FIE Arbitrage Sabre DVD - a must see for ALL fencers and referees

[pkt]

Just because people are ignorant of the terms doesn't mean they don't understand the phrase. As far as telling people to "study the video," it's not very good advice.

1. It'd be helpful if people sing from the same hymn book. It'd avoid a lot of the misunderstandings and misconceptions. British "boot" vs N. American "trunk". If you're a sailor, or pilot, not knowing "port" from "starboard" can cause collisions and death.

2. It's good advice, perhaps not very well said given the lack of time between a call during a bout. It was further said between club mates, so we dispense with the niceties. We may argue over calls, but afterwards, on Fridays nights, we still go for "all-you-can-eat sushi". [ Eat your heart out: $15 or $26 per person, generous tips and taxes included. Farmed salmons, not wild, of course. ]

The "masters" kept repeating that opening the distance doesn't give you the right to "riposte." Seriously? Who are they arguing this against? I don't know anyone of influence stating that making the distance bigger gives you right of way. This is some kind of straw man to get people to fight amongst themselves.

So, did you watch the beginning of the video where the maitres list their experience and credentials. Like a court case, the maitres established their credentials fist and foremost.

... and did you listen to the audio interview that Serge Timacheff did with Christian Bauer
http://www.fencing.net/content/view/571/2/
from the Homepage of
fencing.net
"With an eye on winning gold medals in fencing at the 2008 Olympics, China did what it has done in a number of sports: hired a top foreign coach. In this case they looked Christian Bauer as head coach. The Frenchman has previously coached the Olympic teams of both France and Italy."

...and praytell, - ;-) - did you coach any national teams lately? I certainly didn't. That's why I pay heed to the maitres and the FIE.

However, if a fencer's attack fails, the opponent's counter-attack has right of way. They never once addressed this issue in the video.

Are we suffering from selective reading/listening?

Start the video at 22:17 ( it feels like I'm quoting the Bible...John...) in "Parade et Riposte - Remise - Redoublement - Reprise" section

They basically said that if the initial attack fails, whoever attacks first has the right of way. It'd help for the fencer under attack if s/he [ oldguy31, you happy now? ] had parried the attack to help the poor ref out.

This was repeated by Bauer a couple of times verbally and physically. Then followed by Scarzo (23:43) more emphatically in his piece in this section. Then Scarzo got out from his chair and demonstrates what he means.

I hope this helps.

PK
Making up for time away
www.FlungingPictures.com

[jeff]

Thanks for noticing.

The discussion was getting repetitive. In other words, i got bored

My pleasure, and welcome back (for however long that will be). You were always very sound (IMO) on fencing topics (The repetitiveness is why I spend more time in Water Cooler, I suppose, though that's repetitive too).

In this instance, I'm with you on the importance of knowing the difference between remise, redoublement and reprise, and that a parry requires blade contact, not distance alone without blade attack (and that the so-called "distance parry" doesn't give right to a riposte or "it's your turn now" like an actual parry)

[pkt]

My pleasure, and welcome back (for however long that will be). You were always very sound (IMO) on fencing topics (The repetitiveness is why I spend more time in Water Cooler, I suppose, though that's repetitive too).

Thank you, [...as he blushingly wrote.]

In this instance, I'm with you on the importance of knowing the difference between remise, redoublement and reprise, and that a parry requires blade contact, not distance alone without blade attack (and that the so-called "distance parry" doesn't give right to a riposte or "it's your turn now" like an actual parry)

That's the point that Bauer & Scazo were making in the "Parade - Riposte / Remise..." section:
Distance parry is NOT a parry BY DEFINITION. And since it is NOT a parry the RoW still stays with the attacker.

[Boy, I wish I have the time to do a verbatim transcript with another column showing the actions shown, since Scarzo didn't say exactly what he was demonstrating. Any volunteers? Tomorrow's Remembrance Day and I have 2 services and a concert to go to... Yes, I do have a life outside of fencing. ]

Since I've started reffing and learned a tiny bit from Christian Vidosa [ May he Rest In Fencing Heaven where calls are not contested and are always correct. ] I've always applied the simple concept that if an attack is not parried, the counter action by the other fencer is a counter-attack. A riposte can only exist after a parry took place. Simple.

Now, what happens after has always been contentious between me and my non-qualified-ref sabreur clubmates. They tend to give the RoW to the defending sabreur even if he delayed on the riposte.... argh!!!

Any way, I have to go to a political event...

Talk to you tomorrow late.

I've been away so long that I forgot how to change my signature...

hey were are you? Send me a "Private msg" if you want to or through my website.

Thanks,

PK
www.'FlungingPictures.com

[Platonist]

pkt-

Ok, so if an opponent is chasing you down the strip and launches his final action, what do you do? Clearly making a large jump backwards isn't going to be optimal, since he can easily make a new attack before you've stopped your backwards momentum.

Is your answer here that making a blade parry is the only way to win this touch with any degree of consistency?

I would encourage you to take this as a nonhostile question, since I only want to ensure that I understand your position correctly.

[pkt]

pkt-

Ok, so if an opponent is chasing you down the strip and launches his final action, what do you do? Clearly making a large jump backwards isn't going to be optimal, since he can easily make a new attack before you've stopped your backwards momentum.

Is your answer here that making a blade parry is the only way to win this touch with any degree of consistency?

I won't allow him to get to his FINAL attack. I'd have tried to stop hit him FIRST AND FOREMOST to get out of that situation.

But that's not the question at hand, is it?

If the attack - final or not - misses, I'm going to touch him before his remise or redoublement. This is especially true if his attack is NOT a point attack that ends up as a PiL.

In the last instance, I'll have to take his blade in any one of the 3 prescribed methods of a blade action, and you do know what those are right? [ t's most satisfying to do anything other than a beat in sabre. ]

I would encourage you to take this as a nonhostile question, since I only want to ensure that I understand your position correctly.

No worries.

I've never taken any question in any forum as hostile. Like I don't take any "debate" re a call as hostile.

Thanks for asking. Makes me play the scenario to answer the question correctly for future reference when I'm on the piste.

Thanks.

[bigdawg2121]

Since I've started reffing and learned a tiny bit from Christian Vidosa [ May he Rest In Fencing Heaven where calls are not contested and are always correct. ] I've always applied the simple concept that if an attack is not parried, the counter action by the other fencer is a counter-attack. A riposte can only exist after a parry took place. Simple.

If the attack - final or not - misses, I'm going to touch him before his remise or redoublement.

Thanks.

Pause...if you're saying what I think you're saying it's at least as backwards as you seem to think a lot of inexperienced referees are calling. Taken together it would seem to me that you believe that if Fencer A attacks and misses that the subsequent action by Fencer B must arrive before any continuation by Fencer A.

The point is that if A misses their attack B may start their own attack (which is not a counterattack whether they made a parry or not). B may make some error at which point the continuation by A becomes either a remise or reprise which is correct OR both may actually resume attacking simultaneously and no touch should be awarded (although the last option isn't practically likely to find favor anytime soon).

As long as the fencer that opened the distance retakes the attack immediately after the distance is open they are still correct as they have started the new attack. It doesn't matter when the continuation from the fencer that missed arrives at that point as that continuation is a counterattack.

The last thing, which I think is of note, is that in the video Bauer is really the only maitre that takes the time to demonstrate how he thinks the calls should be made in the situation of someone opening distance to cause the attack to fail. Sadly his demonstration is done at slow, coaching speed but despite that it would seem to indicate that as long as the fencer opening distance begins immediately they are correct (likely even giving some room for changing momentum although this is where the slow speed makes it hard to tell). The mistake is when the fencer opening distance waits, pauses or in any way doesn't immediately begin to attack.

[Mihail]

Are we suffering from selective reading/listening?

Start the video at 22:17 ( it feels like I'm quoting the Bible...John...) in "Parade et Riposte - Remise - Redoublement - Reprise" section

They basically said that if the initial attack fails, whoever attacks first has the right of way. It'd help for the fencer under attack if s/he [ oldguy31, you happy now? ] had parried the attack to help the poor ref out.

This was repeated by Bauer a couple of times verbally and physically. Then followed by Scarzo (23:43) more emphatically in his piece in this section. Then Scarzo got out from his chair and demonstrates what he means.

I hope this helps.

PK
Making up for time away
www.FlungingPictures.com

Selective reading? I think you might've accidentally done that. I said if a fencer's attack fails, and the opponent's counter-attack hits, the opponent gets the touch. You say whoever started the next attack first hits. You, and Christian Bauer, are correct. But since one of the fencers was counter-attacking, he had already started first.

That call is made by referees today. Maybe there are some local referees (local to countries outside of the big fencing powers as well) who say "Attack is short, riposte is good," but I don't think you can link me to a video of a Grand Prix tournament where the referee says anything of the kind. The call is always (translated) "Attack: No, Counter-attack: Touch."

Again, I haven't run into a reputable referee who calls this touch "Parry/Riposte." And again, it seems that they are arguing against a straw man.

No reputable referee says that simply increasing distance gives a fencer the right of way, yet at 24:50 Scarzo is implying that referees do that! That's despicable.

[pkt]

Selective reading? I think you might've accidentally done that. I said if a fencer's attack fails, and the opponent's counter-attack hits, the opponent gets the touch. You say whoever started the next attack first hits. You, and Christian Bauer, are correct. But since one of the fencers was counter-attacking, he had already started first.

Good point. Alas, it only proves that I'm only human.

But an attack is not a counter-attack.
The difference in the timing of the action by fencer B after the initial attack ended determines the name of the counter action.

That call is made by referees today. Maybe there are some local referees (local to countries outside of the big fencing powers as well) who say "Attack is short, riposte is good," but I don't think you can link me to a video of a Grand Prix tournament where the referee says anything of the kind. The call is always (translated) "Attack: No, Counter-attack: Touch."

I can't agree with you more.

Again, I haven't run into a reputable referee who calls this touch "Parry/Riposte." And again, it seems that they are arguing against a straw man.

Again, I can't agree with you more.

No reputable referee says that simply increasing distance gives a fencer the right of way, yet at 24:50 Scarzo is implying that referees do that! That's despicable.

Scarzo wasn't implying that, he's saying that.
At 23:47: "the "ARBITRE" says: "PARADE DI MESURE" and "RIPOSTE"
I assume you know what "ARBITRE" is.

Again, I agree, no rated referees would say that.

But we have to then ask the inevitable question: Is the FIE releasing this for the rated, experienced, the 1,002 FIE-rated referees, or for educating the masses?

I'd guess the latter.

PK
www.FlungingPictures.com

[Inquartata]

I'm surprised that you too appear to confuse the basic principle of fencing as described by the Maestri. It may be just matter of semantics but as you are well aware using the wrong words creates confusion.

Not really. Because as you note few people are using the "correct" terminology any more; almost no one makes the fine distinctions between remise, reprise and redoublement these days, and I suspect that a lot of fencers don't know the difference and don't care. At some point, one has to speak the language one's audience understands...and this is coming from a guy who insist on salting his arguments with phrases in Latin.

Even my coach says "Attack short, riposte", and the colloquial "distance parry" is more widespread than the correct call, largely because it sounds less awkward, I suppose. I don't know. But tsk-tsking about hearing "short riposte" or "continuation" ( another term in widespread use ) is much like trying to eradicate the use of "ain't" in common usage. Admirable perhaps, but it ain't going to succeed...

Just going forward does not mean you are continuing your attack failed or otherwise.

Then I look forward to all of the points I am going to be awarded for starting attacks against opponents who are advancing but not extending, yet who currently are universally given priority so long as they begin to do so before my cut arrives. I won't hold my breath waiting, though.

Currently, going forward seems precisely to signify an attack, despite the rule-book definition of what is required. And in fact I have had referees who awarded the attack to the fencer who was going forward making repeated extensions and withdrawals of the arm, or repeated failed cuts and withdrawals. It seems to be a view which is growing, not diminishing, in acceptance. It's fine to inveigh against it---I often do myself---but as long as this is happening to fence otherwise than in accordance is stubborn folly...

Except for the "coming from underneath is a preparation" part, almost everything else is a resumption of standards as used several decades ago. The formation of the line, the notion that a parry requires a blade taking, etc, are all prior practice

This is not surprising to me, inasmuch as the rule changes all seems to be originating with a handful of men whose own fencing glory days are decades in the past. No doubt they yearn for the good old ways of yore, when fencing was "correct", eg the way they did it. This is not a new phenomenon or one unique to fencing.

But things change, and I wonder that these old fellows can't realize that the more they alter the rules in their attempts to make things more like they used to be, the more changes they will actually cause in fencing practice, and the more unintended consequences they will see. If anything they should look at what the new timing has wrought. Did it take us back to some Golden Age of sabre, or rather cause things to go even further afield? Why can they not see this? Why can they not just leave well enough alone at some point, and quit tinkering? Are they like Congressman? Do they think that their productivity is measured by the number of changes they introduce, regardless of the effects of those changes? Do they believe that they are failures unless they are constantly doing something?

As to "prior practice"---that's the argument we hear ad nauseam from the "classical fencing" people, too. Which "prior practice" are we to choose to reinstitute? Maybe we should go back to Radaelli sabres and moulinets from the elbow, and dispense with electrical scoring while we're at it? How far back is far enough back?

You have to be more specific about what you mean by "officials".

Those who make the decisions about the governance of fencing and who have the power to reshape the rules. Officers and committee members, IOW.

I scrolled through the magazine via the link you provided, and saw nothing resembling profiles of FIE officials, of either variety.

And by "profile", I mean something to give one an idea of their fencing background and credentials, as opposed to name, nationality and office(s) currently held. What weapons did they or do they fence? Who were their teachers? What were their results? What other offices have they held, nationally or internationally? Like that.

It would be nice to be able to check for patterns in, for instance, the recent "epeefication" of foil and sabre. It would be revelatory if all of the people involved in the sabre and foil timing and rules changes were former epeeists, wouldn't it?

[jeff]

That's a really weird post, Inq. One the one hand, you frequently complain of imprecise language, yet here complain when someone does exactly the same thing. It's appropriate for gladius to use the correct terms on a fencing board when discussing these concepts with experienced fencers, and point out when you use the wrong ones. Presumably your coach knows he's being casual in his speech when he says "Attack short, riposte", but he's really wrong, and you well know it. When someone says "mal parry" we know what it means too, and that it's not correct usage. Maybe that's a good way to start towards getting the correct calls, instead of the wrong ones you complain about. Complacency and simply giving up certainly isn't going to change the result you complain of.

That applies to the part where you responded to me. Yes, it certainly looks like they are thinking of fencing as it was in their competitive days - but considering that they include current and recent coaches of strong international teams (Italy, France, China) you can't accurately describe them as fusty ancients looking for 19th century sabre. They say what's wrong and why, and how far back to go - it's not the mindless change for change sake you disparage them as having. It's odd that you make a pitch for engraving the status quo, immediately after complaining of calls you know are contrary to rules.

I'll take that "but things change" back to the Politics folder where you need to be reminded of it... thanks!

[Inquartata]

That's a really weird post, Inq. One the one hand, you frequently complain of imprecise language, yet here complain when someone does exactly the same thing.

Context is all. Or much, at least.

Oh, very well: You are right. One does get sucked in occasionally, though. Particularly when one writes in haste.

Presumably your coach knows he's being casual in his speech when he says "Attack short, riposte", but he's really wrong, and you well know it.

And so does he, as I've told him so often enough. In fact, I tell all of the fencers in my club that every so often, yet I am still the only one who says "Attack, no; attack, yes" instead of "Attack, no; riposte, yes". ( For that matter I am the only one who uses all of the hand signals consistently, calls attacks over according to what the lunging front foot does and cards for crossovers, but what can one do? )

considering that they include current and recent coaches of strong international teams (Italy, France, China) you can't accurately describe them as fusty ancients looking for 19th century sabre.

I will reiterate that according to a referee highly rated both nationally and internationally these new interpretations are coming from one man, not a group...and the one man is NOT a "current coach of a strong international team".

They say what's wrong and why, and how far back to go - it's not the mindless change for change sake you disparage them as having.

And I'm guessing that their "why" has to do with how things were done in their salad days, rather than with strictly objective criteria. Because I can see no objective reason for choosing the status quo of 1975 rather than that of 1945 0r that of 1905 as "best". Can you?

[jeff]

Context is all. Or much, at least.

Oh, very well: You are right. One does get sucked in occasionally, though. Particularly when one writes in haste.

No harm done. We all use short hand or speak imprecisely at times...

And so does he, as I've told him so often enough. In fact, I tell all of the fencers in my club that every so often, yet I am still the only one who says "Attack, no; attack, yes" instead of "Attack, no; riposte, yes". ( For that matter I am the only one who uses all of the hand signals consistently, calls attacks over according to what the lunging front foot does and cards for crossovers, but what can one do? )

My dear Inq, you're well known for saying how the majority opinion doesn't make an incorrect opinion right. Why go soft now?

FWIW, in this neck of the woods, one will occasionally hear "Attack no, riposte yes", but the correct formula is more common. I also see quite a few refs use the hand signals correctly (I try to; I won't say I'm quite correct). For the front foot and cross-over, it's still a mixed bag of results.

I will reiterate that according to a referee highly rated both nationally and internationally these new interpretations are coming from one man, not a group...and the one man is NOT a "current coach of a strong international team".

As I said, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

And I'm guessing that their "why" has to do with how things were done in their salad days, rather than with strictly objective criteria. Because I can see no objective reason for choosing the status quo of 1975 rather than that of 1945 0r that of 1905 as "best". Can you?

A fun conversation, if not the one we started with. I would enjoy a discussion of which status quo is a best fit, even though that's obviously academic. First, define "objective reason", and what argument would satisfy that. In any case, that's quite a different argument than the claim they are making changes for change sake. You're vacillating between that claim and the idea they're going back to the days of their youth.

[Inquartata]

My dear Inq, you're well known for saying how the majority opinion doesn't make an incorrect opinion right.

It doesn't make it right, but it does sometimes make it more convenient to suit one's argument to the stubborn misuse of terms by one's interlocutors. If one can do so, that is. ( Sometimes the terms are too loaded and make a disproof impossible. )

So if I cannot convince someone that a riposte is impossible without a parry, and must still explain to him some fine point of ROW involving the transition, better to make him see it using phrasing he will understand and can accept than to leave him in ignorance, no? If I cannot convince him that a counterattack cannot exist without an ongoing attack to which it can be counter, better to think of a way to obtain the desired result by putting it in a way he will accept...

First, define "objective reason", and what argument would satisfy that.

For instance, given the prevailing concern with "spectator appeal", why is the fencing of 1980 superior for that than the fencing of, say, 1950? Or 1920?

Using the dye-marking point d'arret for foil and epee would for instance seem easier to follow than any referee reconstruction and mystifying series of lights to the uninformed audience, no? So why not go back to that? "Well, but we've always used electric scoring as long as I can remember." They probably would never even think of this, because pre-electric is not in their frame of reference...

[Allen Evans]

One of the problems with the video is that many of the discussions were not put into a proper context, or explored through all of their ramifications. Some of the video footage was less than helpful.

The experts discuss the opening of the space by the defender to make the attack fall short. There seems to be some belief in the f.net discussions that the Maitre's are advocating that the attack can only be ended by a parry. But one could easily understand from the answers to the questions on the video that the complaint from the Maitres was simply the use of the phrase "parry" by referees, when what the referee should be saying is "attack no".

The rules have not changed. The landing of the front foot ends the attack. The feeling from the Maitres is that the defender must actively take the attack back in order to score -- there is not the question of taking "turns" with priority in which the defender can be very passive while keeping priority simply because the attacker failed to score.

I do agree that the video does not seem to take into account the momentum question, or address the tremendous advantage that someone has while going forward at speed to continue to go forward.

I don't think the video is as earth shattering as it might be at first glance. The issue of the low line attack is a considerable change, true, but much of the other discussion (such as "prize de fer" when the referee should be calling "attack au fer") seems pretty straightforward.

I will confess, however, that one or two of the calls left me completely baffled.


AE

[yowsers]

The low line attack being non-threatening is flat wrong. If low line attacks under the arm were not threatening, why would parry 2 exist in saber? As I have written earlier in this thread, the interviewer only needed to smack Zub with the flat of the blade under his arm to disprove his argument that the blade in the low line only threatens the legs.

As a saber referee, I have made priority calls against a fencer for being in preparation in the low line i.e., invitation in the 2nd guard position. However, being in preparation in a low invitation is different from executing a low line attack. The implication of this video seems to be that a low line attack is trumped by a high-line attack, if they occur simultaneously, or even if the high-line attack is a counterattack. In fact, the implication seems to be that a fencer who executes a low-line attack would be called in preparation ("not correct") and the high-line counterattack would be called the attack.

Incidentally, the Covaliu-Shturbabin bout in the semi-finals of the 2003 Individual Men's Saber World Championship is used for several examples in this video. If you watch the original recording, the referee from that bout makes several calls against Shturbabin because he makes a low-line attack against Covaliu's high-line counterattack--much to the bewilderment of Shturbabin and his Coach, Garrick (who is shown holding his head in exasperation). However, throughout the bout, this call is does not appear to be made consistently and the audience (which includes, undoubtedly, some of the best-educated members of the fencing community in the world) indicates their disagreement with this view of right-of-way with loud cat-calls.

The other implication of this video is that a phrase ends when an attack fails due to the opponent evading (e.g., retreating from) the attack. The first fencer to initiate a subsequent attack (or remise/reprise/redouble) will have the priority in what may be thought of as a distinctly new phrase.

This interpretation appears to follow the rules strictly and, one might even say, correctly. However, it is decidedly not the convention of right-of-way being used at the highest levels of saber fencing, at least in recent years. The current convention is explained with the following example.

1) Fencer X attacks Fencer Y.
2) Fencer Y retreats from Fencer X's attack, causing it to miss.
3) Fencer Y immediately executes a simple attack and Fencer X simultaneously redoubles her attack.
4) Both fencers land valid.

Who's touch is it?

The current convention would 100% award the touch to Fencer Y, reconstructing the phrase as "Attack from X No. Attack from Y yes. Touch for Y"

The video would have referees reconstruct the phrase as "Attack from X No. Simultaneous attack. Nothing done."

I am prepared to change my refereeing to the second reconstruction. In fact, when I was learning to referee saber, I had a very hard time accepting the first answer as the correct reconstruction of the phrase. But, I adjusted my understanding to what the experts in saber fencing instructed me as the current convention in saber. There are many, many other experts than the few included (by no accident, I'm sure) in this video. I'm going to bide my time and see what the rest of the experts have to say before I start changing my understanding of saber again.

[pkt]

Pause...if you're saying what I think you're saying it's at least as backwards as you seem to think a lot of inexperienced referees are calling. Taken together it would seem to me that you believe that if Fencer A attacks and misses that the subsequent action by Fencer B must arrive before any continuation by Fencer A.

1. not "must arrive", but must "START BEFORE THE START OF THE REMISE BY A" as per BAUER. Different word but big difference in conventional fencing. You're talking ÉPÉE !!!!!

The point is that if A misses their attack B may start [COLOR="Red"]their when A executes his action and what action he executes.

As long as the fencer that opened the distance retakes the attack immediately after the distance is open they are still correct as they have started the new attack. It doesn't matter when the continuation from the fencer that missed arrives at that point as that continuation is a counterattack.

Keep on arguing that point till you have to fence in a competition reffed by an FIE ref and you'll find the answer soon enough. However, you'll have to adapt to the new-old rule expounded by the FIE. Then you can tell me what that will do to your game.

I asked this question in a previous post: How do you flèche these days? Do you persist in doing the old-fashioned flèche, or do you do what we call a flunge?

Why do you do what you do and what have been the consequences?

The last thing, which I think is of note, is that in the video Bauer is really the only maitre that takes the time to demonstrate how he thinks the calls should be made in the situation of someone opening distance to cause the attack to fail. Sadly his demonstration is done at slow, coaching speed but despite that it would seem to indicate that as long as the fencer opening distance begins immediately [COLOR="Red"]they are[/COLORthey] correct (likely even giving some room for changing momentum although this is where the slow speed makes it hard to tell). The mistake is when the fencer opening distance waits, pauses or in any way doesn't immediately begin to attack.

1. If one can't get the point at coaching speed, do you think one can get the point at the World-championship level speed without slo-mo?
2. Both Bauer and Scarzo were featured in that section.
3. Then there are the video demonstrations. Did you see those?

Pls understand that I'm asking blunt direct question without the nicety of being sugarcoating my words. I am not trying to be hostile or malicious. I shot 3 GBs of fotos today, and I've been at two Remembrance Day services and a concert and a play, so I have lots of work ahead of me doing the fotos. I hope you understand.

No, I'm not stressed. No one pays me for the 3 GB of fotos... I shot them for my own enjoyment and to show my respects to the veterans, especially the Chinese Canadian veterans.

Hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction.

PK
www.FlungingPictures.com

[gladius]

... At some point, one has to speak the language one's audience understands...and this is coming from a guy who insist on salting his arguments with phrases in Latin.

I always enjoy reading your posts because of the language you use AND your frequent latinorum. There is or should always be a fine line between a vulgata forma and a more classical expression, as you well know. I believe the point made is that in this case incorrect terminology creates a confusion of concepts. We could go on this for hours, but we'd bore everyone else to tears. However, I feel that at the end of this exercise we both would find a common ground (in medio stat virtus).

Even my coach says "Attack short, riposte", and the colloquial "distance parry" is more widespread than the correct call, largely because it sounds less awkward, I suppose. I don't know. But tsk-tsking about hearing "short riposte" or "continuation" ( another term in widespread use ) is much like trying to eradicate the use of "ain't" in common usage. Admirable perhaps, but it ain't going to succeed...

See I think that what the experts are saying is that this is not a problem for the experts but it becomes a confusion for the non experts, i.e., for the public at large (as the lengthy debates in this thread appear to prove). You may use ain't in common language, but you would not use this contraction in a letter applying for a job, I suppose. Another person less versed than you are in the art and niceties of elegant and effective communication may not be able to make such distinction and as such ending up not getting the job ... or scoring the point, as it were.

Then I look forward to all of the points I am going to be awarded for starting attacks against opponents who are advancing but not extending, yet who currently are universally given priority so long as they begin to do so before my cut arrives. I won't hold my breath waiting, though.

It depends where you will be competing. If at a Grand Prix, you'd better. At the local tournament or maybe at the NAC directed by an unexperienced referee (the few hanging around here far too long instead of reading and comprehending the Rule-book or talking and listening with those who are experts), that's a different story. Remember, if you will, what Maestro Enrico Di Ciolo said, that fencing is NOT (ain't if you prefer) a TWO person game, but a THREE person game, you, your opponent, and the referee. This is what champions are taught by well experienced Maestri, like the ones in the DVD.

Currently, going forward seems precisely to signify an attack, despite the rule-book definition of what is required. And in fact I have had referees who awarded the attack to the fencer who was going forward making repeated extensions and withdrawals of the arm, or repeated failed cuts and withdrawals. It seems to be a view which is growing, not diminishing, in acceptance. It's fine to inveigh against it---I often do myself---but as long as this is happening to fence otherwise than in accordance is stubborn folly...

You may have missed this point in the DVD, repeated I believe more than once by more than one Maestro, namely that as long as these are the rules we ought to respect them. If there is a rule-book definition it is absurd not to follow it. They did not say ever DON'T YOU DARE CHANGE THE RULES like you'd never even think of changing some of the Ten Commandments (there are one or two that give me problems, but the religious system gives me no leeway whatsoever ).

This is not surprising to me, inasmuch as the rule changes all seems to be originating with a handful of men whose own fencing glory days are decades in the past. No doubt they yearn for the good old ways of yore, when fencing was "correct", eg the way they did it. This is not a new phenomenon or one unique to fencing.

I believe you got the points backwards. They do not advocate nor do they oppose the changing of the rules. They require that the existing rules be followed since these are the only rules written down. If/when you change the rules, then everything will be OK and in accordance with a new set of rules (more to your and others like you liking).

So I personally don't believe that these people are fools and old geezers who as eternal laudatores temporis acti refuse change or want to reverse the clock. I believe that a calm review of the DVD, with the correct English translation (or even better a correct dubbing), will make you and many others new converts.

But things change, and I wonder that these old fellows can't realize that the more they alter the rules in their attempts to make things more like they used to be, the more changes they will actually cause in fencing practice, and the more unintended consequences they will see. If anything they should look at what the new timing has wrought. Did it take us back to some Golden Age of sabre, or rather cause things to go even further afield? Why can they not see this? Why can they not just leave well enough alone at some point, and quit tinkering? Are they like Congressman? Do they think that their productivity is measured by the number of changes they introduce, regardless of the effects of those changes? Do they believe that they are failures unless they are constantly doing something?

Again I hope you realize that it is you who wants to change the old rules in the cases discussed in the DVD. From what they say they are not against changes in the existing rules, but until this is done, we must stick with the old code. It seems a logical position to me. As an example review what Maestro Zub says about the en garde position at the beginning, or what Maestro Scarso explains at the end, and all the others including Maitre Bauer say exactly the same thing ... a remarkable cooperation between rivals... or is it a conspiracy???

I scrolled through the magazine ... and saw nothing resembling profiles of FIE officials, of either variety.

And by "profile", I mean something to give one an idea of their fencing background and credentials, as opposed to name, nationality and office(s) currently held. What weapons did they or do they fence? Who were their teachers? What were their results? What other offices have they held, nationally or internationally? Like that.

It would be nice to be able to check for patterns in, for instance, the recent "epeefication" of foil and sabre. It would be revelatory if all of the people involved in the sabre and foil timing and rules changes were former epeeists, wouldn't it?

It could be interesting but would change absolutely nothing. It would be a mute point. Until or unless we elect better leaders, or "better electors" to choose better leaders (and this in a democratic system as the USFA, let alone what's going on in the smoky rooms in Lausanne, or Paris, or... Moscow) these decisions will be in their hands. In view of some of the rumored alternatives, I fear that we may be concluding in a few years, looking back at today's situation, that we were better off when we thought we were worse. Democracy is an imperfect game. The manipulation of the democratic process (which is an inherited genetic defect of any democratic system) makes it even more imperfect. Let's hope for the best...

I will reiterate that according to a referee highly rated both nationally and internationally these new interpretations are coming from one man, not a group...and the one man is NOT a "current coach of a strong international team".

If you know something, share it and name names. Who's Tha man that singlehandedly wants to impose his point of view on French, Italian and Polish Maestri plus a Brazilian head of the Arbitrage Commission? If you can find 3 Italians that agree on something, you could get a new and stable government, not only of the fencing federation but the entire country! (ain't gonna happen as they say in the 'burbs)

pax tibi...

[bigdawg2121]

1. not "must arrive", but must "START BEFORE THE START OF THE REMISE BY A" as per BAUER. Different word but big difference in conventional fencing. You're talking ÉPÉE !!!!!

You should really READ before you reply. What I said was that the statements which you made read as though you were saying that the action "must arrive" and not merely start ahead of the remise. I'm very well aware of which weapon I am discussing.

Also, just as a bit of a courtesy, you should pay attention to how you edit quotes and try to do so at least somewhat accurately as it's a bit annoying to read when they're all mangled.

Keep on arguing that point till you have to fence in a competition reffed by an FIE ref and you'll find the answer soon enough. However, you'll have to adapt to the new-old rule expounded by the FIE. Then you can tell me what that will do to your game.

I asked this question in a previous post: How do you flèche these days? Do you persist in doing the old-fashioned flèche, or do you do what we call a flunge?

Why do you do what you do and what have been the consequences?



1. If one can't get the point at coaching speed, do you think one can get the point at the World-championship level speed without slo-mo?
2. Both Bauer and Scarzo were featured in that section.
3. Then there are the video demonstrations. Did you see those?

Pls understand that I'm asking blunt direct question without the nicety of being sugarcoating my words. I am not trying to be hostile or malicious. I shot 3 GBs of fotos today, and I've been at two Remembrance Day services and a concert and a play, so I have lots of work ahead of me doing the fotos. I hope you understand.

No, I'm not stressed. No one pays me for the 3 GB of fotos... I shot them for my own enjoyment and to show my respects to the veterans, especially the Chinese Canadian veterans.

Hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction.

PK
www.FlungingPictures.com

Honestly, if you actually read what I said you'll probably see that it agrees with what you likely meant to say. However to answer your questions (un-numbered questions first, in order of appearance):

No, I probably won't really have to adjust my game that much when reffed by an FIE referee. In fact I've been reffed by several FIE referees both domestically and over seas and I tend to prefer them. The clarification given in the videos does NOT change my statement. If I cause my opponent to miss by way of removing distance and start my attack immediately it will still be my attack. NOT because I think I have any sort of non-existent right to riposte but because I will have started first. The only real way for me to lose this touch is to make some sort of mistake or incorrect action. The clarification was intended to end the idea that someone has a "right to riposte" (and the slight leeway that tends to be given in terms of making a riposte). IF I am correct my action WILL start first. Pretty basic.

When I fleche these days I fleche like one would normally fleche. This is b/c the act of fleching implies that I must be fencing foil or epee at the time. If I am fencing saber I flunge. Heck, I flunge all over the place and at one point I could always expect to score a few extra touches simply b/c people didn't believe that I could NOT flunge.

I do what I do b/c I enjoy fencing and I like winning. There's a very good chance that I have a significant amount of doing both still left ahead of me. As long as it doesn't involve doing something that I feel is cheap and/or demeaning I will likely do whatever is necessary to continue doing both (hence, I no longer referee, I've never worn a chest protector while fencing foil, and I doubt I'd be willing to stoop to prostitution or selling crack to support my fencing habit).

Now to the numbered questions:

1) Yes. That's probably why I said it. The thing about coaching speed is that there is no momentum for coaches to overcome. Also, depending on the coach they're kind of old men and aren't always executing things 100% the way they'd like to see their students do it. Hey, they're people; go figure.

2) Yeah, but Scarzo demonstration wasn't particularly useful relative to the aspect that I'm concerned with.

3) Yes I saw the demonstration. I've watched the video several times. If you watch Bauer's section he actually uses his hand to indicate what the action from the other side would be and to kind of give an idea of the timing. What I'm noting is that when he makes his demonstration he actually settles into the retreat and comes to a full stop and then makes an advance [indicates that the action from the other side begins during this advance], finishes the advance and then lunges. THUMBS UP SMILEY! CORRECT ACTION! YAY! The next action he comes to a complete stop, settles, waits a tempo, indicate that the action from the other side has started (around the same time as before) except now he has made a mistake. He did not start immediately. THUMBS DOWN SMILEY. INCORRECT ACTION. WE ARE SAD.

The question, which would be better answered by a full speed example than by a coaching speed demonstration, is whether he meant for there to be time allowed for the fencer to come to full stop and begin their attack (which is to say, without pause BUT allowing for the change in momentum) or whether the time to come to a full stop was just a by product of his going slowly and demonstrating to the camera. This could have a large effect on how things are called and what the appropriate action to take as the fencer opening the distance is. Do you change directions and start an attack immediately confident that you should still get the riposte, or do you say "damn me and my momentum" and try to lurch forward to try to overcome that momentum as instantaneously as possible (or come to a stop and look to take a parry...both are legitimate options although the parry is safer and less ugly looking usually)?


In the spirit of mutual frankness, I'd suggest that you re-read. On a practical note, it's unlikely that these clarifications are meant to give more priority to the fencer that just kind of races down the strip with multiple attacks (i.e. if someone attacks and misses and both fencers immediately begin offensive actions the touch will likely still go to the fencer that caused the miss unless it's point-in-line). This idea of using distance to set up one's own attack didn't arise out of thin air and these maestri are not some poor tortured souls that were simply forced to teach this bastardized fencing to their students to attain success. They taught it. They encouraged it. Yes the interpretation has gotten looser and gone astray (hence they're attempting to reign it in) but that doesn't mean that the concept itself is invalid. My points are pretty legitimate and really, the more I read your responses the more I'm sure that you're probably not one that's really qualified to address them.

[pkt]

You should really READ before you reply. What I said was that the statements which you made read as though you were saying that the action "must arrive" and not merely start ahead of the remise. I'm very well aware of which weapon I am discussing.

Also, just as a bit of a courtesy, you should pay attention to how you edit quotes and try to do so at least somewhat accurately as it's a bit annoying to read when they're all mangled.

Geez, this is a forum, not a court of law...
Hence my previous title called "Alas, I'm only human.
I left your post overnight before I started to read it after my 2 shoots and concert... mea culpa if I edited your quotes not to your liking. I tried to answer point by point in the order they were posted. I did make a mistake the first by leaving out the "end quote" but that has since been corrected.

...(hence, I no longer referee, I've never worn a chest protector while fencing foil, and I doubt I'd be willing to stoop to prostitution or selling crack to support my fencing habit).

That's a different perspective.

Now to the numbered questions:

1) Yes. That's probably why I said it. The thing about coaching speed is that there is no momentum for coaches to overcome. Also, depending on the coach they're kind of old men and aren't always executing things 100% the way they'd like to see their students do it. Hey, they're people; go figure.

What's this obsession about "momentum"?

I have a 1992 USFA coaching video with Nazlymov giving a lesson to the 1986 world Champion Mindigasov.

The opening quotation is "The most important thing is control of inertia. If that's wrong...mistakes compound." Nazlymov

IMHO all the clips shown on the FIE video [ not DVD, unless of course, you've copied the video onto a DVD, in which case, it's still a video... :-) ] shows all the sabreurs in perfect control of their inertia, what you call momentum, this includes the on demonstrating the "redoublement".

2) Yeah, but Scarzo demonstration wasn't particularly useful relative to the aspect that I'm concerned with.

I'll let go of this one...

...In the spirit of mutual frankness, I'd suggest that you re-read. ...

I shan't reread your post since we do agree on the most important point, what happens when you're on piste and the ref says, "Allez!" and if you abide by the rule as S/HE sees it. That's the only point that's important.

Wish you all the successes en piste.

===)==================

All,

After 10 pages, we're getting to the point of diminishing returns: Most of the salient points have been made. The rest are minor or nit-picking points.

I think we all agree that the most pertinent point of this FIE video is that these are the FIE's sanctioned views. FIE refs and others aspiring to become FIE refs or simply improve his/her reffing skills should follow these GUIDELINES. That coaches should coach sabre following these guidelines. Fence according to these guidelines to the rules then you won't cry foul.

We also agree that - thanks gladius for your rebuttal to Inq, saved me a lot of time - fencing terms are clear and precise. The final arbiter is the FRENCH version of the FIE rule book whether you in the USFA's jurisdiction like it or not.

We also agree that Dumbing down of fencing terms would only cause confusion.

I'm sure I've missed some points. By all means add to this summary.

With this I take leave of you all to work on my Remembrance Day fotos till the next rousing topic arises on the fencing horizon.

===)==================
Oh by the way. please tell those people who are opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that Remembrance Day in the UK & GB and Canada - Veterans Day in the US - honour those who served since the Armistice Day from the Great War and WW II, it is not mission / war specific. Do also remember that those veterans of WW II were over in Europe for FIVE years, no rotation... Imagine the world under the Nazi rule and you'll honour those who served.

===)==================
... and please don't BLAME CANADA for the strait the US Dollar is in. You know who's to blame.

PK
www.FlungingPictures.com

[Grasshopper]

If you know something, share it and name names. Who's Tha man that singlehandedly wants to impose his point of view on French, Italian and Polish Maestri plus a Brazilian head of the Arbitrage Commission?

Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickenson