Tests Results with Sanzo, Cassara, Bissdorf in Paris

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by Feraud

Whenever I see pictures of historical fencers wearing gorgets for fencing it bothers me.
A gorget is a piece of armor meant to stop downward blow to your collarbone or a slashing strike to the neck, and only works to prevent a thrust if the breastplate it is being used with has a stop-rib to glance the point away from the neck. Check out how they are constructed on actual armor. When these were worn in later periods without other armor, well… the issue of a blade glancing up your unarmored chest wouldn’t be likely as you’d just be skewered. Much later period gorgets are simply ornamental.
They way they’re being used by groups like the SCA they would end up trapping a blade at your neck as it slides up off your chest. No one at a modern fencing competition is permitted to wear something that could trap the point of their opponents blade.

I think you have a couple of misconceptions about the modern (pardon the irony) use of the gorget from about the 16th century up till the right now (although I think you are correct in how it was originally used in some types of heavy plate armor). It was not to keep a blade from sliding under a mask/helmet or whatever. It was to protect the throat from a thrust from a piercing weapon such as a rapier or stiletto. The chain shirt/coif/gambeson/paldrons whatever were there more for what I think you are thinking a gorget is there for. The reason they are worn today is to keep the very heavy blades of a schlager or blunted rapier from crushing your windpipe or causing blood clots/bruising on your arteries as well as helping to prevent soft tissue or voice box damage and to protect the more exposed vertebrate at the back of the neck.

The way it is used in the "modern" fashion (and presumably why it was popular during the 17/18th century) for historical fencing has it worn underneath a gambeson/jacket/reinforced doublet as well as under a hood/arming coif/chain coif and then finally a fencing mask. The variation that I was thinking of would be used in exactly the same manner. Worn under the jacket and mask (next to the skin to keep the FIE happy! ) with the jacket and mask going over it.

This would protect the soft and easily damaged parts from being struck from a frontal angle by and aimed shot designed for a part of the body the point, under the current timings, will be more likely to register on. The blade trap at the collar of the jacket and/or lame would be there to help prevent the injury you seem to be thinking the gorget is there to stop. It is only for protecting against an aimed shot to the bib, not for an accidental slip under the bib. Current quality uniforms do a good enough job of helping guard against this for my piece of mind. I hope that makes a bit more sense.

[Frank Pratt]

I am concerned that these new rules are only focused on elite fencers, not mere commoners that are in the lower ends of the FIE point standings (or yours truly and the millions of others who are not, have never been, and never will be on any FIE point standing list!) They conduct tests with some of the best foilists on the planet to see if this is a good idea for all fencers!? Anyone who is studied experimental design in high school or college could tell you that this makes it impossible to generalize the results to fencers at other skill levels (e.g. 95% of the other fencers in the world.) Of course, the FIE’s purpose may only apply to the elite fencers, leaving the individual NGBs in each country with the sole responsibility for regulating non-elite fencing.

The expense issue is a very good point, but it’s an issue that applies only to fencers who compete in more than one weapon. This excludes the vast majority of fencers that compete at World Championships and Olympic level. Even most World Cup competitors only fence one weapon. This is another example of the FIE ignoring the non-elite, who are far more likely to compete in two or even three weapons. So, are they going to allow conductive bibs in epee to ensure that a fencer can compete in both weapons with one mask? I don’t see any reason why they would not allow it. If they do allow it, however, will manufactures continue to sell cheaper “epee-only” masks for the fencer who only fences epee (and to prevent epeeists from having to upgrade to the new mask,) or will they discontinue these models and make epeeists suffer from the added expense of the new foil rules? This new rule might impact epee more than you think!

As far as a clip for a conductive bib, it would be necessary. I think there would be too many continuity problems between the bib and lame that would cause a lot of white lights on bib touches. Using a clip also allows the manufacturers to only put conductive material on only the outside of the bib , which would be cheaper than having to “electrify” both sides of the bib. A “bib cord” will be just another (albeit small) expense imposed on foilists. Lastly, could the “bib” end of the cord be connected to the bib so that it could not be knocked off or damaged by a passé touch? I have seen saber mask cords knocked off (and one that flung 30 feet up into the venue’s rafters.) I have a feeling that the bib clip would be knocked off more often with this new rule.

All of my statements, of course, beg the next question: will the bib rule change only apply to elite fencing (like the visor mask, 800N clothing, and wireless saber?) The USFA (and other NGBs) will have to decide on their own whether or not the new bib will be required in non-FIE events. The NGB will be at least a little more concerned with the cost that is passed down the grassroots level. However, I think adding the bib as valid target will be a significant enough change to be added to non-elite fencing. If a beginner is to become an elite fencer, he/she needs to compete under the same rules as the elite. Adjusting to additional target area only after competing for several years would be much harder than competing with it from day one. This is why the new timings trickled down to the non-elite level.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

I am concerned that these new rules are only focused on elite fencers, not mere commoners that are in the lower ends of the FIE point standings (or yours truly and the millions of others who are not, have never been, and never will be on any FIE point standing list!) They conduct tests with some of the best foilists on the planet to see if this is a good idea for all fencers!? Anyone who is studied experimental design in high school or college could tell you that this makes it impossible to generalize the results to fencers at other skill levels (e.g. 95% of the other fencers in the world.) Of course, the FIE’s purpose may only apply to the elite fencers, leaving the individual NGBs in each country with the sole responsibility for regulating non-elite fencing.

The FIE is only concerned with the top tier of fencing. Above all things, they are most concerned about Olympic television coverage, in which case only the best of the best need to be considered.

So, are they going to allow conductive bibs in epee to ensure that a fencer can compete in both weapons with one mask? I don’t see any reason why they would not allow it.

There's no reason to ... unless you clip your conductive bib to your guard or to the grounded piste, it ought to register ...

I've seen people compete in epee with a sabre mask before. And foil too -- they taped the edges to prevent it from contacting with the lame (with only partial success). This has only been at low-level competitions though.

If they do allow it, however, will manufactures continue to sell cheaper “epee-only” masks for the fencer who only fences epee (and to prevent epeeists from having to upgrade to the new mask,) or will they discontinue these models and make epeeists suffer from the added expense of the new foil rules? This new rule might impact epee more than you think!

Why wouldn't they continue to make epee masks? Personally, I wouldn't bother wearing a new lame-bib-foil-mask in practice most of the time. I can concede points that land on the bib, and wouldn't want to cause extra wear on my new most expensive piece of equipment. It would certainly be cheaper in the long run to wear an epee mask for both practice and epee competitions, and pull out the foil mask only when needed.

As far as a clip for a conductive bib, it would be necessary.

Absolutely. Otherwise they wouldn't need headwires in sabre, either.

Lastly, could the “bib” end of the cord be connected to the bib so that it could not be knocked off or damaged by a passé touch? I have seen saber mask cords knocked off (and one that flung 30 feet up into the venue’s rafters.) I have a feeling that the bib clip would be knocked off more often with this new rule.

I would be amazed if a cord could be invented that NEVER could be knocked off. In all seriousness, though, a sabre mask clip will fly off less often if clipped to the bib than it will to the mask -- the reason why they get clipped to the mask is because the lame on the bib is much more easily damaged.

All of my statements, of course, beg the next question: will the bib rule change only apply to elite fencing (like the visor mask, 800N clothing, and wireless saber?) The USFA (and other NGBs) will have to decide on their own whether or not the new bib will be required in non-FIE events. The NGB will be at least a little more concerned with the cost that is passed down the grassroots level. However, I think adding the bib as valid target will be a significant enough change to be added to non-elite fencing. If a beginner is to become an elite fencer, he/she needs to compete under the same rules as the elite. Adjusting to additional target area only after competing for several years would be much harder than competing with it from day one. This is why the new timings trickled down to the non-elite level.

Traditionally, target changes are reflected across all levels very quickly -- think of the change in rules regarding the hand in sabre.

Of course, everybody will still have their old masks, and replacing a large number of foil masks is quite the expense. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave it a season before incorporating it at lower levels.

Also -- don't forget that this is VERY unofficial right now. For all we know next year could be a "test" year for this, in which case I'd be surprised if any fencing federation expected small competitions to make the switch.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Also -- don't forget that this is VERY unofficial right now. For all we know next year could be a "test" year for this, in which case I'd be surprised if any fencing federation expected small competitions to make the switch.

Sure... and the new foil timings were supposed to be "test" timings when they came out too. Just wait, they'll pass this stupid bib rule (among others) and everyone will have to go out and spend $200 on new masks. Then there'll be all kinds of consequences that those tards at the FIE didnt foresee and there will be a whole other ****storm on this forum. So, for the season after that they will make even more rule changes to fix the problems... spend more money... more problems... more changes... spend more money... more problems... etc... etc... Until one day you wake up and foil is completely unrecognizable from what it was even 5 years ago.

Heh, welcome to the future of foil fencing! I just want to know what we call this new version of foil? If before we had "classical" foil fencing and "modern" fencing, then what do you call it with the current rules? "Post-Modern"? And if so, what will it be with the even newer rules... "Neo Post-Modern"?

So, welcome to the Neo Post-Modern Era of foil fencing. Enjoy the ride... 'cause it's all downhill from here!

[peet]

Originally Posted by kalivor

There's no reason to ... unless you clip your conductive bib to your guard or to the grounded piste, it ought to register ...

The lame material could ground the opponent's tip to their blade, just like in foil (hence the need for tape on the blade in foil), causing the hit to fail to register, couldn't it?

[peet]

I still think we should all just wait & see. The "bib-is-target" idea has been kicked around for years by the FIE, and never adopted. Sure, it sounds like they have gotten one step closer to doing it than they have other years, but it's still not for real yet.

[mrbiggs]

I think the worst part of the bib becoming target is the expense. Every foilist will have to buy a new mask. And keep in mind that one would need a mask for EVERY weapon they fenced. So I fence foil and epee, I need to keep 2 masks in good working order. It's just more money in a sport that already costs too much.

[J.Harris]

I'm sure there's a very obvious reason I haven't seen but why couldn't a modified bib be tucked underneath the lame? You'd still have to buy a new mask but you wouldn't have to deal with a lot of the technical problems.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think the worst part of the bib becoming target is the expense. Every foilist will have to buy a new mask. And keep in mind that one would need a mask for EVERY weapon they fenced. So I fence foil and epee, I need to keep 2 masks in good working order. It's just more money in a sport that already costs too much.

Actually, the worst part will be that we'll look more like sabre fencers. Seriously... no one wants that!

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by J.Harris

I'm sure there's a very obvious reason I haven't seen but why couldn't a modified bib be tucked underneath the lame? You'd still have to buy a new mask but you wouldn't have to deal with a lot of the technical problems.

The same reason a Sabre glove or Manchette must go over the lame. Also how would the lame material would connect? The inside of the lame is insulated.

[sarmaticus]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

The same reason a Sabre glove or Manchette must go over the lame. Also how would the lame material would connect? The inside of the lame is insulated.

I suspect JHarris means the bib, tucked under the lamé jacket, the mask wouldn't need to be conductive; it wouldn't cover the target area. I think a well-padded bib would be hard to tuck into a lamé jacket and harder to keep there.

[Feraud]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

I think you have a couple of misconceptions about the modern (pardon the irony) use of the gorget from about the 16th century up till the right now (although I think you are correct in how it was originally used in some types of heavy plate armor). It was not to keep a blade from sliding under a mask/helmet or whatever. It was to protect the throat from a thrust from a piercing weapon such as a rapier or stiletto. The chain shirt/coif/gambeson/paldrons whatever were there more for what I think you are thinking a gorget is there for. The reason they are worn today is to keep the very heavy blades of a schlager or blunted rapier from crushing your windpipe or causing blood clots/bruising on your arteries as well as helping to prevent soft tissue or voice box damage and to protect the more exposed vertebrate at the back of the neck.

The way it is used in the "modern" fashion (and presumably why it was popular during the 17/18th century) for historical fencing has it worn underneath a gambeson/jacket/reinforced doublet as well as under a hood/arming coif/chain coif and then finally a fencing mask. The variation that I was thinking of would be used in exactly the same manner. Worn under the jacket and mask (next to the skin to keep the FIE happy! ) with the jacket and mask going over it.

This would protect the soft and easily damaged parts from being struck from a frontal angle by and aimed shot designed for a part of the body the point, under the current timings, will be more likely to register on. The blade trap at the collar of the jacket and/or lame would be there to help prevent the injury you seem to be thinking the gorget is there to stop. It is only for protecting against an aimed shot to the bib, not for an accidental slip under the bib. Current quality uniforms do a good enough job of helping guard against this for my piece of mind. I hope that makes a bit more sense.

Actually I used to do armored combat in the SCA about 20 years ago so I’m familiar with the need for rigid neck protection. Although, what we wore for armor back then makes me wonder why I am still alive
Ah, so HF’er do wear it under the jacket? That makes more sense.

[mrbiggs]

In relation to the beginning of this thread, what happened to the experimentation with the new foil tip? (With the shim...) They tested it out with some of these fencers, but I never heard how it worked out.

[Duellist USA]

I would imagine some sort of snap on bib might be a product you see coming out.....

Imagine a standard mask with a series of snaps that allow a lame type bib to be snapped onto it then attached via a head cord to the lame... arrange a fold over the snap...with the fold at the bottom to prevent blades from catching underneath it...

or a clamp type system than allows you to switch bibs from non lame to lame style...once again with a headcord...


Dont know if this would bethe direction they would go...but it would make the most sense (not that the ruling makes sense to begin with)...

Then you would replace the bib versus replacing the entire mask....something that would be far cheaper I would think...

Rick Shellhouse

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by Duellist USA

I would imagine some sort of snap on bib might be a product you see coming out.....

Imagine a standard mask with a series of snaps that allow a lame type bib to be snapped onto it then attached via a head cord to the lame... arrange a fold over the snap...with the fold at the bottom to prevent blades from catching underneath it...

or a clamp type system than allows you to switch bibs from non lame to lame style...once again with a headcord...


Dont know if this would bethe direction they would go...but it would make the most sense (not that the ruling makes sense to begin with)...

Then you would replace the bib versus replacing the entire mask....something that would be far cheaper I would think...

Rick Shellhouse

Why not have a regular epee mask, and then have a groove on the outside of the bib that is magnetized? The bib/lame would have a metallic strip on it so that it holds to the magnet, and then you just slip it through the groove, and push down on a securing rivet or bolt that can be un-done with a standard inside hex wrench? That would be an effective way to go between the two masks/weapons.

[rcmatthews]

I would say from a sabre perspective that sabreurs dont want foilists looking like us, either.

[gladius]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

In relation to the beginning of this thread, what happened to the experimentation with the new foil tip? (With the shim...) They tested it out with some of these fencers, but I never heard how it worked out.

If you refer to a test done in Milan a couple of months ago, I got just two reports, one from someone present during the test, and one from someone who had spoken with people present. In both cases they stated that the tests were inconclusive with nothing interesting to report. The "tests" apparently consisted in few lounges and then it was adjourned... A strange feedback I did not bother to post.

[Zelda]

Originally Posted by Duellist USA

I would imagine some sort of snap on bib might be a product you see coming out.....

Imagine a standard mask with a series of snaps that allow a lame type bib to be snapped onto it then attached via a head cord to the lame... arrange a fold over the snap...with the fold at the bottom to prevent blades from catching underneath it...

or a clamp type system than allows you to switch bibs from non lame to lame style...once again with a headcord...


Dont know if this would bethe direction they would go...but it would make the most sense (not that the ruling makes sense to begin with)...

Then you would replace the bib versus replacing the entire mask....something that would be far cheaper I would think...

Rick Shellhouse

Something like the LP Exchange sabre mask?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by gladius

If you refer to a test done in Milan a couple of months ago, I got just two reports, one from someone present during the test, and one from someone who had spoken with people present. In both cases they stated that the tests were inconclusive with nothing interesting to report. The "tests" apparently consi