Flick-be-gone foil tip

[Joe biebel]

A huge amount of time, money, and angst has been spent in the last two years trying to "improve" foil. The most time, money, etc. has been spent to get rid of the flick attack. All of the scoring machines on the planet had to be "upgraded" to a new timing that clearly does not do what is intended and has other obvious negative side effects. Instead of simple, "low-tech" solutions that could have been implemented, we have a fix, that needs a fix, that needs a fix. Now I am not saying one way or the other if flicks should be gotten rid of, the point (pun intended) of this post is to look at alternatives.

Alternative #1: I believe that if enough "guts" existed in the FIE that a simple rule change could have solved the problem. Example, Flick hits have no right of way, they are to be counted with the same priority as a stop hit. If a rule change is not acceptable for some reason, fine, make a "simple" low cost, equipment change to adopt the new requirement.

Alternative #2: I have two designs for tips that will accomplish the task. The first one included in this post is merely a plastic sleeve that will accomplish the task. The sleeve is held in place by the two screws that hold the tip in. The Uhlmann/Allstar type tips would not need to be changed. You now have a screw protector in the same process. I would require them to be bright colors to aid the director and the (telegeny) audience. I doubt the additional weight would make it even as heavy as an epee. tip

Your Alternatives: Use your ingenuity, let's hear and see what could be done to make the change without a high priced fix.

Personally,I would like the scoring machines to register like they did (both debounce and lockout times) before the "test" timings. I would like to see direct thrusts of any speed register, off-targets to the mask always register off-target when hit, indirect ripostes score over remises, and hard shell protection being worn exclusively for bruise protection.

[esskreemr]

Easy, get rid of Roche. The world of foil fencing is divided on the flick issue. The NBA probably hated the slam dunk when it was first introduced, the crowd loves it.

The flick could have been relegated to its natural place as just another tool in the fencer's arsenal if the rules would have been enforced. They weren't. Now we have an anti-foil President of the FIE who enjoys pushing through half-contrived rule changes.

Oh, have you prototyped your 'anti-flick' tip yet? seems like it would reduce the number of flicks about as much as it would reduce the number of angled thrusts.

[Allen Evans]

Alternative 1#: When does a coupe or a falconnade become a flick? Who gets to decide?

Alternative 2#: When I was first teaching myself to flick in foil, one of the things I did to practice was to flick cardboard boxes and look at the impact. If the impact was a round little circle, I was fairly certain the flick would light up the machine (under the old timings). If I could see an elongated impact, I knew I had hit flat and there was a chance the flick would not light the machine.

At the end of the summer, nearly all my hits were round little circles. I don't think the sleeve idea would work.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

At the end of the summer, nearly all my hits were round little circles. I don't think the sleeve idea would work.

I'd agree.

The other issue with the design is that I suspect that it would induce much gnashing of teeth from people who suddenly stopped getting the light on following glancing hits (that reminds me of something can't recall what though....).

[OROD]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Alternative 1#: When does a coupe or a falconnade become a flick? Who gets to decide?

So I guess if I'm directing I can pretty much call anything that I THINK is a flick as not an attack? Hmmm... so basically any time I see an attackers blade flex on it's way to the target I can nullify his attack... awesome!


.

[ReverseLunge]

A lot of beginning and oldman foil fencers complain about flicking. They are obviously just sore and embarrassed about getting hit and they are pissed off because they can't do the move. They say that flicking is not true fencing because in a real sword fight a flick wouldnt work or it would do minimal damage if it hit. But in reality its because they suck at flicking

Classical fencers think that their swordplay is true to real sword fighting. yeah right.....

Even Epee isn't like real sword fighting. Who would try to hit his opponents foot and risk getting a blade through his head in a real sword fight?

I think if they gave non critical targets in Epee(hands, feet, thigh, arm etc..) only half points then it would be more true real sword fighting.

Straight classical fencing is for the losers and crappy fencer like Evangelista who can't do the move. It sucks.

Flicking has not only taken foil fencing to another dimension but it has made fencing really beautiful. Kind of like the difference between Space Invaders and Counterstrike.

Today's foil game is about making the light go off. Its not about pretending to kill someone and it's not the training weapon for epee. Foil fencing has evolved to a higher level than its classical origins.

[edew]

As I have mentioned in many other threads, the only way to tell whether a flick has occurred would require a strain gauge on the weapon to determine the amount of flex the blade has achieved prior to the hit.

There's no way to determine whether a hit is by a flick using just the existing mechanisms, Joe's anti-flick plastic sleeve included. The debounce time variation for flicks versus thrust hits has enough of an overlap that eliminating flicks will eliminate enough thrusts (as already seen) to make thrust attacks chancy enough.

The alternative #1 of calling flicks a preparation is meaningless. Right of way requires seeing what BOTH fencers are doing. Just because one fencer is "flicking" and the other isn't doesn't automatically give the other the right of way.

Suppose fencer A makes and advance-lunge with a flick to the chest (say A is a lefty and B is a righty). Fencer B advances with a bent arm the whole time, NEVER extending the arm. Both fencer hits. Would you then say that B should get the touch, even if A's attack includes an extending arm and the tip never pointing away from the target? Lefty-righty attacks routinely involve flicks to the chest WITHOUT having the point leaving the target area.

Flicks are perfectly acceptable as an attack. And plenty of fencers at all levels have mastered the proper defense of flicks. It's not hard to defend.

Certainly, marching attacks with the blade pointing in a direction perpendicular to the forward movement can and should be construed as preparation and attacks (even using flicks) into such a preparation can be (and should be) legitimately called attacks into preparation. I have no problem with that. And I'm seeing such calls occurring rather frequently nowadays.

[ReverseLunge]

The Flick Be Gone thing is about as useful as tits on a chicken. It would take away as more straight on shots than it would flicks. Most straight on shot hit with the edge since the target is at an angle and plenty flicks hit with the flat of the tip since a the whole point of flicking is to match the angle of the hidden target. Something a straight on shot cant do. Like a flick to the back. That's also why they hurt so much.

Don't believe me? Just look at the tip of your foil. The edges are all worn down to the brass from being filed down by the lame and the flat is still almost like new.

The biatches that cry about the flick are the same as the biatches in baseball that cry about the curve ball. All because they can't throw them and they can't hit them.

That's the real reason. A bunch of old men who upset because they get torn up on the piste by flicks. These old guys tried to learn the flick but they couldn't. How can you flick when you run around with your other hand in the air like a gay scorpian?

[dilznik]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Easy, get rid of Roche. The world of foil fencing is divided on the flick issue.

Hear, hear. They're devided on the flick, yet no one ever has anything good to say about The Roach.

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

A lot of beginning and oldman foil fencers complain about flicking. They are obviously just sore and embarrassed about getting hit and they are pissed off because they can't do the move. They say that flicking is not true fencing because in a real sword fight a flick wouldnt work or it would do minimal damage if it hit. But in reality its because they suck at flicking

Classical fencers think that their swordplay is true to real sword fighting. yeah right.....

Hear, hear. I use to hate the flick when I started, but then I learned to do it. Learning to fence under the current system is NOT the same because with flicking there was no error in the devices. It was just a strong forearm and being able to hit the target by bending the blade in midair. The current system often sees perfectly normal hits not register. Despite what Roch and his biatch cronies write in their FIE letters, it's not our fault that we can't get the lights to go off. The machines just suck.
And if you want proper, real life, this is how it would be if people died fencing, join the friggin' creative anachronism 30 year old virgins that do their thing at the MacArthur BART station. Freaks.

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

How can you flick when you run around with your other hand in the air like a gay scorpian?

Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! Man, that's good stuff.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by dilznik

And if you want proper, real life, this is how it would be if people died fencing, join the friggin' creative anachronism 30 year old virgins that do their thing at the MacArthur BART station. Freaks.

This is why I am against the flick, I don't want fencing to be like real life. I don't want anyone to die. The problem with the flick is the amount of force that is applied. I have been Armorer at a tournament where 2 masks were pierced by the same person, who only does flicks. I am against flicks, not because it is realistic, but because injury and death is too relistic for me. I agree, no deaths have been caused by the flick, but I don't think we should wait for one.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

This is why I am against the flick, I don't want fencing to be like real life. I don't want anyone to die. The problem with the flick is the amount of force that is applied. I have been Armorer at a tournament where 2 masks were pierced by the same person, who only does flicks. I am against flicks, not because it is realistic, but because injury and death is too relistic for me. I agree, no deaths have been caused by the flick, but I don't think we should wait for one.

It's more likely, however, that injury will be caused by a straight attack in which the weapon breaks and the attacker keeps going. With a flick, the angle will (generally) make it hard for the tip to penetrate a vital organ. I think it would be better to say that one is against unsafe fencing practices; as just about any move could potentially be dangerous/deadly.

[darius]

Yea, I don't understand the issue with flicks being unsafe. With a straight thrust, the momentum is moving straight forward. Should the blade break, the sharp tip will be moving forward.

I've been on both ends of an accidental flogging, so I know about the force behind a flicked tip. But where is the injury part? Most flick injuries I've seen have been minor -- a welt here, a bruise there. If it goes to the scalp, there'll be some unseemly bleeding. But where's the death risk?

darius

[RITFencing]

There's a risk for injury if the point snaps off, because there is a great deal of force involved in a strong flick. I think the worst that would happen is a point going in an inch or two if there was way too much force and it missed any bones and possibly ripping out a bit of flesh when the blade straightens. Not pretty, to be sure. But let's ask Vladimir Smirnov if a flick can be as dangerous as a straight attack, shall we?

[neevel]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

It's more likely, however, that injury will be caused by a straight attack in which the weapon breaks and the attacker keeps going. With a flick, the angle will (generally) make it hard for the tip to penetrate a vital organ. I think it would be better to say that one is against unsafe fencing practices; as just about any move could potentially be dangerous/deadly.

The issue is not that the flick that breaks the mesh will penetrate, but that a subsequent straight thrust that hits the damaged spot on the mask will. This happens with sabre, too (expecially since 2000), and I've seen masks (including fairly new FIE masks of reputable make) presented for inspection with a cut piece of mesh that the owner never noticed.

My take on the subject is that the real answer is for referees to give a greater window for the attack into prep, perhaps codified in an 'angle of attack' definition in the rules, akin to the 135-degree rule in sabre. Make the wind-up for a strong flick as risky, prioity-wise, as a big wind up is in sabre, and you'll see it become much less prevalent without having the side-effects that the timing changes brought.

-Dave

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by neevel

The issue is not that the flick that breaks the mesh will penetrate, but that a subsequent straight thrust that hits the damaged spot on the mask will. This happens with sabre, too (expecially since 2000), and I've seen masks (including fairly new FIE masks of reputable make) presented for inspection with a cut piece of mesh that the owner never noticed.

Huh. I did not know that flicks weakened masks so much. I have to wonder, though... why flick so hard to the mask?

[darius]

Of course, we're talking wacky low probabilities here, but if your foil barrel is loose enough to snap off, you've got a white-light before the action starts.

I have seen blades break near/at the barrel, but that's as a result of contact. If that's the case, you're again going to have a situation where the the break actually reduces the impact. It is pretty neat to see that happen as a result of a flick, because the barrel goes flying back at the offending fencer.

Either way, you're not getting very deep penetration. An inch would be generous, even into very soft tissue. Any serious stuff would have to happen as a result of the initial impact...concussive forces at the base of the skull or vertebrae, perhaps?

darius

[neevel]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Huh. I did not know that flicks weakened masks so much. I have to wonder, though... why flick so hard to the mask?

The mask isn't the intended target, it just gets hit for the same reasons that any other off-target touch happens.

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

This is why I am against the flick, I don't want fencing to be like real life. I don't want anyone to die. The problem with the flick is the amount of force that is applied. I have been Armorer at a tournament where 2 masks were pierced by the same person, who only does flicks. I am against flicks, not because it is realistic, but because injury and death is too relistic for me. I agree, no deaths have been caused by the flick, but I don't think we should wait for one.

I have to say that I cannot believe that a flick is more dangerous than a straight on shot and I cannot believe that a flick has more force than a straight on shot.

[keith]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

I have to say that I cannot believe that a flick is more dangerous than a straight on shot and I cannot believe that a flick has more force than a straight on shot.

Well its the difference between giving someone a clip around the ear with the back of your hand or with a baseball bat.