"Reactions" screaming, taunting, unsportsmanlike tantrums are beneath the sport.

[Peach]

Yeah- if someone started doing that, I suspect there would be gales of laughter at the club. Not to mention imitations.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I tend to yell in practice when the level of the bout is high enough OR, on occasion, when I'm ramping up for a serious competition and am seriously competing in my club bouts. My teammates are rather pleased when they can get me to yell. It means they really made me work for it.

Yes, but what about the old people??

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Inq-I guess I'm not old enough to be jaded enough to have figured out the "respond in a straight way to a loaded question" trick. ;-)

Well, there are mostly two types of people who write questions which you (or any reader) find loaded.
1. Those who intend the questions to be loaded, with the motive to either rile you up or put you on a no-win position.
2. Those who did not intend the questions to seem loaded, but did not make a successful (or any at all) effort to make them neutral in tone. Those people do generally not have any special hidden motives.
If you do the "straight answer to a loaded question" response to an example of #1, several things can happen. He might lose his cool in response, which makes you look like the winner. Unless those people whose opinion you care about are those who value a hothead response, that is. He might realize that you are not going to fall for the loaded question trick to get you to lose your cool, and stop using it. (Think of it as not falling for a feint.) If you do this response to an example of #2, you save the possibility for civil discourse which would have been in peril if you would have blasted off at the beginning.

There you are! A strategy which is reasonably high-reward, and at the same time very low-risk! What more could you ask for?

Anyway, I do get testy sometimes in response to, well, mainly you. I am only 20, after all, and Italian. Not too hard to get me riled up. But honestly, couldn't you avoid some of it by just not acting like a smartass every time? It would make discussion so much more productive (at least for me). I repeat, there's nothing wrong in my view with how fencing operates today, and since 90% of people agree with me (yes, I'm pulling that statistic out of my ass), it may be more productive to get around to ignoring it. Just a thought.

Questions and notes:
1. Does "you" refer to Inq, me, or someone else? Truly befuddled here.
2. What does your nationality have to do with anything? Are we to assume that Italians have some inborn difficulty, or disinclination, to keep their cool?
3. You use "smartass" as if it were something bad.
4. The 90% figure seems a little high, from what I see and hear from my fellow Swedish fencers. Since you are arguing based on numbers, I ask you: If you were to go to someplace in which Inq´s and bestinhouse´s opinion were the norm, would you limit yourself and behave as the not-true yourself?

A question to all those who side against the OP:
Many of you have repeatedly stated that the FIE in general and RR in particular have a track record of coming up with bad, and unexpected, rule ideas. Let us, for the sake of the discussion, assume that they would come up with yet another of those according to you wrongheaded ideas. This time, it would be to make Inq the legal norm in vocalizations, and he gets to write the new rule on the topic. (If it makes it any more palatable, you can imagine that he in return is forced to state that he likes the Lexan mask!) Not only that, but refs start to enforce a silence rule.

Then what? would you leave fencing altogether, form a scream-friendly fencing organization, or what?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I am fifty years old, and I yell frequently.

What? I would have guessed early forties, based on when I saw you in person.

I also was a spectator at the 1972 Olympics, and remember histrionics of epic proportions. I began fencing in 1977, and people were screaming, yelling, humming on the strip, throwing weapons, etc. at that time.

So it ain't new. In general (there are exceptions, like the resident curmudgeon), I get the feeling that these discussions are started by people who get their butts kicked, and have a hard time dealing with it, and then have their feelings doubly hurt when their opponent yells. Sort of like the people who complain when they get their butts kicked by people who are fencing in ways they don't consider to be "true" to the history or spirit of the sport.

So much for my foray into pop psychology.

Well, I will follow up with some pop psychology of my own. I, a 40+ never-has-been (considered about competent D rating level by Eric Dew when he saw me in person) have been on the losing side of several bouts involving opponents much younger than me, and they have a life situation in which taking lessons several times a week is a possibility. I have not been on the recieving end of end-of-bout yells, but I have seen that situation.

Here is how it goes: Bout ends 5-2, or 15-8, winner being a young guy in his physical prime, and on the top of the ranking list. Loser is someone considerably older, not very talented, and with considerably fewer training hours/week. The guy who wins is ahead the whole bout since the 1-0 point. Just after scoring the final point, the winner screams like anything, and continues to do so while on the guard line when the loser is saluting him. I have seen that, or variations, several times.

What is so special about winning over someone who everyone had expected you to win over? I, as an oldie, accept the fact that I am a steppingstone on they way to competition gold by someone younger and better than me. But is it not enough to step on the stone, do you have to rub it in also?

I once saw a relay race on ice in my home town. Teams, composed of elected politicians of the parties in the town hall, were competing against each other so that each party fielded a team. The relay was on kicksled, a thing that looks like a cross between a wooden chair and a pair of skates. To get high speed on this thing you need considerable gross motor coodination and a very high cadiovascular ability.

Anyway, there was a race that really stood out. The social democrats raced against the "Moderate" (what passes for conservative in sweden) team, and the the former completely trounced the latter. When the the last social democrat had finished his lap, his team started some really over-the-top in-your-face antics, while hundreds of townspeople were looking on. The last moderate was still far from the finish line.

However, no onlookers joined in on the celebrations - and this in a town where the social democrats consistently get more than 50% of the votes. The thing was that the social democrat team consisted of young (20-25)guys from their youth league, who had been chosen since they also were high-level crosscountry skiiers, with huge cardio levels. In contrast, the moderate team was taken from the moderate ladies´club, and their age were 40-50. None of those ladies were known for any sport activities.

Do the pro-screamers have any idea how corny those young social democrats made themselves look?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[RebelFencer]

In the Big-ten Championships in 1981, I was fencing Brian Peterman in Epee. As I made a toe attack, he stepped on and broke off my Epee, but it only broke the very tip. There was no blade singing through the air, no short-circuit made the buzzer or the light on the electric scoring machine go off, not a single thing happened to tell me or Brian that the blade had broken. Just the tip and the small stainless steel collar came off, leaving a very sharp, small point on the stiff epee blade. As taught, having missed the toe, I moved forward and attacked the knee. Slick as if it were greased, the sharp tip entered above the knee and came out of the back of his calf. I didn't even feel any resistance. Zip down, withdraw... and no scoring buzzer. So I pressed my attack. As taught, I stepped closer and stood up, so we were mask to mask now, my arm high, the sharp tip pointed at his mask, ready to thrust and score. Brian didn't scream or yell, but I'll never forget what happened next. In a quiet, steady voice, Brian said: "Jeff, Stop." Something registered. I could see Brian's eyes looking at me... "Jeff, Stop." That was enough...

Please tell me you didn't start making out after that. This reads like some questionable fencing fan fiction.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Please tell me you didn't start making out after that. This reads like some questionable fencing fan fiction.

You mean you have experience to compare it to?

Dude, link me.

[RebelFencer]

You mean you have experience to compare it to?

Dude, link me.

You know I would, but then you'd show your friends and then next thing I know there's no bandwidth left for me!

[epeelion]

Peter-
In the first part, I was being sarcastic. Basically just an excuse to call Inq. old. It was a joke.


As for the rest:
1.) I'm pretty sure this post came well before you ever responded to me in this thread. Sorry for not making it clearer. In any case, it was at Inq.
2.) Yes. That's a classic stereotype, and since I was making a joke, I included it.
3.) It is. Especially when someone is trying to argue/debate with you and you make remarks that are not so much to prove your point but to rile them up. "Smart" is good. "Smartass" is generally not considered to be so.
4.) I specifically said that number was out of my ass. Maybe it's a bit lower, I don't really know. I do know that I have a very large network within the US fencing community, particularly epee, and I have yet to meet someone that thinks like the OP. Seriously. Except Ed Richards. Anyway, if I were to visit a club or an area where it was widely considered disrespectful to yell, I might try to limit myself. I'm not LOOKING to offend people, that's not why I do it. In competition, though, it might still happen. And if my opponent wanted to spend their time thinking about how rude it was that I was yelling, I wouldn't mind.

[RebelFencer]

Peter-
In the first part, I was being sarcastic. Basically just an excuse to call Inq. old. It was a joke.


As for the rest:
1.) I'm pretty sure this post came well before you ever responded to me in this thread. Sorry for not making it clearer. In any case, it was at Inq.
2.) Yes. That's a classic stereotype, and since I was making a joke, I included it.
3.) It is. Especially when someone is trying to argue/debate with you and you make remarks that are not so much to prove your point but to rile them up. "Smart" is good. "Smartass" is generally not considered to be so.
4.) I specifically said that number was out of my ass. Maybe it's a bit lower, I don't really know. I do know that I have a very large network within the US fencing community, particularly epee, and I have yet to meet someone that thinks like the OP. Seriously. Except Ed Richards. Anyway, if I were to visit a club or an area where it was widely considered disrespectful to yell, I might try to limit myself. I'm not LOOKING to offend people, that's not why I do it. In competition, though, it might still happen. And if my opponent wanted to spend their time thinking about how rude it was that I was yelling, I wouldn't mind.

*Pats on back* There there, it's ok. You're not the first person to get drawn in by some troll.

[Inquartata]

In my experience, it depends. Refs will generally not respond to yelling by fencers below their refereeing level of competency.

It would be nice if we could rely upon that theory, but unless you are in the ref's head you cannot know what happens there, whether he is influenced or not.

I---even I---have caught myself on the verge of awarding ROW to the fencer who screamed afterward. I had to stop myself and think the action through again to make sure I was not being led. If I, who am so opposed to the practice, can almost fall into the trap*, how much more susceptible are those who think it's OK or even good to scream?

Disparities in skill level do not, IMO, have the effect you mention. Close calls are as apt to occur in bouts with fencers well below the ref's skill level as otherwise, and it's these edge situations where things like screaming can tip the balance...

*And in fact I cannot be sure that I have always caught myself. The odds are that I have been influenced subconsciously and not even realized it.

You say that shouting, etc. doesn't help anyone fence better or get more touches in and of itself, although, and correct me if I'm wrong, you acknowledge that the belief that it does can help.

I'm not sure I believe that, either...

So after witnessing literally all Olympic and World Championship competitors display the aforementioned habits, what is your advice to someone who wants to compete amongst them? How would you instruct someone to compensate?

As you probably know, I advocate letting your fencing win your bouts, and if it cannot then the other guy is the better fencer and you deserved to lose the bout.

If the other fellow is winning not because he is fencing better but because he is influencing the referee, there are ways to bring this belief to the ref's attention---he may not even be aware of what is going on.

Beyond that, apart from requesting vide review, there is not much to be done. I cannot recommend parrying cheating with cheating, and neither can I advise parrying screaming with screaming. Maybe you just have to accept the loss...

I know, that's hard for anyone, and I cannot imagine how hard it would be for someone fencing in the Olympics. But I like to remember Meyer's Law: In human interactions often the thing you find most difficult to do is precisely the right thing to do.

For example, there are many times that I feel I can't "get going" in or "sink my teeth into" a bout unless I pump up the adrenaline via vocalization. I'm willing to accept that this is a limitation of ability in my part. The short answer, I guess, would be to get good enough so I can beat people without adrenaline, but as it's very much an issue of emotions, I hope you see that this advice doesn't help much. So what would you advise me?

Though I hesitate to advise anyone I don't know, and particularly a better fencer than I am...well, all techniques are learned. Along the way you have learned this method of keying yourself up. Can you learn another way?

This is what the fencing lesson, basis of all improvement, is supposed to do, no? Change something we are doing, even if it is only to make an existing technique better? Why should mental techniques be different?

Really, this is a tough one for me, not least because I have not had the experience of needing to force an adrenaline dump in order to fence better. Indeed I find that the more relaxed I am and the less I "care" about the outcome of a bout, the better I seem to do. Hence I find it difficult to put myself in your shoes...

I'll think on it some more.

To suggest that someone trying to compete with those people who finds yelling psychologically helpful, and an easier psychological help than other things shouldn't yell..... It may help Inq sleep at night, but it doesn't help that person be as competitive as they might otherwise be.

Er---how do you know?

[epeelion]

Peter's not a troll.

Nor is bestinhouse, I think, at least by the usual definition. Trolls don't usually post anything quite that long.

But thanks, rebel. ;-)

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Er---how do you know?

Er, I attempted to set up a tautology for myself, although I'm not sure how on earth one would prove it.

So- let's assume that yelling is the easiest psychological tactic for several people. Other psychological tactics might work well. And if the entire group were told they couldn't yell, then the entire group would be equally handicapped. But if two people find yelling to be the easiest tactic for them, it works well, and the ONLY advantage to switching is the outside approval of Inq..... well, it's not a particularly good reason for that person to switch psychological tactics.

Peter's not a troll.

Trolls are in the eye of the beholder. Why, the other day, I accused Gav of trolling. He hasn't yet defended himself.

[RebelFencer]

Peter's not a troll.

Nor is bestinhouse, I think, at least by the usual definition. Trolls don't usually post anything quite that long.

But thanks, rebel. ;-)

Oh shoot, I did not read carefully enough. I thought you were still referring to the original poster. Boy do I feel dumb. Sorry Peter!

[Fechter1]

Can you learn another way?

Probably, but why should he have to? Basically, this reads to me like you want everybody to accomodate your sensibilities rather than a) ignoring or b) accepting the occasional (depending on the circumstances) grunt/scream/etc.

Thing about vocalizations... They've become common practice, especially at the higher levels. As long as it's not disrespectful to the opponent (or the referee) or intended to influence the referee, I would hazard a guess that more people find it acceptable than not (based on the number of complaints I hear, posts I see on threads like these, and the number of people who vocalize versus those who don't).

While the exact numerical balance will likely remain a mystery, this means that you want a large number of fencers to spend considerable time and effort to eliminate something which would take the smaller group less effort to ignore...

Seems a bit uneven to me...

$.02

[epeelion]

Leave it to the German to explain a point of view much more efficiently than I could.

[foibles]

It would be interesting to know what the typical layman thought about the screaming.

I would doubt, by and large, that the typical non-fencing viewer would not see it as a positive or neutral thing.

If the results of a professionally administered focus group showed that the screaming usually resulted in a negative viewer response then it might be worth adding screaming onto a list of unsportsman like behavior. Otherwise it risks putting the sport in a bad light.

If the results showed a neutral, negligible or a positive viewer response then we know that the scream does not put the sport in a bad light.

If viewer response is important enough to force top-level fencers to buy $350.00 lexan masks and stick large blinking lights on their foreheads then something like "don't scream like a banshee and pump your fist at the ref after every other point" might be worth looking into.

But, if it turns out that the majority of viewer responces are more "wow, they are really gettin' into it!" then that would be worth knowing as well.

[epeelion]

The fact that NBC had dedicated highlight reels just for the "Best Screams of the day" in fencing for the Olympics in Beijing seems to indicate that it is viewed as a good thing. A quick survey of my fellow athletes at Columbia also reveals that the reaction tends to be "wow, you guys really get into it!" (granted, I asked other athletes). And, once again, most every other sport has equivalent displays of emotion, particularly the most watched ones in the world.

[Inquartata]

But if two people find yelling to be the easiest tactic for them, it works well, and the ONLY advantage to switching is the outside approval of Inq..... well, it's not a particularly good reason for that person to switch psychological tactics.

I have highlighted the flaw in the ointment for you.

How do you prove that yelling "works", when there are so many other factors for which one cannot control, and when it all tends to come down to faith?

Probably, but why should he have to?

Because the other methods are not annoying to others, disruptive to good order, painful to the ears of bystanders, distracting to fencers on adjacent strips or arguably attempts to influence referees in violation of the rule against doing so?

But let those reasons go. Shall we apply your logic generally?

"But coach, why should I have to learn parry five when I can just swat head cuts aside with a parry three or four?That works fine, you know."

"But coach, multiple advances work, why do I have to learn the lunge? Just because YOU say so?"

"Hey coach, I don't see why I should bother learning parries when I can just step back out of distance."

Basically, this reads to me like you want everybody to accomodate your sensibilities rather than a) ignoring or b) accepting the occasional (depending on the circumstances) grunt/scream/etc.

We're not talking about "occasional". We're talking about regular, flagrant and often extended histrionics.

We are not talking kiais with actions, but mere celebratory screams and melodramatics which, if public comments by certain top fencers are to be believed, are at least sometimes intended to influence a referee's call, in violation of the rules.

Thing about vocalizations... They've become common practice,

Want me to name the fallacy? Or do you want to do it yourself?

As long as it's not disrespectful to the opponent (or the referee) or intended to influence the referee, I would hazard a guess that more people find it acceptable than not (based on the number of complaints I hear, posts I see on threads like these, and the number of people who vocalize versus those who don't).

Slightly different but related fallacy. Ditto...

And anyway, how are we supposed to separate "genuine" yells from those meant to sway the ref?

[tchwojko]

And anyway, how are we supposed to separate "genuine" yells from those meant to sway the ref?

My understanding of harassment in the workplace is that if someone feels harassed then they are. (Or something close to that effect.)

If it were up to me, if a ref feels like he/she is being swayed by yelling, then they are, and may card. Intention shouldn't be a part of the equation.

However, a ref that's swayed by noise, body language, hair color, height, weight, or point standing shouldn't be reffing anything important.

[Fechter1]

Because the other methods are not annoying to others, disruptive to good order, painful to the ears of bystanders, distracting to fencers on adjacent strips or arguably attempts to influence referees in violation of the rule against doing so?

But let those reasons go. Shall we apply your logic generally?

"But coach, why should I have to learn parry five when I can just swat head cuts aside with a parry three or four?That works fine, you know."

"But coach, multiple advances work, why do I have to learn the lunge? Just because YOU say so?"

"Hey coach, I don't see why I should bother learning parries when I can just step back out of distance."

Completely different. One means sometimes significant (again, depending on the fencer) retraining to submit to the whim of what I consider a relatively small number of complainers. The other is training to expand the repertoire, improve ones fencing in general.
Besides, I have heard many of the examples you mentioned, asnd the answer is usually "because that's how you're going to improve". (Sometimes it's 'cause I said so, but the fencer is ALWAYS free to ignore the advice and take the consequences.)

We're not talking about "occasional". We're talking about regular, flagrant and often extended histrionics.

Please go back and reread my posts, you seem to have missed something... I specifically mentioned "not disrespectful, not disturbing order, and not intended to influence the ref"...
And since you seem to be advocating total silence, we ARE talking about 'occasional' vocalizations. Please feel free to correct me if I'm reading you wrong.

Want me to name the fallacy?

Please note I mentioned it's a guess based on my personal experience.

Please stop twisting my words just so you can find an argument.

And anyway, how are we supposed to separate "genuine" yells from those meant to sway the ref?

Direction of the yell, timing, frequency of repetition, basically what tchwojko said: when I (you) feel like they're actively trying to influence you.