Jeff Bukantz article in "American Fencing"

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by peet

Thanks for listening, and please understand that i also respect your opinion on the matter!



-p

Ah, I had not thought of # 3. Of course that is also a reason for it to happen, I keep forgetting that your whole blade is a conductor.

But a touch that bends so much that the naked blade shorts out against the lame has always been a possibility, and is not a result of the new timings per se, correct?

[peet]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

In the old days, before the box, it was important to plant the point and make the blade bend so that the judges et al could see the hit was valid. When the box came, the emphasis wasn't so important. Now perhaps aiding the hit is important again, and maybe we just need to re-calibrate.

You may be right. Thing is, i suspect that solution would make the game slower, and who wants that?

(warning, possibly un-informed opinion follows: )

I fenced dry foil only a little when i started, but i'm told by those senior to myself that foil (and fencing in general) sped up dramatically with the introduction of electricity. Personally I like it faster. IMHO, Rene et al are trying to return foil to a state it held in the past, but the game was slower back then. I don't want to play it slower. I just don't.

-p

[peet]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Ah, I had not thought of # 3. Of course that is also a reason for it to happen, I keep forgetting that your whole blade is a conductor.

But a touch that bends so much that the naked blade shorts out against the lame has always been a possibility, and is not a result of the new timings per se, correct?

Not quite correct (IMHO). While this has always been a possiblilty (and i do remember an occasional failed hit like this pre-change), it is much MORE possible with a longer debounce time. If the debounce time were 2-5 ms (old timing), it would be much harder for me to get the blade bent enough to ground out in time to stop my hit from registering.

In my experience this happened like once a month pre-change, and was almost always associated with the defender's parry dragging the tip up the lame. Before, we always just assumed that the tip never depressed at all, because we'd never heard of "debounce time".

But now, experience argues that the tip is depressed.

Again, these are theories. I have not heard of laboratory type testing to prove them, though a good lab test may not be possible, given how dynamic the fencing situation is. So we are the test-bed (the timings are, after all, still officially "in testing"). I say the test is a failure.

-p

[DieterS]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

DieterS, I, um, strongly disagree in my observations with some of your comments. Especially #11. Foil's footwork has gone way up, because fencers are less confident about finishing their attacks. Attack in preparation is more a part of the game now, and that means more change in RoW. As for #1...have you been watching foil with the new timings? People are still attacking. Just as much as before, nearly. Aren't they?

mrbiggs,

You and I haven't seen high-level foil fencers fully adjust to the new timings yet. My comments were intended to be satirical in the sense that the rules I posted both anticipate and exaggerate the unintended consequences of the new foil timings.

My suggestions were inspired by conversations I had with an A-level foilist and NCAA All-American who, along with his team mates, have been experiencing the new timings in NCAA events. I also can concur with several other contributors to this thread that the new timings have increased the uncertainty of the score in bouts to the tune of 3-4 touches in a 15-touch bout and 1-2 touches in a 5-touch bout.

So, all I can say is "Wait and see." There's an A-level FIE tournament scheduled for next weekend in Copenhagen followed by a Grand Prix event in Paris . . .

Dieter

[Nihilena]

It seems as if the old arguement in regards to flicks being ineffective in actual combat is being rehashed, except in reverse. When they were effective in sport, you still wouldn't have used them in a duel because they wouldn't have done that much damage. Now that some straight-line "sternum bruisers" are apparently becoming less effective in sport doesn't mean that they have lost their value in a real duel. Go ahead, sharpen your rapier and impale all the SCA geeks you want to impale, with my blessings. However, if you wish to compete in the sport of fencing, realize that the object is not to cause bodily harm to your opponent, but rather to make a light come on in such a manner as to convince a judge to award you a point. Thusly, if the touches you or your opponent are using aren't working, then they are not good touches. Similarly, if your techniques aren't providing you with good touches, it could be easily argued that they are not good techniques. Expounding upon that, if you are not using good techniques, it can be concluded that you probably aren't a good fencer.

Note that good is (again) relative to the requirements of scoring points. Any other measure is, in the case of fencing for sport, irrelevant.

[peet]

Originally Posted by Nihilena

It seems as if the old arguement in regards to flicks being ineffective in actual combat is being rehashed, except in reverse. When they were effective in sport, you still wouldn't have used them in a duel because they wouldn't have done that much damage. Now that some straight-line "sternum bruisers" are apparently becoming less effective in sport doesn't mean that they have lost their value in a real duel. Go ahead, sharpen your rapier and impale all the SCA geeks you want to impale, with my blessings. However, if you wish to compete in the sport of fencing, realize that the object is not to cause bodily harm to your opponent, but rather to make a light come on in such a manner as to convince a judge to award you a point. Thusly, if the touches you or your opponent are using aren't working, then they are not good touches. Similarly, if your techniques aren't providing you with good touches, it could be easily argued that they are not good techniques. Expounding upon that, if you are not using good techniques, it can be concluded that you probably aren't a good fencer.

Note that good is (again) relative to the requirements of scoring points. Any other measure is, in the case of fencing for sport, irrelevant.

Wow, Nihilena, That sounds kind of personal.

Rest assured, we're not looking for a reward for hurting our opponents. We're not even looking for a reward for hitting hard. Like I keep saying, I want the reward for winning the blade actions, foot actions, strategy, etc. that lead to the touch, not the force with which, or the length of time that my tip makes contact with the lame.

For me, the game is in all the steps leading up to the touch, the techniques that are used in the minutes, seconds, & fractions of seconds right before the tip contacts the lame. Not the 15 microseconds AFTER it makes contact. In my mind, if i got that far, i deserve the point.

Particularly if it makes solid contact. But be sure, I emphasize the solid contact not to value hitting harder than neccessary, but to differentiate these hits from the glancing shots that are never sure to light the light, new timing or old.

cheers!

-p

[Nihilena]

I completely agree with you peet, insofar as I think that is how fencing should be judged. However, as you are aware, that just isn't how it is. My point was merely that the objective of fencing for sport is to obtain points, that how you win bouts and tournaments. Thus, the criteria for what is a good fencer all depends on how readily they can obtain points, no matter how athletic or skilled or sloppy or *generic adjective #4* they are in doing so.

And what do you mean, "personal?" Sure, I advocate the removal of SCA members from the reproductive pool, but who doesn't?

[peet]

Originally Posted by Nihilena

And what do you mean, "personal?" Sure, I advocate the removal of SCA members from the reproductive pool, but who doesn't?

I was referring to the "Expounding upon that, if you are not using good techniques, it can be concluded that you probably aren't a good fencer." part of your post. I took that kind of personally. If you didn't mean it that way, I'm glad.

cheers!

-p

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Nihilena

I advocate the removal of SCA members from the reproductive pool, but who doesn't?

Only if we can add foilists and epeeists to that list.

[Nihilena]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Only if we can add foilists and epeeists to that list.

Heh. What do you call a competitive foilist in their first sabre bout?

A nasty off-target, or an involuntary castration :P

[rsy]

First, let me just say that this has been the most interesting thread I have read.

One thing I have noticed is that there seems to be an assumption that these new timings will be permanent, but they were introduced as a test. Even though the test has expanded beyond the Jr World Cups as originally proposed, it is still a test. If the purpose of the change in debounce time was to discourage the flick, the test has revealed an unintended consequence; that certain straight attacks which were not intended to be changed are nonetheless being affected. That appears to be the source of Gary Hayenga's understandable frustration. His frustration is understandable because the change in the debounce time was not supposed to change the way straight attacks registered.

Rather than talk about getting used to this problem, shouldn't the focus be on what can be done about it? If a 10ms debounce time will eliminante the problems being experienced with straight attacks and still discourage the flicks, why not push the USFA to push the FIE to look at that timing change?

-r

[Drifter]

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.

One lights aren't necesarily a better thing if it's quality fencing you're looking for.

I tend to agree with the other Sabruers on this thread in that the new timings haven't created a huge stir in the sabre world, yet. I do think though that in 6 months to a year once everyone has worked out how to "rig" the system there will be plenty of pissed off sabre folks. Plain and simple remise will end up as king and no amount of parry will fix that. It'll take a bit of time for people to figure out how, but I think we'll see sabre fencing get much "sloppier" as people begin to learn the value of leaving thier blade out and worry less about parrying.

I could also be completely and totally wrong, only a year of fencing will determine that.

[annacattiva]

Another sabre opinion: I really don't like the new timings. I dislike the potential for sloppy fencing to light lights; I dislike that it decreases the opportunity to create complex and, to my mind, interesting actions. As far as one-light actions go, I'd rather fence with wider timing and a competent referee than with tight timings and need for the ref to make any calls. I'll keep fencing with it, and maybe I'll change my mind. Who knows. Perhaps a compromise between the old and new timings would work.

[davtsung]

Are people disappointed that they can't flick as effectively anymore? or are people disappointed because straight attacks aren't lighting up? These are TWO separate issues that have arisen due to the new timings, but in the case of lost straight touches, the situation is exacerbated by wearing plastic and is not soley caused by box changes.

Some of us are arguing over technique and stylistic preferences for foil which are both topics that deserve their own threads and it is doubtful that a consensus shall be reached in this matter (especially not by foilists )

[cowpaste]

Not being able to flick anymore doesn't bother me much. What bothers me is that many straight attacks do not work anymore either.

[Peach]

Finally got the American Fencing magazine and thought it was pretty funny that the Bukantz article is followed by Andy Shaw's article about the innumerable rule changes fencing has experienced since 1891. My favorite:

1893 Dark fencing suit and dark glove
1894 White fencing suit and white glove
1895-1903 Dark fencing suit and two dark gloves

[jeff]

Haven't there been some comments about the dapper attire that Shaw has worn on some fencing occasions? Jeff B isn't quite the same clothes-horse... (note: this Jeff from NJ isn't THAT Jeff from NJ!)

On a serious note: I had (and I guess still have) hopes for the changed timings, but am deeply concerned by what I've been reading here and in Jeff B's column. I very much respect his ability and knowledge as a referee, and the comments here make a lot of sense too. Making direct, solid thrusts to the chest intermittently NOT work is a big problem for the game.

And, according to Bukantz's taxonomy, I'm on the losing side... I better make more opposition parries with riposte through opposition (a traditional style I was taught in Days Of Yore), and more remises on my own attacks. Hmm, I think I need to by a chest protector right away....

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by prototoast

The new timings are being used in NCAA competitions... at least when MIT's box isn't malfunctioning.

NCAA competitions are not required to use the new timings. The rule for collegiate fencing this year (as announced at the beginning of the season by the NCAA fencing committee) is that NCAA regionals and nationals would use the new timings and that everything else was up to the host schools but that which timings were going to be used had to be used consistently at that meet and should be specified in the contracts (I've seen a couple of contracts for this season, neither of which specified the timings to be used incidently).

Whether or not various schools will have new or old timings will depend, among other things, on the budgets for those teams, what other teams in their area are doing, and how much easier those teams want to make things for their fencers likely to fence in NACs and NCAA post-season play (regionals/nationals).

For reference, Temple upgraded 2 of the 4 boxes that we use (we were going to upgrade a third but the firmware wasn't ready for it yet, the fourth is only used for epee (although it's a 2-weapon box)). The Temple Open (unsurprisingly hosted by Temple) used new timings.

-B :)

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by annacattiva

Another sabre opinion: I really don't like the new timings. I dislike the potential for sloppy fencing to light lights; I dislike that it decreases the opportunity to create complex and, to my mind, interesting actions. As far as one-light actions go, I'd rather fence with wider timing and a competent referee than with tight timings and need for the ref to make any calls. I'll keep fencing with it, and maybe I'll change my mind. Who knows. Perhaps a compromise between the old and new timings would work.

I agree with Anna. The touches that the new timing makes "easy" for the referee are calls that a competent ref should already have made correctly. And in exchange for that we get a number of actions where a direct riposte is defined (by the machine) as "no" in favor of the remise.

I don't think the changes have had (or are likely to have) a huge effect on sabre, but all of the effect that they HAVE had has been negative in my opinion.

Sabre was already called tightly enough by the referees that any undue delay got a fencer penalized. Good referees call preparation tighter than the new boxes do. They also don't call it nearly as often when it isn't there. :)

I'd much rather have wide timing and good refs than tight timing and taking all discretion out of the referee's hands. In fact, with even halfway-decent referees I'd prefer to have wide timing and leave it in the hands of the referees than have the new timings.

-B :)

[sabreur]