Fencing channel TV - Foil clip

[JEC]

http://www.fencingchannel.net/foil/FRA05_fH.html

Guillermo Alger from fencing pictures and esgrimamex.com has a new venture in partnership apparently with the FIE: http://www.fencingchannel.tv


http://www.esgrimamex.com/cgi-bin/ul...c;f=9;t=000071

[Gav]

It's odd but I seem to be unable to view the video unless I go to fencingchannel.tv homepage and then click on the link rather than just clicking the link in JEC's post. Not sure why, but if you are having problems try that.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Gav

It's odd but I seem to be unable to view the video unless I go to fencingchannel.tv homepage and then click on the link rather than just clicking the link in JEC's post. Not sure why, but if you are having problems try that.

I had to do that as well.

Great videos!

It's interesting. I don't agree with what people say about lights not registering, as I've experienced it as well. Yet I didn't see a single touch in this bout wherein the attacker had a clear, good hit and no light.

Actually, I thought the fencing was fun to watch.

I don't have a DVD with the new timings, is this bout unusual in these respects, or is this is the case with most bouts?

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I don't have a DVD with the new timings, is this bout unusual in these respects, or is this is the case with most bouts?

I've looked at the main bouts from the St Petersburg Grand Prix, the Paris 2005 CIP, the La Coruna Grand Prix, and the Venice World Cup. (The last two are from an upcoming FP DVD, being released in the next few days, if not already.)

I only found one instance of a light not going off, that was in St Petersburg, and I'm not sure of that. Of all the rest, I didn't see this problem happening. But for flicks -- In tha La Coruna finals, Austria's Ludwig his hit by a flick from Russia's Moltchan -- it doesn't go off, and Ludwig gets the remise. While that's not a strictly new-timing-only phenomenon, it was one of only two flicks on the whole DVD (the other one landed, I think it was Attely (Fr) who made it work).

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Actually, I thought the fencing was fun to watch.

Possibly the most inspirational bout under the new timings is Zhu/Sanzo in Venice. You forget about the timings and just goggle at Sanzo as he unleashes some of the coolest attacks and tempo on film.

The big complaints of the anti-timing-change crowd are not reflected in these four tournament videos. Not to say they're not right... but one might have to look at different tournaments, or further down the food chain.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by JEC

Guillermo Alger from fencing pictures and esgrimamex.com has a new venture in partnership apparently with the FIE: http://www.fencingchannel.tv

I'm very excited because I got an interview with Guillermo, and I'll be grilling him about all the news and rumors that are cropping up.

Does anybody have any questions for him? In addition to my list, I have:
- Why aren't there more FP sabre DVDs?

[Joe biebel]

Loved the clip. Noticed that corps-a-corps was always called unless it would end the bout. No side judges used either. Very clean (due in no small part I'm sure to the zero tolerance for corps-a-corps) fencing, and I liked the referees calls. I know this production is done to sell you a product, but I think the small format is the only negative here. I actually enjoyed the announcers too.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

I know this production is done to sell you a product, but I think the small format is the only negative here.

The hi-res version (which looks close to 340x280) is pretty good. But it's for Mac users only right now (Quicktime 7).

[Gav]

According to the Apple website Quicktime 7 is available for Windows users. Now, the problem I have is that Apple insists that you take QT with Itunes. I don't want DRM infested programs clogging up my hard drive so I've had to look around. You can get QT 7 from this address. Yes, it appears to be an Apple hosted site. No, I don't know why Apple are 'doing a Microsoft' and insist that you download software you don't want. There's no indication that this is QT 7 and, as I am at work, I haven't verified.

[Mr Epee]

I watch football on TV.
I have seen many games.

This does not qualify me as an expert on football, and watching the game on TV does not give me insider information concerning the conditions that the game is played under. I see the game in only two dimensions. There are many things that cannot be determined by professionals with access to multiple angles, high resolution, and the benefit of on demand slowmotion replays.

[wflaschka]

People shouldn't despair at using video to look for "dead center slam-on hits to the sternum that don't turn the light on," or even "obvious hits that don't register." I'd go further and suggest that people don't need to be experts in order to form opinions about movies, games, books and politics.

But if one opts-out of fencing discussions that involve video, that would leave time for other bulletin board pursuits.

[Mr Epee]

The majority of hits in fencing are not "dead center slam-on hits to the sternum".

The majority of hits are "touches" many of which despite being very tangible to an experienced participant, are easily missed with the naked eye.

Touches are missed even when the observer is an experienced, well trained, judge who is there, in person, standing one meter to the side, and one meter behind the athlete. Remember?

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

The majority of hits in fencing are not "dead center slam-on hits to the sternum".

Very true.

But we're talking about the kind of solid, obvious hits that everybody was complaining about. The hits that left fencers like GaryHayenga (and many others) appalled when they didn't register.

That problem is not in evidence in available video records, so far. That was the scope of mrbiggs's original observation, and my follow-up observation.

As for the other kinds of actions, it's up in the air. But I disagree that discussion of those actions should be repressed on the grounds that we're not the ones who executed them. Or that personal eye-witness recollections of a fencing action done back in February should trump a video record of said action.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Or that personal eye-witness recollections of a fencing action done back in February should trump a video record of said action.

The FPS and resolution of even the best tapes are not capable of recognizing hits which are affected by millisecond adjustments in the scoring apparatus.

And 3 dimensional eye-witnesses may have a better perspective of the event.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

The FPS and resolution of even the best tapes are not capable of recognizing hits which are affected by millisecond adjustments in the scoring apparatus.

Fair enough. You're talking about how difficult it is to get that "bullet going through the apple" picture. I agree we won't get that with shakey amateur footage, or even good video.

[Gav]

Interesting argument, but I have to point out that there is an inherent danger in taking any witness statement at face value. First/Third person accounts are notoriously unreliable.

Video, at least, gives you the ability to rewind and have a look again.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

That problem is not in evidence in available video records, so far. That was the scope of mrbiggs's original observation, and my follow-up observation.

Bad science here...

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that there isn't a touch.

This would imply that you have firm video evidence of every single touch that was scored. I've certainly seen tapes, watched closely, and beep - there's a light. I didn't see the touch exactly, and even slow-motion didn't clarify things much.

Touches are not clearly visible on tape, even with the help of the machine signaling exactly when they occurred... so why does this get referenced as a litmus test arguing the negligible impact of non-registering hits?

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Bad science here...

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that there isn't a touch.

Yup. It's as anecdotal as, and perhaps a little less anecdotal than, the report of the problem in the first place.

The science-y part of the discussion was this, Side A: "There is a problem with the timings." Side B: "You have the burden of proof. Please provide some." Within the limits of the bboard, no evidence was produced. It's all anecdotal. I say that, and it's happened to me.

In this thread, we also have one viewpoint asserting no proof or disproof can be derived from video. Thus, as long as the times in question (1ms, 15ms) are at the edge of human perception, we must wait for a superior being to solve this for us.

And yet, some (trans-human?) part of us perceives that a problem with the timings exist. Brave souls will continue to enquire.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Gav

Interesting argument, but I have to point out that there is an inherent danger in taking any witness statement at face value. First/Third person accounts are notoriously unreliable.

Video, at least, gives you the ability to rewind and have a look again.

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 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.

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.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

The science-y part of the discussion was this, Side A: "There is a problem with the timings." Side B: "You have the burden of proof. Please provide some." Within the limits of the bboard, no evidence was produced. It's all anecdotal. I say that, and it's happened to me.

Is your argument that there isn't a "problem with the timings", because you can't see one on tape?

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Is your argument that there isn't a "problem with the timings", because you can't see one on tape?

Nope. I'm saying that this particular problem with the timings is not visible on the video we have.

Readers can fill in the rest ("it's mere tape," or "there's not enough tape yet", or "what about other timing problems"), or have it ploddingly filled in for them.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

The big complaints of the anti-timing-change crowd are not reflected in these four tournament videos. Not to say they're not right... but one might have to look at different tournaments, or further down the food chain.

You wanted something science-y, and the science-y answer is that the problem doesn't exist yet. And if your opinion is correct, video can't tell us either way. And if your other statements are correct, we can only trust the reports through an observer-based filter, or only trust the acting principals, which is beyond the pale. So that's the end of the science, for now.