Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Epee True, but some training has a great deal to do with the reliability of the eye-witness.
A few years back, a friend and I were robbed at gun point on the street. Later, we went down to the police station to report the incident. We were interviewed separately, and both managed to describe the fire-arm in great detail. The assailants weren't wearing a masks, but neither of us had any specific memory of his face, and we both declined flipping through the known offenders mugshot book. |
I've been attacked as well; it went with the territory where I lived.
There's a simple reason for why you could only visualise the gun. You can only take in so much. As a consequence your brain fixates on what is 'important'. In your case a gun; in mine a knife. There are some entertaining experiments that we can discuss which demonstrates this concept.
Quote:
|
I have no doubt that if this happened to an off duty police officer, or other trained professional, he would have been able to provide an incredibly accurate description of the criminal, and other relevant material.
|
You'd be surprised but their recollections
may better; and it's more to do with experience.
Quote:
|
In this fencing specific case, I would imagine that the experienced/well-trained eye of a high level competitor/coach’s eye witness account could be trusted to provide an accurate assessment of the material validity of many straight touches that do not register a light. They could not identify every touch, but certainly enough to recognize a problem.
|
Whilst I cautiously agree:
The quality we are able to see this footage at would make me doubt whether you can pick up everything.
The video is a disinterested observer.
I'd prefer to see multiple angles and slo-mo as well - and that's the potential beauty of DVD (unrealised outside of ... umm ... adult films). Don't forget that if you are watching and, unless you are moving about [getting in others view] then your view is limited to one angle as well - with no replay. Interpretation becomes a much more important factor.
Horses for courses as they say. Both views (real and video) provide the opportunity to analyse the action. With Video you get replay without additional analysis (outside of your own head). With 'on the spot' you get to see it as it happens; and tap into the immediate impression. I don't see the point in discounting one view just because the other is rendered differently.
In my opinon there are a couple of cases where it appears both fencers have hit with no light, however they just got on with it and this provides some obfuscation. I would have to re-watch the clip to pick the moments out. And if my recollection turns out to be faulty then fair enough.
Perhaps I should also state that I am pretty neutral on the subject of failed hits. There are a lot of variables involved: some equipment; some technique; the best analysis I've read has come from the Italians (posted here by Gladius). It's difficult to say whether there were more or less failed hits due to the absence of proper scientific data gathered at the scene. I can say that the Foil was at least more interesting looking than at the start of the new timings; and
different from the old. New rules, new environment - why assume that things will remain the same if the environment is different?
Sorry I'm wandering off topic now.
Linear Mode
