Rene Speaks

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by edew

Let me clarify what I mentioned (currently on page 2) about the circumlocutious attack versus a direct attack. First off, a number of referees are making the call for the strong direct attack over a plodding, curvy attack. It's similar to saber calls where one fencer makes an enthusiatic and determined attack while the other sort of dogs it with a very slow extension. Both fencers have to be "equally intense" to make it count as simultaneous.

In foil, it's even more crucial because the target is deeper (the torso) so a meandering extension can easily be converted into a parry so that the meandering extension attacker basically has a riskless situation by extension in a convoluted manner. If the referee will call a convoluted extension equivalent to a direct extension, then the one utilizing the convoluted extension has a distinct advantage: at any time during the extension, he may choose to make a parry-riposte, or he can just continue on expecting a simultaneous attack call. It's as though one person is allowed to use rock, paper or scissors, but the other is only allowed rock and paper. In this case the one with the additional action will play either paper or scissor, resulting in either a win (paper over rock, scissors over paper) or a tie (paper with paper). It's almost a no-lose opportunity, and that must be fixed.

The not-as-good referees will give the call of simultaneous when one makes an intense-effort direct attack while the other dogs the attack with a lazy, slow hand.

While I can certainly appreciate the slow-hand approach (and frequently use it in my repertoire of tactics and techniques), I see the utilization of the slow-hand during the "simultaneous actions" as patently unfair. So, what prevents the other from also doing a slow-hand attack at the same time? Certainly, if the referee isn't going to see the faster, more deliberate attack as having priority, then it's no point trying to change the referee's mind. It's better to make simultaneous slow actions. But what if that plays into the opponent's strength? Then it's jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire when deciding to follow what the referee prefers.

As best I understand it they are calling it that way in sabre because the *cut* is the attack in sabre and if you make a slow curvy extension then you are, reasonably clearly, not *cutting*, yet. This makes sense to me.

The purpose of throwing out a simulaneous, rather than having a double-touch, in foil and sabre is that both fencers have made a mistake and therefore neither should benefit from it.

Since in foil you're hitting with the point, I don't see how making a fast extension at the same time that your opponent makes a slow extension means you haven't made a mistake. They *are* extending, they *are* going to hit you and since they both thrusting they're both going to hit at the same speed (since they are both moving at the same speed relative to each other, it doesn't matter how fast they are moving relative to the ground).

Please elaborate.

gary hayenga

[rsy]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

But we're discussing what should be called if I do a 1-2 and you do a 1 and we both hit at the same time.

t.59 (d) provides that if you start the 2 before the opponent's 1 lands, then you maintain ROW. Therefore, if you do a 1-2 and your opponent responds with a 1 and you both hit at the same time, the 1-2 maintains ROW since the final movement (your 2) commenced before the opponent's 1 landed.

-r

[MikeHarm]

Dan,
I was told the same thing at a Michigan director's clinic I went to as you heard. After that I gave up trying to establish lines for the most part.

Originally Posted by DanInMI

No
That is not true.
I had a director from your neck of the woods say that to me a couple of weeks ago.

He said that if the attacker attempts to take the blade, and the defender derobes the attacker, but the attacker follows through on the same line and arrives on target that the attacker still has RoW. That is incorrect. If the referee sees that the attacker attempts to take the blade, (whether it be a beat or a bind,) and does not, then it is a failed attack and the RoW passes to the opponent just as if he had parried the attack, regardless of whether he follows through on the same line. (according to the three top coaches I know.)

[fencer1960]

[quote=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).

Mr. Dew is so right. He will be so ignored. The new timings are a technical solution to our directors unwillingness to call the flashy, dramatic preparation that leads to the flick a preparation. Since the FIE insists on this approach, perhaps keeping the shorter lockout time while losing the longer debounce time will make attacks on preparation more profitable, and reduce some fencers percieved over reliance on the flick. Flicking will still be possible ( in fact, I can't think of any reasonable timing or equipment modifications that would make it impossible to flick) but more dangerous for the attacker.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by rsy

t.59 (d) provides that if you start the 2 before the opponent's 1 lands, then you maintain ROW. Therefore, if you do a 1-2 and your opponent responds with a 1 and you both hit at the same time, the 1-2 maintains ROW since the final movement (your 2) commenced before the opponent's 1 landed.

-r

Precisely. But Eric seems to be suggesting he would prefer that if both fencers start simultaneously and one fencer does a 1-2, or 1-2-3 and the other does a 1 that the 1 would have priority.

And then DanInMi lept in to confuse the discussion by talking about stop-hits in the middle of a discussion about attacks that start and arrive simultaneously, which of course has nothing to do with stop hits at all.

The post you replied to was my reply to DanInMi pointing out that even then he was incorrect as successful stop-hits have tempo, but they do not take right-of-way, for precisely the reason you stated above.

gary hayenga

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Precisely. But Eric seems to be suggesting he would prefer that if both fencers start simultaneously and one fencer does a 1-2, or 1-2-3 and the other does a 1 that the 1 would have priority.

And then DanInMi lept in to confuse the discussion by talking about stop-hits in the middle of a discussion about attacks that start and arrive simultaneously, which of course has nothing to do with stop hits at all.

The post you replied to was my reply to DanInMi pointing out that even then he was incorrect as successful stop-hits have tempo, but they do not take right-of-way, for precisely the reason you stated above.

gary hayenga

Huh? I didn't talk about stop hits.

I admit that I did misunderstand what you were saying, and may have confused the issue....but it sure wasn't about stop-hits.