Fencing Morality

[keropie]

Here's a real-world example that I was told about recently. NCAA Regionals. Two teammates are about to start a bout against each other. Due to season records one has already guaranteed a spot at Nationals. The other is still fighting for position, but a win will guarantee that s/he'll also be in.

Does the coach a) let things play out however they will, b) talk to the fencers so that they are aware of the situation, (b1: not make any suggestions, b2: specifically tell the fencers that it's okay for them to both fence their hardest, b3: tell the fencers that they need to decide what they want to do), c) talk to one or both fencers and have the fencer with the guaranteed position throw the bout?

In the specific case that I was told of, the coach chose option a, and the guaranteed fencer made a tremendous comback during a very close bout to win. The non-guaranteed fencer failed to place high enough to claim a regional-allocation position, but happened to qualify to nationals via an at-large bid. This ended up not hurting the coach's team as both fencers advanced to nationals, but this outcome could very easily not have occurred.

Did the coach make the correct choice? If not, which of the other options would YOU have selected (or if you have an additional or variant option that you'd have used)?

As a fencer in such a bout how would you feel having your coach select each of the presented options? What behavior would you like from your coach?

Given the whole black card scenario for collusion, and the way the NCAA would treat any knowledge/proof of such a situation, the coach either goes with a) or with b2). I would hope that any athlete that I work with would know to fence their hardest, but I have told fencers of ours (the week before regionals, not at) that if it comes down to you who have no prayer in hell of qualifying or them who needs the bout to qualify, beat their ass. Even if it's your team captain. Honestly, if I knew that one of my fencers threw a bout for any reason (other than possibly injury, where I could see them withdrawing, but not throwing the bout) I would find some way to turn them in, or failing that, suspend them from the team (well, if I were the head coach )

The allegations that something like that happened at NCAA regionals last year is the reason that the seeding path changed so much this year, and that DE bouts were added into regionals.

HTH

[oiuyt]

The allegations that something like that happened at NCAA regionals last year is the reason that the seeding path changed so much this year, and that DE bouts were added into regionals.

Although I believe the problems last year with the pools format involved fencers from team A throwing bouts to help a fencer from team C beat out a fencer from team B (where B was in national contention and C wasn't).

Of note, at the coaches meeting at NCAA nationals it was unanimous to return to the pools format and scrap the DE's experiment as failed. And Expo's anecdote helps provide an example of how the change didn't help (a couple of coaches, without going into specifics, mentioned at nationals that the problem had gotten worse this year under the DE format, so I suspect that something like what Expo describes happened in a couple of regions, including places where the coach(es) or fencers chose to abuse the system.

-B

[Spike327]

The pools format sort of makes more sense, seeing as that is what the larger part of NCAA nationals is like.

I wonder, as a referee, how would you spot collusion? If a good fencer is fencing stupidly with a less-than-good teammate is that enough of a case for the black card? Would you have to hear someone telling a fencer to lose? When has this actually been applied? And, not to open old wounds, but could you technically have black carded those foilists who protested the timings by winning on a coin toss? They obviously 'colluded' to do that...

[Spike327]

Going back to what Biebel and others were saying... I try not to fence an obvious beginner totally full-out, but I do fence to win. I get into alot of trouble fencing really really new people if I try to be overly nice, because when I give up touches it is really obvious. Although, considering all the times I've been completely schooled by someone, I should be better at it ...

[RoninX]

Well I don't think anyone was saying that every second you are on the piste you are going 150% to win. However, if you pick up the number 1 seed in a local tourney after the pools and go up against a newbie in the first round or two of DEs you don't spot them a 14-0 lead do you? You may let them get some "experience" but I usually keep a reasonable cushion of at least 3-4 points and often win 15-7 or so. Even while trying to give them some faith that they might actually be able to hit if they bother to riposte or whatever... but I do keep that lead because I'm always primed and ready to do something stupid and get touched no matter the experience level of my opponent.

Is this colluding? No, in pools I fence to win and to shut people out where possible so that my indicators are as good as possible, but in DEs as long as I don't throw a bout I figure it doesn't matter what the end score is... as long as I win

[fencingfrog]

at my first tournament - the jo qualifiers - my first pool bout was against my friend who gave me a ride there. i got my butt kicked, but she was right to do that. fencing is a fight with rules, but always fence your hardest!! then, (im cursed i know) my de bout was against the other girl from my team. she also beat me, but again, she was right. i made stupid mistakes; it was my fault she won. overall, i might have gone farther than she did (she lost 15-0) in the next round, but throwing a bout is just wrong. it doesnt count as a victory or loss then! someone said its an insult, and they're right. its like saying 'ill give u this victory, but normally i would beat u' when u salute.

i know im going on for ages, and im sry, but this is also a point : i almost faced my friend sarah in the semi finals of a tournament. we both would have been out for blood, and thats how it should be. u r stabbing each other, after all.

[mrbiggs]

If I beat you in a DE, it's your fault for not being good enough to beat me, period. This is true in the situation you described, or even for qualifiers, both of which I've experienced. It would also be true if I was going for a national team and whatnot.

I don't give pity points, either.

[needle]

I don't give pity points, either.

Neither do I and if I found out that stronger fencer was giving me pity points, I would be extremely upset and offended. Competition is a measure of one's skill, not of sympathy of others!

[albemarle]

Must say I'm full of admiration for much of what has been said above concerning always fencing to win, or fencing your best.

I often find that it's just not the case for me. Don't be mistaken, I prefer to win, but sometimes the competitive attitude nature of sport becomes a trifle ridiculous. Consequently I find I stop caring about winning.

It's a shame, because I really enjoy fencing on the whole. Perhaps it's a question of thinking too much.

[RoninX]

Neither do I and if I found out that stronger fencer was giving me pity points, I would be extremely upset and offended. Competition is a measure of one's skill, not of sympathy of others!

I guess I can understand this sentiment to some degree. However, when I fence someone who is clearly overmatched in a DE I do not just let them lunge and hit me for the sake of "letting" them get a few point but rather give them some straight attacks in proper timing that they can try to parry or retreat out of the way. This along practicing "beat and go" exposures of the underarm and wrist etc... I treat it as a tune up bout for myself and they get some work in with a mix of moves they (may or may not) know how to handle and more advanced moves.

To me pity points are points you give just to give someone points with nothing else gained. If I found myself in the bottom few seeds of a tournament I would rather get a little work in in my final bout than get blown off the strip - I think, can't say that I've ever been in that position though...

...I might find out at the SAS Friday night Epee open that is coming up though, I hear the cream usually shows up for those!

[needle]

I guess I can understand this sentiment to some degree. However, when I fence someone who is clearly overmatched in a DE I do not just let them lunge and hit me for the sake of "letting" them get a few point but rather give them some straight attacks in proper timing that they can try to parry or retreat out of the way. This along practicing "beat and go" exposures of the underarm and wrist etc... I treat it as a tune up bout for myself and they get some work in with a mix of moves they (may or may not) know how to handle and more advanced moves.

I do something similar in sharp bouts at the club and in club tournaments - repeating the same action that I scored with, for example, several times to help them figure out what they need to adjust and give something to work on. But in "regular" tournament - definitely no. Any opponent deserves respect, and the way to show respect in fencing is to do your best! IMHO, anything else is condescending. I am not saying you should always go "all out" on an opponent you can beat at 50% effort; what I'm saying is that if they score, it should be because they did something right, not because you set yourself up for them.

[RoninX]

what I'm saying is that if they score, it should be because they did something right, not because you set yourself up for them.

I totally agree, well put.

[Dante Alghieri]

Never lose. Never. Not for anyone.

[RoninX]

"Uncompromising men are easy to admire, but it is exactly the ability to compromise that makes us noble" - Pa Bruce, Braveheart

If you never lose you are not challenging yourself.

[needle]

If you never lose you are not challenging yourself.

Oh, come on, RX. You know what he meant
And since you started the quotes business:
"...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..." - Sir Winston Churchill, 6/4/1940

[RoninX]

I notice Winnie never once mentioned the fencing piste

I guess those "in the round" SCA guys must be right after all

[needle]

I notice Winnie never once mentioned the fencing piste

I guess those "in the round" SCA guys must be right after all

He was a good fencer, nevertheless, even if though he was a foilist - "In retrospect, the seeds of the mature statesman were evident even in the pale, frail-looking Harrow schoolboy who took up fencing at age 12. In league competitions he crossed foils with boys from Eton and a number of other prep schools and beat them all. His victories, his school newspaper reported, "were chiefly due to his quick and dashing attack which quite took his opponents by surprise."

[sjpfencer220]

No offense, but anyone who wouldn't try to win no matter what, even if it was against their own teammate, shouldn't be fencing at a national level; competitiveness is part of fencing.

[fencingfrog]

.I don't give pity points, either.

definitly true. and the friend sarah i mentioned had that backfire. she was tied for 1st in seeding, gave pity points, and lost her confidence. it was a 1st vs. 63rd seeding bout, and we (the team) actually worried about her winning it. she gave the other girl the points, and the ability to make a comeback - bad.

[SomeGw/aSword]

These are interesting considerations that, in competition, should all dissapear as the masks go on and by the time the director says "fence" there can only be the touch, the score matters not; the bout, the setting makes no difference; the opponent, the person behind the mask shouldn't matter; and the goal to do your best, regardless of the result.