Flick-be-gone foil tip

[keropie]

Originally Posted by MikeHarm

The same folks screaming about the new timings wouldn't be able to tolerate it being a preparation as they still would have the problem of their game being based on flicks and ineffective parries.

As a fencer who did primarily 'rely' on flicks (I'd guess they accounted for anywhere from 40-100% of my touches, depending on the bout), I would disagree. For one thing, if the tip timing reverts back, and the preparation window tightens up, I have no doubts that I can easily adapt my game, as most of my game was invitation/parry-riposte, not delayed attack with long marches. Secondly, even if I couldn't, I could much more easily accept (though I'd be unhappy with) a system that would not allow the flick to go off IF AND ONLY IF it accurately allowed the VAST majority of straight actions, which the current system doesn't. Yes, I prefer the flick, but my argument against the timings is more based on reduction of true first intention offense, rewarding of 'softer' actions which can often be counterattacks or continuations, increased reward for distorting target area, etc.

And currently, if I'm not lazy and actually keep distance better, I can still land probably about 80% of my flicks. What I can't do anymore is let them compress the space like mad and still hit them, at least not consistently.

Furthermore, after watching the PSU Open (the Max Garret Open), I can confidently say that the marching attack where you wait for the 'counterattack' from the opponent is not gone, just different. And it is almost impossible to get a call in preparation against it if the light goes off for the 'attacker' because the referee assumes "hey, both lights went off... if you'd actually hit them in preparation, there would only be one light... you musth have counterattacked."

<sarcasm>Yay new foil!</sarcasm>

[downunder]

Originally Posted by keropie

Furthermore, after watching the PSU Open (the Max Garret Open), I can confidently say that the marching attack where you wait for the 'counterattack' from the opponent is not gone, just different. And it is almost impossible to get a call in preparation against it if the light goes off for the 'attacker' because the referee assumes "hey, both lights went off... if you'd actually hit them in preparation, there would only be one light... you musth have counterattacked."

<sarcasm>Yay new foil!</sarcasm>

thats because for an attack in preparation to be valid, if fencer A is stepping forward, fencer B must hit fencer A before there is ANY extension from fencer A, assuming everyone hits blah blah etc etc

Its very difficult to pull off if two lights have come on

[OROD]

Originally Posted by downunder

thats because for an attack in preparation to be valid, if fencer A is stepping forward, fencer B must hit fencer A before there is ANY extension from fencer A, assuming everyone hits blah blah etc etc

Well, it used to be like that. But, lately I've seen much tighter calls regarding attack-on-prep. Maybe it's just in my section, I dont know.


.

[dilznik]

I think I have the perfect solution. We roll the timings back to the way they were way back in, say, 2002 (then the sabre fencers can stop whining, too) and everyone that doesn't like that can come over here and eat my butt. The line forms behind Rene Roch.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

Thanks to all three of you. I was being sarcastic, just to get the answer you gave. But Downunder gave the best answer. There is no definition of threatening target, it is by current understanding. Which gets back to my first point. If they would define that threating target with a POINT weapon is where the point is pointed, we might get rid of this unsafe practice, which is too realistic for my taste.

Well, I won't argue about the safety, but to be honest, there is trouble when one tries to explicitly define what threatening target is.

Certain actions, or threatening certains targets actually require the point to be aimed seemingly in the air. A shot to flank for one, or a correctly executed coupe, or even an attack to the shoulder all require the point not to be pointing directly towards the target. So, then you'd have to start talking about degrees, and the refs would have to be protractors, and it would get ugly. Especially since the refs are viewing the action from the side, and ther perspective isn't the best for telling exatly where the point is in relation to the target at times....

Trust me, you can sit all day long and listen to German, French, and Italian masters argue about the specifics of what is threatening.

[dilznik]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Trust me, you can sit all day long and listen to German, French, and Italian masters argue about the specifics of what is threatening.

The French would say soap is threatening, the Germans would decent food is threatening, and the Italians would say a real government would be threatening. You don't need all day for that.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by dilznik

The French would say soap is threatening, the Germans would decent food is threatening, and the Italians would say a real government would be threatening. You don't need all day for that.

Try to get them to agree is the listening all day part...

I mean the Germans take cleanliness very seriously, while the French take govt. very seriously, and the Italians love good food...

It goes on endlessly...

[dilznik]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Try to get them to agree is the listening all day part...

I mean the Germans take cleanliness very seriously, while the French take govt. very seriously, and the Italians love good food...

It goes on endlessly...

Reminds me of something I saw once... in heaven, the Italians are the chefs, the Germans make the cars, and the French are the lovers. In hell, the Germans are the chefs, the French make the cars, and the English are the lovers.

[PalmFrond]

Originally Posted by downunder

thats because for an attack in preparation to be valid, if fencer A is stepping forward, fencer B must hit fencer A before there is ANY extension from fencer A, assuming everyone hits blah blah etc etc

According to the rules, that's called a stop hit in time, not an attack on preparation.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by PalmFrond

According to the rules, that's called a stop hit in time, not an attack on preparation.

you tell me the difference


edit: it doesn't matter what you call it. All that matter is that when it happens, one signals *action incorrect* on the side of the first fencer, and then attack on the side of the second

[downunder]

Originally Posted by OROD

Well, it used to be like that. But, lately I've seen much tighter calls regarding attack-on-prep. Maybe it's just in my section, I dont know.

i can hardly comment on the domestic USFA refereeing, but since the Olympics i think a lot more has been given for the attack

[keropie]

Originally Posted by downunder

thats because for an attack in preparation to be valid, if fencer A is stepping forward, fencer B must hit fencer A before there is ANY extension from fencer A, assuming everyone hits blah blah etc etc

Its very difficult to pull off if two lights have come on

Nope. Understanding that you have international experience and all, if you determine at action to be an 'Attack in Preparation' it does not need to hit before the extension, merely begin. If you determine it to be a stop hit/counterattack/counterattack into preparation or whatever other action that has no earned priority, then yes, it must strike the opponent before his action begins. This is true in both foil and saber, and most easily seen if both fencers are moving forward (and I'm sure you've awarded the touch to the guy that just started first in that case). But it doesn't really change if one is moving backwards. Again, imagine a scenario where our fencer moving forward searches against an attack by the one retreating and gets hit. No problems at all calling it AoP. The difficulty is when the advancing fencer doesn't search, just waits, which I agree can be a difficult call, but now I see NO officials even TRYING to make the call, they just assume 'two lights, original attack arrives correctly.' Bad assumption, sometimes.

[downunder]

ah but that is a different matter.

In the situation i present, it is one fencer advancing, and the other retreating with with appropriate distance.

Again by adding searching for the blades you are overcomplicating the issue.

Mind you, on that tangent, assuming the person searching for the blade misses, to correctly hit him, you must hit him during the search, and before any extension afterwards. Whereas before the step was the preparation, now it becomes a search for the blade.

If both fencers are coming together simultainously, and one searches for the blade without success, whilst the other performs a correct direct attack, i don't think there is any doubt which way the hit would be awarded.

hehe, its so complicated to explain in writing. I should make some videos.

[edew]

Originally Posted by dilznik

Reminds me of something I saw once... in heaven, the Italians are the chefs, the Germans make the cars, and the French are the lovers. In hell, the Germans are the chefs, the French make the cars, and the English are the lovers.

Get the jokes right:

heaven is where:
The British are the policemen
The French are the cooks
The Swiss are the administrators
The Germans are the mechanics
The Italians are the lovers

hell is where:
The British are the cooks
The French are the mechanices
The Swiss are the lovers
The Germans are the policemen
The Italians are the administrators

Been around since 1987 or so...

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by keropie

Nope. Understanding that you have international experience and all, if you determine at action to be an 'Attack in Preparation' it does not need to hit before the extension, merely begin. If you determine it to be a stop hit/counterattack/counterattack into preparation or whatever other action that has no earned priority, then yes, it must strike the opponent before his action begins. This is true in both foil and saber, and most easily seen if both fencers are moving forward (and I'm sure you've awarded the touch to the guy that just started first in that case). But it doesn't really change if one is moving backwards. Again, imagine a scenario where our fencer moving forward searches against an attack by the one retreating and gets hit. No problems at all calling it AoP. The difficulty is when the advancing fencer doesn't search, just waits, which I agree can be a difficult call, but now I see NO officials even TRYING to make the call, they just assume 'two lights, original attack arrives correctly.' Bad assumption, sometimes.

Um...

You won't get the call of 'attack' while retreating. An attack on prep requires the retreating fencer to stop, and begin going forward before the advancing begins their adv-lunge.

This is what makes it so difficult, because when the retreater stops, the attacker just has to finish the advance, start an extension and lunge in a smooth fashion. It's much easier and quicker for the attacker to finish than it is for the retreater to turn the corner so to speak.

Yes it is a bad assumption that two lights indicates that the attack arrived, unfortunately it is (mis)understood that new timings are set at what the FIE wants called as fencing time. Also, realize that although the FIE has set the new timings, many refs still ref the way they used to. In other words they still call the attack the way they did before the timing change. It's an odd situation...

[DHCJr]

I'm afraid I lost the argument. Where does it says you must be moving forward to be attacking. All I see is the movement of the arm as determining attacking. I see where you can not attack while moving backwards as long as you arm moves forward first.

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

I'm afraid I lost the argument. Where does it says you must be moving forward to be attacking. All I see is the movement of the arm as determining attacking. I see where you can not attack while moving backwards as long as you arm moves forward first.

Correct. You can be moving backwards with point in line too. Donald, You said that you will be in the next D epee tourny so you better do it.

[keropie]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Um...

You won't get the call of 'attack' while retreating. An attack on prep requires the retreating fencer to stop, and begin going forward before the advancing begins their adv-lunge.

I didn't intend to imply that the attack would be made while retreating, and apologize if I did so. What I intended to imply is that the fencer retreating can turn the corner (or open space and turn the corner, etc.) and that if the referee feels that the previously retreating fencer begins his/her action BEFORE the initial 'agressor', and as such calls the retreating fencer as the person who made the 'attack in preparation,' that attack does not need to land before the other fencer starts their action, it merely needs to begin before the other fencer begins their action. Yes, as the 'agressor' it is fairly easy to finish as you see them turning the corner, etc. and before they begin their actual attack, but if the referee feels that you are marching to the attack, but not yet begun, and your opponent begins an action into that march (and yes, marching is a form of preparation, just like a search), the opponent is under no obligation to hit before you begin.

Apologies for any confusion.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by keropie

I didn't intend to imply that the attack would be made while retreating, and apologize if I did so. What I intended to imply is that the fencer retreating can turn the corner (or open space and turn the corner, etc.) and that if the referee feels that the previously retreating fencer begins his/her action BEFORE the initial 'agressor', and as such calls the retreating fencer as the person who made the 'attack in preparation,' that attack does not need to land before the other fencer starts their action, it merely needs to begin before the other fencer begins their action. Yes, as the 'agressor' it is fairly easy to finish as you see them turning the corner, etc. and before they begin their actual attack, but if the referee feels that you are marching to the attack, but not yet begun, and your opponent begins an action into that march (and yes, marching is a form of preparation, just like a search), the opponent is under no obligation to hit before you begin.

Apologies for any confusion.

Cool. Just wanted to make sure since many seem to believe that it's somehow possible to make the 'initial offensive action' while retreating. (DHCjr, if you talk with a FOC examiner in your area, they'll tell you that the 'initial offensive action' implies moving forward. In addition every explanation of a correctly executed attack includes forward movement (lunge, adv-lunge, etc...) while not one includes any mention of backword movement.)

In addition, I commented on the turning the corner just because, it's so damn hard to do so. I mean, all the advancing fencer has to do is finish the advance, start extending, and lunge all before the defender can stop backword momentum, and start extending, and moving forward. Usually the aggressor can do this the moment the defender starts to slow or stop. As the defender, it can often feel like the right time, but usually, to an observer it's too late. Which is why the good fencers use pauses/slow tempo on defense to draw out the attack.

Yes, refs make mistakes, and in this case, a close call will usually go to the aggressor for obvious reasons.

[j4gg3d3dg399]

Joe, I like the idea of this foil point, but the design I think is a little flawed: The plastic sleeve will eliminate a lot of bad flicking, but judging from your diagram (Maybe it isn't drawn to scale, but I am assuming) the bad flicks that people will still try (and they will) will end up not registering but causing their opponet much agony! Another thing would be that the sleeve wouldn't stop the 'good' flicks (*meaning the point of the foil being at a perpendicular angle while touching the opponet's shoulder*) as there is no way to do that without some "d-bounce" time.

Also, would the plastic sleeve interfer at all with testing weights? because the weights only fit a certain diameter of foil points... Thanks for listening

--
Blake