Is Foil "Broken"?

[notalent]

Some people here are crazy.

You're only just now comming to that conclusion?

[notalent]

Which is why "attack - no" is usually heard at local events....pretty clear to the participants.

Makes me happy I dont fence locally with you as a ref As often as you have seen Kelly, DC, Robby, or me make the call
R Preparation
L Attack

I would think you would know that we dont say attack no for something that isnt well an attack

[notalent]

No.

Can we just end the thread now????

PLEASE?!?!?!?!?!?!

Do you honestly think that foil 2009 is better than foil 2003?

[notalent]

Dude, the point is that the ref that says "the parry didn't stop the attack" HAS acknowledged a parry and that the defender made an action while ADDING some obtuse concept to the determination of the parry's validity. This is a bad place for the ref. It's worse than having your friend Captain-4-Point explain why your attack wasn't an attack*.


*+1 for proper I'd of inside ref's joke.

Saddly I needs spread rep around some first

[notalent]

Rep for you. Good lord, he's never going to live that one down.

Nor should he

[Stormbringer]

Do you honestly think that foil 2009 is better than foil 2003?

(taking "you" to address the general forum population...)

It depends on how one defines "better". I think one must ask, "What would make the game "better", how would it do so, and is it necessary and/or desirable to do so?"

Take, for example, this video:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62FDq7LoIwM[/YOUTUBE]

It shows the finals of the MF championships from both 2002 and 2005 (granted, not the exact year range mentioned, but it should still serve well, for this comparison. Besides, we all watched the Olympics, so we know what high-level foil in 2008 looks like, yes?).
I think having the two back-to-back illustrates the change of style rather well.

Personally, I think that the later era (2005) is more appealing (as a spectator, at least); the longer phrases and greater variety of tactics (which seem, to me, to be generally more balanced between offense and defense) employed are more interesting, in general, than the very short phrases consisting, mostly, of march/flick combos (or attempts thereof).

I think one must ask, "Does this perceived shift make the overall game "better" than it was prior to the shift, and by what criteria do we determine whether this is actually so?"

(Of course, being a epeeist, I would prefer the slower, seemingly more careful and calculated, seemingly more balanced game to the "mad rush for ROW, followed by reckless abandon"... )

Interestingly, this also touches on the question given in the thread's title, "Is foil "broken"?". I think that certain elements of the previous paradigm were broken, and had to be replaced with something different and new. So, in that sense, the way some played the game - which is not necessarily the same thing as the game itself - has become broken.

I think the real question is, "Have the changes, taken as a whole, proven to be beneficial or detrimental to foil fencing, and by what criteria do we determine this?", and that the answer depends on where/when you started, and your stance WRT certain issues; for example, someone who was primarily/wholly dependent on the march/flick combo would, of course, make the claim - rather vocally - that the game is broken, while someone who rarely used it (and/or an area where it was not commonly used) wouldn't be affected to anywhere near the same degree.

Personally, I think the game, as a whole, has merely changed, rather than become outright broken. That being said, there are instances of changes that may require further addressing and refinement (the microbreak/straight-hits-supposedly-made-in-time-with-working-equipment-that-don't-register issue comes to mind)...

What do you think?

[Pieter]

It takes an Epeeist to give a nice summary, and reasoned requests for criteria. Very nice post, Stormbringer

I personally have watched fencing far longer than I have actually fenced. I had no perspective of the Fencer's POV with the rule changes, but as an uneducated spectator the fencing post-timing change was far more interesting to watch. I would also say that if the metric of sucess is spectator appeal, the new timings are indeed "better".

[darius]

Personally, I think that the later era (2005) is more appealing (as a spectator, at least); the longer phrases and greater variety of tactics (which seem, to me, to be generally more balanced between offense and defense) employed are more interesting, in general, than the very short phrases consisting, mostly, of march/flick combos (or attempts thereof).

Longer phrases in post-2004 foil? If I were being flippant, I'd say only if you're counting the remises ... in the pre-2004 era, there was far more movement, and more use of the entire strip. I also believe there was more tactical diversity -- of the weapons, epee and sabre both have short and deep target. Being able to hit the entire back gave foil the idea of short and deep (or is it deep and deeper?) target as well.

The real problem with pre-2004 foil was a refereeing issue. You could barge forward, get hit, take two more steps, and finish to the back and get the attack awarded. Roch proposed a technical solution to a personnel problem; you could say the shortened lockout does help that (and I have no problems with the lockout - my reasoning is the same as Dan Kellner's), but the debounce serves no particular purpose other than to (attempt to) eliminate one of the more spectacular actions in foil fencing.

Furthermore, the various committees of the FIE determined the ideal debounce time -- 8-10ms was determined to eliminate the majority of flicks, while still allowing straight actions to hit. That was ignored.

The current foil game is very careful -- one tempo actions are the norm, because of the threat of one-light counterattack. I like the idea of a game where less time is spent doing footwork patterns and looking for a minute change in distance to do a one-tempo attack and more time is spent trying to hit each other. But then, I guess that's why I prefer sabre and foil to epee.

darius

[mrbiggs]

Personally, I think that the later era (2005) is more appealing (as a spectator, at least); the longer phrases and greater variety of tactics (which seem, to me, to be generally more balanced between offense and defense) employed are more interesting, in general, than the very short phrases consisting, mostly, of march/flick combos (or attempts thereof).

I can't speak for international or even high-ranked national fencers, but for the rest of us, foil is a great deal less complex under the new timings. Foil strategy has been reduced to one word: counterattack. (And, of course, move around a whole lot while you do it so your opponent's light doesn't go off.) Whereas before there were actually phrases in fencing, now most touches end with one fencer suddenly bailing on right of way and running wherever he thinks the point is least likely to wind up, while his opponent gets to play pin the tail on the donkey. This has had several immediate effects: first, bouts are longer as aggression is more risky. Second, actions are shorter as the window in which an opponent can safely counterattack is much wider. Third, infractions such as turning the back or covering target (especially with the mask) give huge advantages to the defender, and it's rewarding to get as close as possible to committing them without actually receiving a penalty. These are all huge problems in my opinion, in decreasing order of importance, because they all give an unearned advantage to the reactive fencer.

It is true that sometimes this does lead to more complex touches. If a fencer knows that attacking is only going to put a light on some percentage of the time regardless of how he goes about it, he's going to look to more complex alternatives.

Even disregarding that point, I don't think that more complex fencing is necessarily better, neither in terms of quality of the fencing nor in terms of spectator appeal. Two of my favorite fencing touches of all time were from Golubitsky. The first is a touch from the 1999 world cup final against Zennaro, where he makes a very slow advance, then a slow lunge and hits on target, with his opponent making a weak, late attempt at a parry. Golubitsky's commentated "I love next coming touch, it just shows that to make a successful attack you don't have to be too fast, or very fast, just right in time." I'd add that you don't need to be complex either. The second is his famous point in line--any example, really. Point in line touches have always been attractive to me because of their simplicity.

I would also say that if the metric of sucess is spectator appeal, the new timings are indeed "better".

What about the new timings do you think is most appealing to spectators? And a related question, as a spectator, what do you think would be an ideal to aim for in terms of spectator appeal? Is it long actions, short actions, less right of way, more commonsense touches?

(I should add that I don't think we should model fencing on spectator appeal, but if we're going to make steps in that direction, it would be nice to establish what exactly helps or hurts us in that area.)

The real problem with pre-2004 foil was a refereeing issue. You could barge forward, get hit, take two more steps, and finish to the back and get the attack awarded. Roch proposed a technical solution to a personnel problem; you could say the shortened lockout does help that (and I have no problems with the lockout - my reasoning is the same as Dan Kellner's), but the debounce serves no particular purpose other than to (attempt to) eliminate one of the more spectacular actions in foil fencing.

QFT.

The current foil game is very careful -- one tempo actions are the norm, because of the threat of one-light counterattack.

Exactly. That's not the foil I was taught originally, and I don't think it's as fun to watch or as fun to fence.

[NGV]

.. in the pre-2004 era, there was far more movement, and more use of the entire strip. I also believe there was more tactical diversity -- of the weapons, epee and sabre both have short and deep target. Being able to hit the entire back gave foil the idea of short and deep (or is it deep and deeper?) target as well.

The prevalence of the flick may have added that (back vs. front target) tactical wrinkle, but I think it also tended to deprive the game of some tactical interest, for a few reasons.

First, by essentially nullifying many parries, flicks make tactics that depend on parries (or deceiving parries) less relevant. Similarly, attacks on the blade become less practical when the opponent's point is pointed over their rear shoulder. Combined with the fact that being awarded an attack in prep might depend on the goodwill of the director, this seemed to sometimes lead to a detrimental tendency for the marching flick attack (or efforts to counteract it) to take over a bout.

I have to admit that didn't see and don't remember enough pre-2005 top-level foil to form a truly thorough and reliable opinion. But I have watched pretty much every foil video on Youtube, as well as much of the Olympic MF, and overall I find the current product to be noticeably more satisfying to watch than what I remember from the late 90s.

[keith]

That's not the foil I was taught originally, and I don't think it's as fun to watch or as fun to fence.

Ah those good old days, can't beat em.

I'll follow NGV by suggesting that you might as well be arguing about foil in 60s vs 70s vs 80s vs 90s. The altered timing certainly made the shift a bit more abrupt, but are folk really arguing that the 'preferred alternative' would have resulted in any less moaning?

The way the weapons are fenced changes with time, get over it.

[mrbiggs]

The way the weapons are fenced changes with time, get over it.

The governing body of fencing, in order to get rid of an action which they arbitrarily decided was bad, implemented a rule change that resulted in actions that would have been considered incorrect throughout the history of fencing (like the face parry) becoming extremely powerful defensive maneuvers. It's got nothing to do with the evolution of the sport. Any change the FIE could possibly come up with can be supported by your reasoning.

The "evolution" method would have been tightening AiP calls. And yes, that would have resulted in less moaning. In fact, I'm not sure it would have met with much opposition.

[Pieter]

The governing body of fencing, in order to get rid of an action which they arbitrarily decided was bad, implemented a rule change that resulted in actions that would have been considered incorrect throughout the history of fencing (like the face parry) becoming extremely powerful defensive maneuvers.

Are you talking about the flick or the pistol grip? (If I recall correctly, wasn't the pistol grip once nearly banned because it seemed incorrect in the eyes of many fencers up to that point? Really, wouldn't the flick have been considered incorrect by all fencers until it came into vogue?)

[mrbiggs]

Are you talking about the flick or the pistol grip? (If I recall correctly, wasn't the pistol grip once nearly banned because it seemed incorrect in the eyes of many fencers up to that point? Really, wouldn't the flick have been considered incorrect by all fencers until it came into vogue?)

The flick was what was actually banned, so yes I am referring to the flick. Had the pistol grip ever been banned, I would probably be saying the same thing about that ruling, however.

[noodle]

Are you talking about the flick or the pistol grip? (If I recall correctly, wasn't the pistol grip once nearly banned because it seemed incorrect in the eyes of many fencers up to that point? Really, wouldn't the flick have been considered incorrect by all fencers until it came into vogue?)

the flick was not some shadowy thing that suddenly appeared out of the night to devastate the game.

flicks were present for decades before they became super prevalent in the game.

[telkanuru]

The way the weapons are fenced changes with time, get over it.

I'd hazard to say few changes over time of any weapon include hits to valid target not registering.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

I'd hazard to say few changes over time of any weapon include hits to valid target not registering.

Capteurs (sp?) is the easy example there. How many years did it take for THAT mistake to be corrected?

[telkanuru]

Modified to "few changes over time that stuck and weren't widely regarded as laughable mistakes"?

[sloper]

What bugs me about this whole debate is that foil fencing was already moving away from "crazy marching flicking attacks" before the changes were implemented.

Does anyone remember the US 2004 men's Olympic trials? You could not have asked for more gorgeous fencing. In the last few rounds of Div 1, there was not a lot of flicking. Fencers had learned to spot and defend against flicks, so they had to be done only at the right times to succeed. Most of the actions were straight but complex and heart-stoppingly beautiful (she gushes).

There's only one reason the top men's foil fencers in the country would have been fencing and being coached to fence that way - because it was working on the international level.

(In the DivIA tournament the day before, there were lots of young, tall fencers on the medal stand who did rely on flicking. They got their butts handed to them in the first round of Div 1.)

Flicking was no longer the killer app for foil in 2004. So I think these changes were poorly timed themselves because the game was already naturally changing.

[erooMynohtnA]

What bugs me about this whole debate is that foil fencing was already moving away from "crazy marching flicking attacks" before the changes were implemented.

Does anyone remember the US 2004 men's Olympic trials? You could not have asked for more gorgeous fencing. In the last few rounds of Div 1, there was not a lot of flicking. Fencers had learned to spot and defend against flicks, so they had to be done only at the right times to succeed. Most of the actions were straight but complex and heart-stoppingly beautiful (she gushes).

There's only one reason the top men's foil fencers in the country would have been fencing and being coached to fence that way - because it was working on the international level.

(In the DivIA tournament the day before, there were lots of young, tall fencers on the medal stand who did rely on flicking. They got their butts handed to them in the first round of Div 1.)

Flicking was no longer the killer app for foil in 2004. So I think these changes were poorly timed themselves because the game was already naturally changing.

I think your whole post is wishful thinking or some clouded and rosy memory of how things weren't.

I reject the idea that our men's foilists were being trained in straight actions, because that's what was successful at the international level, because they weren't and it wasn't. Our most successful international fencer at the time, the author of this thread, was known as someone who could really put the flick on a guy.

Sergei Golubitsky has stated that he preferred straight touches, and didn't flick very much. Sergei flicked all the time. It was impossible to fence high level foil without flicking, and flicking a lot.

At the higher levels, fencers couldn't rely on just being faster, taller, and flicking bigger than their opponents. That doesn't mean they didn't want to be taller, faster, and flick bigger too. Div I and Div IA is a huge skill jump. Of course the Div IA champs got destroyed, and it had nothing to do with flicking or not. The Div I fencers had a greater depth of game. Not every action was a flick to the back with them, but almost every action ended in a small flick or flicking thrust.

Saying that the flick wasn't in vogue is silly, and the flick wasn't even the problem. The problem was the "mad rush for ROW, followed by reckless abandon" or march. Instead of changing the refereeing (which I think would have been monumentally difficult to the point of impossibility), they changed another component of the march, which was the ease of hitting.

This segues into another thought, but it's divergent enough that I figured I'd put it in a different post, so I didn't have a giant wall of text.