wonder if kendo is as divorced from its real sword fighting "ancestor" as fencing is.

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

Err, I meant that I wonder if kendo is as divorced from its real sword fighting "ancestor" as fencing is.

Pretty sure that's what he meant.

Kendo is sport and it's about as related to the actual martial art as modern sport fencing is to it's historical counterpart.

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

I'm not sure how you think this contradicts what I said, unless you're just using "fencing" to mean "scientific" swordplay.

Yes, dueling comes later, with some derivation in street fighting. Fencing, in anything like the modern sense, later still, with some derivation in dueling. The OP is correct that elements that would be important in unregulated swordplay--on a battlefield or in the street--are not present in fencing. This is deliberate.

I interpreted your comment to refer to fencing in general. I think we have no disagreement.

Originally Posted by Juggler

Just one remark, the commentator on swedish television just said they have removed the sensors for sufficient pressure since they broke all the time. Now you just need a hit.

About this, I had no idea. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Given that sport fencing has transformed dramatically in the past 50 years, the pressure requirement looks pointless and arbitrary. Still, it makes me a little bit sad.

Originally Posted by doorhinge

Yes, thanks. So, if I attack you at the same time you attack me, the "proper" (point scoring-wise) thing for me to do would be to block/redirect your attack before attempting to touch you or no points will be scored.

There also seems to be a "distance issue", for lack of a better word, where the match is stopped if the competitors remain too close to one another. I assume that's because it's difficult to touch someone with the point if you're close enough to touch them with your hilt. Since no one would be in a position to score a "proper" point, they may as well start over. Is that correct?

Yes to both. Once upon a time, it would have been pretty obvious to a layperson what attacking and defending meant. With a stiff weapon, you have to extend it and shove in your opponent's general direction. This is less true nowadays. Think about a foil as a whip rather than a sword. If you want to give something a good whipping, all you have to do is pull your hand back subtly to crack the whip.

One of the best ways to score a touch is, essentially, to whip your opponent with the foil. An "attack" is a motion that enables the delivery of a touch. So pulling your hand back a little to get a good whipping on is an "attack" that requires a response before your opponent can deliver an attack of his own. That such a subtle movement would constitute an attack is not at all obvious to anyone who thinks that fencing has some connection to swordplay.

And yes, when the fencers close the action stops. This is pretty consistent with academic swordplay going back to the 18th century. If you are close but not too close, you can score a touch on your opponent by whipping him on the top of the shoulder or on the back.

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

Err, I meant that I wonder if kendo is as divorced from its real sword fighting "ancestor" as fencing is.

I am not a kendoka, so the best I can do is say that I know quite a few of them both from the martial arts scene and because a bunch of my Japanese in-laws do kendo. My understanding is that despite some superficially traditional aspects, kendo is about as divorced from iaijutsu as sport fencing is from western swordplay.

I think that classical fencing is pretty spectator-friendly. It is more conservative and lacks the obvious athleticism of modern fencing. Speed and power are less important than timing, distance, and control. A good bout is a conversation between the two fencers. But it's not totally impenetrable to watch.

There are some great examples from old movies, actually. Movie actors like Basil Rathbone and Danny Kaye were excellent fencers and much of their technique is orthodox and admirable. Danny Kaye in The Court Jester is magnificent. I am sure I have mentioned on the boards before that my favorite movie fencing scene is between Basil Rathbone and John Barrymore in the 1936 Romeo and Juliet. I'd fly to London myself to watch something like that.

[Animastryfe]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

The native Japanese martial art is iaijutsu in its modern incarnation, iaido. Kendo is a sport.

I thought, and Wikipedia seems to agree with me, that Iaijutsu is the art of specifically drawing the sword and attacking, while Kenjutsu is the name for Japanese swordsmanship in general. The first sentence of the Kendo Wikipedia article, which cites the All Japan Kendo Federation, states that Kendo "is a modern Japanese martial art of sword-fighting based on traditional swordsmanship (kenjutsu)".

I believe Max the Immortal was asking about the differences between Kendo and Kenjutsu.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

My husband and I were watching some of the gold medal women's (foil? I think) fencing yesterday and yeah, it just seemed really goofy. I'm not saying it looks easy, just that the rules seem impenetrable and extremely subjective.

I am not a sports fan, so possibly this remark is stupid--but the rules of most sports seem impenetrable and subjective to me. What is the purpose of disallowing carrying the ball in basketball, for example, other than to make the game more challenging? I can't see that foil rules are any different.

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Animastryfe

I thought, and Wikipedia seems to agree with me, that Iaijutsu is the art of specifically drawing the sword and attacking, while Kenjutsu is the name for Japanese swordsmanship in general. The first sentence of the Kendo Wikipedia article, which cites the All Japan Kendo Federation, states that Kendo "is a modern Japanese martial art of sword-fighting based on traditional swordsmanship (kenjutsu)".

I believe Max the Immortal was asking about the differences between Kendo and Kenjutsu.

You are right. Kenjutsu is the Japanese martial art of fencing.

The answer doesn't change. One is sport one is martial art.

Now, I don't know much about modern Kenjutsu, so I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is to what was used in medieval/renaissance battlefields and duels.

Maybe someone can comment on that?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Animastryfe

I thought, and Wikipedia seems to agree with me, that Iaijutsu is the art of specifically drawing the sword and attacking, while Kenjutsu is the name for Japanese swordsmanship in general. The first sentence of the Kendo Wikipedia article, which cites the All Japan Kendo Federation, states that Kendo "is a modern Japanese martial art of sword-fighting based on traditional swordsmanship (kenjutsu)".

I believe Max the Immortal was asking about the differences between Kendo and Kenjutsu.

The above is correct, but Maeglin is also correct that kendo is about as close to kenjutsu as fencing is to duelling. And for many of the same reasons -

• The bamboo practice sword (shinai) is much different from the standard Japanese long sword.
• The allowed target areas in kendo are (IIRC) only the ribs, the wrists, the sides and top of the head, and a thrust to the throat.
• You don't have to hit very hard to score a point in kendo. In kenjutsu, you had to land a blow hard enough to cut into your opponent (obviously) so as to kill or disable him. If he was wearing armor, obviously it was more important still not just to tap, even with a ki-ai.

The traditional practice weapon in kenjutsu is a wooden sword called a bokken, which many swordsmen consider a weapon in its own right. Japan's most famous swordsman, Miyamoto Musashi, won his most famous duel using a wooden sword, and allegedly preferred a wooden weapon because it was less brittle than steel and therefore harder to break.

The Japanese had almost the identical discussion as the Japanese sword retreated from a weapon used in combat to a sporting endeavor, about combat realism.

Regards,
Shodan

[mozchron]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The traditional practice weapon in kenjutsu is a wooden sword called a bokken, which many swordsmen consider a weapon in its own right. Japan's most famous swordsman, Miyamoto Musashi, won his most famous duel using a wooden sword, and allegedly preferred a wooden weapon because it was less brittle than steel and therefore harder to break.

I once witnessed someone get beaten to within an inch of their life with a bokken (long story). It is a serious weapon in the hands of a trained user.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Shodan

You don't have to hit very hard to score a point in kendo. In kenjutsu, you had to land a blow hard enough to cut into your opponent (obviously) so as to kill or disable him.

Yeah, but in kendo you need to hit them with the full force of yer zanshin too, and that oughta count for something !

For the benefit of non-kendokas: zanshin means something like "fighting spirit" or "warrior disposition", and if you hit a point scoring area in the proper form but what the judges deem wasn't enough zanshin, you don't get the point. How do they judge what kind of spirit you got ? Beats me man, but they know that stuff ! Having zanshin coming out the arse certainly seems to involve a lot of frowning and bellowing though. And really, if you don't yell like you've just stepped on your own balls while striking, it can't really count, can it ?

I'm being facetious here, but it really is pretty hoky stuff sometimes. I once witnessed a kendo fight between two legit, properly ancient Japanese masters. They slowly circled each other for quite a while, taking occasional turns to bellow at each other. Sometimes you'd see the point of a shinai twitch ever so slightly. Eventually one of the masters just up and conceded, without a single blow exchanged. Reason given: "His zanshin was so much powerful than mine. I couldn't make a step forward."
Well OK, then. I still want my money back, you old hacks !

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

I am not a sports fan, so possibly this remark is stupid--but the rules of most sports seem impenetrable and subjective to me. What is the purpose of disallowing carrying the ball in basketball, for example, other than to make the game more challenging? I can't see that foil rules are any different.

Yeah, but games like basketball feel like they're supposed to be arbitrary because they aren't related to real world actions. And I wouldn't say they are impenetrable, seeing as you figured out the rule. With fencing, someone here had to ask what the heck a rule meant. In other sports, you get a pretty good idea of what the rules are by just watching.

[Airk]

Originally Posted by mozchron

I once witnessed someone get beaten to within an inch of their life with a bokken (long story). It is a serious weapon in the hands of a trained user.

No kidding. It's a big long piece of bloody hard wood. It's like beating someone with a baseball bat, only it's lighter, more maneuverable, and the striking area is smaller, resulting in a lot more concentrated force. I would -not- want to be hit with one of those things. You just need to HOLD one to know that they're not kidding around.