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

[gladius]

Maestro Toran on the consequences of the new rules in foil and saber


Schermaonline presents a thorough analysis on the second anniversary of the "new" FIE rules for foil and saber by Maestro Giancarlo Toran, President of AIMS (Italian Association of Fencing Maestri).

I collaborated with Maestro Toran on this presentation asking a thousand questions trying to understand --as a non fencing expert-- the technical and political issues of these decisions. The conclusions reached by the Italian SEMI commission and Favero are very interesting and I am surprised that it has taken so long to have these facts and analyses published. But as the saying goes, better late than never.

I am now curious about the next move...

This is the direct link to the original article in English:

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

Maestro Toran gave me also a short film of the example quoted in the article of the point which decided the 2005 Women's Foil Team competition between Korea and Romania. If anyone can explain how to link it to the article or post it, I'll be glad to do it.

Enjoy the reading... The floor is open.

[edew]

I, for one, would welcome the return of the old timings. I'd rather be hit with flicks to the back than to stand around bobbing back and forth for a viable counterattack opportunity.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by gladius

Maestro Toran gave me also a short film of the example quoted in the article of the point which decided the 2005 Women's Foil Team competition between Korea and Romania. If anyone can explain how to link it to the article or post it, I'll be glad to do it.

Email me - if you can get the video to me I can upload it and host on my server.

Craig

[chefencer]

Thank you, Gladius! Most informative!
*remembering the days when it was hard to know what was going on in the division, much less Europe, thinks to himself: "this internet thing is so cool..."*

[keropie]

The only problem with this article is that the FIE won't take it seriously. Anything short of a club to the head of (serveral) members seems to be insufficient for them to notice.

But I applaud the article. I'd so much rather the old timing in both foil and saber (and I don't even fence saber) that it's not even funny.

[oso97]

As many of the good Meistro's comments concern themselves with the discipline of foil, I will refrain from commenting. He presents a decent argument, particularly for the use of micro-interruption-tolerance software.

However, I do wish to take great exception to his comments (sparse and few that they are) regarding sabre.

Originally Posted by Maestro Giancarlo Torán

Many have realized that thenew timings— longer impact time (foil) and shorter double touch time (foil and saber)--have brought a substantial slowing in the rhythm as is always the case when one tilts the scale on the side of counter-offence and defense, penalizing the attack. Bouts have become slower, like and even more than épée because touches that “work” best are counter-offense touches when advancing.

Again, at SABRE, this simply is not true. Sabre is, if anything, more dynamic, possessing of faster tempos, and with greater degrees of tactical innovation, that it was before the introduction of the new timings.

EDIT: typographical error - changed foil to sabre in last paragraph

[keropie]

Originally Posted by oso97

Again, at foil, this simply is not true. Sabre is, if anything, more dynamic, possessing of faster tempos, and with greater degrees of tactical innovation, that it was before the introduction of the new timings.

I assume you meant saber here? And while I half agree with you (saber hasn't particularly slowed down that I can tell), I don't think the changes have actually benefitted saber, either. I see refs awards an action as 'AoP' simply because it arrives first, which is wrong, and fencers who attack only so that they can remise (which is wrong). I don't think that saber has suffered nearly as much as foil, but I think there are significant flaws in the new timing that were not present in the old timing.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by oso97

As many of the good Meistro's comments concern themselves with the discipline of foil, I will refrain from commenting. He presents a decent argument, particularly for the use of micro-interruption-tolerance software.

However, I do wish to take great exception to his comments (sparse and few that they are) regarding sabre.



Again, at foil, this simply is not true. Sabre is, if anything, more dynamic, possessing of faster tempos, and with greater degrees of tactical innovation, that it was before the introduction of the new timings.

I believe the Maestro's primary objection to the new sabre lockout time was that parrying and riposting are far far less successful than under the old lockout timing. This agrees with with all the comments I have heard from higher level sabre fencers, sabre coaches and sabre referees in U.S.

gary hayenga

[edew]

I completely agree with all concerning the lowered success rate of parry-riposte in saber. A good solid parry with even a quick riposte might still get locked out by an inadvertent remise caused by a slipped blade hitting the wrist.

One solution might be to go with a larger guard, as I have advocated a while back.

[sabreur]

I think the answer in sabre is not to dick with it further, but go back to the old timings and insist that referees call actions correctly.

With the old timings, the problem was that you would often have a whip-over called as a mal-parre. With the new timings, if you execute a parry-riposte, and both lghts go on, nine times out of ten, you'll be given credit for the parry.

With the new timings, you have the problem of people trying for cheap counter-attacks, but for the most part, you solve that problem by fencing very acutely. People have posted on the board about folks trying for epee-like wrist shots (particularly with the point) and remises, but I haven't seen it in the tournaments I've been to. The larger problem, IMNSHO, is with inadvertant remises that block out a correct riposte, as EDEW mentioned.

But I don't think increasing the size of the guard is a good answer. If they made the lock-out time about twice as long as it is now, and continued to discount whipovers, it would be fine.

Actually, I don't think it is all that bad now, although I still prefer the old timings.

MR

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I think people need to accept that the "new" timings are the current timings, and just forget about the old ones, cause they're gone forever.

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

I think people need to accept that the "new" timings are the current timings, and just forget about the old ones, cause they're gone forever.

So spake the epeeist.

Just wait until the FIE implements full-body lames for epee.

[contre-Sixte]

Everyone seems to believe that the underlying reason for changing the timings was to reduce flicking and to return fencing to "the good old days". Well, taken in isolation that may be true. But if one views the changes in the context of previous changes in rules as well as proposed changes, the conclusion changes. Reducing bouts from 5 minutes to 3 minutes, changing the scoring from points against to points for, changing the machine timings, proposals to eliminate the off target lights, proposals to extend the on target area in foil to the weapon arm, lexan masks -- all of these changes ,adopted and proposed, were designed to make the sport more watchable and more professional. Roche et. al. dream of the day that the F.I.E. is something akin to FIFA or the NFL with highly paid athletes, lucurative sponsorships, lots of TV exposure, etc.

Well, how has it worked out?! Have any of these changes brought the sport closer to professional athletic status? Is that want the membership wants? I, for one, am ecstatic to be in a sport that caters to active participants. I'm not interested in watching fencing, I'm interested in doing fencing. Until the leadership aligns its goals with the goals of the fencers, I think we will have to endure many more pointless rule changes.

[zéphirin]

Originally Posted by oso97

As many of the good Meistro's comments concern themselves with the discipline of foil, I will refrain from commenting. He presents a decent argument, particularly for the use of micro-interruption-tolerance software.

However, I do wish to take great exception to his comments (sparse and few that they are) regarding sabre.



Again, at SABRE, this simply is not true. Sabre is, if anything, more dynamic, possessing of faster tempos, and with greater degrees of tactical innovation, that it was before the introduction of the new timings.

EDIT: typographical error - changed foil to sabre in last paragraph

...
B. The reduction in the timing of the double-touch from 700-800 ms down to 275-325 ms in foil, and from 300-400 ms down to 110-130 ms in saber.


These changes have caused less damage, but we should not underestimate the consequences on how to fence and how to learn how to fence.

... the fencer who parries is at a handicap. If you search for a favorable angle in order to touch after having parried, you need more time for your riposte and you are at risk to be anticipated by the remise of your adversary who was subject to your parry. With the shortened double time the remise can now void the signal of the riposte which may land a bit later. This is a problem in foil, but a serious one in saber, in particular for anyone who is still learning the weapon. The younger fencers learn quickly that is not convenient to parry and they limit their actions to attacks and counter attacks.
....

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 SABER 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 find this article extremely interesting both from the technical point of view and for the political implications. It should give food for good thought to everyone...

[keropie]

Originally Posted by sabreur

I think the answer in sabre is not to dick with it further, but go back to the old timings and insist that referees call actions correctly.

I agree entirely. Though I would add foil, too. As for the random smelly epeeist who commented, I'm just waiting until RR decides that toe shots are too hard to see, so the legs will no longer count for epee, and epeeists will have to wear some sort of saber lame and mask with crazy gloves to cover both hands and fence like that. Which, of course, will be a huge monetary savings for someone in that they won't need grounded strips for epee anymore

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

I think people need to accept that the "new" timings are the current timings, and just forget about the old ones, cause they're gone forever.

I don't think anyone actually cares about "bringing back the old timings".

The problem is that the "current" timings do *not* work. Precisely as explained in the Maestro's article.

If you had ever been fencing epee and you and your opponent both lunged to the body simultaneously both landing solidly enough to leaving little round welts in each others chests and had *nothing* go off you would be quite upset.

I predict you would be even more upset if you buried your point in his chest after faking him out of his socks and got no light at all and then 3 seconds later he hit you getting one light against you.

You would think your equipment was broken. But it wouldn't be, it's the scoring machine, and they're all like that.

Now picture this happening (on average) in every D.E. bout you fence, sometimes multiple times.

It's broken and it needs to be fixed.

gary hayenga

[KD5MDK]

I believe I'm on relatively safe ground when I say I believe oso97 is more concerned with the success of his students than he is with his personal results in fencing sabre.

[jBirch]

It would seem to me that the problems are primarily in the technical implementation of the new rules, and nothing specifically with the timings per se. Therefor, I'm still of the opinion that the new timings are better then the mid-term old ones (!) and that the real issues with foil are with the directing and not with the score box. Good fencing still wins and bad fencing still loses and the basics of distance and timing never change.

The example of Korea and Romania is a classic example of "DON'T LOOK AT THE BOX!" and "HALT! WHEN THE DIRECTOR SAYS HALT!!!!!!". I've got rank beginners that make this mistake, regardless of the timing, and I've been guilty of it myself a few times. I have no pity for that loss and while I would like to see the box fixed, I'm not outraged by the results. I heard no issue with the previous 37 points, so obviously, something's working.

As to the parry, I've always believed that a parry needs to be sufficient and controlling of the attack. In mid-term timing foil/sabre (!) the parry was considered any sort of contact with the blade and did not actually control the attack. So we saw all sorts of incindental blade contact considered a parry and gaining the point. I'm not a fan of "Sheltering in ROW" and always thought it silly.

I'm also not of the opinion that a counter-attack is bad BY DEFINITION. It has its place and its inclusion as a viable action in foil allows for greater tactical diversity. I'm yet to be convinced that the mid-term old style was any better.

Lamenting the "not so old, but older then now" way is misplaced, I think. The rules are the rules. Deal with them.

On one positive note, I do agree strongly with the recomendation that the FIE acknowledge the micro-interuption issue and standardise its implementation. That the technical problem has continued for so long is inexcusable.

- James.

[Phaeton]

I for one actually really like the new sabre timings.

In lower level sabre parrying is a vital skill to learn and begginer fencers are going to learn to parry regardless. Not everyone can perform an Ivan Lee flunge and remise 37 times in the space of two seconds so it ends up being one light.