reducing flicking by the FIE

[latenight]

Like I said before, the majority of peolple who even take issue with the flick are those who either can't execute it, or can't defend against it. Once a fencer accomplishes those two things, other issues become much more significant. It's only one aspect of foil, nothing to get bent about. Besides, it's fun

[Matt_Bailey]

Latenight wrote : "I use flicks. The vast majority of my flicks would inflict an injury if sharps were used."

You are using some defenition of flick of which I am not aware. I own an antique light sabre, I've had the pleasure of handling antique smallsword and epee. They are incapable of the "flick" as I understand the term.

[latenight]

I don't get your meaning. If the foil had a sharp point, instead of and electric tip is what I meant. I own a smallsword. It would be tough to flick. But that is not the point. I know the foil is not a true weapon, but if it were used as one I think a flick is as valid as many other touches

[attila]

Hey! This thread sounds so much like the one that ended the flick debate over at RSF. Fat Boy Ed from RSF sharpened an electrif foil and went after a hunk of meat and some thick leather and with his empyrical results, convincingly going through the test materials, conclusively ended the "What if" debate. So they concluded A: sharps for sure do not flick. and B: If you ever duelled with sharpened electric foil blades, that flick to the back would do serious damaage.

Attila the Hutt

[d8m2k]

Modern fencing is no longer a recreation of a duel. Nadi himself commented on that. Modern fencing is a sport in itself, and as such the argument about the flick working with sharp weapons is moot. The FIE can't remove the flick just yet (even if they wanted to) as the technology just isn't there yet. All they are able to do is reduce it. Why they want to is a mystery to me, but obviously some people out there have problems realizing that modern fencing has and will continue to evolve.

[latenight]

Exactly. I don't buy the whole the FIE can't get rid of the flick line of thinking. They could mandate blades so stiff you'd need hydrolics to flick, but they don't. So I personally don't think the flick is going away anytime soon. So learn it, use it, enjoy it. The look on your opponents face when you do it well can be priceless.

[Matt_Bailey]

In a way Chris is right though. People in this country really dig martial arts. Is it because the specifics of Judo or Tae-Kwon-Do competetion are easier to understand than fencing? Is UFC more visually appealling than fencing? I don't think so. I think it's because most martial arts at least pretend to be about something other than winning a game. The humanistic virtues (honor, loyalty, etc) don't hurt of course, but I think they are popular because most people viscerally recognize it as something having to do with fighting.

[latenight]

You also have to remember that the entertainment industry puts a ton of money into action movies which almost always have martial arts in them. Haven't seen Arnold or Sly running around with a fencing foil yet. alot of kids take up those sports becaue they see it in the movies. You really don't see a whole lot of martial arts comps televised either.

[d8m2k]

Fencing popularity waned before electrics were being used. So it doesn't make sense to move backward. Martial arts comps are exactly like fencing comps, only larger. But the spectators are either involved with sport, friends, or relatives. Just like fencing. Why don't we have kids lining up to fence? Cost and availability for one. Second a mystique that belongs to martial arts via movies. Most kids, and some adults, belive that martial arts will teach you how to fight, or defend yourself(which is only half true),while fencing on the other hand is a esoteric sport that won't help you in any other situation. US Fencing needs to recognize that.

[Matt_Bailey]

Exactly. Why shouldn't fencing have such a mystique? It has the same roots as any other martial sport: If one wishes to market it, one should play to that image of he duellist, the musketeer, etc, etc.

Not to mention that fencing has martial aspects that are quite valid off of the duelling field. Refer to Bruce Lee's "Tao of JKD" for instance, nearly a third of the book is made up of concepts taken directly from fencing.

attila: I'm quite sure with practice one could make quite a nasty scratch using a whippy foil with a sharpened tip. However, that would require that one were duelling with a whippy foil, which would not be an ideal weapon to carry against an actual sword, for reasons I trust are obvious. It also fails to take into account the very real fact that what might seem a nasty scratch (esp in a society that has tendency to make great fuss over trivial injuries) could hardly be expected to either stop an opponent immediately or carry the threat of likely death a few hours later.

This digression has nothing to do with fencing sport of course, play the game required of you to win. But at the same time, do not make innacurate statements about the unfamiliar aspects of combative sword play.

--Matt Bailey.

[This message has been edited by Matt_Bailey (edited 01-16-2001).]

[Christopher J Umbs]

Good points Matt,

I'm between contracts at the moment so I'm not on-line all that much nowadays so let me do a quick couple of thoughts

1) While it may be possible to break skin with a flick to the back, trying to do it while the opponent is armed with a sharp blade is foolish as is expecting a flick/cut to stop an attacker. Most good thrusts don't even do that let alone flicks.

2) Only in France and only at the end of the dueling age do you see a lot of duels to first scratch. most Italian or Austrian duelists were more interested in killing or maiming. Some of the Austrian rules are really bloodthirsty.

3) Exit the atheletes and enter the... fencers perhaps? To my mind, being a fencer is more than simply being an athelete. CF fencers don't leap around as much as sport fencers do and the usually only fence to 3 points, but does that mean that they are lazy or simply efficient. As long as fencing is only seen as a sport, I suspect it will always loose out to other popular sports.

4) Popularity of other forms of fencing: It is certainly true that cf and hf don't pull people in right now anymore than sf but that is due to the fact that most of the cf/hf groups only met the others in the past few years as more schools and groups got on the web and we are often cofused with sf or asian arts. But the two largest US groups (HACA and AHF) have both seen their membership and popularity soar. We are quite happy with our progress thanks. However, popularity is not all THAT desired in our field. We'd rather be unpopular than make changes that only decrease the martial value of our systems.

5) Yes fencing has changed, but I disagree that it's been an evolution. Too many of the chages were made due to national or personal politics and not to improve the art for the participants. Evolution can also produce a number of dead ends that die out while the main trunk goes on. I suspect that sf is one of those dead ends. It has gotten too far away from the main trunk and will wither and die.

Chris

[introspective]

in answer to your question. no i don't know anything about it.

[d8m2k]

I really didn't want to get into this inane SF vs. CF but...

Chris,
You have interesting viewpoints, but they are wrong. Fencers are athletes. Are they more than athletes depends on the fencer and the person making the argument. I have yet to meet a CF fencer I consider an athlete, or even a martial artist. They seem like weekend warriors, or historians. However, that's only my opinion, so don't take it too seriously.
SF is currently more popular than the other forms of fencing. Face it. They may be growing, but so is SF. And yes SF will never replace baseball, but CF will never rival any asian martial art in numbers.
Finally, it's evolution. Weapons evolved, swords became obsolete, fencing became sport. Sport fencing evolved as technology changed, and athletes became stronger, faster, and bigger.

[Matt_Bailey]

Before I am accused of being all dewy-eyed about the past of fencing...
I will concede that perhaps in the past fencers of certain schools were apt to put too much emphasis on "form" and not enough on speed and strength. (Which are of course, just as martially valid attributes, properly used.) A fencer could be ahead on "touches" and still lose on the basis of form in some cases, for instance. I remember reading how in the case of double touch, the fencer touching higher on the opponents target was awarded the point. As if recieving a thrust through the bowels to give your opponent one in the lungs is anything but a pyhricc victory. So you see, fencers have a long history of violating basic logical principles upon which all good fencing is based. But why repeat the mistakes of the past?

As for the "weekend warriors" bit, we could digress into number of streetfights we've had, how much we benchpress, the qualities of being touched with a foil or saber vrs being whacked with a wooden waster...but I think such would be inane. Suffice to say I cannot say how it is more "warriorly" to score touches with a electric foil than to whack one another with a padded longsword and etc. You could always give a CF or HF rapier tournament a try.

I think fencing could rival Asian martial arts in popularity. The katana, gim, kama, or nunchaka is no less obselete as a weapon than the smallsword. Why should the martial roots of the tradition be ignored?. I'm not even saying you have to change the game itself very much. Kendo no more replicates two samurai going at one another in 1600 than foil replicates two duellists in 1800. But many Kendoka also cut with real swords, and practice kata with bokken or swords.
Most importantly though (either in the sense of my personal sentiment, or in the sense of attracting students) is the spirit of tradition, the connection with the past and virtues that the kendoka wish to emulate.

[d8m2k]

Matt,
Don't get upset, most of that was my opinion, just as Chris' and your post was. Thoughts and personal opinions can be argued in so many different ways. Even in the asian martial arts they have these arguments. At the university I attened the akido club hated the tae kwon do club because it was a sport, not an art. Back to the original thread...
Flicking is good for SF, SF is evolving, and the FIE still remains a mystery.

[Matt_Bailey]

I'm not upset my dear fellow. Emotional calm during contention is one of the things the art of the sword is supposed to teach a person, after all.

In what way do you find the "flick" good for fencing? I realize it is ultimately all a value judgment, but I have my own reasons (which you are probably familiar with) for thinking it is bad for fencing, (well, frankly I don't think of it as fencing at all). Once you stray too far from the logical framework created by the constraints of a frank encounter with sharps, it becomes a rather arbitrary art.

TKD may be a sport, but it is something more. It can be practiced as an effective martial art. Like fencing. Most practicioners at least pay that aspect a certain amount of respect. Which I think fencing also deserves. Perhaps your mention of TKD gives me a useful metaphor to work on. The sport TKD practicioner does many things in the game that may or may not be appropriate in a fight. But under a good instructor he also learns something more than a sport. The history, tradition, and pride of his art. Techniques that men defened their lives with. Can the typical fencer in this country make the same boast? Until then, I think he is missing something.

[d8m2k]

Matt,
Personal opinion leads you to look for something more than a sport. Fine, many are quite happy with fencing as a sport. I don't want fencing to try to recreate a duel. Even in the days of Aldo Nadi, SF had little in common with dueling. Due to the box, it has even less in common today. The flick is a function of the box, people looking at fencing as a sport, and the athletes becoming better. That's not a bad thing. The FIE is conducting market research and trying to find a way to market the sport and gain a following.
Interesting to note though, fencing popularity is small here in the US, but in other places very well known. When I was in Cuba, everyone recognized the fencing bag, and everyone knew Elvis Gregory, Ivan Trevejo, and the women's epee team. They were treated as stars.
On a side note, my weekend warrior comment was not say that SF was better than CF, but to point out a difference. Felcia Z. is 25 and is finishing up her last year at Stanford. Why did i take her so long? She took off numerous years to train for the Games, and to improve her fencing. Compare her to someone who Sport fences 1 or 2 a week. Felcia is a Fencer. The other person is a weekend warrior. Yes, that is an extreme example, and there are many definitions of seriousness, but most CF people I've met have the attitude of the weekend warrior.

[Matt_Bailey]

Indeed there is always room for a different opinion. Indeed, that is perhaps why I like the discussions here. A lack of concensus is far more stiumulating. Despite what some moderators seem to think (*wink* *nudge* Christopher...)

[Stryder]

Back to the thread for the LAST time!

Yes, I have fenced extensively with boxes set to the new FIE debounce times.

Yes, they make it a real pain in the tucas to land a balanced, correct flick.

But no they have no effect on my favorite "hail mary, I made a huge mistake in distance, sweep-and-flick to the lower back"

This results in the removal of all the nice neat flicks and allowing all the pain-inducing haymakers.

Now I hearby remove all discussions comparing cf/hf/sf from this thread. It was started to discuss a new technological idea that might or might not effect flicking.


[This message has been edited by Stryder (edited 01-19-2001).]

[Gav]

Sorry Stryder but I have to put in another comment about flicking!

I'm from the UK. There's a lot of stuff you are brought up with to do with tradition being good. (For example I can chart my family back 500 years with reasonable certainty - 700 dubiously!) A lot of people (my girfriend for one) who seem to think that things were better "in the good old days." I refute that.

To me change is enivitable, perhaps even desired. Tradition = Stagnation. The whole flicking - not flicking thing is a case in point.

Sure fencing is meant to be about 2 people standing in a field, defending some point of honour but this is somewhat romantic. The last duel I am aware of was between a French writer against a critic who didn't like his play. Now they did fight in a field, but they only fought to 1st blood and they stopped because neither (in reality) had the courage of their convictions.

In other words the whole concept of fighting for honour had lost the meaning they were supposed to be fighting for. I don't accept that thing were any better in the past just... different. Denying the reality we are in seems pointless - we must accept and adapt.


[This message has been edited by Gav (edited 01-22-2001).]