One of my favorite books is Robert Heinlein’s 1961 science
fiction classic, Stranger in a Strange Land.
One of the reasons I like this book so much is Heinlein’s
introduction of the “Fair Witness.” A Fair Witness is a professional who is
specially trained to observe events and to report back those observations. The
Fair Witness only reports exactly what he or she sees and hears. They make no
assumptions, extrapolations, or inferences. No emotions, biases or prejudices.
Nor do they draw any conclusions from what they observe. (As Joe Friday would
say, “The facts, Ma’am. Just the facts.”)
In one scene, a Fair Witness is asked the color of a house.
The witness responds, “It’s white on this side,” referring to the side that she
can see. The Fair Witness makes no assumptions about the color of the house on
the sides she cannot see. Further, after observing a different side of the
house, the Fair Witness does not assume that the previously viewed side was
still the same color it was when previously viewed – even if that previous
viewing was mere moments ago.
Unfortunately, this profession is still a fictional one.
However, you may note that the role of the “judge” in a
fencing match is EXACTLY the same as the role of the Fair Witness. Judging
requires that you report only what you see. Not what you think happened, not
what “must” have happened.
Only what you see and nothing else.
This is one reason why I don’t use the electrical scoring
apparatus. It deprives students of the opportunity to develop their ability to
observe objectively. The ability to observe objectively is an essential
component of critical thinking.
You must first become aware of your biases -- personal and cultural –
and then practice eliminating them.
The practice part is
important.
You get physically
stronger by consciously, regularly and progressively challenging your body to
do more than it has done before. Run faster. Jump higher. Lift more weight.
You get mentally stronger, and morally stronger in the same
way: by consciously, regularly and progressively engaging in observation and
analysis at a more demanding level than you have previously done.
To learn, to grow, to achieve excellence, kiss your “comfort
zone” good-bye.
aac
I always assumed that some peoples dislike of the electric scoring system was that it encouraged people to focus on inconsequential periods of time. If two people hit each other with swords milliseconds apart they would still both be wounded.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, Noah. That's ANOTHER good reason not to use it.
ReplyDeleteIt changes fencing from the art of "giving without receiving" into a race of "who hits first."
As you wisely note, when both fencers would have been wounded it's absurd to award the touch to a fencer who just committed suicide by stupidity.
Thanks for your comment.
aac
Wrong. That's what right of way is for, and it has nothing to do with the machine or who hit first. If you want the logic of both fencers would have been wounded, fence epee.
ReplyDelete"Wrong???"
ReplyDeleteI beg your pardon, but that's quite a bold pronouncement from someone who won't reveal his/name or credentials. But I'll ignore your arrogant effrontery from the moment.
You clearly conceive of fencing as some kind of "game" based on artifice and arbitrary whimsey.
It is not.
And that is not what we discuss on this blog.
If that is your interest, please pursue it elsewhere.
On the matter at hand, I stand by my statement.
What you fail to understand is that "foil" and "epee" are the SAME weapon and the same combat logic is common to both. The rules of "right of way" developed in order to train the fencer to fight intelligently, therefore maximizing his odds of survival.
The sport called "fencing" --whether foil or epee --has abandoned all verisimilitude and has thus made itself irrelevant to those interested in the psychology or dynamics of combat.
Whether the electrical scoring apparatus is a symptom or the disease is open to debate.
aac
"Anonymous" said "If you want the logic of both fencers would have been wounded, fence epee."
ReplyDeleteI don't need to fence epee to have the "logic" of "both fencers would have been wounded." If they are both hit, they are both hit. Period. With any weapon. That's a pretty clear thing, and not in any way my goal.
The "rules" of foil are a training tool, nothing more and nothing less.
Even if "right of way" rules declare one touch to be valid, and the other not, as a way to encourage (or discourage) particular behaviors, it STILL is not my goal to have a double touch. If I'm hit, I KNOW THAT I WAS HIT, that I failed to adequately defend myself, even if the rules don't award a touch against me. You seem to think that if no touch is counted, then it doesn't matter.
I have no interest in scoring points, or winning competitions.
I have great interest in being able to defend myself, and all that entails.
As Eugenio Pini pointed out many years ago, faulty logic accounts for double touches of any kind. It does not matter whether your convention allows for them (epee) or if you are disallowing their effect on the score (most classical foil). Failing to understand this point about sword science from our modern cousins gripes my liver.
ReplyDeleteOh the 19th century masters responsible for the bastard epee are rolling their graves now, brother.