Re: Fencing question

In article <DPMUc.26948$9Y6.16544@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net>,
"John Yoshizawa" <jyosh@mindspring.com> wrote:

> One thing I saw when they showed fencing last night, is that if one is just
> a glancing blow and the other is a strong hit the strong hit will get the
> point. That's where the human element comes in, they determine which hit
> was "cleaner"


That's not it at all.

In foil and saber, if there's only one light on, there's no doubt about
who gets the point. But if both lights are on, the referee determines
who scored using a concept called "right of way," which basically says
that if you ignore the other person's attack then you lose.

Example 1: Fencer A attacks, and Fencer B realizes they're going to get
hit so Fencer B hits fencer A. Both lights are on. Fencer B is a moron,
so Fencer A scores.

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.

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).


--Harold Buck


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

I really love how you explain it Harold. especially the part that Fencer
X is a moron . I would love hearing a ref saying : You are a moron so the
other get the hit ... Of course we could easilly expect some boxing from
more impulsive fencer. Would greatly improve TV experience.



"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:no_one_knows-F9EE5A.11223920082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <DPMUc.26948$9Y6.16544@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net>,
> "John Yoshizawa" <jyosh@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > One thing I saw when they showed fencing last night, is that if one is
just
> > a glancing blow and the other is a strong hit the strong hit will get
the
> > point. That's where the human element comes in, they determine which
hit
> > was "cleaner"
>
>
> That's not it at all.
>
> In foil and saber, if there's only one light on, there's no doubt about
> who gets the point. But if both lights are on, the referee determines
> who scored using a concept called "right of way," which basically says
> that if you ignore the other person's attack then you lose.
>
> Example 1: Fencer A attacks, and Fencer B realizes they're going to get
> hit so Fencer B hits fencer A. Both lights are on. Fencer B is a moron,
> so Fencer A scores.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
>
> --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 <YqqVc.34368$Tr.1672015@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

> I really love how you explain it Harold. especially the part that Fencer
> X is a moron . I would love hearing a ref saying : You are a moron so the
> other get the hit ...


That's how I always explained it to the new fencers when I coached high
school fencing. It made more of an impression that way.

--Harold Buck


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

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:22:39 -0500, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net>
wrote:
>In foil and saber, if there's only one light on, there's no doubt about
>who gets the point. But if both lights are on, the referee determines
>who scored using a concept called "right of way," which basically says
>that if you ignore the other person's attack then you lose.
>
>Example 1: Fencer A attacks, and Fencer B realizes they're going to get
>hit so Fencer B hits fencer A. Both lights are on. Fencer B is a moron,
>so Fencer A scores.
>
>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."

Well, duhr.... Right of way is taught so that some young bucko will try to
survive
a duel. When you ignore right of way you are basiclly commiting suicide.
What
good is it if you killed the other guy when you are also dead?

One of the changes I would like to see in Epee is making a double touch a
double loss. Both Fencers should lose a point. I have tried this with my
friends and
it changes the game very nicely.


<gloncko> wrote in message
news:m28di0tc18c4q1s6naed6ffv64rdl5ivjq@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:22:39 -0500, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >In foil and saber, if there's only one light on, there's no doubt about
> >who gets the point. But if both lights are on, the referee determines
> >who scored using a concept called "right of way," which basically says
> >that if you ignore the other person's attack then you lose.
> >
> >Example 1: Fencer A attacks, and Fencer B realizes they're going to get
> >hit so Fencer B hits fencer A. Both lights are on. Fencer B is a moron,
> >so Fencer A scores.
> >
> >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."
>


---
Outgoing mail was checked for viruses, I found none.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11 Aug 2004

In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:02:50 -0500
skippy <uhhuh@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>
> 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

Well.. if a flick is a valid attack, then isn't the position you can
launch that attack from a "threat"?

I'm thinking of George Silver's Open ward, with the sword hilt at about
head height or higher and the point straight up. See someone in that
ward with a broadsword and it's threatening enough - you know you'll be
cut in half if that thing comes down!

So why isn't a sword ready to flick a threat if a flick is a valid
attack?

Zebee

In article <slrncj28ga.2tn.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>, Zebee Johnstone
<zebee@zip.com.au> writes:

>So why isn't a sword ready to flick a threat if a flick is a valid
>attack?

Because it is not available to make a potential action against.

I am vehemently opposed to a fencer "hiding" his weapon but getting credit for
threatening.

Notice my use of the term potential action against.

I was chatting with Dave Blake who said there were machines with the new timing
at the recent Fencers Club Camp and he says it makes a big difference, the
flicks don't register.

Bill Hall

In rec.sport.fencing on 29 Aug 2004 00:51:05 GMT
Fencerbill <fencerbill@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <slrncj28ga.2tn.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>, Zebee Johnstone
><zebee@zip.com.au> writes:
>
>>So why isn't a sword ready to flick a threat if a flick is a valid
>>attack?
>
> Because it is not available to make a potential action against.
>
> I am vehemently opposed to a fencer "hiding" his weapon but getting credit for
> threatening.
>
> Notice my use of the term potential action against.

Hmm.. which isn't about threatening, but about a fair go

not allowing it makes sense to me, if only because even Silver said taking
Open Ward against someone in a thrusting guard was silly. Because a lunge
with that thrusting point was going to put you in your coffin while the
best you could hope for was to take off the arm after it killed you...
Didn't matter who was moving first in that case!

Not so much that the advancing flicker can't have their weapon dealt
with, but that the advancing flicker is being as stupid as someone who
attacks without controlling the blade first, because they can't deal
with the opponent's blade, and geometry's against them.

Zebee

In article <slrncj28ga.2tn.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

>
> Well.. if a flick is a valid attack, then isn't the position you can
> launch that attack from a "threat"?
>
> I'm thinking of George Silver's Open ward, with the sword hilt at about
> head height or higher and the point straight up. See someone in that
> ward with a broadsword and it's threatening enough - you know you'll be
> cut in half if that thing comes down!
>
> So why isn't a sword ready to flick a threat if a flick is a valid
> attack?


Repeat after me:

"Arm EXTENDING, threatening target. Arm EXTENDING, threatening
target. Arm EXTENDING, threatening target. Arm EXTENDING,
threatening target. Arm EXTENDING, threatening target. Arm
EXTENDING, threatening target. . . ."

If the arm is extending, hey, that's great. Just don't give the guy
right of way when he's not moving his arm or--worse yet--pulling it back
when I attack into his preparation!

--Harold Buck


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

In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:49:37 -0500
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> "Arm EXTENDING, threatening target. Arm EXTENDING, threatening
> target. Arm EXTENDING, threatening target. Arm EXTENDING,
> threatening target. Arm EXTENDING, threatening target. Arm
> EXTENDING, threatening target. . . ."

Oh I know that's the current rules. I was just asking why it wasn't a
threat. IN other words, if the move is legal, then shouldn't the rules
be written to have it in mind?

> If the arm is extending, hey, that's great. Just don't give the guy
> right of way when he's not moving his arm or--worse yet--pulling it back
> when I attack into his preparation!

But if it's as much the start of an attack as an *extending* (not
extended) arm, then why not? I mean aside from the rules wording, which
are clearly from a time before this particular attack was developed.

If the flick is a legit and successful attack, then it should be treated
the same as any other legit attack, and someone starting to execute it
should be on the same footing as someone starting to execute any other
valid attack.

Zebee

>
> I was chatting with Dave Blake who said there were machines with the new timing
> at the recent Fencers Club Camp and he says it makes a big difference, the
> flicks don't register.
>
> Bill Hall

Flicks to the shoulder still work - at least in our experience
(we've had the new boxes at our club for 2 whole nights now!).
It's the flicks that rely on the blade bending excessively,
('cause thats a very transient phenomena) which don't get any
light at all. i.e. Flicks to the lower back, or whipping around parrys.

And sheesh, I was asking if anyone else had used the new boxes,
not for yet another debate on the merits/not of flicking
- I didn't see any in the (admittedly pitiful australian) olympic coverage,
so it don't work no good at top levels anyway, even with the current boxes.

Regards
Andrew

In article <slrncj2mjc.mjd.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>, Zebee Johnstone
<zebee@zip.com.au> writes:

>If the flick is a legit and successful attack, then it should be treated
>the same as any other legit attack, and someone starting to execute it
>should be on the same footing as someone starting to execute any other
>valid attack.

There is nothing more beautiful than a circular parry which transitions into a
flick landing over the shoulder.

Landing a flick is legitimate.

Hiding your blade so that your opponent can't make an action against it is not.

They have allowed the adherence to the rules to deteriorate until they chicken
out by saying we will change the equipment so flicks will not be recorded
instead of kicking the referees in the ass to uphold the rules.

Modern Sabre is much truer to the rules than modern Foil. Except for the evil
habit of mistaking forward motion of the body for the start of the attack.

"Threaten" is specifically allowed for in the rules. It is the extending of the
arm, not putting more distance between you and the end of the strip behind you.

Bill Hall

skippy wrote:

> 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.

Nope, in our testing, most flicks did not register under the new foil timings,
regardless of how hard they were executed. Flicks to the chest worked some of
the time, but were unreliable.

> 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".

Yes, I agree. While judging foil can be extremely difficult for some actions,
I've often seen the presumption of right-of-way given to the advancing fencer,
regardless of the fencer's arm motion. Typically, one fencer marches down the
strip with the blade hidden or pointing at the ceiling, their opponent extends
his or her arm and executes a lunge, and, in *reaction* to this, the advancing
fencer *begins* the attacking motion with the arm and often is awarded the
right-of-way anyway.

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

No, not with the current timings. A properly executed flick attack is extremely
effective against those foil fencers who hunch over or who do not move around
enough. However, the proposed FIE timings that will be tried in World Cups
beginning October 1, will have four results in my opinion:

1. The flick will be eliminated due to the increased debounce (dwell/point
depression) time from 1-5 milliseconds to 15 milliseconds. As a result, foilists
will hunch over, leaving only their shoulders exposed and using their mask and
arms as a shield.

2. A slow riposte will fall victim to a fast remise due to the shorter lockout.
I believe the threat of this tactic is why the FIE increased the proposed
lockout from 250 milliseconds, which was originally approved in their Havana
meeting, to 300 milliseconds in their Leipzig meeting. The current lockout
timings are 350 milliseconds for World Cup events, 750 milliseconds for USFA events.

3. Counterattacks will prevail over attacks: fencers will find that a quick
counterattack and running back will lock out many attacks. Foil will become much
more static and defensive as a result.

4. Judging right-of-way won't matter as much because more actions will result in
one light only. I think this was the original motivation for the FIE to change
the foil lockout time.

It will be interesting to see how these changes will affect foil tactics in
World Cup events this next season. World Cup foilists who don't practice with
the new timings will lose a lot of touches!

Dieter
--------
Eigertek

In rec.sport.fencing on Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:24:25 GMT
Dieter Schlaepfer <schlae@sonic.SPAM.net> wrote:
>
> 1. The flick will be eliminated due to the increased debounce (dwell/point
> depression) time from 1-5 milliseconds to 15 milliseconds. As a result, foilists
> will hunch over, leaving only their shoulders exposed and using their mask and
> arms as a shield.

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

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

In article <slrncj2mjc.mjd.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:49:37 -0500
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Arm EXTENDING, threatening target. Arm EXTENDING, threatening
> > target. Arm EXTENDING, threatening target. Arm EXTENDING,
> > threatening target. Arm EXTENDING, threatening target. Arm
> > EXTENDING, threatening target. . . ."
>
> Oh I know that's the current rules. I was just asking why it wasn't a
> threat. IN other words, if the move is legal, then shouldn't the rules
> be written to have it in mind?

It IS a threat, at least under current interpretation. But you need both
(a) Arm extending and (b) threatening target. I think what you're saying
is "It's not an attack, so it's not a threat," and that's not right.
It's not an attack because the arm isn't extending.

>
> > If the arm is extending, hey, that's great. Just don't give the guy
> > right of way when he's not moving his arm or--worse yet--pulling it back
> > when I attack into his preparation!
>
> But if it's as much the start of an attack as an *extending* (not
> extended) arm, then why not? I mean aside from the rules wording, which
> are clearly from a time before this particular attack was developed.

Because people are playing by the current rules. Also, if having the arm
pulled all the way back is the start of an attack, then so is having
your weapon arm pulled all the way back before a straight attack.

> If the flick is a legit and successful attack, then it should be treated
> the same as any other legit attack, and someone starting to execute it
> should be on the same footing as someone starting to execute any other
> valid attack.

Provided the officials referee using the rules about extending the arm.


--Harold Buck


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

Or having the weapon arm and the head a valid target area. Or wanting the
guard position to be like in Fabris treatise 1606. The position is really
hunched foward.



"Dieter Schlaepfer" <schlae@sonic.SPAM.net> a écrit dans le message de
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
>

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
>

In article <zS0%c.7763$lP4.509514@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Byrocat"
<strikemaster2000@yahoo.ca> writes:

>"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."

The difference between today's Sabre and Foil is:

In Foil, you get a white light which the director can change to valid. but

In Sabre, off target doesn't register on the machine. It is a very brave
referee who will say that he definitely saw a hit arrive off target which he
will then convert into a valid touch.

Bill Hall

In article <20040907131521.23419.00000355@mb-m22.aol.com>,
fencerbill@aol.com (Fencerbill) wrote:

>
> In Sabre, off target doesn't register on the machine. It is a very brave
> referee who will say that he definitely saw a hit arrive off target which he
> will then convert into a valid touch.
>


I'd think a guy nursing the broken non-weapon hand might let you sell
that call. :-)

--Harold Buck


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