HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kreinddm@ucunix.san.uc.edu (David M Kreindler)
Subject: Re: A few questions and observations
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:10:06 GMT

In article <1g3uimINNduu@tamsun.tamu.edu> rgd3729@tamsun.tamu.edu (Greg Dilworth) writes:
>In article <2B24AEA3.4919@deneva.sdd.trw.com> rosen@pooh.sdd.trw.com (Daniel Rosen) writes:
>
>>The second question involves sabre fencing; for quite a while I have
>>developed an attack which I initiate "en pointe" (set up for a point
>>with my arm extended). As my opponent attempts to parry, I disengage
>>and WITHOUT BENDING MY ARM or REMOVING THE POINT FROM BEING INLINE, I
>>bring the saber under his blade (the disengage) then continue the
>>motion bringing it full over to a head cut. Lately, several directors
>>have said that beginning en pointe and continuing to a cut
>>constitutes a break in fencing time and if my opponent hits me prior
>>to the head cut, they declare that I have lost the right of way. I
>>can't find any reference to this in the USFA rules, but perhaps I am
>>not paying close enough attention. Anyone who could shed light on
>>this, please let me know. Thanks a lot. 
>
[First reply omitted.]

There's an additional twist to this, though, and whether or not it
applies to your question is unclear from the way you've explained the
situation.  In sabre, a point-in-line is considered a purely defensive
action; it's different from an attack with the point.  Essentially, you
can't be moving forward with a point-in-line: if you try doing so into
your opponent's attack, you've lost your priority since you no
longer have a point-in-line established, but are executing a (counter-)
attack with the point instead.  (There *are* a bunch of situations in
which you'll be able to score a touch with the counter-attack - opponent
breaks his/her attack, doesn't complete the attack, tries an
unsuccessful prise-de-fer, etc. - but that wasn't what you asked.)
-- 
kreinddm@ucunix.san.uc.edu -------------------------------------------------

"Sometimes you're the windshield / Sometimes you're the bug...." - Dire Straits
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
From: mallen@ugcs.caltech.edu (Gabriela Mallen-Ornelas)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: cross training for fencing
Date: 14 Dec 1992 19:39:14 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: harry.ugcs.caltech.edu

ajl@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Lewis AJ) writes:


>>I'm curious how other people cross train.  I guess the goal here is how to

>Juggling. I took up juggling a year ago, and I swear by it - its relaxing,
>superb for the reflexes, dexterity, muscle tone, etc etc etc.
>its wonderful for warming up as well.
>Since I learned to juggle five balls, my fencing has improved no end.

Yes! I also found that Juggling is awesome for fencing, and viceversa. I often
did better in competitions when I juggled while watching other bouts, and my
juggling was also pretty good after a fencing practice (that's how I did
five balls after 2 months of juggling!). Try it!

-Gabriela Mallen-Ornelas
mallen@ugcs.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: Broadsword fencing - StageFighting
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec7.063944.26315@colorado.edu> klosky@cage.Colorado.EDU (KLOSKY JAMES LEDLIE ) writes:
|
|I was going to say that I am sorry for getting so excited about this, but I'm
|not.  I guess alot of people regard the SCA as a group of whackos who just
|like to hit each other with sticks, but that really isn't the case.  Many
|of us have made a real study of the weapons we use, the footwork required,
|and other factors critical to proper swordfighting.  

I would like to relate an experience.  I went to school, and learned
competative fencing, at a midwestern, er, middle-kingdom :-) school.
I had a couple of friends in SCA there who encouraged me to look
into it, me being interested in history, and fencing.

Well, I showed up to a fighter practice.  I listened, asked a few
questions, looked basically interested.  I was a bit turned off
by the forced, artificial formalism, but I hung.  Someone invited
me to try fighting.  Okay, said I, what do I do?  He put me in
some ratty, duct-taped armor, gave me a shield, and a rattan club he
referred to as a "sword", told me how to hold it, and proceeded to 
knock me silly with his club.  Nice.  

I was at that time teaching beginner fencers, and we were very careful 
to teach them something of form and defense, drill, drill, drill,
then put them on the strip, and go REAL EASY with them.  Not beat them
up.

Well, because my friends did it, I saw that group "perform" several
more times.  The were without skill.  As another poster put it, they
shuffled around, feignted high, hit low, or vice versa, had no
footwork, no balance, no grace.  And these guys were respected for
their abilities!

This impression of SCA fighting I thought was just a singular bad
experience.  But I hear similar stories from other people.  I don't
doubt there are people serious about SCA fighting.  But there are
also definitely jerks like I met, "whackos" who like to hit each
other with sticks, and helpless strangers, with sticks.

		Dave Svoboda
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: Cleaning the uncleanable:
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:09:16 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Dec14.060227.27571@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stuart M Castergine) writes:
>
>
>Anybody have any suggestions for keeping blades from rusting? I wipe
>mine down, but I am loath to oil them, because I am afraid of what the
>oil will do to the glue on the wire -- I have enough problems with
>wires lifting out as it is. I am also worried that oil will get all
>over my nice fencing whites or will get in and gum up my tip.

If you follow my suggestion, your jacket will stay cleaner, but OTHERS will
  hate you if you oil your blade.

Let me suggest that you use "blade condoms".

Go down to the local hardware store and buy 1/2" white PVC pipe.  It comes in
integral-foot lengths, and a 3 foot is just right for our 90 cm [35 inches]
blades.  If you're a cheat who uses 36" or linger blades i have no sympathy
(##)) .

With blade condoms your blades don't have to face the Yecchy Fency Jacket Test.



While you're in the hardware store buy an abrasive-coated foam-rubber block,
called a sanding block.  Buy the soft kind.  The clerks will be able to point
you in the right direction if you bring a weapon and show them what it is you
want to derust.  Your blade won't rust as fast with blade condoms as without,
but they will rust a little, and it's a bit of a psychological lift to brighten
up your blade the evening before the Big Deal Tournament.


I'm an epee fencer, and a hit against a rust spot is a touch against me if it
registers [as it will if the rust successfully insulates his tip from the
metal] so this is serious business to me.  Do you fence foil?  If so, the worst
you can get from a rust spot is a WHITE light.


-dk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
From: jlevine@apollo.HP.COM (Jennifer E. Levine)
Subject: Re: Computer games?
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:52:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

The Quest for Glory series has some sword play.
(at least the first two did)

--Jennifer
jlevine@apollo.hp.com
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: the movie "By The Sword"
Date: 11 Dec 1992 21:25:47 GMT
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sitka.triumf.ca

In article <13918@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, ajl@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Lewis AJ) writes:
|> OK you're on - epee is a weapon for failed foilists.

There's no such thing as a failed foilist (he says desperately).  Only
foilists who have yet to succeed.

Epee is a weapon for _impatient_ foilists.

........................................ Morgan Burke
                                         morgan@sitka.triumf.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Broadsword fencing... Oxymoron?
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:58:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.150127.9520@ac.dal.ca> sinister@ac.dal.ca writes:

>	This is a re-occuring complaint that I have with Rattan (heavy
>sword) fighting.  It is not as structured as fencing in its teaching.  

This is a re-occuring complaint that I have with this newsgroup: gross
generalizations. I have observed fencing groups that have unstructured
teaching, and SCA heavy groups that have structured teaching. Please
don't generalize unless you've observed a significant number of both.
From: sinister@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: Broadsword fencing... Oxymoron?
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:01:27 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Dec12.054400.9034@rtsg.mot.com>, svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda) writes:
> I would like to relate an experience.  I went to school, and learned
> competative fencing, at a midwestern, er, middle-kingdom :-) school.
> I had a couple of friends in SCA there who encouraged me to look
> into it, me being interested in history, and fencing.
> 
> Well, I showed up to a fighter practice.  I listened, asked a few
> questions, looked basically interested.  I was a bit turned off
> by the forced, artificial formalism, but I hung....

	Hi there... I'm  a SCAdian.  If the formalism was forced or
atificial to you, they weren't doing it right.  Around where I am, we are
very sincere about our courtesies and respects.
 
> ...Someone invited
> me to try fighting.  Okay, said I, what do I do?  He put me in
> some ratty, duct-taped armor, gave me a shield, and a rattan club he
> referred to as a "sword", told me how to hold it, and proceeded to 
> knock me silly with his club.  Nice.  
> 
> I was at that time teaching beginner fencers, and we were very careful 
> to teach them something of form and defense, drill, drill, drill,
> then put them on the strip, and go REAL EASY with them.  Not beat them
> up.

	This is a re-occuring complaint that I have with Rattan (heavy
sword) fighting.  It is not as structured as fencing in its teaching.  
Unless you are lucky enough to have a Knight or Squire around to teach,
its been my experience that what different people call "the basics"
vary.  I was lucky and had someone who *taught* me how to fight 
sword and sheild; he was also a Squire, so that is sort of his job....
 
> Well, because my friends did it, I saw that group "perform" several
> more times.  The were without skill.  As another poster put it, they
> shuffled around, feignted high, hit low, or vice versa, had no
> footwork, no balance, no grace.  And these guys were respected for
> their abilities!

	Don't bother comparing fencing technique to Rattan-fighting.
Fencing is comprised of subtlies and elegances borne out of a long
while of refinement having little to do with killing someone.  Rattan
is *warfare*...  It is systematic in its efficiency of *killing* someone.
There is no room for grace....  Although there is the rare fighter
who manages to incorporate it.  
	They are two entirely different systems, borne out of two entirely
different environments.
 
> 

> 		Dave Svoboda


		Michel R. Vaillancourt (SKA: Cosmano)
From: mece25r@jane.uh.edu (Palit, Suman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: FIE gear in general was Re: Maraging blades
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:30 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec11.010120.19137@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, jamys@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Godley) writes...
>In <EMLEE.92Dec9185014@swap2013.shearson.com> emlee@swap2013.shearson.com (Edward Lee) writes:
>>In article <7687@news.duke.edu> cengdahl@carr3.acpub.duke.edu (Christopher Engdahl) writes:
>>>	   Has anyone noticed that the new Maraging steel blades break more often
>>>   than the old ones??  I think this is some sort of lightbulb-conspiracy perp-
>>>   etrated by the manufacturers...
> 
>>I agree!  My first maraging blade was bought in '86 or '87.  It lasted
>>2 high school plsu 1 college seasons.  The ones I have now tend to
>>break mid-way through the second year.
> 
> 
>This seems to be a general trend with all FIE gear.  It also happens with
>the Kevlar jackets as well.  When they were first introduced they were
>very thick, breathed terribly and... well you couldn't damage one if you
>tried.  Now the opposite seems to be the case......


Reading this thread makes me think...shouldn't there be some kind of forum
where we can take our complaints to? maybe THIS is the forum? Maybe we can
mount a signature campaign of sorts, get the distributors and manufacturers
to look our way?

BTW, I've heard that the FIE has decided to do away with Kevlar, and use
a ballistic nylon substitute. It seems that Kevlar looses effectiveness
much faster than thought. Even bending a Kevlar panel would break the fabric,
thus ruining it's effectiveness in transmitting the force of a blow evenly
across the entire fabric. Some kinds of ballistic nylon seem to be better
able to handle rough treatment. Also, ballistic nylon can be bleached, not 
Kevlar. I'm not sure how accurate my information is, that was a TCA salesperson
expositing the superiority of their ballistic nylon stuff vs the competition....


Any thoughts..?



Suman Palit
mece25r@jetson.uh.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
From: norvell@csri.toronto.edu (Theo Norvell)
Subject: Re: A few questions and observations
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Distribution: usa
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:29:09 GMT

In article <2B24AEA3.4919@deneva.sdd.trw.com> rosen@pooh.sdd.trw.com (Daniel Rosen) writes:

>The second question involves sabre fencing; for quite a while I have
>developed an attack which I initiate "en pointe" (set up for a point
>with my arm extended). As my opponent attempts to parry, I disengage
>and WITHOUT BENDING MY ARM or REMOVING THE POINT FROM BEING INLINE, I
>bring the saber under his blade (the disengage) then continue the
>motion bringing it full over to a head cut. Lately, several directors
>have said that beginning en pointe and continuing to a cut
>constitutes a break in fencing time and if my opponent hits me prior
>to the head cut, they declare that I have lost the right of way. I
>can't find any reference to this in the USFA rules, but perhaps I am
>not paying close enough attention. Anyone who could shed light on
>this, please let me know. Thanks a lot. 

There is a simple explanation:  The directors are full of it.

Your attack (feint with the point, disengage the parry, head cut)
is a compound attack.  Your opponent is in good time only if
he lands prior to the beginning of your ultimate cut (see 419f).  But
if, as you claim, he is busy trying to parry the feint, how can he hit
you that early?

Your opponent may also have good time if your head cut requires extra foot
work.  E.g. if you are attacking with a fleche or crossover, your cut should
land before your rear foot.

My recommendation is a loud and self-satisfied ``Hai-Gahh''.

Seriously though, why go for the head?  It sound like your transition is
taking up so much time that a clear action is becoming muddied.  If
your opponents are making quarte, hit the exposed fore arm or upper arm.
There is no way that your opponent should hit you first if he falls
for a well executed feint-degage.

Theo
Organization: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: matt@jarthur.claremont.edu (Matthew Hughes)
Subject: Re: fencing or fighting?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:26:32 GMT

I like the current mix. I am a modern saber fencer, but have been following
the broadsword threads with interest ... I have played with shinai a few
times, and found it to be a lot of fun.
							Matt Hughes
						matt@jarthur.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: concession, flames, discussion (re: fencing or fighting?)
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:10:10 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <BzD3n3.1Cx@iapa.uucp%mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu> ctrbdo@iapa.uucp%mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu (bryan d oakley) writes:
>
>In a semi-final bout, score tied at 4-4.  Fencer A finds him/her self
>at the rear limit of the strip.  Fencer B advances, causing Fencer A
>to retreat with haste, landing his back foot well behind the rear
>limit, front foot in the air.  This fencer (A) then thrusts and lands,
>with Fencer B counter thrusting and also landing, no blade contact
>between them.  A halt is called while Fencer A's front foot is in the
>air, and then Fencer A's front foot comes down on the rear limit line
>after the halt.  What's the call?
>
>  b) Fencer A wins because the attack was valid since both feet
>     were not off the strip.

I assume that it's a foil bout, and that the time is such that it would be A's
touch were it not for the detail of the rear of the strip.

Fencer A wins because one of his feet was in the strip when the "halt" was
called.

I say "in" rather than "on" the strip; the fencing arena is actually a VOLUME. 


It's true that fencer A moved off the strip, but he wasn't fencing anymore when
he did that.


-dk


Alas, my rule book is home.  I suppose i ought to bring it in since this sort
of thing is going to happen on the net now and again.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: Thrusts AND Cuts (was: Re: Broadsword fe
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:08:48 GMT

In article <1g3lsdINNaf5@smurf.sti.com> alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:
|
|In short:  Pardon me, but you're apparently thinking purely in terms
|of foil and epee, and in terms of modern competitive sport fencing.
|Which bears little, if any, relation to real combat any more.

Well, I don't want to get into any sort of "my kind of fencing is better than
your kind of fencing" argument, but I would like to point out that no kind
of fencing bears much resemblence to real combat any more.  Let's not get
carried away here.

		Dave Svoboda
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
From: kassover@rumsey.crd.ge.com (David Kassover)
Subject: Re: Left vs Right Handness
Organization: nope
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:29:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.211702.15159@rock.concert.net> penfold@rock.concert.net (Patricia A White -- Oxford University Press -- MIS) writes:
>In article <13901@ecs.soton.ac.uk> ajl@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Lewis AJ) writes:
>re: switching hands
>>The only problem is
>>that you need two sets of equipment (expensive), and the bother of changing
>>between bouts if your jackets & britches are handed ones.
>
>Don't take this the wrong way but...
>Was this a typo or are you serious?  Britches being designed for
>lefties?  Or righties?  C'mon, I thought knickers were knickers (were
>britches were pants).  Are "they" trying to sell new and improved
>designs for more money?

Ah, I once made the mistake of attending practice in a pair of
men's Levi's 501's.

I assure you, I will not repeat the experience.


-- 
David Kassover             "Proper technique helps protect you against
uupsi!khazad!kassover	          sharp weapons and dull judges."
kassover@aule-tek.com                   F. Collins
kassover@ra.crd.ge.com
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: apologies (was thrust vs. cut)
Date: 10 Dec 92 22:59:29 GMT
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Distribution: world
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>Thumbnail calculation (assumes a 1kg blade and a 75kg fencer)
>
>cut:  (assumptions:  velocity of blade = 300 km/hr, 

	Sensei Fred Tart of the Sandia Budokan (kenjutsu instructor) used
a pair of laser beams to measure cut speeds near the tip of a number of
different weapons.  (published in an old copy of the Bujin).

	Katana speeds ranged from 40mph to 60mph or so.  Bokken 45 to 65.
Wakizashi (short sword) 30-55mph.  SCA broadsword 55 to 80.  Shinai 65 to 80.
Golf ball ~100mph.  Best karate punch 29mph, average punch 14mph.  I'd guess
fencing sabre cuts would be in the 60-90mph range.  Sprinters do ~21mph.

>                     mass of fencer is not important)
>		= 83 kg m/s (momentum)
>		= 3500 J (kinetic energy)

	Note: the whole blade isn't travelling at that speed: it's partly
(not totally) rotating. Second, assuming 90mph, the tip would be moving
150km/hr.  1kg is probably light for a real sword, too.

>thrust:  (assumptions:  velocity of blade = 40km/hr, with 
>                        mass of fencer behind it)
>		= 844 kg m/s (momentum)
>		= 4700 J (kinetic energy)

	I suspect a thrust is in the ~15-20mph range, maybe even down in the
10mph range.  These give speeds of 16-33 km/hr.  Can you thrust with the whole
weight of your body faster than you can sprint?  I doubt it.  I doubt you can
even come close.

>These numbers do not account for any additional muscle force that is 
>applied at the time of contact (which would favour the thrust, since
>the leg muscles are used).  The thrust has the clear advantage in 
>terms of momentum, although its advantage in energy is marginal, 
>especially if you increase the speed of the cut.

	With a light sword, the advantage is with the thrust, no suprise.
With a heavier sword (sabre, katana, etc) the advantage is with the cut in
terms of force.

	Have we beaten this topic to death yet?  I'm beginning to think so...

-- 
To be or not to be = 0xff
-
Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.
From: rgd3729@tamsun.tamu.edu (Greg Dilworth)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: concession, flames, discussion (re: fencing or fighting?)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 03:07:31 -0600
Organization: Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamsun.tamu.edu

In article <BzD3n3.1Cx@iapa.uucp%mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu> ctrbdo@iapa.uucp%mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu (bryan d oakley) writes:
>In a semi-final bout, score tied at 4-4.  Fencer A finds him/her self
>at the rear limit of the strip.  Fencer B advances, causing Fencer A
>to retreat with haste, landing his back foot well behind the rear
>limit, front foot in the air.  This fencer (A) then thrusts and lands,
>with Fencer B counter thrusting and also landing, no blade contact
>between them.  A halt is called while Fencer A's front foot is in the
>air, and then Fencer A's front foot comes down on the rear limit line
>after the halt.  What's the call?
>
>  a) Fencer A loses because he/she was off the strip and the attack is
>     invalid, or

It depends...  Was fencer A's foot ever behind the plane of the strip?
The fencing strip is to be considered to extend infinitely in all
directions in which it does not have boundaries (i.e. up).  Thus if
fencer A's foot ever left the strip (i.e. while it was in the air it
broke the plane of the rear limit of the strip) the action ends
IMMEDIATELY.  No attack can be called.  Nothing occurred at all from
his/her direction after the breaking of the plane.

>  b) Fencer A wins because the attack was valid since both feet
>     were not off the strip.

This is accurate if the above was not true.  If fencer A never left
the strip with both feet.  In other words if his/her foot never broke
the plane, then the attack initiated would land and this person would
win the bout.

So, now that you have my interpretation what is the answer to the
above question and who won the bout?

Greg