Sanzo Interview

[Alan]

Cavatione, thank you for validating my understanding of Italian. I wish some of the contributors to this thread would have a better understanding of English.

By the way, I love your new signature with the quote from Agesilao Greco. Maybe others will enjoy visiting the website of Renzo Musumeci Greco

http://www.renzomusumecigreco.it/ing/home_ing.html

but then I'm hijacking my own thread.

sometimes i wonder who really understands English :-)

or faints to not understand it.

[agnocasto]

I'm the editor of the site www.schermaonline.com.
First, thank you for your interest for our articles and interviews.
Our site was born in december, and we reached some good goals: maybe we are actually the most important italian internet magazine about fencing.
Reading the post in this forum, I would like to tell you that Salvatore Sanzo thinks really what he declared to schermaonline: he was happy for the new foil rules before their application, but now he has a delusion, expecially for the going of the show during competitions. By the way, he hopes that the situation will be better in the future.
I'm sorry for my bad english.
Ciao to everyone.

[Araznal]

he was happy for the new foil rules before their application, but now he has a delusion, expecially for the going of the show during competitions.

I understood everything except this. It's probably nothing that different from the rest, but I'm a bit curious what this was supposed to mean. Does this mean that Sanzo was looking foward to the timing changes, but he was sorely disappointed when he saw the flaws in the new systems?

[agnocasto]

Yes. I suppose that Sanzo was worry for the eccessive "fluetto" foil fencing, and he thought that this arm, by the timing changes, could go back to its origins.
Unfortunately this tecnical solution isn't able for giving us a fine show: Sanzo saw this, and probably hopes that in the future the situation could change again, maybe when the fencers will adapt themselves better to the new rules.
I hope you understand my terrific english.
Bye.

[Alan]

Yes. I suppose that Sanzo was worry for the eccessive "fluetto" foil fencing, and he thought that this arm, by the timing changes, could go back to its origins.
Unfortunately this tecnical solution isn't able for giving us a fine show: Sanzo saw this, and probably hopes that in the future the situation could change again, maybe when the fencers will adapt themselves better to the new rules.
I hope you understand my terrific english.
Bye.

Thank you to confirm that Sanzo thinks that the "'(-'(@@^\`|[{ test timings
have failed.

One thing to notice also is that, Sanzo does not say that the problem
is due to direct hits not scoring or only due to the debounce timing.

In other words both test timings are not adequate in their essence.


/Rainman
PS : I am an excellent driver ...

[agnocasto]

I hope that Salvatore Sanzo will come soon in fencing.net for answer to your and other questions.
I wrote him.

[pigeonmeister]

Thank you to confirm that Sanzo thinks that the "'(-'(@@^\`|[{ test timings
have failed.

One thing to notice also is that, Sanzo does not say that the problem
is due to direct hits not scoring or only due to the debounce timing.

In other words both test timings are not adequate in their essence.

/Rainman
PS : I am an excellent driver ...

Alan, it may be time for you to accept that the old timings are gone forever. What is more it is clear that Sanzo felt that these old timings were 'broken' (to use your terminlogy). Changes in refeering (already attempted) are clearly not a viable answer.

If this was not true then Sanzo wouldn't have supported the concept of the new timings, regardless of their application. It is also clear that he doesn't want to revert back to the old timings. So basically Alan, Sanzo is further towards the position of your opponents rather than yourself. It is lazy analysis to simply declare that Sanzo thinks the test timings have failed therfore lets go back to the old timings or just change refeering. Sanzo leaves open the opportunity for fencers to adapt and the timings to be refined, but the concept to remain. In conclusion he thinks foil is on the right path, you don't. Therfore you can't manipulate his position/argument to support your own (all though I suspect you will not accept this fact)

[Alan]

Alan, it may be time for you to accept that the old timings are gone forever. What is more it is clear that Sanzo felt that these old timings were 'broken' (to use your terminlogy). Changes in refeering (already attempted) are clearly not a viable answer.

If this was not true then Sanzo wouldn't have supported the concept of the new timings, regardless of their application. It is also clear that he doesn't want to revert back to the old timings. So basically Alan, Sanzo is further towards the position of your opponents rather than yourself. It is lazy analysis to simply declare that Sanzo thinks the test timings have failed therfore lets go back to the old timings or just change refeering. Sanzo leaves open the opportunity for fencers to adapt and the timings to be refined, but the concept to remain. In conclusion he thinks foil is on the right path, you don't. Therfore you can't manipulate his position/argument to support your own (all though I suspect you will not accept this fact)

I don't manipulate anything. I just read what he has clearly said.

It seems that he will come here to explain what he meant.
Good news.


Now even if his position is " I am in favor of the goals of these test timings but unfortunately they have failed" (it is how i understand what he said)

that would make one top foilist in favor of the goals of the timings but against their implementation.

Wow !!! What a success for the few foilists in favor of these é"'(-è@^\`|[{#
test timings

I am sure R. René is sleeping better now.

[dunastor]

Can we stop this bickering already?

[Zilverzmurfen]

I can't believe it!!!
This thread too is about the new foil timings..?

[Alan]

I can't believe it!!!
This thread too is about the new foil timings..?

You know there are many more threads about other subjects.

[Zilverzmurfen]

You know there are many more threads about other subjects.

Yes Alan, I do know that.

[edew]

Alan, it may be time for you to accept that the old timings are gone forever. What is more it is clear that Sanzo felt that these old timings were 'broken' (to use your terminlogy). Changes in refeering (already attempted) are clearly not a viable answer.

If this was not true then Sanzo wouldn't have supported the concept of the new timings, regardless of their application. It is also clear that he doesn't want to revert back to the old timings. So basically Alan, Sanzo is further towards the position of your opponents rather than yourself. It is lazy analysis to simply declare that Sanzo thinks the test timings have failed therfore lets go back to the old timings or just change refeering. Sanzo leaves open the opportunity for fencers to adapt and the timings to be refined, but the concept to remain. In conclusion he thinks foil is on the right path, you don't. Therfore you can't manipulate his position/argument to support your own (all though I suspect you will not accept this fact)

I think a number of fencers were initially in favor of the new timings because they felt the referees don't have the 84LLs to make tight calls (the ones that Golubitsky might make). Instead, I think those fencers found out that they sided with an option that made foil fencing worse. I agree with a comment that Jeff Bukantz made in the latest issue of American Fencing magazine: are we seeing a lot of people now understanding foil? Are we getting a lot of television coverage because of the new timings? No to both points. The new timings have no positive effect on fencing, in terms of understandability or interest. There are definite negative effects in terms of method of coaching, tweaking the fundamental nature of right-of-way and foil fencing, and the unique ability to shrug off an equivalent to a .44 slug to the chest in many women's foil bouts. (Talk about being incomprehensible: a straight thrust to the sterum yields no light; a grazing shot to the flank gets a light. Explain that to the viewers at home.)

[pigeonmeister]

I think a number of fencers were initially in favor of the new timings because they felt the referees don't have the 84LLs to make tight calls (the ones that Golubitsky might make). Instead, I think those fencers found out that they sided with an option that made foil fencing worse. I agree with a comment that Jeff Bukantz made in the latest issue of American Fencing magazine: are we seeing a lot of people now understanding foil? Are we getting a lot of television coverage because of the new timings? No to both points. The new timings have no positive effect on fencing, in terms of understandability or interest. There are definite negative effects in terms of method of coaching, tweaking the fundamental nature of right-of-way and foil fencing, and the unique ability to shrug off an equivalent to a .44 slug to the chest in many women's foil bouts. (Talk about being incomprehensible: a straight thrust to the sterum yields no light; a grazing shot to the flank gets a light. Explain that to the viewers at home.)

Don't get me wrong, I hate the new timings. It's just I dont see the point in Alan going on about it, they won't change them back to the original settings. I also disagreed with Alan's manipulation of Sanzo's argument, I think they are displaying profoundly different views on the path of modern foil. I would say, however, that Roch was probably not expecting an immediate positive effect in terms of understandabilty or interest. I still think that it is possible to see good fencing on the new timings, just not very often!

[Insipiens]

Gladius - thanks for posting the link and I agree with you as well (although my Italian isn't up to the standard of Cavatione by a long way ).

A couple of point on other topics than textual criticism or the new foil timings.

Esskremer - Sanzo didn't say he was not interested in women per se just made a very diplomatic comment about not having seen any women's fencing so couldn't agree on how boring it is The fact that he has just had a daughter may suggest he has at least some interest in women

While he may have a slightly mistaken view of a sports psychologist ( ) he clearly does alright without one, so who are we to argue?

The most interesting thing really is perhaps his emphasis on training and hard work. It goes to show I think why somewhere like the UK, where I live, will not produce olympic champions in the short term without something remarkable happening - we don't have the funding for a lot of high class fencers to spend all day every day training for fencing. They have to study/work because fencing will never support them.