Rene Speaks

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by King Roche

Who would have thought that by making foil fencers use the maraging blade, they would use it as they would a fishing rod?

This is a bad translation... it was supposed to say.

Who would have thought that fencers would use their foils like fishing rods, even after requiring the use of maraging blades.

[mrbiggs]

I agree with the entire article, except when he says that foil fencing has not been adversely affected. I don't really think that the new timings RUINED foil, but I find it hard to beleive that he doesn't see the disadvantages. (Counterattacks getting better, fencers attacking less, straight attacks not landing.) Does he really beleive what he's saying, or is he just lying in an attempt to defend his timings, do you think?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

Ummmm....
I don't think that Rene has advocated removing RoW in foil.
I don't think that section that you quoted suggests that.
It sounds like you and Alan should get together for coffee sometime and share your wild, baseless, arguments.

I don't think that Roch advocates removing ROW or has any intention of doing so.

On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he made some comment along those lines -- that foil is broken and if ROW isn't being called correctly we need to either change the rules to remove ROW or find a technical fix. It also wouldn't surprise me if every one of the 117 (or whatever) fencing NGB's were more in favor of technical fixes than removing ROW from foil.

Rediculous exageration to create an impression. Predictable response against rediculous suggestion that was never intended as a real suggestion. Gives a nice unanimous mandate fairly easily....

-B :)

[Victor]

I'd expect that this sort of decision would play havoc with some fencers who have trained for years within very strict boundaries of timing and placement. That's a no-brainer -- an elite athlete is a precision machine -- and negative responses we've been hearing would seem to confirm that. (Although some of the more vocal naysayers include people who probably know the back of their hands better and have no justification to whine about skillful fencing.)

Transition is gonna be hard for some. But ya know, the hard cold fact of life is this: The overall population overall will adapt. The best coaches will teach new students how to fence successfully under the new timings, and the best fencers will learn likewise ... or fall to the wayside, only to be replaced with other fencers who can.

In the Larger Scheme of Things, this is really No Big Deal.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Victor

In the Larger Scheme of Things, this is really No Big Deal.

careful, a rational perspective has no place here.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

) Does he really beleive what he's saying, or is he just lying in an attempt to defend his timings, do you think?

IMHO it's a bit of both. [1] Roch clearly believes the timings aren't end-of-world horrible, and [2] both Roch and the FIE have a vested interest in representing to the world that everything's fine.

When Roch mentioned submitting a request for 2 more medals from the IOC, this relates to how the FIE is supposed to generally "get its house in order" or suffer consequences from the IOC. With the timings changed, he's telling the IOC that the FIE has jumped through the required hoop. Given the general atmosphere right now, it seems like a joke that Roch would try this.

[dekko]

I think the better translation is:

blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Seriously, huh?

[Joe biebel]

The emperor's new clothes. It scares me to read this letter. It scares me more that some of you buy into it. I am starting to doubt that Roche knows anything specific about fencing. If his letter is an accurate translation of his his thoughts, I am stunned. Left is right, up is down, and Roche is a genius. Leave the "improvements" to people that know what they are doing. This would have been the best possible project for Roche to delegate to the technical committee. It may have even worked better if he would have listened to the technicians. It just pi$$e$ me off that he (Roche) can discount all of the negative feedback, from people in the know, and latch onto the "positive" and encouraging remarks from all of his "bootlickers". It's like saying, "Everyone that matters, agrees with me". Sad. Sad. Sad.

[Craig]

Available for pre-order here:
http://www.fencing101.com/catalog/pr...roducts_id=127

The DVD is priced higher than the normal ones, but the cost was a lot higher also. 1 hour of fencing, 2 camera angles, nice transitions, and much improved commentary.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

I did a review of the 2005 Paris CIP, from Fencing Pictures. (Outstanding product, by the way. I don't know when it's coming out, or if it's already available thru some vendors.)

The demands on the fencers are quite different from before, and some fencers were clearly frustrated. While not everything is perfect, the sky hasn't fallen in on foil, as several people fear. Roch's representation of the CIP bouts is not far removed from what one can see in the DVD.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by Epee Scherma

It does make perfectly good sense, and I support the new timings. I'm just surprised that he said flick attacks came because of maraging blades. That is an observation I have never heard of, and don't quite believe as entirely true. Can anyone back up his statement?

He doesn't really say that flick attacks came about due to maraging blades.
He says: "Who would have thought that by making foil fencers use the maraging blade, they would use it as they would a fishing rod?"

It is a fact that modern weapons will flex a lot farther without breaking than they did 40 years ago. Mr. Roch is probably not aware that this is true of both maraging and non-maraging weapons. But that makes sense, FIE fencers use maraging blades, I suspect his familiarity with nonmaraging blades would be somewhat limited.

It is true that the developement of weapons that will flex farther without breaking, and electric scoring machines that will register touches that land for a microsecond DID make the flick attack a viable option.

I think to his statement I would have added"Who would have thought the directors would award right of way to a fencer that attacks without his tip pointing at the target area and without his arme extending..."

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

When Roch mentioned submitting a request for 2 more medals from the IOC, this relates to how the FIE is supposed to generally "get its house in order" or suffer consequences from the IOC. With the timings changed, he's telling the IOC that the FIE has jumped through the required hoop. Given the general atmosphere right now, it seems like a joke that Roch would try this.

I still have seen no credible information that specifically targets fencing's removal from the Olympics. We may lose the team events, but what rule change will stop that? If they are hell-bent on removing redundant events, there is not much we can do about it. Granted, I've read a few reports here and there and may have missed the one that targets fencing for possible removal.

[guy_smiley]

Originally Posted by Epee Scherma

Roch says flick attacks grew from the use of maraging blades?! I didn't know this. Is this true? Where is Alan when you need him. I need his verification of this fact.

The statement is patently false.

[telkanuru]

read the re-translation.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Epee Scherma

Roch says flick attacks grew from the use of maraging blades?! I didn't know this. Is this true? Where is Alan when you need him. I need his verification of this fact.

I have never pretented to be an expert in foil history. Flicks come from maragins ? So what ? New hits came from new tennis rackets etc ...

And you don't need Alan. You must protest yourself at the next foil event.
Alan is just one ... A majority of foilists should show to this autocrat that they don't want his "classisism"...
If you just sit here and wait, he may well impose his views to the majority.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by achilleus

I figured that as people adapted to the timings, the bouts would change from what we saw in La Coruna.

Did this happen at the CIP?

I mean, so far all I see is nasty, scrappy fencing. All I hear about is nasty scrappy fencing from the FIE tournaments, and then Roch here says how pretty it's looking.

Anyone able to corrobate? Anyone besides Alan to say his same five catchphrases?

Sorry. I was at the CIP and it **was** horrible.
Remember all this partly started after reports of boring it was at the CIP ???

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

He doesn't really say that flick attacks came about due to maraging blades.
He says: "Who would have thought that by making foil fencers use the maraging blade, they would use it as they would a fishing rod?"

You're right, in theory he COULD be saying that fencers, out of spite due to being forced to use maraging blades, starting doing nothing but fly-casting.

Just read the sentence that YOU quoted. What that sentence says is that foil fencers are using their foils as fishing rods BECAUSE of the change to maraging blades.

-B :)

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

You're right, in theory he COULD be saying that fencers, out of spite due to being forced to use maraging blades, starting doing nothing but fly-casting.

-B

I'm right? I didn't say that.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

You're right, in theory he COULD be saying that fencers, out of spite due to being forced to use maraging blades, starting doing nothing but fly-casting.

Just read the sentence that YOU quoted. What that sentence says is that foil fencers are using their foils as fishing rods BECAUSE of the change to maraging blades.

-B

He does not say "because." )That implies that maraging blades CAUSED them to start flicking.) He is saying that they did not predict that fencers would start flicking when weapons that would flex further without breaking became available. (I admit that is not limited to maraging blades.)

I think that is a pretty acurate statement.

[foilz]

Originally Posted by Rene Speaks

Perhaps we need to make minor adjustments, because you cannot achieve perfection on your first try, but I think the result is positive and I would like to hear constructive comments from everyone involved.

The timings will change.

[edew]

I think Bill Oliver said it best when discussing how to solve the "fly-fishing" problem with foil. Require the referee to call anything where the blade vector is not directly aiming at the chest as preparation. The first fencer to get that blade aimed at the other fencer, and start the arm-extension will have the right of way. Then, flicks to the back cannot be considered attacks unless it was part of a riposte or beat (in which case, the offensive action occurs just as the blade is coming down).

Then, fencers marching down the strip with the point aimed at the ceiling, and then bringing it down against a (currently interpreted late attempt at an attack-in-preparation) counter-offensive action will no longer be considered as part of the attack, but a preparation into which the opposing fencer has the right to make an immediate attack. But the FIE don't have the 84115 to require referees to make such calls and so flicks are tolerated.

We can easily go back to a more "classical" approach by tightening the interpretation of what an attack is. Thus, when two fencers "attack" simultaneously, and X performs the action with an extension and thrust to the chest while Y performs the action with a flick to the chest, the referee should make the call as "attack by X, preparation by Y, touch for X." By doing so, the Ys of the world will get wise (get the alliteration, eh?) and learn to make attacks with extensions and not with flicks.

Heck, it doesn't even have to be flicks. There are those who make the circumlocutious extensions that start at sixte, meanders past four in a counter-clockwise spiral (for right handers) ending the extension in eight. The "attack" passes three lines. If the opposing fencer makes a straight attack, utilizing only one line, shouldn't the opposing fencer get the right of way since the meandering fencer's attack crosses over multiple lines and thus is not considered a simple attack? A simple attack allows for a simple disengage from one line to another (say, start at six, end in eight).