In line again, as that seems to be working...
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:24, Sam Talebbeik wrote:
> I was just stating what I have observed. FIE wanted a change. I am not certain
> if some federations, national coaches, and some high level fencers wanted a
> change. Am I wrong ? My impression from the letters that they have sent to FIE
> is that they were not happy to see these changes (at least not in this form). I
> am sure the grumbling will not last and sooner or later these people will
> find a middle ground with FIE and they call it a day.
You're quite right. Just saw that they're testing new timings.
See
http://www.federscherma.it/news.asp?28006 if you can read Italian,
or see
http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18831 otherwise,
and for the many comments following on it.
For those that don't follow these things: timing changes were made to
increase the time the point has to be depressed for the touch to be
registered (in order to reduce the flick), and also to change the "lock
out time" to reduce the number of double hits. These times are being
modified again to tune the results. Also, and very, very controversial,
there's discussion about making the bib valid target and eliminating
off-targets altogether (they wouldn't register at all, hence not require
the bout to be stopped and restarted). Stay tuned if you find this of
interest.
> Well, I think within the context of a Classical bout where a box is not used,
> one has to make the rules simple and very strict to call the
> actions - no visible bend, no touch. Is this too restrictive? Yes. Is it fair
> that certain moves such as flank attacks may not be counted? Well, the fencer
> who is competing in a classical bout should not complain.
> He knows what he is getting into and he knows the rules.
No particular argument with that - if you compete in dry competition and
hit in places that the judges don't see, you have to accept their
decisions with good sportsmanship, just as in all other situations.
My argument is against the position that dry officiating represents the
unbiased, optimal golden standard for materiality, and I use examples
like that to show that it's not. Every time somebody says that the box
debases fencing by biasing what counts as a touch, I bring this out to
show that the opposite is true.
> By the way, this "simplicity of rules" is also something that FIE is triving to
> achieve for sports fencing. On another personal note, I found judging dry
> fencing very challenging. This is not for the uninitiated.
You bet. We quite agree. It's a very tough job with both beginner and
strong fencers: for beginners because the actions are poorly executed,
and for strong fencers because they're so fast. Fortunately, with
beginners we can just assert authority and toss out the badly done
actions. With high level fencers, throwing out actions because they're
too fast is an admission of dry judging limitations.
> I agree. That is why in my previous post I mentioned that the key word is
> EFFECTIVE. If a certain move is more effective than other moves use it and
> use it often. If it is not, just use the next move that happens
> to be more effective. Where did you see Nadi's quote? I am interested
> to know. Was it in his autobiography ?
It's in the other book, "On Fencing", starting at the bottom of page
198. I think you'll find his analysis relevant to this discussion:
"modern fencing ... speed necessitates the discarding of all ornamental
useless arabesques. We are interested only in efficiency". Considering
that this was published in 1943 you can see that the changes in
technique were already well under way in this version of "modern", which
is still using dry foil.
He goes on to say that he thinks the retreating stop thrust is
"ludicrous" (his word); not everything he says is golden!
> --- Jeff Savit <Jeff.Savit@Sun.COM> wrote:
> > 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".
>
> I agree again. The best move is what is most effective within the context
> of a certain style.
We're on the same page here - no disagreement
> By the way, I do not think anyone used the word "naughty" for sports fencers.
> I certainly did not. I do not think this name calling will serve any purpose.
Oh, "naughty" was one of my attempts at whimsical humor again. I was
teasing. I should either stop doing that or put up smiley faces so
people know when I'm being facetious.
> Personally, I am glad that you are expressing your views. Also, please bear
> in mind that you were not given the same treatment that sometimes classical
> fencers receive in the other mailing lists and forums.
> This was a very good exchange of views.
Thanks!
>
> Best Regards,
> Sam
And 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/
Linear Mode
