Fencing: The argument of grip

D’artagnan is overwhelmed by the damned barbarians…

Some friends of mine were hanging out the other night, and as usual when a bunch of guys who are martial artists get together and drink beer, we started flailing around drunkenly with a modicum of skill and a lot more...flailing. Apparently there is a rumor of my youngest student, Todd Erven, throwing me into my own couch not once but TWICE when I was a bit inebriated. Since no digital image of such exists and I don’t remember jack shit of it ever happening, surely such a travesty has never occurred.

The boys stayed a little late, and as we all sobered up we meandered into my garage/Martial Arts school and started playing with the various weapons I had stored there, particularly my Filipino machetes.

Typical. I need a larger house so people can just crash when they get too laminated to drive.

My friends are also experienced fencers, and the subject of various techniques and their applications in real world scenarios came up, and somehow we managed to focus on the topic of grips.

Now, to those of you who aren’t in the know about Fencing there are several different camps out there: People who favor one style over another (Capo Ferro Vs. Saviolo, Fabris Vs. Hynitczch), One weapon over another (Sabreurs Vs. Epee), Olympic and Non-Olympic (I belong to this one as well), gloves, blades, etc. And don’t get me started on Salle Vs. Salle. (A Salle is a Fencing school, for those of you who don’t know.)

And I would have to say, the enmity between grip stylists is the worst of all. You think Macintosh versus Windows is bad? You ain’t seen NOTHING yet!

A grip in Fencing is the basis of how you are going to fence. Relaxation and dexterity translate into finite control at the fingers, and your choice of grip will dictate a certain degree of fluidity and technique. Not all of it, but it plays an important part as any fencer will tell you.

There are three types of grips (Last week I would have said two): The French (most common) the Italian (most difficult) and the pistol grip (most hated). The pistol grip is actually an orthopedic grip, devised to assist fencers with hand problems (missing fingers, muscle damage, etc). But the pistol grip has changed the use and approach of modern fencing. Whether it is for the good or the bad, I cannot say. It has developed a system found all across the board today in Fencing, what I (and many old fogies like me) have come to term as “Flickey-Flickey”. The pistol grip doesn’t encourage finite control like the French or Italian, you feel that trigger beneath you and you want to clamp down on it in a death grip, using less wrist and finger control and much MUCH more arm/shoulder movement. The practitioner with a pistol grip tends to wave the foil around like a whip, something that is NOT done with a classical French or Italian grip. This has resulted in a new paradigm of fencing, and here is where you are going to see the gap in generations. People who are trained from say, two decades ago, will favor the old style grips. People who were trained from the mid-80’s up to now will go for the pistol grip and the “flick” style of fencing.

French Grip

Italian Grip

Pistol Grip

My friend presented a good argument to me, one of the best I have ever heard, in favor of the pistol grip. He knew what he was talking about, cited both sources and experience, and could relate them to me in terms I could identify with. He even threw one of my best and favorite sayings in my face, “I never met an improvement I didn’t like”. (Steve Perry once warned me that, as an author, your words will come back to haunt you. Score another for the old coot.)

I tried to defend my point of view, which was disapproval of pistol grips, but I couldn’t rationalize it very well at the time. The fact that I am a loopy drunk may have played a part in that, but really, who can say? Despite my inability to vocalize my exact thoughts I still felt I was right, I just couldn't give him anything other than circular logic: "I'm right because I say I'm right". My friend asked if he could get together with me next week with a couple of pistol grips to show me what he meant, and I agreed.

After they left (finally!!) I stayed in my garage for a few hours trying to formulate an argument about pistol grips. I don’t like them, period. But they are the most used in the Fencing world today. Does consensus create reality? Thousands of Fencers swear by them, are thousands of Fencers wrong? My friend believes in them and I certainly trust his judgment in Fencing, he’s been around the block more than I have in this Art.

But still…The pistol grip style?

Now this is, to me anyway, wrong. I SEE that it has a use. I SEE that it works. And I SEE that it’s the most popular cut of beef on the butcher’s block. But I just can’t get past it, no matter how hard I try. Yet for whatever reason, my friend had me up against the wall without an excuse or me being able to formulate a rational argument. This hit me today. Literally, in a Pontiac. Every art that I seriously train in, I EXAMINE. I look for flaws, weaknesses, generally anything I can find that will be a hindrance. There is nothing on this Earth perfect, and anything created by man has flaws, no matter how great the teacher, founder or system may be. NOTHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING. So using that as a rule, I train hard and often to grasp the concepts and techniques taught to me and research the form to get to the heart of the style. What makes it work this way, why do we go left instead of right? Any advanced martial artist will do the same thing, many of you out there know what I am talking about here, it’s old news. I then go for the next logical step in my eyes: Making your personal art stronger. Not the style you are in specifically, but the method that you extract from the style to use as your personal arsenal.

But I never tried to do that with Fencing, I have always accepted in Fencing the very thing that I discourage myself and my students from doing: Tradition is Dogma.

I hate that point of view. I detest it. I LOATHE it. I have said this before, and it was never truer: Habit and tradition should never be above criticism, nor should the dead rule the living. My fencing teachers were traditionalists, and strict ones at that. They made me do drills for weeks without variation. I didn’t get to bout (spar) with others until I had been sweating out the drills, cuts and footwork for eight months, and then I was allowed only a few bouts per week until I could keep my defenses from being penetrated. Several times a month for a year I almost quit.

And they absolutely hated pistol grips. I never touched one in seven years. I was scared they were going to kill me if I did.

Now this is good training as it stands, but anyone who has been in fencing as long as I have shouldn’t be restricted by it. So why am I? I consider myself a good fencer, not an expert by any means, but I can hold off the Cardinals men until the rest of the Musketeers arrive. But this conversation has been nagging me for days now, and I couldn’t figure it out. Why am I so headstrong about my classical fencing views?

I have a friend who is fairly famous in the Fencing community, but he’s also a staunch traditionalist. Knowing this, I called him this morning and replayed what I could remember of the conversation (I WAS half lit, after all) and asked him what he thought.

“Well, you can’t blame them. Fencing today isn’t what it was 20 or 30 years ago, or even 15 years when you started. It’s taken a different turn and become a different sport, so you can’t hold it to the same standards of long ago. Look at the electronic foil, it changed the way we did business forever. Who ever calls “Touché’!” these days? Electronic Fencing is the accepted norm today, but my teacher told me that back then there was an outcry of all the traditionalists against it. It’s the same today. Nowadays the pistol grip is king of the hill, you will rarely find a French grip around and only the old fogies use the Italian. Most you get is some guy who, like me, was trained in what’s now known as “classical style”, and hasn’t been exposed to Modern Olympic.”

“Something seems to be wrong, though. I can’t really get the proper thought out, but it’s something like “What about all the stuff I learned in the 80’s?” I can’t accept that all the good stuff I got from what you say is “the classical style” is useless. Especially when I’ve employed it to such advantage!”

“Oh, I know what you mean, but you’re missing the big picture: You aren’t doing the same thing! THEY are fencing according to the new system that has evolved with the new equipment. YOU are fencing with a different era behind you, an older form of thinking. Neither is wrong, neither is right. Take the pistol grip out of fencing, what would you have to rely on? Solid technique, strong guard and defenses, excellent hand and eye coordination, footwork, footwork, footwork! Well, that’s what we did! Take away the need to develop such skills and you get the pistol grip: The emphasis on what you call “Flickey-Flickey” has it’s own merits, and it’s own style of use. Techniques and theory has evolved from it, and it’s a whole new art. It’s not what WE did, and what we did isn’t what THEY do. Get that straight, it’s like comparing your own Eskrima to Destreza; Related yes, but not the same. You’ll go out of your mind trying to reconcile them, it’s why the big grip argument still exists. Everyone says they’re doing fencing, yet who is following the textbook definition? Nobody in this day and age.”

“So, if I asked you for an opinion on the lesser of two evils…?”

“Well, what are you really asking? Is one better than another? What is it you think I’m going to say to that? Will the pistol grip style overcome the classical under a certain stricture of rules? Will a classical stylist eat blade against a HISTORICAL fencer? Make it a death bout? Five points to the win? First blood across the chest? Define your terms, sir”

I love this guy, but he insists on speaking like a damned Shakespearean actor from time to time. No shit, we actually went to see Disney's "Three Musketeers" in the early 90's, and when we left the theatres I asked him what time it was. He wasn't wearing a watch, so his reply: "I know not". I hate it when he does that.

“You are taking this too far. You think in only two dimensions in an argument, and you don’t fight that way so break the habit already. Neither of you is right. Neither of you is wrong. You are products of your training and your experience. You have gotten good things from what you do, and so has your friend. Bobbe, just let it go.”

Oh yes…I forgot to tell you. There is another style.

Historical Fencing.

Historical Fencing is yet another beast, closer to the 16^th century than even the 16^th century was. This is the style you see at RenFest (Renaissance Festival). These people fight with as many trappings and circumstances as the swashbucklers of old, and there are frequent injuries as a result. More so, I would say, than in Olympic or Classical fencing. A good example of Historical Fencing would be the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms). You may find that funny, but cross swords with one of these bastards…You won’t be laughing long. Historical Fencing is dangerous, and not to be sneered at. Also, Fencing in general, no matter WHAT style, is DIFFICULT. It has a background rhythm and tempo that doesn’t present itself in the superficial training. It takes years to get the full thrust of it. (I meant to say that!!) The benefits you reap from it go beyond the Fencing strip, you literally see things differently.

Historical fencing, Classical Fencing and sport fencing are three completely different concepts. Historical Fencers are not training for competition, and Classical fencers would probably get slaughtered by them. Modern Sport (Olympic) Fencers just don’t compare to classical fencers in my book, there is something missing. These old techniques and systems will teach you the same basic principles that modern sport fencing is based upon. And maybe I’m being judgmental in my opinion of pistol grips, I certainly disdain them. But I don’t believe the lessons you learn from Classical grip Fencing is comparable to what you get from pistol grip. I still firmly believe the Classical environment is both richer and more applicable to overall Martial Arts.

So Mike and Jason, if you’re reading this, I apologize if I came across as an unmitigated ass the other night. You are my friends, and I value our relationship.

...But you’re still wrong.