Rene Speaks

[achilleus]

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.

[ThatReallyHurt]

(sits back in a comfy chair with a bowl of popcorn, waiting for the fireworks to start)

[keith]

(picks up fishing rod and heads for the door)

At least my skills are appreciated by the trout even if they are disdained by our god emperor.

[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.

[Victor]

(shrug) The essay makes sense to me.

[telkanuru]

It makes sense to myself as well.

[Epee Scherma]

Originally Posted by Victor

(shrug) The essay makes sense to me.

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?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Roche

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

Translation: "Either you vote to eliminate ROW in foil or you vote to let me muck up other things (which I'll specify later once I figure them out). Ok, good, unanimous agreement to not remove ROW from foil. Moving right along..."

-B :)

[dekko]

Is it possible to translate this into english, or understandable variant?

Just curious, did he say that the IOC has approved 2 more medals? Team Women's Foil and Sabre are in/back in?

[oiuyt]

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? :confused:

Of COURSE the flick came about as part of the move to maraging steel. Maraging blades tend to be stiffer than traditional carbon steel, and EVERYONE knows that the best flicking blades are the ultra-stiff ones. :eyeroll:

You haven't heard it before because he's pulling it out of his ***.

Temporal proximity (which I'll stipulate without bothering to try to confirm) does NOT imply causality. Inq'll give you the technical words for this type of fallacy if you ask him.

-B :)

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by dekko

Just curious, did he say that the IOC has approved 2 more medals? Team Women's Foil and Sabre are in/back in?

No, he said that he'd asked the IOC for more medals... it's a red herring.

-B :)

[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?

[esskreemr]

3 things:

1) He implies that the majority of competitive fencers are happy with the changes. Are they? He states that a couple of journalists complained about foil becoming static. He must have forgot the heads of two national fencing federations and a plethora of athletes.
2) He acknowledges that the changes need tweaked.
3) He plays on the idea of getting two more medal categories in the Olympics. I say fat chance to that one.

[Inquartata]

Lives in his own little world, that Roch...

[dekko]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

No, he said that he'd asked the IOC for more medals... it's a red herring.

-B

Like I said, can some one translate this?

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Before this season my coach made a strong move to make me stop flicking. It was a crutch the offered mild successes early but ran me into a brick wall in technical development. Sure enough, when I focued on working on my straight game in addition to my flicks, I became more successful as I had more options.

When this season rolled around and I initially played with the boxes to see flicks not landing, I said woooah, forget this, why try it - and spent the majority of this season using only straight attacks in competition. However, some people were still flicking me.

Recently, after very little practice with flicking on the new timings, it was if something just clicked, and I knew when where how to flick all over again. Against people who think that my flicks have little to no chance of landing and thus do little to defend themselves from it in favour of standing there with a counter-atttack, my flicks are very, very successful. I could flick these kinds of people all day to the chest both shoulders, the flank, and yes, even to the back. Hurray.

But this is why I tell this long story: It is my personal opinion that my straight attacks have more of a chance of landing, but not registering than my flicks do. Granted, this may be because I simply throw more straight attacks than flicks. But is this what the new timings wanted? Tighter, more controlled and technical actions, sure. Way overboard fly fishing style flicks gone, sure sure.
But for even mediocre fencers to be able to tweak their fencing to a point where flicks still land fine, but straight attacks are sometimes a gamble? To say that we may be in need of minor adjustments seems the worst understatement I've ever heard in a fencing context.

[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 oiuyt

Translation: "Either you vote to eliminate ROW in foil or you vote to let me muck up other things (which I'll specify later once I figure them out). Ok, good, unanimous agreement to not remove ROW from foil. Moving right along..."

-B

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.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Temporal proximity (which I'll stipulate without bothering to try to confirm) does NOT imply causality. Inq'll give you the technical words for this type of fallacy if you ask him.

-B

Said this enough times, y'know. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by King Roch

]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.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

I did a review of the 2005 Paris CIP,

Roch's representation of the CIP bouts is not far removed from what one can see in the DVD.

Here's your shovel, sir!