Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Gav · 01-11-2002, 11:14 AM

Anyone else out there read them? I notice there's nothing new for epee. But how do you foil guys feel about banning the fleche? What about the dropping of off target lights?

What about the removal of "falling" as an offence.

Discuss

oiuyt · 01-11-2002, 02:16 PM

[quote]What about the removal of "falling" as an offence.<hr></blockquote>

Watch some world championship (or that level) videos... it was never called at elite levels anyway.

-B

Inquartata · 01-11-2002, 03:49 PM

I don't fence foil, but I have always felt that the prohibition of the crossover, while ultimately beneficial to sabre, was a bit of a fairness issue. I mean, to forbid an action such as the fleche to fencers of one weapon, but not the others? Didn't really feel equitable somehow.

It would sure reduce the confusion for people who fence foil AND sabre, too.

edew · 01-11-2002, 04:47 PM

But fleching, especially the running after the other fencer as in "old" sabre is not such a prevalent action in foil. There is plenty of chasing the other fencer down the strip in foil, but it's often done with advances without crossing over. Do we have to require cross-over instead of advances, or something like that?

In what way is it a fairness issue? Should we require right of way in epee (or remove right of way in foil and sabre) to bring equality among the three weapons?

I don't want to claim foil is just "perfect" right now, as I fence foil and don't want to add my bias to it, but hey, it really isn't anywhere near broken. Of the three weapons, foil is probably the most exciting of the three to watch. Believe me, it's the only one where you can actually see more than a counter-parry riposte. You'd rarely see a counter-parry in sabre, and certainly not in epee. Spectators eat that up. They just love watching two guys (or gals) duke it out with parries and ripostes. Well, foil's the only one that has that.

Inquartata · 01-11-2002, 08:58 PM

[quote]Originally posted by edew:
But fleching, especially the running after the other fencer as in "old" sabre is not such a prevalent action in foil. There is plenty of chasing the other fencer down the strip in foil, but it's often done with advances without crossing over.<hr></blockquote>

True. But then, it doesn't happen any more in sabre, either. So ought we do away with the crossover rule for sabre, on the grounds that it now addresses a nonexistent problem?

But it isn't the crossover per se to which I object; rather it's the prohibition of actions like the fleche by the rule. You'll agree that the fleche was not abused in sabre in the old days, and it's as useful an action in sabre as in foil or epee. It became a casualty of the stupid running attack, alas...

[quote]
Do we have to require cross-over instead of advances, or something like that?<hr></blockquote>

Gad, I hope not!

[quote]
In what way is it a fairness issue? Should we require right of way in epee (or remove right of way in foil and sabre) to bring equality among the three weapons?<hr></blockquote>

It's a matter of fairness to make a NEW rule that only one weapon must abide by, while continuing to permit it in the others. How about if they were to make a rule that yelling ( my favorite bugaboo! ) is now prohibited in foil, but still fine in sabre and epee? Rules ought to apply equally to all, I think. ( Rules flowing from the very nature of the weapon, like ROW in foil and sabre, are a different matter. )

[quote]it really isn't anywhere near broken.<hr></blockquote>

You are quite right. But that never seems to deter the FIE, unfortunately.

Gav · 01-12-2002, 01:28 AM

I don't know about Foil being any better to watch than Epee (or Sabre). ROW has to be explained to your average punter and so long as they get that they're able to spectate foil (Sabre). Epee doesn't have any of those coventions and as such people "get it" straight away. 1st to hit wins - hit at the same time both get a point.

Non-fencers who have tagged along to a tourney have [in my experience] preffered Epee over Foil simply because they understand straight away what they see.

Foil is exciting but sadly I feel you only get the excitement of Foil at the higher levels.

I don't want to start "which is better" thread. So back to topic.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Gav ]

Zelda · 01-12-2002, 02:01 AM

Gav,
Wehere are the rule changes posted?
Found it,,,try
<a href="http://www.sportnet.com.au/fencing/national/sportnet4371.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sportnet.com.au/fencing/national/sportnet4371.htm</a> its the AFF site.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Zelda ]

Gav · 01-12-2002, 09:01 AM

Dunno (FIE website I suppose). I got them off our club site here's the URL:-

<a href="http://communities.msn.co.uk/RCPFencingClub/files.msnw" target="_blank">http://communities.msn.co.uk/RCPFencingC lub/files.msnw</a>

Derek (the guy who maintains it) is trustworthy so I think they're genuine.

I won't make the Scottish Open (I've been VERY ill)- no fencing allowed till Monday after.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Gav ]

edew · 01-12-2002, 09:17 AM

[quote]True. But then, it doesn't happen any more in sabre, either. So ought we do away with the crossover rule for sabre, on the
grounds that it now addresses a nonexistent problem?<hr></blockquote>

It doesn't happen any more in sabre BECAUSE of the rule. If the rule was removed, you will see the return to the running attacks so prevalent before. There is no rule (yet) for foil, and still, we do not see a prevalence of fencers running each other down.

[quote]But it isn't the crossover per se to which I object; rather it's the prohibition of actions like the fleche by the rule. You'll agree
that the fleche was not abused in sabre in the old days, and it's as useful an action in sabre as in foil or epee. It became a
casualty of the stupid running attack, alas...<hr></blockquote>

The rule does not prevent you from fleching. It prevents you from crossing your feet when moving forward. The fleche was not abused in the old days, and is even used currently. The running after the guy action was abused and the rule effectively put a stop to it. It should be noted that the rule was sort of instituted by the fencers themselves, as I recall, in 1992.

[quote]It's a matter of fairness to make a NEW rule that only one weapon must abide by, while continuing to permit it in the others.
How about if they were to make a rule that yelling ( my favorite bugaboo! ) is now prohibited in foil, but still fine in sabre and
epee? Rules ought to apply equally to all, I think. ( Rules flowing from the very nature of the weapon, like ROW in foil and
sabre, are a different matter. )<hr></blockquote>

Since when is fairness a requisite for rules-making? Rules are made to (supposedly) correct a problem. There is no problem with regards to (the abuse of) running attacks in either foil or epee, so no need to institute the rule. Maybe the rule should read something like, each sabre fencer is allowed two running attacks per bout, to minimize the action.

Each weapon is pretty a sport into itself. It's like requiring breaststroke swimmers to take on a rule that was implemented for butterfly or backstrokes. What relevance is one to the other?

swordsen · 01-12-2002, 04:23 PM

Teh No fleche rule of saber was certainly not imposed by the fencers themselves. It was imposed by the FIE over the great howls and screams of a many many saberists. It took over a year for RSF to calm down abit from their diatribes.

Cyranox11 · 01-13-2002, 10:10 PM

Hi All
I have been away for a month.
Are these rules effective immediately?
What are the rules?
I am confused...
HELP!
Thanks
Cyrano

Cyranox11 · 01-13-2002, 11:25 PM

Its ok
I have calmed down and found the info!

Inquartata · 01-14-2002, 06:34 PM

[quote]
It doesn't happen any more in sabre BECAUSE of the rule. If the rule was removed, you will see the return to the running attacks so prevalent before. There is no rule (yet) for foil, and still, we do not see a prevalence of fencers running each other down.<hr></blockquote>

Just so! Your original point seemed to be that changing the rule in foil was unnecessary because there was no problem to fix. Neither is there in sabre any more. I am not convinced that the running attack would make a swift return to sabre were the rule there relaxed, and so again the same criteria might be applied to sabre as to foil: if there's no problem, there's no need for a rule. To insist that the problem doesn't exist because of the rule and therefore we need the rule to prevent the problem the rule cured seems circular to me. However, I was being a bit facetious in advocating that the rule be voided in sabre. I simply don't care for treating one class differently than others.

BTW, why is it, do you think, that the running attack became prevalent in sabre but has never taken root in foil? As I don't fence the latter I've never quite understood what factors prevent running there. Is it only the dispositions of those who are drawn to foil?

[quote]
The rule does not prevent you from fleching. It prevents you from crossing your feet when moving forward. The fleche was not abused in the old days, and is even used currently. The running after the guy action was abused and the rule effectively put a stop to it. It should be noted that the rule was sort of instituted by the fencers themselves, as I recall, in 1992.<hr></blockquote>

The rule does prevent the fleche. What passes for the fleche in sabre these days goes by various names, such as "flunge" and my personal fave, the "flying weasel"---but it's a pale shadow of the true fleche, which is such a committed leap that one has to cross over to keep from plunging face-first onto the strip. The rule did indeed cure the predilection for running attacks, "a consummation devoutly to be wish'd", but I wish there'd been some other way to accomplish this end. There're probably ways of killing, say, the flick in foil, too, which would simultaneously make other, legitimate actions impossible as well...and I don't think "collateral damage" is acceptable there, either.

[quote]Since when is fairness a requisite for rules-making? Rules are made to (supposedly) correct a problem. There is no problem with regards to (the abuse of) running attacks in either foil or epee, so no need to institute the rule. Maybe the rule should read something like, each sabre fencer is allowed two running attacks per bout, to minimize the action.<hr></blockquote>

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But note: laws, too, are rules. And to make laws which are applicable only to certain segments of the population which seem to be disproportionately "making trouble" goes by names like "discriminatory" and "unconstitutional". To say, for instance, that affluent students seldom rob banks and therefore need to be covered by laws prohibiting bank robbery would have been decidedly welcome to Patty Hearst---but one can imagine the outcry that would result rom trying to get such a targeted statute through a legislature...

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Inquartata ]

sabreur · 01-14-2002, 10:49 PM

Inquartata:

Your argument that making the crossover illegal for sabre, but not other weapons is somehow undemocratic or unfair is, pardon me, wholly and completely specious. Each weapon has rules specific to it--no one claims that it is unfair that in sabre you have to hit above the waist, in foil you have to hit the torso, or in epee you can hit anywhere. The crossover rule in sabre is simply a rule specific to the weapon, not some evil plot to deprive sabre fencers of some god-given right.

And if the crossover was made legal in sabre again, I have no doubt that we would return immediately to the days of "On your mark, get set, go" sabre--days that I, for one, have no interest in seeing return.

BTW, the reason that the crossover is not as popular in foil as it used to be in sabre is that it is much harder to hit someone with the point than with an edge when you are closing distance on a dead run.

Cheers, MR

Inquartata · 01-15-2002, 06:02 PM

OK, then. Let's make a new rule for foil only: touches made when the arm isn't completely extended strainght out will be invalid. That should get rid of the flick. Also a lot of ripostes, of course, but hey, that's how it goes. Epee and sabre will still be allowed to score touches with arm bent under the right circumstances.

The rule against crossing over was not "specific" to sabre when sabre was devised. And most of the rules in fencing are not "weapon specific" at all. So applying a rule to one whenever the FIE detects a problem---and running attacks were indeed a problem, but then so is the flick in their eyes---is in my view discriminatory. Now, sometimes discrimination is unavoidable. And it's not something I'm very broken up about, frankly, because I never used the pass-avant much even before it was prohibited, and I am overjoyed with the reestablishment of the phrase the rule has brought about. But on a strictly philosophical basis I still think it is unfair to deprive one person of the ability to use a tactic while continuing to let others do so.

Your explanation of why the running attack afflicted sabre but not foil seems plausible on the surface, but---well, it seems to me that having to hit with the point alone than the edge is more difficult in every circumstance. Not so? Rushing forward, retreating, or standing still. Yet I detect no shortage of foilists willing to throw out stops or counters whilst retreating full tilt, and there are bouts one watches which make one question the "sabre is faster" cliche---some of those guys really move on the strip when attacking....

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Inquartata ]

swordsen · 01-15-2002, 06:44 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Inquartata:
OK, then. Let's make a new rule for foil only: touches made when the arm isn't completely extended strainght out will be invalid. <hr></blockquote>

Well that would make a lot of the more "Classical" fencing types happy.

edew · 01-15-2002, 08:55 PM

A) It doesn't eliminate the flick as many flicks are hit with an extended arm.

B) What problem is the hypothetical rule suppose to cure? Are there rampant bent-arm attacks that shouldn't be counted as attacks?

Also, when is the arm to be completely straight (I know your point is somewhat facetious, but let's play along)? I can hit with a bent arm, and then continue extending until the arm is straight. Is it then my point? Also, does it have to be straight at the elbow, or at the wrist as well? Many an infighting hit has straight elbow, but bent wrist. Will that count? What about one-lighters? Are the touches annulled?

peircer · 01-15-2002, 09:42 PM

I don't know about most people, but I can flick with a straight arm. It's actually my latest pet project in fencing foil. Takes a ton of hand/arm strength, but you can land them from farther away. <img src="graemlins/evil3.gif" border="0" alt="[Evil 2]" />

sabreur · 01-15-2002, 10:50 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Inquartata:
OK, then. Let's make a new rule for foil only: touches made when the arm isn't completely extended strainght out will be invalid. That should get rid of the flick. Also a lot of ripostes, of course, but hey, that's how it goes. Epee and sabre will still be allowed to score touches with arm bent under the right circumstances.

Works for me.

The rule against crossing over was not "specific" to sabre when sabre was devised. And most of the rules in fencing are not "weapon specific" at all. So applying a rule to one whenever the FIE detects a problem---and running attacks were indeed a problem, but then so is the flick in their eyes---is in my view discriminatory. Now, sometimes discrimination is unavoidable. And it's not something I'm very broken up about, frankly, because I never used the pass-avant much even before it was prohibited, and I am overjoyed with the reestablishment of the phrase the rule has brought about. But on a strictly philosophical basis I still think it is unfair to deprive one person of the ability to use a tactic while continuing to let others do so.

You probably need to let go of the philosophy a bit. Generalizing everything in your life to a rule of the universe is a good way to go crazy--or at least become a real jerk. Fencing is a sport with conventions. The conventions of sports change all the time for all kinds of reasons. It does not destroy the order of the universe when the rules of a sport change.

Your explanation of why the running attack afflicted sabre but not foil seems plausible on the surface, but---well, it seems to me that having to hit with the point alone than the edge is more difficult in every circumstance. Not so? Rushing forward, retreating, or standing still. Yet I detect no shortage of foilists willing to throw out stops or counters whilst retreating full tilt, and there are bouts one watches which make one question the "sabre is faster" cliche---some of those guys really move on the strip when attacking....

Of course hitting with point is more difficult in any circumstance. But controlling the point at full tilt becomes nearly impossible--you have to remember that sabre, when the cross-over was allowed, was really a running game, not sort of pretty cross steps, but full-on sprints. As far as the speed of foil versus sabre--I don't watch much foil (here in Europe, we tend to have weapon specific tournaments, and since I don't fence foil, I don't see much)--but when I watch the world championships, foil is noticeably slower, particularly during preparation....

Throwing out a counter or stop in foil while retreating strikes me as a useful way to stop the action--if you get an off-target, you get to start the touch over on an even basis... I'm surprised foil fencers don't practice stop hits to the arm whenever their opponent begins an attack... (This is a bit of a joke by a sabre fencer who can't hit the broadside of a barn with a foil.)

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: sabreur ]

edew · 01-16-2002, 04:01 PM

I'm firmly under the impression that inquartata has never witnessed sabre prior to 1992 when the cross-over rule was instituted. If he did, he will see exactly why that rule was instituted, and by watching foil then versus now, can see why such a rule is not necessary for foil.