JetLag
23-06-2004, 23:34
anbei mal eine FAQ zum Thema Schwertkampf und Themen wie:
How is modern fencing different from the "real thing"?
If the "real thing" is a duel with sharps, then aside from the
mortal danger and related psychological factors, the primary
technical difference is that the duellist can win with only a
single good touch, whereas the athlete has to hit his opponent as
many as 15 times and so requires more technical and tactical
depth. Many inferior duellists have won their combats through
sheer dumb luck. This is far less likely in the sport. On the
other hand, the sport fencer takes many defensive risks that
would be unthinkable in a duel, since he has up to 15 "lives" to
work with.
Some purists equate "real" fencing with classical fencing,
ie. the prevalent styles of the traditional French and Italian
schools of fencing that predominated before electric fencing was
popularized. By comparison, modern fencing is more mobile and
athletic, while classical fencers were known for their more
sophisticated phrasing and bladework.
Modern sabre fencing is performed with lightweight weapons and
techniques that do not translate well to military sabres and
broadswords. There is a certain amount of cross-over with
lighter turn-of-the-century duelling sabres, however.
Lastly, it just seems apparent to some that sport fencing has
evolved away from its bloody origins. Tactically and
psychologically, it is true that the sport is a vastly different
world from the duel. The sport fencer's life is never in
jeapordy, and with as many as 15 hits needed to secure victory,
there often isn't even much figurative danger. Since the quality
of a hit is immaterial, fencers will naturally prefer an easy
"wounding" hit over a difficult "fatal" one, and so glancing hits
will often win out over strong thrusts. Technically, however,
there have been few modern innovations, and the sport fencer
still possesses all the technical skills necessary to fight a
duel.
(C) 1993-2002 Morgan Burke
Rest, siehe Anlage.
Gruß Jet
How is modern fencing different from the "real thing"?
If the "real thing" is a duel with sharps, then aside from the
mortal danger and related psychological factors, the primary
technical difference is that the duellist can win with only a
single good touch, whereas the athlete has to hit his opponent as
many as 15 times and so requires more technical and tactical
depth. Many inferior duellists have won their combats through
sheer dumb luck. This is far less likely in the sport. On the
other hand, the sport fencer takes many defensive risks that
would be unthinkable in a duel, since he has up to 15 "lives" to
work with.
Some purists equate "real" fencing with classical fencing,
ie. the prevalent styles of the traditional French and Italian
schools of fencing that predominated before electric fencing was
popularized. By comparison, modern fencing is more mobile and
athletic, while classical fencers were known for their more
sophisticated phrasing and bladework.
Modern sabre fencing is performed with lightweight weapons and
techniques that do not translate well to military sabres and
broadswords. There is a certain amount of cross-over with
lighter turn-of-the-century duelling sabres, however.
Lastly, it just seems apparent to some that sport fencing has
evolved away from its bloody origins. Tactically and
psychologically, it is true that the sport is a vastly different
world from the duel. The sport fencer's life is never in
jeapordy, and with as many as 15 hits needed to secure victory,
there often isn't even much figurative danger. Since the quality
of a hit is immaterial, fencers will naturally prefer an easy
"wounding" hit over a difficult "fatal" one, and so glancing hits
will often win out over strong thrusts. Technically, however,
there have been few modern innovations, and the sport fencer
still possesses all the technical skills necessary to fight a
duel.
(C) 1993-2002 Morgan Burke
Rest, siehe Anlage.
Gruß Jet