Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

ZEROFLASH · 10-01-2002, 02:12 AM

A lot of beginning and older foil fencers complain about flicking. They are obviously just sore and embarrassed about getting hit. They say that flicking is not true fencing because in a real sword fight a flick wouldnt work or it would do minimal damage if it hit. But in reality its because they suck at flicking

Classical fencers think that their swordplay is true to real sword fighting. yeah right.....

Even Epee isn't like real sword fighting. Who would try to hit his opponents foot and risk getting a blade through his head in a real sword fight?

I think if they gave non critical targets in Epee(hands,feet, thigh, arm etc..) only half points then it would be more true real sword fighting.

Straight classical fencing is for the losers and out dated people like Evangelista.
It sucks.

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

Today's game is about maing the light go off. Its not about pretending to kill someone. fencing has evolved to a higher level than its classical origins.

Inquartata · 10-01-2002, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZEROFLASH
A lot of beginning and older foil fencers complain about flicking. They are obviously just sore and embarrassed about getting hit. They say that flicking is not true fencing because in a real sword fight a flick wouldnt work or it would do minimal damage if it hit. But in reality its because they suck at flicking

Classical fencers think that their swordplay is true to real sword fighting. yeah right.....

Even Epee isn't like real sword fighting. Who would try to hit his opponents foot and risk getting a blade through his head in a real sword fight?

I think if they gave non critical targets in Epee(hands,feet, thigh, arm etc..) only half points then it would be more true real sword fighting.

Straight classical fencing is for the losers and out dated people like Evangelista.
It sucks.

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

Today's game is about maing the light go off. Its not about pretending to kill someone. fencing has evolved to a higher level than its classical origins.

Tell us what you really think...and how low your exalted opinion of those who disagree with you is.

Geez, man. You think the flick is the apotheosis of foil technique, fine. Doesn't mean that those who feel otherwise are morons or incompetents.

ZEROFLASH · 10-01-2002, 02:31 AM

No I don't think that.

What I think is the modern fencers needs to be able to mix up their game between the orthodox and the unorthodox.

Having the attitude that classical is the right and only way is stupid.

Having an extened arm doesn't mean much anymore. Right of way nowadays almost always goes to the fencer who attacks in tempo.

I've even seen a few times that a fencer wasn't awarded the point even when he initiated a passive (stand there dont move) point in line attack.

So what do you think?

veeco · 10-01-2002, 03:41 AM

I think that there's a new troll in town

Spanky McFarland · 10-01-2002, 07:55 AM

I think conversations regarding the flick hit should be banned from the board, as all of the pro and anti arguments have been hashed over countless times. There is nothing new to say on the matter. I'm sure our esteemed webmaster could do this if he so chose.

MikeHarm · 10-01-2002, 09:26 AM

Being someone who likes classical fencing, and french grip weapons and all that, I've been working on sorting out what the issue is with the flick. I think I've figured it out.

With the standard sort of parries, the concept you're using is to catch the blade make it so the foil blade is warded off in an outside line which is safe. The reason the normal sorts of parries don't work is because of the arcing effect of the blade there simply isn't any safety in the standard parries against it on either side of the blade and it becomes unreliable. I found that dodging the flick wasn't that reliable against the most aggressive opponents either.

I kept getting the usual nonsense about my parries weren't working because of distance and such, and decided that none of that was helping. Distance was an issue, but it wasn't the issue. I took a really close look at what the A fencers were doing, and noticed that they were successfully parrying the flicks at close distance, medium distance etc etc.

It was pretty clear what the difference was between their parries that were working and mine. The parries vs the flick had a spanking of the blade at the end of them, this took the forward energy out of them which they needed to arc so the successfully parried blade landed flat giving you a chance to get a good riposte in with one light. A beat worked just as well as the parry for this purpouse if you timed it correctly.

I tried it out in a tourney and it works great, rather than being soundly beaten by people flicking I was beating people who just flicked like 5-0.

This also explains to me one of the reasons people with french grips have in some cases fallen apart in competition. A pistol grip so often being used in a more heavy handed fashion you would tend to stumble into that method of parry a bit easier without realizing what you were doing.

D'Artagnan1673 · 10-01-2002, 10:17 AM

Welcome Troll.......

Classical fencers are neither stupid nor poor fencers, they simply have different goals in mind. Not every fencer picks up a weapon to be the very best. Ever heard of recreational fencers?

Also, do you actually fence epee? If not, then making conclusions on the weapon without truly understanding it is a rather boorish thing to do.

First of all, I agree that foot shots are very dangerous and for the very reason you mentioned. It is for this reason that they are to be used sparingly and/or only when your opponent least expects it. If I attacked to the foot everytime, my mask would be quite beat up. Next, why do you think that the hand is our favourite location to hit? The hand is the closest part of the target for an epeeist. It would therefore be the safest region of the body to attack. In a duel to the death, those shots to the hand may not be immediately fatal, but I would imagine that they would hurt the duelists ability to handle the weapon properly. The point of epee is defensive offence, not crashing into the mask. I think that no matter where the shot lands, it is just as valid as a shot to the mask.

I really have a hard time acepting that modern foil is more beautiful than the classical foil. Granted all I've seen of it are the poorly taped foil events from the world champs (not Edew's) and low level foil at local competitions. Neither of them are very appealing to me.

D'Artagnan1673 · 10-01-2002, 10:18 AM

Oh, I guess I should mention that my last part about the beauty or lack of in foil is really just an oppinion.

haggis · 10-01-2002, 12:34 PM

Bun fight ensues. Exit Haggis stage left.

Chris Umbs · 10-01-2002, 12:55 PM

Yup, there be trolls here...

I really can't believe that I'm actually bothering to state this yet again but here goes...

For modern fencing, modern fencing tactics are the best and classical fencers like Evagelista who try to impose classical attitudes and tactics on modern fencing are way off base...

Classical fencing IS far more like dueling. Modern moves like flicks are innefective in it since they simply aren't counted as valid attacks. Classical fencers (the good ones at least) are just as athletic as sport fencers, but they have to use more conservative tactics... Nothing like being in a single touch, single elim epee tournament where, if there is a double hit, both fencers are out of the tournament. Now THAT is pressure.

Historical fencing can be really nasty depending on the group. Try a flick against some of them and they will grab your wrist and break it in 3 places for you. It also usually uses some kind of weighted score system so, in the above case of going for a foot shot with a rapier and getting hit in the head, the Association for Historical Fencing would give 1 point to the guy who hit the foot and 3 points (which ends the bout) to the guy who hit the head. In that case the rules reflect the more martial concerns.

I guess my main gripe is that you seem to think the modern changes have made the art/sport/whatever better or higher. It's just different and there are a lot of use who prefer CF or HF. Try some of your modern footwork in a gravel pit against somebody with a sword and dagger and let me know how it works out for ya...

Chris

DHCJr · 10-01-2002, 01:43 PM

The first post forced me to write a reply. I do not care weather someone likes clasical or modern, but I do have a feeling about killing someone.

From the first post.

Today's game is about maing the light go off. Its not about pretending to kill someone. fencing has evolved to a higher level than its classical origins.

It is about killing someone. Has anyone been at a tournament where flicks have punched through two controlled masks? I have and I was the one who tested them. We were lucky, one scratch above the eye and one the tip got caught in the mesh.

I and other Armorers are doing are best to keep the fencers safe. Remember what happened with the Sabre blades. Maybe that is what will happen to foil. Just a thought.

Maybe it will be you, in the future, talking about how it used to be!

geronimojox · 10-01-2002, 02:15 PM

i agree and disagree with your statement.

i can not say that i do not flick when i fence foil although personally i find it is an easy way out of doing any work while fencing on the piste.
disengages are a fundemental part of foil fencing and they should be used more often that flicks and there is nothing that looks better than a well executed small acurate disengage that lands with the point on target
i belive, flicks should really only be used primarliy in parry reposte situations because it is extremely fast and difficult to parry when used at the right distance.

if you do not continuly practise disengages and use it in place of flicking you will lose an extremely important fundemental part of foil fencing.

ZEROFLASH · 10-01-2002, 02:17 PM

Quote:

I guess my main gripe is that you seem to think the modern changes have made the art/sport/whatever better or higher. It's just different and there are a lot of use who prefer CF or HF. Try some of your modern footwork in a gravel pit against somebody with a sword and dagger and let me know how it works out for ya...

What the hell are you talking about man????
gravel pit??? Daggers?

If Adidas made shoes for gravel pit fighting then I might give it a try.

So when was the last time you did it Nicky?

I just want to make the light go off and flicking is just a tool that I mix up in my arsenal.

Yes i do think modern changes has made fencing better. There is more dimension to it now.

The classical techniques are still very important but there are also new things that can be mixed into it.

135711 · 10-01-2002, 06:42 PM

"Straight classical fencing is for the losers and out dated people like Evangelista. It sucks."

The classical fencers have apparently done very well over the years.

Inquartata · 10-01-2002, 10:00 PM

Always this obsession with "better". Modern foil is not better than classical foil was, it is just different. Games change. play the one you want. But insisting that "things are for the best in the best of all possible worlds" just because the flick is or is not part of the game makes little sense to me. It's just a matter of opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...

The only known exception is, that sabre is better than foil or epee. Clearly.

epeemike81 · 10-02-2002, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Inquartata
The only known exception is, that sabre is better than foil or epee. Clearly.

Well, you're half right: it is better than foil.

epeefencer74 · 10-02-2002, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Inquartata
Always this obsession with "better". Modern foil is not better than classical foil was, it is just different.

Yep that is what I feel as well. In fact I put it to the board the modern competitve fencing is a totally different game from classical fencing. Yes they share the same roots, but now due to the introduction of electronic scoring equipment, the objective of the game is now to make your light go off. Zeroflash is right on this point. Since the objective is to make your light go off then any methods that does this legally within the framework of the sport is justified. Hence the flick, which no specific rule prohibits, is justified. Sure lots of people don't like it but hey, it's legal. As to Zero's comment about flicking making fencing more beautiful, well.... depends if the guy doing it knows what the heck he's trying to do. I've seen many attempts at flicking (both epee and foil) degenerate into a hack-fest.

Chris Umbs · 10-02-2002, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZEROFLASH
What the hell are you talking about man????
gravel pit??? Daggers?

If Adidas made shoes for gravel pit fighting then I might give it a try.

So when was the last time you did it Nicky?

A few weeks ago, why?

ZEROFLASH · 10-02-2002, 01:04 PM

Oh you are a Singapore fencer. I have fenced in Singapore at Fencing masters and at Z Fencing.

Singapore fencers are mostly terrible because there aren't any good instructors there besides one of the teachers at Z fencing, James Wong. Do you know him? He is probably the best in Singapore.

Fencing Masters was a joke. I fenced the head foil intructor there guy there (Lopez), This guy was so slow and he couldn't parry anything! Then there was Epee teacher guy Leow. This guy was nuts. He kept running into my epee. Didn't have to do anything but hold it out and stand there!

However there was this tiny girl named Eileen who has the greatest stop hit I have ever seen. She beat me like 15-1 using only her lightning stop hits.

Where do you fence epeefencer 74?

Sildar · 10-02-2002, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZEROFLASH

I just want to make the light go off and flicking is just a tool that I mix up in my arsenal.

Yes i do think modern changes has made fencing better. There is more dimension to it now.

The classical techniques are still very important but there are also new things that can be mixed into it.

Against my better judgement, I'll stick my foot in this.

The first sentence belies the opinions expressed in the later three.

You see, in a complex system like fencing the entire system rarely becomes "better" in any sort of overall cosmic sense. When competitive fencing diverged from dueling training, separate goals were established, and thus the two practices have gradually acquired increasingly different strategies and conditions which made the practice distinct.

For every new action that sport fencing has gained, a classical technique has been discarded. How many coaches today teach their students to fence from engagement, or to always attack closing the line in foil? How often do you see a glide, flanconade, intagliata, expulsion, or lunge-back in foil world cups? Their absence is the direct result of the emphasis on making the light go off over emerging unscathed in the presence of sharp points.

Different goals require different means. Once again, Evangelista does not speak for all classical fencers by any stretch of the imagination. If you base your opinions on his writings you are proceeding from a false assumption.