From the latest FIE mag, Roch's editorial:
THE END
OF “FLY FISHING”
It is always very difficult to get the athletes to accept certain
changes. This is easily understood because they must take the
changes on board and subsequently change the way they fight.
The evolution of sport is undeniable and, quite often, some of the
changes deeply affect the way we look at the rules. 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 how foil, a
conventional weapon by nature, lost all the subtlety that we knew
and liked about it. The back touch, which used to be exceptional,
has now become very popular with fencers, so much so that, when
they wanted to try their foil, most fencers would hit the back of their
opponent as they would with a fishing rod.
The rule specifying that the proper attack should be carried out
with the arm extended, and the pointe aiming at the target, could
not be upheld. Therefore we had an alternative : either we changed
the rules or we found a way to make the fencers follow the rules.
If foil hadn’t been a conventional weapon, it would have been
possible to tolerate all the unorthodox moves of this discipline ;
and this is why, during the Leipzig Congress, we discussed this
issue with all the federations : change the rules or change the way
foil is used.
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.
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.
I went to the first major foil tournament and, before entering the
venue, some people told me that the decisions we had made were
going against what we really wanted to achieve. “Attacks have
become static, there are no parry and riposte moves anymore,
fencers are always attempting stop hits, matches end up on 6-5
or even 3-4 scores”. It is a good thing I attended the CIP bouts
because the reality was completely different from what they had
described. So why these reactions ? Of course I can understand
them coming from a journalist who does not necessarily know
our sport, but when I hear certain (singular) person(s) telling
me such things, I can only believe we did not attend the same
competition.
Fortunately a great number of fencers were there to reassure me,
who, like myself, had seen a more technical foil with preparations,
derobements, extended arms, parry and riposte and counter time.
Everything that had been neglected in favour of fly fishing.
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.
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. Running on the piste does not make
you faster. A touch involves the head, the arm and the legs. Only
using the legs reduces our sport to almost nothing.
We should be happy that the changes brought in allow for a more
academic foil, because fly fishing has nothing to do with the conventional
weapon. We do not want the “death of the fisherman”, we
only wish for fencers to change the way they obtain valid touches.
 |  | |
| Closed Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 86
Thread: Rene Speaks
| ||
Originally Posted by Victor 
