Flicks

[Sildar]

Originally posted by wflaschka
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.

It is extremely poor scholarship to trust any document intended for general audiences which doesn't cite sources for supposed historical facts; such documents usually repeat a good bit of information that "everbody knows," which you (quite correctly) warned against at the end your last post.

"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

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.

The passage you quoted defines flicks as "whipping the foible of the blade around parries or blocking body parts;" this is in fact something that did not exist prior to the last century. This is fundamentally different from a coupé, which of course was used for the last 300 years at least. This whipping of the foible is what separates the flick from the coupé, which is why a new term came into use in the late 20th century.

You quoted a source earlier that claimed the flick had a "long history," and this is still false. The coupé, which is a related action, has a long history. The flick proper has a short history. Let us not confuse the two.

And many coaches, too. I assume they showed you the requisite pre-20th century fencing texts.

Yes. In fact most of my spare time is devoted to studying pre-20th century fencing treatises, and if you or anyone else knows of any texts which explain how exactly one might whip the foible of a rapier or smallsword around an opponent's parry, I'd be quite interested to see it. I didn't ask you to do "lots of research," I simply ask for one single example of this technique from a dueling treatise.

[wflaschka]

Slidar, I think we're substantially in agreement.

The discussion began when someone wrote: "Flicking is solely a modern sport technique."

Then I wrote: "I've read differently. The flick is descended from a coupe."

I've always maintained that they're related, that "Two different actions having two different names doesn't necessarily remove their kinesthetic & physiological connection."

And I proferred some sources that show it's not solely a modern sport technique:

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.

and

So-called "flicks", relatives of the coupe'

and I also personally note a visual, muscular and tactical connection. I still maintain that there exists a "relationship of the two moves ... with regards to hand, angulation, usage".

You write:

The passage you quoted defines flicks as "whipping the foible of the blade around parries or blocking body parts;" this is in fact something that did not exist prior to the last century.

I concur. It wouldn't have been possible in days of yore.

This is fundamentally different from a coupé, which of course was used for the last 300 years at least. This whipping of the foible is what separates the flick from the coupé, which is why a new term came into use in the late 20th century.

Well said. Yesterday I wrote: "Let me ammend and agree that it's modern, but with antecedents."

So it appears we're arguing different things. I believe the flick's inheritance of most aspects of the coupé allows us to think of the coupé as an antecedent to the flick. If nothing else, this gives us a framework with which to evaluate the flick.

You wrote "The motion of the coupé may have led to the flick". However, you apparently believe that the flick's inheritance from the coupé can be discarded, and that possibly we must view the flick "from scratch" so to speak, without preconceptions, as a new action that emerged circa 19??.


We also seem to disagree about what the coupé and flick achieve. In my view they are quite similar. The coupé is more than just a cutover that changes line, more than just a sort of disengage; as an attack (coupé finished with extension) the tip is traveling down to the target though the blade must bend up as with a normal hit. With a flick the hand has the same shape as this coupé, the tip is traveling down, but a blade bent against the target is not the goal, the tip can bounce off. To train the flick, the coach can have the student alternate [a] a coupé with a straight hit on the high inside with [b] a coupé with a flick to shoulder. The hand and movement changes not a bit, though the arm raises for the flick. Like father and son.

I've enjoyed disagreeing with you; you've caused me to closely re-examine my notions. And I'm with you on tossing out suspect sources of information, there is a lot of junk written about fencing (from the 1400's onwards). Anyone who undertakes to wade through it has a big task. I'm looking for some good text on modern tactics and psychology (like, when to do what, how to sense distance)... have you come across anything good? Or is the world waiting for such a work?

[MikeHarm]

I've read stories of motions similar to flicks used in duels. What they were was that some idiot of low skill would dress up in some fancy outfit or what not for the duel announcing that he was of such a high level of skill that the other guy wouldn't get near him so it was fine to wear. Instead of the higher caliber swordsman killing him outright they'd make sport of them and bit by bit slice away at the fool's fancy outfit ruining it, knock their wig off and scratched them up until they'd give in.

In a sense is that not a historically accurate way that people won a duel by flicking?

[S. Fisher]

"there is a lot of junk written about fencing (from the 1400's onwards)"

Explain, what do you deem junk?

[wflaschka]

In modern times, "junk" is anything which clearly goes against rational fencing thought. Stuff which can be dismissed because you have more knowledge than the author. Also, weird odd stuff or strange shortcomings, e.g. Evangelista's "palm up" guard position.

Historically, junk is silly documents about fencing techniques were guarded like weapons of mass destruction. If you paid enough money and promised secrecy until X years after the master's death, you could learn "The Iron Girdle" (circular parry six).

Spanish maestros with their geometric circle-dances, half spiritual footwork, half witchcraft. Old fencers paying masters of the Spanish school to learn immortality, or the "all catching parry", or what have you.

All that sort of stuff is junk. For a long while, fencing was life-and-death important, and so of course all the snake-oil salesmen were making a buck selling hopes and dreams.

Slidar might include "The Fencing FAQ" as a suspect source.

Compare and contrast all this "junk" with the clarity and genius of, say, Laslo Szabo's book, "Fencing and the Master."

[FoilyGeezer]

Might I throw this nuance into the mix.

When I was fencing in High School in the late 70's, it was still pretty common for us to have dry meets.

There was one school in particular that would field a "team move" every year. One year it was the fleche, the next year it was coupe. Some of them did it poorly, but when fencing electrically would light the light, and a few of them caught on to the trick. They were really flicking, they just didn't know it. To them (and us) it was just a sloppy coupe.

They also tended to shy away from this attack when fencing dry. Since there is less contact time with a flick, and it is harder to tell a flick that has been landed to one that has either missed or landed flat, the chances of having a good attack go unseen or end up miscalled was pretty high.

I think that more than anything the use of electric fencing gear has made the flick a viable attack tactic. A tactic which has proven itself by virtue of result rather than by intent. Which is why I hate to direct bouts where flickers are flicking their flicks. The way I learned it ROW is established by extension of the arm threatening your opponent with the point of your weapon. It's a real mental challenge to say that a fencer who has his/her elbow bent and point threatening the overhead lighting has right of way over someone who is lunging directly at them.

[wflaschka]

Foilygeezer -- I, too, have trouble wrapping my mind around non arm-extending attacks. For me, the trouble is calling actions consistently -- sometimes, the bent arm looks like the attack, sometimes it doesn't.

There's an excellent discussion of this at the Fencing Official Committee website. The link why not: http://www.fencingofficials.org/FAQ.html.

It notably says that arms don't have to be forward-extending to "threaten target", and that even during a pull-back (coupé, flick, marching attack) the target is still under threat.

There is also this guy's site: http://www.geocities.com/fencinglessons/1.html. (I think this is the right site.) He notes that if you give ground before a bent-arm attack, then you are acknowledging that you are being threatened -- and the director will probably "agree" with your assessment and award the attack against you.

I'm okay with this new(?) definition, but the extending arm thing is tough to let go.

[wflaschka]

...that is, "extendING" versus "extendED". I just reread the FOC page.

[Sildar]

Originally posted by wflaschka
Slidar, I think we're substantially in agreement.
(snip)
"Let me ammend and agree that it's modern, but with antecedents."

So it appears we're arguing different things.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I'll certainly agree with the above statements, it appeared that you were argueing something slightly different.

You wrote "The motion of the coupé may have led to the flick". However, you apparently believe that the flick's inheritance from the coupé can be discarded, and that possibly we must view the flick "from scratch" so to speak, without preconceptions, as a new action that emerged circa 19??.

I think that the flick merits recognition as a significant departure from any prior fencing action, as it prompted major revisions of the way competitive fencing is taught, directed, and practised to a degree that the coupé never did. If you watch top level competitive fencers taking lessons, the footwork, distance, guard positions, feints, and parries are greatly modified to address the popularity of flicking actions now prevalent in the upper skill levels. This is a large change from what you would have seen in competitions 40 or 50 years ago. Interpretations of ROW have been modified, and the very definition of an attack has been re-thought. The fact that a flick can bend around conventional parries which would have defeated a coupé suggests to me that this is really a new category of actions, rather than a slight modification of an existing technique.

I'm looking for some good text on modern tactics and psychology (like, when to do what, how to sense distance)... have you come across anything good? Or is the world waiting for such a work?

I haven't found anything yet which could really be said to be a definitive and comprehensive book on modern fencing, and I don't think we will any time soon. The fact that the FIE has been revising the rules every few years means that by the time any sort of comprehensive competitive text was completed, much of it would be obsolete. On the other hand, I don't read as much of the modern stuff, most of the books I read are over 100 years old...

[Sildar]

Originally posted by MikeHarm
I've read stories of motions similar to flicks used in duels. What they were was that some idiot of low skill would dress up in some fancy outfit or what not for the duel announcing that he was of such a high level of skill that the other guy wouldn't get near him so it was fine to wear. Instead of the higher caliber swordsman killing him outright they'd make sport of them and bit by bit slice away at the fool's fancy outfit ruining it, knock their wig off and scratched them up until they'd give in.

In a sense is that not a historically accurate way that people won a duel by flicking?

There was one case of something like this happening, but it was a public match, not a duel. You must be referring to the match when Louis-Justin Lafaugere fought the Comte de Bondy; the later wore a laced satin outfit, and implied that he didn't need to worry about it getting torn up. Lafaugere deliberately aimed for the lace with his ripostes, and by the end of the match the Comte's outfit was shredded simply by being hit with the foil so many times. There's no indictation that he flicked, since he was awarded points with each touch, and in those days you had to bend the blade against the target for a moment for a touch to be counted. Lafaugere simply gave the foil a little extra push after the hit, most likely. And the final score was 50 to 3 (for Lafaugere)!

Still, one of my favorite fencing stories.

[wflaschka]

Originally posted by Sildar

I think that the flick merits recognition as a significant departure from any prior fencing action, as it prompted major revisions of the way competitive fencing is taught, directed, and practised to a degree that the coupé never did. ...

At the risk of over-agreeing with you, let me agree. I can see how the ability to hit obscured or even non-visible targets, as well as wrap around a parry, has changed fencing signifigantly... indeed, light, flexible weapons have changed fencing.

I would only say that the flick is a message, not the messenger. A symptom but not the source of this change. I see other symptoms -- like later parries, closer-held gards, 45 degree torso en gardes, but I'll have to think it over.

Originally posted by Sildar

The fact that a flick can bend around conventional parries which would have defeated a coupé suggests to me that this is really a new category of actions, rather than a slight modification of an existing technique.

Fair enough. Probably the best 1-paragraph overview of the effect of flexible weapons on fencing I've ever read.

[Sildar]

Originally posted by wflaschka

Spanish maestros with their geometric circle-dances, half spiritual footwork, half witchcraft. Old fencers paying masters of the Spanish school to learn immortality, or the "all catching parry", or what have you.

All that sort of stuff is junk. For a long while, fencing was life-and-death important, and so of course all the snake-oil salesmen were making a buck selling hopes and dreams.

Slidar might include "The Fencing FAQ" as a suspect source.

Again, I feel I must clarify a bit here regarding the Spanish school, since that is something of a specialty of mine.

Most of the "mystical" aspects of old Spanish fencing do not actually come from the Spanish masters themselves, but from the speculations of people who didn't know much about Spanish fencing, who had read a little about it (or in some cases merely looked at the illustrations from a couple of texts) and fundamentally misunderstood the system. Maestro Ramon Martinez, who has probably studied more Spanish rapier treatises than anyone alive, has said several times that there is no magic mentioned anywhere in any Spanish fencing book; they simply used geometry to describe the movements and angles of offense and defense, so that their descriptions of bladework and footwork would be more precise. The famous circle was simply a tool to help the fencer maintain the proper distance; if you stay on the perimeter of an imaginary circle, determined by the length of the fencer's weapons, then you at the correct distance. This approach can be quite effective when properly employed, but it works best with rapiers of course (imagine that).

Maestro Martinez describes it far better than I could in a series of articles entitled "The Demystification of the Spanish School" which are posted on his website (www.martinez-destreza.com)

Some of the old books are not written terribly well; some are very well organized and are the very model of clarity, if you speak early modern Spanish, you know what the terms mean, and you've seen the core techniques demonstrated by someone who knows what they're doing.

A recent prime example of flawed research is the book "By the Sword," which contains a great deal of information, almost all of which with regards to pre-20th century fencing is grossly misinterpreted or just plain incorrect. Though the author clearly did a lot of research for this book, he also accepted a lot of conventional wisdom about fencing history as a given, and thus his perspective was highly skewed and countless errors crept into his historical overview of early fencing. He also repeated errors from secondary sources without checking the originals to see whether the later interpretations were correct.

I'm not aiming this at you personally, wflaschka, this is simply a common misconception which happens to be a pet peeve of mine. Spanish fencing, done well, is beautiful and efficient, but there are so few people who truly know how it works that it has become one of the most misunderstood topics in fencing.

[Sildar]

Originally posted by FoilyGeezer
Since there is less contact time with a flick, and it is harder to tell a flick that has been landed to one that has either missed or landed flat, the chances of having a good attack go unseen or end up miscalled was pretty high.

I think that more than anything the use of electric fencing gear has made the flick a viable attack tactic.

Absolutely! In the old days, a flick, even if they could somehow verify that the point hadn't landed flat, wouldn't have been considered a touch, since it didn't meet the traditional assumptions about what constitutes a touch. I find it interesting that while the scoring machine was first invented to match fencers' definitions of what a touch should be, has now changed that definition...

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Sildar
{snip}
I find it interesting that while the scoring machine was first invented to match fencers' definitions of what a touch should be, has now changed that definition...

As has happened in sabre, with the removal of the requirement that cuts be made with the edge.

--Philistine

[neevel]

Of course, in the old days there were tricks to getting a touch seen by the judges (such as making that little downward 'flip' with the blade just before hitting, so that the point would actually land flat, but make a nice, distinct downward bend that couldn't be missed) that were just as much an example of playing to the scoring system as flicks are. This has always been a part of combat sports, and is inevitable since it's virtually impossible to create a perfect-but-safe simulation (in both technical aspects and in scoring rules) of real combat.

-Dave

[FoilyGeezer]

I think that the flick merits recognition as a significant departure from any prior fencing action, as it prompted major revisions of the way competitive fencing is taught, directed, and practised to a degree that the coupé never did. If you watch top level competitive fencers taking lessons, the footwork, distance, guard positions, feints, and parries are greatly modified to address the popularity of flicking actions now prevalent in the upper skill levels. This is a large change from what you would have seen in competitions 40 or 50 years ago. Interpretations of ROW have been modified, and the very definition of an attack has been re-thought. The fact that a flick can bend around conventional parries which would have defeated a coupé suggests to me that this is really a new category of actions, rather than a slight modification of an existing technique.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I see the viability of the use of the flick almost as a side effect of the application of technology to the sport. Mind you, I'm not saying bad bad evil technology ruined fencing...But the ability to reliably verify a hit which is valid only for nanoseconds certainly does pose a departure from its precedent. As I was implying, there was a budding realization that certain "sloppy" techniques were in fact something different, whether intentionally so or by obvious dint of their effect. The way that the sport has adapted to those changes in my (extended but not idle) absence, has sent me back to school to a large extent since rejoining the sport.

So where you say the flick is the departure, I'd tend to weigh the ability to detect the effectiveness of such tactics as the flick to be the causal factor in the change of style and tactics in foil. The flick is merely an effect of that. I would without trepidation say that flicking has probably been around in foil for quite some time (a nasty flaw in technique that was earnestly corrected by fencing masters), but due to the unreliability of judging it's effectiveness was not used and not taught because we desire to train fencers to win bouts in judgement not in fact.

Electricity changed all that. Not the flick.

I think that the flick merits recognition as a significant departure from any prior fencing action, as it prompted major revisions of the way competitive fencing is taught, directed, and practised to a degree that the coupé never did. If you watch top level competitive fencers taking lessons, the footwork, distance, guard positions, feints, and parries are greatly modified to address the popularity of flicking actions now prevalent in the upper skill levels. This is a large change from what you would have seen in competitions 40 or 50 years ago. Interpretations of ROW have been modified, and the very definition of an attack has been re-thought. The fact that a flick can bend around conventional parries which would have defeated a coupé suggests to me that this is really a new category of actions, rather than a slight modification of an existing technique

[Sildar]

Originally posted by FoilyGeezer
I'm not sure that I agree with that. I see the viability of the use of the flick almost as a side effect of the application of technology to the sport...

Electricity changed all that. Not the flick.

I don't contest the fact that the popularity of the flick was a direct result of the scoring machine. The flick is simply one of the most obvious changes that has been made, with all of the effects I listed above in turn stemming directly from the flick, and one step farther back, from the introduction of electric scoring. Electric scoring has led to all kinds of other modifications to existing techniques, along with interpretation of rules and ROW and so on. So yes, you could easily say that the box is the why, the flick is the how regarding change in fencing.

[FoilyGeezer]

Originally posted by Sildar
Electric scoring has led to all kinds of other modifications to existing techniques, along with interpretation of rules and ROW and so on.

Though there is one thing that hasn't changed...the shortest path between two points is a straight line. My game was always one of psychological dominance coupled with speed. Though the execution has suffered somewhat from age, I find that there are few remedies to a very quick and unexpected direct attack, and there is just something that galls at me in saying that by taking your point out of line you do not surrender ROW. At the end of the analysis, if you land a cutting stroke and I land a well aimed point attack, the probabilities lean toward me ending up injured and you ending up dead.

[135711]

I agree, the circle on the floor thing, was used as an inticement toward mysticism, it was probably connected to the desire to bring people into the crusade thing; but be that as it may, a circle, such as a circle parry riposte, is still just a geometric thing, whether on the floor or in the air. To look at defenses against such innovative techniques, you can pick up a protractor, put the end onto the target, draw a 'forbidden' circle around it, and that's probably where the forte should be? Can we make up a new parry and call it the Anti-Flick?

[wflaschka]

Originally posted by 135711 Can we make up a new parry and call it the Anti-Flick?

I just bought Rudy Volkmann's book, "Magnum Libre D'escrime" through this website. During the chapter on parries, he brings up a parry that (as far as he could determine) was his own unique invention: "The flying four to the lateral flick".

The defender must time the defense to the arrival of the flick; the defender's blade "helicopters" as horzontally as possible in a circle, catches the flick, and ends up with pronated hand to flank. There are pictures.

Spanish school -- All my book learning on Fencing had sort of laughed at the spanish method. However, in the last few weeks I've been doing web research on the differences in national fencing styles. I have come across some passages online that said, in effect, we are just now beginning to understand what the Spaniards were doing. That is, they'd been undeservingly discredited.