From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: French Grips
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:39:11 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

In article <1gb0seINNste@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
] In article <1g97reINN575@smurf.sti.com>, alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:
] [re:  picture of pistol grip]
] |> Pardon me if I give offence to anyone by this statement, but something
] |> like this could IHMO arise only in a fencing sport that has become less
] |> a sport of fencing, than a sport of winning fencing tournaments.  (If
] |> you see the distinction.)
] 
] Hmm, not sure that I do.  You evidently have never used a pistol grip, 
] and so are evaluating it purely from a philosophical and traditional 
] (as opposed to practical) standpoint.

Actually, no.  I'm evaluating it from the basis of the ways in which
the handling of a pistol and the handling of a sword differ.  And that,
by the way, is meant both in the context of the way they handle as a
result of the way they are constructed, and the ways in which they are
handled as a consequence of the manner in which they are used.

IMHO, they are quite different.  More specifically, the ways in which a
pistol may be effectively and comfortably handled form a rather
restricted subset of the ways in which a sword may be effectively and
comfortably handled.  My contention, in this regard, is that putting a
pistol-type grip on a sword limits the handling of the sword in an
inappropriate and undesirable manner.

] You acknowledge that a pistol grip would give a fencer an advantage in 
] winning fencing tournaments?

I do no such thing.  However, it is clearly the opinion of pistol-grip
proponents in this group that this is the case.  Having not entered a
fencing tournament, at any level, in longer that I care to think about,
I don't feel like disputing them.

]  Do you not think this advantage would 
] translate to a real-world duel?

No, I don't.  To gain an advantage in the controlled, formalized,
stylized environment of a fencing tourney, in a clean, dry, well-lit
salle, facing a single opponent who is required to adhere strictly to
rules and who you always face directly along a narrow strip of smooth,
level floor, is entirely a different thing from gaining an advantage
in a no-holds-barred fight between multiple opponents in a dark, wet
Genoese back alley, on sewage-slimed cobbles.

Even proponents of the pistol grip have said that it allows greater
strength to be applied, and thus more speed gained (a claim which,
personally, I have some difficulty with), but at the cost of a loss
of flexibility.
In an uncontrolled, real-world situation such as I have just described,
that loss of flexibility translates directly into s reduced ability to
respond quickly to changing threats from different directions.  And
that, in turn, can translate directly into death for a fighter who simply
cannot respond in time to an unexpected attack from the side or the rear.

] Would duellists of 200 years ago have 
] used pistol grips if they had the technology?

It would depend on whether they found they worked or not, wouldn't it?
If they worked, they would probably use them.  If they didn't, they
wouldn't.  I suggest, given the fact there is no evidence of their use,
that either no-one ever tried them, or they were tried and found not
to work.

And may I ask, by the way, what constitutes "having the technology"?
I fail to see any technological reason why pistol grips should be a
development attainable only during the twentieth century.

] If not, why not?  If so, 
] then what's the problem?  Surely you know that technology progresses and 
] sword technology is no exception.  If you define as "real" only those 
] swords that existed prior to c.1875, then you are an enthusiast of military
] nostalgia, not swords.

Your definition, not mine.  Kindly refrain from putting words into my
mouth.

] By the way, I'm sure that a few hundred years ago there were some 
] fencers who felt that finger rings and bell guards were an abomination 
] in the face of the current tradition, and had no place among real swords.

It's entirely possible that such opinions existed at one time, though it's
unlikely that they persisted until 'a few hundred years ago', considering
that the earliest European bell guards appeared late in the 14th century.
(In very small numbers.  In Spain, I believe.)  Finger rings are even
older, particularly in the Middle East and Asia.

] Of course, they were probably all killed off in short order  :-)

It's possible.  Then again, it's also possible that their opponents
were the ones killed off.  Users of light swords with finger rings and
even the occasional bell-type guard met users of then-traditional
longswords with cross hilts, not on one or two occasions, but in vast
numbers during the Crusades.  There were many deaths on both sides,
but neither side was killed off overnight.  On balance, they seem to
have been fairly evenly matched.


-- 
      "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."  --  Thomas Jefferson
    ......................................................................
    Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : The Renaissance Man
      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
           Finger alaric@sti.com for PGP 2.0 info and my public key