Summary of opponents of foil test timings

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Madmartigan

I'm sorry that i have to disagree with you... I think the new saber timing also cause a lot of stir, negatively. Gond fencing skills and technics are not well rewarded (especially for the reposer). I actually had a conversation with Vladimir Nazlymov and Yuri Gelman a couple of weeks ago... they absolutely hate the new timing for saber....

Overall, i think FIE made some horrible decision... please admit your (R.R.)mistakes... people will forgive you... and it won't be as embarassing as you think.

Yet many other coaches and fencers like them. Good skills are rewarded, if things are done right. The only bad thing I've seen is that it's made some directors lazy with prep calls, etc.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

Oh so since im not a top level sabre fencer, my opinion doesn't matter. Ok. Thats really intelligent.

Hmmm. I'm not sure who you are responding to with this post. It doesn't seem to have any relationship to what *I* said.

If it should happen to be a response to my post, I have no idea what level of sabre fencer you are. I pointed out that *I* am not a top level sabre fencer. Also that I don't have much electric experience with the 120ms lockout timing. And that of those that I know that *do* have experience with it (many are coaches) all hate it. I have no idea how much experience you have with it, but you are the first (and so far only) sabre fencer I've heard say that he liked the 120ms lockout.

I mention *my* level of skill so that other people can evaluate how that might relate to my perception of the 120ms lockout as not very noticable. Not good or bad because I didn't notice it very much.

It's possible that *I* am not fencing at a high enough level to exploit the difference, or that my opponents aren't, or that my opponents are but don't need to because they're so much better than me. I know nothing about you at all.

I notice you didn't provide any explanation *why* you liked the 120ms lockout time. "Winning is everything" doesn't seem to have any relationship to wether a 120ms lockout timing is superior or inferior or preferable to a 300ms lockout timing.

gary hayenga

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Yet many other coaches and fencers like them. Good skills are rewarded, if things are done right. The only bad thing I've seen is that it's made some directors lazy with prep calls, etc.

Why do they like it?

The coaches and sabre fencers I've talked to feel that it rewards *sloppy* fencing, remise and wave the blade wildly so the fencer making a riposte has to disengage and gets locked out.

gary hayenga

[Madmartigan]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Why do they like it?

The coaches and sabre fencers I've talked to feel that it rewards *sloppy* fencing, remise and wave the blade wildly so the fencer making a riposte has to disengage and gets locked out.

gary hayenga

Wow... thanks god somebody understand this.

Bye the way, name me a top coach and a top fencer who like the new saber timing... I'm curious.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Why do they like it?

The coaches and sabre fencers I've talked to feel that it rewards *sloppy* fencing, remise and wave the blade wildly so the fencer making a riposte has to disengage and gets locked out.

gary hayenga

It does reward this on a lower level (D and below). However, if a parry is done right, the riposte will not be locked out. If the riposte was locked out, the parry was not done correctly. I have not seen a single upset that can be attributed to the new timings in any Open around here. I've said this before about both sets of timings. Most of the "problems" I've seen are problems with technique that are blamed on the timings. It is my opinion that what the timings do is lower the amount of error that one can get away with, and people need to get used to this.

I, unlike some, will not speak for others, but I know there are fairly decent sabreurs (and their coaches) on this forum who like the new timings.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Why do they like it?

The coaches and sabre fencers I've talked to feel that it rewards *sloppy* fencing, remise and wave the blade wildly so the fencer making a riposte has to disengage and gets locked out.

gary hayenga

I'm a sabre fencer (not a top level fencer), and I like the new timings. Sure, some remises score that shouldn't, but that's not a huge problem. The big plus is that it helps make touches more clear for poor directors (which unfortunately is far too many). With the new timings, I've had very obvious attacks in prep that were almost called against me until the director noticed it was one light. In a perfect world, there would always be a great director, and there could theoretically be infinite lockout time, but since that doesn't happen, the new timings make things a little more clear. Also, it helps cut down on reputation touches.

So sure, the new timings aren't perfect, but I don't think they encourage sloppy fencing (if anything, they promote cleaner fencing since sloppy form will result in you getting locked out).

[rcmatthews]

*I* am sorry for being unclear. *I* like the lock out time becuase *I* think that it speeds up sabre even more than it already was. *I* also think that counterattacks have become a more viable option. *I* think that it will lead to more and different strategies. *I* prefer directors who call an extending arm as the attack, rather than simply forward motion. *I* think that the shorter lockout time encourages the extending arm. *I* also believe that a correctly executed attack will not be locked out unjustly, the majority of the time lockout becomes an issue is when a remise locks out a parry/riposte. *I* happen to think that this is an acceptable trade off for the benefits that *I* listed previously. *I* offered my opinion of the new timings, along with an ehortation to get use to them, because *I* am tired of reading about foilists complaining about them. *I* have not seen a large discussion of the way the timings affect sabre on this board.

*I* also do not think that C is "top" level, though *I* can see how my post could be construed that way. *My* winning is everything comment was encouraging developing with the changes and coming up with new strategies.

[Madmartigan]

Originally Posted by risingsunjapan

the fie cannot change it back to the old way because that would look bad in front of the IOC and foil could be eliminated from the games. stop complaining, do ur footwork, and deal with it.

Do my footwork? I think i've spend more hours just doing footwork during these last 14 yrs compared to all of your total fencing practices combined. Trust me. Save that comment for somebody else.

[Alan]

So nobody created the thread
"summary of foilists in favor of the broken test timings" ???

No news about the new new timings ???

[Alan]

Against the foil broken test timings :

Thierry Le Prisé, Maître d’armes

"Le fleuret n’a pas besoin d’être réformé, il a besoin d’être respecté."

( Foil does not need to be changed, it needs to be respected )

see (French document)
http://membres.lycos.fr/francepologn...SDEFLEURET.doc

[Barry Paul]

Originally Posted by Alan

Against the foil broken test timings :

Thierry Le Prisé, Maître d’armes

"Le fleuret n’a pas besoin d’être réformé, il a besoin d’être respecté."

( Foil does not need to be changed, it needs to be respected )

see (French document)
http://membres.lycos.fr/francepologn...SDEFLEURET.doc

The problem has been that the referees would not /could not respect the foil. Ergo 20 years ago when I quit international fencing many attacks were in absence of blade, refined 20 years later by absence of blade followed by a flick hit which could be directed almost any where.

Why are the top fencers against the new timings? Because they became top by mastering the technique need to win which included too many flicks. Why are the top fencers still the top fencers with the new timings? Because once you are in the top the seeding for the top fencers is biased towards being able to stay in the top, also referees will give the advantage to the higher seeded fencer.

The fencers in the second tier were by definition fencers who could not master the attack with absence of blade followed by a flick, but they certainly did not spend there time working on the technique needed to fence without flicking.

We need to wait till the fencers who can master the art of foil fencing become good enough to win. Barry

[Gav]

Good post from Barry - good post.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Barry Paul

Why are the top fencers against the new timings? Because they became top by mastering the technique need to win which included too many flicks. Why are the top fencers still the top fencers with the new timings? Because once you are in the top the seeding for the top fencers is biased towards being able to stay in the top, also referees will give the advantage to the higher seeded fencer.

Nice try but this is completely wrong. The best foilists are also the best
foilepeists ...

And at a high level, flicks are not so important even with the Athens timings.


Even if your points were true, if a majority of foilists (and it is the case) prefer modern foil to Romankov nostalgics's foil, they should be allowed to. I call this democracy.

[quote=Barry Paul
... also referees will give the advantage to the higher seeded fencer.
[/QUOTE]

I had the impression that these broken test timings were supposed to solve most refereing problems. Thank you to admit that it its not the case :-)


The only thing they do is to denature completely foil.

[Epeecurean]

Originally Posted by Alan

Nice try but this is completely wrong. The best foilists are also the best
foilepeists ...

Alan, Barry already explained why this is the case and you've added nothing to prove his explanation wrong. Barry Paul 1 - Alan 0.

Originally Posted by Alan

Even if your points were true, if a majority of foilists (and it is the case) prefer modern foil to Romankov nostalgics's foil, they should be allowed to. I call this democracy.

Thems the breaks. Not much you can do other than perhaps start a breakaway International Flicking Federation? (FIF - Federation Internationale de Flique)

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Epeecurean

Alan, Barry already explained why this is the case and you've added nothing to prove his explanation wrong. Barry Paul 1 - Alan 0.



Thems the breaks. Not much you can do other than perhaps start a breakaway International Flicking Federation? (FIF - Federation Internationale de Flique)

1) For the score it seems that you forget a lot of goals made before ...
By the way Alan 's opinion is nothing ... check all the famous foilists
which expressed against these broken test timings.


2) Why should i create a federation? Almost all foilists are against these broken test timings.

Remember i am still waiting for one just one ranked in the top 150
in favor of them ...

By the way, you have not red my posts. I have always said that i was in favor of flicks but that removing flicks was not the worse effect of these broken test timings (if only there was not this problem of direct hits not registering which is simply not acceptable)


The blocking time effects are worse.
I agree completely with the letter of the Maître d'Armes on this.

[Gav]

Remember i am still waiting for one just one ranked in the top 150
in favor of them ...

Aren't there a lot more than 150 fencers in the world? Or am I missing something? I think we have been here before ..

Barry's makes some good points in his post that I have yet to see refuted.

[ChubbyHubby]

Originally Posted by Alan

Nice try but this is completely wrong. The best foilists are also the best
foilepeists ...

And at a high level, flicks are not so important even with the Athens timings.


Even if your points were true, if a majority of foilists (and it is the case) prefer modern foil to Romankov nostalgics's foil, they should be allowed to. I call this democracy.

I had the impression that these broken test timings were supposed to solve most refereing problems. Thank you to admit that it its not the case :-)


The only thing they do is to denature completely foil.

BINGO

oh... hang on I am missing "king rene"

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Gav

[quote[Remember i am still waiting for one just one ranked in the top 150
in favor of them ...

Aren't there a lot more than 150 fencers in the world? Or am I missing something. I think we have been here before ..

Barry's makes some good points in his post that I have yet to see refuted.[/quote]


Yes they are more than 150 foilists and a vast majority of them whatever the ranking are against the broken test timings.

I have refuted Barry's points before.
Specially his funny comment about refereing problems which were supposed to be magically solved by these broken test timings.


But to me it is not a technical question. The majority of foilists should decide
which type of foil they like.

This should not be dictated by a bunch of Romankov nostalgics and
by the political tactics of his majesty which has proved many times that he does not care about foil or foilists at all.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by ChubbyHubby

BINGO

oh... hang on I am missing "king rene"

Yes the truth deserves to be stated many times

And that is in fact that hurts you !!!


This is your typical attitude : I point to a fresh article from a French Maître d'armes which you don't like because it is true.

You can't refute it so you go in this kind of futile digressions.

[Gav]

Yes they are more than 150 foilists and a vast majority of them whatever the ranking are against the broken test timings.

Are they? I've yet to see a scientific analysis from anyone, from either side of the debate, that verifies this. Major change is always painful. Barry's point is quite valid - whether you agree with the timings validity or not - that people who have been successful in one environment, who have been taught to fence in that environment, will obviously not like anything that they perceive puts them at a disadvantage. There is nothing surprising about this. Barry's other point about Fencers lacking in depth [or maybe just an unwillingness to adapt?] seems to also be true.

The one argument that I have seen, that I think has merit, from a Fencers personal view is that, "They have trained all their lives; only to have the game they love taken away." I see that point. But that point does not make the timings less valid. I think that the better approach is to look creatively at the issue and be constructive. This is the approach that is being led by the federations. This approach is the one that is the most likely to yield results.

Why are you so obsessed with the top 150? Are you in the top 150?

I have refuted Barry's points before.

No you didn't. You just repeated, parrot fashion, what you have said before. You have not addressed his comments regarding: lack of Fencing depth or poor Refereeing. Both of which seem, to me, to be the main problem. Especially the poor refereeing part.

But to me it is not a technical question. The majority of foilists should decide which type of foil they like.

HOW? This is an absurd notion. Why do you have referee's in the first place? Because people's expectation of Fencing is different - in fact it's quite personal. To dispassionately adjudicate. What makes you think that those on the inside, with a vested interest in the status quo, will be able to seperate the emotional from the rational response? How do you propose to make things more democratic? By balloting every Foilist? The fact is that the FIE is quite democratic, just differently democratic from your expectation. Personally I think that there are big problems with this set up, but you have to work with what you've got. And also, for the record, I think that sorting the referee's, in some way, would have been far more beneficial to the sport than these timings (on which I am neutral).

This should not be dictated by a bunch of Romankov nostalgics and
by the political tactics of his majesty which has proved many times that he does not care about foil or foilists at all.

Try and seperate out your points.

Those who like Romankoc era Fencing are not necessarily the same as those you accuse of not caring about Foilists. I've no idea if Roch has actually ever fenced (anyone?). But just because some liked Foil then, does not mean that they are against Foilists, or even Foil as you would like to see it. In fact I would say that they care as much about this sport; as much as you.