Changing foil tactics at the JO's

[rsy]

One light attack/counterattacks as well as no light attack/counterattacks seemed to be frequent, but "seemed" is the operative word. Who knows what they result would have been under the old timing.

Many straight hits not recording, especially if the hit is not so straight. Attacks coming up from a low line with the hand held high starting the blade with a slight downward angle seem to accentuate the bend which results in the no light (either from a grounded blade or the tip going flat and releasing before 13 miliseconds).

The flick is definitely not dead. Used effectively against the hunched over creepers, especially as a parry six, riposte to the upper back. Being tall helps, or maybe the tall fencers were the ones with the confidence to use it.

Marches way down and none ending in a flick.

Blade actions seemed down, especially the counter-riposte. The new "convention" seems to be if you attack and your opponent finds your blade, then leave your blade out, remise & displace.

Manplate use skyrocketed. There was much confusion over whether men had to wear it next to the skin. Referees and tournament staff had different rulings at different times. Ultimate word was that it had to be worn under the jacket, but did not yet have to be worn next to the skin.

-r

[SmokeyTheCat263]

Yea, I fenced in Jr MF, and refereed the other three foil events. Most of those observations are generally correct. However, i disagree with a few of them:

In my opinion, flicks are definetly dead. Aside from one or two men who do them occasionanally with little success, noone does them. If anyone does, they pay the price of losing the point. In womens foil, flicks are unheard of.

Additionally, I found manplate use at this tournament went down. I refereed at the Atlanta NAC, fenced in Richmond, Kansas, and now JOs, and I believe the peak of chest protectors was at Kansas. In my 2nd pool at Kansas I was the only one not wearing one. Because manplates were so widespread, it showed many people the ludicrosy of wearing one, along with the unsportsmanlike implications of wearing it to avoid the touch. For many, this tuaght them what it truly means to wear one. Manplate-usage at this JOs definetly went down, which is great.


As a national competitor who is familiar with usual results, I'd like to add one more observation: Not to discredit those who did well, but the results in foil events were more random than usual. There are always a bunch of wildcards that make 16s, and then one or two who make the 8s, but this tournament proved worse. I think this is because of three things:

1. The mass of unknown people. Jr MF had around 220, Cd MF 230. Wow. With so many, dare i say, scrubs, there is bound to be more of an unpredictable result.

2. New timings, of course. The new timings amplify counterattacks and ramiezs, and thats waht scrubs are good at. This is significant, especially when the top fencer in the pool drops a bout to a scrub, causing them to be reseeded anywhere between the 30s and the 50s. Look at Chinman v Horanyi in Jr MF. How were two of our ntl team members fencing to make 32s at JOs?? I asked them. THey both dropped a bout to people whos names they can't even recall.

3. No repechage. I realy don't like not having repechage at JOs and Nats. Even before the new timings, JOs and Nats could always produce more wildcards in top 8 or 4, simply because there are no 2nd chances for good fences to redeem themselves. Some may say thats good, but I disagree. Repechage has always produced more consistent results, and when picking the national team, i think it is crucial.

[Alan]

Of course the tactics will change. If the broken test timings are kept,
it is not foil anymore. It is called Foilepee.

Cf the thread on the folists' blues.

[oso97]

Couple of thoughts from a referee's standpoint about JO's.

First of all there was no "confusion" about where the chest protector had to be for men. The FOC clearly explained to all the referees that we were to use the previously adopted USFA ruling and that the USFA would stick to that until the FIE stopped acting like a neurotic puppy and changing its mind from week to week.

On the tactics side things seem to be settling down. In Overland Park there was the beginnings of a new game being tried out and it seems to be settling in now. We'll see how it goes in Tennessee and Sacramento. Yes, flicks are out, except on the occational riposte. What the foil game seems to be evolving towards is what some have described as a counter-attack and remise game, but I would describe as a tempo game, very similar to that in sabre.

In otherwords, jockey, jockey, play with distance and then launch a fast attack either just as your opponent takes a retreat or into their preparation. It was a bit difficult to referee at first, until the last day, when I came into the JWF event after refereeing through DE's of the CWS. As many of you know, its a bit difficult to make the "foil/sabre" refereeing transition sometimes, but in this case, not at all. What the previous days I had been seeing as two sloppy attacks were now very clearly sabre-style preparations and tempo attacks. There was even a bit of second intention, a smattering counter-time and one VERY nice fient-in-time (that unfortunately landed off target) in the Round of 32 and 16 bouts I refereed, although the foilists I saw haven't quite integrated these tactical concepts into their game yet.


Conclusions:
1) Its going to get a LOT harder to referee foil well, especially at the middle levels. Refereeing soley on the basis of tempo without ANY blade cues is one of the hardest things to do well IMHO.
2) It will be proved that sabre coach's do NOT have a monpoly on abusive behavior. There are going to be a lot of frustrated coach's when they see calls going against their fencers that they don't understand. Sometimes justifiably so, sometimes because their perspective is just different than that of the referee.
3) Good coach's will be able to figure out exactly what the referee is calling and why and have their fencer adapt if need be.

As an example of all this, I offer up the tableau that I was working in. In the early rounds, there were a lot of very one-sided bouts (and not just by me, but by the other referee working the tableau as well). But by the time we reached the round of 32, the good fencers and good coaches had figured out exactly how we were calling it and the stubborn coach's refused to give their fencers any constructive advice during the breaks. You could quite litterally see the effect of a good strip coach as one who figures out what the referee's tempo window is and tells his fencer exactly how to work it. The stubborn coach's... well, their fencers were eliminated.

In the round of 16 bout that I refereed, it was all about tempo actions, with maybe two or three standard parries at the end as the fencer who was behind got desperate and just started attacking. But in that bout they were both using AIP, counter-time and fient-in-time quite effectively. When one fencer had been scored upon three times in a row by counter-time actions, she tossed in an offensive fient-in-time (that landed off target). At which point the other fencer's coach called out "okay, she's on to you, don't do that again." Unfortunately, she didn't seem to know how to go all the way around the tactical wheel - or perhaps she was too tired by that point, and she lost.

One question I DO wonder about is if the consensus in foil refereeing is going to move towards the standard in sabre, vis-a-vis simultanious actions executed in one vs. two tempos, and if they're going to want us to start calling it "attack left no, attack right arrives, then the continuation from the left, touch right" instead of "continuous attack from the left arrives, touch left." Its going to make for an INTERESTING couple of seasons, for sure.

Any foil coaches out there have thoughts?

[edew]

Even before the new timings, the "attack left no, attack right yes, continuation not in time" were called. The Rochester women fencers perfected that in the early and mid-90s. They'd pull distance, make the attacker fall short, then commenced their attack into the opponent's remise or redoublement.

There is a big difference between an attack+redoublement (or continuation of an exhausted attack) and a marching style attack that lasts a long time. The main difference is how the opponent -- the defender -- plays the response. In the latter case, the defender continues to play the defensive role, which allows the attacker's threat to maintain, um, threat status.

[Windsor]

I'd have to agree, I've had my coach tell me about the virtues of pulling distance, make sure the opponents lunge was finished and then attack. This was a long time ago, but I guess it might be more prevalent now.

[peet]

Even before the new timings, the "attack left no, attack right yes, continuation not in time" were called. The Rochester women fencers perfected that in the early and mid-90s. They'd pull distance, make the attacker fall short, then commenced their attack into the opponent's remise or redoublement.

I got the impression that oso97 was not talking about that kind of "get away & go" touch. I think he meant the kind like in saber where both fencers start at the same time & both hit, but because one does a simple direct cut, and the other changes lines or otherwise fiddles around on the way there, the simple action wins.

But of course, only oso can say what he really meant....

-p

[keith]

well I'll give another interpretation of what he meant

I think it is an 'old style' action, before the flick was really used in the march. So once upon a time the flick/lunge could be evaded by a simple sway/half step to avoid the hit followed by an immediate action into the failed attack. Very different from the getawaygo type of action since distance is not broken dramatically.
This works with the new timings since attackers are more inclined to lunge with the final action so if you are a good judge of distance you can draw the lunge let it fall an inch or two short and then take over the action.

[edew]

Even those type of actions were called in pre-new timings. The new timings never affected such calls.

I used to be really p-o'ed by Andy Shaw's refereeing when he would call my flick-ish style attacks as preparation versus a more "simple, direct" attack. Since then, I've joined his view. There is a clear, discernable difference between a preparation-style attack and a direct attack, even when the arm is bent.

I recall last year at the JOs, I refereed a quarterfinal bout between Dmitri KirkGordon and Brendan Meyers. Both attacked with basically a bent-arm, flick style. But Dmitri held back for a bit while Brendan just breezed through. I called in attack-counterattack for Brendan. Dmitri was not happy, but I know what I saw, and I think the spectators and coaches appreciated and understood why I called the action as such.

[MikeHarm]

The changing calls on tempo people were talking about were interesting.

I still don't understand why good fencers aren't able to stop newbie remises either on the new timings. I've always considered hitting and locking out the newbie remises as a critical skill for competition. Why risk a reversed call if you don't have to?

[oso97]

*chuckle* yes, well, actually, I meant all of that too. But the specific type of action I was referring to was the "continuous" attack.

So in sabre, when your front foot hits in the lunge - the attack is over. Foil tends to be a little more generous in allowing redoubles and remises to score - although it is possible to break distance and gain tempo, but the window for doing so is MUCH greater than in sabre. What I'm wondering is if that window is going to get tighter.

[edew]

I don't think the window has been getting tighter as much as that the fencers (and their coaches) have been working harder on taking advantage of a completed attack in foil.

It used to be that an attacker will lunge, redouble, and continue, and the opponent will just continue back (re: that video clip of, I think WFlashka getting a lesson with Uriah Jones). Now, the moment the attack misses, the opponent is right on top and moving forward.

Defenders used to continue backwards probably because they can't change directions fast enough then, or because they had that notion of having to make a parry first.

[mackillian]

I had my first chance to play with the new timings last night (my coach is Refusing to Put New Chips In His Boxes). I have this bad habit of remising way more than I should be. With the old timings, my remise, though fast, isn't fast enough to get past the parry/riposte most of the time. With the new timings, my remise hits and lights before the riposte hits. With the closeout time, the action always ends in one light--mine. That instead of two lights, which would go to my opponent (hence being my BAD habit, not a good one).


So, do I keep working on stopping my bad habit, or continue with it as it's my advantage with the new timings? I'm more inclined to continue fixing it, but that's me. *shrug*

[cowpaste]

If you are locking out your opponent with a remise, then your opponent sucks. I've been fencing the new timing for a few months now, and I don't think I've been locked out more than 5 times yet. I simply does not take that long to perform a direct riposte.