Talk:Fencing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Picture

Could anyone find a more revelant picture than the one the graces the begining of this article? There are far better pictures then a woman on poster not wearing her equipment for a tournament more than 100 years ago.--24.13.240.36 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also for the Historical fencing section, please get a better picture. Historical Fencing is far more developed than that photo suggests.

I, for one, quite like the picture at the beginning of the article. It is easy on the eye and has some sense of history, which is one of the major selling points of fencing. It is also quite "non-denominational", in that it doesn't promote any specific weapon or style of fencing. Incidentally, so far as I can tell, the woman is actually wearing full kit by the conventions of the time.

Completely agree about the Historical Fencing picture. (Pavel 10:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Not to mention the Epeebegin.jpg picture. Horrible photo. Bad form on both fencers and having noncompliant uniforms. Bunbury (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I Completely agree. There are some fantastic fencing photos out there, we ought to replace all of the high school quality photos with some olympic ones. --69.118.102.57 (talk) 14:44,

16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the picture is misleading to people who might be interesting in starting the sport for the first time, it could even be off-putting. I have no problem with the picture itself, but I think the article would be much better served with a photograph of what fencing is about today.

Wow.

2 things: 1. Even as a fencer myself, this page is incredibly boring and full of trivial and overly technical information. Poorly written as a whole. It really needs a complete and utter do-over. In saying that, I understand that most fencing information you find on the web is similar: badly written, and aimed at parents who want to know what the hell is going on. Or new fencers who want to know what the hell is going on. Lots of numbers, explanations, attempts to clear up what are some of the most ridiculously ambiguous and ever-changing rules of any modern sport. This article, however, shouldn't be modelled after anything like that. It's cool that you have the exact lockout times, but is it needed? 2. Lots of subtle jabs at the way foil's going. And generally, all the mentions of how fencing's rules change frequently are scattered throughout the article in their specific little catagories. Maybe make one, distinct header discussing the state of flux the sport is in?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiliquiern (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Links

Is it just me or does it seem like the link to National Fencing Academy is advertising? RECblue8 18:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following web-page provides a very nice introduction to the sport, which may serve as a template for editing. The illustration of the referee's hand-signals would likely be useful. http://www.usfencing.org/do/contentItem?contentId=13 Rhydderch69 04:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling standard

I reverted the change from "maneuver" to "manoeuvre" because the former was not incorrect; it's standard American spelling. Looking over the article, there appears to be an unsystematic hodge-podge of American and British spelling conventions. (For instance, "penalize" and "penalise" are both used, a large majority being the former.)

Personally I don't care which one is used, but one should be selected and adhered to. Absent that, correcting spelling "errors" that are really differences in convention is pointless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard seems to be to use the spelling appropriate to the nationality of the subject of the article (e.g. United States would use American spelling, and United Kingdom would use commonwealth.) WP:MOS says that "[if] there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." Looking back, RjLesch appears to have been the first significant contributor (as far as I can tell) and he was American, so I think that American spellings should be used, because of what the MOS says. If there isn't any significant opposition to this, I'll see about switching the article over in a week or so.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The official rules for sport fencing from the FIE are written in French. The authorised translated rules for English are provided by the British Fencing Association. Any usage and teminology in the article should be consistent with the official rules. -- Whpq 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Much as I love the Queen's English, my impression is that the governing body of the sport in the United States translates the FIE rules itself. Certainly the "official language" used in international competition is French, (or the language of the host country) with no special status granted to English of any flavor. I suspect this brings us back to the MOS.Rhydderch69 05:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite correct. The FIE website provides PDFs for the French laguage rules and a link to the British Fencing Association who do the English translation. The USFA provides a set of rules which govern fencing in the US, and can be different from the FIE rules. And as stated in the editor's note This current edition is based, in large part on the British translation of the FIE Rules. -- Whpq 10:00, 7 August 2006(UTC)

Fair enough, my impression is incorrect. Do you think it's wise to revert to British spellings? Either way, counter-conventional spellings will leak in (not to mention contributions from SCA enthusiasts). It would seem that the best solution is one that minimizes this leakage.Rhydderch69 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. I respect Wiki guidelines and would have made this american spelling based on RjLesch's original contribution. The argument that Commonwealth English is the first official translation of the French is also a good one, though and that would about balance it, except that the Commonwealth english spellings are closer to the original french, eg "manoeuvre". This tips the balance for me. I would like to make it Commonwealth english.

IceDragon64 20:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, on the other hand, if we are talking about getting LESS technical, does it really matter which form of English the FIE rules are put in? This isn't a rulebook after all, it's simply an article on fencing, and should be kept very general (as the article seems too technical as it is). However, I agree it is still a tough call. My vote would be American English, due to the original main contributor....

(Also, sorry, I'm a bit new to wikipedia and only noticed Edit Summary after making changes. Only 2 minor ones. 1) when describing the jacket I added that in saber fencing, crotchless jackets are also legal and used and 2) One of the descriptions of saber target area had mentioned the 'palms of the hands'. Changes to 'the hands' as off-target.) Saberswordsmen1 13:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is Cuba

In the Notable Fencers section I did not see Cuba represented. Are there no Cubans who should be listed here? Cubans used a different style that often confounded opponents not familiar with that style. For example, a parry would be made where the point of the foil was still pointed at the opponent's torso -- often the opponent would then just walk onto the tip and lose that point. --SafeLibraries 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to write a section on Cuban fencers, personally, I had never heard about this style, and I don't think many others have, judging from the lack of such a section in the article. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It might well be of interest to begin a section on the history of sport fencing and the competing styles: one could mention the original French, Italian, and Hungarian styles, but more relevant to the character of modern fencing would be the "utilitarian" styles introduced by the "sports machines" -- Cuba being one of them, but the USSR, China, and to a lesser extent Germany all built a very new game: the "flick" in epee can be traced to a Soviet, as can the intensive focus on footwork.Rhydderch69 05:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fencing WikiProject?

I have noticed that the topic of fencing has quite a few related pages now, and I think that it would benefit from having a WikiProject to organize writing of articles and such. If you're interested in this idea, leave a message here, and if the idea gains enough support, I'll get this started.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'd participate in such a project. Twisted86 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes as would I Patar knight 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Are people still interested in doing this?Billsmith453 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Did this ever happen? I'd be interested. Baron ridiculous (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Fencing and User:Patar knight/WikiProject Fencing. Take your pick, but both are inactive. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable fencers

Split it off, into, say, list of fencers or something along those lines? Isopropyl 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article would certainly benefit from splitting off the notable fencers. Instead of a list, I would suggest a category. If the fencers are truly notable, then they should have their own article. Then each of articles can have the appropriate category tagged to it, and you essentially have a self-maintaining list. As it is, most of the entries have a large assortment of details that would either make for a reasonable small article, or at least a decent stub. -- Whpq 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure most notable fencers have enough information about them to make a whole article, though--I mean, their only claim to fame could very well be "won X many awards" with little other information. In any case, I definitely agree with splitting off the section into a List of notable fencers article. --authraw 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow, that's not a red link! In that case, I think it's pretty clear that the contents of that section should be merged into List of notable fencers. --authraw 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the list was part of Linuxbeak's effort to improve the fencing article that didn't move forward. I would hazard a guess that there are entries from the fencing article that aren't in the list article and vice versa, so some form of merge will need to take place if we go with a list. I'm still not convinced that is the best idea. I don't dispute that there will be entries with scant information, but that's what a stub is for. Let's use that as a seed for others to contribute and expand the articles on the individual notable fencers. -- Whpq 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Whpq here, this should be a category, and as he said, there will be stubs, but all great articles start as stubs. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 18:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done the merge, and I'm going ahead with a category to simplify things; I'm thinking Category:Notable fencers. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Make sure it's a subcat of the main fencing cat. Isopropyl 21:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did that. I think I got most of them... if I missed any, please add them. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Philosophies section

I have been bold.

Specifically, in the Philosophies section, I:

• Defined modern fencing. Some may quibble about the use of the word modern. However, that is how this branch of fencing refers to itself, and it is, in fact, the product of the modern era (as opposed to Olympic fencing, which belongs to the postmodern era). This is an emerging branch of fencing with a new national organization. As the president of said organization, I do not feel comfortable writing a WP article about the organization, but I certainly feel okay about writing about the sport. More to come on modern fencing.

• Removed what I felt to be a non-NPOV statement about Olympic fencing regarding frequent changes in the rules. Aside from NPOV, is such a statement appropriate in a summary paragraph that is primarily targeted (presumably) at non-fencers? I would suggest/request that where there is a need to differentiate, the term Olympic fencing be used instead of sport fencing, as modern fencing is also definitely a sport.

• Rewrote the classical fencing paragraph to remove some non-NPOV-ish language, but mostly to differentiate it from modern fencing.

• Edited the paragraph on wheelchair fencing. Previously, the implication was that wheelchair fencing required the ability to move the torso, which is not correct, as there are three different mobility classes, including one for no torso movement at all.

I hope that classifying the content into Olympic and modern (as well as the other forms) will help prevent future edit wars over definitions of terminology and fencing philosophy. With some luck, these two particular different forms of fencing can each recognize other and stop trying to force the other into being something other than what it is, just as many other sports have managed -- they are two different games.

I would appreciate feedback on my edits here on this talk page. Twisted86 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The concept of Olympic Fencing as a "postmodern" era activity is a view only held, as far as I can tell, by proponents of "modern fencing". Certainly as a national referee I have reconstructed actions, but I've never deconstructed them, or referred to Foucalt or Derrida. I am afraid that with the vast difference in scope between the American Fencing League and the USFA claiming "modern fencing" belongs to the AFL is hard to support. Kd5mdk 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. With all respect due to a national referee, I would point out that FIE/USFA fencing does meet several definitions of postmodernism, including the very fluidity of its concept of fencing. However, no insult to USFA/FIE fencing is intended by using the term postmodern. It is simply descriptive (the concept of modern/postmodern fencing is not mine, by the way, but that of Maestro Charles Selberg, author of The Revised Foil). Just as FIE/USFA fencing is simply not my cup of tea, AFL fencing is unlikely to be your cup of tea. There have been far too many trees and electrons sacrificed in the personal Pygmalion projects of proponents of both AFL-style fencing and FIE-style fencing (not to mention the 19th-century classical folks). Instead of continuing to fight, these two groups need to accept that fencing underwent an "evolutionary fork" in the 1980s (concept taken from Mitch Kief at Salle Auriol Seattle) and each let the other group be. So, in that spirit, that brings us to the following questions:

• What do you mean by "the vast difference in scope"? Size of organization? Philosophy? Something else?
• What would you propose instead of using the term postmodern?

Again, thanks for the feedback. Twisted86 06:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When I refer to "vast difference in scope", I'm referring both to the fact that the USFA membership dwarfs that of the AFL by probably an order of magnitude. Also, the USFA is the official National Governing Body of fencing in the United States, and the member of the FIE, which is as far as I know the only international fencing organization (if you discount the SCA). As far as what I would describe FIE/USFA fencing as, "sport fencing" or "Olympic fencing" would be the closest ideas I have, if simple "fencing" is insufficient. As it is, because the USFA dominates the fencing arena in the US, and the FIE and its affiliates dominate it internationally, I feel they have the best claim to "fencing" as a generic activity term. As Postmodernism indicates, postmodern is explicitly and intentionally set up in opposition to "modernism", which was a clear and preexisting concept, whereas I wouldn't say that current fencing practice was set up "in opposition" to anything. Kd5mdk 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your thoughtful response and clarification. I disagree with the statement that current FIE/USFA fencing practice was not set up in opposition to anything. It is an explicit reaction to the problems of hyper-competitiveness and sports nationalism — especially at high levels of competition — which led to notoriously biased juries. Electrification of the scoring process was supposed to largely eliminate bias and make fencing less subjective.

I think, however, that that is probably a question best left to the philosopher kings, as it sounds like we have reached consensus to use the terms "Olympic fencing" to refer to FIE/USFA-style fencing. How about if we use the term "standard fencing" to refer to AFL-style fencing? Obviously, when there is no need to differentiate between the two, "fencing" will suffice for both. Thoughts? Twisted86 19:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Standard fencing" implies that Olympic/FIE fencing is somehow "non-standard", which is untrue, and if anything, FIE/Olympic fencing is standard. I think we should call AFL fencing just that—AFL fencing.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 04:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall, good edits in the philosophies section. With due respect, though "postmodern" fencing seems rather too creative a description for a sport governed by a bunch of elderly Western Europeans and increasingly dominated by Eurasians. I've edited "Olympic Fencing" to be simply Olympic fencing... The idea of opposing Postmodern and Modern fencing seems nice in theory, but somewhat curious in practice. As to AFL fencing, I'm not sure that it doesn't represent, as the "A" suggests, a purely national POV, but I'll accept that that may be a purely personal concern on my part.162.84.166.243 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... The last two comments bring up good points, especially with regard to a national POV, which at this point (and for the foreseeable future) is certainly where the AFL falls.

I would also point out, however, that standard fencing is not a neologism. It's use goes back to at least 1940 (in the old AFLA rules) to differentiate the two scoring systems. The term is also used in both editions of Charles Selberg's Foil. I think with some digging, I could probably find more references. Standard fencing does have a specific meaning -- non-electrical fencing.

However, it is also not accurate to apply standard fencing exclusively to AFL fencing, but not to classical or historical fencing. So, I am comfortable with Olympic fencing and AFL fencing.

Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. It has helped me clarify my own thinking. The names of things, after all, are quite important. Twisted86 17:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some more copyediting and incorporated the suggestions from the above discussion. I also reformatted the section to use subheadings instead of bullets. Comments (and edits!) welcome, as always! Twisted86 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, very nice edit there, Twisted.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits by 195.179.14.236 (talk) to last version by The Fish

An IP edit was made today and reverted by User:Obli. The revert was marked as a minor edit.

While I do not agree with all of the edits made by the IP user, I also do not agree with the revert — especially when it is marked minor and no reason is given in the edit summary. 195.179.14.236 went to considerable trouble to try to pare the article down to some more manageable size. I'd be interested to hear Obli's reasons for his/her reversion. Twisted86 06:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I must have mistaken it for a blanking, which is also why I used to admin rollback, which automatically marks the edit as minor. Since this issue is 2 months old (sorry for not spotting this discussion earlier :)) I assume it's been dealt with. -Obli (Talk)^? 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Film about fencing

I am working on the List of sports films and I remember a film a while back about fencing. First blood rings a bell but I know that can't be right. Does anyone remember--Moonlight Mile 07:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

By the Sword, perhaps? (No Wikipedia article about it; the article of that name is about an unrelated novel by Mercedes Lackey.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sunshine is a must-add. Rhydderch69 03:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies in Épée

I have noted a few historical inaccuracies within the introduction to this section, most dealing with statements about other topics that are not presented as factually as I think possible.

• "It seems that épée fencing was started at the beginning of the 16th century. After the two-handed broadsword..."

According to the broadsword page (which is actually wikilinked) and a great many reference material, the period use of the term broadsword applied only to single-edged one-handed weapons like the schiavona and the single-handed Claymore (not the Two-Hander - the term was applied to two weapons). I believe that the user meant longsword, not broadsword.

• "...was abandoned..."

According to the longsword page, and historical works from the 16th and 17th centuries, the longsword had not been at all "abandoned" by the early 1500's. It was not until the early 1600's that their use was almost completely removed from the battlefield.

• "...and the complete suit of armour was outdated..."

Looking at plate armour, one can find ample evidence that armour (indeed, plate armour) existed in relatively common in use after the early 1500's, through not always as a "full suit". The current usage suggests that the complete suit, including all parts, was outdated and no longer used, which is not the case. Instead, I think it may be better to say that use of a complete suit had greatly decreased, and most troops wore only component pieces.

I think it is also important to recognize the evolution of the broadsword into the rapier, if the weapons history is to be presented. I do not have my sources with me now (I am away from my primary domicile), but it has been proposed multiple times, and I feel relatively sure in saying "accepted" by many in the community, that broadswords developed into the rapier over a period of some years, becoming thinner, longer (in some cases), and eventually almost entirely losing their cutting potential during the later years. The rapier (and hence the Épée) were not battlefield weapons were not well suited to the battlefield, but were occasionally tested with poor results. The weapon, however, did not replace the use of sabres and other backswords during wartime (as the article currently suggests, but does not state - one way or the other), but acted primarily as a weapon of un-armoured civilian defense and dueling.

Because this topic (of fencing) is obviously one of much debate, evidenced by two archives of talk pages, I did not want to simply edit the article without providing information behind my disagreements. If there are any individuals who find fault with my statements, please say so below. This is not a challenge, but an effort to provide more correct information and I realize that, while what I say is correct to the best of my knowledge, many individuals have "better knowledge". -- Xiliquiern 15:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is not incorrect when it comes to the complete set of armor. After the late 1500s it was seen mainly in tournaments, while those were still being held. It was usual for a cuirass to be worn by field officers long after the rest of the panoply fell out of use though.

Believe it or not, the French did attempt to use the rapier as a battlefield weapon at one point; sometime in the 17th century IIRC. It didn't work out well. But by then the sword was becoming less important anyway.

I agree with all your other specifics, but unfortunately I have no sources at all -- this is mostly history I've picked up from working at Living History events and so forth. TCC (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. I believe I made mention of confusion created by the use of the phrasing "complete". It could be inferred to mean that the entire suit was no longer worn as a unit (what I understand to be the case of history), or that the entire suit, including all individual components, were completely abandoned and plate armour was totally out of use by the 16th century (certainly not the case). What you said concerning the use of the cuirass is congruent with my thoughts on the subject. The use of the rapier as a battlefield weapon is something I haven't heard of - I'll certainly look into that. I do know that some officers carried rapiers and smallswords into battle, not really expecting for them to see much use aside from signaling a charge or the like (this was during the American Revolution, from my understanding). The French battle is something I will put into a quick bit of research - if it's true, I certainly pity those soldiers, especially against a pike square. -- Xiliquiern 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have found that, indeed, rapiers were taken into battle on occassion and supposedly used, though to ill effect. Perhaps it is for this reason that I (and many others) understand that rapiers are not 'battlefield weapons' and then interpret that to mean they were never used on a battlefield. Several websites support this claim, most about classical fencing. The subject is probably most completely covered in an essay by John Clements on the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts page. So, my newfound knowledge is that the rapier was primarily a weapon for self-defense, but was tested with poor results on the battlefield on more than one occasion. -- Xiliquiern 16:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The story I was taught about the switch from foil to epee was that too many people were being fatally injured during duels, so the epee was created with the first blood rule. The first person to bleed lost the duel. Because the hand is the closest target to your opponent, it was an easy target prompting the creation of a bigger bell garde. Also, so people would be able to prove they drew the blood, the blood groove of the blade was created. The blood groove is the deep niche along the center of the blade where the electric wires now lay, which is why the blade is so thick and shaped in a "v".71.232.185.140 (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Crashbaptiste.

Why would you need to create a completely new weapon, just in order to implement a rule change (fencing until 1st blood was drawn)? You could easily do that with a sharp foil. And exactly how does an deep groove in a blade help, unless you intend bleeding your opponent to death with your epee still stuck in him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.41.166 (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the triangular blade of the epee/duelling sword, I think this has everything to do with producing a lighter, stiffer, and stronger blade. If you have ever handled a period smallsword with a triangular blade, you will appreciate this. The triangular blade appears in smallswords fairly early on [perhaps earlier than the rectangular foil?]. In any case, I think stories about the grooves being to let out blood, introduce air into the wound, or prove "first blood" are apocryphal. Tapatio (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Move

I think it might make sense to move this article over to Fencing (sport) or Sport Fencing and leave the Fencing page behind as a redirect page, or redirect it to swordsmanship. I've been finding a lot of articles lately that link here, but don't mean to reference sport fencing, instead meaning general swordplay with which this article does not concern itself. I don't imagine support for this to be all to solid, though I think many of you may understand my reasoning: there are many types of fencing out there today (sport, classical, historical, kenjutsu, etc) and even more in the past. Wouldn't it be right to have this general article redirect to or directly discuss the general subject of fencing than focus on only one portion of it? - xiliquiern^talk 20:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fencing (sport) sounds good to me. I too have encountered pages before that link here, but actually want something like swordplay. Perhaps a disambiguation page should be made. --authraw 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support Fencing as a disambiguation page, pointing to the different styles, over to swordsmanship, sword, and a few other strongly related terms. - xiliquiern^talk 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a comment? - xiliquiern^talk 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If not, I'm going to go ahead with the move later today, its been a week. - xiliquiern^talk 14:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. the current fencing article is not about one thing that is known as fencing, but multiple things that earlier swordplay has spawned. Providing different articles to adress these with a fencing disambig page would help a lot in article quality. -- Whpq 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this move should be reverted, because one of the primary reasons cited for the move (people looking for swordplay) is irelevant, because swordplay redirects to fencing. I think that if people are looking for fencing, they should get fencing. Fencing is first and foremost a sport, with everything else secondary. If people are looking for football, they get football, as they should, not American football. I dunno, I'm probably just feeling tired and grumpy, but maybe someone can articulate this better than I can? I think I'll go and get some sleep now.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 05:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of going through every (yes, every) article that referenced fencing. Some of them (about 1/3) mean fencing as in "general swordplay", not modern sport fencing. The other 2/3 mean exclusively modern sport fencing. The articles pointing to modern sport fencing are having the wikilink changed to a direct link, and those that aren't are being left at fencing. Eventually, fencing will become a WP:SS style disambiguation page. I planned on putting a 'This article is about fencing as swordplay, if you are looking for the sport, see fencing (sport).' bit at the top, as well as a section on modern sport fencing and associated events (olympics, clubs, major university teams). In this manner, those who search for fencing can easily (and quickly) find an article about sport fencing that discusses only sport fencing and is not muddled by attempts to include other historical forms. Does this plan seem reasonable? - xiliquiern^talk 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking closer at your analogy, that is exactly what I (and I think others) had in mind when I suggested and they supported the move. For a direct comparison fencing will become like football, an article that shows a variety of activities and, if fitting, evolution over time. Fencing (sport) will be like American Football, a specific subset of the same general idea. Sport fencing is only single type of fencing, just as American Football is only a single type of football. - xiliquiern^talk 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this issue still in question? If not, I will continue to work with the wikilinks and start the fencing article. - xiliquiern^talk 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the move, so for me, it's not in question.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 21:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

List of national governing bodies

I'm removing the growing list of national governing bodies, these are my arguments:

1. It's a directory, we don't like those, it's not very versatile either, it's just stating "In Country, the sport of fencing is governed by the Country fencing federation.
2. If someone would want to figure out the governing body of a country, they'd go to the article on the corresponding wikipedia language and figure it out (this is why the governing bodies of English-speaking countries are kept, in the external links section, though)

-Obli (Talk)^? 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Revisions, FA Push

I've only been fencing for a year or so now, but I feel like I want to try and help Fencing to become a featured article. Considering the Article length, and the shortness of some of the related articles, I feel that it is neccessary to make some major edits to some sections. What's the best way to do this without creating a lot of hooplah? FreakBurrito 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is part of the reason I moved this article from Fencing to Fencing (sport). Now that there is a page (Fencing) dedicated to providing all the information about the general types of fencing, this page can remove information about the other types and focus purely on the sport (shorten over all length, but still allow information expansion about the specific topic). First though, there seems to be a call for the move to be reverted (see two sections up on this talk page). If that can be settled, I'll finish up doing page redirects and then let the article to its real purpose - sport fencing. Sound good? - xiliquiern^talk 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody calls it "sport fencing", though. I've never heard someone distinguish fencing from other types of fencing by callng it something else, it's always stage, historical, mensur and whatnot you distinguish by calling it something other than fencing. Fencing is just plain fencing. -Obli (Talk)^? 08:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with you, that nobody calls it anything else. A google search supports the idea that the term "sport fencing" is used quite a bit. In fact, Triplette (from my understanding a popular supplier of sport fencing equipment) has a page header that reads: "Sport Fencing Equipment, Sport Fencing Supplies..." The words "sport fencing" also appear in context in this article three times, none of which were added by me. In fact, on at least almost every ocassion I've talked to a sport fencer, they identified their activity as "fencing, like the sport", or "sport fencing". On only one occasion have I ever been told simply "fencing". Afterwards, I clarified: "Sport fencing?" and they said "Yeah, sport fencing". Sport fencing is simply a more descriptive and more accurate term which is (from my understanding) easily related be everyone to the modern sport of fencing. I would also say that the reason "fencing" may be referred to as "fencing" is the relative obscurity of other types of fencing - there aren't too many classical fencing duels shown in the Olympics. Few people know of "historical fencing", "classical fencing", or "mensur". And, when they are exposed to the words, they immediately think it is the modern sport of fencing. I think the use of the words "historical fencing, "classical fencing, etc" are not used to differentiate them from the sport of fencing, but rather to show that they are a subcategory of the larger global activity of "using a sword", fencing.

That is only one aspect of the point, though. The fact that many Wikipedia pages reference "fencing" as a general term for "swordplay" or, in some cases, older schools of fence, shows that not everyone finds the concept of fencing synonymous with any single type of fencing, be it sport, Japanese, etc. That was the biggest reasoning for the split - the word "fencing" encompasses more than the modern sport. Similarities and history connect the modern sport to other types of fencing in purpose, technique, and weaponry.

As I said above, making the differentiation from a broad state: fencing, to a more specific one: fencing (sport), allows this article the opportunity to cast off a considerable deal of "other information" that appears feverishly added to try and "cover all the bases". Instead of trying to explain other forms of fencing and their relations in a few hurried sentences, the article can now focus more diligently and in more detail about the specifics of sport fencing, two elements I would consider desirable if not necessary in an FA. This move was not made to try to rename the sport, or cast it aside as somehow less important. It was made to allow the word "fencing" to be displayed in its true broad context. Again, you may be assured, that the link to sport fencing, and information about sport fencing, will head the article as it is undoubtedly among the most popular (if not the most popular) forms of fencing today. - xiliquiern^Talk 15:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Obli. certainly as far as I am aware (although it may be different in the USA) fencing means the sport. It is not referred to as sport fencing or modern fencing unless there is a specific context in which confusion may arise. If someone was looking for "Fencing" they should go to the page relating to the international sport in my view. Of course any historical background or historical special interest groups should be mentioned or linked. jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.25.242 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Suppliers

It seems to me that suppliers, while interesting to fencers looking for equipment, are not an appropriate category for an encyclopedia page. Especially since there are MANY suppliers around the world, and "Wikipedia is not a directory/search-engine/link-listing/shopping-site". Other sites and search engines can and do have listings of suppliers. I propose wholesale deleting the section, which in my mind will improve the article for future FA status. jesup 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree/Support/Vote of Confidence Makes sense to me. This day in age I don't think anyone requires a direct link to get to a site that sells sport fencing equipment - a simple google search will provide the answer. -xiliquiern^Talk 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you, there's no Google search term that would bring up a list of fencing suppliers (fencing poles/mesh, anyone?), so how about just this link? -Obli (Talk)^? 07:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats probably ok. good by me. jesup 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - that doesn't answer "Wikipedia is not a directory/search-engine/link-listing/shopping-site". Whymust fencing supplier web sites be accessible from Wikipedia. Furthermore, "fencing supplies", amended with your weapon of choice does a spectacular job of finding suppliers of fencing sports equipment. -- Whpq 13:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No it didn't. Considering fencing equipment isn't something you'd find at your local sports store I think it's important to link to a directory, at least we're not being the directory itself, which is what WP:NOT aims at preventing if you ask me. -Obli (Talk)^? 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a better External Link would be a general link to dmoz like this. From there they can find whatever they want (forums, suppliers, clubs, organizations, etc). We're not a link-listing service, but they are. From External Links: Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. jesup 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that this is an encyclopedia article, I refer you to Wikipedia:External links, and specifically, under "Links normally to be avoided", there is point 4 which states "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." which is what all suppliers sites are. Indirectly referring to it via DMOZ link still violates the spirit of the guideline. -- Whpq 13:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why I removed the suppliers. Indirectly via DMOZ (especially if we just add an EL to [http://dmoz.org/Sports/Fencing/ Directory of fencing links]) is fine by WP:EL. jesup 14:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, considering they're all probably listed there, I don't see how one supplier is benefited more than the other by this. -Obli (Talk)^? 14:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. Le Touche of Class went under years ago and H.O.M. Fencing Supply is not listed at all...the list is not up to date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84bdsop (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

So tell the editor there or become one yourself.  :-) — jesup 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I AM H.O.M. Fencing Supply...it would seem inappropriate to publicise myself.

High School

I rewrote the High School section; it needed it badly. It's still not good and poorly sourced, and I'm not all that in touch with what has been happening in HS fencing. Some of what I put in is more guess than verifiable fact. Please feel free to take a whack at it. jesup 14:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

US Title 10

I removed this bit from the High School fencing section, because I'm not quite sure what was meant by it: "and a need comply with US Title X" Looking up United States Code, Title 10, I can't really see anything in there that would be related to fencing, as the title seems mostly related to the Armed Forces. Could someone perhaps explain this perplexing reference?--digital_me 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that was a typo, with the correct wording being US Title IX a law that requires an equal number of male and female sporting participations in the name of shaking down gender bias in government sponsored (i.e. public school) sporting teams. How this in particular relates to fencing, I'm not sure, as I thought teams were composed of both sexes, but I may be misinformed. Similarly, it could have been misinterpreted, with the intended meaning that: In public highschools, fencing is required to comply by Title IX. If the author would share some words on intent, it might clear things up. -xiliquiern^Talk 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a typo - I was already making an edit and had to walk away (and got distracted editing the Title IX page). Teams may be mens or womens in NCAA. Often when the men's team is eliminated the women's is too, and perhaps another women's team is expanded (often cheaper than just keeping a women's fencing team alone). However, Title IX doesn't often apply to high schools, though it does apply to some, such as those that have students on federal financial aid (such as some non-sectarian private schools). It's possible it should be eliminated from High School, and only be referred to in college. jesup 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that there needs to be this much detail, especially as this controversy/problem applies across the board to NCAA sports. It should be covered by Title IX. -- Whpq 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Move of Fencing/Featured article overhaul to Talk:Fencing (sport)/Featured article overhaul

I discussed my reasons on the old talk page Talk:Fencing/Featured_article_overhaul. Briefly, I moved it to comply with Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses. I will leave the redirect for a few days so that anyone who wants may object, then I'll probably delete that subpage, as well. -sthomson06 (Talk)

Inaccurate Depiction of Target Areas for Sabre

The picture shown for sabre target areas does not have the hands in red, despite the fact that they are valid targets. This should be rectified. --Savant13 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The hands were removed from the sabre target a few years ago. See the current FIE technical rules at http://www.fie.ch/download/rules/fr/RTECHN.pdf (page 29). Mark Oakley 15:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - to the frustration of an epeeist who always goes for the nearest target area possible (and is not fast enough to take points most of the time otherwise) <g> --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but I wouldn't know it from looking at that webiste. I don't speak French. --Savant13 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Statement

What is the source for the statement in the leader which says that any non-projectile weapons can be used for fencing? --Savant13 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually this depends on your definition of fencing. Fencing is the Art of Defence (look at the etymology of the word). Fencing includes all kinds of weapons, not just swords (see Historical Fencing below). I would even include pistols in the art of defence, as these were commonly referred to in historical fencing manuals such as those of Sir William Hope from 1692, 1707 etc. see http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Hope/VadeMecum/VadeMecumMSS.php and search for 'pistol'. Later editions of the New Method also cover pistols. Jonathan Miller

I wrote that a few years back. There are arguments both for and aganst it.

Against: The earliest consistent use of 'fence' to describe a martial art goes back to late 16th century and appears to be a specific reference to rapier play. I have a theory that the word had a derogatory tinge as an 'improper' kind of 'defence'. George Silver keeps contrasting the wonderful 'English masters of Defence' against the useless 'Italian teachers of fence'. (Incidentally, part of his gripe was that these Italians concentrated on the rapier to the exclusion of all other weapons.) Equally, most of Shakespeare's fencers are ill-tempered and pretentious foreigners. Take the first known use of 'fence' in reference to swordsmanship (going on the Oxford English Dictionary) in The Merry Wives of Windsor (act 2, sc. 3):

Doctor Caius: By gar, de herring is no dead so as I vill kill him. Take your rapier, Jack; I vill tell you how I vill kill him.

Rugby: Alas, sir, I cannot fence.

or Mercutio's rant in Romeo and Juliet (act 2, sc. 3):

...He rests his minim rests: one, two, and the third in your bosom; the very butcher of a silk button... ...The pox of such antic, lisping, affecting phantasisms...

In Hamlet, Polonius lists 'fencing', along with gambling, drinking and swearing, as one of the

...wanton, wild and usual slips

As are companions noted and most known

To youth and liberty.

Shakespeare's duels tend to end in tragedy rather than glory.

For: Such a narrow definition is no longer applicable today. The word 'fencing has lost whatever negative conotations it might have originally carried and, even in its narrowest possible sense, now covers all the major schools of European swordsmanship from the past 500 years. Looking at Rennaisance manuals[1], it is fairly clear that swordsmanship was just one facet of a much wider martial arts system involving a great variety of weapons but under a single unified technical-tactical framework. Thus looking at the widest possible sense, 'fencing' covers pretty much any European martial art involving non-missile weapons. As such, it can be set apart from 'empty-hand' martial arts (like boxing and wrestling) and those involving ranged weapons (archery, shooting, javelin, hammer throw and so on). (Pavel 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Historical Fencing

Your section on Historical fencing is inaccurate. Historical fencing is the study of fencing (that is, the art of defence) as it was really performed, using accurate replica weapons, and working from surviving fencing manuals. These cover many more weapons than merely swords (the art of defence includes staves, pollaxe, spear, daggers etc too.) Historical fencing can indeed cover 19th-century techniques, such as the military sabre styles. Classical fencing is arguably a subset of historical fencing, which concentrates on 19th century fencing salle-play of the epee, sabre and foil. Please obtain a better picture for historical fencing, this one is embarassing.

Also, if you are talking about historical western martial arts, fencing is not the only one. Historical fencers routinely include world war 2 combat manuals in their remit (such as that by Fairburn).

Jonathan Miller

_____________________________________

To add to these extreme inaccuracies, it is clear through research in world history of martial arts that Fencing originated from a Japanese Martial art known as Kendo. As marked and provided with a confirmed Historical date of 1185, when it first became popular enough to state as an official sport. (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendo)

Where as Historical Fencing is recorded back as far as the 12th century.

It is discouraging that western history is being provided with false information, as this clearly is a matter of providing correct originating history rather than pride of one's nationality.

- Serena Cresent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.230.66 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Collegiate fencing has existed for a long time.

Both of the "School" sections need major clean and reference. Tags and templates won't work, somebody has got to do it.

I don't know enough about either to start researching for it. ALTON .ıl 07:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC) That guy three or so comments up is already doing it. Great! ALTON .ıl 05:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that Collegiate and High School both belong in separate articles. They are of little interest to anyone from outside the US. What we probably should have is much more prominently placed sections on school and university fencing in general, with emphasis on the international rather than national circuit (Junior World Championships, University Games etc.) and perhaps a passing mention of the various local variants. (81.106.193.149 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree, I think the stuff concerning American collegiate and school fencing is near irrelvant for people outisde the States. It should be included ona seperate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.228.137 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've joined the Schools and University sections and shifted what was there before off to two seperate pages. I am wondering though whether we need a seperate section on University and School fencing? As far as I can see it's always going to end up as an anglocentric description of what competitions occur. Billsmith453 (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this section is still here. The article is meant to be a source of general information about the sport. This information is not general; it is very specific and of very little interest to anybody other than the people directly involved (for whom dedicated articles exist). 90% of it needs to be thrown out, and the remainder included in a section dealing with the broader structure of the competition scene, focusing on international rather than national or regional events. Academic leagues and championships exist across the world with relatively minor regional variations. The same is true of development circuits. He who cares about the details can read the relevant Wikipedia pages or, more appropriately, check what information is provided by their national governing bodies. --81.105.78.58 (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Swordplay

Is Swordplay specifically and largely referred to as fencing? And why does fencing seem to take up "sword fighting" and "swordplay"? Although it does come to my understanding that most other forms of swordplay is part of an existing martial art. Colonel Marksman 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New Target Area for Foil?

The target area is restricted to the torso (However from 01/01/2009 the international governing body of Olympic fencing the FIE has agreed to add whats known as the bib or neck area to the current foil target).

Is there any sources for the statement in parantheses? If so, please provide them. Thanks. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Following the decisions taken by the 2007 Congress, and at the request of the manufacturers, the new bib in foil will be mandatory as of 1 January 2009 for senior competitions, and as of 1 October 2009 for the junior competitions."

http://fie.ch/download/letters/2008/urgent/8/en/Urgent%20Letter%208-08.pdf

I went ahead and removed the USFA reference from the picture that shows foil target, since the bib WILL be target in the US starting Aug 1, 2012. Since Summer Nationals just finished, that means the next official USFA tourney ANYWHERE must have the bib as target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.253.107 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

French article vs UK article

Is there any reason why the UK version of the fencing article is so boring? Had a look at the French article, and there is loads of interesting content and photos there. Nessymonster (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you could translate and add some of this content that would be great, my French is not good enough to so more thank pick off images which could be shared if they are on commons. --Nate1481 15:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bayonet fencing experienced a somewhat slower decline

84.84.69.34 (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Bayonet fencing - as a sport - is still practiced in the Dutch army. A special fencing rifle, with a spring-loaded bayonet (30 cm spring) is used. A few dozen people still do this. Bouts go to 3 points; enough considering the 5-6 kg weight. I have heard uncomfirmed rumours that the sport still exists in Russia.

Protective Clothing

Removed the following: "In electric fencing, there is another layer of which must be added on top of basic protective gear, mainly over areas of which are viable targets for scoring. These are commonly grey, and a body cord is also nessecary in order to register scoring. The body cord goes under the grey armor, and into the arm, and out the glove. It attatches to a weapon on the other side of the suit. In various versions, sleeves to these suits will be missing, like in foil, and the only two suits which share any similarities are the Sabre and Epee electric suits."

Lamé kit is not protective clothing, neither are body wires. They are there primarily for scoring purposes. Various versions of what have missing sleeves? What are "Epee electric suits" and in which way are they similar to sabre ones? In fact, I don't really know where to stop pulling that sentence apart. Nessymonster (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Protective Clothing

I know this article is not visited often, and it's not very popular, but the Protective Clothing section is pretty vague and misleading. It acts like everyone gets the same equipment, instead of buying each article separately. The electric fencing section says " Electric Fencing-In electric fencing, there is another layer of which must be added on top of basic protective gear (called a lamé), entirely over areas of which are viable targets for scoring in the conventional weapons (foil and sabre). " It calls foil and sabre "conventional weapons", which is slightly offensive to epee fencers, and it doesn't really say that you don't wear one in epee. Williamrmck (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Too bad that body cord and lamé are in 'protective clothing' section, as that's not their function. Some of the wording needs to be changed ("viable"? "helmet"?). However, "conventional weapons" isn't a dig at epee at all: the term used pretty commonly for sabre and foil since they are based on right of way and target conventions. Just see the first sentence in the section on epee, and you'll see no "offense" should be taken. "Convention" is a technical, and accurate word to use. Jsavit (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone does need to put in a "competitive equipment" section or something like it for the electric equipment. In my five years of fencing, I've never heard foil and sabre referred to as "conventional weapons" in any way. I also disagree with saying that epee is "Very slow in comparison [to duels]" How do we accurately know how fast duels were? We don't cite any sources and we can't compare it to movies. Also the speed varies greatly depending on who is fencing. Williamrmck (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In my 40 years of fencing I have in fact heard foil and sabre referred to as "conventional weapons". It's not generally in everyday conversation, but it's a legitimate term. I hadn't noticed the comment about epee being slow before: my attention was on the "protective clothing" section, which had numerous mistakes and I wanted to correct at least some of them. Original wording inappropriately used "helmet", and said "viable" where "valid" was meant, implied that epeeists wear lames, etc. I think we're all in agreement that the lame and body cord don't belong in a section called "Protective Clothing". Perhaps the best thing to do is rename the section to "Protective clothing and electrical accessories" or suchlike. Jsavit (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we'll definitely leave "conventional weapons". Remove everything calling it a helmet, it doesn't protect the back of your head, therefore it's not a helmet. I think the title should be something like "Equipment" or something short, sweet and to the point like that. Feel free to mess with that section all you want, Wikipedia encourages bold revisions, and thanks for your help. Williamrmck (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I modified the mask section a touch...350/800N refers to the penetration resistance of the bib. The mesh is tested in kilograms (12 for non-FIE, 25 for FIE), since the mask test isn't for penetration....more that it's testing the pressure necessary to displace the weave of the mesh and admit the probe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.239.142 (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a small question - why have breeches been called knickers? I've never heard that from anyone I've met while fencing, is that what breeches are called in America? In England knickers are girls' underwear, hence why I am looking for the clarification. Jbonner01 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what you call breeches are commonly called knickers in the US. Wschart (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Knickers" is short for "knickerbockers". It is indeed confusing that the British adapted the term (from Washington Irving) to refer to women's panties. Geoffrey.landis (talk)

Bout vs. Match

I noticed a recent edit changed bout to match. Can someone explain the difference? I know most fencers in Florida say "bout," but is there some source that says it's supposed to be one way or the other, or is there some difference between the two? Williamrmck (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no difference between the two. AS far as I'm aware the official wording is "bout". Although, among club fencing, match is acceptable - 92.236.88.188 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a difference. A bout is a single encounter between two fencers where score is kept for a result. A match is the aggregation of all the bouts in a contest between two teams (see Articles t.2 & t.3 of the FIE Rules for Competitions, http://www.britishfencing.com/uploads/files/28_jan_10_book_t_%282%29.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djh9068 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisions and statistics and possible future revisions

I've made a few changes; "slow" in epee seemed perjorative to me and is factually not correct, an attack parry riposte remise action is faster in epee than in foil, since the actions are smaller.

The french grip is not gone from high level epee, half the top epee fencers in the world use it.

The defensive nature of the early part of epee bouts is certainly not due to the weight of the weapons, ligher epees have not led to more offensive bouts in high level fencing.

I changed cor a cor (!!) to corps-à-corps.

The statement "A Stop-hit is a hit by the defending fencer before the attacking fencer's attack arrives" is incorrect. I'm not sure "stop-hit" is the correct term to use for foil, I'd think something like "attack into preparation", but anyway simply hitting before the attack arrives doesn't give you a point in foil.

Actually the stop-hit does exist in foil, as in all weapons. A stop-hit is an offensive-defensive action made into an opponent's correct attack, which prevents that attack from arriving. An attack into preparation is a correct attack made by fencer A, when his opponent has either incorrectly executed an attack (lunging with a bent arm, for example) or made a preparatory action and not commenced the attack (when Fencer B has beaten Fencer A's blade, but not begun to extend their arm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djh9068 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to include a statistical summary, number of fencers in various countries, number of competitions per year, number and location of World Cup and World Championships, that sort of thing?

Things I did not change but think we should look carefully at:

I'm not at all sure the statement "The original idea behind the rules of foil fencing was to encourage fencers to defend and attack vital areas, and to fight in a methodical way with initiative passing back and forth between the combatants, thus minimizing the risk of a double death" is correct, but I don't have a cite for why I think it's wrong so I left it. But I think it's wrong, I think the foil rules were actually an attempt to make fencing more exciting, not more methodical.

At the start of the epee article it says "Épée, as the sporting weapon known today, was invented in the second half of the 19th century by a group of French students, who felt that the conventions of foil were too restrictive, and the weapon itself too light; they wanted an experience closer to that of an actual duel." Is this correct? Do you have a cite? I thought it was invented by fencing masters, not students, but I'm not sure. I can try to look it up, but if there's a cite I'd like to see it.

Baron ridiculous (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The right of way rules used in foil derive from the convensions used to teach smallsword. According to Egerton Castle in Schools and Masters of Fencing "This change in the manners of the school seems to date from the early days of Louis XIV's reign ... an accomplished fencer was expected to display the utmost regularity, avoid time hits, only repost as his adversary recovered, so as to avoid wounding his face". Castle certainly didn't think they made things more exciting.--213.93.47.134 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Spain?

It's well known that fencing is a spanish sport. It's really wierd I have not even found the word "Spain" along the article.

In the 15th century, the first two treatises about fencing were writen in Spain, and they set the rules to practice fencing: "La verdadera esgrima" (1472) by J. Pons and "El manejo de las armas de combate" (1473) by P. de la Torre.

References: educar.org --79.146.181.195 (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

see historical fencing, Destreza. This is the article on the modern sport. --dab (𒁳) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not modern fencing this is just fencing and it should appear where does it come from, including modern fencing should mentionate about the origins. Thank you. --80.26.10.217 (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Which one is more effective?

Which is better, classical fencing (17. - 19. century) or the historical fencing (13. - 17. century)? Many people told me, that "classical fencing" is actually a more faster way to win a duel. What do you think?--83.78.160.18 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't really belong in the talk forum unless it pertains to improvement/work on the article. In answer to your question: It would depend a lot on what you were dueling with. Historical fencing tends to be more actual combat-oriented than classical fencing, which puts more focus on form. Saberswordsmen1 (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fencing tactics

Somebody created Fencing tactics. Some of the content may be suitable as a section in this article. It needs for somebody to run through it. I'm not familiar with the sport, so I can't really do it. It is a speedy delete nom, so get it while it's hot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fencing is a spanish sport

Fencing is a spanish sport, in fact, it's the unique olympic sport with spanish origin. That must be fixed. if necessary, leave all the sources that confirm it, there are many — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.20.104.203 (talk)

How is it possibly a Spanish sport? There were sword fighting schools in Spain, true. They may well have predated the French and Italian dueling schools. But fencing as a sport, not just practice for dueling, started in France. If you have any of the "many" sources, then please use them the next time you change the article. Otherwise, it will just get reverted back every time. 98.247.229.198 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"HOW IS IT POSSIBLY A SPANISH SPORT?" The answer is really easy, the first official and ORIGINAL rules book of FENCING as an entertainment game was written an published in SPAIN in 1474.

The problem is that the term "sport" was born much later but I think that the term "game" is the same. It is true that originally they were sword fighting schools in Spain, but later the same spanish people adapted the defense practice to a game practice (sport).

Is enough that the International Olympic Committe (IOC) RECOGNIZES fencing as a spanish sport IN IT'S CURRENT FORM?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.41 (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please replace your UPPERCASE arguments with reference citations to reliable sources. Muchas gracias, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate where the IOC says it is a Spanish sport. On their page about fencing ([2]), they merely state that many nations lay claim to the sport, mentioning Italy and Germany, but not Spain. Or France for that matter. 76.28.210.136 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So, our introduction paragraph, which only mentions France, is incorrect :-)

--Lou Crazy (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read this websites: -INTERNATIONAL CHARITY FUND FOR THE FUTURE OF FENCING (the official charity associate of the FIE) http://fencing-future.com/cntnt/eng/fehtovanie9/istoki_sov1.html -OLYMPIC COUNCIL OF ASIA http://www.ocasia.org/sports/SportsT.aspx?GSCode=43 -COSTA RICA OLYMPIC COMITEE http://concrc.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=141&Itemid=183#axzz1D89JXEEw -AN ARTICLE OF THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~fencing/oldweb/history/fencinghistory.html

It is true that in the IOC web doesn't mention anything about Spain, but if doesn't appears in the website means that it's not true?? The international issues about every sport are written in Lausanne, no in a website!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.41 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

1 January or 1 September?

I just want to mention, in the Foil section, it says the following in one paragraph:

A modification in FIE rules from 1 January 2009 onwards means that the valid target area includes...

and in another one it said

European fencing organizations have generally decided on September 1, 2009 as the date for all competitions to use the new rule.

This means that January 1 the FIE announced it, and on September 1, Europe adopted it. Am I correct?--Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it means that FIE competitions use it from January, national competitions in most European countries use it from September. FIE can only dictate what happens in international FIE competitions. Here in Italy we usually adopt FIE rules as national rules very soon, but I have taken part in an official national-level fencing competition in another country where they didn't bother to check whether my protective equipment was up to FIE regulations.

--Lou Crazy (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

France?

Please cite a single *reliable* source that indicates France as fencing's sole country of origin, in its "modern" form or otherwise. I could find nothing in this article that confirmed such a thing (the FIE is international), and my own knowledge of fencing leads me to believe that the country of origin is currently indeterminate, if a single country can even be credited, and that it would be far more accurate to credit Europe as a whole. I will log in and change the info box and corresponding information if a reputable reference cannot be given. Thanks. 67.189.50.77 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No single country can be cited as the origin of fencing. Sword fighting has existed in many countries, in many forms, any which could be considered fencing depending on your definition. Rules for practicing sword fighting have existed in these countries including many different points systems. The modern FIE rules (founded in Paris, but now located in switzerland) of fencing can be traced through many different countries with many different influences, without a single point that can be easily called their creation. Best to remove the country of origin altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.125.33 (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

AND.... ¿¿¿SPAIN???

A stupid historic section without an ONLY mention about Spain, where the modern fencing is said to be born. Besides the first books about the NEW (currently) sport were written there, in SPAIN.--83.39.175.83 (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Grips

"Among the many designs, the most popular are the Visconti, Belgian, and Russian grips". Doubtless true. But the links lead, not to articles on the grips, but to ones on the Visconti name, Belgium and Russia, which is singularly uninformative.

I suggest that the links be removed until such time as they can be replaced by articles on the specific grips. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

History needs a rewrite

I think the history section needs a rewrite. For one the book mentioned in the blurb comes from Spain. But even so the modern rules have nothing to do with the style of first fencing proposed as a leisure activity in Spain. Suggest it be amended to "the first antecedent to modern fencing where sword fighting was proposed as a sport rather than purely a martial technique came from Spain.

Then explain how the rapier was exported from Spain to Italy, where the first systemic use of the sport for duelling and the use of the point was developed, including many of the original training concepts.

Then explain how the rapier developed into the smallsword , where foil was first created as a training weapon for the system and the influence of the French method which developed out of the Italian.

Then explain the use of foil fencing as a pastime, with the development of épée and sabre

Then explain the founding of FIE and the modern rules.

The history section as it stands presents the idea that the current rules were founded in Spain 500 years ago which apart from being misleading is actually nonsense.

In short:

Spain: early development of rapier plus cultivation of swordplay as a sport Italy: renaissance optimisation for duelling and the insistence on the use of the rapier point France : development of the smallsword and then the foil. FIE: first organisation of the sport rules accepted worldwide

Merge from fencing practice and technique

There is an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing_practice_and_techniques that contains a lot of good and pretty well written content.

Field of play, Participants, Protocol and rules, a good description and discussion of priority and more. I think it should be merged into this article.

Jslimmer (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Cupe" attack

I was puzzled by the following (under "Foil/épée/sabre techniques")

• • Cupe attack: The lifting of an opponent's blade to temporarily remove the guard on an opponent's torso.

Not something I'm familar with, so I took the liberty of removing it. If that was an error, perhaps this should also be added to Glossary of fencing (with a citation).Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor probably meant the coupé attack. It's already in the glossary. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Final Trophee Monal 2012 n08.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Final Trophee Monal 2012 n08.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 11, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-09-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Fencing is the sport of fighting with swords; in modern usage the word usually denotes competitive fencing, rather than classical fencing. Here, Fabian Kauter (right) hits Diego Confalonieri (left) with a flèche attack at the final of the Challenge Réseau Ferré de France–Trophée Monal 2012.Photo: Marie-Lan Nguyen