To Flick or not to Flick that is the question

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Regarding flicking:
No matter how you do it, the flick removes the point in line. During most of the flick the point is not threatening your opponent. Up until the last second the flick isn't really a threat, and therefore doesn't need to be removed. Counterattack!

You keep talking like people are winding up like they're pitching a baseball to throw these flicks. If they are - that part is preperation, hurray.

But if you don't attack into THAT, then the part that comes next is an ATTACK.

The vector between the guard and the tip of the blade may START pointed in a direction other than directly at the target area, but to say that it's not threatening when it's clearly curving right towards you is silly.

If it was moving towards you, and it doesn't ever stop moving towards you, and it hits you... how was it NOT threatening you?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL

You keep talking like people are winding up like they're pitching a baseball to throw these flicks. If they are - that part is preperation, hurray.

But if you don't attack into THAT, then the part that comes next is an ATTACK.

The vector between the guard and the tip of the blade may START pointed in a direction other than directly at the target area, but to say that it's not threatening when it's clearly curving right towards you is silly.

If it was moving towards you, and it doesn't ever stop moving towards you, and it hits you... how was it NOT threatening you?

I agree. if I can hit you with one simple motion, then I was threatening you. More importantly, through much of a "straight attack" the vector from guard to point is directed over my opponents shoulder, or off to their left or right. you wouldn't argue, though, that I'm not attacking then. why? because you understand that where the weapon is "pointing" is not a strict measure of what it's "threatening".

But, Veritas, please make that argument to your next referee at a NAC. I always appreciate a good funny story in the ref's lounge.

that said, I was talking about EPEE flicks. I wasn't threatening your target? didn't have RoW? okay.

-m

[noodle]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Regarding flicking:
No matter how you do it, the flick removes the point in line. During most of the flick the point is not threatening your opponent. Up until the last second the flick isn't really a threat, and therefore doesn't need to be removed. Counterattack!

this is so absolutely untrue that i'm thinking of making a video on my camera to prove it at practice tonight, just to show you.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

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

In my opinion, it is exactly the opposite.
If you want to have a lot of spectators, most of them would be non fencers.

Almost every non fencer i have seen watching foil was liking the flicks above
all.

[achilleus]

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.

Leaving the martial arts application alone, the flick is still a viable action in foil, despite the Roch's best efforts. Then you add in that a sabre cut and a flick are executed in a very similar fashion and your statement about being applicable is just really wrong.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

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.

It kinda varies, but in the tournaments I've been to with spectators, the flick is the show-off, spectacular touch that gets the crowd going. I still remember an epee tournament I fenced that had a rather large audience that was watching the final. In the middle of the bout, my opponent fleched, caught me flat footed, and I had no option but make sweeping parry flick to the back. Caught him low back, that's how close he was. The crowd went wild. People still ask me about that touch. It was stupid, no thought, no set up, just hand reflex action.

The next touch, I moved my opponent around, and made the classic, perfect, explosive straight lunge and caught my opponent off balance. I roared with the perfect set up and execution of the touch. The crowd rubbed their eyes sleepily.

The audience likes the dynamic, explosive, easy to see action of the flick. They don't enjoy the subtle set up, with straight hit, because all they see is they is an easy straight hit.

[JonTong]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

As you must be aware, Bruce Lee based much of his take on martial arts on fencing. The name he gave his approach, Jeet Kune Do, translates to mean The Way of the Intercepting Fist, or our terms: stop-hit.

More generally: counterattack.

Well, counter attack and stop-hit can be ways of intercepting, but it does't mean "The Way of Intercepting Fist" includes only these two elements.

Plus, I can do a flick in counterattack or stop-hit too. In martial art term: "Fa-jing" (Fa jing is a fundamental traditional Chinese martial art practice that can be defined as a flexible, explosive delivery of focused striking energy while relaxed.) doesn't necessary to be a straight motion. It can be in circular motion too(for example: the fa-jing in Tai Chi.) In fact, Bruce Lee shows us a lot on how a circular Fa-jing works by using a Nunchucks.

What Bruce Lee taught us is to be open to all style and different techniques. He did NOT say Jeet Kune Do is the best way for everyone.

[VERITAS]

You are correct. JKD is not merely stop-hits.

And flicks can be counterattacks. But point thrusts and edge cuts are different. They have basis in martial (technically civilian in the case of fencing) application and are still worth learning in a martial context.

Flicking is using a circular motion to fool an electric box into "thinking" it was a thrusting motion. Flicking as a technique has a lot more in common with fly fishing than with nunchaku or whips or sabres. In fact, from the little I've learned of nunchaku technique, it does resemble sabre moulinelli a little in some offensive component. The nunchaku in this example would strike with the edge. Flicks "hit" with the point. The technique, the purpose, and the practical use are all completely different.
Of course fluid circular movement is great. It is used in many martial arts. Wonderful things like ceding parries, binds, disengages, sabre moulinelli, and circular footwork come to mind.

The flick is a b.s. attack in martial terms. It isn't really even an attack. It is not going to incapacitate or even slow down your opponent. At best, it will piss him off.

As far as being similar to a sabre cut, only if you're using the ultra-light sport sabre. Even the Raedallian sabre was considered light-weight by purists, but the modern sabre is really a joke.

If you are using a point weapon, you are attempting to puncture. If you are using an edged weapon, you are attempting to cut. The flick serves neither purpose.

Bruce Lee regretted having given a name to his idea because it really wasn't supposed to be limiting. He encouraged different styles and techniques as you say. His personalized version of JKD works for him but perhaps not for someone else. The general idea is pretty much universally applicable though.

Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL

If it was moving towards you, and it doesn't ever stop moving towards you, and it hits you... how was it NOT threatening you?

Ok, first of all, forward motion does not constitute a threat. Just because you are close enough to hit me does not mean that counts as a hit. Forward movement has nothing to do with it.
If the point isn't threatening your opponent, you have not displaced your opponent's sword, and your moving forward, that is a recipe for impaling yourself.
A better attack would be an attack in which throughout the entire course of the attack the point of the attacker's sword is aimed at the opponent's target. Then the threat is maintained throughout. If I attack I will die because I will be running into the point presented by my adversary. I must remove this threat before anything else. Again in the flick, the opponent merely presents his wrist and his guard with the point flailing in the air gracefully. In martial terms, that wrist and guard look like an invitation for a seizure/disarm.

Up until the very last possible moment in a flick, the point is not aimed at my target. I can close distance, counterattack, parry, whatever.

This may be hard to explain since threat, RoF, attack, etc. are all terms whose definitions are not universally agreed upon.

RoF may not be a rule in epee, but its common sense. If you wouldn't have had RoF, the natural consequence in epee is that you could have been successfully counterattacked. That is part of why epee is characterized as a truthful weapon.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

As far as being similar to a sabre cut, only if you're using the ultra-light sport sabre. Even the Raedallian sabre was considered light-weight by purists, but the modern sabre is really a joke.

You mentioned that the flick isn't applicable to other fencing weapons. It's applicable to all three. Considering I've never held a Raedallian sabre (most likely never even seen one) I'm not really concerned with how to use it.

What I do know, is that the technique of flicking applies to foil, epee, and sabre as they are currently practiced in the sport of fencing.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

If you are using a point weapon, you are attempting to puncture. If you are using an edged weapon, you are attempting to cut. The flick serves neither purpose.
...
RoF may not be a rule in epee, but its common sense. If you wouldn't have had RoF, the natural consequence in epee is that you could have been successfully counterattacked. That is part of why epee is characterized as a truthful weapon.

You seem to be mixing some different types of fencing here. Is the flick valid in a duel? Not really. If I'm fencing a 15 touch electric foil or epee bout, it's a different story.

Remember sport fencing is not a martial art. It can be argued that sport fencing is a martial sport, but it is not a martial art.

[VERITAS]

Originally Posted by noodle

this is so absolutely untrue that i'm thinking of making a video on my camera to prove it at practice tonight, just to show you.

Actually that would be pretty cool to see, and I would appreciate your efforts.
I remain unconvinced until some spectacular footrage is revealed....

Speaking of spectacles, the debate concerning whether or not flicking is fun to watch cannot be easily settled. I know from my experience and from everyone I have spoken with that real genuine martial flick-free fencing is more fun to watch. It is more serious, deliberate, and beautiful.

Something is missing from the current approach, because fencing ought to be a lot more popular than it is. Regardless of views on martial application of one thing or another, fencing is great fun and has a rich history in our culture.
It deserves more attention that it has been getting. See-through masks, colored uniforms, or fancier electric apparatus will not change much for the spectators.
The content of the fencing is the issue.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

You are correct. JKD is not merely stop-hits.

And flicks can be counterattacks. But point thrusts and edge cuts are different. They have basis in martial (technically civilian in the case of fencing) application and are still worth learning in a martial context.

Flicking is using a circular motion to fool an electric box into "thinking" it was a thrusting motion. Flicking as a technique has a lot more in common with fly fishing than with nunchaku or whips or sabres. In fact, from the little I've learned of nunchaku technique, it does resemble sabre moulinelli a little in some offensive component. The nunchaku in this example would strike with the edge. Flicks "hit" with the point. The technique, the purpose, and the practical use are all completely different.
Of course fluid circular movement is great. It is used in many martial arts. Wonderful things like ceding parries, binds, disengages, sabre moulinelli, and circular footwork come to mind.

The flick is a b.s. attack in martial terms. It isn't really even an attack. It is not going to incapacitate or even slow down your opponent. At best, it will piss him off.

As far as being similar to a sabre cut, only if you're using the ultra-light sport sabre. Even the Raedallian sabre was considered light-weight by purists, but the modern sabre is really a joke.

If you are using a point weapon, you are attempting to puncture. If you are using an edged weapon, you are attempting to cut. The flick serves neither purpose.

Bruce Lee regretted having given a name to his idea because it really wasn't supposed to be limiting. He encouraged different styles and techniques as you say. His personalized version of JKD works for him but perhaps not for someone else. The general idea is pretty much universally applicable though.

have you never heard of, i dunno, a rope dart? chain whip? weapons specifically created to bend around then-commonplace blocks and still hit?

maybe the simple punch analogy is good enough. a, say, jab and a hook punch. a jab is a straight shot, you need to block it with something circular, with motion. a hook punch is a circular shot where your knuckles initially aren't headed toward the target until you begin to curve them back near intended impact, and to effectively stop it you need to use a straight block (or of course, move out of the way, etc., but that isn't what the point is). can you honestly not see the correlation with straight attacks and flicking? in any martial art there are straight attacks and circular attacks. straight attacks bypass straight blocks and are blocked by circular ones. circular attacks bypass circular blocks and are stopped by straight ones.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Ok, first of all, forward motion does not constitute a threat. Just because you are close enough to hit me does not mean that counts as a hit. Forward movement has nothing to do with it.
If the point isn't threatening your opponent, you have not displaced your opponent's sword, and your moving forward, that is a recipe for impaling yourself.
A better attack would be an attack in which throughout the entire course of the attack the point of the attacker's sword is aimed at the opponent's target. Then the threat is maintained throughout. If I attack I will die because I will be running into the point presented by my adversary. I must remove this threat before anything else. Again in the flick, the opponent merely presents his wrist and his guard with the point flailing in the air gracefully. In martial terms, that wrist and guard look like an invitation for a seizure/disarm.

Up until the very last possible moment in a flick, the point is not aimed at my target. I can close distance, counterattack, parry, whatever.

This may be hard to explain since threat, RoF, attack, etc. are all terms whose definitions are not universally agreed upon.

RoF may not be a rule in epee, but its common sense. If you wouldn't have had RoF, the natural consequence in epee is that you could have been successfully counterattacked. That is part of why epee is characterized as a truthful weapon.

foward motion has a little to do with it. it isn't everything, but it is something.

i'd also like to re-address the fact that we are talking about sport fencing here and not well-if-it-were-a-real-sharp-weapon-that-wouldn't-work fencing.

and as a sub-question to you, would you consider someone who is coming forward with their blade in absence in a low line, arm extending, to have ROW? even though their tip isn't pointed directly at target?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Actually that would be pretty cool to see, and I would appreciate your efforts.
I remain unconvinced until some spectacular footrage is revealed....

i'll have it in 4 hours.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Something is missing from the current approach, because fencing ought to be a lot more popular than it is.

It ought to be? I don't think so. It can be. I love fencing, by my nephew and nieces are more interested in things like skateboarding, football, tennis and basketball.

I've taken them to fencing, even had them take a lesson or two. They ain't interested.

Not in participating, nor watching. Not everybody has the same interests...

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

And flicks can be counterattacks. But point thrusts and edge cuts are different. They have basis in martial (technically civilian in the case of fencing) application and are still worth learning in a martial context.

Flicking is using a circular motion to fool an electric box into "thinking" it was a thrusting motion.

No. A properly executed flick is a coupe. And THAT particular technique has been around for a while.

Flicking as a technique has a lot more in common with fly fishing than with nunchaku or whips or sabres. In fact, from the little I've learned of nunchaku technique, it does resemble sabre moulinelli a little in some offensive component. The nunchaku in this example would strike with the edge. Flicks "hit" with the point. The technique, the purpose, and the practical use are all completely different.
Of course fluid circular movement is great. It is used in many martial arts. Wonderful things like ceding parries, binds, disengages, sabre moulinelli, and circular footwork come to mind.

No. There are a number of Chinese forms in particular (since no one believes that western martial arts are really martial arts) with spear that use the flexibility of the blade/shaft to create an opening. Casting the edge and the tip around a parry is a classic "Master's Technique". It even had it's origins in getting around round shields.

The flick is a b.s. attack in martial terms. It isn't really even an attack. It is not going to incapacitate or even slow down your opponent. At best, it will piss him off.

No. A proper flick attack is best used to get your point to hit a vulnerable but covered target. The classic example is the epee flick to wrist which, in olden days, was used by skilled practitioners to quickly end a fight and incapacitate the sword hand. The other technique that worked well was to flick the tip around the guard and the arm and then thrust it forward, kind of a corkscrew action that bent the blade into the target through the parry.

If you are using a point weapon, you are attempting to puncture. If you are using an edged weapon, you are attempting to cut. The flick serves neither purpose.

Yes, yes, no. The flick serves the puncture.

Bruce Lee regretted having given a name to his idea because it really wasn't supposed to be limiting. He encouraged different styles and techniques as you say. His personalized version of JKD works for him but perhaps not for someone else. The general idea is pretty much universally applicable though.

"If it's stupid, but it works, it's not stupid."

Pray tell, if you practice JKD, why the denigration of the flick?

Ok, first of all, forward motion does not constitute a threat. Just because you are close enough to hit me does not mean that counts as a hit. Forward movement has nothing to do with it.

Yes, yes, no. Forward motion is integral to a threat. If my tip does not move towards you then how exactly is it threatening?

If the point isn't threatening your opponent, you have not displaced your opponent's sword, and your moving forward, that is a recipe for impaling yourself.

"If it's stupid, but it works, it's not stupid"

A better attack would be an attack in which throughout the entire course of the attack the point of the attacker's sword is aimed at the opponent's target. Then the threat is maintained throughout. If I attack I will die because I will be running into the point presented by my adversary. I must remove this threat before anything else. Again in the flick, the opponent merely presents his wrist and his guard with the point flailing in the air gracefully. In martial terms, that wrist and guard look like an invitation for a seizure/disarm.

No, a better attack is one where the point hits the target and the opponent can't do anything about it. The concept of the only threatening action being the point actually facing the target is wrong.

Up until the very last possible moment in a flick, the point is not aimed at my target. I can close distance, counterattack, parry, whatever.

Right. So do that. The flick is not a magic bullet. It has some very real and large weaknesses.

This may be hard to explain since threat, RoF, attack, etc. are all terms whose definitions are not universally agreed upon.

RoF may not be a rule in epee, but its common sense. If you wouldn't have had RoF, the natural consequence in epee is that you could have been successfully counterattacked. That is part of why epee is characterized as a truthful weapon.

This I agree with somewhat. The problem I have with the flick, isn't that it's a "cheap move". The problem I have is that it is obviously a preparation until that tip starts to attack my target. A tip pointed at the ceiling is NOT PIL.

I have the same problem with sabre judges who call a retraction of the edge a continuation because the arm is extended or moving forward.

James.

[Alain]

There have been some fantastic posts above, which has made for some good reading and has obviously made people think

This forum has over 5 and a half thousand members - over the three different weapons - all of them with their own opinion! My opinion is that the flick is here to stay, and as such remains but one of many tools between a good fencer's skills.

As regards to what goes on in martial arts... who cares?!?! When used correctly and to its full potential, it is just that: a tool, an efficient way of hitting some other chap (or chapess) who's trying to hit you and not letting you do the same; a practical solution in a modern day sport. Like it or lump it, the flick is part of the game.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

If you are using a point weapon, you are attempting to puncture. If you are using an edged weapon, you are attempting to cut. The flick serves neither purpose.

but if you're using a FENCING weapon, you are attempting to score, and the flick serves that purpose admirably.

Ok, first of all, forward motion does not constitute a threat. Just because you are close enough to hit me does not mean that counts as a hit. Forward movement has nothing to do with it.
If the point isn't threatening your opponent, you have not displaced your opponent's sword, and your moving forward, that is a recipe for impaling yourself.

apparently you're wrong, given that me moving forward without displacing my opponents blade and without my blade pointing at their target is FREQUENTLY followed by me scoring a touch with an attack...

A better attack would be an attack in which throughout the entire course of the attack the point of the attacker's sword is aimed at the opponent's target. Then the threat is maintained throughout. If I attack I will die because I will be running into the point presented by my adversary. I must remove this threat before anything else. Again in the flick, the opponent merely presents his wrist and his guard with the point flailing in the air gracefully. In martial terms, that wrist and guard look like an invitation for a seizure/disarm.

What you call a "better attack" I call "easy to parry".

Up until the very last possible moment in a flick, the point is not aimed at my target. I can close distance, counterattack, parry, whatever.

so do it. If the flick is that bad an idea, just beat it. I assure you that if it is no longer effective, we'll stop using it.

This may be hard to explain since threat, RoF, attack, etc. are all terms whose definitions are not universally agreed upon.

RoF may not be a rule in epee, but its common sense. If you wouldn't have had RoF, the natural consequence in epee is that you could have been successfully counterattacked. That is part of why epee is characterized as a truthful weapon.

and I'm telling you, as somebody with some decent experience in said weapon, that I FREQUENTLY score with flicks and am nearly never stophit on them. you've now been provided a counter-example to your argument that the flick is a "bad attack" and thus "can be counterattacked". shouldn't this be the part of the empirical proccess when you re-assess your hypothesis?

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Pos