From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: French Grips
Date: 12 Dec 1992 01:39:20 GMT
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sitka.triumf.ca

In article <1gb3uvINNp9q@west.West.Sun.COM>, markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Allen 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.  A rapier weighs at
|> least four times as much as a foil, and the modern beat and disengage
|> maneuvers are probably well beyond the strength of most people, and
|> perhaps even the keneisological limits of human wrist and fore-arm tendons.

I was not proposing the use of pistol grips on rapiers.  There are many
"real" swords that could benefit from pistol grips.  Most 19th century 
duelling weapons (including the epee), and many earlier ones would qualify. 
Also, the pistol grip allows a much more powerful grasp of the weapon than 
do more traditional grips such as the French, so the strength argument
works against you there.  It is possible to make it even stronger, but
it's illegal due to safety considerations (wouldn't want to actually hurt
anyone, right?)  Of course, pistol grips are optimized for thrusting 
attacks, so all bets are off with cutting weapons.

|> The modern pistol grip is not a "superior grip for swords" or even necessarily
|> a "superior grip for point weapons".  It is a superior grip for light point
|> weapons used in a particular style.  

Such weapons have been used for centuries.

|> If a differently shaped grip would have
|> given swordsmen considerable advantage, you can be sure that the romans 
|> would have found it.  If anyone had actually used light weapons like foils
|> in warfare, you can be sure that effective grips and techniques would have
|> been developed quickly.  Even in 1500 BC, military innovations spread very
|> quickly.  

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 the Romans (and everybody else prior to c.1700, for 
that matter) had no reason (or metallurgical technology) to develop them 
or their grips.

|> All of my experience with combat between foils and heavier weapons suggest
|> that the foil fencer is at a great disadvantage (independently of the respective
|> skills of the fencers).  It is tempting to believe that the lighter weapon
|> would give a great advantage - but it is a purely offensive weapon.  There
|> are no effective parrys for a foil fencer to use against a multi-pound
|> weapon impelled by full strength.

It is an artificial comparison.  Why on earth would a foilist take on
some guy with a broadsword?  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.

|> 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.

Not to a sword fighter using outmoded weapons and techniques, agreed.

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.

.......................................... Morgan Burke
                                           morgan@sitka.triumf.ca