Is Foil "Broken"?

[keith]

Originally Posted by eac

No, not really. Counterexample: People were yelling and not thinking a lot during the whole Obama-Reverend Wright fiasco, but then Obama gave an extremely insightful, helpful speech (he called it "a teachable moment"), which got people to think instead of yell, and mostly defused the whole thing.

..... and if any of the musings on this board informed the FIE's decision making process this might be relevant. Of course if this was true then Inq would already have been declared dictator for life.

Internet fora exist to advantage those who like to rehearse their arguments before they get drunk.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by eac

It is certainly true that counterattacks are more common than they were before the new timings, but it's not at all true, as mrbiggs said, that foil strategy consists entirely of counterattacks. See, for instance, the video provided on the previous page, or the 2006 MF worlds final, or really most videos of good fencing. It just isn't true, at that level, anyway; even less true than the claim that on the old timings, it was all about march-and-flick all day all the time (as the video already in the thread also shows). Ripostes, marching attacks, short AIPs, as well as counterattacks and remises are all in there. I would also point out that I think MF has improved significantly in spectator value and dynamicism since 2005; in 2005, people were still figuring out how to hit reliably with the new system, where by 2008 they had figured out how to hit correctly 99% of the time, and were thus less afraid to initiate actions.

I was exaggerating a bit when I said that foil strategy is entirely counterattacks. Obviously, there are many other actions in foil nowadays, and they are what is used to get the majority of touches, especially at the high level. However counterattacks are a huge part of the game, and more importantly, they often are what winds up controlling the bout. Personally, when I'm attacking in foil, my primary concern is whether or not my opponent is going to counterattack and where I can manage to hit him depending on how he does it. I can't speak for high-level fencers in this regard, but I think the fact that foil has slowed down so drastically provides some evidence that the counterattack has become a very powerful and feared action, especially in women's foil. I think it should be much more rare and much less potent against correctly executed attacks; in fact, I think a basic premise of right of way is that a counterattack should not be at all effective against a correctly executed attack.

Originally Posted by eac

So the question is, what set of rules would provide the most interesting game in foil? What kind of game would make the most interesting game in foil? I don't completely know, but I think at least one parameter to optimize is a balance between offense and defense.

Playing devil's advocate here, I don't think that's necessarily true. Basketball is very heavily offensive, whereas baseball and soccer are very heavily defensive, and all are fun to watch and play.

Originally Posted by eac

The point here is that this is the conversation we should be having, not random tired tangents about ROW or how ROW used to be, nor bizarre baseless claims about foil being all counterattacking all the time. Let's talk about *what* would make foil better, and *why* it would make it better.

I think you're missing the point here. No one thinks that foil is actually 100% counterattacking, they (by which I mean me) think there's just way too much. So, putting it into your phrasing, *less emphasis on counterattacks* would make foil better, and it would make it better because *it would lead to more dynamic, athletic, and balanced bouts*.

Originally Posted by eac

It is unfortunate that more fencing video is not freely available on the internet, as it would be useful for debate.

Definitely.

[Foil.Leicester]

Just a quick question Biggs, you say that when you're attacking you're always alert to the danger of the counter-attack. I'm curious what danger it was you were alert to pre-timing changes? I'm asking this as a general interest question, I didn't fence pre-2004 so I can't compare.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Foil.Leicester

Just a quick question Biggs, you say that when you're attacking you're always alert to the danger of the counter-attack. I'm curious what danger it was you were alert to pre-timing changes? I'm asking this as a general interest question, I didn't fence pre-2004 so I can't compare.

you were still wary of counterattacks, but much more equally so of parries, preparation, false counterattacks, and distance/tempo issues. they all happened and so you had to be conscious of them all, but there wasn't really a prevalent, dominant reaction to a longer attack.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Foil.Leicester

Just a quick question Biggs, you say that when you're attacking you're always alert to the danger of the counter-attack. I'm curious what danger it was you were alert to pre-timing changes? I'm asking this as a general interest question, I didn't fence pre-2004 so I can't compare.

I think that parries and other defensive actions were a bit more important, but the major difference was the way in which counterattacks needed to be dealt with. Nowadays, finding a way to finish is a big deal, especially against a squirmy fencer. Before, it was more a matter of making sure the other fencer didn't manage to hit you in prep or get one light by closing or opening distance.

To be fair, old timings fencing wasn't perfect either. Counterattacks could often be dealt with just by flicking harder or marching faster, which isn't ideal. In other words, even proper counterattacks executed against poor attacks could still lose the touch depending on the circumstance, much as proper attacks executed against poor counterattacks can lose the touch today. But I think that the overall tempo of bouts was better; I'd rather err on the side of the attack.

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by eac

So the question is, what set of rules would provide the most interesting game in foil? What kind of game would make the most interesting game in foil?

...

The point here is that this is the conversation we should be having, not random tired tangents about ROW or how ROW used to be, nor bizarre baseless claims about foil being all counterattacking all the time. Let's talk about *what* would make foil better, and *why* it would make it better.

This sounds like an interesting path for the discussion (both for the thought experiment in and of itself, and to see what others say).

First, we should probably consider the FIE's stated objectives, which prompted the changes made thus far:

(from "REPORT TO THE FIE 2003 CONGRESS OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING PROPOSALS PERTAINING TO THE PRACTICE OF FOIL AND SABRE")

The decision to present these proposals to the Congress was motivated by the following purposes:

- to preserve the specific character of both foil and sabre as conventional fencing weapons, while respecting also fencing’s character as a combat sport “par excellence” that is defined by its own natural and universal logic;

- improve working conditions for referees, making it easier for them to correctly apply the Rules for Competition, and also to explain fencing actions according to objective criteria;

- improve audience and television viewers’ comprehension of fencing, allowing them, as much as possible, to better follow and understand the action during foil and sabre matches.

Each of which seem - to me, at least - to boil down to:
1.) maintain the separate and distinct "identity" of each weapon (with particular emphasis on foil and sabre) to the greatest degree possible while maintaining an overall unified identity within fencing as a whole
2.) make the referees' job "easier" (this means... what? generally less stressful?), while also making the task of officiating more objective (as opposed to subjective), to the greatest degree possible without violating the first goal
3.) introduce measures to improve the ability of the spectators to both follow the actions within a phrase and appreciate the aesthtics of the sport, in general, to the greatest degree possible without violating either of the first two goals

Interestingly, parts of Alisher Usmanov's "Manifesto for the Future of Fencing" seem to imply, to some degree, similar goals.

So, with all that in mind...

Foil is explicitly defined as "a thrusting weapon only" (FIE (and USFA) rulebook(s), t.46). As such, the primary mode of executing an offensive action should, accordingly, be with a thrust. However, enough of the powers-that-be within the FIE apparently believed 1.) that the flick (particularly when combined with the march) had become too dominant in relation to the thrust and 2.) that attempting to bring about change solely by mandating that referees adhere to new "interpretations" of the rules as they were would prove fruitless.

So, given those conditions, knowing what is known today, and given the ability to propose alternative means to achieve the same (or similar) goals, what would I propose? Let's see:

1.) Keep the lock-out time as is (300 +- 25 milliseconds) (in agreement with Dan Kellner).

2.) Shorten the debounce time to the maximum value where a straight thrust will consistently (no fewer than 95% of attempts) register against a smooth, flat, vertical plate oriented at 45 degrees from the direction of the thrust (to eliminate the microbreak and chest-protector issues).

3.) Reduce the allowable flex range of the foil blade from the current values (55-95 mm with a 200g load applied at the foible; given in m.8) to something more in line with the other weapons. Given that the ranges are 45-70 mm for epee (m.16) and 40-70 mm for sabre (m.23), using the same (tried and proven) flex range as epee (the other thrusting-only weapon) seems reasonable (and would probably eliminate the most extreme flicks, and reduce the prevalence of (though not necessarily eliminate) a portion of the lesser ones, at least as effectively as the current debounce time, and do so without affecting whether a thrust registers).

4.) Have both the general rules (t.1-t.45) and the foil specific rules (t.46-t.60, m.6-m.13) clarified/updated, and have the clarifications/updates put into writing in the rulebook(s).

5.) With regards to the bib/mask, either
a.) don't make the bib conductive and include more explicit regulations/limitations (i.e. mandate that the lowest point of the bib, when the fencer is in the en-garde position, must not reach below the prominences of the clavicles, and that it is a G1 penalty for non-conforming equipment (and requires replacement with a conforming unit) if the mask is found to be in violation), or
b.) use a completely conductive, sabre-style mask to make the whole of the head/bib area part of the valid target (which addresses the bib issue, keeps with the idea that the valid target encompasses the vital organs (I, for one, consider the brain and sensory systems to be vital organs), and addresses the issue of substitution-of-the-head/"face parries" all at once).

I believe that implementing all of the above, together, (after much testing and refinement, of course) would accomplish the stated goals of the FIE at least as effectively as the changes actually made thus far (and, more to the point, probably do so without the most prominent side effects).

What do you think? Any alternative or additional suggestions?

[IanSerotkin]

Here's my problem with the new timings:





Obviously, these are my own made-up numbers on an arbitrary scale.

There were undoubtedly many people who hated flicking. I understood their arguments, even if I disagreed vehemently with them. But at least it was hard to do, and therefore it "blighted" less competitive levels of fencing.

Everyone can counterattack. It's easy, you can do it the first day you learn how to fence. In fact, it's all but guaranteed that you WILL learn how to do it the first day you learn how to fence.

In Division 1 fencing, everything starts to even out--the fencers are all so good and so fast that, to a certain extent, all tactics start regressing towards the mean. There stop being silver bullets: Less flicks in the old timings, less counterattacks in the new timings.

But nowadays, until you get to that level, you better get used to people sticking their mask in the way of your attack. All day long, at every level of competition.

And that, my friends, drives me absolutely bat****.

[FrSpike]

Originally Posted by eac

No, not really. Counterexample: People were yelling and not thinking a lot during the whole Obama-Reverend Wright fiasco, but then Obama gave an extremely insightful, helpful speech on race (he called it "a teachable moment"), which got people to think instead of yell,

The problem with using political illustrations is that their effectiveness depends on the political views of your audience.

[eac]

However counterattacks are a huge part of the game, and more importantly, they often are what winds up controlling the bout.

No more often than any other action controls the bout. It is true that at lower levels it is more often counterattacks than most other things, but at higher levels it's equally likely to be attacks, AIPs, ripostes, or some combination.

...I think the fact that foil has slowed down so drastically provides some evidence that the counterattack has become a very powerful and feared action...

Partly counterattacks, but just as much parries; in the old days, there was so much target, and flicks were so hard to parry, that parries in general were less effective and important than they are now. Now, most of the time you have to go straight, and so defense has an easier time, not just counterattacks.

I think it should be much more rare and much less potent against correctly executed attacks; in fact, I think a basic premise of right of way is that a counterattack should not be at all effective against a correctly executed attack.

What?! If that were true, and the only thing you could possibly do to stop an attack is parry, attacks would have an impossibly easy time of it. Today, defense is all about the confusion between making the attacker worry about counterattacks and worry about parries, and if you take away the counterattacks, it's game over. Which to some degree (although it wasn't this bad) was what happened on the old timings, and it meant that attacks were somewhat overpowered.

Playing devil's advocate here, I don't think that's necessarily true. Basketball is very heavily offensive, whereas baseball and soccer are very heavily defensive, and all are fun to watch and play.

I don't know very much about basketball, so I am likely to be full of it, but I think there are several differences that make all three of those sports better than fencing that's thoroughly imbalanced in one direction.
With basketball, being heavily offensive means that if you have the ball, and you are trying to score, much of the time you will end up scoring. However, after you score, the other team gets the ball, so it's not like you can dominate someone purely by virtue of being on offense the whole time. In fencing, when the attack is overpowered (as on the old timings), much of the point is decided when one fencer successfully starts marching, and that, I opine, is bad for the interestingness of the game.

Soccer is defensive in the sense that when you have the ball and you are trying to score, you score only with low probability. Fencing is different; when fencing is biased towards defense, it doesn't just mean that you don't score very often on offense, it means that most of the time, when you go on offense (i.e., attack), you get scored on, so nobody wants to attack. And, when nobody wants to attack, it leads to a lot of people bouncing there waiting for something to happen, and then everything being very-low-scoring, because nobody does anything. And, when nobody does anything, the result of the bout gets somewhat more random, because whoever got a touch or two in the beginning can just sit there and defend, which works well. This is related to camping in video games.

So fencing being offensive or defensive is very different from soccer or basketball, and the difference is such, I think, that offensive/defensive balance is important.

About counterattacks being a blight on the lower levels: I think this debate so far has been about what optimizes the high level, not really caring about the low level. What optimizes the low level is likely to be something very different, and should be in a separate discussion. It is also very unlikely that the FIE will ever take into account the problems of low-level fencers.

[Superscribe]

I've always thought that fencing with a epee like tip with the current lockout time would be pretty decent. I rather like the idea of longer travel with complete depression immediately setting off the light. The tip would be smaller and the insulation would be different, but with the same double spring internal setup.

Obviously this may give the false impression of pushing foil more toward epee, but i the "essence" or "true nature" of foil would be retained. I'm undecided on whether or not foil's should be stiffer.

On the other hand, i look forward to punishing the squirmy counterattacking 15 yr olds in the future with a savage yet valid stab in the throat. With enough vicious remising into the neck region, we can all do our part in with the fie and save foil.