Tried new foil times

[rjccj]

Have a major problem with the box being moved away from registering touches? Wasn't the purpose of the box in the first place to determine the touches that were unpercievable to the naked eye? Why do we have a problem with this all of a sudden because people are landing the point in a way that wasn't "proper" when foil was dry judged or when the swords were sharp? Yes, the way foil is called is inconsistent, throughout the US and I would guess, the rest of the world. However, most of the calls at the highest level are consistant. All the top refs understand the way the rules are interpreted and make the calls that way, the top coaches understand this, they teach their students, and they advance. The coaches who don't accept this and teach their students a '70's game get beat and left behind so they whine about it. The problem with foil now is not a "lack of identity" or bent arm attacks or even bad refereeing, the problem is people who will not let go of their backwards ideas of what foil should look like. My coach teaches bent arm attacks, the flick, how to attack into prep, how to parry flicks and how to adapt to different fencers and directors. It's hard, it takes a lot of practice, after 3 years of fencing with him, I'm just now starting to understand the tightness of the tempo which attacks in the prep must be made, how sensitive all attacks are to distance and footwork. But do I expect my reaction time to match that of one of the top fencers in the country, much less the world, to get the attack in prep call against them? No, I don't. But I'm sure that if the changes go through, will teach how to adapt to that as well. Random fencing, bad fencing, bad directing, and ugly fencing will not be solved by timing changes on the box. There will always be those problems in any fencing, as there are in any sport. I'm normally in favor of technological advances, especially when it contributes to the advancement of a sport. The golf balls and clubs would provide no significant improvement in the games of the top players, they would just make the hacks better. With all the huge advancements, Tiger Woods has acctually shortened his game because he's come to realize that distance isn't everything. In tennis, they have played with the balls to try and slow down the serves and the rallies, but found out that the heavier balls just lead to more injuries, just as there were more arm problems with wooden racquets. Tennis magazine did an experiment, Mark Philipossis (it's all greek to me) serving with a wooden racquet, his standard racquet, and an extended oversized "super" racquet. His serves with each were all above 125 mph, and he said that he had to hold back to keep from hurting himself with the wooden racquet. The technolgy that advanced tennis has been better, more intense training, like with baseball, basketball, football and every other major sport, not racquet technology. The advances there have just helped prevent injury and made the game more fun to watch than it was in the 60's or 70's, even the 80's. The only sport where technolgy has been limited to prevent injury has been baseball, where the major leagues still must use wooden bats, because it would be too dangerous for people like Barry Bonds to use aluminum bats. Baseball also provides an example of where recent technology has been used to take away from the subjective refereeing of a sport. In some ball parks, they have installed cameras and sensors to monitor the strike zone and rate the umpires on their calls. The technology has offended many pitchers and umpires as well, taking away the human factor that is part of refereeing. Technology has brought fencing to it's current state, more dynamic, fluid, energetic than it has been in the past because of the move away from the visible bend that was needed in the dry days. To use technology to reverse this trend is a step back, not forward, especially to take something out of the hands of a director. It's not unlike schools that focus on passing standardized tests in order to say that their students are learning more than other schools which focus on a wider subject matter. If more directors would study how the top fencers fence, and truly understand the timing of the actions, then fencing at the lower levels would improve because directors and fencers would know what to look for. I know it's not a silver bullet, but it's a more consistant solution to the problem, but one which requires more work, which is always the unpopular choice.

[Schiavona]

RJ, you see these changes as a step backwards and you're right-for you. Your coach(God bless 'im) is training you to fence foil as it is currently directed, not, as the rules read. The tip and box changes are an attempt to redirect foil fencing to be more in line with the rules as they are written. The trouble has ALLWAYS been in the disconnect between the written rules and the rules as they are officiated. I would wager that most of the foilists in the world learned to fence styles that will be better suited to these changes, thus much happiness. If the majority of the foilists (not just the top) were being taught as you are there would be much, much sadness.

[The0ne]

except the modern interpretation of the rules is still basically correct to the rules. At no point does any high level, good director make a call that is opposite to what the rules say. Ever. Refs who do that, get tossed by the BOut commitee, never to direct at a high level again. Just because the rules have HAD to be interpreted thanks to the continued evolution of fencing, and the attack has a little more leeway nowerdays, doesn't mean that current directing is wrong.

Plus, these rule changes are going to in NO way take bent arm attacks out of the game, they will be a part as long as parries are not exact 4's, 6's, 7's, and 8's. Using the argument that these new changes will affect bent arm attacks is not valid in my opinion. For instance the Romankov "Stuttering Clown" attack. He never flicked (or I never saw him do it) but he made attacks with a bent arm. THey are an intrinsical part of fencing.

[esskreemr]

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.

I didn't say that the increase was due to the flick. Actually, there is very little that can be said by these numbers, they represent an increase in people who are members of the USFA only. They do not represent fencing as a whole in the USA or the world.

So it can be said that the number of competitive fencers increased while the flick was (and still is) in use. Again, I'm not saying that the flick caused the increase. However, people who say that the flick is the death of fencing can't support their argument (unless they're meaning death in a figurative way). It may have been the death of fencing in their clubs or local areas but one could also argue that that is the coach's fault for not being able to adapt his/her coaching style to meet the ever changing face of competitive fencing. You also cannot support the idea that the numbers would have increased at a greater rate if the flick wasn't a part of fencing. I of course, cannot say that the number of fencers would not have increased if it wasn't for the flick. The correct numbers simply are not there.

What I am saying though, is that the number of competitive fencers, for whatever reason, is increasing at a pretty substantial rate. In the US, fencing will never be on par with football, basketball or even soccer for that matter so an increase of 8,000 fencers to 18,000 is significant. To change the formula now COULD possibly be detrimental, which I think would be a shame, we'll have to see. If, however, after the rule changes are in effect, we see a dropoff, we can infer the cause...

Again, I'm not championing the flick. I can see both sides of the arguments, I just hate whiners. "Little Billy got his butt kicked cause he only knows four parries." Boo Hoo. In fencing you either adapt or lose.

[esskreemr]

OK, this is something I can agree with. I would argue that the randomness of sport fencing is not merely a product of the flick. In my opinion, the randomness IS a direct product of inconsistent interpretation of the rules. This would have the exact effect that you are describing, and I whole-heartedly agree that it is a HUGE problem. It happens in other sports as well. It is something that needs to be continuously addressed because it is such a frustrating issue. A novice fencer competes locally and does well, hey, let's take it to the next level, BAM! W-w-why did the director call it that way? Get another director, hey wait, she called the action completely different. How do you train for that? Regardless if the opponent was using a flick, a fleche, or a feint the fencer's outcome is going to be different in accordance with the director. That's where I believe you're argument of having to train for too many factors (kind of produces bloated ugly code doesn't it ) comes into play.

As for me, I only have a problem with directors who are inconsistent within the bout. As long as they call the action consistently within reason for both fencers, I don't have an issue. There will always be individuality in any subjective decision. It's when the subjectivity produces an insurmountable obstacle (unhandled exception?)that frustration ensues.

[veeco]

Have a major problem with the box being moved away from registering touches? Wasn't the purpose of the box in the first place to determine the touches that were unpercievable to the naked eye? Why do we have a problem with this all of a sudden because people are landing the point in a way that wasn't "proper" when foil was dry judged or when the swords were sharp?

The box is still used to determine what is a touch and what isn't, and that's it. The only change is the parameters between which a touch is deemed acceptable and when it is not. The referee will still be there to make the decision. The box isn't becoming a computerized referee, it is still as it always has been a tool for the referee to do a better job.

Yes, the way foil is called is inconsistent, throughout the US and I would guess, the rest of the world. However, most of the calls at the highest level are consistant.

That is simply not true. I watched at the CIP the same teams being refereed by two different and competent referees where the same actions were getting called in two opposite manners. The problem is really indeed there at all levels, from club practice to world championships.

All the top refs understand the way the rules are interpreted and make the calls that way, the top coaches understand this, they teach their students, and they advance. The coaches who don't accept this and teach their students a '70's game get beat and left behind so they whine about it.

I don't think you understand the problem. The problem isn't about fencers fencing "a 70's game" complaining that their actions aren't working anymore, it is that there is no "21st century game", simply because the way foil is being directed isn't consistent, and that the timing of the actions isn't clearly defined. People are more athletic than they used to be and therefore the looseness of the current timing allows too great of an interpretation among referees. Tightening up the timing with the box takes care of that. In way, you could say that the current proposed changes are an acknowledgment that yes, fencers are better at what they were doing before, however, referees didn't follow course, simply because the fencers have reached a level where the average human brain cannot process all the information that is happening in such a short time. Therefore lengthing the timing on the box takes care of the short time factor and gives an easier job to the ref.

The problem with foil now is not a "lack of identity" or bent arm attacks or even bad refereeing, the problem is people who will not let go of their backwards ideas of what foil should look like. My coach teaches bent arm attacks, the flick, how to attack into prep, how to parry flicks and how to adapt to different fencers and directors. It's hard, it takes a lot of practice, after 3 years of fencing with him, I'm just now starting to understand the tightness of the tempo which attacks in the prep must be made, how sensitive all attacks are to distance and footwork.

The lack of identity is really there, because foil doesn't amount to fencing anymore. It is more of a game of tag than something else. The fine elements of fencing and blade work are somewhat watered down. If you like it this way, fine, but most people who fence don't. I am basing this assumption from the fact that all of the proposed changes were made at the Leipzig conference where people from all the federations voted, and most of the changes that passed passed with quite a large majority. So these changes were voted on democratically and are not just the work on one man or a few people at the FIE...
It seems to me also that you are somewhat reluctant to these changes because somehow you feel that all this hard work you are talking about will amount to nothing. That is simply not the case. You will still be able to do these things you did before, it's just that the timing will be different and some bad calls that went on someone else's favor will go in yours now, and vice versa. You will adapt to the new timings as anyone else does, and you will probably end up in the same place in the rankings as you are now (unless you are a one trick pony or there are a bunch of one trick ponies ahead of you in the rankings).

Random fencing, bad fencing, bad directing, and ugly fencing will not be solved by timing changes on the box. There will always be those problems in any fencing, as there are in any sport.

You're right, these changes are not going to change the way most people fence. However they will be a guide for fencers to work on, and will slowly push foil fencing in the right direction. We're talking transition here, not brutal changes.

[FoilyGeezer]

Have a major problem with the box being moved away from registering touches? Wasn't the purpose of the box in the first place to determine the touches that were unpercievable to the naked eye?

No!!!! No nononononono. The box was developed as an electrical scoring aid. This means an aid to the referee to help him parse (existing defined) fencing actions more consistently. Not to see the hitherto unseeable. It was a matter of consistency, not intended to change the action, but the adjudication.

The invention of the scoring box in no way anticipated that Other Fencing Actions would be developed because of it. In that respect, those actions are
side-effects. Does this make them intrinsically wrong? NO. Does the fact that they have been part of the game for the last 15 or 20 years make them advancements? NO.

I think that the impetus behind FIE's purposed changes are aimed more at downplaying the viability of certain aspects of the sport without outlawing them, or making wholesale changes to the rules.

[Epeecurean]

.......

Veeco, that was an extremely lucid and well-written response to the monoparagraph. Needless to say I agree 100%!

[DanInMI]

We're talking transition here, not brutal changes.

Thast was a great post. Well thought out. Well said.

[DanInMI]

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...

What a jerk.

[grotto]

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?

I couldn't have said it better!

[DanInMI]

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.

It might not, but it will prevent enough to make the marching flick a bad idea.

[The0ne]

you're going to get that if you write anti-flick posts. . . Us Cadet fencers (read flick addicts! ) aren't too big on emotional maturity!!!

[DanInMI]

I couldn't have said it better!

ummmmI think you said it first!.

[The0ne]

this is true, the huge march will be gone, because the ability to be standing right next to the person when you hit will be gone (people hate it when I do that flick. . . Wonder why! ). . . Distance will be a lot more thought out, because if you get too close you can't rely on the rain-maker flick to get you through. . . This will be a good addition to foil, but flick reposts were SO satisfying!

[DanInMI]

this is true, the huge march will be gone, because the ability to be standing right next to the person when you hit will be gone (people hate it when I do that flick. . . Wonder why! ). . . Distance will be a lot more thought out, because if you get too close you can't rely on the rain-maker flick to get you through. . . This will be a good addition to foil, but flick reposts were SO satisfying!

It sounds like you are going to adapt well to the changes.
(btw- flick reposts ARE pretty cool.)

[The0ne]

damn straight I will adapt well, I don't want to lose!!!! Since my game is mostly attack in prep, and parry repost, I'm not going to be hurt that much by these changes. . . And plus, if they go through, what can you do? Whine? That doesn't win any bouts. . .

[FoilyGeezer]

rain-maker flick!

Ha! Never heard it called that before! Good One

"And his tip descended from on high and wreacked mighty flickage on the unworthy..."

[J.Harris]

I haven't read the whole of this, so I'm sorry if it's allready been mentioned. Will the new depression times make it more likely for an attack that glances off the opponents guard then lands on target to set off a coloured light rather than a white one?

[achilleus]

It might not, but it will prevent enough to make the marching flick a bad idea.

Very true, the marching flick will be a bad idea, and we won't see that much of it any more.

But fencers will make the marching attacks, from further distances and finish to the chest, and you will still see a variety of bent arm attacks. Unless the refs change they way they interpret the action.

However, with the timing differences, I can easily see the refs thinking that the stop hit must have been out of time, since the attacker managed to put his light on.

We'll just have to wait and see how the junior test goes, and see if they adopt the changes for the seniors. It's interesting, most of the young (early 20's) top competitors I've spoken with don't think the changes will get past testing. Most of the coaches I've spoken with fully believe that no changes will be made, but if they do, the men, will just flick harder. While all the armorers are fully confident that the changes will remove most flicks, and that they will be approved.

Me, I'm just watching for now.