no name no face just opinion
Guest
|
Post by no name no face just opinion on Mar 13, 2004 13:42:47 GMT -6
OK, this is one "approval"...from the anonymous cyberspace.
|
|
|
Post by LC Foil on Mar 19, 2004 11:17:12 GMT -6
One of Dan's remarks played out in my head a few weeks back at the Van Buskirk. I watched as two foil fencers tested their lames before fencing. I swear it seemed like a three second pause between when the first fencer touched lame and the second, and the box showed a double.
That seems just way too big of a window from which to allow for double touches...
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Mar 19, 2004 13:56:32 GMT -6
Although not typically a foil fencer, I did fence foil at the Couger Call to Arms. I was able to remise well after my opponent riposted me. The lookout time seems a bit high.
I used to be real ape about harping about classical fencing vs. modern fencing. I had always toyed with epee and enjoyed the freedom of not relying upon a director. I finally made the full switch to epee and I don't worry about all the crazy stuff going on in foil. Personally, I am not learned enough on foil fencing to comment upon what the changes will or will not do. I just know that I am curious to pick up a little foil when they are implemented.
Flicks are not inherently bad. I use "epee flicks" when necessary and do not feel I am dishoring my dueling heritage. Fencing is after all an athletic sport.
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Apr 29, 2004 9:09:03 GMT -6
Wow, I really killed this debate. Does no one else have anything to say on the changes? Has anyone read the latest article on American Fencing? My coach asked me to read it but I haven't yet.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 29, 2004 10:33:54 GMT -6
I'll probably get that issue sometime around the end of May. I'll offer comments on it then. Unless you want to post the gist of it here.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Apr 29, 2004 12:23:44 GMT -6
I'll probably get that issue sometime around the end of May. I'll offer comments on it then. Unless you want to post the gist of it here. Dan I'll do what I can. Maybe I can drive by the club after my exam and pick up the magazine. From what little my coach said about it, this article was not in favor of the changes.
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Apr 29, 2004 14:32:08 GMT -6
No, it wasn't. Jeff Bukantz or whatever his name is mostly stating that the rule changes are from people attemtping to revert foil back into the stone age. The entire article seemed rather bitter, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Apr 29, 2004 15:39:59 GMT -6
That is what my coach said of the article as well.
|
|
|
Post by Michael LoParco on Apr 29, 2004 16:35:43 GMT -6
I am most definitely in favor of the changes. It will bring the cunning and art back to foil. The flick is overrated and a statistically lower probability touch than basic fencing actions. I certainly do not fall in the group of traditionalists who believe the flick should not be allowed because it is not really true fencing. Though I do agree it is not really fencing, it does add a different and interesting dynamic to the game. It is flashy and spectacular to watch, but like the slam-dunk does not replace the majority of the game. I see alot of flicks executed with the arm held back and the point not even remotely threatening target. When counter attacked they simply finish with flick and are awarded the touch. This I think is simply ridiculous. I have seen too many fencers whose arsenal only consists of the flick. One trick ponies. They have mastered the speed and timing of taking the blade and flicking the shoulder. Alternately, holding the blade back and faking the opponent into searching for the blade or parrying to early then flicking the shoulder. Take this away and they have no other game. This is the real tragedy because they are missing out on the whole dynamic of fencing. Personally, I love fencing flickers. It is simple to defend and evade. For those who like to take the blade I feed it to them like bloody fish to a shark. When they use that big sweeping action to catch the blade a simple disengage and straight touch wins every time. For those who go directly to the shoulder a high 9 parry stops them dead and leaves them totally exposed to a simple reposte. The european fencers I have heard comment on the topic and who also saw foil fencing before the flick in the days of Romankov all say the foil fencing was far superior to what it is today and much more interesting to watch. The flick is a "cheap high" so to speak. The shorter blocking time is a great idea. It will revive the counter attack in foil fencing. Fencers who attack with the point at the ceiling or wall and advance with big steps (hoping to land a flick) deserve to get counter attacked. I don't agree at all that foil will become like epee. A much different tactic is involved in sending the foil point to the torso (lethal target) as opposed to sending the point to the wrist or leg (drawing first blood). The foil fencer must penetrate much more deeply into the opponent while evading the defense. There is much more risk and exposure here so a clear line must be established. Exposing your opponent to a foil attack requires a kind of bladesmanship and footwork. I look forward to the changes, I believe it will elevate the level and quality of foil fencing across the boards. I also believe it will be more interesting to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Apr 30, 2004 7:33:38 GMT -6
briefly, another reason that foil will not become like epee is although lock out times will be reduced, the "reactionary" counterattacks should still result in both lights going off. Therefore, if directing remains competent, foil will still look like foil.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 30, 2004 8:46:29 GMT -6
To me, the flick being merely another tool in a fencer's toolbox. Any one-trick pony will be easy to beat by a more well-rounded (in a tactical sense) fencer. I think the potency of flicks has been over-rated for some time now due to many fencers not knowing how to deal with them. This leads to fencers who overly rely on them and more concernation on the part of those fencers who haven't figured the flick out.
That said, I think we are definitely getting to a point where most fencers are familiar with the tactic and how to stop it and the flick will naturally fade in prominence to be no more usual than a straight lunge with disengage. It will never go completely away -- fencers today are too athletic and it is too useful. In the end though it's really no different than any other tool, use it at your own risk.
Dan
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Apr 30, 2004 14:34:32 GMT -6
Well said everyone. That being said, did anyone else notice that you can't select a page of this thread to view from the Rules and Rules Changes forum menu?
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 11, 2004 13:23:56 GMT -6
Katman, if I had to guess, it will turn out to be a code bug where the presence of a poll associated with the thread causes the hyperlinks for multiple pages for the thread not to get generated.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on May 19, 2004 4:38:09 GMT -6
Just got the magazine and read the article. I thought it was pretty good and made several valid issues about the flick. Struck me as more cautionary with regards to making needless changes than bitter over changes that hadn't been made yet.
Dan
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on May 19, 2004 11:24:39 GMT -6
Good point, though now it's been a while since I've read the article. I'd have to reread it if I were to offer any anything.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 24, 2004 23:41:44 GMT -6
I was able to remise well after my opponent riposted me. The lookout time seems a bit high. Ivanhoe, do realize that the rules draw a clear distinction between the time the foil box must continue to be watchful for an event involving the second fencer to touch something, and one "fencing time". It was always meant for the human referee (or was that director ... or president) to judge the phrase, with the box simply providing more than enough information that the action with priority would be part of what the box indicates. (This change is consistent with the idea that humans may have stretched such judging beyond the point the powers that be envisioned, allowing a slow as molasses first action still to be judged the successful attack even if the second action started and finished over a half second earlier. This interpretation is that the box was not staying live problematically long, but rather that some of the time the box is staying live is being taken away as a path of least resistence to rein in the generosity of some humans' allowances for very slow actions.)
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Aug 6, 2004 0:42:31 GMT -6
YESSSSSS!!!!! An attack is an extension of the arm threatening valid target area... not the ceiling! Foil has devolved to the point where it's little different from beating someone with a car antenna. About time we paid attention to our roots! And, what's wrong with using a little stylistic form? There is room for a flick, but for too many, it has become what it's all about. And, yes, I do fence Epee... and Sabre... and I only taught foil for about 8 years. Call me an old fogy. Like I care or could deny it. But, new does not translate to being necessarily better! Kyle
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 8, 2004 11:37:38 GMT -6
A fencing club in Scotland was trying out the new timing changes on their own score boxes and posted the results on Fencing Forum (like Fencing Net, but based in the UK).
On foil, the experimenters noted:
[glow=red,2,300] "....Allstar box with new timings tested at Edinburgh Fencing Club this week. Things look very different.
Flick hits are out unless you can really make the hit stick and since that seems to have been the FIE's intention then it's fair enough.
The reduced blocking time seems to have a much bigger (and to my mind less desirable) effect. Stop hits, counter attacks and remises are now big percentage (one-light) hits and if you mis-time or delay the delivery of your attack expect any counter-attack to have a good chance of success. All but the most direct and immediate riposte is risky. If this all sounds like lightweight epee you're probably about right.
Brief first impressions only and I'll try to offer more feedback from training next week but at the moment I'd expect to see greatly improved results from tall, thin, long-armed, counter-attacking foilists when these new timings are introduced. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 8, 2004 12:56:27 GMT -6
Some further posts from this line:
[glow=red,2,300] 1. Non-fixing flicks don't come up (arguably but not definitely good) 2. Less two-light actions (easier for the referee but that's not the same as making the fencing better) 3. Parries not locked out by remises (I pointed out that only the most direct ripostes worked thereby eliminating one of the beauties of foil - the indirect or compound riposte) 4. Well-timed stop hits produce one light (previously, well-timed stop hits were so blindingly obvious that no tinkering with the box timings was needed). Even badly timed stop hits now seem to have a decent chance. 5. Glancing hits less likely to register (again arguably but not definitely good)...
I meant that I personally saw all the changes as positive (not that I thought they had universal consent on this, but nor do I think I am in a minority).
1 was the purpose and I think a majority of fencers would be in favour. (More so at lower levels, less so at higher levels)
2 & 4, considering the standard of referees most fencers deal with these two are positive (though of course top fencers who experience better presiding may not see it that way, but in numerical terms they are a minority)
5 I'm surprised you consider arguable, I would have thought of the five it was the one everyone was likely to agree on.
3, I will conceed is the most disputable, however I don't see it quite the way you do. If a fencer makes a direct riposte against a remise both lights on. If a fencer disengages and the oponent tries to track the blade and remises when they fail to find it both lights come on. However, if a fencer engages in disengages that are not needed when the oponent simply remises they will be locked out. But the president should have awarded that against the fencer anyway. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 8, 2004 13:15:24 GMT -6
There was also a reply from an American coach in Florida:
Our club's preliminary ( I stress preliminary) observations in foil suggest: coupes; both internal and external flanconades, and coup-lances all regularly register. Yielding parries are proving to be very effective, as are opposition parries with continuing oppositional repostes. Pris-de fers such as friossments with immediate, direct actions also will usually register before the stop-thrust. (But your distance must be absolutely correct!!) Compound or indirect repostes slowly delivered will not usually score before the remise. (We've not worked with sabre yet.) In short, I suspect that as coaches we will need to revisit and stress tight 'controlling bladework' executed with precise, exacting distance.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 9, 2004 10:14:44 GMT -6
These 2 are negative regardless of who most people fencer with/for. To limit the best based on what the average joes can do is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
But I've been in the sun all day, so I'll just stop now before I start railing.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 9, 2004 23:03:11 GMT -6
When I copied the UK posts, I tried to also copy some parts of it that give you the writer's perspective. If you know his outlook relative to your own, you can further evaluate his report.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 23, 2004 13:23:35 GMT -6
On Fencing Net, Barry Paul (of Leon Paul) posted his observations regarding the timing changes for foil. In the UK, the tournaments have already changed to the new times. The thread I am quoting is here: www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13275Below are comments and explanations on what and why was happening on piste and how I believe the new timings will affect fencing .
What I have found is that it is possible make what seems to be a valid hit, which is executed as a failed flick or cutover in which the point is either flat to the lame or bent so far the tip of point is shorting to the blade after the tape covering the tip. In both cases the point is never depressed and in contact with the lame for a period of over 15 milliseconds, therefore no hit is registered. By pushing harder or maintaining contact nothing will happen, as the point is in contact with the valid target but is not depressed or is depressed but shorted against the un-insulated blade..
If the opponent now hits successfully while the attackers point is still pushed flat against the lame, a valid hit will come up against the attacker. If the attacker does nothing for 300 millisecond the box locks out and he now cannot score a hit what ever he subsequently does.
If instead of doing nothing or pushing harder the attacker withdraws his arm or his opponent continues to retreat the blade straightens up. At some point the pressure on the point starts pushing the point in the direction of the point barrel and the point contact breaks (the foil point is depressed) and after 15 milliseconds if the point is contact with the valid target a hit is registered. If the point is whipped off too quickly the point is not depressed for 15 milliseconds and no hit registers.
With the old timing this withdrawal before the contact period was reached was almost impossible. I think that lots of hits in the past have in fact been on this withdrawal or straightening after the initial attacking action. The action happening so fast that the referee or the watchers would not see what is in fact a renewal of an attack.
I am certain that the apparatuses worked exactly as the new regulation timings dictated hits should be registered. Remarks regarding Foil that: 1. ‘In some way our apparatus work differently from another and therefore our apparatus settings were suspect’ is just wrong. 2. ‘That after a period of time the box timing changed’ is also wrong. There is no sign of instability or changes caused by heating or repeated use. 3. ‘Sweaty gloves causing hits to be blocked out or flick hits to arrive earlier.’ There is in general a fundamental miss-understanding about the yellow lights. The yellow lights (the small yellow L.E.D. at the front of each valid light or the larger yellow square shade in front of the valid lights) at foil show when there is electrical connection between the earth (blade guard) and the lame jacket, when this happens there is often also electrical contact between the glove, non valid jacket and mask and the valid lame target. So if you see the yellow light on your side constantly lit any hit by your opponent on your guard, blade, glove jacket or mask could bring up a valid light against you. This has nothing to do with blockage time or valid hit contact time. 4. ‘The blockage time of 300 milliseconds is too short to allow time for a perfectly executed riposte.’ You need to remember the time starts not after the parry but after the remise or continuation has registered on the apparatus by a valid hit lighting up. Good distance, parries taken away from the body, dare I say classical fencing will give the defender more/sufficient time to reposte in time. 5. ‘There was a difference between the apparatus timings and it was easier to get whip hits on some apparatuses ‘ Leon Paul have done a check on all the apparatus used at the weekend and all the boxes were within F.I.E. timing tolerance of 1 millisecond which is undetectable by a fencer. There was no difference in sensitivity of one box to another either the 40 new club battery boxes or the 8 Denver boxes. 6. ‘The auto reset timing on the battery boxes was too short’. This on all apparatuses is variable from zero to infinity, this timing is achieved using a resistance rheostat pot, so it was possible that I in the 40 new apparatus could have been playing up, but we haven't yet found one with a fault. 7. ‘The Leon Paul apparatuses worked differently from other boxes set to the F.I.E. regulations’. I cannot comment on what other manufacture have done or if their timings are regulation. However there is huge difference in fencing at the club and fencing in a D.E. fight. 8. ‘Yellow lights occurring when a hit is made even when the weapon was changed, means the apparatus is faulty.’ The apparatus are designed such that the earthing circuit of the piste is separate from the fencers earth circuit (the piste should be earthed to the apparatus for all our microprocessor apparatus not through the spool earth plug). This was very important at the beginning when the yellow lights locked as soon as they came on for a short period. If the piste is earthed through the spool when the fencers on that size test the yellow light will come on. It does not seem to have any other effect so it is not a major problem but we advise earthing directly to the apparatus to avoid confusion. 9. ‘A random valid light coming up, indicating a faulty apparatus’ This was traced to a faulty shorting ground lead. (but could have been at epee)
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 23, 2004 13:30:04 GMT -6
He also wrote the following:
The following personal remarks are about foil.
Because fencers were finding that fast whipped hits were not reregistering many fencers were trying to overcome this by hitting even harder, which I think the fencers will grow out of as they realize it does not work and slows up the movement.
I was concerned to see the violence of some of the hits. One of the foil fencers Dominic Chang had a bruised chest that looked as if he had been in street fight! It is time for the referees to start penalizing brutal actions or the use of unreasonable force.
Some fencers had decided that wearing a male chest protector means that more fast hits to the body don’t register so sales of these items at the Bristol competition shot up and you can expect a large increase in use for these items. Considering the hard hitting using them is justified on these grounds alone. Fencers must balance the not registering of hits on the hard surface against the less likelihood of the failed whipped cut over hits as outlined above.
Modern Foil fencing has mainly consisted of attack riposte and counter attack. The new timings should incur much more blade contact and what in the old days was called conversation with the blade. Second intentions and counter attacks will make a come back. Due to the shortened blockage time classical parries with the hand away from the body and the point in line to ensure the riposte is in time. Fencers will also take more parries in opposition so the attackers fast remise prevented/blocked.
During this period of uncertainty and before the foilist find ways to get round the timing changes the referees should take back control of foil fencing. Attacks should be clearly threatening the valid target with the point not some vague movement forward with absence of blade.
I might even take up foil fencing again. . Barry Paul M.D. Leon Paul.
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on Sept 23, 2004 22:23:36 GMT -6
During this period of uncertainty and before the foilist find ways to get round the timing changes the referees should take back control of foil fencing. Attacks should be clearly threatening the valid target with the point not some vague movement forward with absence of blade.
Barry Paul M.D. Leon Paul. Thank you thank you thank you . I HATE IT when a blade swirling in circles while pointed at the sky is considered "threatening target"... flicks suck flickers suck (learn to fence for real) directors who award forward movement the attack against a perfect point-in-line suck. Thanks for letting me vent this is why I fence Epee.
|
|