"Fencing Masters' Responsibility" articlce in Escrime International

[SmokeyTheCat263]

In the new edition of Escrime International, I read "The Fencing Masters' Responsibility", by Ian Pop. Essentially, Ioan Pop is arguing that the new timings in foil are a good thing by returning foil to the original spirit. This is done as fencers are forced to extent, no more back flicks etc etc...

Did anyone else find it horribly ironic how Ioan Pop argues this, yet the editor, whom ever it may be, included three pictures from fencing on the new timing - the first one is an attacker getting hit as his opponent twists/flies in the air to counterattack; the second one is of a fencer ducking and scoring the touch on the attacker; the third one is almost the same thing, with a womens foilist counteratacking by twisting her body and the clearly hitting her arm (or maybe it was the other way around, I can't tell).

IS this the original spirit of foil that Ioan Pop was referring to? I would think not, but nonetheless, the pictures to go with this article make it all the more amusing

[Alain]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

In the new edition of Escrime International, I read "The Fencing Masters' Responsibility", by Ian Pop. Essentially, Ioan Pop is arguing that the new timings in foil are a good thing by returning foil to the original spirit. This is done as fencers are forced to extent, no more back flicks etc etc...

Did anyone else find it horribly ironic how Ioan Pop argues this, yet the editor, whom ever it may be, included three pictures from fencing on the new timing - the first one is an attacker getting hit as his opponent twists/flies in the air to counterattack; the second one is of a fencer ducking and scoring the touch on the attacker; the third one is almost the same thing, with a womens foilist counteratacking by twisting her body and the clearly hitting her arm (or maybe it was the other way around, I can't tell).

IS this the original spirit of foil that Ioan Pop was referring to? I would think not, but nonetheless, the pictures to go with this article make it all the more amusing

Ummmm, I apolagise in advance for what's to follow (I realise some people may be horrified to read this) but, afterall, it's my honest opinion. And, I'm an épéeist...

No offence intended but, originally, foil was a practice weapon. As such, the focus is on hitting with this ROW thing, but the emphasis should still be on HITTING. The photos you described above may sound like sacrilege to many foilists, but I could never stand the old "bellyflop" timings - someone starts an attack, you straighten your arm, they bellyflop onto your point, a while passes, they hit. Two lights, the bellyflopper is awarded the hit Why? - for me, practice should simulate reality; and in reality, a bellyflopper wouldn't win a great many fights...

Personally, I think new timings represent foil as it should - giving hits to the fencer with priority, but within realistic reason.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Alain

Ummmm, I apolagise in advance for what's to follow (I realise some people may be horrified to read this) but, afterall, it's my honest opinion. And, I'm an épéeist...

No offence intended but, originally, foil was a practice weapon. As such, the focus is on hitting with this ROW thing, but the emphasis should still be on HITTING. The photos you described above may sound like sacrilege to many foilists, but I could never stand the old "bellyflop" timings - someone starts an attack, you straighten your arm, they bellyflop onto your point, a while passes, they hit. Two lights, the bellyflopper is awarded the hit Why? - for me, practice should simulate reality; and in reality, a bellyflopper wouldn't win a great many fights...

Personally, I think new timings represent foil as it should - giving hits to the fencer with priority, but within realistic reason.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think that these new timings favor the defender a little too much. It's one thing if unrealistic attacks are ruled out, it's another if foil bouts consist of two fencers stading at each other, then attacking while contorting their bodies to avoid the point.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

In the new edition of Escrime International, I read "The Fencing Masters' Responsibility", by Ian Pop. Essentially, Ioan Pop is arguing that the new timings in foil are a good thing by returning foil to the original spirit. This is done as fencers are forced to extent, no more back flicks etc etc...

Did anyone else find it horribly ironic how Ioan Pop argues this, yet the editor, whom ever it may be, included three pictures from fencing on the new timing - the first one is an attacker getting hit as his opponent twists/flies in the air to counterattack; the second one is of a fencer ducking and scoring the touch on the attacker; the third one is almost the same thing, with a womens foilist counteratacking by twisting her body and the clearly hitting her arm (or maybe it was the other way around, I can't tell).

IS this the original spirit of foil that Ioan Pop was referring to? I would think not, but nonetheless, the pictures to go with this article make it all the more amusing

Um...

I hate to be the one to point this out, but those photos look like they are from Athens...

The last one is Gruchala vs. Vezzali in the semi final medal bout...
Pics of the bout, including the photo in the mag can be found, half way down the page here.

The previous one is an Italian falling over vs. a Chinese fencer, which is the gold of the team foil event...
The photo can be found here.

And the first one, looks of similar composition, but I don't know who's who other than definitely an Italian...
I'm sure if you scroll through www.fencingphotos.com, you'll find it...

[noodle]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think that these new timings favor the defender a little too much. It's one thing if unrealistic attacks are ruled out, it's another if foil bouts consist of two fencers stading at each other, then attacking while contorting their bodies to avoid the point.

i think the new timings are about even in the way of favoring defender or attacker, really.

yes, some attacks don't land even if they're solid, but now remises are more prevalent than counter parries because you can slide one in in time to lock out your opponent's immediate direct riposte if you were parried.

i'm editing this to add: the game is much slower now, though. its not as fast with uncontrolled attacking. there is probably the (re-edited to add this word because i forgot it: ) slight advantage to the defender, but imho, its not really as bad as everyone's making it out to be.

[glowstix]

Originally Posted by achilleus

The last one is Gruchala vs. Vezzali in the gold medal bout...

fyi, vezzali against trillini for the gold...

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by glowstix

fyi, vezzali against trillini for the gold...

Thanks for the correction...
I edited the above post...

[Alan]

Originally Posted by noodle

there is probably the advantage to the defender, but imho, its not really as bad as everyone's making it out to be.

No. It is imho much worse.

Foilepee is ugly and booooooring.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Alan

No. It is imho much worse.

Foilepee is ugly and booooooring.

i'm not debating that, it is ugly and slower and boring :P

but the actual advantage isn't as lopsided as people make it out to be, is what i'm saying.

[reposte]

I must say that fencing with the new timings is working miracles for beginners, grasping all the more in effect the true way to traditionaly perform attacks.

[edew]

In saber, if we were to follow Mr. Pop's decree, then we must start teaching immediate remises, overpowering cuts, and other unsavory (and against the spirit of right-of-way) actions.

And furthermore, unless coaches were a lame with them, it's virtually impossible to determine whether a hit occurred with more than 120ms before the other hit arrived. It's ridiculous.

I teach that the safest thing to do is make the person miss completely. No parries, no nothing. Then make the fastest and hardest action when one gets within distance. Stupid, as there's no real swordplay anymore.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by edew

I teach that the safest thing to do is make the person miss completely. No parries, no nothing. Then make the fastest and hardest action when one gets within distance. Stupid, as there's no real swordplay anymore.

That's pretty much what I'm doing as well with some of my more advanced students. Basically, the old "Russian game" taken to extremes.

*sigh*

How I miss good old Hungarian school sabre bladework. So much more interesting!

[MikeHarm]

I think if you take a defeatist attitude to your training it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

It seems to me like a lot of whats happening is people were doing everything they could to get away from the fencing phrase or classical technique with the the old timings and now finding and now that decision is coming back to bite them when they have to weave through parries or end up getting bit when they attack with their arm back instead of extended and get locked out.

New game, old skills. I think its pretty cool and adds to the sport in the long run.

[mifencer]

Originally Posted by MikeHarm

I think if you take a defeatist attitude to your training it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

It seems to me like a lot of whats happening is people were doing everything they could to get away from the fencing phrase or classical technique with the the old timings and now finding and now that decision is coming back to bite them when they have to weave through parries or end up getting bit when they attack with their arm back instead of extended and get locked out.

New game, old skills. I think its pretty cool and adds to the sport in the long run.

I would have to disagree with this. I was definitely not taught 'classical technique' by any sense. Recently, I've been 'successful' at some tournaments (local and national), because I've been extremely irrational with my choice of actions -- catching reasonable thinking people off guard. This does not add to fencing, in fact, I know my fencing has deteriorated a lot. There's are no 'old skills' with sloppy fencing and chest protectors (btw- I refuse to wear one). This just slows down fencing to a mediocre level.

If one would correlate the new timings with other sports I think you would see:
In football (soccer) - a deflated ball / because the players are kicking the ball too hard/fast.
In basketball - a deflated ball with a smaller hoop / because the players go down the court too fast and it'll take away the slam dunk (or at least make it more difficult). Also having a 1 sec violation instead of a 3 sec violation because the offensive player has to get out of the paint.
Tennis - wooden rackets only and slower ball. No one should serve at 128 mph.

It's very unfortunate that instead of raising the people to a higher level, that he (Roch) made a dumbed down version of this sport.

[rcmatthews]

I personally love the new timings in sabre. Yes ocassionally you will get locked out by a whipover, or a counterattack that is not really in preparation. But a properly executed parry with an immediate riposte lands valid more often than not. I also find that directors are more willing to award an attack in preparation even if there are two lights when previously it would have been given to the attacker. I think they are thinking faster. I also know that my parries have become faster and more solid, and I feel that the overall game has sped up considerably.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by mifencer

I would have to disagree with this. I was definitely not taught 'classical technique' by any sense. Recently, I've been 'successful' at some tournaments (local and national), because I've been extremely irrational with my choice of actions -- catching reasonable thinking people off guard. This does not add to fencing, in fact, I know my fencing has deteriorated a lot. There's are no 'old skills' with sloppy fencing and chest protectors (btw- I refuse to wear one). This just slows down fencing to a mediocre level.

If one would correlate the new timings with other sports I think you would see:
In football (soccer) - a deflated ball / because the players are kicking the ball too hard/fast.
In basketball - a deflated ball with a smaller hoop / because the players go down the court too fast and it'll take away the slam dunk (or at least make it more difficult). Also having a 1 sec violation instead of a 3 sec violation because the offensive player has to get out of the paint.
Tennis - wooden rackets only and slower ball. No one should serve at 128 mph.

It's very unfortunate that instead of raising the people to a higher level, that he (Roch) made a dumbed down version of this sport.

Kind of like putting a limit on the compression of a golf ball, otherwise it would be too easy to drive the green.....
Or limiting the flexibilty of the golf club shaft...
Or not allowing aluminum bats in pro baseball.....
Or creating the three point line to encourage outside shooting.....

If this is "dumbed down," explain to me what was so intelectual about marching toward our opponent with your tip pointed skyward until he ran out of strip and attempted a counter attack so you could finish quickly and have the director say it was your RoW? The marching flick attack is the intellectual equivilent to basketball players taking turns dunking on each other (it might be showy, but there is little intellect involved.)


As for being "extremely irrational with (your) choice of actions." People like that have always been hard to fence. Ann lost a pool bout two weeks ago to a D rated fencer because of that. It doesn't have anything to do with the new timings, it is just hard to fence against someone when you can not predict what they will do. That doesn't mean that it has become more productive to fence like a spaz just because doing so sometimes works.

[mifencer]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

Kind of like putting a limit on the compression of a golf ball, otherwise it would be too easy to drive the green.....
Or limiting the flexibilty of the golf club shaft...
Or not allowing aluminum bats in pro baseball.....
Or creating the three point line to encourage outside shooting.....

If this is "dumbed down," explain to me what was so intelectual about marching toward our opponent with your tip pointed skyward until he ran out of strip and attempted a counter attack so you could finish quickly and have the director say it was your RoW? The marching flick attack is the intellectual equivilent to basketball players taking turns dunking on each other (it might be showy, but there is little intellect involved.)


As for being "extremely irrational with (your) choice of actions." People like that have always been hard to fence. Ann lost a pool bout two weeks ago to a D rated fencer because of that. It doesn't have anything to do with the new timings, it is just hard to fence against someone when you can not predict what they will do. That doesn't mean that it has become more productive to fence like a spaz just because doing so sometimes works.

Dan,
Sometimes I think you reply with this kind of retort just to see what kind of reaction you get. Which will be the last one from me.

I was replying to Mike Harm's about being defeatist attitude. I never mentioned the march. Get over it, the march still works. Learn some footwork and you won't have to worry about the march.

Ann's loss a couple of weeks ago mainly had to do with her point bouncing off the guy's chest. Were you there?

[SmokeyTheCat263]

lol...the march...god i hate that term for attacks.

[Kat]

Originally Posted by glowstix

fyi, vezzali against trillini for the gold...

If it was one of the photo's on the linked page then it would be Gruchala vs Vezzali in the semifinal, you can see Gruchala's trademark counter attack like this in several of the pic's. You can also see her name on the back of her lamé in this photograph.