Hi,

The problem with the bend is the delicacy of a woman's chest.

If the fencer is my student Long Tall Travis who is 6'6" and 240 lbs I
really don't want to see the point bent!!! I know he can bend thick
steel!!! (all the way through a person's chest!!!)

Forcing ladies to always wear their body armour and their thick jacket is
really tough in the summer when it is 98 deg in the shade!!! And we like to
fence outdoors in the summer, and indeed may not be able to afford to pay
for an air conditioned gymnasium.

I would rather force the judges to be more diligent and if there is no
consenses on the touch then throw it out and commence again.

And indeed I strongly believe that Classical (manual) Fencing training is an
excellent self defense system that easily transfers to an umbrella and a
cane.

sincerely,

Joe D Phillips
HM - SDCMF
Columbus, Ohio

-----Original Message-----
From: classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of flanconade@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:11 PM
To: sword_teacher@...; classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CFML] Thinking about Rules / back



In einer eMail vom 3/6/2007 9:42:45 PM W. Europe Standard Time schreibt
sword_teacher@...:

Actually, I'd like to see a combination of things; i.e., the
4-judge/Director system we had as the norm years ago (not perfect, mind
you, but fairly
adequate), combined with the idea of having a definite 'bend-type'
indication to
substantiate a point. I would also favor using a double-touch system that
minuses a point from both fencers when a double-touch is scored.
(Something
like this may be useful for Epee also, instead of awarding both fencers a
point, as is now the case under the Sport rules.) In this manner, a
double-touch
in Foil would have some meaning, rather than mere provision for stopping
the
action. In concert, these concepts might work pretty well...certainly they
would provide some improvement toward realization that fencing should be
'as
if they were sharp'.


This is what we propose, with one exception: Thanks! We take "as if they
were sharp" totally seriously. "To hit and not be hit," too. We go a bit
futher and remove the jury and director and replace them with what we what
we
hope with evolve into the equivalent of seconds. Oh--I'd always thought
the
bent foible was a requirement, and what's happened, I guess, is that the
persistence of sport-based rules has allowed it and a sufficient parry to
go by the
wayside over time, and so imperceptibly. We'll be happy to cooperate with
you and others in developing a system that does indeed bring back some
things;
I make no claim, none, zilch, to absolute certainty!

Thanks again,

Bill


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






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