Thank you for posting this, very interestin stuff.
Can someone clarify the part about sabre not having prise de fers. Fencer A is retreating, beats the tip of his opponent's blade and hits, 2 lights. Was he saying that there's another term for it besides prise de fer, or was he saying that it's never A's touch unless there's only 1 light?
He defines prise de fer as an action that maintains blade contact, hitting in opposition. He thinks that what most people call prise de fer shouldn't be termed that.
-B
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
I've head a number of referees lump "attacks du fer" and "prise de fer" under one category (prise). Presumably the Maitres were simply quibbling over terminology, but I wasn't clear on that part either. I hope to run through that part of the video again.
Thank you for posting this, very interestin stuff.
Can someone clarify the part about sabre not having prise de fers. Fencer A is retreating, beats the tip of his opponent's blade and hits, 2 lights. Was he saying that there's another term for it besides prise de fer, or was he saying that it's never A's touch unless there's only 1 light?
Quote:
Originally Posted by USFCA Glossary
Prise (-de-fer): One of the two “families” of attacks on the blade. Includes the bind, cross, development, and opposition. The opponent’s blade is controlled all the way to the target. Cf. “tac-au-fer”.
Attaque-au-fer: One of the two families of attacks on the blade (which see). Includes the beat, expulsion, and pressure. The blade is not held all the way to the target, nor is it moved and held. Sometimes called “Tac-au-fer”.
Entertaining video . I'm not convinced that the coaches and Kramer are saying the same things though...I can imagine lots of angry coaches wondering why the hell referees are calling things the way this video with their endorsement says to.
__________________ I now dangle to the left....my tassle. Get your minds out of the gutter.
"Martin was not an optimist; he was a prisoner of hope." Optimism is about assuming there's evidence that justifies your outlook while hope is about creating the evidence and procuring your own happiness or vision of the world. - Professor West
Entertaining video . I'm not convinced that the coaches and Kramer are saying the same things though...I can imagine lots of angry coaches wondering why the hell referees are calling things the way this video with their endorsement says to.
Yes, I see that definitely.
This has the potential to both clear things up and muddle the waters. But its a good piece of work. If it becomes "gospel" then it does make things easier.
__________________
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado." - Emiliano Zapata
Just a random question...are any of the Italian coaches/administrators actually Italian? They have such strong accents...or at least it seems that way.
My thanks also for posting this. 400MB of download well worth it. Yay, broadband!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldgar
That is a purely beautiful thing! Thank you very much for posting it. Do you know if there is one, or in the works, for foil?
The bulk of the discussion agrees with what I've always held, but the clarification on low "attacks" in sabre is a relatively new thing.
Same here. What's striking to me is the insistence in which it's said the bent/withdrawn arm is said to not be an attack. Look at the section around 4 minutes into the clip. The wording is something like "it cannot be threat just at the beginning", "if I do this" (points at floor, withdraws arm to tierce), "then it is no longer an attack; it is a preparation". He illustrates this several times and several ways, including with a point attack: when his point is not directed at the valid target, it is not an attack.
That's exactly what I've always held, and what I've been told over and over "isn't the current interpretation of ROW", "isn't what the Europeans do". Here and at competitions I see lots of "attacks: called with the arm withdrawn partway through the action, or never directed towards target till the very last moment. I hope the sense of the attack related in the video gets restored to the field soon.
__________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
Entertaining video . I'm not convinced that the coaches and Kramer are saying the same things though...I can imagine lots of angry coaches wondering why the hell referees are calling things the way this video with their endorsement says to.
You mean the ones in the video? If not why would he want it distributed?
Some of the things in the video make sense, but I'm confused by the calls that appear to indicate an immediate continuation of the attack still takes ROW.
Linear Mode
