To Flick or not to Flick that is the question

[noodle]

i flick successfully in epee quite often, with comparatively few touches scored on me becasue of the action. its all in the timing and such.

people are going to flick. its like asking a fighter to only jab, no hooks. you can make them tougher to land, but they'll still be able to hit.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

In my mind there are many reasons not to flick:

It won't always work. ...

It isn't transferable: I like to fence more than 1 weapon. ... The flick may "work" temporarily in foil, it doesn't work well at all in epee, and in sabre it seems to be completely besides the point. ...

Flicking would never work with a real sword ...

1. A lot of actions don't work all the time,
2. and a lot of actions aren't transferable between the three weapons.
Doesn't mean we toss out everything that falls between the cracks. Sheesh.

And I'm not even going to address the tired ol' throw-away assumption that sport fencing blades aren't "real" swords. "Real?!"

[Welted 24/7]

I don't understand why this complaining about flicking being "unrealistic" is only limited to foil. I don't see anybody whining about skyhooks in sabre, or the sniper shots to the cuff that touch maybe an eight of an inch of the lame fabric. We'd best ban those. I'm sure nobody used to tap their opponent on the chest from prime position from half a foot away to draw blood or kill someone in a duel either. Let's get rid of that, too! Behind-the-head shots in infighting? Oh, you'd better believe THOSE are banned.

The bottom line is, this is a stupid complaint. Fencing is not a duel with live weapons anymore- it's a sport, and you do what you have to do to get the points. If some of these actions aren't "traditional", "classical", or "effective in a real duel", then that's really too bad.

[Rabid Monk]

Originally Posted by kalivor

How is it cheap?

If you're fencing an opponent who for the life of them can't stop your beat-disengage attack, do you stop using it?

Dismissing your own lack of skill ("can't defend it") as unsportsmanlike conduct from your opponent doesn't seem very productive.

Do you post your own opinions, or simply make self-satisfying comments on other's posts?
I did not say it was unsportsmanlike due to my lack of skill.

The reason I percieve it to be unsportsmanlike is that it's cheap. You ask why I say that. It is cheap because there really isn't that much to it. Flick the wrist, and let the blade bend around the parry. Do that 5 times (or 15), and you win. Wow. How exciting. Did you learn anything new? Did you practice new techniques, or experiment with the old ones? Sports is all about improving oneself. Do you improve if most of what you do is flick? Most fencers I know aren't very good at blocking a flick. It is frustrating to them to be beaten with 5 quick flicks. They get no chance to learn or try anything. And helping others, allowing them to learn and experiment, along with you, is good sportsmanship. Flicking them into submission is not sportsmanlike, in this context. It is taking the easy, lazy way out. Hence, cheap.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Most fencers I know aren't very good at blocking a flick.

Most fencers you know aren't very good.

Fencers that use it and can defend it aren't cheap, they're just better.

[Welted 24/7]

You don't learn anything from being flicked? How about how to defend with distance? Parrying attacks from unusual angles? Or maybe even being aware that there's still an entire half of your body that counts as target? I'm sorry, but if you don't learn anything from it, then it is, indeed, your own fault.

You can defend a flick the same way you defend any other attack- either get yourself OUT of the way, or get your blade IN the way. It really is that simple, but nobody seems to think of it that way. All anyone ever wants to do is whine about how cheap and unfair it is that someone is hitting a valid target area. Just because YOU don't remember that you can be hit on the back doesn't mean that nobody else does. Would you rather them just have the front half of the lame be conductive?

[Rabid Monk]

Is it fair to defeat an opponent by the quickest, dirtiest means available, just because you can?
I'm sorry, but where I come from, we fence to learn the sport, not one move.
We have fun, we enjoy ourselves, we don't suck.
The occaisional flick is fine, but I firmly believe that exclusively (or almost so) using flicks is downright cheap.
You'e proved you can do it. Move on.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL

Most fencers you know aren't very good.

Fencers that use it and can defend it aren't cheap, they're just better.

I agree with the second part, not with the first. Flicking with the old timings was a matter of spending $20 to buy a soft blade. Have you ever seen a DE bout between two fencers who could flick, but couldn't defend against them? Basically, they eventually just fleche at each other and hope that they land and that their opponent doesn't. This is uglier than any type of fencing I have ever seen, even the worst bout of foil with the new timings.

I don't think that a flick is "cheap", but I think it was too easy to execute with the old timings. If a B fencer lands 15 straight touches on my back because he's just that good, so be it; he was better than me anyway. But when there's someone who's been fencing for 6 months and who just got a "soft" blade so he could flick like the big boys, and he starts winning tournaments against other beginners simply because of his blade, I think that's a problem.

[Welted 24/7]

Oh, give me a break...get off your high horse, please. Contrary to popular belief, you can't just pick up a foil and BAM, you know how to flick. You have to learn how and when to use it just like any other attack. I'm sorry if fencers in your area are slap-happy morons, but any fencer worth their salt knows that the flick, just like any "real" attack, has its time and place to be used, and that relying on one move of ANY kind is suicidal. Would you be complaining if someone reeled off 15 straight touches on you with a simple beat-disengage-attack? Let's face it, if someone can score on you THAT many times with one move, the problem is obviously yours.

[Welted 24/7]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

But when there's someone who's been fencing for 6 months and who just got a "soft" blade so he could flick like the big boys, and he starts winning tournaments against other beginners simply because of his blade, I think that's a problem.

You bring up a good point, but like I said, it's not like you just automatically know how to flick because you've got a rubber blade. I haven't seen anyone who hasn't learned how to flick land it just because of their blade.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Is it fair to defeat an opponent by the quickest, dirtiest means available, just because you can?
I'm sorry, but where I come from, we fence to learn the sport, not one move.
We have fun, we enjoy ourselves, we don't suck.
The occaisional flick is fine, but I firmly believe that exclusively (or almost so) using flicks is downright cheap.
You'e proved you can do it. Move on.

Flicking is a part of the sport. A good fencer does not use the flick exclusively. A very good fencer uses the flick rarely. Watching world cup DVDs from 2004, I can see that the best fencers use the flick mostly as a backup plan or as a feint.

The fact that fencers use only the flick is a representation of their low quality of fencing. If you go to a very strong division of the U.S., you'll see that flicks are by no means dominant in higher-level fencing.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by arkady_tsep

I'm probably biased in that when I first joined the Fairfax Fencers Club in VA they tought me solid parries and solid hits, without relying on the flick technique. I'm curious as to what people prefer.

To flick or not to flick?

Are there many people who prefer blades that are on the stiff side, and don't use the flick technique? I just recently bought a wired Golubitsky Pro foil from LP. It's slightly heavier than the Holstin and has a bit more whip to it. It seems to be a good blade, but I have yet to really test it out.

IT'S NOT BINARY. You can do both. As always it depends on the situation. The flick is a tool, not a way of life. It is useful in certain situations and not others, and if you want to limit yourself by not learning it, that's fine by me, because I'll just beat you.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by arkady_tsep

Are there many people who prefer blades that are on the stiff side, and don't use the flick technique? I just recently bought a wired Golubitsky Pro foil from LP. It's slightly heavier than the Holstin and has a bit more whip to it. It seems to be a good blade, but I have yet to really test it out.

There are very few good foilists who NEVER flick. There are quite a few who flick only very occaisionally. They are fun to watch.

(On a side note, I enjoy fencing people trained in the early 1980's at a reasonably low level. They know how to flick, but for them, it's not half the target. It's more like "well, I can hit 4, 6, 7, 8, or I can flick". It helps me practice defense against flicks while still being able to fence a good bout.)

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Is it fair to defeat an opponent by the quickest, dirtiest means available, just because you can?
I'm sorry, but where I come from, we fence to learn the sport, not one move.
We have fun, we enjoy ourselves, we don't suck.
The occaisional flick is fine, but I firmly believe that exclusively (or almost so) using flicks is downright cheap.
You'e proved you can do it. Move on.

if you're really fencing the sport and can't adapt enough to learn to defend "just one move", you're in some seriously deep doo doo, sir. thats like a soccer goalie who can't block balls that come in over his head because he never bothered to learn to jump.

how many NAC or National level medals have you or your "good" fencing friends won? i'm willing to say 0.

and to note: i'd say that before the timing changes, the majority of the good foilists only flicked occasionally. sure, there were a few who did more, but people seemed to concentrate mostly on them. flicking is one entry into your fencing lexicon. it isn't the only one, nor should it be.

[Rabid Monk]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

There are very few good foilists who NEVER flick. There are quite a few who flick only very occaisionally. They are fun to watch.

(On a side note, I enjoy fencing people trained in the early 1980's at a reasonably low level. They know how to flick, but for them, it's not half the target. It's more like "well, I can hit 4, 6, 7, 8, or I can flick". It helps me practice defense against flicks while still being able to fence a good bout.)

BRAVO! Kudos and accolades.
Thnak you for saying it better than I could.

[JonTong]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Most fencers I know aren't very good at blocking a flick. It is frustrating to them to be beaten with 5 quick flicks. They get no chance to learn or try anything.

Seriously you should consider going to some other fencing club. I think this can help you to improve and, as you said, learn something new.

Don't take it personally, the same thing happened to me like a few years ago. I started fencing in university fencing club in my home town which fencers did not take fencing that serious. Most of them were fencing for fun. ( I am not blaming them, I play soccer for fun too.) After practiced there for 2 years, I found myself can beat them quite badly by some "quick flicks" or fleches. I felt I have not much room for improvement at that club. Eventually I switched to another club which fencers there are much advance compare to the one I used to go. They are good so I cannot get cheap touches from them. They enforce me to chance my style and be more open to new techniques. I have improved a lot after I started fencing there.

[Rabid Monk]

I like my club.
I know where your coming from, JotTong, but the club I'm in is a pretty close knit group. We all get along, and it's not uncommon for some of us to still be there at 11:00pm on Friday nights, talking and fencing. (we start at 7).
I am venturing out to visit other clubs when I get the time, although that is primarily to find other lefties to fence, as I'm the only one at my club right now.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Do you post your own opinions, or simply make self-satisfying comments on other's posts?

Wow, a personal attack ... how convincing.

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

I did not say it was unsportsmanlike due to my lack of skill.

You said that it was unsportsmanlike because you didn't know how to stop them. A flick is not an unstoppable attack ... hence, your inability to defend is a lack of skill. The "unsportsmanlike" comment sounded much like sour grapes.

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

The reason I percieve it to be unsportsmanlike is that it's cheap. You ask why I say that. It is cheap because there really isn't that much to it. Flick the wrist, and let the blade bend around the parry.

Well, now I also know that you don't know how to flick properly. Read jBirch's entry above on flicking -- he mentions good flicking technique. Someone who tries to use their blade as a whip to score hits is *extremely* easy to beat.

A flick requires the use of fingers and hand position. There are some who rely on the blade's flexibility and wrapping around parries, but they don't get very far.

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Do that 5 times (or 15), and you win. Wow. How exciting. Did you learn anything new? Did you practice new techniques, or experiment with the old ones? Sports is all about improving oneself. Do you improve if most of what you do is flick? Most fencers I know aren't very good at blocking a flick. It is frustrating to them to be beaten with 5 quick flicks. They get no chance to learn or try anything. And helping others, allowing them to learn and experiment, along with you, is good sportsmanship. Flicking them into submission is not sportsmanlike, in this context. It is taking the easy, lazy way out. Hence, cheap.

I remain confused. If I have an opponent who can't handle one of my attacks, no matter what it is, how I proceed depends on the level of the tournament, and where in the tournament I am.

Tough tournament, pool bout? You can bet it's 5-0. I need the indicator, and would rather be resting than farting around.
DE bout? I'll take a comfortable lead, play a bit, and then finish it off with three or four points in a row.

It's a sport. I play to win, not to embarass the other fencer. I'm not going to beat someone 15-0 ... there's no point to it.

Most of the fencers I know can parry a flick. Most of the fencers I know practice at practice, and fence to win in tournaments. They don't take it personally when they lose 5-0, and don't mean to offend their opponent by winning 5-0.

A couple of final notes:
1. If your opponent does nothing but flick, they are giving you an opportunity to work on what is clearly the weakest part of your game: Defending against them. In this thread (I think, I'm not re-reading any posts) and others, there's plenty of information on how to defend against flicks. That gives you something to try.
2. Sportsmanship is not giving your opponent the opportunity to learn and try things out. And even if it was, how would five identical attacks in a row stop this from occurring? It's up to the other fencer to learn from their mistakes, though I'd likely offer them some advice after the bout if they were having big problems. And they still had an entire bout to try whatever they wanted ... am I supposed to favour my opponent by giving them extra chances to score hits on me? Somehow, I believe that to fall outside the rules.

Unless you're working on flicks, or your opponent is working on defending against flicks, this sort of thing shouldn't really happen in a practice bout, but in tournaments many (if not most) fencers usually try to win by the largest margin possible.

[SwordSoul]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Is it fair to defeat an opponent by the quickest, dirtiest means available, just because you can?
I'm sorry, but where I come from, we fence to learn the sport, not one move.
We have fun, we enjoy ourselves, we don't suck.
The occaisional flick is fine, but I firmly believe that exclusively (or almost so) using flicks is downright cheap.
You'e proved you can do it. Move on.

hrm. i guess that solves that. ""FLICKS AWAYYYY!!!""

i'd like to add that the disengage is hella cheap. Just point, dip, and point.

i'm just trying to imagine someone crying to Golubitsky (sp) for losing because he flicked them. it's like complaining that the other team uses slam dunks, or curve balls, or the ropes, or curves their hockey sticks, or uses a red flag, or tugs a shirt, or calls a hinder, slices a ball, or shaves their body before the swim meet....

although i am weeping the loss of my back flick , i guess its fine with me except for the loss of my front stab. but that...... is a