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

[oso97]

...
(hideous formatting removed for clarity)
I highlighted and used red bold in the passages of Maestro Toran long and erudite dissertation which our opinionated expert oso97 may have had a difficulty in understanding.
Maestro Toran in my view points out in the case of to the consequences of these reduced double-touch timings, specifically to the danger incurred by those who are young and try to learn the weapon today, post new timing, or adapt to the new timings with a limited fencing repertoire. Obviously this does not affect oso97 but it might those trying to learn the weapon ... from one like oso97...

I'm sorry, did I do something to warrant such ad hominem attack?

On the contrary, it affects me greatly, as I coach young fencers. But, again, I've found it develops a greater tactical repetoir, especially in the developing set.

[Feraud]

I like the “as if it were sharp” analogies in the article.
Ha! The classical fencers would love that one... if they bother to read articles about electric flicking.

[Joe biebel]

I'm sorry, did I do something to warrant such ad hominem attack?

On the contrary, it affects me greatly, as I coach young fencers. But, again, I've found it develops a greater tactical repetoir, especially in the developing set.

Yeah, I noticied that "attitude" also. I think you have to put it down to... actually, I can't think of the slightest excuse for it. You must be a real idiot or something. Wait A minute, I know you and your posts. You're one of those people that think, and discuss like everyone's opinion might have some merit. There's your problem. Even handed, open minded discussion. No wonder he went off on you.

[jBirch]

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.

I keep hearing complaints again and again, that the timings are broken because the machines are broken. The Maestro makes exactly that argument again, which is disappointing.

What I was asking was for those making arguments to seperate the timings from the boxes. If you have an issue with the timings, cool, but don't confuse that with an issue with the boxes.

- James.

[brtech]

I keep hearing complaints again and again, that the timings are broken because the machines are broken. The Maestro makes exactly that argument again, which is disappointing.

What I was asking was for those making arguments to seperate the timings from the boxes. If you have an issue with the timings, cool, but don't confuse that with an issue with the boxes.

No, the problem is the RULES are broken. The rules do not say what the machines should do, so the manufacturers are left to guess what correct operation should be. Microbreaks have been known about for years. The FIE in it's INFINITE wisdom has not seen fit to address the problem. The changes to the timing exacerbated an existing problem.

[Phaeton]

I give up. Foil doesn't deserve right of way. Does that help anything?

[gladius]

Let me state one more time that his is not an article to advocate the return to the old timings. This article points to some of the consequences of these new rules not because they are good or bad per se, but because the Rules are incomplete and hence add elements of uncertainty and confusion to the process.

The analysis of the political problems suggests that this is caused by a desire of some to return to a more classical way of fencing and to increase the spectacularity and popularity of the sport. The attempt to reach this goal by tampering/playing with timings only has shown that this cannot be done. Micro interruptions existed also with the old timings but they were mostly hidden by the very narrow window. Now with the longer impact time in foil this is no longer the case.

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.

Maestro Toran proposal is to ignore the "hole" in the signal, i.e., the micro interruption, if it is 6 ms or less. Therefore a signal composed of a rectangle of 8 ms, immediately followed by a "hole" of 5 ms, ad then by another rectangle of 8 ms would be like a continuous signal of 21 ms, indicating a valid touch.

I'm not sure I understand exactly your point. I suppose that by "integrate the signal for a while" you mean to calculate the area underneath the curve of the signal for a certain time interval. By "smoothing" you could possibly "straighten" the signal, i.e., eliminate the "hole" but with digital signals the reading is either 0 o 1. This is why the Maestro's proposal seems to be the most logical way to proceed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jBirch
I keep hearing complaints again and again, that the timings are broken because the machines are broken. The Maestro makes exactly that argument again, which is disappointing.

What I was asking was for those making arguments to seperate the timings from the boxes. If you have an issue with the timings, cool, but don't confuse that with an issue with the boxes.
Unquote

No, the problem is the RULES are broken. The rules do not say what the machines should do, so the manufacturers are left to guess what correct operation should be. Microbreaks have been known about for years. The FIE in it's INFINITE wisdom has not seen fit to address the problem. The changes to the timing exacerbated an existing problem.

james, brtech has it exactly right. Nothing is "broken" with the timings or the machines. It's the Rules that are broken and/or incomplete, leading to confusion and random results, as described in greater detail in the article.

[gladius]

The eternal question: Is foil fun to watch now?


On Schermaonline lucamagni posted this interesting comment:

http://www.schermaonline.com/scherma...rticle&sid=807


Why, seeing a team bout finish 14-12 after 27 minutes of actual fencing, is this fun? We can certainly agree that the athleticism had reached a level of extremism, but the current remedy has been worse than the disease.

Take saber. All it took was a proverbial egg of Columbus solution (= thou shall not cross your feet) to bring saber back to a stilistic beauty with no equal.

So maybe we should have looked at things in a simpler way instead of tinkering with chips and microchips.

Here is an idea.

Why not limit the valid target in foil to the chest and flanks excluding the back?

[mrbiggs]

Why not limit the valid target in foil to the chest and flanks excluding the back?

Because then it would be more difficult to hit people who fleched past, and turning the back would be even more advantageous than it is now. (After the touch, of course, so it isn't carded.)

[brtech]

Maestro Toran proposal is to ignore the "hole" in the signal, i.e., the micro interruption, if it is 6 ms or less. Therefore a signal composed of a rectangle of 8 ms, immediately followed by a "hole" of 5 ms, ad then by another rectangle of 8 ms would be like a continuous signal of 21 ms, indicating a valid touch.

I'm not sure I understand exactly your point. I suppose that by "integrate the signal for a while" you mean to calculate the area underneath the curve of the signal for a certain time interval. By "smoothing" you could possibly "straighten" the signal, i.e., eliminate the "hole" but with digital signals the reading is either 0 o 1. This is why the Maestro's proposal seems to be the most logical way to proceed.

Okay, suppose you had a sequence which was 1ms on, 5.9ms off, 3 times
Is that a good hit? I don't think so. That's more noise than switch contact. If it was the other way around, 5.9ms on, 1 ms off, then I think that would be a good hit after 4 cycles.

I think you want a more complex filter.

[gladius]

Okay, suppose you had a sequence which was 1ms on, 5.9ms off, 3 times
Is that a good hit? I don't think so. That's more noise than switch contact. If it was the other way around, 5.9ms on, 1 ms off, then I think that would be a good hit after 4 cycles.

I think you want a more complex filter.

brtech, both Maestro Toran and I disagree with your statement for the following reason.

In your example above, if you have a brief signal (a reading of "1" in digital lingo), followed by a micro interruption of 5.9 ms (a reading of "0"), followed by another brief signal (a reading of "1" again), and so on, this means that the tip was pressed on the target with the sufficient force --albeit briefly-- and then it bounced off or it did slide off (for one or more of the causes described in the article), and then the tip was pressed once more and so on.

In a duel situation with sharp tips, the point of the weapon would have penetrated the flesh as indicated by the brief "1" signal, i.e., the pressure on the tip, as shown by the signal, was enough to do serious harm. It is humanly impossible to discharge two consecutive hits separated by only 6 ms.

[brtech]

brtech, both Maestro Toran and I disagree with your statement for the following reason.

In your example above, if you have a brief signal (a reading of "1" in digital lingo), followed by a micro interruption of 5.9 ms (a reading of "0"), followed by another brief signal (a reading of "1" again), and so on, this means that the tip was pressed on the target with the sufficient force --albeit briefly-- and then it bounced off or it did slide off (for one or more of the causes described in the article), and then the tip was pressed once more and so on.

In a duel situation with sharp tips, the point of the weapon would have penetrated the flesh as indicated by the brief "1" signal, i.e., the pressure on the tip, as shown by the signal, was enough to do serious harm. It is humanly impossible to discharge two consecutive hits separated by only 6 ms.

I don't think that is correct. It's more lilkely the tip is vibrating due to shock.
I think you need a minimum continuous on time somewhere in the pattern that is several milliseconds long. You could then look at the signal before or after then to make a determination of when the tip was depressed, and when it was released. These switches are not "debounced". "Bounce" is a very normal thing for any switch. Put one on the end of a metal rod and wack it, and you'll get all sorts of noise. Any attempt to make a simple filter is bound to fail in the real world.

I further posit that if the tip was sharp, and you provided an impulse like I described, it would likely not penetrate. I would agree that a human can't actually discharge two hits 6 ms apart; the system is noisy, and the mechanical effects are causing the problem, not the action of the human.

Take the example to the extreme. Suppose the "on" pulses were a nanosecond wide. Is that a hit?

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

Maybe the answer (for foil) is to file our tips down to sharp points. Then they'll stick long enough to overcome those pesky interruptions and the new timings! (Thinks to himself: "hmmm...I think I'll buy a new file on my way home tonight...")

[jBirch]

Maybe the answer (for foil) is to file our tips down to sharp points. Then they'll stick long enough to overcome those pesky interruptions and the new timings! (Thinks to himself: "hmmm...I think I'll buy a new file on my way home tonight...")

Not to be a tit, but that may be a reasonably intelligent answer. Instead of trying to get the machine to deal with a bouncy tip, figure out a way to make the tip less bouncy.

Maybe have a longer traverse time with a sensor higher up? So the tip is depressed 1mm, registers a hit, but still has 5 mm of travel left that continues to register and will "soften" the signal a mite?

James.

[umbrella]

I hate to interfere with this thread, and this will be my only post to it: but it seems it boils down to the fact that the rules are based on the physical limitations of the human body, which can be seen from several viewpoints:

slow twitch - the bobbers - with lots of endurance - O2 storage in cells can fence a bit longer
fast twitch - tiny fibers - not much 02 storage; but the response is quicker

It looks like something for the Sports Nutrition experts to look at. What timing can be produced for a Medium Muscle Twitch - that would satisfy all the fencers.

The jester speaks the Truth to the king.....with almost immunity.