Tried new foil times

[esskreemr]

This is very close to my opinion. Rather or not you consider fencing as an art,science, or sport, you need to adapt to your opponent and your environment. I think that everything worthwhile has multiple layers that expose further layers once you reach them. In other words, the more you know the more you understand how much you don't know.

I'm sure it's obvious that I don't consider myself a traditionalists or "classic" fencer. I see fencing as dynamic and innovative. Fencers should either learn to adapt and overcome or take up something a little less challenging like sitting home and watching tv.

There are many different styles and thoughts in fencing. In addition to the divisions created by the traditional schools, ie French, Spanish, Italian, we also have to contend with differences in style, technique and interpretation of the conventions which will always have an extreme variation. There will probably never be a unanimous consensus on what constitutes "fencing" let alone an attack, parry, riposte, fleche, coupe, etc. Yes, each one of these conventions are hotly debated.

I disagree with anyone who says that the flick is the death of fencing. The USFA has more than doubled it's membership in the last 10 years or so during the "reign" of the flick. I believe the last National Championship had over 4,000 entrants. I'm pretty sure that 5 years ago, it was under 900. Unfortunately, statistics on the total number of fencers are scarce or nonexistent so I can't quote total numbers of non-USFA fencers. If fencing was dying due to the excessive use of the flick, though, I think the numbers would reflect this alleged decline. Instead, I see more and more international results by American fencers and burgeoning numbers across the board.

[veeco]

But you cannot say that this increase in numbers is due to the flick, nor can you say that this increase of numbers didn't happen in spite of the use of the flick. It could be that the increase of numbers would have been actually even higher if it wasn't for the flick! Unless someone made a poll of all the people who actually tried it and quit you cannot really say it was for one reason or another.

[Epeecurean]

All of this indicates a return to the rational, plausible bladework we all learned during beginner drills and then "gave up" during bouting. Tempo and bladework will be more human-friendly — that is, less a series of tough-to-call accidents when two fencers' tactics collide, and more of a coherent back-and-forth conversation. -- "Future Foil" "Future Foil"

Gloat.

wflachka, I just wanted to let you know I did savour this article of yours! Nicely written. It also sounds like the type of fencing which results from a more traditionalist reading of the rules rather than the post-modern approach.

Cheers,

Epeecurean

[CarlKnoch]

yes, that's true. They will adjust, but a big adjustment it will be.

They'll begin the forward motion of the flick earlier so it lands on the front instead of on the back, and they will be at a slightly different distance. That's not all that big a adjustment.

It still means that you have very little time to parry the incoming flick as the blade is still going to be withheld until they are ready to throw the tip.

[Aeric]

They'll begin the forward motion of the flick earlier so it lands on the front instead of on the back, and they will be at a slightly different distance. That's not all that big a adjustment.

It still means that you have very little time to parry the incoming flick as the blade is still going to be withheld until they are ready to throw the tip.

If the blade is withheld, it is not an attack, and thus can be countered with a stop-thrust. The new equipment will favor this with the lock out time.

If the blade is moving forward, it will threaten high-line on the torso and can be parried with a conventional technique (such as parry 1, 4, 5, or 6).

Flicks to the back cannot be parried with a conventional technique because them blade bends around the parry onto a target area that is not designed to be hit unless the opponent exposes their back to due lack of balance.

Personally, I actually had my finger broken when a fencer in Maryland flicked me, and missed my back... only to nail me right on the off-hand thumb. Pretty much destroyed my finger for a few months. So my contempt for this move is pretty biased.

[The0ne]

that's because you don't parry it unless you have to. . . Use distance. . . If you're too far away, or too close they can't hit you with a flick.

[achilleus]

They'll begin the forward motion of the flick earlier so it lands on the front instead of on the back, and they will be at a slightly different distance. That's not all that big a adjustment.

It still means that you have very little time to parry the incoming flick as the blade is still going to be withheld until they are ready to throw the tip.

If the blade is withheld, it is not an attack, and thus can be countered with a stop-thrust. The new equipment will favor this with the lock out time.

If the blade is moving forward, it will threaten high-line on the torso and can be parried with a conventional technique (such as parry 1, 4, 5, or 6).

Flicks to the back cannot be parried with a conventional technique because them blade bends around the parry onto a target area that is not designed to be hit unless the opponent exposes their back to due lack of balance.

Personally, I actually had my finger broken when a fencer in Maryland flicked me, and missed my back... only to nail me right on the off-hand thumb. Pretty much destroyed my finger for a few months. So my contempt for this move is pretty biased.

IF these changes in the box and point actually get implemented at the senior level, it still won't change how refs call the action. That is still debated, so if the current interpretations stay, you may still get compound attacks where the arm pulls back. And as seen in one of the YMTC threads, there is still plenty of time to finish a bent arm attack.

That said, parrying a flick is easy, just use a sabre parry, which are conventional. I've taught 12 year olds how to successfully parry the flick to the back.

[onesandzeros]

Everyone else is throwing in their ideas, I may as well toss in mine.
I think it's very sad that we are stepping backwards in the sport, instead of going with the natural advancements that have come into play. Honestly, I think the flick is a pretty move and to see it go would be terrible. Hopefully the FIE will kill these proposed changes.

I'm glad I fence epee.

[DanInMI]

IF these changes in the box and point actually get implemented at the senior level, it still won't change how refs call the action. That is still debated, so if the current interpretations stay, you may still get compound attacks where the arm pulls back. And as seen in one of the YMTC threads, there is still plenty of time to finish a bent arm attack.

That said, parrying a flick is easy, just use a sabre parry, which are conventional. I've taught 12 year olds how to successfully parry the flick to the back.

That is the point of the blocking time change. The FIE is doing an end run around the referrees because of thier apparent loathe to call a bent arm attack a preparation. If they are marching in with thier tip pointed skyward and you stop hit them they will have to be really fast to finish thier attack in time. Even if the top fencers are still able to do that, the lower levels won't, and isn't that what really matters anyway?

[DanInMI]

Everyone else is throwing in their ideas, I may as well toss in mine.
I think it's very sad that we are stepping backwards in the sport, instead of going with the natural advancements that have come into play. Honestly, I think the flick is a pretty move and to see it go would be terrible. Hopefully the FIE will kill these proposed changes.

I'm glad I fence epee.

1. It was not a natural advancement of the sport. Changes in technology caused this major change.
2. It is RARELY a pretty move. Looks more like "*****-slapping" than fencing.

[onesandzeros]

Hey DanInMI, you should have a whirl at classical fencing. No pesky "electronics" to get in the way of true sportsmanship.

Sorry, that was a tad harsh...

[The0ne]

1. It was not a natural advancement of the sport. Changes in technology caused this major change.
2. It is RARELY a pretty move. Looks more like "*****-slapping" than fencing.

1. The improved steel was used to make blades safer in the first place, they weren't designed for flicking in the first place. Germans started using the flick because French fencers got really good at using the unarmed hand to push their straight attacks out of the way (a coach of mine in Montreal told me this story). Seems like a natural advancement of the sport to me.
2. You must not see many good flickers then. Flicks can look just as graceful as straight attacks. . . A flick inquartata is an amazing move to watch, and when I have given fencing demonstrations at several schools, flicks gained the second-most amount of interest, right after the good old jumping prime-repost!

[telkanuru]

People seem to be saying that the flick is completely gone. I find this foolish. It is now merely harder to perform. If I can regularly see flicks to the back in epee (which I do in QCC), you foilists have nothing to worry about. And such things are very pretty as you know it takes skill to pull off. I definitely think some people are overreacting.

[Rolls]

People seem to be saying that the flick is completely gone. I find this foolish. It is now merely harder to perform. If I can regularly see flicks to the back in epee (which I do in QCC), you foilists have nothing to worry about. And such things are very pretty as you know it takes skill to pull off. I definitely think some people are overreacting.

Well, while I think flicks will still be around, let's be honest. Flicking under the new foil rules is NOT like flicking in epee. In epee, it may be hard to get the blade to bend, but if the tip goes off, it goes off.

With the new foil rules, it has to go off and stay depressed for some length of time. I can't remember the exact length. Anyone know what the new times are? Anyway, it will be a lot different.

In fact, if these rules are well recieved (which I think they will be), I can see changes being made to epee, which to me will be REAL funny. How many times have you heard that epee is the shrine of untouchability (as far as rules goes). I predict that once foil is changed they will change the amount of time the epee tip must stay down (Is the proper term debounce time?). They will probably make it match the new foil debounce time. Anyone know what the current epee and foil debounce times are?

Rolls.

[Rolls]

Here's the times under the new rules.

Foil lockout time will be changed to 300ms
Foil debounce time will be 15ms

I'm guessing the debounce time is something like 15 times longer. Although 15ms is no great legnth of time.

Rolls.

[MikeHarm]

As long as you don't have to hold it on them a while and wiggle it before people recognize you landed like in dry I'm good with it.

[telkanuru]

Well, while I think flicks will still be around, let's be honest. Flicking under the new foil rules is NOT like flicking in epee. In epee, it may be hard to get the blade to bend, but if the tip goes off, it goes off.

With the new foil rules, it has to go off and stay depressed for some length of time. I can't remember the exact length. Anyone know what the new times are? Anyway, it will be a lot different.

In fact, if these rules are well recieved (which I think they will be), I can see changes being made to epee, which to me will be REAL funny. How many times have you heard that epee is the shrine of untouchability (as far as rules goes). I predict that once foil is changed they will change the amount of time the epee tip must stay down (Is the proper term debounce time?). They will probably make it match the new foil debounce time. Anyone know what the current epee and foil debounce times are?

Rolls.

I never said it would be the same, just similar. And quite frankly, the flick in epee is easy enough to parry (at least the ones to the upper body/wrist) that you only frequently see it in 73h 31337 f3nc3r beating down on an n00b or whatnot. If the changes go to epee too, I don't see them mattering all that much.

[DHCJr]

In fact, if these rules are well recieved (which I think they will be), I can see changes being made to epee, which to me will be REAL funny. Anyone know what the current epee and foil debounce times are?

Rolls.

I don't think they will do that. The difference in Normally Closed and Normally Open is great. With Epee you can still be in contact, but the box won't know it because it is not depressed far enough. While in foil and infinitely depression will cause a break in the circuit.

There is no minimum debounce time in Foil at present. The box must register anything over 5 miliseconds, but it can register a touch of 0.0000000000005 miliseconds. (Apendix B.A.1.b.1)

In Epee, the box must be set between 2 and 10 miliseconds. Anything under 2 miliseconds can not register. (Apendix B.B.c)

[achilleus]

That is the point of the blocking time change. The FIE is doing an end run around the referrees because of thier apparent loathe to call a bent arm attack a preparation. If they are marching in with thier tip pointed skyward and you stop hit them they will have to be really fast to finish thier attack in time. Even if the top fencers are still able to do that, the lower levels won't, and isn't that what really matters anyway?

If you reread my post you'll notice I mention how the blockage time won't prevent a lot of hits.

And I always strive to fence at the highest level, not the lowest level. I believe the FIE considers the top levels first.

[Epeecurean]

That is the point of the blocking time change. The FIE is doing an end run around the referrees because of thier apparent loathe to call a bent arm attack a preparation. If they are marching in with thier tip pointed skyward and you stop hit them they will have to be really fast to finish thier attack in time. Even if the top fencers are still able to do that, the lower levels won't, and isn't that what really matters anyway?

Hi DanInMI, I entirely agree with you, with these timing changes the FIE is trying to restore foil's status as a thrusting weapon and remove some of the apparent, shall we say, 'subjectivity' (i.e. read both 'difficulty in calling the action' and 'misinterpretation of the rules') from foil directing. What I find interesting is that some here seem to like the preliminary results from the new timings in terms of their effect on foil fencing, but don't support the FIE's rule interpretations which accomplish much of the same thing!

I agree with Craig when he says there is no one "magic bullet": the FIE needs to press ahead not only with these technological changes but with an improvement in the standard and consistency of refereeing. It's a two pronged attack (and with no bent arms either).

Cheers,

Epeecurean