The foil flick, the sabre fleche, and the wrestling rollover - a comparison

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


The 3 moves in the thread title share one common characteristic:

It is relatively common that when equally matched sportsmen do them, the performer will score more often than he gets counterscored on even if the move is expected by the other, if that one does not do the same move.

Due to this, it often becomes a viable tactic (in many, but not all, pairings of sportsmen) to do them so much that all other possible moves get crowded out. The downside of this is that many matches consist to a very large degree of both sportsmen trying to do the moves against each other at the same time, which is a big minus to the strategical/tactical complexity of the sport.

Not surprisingly, the sports regulatory bodies - FIE and FILA - respectively, have moved to curtail the effects of the moves effectiveness in order to preserve the spirit of the sport. I trust that the readers know the story in the foil and sabre cases, but I will outline what happened in the case of the wrestling rollover. (I wrestled on a local level as a teenager, thus my knowledge.)

In wrestling, bouts can be won by fall, point superiority at full time, opponent´s passivity, big point margin, and a few other uncommon ways not germane to this discussion. Some time during the early 80ies, people wanted to speed up competitions, and it was decided that the way to do it was to declare a bout won if either wrestler had a 12-point points margin at any time during the bout. 12 points is a lot - 1 point is given for a minor or faulty move, 2 points are given for most moves (including the the rollover), and 4 points are given for throws so well executed so that they nearly end the bout by fall. It was considered that cutting those lopsided bouts short was the best place to cut time, since a bout extremely seldom changes face one such a decisive lead has been established, and all other alternatives had big drawbacks.

Wrestlers adapted, and tried to use this new rule to the fullest. The rollover, previously a 2nd-tier move, proved especially important since it is the only move in which the wrestlers return to the original position after having performed the whole move. That made it possible to perform wholes series of rollovers, and racking up points. Before the 12-point rule, this was a risky tactic since any of the rollovers could go wrong, and the rolled wrestler could turn the table to win by fall despite that he had a great point deficit at the time.

This brings us to what a rollover actually is. Wrestling is much more prone to stalemates than fencing (including epee) for several reasons:
1. Wrestlers are always roughly evenly sized, due to weight classes.
2. Wrestlers hold each other, so feints are much harder to perform since one literally has a feel for what the opponent is going to do - you feel where they are pulling, and how tense their muscles are.
3. Defence in wrestling only requires that you hold your opponent still, while aggression requires that you move two bodies - his and your own.
4. Wrestling is much more tiring than fencing, and once both wrestlers are really tired, lifting him becomes both physically and mentally difficult.

In order to break stalemates in evenly matched bouts, the concept of passivity was introduced long before the 12-point rule. Whenever a wrestler was deemed passive for a sufficient time (since the start of the bout, or the previous passivity) by the ref, he was punished twofold:
1. His opponent was awarded 1 point.
2. He was forced to get into a passivity position, from which his opponent had a much easier time performing various wrestling moves.
In addition, if either wrestler got 3 passivity warnings during a bout, his opponent won the bout no matter what the point standings were.

The passivity position is like this: The penalized wrestler gets down on the mat, with his toes, knees, and hands on the mat. Elbows must be straight, the thighs should be close to vertical, and the torso must be close to paralell with the mat. The feet may not be crossed. The other wrestler must touch the passivity-warned wrestled with both hands on the back, and the hands must be paralell. He may not touch the warned wrestler in any other way. Otherwise, he is free to place himself in any way he wishes. The ref ensures that both wrestlers are adhering to the placement rules and completely still. Once the ref thinks that is the case, he blows the whistle to signal that they can start moving. He blows the whistle while situated so that neither wrestler can see him, so that it comes as a surprise to both. This lessens the risk or further stalemate considerably.

The rollover is then performed by the standing wrestler by grappling around the warned wrestler´s torso, holding him hard, and rolling around the longitudinal axis of the wrestlers for one full revolution. Halfway through, the attacker´s shoulder are close to the mat, which is what it made it less popular before the 12-point rule. Once completed, the attacker is in correct position for a new rollover unless the rolled wrestler has managed to break the grapple midways.

So there you are. A move perfectly suited to racking up points, even in a matchup between two roughly even wrestlers.

To make matters worse, passivity situations are common in wrestling, and there is no numerical way to evaluate which wrestler should have the 1st passivity warning - it is completely at the ref´s discretion to which he thinks has been least active.

Shortly after the 12-point rule was enacted, the 1st big competition under the new rule set was held - the European Championships. Many bouts went the same way: Defensive wrestling until either wrestler got a passivity warning, followed by a string of sucessful rollovers. If the wrestler whom had been considered somewhat more active did not manage to get a 12-point margin, he often got a big points lead which he could simply defend from there on. This made the subjective handout of the the 1st passivity warning very important.

One wrestler put it succintly: "This is not a wrestling championship - it is a rollover championship!"

FILA reacted swiftly, and in a way generally considered correctly. A new rule was introduced, limiting rollovers to a maximum of two consecutive performances. This restored wrestling to its previous complexity, without killing the rollover - a legitimate move - totally.

We can now return to the comparison to the two fencing cases.
1. In foil, the flick was limited in effectiveness by enacting the timing rules. Flicks are still prefectly legal, but are much more difficult to perform in a points-awarding way.
2. In sabre, the fleche was outlawed altogether.
3. In wrestling, the rollover was limited to how many times it could be performed while getting points.

Note that the rollover-limiting rule did not require any new technical stuff (as the foil box settings) nor did it totally kill a move (like the sabre fleche)

So, if the old foil settings would have been kept but a maximum number of flick points per bout would have been enacted, would everyone been reasonably happy? Any drawbacks to the wrestling rule in the foil case?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[edew]

It's not always easy to determine whether a flick action ends in a flick. It is quite possible to make a point hit to the back or chest that starts as a flick, but ends quite solidly as a thrust. The intent of the fencer is also not a viable way to determine whether it's a flick or not.

The thing with the fleche in saber was that it devolved from a genuine fleche to nothing more than running full-steam at the opponent. It was partly because of the non-electrical scoring at the time, biased officiating, and lack of will to call stop-cuts that allowed the running action in saber. The running attack can easily be stopped if the referees call stop-cuts and hits can be seen using electrical scoring.

Perhaps for foil, we can have a scoring machine that successively increase the debounce time from 4ms to 15ms over the course of the bout. Thus, flicks or flick-like actions will register at the beginning, but will be successively more difficult to conduct. Basically, if the hit occurs with less than 8ms of contact time, the debounce time will increase by 1ms (or 2 or whatever). If the hit occurs with more than 8ms contact time, the assumption is that it wasn't a flick and so no change to the debounce time occurs.

[OROD]

1. There's nothing wrong with the flick that it needs to be "fixed".

2. These are some of the worst ideas I've ever heard!

.

[RebelFencer]

hmm, did they change the rules a bit? Last time I was doing freestyle and greco roman I'm pretty sure that the rules were that a) a tech fall was a 10 point lead and b) the rule with the gutwrench was that you had to score inbetween them.

(Example: I gutwrench you, hold you so your back is exposed for 5sec. and get the point for nearfall, then I can roll you again.)

[Black Jeebus]

I think you were probably doing highschool wrestling a lot more recently than Peter...

Also what you describe is still something in the same vein as limiting how many flick points you could get.

[pinkandgeek]

are you saying that there should be a limit on the ammount of flick points that may be scored?
I agree that it is aggravating when an opponent constantly flicks. however, if an opponent can land a flick on me that many time, good for him. i would not blame him for exploiting a weakness, i would take it as a lesson.

[RebelFencer]

I think you were probably doing highschool wrestling a lot more recently than Peter...

Also what you describe is still something in the same vein as limiting how many flick points you could get.

High school wrestling is scholastic style as opposed to Freestyle and Greco-Roman. Less throws are legal, stalling can be called on the bottom person, there are no touch falls, you have to have an arm or leg and a head to lock hands, points are scored differently and the tech fall number is 15 points ahead to name a few. The difference between scholastic and olympic styles is more defined than between the weapons. Please educate yourself a bit if you wish to comment.

[thud]

So, if the old foil settings would have been kept but a maximum number of flick points per bout would have been enacted, would everyone been reasonably happy? Any drawbacks to the wrestling rule in the foil case?

The flick in foil is powerful for three reasons: it 1) whips around small parries, 2) has just as much ROW as any other attack, and 3) can be executed while fencing absence of blade. So the flicker enjoys the benefits of these three advantages with seemingly few drawbacks.

While limiting the number of times a move can be executed may solve the problem, I'm much more in favor of doing something that directly curtails the advantages inherent to foil flicking. We could make foils stiffer, but I don't think anyone wants that. We could decree that all flicks must be performed from the en guarde position, but I should think most people will find that silly. I say that altering the flick's priority over other hits is the right way to go (granted that people will not like that either). I think this will offer a more "natural" way to reel in the flick, rather than numerically limiting its use. The only thing I'd worry about is inadvertently killing the flick with this kind of rule change. Doing to it what FILA did to the rollover, at least, surely will not have that effect.

[keropie]

Angulation has the same three advantages listed, as well as direct attacks made from an absence position (no one says you have to finish your attack to the line they are parrying... as a matter of fact, many people suggest you do no such thing!). The only 'correct' answer is for the collective referreeing world to 'grow a pair' and make calls on preparation. If flicks were forced to actually begin to have RoW (and other attacks were forced by the same degree), then flicks wouldn't be anything scary. They'd just be another way to hit.

The biggest problem with any rule that addresses the flick as opposed to attacks or ripostes or what-have-you is how you define the flick. The possible suggestion of the box controlling the timing based on previous hits is the only rule I've heard suggested that manages to avoid this, though there are other problems (awfully hard to police, as we just have to trust the box; what happens if your attack if off target? the same increment, or . . .?; what if the action was a counter attack? same increment?; what if you were testing the weapon on your foot? etc.). Where is the line between flick and coupe (and yes, both can arrive on the back)?

[bigdawg2121]

High school wrestling is scholastic style as opposed to Freestyle and Greco-Roman. Less throws are legal, stalling can be called on the bottom person, there are no touch falls, you have to have an arm or leg and a head to lock hands, points are scored differently and the tech fall number is 15 points ahead to name a few. The difference between scholastic and olympic styles is more defined than between the weapons. Please educate yourself a bit if you wish to comment.

I thought it was usually referred to as folkstyle... that being said, limiting the number of flicks wouldn't be the same as the wrestling case and I never cease to be amazed at the new and random questions Peter finds to ask us. Good show.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

1. There's nothing wrong with the flick that it needs to be "fixed".

The FIE appearently disagrees with you. Personally, I did not think that the flick had to be fixed - it was far to sucessful for that. It had to be reined in, which is quite a different thing altogether.

2. These are some of the worst ideas I've ever heard!

Whose ideas - mine or Edews? So, if they are so bad, what stops you from cutting them apart with some applied logic?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

hmm, did they change the rules a bit? Last time I was doing freestyle and greco roman I'm pretty sure that the rules were that a) a tech fall was a 10 point lead and b) the rule with the gutwrench was that you had to score inbetween them.

(Example: I gutwrench you, hold you so your back is exposed for 5sec. and get the point for nearfall, then I can roll you again.)

You have appearently been wrestling under another rules set than me. Care to list when and where, and under which governing body?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I think you were probably doing highschool wrestling a lot more recently than Peter...

I wrestled competitively 1977-1983(?). I did exclusively Greco-Roman. The rules used by the Swedish wrestling federation were exactly the same as the international ones used at Olympic level, with the exception that the weightclasses for juniors and down are different. The same points system, same times, no moves specifically forbidden in our wrestling, etc.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I never cease to be amazed at the new and random questions Peter finds to ask us. Good show.

Awww... talk about ego-boosting!

Anyway, I like to figure out topics a bit off the beaten path. I just wish that there were more f.net members who would do the same. Consider it a challenge!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[OROD]

The FIE appearently disagrees with you.

Hahahahah... the FIE can kiss my ass!

Whose ideas - mine or Edews? So, if they are so bad, what stops you from cutting them apart with some applied logic?

Look, they're all bad. An action is either valid or it's not. An attack should either score or it shouldnt. The whole idea that some attacks will score at one point and not another, or be worth more or less depending on when and how many of them you do is ridiculous. It's bad enough now with the randomly on and off direct hits, and mostly non-scoring flicks. How'd you like to explain to a spectator that that beautiful attack (or parry-reposte, or whatever) in the last touch of the olympic finals doesnt score and the counter-attack does because of some odd rule about how many you can and cant do? And let me ask you this, as a fencer when someone attacks you do you ask yourself how many parries you've done a certain way before you parry? If you parry do you first think of how many repostes you've done with flicks? Or straight, or coupes, or whatever? No, you just attack, or reposte, or whatever. I certainly dont want to be constantly double-guessing which action I'm going to do in the heat of the moment, I'd rather just fence.

I know that the day some ridiculous rule like that comes into fencing is the last day I do this sport.

.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Look, they're all bad. An action is either valid or it's not. An attack should either score or it shouldnt. The whole idea that some attacks will score at one point and not another, or be worth more or less depending on when and how many of them you do is ridiculous.

Neither I nor EDew suggested that any action should be worth "more or less". I tossed out the idea of capping the number times it could be done, while he suggested that it could be made to become progressively harder.

In both cases, we tried to forward ideas to lessen the importance of the flick compared to what it was before the timing changes, while not killing it altogether. I, among many others, think that flick was too important in foil. If you disagree with that premise, then we have very little common ground.

It's bad enough now with the randomly on and off direct hits, and mostly non-scoring flicks.

Since my original suggestion entailed keeping the timings to what they were before the recent change, the problem with the "randomly on and off direct hits" would be fixed. Flicks would score on the box, but they would not be awarded points once you have filled your flick limit for the bout.

How'd you like to explain to a spectator that that beautiful attack (or parry-reposte, or whatever) in the last touch of the olympic finals doesnt score and the counter-attack does because of some odd rule about how many you can and cant do?

The universal experience by wrestlers I knew, when they explained the cap rule for rollovers to non-wrestlers, was that the non-wrestlers understood the rule immediately, and saw the need for it. No problems whatsoever. Just tell them that it is specifically to hamper one-trick ponies, it keeps the complexity of the sport up. Neither I nor EDew advocated capping ordinary attacks or P-R, we where specifically going for the flick.

I know that the day some ridiculous rule like that comes into fencing is the last day I do this sport.

Some departures from fencing I would lament greatly, some not so much.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[downunder]

Peter,

Quoting edew's post for relevance:

It's not always easy to determine whether a flick action ends in a flick. It is quite possible to make a point hit to the back or chest that starts as a flick, but ends quite solidly as a thrust. The intent of the fencer is also not a viable way to determine whether it's a flick or not.

This is the main problem with your plan.

[RebelFencer]

Hi!




You have appearently been wrestling under another rules set than me. Care to list when and where, and under which governing body?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

2003 was the last year I did, but it was under the USAW governing body. When I wrestled at nationals in 2002 it was the same, at least with the 10 point tech. We're probably both right, just different time periods.

[PeterGustafsson]

Peter,

Quoting edew's post for relevance:
Originally Posted by edew
It's not always easy to determine whether a flick action ends in a flick. It is quite possible to make a point hit to the back or chest that starts as a flick, but ends quite solidly as a thrust. The intent of the fencer is also not a viable way to determine whether it's a flick or not.

This is the main problem with your plan.

It is not a plan, per se. It is a tossed-out idea, with the hope that it would be something that both the Roch and Alan camps could accept without too much dislike. It is intended to curb the flick, as the Roch camp wants, while simultaneously never disallowing straight hits, as has been identified as a major problem with the present timings.

Concerning actions as EDew described, flick->thrust: From what I have seen, such actions are and were quite unusual. Almost all foil flicks that I have seen start and end as flicks. The simplest way to deal with those actions is probably to count any action which starts as a flick as a real flick, no matter how it ends. Furthermore, I think that it is very clear in all but very few cases whether an action is a flcik or not.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Allen Evans]

Interesting. I was at a referee clinic a few years ago when the presenter had a fairly decent foil fencer doing demonstratins with him. The clinic was a mixture of new referees and more experianced referees, but all had been fencing for some time (4 years or more). With a little coaxing, the presenter got the fencer to do a series of actions, almost at will, which divided the room in half about whether the action was a flick or was not a flick.

I don't think the opinion of "flick/not flick" can be left up to the referee. That means a mechanical/electrical distinction built into the box, which just adds another layer of complexity to an already complex situation.