To Flick or not to Flick that is the question

[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.

[LUDICROUS]

Flicking is handy, and if it gets me the point, then cool.

[Rabid Monk]

Not to flick.
I don't like it.
Can't defend it, can't do it, and it's not very sportsmanlike to stand back and whip the guy.
Kinda cheap, actually...

[WhipLash]

i've heard of flicking with the new timings, perhaps someone can explain how that can be accomplished?

[VERITAS]

In my mind there are many reasons not to flick:

It won't always work. A proper angulation will do the job just as well in most cases, and the fickle FIE may change the rules to shut out the flick completely in a few more years anyway.

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, and in sabre it seems to be completely besides the point. A solid one-two, or a strong set of low-line parries & attacks, or any number of other techniques are much more useful.

It isn't martial. Flicking would never work with a real sword, and one would be foolish to try. Even if you did hit, you barely bruise an opponent, pissing him off, compared to what a proper thrust will do.

Flicking is aesthetically displeasing, at least to me. Good fencing without flicking seems more real (because it is more real) and is more fun to watch.

Flicks also remove one's point and pulls the wrist back, losing right-of-way and the ability to defend oneself. The very best experts can do this very quickly and efficiently, but an opening still exists.

Flicking is an art, and does take time to perfect, but I don't think it's worth the time to learn. Many other manuevers will serve a serious fencer better.

Just my opinion...

-charley

EDIT: word filters wouldn't allow me to say that flicking "cocks the wrist back".

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by WhipLash

i've heard of flicking with the new timings, perhaps someone can explain how that can be accomplished?

Exact same method, only harder. The glancing back flicks that used to be common are now very difficult to pull off for fencers that are not VERY good. If you were not extremely good at flicking before the timing change, chest and shoulder flicks are your best bet.

[Spike327]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

In my mind there are many reasons not to flick:

The flick may "work" temporarily in foil, it doesn't work well at all in epee...

WHAT????

Under the new timings I can land a back/shoulder flick MUCH BETTER in epee than in foil.

At the highest levels of epee you might not see that many folks who actually score most of their touches on flicks, but many good epeeists use the flick as a threat to set up other actions.

[WhipLash]

i've seen a very good reason y we shouldn't flick. this guy tried to sidestep, duck and flick to his opp's crotch, underhand. luckily he hit the thigh instead...

[LUDICROUS]

Originally Posted by WhipLash

i've seen a very good reason y we shouldn't flick. this guy tried to sidestep, duck and flick to his opp's crotch, underhand. luckily he hit the thigh instead...

A flick to the crotch isnt always going to work, seems to be bit of a total "one off". Unless he's/she's (SHE'S is more applicable..) just a sadist.

Edit: Unless its epee.

[JonTong]

Why not? As long as it is a +ve NPV investment....

Personally I flick most of the time. Sometimes they serve as direct attacks and sometimes preparations (like "flick, fleche" or "flick, flick, lunge", etc). It really depends on my opponent. If my opponent get "freak out" when I flick him, why don't I do so? However, if my opponent is really good at picking the time when I flick? I think it is a good time to stop flicking and do something else.

Being mentally flexible is one of the most important attribute for a good fencer, isn't it?

BTW, I am an epeeist.

[mrbiggs]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the flick as a concept, so long as it is a balanced action.

For example, in epee, if you try to hit the top of your opponent's hand, the bottom of your hand is exposed. Your offensive action has a defensive counteraction. Epee flicks are the same way. When you go for a flick in epee, unless you have a huge amount of strength, you will need to expose your wrist in order to land it. In other words, a "balanced" action is one that has a defensive action that will counter it. All touches that I know of in epee are balanced, and most are in foil. (I'll get to that now...)

In foil, meanwhile, at the LOWER levels, the flick has no counter action. A hard enough flick can get through a flick parry. I'm sure we all know at least one D or E fencer who ONLY flicks, seeing no reason to land a straight attack. This is, I feel, wrong for fencing both classically (the "if they were sharp argument) and as a modern, evolving sport. That's why I was happy when the FIE and USFA changed the timings. Unfortunately, the new timings have several disadvantages as well.

(I do realize that the flick is easily countered by good foilists, but there are other fencers out here as well. And judging by the new timings, the FIE will never be able to get rid of ANY flick for good foilists.)

[WhipLash]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I do realize that the flick is easily countered by good foilists, but there are other fencers out here as well. And judging by the new timings, the FIE will never be able to get rid of ANY flick for good foilists

and pray tell how do u counter a flick for foil? besides a possible attack into his preparation?

[Alan]

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, and in sabre it seems to be completely besides the point. A solid one-two, or a strong set of low-line parries & attacks, or any number of other techniques are much more useful.

Many practise only foil.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

It isn't martial. Flicking would never work with a real sword, and one would be foolish to try. Even if you did hit, you barely bruise an opponent, pissing him off, compared to what a proper thrust will do.

And who cares about that ? Foil is a modern sport.

You can do historic fencing if you care about the "real" swords.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Flicking is aesthetically displeasing, at least to me. Good fencing without flicking seems more real (because it is more real) and is more fun to watch.

Completely disagree. To me it is the more aesthetic hit in foil.
And it is true also for many non fencers who watch foil.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Flicks also remove one's point and pulls the wrist back, losing right-of-way and the ability to defend oneself. The very best experts can do this very quickly and efficiently, but an opening still exists.

Yes if some flicks loose ROW, the refereing should not give ROW.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Flicking is an art, and does take time to perfect, but I don't think it's worth the time to learn. Many other manuevers will serve a serious fencer better.

Yes it's an art but it is worth learning as well as the other hits.
At a high level, as seen in Athens for instance, we don't see a majority of flicks.


Just my opinion...

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by WhipLash

and pray tell how do u counter a flick for foil? besides a possible attack into his preparation?

With the distance, obviously, since to flick you someone has to be closer to you than if they were going to go straight.

The biggest problem lower level fencers tend to have in this regard is they don't know how exactly to run away, since just retreating as fast you can away from it isn't going to work if they're just gonna keep running you down until you stop and they can finish. The answer's pretty simple from that view though. Slowing the tempo on the retreat to appear to be stopping ( I wouldn't really suggest actually stopping) and/or throwing a false counter-attack into the marching flicker will force him to finish - because if he's convinced you're counter-attacking, then he's convinced that he HAS to finish to get the touch. If he falls for it and throws the flick, then you book it backwards so that he falls short and you can get right back on top of him.

[keith]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Exact same method, only harder.

snip

No, no, no. Hard driving actions like this are pretty much a tactical dead end - they are telegraphed actions and can be avoided by slight body turns (although you still get the bruise) or by ducking.

Flicking with the new timing is possible to the targets you talk about (and also to any folds/pulls in the back of the lame caused by attachment to the spool), just make sure that you 'follow through' with the fingers - not a fly fishing type action (no push and pull) - and keep the hand nice and wide of the line you are aiming into. A nice soft grip is also essential as it seems to help the tip stick for a bit longer on the target.

Flicking is harder now and to do it well probably requires as much practice as any other action. Also if the shift is back to 8ms developing a technically superior flick will stand you in good stead.

[JonTong]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

It isn't martial. Flicking would never work with a real sword, and one would be foolish to try. Even if you did hit, you barely bruise an opponent, pissing him off, compared to what a proper thrust will do.

Not exactly. In Chinese martial art, flicking like actions are very common in sword, spear, and staff fighting techniques. The use of a flexibility of a weapon has already been very common in martial art before we fencers "invented" the so-call flick in fencing.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Rabid Monk

Not to flick.
I don't like it.
Can't defend it, can't do it, and it's not very sportsmanlike to stand back and whip the guy.
Kinda cheap, actually...

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.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

In my mind there are many reasons not to flick:

It won't always work. A proper angulation will do the job just as well in most cases, and the fickle FIE may change the rules to shut out the flick completely in a few more years anyway.

Do you have an attack that will always work? One that will never be parried and always land?

In that case, use it instead of the flick, and go out and win yourself a World Championship, followed by the next Olympics.

There isn't an attack which will always work, so success rate of less than 100% is hardly a reason not to flick.

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, and in sabre it seems to be completely besides the point. A solid one-two, or a strong set of low-line parries & attacks, or any number of other techniques are much more useful.

Strange, I also like to fence all three weapons. I have a good bit of luck using a flick to the wrist in epee -- it rarely gets me more than one point in a bout against a decent fencer, but it makes them worry about it. I find my flick in epee to be fairly advantageous. Not to mention that a quarte parry with a flick riposte to the front of the shoulder is far more useful in epee than is the more traditional foil quarte parry with a thrust riposte (and no opposition).

As for sabre -- well, a flick is closer to a sabre attack than is a solid one-two, or a low-line thrust. The large sweeping parry followed by a flick to the back of the shoulder (or even between the shoulderblades) is far closer to a sabre parry-riposte to the head than more traditional foil techniques.

Besides which, each weapon ought to have its own character -- complaining that a technique specific to foil doesn't cross over well enough is like complaining that your sabre cuts never seem to register when you're fencing epee.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

It isn't martial. Flicking would never work with a real sword, and one would be foolish to try. Even if you did hit, you barely bruise an opponent, pissing him off, compared to what a proper thrust will do.

And you know this from your extensive dueling experience?

Seriously, if I were to, say, duel to first blood ... I'd want a sharpened modern epee, with a nice LP maraging blade. And I'd probably flick to the wrist, and likely draw blood with it.

Besides which, most people in sport fencing are more concerned with winning points than actually trying to kill their opponent, or training to kill their opponent, should it ever become necessary.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Flicking is aesthetically displeasing, at least to me. Good fencing without flicking seems more real (because it is more real) and is more fun to watch.

Different strokes for different folks. I find high-level foil fencing a pleasure to watch, both with and without flicks. I've never found any of it to appear to be "real" ... I mean, it's more real than most movie fencing (with or without flicks), but I've never seen a foil bout look like an actual duel or anything. Foilists continually advance without concern that they might get hit, and repeatedly ignore their opponent's counterattacks, whether they thrust or flick.

I mean, if those things were sharp, the counterattack would kill them! The nerve of the FIE, having that "priority" stuff. Unrealistic.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Flicks also remove one's point and pulls the wrist back, losing right-of-way and the ability to defend oneself. The very best experts can do this very quickly and efficiently, but an opening still exists.

I've seen the arm pulled before thrusts, too. By very good fencers. And many a flick (though often immediately after a beat or parry) which doesn't involve the arm being pulled, and hence not losing right of way.

That said, the tip being removed from target is most definitely an opening, and the flick's big weak point. It's not some bulletproof attack that can never fail ... fencers who do nothing but flick are generally not that good. But if you expect ANY attack to be reliable 100% of the time, you're being rediculous.

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Flicking is an art, and does take time to perfect, but I don't think it's worth the time to learn. Many other manuevers will serve a serious fencer better.

A good fencer should have a variety of techniques available to them, and clearly the flick isn't a fundamental, the way a quarte parry or attack with disengage is. That doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to learn it, or not useful.

A serious fencer should not ignore other parts of their game and concentrate on the flick only, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be learned and perfected.

[Tiwaz]

Originally Posted by WhipLash

i've heard of flicking with the new timings, perhaps someone can explain how that can be accomplished?

strong flicks like counter sixte filck reposte to upper torso and high sixte flick to stomach will work the old marching attack followed by flick over your opponents shoulder won't

[jBirch]

Ah yes, flicks. That holiest of holy wars in fencing. *grin*

Flicks are great...properly done that is. I'm not a fan of the arm-behind-the-back-flick-prep-that-gets-called-an-attack but whatever works to get the point I guess. In foil the action that used to be called a flick was actually more of a whip, turning the foil essentially into a cat-o'-nine-tails. Fine if you're a high school jock who likes to snap towels, I guess.

The epee flick, on the other hand, comes from the same motion as the sabre cut and I'm hopeful that the foil timings will bring that flick back into foil. Done right, it doesn't have a huge preparation and (as someone else mentioned) ends in a push from the fingers. Essentially, the flick bends the blade and the fingers get the touch. You can hit pretty much any target depending on the amount of curve you can get in the blade from the wrist. Very pretty if done right. Very ugly if not.

I find that the spaghetti noodle blades that are great for flicking are one of the things that make parries so ineffective. I prefer a stiffer blade in foil as I can make blade contact to get the flick-parry and then riposte in time and at distance without breaking the wrist. Harder to infight with though, though I'm not a fan of that particular art either.

James.