RE: [CFML] Just a thought

[Sam Talebbeik]

Jeff, I have cut and pasted these from a couple of emails.

--- Jeff Savit <Jeff.Savit@Sun.COM> wrote:
> I don't intend to trivialize at all. When I said "very sad" I meant it
> quite sincerely. Crappy directing has just about ruined my enjoyment of
> foil (I think epee and sabre are in good condition), and I've ranted on
> that very subject both here and on fencing101.com many times to make
> that clear. There is still good directing, but there's also horrid
> directing that makes your head spin.

It may have ruined your enjoyment, but I am not certain if your
opinion represents the majority opinion among sports fencers at all
levels. From what I have observed the majority seems to think that things are
good as they are and the FIE should go along with the status quo.

> The point I've also tried to make is that this cannot be blamed on the
> 50-year old machine: this should be blamed on a technique (the flick)
> that grew from an occasional action (angulated coupes around the guard
> have been around forever) due to *politics*, and then widespread
> acceptance of advancing without extending the arm as an "attack" also
> due to politics. This has debased foil, but it should be blamed on the
> officials and coaches. I recognize that it's the machine that people
> focus on, but frankly, people would make dry flicks work too if they had
> to (you can make them stick) and if the community that fences dry
> tolerated it. The real problem is that people are allowed to maintain
> ROW with an "attack" with the arm fully withdrawn. Never mind the
> extending vs. extended topic.
> The FIE also acted with changes to the machine timings intended to
> reduce the flick, even though they had plenty of negative consequences
> (it doesn't look as if this was adequately thought out and tested) that
> have everyone in an uproar. See Barry Paul's comments on that.

Jeff, I think the point that you are bringing up here is the main reason that
this whole thread got started in the first place. I am not
sure what you mean by the angulated coupe, I think you maybe referring
to what I know as a flying coupe that ends with a flick to the shoulder. The
flying coupe has been around, and the flicks of some form may have been
around in recent decades. Have the flicks to the back (which could hit you
right behind the mask) and the Zorro whiplash action flicks been around also ?
The timings on the box allowed these actions to survive and flourish.
Actually some sports fencers have the opinion that these flicks have brought a
new "dynamism" to the foil and defense against flicks has created a whole
new category of defensive moves unseen in the past. However, the whiplash
flicks were not against the FIE regulations. You may not like them
but they were not against the regulations. The timings on the box
allowed them. So, do you agree that the timings on the box
could promote actions which have nothing to do with what some call
"classically oriented pointy moves" in foil ? I am not debating whether judging

will be better with our without a box. That is a different argument.
I am arguing that the timings on the box could be manipulated
to the ends with unintended and undesirable results. Someone could
still debate me what undesirable really means.

The new timings have not eliminated the flicks.
The flicks to the Sixte line are still alive.
I have not seen Zorro whip lash flicks, since they have less probability
of setting off the box. The new timings also did not
eliminate marching attacks. They still march and the point is still
aiming right at your foot or your knee or aimed high at the lights on
the ceiling ! This is apparently still interpreted by some (not all)
foil judges as "threatening the valid target area" !!!
At least the new timings may produce one light for a well timed
attack into preparation against a marching attack.


> I'm well aware of passato soto's antiquity, and I'm sorry if you took
> offence at my deprecating this action. Every action has some moment in
> which it's tactically useful, and some opponent who is utterly baffled
> by it and can be fooled over and ove. I personally like to use
> inquarata on occasion - get them to go to your inside line and then
> pivot away, but it's a high risk action that must be used sparingly and
> with surprise. My point here is that it is a *risky* move and of
> marginal use in SF.

When you made your comment about Passato Soto, I was wondering what
you are trying to imply. If Passato Soto is risky then is a
fundamental move such as a feint also risky because it could leave you
open to a beat attack ? You have clarified your position since then and
you mention that you occasionally use Inquartata. Some sports fencers
either do not know these moves or they immediately dismiss them as being
outdated and useless. Well, I do not think these classically oriented
moves are all useless within the context of sports fencing. All
a fencer needs to do is to be open minded, learn them, and use them at
the appropriate time, against an appropriate action, and pick the move that
is MOST EFFECTIVE.


--- Jeff Savit <Jeff.Savit@Sun.COM> wrote:
> In the rush of all the other material, I forgot to ask the following:
> Sam: did you actually see passato soto, that is: stretched out in lunge
> position, 3 point landing with unarmed hand on the floor?
>
> I never said ducking wasn't used, nor "the class of moves" that remove
> target. I said "passato soto", not ducking or squatting, which are
> entirely different. A full squat is seen in SF, and neither exposes the
> back as passato soto does, nor fixes the off-hand to the floor. I can't
> recall the last time I've seen a passato soto.
>
> I stand by my original remark: it is a rarely used technique due to the
> risk caused by immobility and exposing target area.


I am not going to argue with someone who knows when and how to perform Pasato
Soto and get a touch. I believe there are certain actions that are more
EFFECTIVE than others, but I do not believe the notion that learning any
of these classical moves are useless and a waste of time.

Best Regards,
Sam




__________________________________________________ __
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/classicalfencing/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
classicalfencing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Jeff Savit]

Hi Sam, My comments in-line too.

On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:38, Sam Talebbeik wrote:
> Jeff, I have cut and pasted these from a couple of emails.
>
> --- Jeff Savit <Jeff.Savit@Sun.COM> wrote:
> > I don't intend to trivialize at all. When I said "very sad" I meant it
> > quite sincerely. Crappy directing has just about ruined my enjoyment of
> > foil (I think epee and sabre are in good condition), and I've ranted on
> > that very subject both here and on fencing101.com many times to make
> > that clear. There is still good directing, but there's also horrid
> > directing that makes your head spin.
>
> It may have ruined your enjoyment, but I am not certain if your
> opinion represents the majority opinion among sports fencers at all
> levels. From what I have observed the majority seems to think that things are
> good as they are and the FIE should go along with the status quo.

In your previous mail you quoted impressive FIE bigwigs saying directing
is terrible, now you say that the majority believes things are fine.
Just what point are you trying to make?

If I were entirely happy with fencing as it's done now, I probably would
not have enrolled in this list.

> Jeff, I think the point that you are bringing up here is the main reason that
> this whole thread got started in the first place. I am not
> sure what you mean by the angulated coupe, I think you maybe referring
> to what I know as a flying coupe that ends with a flick to the shoulder. The
> flying coupe has been around, and the flicks of some form may have been
> around in recent decades. Have the flicks to the back (which could hit you
> right behind the mask) and the Zorro whiplash action flicks been around also ?

Yes. Not seen as frequently, since directors were more likely to punish
fencers with loss of ROW if they pulled there arm back, but definitely.

> The timings on the box allowed these actions to survive and flourish.

The timings that allowed this were the same timings that were around for
decades before this was going on. QED: it's not the box since the box
was there for decades without the flick. Timings were changed to make
flicks harder to pull off. I am certain that fencers could flick with
dry foil too, if they had to and it had provided competitive advantage
with then existing directing conventions. I've seen people practice the
flick off-machine.

> Actually some sports fencers have the opinion that these flicks have brought a
> new "dynamism" to the foil and defense against flicks has created a whole
> new category of defensive moves unseen in the past. However, the whiplash

Indeed - some foilists think that this has invigorated fencing, and made
it much more exciting and attractive to the modern audience. This
directly contradicts the claim in Sullins' paper that the box and the
flick have made audiences disappear. I think both are wrong, but if I
had to choose one over the other I would have to say that the flickers
are more in tune with modern spectator opinions.

> flicks were not against the FIE regulations. You may not like them
> but they were not against the regulations. The timings on the box
> allowed them. So, do you agree that the timings on the box
> could promote actions which have nothing to do with what some call
> "classically oriented pointy moves" in foil ? I am not debating whether judging
> will be better with our without a box. That is a different argument.
> I am arguing that the timings on the box could be manipulated
> to the ends with unintended and undesirable results. Someone could
> still debate me what undesirable really means.

Of course they're not against regulations - otherwise they couldn't be
used.

If we stipulate as "undesirable" the whiplash flick, then, yes, the
timings on the box could be exploited (not "manipulated", as nobody
changed box timings to foster the whiplash, they just used what was
there). Unintended? Certainly not: the people who started this were
completely were completely intentional in propagating it.

On the other hand - the box also promotes actions that were technically
classical but of less value: hits to the flank and back were under
reported. That's a systemic bias against hits that should have been
counted but were harder to see. If we're balancing the scales of justice
for the box we would be remiss to ignore its benefits.

> The new timings have not eliminated the flicks.
> The flicks to the Sixte line are still alive.

And that may not be a bad thing. I was just watching video of the 2004
Olympic finals and saw a lot of these. Its really not much different
than a flying riposte. and it does NOT depend on having a whippy blade.

> I have not seen Zorro whip lash flicks, since they have less probability
> of setting off the box. The new timings also did not
> eliminate marching attacks. They still march and the point is still
> aiming right at your foot or your knee or aimed high at the lights on
> the ceiling ! This is apparently still interpreted by some (not all)
> foil judges as "threatening the valid target area" !!!
> At least the new timings may produce one light for a well timed
> attack into preparation against a marching attack.

Those are my complaints about the bad parts of today's directing, which I
think you agree with. The new timings were intended to have the effect
you mention. They may also have negative consequences too - the whole thing
is very controversial.

> When you made your comment about Passato Soto, I was wondering what
> you are trying to imply. If Passato Soto is risky then is a
> fundamental move such as a feint also risky because it could leave you
> open to a beat attack ? You have clarified your position since then and
> you mention that you occasionally use Inquartata. Some sports fencers
> either do not know these moves or they immediately dismiss them as being
> outdated and useless. Well, I do not think these classically oriented
> moves are all useless within the context of sports fencing. All
> a fencer needs to do is to be open minded, learn them, and use them at
> the appropriate time, against an appropriate action, and pick the move that
> is MOST EFFECTIVE.

All fencing is risk. Some risks are dumb risks :-)

Some moves are riskier and return less advantage than others. Passato
soto is a lot riskier and returns much less value than a mainstream move
like a feint. That's why it's a marginal move, hardly ever seen. If it
paid off you can bet it would be widely used.

I was quite confused by your proving that passato soto is relevant by
citing examples in which fencers used a different move entirely.

The reason I mentioned it in the first place is that there are parts of
CF, which vaunts its alleged "more realistic" nature compared to SF,
that are of marginal utility and more likely to get you nailed than the
corresponding move in SF. Open mindedness goes both ways: it would not
be a bad thing for CF fans to recognize that parts of the tools they use
are obsolete for good reason, while other parts retain value.

I found a lovely quote by Nadi about why the inquartata is obsolete and
should only rarely be used in fencing. I'll type it in if anyone wants:
the argument is exactly the same.

> I am not going to argue with someone who knows when and how to perform Pasato
> Soto and get a touch. I believe there are certain actions that are more
> EFFECTIVE than others, but I do not believe the notion that learning any
> of these classical moves are useless and a waste of time.

I absolutely agree with your paragraph above. It's always good to learn
techniques - all learning is wonderful.

But: not all learning is applicable in combat, either. Let's not fall
into the fallacy "everything taught under this system is superior to
those naughty modern fencers".

> Best Regards,
> Sam

And to you as well,
Jeff



----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/classicalfencing/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
classicalfencing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/