posted 09-12-1999 12:44 PM               

---

Some fencing folks practice rapier. Some historical combat folks practice it also. I imagine the approach is somewhat different. Also different would be the protective gear and weapons. Or so one would think.

Anyone care to comment?

IP: 206.253.160.34

posted 09-12-1999 05:45 PM              

---

I don't do rapiers, but from what I've seen the most blatantly obvious difference is that combative rapierists do stuff that sportfencers can't/don't, like binding/trapping weapons, body checks, unarmed techniques, etc.

IP: 205.188.193.163

posted 09-12-1999 10:43 PM               

---

Wizard:

In my honest opinion, and this from a novice rapier fencer who comes to it from a classical/modern fencing background, there is only one way to approach rapier fence. Regardless of where your roots are, the only true way to learn rapier play is to stduy the masters of the 16th and 17th century, get a good replica rapier, and find someone you can learn, train, and spar with. Modern fencing is so far removed from rapier combat, that anyone coming from that background needs to purge himself of the tactics, techniques and etiquette of sport fencing. Except for the development of point control, there is no real advantage a modern fencer has over one who approaches it from an historic basis. Remember that the rapier was a weapon of personal defence and used in dueling. Going one on one, and surving the fight. That's a whole lot different than modern fencing.

IP: 205.188.200.41

posted 09-14-1999 01:03 PM               

---

Two approaches in technique: One slavishly follows a particular author. The other derives a digest from a broad reading. The first is limited in options, but the second requires that you have a reliable "digester." I will keep doing the first until I feel confident enough to do the second.

Two approaches in equipment: One approach is to use period techniques: heavy, stiff swords, little protection and rigid discipline to keep from doing real injury. The other uses flexible swords, masks and body protection to allow delivery of a more realistic blow. I use the second because I don't always trust the guys I practice with.

IP: 208.13.170.49

posted 09-14-1999 02:10 PM               

---

Larry,
It depends on what you mean as a beginner. A good (emphasis on the qualifier) fencer will have developed certain physical qualities of strength and endurance which will give him an advantage over your typical outright novice. He will also know something about one form of swordsmanship, which is an immense help, as long, as you said, he can shed that which does not apply.
Now, the point where me and certain Maestros O'Fence diverge is whether or not it is a prerequisite. Sure as the day is long allright, a man with some years of fencing under his belt will be better off to master another form of swordsmanship, but that no way means if you want o learn rapier, you should start by picking up a foil. Much less so, for styles outside the toadsticker variety.
In fact, I would be willing to reverse the analogy, and say that someone who has had years as a historical fencer, will have an advantage over a complete novice, when moving to sport/classical fence.

IP: 207.80.138.6

posted 09-15-1999 12:04 AM               

---

Having studied for many years as a competitive fencer, and having studied a bit of Rapier technique I do agree that the two have very little in common.

However, an accomplished/experienced fencer will have an advantage over a novice. Provided that he/she keeps an open mind and realizes the limits of modern fencing. The experienced fencer will be familiar with the concepts of timing and distance. He/she will also be used to mastering complex footwork. Granted the footwork is quite a bit different but the concept is the same.

These are all things that are vital to either dicipline and should be the first things mastered.

IP: 216.96.122.194

posted 09-16-1999 04:58 PM               

---

Hey Eliashan, Patrick:

I agree whole heartedly with both of youf comments. Certainly there are some advantages that an experienced fencer would have over a complete novice when doing rapier. I agree that the knowledge of proper timing, distance, and point control that an experienced fencer would (hopefully) have would give probably give him/her the advantage. But if both the fencer and the novice truly studied historic rapier technique, that advantage might soon become equalized as both became experienced in the weapon's characteristics. I would also aree that if you wanted to study historic swordplay you don't need to learn mdoern fencing. There is a danger among sport/modern fencers that just because they know how to handle a foil, or saber, or epee, that they can do Medieval and Renaissance sword technique. Nothing is futher from the truth. While fencing is a lot of fun, and the rules of engagement offer a great deal of safety, the linkages between modern fencing and historic swordmanship has long been broken. To regain the western martial spirit you really do have to embark upon the study approach I mentioned earlier. That is the approach established by the Historic Armed Combat Association (HACA), and one that I believe to be true.

IP: 205.188.192.184

All times are CST, GMT-6