09-17-2007, 03:03 PM
|
#101 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: CA area
Posts: 6,130
| Quote:
Originally Posted by downunder  In slow motion, you can see that Vezzali's counter-action is made with a bent arm and is not correct. It is Lamanova's hit, as stated many a time. | It is not a counter-action. Lamanova made a search. It failed. Vezzali's arm happened to be bent at the time, but there's no reason it couldn't. Then, Vezzali started her attack while Lamanova followed through on her (failed) search with an attack. Both hit, touch should be for Vezzali.
__________________
=)=///
| 
|  | | And now for this message... |
| |
09-17-2007, 04:42 PM
|
#102 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Angel, London
Posts: 2,479
| Quote:
Originally Posted by edew Vezzali's arm happened to be bent at the time, but there's no reason it couldn't. | Sadly thats not my problem. Her arm is still bent when she is coming forward and Lamanova has started a new attack. | |
| | |
09-17-2007, 04:55 PM
|
#103 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: CA area
Posts: 6,130
| Did Vezzali finish with the arm bent, without it being extended even minutely? Did Lamanova hit before Vezzali START her miniscule extension?
__________________
=)=///
| |
| | |
09-17-2007, 06:52 PM
|
#104 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 188
| Just a question, how many people here were taught it's okay to fence by advancing, within lunging distance, AND THEN execute an attack preparation (which is what a beat to the blade is), at which time your opponent sees an opportunity and launches an attack into your preparation, and which time you try to extend your arm, only then realizing you're too close (by your own accord), having then to pull your arm back almost as far as it will go to finish your attack?
How many?
Seriously, I want to know. | |
| | |
09-17-2007, 07:08 PM
|
#105 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: CA area
Posts: 6,130
| I don't think anyone is taught to get too close. What happens in a real firefight, however, doesn't always corroborate with academic lectures on the art of war.
In order to make a beat, one certainly has to get close enough so that the beat is possible (tip-to-tip distance minus some inches). But both fencers are mobile and constantly jockeying for position. So that "proper" distance can greatly change at an instance and suddenly, the beat-attempter is now too close. It's not because the beat-attempter is inept, but perhaps the opponent did the right thing to massively close the distance, to hope for the beat to not be able to follow through with a successful attack. There's a risk to it, of course.
Note that your allegation is that Lamanova did the wrong thing. But one can also view it as Vezzali doing the right thing. In many cases, one person's wrong action is the other person's right action. It's only wrong if both do something stupidly wrong. But if Vezzali is baiting for a beat only to derobe from it, then neither are doing something absolutely wrong. If the bait worked, Vezzali gets the point. If the bait failed, Lamanova gets the point. That's how the game is played.
__________________
=)=///
| |
| | |
09-17-2007, 07:32 PM
|
#106 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MA
Posts: 7,459
| Quote:
Originally Posted by forethought Just a question, how many people here were taught it's okay to fence by advancing, within lunging distance, AND THEN execute an attack preparation (which is what a beat to the blade is), at which time your opponent sees an opportunity and launches an attack into your preparation, and which time you try to extend your arm, only then realizing you're too close (by your own accord), having then to pull your arm back almost as far as it will go to finish your attack?
How many?
Seriously, I want to know. | Well, I certainly didn't!
How many were taught that when their opponent beats their blade they should throw themselves at their opponent, hitting them as quickly as possible and hoping that the light doesn't register for any myriad of reasons all related to the new timing, so that foil, especially women's foil, seems to be a contest of who can make the other fencer attack more?
How many?
Seriously, I want to know.
I need the numbers.
I have a notebook that I put numbers in and I really want this one.
Please. | 
| | |
09-17-2007, 08:40 PM
|
#107 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,116
| Quote:
Originally Posted by forethought Just a question, how many people here were taught it's okay to fence by advancing, within lunging distance, AND THEN execute an attack preparation (which is what a beat to the blade is),
| Whoa....hold on. The beat in a beat attack is NOT a preparation.
A "Beat attack" is an attack. All of it. The beat is part of the whole attack.
When you begin moving your blade at your opponents blade to beat it the attack has begun. That is why you lose priority when you fail to make blade contact, the "beat" part of the attack has failed.
Preparation refers to actions that occur BEFORE the attack has begun. That is why you can attack into someones "preparation."
(geeze Eric, I can't believe you let that slip by you.) | |
| | |
09-17-2007, 08:48 PM
|
#108 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,116
| Quote:
Originally Posted by edew It is not a counter-action. Lamanova made a search. It failed. Vezzali's arm happened to be bent at the time, but there's no reason it couldn't. Then, Vezzali started her attack while Lamanova followed through on her (failed) search with an attack. Both hit, touch should be for Vezzali. | Absolutely. | |
| | |
09-17-2007, 09:14 PM
|
#109 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004 Location: la la land
Posts: 157
| Wow. Again????
Attack Lamanova.
If Valentina had begun her attack at the same moment as Lamanova, then, yes, it would have been attack into prep. But she didn't.
As a side note, why are people so convinced that bouts have to have blown calls? Why can't you watch the bout and think "An international ref made the call and another backed him up on it after watching the replay. What am I missing?" I'm not saying that mistakes aren't made, but these two actions aren't mistakes.
It was a solid call. It was a solidly reffed bout.
__________________
"That was so close to being good!"
"Name a shrub after me -- something prickly and hard to eradicate" | |
| | |
09-17-2007, 09:19 PM
|
#110 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: ??FC ~)---------- San Francisco, CA
Posts: 2,291
| Quote:
Originally Posted by formerfencer Wow. Again????
Attack Lamanova.
...
It was a solid call. It was a solidly reffed bout. | Agreed
.
__________________
.
"I don't mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." - Ozymandias
. | |
| | |
09-18-2007, 12:32 AM
|
#111 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 1,238
| Quote:
Originally Posted by DanInMI Whoa....hold on. The beat in a beat attack is NOT a preparation.
A "Beat attack" is an attack. All of it. The beat is part of the whole attack.
When you begin moving your blade at your opponents blade to beat it the attack has begun. That is why you lose priority when you fail to make blade contact, the "beat" part of the attack has failed.
Preparation refers to actions that occur BEFORE the attack has begun. That is why you can attack into someones "preparation."
(geeze Eric, I can't believe you let that slip by you.) |
The question of whether or not a beat attack is simple or not varies from school to school. However, most people agree that if you attempt a beat which fails because the opponent deceives the beat and (while you're still in mid beat) attacks you, they are indeed attacking into your preparation. Just like most people agree that if said beat actually makes contact and both of you extend, it's your attack.
But I've never heard anyone say that a beat attack doens't have right of way because 'the beat failed.' Ever. Well, until now, I guess.
__________________
^^
| |
| | |
09-18-2007, 01:02 AM
|
#112 | | Just Joined
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 27
| Quote:
Originally Posted by keropie The question of whether or not a beat attack is simple or not varies from school to school. However, most people agree that if you attempt a beat which fails because the opponent deceives the beat and (while you're still in mid beat) attacks you, they are indeed attacking into your preparation. Just like most people agree that if said beat actually makes contact and both of you extend, it's your attack.
But I've never heard anyone say that a beat attack doens't have right of way because 'the beat failed.' Ever. Well, until now, I guess. |
A beat, or an attempt to beat, is not an attack, because you are not threatening valid target.
*** | |
| | |
09-18-2007, 11:14 AM
|
#113 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,354
| Quote:
Originally Posted by DanInMI Whoa....hold on. The beat in a beat attack is NOT a preparation. | 
__________________
the will of all things is to continue to be as they are | |
| | |
09-18-2007, 11:24 AM
|
#114 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 188
| Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbiggs Well, I certainly didn't!
How many were taught that when their opponent beats their blade they should throw themselves at their opponent, hitting them as quickly as possible and hoping that the light doesn't register for any myriad of reasons all related to the new timing, so that foil, especially women's foil, seems to be a contest of who can make the other fencer attack more?
How many?
Seriously, I want to know.
I need the numbers.
I have a notebook that I put numbers in and I really want this one.
Please. | I was taught that if my opponent was within my lunging distance, and was preoccupied playing with my blade, or doing something other than extending their arm at my torso, then I should attack them. But that was just the way I was taught... | |
| | |
09-18-2007, 11:29 AM
|
#115 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 188
| Quote:
Originally Posted by DanInMI Whoa....hold on. The beat in a beat attack is NOT a preparation.
A "Beat attack" is an attack. All of it. The beat is part of the whole attack.
When you begin moving your blade at your opponents blade to beat it the attack has begun. That is why you lose priority when you fail to make blade contact, the "beat" part of the attack has failed.
Preparation refers to actions that occur BEFORE the attack has begun. That is why you can attack into someones "preparation."
(geeze Eric, I can't believe you let that slip by you.) | Do you get points for making clackity-clack with your opponents blade?
Why would you consider a motion that is not directed at your opponents target area an attack? | |
| | |
09-18-2007, 12:03 PM
|
#116 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,070
| Quote:
Originally Posted by forethought I was taught that if my opponent was within my lunging distance, and was preoccupied playing with my blade, or doing something other than extending their arm at my torso, then I should attack them. But that was just the way I was taught... | That's the obvious and typical thing to do, but sometimes obvious isn't best. Now we all know just what to do to draw an attack so we can make a second intention.
__________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
| |
| | |
09-18-2007, 01:27 PM
|
#117 | | gother than thou
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 854
| Quote:
Originally Posted by DanInMI Whoa....hold on. The beat in a beat attack is NOT a preparation.
A "Beat attack" is an attack. All of it. The beat is part of the whole attack.
When you begin moving your blade at your opponents blade to beat it the attack has begun. That is why you lose priority when you fail to make blade contact, the "beat" part of the attack has failed.
Preparation refers to actions that occur BEFORE the attack has begun. That is why you can attack into someones "preparation."
(geeze Eric, I can't believe you let that slip by you.) | This is truly frightening.
How many? Seriously, I want to know. <--- (Added to fit in) | |
| | |
09-18-2007, 03:36 PM
|
#118 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: ??FC ~)---------- San Francisco, CA
Posts: 2,291
| Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL This is truly frightening. | What, just that one post? This whole thread is starting to frighten me.
.
__________________
.
"I don't mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." - Ozymandias
. | |
| | |
09-18-2007, 03:50 PM
|
#119 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,070
| Me too. There are a bunch of things that are making my head spin, and I'm not caught up on other correspondence yet to even think about them
__________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
| |
| | |
09-18-2007, 05:11 PM
|
#120 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MA
Posts: 7,459
| Quote:
Originally Posted by forethought I was taught that if my opponent was within my lunging distance, and was preoccupied playing with my blade, or doing something other than extending their arm at my torso, then I should attack them. But that was just the way I was taught... | What if they're actually taking your blade?
It's much more complicated than what you're describing.
The first touch discussed, which I have to assume is what you're talking about, was clearly a beat attack for Lamanova. If what you were taught disagrees with that, then you were taught wrong. | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | |
