Flicks

[FlamingDeth]

Oh, I forgot to comment about defending against flicks. Silly me.

Anyhow, most of the people up here are classical fencers (me included) and almost never flick. Those that do almost always go to the should, and I've found that with that, you can just step in a little and the point will land flat.

[135711]

how remise!

Don't worry, about being forgetful, we all forget things from time to time, in fact, I nearly forgot about the board, but here it is, almost rebuilt in its' entirity.

Stepping in can be dangerous, you'd have to make sure you kept your eye on the blade; if you walk in too close you won't be able to get your point on.

[Mischa]

Don't forget it's still their right of way even if you step in, so it's a calculated risk.

[jeff]

Right of way: that's the real problem. This isn't specifically about the flick but is related due to common flick mechanics (whipping the arm back, and then forward again at the last motion). Some directors act as if any forward motion of the legs constitutes an attack even when the arm is withdrawn, the point directed at the ceiling or towards the spectators, etc. The scenario is described well on USFA website (under Comittee Websites -> FOC -> FAQ).

If the withheld arm used by a lot of flickers was called invitation or preparation as it should be, then I think there would be a lot less objection to the culiminating action.

There, now that should set off a lovely set of ranting and fighting for everyone's entertainment!

[135711]

that is very well put, exactly, the running motion of the feet does not constitute an attack, it's the threat of the extended arm which is the threat.

why pull the arm back, the way i was taught to flick, it's like casting a fishing line, the arm is extended first, you've established your threat, you move forward, the arm does move outwards from the center into 6th position, the hand wrist are still straight, the elbow is slightly bend and you quickly 'flick' into the chest as though you were casting. the shoulder flick doesn't even require a pull back, it's really a thrust with a last moment flip downward using the wrist.

pulling back the arm only invites controversy, red cards, brutality. Instructors should be teaching the flick and that way no-one will err.

BTW: it occurs to me, the flick has gone the way of the fleche!

[jeff]

We're in agreement. Done the way you describe, it sounds very much like a feint-coupe with different hand angulation - and should have no controversy whatsoever. Even a coupe (sorry about not putting the accent over the "e", I just can't think how to at this moment) briefly deviates the point from target, but convention has always been that a "correctly executed" one doesn't lose the ROW.

If flicks were done the way you say, and pulling the arm back was consistently called a break in attack, there would be a lot less fuss.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence - could you explain?

Jeff

[135711]

nothing dramatic, but it seems every time something good comes about, something is taken away in fencing, maybe i was thinking of saber again, no crossover, no fleche, or did i flake out onthis...

the point being, the row in foil, now tell me this is the problem? as soon as the arm is bent again, the fencer has lost the right of way...well, i wish they'd watch a few people here! ha we have a guy who brings his arm all the way up to the freakin ceiling as he prepares to attack [ack] ...but the running that accompanies it happens too fast to see all the arm movements unless of course the director opts to run - up and down the piste following the action.....the way they run up and down a basketball court, maybe we should think about doing the same thing?

not wanting to confuse the issue, keeping the arm unbent would be the best bet.

[bug]

I can't wait to learn how to flick...it just looks so cool...but I do sometimes hate being flicked

[Boo Boo]

Where is the fun if you take away broken time attacks? If everything was perfectly progressive all of the time, things would be far too easy to parry ;-)

Boo

[typoink]

Mischa, I'm curious as to where you heard that.

True dueling swords had much stiffer blades than our modern foils. It's hard for me to believe that any duelist could really manage to flick a rapier.

I can imagine them using a similar snapping motion to do what you're describing...but that's not really flicking, is it?

I could be wrong.

[135711]

in real dueling, there's no rules, a person doesn't have to worry about row and so forth, if you can manage to flick a broadsword, then i'd do it. that's how those guys got to be masters, they got swords they stood in the backyard and they flung them around their until the ting just went 'zing, zing zing' like the singing sword, that's how all those stories got written.

[Sildar]

Originally posted by typoink
Mischa, I'm curious as to where you heard that.

True dueling swords had much stiffer blades than our modern foils. It's hard for me to believe that any duelist could really manage to flick a rapier.

I can imagine them using a similar snapping motion to do what you're describing...but that's not really flicking, is it?

I could be wrong.

You're not wrong. Flicking is solely a modern sport technique. Flicking with a real rapier, or any dueling sword for that matter, is not possible with an accurate blade. A blade stiff enough to thrust properly and weighted so as to handle correctly isn't floppy or tip-heavy enough to flick.

I assumed (and still hope) that Mischa's comment was a joke. Then again, I've heard wilder rumors repeated here, so I figured just for the record I'd chime in on this one. I have to admit though, I find the image of an 18th century duelist flicking the wig off his opponent darn funny.

[wflaschka]

Flicking has not only taken fencing to another dimension but it has made fencing really beautiful.

Modern sport fencing can be exceedingly pure. I love the flick.

You're not wrong. Flicking is solely a modern sport technique. Flicking with a real rapier, or any dueling sword for that matter, is not possible with an accurate blade.

I've read differently. The flick is descended from a coupe; in the classical past fencers did something like it with their stiff blades but using wrist angulation for hand / forearm cuts. I might've read this in Rudy Volkmann's book.

If you look at a real flick (hand angled, not relying on blade whip) it still looks like a coupé, except that it finishes with arm raised so the tip hits down.

According to the USFCA (coach's association) the FIE is looking at changing scoring box timing to ?15 or 20 milliseconds. The result would be that flicks where the barrel hits flat would usually not register, but real flicks with full depression will register.

[Sildar]

Originally posted by wflaschka

I've read differently. The flick is descended from a coupe; in the classical past fencers did something like it with their stiff blades but using wrist angulation for hand / forearm cuts. I might've read this in Rudy Volkmann's book.

If you look at a real flick (hand angled, not relying on blade whip) it still looks like a coupé, except that it finishes with arm raised so the tip hits down.

A coupé, a thrust with angulation, and a flick are completely different things. The motion of the coupé may have led to the flick, but a flick is an attack in which the blade is bent by the whiplike force applied to it, hence the name.

In other words, a flick is a flick. A coupé is a coupé, even if it is followed by an angulated thrust. To claim otherwise is to redefine established fencing terminology. If you know of any sources which use the word "flick" to describe a thrust with angulation of the wrist from any time prior to the 20th century, I'd be quite interested in seeing them.

[wflaschka]

The motion of the coupé may have led to the flick

Quite. As I wrote, the flick is descended from the coupé.

In other words, a flick is a flick. A coupé is a coupé...

Two different actions having two different names doesn't necessarily remove their kinesthetic & physiological connection.

I learned my own flick from an old school Russian coach. Its execution is basically an "extension from above", and doesn't rely on blade whippiness, and doesn't require a bend (though it helps). The tip hits flat (or flattish) and has a better register rate than other kinds I've seen.

The move as I learned it would be meaningless in a real fight, but its classical precedents are easy to see. BTW -- I checked my Volkmann book and he's all about the whip. FWIW, he observes that the wrist should be the fulcrum, and beginners use the elbow or shoulder.

If you know of any sources which use the word "flick"

Gar. The flick is a colloquialism for an arc attack. It has also been connected to sabre cuts. It won't be found under "flick", I agree.

Flicking is solely a modern sport technique.

...was what I reacted to. Let me ammend and agree that it's modern, but with antecedents.

[wflaschka]

Found my source...

Sometimes thought of as a recent corruption, flicks actually have a long history that stems from coupe' (the cut-over) and fencers' efforts to throw their points around the parry.

From the Fencing FAQ. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sports/fencing-faq/part1/

[magma]

but a coupe technically goes over a blade, as a way of avoiding contact with the opponents blade, so you go up, over, and immediately point into chest, thrust, and hit. with a flick to the chest, it more like from the side, but not too much because you don't want anyone to see it, so it doesn't really go over the opponents blade at all, usually this attack is launched after you break the opponents rhythm.

-->--------
i took off 4 days from fencing and i feel like a blob

[Sildar]

Originally posted by wflaschka
Found my source...


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes thought of as a recent corruption, flicks actually have a long history that stems from coupe' (the cut-over) and fencers' efforts to throw their points around the parry.

From the Fencing FAQ. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sports/fencing-faq/part1/

Garbage, lies and poppycock.

I certainly believe that this is indeed in the FAQ. Note, however, that the FAQ does not cite any source for this "fact" and I challenge anyone to find ANY pre-20th century fencing treatise which describes "fencers' efforts to throw the point around the parry," let alone several which constitute a "long history," unless the last 30 years qualifies as a long history.

The coupé isn't even an attack; it is a movement, like the disengage, which moves the blade from one side of the opponent's blade to the other. We may speak of attack by coupé or attack by disengage, but that does not make either the coupé or the disengage an attack. The thrust which can follow either action is an attack; the preceding motion is merely the preparation to the attack.

The flick, on the other hand, is an attack made by flipping the point onto the target using the flexibility of the blade, rather than moving forward and/or extending to thrust. I have never heard of anyone else calling an angulated thrust a flick. Every other fencer I have ever spoken with has described the flick as I have defined it. Your coach may have called an angulated thrust after a coupe a flick, but this is not the accepted use of the term. I do not mean to fixate upon this definition, but I think that most internet arguments are more due to miscommunications than actual differences of opinion, and therefore we must be precise in our terminology.

Cats and dogs share a number of biomechanical similarities. This does not mean a cat is a kind of dog. Likewise with flicks and coupes. They may be related movements, but there was no flick prior to 20th century sport fencing.

[Mischa]

Originally posted by typoink
Mischa, I'm curious as to where you heard that.

True dueling swords had much stiffer blades than our modern foils. It's hard for me to believe that any duelist could really manage to flick a rapier.

I can imagine them using a similar snapping motion to do what you're describing...but that's not really flicking, is it?

I could be wrong.

Haven't you ever seen 'The Mask of Zorrow'?

[wflaschka]

Note, however, that the FAQ does not cite any source for this "fact" and

The FAQ also doesn't quote its source for extensions, lunges &etc.

To learn more about the history of the flick and the coupé, you can google it, or trust the highly visible living document that is the FAQ.

Alternatively, the relationship of the two moves falls under the heading of "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" with regards to hand, angulation, usage... one needs only to see a proper flick next to a proper coupé. But I'd understand if you didn't agree based on this.

"So-called "flicks", relatives of the coupe' that involve whipping the foible of the blade around parries or blocking body parts, can also take the right-of-way when the blade starts its final forward stroke." some NMFC coach interpreting FIE

I challenge anyone to find ANY pre-20th century fencing treatise which describes "fencers' efforts to throw the point around the parry,"

That's certainly a very safe challenge, isn't it. I decline the opportunity to do lots of research in order to change your mind. Not to be unkind, but if you'd like to believe that the flick has ZERO relation to anything previous in fencing (that is, it sprang wholly formed from Emil Beck's brain in 1982), then I am content to let you believe that.

Every other fencer I have ever spoken with has described the flick as I have defined it.

And many coaches, too. I assume they showed you the requisite pre-20th century fencing texts. However, the flick as you describe it (and as is commonly described) is more of a whip than a flick.

Be wary of what "everybody believes." Everybody also believes that the definition of a fencing attack includes an extension of the arm.