Rene Speaks

[DanInMI]

[quote=Alan]Sorry. I was at the CIP and it **was** horrible.
QUOTE]
Really?

Well, now we have heard from a competely impartial observer!

[Alan]

Originally Posted by King RENE

THE END
OF “FLY FISHING”
It was a unanimous decision of the Congress that the rules
remain unchanged and therefore a means of changing the way
fencers use their foil needed to be found. That is to say to return
to a more traditional approach from which we never should
have departed. We had tests carried out, and the Congress decided
that, from September 2004, impact time and blocking time would
be modified.

And it will be a decision of the majority of the foilists that they don't want your tradition.
And a majority of foilists wants to keep ROW also. Just a better training of
the referees is needed.

By the way unanimous decisions reminds me too much of some autocratic countries

Originally Posted by King RENE

Of course I was expecting reactions against this decision, knowing
that all beneficial changes that we have brought in over the last
ten years have always been opposed, sometimes for unspeakable
reasons.

Who is taking this flick pretext to impose reforms for unspeakable reasons ?
Well yours are not unspeakable, you have clearly stated in the different issues of Roch Magazine that your only goals were telegeny and the Olympics

Originally Posted by King RENE

but when I hear certain (singular) person(s) telling
me such things, I can only believe we did not attend the same
competition.

You don't seem to listen too much. They were at least 4 in Seoul.
There are at least 10 other well known foilists and trainers who have clearly
expressed against these broken test timings and also 3 major fencing federations !!!

Originally Posted by King RENE

Fortunately a great number of fencers were there to reassure me,

Where are they ????
We have not seen yet ONE foilist ranked in the top 150 in favor
of these broken test timings.

If you are so sure that a great number of foilists are for the test timings
just ask them at the next foil event. It would be easy to organize that : just ask them when they do their inscription.

Use independant people to take their advice and publish the result.

Originally Posted by King RENE

This is why I asked the President of the Athletes Committee to get in
touch with the IOC management to support my request for two
additional medals for the Beijing Olympic Games.
Each one of our weapons has its own characteristics and, if we wish
to retain them at the Olympic Games, it is essential to keep the
differentiating characteristics.

Because transforming foil into Foilepee will keep its characteristics ???

Clever attempt here to mix things. Getting 2 more medals or not has nothing
to do with the broken test timings problem.


You are right on one point tough. We need only a minor adjustement :
get back to the current timings.

[Alan]

[quote=DanInMI]

Originally Posted by Alan

Sorry. I was at the CIP and it **was** horrible.
QUOTE]
Really?

Well, now we have heard from a competely impartial observer!

And i have always said my opinion was nothing.

But of course King René will not dare to ask to the foilists that they want.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have always thought that the best solution to eliminate the marching flick attack was to make the referee call RoW according to the rule book. A person that is marching down his opponent with his tip pointed skyward is not "extending."

I would agree that defining what is meant by "threatening" is a good idea. I have always said that is open to interpretation and therefore should be defined in the rules. I think that perhaps "pointing AT the target area" might be a little too rigid, but "tip moving toward target area" might be more adequate.

The problem is that there does not seem to be any system in place to force the referees to comply with the direction of the FIE.

[fencerchica]

(with apologies for a minor threadjack)

Originally Posted by edew

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).

I'm confused by this... your final statement seems to me to suggest that while a feint-disengage is an attack which, once begun, retains priority over an opponent's counterattack, a one-two would lose priority over that counterattack because it involves two disengages instead of just one. Likewise, that the double (sorry, don't know the shortcut for the little accent mark) you described would lose priority simply because it involves a disengage followed by a coupee. That doesn't seem right to me...? Shouldn't the attacker retain priority as long as they execute small deceives with the fingers and do not break the line of the arm and wrist?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

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.

Read what he said. Read it again. He said that "by making foil fencers use the maraging blade" -- this implies causality of what follows -- "they would use it as they would a fishing rod?" What he says is synonymous with "because foil fencers use the maraging blade they would use it as they would a fishing rod".

Maraging blades do NOT flex further without breaking. What they do is flex more times without breaking. The testing to obtain FIE certification of a blade is based on the average number of standardized impacts before breakage of a number (10 I believe) of the blades. Maraging steel has less micro-crack proprigation than carbon steels, which increases the longetivity of the blades, but does not increase flexibility.

Had he said something like "Who would have thought that advances in metallographic techniques would yield blades capable of allowing foil fencers to use their blades as they would a fishing rod?" Then I would agree with you. This is not what he said. Or even "Who would have thought that maraging blades would allow foil fencers to use their blades as they would a fishing rod?" PERHAPS, although then I would still argue because the basic premise is flawed (that the shift to maraging steel is what allowed the shift in foilists' tactics).

But he credits the shift to maraging with the introduction of fly fishing by foilists. And this is just patently absurd.

-B :)

[keith]

actually it's a good threadjack.

Being really really strict on the rules would say that yes a 1-2 is in fact out of time against a direct counter (the size of movement is immaterial - remember that a coupe is a simple attack). Which is why the rules weren't changed and the boxes were, pushing a 'new' (well actually old) style of presiding down through the FIE members would never have worked. They just don't have that much control over how actions are called by refs.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

(sorry, don't know the shortcut for the little accent mark)

Hold down the ALT key and type "130" using the numeric keypad. é

Useful shortcut to know if you write about fencing very often. Incidently, most of the other accented vowels are with codes around that value (129 up to 163 with a range in the middle for other characters). The code that is needed is the ASCII code for the character you want to type. So for example, "A" would be ALT-65. The code has to be typed with the numberic keypad rather than the numbers at the top of the keyboard.

Hope that helps in the future.

-B :)

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Read what he said. Read it again. He said that "by making foil fencers use the maraging blade" -- this implies causality of what follows -- "they would use it as they would a fishing rod?" What he says is synonymous with "because foil fencers use the maraging blade they would use it as they would a fishing rod".

Maraging blades do NOT flex further without breaking. What they do is flex more times without breaking. The testing to obtain FIE certification of a blade is based on the average number of standardized impacts before breakage of a number (10 I believe) of the blades. Maraging steel has less micro-crack proprigation than carbon steels, which increases the longetivity of the blades, but does not increase flexibility.

Had he said something like "Who would have thought that advances in metallographic techniques would yield blades capable of allowing foil fencers to use their blades as they would a fishing rod?" Then I would agree with you. This is not what he said. Or even "Who would have thought that maraging blades would allow foil fencers to use their blades as they would a fishing rod?" PERHAPS, although then I would still argue because the basic premise is flawed (that the shift to maraging steel is what allowed the shift in foilists' tactics).

But he credits the shift to maraging with the introduction of fly fishing by foilists. And this is just patently absurd.

-B

I agree with you , the switch to maraging steel did not cause fencers to start flicking.

Mr Roch should have said "the introduction of weapons that flex further and more often without breaking, along with the introduction of electronic scoring, allowed flicking to become a viable,and vary popular, tactic. That was an unwanted side effect that nobody predicted."

[Alan]

Originally Posted by King RENE

Qui aurait pu prévoir qu’en obligeant les fleurettistes à utiliser la lame
maraging ceux-ci s’en serviraient comme d’une canne à pêche ?

The meaning is

"Who could have predicted that forcing the foilists to use maraging baldes
would make them use them as fishing rods ?"

I don't know who forced them ?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

along with the introduction of electronic scoring, allowed flicking to become a viable,and vary popular, tactic. That was an unwanted side effect that nobody predicted."

You mean the electronic scoring that was introduced (in foil) in the mid-50's? :)

-B :)

[rivers]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

"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..."[/i]

Bravo, when watching some of these foil DVDs, it appears as if some fencers are attacking with the point so far removed from their opponent that the blade is almost hidden behind the back of the attacker. All this in an effort to deny the blade to their opponent.

Whatever happened to extend and Lunge?

[edew]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

(with apologies for a minor threadjack)



I'm confused by this... your final statement seems to me to suggest that while a feint-disengage is an attack which, once begun, retains priority over an opponent's counterattack, a one-two would lose priority over that counterattack because it involves two disengages instead of just one. Likewise, that the double (sorry, don't know the shortcut for the little accent mark) you described would lose priority simply because it involves a disengage followed by a coupee. That doesn't seem right to me...? Shouldn't the attacker retain priority as long as they execute small deceives with the fingers and do not break the line of the arm and wrist?

Here's an example of this: I make an attack. You parry and make a compound disengage (a one-two disengage). I make an immediate remise from my attack. Both hit. Touch for me. This has always been the case. If you make a simple disengage, touch for you, but a compound (going from 6 to 4 back to 6, say) would allow the immediate remise to take over priority. If, however, I make a searching action or even a delayed attempt to make a remise, then your compound riposte would have priority.

I did such an action in the early-to-mid 80s, in response to being spooked by Joe Elliott at a local foil competition in Southern California. I attack. He parries and makes multiple feints. I follow each and every one of them to my chest. So, the next time, I make the same attack, I forced myself to make an immediate remise. He makes a simple riposte and I say, "D'Oh!"

But, I learned, and used the action to much positive effect against a number of other fencers. When I was in Germany, I used it to great effect. Works for about two touches per bout. It's also the action I use to get Jeff Bukantz all roiled up and p-o'ed at me.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by edew

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).

Where does it say that a compound attack loses right of way to a simple attack?

gary hayenga

[rsy]

Originally Posted by edew

Here's an example of this: I make an attack. You parry and make a compound disengage (a one-two disengage). I make an immediate remise from my attack. Both hit. Touch for me. This has always been the case. If you make a simple disengage, touch for you, but a compound (going from 6 to 4 back to 6, say) would allow the immediate remise to take over priority.

Isn't this true only if the remise arrives before the final action on the riposte is commenced?

-r

[edew]

If you consider the compound riposte to have the tempo of 1-2, and the immediate remise to hit on the "1", then the remise arrives before the final action (the "2") of the compound riposte. If there's any delay in the remise, then the remise would not be in time.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by edew

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).

Eric,

You'd take away my whole starting game then! Although it is frustrating when you make that straight attack w/disengage and the ref calls it simul.

The only time I've gotten the attack on prep call was when Sharon Everson was calling the match and my opponent made that "attack spiral" extra large. (So that's what, a 0.001% success rate?)

Craig

[Craig]

Gary,

The way I read this was the attack where you make the big search from 6 to 4 back to 8 so that if there is a blade in the way, you get a beat-attack and if not you get a loopy attack. Since you are "clearing out" the area ahead of you and not making a feint, disengage the blade coming at you, hit it *should* be called a search for the blade (preparation) and not the attack, but that would be in a perfect world where the referee can pick it up a lot easier than you can when standing off to the side.

Eric - Please correct me if I'm off base on my interpretation of the action you described.

Craig

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Where does it say that a compound attack loses right of way to a simple attack?

gary hayenga

[keith]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Where does it say that a compound attack loses right of way to a simple attack?

gary hayenga

well a simple attack takes one period of fencing time a compound attack two - so any simple action into the first fient has priority.

Fortunately the only time this is called is in Edew's example against the compound riposte. As to circular perambulations through the lines most good refs are able to spot whether the hand is going forward or not, which tends to be the basis of how the attack is assigned.

[flyingfencer]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with this. It's what I was trying to get across in another thread about the timings. I know that the FIE has given a number of reasons for the new timings, but it seems that the real reason for these timings to try to fix this ROW issue.

Post from another thread:
"I disagree with the aspect that a long marching attack can maintain ROW no matter what from the point that the attacker threatens his opponent's target to the point that he lands his touch. I just can't get it that a fencer can threaten a target, stop threatening target, march down the strip, ending with his light and his opponent's light at the same time to half a second later than his opponent, and be given ROW no matter what he does in the intervening time as long as he keeps advancing and ends with a light.

In a