I talked to a coach who talked to Josh McGuire up in Canada (sounds like the run-up to an urban story!) and supposedly he said that most fencers at the senior level don't think the changes will go through. . .
My understanding is that the FIE executive committee (i.e. Rene Roch) pushed the changes through without involvement of the SEMI commission, which normally makes the decision on issues like this. (Quite understandably, this really ruffled some feathers with the SEMI guys.) We'll have to wait until the political dust settles to see if the changes are really here to stay.
The FIE has enacted rules in the past which were quickly repealed after only a few tournaments. IIRC in the 80s a rule stipulated that if a fencer stepped off the back of the strip, the action was stopped and ground was reset to the center. Fencers quickly discovered how to abuse the rule to their advantage and the rule was repealed soon after.
About the tome of a post last time. Got to rambling and didn't realize it. Still it seems that the problems derive from inconsistences in directing rather than the acctual fencing. Part of fencing is adapting and I will adapt if the changes do stick.
Thank you veeco for the well thought out post, it was very enlightening, but I still don't see why you say there is no such thing as a "21st century" game. I would characterize this game as one based around footwork, tempo, and distance. The footwork fast and more athletic than every before, not necessarily the beautiful classical footwork, but still at the top levels in control, explosive and aggressive. The tempo of the actions faster than in the past, but still able to be followed by well trained directors. The time for attacks in prep and stop hits is very small, but clear when properly done. Instead of the classic stop hit it has become a hit with either a parry or distance pulled to make it clear who had the touch. Distance being the other key, for more than just when to attack or to ripost, but the person who controls it more effectively will be the winner 99% of the time. Whoever can pick up the 6" movements of their opponent and adapt to that first, using the athletic footwork and their understanding of tempo to make the attack in prep or to retreat and make the ripost will win. Bladework becomes secondary, parries more for show than to acctually stop the attacks, unless used as pris de fer because most attacks will miss because the defender opens the distance quick enough, or the attack will land and the parry won't help that much. I love watching and playing this foil game, it's fun, it's fast, it's energetic. It isn't what most people expect, but I believe it stil hits at the very heart of fencing.
Hope that this one wasnt' as long as the last. lol
Actually doing a straw poll around the club, the younger fencers are pretty ambivalent toward the propsed changes and the old timers are hopeful that they'll stick. Not because they want to see the style return to the old style, but because they think a lot of the dynamic that made foil foil is missing.
The impression is that foil is a thrusting weapon that has taken on the aspect of a cutting weapon, and in the process lost a great deal of the sublety of the fingerplay and precision that made it foil. It's not a "The flick is bad" thing, it's more like "And the new fencers look like they're chopping wood" kind of thing.
Personally I think there's a middle ground here, and though it's not the perfect course, FIEs changes are a step in the right direction.
__________________
Not to recognize the power of the Titanium Spork is to be in denial.
About the tome of a post last time. Got to rambling and didn't realize it. Still it seems that the problems derive from inconsistences in directing rather than the acctual fencing. Part of fencing is adapting and I will adapt if the changes do stick.
Thank you veeco for the well thought out post, it was very enlightening, but I still don't see why you say there is no such thing as a "21st century" game. I would characterize this game as one based around footwork, tempo, and distance. The footwork fast and more athletic than every before, not necessarily the beautiful classical footwork, but still at the top levels in control, explosive and aggressive. The tempo of the actions faster than in the past, but still able to be followed by well trained directors. The time for attacks in prep and stop hits is very small, but clear when properly done. Instead of the classic stop hit it has become a hit with either a parry or distance pulled to make it clear who had the touch. Distance being the other key, for more than just when to attack or to ripost, but the person who controls it more effectively will be the winner 99% of the time. Whoever can pick up the 6" movements of their opponent and adapt to that first, using the athletic footwork and their understanding of tempo to make the attack in prep or to retreat and make the ripost will win. Bladework becomes secondary, parries more for show than to acctually stop the attacks, unless used as pris de fer because most attacks will miss because the defender opens the distance quick enough, or the attack will land and the parry won't help that much. I love watching and playing this foil game, it's fun, it's fast, it's energetic. It isn't what most people expect, but I believe it stil hits at the very heart of fencing.
Hope that this one wasnt' as long as the last. lol
nice post! Basicallt yes, foil is becoming more like Sabre, as fencers get stronger and faster, footwork is number one. . . Personally I think it makes for an athletic exciting game, but the FIE obviously disagrees with me!!!
This seems to have become quite a hot topic, considering that the rules still haven't been trialed let alone passed. IMHO I think it unlikely they will be passed, trialing it at the Juniors (who are much more enamored of the flick, and less likely to be able to adapt) and with the general oposition of the manufacturers seems to set it up for failure. However, older fencers than me say they said exactly the same about banning the cross-over at Sabre.
At the moment we have the FIE trials, and a few experiments by a few clubs. It isn't much to go on, but it implies several things:
- It does seem to kill the flick as an easy move
- It seems to also kill badly executed thrusts
- The odd off-targets from bare contacts with the sword arm seem to be gone.
I think we all agree that two and three are good things. Those with a thrusting style (like myself) would prefer effect 2, and flickers don't care. I think everyone welcomes 3. The item of disagreement is 1.
I don't want the flick to go from the game, I think it is an elegant evolution of the game, and an impressive move.
However, I have no objection to it being more difficult to execute. At the moment it takes weeks to train someone to execute an effective cut-over (executed with fingers, little bit of wrist, and the right distance and timing). It takes 20 minutes to teach an effective flick. But in Epee, it takes weeks to teach an effective flick (using just the wrist, right distance, and force). This would do a lot to make the flick, like the compound attacks, and second intentions, once again an impressive part of the game, requiring a high degree of skill (which is why it causes few arguments in Epee).
Which raises a question about the points. Since the timing seems to be so much more effective at stopping low-level flicks than the FIE were expecting, I am inclined to think that it would be better to introduce it without the change to the points (which might push the balance too far against the flick).
I have also got responses from the people I fence with. The better, more experienced, fencers don't care. This seems to be independent of whether they are thrust/classical based fencers (like myself) or flicking modern fencers. In fact the attitude seems as a whole similar to mine; make the flick more difficult, but do not remove it. They think of it as a balance issue.
The people who are passionate are fairly inexperienced, like Andrew, and either they are violently opposed to the flick, or they believe everything in foil should be flicks.
IMHO I think it unlikely they will be passed, trialing it at the Juniors (who are much more enamored of the flick, and less likely to be able to adapt) and with the general oposition of the manufacturers seems to set it up for failure.
Huh? What opposition from manufacturers? Why would manufacturers be opposed to a development that is going to sell a whole lot of new equipment? Manufacturers are already making boxes with the new timings programmed in. (that's what started this thread.) That is a sign to me that they believe that this is going to happen.
Also, the fact that juniors seem to be more enamoured of the flick seems to make them the perfect test group, if these changes have the effect with that group that the FIE intends, then it will work with the rest of us.
It wouldn't make any sense to try it out with a group that seldom flicks (like vet50s) would it?
I know Barry Paul of Leon Paul is somewhat cynical about the new changes...
I think there are 3 major problems with flicks:
1. They don't make sense to the uninformed public, they are less telegenic?
2. The principle of hitting somebody in the back with a thrusting weapon is a bit silly
3. They let you get away with too much. Golubitsky said that marchers 'pretending' to have ROW with a 'bent arm attack' (surely a contradiction in terms?) would, once they have drawn the (valid) counterattack from the opponent, finish with a flick, as it would be to obvious that they were not attacking, but by 'flicking', it tends to suggest their attack was valid. ROW is based on real principles, but flicking is not possible in 'reality', so flicking screws up ROW a bit, and lets people use it as an excuse to ignore t.56 a) part 4.
__________________
The good fencer, the bad fencer and me.
Last edited by andrewmcleod; 03-28-2004 at 08:48 AM..
Huh? What opposition from manufacturers? Why would manufacturers be opposed to a development that is going to sell a whole lot of new equipment?
DanInMi, I'm only reporting what has come from the manufacturers. From what I gather the manufacturers are quite a conservative bunch at the best of times. Remember, they have large set-up costs involved in any changes which impinge on their profit margins. Though in this case I suspect it is the point change more than the timing which is causing issues.
As for the juniors, they are most likely to kick up a stink, and remember the only way this happens is if it is passed by a vote by representatives elected by the coaches and fencers who will be affected - don't get too caught up in the myth that the FIE is some sort of unaccountable monster with no regard to fencers opinions.
DanInMi, I'm only reporting what has come from the manufacturers. From what I gather the manufacturers are quite a conservative bunch at the best of times. Remember, they have large set-up costs involved in any changes which impinge on their profit margins. Though in this case I suspect it is the point change more than the timing which is causing issues.
As for the juniors, they are most likely to kick up a stink, and remember the only way this happens is if it is passed by a vote by representatives elected by the coaches and fencers who will be affected - don't get too caught up in the myth that the FIE is some sort of unaccountable monster with no regard to fencers opinions.
Robert
Wow. News to me. I was under the impression that these changes WERE already voted on by elected representatives (and passed with a large majority). Also, I thought the testing stage was more of a formality than anything else because they can't make changes without phasing them in. Well, I guess I can wait and see what happens.
I was under the impression that these changes WERE already voted on by elected representatives (and passed with a large majority).
What we have is a vote from the FIE congress in Leipzig approving many of the proposed changes and denying others (among the denied, no removal of off-target lights). The changes were indeed tested before being put to the vote... somewhere online there is a PDF document from the FIE committee that made recommendations based on the tests. IIRC, the dates on the documents showed that the tests had spanned more than a few years.
So the changes are a lot more solid and inevitable than many people seem to think. After all, there have been tests, feedback, and some body of bureaucrats has gone through the trouble of "approving" them.
Then again, the FIE's inner workings are not entirely transparent. There might be some final hurdles before adoption... but the nature and height of these hurdles are unclear (to me). There is evidence both ways... in her interview, elite international fencer Sylwie Gruchala (for example), said, "I do not think the changes will pass" -- and this was after they had been approved.
For now, all we have is a congress vote approving the changes. I, for one, would lurve to have some clarity on this.
Does anyone know where to find the PDF document where they test the new tip design? Or at least a diagram of it?
I found two PDF docs still on my computer.
FIE 39 45-53.pdf -- early mention of changes. The ball gets rolling.
Rapport AD HOC ANG.pdf -- "REPORT TO THE FIE 2003 CONGRESS OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING PROPOSALS PERTAINING TO THE PRACTICE OF FOIL AND SABRE"
Unfortunately, no details about the mangiarotti tip.
DanInMi, I'm only reporting what has come from the manufacturers. From what I gather the manufacturers are quite a conservative bunch at the best of times. Remember, they have large set-up costs involved in any changes which impinge on their profit margins. Though in this case I suspect it is the point change more than the timing which is causing issues.
Bingo. I haven't yet seen any specifications in the new foil point that was proposed and for each mfr. to develop and ramp up production on a new point will take time and money that doesn't need to be spent if the existing point stays in use. If I were a mfr. I would be against the new point b/c I already know how many points I will sell in a month/quarter/year.
The new point won't change that revenue model at all, but my costs just went up a whole bunch since I now have to perform R&D, retool, and go through a few production batches to get my line through the inevitable start-up bugs so that I can start producing my commodity item again. So, my revenues stay flat, my costs go up, and it will take me time to get back to where I was.
Boxes aren't as onerous of a cost, but you still have the front-end work on programming the chip or spinning a new board. Some suppliers are providing the ROM as a free upgrade (read: Loyalty and Retention expense), most will provide at cost, some will make a marginal profit on the upgrade.
All in all, the timing/rules change is not a boon to the vendors.
It does seem strange that these new tips are going into effect next junior season, which is coming up soon, but no information about anyone manufacturing these tips can be found. . .
It does seem strange that these new tips are going into effect next junior season, which is coming up soon, but no information about anyone manufacturing these tips can be found. . .
And this, if nothing else, gives the whole rules-changes thing its feeling of unreality. As Rolls has shown, the box changes can materially change foil right away, without much work (strictly speaking, only tournament boxes would have to be changed early on). Perhaps the tip changes will be scheduled further down the line, as a last step.
And Craig's economics point about present development costs being tough on manufacturers is a good one. But the future income from any present-day investment will be quite meaningful. The first manufacturer on the scene will be selling 5+ tips per fencer (more for clubs), and there are enough fencers to make it happen. Still, if I were a manufacturer, I wouldn't be making any plans until I got solid specs from the FIE.
And this, if nothing else, gives the whole rules-changes thing its feeling of unreality. As Rolls has shown, the box changes can materially change foil right away, without much work (strictly speaking, only tournament boxes would have to be changed early on). Perhaps the tip changes will be scheduled further down the line, as a last step.
And Craig's economics point about present development costs being tough on manufacturers is a good one. But the future income from any present-day investment will be quite meaningful. The first manufacturer on the scene will be selling 5+ tips per fencer (more for clubs), and there are enough fencers to make it happen. Still, if I were a manufacturer, I wouldn't be making any plans until I got solid specs from the FIE.
As a manufacturer, another worry is these rules going the way of the lexan mask. That was made mandatory several years ago. I remember talking to a ref who officiated at the first junior world cup where it was required. More than 90% of the fencers refused to wear the mask, and they fenced wearing the mesh masks.
So, it may would be a great investment, if it's a long term change.
DanInMi, I'm only reporting what has come from the manufacturers. From what I gather the manufacturers are quite a conservative bunch at the best of times. Remember, they have large set-up costs involved in any changes which impinge on their profit margins. Though in this case I suspect it is the point change more than the timing which is causing issues.
Robert
Yes, exactly the point that i was making, they are a conservative bunch. Making changes IS expensive. Yet they are already putting out boxes with the timing changes. That tells me they are convinced that these rule changes WILL be happening.
I understand that they have not yet begun producing mangiarotti tips yet. I don't believe that the FIE has given them specs on that yet. It may not be nescessary to have that to implement the rest of the rules. I think that even if they scrap all the rules that were adopted at liepzieg except the timing changes, that will be enough to kill the flick attack as we know it.
Linear Mode
