saber vs foil priority. is speed a factor?

I've heard people say that saber is a faster weapon overall than foil.
i take this to mean that whatever constitutes a 'time' or 'tempo' in
saber is faster than in foil.

Concordingly saber fencers should be moving and changing direction
faster than foilists.

Other than obvious rule things like no fleche/crossing legs.. is it
possible to combine 'saber legs and foil hands' to create a better
foil fencer?

Ive heard it said by many saber fencers that whose ever hand starts
extending first has priiority. So what may look simultaneous to me may
actually have a time and be attack/counterattack.

Given todays refereeing standard can this be applied to foil?


Holly, you fence both weapons... what do you think? ANyone else?

Magni

In article <23e9ba68.0403260048.61bfb1be@posting.google.com >,
michael_lichtstrom@yahoo.com (magni) wrote:

> I've heard people say that saber is a faster weapon overall than foil.
> i take this to mean that whatever constitutes a 'time' or 'tempo' in
> saber is faster than in foil.
>
> Concordingly saber fencers should be moving and changing direction
> faster than foilists.
>
> Other than obvious rule things like no fleche/crossing legs.. is it
> possible to combine 'saber legs and foil hands' to create a better
> foil fencer?
>
> Ive heard it said by many saber fencers that whose ever hand starts
> extending first has priiority. So what may look simultaneous to me may
> actually have a time and be attack/counterattack.


It's important to keep in mind the difference between "faster" and
"sooner." The person moving faster can be the counterattacker if the
opponent started sooner.

This is very important for giving lessons: you don't necessarily want
the student to go faster, since then they get sloppy and aren't
practicing good form, but you want them to react to the cues as soon as
possible (e.g., if you give an opening to cue an attack, you don't want
them to take 2 seconds to recognize it).

--Harold Buck


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

magni wrote:

> I've heard people say that saber is a faster weapon overall than foil.
> i take this to mean that whatever constitutes a 'time' or 'tempo' in
> saber is faster than in foil.

Or they could be referring to the fact that sabrists spend less actual time
fencing - since an off-target hit does not stop the action, it doesn't take
all that long before one or another of the lights comes on!

> Concordingly saber fencers should be moving and changing direction
> faster than foilists.

This has been my experience, yes.

> Other than obvious rule things like no fleche/crossing legs.. is it
> possible to combine 'saber legs and foil hands' to create a better
> foil fencer?

That's an interesting question. Clearly there *is* something different about
the way sabrists and foilists fence, apart from the target differences,
because whenever I fence foil, I invariably have people tell me that I look
completely like a sabre fencer with a foil in my hand. (Complete strangers,
no less, who didn't already know I'm primarily a sabrist!)

In general, I have found that the more I move my feet, the better I do. But
this applies equally to both sabre and foil.

> Ive heard it said by many saber fencers that whose ever hand starts
> extending first has priiority. So what may look simultaneous to me may
> actually have a time and be attack/counterattack.

Yes, that is correct. The *extending* arm (with blade continuously
threatening target) constitutes an attack. Moving forward with your arm
bent is a preparation, NOT an attack (as I have had to point out to the
occasional sabrist in a bout I'm refereeing, when I hear the lament of "but
I was moving forward, how can it be his attack and my counterattack?")

Harold makes a very good point that it is who extends first, not fastest.
Just because you land first doesn't mean you got the attack.

> Given todays refereeing standard can this be applied to foil?

I wish it were! I'd fence a lot more foil if it were applied this way.

> Holly, you fence both weapons... what do you think? ANyone else?

In the end... I am not sure. How's that for a definitive answer? :-)

Cheers,
Holly

At higher levels foil is as fast as sabre. It just doesn't move that
fast continuously----there'll be bursts of celerity punctuated by
deliberative pauses, whereas in sabre at higher levels to pause is
usually to be hit.

I often recommend that foilists in my club fence sabre, to improve
their foot speed and distance sense. ( Or maybe just to get more
people fencing sabre! )

Right of way is quite different in foil then in sabre. In sabre, it
is almost entirely dependant on the extention of the arm. In foil, it
is judged much more holistically. If the foilist is making what
appears to be an attack, he is awarded the attack.

The result is that a foilist can make a very slow preparation, but if
he transitions into the attacking phase before his opponent, he gets
the touch. For example, you make a very slow advance with your hand
coming forward slowly in low line, with the tip pointed at the floor.
Once you are in distance, you explode forward with a flick to the
shoulder. The majority of the action is performed very slowly, with
only the final motion done quickly.

"Holly E. Ordway" <hollyOUTordway@WITHverizon.THISnet> wrote in message news:<bB%8c.227$Kp4.182@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> magni wrote:
>
> > I've heard people say that saber is a faster weapon overall than foil.
> > i take this to mean that whatever constitutes a 'time' or 'tempo' in
> > saber is faster than in foil.
>
> Or they could be referring to the fact that sabrists spend less actual time
> fencing - since an off-target hit does not stop the action, it doesn't take
> all that long before one or another of the lights comes on!
>
> > Concordingly saber fencers should be moving and changing direction
> > faster than foilists.
>
> This has been my experience, yes.
>
> > Other than obvious rule things like no fleche/crossing legs.. is it
> > possible to combine 'saber legs and foil hands' to create a better
> > foil fencer?
>
> That's an interesting question. Clearly there *is* something different about
> the way sabrists and foilists fence, apart from the target differences,
> because whenever I fence foil, I invariably have people tell me that I look
> completely like a sabre fencer with a foil in my hand. (Complete strangers,
> no less, who didn't already know I'm primarily a sabrist!)
>
> In general, I have found that the more I move my feet, the better I do. But
> this applies equally to both sabre and foil.
>
> > Ive heard it said by many saber fencers that whose ever hand starts
> > extending first has priiority. So what may look simultaneous to me may
> > actually have a time and be attack/counterattack.
>
> Yes, that is correct. The *extending* arm (with blade continuously
> threatening target) constitutes an attack. Moving forward with your arm
> bent is a preparation, NOT an attack (as I have had to point out to the
> occasional sabrist in a bout I'm refereeing, when I hear the lament of "but
> I was moving forward, how can it be his attack and my counterattack?")
>
> Harold makes a very good point that it is who extends first, not fastest.
> Just because you land first doesn't mean you got the attack.
>
> > Given todays refereeing standard can this be applied to foil?
>
> I wish it were! I'd fence a lot more foil if it were applied this way.
>
> > Holly, you fence both weapons... what do you think? ANyone else?
>
> In the end... I am not sure. How's that for a definitive answer? :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Holly

In article <b5d27558.0403290800.4a1b58d4@posting.google.com >,
apaul@comcast.net (Lion) wrote:

> Right of way is quite different in foil then in sabre. In sabre, it
> is almost entirely dependant on the extention of the arm. In foil, it
> is judged much more holistically. If the foilist is making what
> appears to be an attack, he is awarded the attack.


And that sucks, because it's not what the rules say. If they want it
called that way, they should change the rules.

--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:
>
> In article <b5d27558.0403290800.4a1b58d4@posting.google.com >,
> apaul@comcast.net (Lion) wrote:
>
> > Right of way is quite different in foil then in sabre. In sabre, it
> > is almost entirely dependant on the extention of the arm. In foil, it
> > is judged much more holistically. If the foilist is making what
> > appears to be an attack, he is awarded the attack.
>
> And that sucks, because it's not what the rules say. If they want it
> called that way, they should change the rules.

There is insufficient information in the above paragraph to say
whether the foilist should be awarded the hit. I mean...what's
the opponent doing?

Lion went on to say...
> > The result is that a foilist can make a very slow preparation, but if
> > he transitions into the attacking phase before his opponent, he gets
> > the touch.

The key words in this is "before his opponent", and if that's the
case then the hit is valid.

Don't be afraid to call attack into preparation even though some
foilists get really pissed off by it. Just don't overcompensate
the other way and give preference to a counterattack because
you didn't like the first action of the attacker. The opponent
still has to start their action before the final movement of the
attacker begins.

It's just that because sabre is a much faster weapon, any move
which isn't begun with an extending arm will lose because the
opponent will almost certainly have begun extending first, and
normally both fencers will be advancing towards each other. That
isn't necessarily the case in foil.
Simon.

On 29 Mar 2004 08:00:48 -0800, apaul@comcast.net (Lion) wrote:

> Right of way is quite different in foil then in sabre. In sabre, it
> is almost entirely dependant on the extention of the arm. In foil, it
> is judged much more holistically. If the foilist is making what
> appears to be an attack, he is awarded the attack.
>
> The result is that a foilist can make a very slow preparation, but if
> he transitions into the attacking phase before his opponent, he gets
> the touch.

Are you saying that if a sabreur transitions into the attacking phase
before his opponent, he *doesn't* get the touch?

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic.

-Mark-