Some recent UK fencing club tests using the new foil/sabre timings.

[sabreman]

Sabreur, That is what I figured. LOL!

[veeco]

As I recall, there was message from the evil empire about a year ago, where they discussed a "demonstration" with top junior fencers using the new timings. That's about all--it isn't like they actually test their bright ideas under a variety of conditions, with a variety of fencers with different skill sets....

MR

I think they also did some tests with top senior fencers. I remember Ralf Bissdorf being mentionned as one of the foil fencers who had taken part.

[cfaustus]

Campaign for increasing the parry block-out time!!!!

MR

Now that's something I would love to see! I'll sign your ballot Sabreur!

[edew]

Interesting...making the parry block-out time longer than the hit-hit block out time. So, if fencer X makes and attack that is parried (the whipover arriving more than 4ms after the blades contact), then fencer X cannot possibly score again for another 30ms (or whatever amount of time we desire). During that moment, fencer Y gets to do his riposte and no amount of early remises can possibly score, unless it's more than 30ms after the parry. And, if it's that late, the remise will score, and riposter has 125ms to complete the riposte.

Maybe make the parry block out time more than 30ms. How about 100ms. That basically prevents any momentum-based remises. Actual remises (meaning, intentional with an extra effort to produce) will take that 100ms or so to make. During that time, the defender has the go-ahead with no worries to make a riposte, and still make the riposte within 125ms of the remise, as long as it's continuous with no hesitation or delay.

[Robert (2)]

Yes I understand that but is it possible to tweak with the block-out time to make the parry less risky? My guess is no because the reposte or prise de fer might not register if the block-out time is increased. Still it would be interesting to see the test data they used to determine these timings.
--------------------

The boxes now are modern microprocessors. They could add a 'parry light' which would turn on if the blades contacted before the hit. The president would then have a light indicator to say if the parry was good.

Robert

[oso97]

Interesting...making the parry block-out time longer than the hit-hit block out time. So, if fencer X makes and attack that is parried (the whipover arriving more than 4ms after the blades contact), then fencer X cannot possibly score again for another 30ms (or whatever amount of time we desire). During that moment, fencer Y gets to do his riposte and no amount of early remises can possibly score, unless it's more than 30ms after the parry. And, if it's that late, the remise will score, and riposter has 125ms to complete the riposte.

Maybe make the parry block out time more than 30ms. How about 100ms. That basically prevents any momentum-based remises. Actual remises (meaning, intentional with an extra effort to produce) will take that 100ms or so to make. During that time, the defender has the go-ahead with no worries to make a riposte, and still make the riposte within 125ms of the remise, as long as it's continuous with no hesitation or delay.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! I LOVE this idea....

[edew]

I guess you're right. The parry block out time affects both fencers. The machine doesn't know who's making the attack and who's making the parry (indeed, some fencers don't know who's making the attack and who's making the parry in some cases), and so if it's 100ms of block out, both fencers can't score during that 100ms of block out.

As far as prise-de-fers, that's fairly seldom, and I don't know how many make offensive actions where the beat and hit come so quickly after each other.

Still, making the long block out time might seriously affect the way the game is played.

One technological option is to include a parry "sleeve" to the lower portion of the blade. That portion is attached to the guard. Hits to the guard or the sleeve is considered parried and a different circuit is made, compared to hits to the blade. (The blade is then insulated from the guard/sleeve ensemble.) Hits to the guard/sleeve will lock out the hitter's remise for 100ms, hits to the blade will not lock out the hitter for any amount of time.

The sleeve will go about 40% up the blade from the guard.

Beats too low on the blade (i.e., on the sleeve) will be considered parried by the opponent, by virtue of locking out the continuation of the attacker. That's generally a major problem for referees: determining whether a beat is too low on the blade or not. Beats on the blade will not set off any lockout time and so a fast beat-attack will always score.

Parries done by foible to foible will still be counted for the person who did the beating, as it'll be obvious to the referee that there's a blade engagement and (possibly) who did the active engagement.

One possible nice side effect of having a sleeve is the cushioning effect on the blade itself, so it won't break so frequently at the tang. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the breaks in saber in the grip or near the guard. With a cushioning sleeve, that might mitigate the breaks.

Cheating: it behooves the fencer to have a working sleeve, so there's no benefit to shorting the sleeve to the blade. Since the sleeves are manufactured by equipment suppliers, there will be uniformity in their lengths (even for #2 sabers).

The two lines on the body cord will then have one connected to the guard/sleeve unit and one connected to the blade (via an insulated wire?).

I think that might do the trick.

[cfaustus]

Get this and I might even consider taking up electric sabre!!!

[achilleus]

Get this and I might even consider taking up electric sabre!!!

I think it would make more sense to develop an independent professional league of referee's who, since this is their livelihood, could apply and enforce the rules in a consistent manner without all the pressure from friends, countrymen, and $.

[cfaustus]

I think it would make more sense to develop an independent professional league of referee's who, since this is their livelihood, could apply and enforce the rules in a consistent manner without all the pressure from friends, countrymen, and $.

heh ... *grin*

[Robert (2)]

I think it would make more sense to develop an independent professional league of referee's who, since this is their livelihood, could apply and enforce the rules in a consistent manner without all the pressure from friends, countrymen, and $.

The sleeve sounds more realistic.

Robert

[mrbiggs]

I think it would make more sense to develop an independent professional league of referee's who, since this is their livelihood, could apply and enforce the rules in a consistent manner without all the pressure from friends, countrymen, and $.

I think that first we should make a league of fencers who can develop foil rules, and then actually implement them in bouts without far-fetched "interpretations".

[Inquartata]

So, any extended exchanges would result in BOTH fencers being unable to score. Gee, that sounds exciting.

Sleeves made of what, Eric? If metal, they're going to add weight and alter the balance of the blades significantly. If not, they're going to get chewed up in pretty short order, aren't they?

Perhaps we should think twice before we start fixing what's not broken...or giving the FIE any more bright ideas.

[sabreur]

So, any extended exchanges would result in BOTH fencers being unable to score. Gee, that sounds exciting.

Sleeves made of what, Eric? If metal, they're going to add weight and alter the balance of the blades significantly. If not, they're going to get chewed up in pretty short order, aren't they?

Perhaps we should think twice before we start fixing what's not broken...or giving the FIE any more bright ideas.

I agree--the sleeve idea is overcomplicating the issue. I'm not sure where the idea of having a parry-blocking time that exceeds the simultaneous blocking time came from, but it is nonsensical on the face of it. The block-out time after one fencer hits is currently betwen 300 and 400 ms, or .3 to .4 seconds. The parry blocking time is currently 4-15 ms, or .004 to .015 seconds. If we doubled the parry blocking time, so it is 4-30 ms, or .004 to .030 seconds, this is still a fraction of the current or future time (the new time is supposed to be around 130 ms, or .13 seconds).

Again, what would be really useful is a series of tests to determine what the best parry blocking time should be. I have to admit that the current parry blocking time does occasionally result in one of those odd "I know I hit but the light didn't go on" moments, but not often. Extending the parry blocking time would undoubtedly increase the number of such events to some degree--the question is establishing a balance that allows parries to be more effective, but doesn't exclude touches through the steel.

MR

[achilleus]

The sleeve sounds more realistic.

Robert

Not to me. To me the sleeves sounds far fetched and overcomplicating the issue as others have mentioned.

And getting independent refs isn't impossible.
Many other sports have such refs.

It just requires work...

[mrbiggs]

I think I posted this before, but I have a message for the FIE:

DON'T FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN, DAMMIT!

They should have a clear goal for everything they do. For example: foil-eliminate excessive flicking. Cool. At least they have a goal. But "Make fencing look cooler for Jerry-Springer style rednecks" is not really a goal. It's too broad. And now we have sabre changed.

I just want to make sure-did ANYONE here think there was something wrong with sabre? (Besides the fact that it's sabre... ) I mean, it was VERY well balanced! Much more so than foil, IMHO. It was done so that attacks were powerful, but very succesptible to attack in prep and somewhat parryable. The anti-fleche rule wasn't too good, but hey, if it makes sabre more mental, then that's OK. I was watching a sabre tournament recently and I thought "that balance is what the FIE should be striving for in foil." Anyone disagree with that?

[DanInMI]

Think tv friendly.

My guess is that they'll start looking at those inconvenient white lights next.

No, the point of the increased blocking time was to eliminate the marching flick.
If you are marching at your opponent with your tip pointed skyward a stop-hit will be much more effective. The problem is that directors have been loathe to call the marching flick attack an "attack-in-preparation." So if you don't like the extended blocking time blame the directors, not the FIE.

[DanInMI]

The purpose of the changes was not to explicitly kill flicks, but to boost the importance of foily things -- tip and RoW. The lockout time decrease is to "fix" the pulled-hand attack and the huge sweeping movements that reduce the usefulness of the blade and hand technique. With the new timings, it sounds like threat will have to be more immediate and real, rather than the implied threat that you have to obey because of the eventual director's call.

People who are getting hit on remises will need to add some things to their repertoir -- distance, direct parry ripostes. If someone is getting hit with a remise while they're making their riposte, they're pretty darn close to the opponent, extension distance. The fix is to open up the distance, and use the legs a lot more, and also use oppositional parries or binds.

I think when the dust settles, foilists with good hand and distance will be just fine. I even think marches and pulled-hands will still be around. /Haven't tried the new box settings yet.

A ramification I hadn't thought of -- it sounds like there is much bigger disadvantage now to being at the end of the strip.

Also, if it is a true remise, meaning that the parry actually causes the attack to fail, you should have plenty of time to repost without your opponent being able to redirect his weapon and hit you so quickly that he blocks out your repost.

If it is the sort of "remise" in which you parried and only caused your opponent to arrive on target 3 inches to one side of where it was originally heading, then you probably don't deserve the repost anyway.

[DanInMI]

THANK YOU! As I was reading the opinions and predicitons, it struck me as odd that everyone was completely throwing out the tactical wheel. A delayed riposte failing to an immediate remise... YES, that's the way it's supposed to work even now. A compound action can only work if the defender responds. So, will the delayed riposte go away? No, a good fencer will just have to progress to that point as always. I.e. score a couple points with a direct riposte. Then, your opponent will start parrying real fast, and you can make as compound an action as you like.

Destroy foil? No, it may change the way it's fenced, but that's kinda the point isn't it. I can see it now, a new breed of "classical" fencers who swear that days where better way back when. "Why, in my day, you could wrap the weapon clean around your opponent and score a touch to the back." Change happens.

Epee light? Well, sure with RoW, limited target area, smaller bells, different blades, no double touches, and oh well you get the picture.

Rolls.

Well said!

[kalivor]

No, the point of the increased blocking time was to eliminate the marching flick.
If you are marching at your opponent with your tip pointed skyward a stop-hit will be much more effective. The problem is that directors have been loathe to call the marching flick attack an "attack-in-preparation." So if you don't like the extended blocking time blame the directors, not the FIE.

AND

Also, if it is a true remise, meaning that the parry actually causes the attack to fail, you should have plenty of time to repost without your opponent being able to redirect his weapon and hit you so quickly that he blocks out your repost.

If it is the sort of "remise" in which you parried and only caused your opponent to arrive on target 3 inches to one side of where it was originally heading, then you probably don't deserve the repost anyway.

To tackle your second point first: Such parries don't exist in foil. The foible is so whippy (even with the stiffest of blades) that one must very slowly and carefully create contact and push the blade to the side for the point not to be deflected away from target. It really doesn't take much of a parry to cause an attack to fail, in foil.

That this will hopefully correct what I think is the most common blown call in foil fencing -- when an immediate remise beats out a delayed riposte -- is the good side of this. Will it do this? Will it block out a proper parry-riposte or attack (vs. a counter-attack)? Who knows?

As for the marching flick thing ... it really doesn't look like they're trying to change that. The danger of making an attack with the absence of the blade will be the difficulty associated with flicking out of it, not the timing changes. While it might tighten up foil tempo a little bit, it'll only be a slight adjustment. I have to side with esskreemr here ... they're looking for more one-light actions for spectators, not to change any qualities of the fencing. The debounce changes are what will affect the actual fencing.