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

[mike morgan]

Below are some recent UK fencing club tests using the new foil/sabre timings. And here is the British On Line Fencing Forum URL where there is lively debate about the effect of the timings on foil and sabre fencing:

http://fencingforum.com/forum/index.php?s=

FOIL:
"....Allstar box with new timings tested at Edinburgh Fencing Club this week. Things look very different.

Flick hits are out unless you can really make the hit stick and since that seems to have been the FIE's intention then it's fair enough.

The reduced blocking time seems to have a much bigger (and to my mind less desirable) effect. Stop hits, counter attacks and remises are now big percentage (one-light) hits and if you mis-time or delay the delivery of your attack expect any counter-attack to have a good chance of success. All but the most direct and immediate riposte is risky. If this all sounds like lightweight epee you're probably about right.

Brief first impressions only and I'll try to offer more feedback from training next week but at the moment I'd expect to see greatly improved results from tall, thin, long-armed, counter-attacking foilists when these new timings are introduced.

SABRE:
"Did some sabre last night with the new timings - and boy is it tight.

Lots of hits where the right of way attacker was bemused to look at the box and see only one light on (not his) because the counter attacker beat him to the punch by more than 120ms...."

"I've also had a go at both fencing and reffing sabre with the new timings. I'm still undecided as to whether it's an improvement, but it's certainly very noticeably different.

It favours the fast - hesitate with a riposte and you're toast. Stop-cut a simple direct attack can now give a single light to the stop cut.

As a ref I saw a few things that make me think the definition of an attack may need to be changed by adding (to the stuff about continuously straightening & threatening target).."and lands less than 0.12 secs after any counter action" - consider this one:

A goes PIL, B does beat lunge cut head. A waves straight arm sideways in response to beat (as you do!) and brushes B with the side of the blade. Result - one light in favour of A, despite PIL failing (doesn't hit with point) and the blade being clearly found with the beat and the attack being made in a single period of fencing time.

Apart from the frustration to B, how does the Ref phrase the action? "Attack from B short?" - (no, it hit), Attack from B fails" - (WHY, it hit on target - direct), "Attack from B parried" - er no, there was a clear beat from B and no further contact

As JAmbo says, it does help prevent the ridiculous number of double lights - the trouble is, as a ref these would probably be the double lights that are easy to separate. We still got a fair few "Actions together" - but now you know these are landing within 0.12secs. You could argue that as .1 sec is considered to shorter than normal human reaction time (at least for athletics sprinting automated start recalls) a ref should now not try to separate any double attacks as long as there are no obvious searching actions as you can say that one can't be a reaction to the other - and can a ref honestly see the difference of .12 sec in two actions starting?

This is going to take a lot of getting used to and will raise some interesting issues..."

[glowstix]

Originally Posted by mike morgan

Flick hits are out unless you can really make the hit stick and since that seems to have been the FIE's intention then it's fair enough.

The reduced blocking time seems to have a much bigger (and to my mind less desirable) effect. Stop hits, counter attacks and remises are now big percentage (one-light) hits and if you mis-time or delay the delivery of your attack expect any counter-attack to have a good chance of success. All but the most direct and immediate riposte is risky. If this all sounds like lightweight epee you're probably about right.


Lots of hits where the right of way attacker was bemused to look at the box and see only one light on (not his) because the counter attacker beat him to the punch by more than 120ms...."

which is why i'm no longer going to fence foil competitively...

[Katman]

What was the point of increasing the lockout time? I thought it was the debounce time that killed flicks. I don't like the sounds of this. Might as well take the ref right out.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Katman

What was the point of increasing the lockout time? I thought it was the debounce time that killed flicks. I don't like the sounds of this. Might as well take the ref right out.

Think tv friendly.

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

[darius]

Hello, Mr. Roche? Yes, these are the foilists calling. We want our weapon back.

darius

[Aeric]

Wow, I might actually start fencing foil competitively now!

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by darius

Hello, Mr. Roche? Yes, these are the foilists calling. We want our weapon back.

darius

Hello Mr. Roche? This is the sabreurs calling. You've got it bassackwards.

MR

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Katman

What was the point of increasing the lockout time? I thought it was the debounce time that killed flicks.

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.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by mike morgan

at the moment I'd expect to see greatly improved results from tall, thin, long-armed, counter-attacking foilists when these new timings are introduced.

Arg, don't you just HATE people who fit that description? :)

-B :)

[noodle]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Arg, don't you just HATE people who fit that description?

-B

woo hoo, time to get back into foil

i've always wanted national points in foil

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by darius

Hello, Mr. Roche? Yes, these are the foilists calling. We want our weapon back.

darius

Too late. We epeeists have bided our time, moved in secret for too long.

Today, foil! (and quite possibly saber)
Tomorrow, the world!

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by mike morgan

Flick hits are out unless you can really make the hit stick and since that seems to have been the FIE's intention then it's fair enough.

One question-did you experiment with different kinds of flicks?

Do chest flicks and shoulder flicks land? I mean, I'm all for the elimination of humongeous back flicks, but getting rid of ALL flicks is going to have a negative effect.

One of the advantages of the flick is that it gives the attacker an advantage. He has twice the target area to hit, and his attacks are twice as hard to parry. I'm not a huge fan of the flick, but if foil turns into a defensive sport, it's just not going to last, on TV or otherwise. Very few people watch épée on television.

If the rule got rid of ALL attacks that are not straight lunges, then this rule can't last. There's just no way. Probably 99% of fencers at high competitive levels flick, and most of them have incorporated it into their game. Removing the flick entirely...that's like telling pitchers they can't pitch curve balls. It'll change the whole game, and probably make it less fun.

But what will happen, of course, remains to be seen.

[Agent_V]

Originally Posted by mike morgan

"... You could argue that as .1 sec is considered to shorter than normal human reaction time (at least for athletics sprinting automated start recalls) a ref should now not try to separate any double attacks as long as there are no obvious searching actions as you can say that one can't be a reaction to the other - and can a ref honestly see the difference of .12 sec in two actions starting?

This is going to take a lot of getting used to and will raise some interesting issues..."

Well, I've seen quicktime videos running at 15 fps where one guy starts only a frame before the other guy, and I don't have any problem in real time seeing this, so in this case 1/15 = 0.0666... seconds difference.
Refs of course cannot be any more lax with these new changes, but what these changes will help is to get rid of the gray-area slow reposts where it is awefully subjective as to whether the reposter is doing one continous action or hestitating to find the opening.
I'm anyways looking forward to refereeing this new timing...

Alexander

[mike morgan]

An interesting post on the UK's 'Fencing Forum' from a Scottish Fencer and owner of goFence.com:

"...Had more experience fighting with the new Sabre timings last night. My experience appears to be that in a fight to 15, I am getting 4-6 points which are obviously effected by the new timings. The two most obvious examples from last night are:

1. I am going back slowly waiting to ambush my opponent. As my opponents steps he drops his point slightly and I act: beat direct to head. Timing is good and execution adequate or better. I know its my point, my opponent knows its my point, the referee knows its my point, the only person who doesnt know its my point is the box - which is showing a single light for my opponent!

2. Again, I am going backwards with my opponent chasing me. I slightly stumble and get my feet in a mess so my opponent takes the opportunity to start a cut to head. Frankly I am now feeling too old and tired to move or to try and parry so I slightly duck and quickly thrust my blade tip forward in resigned fashion. Then I feel the resounding clunk of my opponents sabre hitting my mask. Clearly this is his point, but the box is only showing one light - mine!

Given that I am Sabre newbie (and my coach describes my sabre style as “abnormal”) it may be that other (better or worse) Sabreurs get fewer or more “odd” points with the new sabre timings than I seem to do."

[Gav]

I was present at the tests of the new Allstar boxes. It is important to note that these were prototypes and there were problems [aren't there always ... ]. The two fencers on the box were 2 top level British Fencers. Afterwards one of them remarked that these new timings were the 'death' of Foil.

For example:

2 fencers come together and one [A] makes an attack. His opponent [b] parries successfully and ripostes. A makes no attempt react to the new threat and instead remises. One light comes up for A.

Now ROW clearly passes to the person who makes the parry and riposte however the ref is not allowed to overrule the box - there was only one light and this was for the remise not for the riposte. His point was that ROW was becomes even less important - it's more like Epee, first to hit gets the point. He was quite definite that he saw this as a dilution of the concept of Foil and although he would adapt to it he didn't like it. In his opinion if people wanted to fence Epee then they should do Epee and not Foil (BTW he's not bad at Epee either).

Again, there were a few problems with boxes so it could be those probelms affecting the initial test. From what I saw the problem with the box was not it's timing but it's ability register off target.

I don't want to prejuidice anyone about the future Allstar product - I have to assert that these were prototypes.

[Epeecurean]

Originally Posted by Gav

2 fencers come together and one [A] makes an attack. His opponent [b] parries successfully and ripostes. A makes no attempt react to the new threat and instead remises. One light comes up for A.

Now ROW clearly passes to the person who makes the parry and riposte however the ref is not allowed to overrule the box - there was only one light and this was for the remise not for the riposte. His point was that ROW was becomes even less important - it's more like Epee, first to hit gets the point. He was quite definite that he saw this as a dilution of the concept of Foil and although he would adapt to it he didn't like it. In his opinion if people wanted to fence Epee then they should do Epee and not Foil (BTW he's not bad at Epee either).

Hi Gav,

I guessing B's riposte was delayed or compound, or maybe he just plain missed? If it were direct or indirect, and on target, I have a hard time seeing it taking more than 300ms to execute after the remise landed.

I seriously doubt this will be the 'death' of foil. After all, even the foilist who made this remark seems determined to adapt to the situation and won't be giving it up. & who knows, retention rates may be higher with the reduced importance of the flick and hopefully an improvement in foil refereeing.

Nor do I think that this will cause foil to lose its essential character and become 'epee-light'. The foil blockage time has been cut from 750ms to 300ms -- this is still 6-7 times longer than the epee blockage time of 40-50ms. Right of way will still predominant over who-hits-first.

[neevel]

Originally Posted by Epeecurean

Hi Gav,

I guessing B's riposte was delayed or compound, or maybe he just plain missed? If it were direct or indirect, and on target, I have a hard time seeing it taking more than 300ms to execute after the remise landed.

I seriously doubt this will be the 'death' of foil. After all, even the foilist who made this remark seems determined to adapt to the situation and won't be giving it up. & who knows, retention rates may be higher with the reduced importance of the flick and hopefully an improvement in foil refereeing.

Nor do I think that this will cause foil to lose its essential character and become 'epee-light'. The foil blockage time has been cut from 750ms to 300ms -- this is still 6-7 times longer than the epee blockage time of 40-50ms. Right of way will still predominant over who-hits-first.

I've not had a chance to test the new timings (I'll be ordering the firmware for my Eigertek soon), but I did spend quite some time playing with the 350 ms time that you can already set the Eigterek to using the internal trim pot. The 350 ms time didn't have a profound effect on the ability of a remise to 'time-out' a riposte unless the riposte was very slow and indirect in coming. I found the chief effect was to prevent out-of-time remises from registering, which doesn't really affect the priority of a touch.

Of course, there are situations where you parry an attack, but have no options available for a riposte that don't involve a time-consuming line change (particularly at close quarters). What's going to happen with the shorter lockout is that your primary option, instead of making that highly indirect riposte, will be to let your opponent make the remise, and parry the remise while changing the distance to create a better option for a riposte.

On a different tactical topic, I was doing some thinking last night about how withdrawn-blade marching attacks would work with the new timings. It's the tip debounce preventing flicks from landing that I suspect will have the big effect. Just as the 350 ms lockout I've fenced with didn't make a huge difference with timing out ripostes, it also didn't allow you to readily time-out a marching attack with a fast counterattack. However, the finish of a marching attack against such a counterattack generally involves just the kind
of flick that the tip debounce will largely kill off. So the direct-thrust counterattack will still become a much stronger action against these marches than it currently is.

A withdrawn-blade marching attack is to a large degree a sucker-move: you're looking to draw your opponent into making an attempt at a counterattack. The current state of affairs is that you finish the attack with a fast flick as soon as your opponent bites at your invitation to try a counterattack. With the new timings, you can still use the withdrawn-blade march to draw a counterrattack, but your primary response to that will be to parry and riposte. This will affect how you prosecute the march-- it'll be at a slightly longer distance and a more measured, cautious tempo (more of a stalking action than a charging action). Once you have scored a few times by riposting off of the counterattack, however, your opponent should become hesistant about making that counterrattack. This will then create the opportunity to convert the march into a completed attack.

-Dave

[Katman]

However, the finish of a marching attack against such a counterattack generally involves just the kind
of flick that the tip debounce will largely kill off.

I do marching attacks and I've never really finished one with a flick. Fast-ish marches in absence and slow marches with my blade before me and vice versa. The priority of the correct action should be the winner in these instances, not the counterattacker.

It would be a bummer if the new timings eliminated this as an option. Aw well. I will adapt.

[edew]

Originally Posted by Katman

What was the point of increasing the lockout time? I thought it was the debounce time that killed flicks. I don't like the sounds of this. Might as well take the ref right out.

To be precise, they're decreasing the lockout time, from 750ms to 300ms. I think .5s should be a fair compromise, although the .75s that is currently used is fine as is. This issue will definitely will have to change or else they're going to get a bunch of fencers doing nothing by remising. Delayed ripostes will be a thing of the past.

As for the saber timing, I haven't try that myself, but I can see how the coaches will work on strictly making short attacks plus remise. It really destroys the whole point of the sport: a clear parry gives the defender the right of way to attack, and - to some measure - dictate the tempo the action at that time. Now, it's just going to be whacky-whacks to the arms. There's no incentive for saber fencers to play the parry-riposte game. Everyone will be doing attack-redouble.

The current saber lock-out time is 350ms (300-400ms range), maybe a good compromise is 250ms.

Another reasonable solution is to increase the size of the saber guard. The saber guard in its current size made sense in the pre-electric days because most hits to the arm that came with the clang against the guard were called as parried. Now, if it lights up the light, it's called mal-parried (and as a hit for the attacker). Make the guard a bit bigger and you'll have more parries and deeper attacks (attacks to the body instead of the arm), making the action a bit more interesting. More swash and buckling, as desired by some journalists covering the saber events at the big-O.