--- flanconade@... wrote:
> good fencing until the mid-20th century's catastrophic reaction to the
> Enlightenment
>
I only have a problem with the tone of this section, especially the use of the
word "catastrophic". While it is true that there is a distinct break between
what we see as "classical fencing" versus "sport fencing", suggesting a
"catastrophic reaction" occured adds a somewhat "political" tone to the break
between the two, casting one in a positive light and the other in a negative.
Which, as part of the definition for "classical fencing", I believe does it a
grave disservice.

Furthermore, I do not believe that this is grounded in fact, but rather
opinion, as there are many reasons for the changes between what is "classical
fencing" and "sport fencing" that have nothing to do with the Enlightment
itself; anywhere from the introduction of electric equipment and changes in the
concept of right-of-way (which has been defined differently for a good number
of years), to the removal of the concept of training for actual dueling. These
were not considered a "catastrophic reaction", but rather viewed as
improvements over failings in fencing prior to their introduction (simple human
failing to see touches, bias in the judges, as well as the fascination with
technology).

The difference between "classical fencing" and "sport fencing" can be presented
more neutrally, without the "overtones" and still emphasis the difference. In
fact, simply mentioning the distinct break the occured once technology was
introduced to fencing (with the electrification of the weapons), the subsequent
change in the rules and the de-emphasis for practical martial application more
than serves this purpose. Without drawing judgments on one style of fencing or
the other.


-Brian