In einer eMail vom 3/7/2007 10:01:37 PM W. Europe Standard Time schreibt
jphill32@...:

If these are experienced fencers with epee's, then no priority - first touch
scores, or simultaneous touches score.



Thanks, Joe! I must point out, though, that like Warren, we're interested
in encouraging the ideas "as if they were sharp" and "to hit and not be hit."
Priority does implicitly--I stress "implicitly"-- exist in epee, just that
in that case, it's simply a function of theory-based technique (and common
sense) and not a "rule." Foil "conventions" like right-of-way were not
contrived and neither was the theory. The priority "convention" in foil is a
product
of the logic of fencing theory (and common sense)--so you train that if
somebody comes at you with a sharp point when you're outside the salle and
facing
a real opponent, you must (makes sense to me!) remove the threat to proceed
with the assault. The epee double is a "rule" and hardly reflects the
reality of a swordfight.

Think of it this way: If you have two people with sharp epee points hitting
each other simultaneously, what would the result be? Better have a doctor
standing by! Wouldn't it have been smarter of one of them to parry, and
riposte ahead of his advance with a full extension for that extra security?
That's..."priority!" It's not a "rule." Not if you want to live or avoid a
world
of hurt.

Finally, I used to go on at length about things like this but discovered,
alas, they aren't suitable for a e-mail, but I can suggest at I hope moderate
length--it's just a suggestion--that one problem we all share is that fencing
language (Maestro William M. Gaugler calls it a "Tower of Babel") is a kind of
organic accumulation of terms from many different times and places. This
makes really rigorous discussion difficult. It makes change difficult. Back
in the 1760s, a French academician, Guillaume Danet, tried to make
terminology "rational" and got beat over the head and shoulders for it. He was
forced
to resign as a syndic of the French Royal Fencing Academy.

Take hand positions. You can find different Italian hand position numbers;
which system is "right?" This drives my students crazy! You haven't lived
until you've been pummeled with questions by very diligent German students
you've encouraged to ask questions and do "problem-solving.". I just used a
common way to describe foil actions--as "conventions"-- but then contrasted
that
with "rules." My teacher and I use those words that way, I mean, we know what
we mean, but a philosopher into formal logic would scream bloody murder!
"Rules" and "conventions" can be taken to have identical meanings and very
often are.

One result is that the distinction between those things that are based on
solid experience (right of way) and those that are arbitrary (like the double
touch) seems to be lost. Custom and usage then take over, but I think we
ought to know something about what it is we do when we talk about things, what
our words do. But naturally, people get all upset when you "revise" things
even when, as Warren has pointed out with his subject line, you're actually
going "back." I'm with Warren all the way.


To sum up: In epee, you attack first and your opponent is late attacking,
you actually do have priority, and your opponent had better do something about
it or...."die!" If you attack simultaneously, that's fatal to both unless
somebody very quickly performs adequate defensive actions. Which is to say,
establishes priority.

The assumption used to be, long ago, you learned that with foil before you
went out and actually dueled with...what for a long time was actually often
called a "fleuret" before the 19th century's epee came along. Earlier
distinctions between smallsword and foil are pretty thorny because terminology
wasn't
codified; there was a "foil" with a real foible in the 17th century, rebated
smallswords could be called "foils" and so could sharp swords and people
today seem to look for certainty when it didn't exist, alas. People back then
didn't expect industrial-society precision and order. Sure, foil could and did
become very elaborate play. But the underlying theory has always been there.
Our idea is to make things conform to the past and to theory by penalizing
the double in both foil and epee.


The best modern rules, and I obviously like them, AHF's, work hard to deal
with the "ambiguity" of results. I've only asked if we can't make things
clearer. In training, our experience has been we can. But what happens when
you
take these ideas beyond training? How do you handle that "custom and usage"
problem?

Thanks again, especially since I went on a bit!

Bill




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