PDA

View Full Version : On Fencing - Nadi



plewis66
-25th October 2003, 09:01
Whilst I was waiting to get back into fencing, I acquired and read 'On Fencing' by Aldo Nadi.

It's a smoetimes fascinating read, though it gets a bit dry when he starts to get into depth about practice routines etc.

My question is, almost one hundred years after Nadi was at his peak, how much of what he wrote is still relevant?

tigger
-25th October 2003, 10:34
haven't read it, but probably virtually none!

plewis66
-27th October 2003, 07:48
Originally posted by tigger
haven't read it, but probably virtually none!

Hmmm. Forgive me if I don't take your word on that, if you've never read it!

Surely someone here has read it? 'The greatest Fencer of All Time' he was called. Though his brother had a better Olympic record. Aldo won only three golds and a silver in 1920, whereas his brother Nedo won five golds...

neevel
-27th October 2003, 17:53
So far as a study of the psychology of a champion fencer, it's worth it. Many of the very broad fundamentals of tactics and strategy Nadi brings up are also still relevant. It's when you get down to the specfic points of technique that you need be aware that the book was written 60 years ago, and have enough of an outside knowledge-base to be able to recognize what's obsolete.

Keep in mind, amidst all of the "greatest fencer that ever lived" superlatives, that Aldo Nadi was a monumental egotist and a shameless self-promoter. He tends to downplay his failures (like his loss to Gaudin in their arranged match, trying to blame it on a rule change). He also took the "quit while you're ahead" approach, retiring somewhat early from his competitive career. There have been subsequent foilists (Romankov springs immediately to mind) whose competitve results in both the World Championships and Olympics combined have matched or exceeded Nadi's, and were maintained over a longer competitive career. Additionally, with the developments in training practices that have arisen since 1920, multi-weapon W. Champs./Olympic medalists have gone the way of the .400 hitter in baseball.

-Dave

tigger
-28th October 2003, 14:18
Keep in mind, amidst all of the "greatest fencer that ever lived" superlatives, that Aldo Nadi was a monumental egotist and a shameless self-promoter
Not like any modern fencers then :grin:


He tends to downplay his failures (like his loss to Gaudin in their arranged match, trying to blame it on a rule change) Also sounds fairly familiar (bloody referees never give *me* tempo)


multi-weapon W. Champs./Olympic medalists have gone the way of the .400 hitter in baseball.
The way of the which hitter in what?? Isn't that some colonial form of rounders (a healthy British game for young British ladies?). What the heck's a .400 hitter?

Rdb811
-28th October 2003, 14:46
Much better than the ones they get now - .350 is no the top average.

A long way to go before they get to 99.96, though.

plewis66
-28th October 2003, 15:03
Huh?

Rdb811
-28th October 2003, 15:17
99.96 is Sir Donald Bradman's average. (cricket for those not from around here).

neevel
-28th October 2003, 18:16
Whoops-- sorry for forgetting which forum I was posting on!:)

In baseball a batting average of .400 means you make some kind of a hit 40% of the time you come to bat. It used to be that the very best batters could get to that, but as RdB noted nowadays you'll almost never see anything above .350. The reason for this is changes that have occurred over the years in a variety of aspects of training and how the game is played, rather than the quality of the hitters declining. Baseball is similar to fencing, however, in that there is an ever-present minority who insist that the game is on a continuous path of decline from the Great Good Old Days, that every change threatens the demise of civilization, and that today's top players could never hold a candle to the Immortals of Yore.

-Dave

DrT
-29th October 2003, 08:07
They manage to at least hit the ball in 35% of their innings?? England could use some batsmen like that! ;)

Winwaloe
-29th October 2003, 16:00
who is greater Fangio or Schumaccher? Does it matter?

plewis66
-29th October 2003, 18:34
Nope.

Doesn't matter one jot.

Just wanted to know how much of the book is relevant.

stevejackson
-29th October 2003, 19:30
DrT, Be fair, its not hitting the ball the English batsmen have trouble with, it's more that they hit it straight to a fielder. Bring back the cultivated miss, I say.

plewis66
-29th October 2003, 21:15
Listen, any activity where the participants break for tea and scones is not a sport :silly:

So can we lay off the cricket stuff, please :dont:.
It's confusing the heck out of me :help: ,
And it's so much more boring than fening :fencingsm

Or even :sleep:, come to think of it.

Of course, it could be made exciting, if the batter used a lightsabre :luke:

and the chucker used a :f16_plain

But whenever it came on the telly, you'd still see me...
:homerfood

Rdb811
-29th October 2003, 21:59
Originally posted by neevel
Baseball is similar to fencing, however, in that there is an ever-present minority who insist that the game is on a continuous path of decline from the Great Good Old Days, that every change threatens the demise of civilization, and that today's top players could never hold a candle to the Immortals of Yore.

-Dave

I think this is true of everything.

Rdb811
-29th October 2003, 22:01
Originally posted by plewis66
Listen, any activity where the participants break for tea and scones is not a sport

I thnk you're missing he point - the object is to justify the tea and scones. We have a very fine tradition of ginger scones at my croquet club.

plewis66
-30th October 2003, 07:42
Originally posted by Rdb811 We have a very fine tradition of ginger scones at my croquet club. [/B]

Mmmm....croquet.


But seriously now. When did a ginger scone ever need any justification!

DrT
-30th October 2003, 11:27
Originally posted by stevejackson
DrT, Be fair, its not hitting the ball the English batsmen have trouble with, it's more that they hit it straight to a fielder. Bring back the cultivated miss, I say.
cultivated miss? I am familiar with the (oft displayed) "agricultural miss"!

plewis66
-30th October 2003, 12:14
Agricultural miss?

You mean like Mariette Larkin?

Or Barley May Settle?

Surely this isn't more cricket talk? :dont:

Pointy stick
-1st November 2003, 11:37
In response to <<every change threatens the demise of civilization, and that today's top players could never hold a candle to the Immortals of Yore.>>


Originally posted by Rdb811
I think this is true of everything.

This used to be much truer of everything in the good old days.