[quote=DanInMI]
30 to 40 years ago the technology was created (electronic scoring, and super flexible steel) that made the flick attack a viable option. Over the years fencers learned how to capitalize on this technology. The result is that it has change the sport as dramatically as if you could consistantly hit a golf ball 400 yards or more or if you could serve a tennis ball at 200 mph.
QUOTE]
If these changes do not make the sport more dangerous, then why deny them? A 200 mph tennis ball is very dangerous, a flick is not. It serves to speed the sport up, make it a much more enjoyable sport to watch, and to participate in. It should not be the entirety of one's game, but it should still remain an option. If the environment changes, and people change in order to sustain themselves in that environment, it does no good to revert the environment back to it's original state. Look to politics as a proof of that.
If these changes do not make the sport more dangerous, then why deny them?
Because they change the sport. They change what the "successful" skill set is, and change the way the sport looks and feels. They want longer and more interesting exchanges. They want *visible* hits, instead of the glancing crap that people like me do. With bends in the blade. They want a nice hit to look like a nice hit, rather than have one person move backwards, one forwards, and see who blinks first.
As for "enjoyable to watch," I think fencing is more fun to watch when high-level fencers are not flicking all the time. This is, of course, a matter of opinion. It's certainly much simpler to explain to a non-fencer, which is (I think) one of the goals.
I'm not sure about the flick making it more enjoyable to compete, either. I use it, it's in my repetoire ... but I don't think I'll miss it, after I get over the instinctive reaction to flick my opponents in certain situations where a thrust now makes more sense. Besides, flicking will still be an option ... there will be times when it is as viable a hit as it currently is, and times when you should probably thrust instead.
Bravo for you. Sounds like you have an understanding that the flick is not an insurmountable omnipotent magic trick. The feeling I generally get is that people rail against the flick just because they're too fricking (flicking) lazy to break it down and learn how to counter it. "But we don't have any flickers at my club!" Boo-flicking-who (pun intended), neither do I (don't have any lefties either, I stopped whining about that years ago, well ok, not completely...)! Goes back to breaking the one-trick pony's leg. A properly timed flick is a beautiful thing (shoulder flicking good), parrying a flick and riposting feels even better, especially if it's the only game that your opponent has. So what if flickers beat beginners to tears. Shouldn't be competing if it's that easy to make you cry Princess.
When combined with proper directing, the flick is merely another tool in the fencers' (using plural possessive to indicate that anyone who bothers to can learn how to flick, though this doesn't appear to be the reality) repertoire. Combined with biased or improper directing it becomes a painful and frustrating reminder of fencing's highly subjective past (pre-electric jury days).
"Attack, counter-attack!"
"But mister director I swear I stop-hit in time!"
"This is not attack, attack left, point left"
"But, he bent his arm after his initial feint!"
"Point left"
"But, but"
"No butt, he hit shoulder, point left!"
I've been down that road...
I hope I don't come off wrong here. I don't have a flick fetish, I don't even use it that much. I think it will be great if the flickers (fencers whose game is mostly flick) have to rethink their games. I DON'T, however, want to see a stilted game lacking athleticism. I also don't want to see foil being changed because someone (or somepeeps) doesn't want to learn more than 4 parries or isn't fast enough to get their slow butts out of the way. Maybe the changes will prove beneficial, maybe they won't; I'm willing to keep an open mind at this point.
I can adapt to rule changes as quick as just about anybody. However, if we (foilists) get to the point where sabre or epee fencers are saying "I might actually start fencing foil again!" we've done something seriously wrong, and have probably already lost the battle. I like the differences between foil, sabre and epee. I don't fence epee or sabre for a reason, I LOVE the nuances of the foil, subjective directors and all. I could care less how televiseable (heh heh one invented word after another, I'm on fire today!) foil fencing is.
It will be funny when people are making fun of the "classic" fencers because they flick all the time, use all those extraneous parries, fleche, stop the bout 'cause of an off-target hit, tend to hit to the rear shoulder, like to march you down the strip, etc...
__________________
"Since when does being a patriot in America mean shutting your mouth?"
---
If these changes do not make the sport more dangerous, then why deny them? A 200 mph tennis ball is very dangerous, a flick is not. It serves to speed the sport up, make it a much more enjoyable sport to watch, and to participate in. It should not be the entirety of one's game, but it should still remain an option. If the environment changes, and people change in order to sustain themselves in that environment, it does no good to revert the environment back to it's original state. Look to politics as a proof of that.
So? Tennis players can wear protective equipment. The reason they don't is because 200 mph tennis balls wouldn't be any fun. 200 mph tennis balls would reduce the game to a serving match. 400 yard golf balls would make it too easy to drive the green.
We disagree whether flicking makes the sport more enjoyable to watch, or participate in. so, it would seem, does the FIE.
DanInMI,
About footwork. . . The 1988 footwork is cleaner, but sooooo slooooow!!! And back then fencers could take breaks where they didn't move at all. That doesn't work anymore, fast, aggressive footwork, where someone is always moving is the game today. Just want to emphasize the fast and aggressive parts there! When you look at Romankov's footwork, it wasn't very aggressive, it was clean as hell, which makes it desireable, but in today's game footwork plays a bigger part. Nowerdays he barely bothers to use footwork, his parry-reposts and set-up distance are so good he doesn't really need it. . .
DanInMI,
About footwork. . . The 1988 footwork is cleaner, but sooooo slooooow!!! And back then fencers could take breaks where they didn't move at all. That doesn't work anymore, fast, aggressive footwork, where someone is always moving is the game today. Just want to emphasize the fast and aggressive parts there! When you look at Romankov's footwork, it wasn't very aggressive, it was clean as hell, which makes it desireable, but in today's game footwork plays a bigger part. Nowerdays he barely bothers to use footwork, his parry-reposts and set-up distance are so good he doesn't really need it. . .
Nah...you should watch it. There weren't breaks, nor was it slower. It was just as fast, just as much movement. Much like the current Chinese team.
return of the "old school flick" I remember one lesson in particular where my coach taught a small action wrist flick during the extension to help "set" the point" on shots to the shoulder, not the big prep "horse whip" flicks. these just changed the angle of the barrel enough to stick the point rather than be flat, and all this with a extension. I'm sure those who fenced dry remember this particular flick.
But with the changes, a 1-2 year fencer with clean technique can get on strip, and have everything they need to win. Getting better results will be a matter of getting better technique, and experience/seasoning.
Basically, the path to greatness is simplified. New fencers will get positive feedback by doing correct things, and they'll get it very early... not in 5 years, but in 1. This will generate more new fencers, and better retention rate.
Seriously, you're joking, right? A bunch of cookie-cutter fencers with a 1 year learning curve? You think this will make fencing better? Does anyone else disagree with this? Maybe I'm in the wrong sport after all...
Perhaps a more likely scenario would be a drop off in competitive fencing, you know, on par with what happened 30 years ago. Fencers moving on to more challenging sports where they can express their individuality. Hey, let's make it more fun, lets introduce compulsory elements and score points according to how well or often you perform each move. No, I've got it! Let's eliminate that pesky opponent, then we can just stand in the middle of the floor and perform our moves without the added distraction of having to account for the opponent's actions. Ahhh, fencing would be so simple then.
I trully wish there was a sarcasm tag...
__________________
"Since when does being a patriot in America mean shutting your mouth?"
---
Seriously, you're joking, right? A bunch of cookie-cutter fencers with a 1 year learning curve? You think this will make fencing better? Does anyone else disagree with this? Maybe I'm in the wrong sport after all...
I think you missed his point. He did not say "cookie-cutter". But I think he meant that they will be playing the same type of game from day one. None of this "newbies who can't flick getting eaten alive for years" that I saw at my old club. The quickest and most competitive students taught themselves a flick a.s.a.p. (against their coach's wishes) and those who listened to their coaches suffered. Or quit. The newbies won't win any faster, but they will see themselves as playing the same game. And those who listen to their coaches (extend the arm, don't rely on flick) will see that it leads to better results.
Yes, I think wflashka's point was that it would be easier to coach fencing. Now as to whether we will see fencers who have been fencing for only 2 years win national tournaments, I am not sure this will happen. Fencing still is and will be a martial art, and as such it takes a bit of time to really get good at it.
Those that have been doing it longer will get better at the "new game" faster because they have built some confidence in their abilities, and most importantly they will have that hand foot coordination down, whereas the "newbies" won't. However someone gifted will most likely have better results faster than what it took before.
__________________
Epee is the Louis Vuitton bag of fencing: only the best can get it, and the rest of the masses must content themselves with cheap knockoffs (sabre, foil)
To not recognize the power of the French grip is to be in denial
Seriously, you're joking, right? A bunch of cookie-cutter fencers with a 1 year learning curve? You think this will make fencing better? Does anyone else disagree with this? Maybe I'm in the wrong sport after all...
I've seen so many promising new fencers ground to pieces by the randomness of sport fencing. They take excellent lessons, they train daily to perfect their lunges. And they're destroyed on strip endlessly by fencers who have "it", but sometimes little else. It's cruel, but I like the process. Those that don't have "it" are winnowed, kicked to the side and forgotten. I love it.
But in fencing the winnowing happens too fast. Out of every 30 newbies to take a class, only 1 will go for more than a few years. Might as well machine gun the rest.
With the timing changes, it looks like we'll get a nice new dynamic in the actuarials. Newbies will still get schooled, but they'll be able to understand the schooling even with their tender newbie brains. It won't be a "nuked from space" thing, it will be a "he knocked my blade aside and then hit me" thing. It won't be a "how did he land that touch" thing, it will be a "ouch, he landed a touch" thing. There will still be fencing supercomputers at the highest level, but the entry level fencer-computer won't have a linux commandline, it will have a click-and-drag comprehensibility.
More new fencers will stick around, because their shortcomings will be explicable, and the solutions self-recommending. There's no chance fencing will get easy, or that top fencers won't have earned their topness without investing their lives... but there's no reason to have so much voodoo and obfuscation. It's just a barrier to the good stuff, which consists of awesome viciousness tempered by technique. The clarity enforced by box-timing changes can only be good for the sport.
However someone gifted will most likely have better results faster than what it took before.
And moreover, they'll stick around longer. Long enough to recognize their own potential. This isn't happening today, so much. Promising fencers depart, due to lack of progress. The better fencers coast, due to lack of pressure from below. This isn't as true in big cities, where there is enough turnover, but it's certainly true in small salles.
I will disagree with you esskreemr and support wflaschka's statement. Its simple enough. How many newbies (as wflaschka have pointed out) have being eliminated because they didn't know how to flick? I've seen some of the newbies, after having being utterly defeated by the flick, turned to flicking all the way. They neglect their footwork, their tactics, point control etc. They bought a maraging blade, an extremely whippy one simply to flick as it is easier. Their flick, were not much of the proper technique of flicking but rather, to throw the weapon with brute strength so that the blade will arc and curve. Tell me, is this fencing?
I am a traditionalist and "classical" fencer, whatever you like to call people with this line of thought and the thrust should be strongly emphasized. I would say the death of fencing would be flicking. Some of the people I know were put off by the way fencing looked like, with all the flicks and poor footwork. Quite a number of attack of preparation were called as a counter-attack into the "flicker's" attack due to the timing and relatively easy "glancing" hit to score a point.
__________________
"Man is how he behaves sword in hand."
"Fencers only recognize fencers, potential fencers and hopeless invalids."
Quite a number of attack of preparation were called as a counter-attack into the "flicker's" attack due to the timing and relatively easy "glancing" hit to score a point.
I will absolutely agree with you on this point. I think I alluded to it in another post. The very loose definition of what constituted an attack was allowed to escalate into basically first person moving forward is the attacker, this was something that should have been clamped down on a LONG time ago. It was allowed to go on for years, and has gripped the mindset of quite a few fencers. Even with the FIE clarifications that are available, it still happens way too often. IMO, we wouldn't even be having this argument about the flick if the governing bodies would have stepped up and made sure that the rules where interpreted correctly; ie stiffness of blade, arm extending forward. So, instead of correctly enforcing the existing rules, they are making a sweeping equipment change which I feel may or may not be necessary. Of course everything is easier said than done with so many differing styles and opinions. I'm willing to give the new rules a try, will they move foil fencing forward? I'm still waiting to see...
With this continued thread, I am willing to acknowledge that I misintepreted wflaschka's post and would lke to add that everybody has been very tactful in pointing out my mistake. There are certain points that I don't agree with, however, they are the standard points of contention.
__________________
"Since when does being a patriot in America mean shutting your mouth?"
---
It is fencing, its a test of your skill. If you can't stop hacks you need to reassess where you are and develop your defense more. Its your job to teach them not to do those things by countering it and scoring on them until they learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey
I will disagree with you esskreemr and support wflaschka's statement. Its simple enough. How many newbies (as wflaschka have pointed out) have being eliminated because they didn't know how to flick? I've seen some of the newbies, after having being utterly defeated by the flick, turned to flicking all the way. They neglect their footwork, their tactics, point control etc. They bought a maraging blade, an extremely whippy one simply to flick as it is easier. Their flick, were not much of the proper technique of flicking but rather, to throw the weapon with brute strength so that the blade will arc and curve. Tell me, is this fencing?
I am a traditionalist and "classical" fencer, whatever you like to call people with this line of thought and the thrust should be strongly emphasized. I would say the death of fencing would be flicking. Some of the people I know were put off by the way fencing looked like, with all the flicks and poor footwork. Quite a number of attack of preparation were called as a counter-attack into the "flicker's" attack due to the timing and relatively easy "glancing" hit to score a point.
Linear Mode
