nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Aug 3, 2005 17:42:24 GMT -6
Thanks for answering that last one, Dave. Maybe you or someone reading will answer a sabre question for me. I ask because I see this called both ways.
Granted, I've seen little sabre with the new times, so this may be moot.
We have our sabre fencers en garde. The command is given to fence. Both advance, essentially simultaneously.
Fencer X initiates the first offensive act by attempting your basic head cut. Fencer Y employs a basic parry-5. There is contact. The blades keep in motion. There is no discernable stop in motion (which I add only out of nagging thought it may be an influence in some of the calls) Fencer X's blade slides quickly along the parrying blade, even as Fencer Y begins the wrist twist to riposte to Fencer X's cheek.
Fencer Y successfully ripostes to Fencer X's cheek. At the same time, by moving his blade for the riposte, while X kept his blade sliding along toward the tip, he allowed X's blade to slide off and onto Fencer Y's chest or shoulders.
Two lights.
Everything I know of conventional weapons says the riposte carries. My query, though, is there a point where the parry is so insignificant that Fencer X will get the touch. I ask because I've seen this move called both ways.
|
|
|
Post by saberbobcat on Aug 3, 2005 19:13:11 GMT -6
Nemo, unfortunately, this is a common problem with sabre. Different referees will call it either way depending on a variety of factors. I suspect that calls like this are why we have the new timing now. It makes it a little easier for referees to award a touch because with the new timing, if the parry is not significant enough to block the attack, there should be just one light... the attack. If the parry truly blocks the attack from arriving and there is no hesitation when reposting, there should be only one light... the reposte. However, when the actions are so close in timing that there are two lights, then we enter the twilight zone. Flip a coin! Anything goes depending on what your referee saw. However, in my books, the reposte stands in this situation. Otherwise, why do we have rules that state it as such. A parry/reposte has priority until it is counter parrried or the time for a simple attack (phrase) ends. Period! Now... if a parry is not executed properly, this is another issue all together... mal pare'. This is one that makes every sabre fencer I know squirm, because it is basically up to the descresion of the referee to decide if the parry was significant enough to deflect the blade from target area. What I think is significant, another person might not agree with and visa versa. The interpretation of this varies from one from referee to another. However, as I stated before, with the new timing, there are few double lights, so usually this is not so much of an issue nowdays. However, from this new timing issue, a new problem has developed. The new timing has caused sabre fencers to tighten up their parries and clean them up to a point that they are sometimes difficult for the referee to see. Such is the monster we call sabre. The solution? Run fast (don't cross those legs), hit hard (don't draw blood), and scream loud (bloody murder)! LOLOLOL! It's that or take up epee where there is no priority except 1/25th of a second. But, gee wiz... if we all did that, what would we have to grip about? Long live sabre and the refs that have the courage to direct it! They are all tops in my books!
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Aug 4, 2005 11:58:57 GMT -6
Grace hits the nail on the head here, that the difference between a mal-parry and a whipover remise is something that varies greatly from referee to referee. However, over the past season I saw a dramatic decrease in the times I had to make this determination as a referee. Partly this was due to the new timings, but partly it was also due to the increase in skill of the fencers (then again, the majority of sabre I've actually refereed in the past 6 months has been at national events - most of the local and regional ones I'm working as the referee coordinator!). But, on to the specific question you asked. Generally, I would make that call as a parry-riposte. Different referees are going to have a different set of clues they use to make that call and even the same referee will vary from day to day. This is why it is so important to pay attention to your referee and how they are making the call. Some referees will call any blade contact a parry. Others only give a parry when its a one light action. The majority fall somewhere in the middle. Figure out how your referee is making the call, and adapt. Lets take a look at the rulebook (Always a good idea!) t.79(h) The parry gives the right to riposte; a simple riposte may be direct or indirect, but in order to annul any subsequent movement by the attacker, it must be carried out immediately, without any hesitation or pause.
Against cuts with the cutting edge, the flat or the back of the blade, the object of the parry is to prevent touches made by the opponent arriving on the valid target; therefore: 1. The parry is properly carried out when, before the completion of the attack, it prevents the arrival of that attack by closing the line in which that attack is to finish. 2. When a parry is properly executed, the attack by the opponent must be declared parried, and judged as such by the Referee, even if, as a result of its flexibility, the tip of the opponent’s weapon makes contact with the target. So basically, the referee must make the judgement of "did the parry prevent the arrival of the attack by closeing the line in which it is attacking." A "classical" parry-5, in which the blade is held above the head, parallel to the floor or tip pointing slightly up, performed with a small retreat meets this definition. However, a lot of times what you see is fencers start their riposte from a parry-5 before the attack has even gotten there. I've seen this in my own students, and I call it 'rushing to riposte.' Make the parry first, THEN riposte. There is a difference between a fast riposte and a rushed riposte. The former will get you the proper call from a decent referee (and you'll get the point). The later will ALSO get you the proper call from a decent referee (and you won't get the point), because you did not close the line to prevent the attack from arriving. And, also it will probably be a one-light action under the current rules. And yes, I'm not ignorant to the idea that a parry could be performed while taking a step forward instead of a lunge. But, for the purposes of this discussion we're viewing the action as a referee - not as a coach. The referee has a deliberately limited toolbox of actions to work with in order to describe the phrase. So a parry with a step forward, is usually going to be called a beat-attack. And this kind of action is covered under a different rule: t.78(g) Attacks by beats on the blade 1. In an attack by beating on the blade, this attack is correctly carried out and retains its priority when the beat is made on the foible of the opponent’s blade, i.e. the two-thirds of the blade furthest from the guard. 2. In an attack by beating on the blade, when the beat is made on the forte of the opponent’s blade, i.e. the one-third of the blade nearest the guard, the attack is badly executed and the beat gives the opponent the right to an immediate riposte. In otherwords, its that old "Principle of defense." Parry with the strong part of your blade on the weak part of your opponent's blade. Do that, ensure you're not rushing to riposte and are actually closing the line, and you'll get the call you want from the referee. By the same token, if you're on the attack and your opponent starts to close the line, accelerate and hit them before the line is closed (or derobe to a different line. Or parry thier riposte, or .... anyway!). But if you can accelerate and hit before the parry is completely closing the line, then a good ref should give you the touch. Oh and did I mention distance? If all else fails, look at the fencer who was controling the distance. Was fencer Y keeping good distance and causing the attack to land right where he could parry it? or was fencer X controling the distance and hitting his opponent before the parry arrived. A somewhat longwinded reply, but hey, its a good question.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Aug 7, 2005 0:24:07 GMT -6
I am interested when people openly question what they don't understand. nemo's problem as stated at the beginning of this thread seemed to me pretty straightforward but I could not make sense of what was posted afterwards. I went to an expert who was kind enough to explain things in a clear, unambiguous, and thorough way, including telling me what is subject to interpretation and why. Class, here is the lesson you all wanted to hear -- I hope!
Note: As you should all know terminology in fencing varies from language to language, and from school to school. When in doubt, or sometime to be clear, I put the Italian or French terminolgy next to what I believe is the English terminology.
The case of the saber parries as originally posed by nemo
This is a problem often encountered in saber and generates discussions between referees, fencers, and coaches about the definition of "mal parré" (bad/weak parry) and related discussions.
Mal parré, as its name implies, is a badly/poorly executed parry. The rules acknowledge that there was an attempt to parry by the fencer, but this attempt failed because of poor execution (usually too weak and overpowered by the inertia of the hit which it was supposed to defend against).
In the case presented by nemo, the attacking hit will reach the target anyway, just by pushing its way through the parry. Even if the fencer that parried tries to riposte, thinking that he's earned ROW because he just grazed the attacker's blade, or because in his subconscious he knows that he intended to parry, he is always wrong also because in reality his riposte will always arrive after the touch of the attacker.
In a nutshell, if I attack you and you parry badly/weakly, my attack will immediately touch you in the target area because your ineffective parry will not allow you to deflect my hit. At this point, even at the speed of the saber action, the action per se is concluded, regardless anything you may be doing afterwards. The attack touches, full stop and there is no parry.
If by reflex or instinctively you try to riposte anyway (in general he who executes a mal parré is always convinced to have done a good parry instead), and all this takes place within few tenths of a second after being hit, the referee doesn't have the material time to halt the action immediately. This however doesn't change the substance of the reconstruction of the action. Attack touches, there is no parry, everything else that follows has the same validity as if one of the two would hit the other one minute after having been touched himself by a direct hit. This about the mal parré (weak parry).
The situation described at the beginning of this thread can be interpreted in 4 different ways and it is not as simple as presented.
A. Fencer Y executes a parry of quinta (fifth) a fraction of a second before X launches his attack to the head
In this case X does an "attacco sopra il ferro" (attack on the blade, i.e., over the parry already set in place by Y to cover the target. This is not a valid attack because an attack must threat an unprotected target, and any time the attack hits the opponent's blade already placed in a parry position, it is not a valid attack, unless it is powerful enough to overcome by force the position of Y blade (it would be better to say in this case that Y executed a mal parré (weak parry) which doesn't really cover/protect the target).
The deployment of the parry by Y an instant before X attack has a tactical reason to exist for trying to take advantage of the opponent's instinct and turn it against him. This is what the Russians did in the mid '80s when they made this action a winning characteristic of their school of saber fencing. As soon as the "Allez!" command was given they would make a step forwards and put themselves right away in the position of parry fifth, regardless what the opponent had done in the meantime. 90 times out of a 100, the opponent was lured instinctively to land his hit on the Russian parry who was now in a position of advantage because he (the Russian) already knew where the attack would have ended and could both riposte easily and even more important could nullify in this way an attack against a covered target, and therefore the attack wasn't an attack any longer.
In Italy, they used to call this "quinta calamita" or "the magnet of fifth" or "magnetic fifth" because the mere fact of putting oneself in the parry position before the attacker could decide where to hit, it had the "psychological effect" to direct and attract -- like a magnet -- the opponent choice of action precisely on the target already covered by the parry. Nevertheless, this "anticipated parry" had to be executed well. If the attacker with a very powerful hit succeeded in clearly overpowering the parry, the attack was valid, like in the case of the mal parré (weak parry). All touches through the blade which overpower a parry, are valid if they clearly touch the target. B. Y parries the attack already launched by X (say 2 tenths of a second after X starts his attack and Y sees him starting the attack, and another 2 tenths of a second between when Y decides to parry and actually executes the parry)
In this case also it is not enough to lightly touch the blade for one to claim that he executed a parry. You must actually stop an attack before a riposte. If one hurries too much to riposte usually he does not correctly execute the parry and risks to limit the parry to a grazing of the blades falling in the situation described as weak parry. But even in this case one must distinguish three situations:
- Y parries after X hit has already landed on the target -- in this case Y has simply parried late and therefore obviously he's touched. - Y parries before X hit lands -- Y parried correctly and earned the right to riposte - Y parries contemporaneously with X hit --Y will be right only if his action does not fall in the weak parry and will completely deflect the opponent's blade.
C. Y parries correctly and while he ripostes X insists (continues his attack), violating the convention, either with a remise, or simply continuing by inertia his attack
In this case Y parry is valid, but it must be clearly evident that in the action of the attacker there is a perceptible time interruption between the conclusion of the attack and its resumption (wrong) after the parry (correct) of the defender. This signals that the first attack was completed and parried and that everything that happens afterwards is a new "attacco di insistenza" (continuing/persisting attack).
This is the only case when one can also bring in the discussion the new timings as a factor to be considered by the referee to reconstruct the action. Since the timings in saber, as in foil, have been reduced, if Y delays too much his riposte, he can be anticipated by the continuation by "insistence" (persistence) of X attack and only one light will come up. This is more likely to happen in saber than in foil because in saber the weapon arm is a valid target and it is much easier to persist with a second hit and immediately thereafter escape out of measure to let the blocking time run out without letting the fencer who had the right to riposte execute it within the required time.
Saberbobcat statement that "It makes it a little easier for referees to award a touch because with the new timing, if the parry is not significant enough to block the attack, there should be just one light... the attack. If the parry truly blocks the attack from arriving and there is no hesitation when reposting, there should be only one light... the reposte" doesn't really make much sense. [sorry Saberbob, but this is the Maestro teaching, so we all better listen...] The new timings don't affect at all the parry per se, but rather the riposte.
When Saberbobcat says "This is one that makes every sabre fencer I know squirm, because it is basically up to the descresion of the referee to decide if the parry was significant enough to deflect the blade from target area." she just quotes a common belief that makes no sense either. The referee does not decide if the fencer has executed a mal parré or not. If there is a mal parré the light of the attacker comes on immediately. If the parry is executed correctly, the light quite simply doesn't come on.
There are extreme cases when the hit doesn't clearly land on target and the parry is neither too weak to be a mal-parré, nor sufficiently strong to be a perfect parry. But to say that the interpretation is random and that it depends only from the referee is a typical statement from the point of view of the fencer. In reality as long as the referee knows what he is supposed to know, he judges according to visual parameters which are precise. In conclusion it's easy to recognize a mal parré from a good parry also because the judge is supposed to look at the global context of the action.
D. Y executes a beat, not a parry, on the attack in preparation of X, an extremely rare case in saber which cannot be excluded however, if X in that particular situation is just slightly slower or more undecided than what is the norm.
Suppose that X moves his arm to hit, but suspends/interrupts his action, and Y touches lightly his blade in fifth and than executes his hit. This generally causes the conclusion of the attack by X, and this can lead someone to confuse this particular situation with an attack and mal parré. These are very minute differences which are very difficult to be perceived by the eye -- we are talking few milliseconds -- but in any case there is a conceptual difference between a beat and a parry. [note: our Maestro has prepared a great lesson on the beat v/s parry differences which should appear shortly on fencing.net]
Some cases which are generally described as mal parré are in fact beats on the blade correctly executed by Y and an incorrect continuation of the attack by X. I agree that it may be quite difficult for the referee to enter in these fine details, in particular if the action is between expert fencers who react very rapidly.
OK class, now is David turn to be called on.
When David says "Some referees will call any blade contact a parry" ... if they do so they are wrong! There is a difference in blade contact (casual, not casual, beat, light grazing, etc.) and parry. If the referee cannot see the difference he is not a referee. Furthermore, the next statement by David "Others only give a parry when its a one light action. The majority fall somewhere in the middle." is incomprehensible. Maybe he did'nt express himself clearly or he means something else. But realize that either there is a parry or there isn't one. It is a movement by the blade and does not depend on how many lights go on.
If however what David means is that if the action is in doubt, with both lights on, that most referees would judge the continuation of X to be valid rather than the parry of Y, then he generalizes too much and he talks only about inexperienced referees. However, in the context of his post, I seem to understand that he does not justify, rather that he criticizes the changing of the calls from day to day of many referees, and if what he means is a need for correct and coherent calls by the referees, I completely agree with him.
David is also right, from a teaching point of view, about the difference between a quick riposte and a "hurried" one as I covered in point B above. The parry, to be considered as such, must be completed to the end, and it does no good to execute it rapidly to then riposte when the opponent's attack is not completed in its execution.
But, when David says, after quoting the rules on attacks on the blade (T78) and correctly determining the differences with the rules on parries, "In otherwords, its that old "Principle of defense." Parry with the strong part of your blade on the weak part of your opponent's blade. " he surprisingly confuses the two and makes a statement that has no basis in the rules, a mistake made unfortunately by many referees who don't understand or know the rules.
Just to be clear, in the rules for parries, quite differently from the rules on beats, it doesn't matter with which part of your blade you oppose an attack. The only important thing is that your parry deflects the hit. Unfortunately, many referees don't consider valid effective parries which deflected a hit but which were executed with the foible part of the blade, because they confuse between the rules for parries and the rules for beats. This happens everywhere, but we are talking here of inexperienced referees who judge at regional tournaments (hopefully).
Lastly, when David says "If all else fails, look at the fencer who was controling the distance. Was fencer Y keeping good distance and causing the attack to land right where he could parry it? or was fencer X controling the distance and hitting his opponent before the parry arrived." this has nothing[ to do with what we are discussing. The distance between the fencers and the determination of who actively controls measure has nothing to do with judging a parry. It influences the action, to be sure, but a parry is a parry, independently from the interpretation of the measure between the two fencers. In teaching it may have some importance, but in refereeing nothing at all.
In conclusion, for a more complete discussion of the problem it seems to me that in this thread a very important reference to the rules is missing, namely T.70 of the FIE technical rule book which states clearly in paragraph "c) Les coups à travers le fer, c'est-à-dire qui touchent en même temps le sabre de l'adversaire et la partie vulnérable, sont valables toutes les fois qu'ils arrivent nettement sur la surface valable." (Hits through the blade, i.e., those who touch at the same time the opponent's saber and the valid target, are valid whenever they arrive clearly on the valid target). Class dismissed!
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Aug 7, 2005 23:06:50 GMT -6
Flamberge,
Please note that my previous response was divided into two portions - one focusing on the referee's point of view and the other on the fencer/coach's point of view. I'm quite aware of the relevant rules and their interpretations with respect to the conventions of attacks on the blade and the role of distance, and their role in determining complex right-of-way issues from the referee's perspective. The attack is either parried or it is not. The riposte is either continuous and immediate, or not. The remise either locks out the continunous and immediate riposte or not (under the new timings).
However, I thought it was instructive to also discuss things from a fencer/coach point of view. The comments about parrying with the stong part of the blade and controlling distance are all about how a good fencer ensures that his parry is indeed good (and not a mal-parry or a grazing), that his riposte is immediate, and that his opponent's remise does not lock out his riposte.
Additionally, though, a referee both can, and should take into consideration who is controling the distance, becuase it can make the difference between calling an action a beat-attack (and thus subject to the rules concerning where on the blade the action is) or a parry. Granted, its a fine detail, and should only be used within the entire context of the phrase. There are specific instances, when this is the vital peice of information. Often times, its not. Typcially when you see a parry 5, its a parry.
Situation: There is a flurry of footwork, and a blade contact, and both lights go on (and more often then not, both fencers pump their fists and look expectanly at the referee, this is sabre afterall!).
Was it preparation from the left, attack from the right and parry-riposte from the left? (a perfect second intention!) Or was preparation from the left, and beat attack from the right? (a well-executed attack-in-preparation!) Or was preparation from the left, and an attempted beat from the right that was on the forte of the left, followed by a riposte from the left? (a mistake in the technical aspects even if the tactical instict was correct) Or was it both fencers attempting to beat? Was it one fencer attempting to take the blade and the other attempting to parry? Or was the blade contact incidental? Or was it...
The list goes on.
The point is, the comments about controlling distance do have a relevance in determining if the parry was sufficient, in the sense of they help determine if there was a proper attack in the first place, and are part of how the referee evaluates the entire phrase in the first place.
Oh, and btw, I'm fulling willing to admit that at my first national refereeing experience a number of years ago I was taken to task for making the very same confusion about parry vs taking the blade and forte vs foible. It was humbling. But also part of learning to be a sabre referee. But, hey, most of us did not spring forth from the womb fully knowedgeable and functional. And we get better over time.
I'd be interested in seeing that article when its written. Make sure you put up a link on this forum when its posted will you?
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Aug 11, 2005 16:58:57 GMT -6
Flamberge, Please note that my previous response was divided into two portions - one focusing on the referee's point of view and the other on the fencer/coach's point of view. ........... I'd be interested in seeing that article when its written. Make sure you put up a link on this forum when its posted will you? David: The reason why I asked a real expert to read the thread was because I could not understand the replies to what seemed a straightforward problem as posted by nemo. I hope that you and everyone else find the dissertation by the expert helpful in learning how to analyze a problem and how to phrase an answer. I also found the 'historical' reference to the Russian tactical development to be very informative. If you read and study the detailed lesson by the maestro, you will see that he corrected you when you were wrong, gave you the benefit of the doubt when he could not understand what you meant, and agreed with you when you were right. Your comment and opinion on the importance in this topic of who controls the distance are not relevant according to the maestro, and this is enough for me and for anyone who wishes to learn. My personal involvement in all this is to bring the benefit and the knowledge of a real expert to these discussions and help him in making his finer points understandable to the majority of readers. From the little I know about fencing, the tradition is old and sometimes confused. The language is always a problem even between experts (In Italy, for instance, you have esoteric discussions between maestri of different schools speaking the same language but using different "Bibles"). If you add to this mix the opinions and interpretations of people who think or presume they know what they talk about, there is no wonder fencing has such a hard time to become more popular. What I like about the maestro's dissertation is how he framed the problem initially stated by nemo. It follows a logical scheme, it presents a historical and technical prospective, and lastly, points to the only rule, which was never quoted, pertinent to the original discussion. I was glad to learn and understand, and this is why I decided to share it here for all to see. I hope that you, and everybody else will join me to thank our maestro for his interesting -- and free -- lesson. PS: The maestro has other lessons in the hopper and I'll notify everyone when and where they will be available.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Aug 11, 2005 21:22:29 GMT -6
I enjoyed the comments by the maestro, and thanks to both of you for setting it up. It was a difference in how the rules are set up and how they have been interpreted on a local and national level. Now with the new timings many fencers are attempting to force their way through the parry or remise before the riposte and rely on either blocking out the opponents lights or getting a call that is favorable in their way.
We discussed this with Akhi, and he recalled a World Cup before the timing change where Peter Westbrook did not receive the calls that his parries were sufficient with an opponent from Europe. Akhi said he held his parries for and extra several counts before he completed his riposte to make them very obvious. We agreed that this was riskier in these timings because the lights would block out the riposte with an aggressive if not correct remise, reprise or redoublement.
I would like to comment that I fenced both Div II and Vet saber at Nationals, and I was very pleased with the directing. I could not disagree with any large portion of the calls, and the directing was consistent in that I could take advantage of my opponents mistake. The directors did have to keep saying "attack - parry - riposte" and looked surprised that my opponents did not learn from their previous actions. Even in my losses in DEs it was more a matter of my lack of confidence and not the directing.
By having people learn exactly what the rules state, they can better evaluate what to call in the future. The directing has improved tremendously in the Southwest Section. The foil directing and saber directing was not as strong as it is now. It is good to see the improvements.
|
|
|
Post by saberbobcat on Aug 12, 2005 21:08:24 GMT -6
Thanks for going to the trouble of orchestrating such an interesting lesson, Maestro, Flamberge, and David Sierra. Today you have all three earned an A+ on your homework. Unfortunately, in Texas there are not many of us that fence sabre or coaches to help our numbers grow. To make matters worse, my salle is way down in the South 40 where I am attempting to bring knowledge to my folks with, unfortunately, very little outside assistance. I'm all for ironing out some of the gray areas many of us do not understand. So when will class reconvene? I've been waiting on the one about beat attacks -vs- parries for about 27 years now. LOL! Really! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Aug 13, 2005 12:27:59 GMT -6
Thanks for going to the trouble of orchestrating such an interesting lesson, Maestro, ..... .... I am attempting to bring knowledge to my folks with, unfortunately, very little outside assistance. I'm all for ironing out some of the gray areas many of us do not understand. So when will class reconvene? Saberbob, I always admire your enthusiasm, your dedication, and the work you do for fencing in general, and saber in particular in your neck of the wood. All your efforts are geared to make the sport popular, to introduce youths to it, and to have fun in the process. I wish there were many like you who are also modest enough and keen to learn the right way from people with real knowledge. In case you missed it, you may find the following mini-lesson by our maestro about the "difference" in ROW between foil and saber also interesting [there is none even if some so called experts think there is one]. Hereunder is the specific post, but you may check the entire thread as well. www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18985post #21......... Are there differences between foil and saber ROW?
There are NONE since BOTH weapons are conventional. The rules to gain ROW are exactly the same, without any difference.There are however two factors which must be taken into consideration. 1. To go after the rule book it is not a valid approach nor can it be used to answer the question, because in practice the rule book is never applied literally. In modern fencing it would be impossible for a referee to evaluate whether the arm moves in synchrony with the legs, within the fencing times of the action. There is no referee in the world who could ignore the general principles of the rules, or who follows the rules exactly as they are written (in French) without being laughed off by the current referees community. [Just think about that article in the rule book which states that the sabreist's arm constitutes a threat if it is bent by at least 35 degrees ... the referees should all go around with a protractor!] 2. The FIE rules, the part relative to the evaluation of ROW in foil and saber, are written differently because the nature of the weapons is different. Even if one wanted to follow the written rules to the letter -- as seems to be the case in this thread -- you end up getting confused and believing that there are differences between the two weapons. In the foil section of the rules there is no mention of foot movement and it says that the only requirement is for the arm to be fully extended before the conclusion of the attack. In the saber section it talks about to the foot, stating in essence that the attacker must touch before the front foot extended in the lounge touches the ground, or at the most at the same time. This is because there is a difference in handling a saber or a foil. In saber, the arm-leg coordination is very different from foil. In foil, the tip must be pushed forward with the assistance of the legs, therefore arm and legs arrive almost always at the same time. [In modern foil, this has changed, but remember that the rules were written in 1918.] In saber practically only the arm executes the slash, without the essential assistance of the legs, but for reducing the fencer's distance from the target. This is why a saber Maestro should teach his student to slightly delay the arrival of the front leg with respect to the touch (slash), to render his movement the most fluid and efficient. The foil Maestro instead should emphasize the precedence of the tip, but if he follows the classic technique, he will insist that arm and front leg arrive together. Because of the different characteristics of each weapon, to maximize the fluidity of the movement, the rules, when they were written, had to express in different terms the same convention. The foil rules don't talk of foot movement because this would be redundant -- at least then. But in saber the rules are specific about foot movement to avoid confusion. To repeat one more time, the convention is absolutely the same, one expressed in the foil language, the other in the saber language.Now with the development of foil, with the flicks and other things and the increased speed in the athletic action, the difference with saber remains in the technique, but it has certainly changed as far as what vision the judge has of an action. This is why a too strict adherence to the rules can be limiting. Remember that when these rules were written, the mobility on the strip was much less than today (legs in the en garde position were much more wide apart and much more flexed) and when one lost ROW according to the convention, he would stop without his action. To continue and hit, i.e., get a questionable touch, was considered something in very poor taste. Nowadays, even according to the rules and their underlying principles which determine the ROW, there is a commonly accepted way to referee (hopefully!) which in saber gives more weight to legs movement compared with arm movement and therefore, the advancing fencers will almost always be right. In foil one looks more at the arm which must be extended. In the most blatant cases -- arm arrives quite noticeably after the foot in saber, arm extremely bent in foil -- one can go back to the basic principles of the rules. This happens in low level fencing where the ROW mistake is there 100% or not at all, for everyone to see. In case however of high or the highest level of fencing, the boundaries between a right touch and one outside the convention are pushed to the limits because of the speed and tactical abilities of the super athletes. Therefore the decision of the referee is made on the "feeling of the touch" which is the capability of the referee to apply a rule understanding the context of the action and its interpretation. In conclusion, if one notices differences in refereeing -- and therefore in ROW -- between foil and saber, this is because of the different experience of each fencer/observer, not differences in convention. It is interesting to notice that this thread was started by a sabreist who states that he has little or no experience in foil and therefore he sees differences between the two weapons in ROW. As a sabreist he does not understand the visual language and the way to read the action of a foilist, and he doesn't realize that the rules are exactly the same, only expressed in different lingo. Ditto for a foilist trying to read a saber phrase. Don't you LOVE epee now?
|
|
|
Post by saberbobcat on Aug 13, 2005 19:06:05 GMT -6
Bravo, Flamberge! Just a few weeks ago one of my fencers and I got into a very similar discussion. I'll forward this to him. Thanks. I'll eagerly await more info... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Aug 16, 2005 12:18:25 GMT -6
... Flamberge... I'll eagerly await more info... ;D Saberbob: This thread in Fencing.net refers to an article about the new foil rules and their impact: www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=19207You can find the article at: www.fencing101.com/content/view/430/35/I agreed with the maestro to cover general fencing topics to educate me and other curious people who are eager to learn about fencing from an informed and qualified source who is open to provide also different points of view. I hope everyone will benefit from these lessons as I am. If you have general topics you'd like to be covered, let me know.
|
|