Welcome
Sword School Wichita is a traditional Italian fencing school located in Wichita, KS.
We teach the three typical fencing weapons of foil, spada (épée) and sabre, as well as late 17th-19th century spada, and Radaellian sabre.
Please visit and like our page on Facebook.
Recent Updates and Announcements
Students: if you do not yet have a copy of our student handbook and syllabus, it is now linked directly on the webpage, here: swordschoolwichita.com/books/
Following up my prior post on the purpose of right of way, lets take a look at the current technical rules for right of way in foil used by the FIE. I'll refer you to p. 26-28 of the linked document: static.fie.org/uploads/23/116616-Technical%20rules%20ang.pdf
We can look at the particular right of way rules, t.83 - t.89, without much worry about changes over time. These specific rules have been codified without much by way of substantive changes for a very long time. These aren't really influenced by the presence or lack of electrical equipment.
t.83 (1) tells us that a correctly executed attack must either be parried or completely avoided. (2) defines types of attacks and tells us how they are correctly performed.
(2)(a) The simple attack, direct or indirect (cf. t.10), is correctly executed when the straightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.
NOTE: A simple direct attack would be a direct thrust or a glide. A simple indirect attack would be a thrust by disengage. The phrase 'straightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge...' is a condition precedent to being considered to have the attack. You have to be doing this, or you do not have an attack. If you *stop* threatening the valid target, or don't extend, or both, guess what, you don't have an attack.
(2)(b) The compound attack (cf.t.10) is correctly executed when the arm is straightened in the presentation of the first feint, with the point threatening the valid target, and the arm is not bent during the successive actions of the attack and the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.
NOTE: beats and other actions on the blade are compound attacks, but from a practical rules point of view, things like changes of engagement and transports are likely to be considered preparations rather than attacks - which is just one of the reasons that your transports should spiral forward rather than be made without extension.
(2)(c) The attack with a step-forward-lunge or a step-forward-flèche is correctly executed when the straightening of the arm precedes the end of the step forward and the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.
NOTE: The 'straightening of the arm precedes the end of the step...'. Does this not sound like the pattinando? It should. This is one of the reasons we make a fuss about getting the order of operations correct.
(2)(d) Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent (cf. t.10-11).
NOTE: Now, this particular section is a somewhat recent addition to the rules. I can't recall when it went into effect, but it has certainly been since I started fencing in the early 1990s. This section seems to be an attempt to clarify the rules and to get rid of the 'bent arm attack' which plagues modern foil fencing to this day. It has been a spectacularly unsuccessful rule, because nobody in a position of authority actually implements it. I'll also note that it is a *messy* rule, because it conflicts with (2)(a). Straightening is a gerund, commonly called the '-ing' form of the verb. It is a present active verb. An arm which is in the act of straightening, must, in fact, be bent. Whether it was intended or not is unclear, but looking at the plain meaning of the text (2)(d) is clear that actions under (2)(a) don't actually have the quality or qualification as an attack, until the arm is fully straightened. (2)(d) comes later and is more specific, and it seems clear to me that it must control over (2)(a). It can be argued that this rule, especially, needs to be edited.
Bonus question - (2)(a)-(c) all refer to the initiation of the lunge or fleche. Does this mean that in order to be an attack, the touch *must* occur by means of a lunge or a fleche? Should it? What if your distance is close enough that you don't need a lunge or fleche? Should a double touch that occurs at this distance without a lunge or fleche simply be thrown out as not embodying best practices? What if the distance requires a lunge or fleche, but the fencer makes a long step forward instead? Score it? Throw it out? What if one makes a long step and the other lunges? Score it for the one who lunged, even if that fencer started late but they strike at the same time? I'm not sure there is an absolutely clear answer here.
t.84-88 are a little more straightforward, and t.89 gives a lot of examples of how to resolve double touches. Do note the difference between a truly simultaneous attack and a double hit in the same tempo. Practically speaking, the truly simultaneous attack occurs when neither fencer seems to have made any mistake, and both fencers simply started at the same time. This is different than the double hit that occurs because one of the fencers did something ill-advised, which results in both being hit in the same tempo.
NOTE: t.89 specifically ignores any double touch which takes place not in the same tempo - i.e., if A hits B, a tempo passes, and B hits A, B’s touch is simply ignored as late. I'll opine that it was simply considered too speculative, and too likely to distract fencers from making good defensive choices, to worry about what happens a tempo later. This doesn't mean that instructors shouldn't, or don't, address those issues in lessons by having students sometimes make one or more parries and ripostes or voiding counterattacks after a successful hit. This is actually fairly common in traditional lessons.
Now, your mission, if you can stomach it - is to take a look at foil fencing video on youtube, and get a sense of just how poorly the actual practice follows the rules as written even at high levels - and often even if you ignore t.83(2)(d) in favor of (2)(a) it doesn't get much better.
This is why some fencing masters engaged in high level modern competitions have opined that 'fencing has no rules'. The actual right of way rules are roundly, openly ignored. This is a very, very different situation than practically any other sport.
I'll also point out that sabre isn't really any better, and this is why I suggest that if anyone wants to go out and engage in modern competition, at this point epee is the only way to go, since it is essentially a purely objective scoring method, and (try as they might) the powers that be can do relatively little to screw it up, aside from doing their best to ruin it up with non-combativity rules.
Right of way, applied correctly, is a fantastic training tool, and, if we accept a certain artificiality and have a willingness to throw out all but absolutely correct touches, can help train fencers to make good choices. Applied (or in truth, not applied at all as written) as it is to modern competition, it is a disaster, that shouldn't be used to judge the merits and validity of the method.
What is the purpose of priority/right of way rules in foil and sabre fencing?
The purpose is to determine the fault of a double touch based on norms established concerning best practices.
The rules are applied by analyzing the fencers' actions that lead to a double touch in the same tempo, in order to determine who was at fault for causing the double touch.
Each fencer's action must be considered and adjudged as a correctly executed attack, or not, on its own merits. It is perfectly acceptable (indeed, preferable) to throw out a double touch where neither fencer correctly performed an attack by meeting all the requirements.
The purpose is *not* to resolve every single touch as if we were trying to figure out what would happen if the fencers were in a real fight with sharp weapons.
The intended result is that fencers will learn to perform actions (and pick tempi) in ways that best keep them safe from harm.
The more one attempts to resolve every double touch so as to give a point, regardless of whether either fencer actually performed something that can correctly be called an attack, the more the message is lost.
Reminder: No beginner class tomorrow (halloween). There will be intermediate class on Friday.
Reminder: we have beginner class next week, 10/24/19, but we do not have intermediate class on 10/25/19.
We do not have beginner class on 10/31/19, but we do have intermediate class 11/1/19.
Christopher Holzman's Books and Publications Spotlight
A first bit of spada/epee bouting from Friday's intermediate class. Lots to work on, but lots of good, as well.
youtu.be/pojZGJ2-n3s
Class 3 of the Fall beginner session is in the books. Tonight we reviewed engagement in 3rd, glide in 3rd, and introduced thrust by cavazione to the inside against engagement in 3rd. Next week we will introduce parries of circular 3rd and simple (opposition) 4th, and ripostes by glide.
If you're currently interested in buying an Italian foil, you've got fairly limited options.
The Fencing Post has all the parts to assemble an Italian foil except for the grip, in stock. You need a blade, guard, pad, and pommel, and you'll have to pick up a grip elsewhere unless/until they get them back in stock. I really like the parts from the Fencing Post, and I think they represent the best value for a starter weapon, especially if you're budget conscious. thefencingpost.com/italian-foil-parts/
You can buy a grip from Rockwell Classical Fencing from between $10-20.00 (plastic, hardwood, or one of my Rossi style grips). I don't mind assembling your foil for you.
If you don't mind spending a little more, you can pick up a complete weapon from Rockwell. The False Ricaso Italian Foil and the True Ricasso Italian Foil would both be good choices. They're here: www.rockwellclassicalfencing.com/classical-fencing
I cannot recommend the Italian foils sold by Triplette/Zen Warrior Armory, as they're a bit too pick-and-mix in terms of how the parts fit together, for my taste.
I have been informed that our fall beginner class is full (12 students).
If you have signed up, please try to arrive a little bit early on Thursday so that we can fit you for equipment and have a little bit of time left for actual class.
Thanks!