To Flick or not to Flick that is the question

[Alan]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Enh. I don't agree with that. SOME of the non fencers I've seen said something along the lines of "cool, what's that." Others have said "what IS that? Wouldn't that kill you in a duel?" I think that a happy medium should be reached, so that small, sensible flicks can land.

(I'm waiting for the 8-10 ms rule...)

I said non fencers *I* have seen ....

And again this duel thing. To me and to many foilists,we don't care about
the history, duel , etc .. Foil is a modern sport which changes ...

There is historic fencing for those who want something which is like the old duels ...

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Yes, but the parry can be evaded. The flick cannot be parried because it is not presenting the blade. Because it is not giving me any reason not to step into it, it is much more liable to counterattack. No one will succeed in marching/lunging/fleching/__ing into an extended PIL.
Also, since the flick requires bending the blade in the air, it cannot be executed from as far away as a point attack.

the flick CAN be parried, it just requires the right parry in the right timing (as with any attack). As to your point that no one will succeed in a marching attack into a straight finish (NOT a PiL, as that is something else entirely), that is what most of the very best foilists do most of the time. a slow push with the blade threatening, but not yet accessible to parry, wait for the opponent to make a mistake (decides too early, usually), and then finish straight (usually to the middle of the chest).

-m

[noodle]

1) i was looking for a video on here of a nice flick parry that was posted up a while ago. can't find it.
2) here is a nice video of a march that ends in a straight attack. high level. shrug.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

PIL is not required for an attack. the requirements are "point threatening target" "arm extending." Threatening does NOT mean the same thing as "pointing at". I'm reminded of the story where a certain foilist said to a referee with her blade pointing at the ceiling, "Am I threatening target?"

"No," the referee replied.

With one simple motion she brought a flick down on his back and returned the blade to the original position, pointing at the ceiling.

"Now am I threatening target?" she asked.

"Yes."

The point is that if I can, with one simple extending motion hit target, I am a threat. as soon as my arm starts extending, it's an attack, including the part of the extension when it's pointed at the ceiling. there's no requirement for angle in foil.

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I have no problems with the flick as an attack equal to an extension. None at all.

I do have problems with a march with blade in absence pointing at the ceiling being continually called the attack (similarly to the way PIL is interpreted). I don't see the same attack pattern called with the advance en garde and a late extension. So if you advance down the strip en garde and then extend at the last moment into your opponent, are you attacking or counter-attacking? The same should be said of the bent arm flick preparation.

Where I draw the PIL comparison is that once a fencer establishes the line, something must be done to remove the threat of attack. Until something is done about that threat, the priority rests with the PIL. The current interpratation of the flick preparation is the same: something must be done to remove the threat of flick to remove the attack from the marcher. I have problems with the analogy that a threat to flick is treated equally to the threat implicit from PIL rather then the preparation implicit in engarde. Make sense?

please define "a retraction of the edge," as I'm not sure what you mean here.

In sabre it is common to bounce the edge of the sabre around, to and from the target, kind of like shaking a stick. For some referrees, this "shaking the stick" action is akin to an extension and threat with edge even though the "threat" is continually presented and retracted.

James.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by jBirch

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I have no problems with the flick as an attack equal to an extension. None at all.

I do have problems with a march with blade in absence pointing at the ceiling being continually called the attack (similarly to the way PIL is interpreted). I don't see the same attack pattern called with the advance en garde and a late extension. So if you advance down the strip en garde and then extend at the last moment into your opponent, are you attacking or counter-attacking? The same should be said of the bent arm flick preparation.

Where I draw the PIL comparison is that once a fencer establishes the line, something must be done to remove the threat of attack. Until something is done about that threat, the priority rests with the PIL. The current interpratation of the flick preparation is the same: something must be done to remove the threat of flick to remove the attack from the marcher. I have problems with the analogy that a threat to flick is treated equally to the threat implicit from PIL rather then the preparation implicit in engarde. Make sense?



In sabre it is common to bounce the edge of the sabre around, to and from the target, kind of like shaking a stick. For some referrees, this "shaking the stick" action is akin to an extension and threat with edge even though the "threat" is continually presented and retracted.

James.

two questions:

1) do you consider low line attacks that have the tip pointed low, but the arm is extending, attacks?

2) what if they're "shaking the stick" while extending?

[keith]

one observation;

the idea of discussing a static blade and asking "is this threatening" is pointless .

Regardless of one is a classicist or a sports fencer the rules ar pretty clear that;

1) a point that is moving solely due to the pater of little feet cannot be an attack, which is why stepping forward is not an attack.

2) it is possible for the point to move in all sorts of ways (for one period of fencing time) and maintain the attack - the coupe people.

I have seen very classical long coupes performed by sports fencers that would make a classicist weap in appreciation (right up until it ended in the flick of course).

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by noodle

two questions:

1) do you consider low line attacks that have the tip pointed low, but the arm is extending, attacks?

In foil if the tip is not approaching valid target then the answer is no. Note I said "approaching" not "pointing at". A low line flick is still an attack. Seems obvious to me.

What are you driving at here? An attack to an off target is still an attack? By extension a forward movement in en garde is an attack because the step could turn into a lunge?

Look, I understand what an attack is so please lets not get into that. I am a ref that believes that forward movement alone does not constitute an attack in foil. There must be some attempt to bring the point to the target in distance. Walking forward en garde is not an attack regardless of where the tip is pointing.

2) what if they're "shaking the stick" while extending?

This is where I have contention and a difference of opinion (similar to the forward movement alone -> attack camp). If you're "shaking the stick" while extending then the answer is no, IMO. You are threatening/not-threatening repeatedly.

In sabre you need to have a properly formed 135-degree angle attack and an extending arm to be considered threatening target. "Shaking the stick" repeatedly brings you in and out of that 135 degree arc and so your attack is good, then not, then good, then not. You can certainly change the line and "shake the stick" once (as in a coupe) but you can't keep spasmodically bobbing your blade and still have the attack. Again, IMO. Different refs call this action differently.

I see the classic flick preparation (tip at the ceiling, floor or side) to be en garde. You have to start the arm extension before the completion of the step to be in step-lunge time and before the front foot lands to be in lunge time. Otherwise, it's all about who started their hand first.

James.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by jBirch

In foil if the tip is not approaching valid target then the answer is no. Note I said "approaching" not "pointing at". A low line flick is still an attack. Seems obvious to me.

What are you driving at here? An attack to an off target is still an attack? By extension a forward movement in en garde is an attack because the step could turn into a lunge?

Look, I understand what an attack is so please lets not get into that. I am a ref that believes that forward movement alone does not constitute an attack in foil. There must be some attempt to bring the point to the target in distance. Walking forward en garde is not an attack regardless of where the tip is pointing.

just bear with me, i'm simply asking questions. i haven't said anything yet do you about anything else.
Q) going off of the stuff extra to the answer for my previous question, then, do you think that an attack has ROW if the tip is high, but the arm is extending and the tip is headed toward target?

Originally Posted by JBirch

This is where I have contention and a difference of opinion (similar to the forward movement alone -> attack camp). If you're "shaking the stick" while extending then the answer is no, IMO. You are threatening/not-threatening repeatedly.

In sabre you need to have a properly formed 135-degree angle attack and an extending arm to be considered threatening target. "Shaking the stick" repeatedly brings you in and out of that 135 degree arc and so your attack is good, then not, then good, then not. You can certainly change the line and "shake the stick" once (as in a coupe) but you can't keep spasmodically bobbing your blade and still have the attack. Again, IMO. Different refs call this action differently.

not my question.
Q) if i were extending the entire way, not moving in and out of the 135 degree arc, but moving the hand laterally a bit, would you still be attacking? notice how i am saying nothing of retracting the arm or tip as you've implied in your response.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by noodle

just bear with me, i'm simply asking questions. i haven't said anything yet do you about anything else.

Sorry. A little testy today.

Q) going off of the stuff extra to the answer for my previous question, then, do you think that an attack has ROW if the tip is high, but the arm is extending and the tip is headed toward target?

Yes.

not my question.
Q) if i were extending the entire way, not moving in and out of the 135 degree arc, but moving the hand laterally a bit, would you still be attacking? notice how i am saying nothing of retracting the arm or tip as you've implied in your response.

Not sure what you mean (I can't visualise it). Tentatively yes. Side to side is fine. Changing distance isn't.

BTW, 135 is a guidline. The tip moving around there back and forth is fine. Ie// A little bit of "shaking the stick" is fine. A lot isn't.

James.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Yes.

then the problem here isn't in the flick.
q) do you agree with how a march works?

Originally Posted by jBirch

Not sure what you mean (I can't visualise it). Tentatively yes. Side to side is fine. Changing distance isn't.

BTW, 135 is a guidline. The tip moving around there back and forth is fine. Ie// A little bit of "shaking the stick" is fine. A lot isn't.

James.

yes, i understand its a guideline, i was just using it to illustrate the question.

i dunno, i think whats happening here is either you're getting hit with bad directors or something. i call retraction of the tip as preparation, but i call "shaking of the stick" which is continually extending, not withdrawing the tip, as an attack. i might be wrong, i'm not a good sabre ref (admittedly), though it seems to kind of follow from the interpretation of the foil march. maybe this is where the real argument is coming from.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by noodle

then the problem here isn't in the flick.

Never said it was. Re-read what I posted.

q) do you agree with how a march works?

LOL! No. But I understand and accept it.

*grin* I'm not looking to convince anyone of anything. I just happen to hate the way that foil is called right now and figured to empathise with Verita and RabidMonk. I'm particularly annoyed at directors (foil and sabre) who call forward movement alone as the attack irrespective of hand/blade action and tempo. I am even more annoyed at foil directors who call a flick preparation as a PIL (continuously threatening) instead of en garde because the flick can be launched from that position (and a thrust, oddly, can't be from engarde).

Don't you find it odd that a weapon pointed at the sky is threatening but one pointed at your chest with a bent arm isn't? If you want to consider a flick prep as threatening (since you can finish in one smooth motion), fine, but then you also have to consider en garde as threatening too.

Maybe this is where the "forward motion alone" camp comes from.

James.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Alan

I said non fencers *I* have seen ....

And again this duel thing. To me and to many foilists,we don't care about
the history, duel , etc .. Foil is a modern sport which changes ...

1. I know you were talking about your own experience, I just felt that it would be fair if I posted experience to the contrary. I wasn't attempting to disprove your point or arguing with you.

2. I didn't say the duel thing. They did. Quite a few beginning foilists I have seen have been confused about what exactly the purpose is of fencing if not to win a duel. As I've said before, I take a middle stance.

[FoilyDeath]

most people whine about it because they cant use it/parry it. If feels great to pull of a good flick with a really hard blade.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

1. I know you were talking about your own experience, I just felt that it would be fair if I posted experience to the contrary. I wasn't attempting to disprove your point or arguing with you.

.

Nor did i want to argue with you.

The solution is simple : create a 4th fencing event !

Foil : official timings (Athens) + classical masks

Foilepee : test timings + clear visors.

[arkady_tsep]

I'm quite surprised at the response to this little poll of mine. I'm glad to see so many people talking about their point of views and actually giving good valid arguments and experiences. Please feel free to keep giving your input. I'm very interested to hear what people have to say about this matter. Thank you all for stopping by.

[Craig]

This post is in response to the assertion that "flicks would not penetrate flesh". I did some searching in the Discussion Archives for this forum and found the following post:

Originally Posted by a user from a long time ago

I used to feel the same way. But once I ran an empyrical test run on flicks I found otherwise. You really ought to try it out. Sharpen a foil blade and flick a few things and see what happens. It went through a 1/4" piece of leather with a flick ( beat flick to chest type} and I could not do that with a straight lunge/thrust. I think the acceleration on the weak of the blade at delivery is the key.

I remember there being posts that included pictures of a flick penetrating leather and also a hunk of meat, but I could not find them.

Cheers,
Craig

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Alan

Nor did i want to argue with you.

The solution is simple : create a 4th fencing event !

Foil : official timings (Athens) + classical masks

Foilepee : test timings + clear visors.

You do realize that this argument is no better than the sarcastic classical fencers who say that flickers should make their own weapon called "whippo." Both are rather impassioned and sarcastic without actually contributing to any discussion, or providing support for your (often correct) viewpoints.

Originally Posted by FoilyDeath

most people whine about it because they cant use it/parry it. If feels great to pull of a good flick with a really hard blade.

I think that some people do whine about it simply because they are unable to use or parry it, but there are also those who think that it is too easy to do, difficult to defend at the other levels, and/or won't work in a duel. There are reasons beyond whining against the flick.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

You do realize that this argument is no better than the sarcastic classical fencers who say that flickers should make their own weapon called "whippo." Both are rather impassioned and sarcastic without actually contributing to any discussion, or providing support for your (often correct) viewpoints.

Actually i think this argument is better :

if a majority of foilists like "whippo" why should they stop whippo because
of some autocratic decision ?

This test timings are clearly impopular among a a vast majority of foilists
so they must be forgotten.

And yes a majority of folists do not care about foil telegeny...

In fact it is a false problem : Imho, Foil as seen in Athens is already
a hundred times more telegenic than let's say cycling.

Except for a few montain competitions, i have often wondered how people
could sit 2 hours watching a bunch of cyclists. Still cycling is very popular on French tv !!

So Foil really doesn't need clear visors, broken test timings or pom pom girls
to be telegenic.