Maestro Toran on the consequences of the "new" foil & saber rules

[Your Bane]

I'm a thin, left handed, counter-attacker... may the new timings continue to rock your world!!



Insert maniacal laughter here

[telkanuru]

Sigh, another new timing thread...

With foil, I agree. It's a problem; it needs to be fixed.

With sabre, it seems slight technical modifications need to be made, such as changing the position of the hand for the parry relative to the chest. Distance has been made more important, as has looking for what your opponent intends. There has not been any real impact in terms of upsets at the top levels of the sport, and those who are poorly coached at the lower levels will continue to learn bad habits, so whatever.

In my experience, epeeists are those most likely to actually do something (like assassination), so I don't think trying to mess with epee would be particularly wise

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by Your Bane

I'm a thin, left handed, counter-attacker... may the new timings continue to rock your world!!

I am also a thin lefty. I do not like the new timings.

[Jason]

It's a bit difficult to be very critical of the new sabre timings--unlike in foil--because, though they force the sabre fencers to fence somewhat differently than before, the conditions created by the new times are still consistent and controllable. In other words, the timings haven't "hurt" sabre fencing, only changed it. (The whole "kids won't learn to parry" argument is a bit fecal.)

The foil timings, as is often mentioned, create conditions that are (slightly) varying and uncontrollable (here I'm talking about the occasional direct thrust that isn't registered by the machine). This is the real difficulty with the timings. While Eric may pine for the lost days of marching attacks and flicks, and others may lament the increased value of defensive elements of the game, the real "broken" element of the timings is the fact that certain techniques may or may not work depending on conditions that are often invisible to a human observer and impossible to prepare for. While one can certainly fence in a way that minimizes the chances of the lightless hit, it cannot be completely eliminated with the new timings--this introduces a randomness, or "luck", element that needn't be there and (as is always the case the more luck can effect the outcome of a game) because it is there, hurts the sport.

[eac]

Originally Posted by Jason

...the real "broken" element of the timings is the fact that certain techniques may or may not work depending on conditions that are often invisible to a human observer and impossible to prepare for.

I haven't observed this randomness; in previous new timings threads, there have always been a couple people who just reject the whole notion of direct hits not going off. In general, calling something random is saying that we don't have an accurate model to predict it. There are a couple relatively non-obvious things that have changed in the model from old to new timings. One is tape: if your tape is not pristine, and furthermore if it's not very slightly fingernailed into the crack between the tip and the barrel, you will likely experience some robbed touches. Another is blade bend; it is not difficult to hit hard and fast enough that the blade bends to the point that the exposed blade makes contact with the opponent's lame within 15 ms of the initial hit, grounding it out on a hard straight hit (this effect is vastly worse when there is a hole in the tape).

These two things, in my experience, account for the vast majority of robbed direct hits. When I have correct tape, my hit rate on direct thrusts is just about 100%, with the obvious exception of when it bends too much.

So you may not like the new timings, but I hardly think they're random (Except for the variations in boxes, that is, and even that you can adapt to over the course of a bout).

[OROD]

Originally Posted by eac

In general, calling something random is saying that we don't have an accurate model to predict it.

Wonderful! Please make sure to post this model so I can make sure to do my calculations while I'm fencing to achieve the most efficient way to turn the light on before the other guy does.

Originally Posted by eac

So you may not like the new timings, but I hardly think they're random (Except for the variations in boxes, that is, and even that you can adapt to over the course of a bout).

Brillient suggestion. Lets not adjust the equipment to allow us to fence, lets adjust our fencing to allow the equipment to work. It makes perfect sense, I dont know why all these people keep bìtching and dont just "adapt".

.

[Phaeton]

What's up with all these "Italians are whining about new timing" threads anyway....

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by Phaeton

What's up with all these "Italians are whining about new timing" threads anyway....

Well, the Italians are one of the first tier of fencing nations (along with France, Hungary, and Russia/Ukraine), with a very strong national tradition of training coaches, as well as fencers. If their leading coaches have serious problems with the new timings, it amounts to considerably more than "whining." These are the opinions of some of the most serious students/teachers of fencing, they constitute a valid critique, and they should be taken as such.

Not that there's much hope of that as long as Renny the Roach rules the nest.

MR

[eac]

Originally Posted by OROD

Wonderful! Please make sure to post this model so I can make sure to do my calculations while I'm fencing to achieve the most efficient way to turn the light on before the other guy does.

Models don't have to be mathematical, nor do they have to be particularly formal. This model, for instance, just says that if you are getting random direct hits not going off, check your tape and then check whether you're bending too much, and then check for if you're hitting a very hard bouncy surface, and that that will account for 99.9 percent of the problems.

Originally Posted by OROD

Brillient suggestion. Lets not adjust the equipment to allow us to fence, lets adjust our fencing to allow the equipment to work. It makes perfect sense, I dont know why all these people keep bìtching and dont just "adapt".

I didn't say the variation in boxes was nonrandom, nor did I say it was good. I would definitely prefer that the boxes were entirely uniform. I am saying, however, that on the vast majority of new timings boxes, it is relatively easy to predict whether a given hit will go off given that you know whether the tape is good and whether the hit either bounced or bent too much. I'm just claiming it's nonrandom, for most boxes, and I agree that the variation in boxes is bad.

[contre-Sixte]

Originally Posted by eac

Models don't have to be mathematical, nor do they have to be particularly formal. .... if you're hitting a very hard bouncy surface, and that that will account for 99.9 percent of the problems. ........ I am saying, however, that on the vast majority of new timings boxes, it is relatively easy to predict whether a given hit will go off given that you know whether the tape is good and whether the hit either bounced or bent too much. .

What is your point? If I hit a hard bouncy surface - such as a chest protector - it's predictable that it won't go off ... and I should be happy about that? I should stop aiming for 80% of the other guys target area and concentrate on the 20% which isn't covered by the chest protector? Is it your point that this outcome is not random and not random equals desirable?

Is it your opinion that in addition to concentrating on distance, timing, technique, etc. that I should now happily devote some of my energy to controlling the bend of my foil as I hit my opponent.

Is it your opinion that a hard and fast lunge executed with a weapon properly taped per your instructions, using a weapon with minimal bend per your instructions, against an opponent without a chest protector will register a light 99.9% of the time? And if high level olympic champions demonstrate the falseness of this claim, what are we to conclude?

[eac]

Originally Posted by contre-Sixte

What is your point? If I hit a hard bouncy surface - such as a chest protector - it's predictable that it won't go off ... and I should be happy about that? I should stop aiming for 80% of the other guys target area and concentrate on the 20% which isn't covered by the chest protector? Is it your point that this outcome is not random and not random equals desirable?

Well, people were saying it was random, which I disagreed with, so I pointed out that it wasn't random. Also, there's a reason they outlawed manplates in international men's foil.

Originally Posted by contre-Sixte

Is it your opinion that in addition to concentrating on distance, timing, technique, etc. that I should now happily devote some of my energy to controlling the bend of my foil as I hit my opponent.

Sure you should. What's wrong with that? Although I wouldn't consider it as taking it *away* from technique and putting into controlling your bend-- I would consider controlling your bend as one important element of modern technique.

Originally Posted by contre-Sixte

Is it your opinion that a hard and fast lunge executed with a weapon properly taped per your instructions, using a weapon with minimal bend per your instructions, against an opponent without a chest protector will register a light 99.9% of the time? And if high level olympic champions demonstrate the falseness of this claim, what are we to conclude?

I'm not sure high level olympic champions do demonstrate the falsity of this claim. (Incidentally, I should note that there have been no olympic champions since the timings changed, since there have been no olympics.) The World Cup video that I've watched has mostly corroborated my model, at least as far as I can tell. Benjamin Kleibrink, in particular, seems to have a completely deterministic way of hitting (which is not to say he doesn't miss; just that when he hits, it always goes off, as far as is visible). The hits that didn't go off in the videos often seemed like they were at least a little flat or bent the wrong way; also, aside from all that, there is no way for me to know how well Sanzo tapes his foils, or how torn up the tape was by the time he made the hit that didn't go off.

Up to now, I am not making any value judgments. I would say that it is actively bad that fencing for a bit in a tournament can tear up your tape to the point where nice, straight hits will fail to register. However, this is at least partly because tape is a fundamentally stupid way to insulate blades, since blades have sharp edges that frequently scrape against one another. Rounding off the blade edges near the end of the blade along with using fitted plastic instead of tape would probably significantly ameliorate this problem.

Incidentally, to nitpick, I didn't mean to say that one should have minimal bend; just not so much that the exposed blade is touching the lame. Most bends satisfy this condition, which is why such failures to register happen fairly infrequently.

[gladius]

Originally Posted by eac

.... there is no way for me to know how well Sanzo tapes his foils, or how torn up the tape was by the time he made the hit that didn't go off.

Up to now, I am not making any value judgments. I would say that it is actively bad that fencing for a bit in a tournament can tear up your tape to the point where nice, straight hits will fail to register. However, this is at least partly because tape is a fundamentally stupid way to insulate blades, since blades have sharp edges that frequently scrape against one another. Rounding off the blade edges near the end of the blade along with using fitted plastic instead of tape would probably significantly ameliorate this problem.
....

Just to clarify the issue of taping the foil blade, as the figures by Favero clearly show, taping it perfectly and checking the condition of the tape even after each touch, doesn't solve the problem discussed.

http://www.schermaonline.com/scherma...rticle&sid=787

Figure 1 at the bottom of the article indicates the problem incurred by a NON MODIFIED TIP ASSEMBLY even with a perfect taping.

Figure 4 indicates the condition of an improperly applied tape to a MODIFIED tip assembly.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicate two different MODIFIED TIP ASSEMBLY to make it more difficult shorting the contact with the lame fabric and with perfect taping.

In my personal opinion Figure 3, with the modified insulation (2) and collar (3) represents a better solution than Figure 2 with a modified collar (3) only.

Legenda (Italian/English):

1. corona = crown
2. isolante - insulation
3. collaretto = collar
4. base = base
5. nastro isolante = insulating tape

giubbetto = lame

Also, if you read carefully you'll understand that these shorts occur mostly when the tip grazes or slides off the lame, not the perpendicular hits on a hard surface. Those are described earlier on and cause micro interruptions as well.

Therefore, in the current state of things, i.e., until the FIE recognizes that micro interruptions exist, cause problems, AND mandates all manufacturesrs to insert ALSO a specified threshold in the logic controlling the duration of these micro interruptions, these hits do not register, or, register in random fashion, depending on the logic circuitry of the machine which varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and from generation to generation of the microchips used. Hence what we have today, i.e., "good" machines and "bad" machines.

If you think this is a rare event (.01% I believe according to your statistics), talk to the Romanian foil fencer ... she may be more convincing than my words...

[eac]

Yeah, you're right.

[Phaeton]

Originally Posted by sabreur

Well, the Italians are one of the first tier of fencing nations (along with France, Hungary, and Russia/Ukraine), with a very strong national tradition of training coaches, as well as fencers. If their leading coaches have serious problems with the new timings, it amounts to considerably more than "whining." These are the opinions of some of the most serious students/teachers of fencing, they constitute a valid critique, and they should be taken as such.

Not that there's much hope of that as long as Renny the Roach rules the nest.

MR

I'm by no means trying to sound angliocentric and stating that Italians arn't a major fencing power that deserves respect.

It's just this is the third of these threads with pretty much the exact same discussion.

*Changed sentence structure so it now actually makes sense.

[jBirch]

Again though, is the issue with the timings or with the machines?

- James.

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by eac

Also, there's a reason they outlawed manplates in international men's foil.

Is this correct?

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

Is this correct?

No. They did however rule that men must wear them next to their skin if they did wear them. Meaning under the shirt and underarm protector as well as the jacket.

gary hayenga

[RoninX]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Again though, is the issue with the timings or with the machines?

- James.

If you mean in the sense of the techinical problem - the visibility of this problem was a result of the changed timings, but was it always there, just undetectable due to the shorter timing intervals required to register a touch. The problem of inconsistency is "with the machines" because different manufacturers have dealt (or not dealt) with the issue in different way - creating improper variation (IMHO) in a competition setting. This problem can be dealt with to a large degree by implementing the changes the author laid out regarding interference acceptance.

If you mean in terms of how the problem is perceived in the fencing community - It seems to depend on who you ask. Issue of unregulated differences between the machines seems to be a real problem that the FIE must immediately address. My guess is that after looking at the data in the article this should be generally acceptted and acted upon (though with the roach - you never know). However, once the interuptions are taken into account it still leaves a matter 'style' argument which (as with most such arguments) is in the eye of the beholder.

[eac]

I'm really batting oh-fer lately, aren't I...

[brtech]

Maestro Toran suggests that we ignore microinterruptions of 6ms or less.

I'm not so sure that is the best solution. Would it not be best to have a more complex filter operation that essentially integrates the signal for a while? There are some pretty simple to implement filter functions, that could be precisely specified, which would smooth the microbreaks. A decision would have to be made if the delay those filters introduced was or was not counted in the lockout timing, as well as the simultaneous hit timing. It would be acceptable to smooth the output to look for whatever the specified "on" time was, but count the beginning of the action as the start of the first microinterruption detected, and the end as the end of the last one.