Some Interesting Ethics Questions

[rcmatthews]

1) If you were aware that your opponent's wrist was injured, would you purposely use binds, to attack their weak spot?

2) If your opponent's leg was injured, would you prolong the active movement in each touch?

The questions are hypothetical, please answer them ithout regard to whether a given tactic would help you in a bout or not, eg Are you morally comfortable performing these actions?


I would say yes to the 2nd for sure, but about the first I am on the fence. It seems a little vindictive.

[erooMynohtnA]

1. If you're asking, would I do binds to aggravate the injury, no. If you're asking would I do binds if it resulted directly in touches, yes.

2. Yes. And I'd try to make distance a big part of the game.

[mrbiggs]

It depends.

If this is just a for fun tournament, or an easily won bout, then no.

If this is a serious tournament where the results actually make some sort of difference, or a close bout, then you came to the strip with what you have, and I'm going to make full use of it.

I'm more likely to do #2 than #1.

[fatfencer]

My own personal credo, which is incorrect, btw, would be to beat him but not take advantage. Panache... c'est mon vice.

If you take the question to the extreme it would read more or less: " would you fence a wheelchair fencer while being able to move freely on your own legs?"

Mike Marx told me at camp that if you can't beat a person at least 5 different ways consistently you can learn something by fencing him or her. This is VERY true.

So in a bout one could or should be able to use a variety of tactics to reasonably avoid the opponents physical issues. If one cannot adapt to the situation your opponent creates thru his disability, then it is the fault of the more able fencer, IMHO.

There is a big HOWEVER coming though...


Nadi once said "Sword is NOT the man, rather the man is how he behaves sword in hand."

If one steps on the strip with me and one does so knowing that they have some injury, they have accepted responsibility for it and the fact that it may hinder them. This is what makes a fencer. Fencers make choices. Furthermore since they accept it and they would gain credit i.e.: "I fenced this guy once with a broken hand and still beat him 15-9"
it seems only fair that they accept responsibility for the fact that they wield a weapon in their hand and CHOSE so willingly.

In short, no one forced them on the strip. The more able opponent should not feel put upon to fence any differently than the MOST expedient way to win.

I'd have to say that it would be no shame whatsoever to beat someone if they chose to fence despite any injury. Yet, to get to the NEXT level.. to establish a class of superiority over that person(within fencing), one must beat the injured without the opponent feeling disadvantaged. One must change his or her tactics to avoid involving the injury.

Anyone can win, champions win well and consistently.

FF

[sabreur]

If someone is injured and choses to show up on the strip, then they are there to fence. They aren't going to cut YOU any slack because they are hurt.

I don't think I would intentionally exploit an opponent's injury, but I don't think I'd change my game to spare their injury either.

[Pauli]

If someone is injured and choses to show up on the strip, then they are there to fence. They aren't going to cut YOU any slack because they are hurt.

I don't think I would intentionally exploit an opponent's injury, but I don't think I'd change my game to spare their injury either.

I totally agree.
The injured person himself should know best about his / her abilities to fence properly with the injury. If they consider being fit for the strip, they should not expect the opponent to fence any differently.

Whereas, should we talk about training in the club, I would sure take the injury into account.

[brutus]

Yes to #1 and #2, I you come on the piste against me with and injury thats your fault, if it's a serious bout I'm gonna use it to beat you, it's just how sports go!

[Peach]

I read the poll as asking if I would deliberately inflict pain or aggravate an injury in order to win. I'm with sabreur, though--I wouldn't change my game because it might cause pain.

For me, also, I wouldn't hesitate to do other things to exploit an opponent's weaknesses. As erooMynohtnA said, I'd make her move--I lost a bout to a woman who was wearing a leg brace early in my fencing career, and my coach was disgusted that I kept gonig into her distance instead of letting her come to me.

[dilznik]

Depends on if I like the person or not. If I like them, then no to everything, unless there was money involved.
If I don't like the person I'd do all of the above and follow it up with a fleche to the nads.

[Zilverzmurfen]

If someone is injured and choses to show up on the strip, then they are there to fence. They aren't going to cut YOU any slack because they are hurt.

I don't think I would intentionally exploit an opponent's injury, but I don't think I'd change my game to spare their injury either.

I totally agree.

[rcmatthews]

Yeah, I of course wouldn't cut anyone any slack either. I meant the question more to find out if you all would actively shift your tactics to exploit the injury, ie, do a much greater quantity of binds in a bout than you normally would because you knew their wrist was sore.

[Phrogger]

I read the poll as asking if I would deliberately inflict pain or aggravate an injury in order to win. I'm with sabreur, though--I wouldn't change my game because it might cause pain.

I read the poll as asking would I deliberately exploit a person's weakness to win. Well, since that's the whole point of fencing, yes. I would not attempt to target their injury for a hit in order to inflict pain, though.

I have recently been reading Richard Cohen's "By the Sword," an excellent history of fencing by the way. It has a whole chapter on cheating in the sport as well as some ethics discussions scattered throughout. One question he tackles and I have struggled with is, should you acknowledge a touch against you if the director doesn't call it? My long-time opinion had been "no, that's part of the game." I am starting to have a change of heart as I consider it more carefully though. The bottom line is, is that *honest?*

[brutus]

I read the poll as asking would I deliberately exploit a person's weakness to win. Well, since that's the whole point of fencing, yes. I would not attempt to target their injury for a hit in order to inflict pain, though.

I have recently been reading Richard Cohen's "By the Sword," an excellent history of fencing by the way. It has a whole chapter on cheating in the sport as well as some ethics discussions scattered throughout. One question he tackles and I have struggled with is, should you acknowledge a touch against you if the director doesn't call it? My long-time opinion had been "no, that's part of the game." I am starting to have a change of heart as I consider it more carefully though. The bottom line is, is that *honest?*

I always acknowlege (sp?) a hit against me if I felt it, even in the ref didn't see it, Otherwise it aint just playing the game it's outright cheating.

[noodle]

i wouldn't actively seek out trying to re-injure them, by hitting their injured spot or something.

but if they're not too injured to withdraw, i'm not cutting them any slack. i'll fence them just like i would've previously, if they weren't injured. which would include exploiting any weak areas, including distance or succeptibility to binds.

[Phrogger]

I always acknowlege (sp?) a hit against me if I felt it, even in the ref didn't see it, Otherwise it aint just playing the game it's outright cheating.

Yes, but there is always the possibility that you could be wrong. Many tournaments around here don't use metal strips, and it's very tough to tell sometimes whether someone hit your foot or the floor. The point could be right against your shoe but still hit the floor. I wouldn't be too eager to acknowledge unless it was obvious. Just like you should never admit fault at the scene of an accident, sometimes in the heat of the moment your objectivity is clouded. Wouldn't that make it better to leave it up to someone objective? Like the director?

[brutus]

yeah, thats a fair point.

[RITFencing]

i wouldn't actively seek out trying to re-injure them, by hitting their injured spot or something.

but if they're not too injured to withdraw, i'm not cutting them any slack. i'll fence them just like i would've previously, if they weren't injured. which would include exploiting any weak areas, including distance or succeptibility to binds.

I agree with noodle, and I'll say why: If the situations were revesed, it's what I would expect of my opponent. I don't want anyone taking pity on me when I'm on the strip. It's insulting and demeaning.

[oiuyt]

If someone had a weak grip because they hadn't done enough to develop wrist strength, would you be willing to do actions on the blade?

If someone has poor conditioning and tires easily, would you create an active bout with lots of movement?

Absent intent to create (further) injury, these are the same questions as those posed in the poll. And I know what my answers are.

-B

[RebelFencer]

I would do what it takes to beat them (short of trying to hurt them and cheating). If I don't, someone else will. Much respect for competing injured, and I'm not going to short-change them by easing up.

[Asprin]

I would fence normally.