In einer eMail vom 3/3/2006 11:56:56 PM W. Europe Standard Time schreibt
sword_teacher@...:

...Don't know anything about a "catastrophic reaction" and its relationship
to the "Enlightenment", but if we simply define valid Fencing as "using
swords in a manner as if they were sharps", or perhaps define valid hits as "to
touch without being touched", this just could go a long way toward reconciling
the differences between the two camps in the world of Fencing. Right-of-way
(priority) then, would have to reflect what happens in a real
encounter....Fencing for whatever purpose notwithstanding.

No matter how you "cut it" (pun intended), a sword is still a valid weapon,
and its use whether for martial art or sport needs to reflect some
reality...it appears to me that this is the part of the equation that's been
missing
for quite a while now.



I agree totally. The "catastrophic reaction" I weote of was not sport
fencing's but that of a whole civilization to foundational values. Sproties if
anything have trivialized fencing.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]