Is Foil "Broken"?

[dknj]

Is Foil “Broken”?

The short answer is, yes, foil is broken and it needs to be fixed. The long answer requires some explanation.

http://www.sofaemployed.com/?p=1225

[Nolano]

Yes, foil is broken.

Oh wait? You mean, like it was just broken recently? I don't know anything about taht.

[telkanuru]

In Soviet Russia, foil breaks you?

[Hauptman]

Is Foil “Broken”?

The short answer is, yes, foil is broken and it needs to be fixed. The long answer requires some explanation.

http://www.sofaemployed.com/?p=1225

This is a neverending question; whenever asked some people say it needs to go back to where it was, some say it's fine the way it is, and some say it needs something new.

Good luck!!

[Purple Fencer]

Is Foil “Broken”?

The short answer is, yes, foil is broken and it needs to be fixed. The long answer requires some explanation.

http://www.sofaemployed.com/?p=1225

Nice, Dan....have you sent this to Usmanov??

[contre-Sixte]

I don't think flicking fencers was the main problem. Referees directing flicking fencers was/is the problem. Even now with the current timings referees still are afraid to clearly state that a bent arm or a painfully slow hesistating march is just a preparation. To make things worse, referees timidity in calling a preparation "preparation" increases with the notoriety of the preparing fencer. So, while I hate the artificial method of enforcing referee discipline, I must admit that the current timings slightly reduce the frequency of reputation touches.

[OROD]

...Even now with the current timings referees still are afraid to clearly state that a bent arm or a painfully slow hesistating march is just a preparation...

A bent arm is not a preparation. It's not a preparation now. It wasnt a preparation in the past. And it will not be a preparation in the future. This has nothing to do with flicking, and without even knowing it you are contributing to the problem and not the solution.

.

[ysbadadden]

A bent arm is not a preparation. It's not a preparation now. It wasnt a preparation in the past. And it will not be a preparation in the future. This has nothing to do with flicking, and without even knowing it you are contributing to the problem and not the solution.

.

I interpret the original quote as meaning [an advance with] a bent [i.e. non-extending] arm is a preparation. Then what is a preparation? Would you agree that [an advance with] a bent [i.e. non-extending] arm is not an attack? Or is your problem with something else in the phrasing?

[contre-Sixte]

Saying a bent arm is not a preparation is like saying a contorted body with an arm extended and the head turned away from the fencing action is not a counter-attack. Both statements CAN be true, but absent any other information, I wouldn't bank on it.

While I've seen the famous, the infamous, and the obscure (you) march down the strip with their right hand behind their left ear claiming that they are threatening their opponent's target, the referee overwhelmingly concurs with the famous fencer and spanks the obscure fencer when he does the same. Worse yet, the referee stops considering the position or motion of the arm at all; he just calls all advancing fencers attackers. While, apparently this style of directing suits you, frankly it's chickensh..

yeah, I'm the problem.

[edew]

The only broken-ness of foil is the occasional direct hits that don't register. It's not as though people can train to make something stick for 15-20 ms, but not much longer. I'd also say the lock-out timing is a pain. It prevents compound actions because it encourages remising, so fencers are reduced to making simple ripostes, or maybe just a simple disengage. It may result in more phrase exchanges, but really, people would just make the remise in any case after the second parry because there's a good chance the last riposte might not register.

Fencing shouldn't be reduced to the vagaries of some technological edict.

[noodle]

Saying a bent arm is not a preparation is like saying a contorted body with an arm extended and the head turned away from the fencing action is not a counter-attack. Both statements CAN be true, but absent any other information, I wouldn't bank on it.

While I've seen the famous, the infamous, and the obscure (you) march down the strip with their right hand behind their left ear claiming that they are threatening their opponent's target, the referee overwhelmingly concurs with the famous fencer and spanks the obscure fencer when he does the same. Worse yet, the referee stops considering the position or motion of the arm at all; he just calls all advancing fencers attackers. While, apparently this style of directing suits you, frankly it's chickensh..

yeah, I'm the problem.

unless your arm is fully extended, it is always bent. you're saying in the middle of a classical lunge, because the arm is not 100% straight, it is prep?

[keropie]

So, IIRC, as long as the beginning of the extension preceeds the end of the advance in a continuously excecuted advance lunge, the attack began with the beginning of the advance. So if fencer Bob is running down the strip with his hand (not extending) by his left ear, and fencer Joe runs away, then as long as Bob begins his extension before his ultimate advance ends, and Joe doesn't 'attack' until after that ultimate advance begins, Bob attacked, Joe countered. Now, if Joe begins his attack, Bob begins extending (mid advance), makes another advance, and then finishes, Bob was preparing. If Joe attacks, Bob finishes his current advance, begins extending, finishes, Bob was preparing. If Bob was making multiple crossing steps forward, he was preparing (though I hate that rule and wonder if they simply meant that you can't hold an extension in mid fleche and get the call... ~sigh~).

But if Bob's arm is bent, he is not inherently preparing.

[jeff]

I have a few broken ones... Oh, wait, that's not the topic.

Are we really resurrecting bent/extending in time for Auld Lang Syne? I agree with the sentiments expressed by contre-Sixte if we are, but DK's article in the OP touches on (pun!) the foil rule changes. So, are his suggestions better than the current and proposed rules? I think bib as target is a bad idea for safety alone, and marginal with respect to increasing target area.

[keropie]

Well, the rule changes cannot truly be discussed in a vacuum, since they were changed with the (purported) intention of 'fixing' foil. Myself, I vote for changing it all back! 1-5ms debounce and .75 lockout, no bib target!

Though realistically I think I'd vote for something like 7.5 +/-1 ms debounce, .5s lockout, no bib target.

[RITFencing]

Re: the bent arm argument...

Just because an arm is bent does not mean it is not extendING. In fact, if the arm is fully extended, it cannot be extending without a great deal of physical pain and possibly a torture rack.

If the arm is coming back, therefore pulling the tip away from the opponent, it is probably preparation. If, however, the opponent is attempting to defend themselves during this, it should be called either attack or attack non-correct. It all depends on the context of the action.

There is a huge difference starting the tip forward from far away and pulling the tip backwards. All it really takes, even for strict (but competent) refs, should be a small motion of the tip forward. It doesn't have to go out all the way, it just has to start extending.

[Hauptman]

unless your arm is fully extended, it is always bent. you're saying in the middle of a classical lunge, because the arm is not 100% straight, it is prep?

He didn't say that, and it's are real stretch to infer that as well.

So I don't know why you're not addressing the explicit argument he's making.

That is that attacks with extremely obviously bent arms, with weapons pointing in any direction except at their opponent, are called as correct attacks. And then only called as correct when executed by fencers with strong reputations.

Take it further, and let's say clearly that the arm is not extending either, in that the arm maintains the same position for several steps down the strip. Most of the time it even seems fairly clear that the attacker is waiting for the opponents "counter-attack" to come out before finishing. This type of marching attack happens quite often, but is rarely called as prep when done by a high ranking/well-known fencer.

The rank and reputation of the fencer seem to clearly affect the call. This can easily be seen as a flaw in officiating, and not in the foil rules as they stand, but it's still a problem.

[jBirch]

Um, remember all that bladework that coaches threw out a while ago as being archaic? Y'know, the stuff that deals with continuations of the attack?

I'm wondering when they'll come back again...

James.

[RITFencing]

And then only called as correct when executed by fencers with strong reputations.

This is simply not true.

Also, why does the weapon have to be pointing at the opponent? What makes the threat is the tip coming forward to hit, but it can move closer without forming a line between the fencer's elbow, hand, blade and target. If you're not attacking me, and I start to move the tip towards your target in an attempt to hit (ie to put my colored light on), it doesn't matter what line or where that tip is. I've begun to attack you.

[RITFencing]

Um, remember all that bladework that coaches threw out a while ago as being archaic? Y'know, the stuff that deals with continuations of the attack?

I'm wondering when they'll come back again...

James.

Remises are alive and well in all three (I've given attack and remise lessons in foil, epee and sabre and seen them used to good effect) and to a lesser extent, so are reprises (if you belong to the school of thought that a reprise is a renewal of an attack following a recovery; I've heard different definitions) and redoublements.

The footwork for reprises and redoublements is certainly usedful in all three, even if bladework actions might make the ref call it a counter parry riposte or w/e.

[Hauptman]

This is simply not true.

Also, why does the weapon have to be pointing at the opponent? What makes the threat is the tip coming forward to hit, but it can move closer without forming a line between the fencer's elbow, hand, blade and target. If you're not attacking me, and I start to move the tip towards your target in an attempt to hit (ie to put my colored light on), it doesn't matter what line or where that tip is. I've begun to attack you.

Well, I don't have a copy of the rules handy, but isn't there language about the point threatening the opponent? If so, then what exactly should that mean?

If you allow that the point can be pointing anywhere and still be threatening, then how would you define it? What was the reason for including that language in the rules?

The example also specifically talked about the point not continuously moving towards the target, but being held back. Unless you're counting the forward motion of the body, and not necessarily the arm, as moving the tip forward?