From: burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Dakin Burdick)
Subject: Re: French Grips
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:26:24 GMT

Mark Kampe writes:

>|> It seems to me that most of the advantages of the pistol grip are only
>|> applicable to modern fencing with a light weapon.

Morgan Burke responds:

>I was not proposing the use of pistol grips on rapiers.  There are many
>"real" swords that could benefit from pistol grips. 

but then says:

>Weapons like the epee (foils aren't real weapons, by definition) were 
>developed in a context of personal duels with no armour.  They are *not* 
>weapons of war...

And then goes on to say:

>Even a real duelling weapon like epee presumes
>that if some guy came at you with a broadsword, you're best response would
>be to shoot him.  You are casting these weapons into roles they simply 
>weren't intended to serve.

I think Morgan's argument just took a nosedive here.  He argues that
duelling weapons are "real" weapons, but that they cannot stand up to a weapon
of war, such as a broadsword.  In doing so, he invalidates his whole
excuse for a pistol grip (that it gives better control over a light
"real" weapon -- remember that we're not talking about sport fencing
here).  The whole point to a weapon is that it be useful in combat.
A pistol grip is not.

Let's go back to Mark:

>|> In summary, I tend to agree with the original poster.  The pistol grip
>|> gives a considerable advantage to a fencer.  It probably would not give
>|> much advantage to a sword fighter.

Morgan responds:

>Things have progressed somewhat since the 16th century.  Modern fencing,
>its weapons, and its techniques are directly descended from the most 
>recent times that swordfighting was actually used to kill and maim people
>(mid-late 19th century).  Given that duellists of that time were using 
>weapons very similar to what we compete with today, any improvements we can 
>come up with will translate very well back to the most recent "real" sword
>fighting we know of.  Anything else is an exercise in nostalgia.

First, modern fencing may be descended from swordfighting, but it's
techniques are not the same.  A foil whip cannot be done with a "real"
weapon.  Modern fencing also does not use both hands, and it uses a
lead arm stance that is good for the initial attack but not great
for grappling for the kill or taking the guy's blade away from him.
Fencing is not the same as real swordfighting, just as sport karate
is not the same as streetfight, although both may teach techniques
that can be converted for the street.

Secondly, modern fencing weapons are not useful weapons.  You said 
yourself that a broadsword  or rapier would defeat it.  I assume
you would also include the cavalry sabre (the last sword carried
by the military).  If some idiot came after me in  a duel (which
would be even rarer than running up against somebody with a sword
over in Vietnam or Iraq) with an epee, parry and close, keeping
his blade jammed with my lead arm (which can get cut up if the guy
wants to) and then use the blade in my trailing arm to jab into
the guy's stomach and then rip around a bit.  Epee/fencer dude
would be history.

Lastly, the french grip is superior to the pistol grip in that
it can actually teach you something useful in self-defense.  You
won't get into a fight with a sword on the street, but you might
use a knife, which has a grip closer to that of the french grip than
the pistol (unless you love push daggers).  A french grip will also
teach you to use your umbrella, or your cane, or a pipe, or a stick
to thrust into your opponent.  A nice jab to the solar plexus or
groin or throat is plenty painful, even without a blade.

Dakin
burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing