Tried new foil times

[The0ne]

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.

Just curious, who is making new boxes with the timing changes? I know tha some companies will change them over for you, but I didn't know new boxes were being made with the new regs.

[veeco]

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.

I do like some of the elements of the current foil game. I like to see a well executed attack in preparation, or a nicely done stop hit. However it is still hard to refer to it as "foil" since as you mention there aren't as much parries as there were before. In a way sabre and foil are becoming more and more alike and that is not what foil is about. The whole reasoning behind foil, and the parry is that you want to block the attack before being able to attack yourself. This convention isn't really followed now, because of the faster footwork, the too long blocking time, the flicks, and the bent arm attacks.

Adding these actions back into the mix with the rule changes will not remove the possibility to do what is being done today however, there will be more options for the defender making it more viable to play a defense game. Foil bouts will last longer, which will give more excitment to the game to those who chose foil because of what it's supposed to be. For the others, there will still be the possibility to convert to sabre

[esskreemr]

As far as boxes go, another issue I can see is how long it will take the changes to filter down to the club level. Are we looking at a situation where in one Division, the boxes are reprogrammed but in another they aren't? Going from one to the other will prove to be a huge disadvantage for people who like to travel.

This may be a minor point, but I feel that there will be a large amount of frustration. This is not just a style change, it is a style and equipment change. As far as fencers who can't change converting to sabre, what percentage will just drop out all together?

[EricS]

The Eigertek Eclipse has a firmware chip available right now if anyone wants to try out the changes recommended by the FIE special commission (slightly different from the changes actually implemented at the Leipzig conference). Current Eclipses ship with the old timings.

Eventually we'll ship Eclipses with dual functionality--the box will use the old timings by default, but can switch to the new timings using a dial inside the box.

[Robert (2)]

Eventually we'll ship Eclipses with dual functionality--the box will use the old timings by default, but can switch to the new timings using a dial inside the box.

With modern micro-processor based boxes why not just have the various timings set by a digital read-out? Block-out time, and depression time, for two weapons, and just contact time for sabre (even with a higher and lower limit for each its just 10 numbers to store).

After all if the FIE have any success at all with this new method we are likely to see tinkering for years (complete with pro-0.3s v pro-0.2s arguments on the forums.)

Robert

[veeco]

Robert, the tinkering has already been done. Even though it is possible that the timings do change in the future again, the current timings have been tested quite thouroughly (see the article mentionned by wflaschka above) and those timings are supposed to be final. I wouldn't think that the people voting on the new timings in Leipzig did so without any preliminary testing to have been done.

[counterattack]

With modern micro-processor based boxes why not just have the various timings set by a digital read-out? Block-out time, and depression time, for two weapons, and just contact time for sabre (even with a higher and lower limit for each its just 10 numbers to store).

After all if the FIE have any success at all with this new method we are likely to see tinkering for years (complete with pro-0.3s v pro-0.2s arguments on the forums.)

Robert

I was thinking about this too. I was also thinking that it wouldn't be too hard to make an adapter box that sits between the scoring box and the reels that would turn any old box into a new one. But I think the cost of goods would be $50 which probably does not allow it to be a cost-effective solution.

[EricS]

Adjusting the timings is not something that most clubs want to do to their scoring machines. They'd rather have a machine that just works, with no tinkering.

An adapter would cost almost as much as a full-blown scoring machine--the only thing it would use on the old scoring machine are the lights. At that point, why not simply buy a new scoring machine?

[counterattack]

An adapter would cost almost as much as a full-blown scoring machine--the only thing it would use on the old scoring machine are the lights. At that point, why not simply buy a new scoring machine?

Like I said, "which probably does not allow it to be a cost-effective solution". I wonder if it can't be done more cheaply with a microcontroller and some relays, but the devil is in the details on projects like this. From the way you say "we", EricS, I assume you are affiliated with a scoring hardware company?

[andrewmcleod]

A box is just some microcontrollers and some relays (except possibly for the relays). The cost is not just the cost of the parts, but of the development.

[EricS]

Yes, I designed the Eigertek scoring machine. Basically when you add the price of the microcontroller, the associated support circuitry, the PC board, the case, assembly costs, etc., for an adapter box, you'll end up at about the same price as a modern scoring machine.

The Eclipse is cost effective because my design uses fewer parts than my competitors. If you ever have a chance, open one up to see what I mean. (Don't worry, it won't void the warrantee.)

[Epeecurean]

Yes, I designed the Eigertek scoring machine. Basically when you add the price of the microcontroller, the associated support circuitry, the PC board, the case, assembly costs, etc., for an adapter box, you'll end up at about the same price as a modern scoring machine.

The Eclipse is cost effective because my design uses fewer parts than my competitors. If you ever have a chance, open one up to see what I mean. (Don't worry, it won't void the warrantee.)

Judging from his avatar, Eric is half-Eigertek himself!! The first fencing cyborg I warrant.

Seriously, it's good to know that there are companies like Eigertek introducing new innovations and reducing costs.

Eric, have you spent much time fencing on the new settings? What do you think of them?

Cheers,

Epeecurean

[EricS]

I fence epee, so I've never had a chance to try out the new timings. My brother, who is an excellent foilist, despises the timings and calls them an attempt by the FIE to change foil into epee!

[MikeHarm]

The scoring machine issue is moot, they're going to go wireless soon anyways right? We'll probably all need to get new scoring machines when that goes down like or not.

[billpealer]

This has been the best ongoing fencing debate I have ever read. I have just learned of the new debounce timing and am very glad. Bout time. It is too bad it had to come to this, and for this long, but flicking did it. And now flickers must once again fence. It is a technique that SOLEY exists because of the technology. Therefore it should been seen as an unviable biproduct of electrifying the sport. I have been fencing for 9 years 4 of which were dry. I was trained by Gloria Kaufman, who any old fencer would know, was on the US olympic fencing team in the 60's. For 4 years I fenced dry, it wasn't till college when I plugged in, that i got my first taste of the flick. I almost quit. I said to myself "this is fencing?" what a scam. When I was hit with my first flick (square in the back) I argued immidiatly with the the director that it wasn't a valid touch, but rather a technicality of my opponent's blade wrapping around my parry. And since my parry did alter the attack, by making the blade arch over my back, instead of wacking me in the skull, which is what a flick appears to do, my reposte should be valid. I was immediatly laughed at, and lost the DE round, 15-1, this was after winning ALL of my round robbin bouts to be placed in the DE's. Later that night at dinner, I was talking to the flicker and I said how did you learn about this, he said it was common knowledge. He asked what our score was because he didn't remember. I told him 15-1. His response, "congradulations, you got one point". This poor attitiude I find in 90% of flickers. How could they respect their opponents if they don't respect the sport. Using a method that is a loophole technique, a flaw in the system, is a disservice to the game. If you think that woman who sued McDonalds for the hot coffee was right, chances are you are a flicker. I am not surprised to hear the complaining from people who flick. They need it. With out it they are hackers not fencers and they know it. They now have to learn how to lunge and parry reposte. So all they can do is &itch. I incorperated the flick into my game over the last 3 years, and I immidiatly faired better in bouts. Not becuase I fenced better. I believe my form and timing suffered a great deal by using the flick. I faired better because the flick is very hard to block. And the ROW of a flick is about as subjective as religion. Though it takes good timing to succesfuly use. It's a gimmick. A product of the switch over from dry to electric. With this good news about debounce timing, I am happy to report that I am also going back to frech grip. The pistol grip originaly called the orthopedic grip was intended to facilitate amputees and arthritic fencers. It was never intended to be used as a lever and fulcrum device for generating the torque needed to flick or whip over. Ooh! I got it, all you flickers can now become pro fly fisherman.

[jeff]

Well, that's quite a starter for a first post. Even though I dislike the flick there are some obvious things worth pointing out:

0. The flick has been discussed to death on this board, but...
1. You parried and still got hit? A good parry parries the attack, and angulated actions have been around forever. If you "parried" and got hit, you did a poor parry.
2. You fenced 4 years dry? Whatever for? Did you compete or bout anywhere in that time?
3. I see in your post the same lack of respect you complain of (the verbage, comparison to McDonalds lawsuit, and so on). Glass houses+bricks.
4. Dry switched to electric in the 1950s. The flick came about in the 1990s. Obviously the flick is not a consequence of electric fencing.
5. Despite what may be the intention of the pistol grip, it has the same properties as the Italian grip, which classicists approve of, and is much more comfortable. French foilists have complained about the Italian grip the same way you complain of the pistol. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.
6. "fly fisherman". Have you been reading Evangelista? Stop, before it ruins you for fencing. Unless you want to stay in that hermetically sealed tiny corner of the fencing world.

[Schiavona]

The only problem I ever had with the flick was that it often was given piority before the final action. I never could believe an "attack" where the weapon was pointing straight up during the lunge should be given ROW. This was a fault of the referees rather than the action itself. Flicks can be as elegant as any action in fencing.

[jeff]

I'm in total agreement with you...

[billpealer]

The flick has been discussed to death on this board because the flick sucks. Tons of people hate it. People have used examples of golf and tennis. I play both. I think they are right but still off target. Those changes in racquet and ball tecnology aren't completely changing the way the game is played. You would still use the same style swing to serve or dirve the ball with modern equipment or clubs from the 40's. If a master fencer from the 40's saw someone fencing modern foil, they'd be shocked, because what they would be watching is NOT FENCING. The advances in our sport of fencing were designed to protect us from injury and aid the judges. Not change the way we fence. I would like to also point out that the flick is not a style, it's a manuver. And it's getting bad press because this manuver is painful when it doesnt land correctly and insistant flickers make it the focus of thier game, therefore making it a style. And a nasty one at that. People say when they watch modern foil matches, and I have plenty on video, "what are they doing waving their arms around up in the air like that? I thought they were supposed to be stabbing each other." That's how you know it's a scam, when the everyday Joe can see thats it's no longer sword skills we are engaged in, but flexible metal trickery. Flicking turns this sport into a scam, based more on making a light turn on, than doing what you are supposed to be doing, and thats stabbing your opponent. I find that flickers also spend more time watching the box than they do their opponents. I mean who cares about people and technique, form and tradition, the Box is god right? Also poor manners. It is. If you took Tae Kuan Do for 10 years, but didn't compete abroad, and then went to the olympics to find that punches and kicks would be scored if they merely grazed the opponent's Gee, you'd be embarased. You'd think, this is no martial art.
A successful parry does not have to stop the attack. It just has to alter it.
The flick IS a consequence of electric play. The defination of consequence is something happans after as a result to something else. 40 years after electric is main streamed we now flick. You think people weren't landing odd whip overs in the 60's 70's and 80s? In the 50s it was never an option to move in such manner as to execute the flick. There was probably 30 years of lights going off untill they realized what was happening. Most likely early flicks were assumed to be error, equipment failure. As they should have.
Your number 3, which is actually your 4th point, didn't really have a backbone. I showed no disrespect by using the McDonalds analogy. That woman's lawsuit WON. She technicaly was right. Ethicaly,... that's up in the air. My house isn't glass. I have an apartment.
If you consider to be likened to the McDonlads lawsuit woman an insult, than you might be of solid character.
I have read Evangelista. There is nothing wrong with what he writes. An idealist is the artist. Foil is art. The realist is the carpenter. What book makes for better reading, Moby Dick, or an instructional manual on How to Kill a Whale? I don't read to learn how to fence. I fence to do that.
I fenced dry for 4 years because we were isolated. Small town, w/ a dozen fencers. We were poor high school kids, we bought what our maestra told us to buy. We felt lucky to be fencing at all. And I will always be grateful of my roots.
Though the Italian and Pistol grips both employ a lever/fulcrum mechanism. The pistol uses verticle torque and the Italian horizontal. To whip over w/ pistol your hand is up and down, palms facing inward. Italain, to whip over your hand is supinated, palm up. So though they use leverage, they don't use them the same. Nore should they even be compared as similar. The only thing they have in common is that they are grips. You live in jersey? I'm in Stamford, CT. wanna fence? I just moved here and need a cheap club, have any recomendations?

[achilleus]

The flick has been discussed to death on this board because the flick sucks. Tons of people hate it. People have used examples of golf and tennis. I play both. I think they are right but still off target. Those changes in racquet and ball tecnology aren't completely changing the way the game is played. You would still use the same style swing to serve or dirve the ball with modern equipment or clubs from the 40's. If a master fencer from the 40's saw someone fencing modern foil, they'd be shocked, because what they would be watching is NOT FENCING. The advances in our sport of fencing were designed to protect us from injury and aid the judges. Not change the way we fence. I would like to also point out that the flick is not a style, it's a manuver. And it's getting bad press because this manuver is painful when it doesnt land correctly and insistant flickers make it the focus of thier game, therefore making it a style. And a nasty one at that. People say when they watch modern foil matches, and I have plenty on video, "what are they doing waving their arms around up in the air like that? I thought they were supposed to be stabbing each other." That's how you know it's a scam, when the everyday Joe can see thats it's no longer sword skills we are engaged in, but flexible metal trickery. Flicking turns this sport into a scam, based more on making a light turn on, than doing what you are supposed to be doing, and thats stabbing your opponent. I find that flickers also spend more time watching the box than they do their opponents. I mean who cares about people and technique, form and tradition, the Box is god right? Also poor manners. It is. If you took Tae Kuan Do for 10 years, but didn't compete abroad, and then went to the olympics to find that punches and kicks would be scored if they merely grazed the opponent's Gee, you'd be embarased. You'd think, this is no martial art.
A successful parry does not have to stop the attack. It just has to alter it.
The flick IS a consequence of electric play. The defination of consequence is something happans after as a result to something else. 40 years after electric is main streamed we now flick. You think people weren't landing odd whip overs in the 60's 70's and 80s? In the 50s it was never an option to move in such manner as to execute the flick. There was probably 30 years of lights going off untill they realized what was happening. Most likely early flicks were assumed to be error, equipment failure. As they should have.
Your number 3, which is actually your 4th point, didn't really have a backbone. I showed no disrespect by using the McDonalds analogy. That woman's lawsuit WON. She technicaly was right. Ethicaly,... that's up in the air. My house isn't glass. I have an apartment.
If you consider to be likened to the McDonlads lawsuit woman an insult, than you might be of solid character.
I have read Evangelista. There is nothing wrong with what he writes. An idealist is the artist. Foil is art. The realist is the carpenter. What book makes for better reading, Moby Dick, or an instructional manual on How to Kill a Whale? I don't read to learn how to fence. I fence to do that.
I fenced dry for 4 years because we were isolated. Small town, w/ a dozen fencers. We were poor high school kids, we bought what our maestra told us to buy. We felt lucky to be fencing at all. And I will always be grateful of my roots.
Though the Italian and Pistol grips both employ a lever/fulcrum mechanism. The pistol uses verticle torque and the Italian horizontal. To whip over w/ pistol your hand is up and down, palms facing inward. Italain, to whip over your hand is supinated, palm up. So though they use leverage, they don't use them the same. Nore should they even be compared as similar. The only thing they have in common is that they are grips. You live in jersey? I'm in Stamford, CT. wanna fence? I just moved here and need a cheap club, have any recomendations?

I thought your post here was rather interesting and was looking forward to engaging in a lively discussion with you, until the part where you said:

I have read Evangelista. There is nothing wrong with what he writes.

If you really find nothing wrong with his teachings, then fencing (sport, modern, whatever you want to call it) is not for you.