Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

I think this is really getting at the heart of the problem. It has been in my experience that often more advanced coaches already feel as if they know everything important about the sport and so they don't feel the need to change anything they teach or look to other coaches or fencers for information.

Actually I find that with learning and education in general people like to stick to what they were taught initially, no matter how incorrect (Columbus discovered America, Gallileo invented the telescope) when someone tells them otherwise it is inconsistent with their basic knowledge of the subject so they tend to ignore it.

Also, I'm sure I'm not going to be the only person to ask you this but would you mind sharing the notes you got from Michael's clinic?

"A good example for me might be a discussion I had with someone a few months ago, who told me that I could not "attack" in foil without lunging. In other words, an attack cannot be made with a thrust, it cannot be made with a thrust and an advance. Making an attack without a lunge is "incorrect".

Do you agree with this? It is the precise parsing of the rules of foil."

I had to go look up the actual rule for foil first.

I'd say that that demonstrates my point: That the rule is not being read closely enough. ( I'll ignore that it also mentions the fleche, which of itself would make the position that a lunge is required incorrect. )

The mention of the lunge and fleche are only limiting conditions. By the wording, they are not requirements. Like the fall of the front foot in sabre, they are there merely to show when an attack starts and stops, not to assert that they are integral to every valid attack...

I like to answer that sort of question with resort to referee calls. That is, if you were refereeing, what hand signal would you use for a simple thrust with no footwork which scored on an opponent who was not himself attacking? It's got to be something. If it's not an attack, what is it? They are not going to be able to answer that...because, of course, "attack" is the only answer that works.

Also, what about:

"Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are
executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks
but as preparations, laying themselves open to the
initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action
of the opponent (cf. t.8)."

That implies that "steps" executed withOUT a bent arm ARE "considered attacks", no? Hence an attack with only a step is possible. And a step isn't a lunge or a fleche. So...

I would say that it is a helpful discussion to the person being helped. That being the person who believes that you can't attack without a lunge. However if they don't accept what you say as valid then it may not be very helpful at all which seems to be what keeps happening on the forum discussions. Lately it seems that such discussions are getting more and more pointless because people won't keep an open mind or listen to the "authorities" on the subject. Of course, knowing who the authorities are on an online discussion forum can be difficult. It's the nature of the beast that fruitless discussions will take place, all we can do is try to make them have a point or a lesson when possible and when it's not, let the thread die.

-Austin

A good example for me might be a discussion I had with someone a few months ago, who told me that I could not "attack" in foil without lunging. In other words, an attack cannot be made with a thrust, it cannot be made with a thrust and an advance. making an attack without a lunge is "incorrect".

Do you agree with this? It is the precise parsing of the rules of foil. Yet, I don't think many would agree. A referee, hearing this discussion, ventured that while this was the "rule" there was--no where in the rules--a discussion of how long a "lunge" had to be. in fact, the "lunge" was not defined at all in the rules. Not very helpful, perhaps, but it neatly solved the problem.

The counter-opinion given was that the lunge was well defined at the time the rules were originally written (early 1900's) and that "interpretations" of the rule by modern referees were wrong.

I don't mean these questiosn to be rhetorical: is this a helpful discussion? Is it worthwhile to have? Why is it worthwhile?

AE

"A too close reading of the rules"?!

Can there be such a thing? It seems to me that the vast majority of problems come from not reading them closely enough, rather. It's that which allows things like a "referee consensus" to build around "interpretations" which run diametrically counter to the rules...

As to "driving off smart people": Maybe people who CAN be "driven off" by people paying what they think is insufficient respect to their lofty opinions are a bit too full of themselves to begin with?

Yes, I argue incessantly with anyone who will listen, and yes I tend to believe that my opinions are correct...but that's not the same thing as thinking that everyone else's opinion is stupid, ignorant or not worth voicing. They are merely wrong, that's all.

Concern over dropping standards is an issue here just as it is in most fields of education. Young and inexperienced fencers (even those who are not so young) will probably continue to engage in these kinds of exhaustive and generally unproductive discussions with or without intervention from experts. I suspect some of this has to do with a rash impulse to impress others(long before the fencer has gained enough experience to address matters with real sophistication). I also suspect that this may be why excellent comments from downunder and others are glossed over as the hyperbole grows.

As Jason and jBirch observe the best discussions currently seem to arise in the blogs. I usually find myself searching for info here rather than in the general fencing threads. This is fine on the whole but it does leave me wondering. Why is it that so much of the useful discussion on f.net has retreated to the 'blogs' of the hinterlands? Perhaps, if the standards of discussion are to be raised, the valuable ideas that emerge here need to be brought back out to the general fora?

Bear in mind that these comments come from a man who recently posted a thread in the watercooler requesting diner recommendations in NC. It was a moment of weakness!

If you go to a clinic with a top coach (as I did with Micheal Marx last weekend), only a few coaches get impacted by the information*. A blog or a smart post (even by an self admitted "crazy man" like Jason) gets viewed and read by a lot more people, and more importantly, starts a dialouge amoung coaches and fencers. This information isn't as good as seeing it in person (though I think that Jason expresses himself well, and gets a lot of complex information accross when he writes) but often even a rough discussion about an idea or a concept can be enough to get someone with some brains thinking about changing their approach. It's one of the reasons I do continue to post (though infrequently) on F.net. Modesty aside, I think I DO know something about fencing -- if only because I've had good teachers -- I do try to stay current on modern pedagological practices, and I try to check my ego at the door (someone unsuccessfuly in this case, according to Inq).

My frustration (which I tried to vent on this blog, rather than in a general post) is that discussions often seem to stem from imaginary opinions (or a too close reading of the rules) rather than actual fencing experiance or -- for lack of a better word -- knowlege of fencing "theory". This seems to result in some of these discussions going off into some very weird territory that just doesn't exist in the real fencing world. I was actually tempted to post my question about point in line against someone jumping over my head, just to see the reaction it got and to see if anyone actually tried to support it and how. But I defered.

F.net has driven off a lot of smart people: high level referees, coaches, and fencers. I think that's too bad, as American continues to try to move towards a modern game of fencing, and leave the Dark Ages behind.

AE

*Too tell you the truth, I was surprised how few experinaced coaches showed up to the clinic, given by someone who's students regularly kick everyone's butt. Why not pay some money and get another coaches play book? But, I see this over and over again when I attend clinics.

"The conversations on F.net are driving me more crazy than normal, the last few months. It's one of the reasons my post count has dropped: I have started to reply in a number of threads on a few different subjects, and then deleted the post before publishing it simply because my annoyance was so transparent."

Sorry. I was referring to that, rather then to the comment thread in here.

There are a few good fencing blogs (yours and Jason's come readily to mind) but not much else left in the main forums. So much of the richness of fencing comes not from writing, but from showing and I too am tired of trying to discuss points of nuance through text: I'm just not that good a writer.

JBirch, I'm not clear what you're trying to say. I thought there were some good comments here, esp by noodle and sabreur.

AE

This is my first post in a couple of months.

That pretty much sums it up.

What happened to intelligent conversation?

Inq, a good observation, with perhaps some truth, even if your message of tolerance is coming from one of the least likely corners of the 'net.

Truthfully, I'm using the word "annoyance", but to be honest, these arguments about PIL really don't really work me up as much as my entry might read on the first pass. I suspect--but only you can confirm--that perhaps the word "annoyance" has much stronger connotations than it does for me! :-)

AE

Er...Allen...what's that line from the musical "Camelot"? "Have you jousted with humility lately"?

Really, why should people not be entitled to hold opinions at variance with yours without being dismissed as "ignorant", "lawyerly", "weak" and "outrageous"?

I mean, I am sure that everyone is sorry that they "drive you crazy" by disagreeing with you, but is there some compelling reason to agree with you just to avoid annoying you?

Maybe you should get that case of Coach Knows Everything Syndrome looked at.

Interesting comments. Could you expand on the idea of starting your foot and your hand (together, I assume? ) in order to show the attack more clearly?

It's certainly true about showing your opponent, and the referee, your actions. So many of my foil fencers can't make a feint decieve because they work on making the feint part as fast as possible, in order to have "time" for the decieve, which is completely backwards. Most of the time, their feints are so fast, their opponent doesn't even realize an attack has started until the student attacks the closed line their lighting feint was supposed to open.

AE

Point in line and simultaneous are IMNSHO the two calls where most refs and most fencers fail miserably. However, I don't believe that is a reason not to teach them.

There is a lovely video (maybe on fencing pictures) of Nemscik v. Limbach from a couple of years ago. Nemscik establishes the line, and Limbach comes forward. Nemscik retreats steadily maintaining the line. Limbach makes numerous attempts to take the line with counter 3s, and Nemscik deceives with small movements, but does NOT assume he has right of way. Limbach finally takes a large seconde, which Nemscik deceives--AND then steps forward to hit. Two lights--touch to Nemscik--PIL.

The point is that Nemscik understood that Limbach's small counter-threes, although clearly attempts to take the blade in the video, were not significant enough for the ref to give Nemscik right of way when they missed. He waited for the large, clear attempt to take the blade, then deceived, stepped forward, hit and won the touch.

In a similar vein, if you want to make sure that you get the attack in a near simultaneous situation, you need to make sure that you prepare smoothly (so the ref doesn't think you just stopped and cut into the other guy's attack) with small quick steps so you can clearly start your hand and foot before the other guy. If you execute this action correctly, a ref can see who starts the attack, even when there are very small time differences. But you have to start hand AND foot. If you just throw out your hand, it looks like you are cutting in (and I'd say you are). If you delay the hand, it looks like you are preparing, then make a cut in the middle of your preparation (and I'd probably call it that way too).

Rules lawyering is (again, IMNSHO) mostly people who want marginal actions called for them. Fencers in conventional weapons still have the responsibility to SHOW the ref what they are doing. In fact, if you are going to get beyond the "I'm bigger, faster, stronger" phase and actually become a fencer, you need to learn that the most important thing in the game is to clearly SHOW your actions, not just to the ref, but more importantly to your opponent.

It is only when your opponent sees and understands what you are proposing to do that you can do something else. One of my Ukrainian coach's most damning comments is "I don't understand..."

I think today more than ever there are many resources available to people who want to see what good international fencers and good international referees are doing. And videotaping yourself is often a revelation of just how unclear and muddled your own actions are. But it is always much easier to think you know what you are doing, than to try to test that assumption.

Oh, and debates about angels dancing on pinheads is more Scholasticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism than monkery.

Noodle: good observation, and I agree with you. I, for instance, was NEVER taught to use point in line in foil (and only in certain instances in saber). My coach's philosophy: "No one ever calls it correctly, so spending a lot of time on it is time wasted". I don't teach it much right now, for the same reason.

AE