Re: Fencing question

[Harold Buck]

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

[Trim Plus Expert]

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

[Harold Buck]

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

[gloncko]

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."

[Eric James Mohl]

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

[Zebee Johnstone]

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?"

[Harold Buck]

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

[Gary R. Schmidt]

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

[William Black]

> 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

[Jay and Diane Rudin]

<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

[Andrew John]

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

[skippy]

"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

[Zebee Johnstone]

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

[Fencerbill]

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

[Zebee Johnstone]

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

[Harold Buck]

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

[Zebee Johnstone]

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

[Andrew John]

>
> 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

[Fencerbill]

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

[Dieter Schlaepfer]

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