Rene's Next Move

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by One and Only...

If by getting rid of double touches they simply mean awarding no points to either fencer for two lights, then yes, I can see how it would make epee less static. Epeeists could no longer rely on getting up a few points and consistantly doubling for the win... it would force them to be more aggressive, as countering just wouldn't be as viable.

I disagree.

If you threw out every double touch, you could still double out until the end of the 3 minute or 9 minute bout. [Good] Epee fencers are patient enough to make this happen.

It may make it less static, but it wouldn't be pretty.

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by One and Only...

If by getting rid of double touches they simply mean awarding no points to either fencer for two lights, then yes, I can see how it would make epee less static.

It may force a fencer to be more agressive, true.

Originally Posted by One and Only...

Epeeists could no longer rely on getting up a few points and consistantly doubling for the win...

I disagree. Good epee fencers could still double out to the end of their 3 min or 9 min bout and win by being a touch ahead. Epee fencers are renoun for being this patient.

Originally Posted by One and Only...

Going for a double would just kinda hit the back seat; it would become something to do when you don't know how to deal with the situation and are just trying to nullify your opponent's touch.

Or change the momentum, or take a little time to figure out your opponent.

[MikeHarm]

You know, if you wanted to make epee bouts go faster an easy way to do it hypothetically is you could make it so that you scored more points for touches in the first round and less in the second and third rounds. That would give epee the equivelant of a slam dunk.

[Markstorm]

I say they use the ol' pentathalon method of one-touch bouts. First epeeist with a single light wins the bout. This would also solve weekend tournament problems- they could hold epee and sabre on the same day, since epee would be done very quickly. This way, multi-weapon fencers wouldn't have the problems they have now between sabre and foil.

EVERYONE WINS!!

Except roch.

[One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

It may force a fencer to be more agressive, true.

I assume the lack of aggression is what is meant by being "static."

I disagree. Good epee fencers could still double out to the end of their 3 min or 9 min bout and win by being a touch ahead. Epee fencers are renoun for being this patient.

True, but I still think it would be more difficult. Think about how many more successful doubles would need to be landed to win that way than in the present environment.

Or change the momentum, or take a little time to figure out your opponent.

Now that you mention this, doubling might become a bit more useful to underdog in the bout... after all, he needs to figure out how to deal with his opponent more than the person in the lead does.

[smeric28]

how about a double in epee resulting in the loss of a point for both sides?

[Alan]

Originally Posted by ThatReallyHurt

A valid point, and it goes hand in hand with what I asked earlier - how do you get the opinion of all (or even most) foilists?

Well. First a will must exist of wanting to get the opinion of foilists.
It is clearly not the case when you see the autocratic reaction of King René
after the protest in Seoul :
this pathetic passivity rule adopted in a hurry just after Seoul.
A rule for "immediate application" but which needs to be approved by the congress ...


Now, if the will existed, it would be quite easy to get the opinion of the foilists

- just collect them when they come to a foil event and centralize the information using the unique Id of each fencer.

- open a vote on a website using this same id

- organize a real poll with an institute in some countries with a significant number of foilists. I don't know how much that costs but the money would be better spent than on folkloric projects like clear visors, video ? etc ...

- ...

[Alan]

Other example of Autocratic reaction and dedain for the foilists,
this article in Roch Magazine
http://www.fie.ch/download/magazines...revue%2051.pdf

where the only argument is to compare foil with fly fishing
and where King René says :

"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."

So there would be only ONE person against these broken test timings ???
I wonder who (s)he is ?


"Fortunately a great number of fencers were there to reassure me,
who, like myself, had seen a more technical foil with preparations, ..."

We would like to know who they are ???
We are still waiting to see ONE foilist ranked in the top 150 world ranking
saying something good about these broken test timings.

Or may be these "great number of fencers" are Epeists ?
(I have nothing Epeists but i consider foilists are the ones who should decide about foil)

Or may be these "great number of fencers" are not fencing anymore ?
(aka Romankov nostalgics ???)


The only positive thing in this paper :

"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."

Well the foil seen in La Corugna for instance is very far from perfection
and it would need zillions of try to get near there.

But to finish on a "constructive comment" :
Yes a "minor adjustment" is needed : just use the Athens timings.

And any new new timings should be toroughly tested in non official competitions during at least one year before they can be used in official junior
or senior competitions.

In the mean time the current official timings should be used.


.

[ChubbyHubby]

Originally Posted by Alan

And any new new timings should be toroughly tested in non official competitions during at least one year before they can be used in official junior
or senior competitions.
In the mean time the current official timings should be used.

.

So you are suggesting we should all spend money rechipping the current "new timings" back to the old ones, wait a year and then rechip them again to the new "new timings"?

Also, who is going to fence in non official competitions? The top fencers are not going to waste time fencing in non official competitions using different timings to any official timings.

It think the FIE's approach is "suck it and see", and changing it down to 8ms debounce will make it better than it is now - it's as good as not having the debounce time without the FIE having to admit debounce time was a complete waste of time.

Apart from the point of view of very young (or old) fencers, the lockout time has been fine, it's not the change fencers are complaining about.

[sabreur]

Similarly, the rules committee will have to study
the way epee fencers fight, which is often too
static. How can we make it more dynamic ?
Do we have to cancel the double hit ? In sabre,
should we favour the defensive ?

Did any of you think that the way they could eliminate the double hit is by shortening the time in which the double can be scored? From 0.04 to 0.02 or something?

(Gets on soapbox)

If they want to favor the defensive in sabre, they ought to look into increasing the anti-whip-over blocking time. It is way too short right now, and keeps many good parries from being recognized.

(Gest back off soapbox)

MR

[Alan]

Originally Posted by ChubbyHubby

So you are suggesting we should all spend money rechipping the current "new timings" back to the old ones, wait a year and then rechip them again to the new "new timings"?


It think the FIE's approach is "suck it and see", and changing it down to 8ms debounce will make it better than it is now - it's as good as not having the debounce time without the FIE having to admit debounce time was a complete waste of time.

yes "suck it" is really the word...

Originally Posted by ChubbyHubby

Apart from the point of view of very young (or old) fencers, the lockout time has been fine, it's not the change fencers are complaining about.

Not true. In the report of the Italian federation the lockout time is critisized.
It is also in the interviews of some of the top foilists.

And even in the british federation letter :

"With respect to the overall effect on foil fights of the two changes in timing, the impression we have from international feedback is in general rather negative, with ‘boring’ a common description"


You should read them before writing false facts. No offense intended.

[ChubbyHubby]

Originally Posted by Alan

yes "suck it" is really the word...



Not true. In the report of the Italian federation the lockout time is critisized.
It is also in the interviews of some of the top foilists.

And even in the british federation letter :

"With respect to the overall effect on foil fights of the two changes in timing, the impression we have from international feedback is in general rather negative, with ‘boring’ a common description"


You should read them before writing false facts. No offense intended.

The Italian letter did not criticise the lockout time, it was requesting a review on the impact time (ie. why straight hits are not coming up).

With the British federation letter, what being said in the bit you quoted is the *combination* of the two changes has resulted in boring fencing. It is not saying they are both bad.

If you just read the bit you have quoted yourself from the British letter, you may want to consider improving your reading comprehension.

All the letters (from British, German, Italian federations) are asking for a review of the changes, to make adjustments. None of them are saying the new timings are rubbish let's change it back.

[dunastor]

Originally Posted by Epeecurean

Double defeats in the DE would result in byes for certain fencers in the next round of the DE. You could either let these byes pass through to the next fencer per usual or you could do a re-seed of the tableau and continue the DE from there. i.e. if there are 56 fencers left from the 128, rather than giving 8 byes the next round would be 56=>28. If at any stage there is an odd number of fencers, then the #1 seed gets the bye.

The fencers who dropped out in DE rounds could take part in depechage-rounds, to even up the tableau Now that would be interesting on the World Cup level....

[Alan]

Originally Posted by ChubbyHubby

The Italian letter did not criticise the lockout time, it was requesting a review on the impact time (ie. why straight hits are not coming up).

With the British federation letter, what being said in the bit you quoted is the *combination* of the two changes has resulted in boring fencing. It is not saying they are both bad.

If you just read the bit you have quoted yourself from the British letter, you may want to consider improving your reading comprehension.

All the letters (from British, German, Italian federations) are asking for a review of the changes, to make adjustments. None of them are saying the new timings are rubbish let's change it back.

Oh i forgot the German Letter :

"However, previous practice has shown that the implemented rapid changes lead to a distortion of
competition particularly in foil fencing – with respect to both the impact and the blocking time – since high numbers of correct thrusts are not registered because the impact time is too long, so
that the intended purpose has the opposite effect.

"Furthermore, the significantly reduced blocking times restrict the repertoire of actions in a way that
the attractiveness, which has definitely existed so far, is deeply affected. We doubtlessly have the
impression that both the winners and the losers, irrespective of their nationality, are equally
dissatisfied or even frustrated with this development with respect to the currently defined
parameters."


It seems you should read better yourself.

[ChubbyHubby]

Originally Posted by Alan

Oh i forgot the German Letter :

"However, previous practice has shown that the implemented rapid changes lead to a distortion of
competition particularly in foil fencing – with respect to both the impact and the blocking time – since high numbers of correct thrusts are not registered because the impact time is too long, so
that the intended purpose has the opposite effect.

"Furthermore, the significantly reduced blocking times restrict the repertoire of actions in a way that
the attractiveness, which has definitely existed so far, is deeply affected. We doubtlessly have the
impression that both the winners and the losers, irrespective of their nationality, are equally
dissatisfied or even frustrated with this development with respect to the currently defined
parameters."


It seems you should read better yourself.

The only reference I made to the German letter was that it wasn't saying "change it back". In fact if you read the following paragraph in the letter it said:

Furthermore, the significantly reduced blocking times restrict the repertoire of actions in a way that
the attractiveness, which has definitely existed so far, is deeply affected. We doubtlessly have the
impression that both the winners and the losers, irrespective of their nationality, are equally
dissatisfied or even frustrated with this development with respect to the currently defined
parameters.
We consider this to be due to an insufficient test series under real conditions, the results of which
have, furthermore, not been notified to us in any way. In the interest of the continuous
attractiveness of the disciplines, we request to modify the currently valid parameters as soon as
possible.

See? modify not "abandon" or "return to old timings".

Read the text instead of quoting out of context.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by ChubbyHubby

The only reference I made to the German letter was that it wasn't saying "change it back". In fact if you read the following paragraph in the letter it said:



See? modify not "abandon" or "return to old timings".

Read the text instead of quoting out of context.

Coming back to the current official timing *is* a modification.
And this is official federations writing. They are using diplomatic terms
specially knowing the autocratic character they address to.


You said nobody was against the blocking time and 2 federations critisize it in their letter.

Let's people judge.

And more important let's a majority of foilists decide.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by ChubbyHubby

So you are suggesting we should all spend money rechipping the current "new timings" back to the old ones, wait a year and then rechip them again to the new "new timings"?

No i am suggesting to forget these broken test timings for ever.

I am just saying that if this obvious solution was not chosen because of the ego of some autocrat not wanting to admit his errors no "new test timings" should be used in official competitions before being toroughly tested considering the disaster brought by the test timings : namely Foilepee

(and of course no new test timings without the approval of a majority of foilists.)

[ChubbyHubby]

Originally Posted by Alan

Coming back to the current official timing *is* a modification.
And this is official federations writing. They are using diplomatic terms
specially knowing the autocratic character they address to.

ROFL!!! Are you the long lost twin of "Comical Ali"?

[Alan]

Originally Posted by ChubbyHubby

ROFL!!! Are you the long lost twin of "Comical Ali"?

No i am the truth teller. And apparently the truth is known now by a majority
of foilists.

This debate is vain. You and i are repeating the same arguments for monthes.

We both think to be right so let the majority (of foilists) decide
I call this democracy.


I won't answer on the "Ali" domain ... I tought this forum had anti-racist
ethics.

[ChubbyHubby]

Originally Posted by Alan

No i am suggesting to forget these broken test timings for ever.

I am just saying that if this obvious solution was not chosen because of the ego of some autocrat not wanting to admit his errors no "new test timings" should be used in official competitions before being toroughly tested considering the disaster brought by the test timings : namely Foilepee

(and of course no new test timings without the approval of a majority of foilists.)

We know your views on the timings. But you are just repeating yourself over and over again. Don't think you have bought a single new point to the discussion for weeks.

Look, I am not pro new timings - I am a march and flick fencer. But they are NOT going to change it back. They are going in the right direction by going to 8ms. Hey, they might even lengthen the blockout slightly at some point. But its never going to be the 15ms/700ms again.

You can't say there is *nothing* positive at all with these new timings.