To Flick or not to Flick that is the question

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Is it fair to defeat an opponent by the quickest, dirtiest means available, just because you can?

It is absolutely fair to defeat your opponent as quickly as possible using the least effort possible on your part.

If I hit you with an attack, then I should continue to execute that same attack until you prove to me (by defending it or taking it away) that I won't win the point by executing it. You have to force me to change my game.

That is fencing. That is competition. If you want to modify how the game is played, then set up the rules for the practice session. We call that "controlled bouting".

Cheers,
Craig

[Alain]

There's nothing wrong with flicking. I can't see how it's unsportsmanlike, and a well-executed flick shouldn't hurt.

It takes years of practice to do properly; those who have had bad experiences of being flicked probably fought someone that didn't know, or couldn't do, what they were trying to

As Spike pointed out, flicks in épée don't happen all the time as a main hit. They can be put to good use as a preparation, and against less-experienced fencers a well-timed flick to an exposed wrist is just the same as a free point

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

It isn't transferable: I like to fence more than 1 weapon. In fact, I would love to learn every weapon as well as I can. The flick may "work" temporarily in foil, it doesn't work well at all in epee

wow, are you wrong here. Back when I fenced mostly epee, I had three or four distinctly different flicks to wrist alone, and routinely scored on them (I'd hit all of them over 50-60% of the time, and rarely get stop-hit on them).

Additionally, it sets up good second intention actions like flick wrist flick foot or feint flick wrist, coupe fleche to body.

The flick is a big part of a lot of epee games.

-m

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

or feint flick wrist, coupe fleche to body.
-m

*grin*


Where'd you get that one

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

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?

nope. didn't need to. I beat you with what I already knew.

Did you practice new techniques, or experiment with the old ones?

If it's me? yeah, I would definitely practice new techniques when presented with somebody I can blank. that flick may well be a new technique. there are many different approaches to a flick mechanically, not to mention the tempos used to set up the right distance.

Sports is all about improving oneself. Do you improve if most of what you do is flick?

well, I'd imagine you'd improve your flicking...

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.

actually, they get to learn and practice their flick defense.

And helping others, allowing them to learn and experiment, along with you, is good sportsmanship.

In PRACTICE, I agree. to the end of improving my clubmates, I will continue to do an action until they learn to deal with it. that way, they improve their fencing. I have on occasion been ASKED by clubmates to continue kicking their *** with one action so that they can learn to deal with it. Do you honestly believe that you will help them improve and learn by only doing actions they already can deal with?

In competition, though, it is NOT my job (or even a requirement of sportsmanship) that I help my opponent to learn.

Flicking them into submission is not sportsmanlike, in this context.

"into submission"? if they simply give up when their opponent does something they don't know how to defend yet instead of trying to figure it out, they aren't going to go very far in this (or any) sport.

Additionally, it should be noted that this entire issue is a red herring. flicks and straight attacks are different options for finishing. the REAL skill is the control of tempo and distance that set up an attack in the first place. If I set up an attack correctly, catch my opponent flat footed, and can see target, should I hit off target on his arm or mask just because the best on target is his shoulder and requires a flick? similarly, if he rolls his shoulders back and blade out to protect the outside, I'll hit him square in the chest.
Flicks and straight attacks are not the easily defined and disparate things you think they are.

-m

"You really snuck that one in the back door..."
"I go through whatever door is open to me."

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Is it fair to defeat an opponent by the quickest, dirtiest means available, just because you can?

Well, duh! Yeah, you're supposed to win by scoring touches on the other guy. I'm pretty sure that concept is covered in Fencing 101 ...

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Victor

Well, duh! Yeah, you're supposed to win by scoring touches on the other guy. I'm pretty sure that concept is covered in Fencing 101 ...

seriously... if i'm in a competition, i'm out to do my best and win. if i can beat someone 15-0 with a beat lunge, i'll do that. if i can beat someone 15-0 with a circle 6, flick to the arm, i'll do that.

[achilleus]

Why anyone thinks it's an either or situation.

In tournaments, I fence to beat my opponent. That's the purpose of a bout. There's a winner, and a loser, and I try to be the winner. In fact the rules specify that not fencing to your utmost can be considered collusion.

That said, I use whatever techniques or tactics that work against that opponent that are within the rules. Regardless of whether it's a flick to the wrist, back, straight hit, feint 1-2, riposte, etc...
It doesn't matter what technique as long as I score the touch.

I imagine it would be very similar to what a person with a sharp sword would be feeling. The important thing is to hit and not be hit, not how you hit.

[Alain]

I have to agree with the last few posts on this thread. I used to find it difficult to beat people 15-notmany, but now I don't have the same problem, because such things are more a question of attitude and even respect rather than simply technique.

For me, I think that in competition you should always try your best for every hit, one hit at a time, and the idea of giving your opponent a point - almost out of sympathy - is quite insulting. If I were on the receiving end I would want to earn each hit, knowing that any hits I did get were deserved!

[VERITAS]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Quote:



Originally Posted by VERITAS

It isn't transferable: I like to fence more than 1 weapon. In fact, I would love to learn every weapon as well as I can. The flick may "work" temporarily in foil, it doesn't work well at all in epee


wow, are you wrong here. Back when I fenced mostly epee, I had three or four distinctly different flicks to wrist alone, and routinely scored on them (I'd hit all of them over 50-60% of the time, and rarely get stop-hit on them).

Additionally, it sets up good second intention actions like flick wrist flick foot or feint flick wrist, coupe fleche to body.

The flick is a big part of a lot of epee games.

-m

Well, perhaps you're right about its use. All I know is when I've fenced epee recently, flicking was not very successful.

I find angulation to acheive equal if not better results with less risk and energy spent for getting an angle on the target.

The flick brings the point back away from the target and then whips it forward.
Proper angulation simply turns the wrist to a well-practiced position directing the point to the desired target. Much less risk is involved.

if you use a feint, a simple attack would work just as well as the flick.

I just don't see the point. Flicking seems to require more effort for less results.

I don't really mind if others use it. It is not unsportsmanlike in my opinion because there isn't an unfair advantage gained, its just another way of registering a point with the electric box.

Originally fencing had a purpose, a grim reality for which one should be prepared. The flick would be useless in that situation.

The flick is a modern innovation useful for those concerned with modern scoring only.

Anyone who want to get more out of their practice that is applicable to other weapons or other martial arts will find the flick pretty much useless.

Also, the flick is not nearly as pretty or viewer-friendly as any point attack. The audience --and the director and fencers-- must rely on the electric machine to tell them who's ahead.

If fencing is to become a popular spectator sport again, flicking should be eliminated, in my opinion.

Flicking has become an art and a skill itself, so I do not mean to belittle the accomplishments of experts. It does take time to perfect.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Well, perhaps you're right about its use. All I know is when I've fenced epee recently, flicking was not very successful.

I find angulation to acheive equal if not better results with less risk and energy spent for getting an angle on the target.

The flick brings the point back away from the target and then whips it forward.
Proper angulation simply turns the wrist to a well-practiced position directing the point to the desired target. Much less risk is involved.

if you use a feint, a simple attack would work just as well as the flick.

I just don't see the point. Flicking seems to require more effort for less results.

I don't really mind if others use it. It is not unsportsmanlike in my opinion because there isn't an unfair advantage gained, its just another way of registering a point with the electric box.

Originally fencing had a purpose, a grim reality for which one should be prepared. The flick would be useless in that situation.

The flick is a modern innovation useful for those concerned with modern scoring only.

Anyone who want to get more out of their practice that is applicable to other weapons or other martial arts will find the flick pretty much useless.

Also, the flick is not nearly as pretty or viewer-friendly as any point attack. The audience --and the director and fencers-- must rely on the electric machine to tell them who's ahead.

If fencing is to become a popular spectator sport again, flicking should be eliminated, in my opinion.

Flicking has become an art and a skill itself, so I do not mean to belittle the accomplishments of experts. It does take time to perfect.

maybe thats your problem, then. you're trying to do a foil march flick in epee. when i flick, the point doesn't move away from target much at all. the only thing that opens up is the bottom of my hand, just a bit. its used to get around the bell. not hit in the back of the head.

[Rabid Monk]

Yeesh.

I didn't intend to piss you all off.

I apologize for any offense, I am merely defending my viewpoints, however disagreeable or flawed they may be.
I have learned much reading this thread, and paid particular attention to the "how to block" comments.
Obviously, the vast majority see no problem with flicks, (and most of you are far more competitive in nature than I am). I still perceive flicks as cheap, but after reading the supporting viewpoints, I can see it's use, on occasion.

Again, sorry if I offended anyone, and have a good morning/day/evening/night.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

i still perceive flicks as cheap,

but these stupid clear visor masks are expensive

[JonTong]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Anyone who want to get more out of their practice that is applicable to other weapons or other martial arts will find the flick pretty much useless.

Not quite... as I said before, "flicking" like actions have already existed for hurdreds of years in Chinese Martial Art and military combat training.

Yes, military combat training. Fricking is a REAL technique use in the battle-field.

The use of flexibilty of a weapon is really common in sword, spear, staff fighting. If you buy any Chinese Martial DVD you can probably observe this.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Well, perhaps you're right about its use. All I know is when I've fenced epee recently, flicking was not very successful.

I find angulation to acheive equal if not better results with less risk and energy spent for getting an angle on the target.

Which brings me back to my point about having trouble drawing a line between straight and flick. take that angulation, and speed it up. a little more. more. more... what you end up seeing is that a flick is almost a fast angulation. In fact, when I correctly executed a flick in a lesson, I'd end up sticking the point on my coaches sleeve. SLAP flicks don't work in epee, but good flicks certainly do.

The flick brings the point back away from the target and then whips it forward.

no, a BAD flick brings the point back away from target, and then whips it forward. a GOOD flick brings the point forward and simply uses forward momentum and hand strength to turn the point around the guard. Try learning the RIGHT way to flick in epee and you'll have a lot more success.

Proper angulation simply turns the wrist to a well-practiced position directing the point to the desired target. Much less risk is involved.

see above about the line (or lack thereof) between flick and straight.

if you use a feint, a simple attack would work just as well as the flick.

depends on what you're doing. different actions for different situations.

I just don't see the point. Flicking seems to require more effort for less results.

not in my experience. to each his own.

The flick is a modern innovation useful for those concerned with modern scoring only.

quite true. I am certainly one concerned with modern scoring only. I play a sport in the present. I compete in the present. I have a desire to win in the present. I do not, therefore, live in the past (as it sounds like you don't necessarily, either. another on this thread is, though).

Anyone who want to get more out of their practice that is applicable to other weapons or other martial arts will find the flick pretty much useless.

or, for that matter, pretty much ANY fencing action. there is nearly NO transfer from fencing to martial arts. the footwork is the same, but reversed. other than that, though...

Also, the flick is not nearly as pretty or viewer-friendly as any point attack. The audience --and the director and fencers-- must rely on the electric machine to tell them who's ahead.

If fencing is to become a popular spectator sport again, flicking should be eliminated, in my opinion.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Whenever any of my friends who don't fence have watched fencing, the touches they're impressed by and find exciting are the flicks.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by JonTong

Yes, military combat training. Fricking is a REAL technique use in the battle-field.

I know it's just a typo, but it's a funny one...

-m

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Yeesh.

I didn't intend to piss you all off.

I apologize for any offense, I am merely defending my viewpoints, however disagreeable or flawed they may be.
I have learned much reading this thread, and paid particular attention to the "how to block" comments.
Obviously, the vast majority see no problem with flicks, (and most of you are far more competitive in nature than I am). I still perceive flicks as cheap, but after reading the supporting viewpoints, I can see it's use, on occasion.

Again, sorry if I offended anyone, and have a good morning/day/evening/night.

RabidMonk,

Don't worry about it. You didn't piss anyone off at all, and anyone who was offended doesn't belong in an intelligent discussion anyway. You merely touched on a hot button topic in the sport. Flicks are contentious for many reasons, and, like sex, religion or politics, lead to heated debate. Hopefully we didn't offend you with our equally strong assertions.

Keep asking questions and asserting your position: it's the most interesting discussion that's been had here in a while.

James.