Noticed something about a couple fencers from one club- Coincedence or parranoid- what would you do?

C-Sports wrote:
> It was a men's C and below level epee'
>
> My own experience- NONE-
>
> If the director is simply another fencer- do they have all the skills to
> stop or even see the contact?
>
> I truly understand pain is part of the game Sir! however if it was an
> accidental hit I understand, but I now believe it is an intestinal hit
>
>

Not intending to quarrel, but if you had indicated this in your
original post I think it would have made a major difference in
the replies.
Speaking from personal and recent experience, category 2
men's epee (i.e. C or D and below) is an interesting experience -
as in "may you live in interesting times!".
My experience and this is with opponents that I got to know,
respect and truly enjoy fencing with, is that:

1. there is no such thing as too hard a hit to the wrist, or any
other part of the body. Bruises, welts, skin abrasions from the
blade and body can be expected. In epee your bell guard and blade
are your protection. The receiving fencer must learn to create
a defensive wall with them.
2. Corp a Corp only count if you knock the bugger down and off the
strip. Okay I'm being slightly facetious here. But this is close
to the truth.
3. And about the only reprehensible hit I've ever taken was twice to
the testicles. Does that count as intestinal? <Bad joke, I assume
you meant intentional.> And my opponent felt very badly about that
but it was legal.
4. In cat 2 (C and below) epee it is quite common for tournaments to
be self refereed at the local level. It is a good learning
experience but does result in spotty calls at times.

I do admit there were hits that made me angry and more than once I
came back from such to take advantage of my anger and trounce
my opponent. And on occasion I have hit my opponents too hard and
felt sorry for it. But as your skill level rises the incidence of
hitting hard decreases dramatically. It has to. Hitting too hard
is the mark of a beginner who wastes energy and exposes themselves.
A higher level fencer will take advantage of such clumsiness and
most learn that quickly enough.

Just to give you a slightly different metric to consider, I have
had one very highly ranked (top 3) fencer describe in graphic
detail and example how he has seen international fencers take
out an opponent when in-fighting. Raised the hand high with blade
pointed down and then struck downward dragging the point
along the opponent's body and hitting the opponent's mask
with the bell guard. My understanding was that incident was
not disallowed.

J.

Harold Buck wrote:

>
>
> Um, if he's hitting you in the intestines, it's clearly a brutal hit,
> whether it's intentional or not.
>

Uh Harold, the stomach is a prime target in all three weapons.
What you and I would have to wrestle with is what "brutal" means.
Most women and many men wear plastic armor if they feel concerned
with the severity of hits. I have to argue this is the receiving
fencer's problem.

J.

Ok, I'm putting my foot in it arguing with Holly but...

Holly E. Ordway wrote:
> Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote in
> news:3fa2e9cd$0$9402$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com :
>
>
>>which raises the question of what your own experience level is. And
>>what weapon are you talking about? There are three, not to mention
>>two sexes and various age protected sections. And YES all that does
>>factor in.
>
:
>
> I **certainly** hope that no referee would "adjust" his/her
> interpretation of the rules according to whether he was refereeing a
> man or a woman.

I would agree that this is as it should be but have to say it's
not necessarily how it is.

>
>>Note above. If this is lower level fencers, youth or vets, you
>>could put it down to inexperience or just being clumsy.
>
>
> How is he going to be motivated to learn *not* to be clumsy if he is
> never penalized for the action?

The penalization is because better fencers recognize clumsiness for
what it is and take advantage. Hitting too hard leaves your arm and
blade out of position to deal with the riposte or to deliver your
remise. Something I work with my coaches about is hitting - no not
hitting but rather tapping - the opponent's blade just hard enough to
move it but not alarm the opponent. A tap to slightly move the blade
and to kill the momentum of my blade prior to a pick to the wrist.

>>An aside is that the receiving fencer must learn not to be
>>scared/shaken or allow an opponent to throw them off their game.
>
> This is true. However, no fencer should be subjected to *repeated*
> brutality (accidental or deliberate) or deliberate brutality in the
> interest of intimidation.

Any action which is repeated is an opening for the receiving fencer.

: <deleted several lines here>

>Among other things, only at the highest levels are sex and age
> categories separated consistently. What do you do on a local or
> regional level when you have men fencing women, and adults fencing
> kids, and highly-rated fencers fencing beginners? I would find it
> inappropriate in the extreme for the referee to call the action in one
> way for one fencer and another way for another fencer, or to vary his
> calls between bouts - how would the fencers know what's acceptable and
> what's not, when their own bout came?

We live with variability. C-Sport asked about self refereed bouts. It
is the most common of experiences to have to live with having different
directors during a pool or even DE's at the local level. The alternative
is to pay outrageously more for tournaments to have properly trained
directors. And there aren't enough of them at any price.
It is one more reason why I prefer epee over foil or saber. About the
only thing the director does in epee is to keep score and start and end
the bout.

>
> This is not real combat; it's a modern sport with its origins in
> combat. There's a difference!

What is "real" combat i.e. a duel versus a fencing match?
The prime difference is that we don't kill or permanently injure
our opponents. After all we do want to see them again.

J.

Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote in
news:3fa35669$0$9404$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com :

> We live with variability. C-Sport asked about self refereed bouts.
> It is the most common of experiences to have to live with having
> different directors during a pool or even DE's at the local level.
> The alternative is to pay outrageously more for tournaments to have
> properly trained directors. And there aren't enough of them at any
> price.

I'll agree that dealing with different referees is part of the
experience - at the upper levels, after all, even though you'll have
one referee for all your pool bouts, you'll have a different one for
your DEs, and maybe for each of your DE bouts.

Self-directed tournaments are also, to a certain extent, a necessary
evil. I do think that it's worthwhile for club and divisions to
cultivate their own referees and pay them (at least a pittance) to
referee. One of the foil clubs in my area seems to do that (the
cultivation, anyway - I don't know about the pay, since the entry fees
aren't any higher than anywhere else), and there are always a few
experienced fencers/coaches who do most of the refereeing in any given
tournament.

Self-directing is acceptable if there are fencers who are competent to
referee... but that's an important "if". Around here, that's generally
not a problem in an open or a C tournament, but chances are, in a U or
E, there aren't going to be many who can direct. I don't think it's
fair to the fencers to ask Us and Es to self-direct. Among other
things, they're not going to be familiar with the rules that they need
to enforce... which sets up a bad environment, if rules are allowed to
be broken. I completely encourage *everyone* to referee in practice,
to learn, but in a tournament you really do need people who know what
they're doing. (That doesn't have to mean "officially rated").

Some clubs and divisions have even tackled this by having referee
seminars and tests... a great way to encourage the development of good
referees *and* promote an understanding of the rules among the fencers
as a whole. (Unfortunately, my division isn't one of them...).

--Holly

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in
news:no_one_knows-F2EDC6.20294031102003@comcast.ash.giganews.com:

> Oh, wait, I just thought of a fencing example:
>
> Fencer A (a foilist) is 5 meters from fencer B when he covers
> target. No decent official is going to call that covering target,
> since fencer B couldn't hit A from that distance anyway.
>
> OTOH, if the fencers are 1 meter apart, the call should be made,
> since here covering target is a clear advantage for fencer A.
>
> Safety calls and line calls have nothing to do with TPOAD. These
> should be called consistently regardless of the situation.

That makes sense, and that's how I've seen it called. And this is a
principle that doesn't (or shouldn't) favor (or penalize) either fencer
based on age, sex, experience level, etc. If either Fencer A or B are
out of distance when they cover, nothing happens, if either one is in
distance when they cover, a card.

--Holly

Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote in
news:3fa34ebc$0$9405$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com :

> 1. there is no such thing as too hard a hit to the wrist, or any
> other part of the body. Bruises, welts, skin abrasions from the
> blade and body can be expected.

Man, I hope I never have to fence you, and I feel sorry for your
opponents.

--Holly

In article <Xns942661FFA50BC5439754hjkgfdjio5408@216.196.97.1 36>,
"Holly E. Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote:

> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in
> news:no_one_knows-F2EDC6.20294031102003@comcast.ash.giganews.com:
>
> > Oh, wait, I just thought of a fencing example:
> >
> > Fencer A (a foilist) is 5 meters from fencer B when he covers
> > target. No decent official is going to call that covering target,
> > since fencer B couldn't hit A from that distance anyway.
> >
> > OTOH, if the fencers are 1 meter apart, the call should be made,
> > since here covering target is a clear advantage for fencer A.
> >
> > Safety calls and line calls have nothing to do with TPOAD. These
> > should be called consistently regardless of the situation.
>
> That makes sense, and that's how I've seen it called. And this is a
> principle that doesn't (or shouldn't) favor (or penalize) either fencer
> based on age, sex, experience level, etc. If either Fencer A or B are
> out of distance when they cover, nothing happens, if either one is in
> distance when they cover, a card.


The only difference based on experience/skill/etc. is that if fencer A
has an effective range of 1 m and fencer B has an effective range of 2
m, the disntance at which the cards are given out may be different for
the two fencers. However, in each case, it's based on whether covering
target presents an advantage to the coverer or a disadvantage to the
opponent.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article <3fa35669$0$9404$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com>,
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:

>
> We live with variability. C-Sport asked about self refereed bouts. It
> is the most common of experiences to have to live with having different
> directors during a pool or even DE's at the local level. The alternative
> is to pay outrageously more for tournaments to have properly trained
> directors. And there aren't enough of them at any price.
> It is one more reason why I prefer epee over foil or saber. About the
> only thing the director does in epee is to keep score and start and end
> the bout.
>


In low-level epee, yes. As I mentioned a few weeks ago in another
thread, at high levels the referee must always be alert for the
possibility of cheating.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article <3fa34fab$0$9405$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com>,
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:

>
>
> Harold Buck wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Um, if he's hitting you in the intestines, it's clearly a brutal hit,
> > whether it's intentional or not.
> >
>
> Uh Harold, the stomach is a prime target in all three weapons.
> What you and I would have to wrestle with is what "brutal" means.
> Most women and many men wear plastic armor if they feel concerned
> with the severity of hits. I have to argue this is the receiving
> fencer's problem.


The intestines are INSIDE the stomach. I stand by my statement that
anytime the touch hits the intestines it is a brutal hit. If you don't
agree, let me hit you in the intestines.

FYI, you seem to have missed the fact that I was making a little joke of
the other poster saying "intestinal" when I'm pretty sure he meant
"intentional."

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article <3fa34ebc$0$9405$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com>,
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:

>
> 1. there is no such thing as too hard a hit to the wrist, or any
> other part of the body.

If that were true, there would be no rule about brutal hits. If you're
hitting with the intent of causing injury, it's illegal. If your hitting
so hard that the reasonable expectation is injury--whether it's
intentional or not--it's illegal.

<snip>
> 2. Corp a Corp only count if you knock the bugger down and off the
> strip. Okay I'm being slightly facetious here. But this is close
> to the truth.

Yes, in epee, I've heard it said "If there's no autopsy, there's no corp
a corps."


> 3. And about the only reprehensible hit I've ever taken was twice to
> the testicles. Does that count as intestinal? <Bad joke, I assume
> you meant intentional.> And my opponent felt very badly about that
> but it was legal.

If you weren't wearing a cup, that's a good example of Darwinism: too
dumb to wear a cup = too dumb to reproduce.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck wrote:
> Yes, in epee, I've heard it said "If there's no autopsy, there's no corp
> a corps."

Heh, I thought that line was, "If there's no CORPSE, there's no..."


--
John Twernbold
jtwernbold (at) yahoo.com

he does not more often than he does
"Jonathan Jefferies" <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote in message
news:3fa34155$0$9402$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com ...
> Are you meaning "did not". Or are you saying does not?
> If they did not then I believe they forfeit the game.
> If you are saying does not then that is an error - perhaps
> in your understanding.
> The salute and the shaking of the opponent's hand afterwards
> are required and I've not ever seen that violated.
> J.
>
> C-Sports wrote:
> >
> >
> > Csports replied
> :
> > that is another point that was brought to my attention this morning, The
> > fleching fencer, does not salute nor shake his apponent's hand after the
> > match
> >
>

> 3. And about the only reprehensible hit I've ever taken was twice to
> the testicles. Does that count as intestinal? <Bad joke, I assume
> you meant intentional.> And my opponent felt very badly about that
> but it was legal.

What is it about this sport? It's all very genteel with salutes and
handshakes, but the testicles are a completely valid target! Does anyone
else see the contradiction here?

After having a couple of near misses (it's amazing how quick your reactions
are when there's a few feet of steel heading towards your bits) I invested
in a nice sports box. Great to here the thrunks of my opponents sword as it
repays its investment. Looks good for when I walk past the netballers too.

Harold Buck wrote:
>
> > 2. Corp a Corp only count if you knock the bugger down and off the
> > strip. Okay I'm being slightly facetious here. But this is close
> > to the truth.
>
> Yes, in epee, I've heard it said "If there's no autopsy, there's no corp
> a corps."

There's no simple corp-a-corp, but you can still be called for brutality.
And you can be carded for "jostling" for even the slightest touch.
Simon.

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote


> Granted, the hit to the wrist situation is not as clear-cut, but the
> officials need to be ready to make the calls, and to let people know
> that they're looking for it.
>
> --Harold Buck


I'm not sure how gray this area really is. As I understand it the hits
are being made with the forte of the blade---chops to the wrist, with
no attempt to bring the point to bear at all. Epee is not sabre, the
cut is not a valid action, is it? Now, I suppose the offender could
claim that it was just an attempt to parry or beat the blade which
missed and struck the wrist by mistake, but if it's happening
repeatedly, it seems a pretty clear-cut attempt to injure to me.

William Marshal wrote:
> As I understand it the hits are being made with the forte of the
> blade---chops to the wrist, with no attempt to bring the point to bear
> at all.

I don't believe C-Sports ever said it was with the flat of the blade; he
just said it was "perpendicular", which could mean any of several different
things depending on which plane the weapon and wrist were perpendicular. I
guess I assumed it was just a really hard jab with the point.


--
John Twernbold
jtwernbold (at) yahoo.com

In article <2YidnUG9UMxoGzuiRVn-gw@accessus.net>,
"C-Sports" <csports@epconline.com> wrote:

>
> "John Hasler"wrote in message> Jonathan Jefferies writes:
> > > I have a hard time imagining an action where the attacker could use the
> > > forte to chop at the wrist with or without the director calling them on
> > > it.
> >
> > Same here, but I also have a hard time imagining an action where the
> > attacker could consistently land a hard epee hit perpendicular to the
> > wrist. What is the defender's arm doing in that position?
>
> the forte is the section that was used and it seemed to happen as block
> just occurred. and it only has to happen once and the hand is numb- the
> director is on the backside of the action


How can a referee miss a chop to the wrist with the FORTE?

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck wrote:
> How can a referee miss a chop to the wrist with the FORTE?

Yeah, I'm having a hard time picturing this. Perhaps C-Sports is confused
about which portion of the blade is the forte?


--
John Twernbold
jtwernbold (at) yahoo.com

John Twernbold <jtwernbold@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote



> Harold Buck wrote:
> > How can a referee miss a chop to the wrist with the FORTE?
>


> Yeah, I'm having a hard time picturing this. Perhaps C-Sports is confused
> about which portion of the blade is the forte?


I would think it would look a lot like an attempt to parry
deeply---more a sabre-type parry, perhaps. Or an attempt to take the
blade which "accidentally" misses.

As to fencing close...I have seen epee bouts where the fencers' points
were consistently inside each others' bells at guard. Some of these
bouts were between very good fencers, too, so it's not necessarily an
awkward-novice thing.

The fleching fencer, does not salute nor shake his apponent's hand after the
match.
======
I am beginning to wonder if anyone in this division has access to a rulebook.

"Before the beginning and at the end of each bout, the two fencers must perform
a fencing salute to their opponent, to the referee and to the spectators. If
one of the two fencers refuses to comply with this rule, the referee will
suspend him for the remainder of the competition taking place..." followed by
some FIE strictures which of course do not apply.

B.C. Milligan