|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 13, 2003 22:34:06 GMT -6
Posted below are some of the more noted parts from the interview with FIE Technical Director Ioan Pop in issue 44 of Escrime Internationale. Please feel free to post opinions. Use an alias if it makes you more comfortable.
Can all the studies currently being undertaken on the future of foil lead to a better spectacle in this weapon?
The contradiction that requires us to work on the modernization of fencing and at the same time think about returning to the attack with the straight arm is only an illusion. It is obvious that the compromise which consists of retaining the essential spirt of the weapon and making efforts to reform it is probably the most difficult to undertake. In any case, I will never agree with the loss of foil's specific identity. For it to remain foil, as a Maitre d'armes, it appears to me that if the attack is not made with an extended arm, then there are no more guidelines for teaching and refereeing.
You mean that it is impossible to fence foil with a bent arm?
For me, foil and sabre with a bent arm is no longer conventional fencing. It is practiced in this way of course but this is not fencing any more. Fencing is a dialogue between two fencers with actions and basic technique. However in foil at the moment, there are two parallel monologues instead of a dialogue. Fundamentally, we have gone a long way off track. If the action does not threaten with the point, the direct attack no longer exists, neither does the compound attack. From both sides, we have destructive actions rather than an action and a reaction.
Is the current situation not due mainly to a much greater mobility on the piste? In other words, can we go back? Is it desirable to return to fencing as it was practiced in 1935 or 1955?
I am not saying that we must go back to the past. But all the same I ask the uestion, how can we expect the spectators to be interested in fencing if we no longer know what we are doing? We have come to a position where there is a total lack of consistency between the rules and the refereeing. We cannot say in the rules that the attack must be performed with the extended arm and then do exactly the opposite on the piste or when coaching. Moreover, teaching becomes superficial and minimalist. It becomes limited to actions that speculate and rely on the human limits on the referee's perception instead of developing the basics and the technical complexity of our sport. It is the credibility of foil that is threatened. This is the major project which the FIE will undertake over the months to come.
|
|
|
Post by Geezer on Sept 2, 2003 10:05:28 GMT -6
Here's the thing...just what kind of game is Foil going to be? Those who flick say, "Who cares? My game works, I get points, Life is good!!! No problem, Directors like what I do, they give me points for it, it must be Right." Who can argue with this? Fence any style you want. Is the Bent Arm a valid attack or just a bent arm? It looks like an attack, but what is the "extended arm"? Is the "forward motion" the key to Right of Way? First mot- ion is first motion. Flicks can start from anywhere, with- out RoW, yes? "Bent Arm" with RoW is a certainty from a successful parry, if followed with a riposte. Here there's no question, Riposte is the attack. "Bent Arm" could signal preperation to attack, but nothing else. You have to attack in order to attack...1st motion is RoW. So, do Directors LIE if they give RoW to the body that jumps forward, or runs forward before moving the arm? I've seen it hundreds of times..."He/she was attacking! It was the intent." Well, gag, vomit, and PUKE!!!! They lie!!! Of course it is INTENT, it's always my INTENT to parry completely also. An advance with no extension is the classic fau passe...nada. If we do not trust the Directors, then the Game is over. In the context of a historically correct stiff blade, is it reasonable to believe one can throw a pointed tip into a target with an arcing arm swing motion? Yes or no? If yes, then it's a valid style. But if you can't trust the guy who calls the game, then what's the point? Nada. TEXT #nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 2, 2003 14:55:33 GMT -6
Personally, I don't understand the constant whining about flicks as they're about the easiest thing in fencing to defend.
As for attacks with a bent arm, of course you can -- it's permitted by the rules. You start extending your arm and the attack has begun. You stop the extension and you're in preparation. The rules clearly state that for an attack on preparation to be in time it has to land before the final attack begins. I start, I prepare, I start my final right after my opponent commits to a counter and land with right of way. Too easy.
As for clever opponents who feint a final action and then parry-riposte or can see the correct time to counter in, I can't be held responsible.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 2, 2003 15:06:04 GMT -6
As to the interview itself, I disagree with about all of it. I've seen people come in off the streets and watch tournaments before and they've rarely let their ignorance of what's happening prevent them from cheering. I think what holds fencing back as a spectator sport is 3 things:
1. No adherence to a schedule -- no one has any idea when the finals are going to start.
2. The bouts are too fast -- even a DE bout only lasts about 10 min overall.
3. No emotional investment -- I don't know a lot about the ins and outs of football say, but I know who i cheer for.
I think the way to fix that is collegiate team dual competitions. People know who to cheer for because they know which school they like. The team bouts last longer giving fans a chance to get into the competition. The schedule is a gimme since you have a set start time and then the bouts just run. Draw the weapon order randomly and best two out of three wins. Fans don't need to know the rules really well, they just need to be able to hear the referee or see the signs so they know whether to cheer their team or boo the referee.
As for the attacks with a bent arm part, my previous post dealt with that.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Geezer on Sept 3, 2003 9:11:24 GMT -6
Hey, Dan,
I've never watched college bouts so I don't know the flavor of the fans. I speculate there are two...those who understand the action a little and those who want to see some "swordfighting". I don't think the second group ever gets satisfaction. The action is just to esoteric and subtle. It's like a taste for anything refined, there doesn't seen to be a large pool of watchers who know enough to spread the enthusiasm. There is a lot of action but it's not viseral like football or soccer or tennis. I see fencing as a function of "our" fantasies and not collecting spectator emotions unless there's a personal stake like a "favorite son" or daughter to cheer for, e.g., "go team", etc. I suspect that good advertising and public relations work are the only avenues to attention.
Like I said before, my beef is with Directing. One can't rail at the rules, they are what they are. I get frustrated at the calls about "bent arms" because I see so many where a clever illusion by body motion cons the Director into giving RoW and calling the responce to it a counterattack. I'm very aware that it's just whining about the calls, but I get frtustrated. I'm well aware of not fencing well, making mistakes, and just plain getting beat, and that's NOT the Director's fault. And everybody says the same thing...just live with it.
So, I ask...how's an untrained spectator going to understand the angst, frustration, and drama as this situation get acted out on-strip? They don't...what they see is a bunch of sword fighting. So it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 4, 2003 0:52:22 GMT -6
I started fencing at Purdue University. We fenced a collegiate team (I think about 8 teams actually) tournament at the University of Illinios one year where a group of teens wandered into the venue. Now there hadn't been any advertising for the tournament, but they were there and decided to watch. They stayed all day. They cheered for the Purdue team until a referee threw them out because they upset the "esoteric and subtle" aspects of the sport or some such. They didn't know beans about fencing when they came in and little if any more when they were tossed. They hung out in the halls for a bit and kept cheering before finally being ran off. They enjoyed watching the sport. They had no link to anyone there.
The reason we don't have fencing spectators is because we don't want fencing spectators. I know this because we don't have seating for them. We don't have a set time they can show and see the top-8 fence. The USFA finally caved to the parents and other fencers and put in some seating on one strip at Nationals. Those stands are always filled and not just by people who have an investment in the bout being fenced right then.
There isn't a whole lot to understanding the action in fencing. We pretend there is because we want to feel special and clever and all, but I've sat next to lots of people at tournaments who've never watched it before and, after a simple, maybe 1 minute, explanation of what's going on, they're bitching about the ref's calls by the end of the bout. I've had far more difficulty explaining football, and an explanation of cricket once took an entire flight from Houston to Minneapolis.
As far as why Collegiate fencing, I'm not promoting it for any reason other than it comes with ready made rivalries. Makes drumming up an interest in two teams wailing on each other if you know one team's the hated cross town enemy (Salle Mauro and BCFA would work, but only among fencers -- we need wider recognition).
So if you can see the trick your opponent is using, why are you still falling for it? Why don't you use it? Maybe the illusion is what is presented to you -- lots of things look different head on as opposed to from the side, and the referee stands to the side.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Geezer on Sept 4, 2003 8:37:21 GMT -6
Way to Go, Dan!!! All this typing is paying off!. Two points you make are very good.
Some, including myself, may not want an audience, or at least don't want a lot of distraction. There may even be a "dark" psychology at work, meaning we don't want to do our "killing" in public,(from more uncivilized times). And just as we like notoriety and applause, we don't like to expose our weakness, or lose face. I don't know. This is an interesting idea.
The other is obvious...if I know what's happening, why do I keep letting myself get beat? Good question!!! I guess I haven't learned how to stop it. (Sigh...the disgrace of it all.)
Thanks for the insight.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Oct 30, 2003 14:26:06 GMT -6
I've been fencing 13 years now, first time someone pulls a sword on me I'm gone. I don't sword fight, I fence. Fencing is a sport in which the competitor uses one of three devices we archaicly refer to as weapons but which bear less resemblance to one than a baseball bat.
I prefer the sabre. It shares its name with a cavalry sword but isn't. We call it an edged weapon, but it can't cut anything tougher than soft butter. This is good as I like my arms, head, and other bits subject to getting loped off if it were actually an edged weapon. But then I've already said I'd be gone in the case someone had a weapon at strip.
Why do so many fencers cling to a belief that since someone can't do it with a real sword, we shouldn't do it with our equipment. We don't use swords. Excepting freak accidents, no one dies at the end of a bout. We engage in a sport where we endeavor to show our opponent that we can touch him or her a set number of times before he or she can touch us that many times. Many of us like it that way.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Geezer on Dec 2, 2003 15:12:41 GMT -6
Opinions are confrontational, so let me apologize beforehand. Everyone wants to preserve what they like or what they've learned. This is how I see it, (+/-). We all understand that we play "Touche" and not a blood sport. Most go with the flow...I don't.
A game of collecting touches is OK, but I feel no passion in the actions, other than "me vs. you". Sort of bland. It's like Chess vs. Checkers, both games, both "good", but collecting checkermen is very banal compared to an intricate Chess game. So, I make the analogy to fencing. If it wasn't for "sword fighting" I wouldn't fence. It's ancestory, meanings, mystique, it's darkness, the moves, the look, the mood...it comes from a passion, and it's NOT intelectual. Do you like the game of One Touch? I find it demonstrates more respect. reflection, angst, and emotional tingle than any game of collecting points and playing to the highest percentage of success.
Now, I ask, how can the public be expected to be interested in something that has been separated from it's attention grabbing, romantic roots, and can not now agree upon how to define it's self? I don't care if the public "gets it" or not. Be an "afectionado" or, "Beat it!" Being on TV might stroke one's vanity, but...who cares? I like to fence and I want to improve my skills. More fencers at my club just makes it crowded. Done.
|
|
|
Post by Fencingfodder on Dec 12, 2003 10:48:58 GMT -6
If...the USFA turns it around, it'll still be a couple of years on the Directing philosophy and certainly the hardware. But I think the classical style will reinvent itself through point control,holding the point on target, point in line, attacks into prep...simply because of the lockout time. It'll take a couple of years to get these skills back, even if we start now. Good bye, rebounding flicked point off my lame, to bad you couldn't stay longer.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Dec 30, 2003 16:37:37 GMT -6
I got my copy of the current Fencers Quarterly Magazine and found the Pop interview reprinted there.
|
|