|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 8, 2004 12:42:50 GMT -6
As in the thread on the foil, a member of the Edinburgh (Scotland) Fencing Club, recently posted the results of their experiments with the proposed changes to the lockout time for sabre. The results can be found on Fencing Forum, a site similar to Fencing Net, but based in the UK.
The results of their tests/fencing with the new time:
[glow=red,2,300] "Did some sabre last night with the new timings - and boy is it tight.
Lots of hits where the right of way attacker was bemused to look at the box and see only one light on (not his) because the counter attacker beat him to the punch by more than 120ms...."
"I've also had a go at both fencing and reffing sabre with the new timings. I'm still undecided as to whether it's an improvement, but it's certainly very noticeably different.
It favours the fast - hesitate with a riposte and you're toast. Stop-cut a simple direct attack can now give a single light to the stop cut.
As a ref I saw a few things that make me think the definition of an attack may need to be changed by adding (to the stuff about continuously straightening & threatening target).."and lands less than 0.12 secs after any counter action" - consider this one:
A goes PIL, B does beat lunge cut head. A waves straight arm sideways in response to beat (as you do!) and brushes B with the side of the blade. Result - one light in favour of A, despite PIL failing (doesn't hit with point) and the blade being clearly found with the beat and the attack being made in a single period of fencing time.
Apart from the frustration to B, how does the Ref phrase the action? "Attack from B short?" - (no, it hit), Attack from B fails" - (WHY, it hit on target - direct), "Attack from B parried" - er no, there was a clear beat from B and no further contact
As JAmbo says, it does help prevent the ridiculous number of double lights - the trouble is, as a ref these would probably be the double lights that are easy to separate. We still got a fair few "Actions together" - but now you know these are landing within 0.12secs. You could argue that as .1 sec is considered to shorter than normal human reaction time (at least for athletics sprinting automated start recalls) a ref should now not try to separate any double attacks as long as there are no obvious searching actions as you can say that one can't be a reaction to the other - and can a ref honestly see the difference of .12 sec in two actions starting?
This is going to take a lot of getting used to and will raise some interesting issues..." [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 8, 2004 13:10:42 GMT -6
More on the Scottish sabre time experiments:
[glow=red,2,300] Had more experience fighting with the new Sabre timings last night. My experience appears to be that in a fight to 15, I am getting 4-6 points which are obviously effected by the new timings. The two most obvious examples from last night are:
1. I am going back slowly waiting to ambush my opponent. As my opponents steps he drops his point slightly and I act: beat direct to head. Timing is good and execution adequate or better. I know its my point, my opponent knows its my point, the referee knows its my point, the only person who doesnt know its my point is the box - which is showing a single light for my opponent!
2. Again, I am going backwards with my opponent chasing me. I slightly stumble and get my feet in a mess so my opponent takes the opportunity to start a cut to head. Frankly I am now feeling too old and tired to move or to try and parry so I slightly duck and quickly thrust my blade tip forward in resigned fashion. Then I feel the resounding clunk of my opponents sabre hitting my mask. Clearly this is his point, but the box is only showing one light - mine!
Given that I am Sabre newbie (and my coach describes my sabre style as “abnormal”) it may be that other (better or worse) Sabreurs get fewer or more “odd” points with the new sabre timings than I seem to do.
[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 9, 2004 10:09:25 GMT -6
I obviously haven't had a chance to try the new timing, but I like to make the knee-jerk reaction that sabre has been dinked around with enough. There is nothing wrong with the timing. It's the same as with foil -- it's stupid and wrong to lower the standards for everyone because lower level fencers and referees get things wrong. It would be like outlawing passes beyond 5 yards in football because kids can't throw the ball any farther. The rules should support the highest level possible; the rest of us just need to muddle along.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by saberbobcat on Sept 9, 2004 23:25:17 GMT -6
I can not agree with you more, Dan!
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Sept 10, 2004 0:45:23 GMT -6
OK. So, call me a Luddite if you want. (It wouldn't be true, since I really like to tinker with machines, and I love lightbulbs, radio, TV, air-conditioning, and my refrigerator! My computer and I are actually joined at the hip! *L*)
BUT... I really just wish we could go back to doing Sabre visually! It was so much more FUN! It was just much more fun to fleche, and to parry, and, yes... to act! And, back then, when you parried with your bell, a whip-over or a retreating-drag of the blade didn't count just because some dang light came on! You had to show your Director, and the Corner Judges that you made that touch!!! It took more than leaping ("Flunging", they call it now. Even sounds silly!) forward or one advance-lunge, and making one cut! Yes, Sabre bouts actually used to last _30 seconds_ or more back in the day, boys and girls!
Sabre was a Cavalry Weapon! It was MENT to be fenced on the move! And an accidental glancing touch wouldn't have made you drop your weapon in a real cavalry engagement; Unless you really wanted to be defenseless and be killed. And part of the combat was the noise, the fear you inspired in the enemy, and how it inspired your own troops! Acting truly played it's own essential part in the type of warfare that inspired Sabre!
Guess I'll just dig out my old A.F.L.A. patches and crawl back in my cave now. Maybe send a smoke signal to the local S.C.A. group.
Kyle
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 10, 2004 9:06:50 GMT -6
I used to fence sabre dry. It was tedious. Fencers got touches because the judges and president knew them and thought they would have hit in that situation. The level of side judges was horribly inconsistent since by the end of a tournament everyone was completely exhausted and anyone who could still stand would be used. Bouts only lasted longer than 5 seconds because of priority, which was only saved from being the single stupidest solution to the simultaneous action in sabre by some of the other solutions they've come up with (double touches? -- bouts lasted less than 2 seconds).
The only parry was 5. Touches didn't have to happen to be counted. Touches could happen and not be counted -- don't even think of going to the hand in dry sabre. The fleche destroyed any semblence of tempo actions because they just let us run like the foilists.
These were the good old days? No thank you. About any sabre fencer I've talked to who has fenced through the change from dry to electric shares those feelings.
All I say is please just leave us alone for a few seasons. The game currently has amazing bladework and footwork. It has wonderfultime actions that still allow attacks to develop. Just leave it alone for a while.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 10, 2004 9:14:26 GMT -6
As an after thought, as much as the theory loves to run around that sabre is from the cavalry sabre, my understanding is that it actually grew from the Italian duelling sabre. It has no history on the field of battle any more than an epee. And thank God no one can disarm me with a glancing blow! I'd quit in a heartbeat. They aren't swords for a reason -- swords are dangerous and are not to be played with. The object is to touch your opponent, not clobber him. Let the epeeists trade bruises, I prefer to fence with a little finesse.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 10, 2004 18:07:46 GMT -6
Actually, I've had epeeistes (including Longblade) lay touches on me so light I barely noticed it. As to the sabre target stories. Just for what it is worth, I've an OLD fencing book (clear the French War Dept. in 1908, AFLA in 1927) describing sabre as having the same target area as epee. Thigh cuts! Ouch!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Sept 10, 2004 22:22:20 GMT -6
Actually, Schlager is right... I'm actually known for my light touches to the hand and arm! See, I can too be gentle!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 11, 2004 7:45:19 GMT -6
I know the front thigh used to be target, didn't realize it was the whole body. Interesting.
I'll stick with my contention that epee fencers come away from tournaments with uglier bruises on average than sabre fencers.
I also stick with my contention that non-electric sabre sucked.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Sept 11, 2004 22:37:53 GMT -6
Dan, I also used to fence sabre dry. I did so for six years at S.W.T. (Now Texas State). I was the Texas state collegiate champion in 1980. I also coached it for three years (at Texas Tech and for a short while at Austin Community College). And I found it far from tedious! It was fast and it was FUN! We used to have Moulinets back then! We could fleche! Fleches are fun, Dan! ;D There was much more action than in the long-sleeved foil we fence today. And, since there was no electricity involved, no wires, and no moonsuit, it actually went faster since there were fewer mechanical considerations and therefore fewer problems! And as a bonus, it was certainly cooler without the lame! I found that there were very few times when I got home-towned by the director and corner judges. They generally went out of their way to be fair. The next time, I could be their blind corner judge or myopic director! Mistakes were made then, just as they are now. And there will unfortunately always be some amount cheating with or without technology! Surely you don't think a referee today can't reverse a call or add another action to the phrase? What made the day long was not the length of the bouts, but rather the pool system we used back then instead of the direct elimination format in use today. And we used to hand-seed the tourneys because we didn't have the computers and the seeding software in those days. (When I learned computer programing in college, we learned Basic and Cobal, and even punched cards!) Computers were not common until the mid-80s and they were dinosaurs by today's standards. You're comparing apples to oranges, Dan. "The only parry was 5"? My God, Where did you learn to fence Sabre? I learned that the 5 basic parries were prime, seconde, tierce, quarte and quinte! "Touches didn't have to happen to be counted"? Surely you've experienced the light going off on a floating dust mote six inches from the target, or burying your blade in your opponent's chest and getting no light? And pinning someone in the hand was quite effective! The hand was also valid target area back then! I took the opportunity to talk to a few "older sabre fences" today at the Bobcat Open. I found that many wished for a return to the old ways! Most mentioned missing the fleche. Most also complained about the uniform. I have no idea why I should... "just leave us alone for a few seasons. The game currently has amazing bladework and footwork. It has wonderfultime actions that still allow attacks to develop. Just leave it alone for a while." I fence Sabre, and I have a different opinion of the modern game than you do, Dan! I don't like electric Sabre as much as fencing it dry. I think the rules are even more artificial and silly today than before electricity. Sabre developed as a cavlary weapon due to the fact that point-thrust weapons were often "one-use". When you bury your lance, spear, sword in your enemy on the gallop, you'll find it very difficult to extract. Many ancient calvarymen had a point weapon and used it first before drawing their second weapon. Some ancient calvary consisted solely of light archers to avoid this very problem. Sabre was also useful in marine engagements where the combat was close and often done amoungst fallen rigging and sails. Sabre was first introduced to Western Europe during the eighteenth century as a result of contact with the Hungarian light horsemen (Housas or "Hussars") who adopted the weapon from the Turks. By the late 18th or very early 19th century, all cavalry in Europe practiced Sabre fencing. The Italian duelling sabre was a later development of the end of the 19th century with the Italian Masters, Giuseppe Radaelli and Magrini. The convention of hitting above the waist arose from two practical considerations: (1) Needing the enemy's mounts; You avoided hitting the horse so you could take it from the fallen enemy. Many horses were injured or died in war, and replacements were always needed. And (2) If you stab the horse or get caught up in the saddle or reigns, its rider is probably just as busy stabbing you! It later became a matter of honor during the Napoleonic era. When Sabreurs dismounted and Sabre as a sporting weapon on foot evolved, the target area changed. It was originally the full body as in Epee, and later evolved back to above the waist as Schlager mentioned. As far as Epeeists trading bruises, Dan... Want to see a few of the welts I got today from your gentle, modern Sabreurs with their "amazing bladework"? *LOL* Kyle (Sources: A to Z of Fencing, E.D. Morton, Queen Anne Press; Fencer's Start-Up, Doug Werner, Tracks Publishing, 1950; Fencing, Edward Vebell and Csaba Elthes, Sports Illustrated Books, 1960.)
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 12, 2004 2:00:17 GMT -6
We still have moulinets in sabre, the footwork is much more dynamic than 2 fencers fleching each other repeatedly, and it was far more likely to get a touch that completely missed or lose a touch that cleanly hit because the corner judges and referee couldn't see it than it is today -- to say that's a comparable problem is like saying the plague is the same health issue it was in the Middle Ages.
As for apples and oranges, I was comparing the length of a dry bout to the length of an electric bout. The time spent fencing is about the same, but the amount of time reconstructing actions after every phrase is far longer. It has nothing to do with computers, COBOL, or punch cards. I've rarely had problems where the electric equipment has held things up since the sensor was done away with. The exception being fencers who didn't short their weapons. If it hadn't been for tournament organizers insisting cards not be given for that, that whole situation would have cleared up a lot quicker.
As far as finding unbiased officials, it's easier to find one than 5. And my point wasn't about honesty, it was about human ability. I'm a decent official, and there are plenty of actions I can't see happen without the aid of a box. Are you saying those touches should be lost? There are plenty of actions that look like someone should have hit, but no one did. Should those touches be awarded? The machine is way better at determining if a valid hit occured than a person will ever be. What's one good reason not to use it?
The exhaustion at the end of a tournament has little to do with the format. I've always found it more tiring to officiate a tournament than to fence it. An official has to focus on every touch of every bout. A fencer gets to take the bouts he or she isn't fencing off and relax. Sure you watch your opponent, but not at the same level as the ref. When you have to corner judge/referee/fence in pools, you never get a chance. It tires the fencers out faster and by the end of the tournament people are missing more touches. That's why the USFA tries to hold their better referees until later in the tournament. So they're still fresh for the top bouts.
I started fencing sabre at Purdue University. We didn't have a coach, so I learned a chunk of what I know by going to Escrime du Lac when they were still at Notre Dame and getting a couple lessons from Ed Korfanty and fencing with the Notre Dame team. I learned more by asking the referees at the collegiate tournaments why they were calling actions certain ways and what I needed to fix to fence at that level. I'd also watch the better teams fencing each other when Purdue had a bye. I learned the parries, 5 was the only one that consistently came up in bouts. Nadi pointed the same thing out years ago with foilists being taught all 8 parries and only using 2 or 3. You could make a living as a sabre fencer with a good 5 and a strong fleche. You need more to make that same living now.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 23, 2004 13:27:00 GMT -6
Barry Paul (of Leon Paul) recently observed the time changes at the Bristol Open. I quote his remarks from a Fencing Net thread at www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13275Remarks regarding Sabre, 1. ‘That clear hits either single or double seen or heard with no light coming up, which meant there had to be a fault with the timing or the apparatus.’ Even with a 0.5 millisecond contact time to register a valid this can allow a hit of 0.95 millisecond not to arrive. This depends on when the hit arrives in relation to the computer programming cycle time. I can demonstrate fast hits to the mesh one in ten times which can be heard but no hit is indicated. Other reasons for not working are high resistance in the circuit Sabre, body wire (broken lame jacket clip lead), spool, leads or lame (dead spot on the lame). It is never in our experience a faulty apparatus. Talking with Ian Williams he remarked you see at all A grades saber events apparent non –working equipment and he did not see at Bristol any thing unusual. 2. ‘The double hit lock out time is much too short’. This is a complaint that must be made to the F.I.E. and is not the result or incorrect setting of the apparatus.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 30, 2004 11:58:12 GMT -6
I am reminded that this weekend, the Board of Directors of the USFA votes on whether to adopt the new FIE time changes for sabre at the Atlanta NAC , which is the very next weekend.
My guess is we only have a few sabreurs in our Division headed for the NAC in Atlanta, but I wonder what their thoughts are and whether they have had the chance to fence with the new times.
|
|