Jeff Bukantz article in "American Fencing"

[peet]

I'm afraid I have to agree for the most part with Gary and others of the same mind:

I have been fencing on the new timings since the beginning of october, and I have been doing my best to adjust. I mourned the demise of the super-deep flick to the back, and got over it. I learned to salvage the flicks to the flank, the shoulder, and of course the front. I reconciled myself to the fact that many glancing straight shots that used to score no longer do.

BUT

Last night was the first time I got seriously pissed off about the timings. I was fencing with one of the better foilists at our club, and at least five times in the first half of our bout, i buried the tip in his lame, right on the primary target, and got no light. I don't mean glancing shots, I mean tip on lame, parry late, blade bent for all to see. In fact, I think the late parry may have helped my shots fail, because it dragged the blade up against the lame (grounding the circuit?, popping the tip out? hard to say. I'm not an engineer, just a fencer).

Let me paint a picture for you: We were fencing exactly how Rene wants us to: Multiple disengages, beats & counter-beats, taking the blade, lots of footwork, changes of direction, feints in tempo, NO FLICKS, all straight finishes....

And for that first minute or two, half of my shots (that clearly landed, enough to make my opponent stop, even!) got no light. And he wasn't even wearing plastic! Imagine if he had a manplate? My solution?: I stopped attacking. I just waited for him to come, and took ripostes, and some AIP. I ran the score back and won.

What kind of solution is that? Stop attacking? This is Foil! It's supposed to be aggressive! It's supposed to be fast! Everyone says the solution is to plant the tip more carefully, and more deliberately. That means more slowly! NO WAY! My next attempted solutions will be to fence with stiffer blades (my one BF had a tip problem last night. gotta get me some more of those...), and to keep the blade very straight (thanks for the suggestion, Bill Oliver ).

They have got to compromise on the debounce time. How about 8ms Rene? Ok, how about 10ms? 15 is just too long. Kill the flick if you must, BUT I WANT MY STRAIGHT SHOTS BACK.

The game is in the strategy, the execution, and the athleticism. What kind of game has it become when you can win the 7 blade actions, and the 14 foot actions, not to mention the mental game, that got you to the final instant when your tip hits the lame, and then get robbed of it by electronics? That's like being ahead for the whole tour de france, and then getting a flat tire 100 meters before the finish and losing!

Now, admittedly, last night was an extreme example, but it is by no means the only example in my experience.

15 ms is too long. It has ruined foil. Maybe not for everyone (as i can see from others' posts), but for many people. They have to shorten it. Maybe not the 2-5ms it was, but something in between.

[/rant]

Just my $.02.
Thanks for listening, and sorry for the length...

-p

[cowpaste]

I hear your pain, peet. I really do. :P First of all, I have a curious cow personal question. Do you compete competively? Would you happen to be ranked?

As for shortening the required depression time, doing so would increase the chances of flicks, which would upset Mr. Roch greatly, so the timings might stay. I really don't think there is a happy medium time, since the maximum amount of time that a flick could depress the tip is no doubt longer than the minimum amount of time that a straight attack depresses the tip. I believe this gives us three cases:

1. really short depression time (old timings) - both flicks and thrusts work.
2. where we are now - some flicks work, some thrusts work.
3. looonngg depression time - change weapon to épée/sabre.

BOOOO!!


I hope some of ya'll can understand that.

[peet]

Originally Posted by cowpaste

I hear your pain, peet. I really do. :P First of all, I have a curious cow personal question. Do you compete competively? Would you happen to be ranked?

No, I compete UNcompetitively! LOL!

Seriously though:
I'm certainly not near the top of the game, but I'm competing nationally as much as I can afford: a couple NACs a year, and summer nat's.

I don't have national points (yet!), if that's what you mean. Am B rated in foil, (& epee, which is funny, 'cause it's not my primary weapon )

So I'll forgive anyone who wants to take my impressions with a grain of salt, given that i'm not ranked or whatever.

cheers!

-p

[ThatReallyHurt]

***WARNING: HUMBLE NEWBIE QUESTION***

I understand there being a requirement to adjust to the new timings, but if you're having problems with the timings, isn't it kind of safe to assume that the person you're facing on the piste is having them too?

Why are some people mentioning that they're losing due to the new timings (there was at least one other timing-related thread a while ago)? Shouldn't it be affecting everyone equally, or is one particular fencing style being affected more?

[peet]

Oh, and re:

Originally Posted by cowpaste

As for shortening the required depression time, doing so would increase the chances of flicks, which would upset Mr. Roch greatly, so the timings might stay. I really don't think there is a happy medium time, since the maximum amount of time that a flick could depress the tip is no doubt longer than the minimum amount of time that a straight attack depresses the tip.

I agree. Given the chance though, I'd still lobby hard for a compromise somewhere in the vicinity of 10ms. We can hope/dream/fantasize, eh?

-p

P.S. (And IMHO, if you can't kill the flick without killing lots of solid straight shots, you just *can't* kill the flick!)

[peet]

Originally Posted by ThatReallyHurt

I understand there being a requirement to adjust to the new timings, but if you're having problems with the timings, isn't it kind of safe to assume that the person you're facing on the piste is having them too?

Why are some people mentioning that they're losing due to the new timings (there was at least one other timing-related thread a while ago)? Shouldn't it be affecting everyone equally, or is one particular fencing style being affected more?

A good point. I believe i have experienced both (equal and unequal degrees of difficulties on the part of each fencer).

As you guess, different styles seem to be affected somewhat differently. Also different equipment, different opponents, and any number of other variables. It's a complex, dynamic system. Hard to pin down all the exact relevant issues. We're all doing our best, and coming up with lots of different conclusions.

anyhooo....

-p

[cowpaste]

"compete competively?" Pffft, well I feel stoopid.

Even if it does affect both fencers, do you really want this "randomness factor" to be a part of the eventually outcome? I think it is safe to say that in general, the ROW weapon tournaments are easier to predict than épée tournaments. This is because the ROW weapons are judged according to ROW (duh), which tends to "protect" fencers and help them place around where they should be. On the other hand, épée is "everything goes." This is both a blessing and curse in my opinion. It is always nice when the director matters less, but the lack of ROW adds a significant "randomness factor" that can make for really weird tournament results.

An A level foilest will most likely still beat a U on the new timings, but I suspect that due to the new additional "randomness factor," more Cs will beat Bs. More Bs will beat As. etc. (assuming that rankings are an accurate way to determine skill level)

We'll see though. I must admit I find it amusing to see a U fluke and beat an A (who is having a bad day) at an épée tournament. Maybe it will start happening in foil too!

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by sabreman

I think the new timing in sabre is great. It has created more one light touches which is a very good thing IMHO.

I'll agree with you on that. I like the new sabre timings. Most of the time, it makes no difference at all, but it does make a few actions easier to call, and overall I've noticed very little (if any) difference in the way sabre is fenced.

[Inquartata]

Is that necessarily a good thing, though? That's the question. Because quite a high percentage of those one-lighters seem to be gotten by slopping a remise in after your opponent's good parry, or playing picky-picky point into the riposte. There are also a substantially higher number of instances where both fencers hit and neither light goes off...

Overall I can live with the new timing, but I don't think it's a marked improvement. Certainly not enough of an improvement to warrant the expense and trouble of changing over both scoring boxes worldwide and changing fencing technique, IMO.

[ViewtifulMisho]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Is that necessarily a good thing, though? That's the question. Because quite a high percentage of those one-lighters seem to be gotten by slopping a remise in after your opponent's good parry, or playing picky-picky point into the riposte. There are also a substantially higher number of instances where both fencers hit and neither light goes off...

Overall I can live with the new timing, but I don't think it's a marked improvement. Certainly not enough of an improvement to warrant the expense and trouble of changing over both scoring boxes worldwide and changing fencing technique, IMO.

In my experience, the new timings have actually encouraged fencers to make better parries. Since a sloppy one leaves the defender open to the possibility of a remise, more focus has been put on making effective parries. This is my impression from, both, club fencing and the Div. I in Richmond.

It's not a huge difference, so most of sabre is exactly the same. If you're getting hit with the sloppy remise, focus on making the momentum shift (from a solid parry to a riposte) very short. Then the remising bastard will be dead in the water.

[sabreur]

The first time I fenced with the new sabre timings, I noticed little or no difference.

However, I've fenced with them again, and someone who just hangs the blade out in a half-assed line with a pretty firm wrist can be a real pain in the tookus.... If you beat-cut, particularly if you beat in seconde, you run a real risk of being brushed with the blade as you begin your cut, and being closed out. Not a good thing.

MR

[neevel]

I've mentioned this before in other threads--

Back when the FIE was first starting to think seriously about the tip debounce time, Eric Schlaepfer sent me Eigertek firmware with an 11 ms tip time to test out. After seeing the problems with strong, straight thrusts not lighting and hit bouncing off of chest proctectors that should be good, I put the 11 ms F/W in for a couple of weeks to see what effect it had. The result was that the great majority of the instances where good hits didn't register cleared up, but flicks didn't become substantially easier to register. So backing off to 10 ms would probably help the situation a great deal without upsetting the goal of reducing flicks. Whether RR could be persuaded that he might possibly have at least partially incorrect, however...

Originally Posted by peet

Oh, and re:



I agree. Given the chance though, I'd still lobby hard for a compromise somewhere in the vicinity of 10ms. We can hope/dream/fantasize, eh?

-p

P.S. (And IMHO, if you can't kill the flick without killing lots of solid straight shots, you just *can't* kill the flick!)

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by ThatReallyHurt

***WARNING: HUMBLE NEWBIE QUESTION***

I understand there being a requirement to adjust to the new timings, but if you're having problems with the timings, isn't it kind of safe to assume that the person you're facing on the piste is having them too?

Why are some people mentioning that they're losing due to the new timings (there was at least one other timing-related thread a while ago)? Shouldn't it be affecting everyone equally, or is one particular fencing style being affected more?

It *is* affecting all the better fencers by introducing randomness into wether a perfectly executed straight thrust goes off or not. But it isn't equal in *every* bout. So let's say we have 16 fencers fencing a DE. Four of them are really good. Olympians. The other twelve are very good, but not that good. In any given 15 touch bout from 0 to 6 solid straight thrusts don't go off in either direction. That means that in half the bouts there will be a three touch alteration in the score (each one is a two touch swing because the fencer who should have scored got scored upon instead).

Now in half of those bouts that the top four fencers fence this will be in their favor, but they were probably going to win anyway. But in the other half, supposing a very good fencer will normally lose to the really good fencer 15-12, the really good fencer will lose. That means that in one out of every four bouts (at least!) the really good fencer will lose to a clearly inferior opponent. Since each of the really good fencers in our top 16 has to fencer 3 of these before they get to the top four that means that the odds are 2 or 3 of the four really good fencers will get knocked out before making the top four. And at least one won't even make the final eight! And that's just on the average! It could be much much worse.

So even though it affects everyone it's still a very very bad thing.

gary hayenga

[ThatReallyHurt]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

So even though it affects everyone it's still a very very bad thing.

That was a pretty good explanation, thanks. I hadn't thought of it from the math standpoint.

So here's another question then:

I'm looking at the FIE page right now, and it lists not only Rene Roch, but 13 other regular positions, 11 of which are filled, two currently ND (vice-presidents) and one honorary president position. I understand that lots of the opinions of Rene Roch given on this forum aren't exactly, erm... "complimentary", with him ordering the changes to fencing, most of which fencers are not pleased about. If there are currently 12 other sitting positions (let's say 11, because honorary positions often don't count for much other than a plaque on your door) on the FIE board, and almost everyone hates the changes being made to the sport, why is it that he has a united executive behind him? Or, is it that the FIE president position holds all the power, allowing him to change things at a whim?

I guess what I'm getting at is that there are a lot of people here who say that due to changes made by the head of the FIE, fencing as a sport is changing, and not necessarily for the better. If that's the case, why aren't the sport groups in different countries petitioning the FIE to have the changes repealed, or made less drastic?

Did any of this post make sense? I just read it over and wasn't sure...

[wflaschka]

It *is* affecting all the better fencers by introducing randomness into wether a perfectly executed straight thrust goes off or not.

As for great fencers having problems with the timing -- video of the elite fencers in big competitions with the new timing hasn't been published yet. Whomever is first to market with that will probably get some good $$ from me. The negative reports we have are anecdotal (as are the positive reports). Bluntly, I've seen too many clueless or nearsighted U- to A-ranked fencers to take anything as gospel. I'm fixing my eye on the general trend. We'll have a better idea in a year, and we'll be certain in 5 years.

Anyway, a "perfectly executed" thrust where the tip can't be on target for 1/7th of a second? This sounds like a skewed concept of perfection, or like fencers are expecting hits under the strict timing to register like they registered under the lax timing. Yeah, that's not going to happen.

garyhayenga's numbers presuppose that none of these high-caliber fencers are able to adjust to the timing, or the numbers disregard a burn-in time. The implication is that these fencers are "very/really good" based on some criteria transcending mere scoring boxes.

His message is that the scoring boxes are now failing us fencers, unlike before when they were precisely calibrated to reflect perfect fencing. I don't see it. In actuality, his fencers' "goodness" is based on the old timing, which they know in their bones. In a few years, garyhayenga will seem like either a prophet or a worrywort, I'm betting on worrywort.

I think (and I know people disagree) that the perfect hit is one which turns on a light. Any other standard of perfection is one which is not related to lights, e.g., it would satisfy Aldo Nadi, or please an imaginary maestro from 1750, or register on last year's boxes. Whatever other standard of perfection is being used as a measure, it's not the sport-standard: It is therefore religious, which is useless to me as a sport coach. When the changes were announced in November 2003, it was so fencers could start work, not so that they could be oblivious for 14 months and then be shocked, shocked.

Many good fencers quit fencing when masks became common, and they quit when vinegar scoring was replaced by chalk, and they quit when foil went electric, and they quit when women got Epee; some will quit over these timing-changes. The sport itself doesn't die, and it presently seems to be growing. I believe that the timing changes will generate even more growth in fencing.

[foilz]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

In any given 15 touch bout from 0 to 6 solid straight thrusts don't go off in either direction.

Is that a fact, or a hypothesis?

As someone who returned to fencing after the timing changes, I respect fencers who are living through this and not liking it.

However, in all the emotion surrounding timing changes, there seem to be few facts.

I would think that fencers who can sense, or feel, one-seventh of a second (thanks to their skill, experience, and fingerspitzen) ought to be able to adjust their new game to cope.

And if they are that good, why are they whining?

FWIW.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by foilz

Is that a fact, or a hypothesis?
.

It is the experience of myself and the other A and B rated fencers in my division, and our experience in practice appears to parallel what they saw and experienced at the first NAC. Several of them did quite well at that NAC. So they got a fair amount of experience with it.

The people I know who have been to the Junior World Cups report similar experiences.

We fenced 15 touch bouts for 4 hours today. None of them could beat me. To be fair though, only 3 of the ones there today *should* beat me. Several others who should beat me weren't there today, but in past practices I've beaten them about half the time, when I should be beating them about 1/20th of the time (old timing).

gary hayenga

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

As for great fencers having problems with the timing -- video of the elite fencers in big competitions with the new timing hasn't been published yet. Whomever is first to market with that will probably get some good $$ from me. The negative reports we have are anecdotal (as are the positive reports). Bluntly, I've seen too many clueless or nearsighted U- to A-ranked fencers to take anything as gospel. I'm fixing my eye on the general trend. We'll have a better idea in a year, and we'll be certain in 5 years.

Anyway, a "perfectly executed" thrust where the tip can't be on target for 1/7th of a second? This sounds like a skewed concept of perfection, or like fencers are expecting hits under the strict timing to register like they registered under the lax timing. Yeah, that's not going to happen.

garyhayenga's numbers presuppose that none of these high-caliber fencers are able to adjust to the timing, or the numbers disregard a burn-in time. The implication is that these fencers are "very/really good" based on some criteria transcending mere scoring boxes.

His message is that the scoring boxes are now failing us fencers, unlike before when they were precisely calibrated to reflect perfect fencing. I don't see it. In actuality, his fencers' "goodness" is based on the old timing, which they know in their bones. In a few years, garyhayenga will seem like either a prophet or a worrywort, I'm betting on worrywort.

I think (and I know people disagree) that the perfect hit is one which turns on a light. Any other standard of perfection is one which is not related to lights, e.g., it would satisfy Aldo Nadi, or please an imaginary maestro from 1750, or register on last year's boxes. Whatever other standard of perfection is being used as a measure, it's not the sport-standard: It is therefore religious, which is useless to me as a sport coach. When the changes were announced in November 2003, it was so fencers could start work, not so that they could be oblivious for 14 months and then be shocked, shocked.

Many good fencers quit fencing when masks became common, and they quit when vinegar scoring was replaced by chalk, and they quit when foil went electric, and they quit when women got Epee; some will quit over these timing-changes. The sport itself doesn't die, and it presently seems to be growing. I believe that the timing changes will generate even more growth in fencing.

But I haven't heard or read *any* positive reports from *any* high level fencers or coaches, have you?. And by high level I mean people who are capable of top 32 at Junior World Cups or NAC's (Obvously the Senior World Cup season hasn't started yet). And I have heard, and experienced, many many negative reports from these fencers.

You have trouble believing that the tip won't stay on the lame for 1/7 of a second? Let's do the math.

I lunge 10 mph with a fully extended arm. Sound reasonable? A sprinter runs 100 yards (300 feet) in 10 seconds, 30 feet per second, times 3600 seconds per hour divided by 5280 feet per mile means 30*3600/5280 = 20 miles per hour. I can lunge at least half that fast.

So that means that in 1/7 of a second my 10 mile an hour lunge travels 10*5280/3600 = 14 feet per second or 2 *feet* in 1/7 of a second. In through the stomach and a foot out the back in 1/7th of a second. And a fast fencer is a lot faster than that.

The rest of your post seems a bit facetious. "The perfect hit is one that turns on a light" ?? Is the perfect golf shot one that goes in the hole? How about two golf shots, one that flies off to the right bounces off 6 trees before rolling over to the green and into the hole, and one that flies straight at the hole and stops 6 inches away. Which swing do you think likely to be repeatable and bring long term success?

You cannot slow your lunge down to 5 miles an hour and be successful when your opponent can retreat at 10 miles an hour. And you shouldn't have to! Speed and quickness are not handicaps in a real fight of *any* kind. So now you're going to say, well, they're good in epee and sabre, but not in foil because we don't want people flicking!???

No, good fencers will still have to do them fast because they will still have a better chance of hitting the opponent and hoping a light goes off then than not hitting their opponent at all. And then we have the current mess.

Foil just isn't fun this way.

gary hayenga