Walk away from the (white) light?

[Rick]

Hey folks! It's been ages sinced I posted something... (and I've had some beers tonight so bear with me)...

My coach just came back from coach's college and she had a lot of stories... one of which was a "speculation" that the FIE is doing a study on getting rid of the off-target light in foil.

If any of you can back this up, please speak up. If any of you have a comment about what would foil fencing become without the white light, please speak up as well.

I will offer my own opinion when the effects of alcoholic beverages have finally left my mind and body.

Ya-mon!!!!!!!

[rjccj]

I know that Tripplette made a box a couple of years ago where the option on the box was no off target. It's kinda fun to play with, much faster and gives the feeling of fencing very clean, but I don't think the FIE would elminate the off target.

[Purple Fencer]

I believe the FIE was toying with the idea a couple of years back, but it went nowhere. HOwever, the old PFL DID eliminate the off target in foil. How'd it work out? Ask Edew, since he was a member and competed with no off target light.

[edew]

How come I'm the one one with the most experience in things that will/may happen in the future of fencing? How come I'm at the vanguard?

Anyway, the answer is: no big deal. It does not make people jab away incessantly. It does not make foil into epee. It does not give bad fencers an edge. It does not give good fencers an edge.

The good fencers usually don't hit off-target anyway, so there's really little difference for them. There's almost no difference between hitting solidly (on- or off-target) and not getting a light (because it was flat, or it was grounded, or whatever reason) and what happens when hitting off-target without the off-target light.

So, for those who haven't tried it, go ahead and speculate all you want. The answer is that it won't change the strategy or tactic of the game that much, and enhances it by removing the delaying effects of the off-target.

[DarkTransient]

Actually, I think it would. Without off-target lights, and you will see fencers parry or attemp to cover valid target excessively with their weapon arms, since they could get points for the reposte.

[edew]

You would still get carded for using your unarmed hand to cover target or blocking the blade.

Using the armed arm to cover target is much more of a problem: if the opponent hits you off-target on the arm and the tip bounces onto your chest, that's a point against you, and you can't use the white light to protect you anymore. Thus, it's not a good idea.

[Chris]

Originally posted by DarkTransient:
<STRONG>Actually, I think it would. Without off-target lights, and you will see fencers parry or attemp to cover valid target excessively with their weapon arms, since they could get points for the reposte.</STRONG>

Hear! Hear!

As for Eric's 'No Big Deal' response: Sorry, Eric, Like the FIE, you often fail to really think some of these things through!

This is the same sort of progress that brought us the reel-free system that requires your feet to reamin in contact with the strip: Dan DeChaine himself explained the system to me, and when we asked him about people who jump and do actions that invlove explosive movement (like the fleche, and the balestra), he said, "Of, That doesn't happen very often!"

Maybe, when he started fencing in the 50's, everyone wore Vel-Cro shoes, but now the game is must to fast for this.

As for eliminating the white light, the clearly stated objective of foil is to defend the WHOLE body, while endeavoring to make a good hit the designated deep target (torso). An attack which does NOT initially hit the designated target is deemed flawed, and not rewarded with credit.

All the hot air about how the off target helps kill the spectatorship is from the same people: you don't hear anyone talking about taking away the strike zone in baseball; or start calling a fouled 3rd strike an 'OUT' - -that would certainly speed up a aspect of the game that many people find a real bore. (Yes, some people find the whole game a little boring, but you ALWAYS find that.)
PLENTY of people watch baseball, because they learned to play ball as kids, and pretty much learned the rules; even when they no longer play, they have learned to watch baseball, continue to wathc it with their friends, and get the contuing message from the media that it is something that SHOULD be watched.

In fencing, the main reason nobody watches, is that, essentially, we (they people who actually proclaim to LIKE the sport) pretty much tell people not to! (I am as guilty as anyone!) How often do we ask family/friands to come out to watch us in our competitions, or even TELL them we are going to one. When people ask about doing so, they are often told it's boring, and discouraged from coming.

We are really shooting our selves in the foot, and letting some idiots try to change the game to try to fix the wrong problem!

People who care about fencing should do one of the following, for every tournament they compete in:

1. Invite someone (anyone you know) to come down, and watch (try to guess a time when you can both talk to them a while, and they can watch you fence).

2. Look around for someone who is there watching someone else fence: offer to answer any question they might have; be friandly.

3. HELP OUT the tournament organizers! Offer to keep score, pick up gear, set UP gear, pick up trash, lug stuff to/from cars, even if it's just 5 minutes! if 6-7 people do this at local tournaments, it really helps the organizers have an easier time of it, and make them more willing to continue to be invloved.

4. GET involved: once you have fenced for a couple years, you really should consider that people running tournaments (and most clubs) are USUALLY not getting paid for their efforts, (or at least not much and even those who ARE, well, there are very few that make a living at it, and you can tell who they are), and we should all try to do our part.

Get invloved in some sort of committee: if your division doesn't have one, it should. Help run a tournament that you don't normally compete in, help the person who does the division newsletter, or website, learn how to referee, and do THAT sometimes, (plus that will help your fencing some, too.) etc, etc, ETC.

All of these things will help there be more tournaments, and more people fencing,a nd more people watching. That is the solution.

Fencing = Fun: Watch it!

CHRIS

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Chris:
<STRONG>
All the hot air about how the off target helps kill the spectatorship is from the same people: you don't hear anyone talking about taking away the strike zone in baseball; or start calling a fouled 3rd strike an 'OUT' - -that would certainly speed up a aspect of the game that many people find a real bore. (Yes, some people find the whole game a little boring, but you ALWAYS find that.)</STRONG>

Speak for yourself! I do NOT find it boring to see a good hitter spoil a good pitch by fouling it off. There is very little about baseball I find boring. About the only thing is the leeway given to hitters to delay the game by repeatedly stepping out of the box, or some of the pitchers who work excruciatingly slowly (Hideo Nomo comes to mind).

-m

[edew]

Originally posted by Chris:
<STRONG>

Hear! Hear!

As for Eric's 'No Big Deal' response: Sorry, Eric, Like the FIE, you often fail to really think some of these things through!

This is the same sort of progress that brought us the reel-free system that requires your feet to reamin in contact with the strip: Dan DeChaine himself explained the system to me, and when we asked him about people who jump and do actions that invlove explosive movement (like the fleche, and the balestra), he said, "Of, That doesn't happen very often!"

Maybe, when he started fencing in the 50's, everyone wore Vel-Cro shoes, but now the game is must to fast for this.

As for eliminating the white light, the clearly stated objective of foil is to defend the WHOLE body, while endeavoring to make a good hit the designated deep target (torso). An attack which does NOT initially hit the designated target is deemed flawed, and not rewarded with credit.

All the hot air about how the off target helps kill the spectatorship is from the same people: you don't hear anyone talking about taking away the strike zone in baseball; or start calling a fouled 3rd strike an 'OUT' - -that would certainly speed up a aspect of the game that many people find a real bore. (Yes, some people find the whole game a little boring, but you ALWAYS find that.)

CHRIS</STRONG>

My comments are not about whether removing the white light fundamentally changes the sport. It does and it does not. I was there. I'm not speculating. It does change the sport in exactly how you're describing it: an off-target SHOULD stop the action, but it won't now. It does not change the sport in that at the higher level, off-targets are rarities.

(Sort of like saying, "Let's change the election system in the US by removing the voting process and just give the office to the person with the biggest monetary war chest." It does fundamentally change the system in that we no longer vote, but it does not fundamentally change the results in that the person with the biggest war chest most invariably win the election anyway. So, we're just getting rid of an irrelevant layer.)

Back to my original comments. My comments were about how it affects the actual play of the game. What I said is that removing the off-target will not induce people to remise incessantly. It will not cause bad fencers to do better than expected, or good fencers from doing worse than expected. It will not make the current style of fencing devolve into covering targets with forearm and head, and rushing at the other fencer. All the traditional (in the modern sense) fencing actions and tactics are directly applicable in the no off-target situation. In that sense, I claim, "No big deal." Does it change the spirit of the game? Perhaps. I think the spirit of the game is in constant change, as it is. Adding this to the mix might move the direction of the change, but certainly won't help or hinder the changes that will occur.

[d8m]

Originally posted by Chris:
<STRONG>

In fencing, the main reason nobody watches, is that, essentially, we (they people who actually proclaim to LIKE the sport) pretty much tell people not to! (I am as guilty as anyone!) How often do we ask family/friands to come out to watch us in our competitions, or even TELL them we are going to one. When people ask about doing so, they are often told it's boring, and discouraged from coming.

We are really shooting our selves in the foot, and letting some idiots try to change the game to try to fix the wrong problem!

People who care about fencing should do one of the following, for every tournament they compete in:

1. Invite someone (anyone you know) to come down, and watch (try to guess a time when you can both talk to them a while, and they can watch you fence).

2. Look around for someone who is there watching someone else fence: offer to answer any question they might have; be friandly.

3. HELP OUT the tournament organizers! Offer to keep score, pick up gear, set UP gear, pick up trash, lug stuff to/from cars, even if it's just 5 minutes! if 6-7 people do this at local tournaments, it really helps the organizers have an easier time of it, and make them more willing to continue to be invloved.

4. GET involved: once you have fenced for a couple years, you really should consider that people running tournaments (and most clubs) are USUALLY not getting paid for their efforts, (or at least not much and even those who ARE, well, there are very few that make a living at it, and you can tell who they are), and we should all try to do our part.

Get invloved in some sort of committee: if your division doesn't have one, it should. Help run a tournament that you don't normally compete in, help the person who does the division newsletter, or website, learn how to referee, and do THAT sometimes, (plus that will help your fencing some, too.) etc, etc, ETC.

All of these things will help there be more tournaments, and more people fencing,a nd more people watching. That is the solution.

Fencing = Fun: Watch it!

CHRIS</STRONG>

You're wrong. The problem is not the the members. But the organizations.

Tournaments have an incomprehensible format, always start and run late, and you never know where exactly anyone is at any given time (whether they are fencing, waiting, or what round they are in).

And as for your helpful list, it's a really nice idea, but I have enough trouble just focusing on the competition, let alone, helping everyone else out.

While you may not be interested in your performance, I and many others are.

And I love this sport, that's why I fence.

[MikeHarm]

Well theres a big difference in sabre losing the off target and foil. I think in sabre when they removed it, its probably hard to 'accidentally' get an off target that interferes, you'd hafta yank your leg up in something, but with your arms being off target in foil I think it would be a lot easier to parry with your arm instead of your sword if you missed the blade. That sort of habit would make fencing seem even more goofy in a sporty way and less swordlike and is what I'd worry about. I could see getting extra touches doing it and it being hard for a director to call someone on it thinking it was just a poorly done parry.

Mike

[veeco]

Actually a lot of high level sport fencers already train with the idea of doing a parry with their armed hand. If they get hit while doing it, it's an off target, no big deal. Just like no off target would not be a big deal.

Also, parrying with both hands was pretty common in the old fashioned duels.

[edew]

Yes, I concur with Vecco. Those who are adept at parrying with their elbows or forearm (or even the backarm) will do it whether there's an off-target rule or not. Note that people would prefer to PARRY with the arm rather than letting it get hit, as PARRYING allows one to continue with a riposte (which might be seen as a counter-attack, but no matter: it'll be a one-lighter). So, in this case, it's moot: people will continue to parry with the elbow or shoulder or whatever.

Those who are not practised in the art of back-arm parries or elbow parries will make bad floppy actions. Some movements might make that parry, a parry which would not set off the light in the current off-target signal situation. In that case, it still won't set off any signal in the no off-target situation.

Some movements might cause the opponent's tip to hit the off-target. In the current yes off-target situation, the action stops and neither fencer gets a point. In the proposed no off-target situation, the opponent's tip might bounce off immediately and hit on target, in which case the opponent gets a point (we've all encountered this phenomenon where the attack glances off the forearm or bib and hits the lame and then we go through the ritual of testing the lame, guessing that it might have a dead spot there, but in reality, the hit first came on a non-target area), or the tip is well secured and you can get your one-light. In this latter case, it is not unlike the situation where the attack lands flat (either on or off-target) and your counter-attack hits.

We're all familiar with all these possible outcomes. Thus I say that there is not much to change if it ever goes no off-target. All possible outcomes have already been met with the current yet off-target situation. We all know how to deal with them (at least to the degree that we can deal with them: some people just have a great elbow parry and some can't deal against that).

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by veeco:
<STRONG>Also, parrying with both hands was pretty common in the old fashioned duels.</STRONG>

Can we PLEASE get away from this notion that fencing should be an accurate simulation for a duel?

Modern fencing is a sport unique from dueling.

-m

[MikeHarm]

Parrying with hands might of been common in the old duels, but I don't think their technique was to let em stick their blade in your arm to parry.

Mike

[DarkTransient]

Originally posted by epeemike81:
<STRONG>

Can we PLEASE get away from this notion that fencing should be an accurate simulation for a duel?

-m</STRONG>

No, we can't. Fencing Sport is about the accurate simulation for a duel. I believe that is the major attraction of fencing sport. Can you imagine fencing with a tennis racket? Do you think you would have been attracted to fencing if that was the case? No, I guess not.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by DarkTransient:
<STRONG>

No, we can't. Fencing Sport is about the accurate simulation for a duel. I believe that is the major attraction of fencing sport. Can you imagine fencing with a tennis racket? Do you think you would have been attracted to fencing if that was the case? No, I guess not.</STRONG>

CLASSICAL fencing is about training for duels. MODERN fencing, which is what is being discussed here, is neither about training, nor simulating duels, but rather is a sport pursued, like any other, because it is challenging, interesting, and fun. Do many people start fencing because the have romantic images of Zorro in their head? sure. Most of those people quickly discover that modern fencing is NOT like those romantic notions, but that it IS fun. Those who still feel the need for those romantic notions generally join the SCA or other classical fencing groups. Would I want to fence with a tennis racket? No, of course not (though that hardly proves your point). Would you want to play tennis with an epee (I know that this is a meaningless question, but so was yours....)? Do I enjoy flicking (hardly a part of dueling)? YES. Do I enjoy landing the occasional toe touch in epee (ALSO not part of dueling)? YES. Do I enjoy the strategies associated with right of way on the occasions I fence foil? YES.

btw, the word fencing is derived from the latin defendere, to defend. the primary use of the original classical training was to teach defense. THAT is why ROW was created originally. The idea was that even if you landed your counter attack first, if your opponent still landed his attack, you had failed to defend yourself adequately. Thus, a parry was required before the riposte. So, as you can see, removing ROW does NOT make for better training for a duel.

Fencing IS a sport, first and foremost. knowledge of where our sport comes from and an appreciation of that history are, imo, neccessary for all to have. However, a return to a bastardized electrified type of honor dueling is NOT the path the USFA/FIE should, or would, choose. I repeat my earlier suggestion that you join a classical fencing salle.

-m

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by DarkTransient:
<STRONG>Fencing Sport is about the accurate simulation for a duel.</STRONG>

yeah, and football, hockey, basketball, lacrosse, and soccer are all about accurate simulation of battles....

[Purple Fencer]

Originally posted by DarkTransient:
<STRONG>

No, we can't. Fencing Sport is about the accurate simulation for a duel</STRONG>

Sorry, no. Perhaps you practice on eof the other forms (classical, historical, etc), but for me, fencing is primarily about nailing you mroe times than you nail me in the time allowed. Everything else - the phisical workout, mental stimulation, and overall enjoyment comes out of the work to be able to do said nailing. It's a scored sport, simple. Everything we do, regardless of our respective skill levels, is geared toward that the moment we hook up to the reel.

The current rules for foil have the off target light going off. Until that changes, that's what I'm going to work with. The only thing I can do to change it is to land on target more often.