Re: Fencing question

In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:10:59 -0400
gloncko <> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:22:39 -0500, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>Example 2: Fencer A attacks, and Fencer B realizes they're going to get
>>hit so Fencer B parries (blocks) fencer A. Fencer A keeps going after
>>the parry and hits fencer B, while fencer B ripostes (makes an immediate
>>attack after a parry). Both lights are on. Fencer B defended himself and
>>then attacked fencer A, and fencer A ignored that attack and is a moron,
>>so Fencer B scores. KEY POINT: This ruling stands even if fencer A hits
>>fencer B *before* fencer A gets hit.
>
> Right of way?? I'm sure they had that in sword fights in ancient times. "My
> enemy is on the ground, now I can kill him. Oh wait, I don't have right of
> way. I'll let him get back up and attack me then."


They did. IT was called "if you attack without being sure you will live
through it, you are stupid". (I've no idea what you think right of way
in fencing is, sounds like you think the "lights" Harold's talking about
are traffic lights and "right of way" is to do with the highway code...)

Right of way rules are designed to mimic that. To penalise the moron
who doesn't make sure they will live through their attack.

One problem in modern fencing being that it's fast, and due to the
electric scoring, the fencers are not using moves that make it easy for
other humans to see what happened. So it is a bloody hard job to see
who was the moron in a particular clash.

And while I can't say about "ancient times" if you read George Silver's
polemic on duelling written in the 16th century he says there were a lot
of morons about - that two dead fighters was very common.

In modern sport fencing, the penalty for being a moron's not that high.
Probably a good thing if you want to have people live past their first
competition...

Zebee


--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

In article <m28di0tc18c4q1s6naed6ffv64rdl5ivjq@4ax.com>, gloncko wrote:

>
> Right of way?? I'm sure they had that in sword fights in ancient times. "My
> enemy is on the ground, now I can kill him. Oh wait, I don't have right of
> way. I'll let him get back up and attack me then."


Right-of-way was a concept developed for foil, which was a training
weapon. The idea was to teach people to defend themselves before trying
to kill the other person. This is because, for a fencing master, it's
very bad for business if every time there's a duel you end up with two
dead people. It makes people not want to duel.

Anyway, modern sport fencing has about as much to do with duelling as
modern javelin has to do with killing dinosaurs.

--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 <m28di0tc18c4q1s6naed6ffv64rdl5ivjq@4ax.com>, gloncko wrote:
>
>
>>Right of way?? I'm sure they had that in sword fights in ancient times. "My
>>enemy is on the ground, now I can kill him. Oh wait, I don't have right of
>>way. I'll let him get back up and attack me then."
>
>
>
> Right-of-way was a concept developed for foil, which was a training
> weapon. The idea was to teach people to defend themselves before trying
> to kill the other person. This is because, for a fencing master, it's
> very bad for business if every time there's a duel you end up with two
> dead people. It makes people not want to duel.
>
> Anyway, modern sport fencing has about as much to do with duelling as
> modern javelin has to do with killing dinosaurs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Have you ever had to
deal with anyone in (insert your nation) Athletics Association? You'll
quickly decide that the dinosaurs _have_ survived!!!

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries

> In article <m28di0tc18c4q1s6naed6ffv64rdl5ivjq@4ax.com>, gloncko wrote:
>
>
>Right of way?? I'm sure they had that in sword fights in ancient times.
"My
>enemy is on the ground, now I can kill him. Oh wait, I don't have right of
>way. I'll let him get back up and attack me then."

I think it was more 'I'll kick him in the balls, and when he's on the
ground I'll kick him until he stops twitching and then slit his throat with
this dagger, this bloody long metal thing gets in the way, I wonder why
His Excelency makes me drag it around...'

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

<gloncko> wrote:

> Right of way?? I'm sure they had that in sword fights in ancient times.
"My
> enemy is on the ground, now I can kill him. Oh wait, I don't have right
of
> way. I'll let him get back up and attack me then."

You've got it exactly backwards.. If he's on the ground and cannot attack,
then you *do* have right of way, so you stab him safely. If he's currently
thrusting at your heart, you don't have right-of-way, so you have to parry
before you attack. If you stab at him instead of trying to defend yourself,
then you're a moron, and you die. That's right-of-way.

Jay Rudin

Harold Buck wrote:

>
> It really doesn't matter who gets hit first if both people get hit
> (except in epee, which has no right of way) unless there's a relatively
> long time between the hits (since the scoring machine "locks out" after
> a time).
>

With the new boxes the lockout time is down to 300msec, so parrys have to
be smaller/neater or the redouble/remise gets you.
So no more parry - gloat - riposte, or beat - hide arm/foil - attack,
and my personal favorite is that fishing style flick to the back is now not a good
percentage move. (Because of the increased dwell time -> 15msec )
This also gives women get a small advantage - the flick to the chest can bounce off
their chest protector without scoring.
It really seems a big improvement all round. Anyone have bad experiences/disagree ?


Regards
AJ

"Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> wrote in message
news:41304b59$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
>
> Harold Buck wrote:
>
> >
> > It really doesn't matter who gets hit first if both people get hit
> > (except in epee, which has no right of way) unless there's a relatively
> > long time between the hits (since the scoring machine "locks out" after
> > a time).
> >
>
> With the new boxes the lockout time is down to 300msec, so parrys have to
> be smaller/neater or the redouble/remise gets you.
> So no more parry - gloat - riposte, or beat - hide arm/foil - attack,
> and my personal favorite is that fishing style flick to the back is now
not a good
> percentage move. (Because of the increased dwell time -> 15msec )
> This also gives women get a small advantage - the flick to the chest can
bounce off
> their chest protector without scoring.
> It really seems a big improvement all round. Anyone have bad
experiences/disagree ?
>
>
> Regards

I was under the impression that the new lock out times were for next year.
I did not know that they were using those times in this years Olympics.

People I fence with feel that it will not make much a difference to the
Flick except that it will have to land harder which will leave more bruises.
The problem is not with the Flick but judging, when people are allowed to
march down the strip with their foil point's facing straight up or behind
them and that counts as right-of-way, that is the problem, as the blade is
not "continually threatening your opponet". We actually practice a quick
move inside to cut the distance and attack, it at least stops the action if
the judge calls "attack in prep" and does not give me the point. The other
thing it does is make a "flicker" think twice when he keeps getting poked
all the time.

Change the way judging is done and the flick will become useless.

Skippy

[smeric28]

though the rule is still on the books. i looked in my new one. i've never seen the replacing off target rule enfoced. how could it be? unless your using the non weapon hand or something else completely bizzar. for instance if your attacked in 8 and pull your arm in to cover eight as well as parry and the oponent hits off target? that's not a touch for the attack. how about ducking? i've seen people drop their head (which covers the top part of the chest when ducking to execute a counter attack. if i hit him in the top of the mask? i sill don't think that's a touch. i could understand if the defender were using the non weapon hand to cover target area. but that has it's own rule. the only other think i could think of is a particularly flexible individual throwing up his leg to somehow cover one of the low lines.

Originally Posted by Byrocat

My knowlege about fencing is a bit dated (lst fenced competitively in the
early 1980s's...)

Looking at my old copy of the English rulesbook (1974 Edition), check out
section 222 -- this is the foil section, but sabre has a comparable one on
valid/invalid target area.

"However, hits that arrive off the target are counted as valid whenever, by
reason of absnormal position, the fencer who is hit has subsituted a part of
his body which is not counted as the target for a part which is."

Take along a copy of the rules and check with the President when this fencer
pulls this stunt several times. A gentle manner tends to work best rather
thn a screaming, foaming diatribe.

All it takes is a couple Presidents awarding hits (and I've seen it) and the
culprit stops doing it as it's a quick-and-easy hit for you -- halt!
off-target but you substituted target! hit is valid.

Anternate is to make sure everyone starts hitting the same target and seeign
if this fencer has a body of steel....

"Dieter Schlaepfer" <schlae@sonic.SPAM.net> wrote in message
news:413269C4.2050203@sonic.SPAM.net...
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> > Hmm.. so instead of whinging about refs not coping with right of way,
> > the whinging will be about refs not coping with target substitution?
> >
> > Zebee
>
> Not necessarily. I'm not suggesting that foilists will
> *move* to block their opponents' points with their mask and
> sword arms (I've seen some fencers do this and I've never
> seen them penalized), but rather that their upper body will
> be continuously hunched over and forward instead of upright.
> Hunching forward will also give fencers a reach advantage,
> leaving only the shoulders as a small target.
>
> Regarding the use of the sword arm as a shield, I'd point
> out the fencing style of Sabine Bau of Germany at the World
> Championship a few years ago.
>
> If the hunching forward tactic is successful, I'd imagine
> that the FIE might pass a new rule requiring "upright
> fencing" within 15 degrees of perpendicular. Enforcement
> would be a joy . . .
>
> Dieter
> --------
> Eigertek
>

Somewhere I remember reading, as well as seen enforced, the rule that
says if you replace an off target area of your body for an on target,
its a valid point. And it was for both ducking and the non weapon hand.
Someone was trying to perform a dig, but he didn't expect the lunge,
and his opponents blade hit the mask. All the line judges of course
said 'yes off target', but the director quoted some rule ver batem and
changed the ruling to a valid touch. With the hand, some idiot fencer
who I assume was too used to classic fencing was trying to use his non
weapon hand to parry and just got touched. It was called a valid touch
and was warned not to do it ever again.

In rec.sport.fencing on 27 Feb 2005 11:08:35 -0800
Matt Eden <OutlawBlue9@gmail.com> wrote:
> changed the ruling to a valid touch. With the hand, some idiot fencer
> who I assume was too used to classic fencing was trying to use his non
> weapon hand to parry and just got touched. It was called a valid touch
> and was warned not to do it ever again.


I think you mean SCA fencing.

If he was a classical fencer, the off hand would be held back and up in
the classical way, and he'd be unable to use it to block.

Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

Matt Eden writes:
> Someone was trying to perform a dig, but he didn't expect the lunge, and
> his opponents blade hit the mask. All the line judges of course said
> 'yes off target', but the director quoted some rule ver batem and changed
> the ruling to a valid touch.

Bad call. Lunging is not ducking.

> With the hand, some idiot fencer who I assume was too used to classic
> fencing was trying to use his non weapon hand to parry and just got
> touched. It was called a valid touch and was warned not to do it ever
> again.

Good call.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

No, the person touched was not the one lunging, the person performing
the dig (or ducking) was the one touched. Sorry if I didn't make that
clear.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:01:01 -0800, Matt Eden wrote:

> No, the person touched was not the one lunging, the person performing
> the dig (or ducking) was the one touched. Sorry if I didn't make that
> clear.

Ah, then it was indeed a good call. I'm glad to hear that somewhere out
there there are still referees that know this rule <sigh>. But i would
never count on this in a tournament.

cheers Ralf Mattes

In rec.sport.fencing on 27 Feb 2005 11:08:35 -0800
Matt Eden <OutlawBlue9@gmail.com> wrote:
> Somewhere I remember reading, as well as seen enforced, the rule that
> says if you replace an off target area of your body for an on target,
> its a valid point. And it was for both ducking and the non weapon hand.
> Someone was trying to perform a dig, but he didn't expect the lunge,
> and his opponents blade hit the mask. All the line judges of course

I'm not sure what a "dig" is, but if he bent forward so that a lunge hit
the mask instead of the chest, then that would be target substitution.

After all, parrying with the head is a bad idea... Shouldn't be
encouraged.

Zebee

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:31:46 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au>
wrote:

>In rec.sport.fencing on 27 Feb 2005 11:08:35 -0800
>Matt Eden <OutlawBlue9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Somewhere I remember reading, as well as seen enforced, the rule that
>> says if you replace an off target area of your body for an on target,
>> its a valid point. And it was for both ducking and the non weapon hand.
>> Someone was trying to perform a dig, but he didn't expect the lunge,
>> and his opponents blade hit the mask. All the line judges of course
>
>I'm not sure what a "dig" is, but if he bent forward so that a lunge hit
>the mask instead of the chest, then that would be target substitution.
>
>After all, parrying with the head is a bad idea... Shouldn't be
>encouraged.

If you are going to void an attack like that, then you need to get
down low enough so that the lunge goes over your head, or even better
step off line and let the other guy skewer himself on your blade.
--
neil h.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." - John Lehman

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:00:20 GMT
Neil Hopkins <neil_hopkins@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:31:46 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au>
> wrote:
>>
>>After all, parrying with the head is a bad idea... Shouldn't be
>>encouraged.
>
> If you are going to void an attack like that, then you need to get
> down low enough so that the lunge goes over your head, or even better
> step off line and let the other guy skewer himself on your blade.

Yup. Or both, defence in depth and all that.

A properly done Passata Soto should have you well below lunge height,
but you had better time it right or you cop it right between the eyes.
Guess how I know this...

Zebee


--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:22:08 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:00:20 GMT
> Neil Hopkins <neil_hopkins@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:31:46 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>After all, parrying with the head is a bad idea... Shouldn't be
>>>encouraged.
>>
>> If you are going to void an attack like that, then you need to get
>> down low enough so that the lunge goes over your head, or even better
>> step off line and let the other guy skewer himself on your blade.
>
> Yup. Or both, defence in depth and all that.
>
> A properly done Passata Soto should have you well below lunge height,
> but you had better time it right or you cop it right between the eyes.
> Guess how I know this...

Well, i just wanted to mention that p.sotto is the one exception to the
"no ducking" rule i learned long ago. But even then: if properly executed
the head will _not_ be in front of a valid target during a p.s. - it
should be to the side of it since the upper part of the body bends forward
(being supported by the left arm that rests on the ground).

cheers RalfD

> Zebee

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:22:08 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au>
wrote:

>In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:00:20 GMT
>Neil Hopkins <neil_hopkins@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:31:46 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>After all, parrying with the head is a bad idea... Shouldn't be
>>>encouraged.
>>
>> If you are going to void an attack like that, then you need to get
>> down low enough so that the lunge goes over your head, or even better
>> step off line and let the other guy skewer himself on your blade.
>
>Yup. Or both, defence in depth and all that.
>
>A properly done Passata Soto should have you well below lunge height,
>but you had better time it right or you cop it right between the eyes.
>Guess how I know this...

It's a good incentive to do some proper stretching before the fight,
that's for sure. We were trying some incantatas last night - my legs
are complaining today ... :-)
--
neil h.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." - John Lehman

In article <4224d828.96757920@news.individual.net>,
neil_hopkins@hotmail.com (Neil Hopkins) wrote:

> It's a good incentive to do some proper stretching before the fight,
> that's for sure. We were trying some incantatas last night - my legs
> are complaining today ... :-)


Do you mean "in quartatas," or is there some fencing move I never heard
of?

--Harold Buck


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

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:15:05 -0500, Harold Buck
<no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:

>In article <4224d828.96757920@news.individual.net>,
> neil_hopkins@hotmail.com (Neil Hopkins) wrote:
>
>> It's a good incentive to do some proper stretching before the fight,
>> that's for sure. We were trying some incantatas last night - my legs
>> are complaining today ... :-)
>
>
>Do you mean "in quartatas," or is there some fencing move I never heard
>of?

No, it's a void from classical rapier. You bring your left foot as far
to the right as you can (keeping the heels in line), duck down onto
your left hand under your opponents blade, skewer them and then spring
back up. It's not easy ... :-)
--
neil h.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." - John Lehman