if you buy wired blades replacing a broken epee blade is no harder than replacing a saber blade, right? Put the handle on, hook up two wires, you're done. No fiddling with the tip or wire needed.
Almost as easy, but not quite. Sabre does not require the "hook up wires" part. There are no wires...
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
The disease (malaise) started when a much more "physical" style of fencing then what we had previously took center stage. Forward motion and movements became more important (following the trend in saber) and certain techniques were developed like for instance the "coups lancés." This disease could have slowly disappeared as was the case of the insurgence of other diseases when foil went electric, but in this case it grew more than ever.
The disease essentially derives from refereeing. The calls are more and more misunderstod and become more and more unpredictable depending on the referee. In fact the referees adapted progressively to the new way of fencing [foil]. Unfortunately, instead of applying the rules in a rigorous manner we started to propose interpretations of the rules without following neither the spirit nor the letter of the rules. The main problem comes from the concept of attack.
The original rules of foil are of an incredible perfection. Nevertheless, we still see flagrant disagreement in the analysis of "phrases d'armes" even if just talking theory. This already supersedes what are the differences in perception and memory between referees (see http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...orumpost249842 and the following discussion).
After giving quite a bit of thought (see http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...er=ASC&start=0 ) to the definition of an attack, it seems that the rules had a very relative imperfection. The rules do not correspond to the philosophy which we find in the fencing treatises. Nowadays quite often, rather than applying the strict logic of the rules, we go off the tangent by taking some concepts from the treatises. Hence the hiatus in the interpretation.
And yet, we said this before, the rules are perfect. They are perfect if we are happy to use only what the rules say and only that. Thus, to be frank, we could well drop the notion of going back to the treatises and consider them indispensables from the pedagogical point of view or for a more clear and deeper study/analysis.
If we read the rules carefully, as far as attack and priority, we can be happy by keeping these two concepts which are sufficient to define the situation:
an attack is the extension of the arm while threatening continuously the valid target of the opponent, before launching a lunge or a fleche (t.7)
the point in line is a special position whereby the fencer maintains the extended arm and threatens continuously with the point of his weapon the valid target of his opponent. (t.10)
If we enunciate clearly these two gestures/movements which as far as foil are covered in t.56 to t.60, we can conclude that: displacements don't really matter in the analysis of the phrase d'armes, only the arm counts. If we have an extended arm and we move forward, it is an attack according to the rules, and if we have an extended arm and we don't move or we move backward, is a point in line. In both cases we have priority.
Therefore, the only possible conclusion if we follow the rules ad litteram is: displacements, legs, carry no importance whatsoever to determine priority, only the arm counts.
Unfortunately, the referees don't judge by watching the simple extension of the arm, but more and more give weight to the displacement forward.
Now, if you move forward with a retracted arm you don't allow the opponent to parry. If we cannot parry, then the pharase d'armes makes no sense whatsoever. The only thing that matters are a series of displacements and not what we do with the blade, i.e., to extend it to threaten or to parry.
In conclusion, here are the solutions to save foil.
make again the fencing time a subjective evaluation (by the referee) by eliminating the blocking time. Foil is a conventional weapon which must obey the rules of the phrase d'armes. The electronic scoring apparatus must not play a role in judging priority. Therefore the blocking time must be suppressed to let only the referee decide the priority and the fencing time. The scoring machine should be only an indicator that the touch is valid or not (hit the target or not)
apply the rules clearly pure and simply. The message must be clear as far as the interpretation of the rules. The rules state that the arm's extention is enough to get priority and it does not matter if we move forward or back. Therefore, the referee must focus on the arm's extention, that's all. And the referee must be instructed accordingly. The easier the principle, the easier its application. Just saying, watch the arms, will make refereeing much easier.
Thus, the reforms made so far by the FIE to save foil do nothing but harm. All we need to do is go back to the fundamentals because we are now living through an identity crisis of a weapon.
I don't know about the rules being perfect. It doesn't define "threat" in t.56, for instance. Referees used to have a set of presuppositions (extended arm to maintain threat, etc.) that have since changed but are still valid because of how the rules are written. Until the rule book is rewritten we're still going to have big problems with the refereeing. I guess what it comes down to is that we can't just take what the rules say because it's not nearly clear enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
[i]
The FIE reaction was to change the rules. The blocking time was diminished and the contact time was increased. A shorter blocking time causes a peculiar problem since foil is supposed to follow a precise convention. Now, by forcing the fencing time to become an electronic time, we pushed foil further away from the essence of the rules (the true rules) which have always been based on the well defined phrase d'armes. The effect on foil at high level is particularly evident in women's foil which doesn't seem to have gained in all this. It seems also that the increase of the valid target to a portion of the bib is nothing but further escapism from this disease which continues ever so virulent.
Again, I think the problem is with the rules. The current interpretations do conform to the letter of the law. The spirit of the law? Not really. But what do you do about that without changing the rules?
....
Again, I think the problem is with the rules. The current interpretations do conform to the letter of the law. The spirit of the law? Not really. But what do you do about that without changing the rules?
The current problem in foil is the result of too many rule changes....more changes will increase the problem....nobody knows what ...or how...to teach anymore....just do whatever is working.....this month.
__________________
"...you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules." Capt. Barbossa
Bill Oliver thinks it very likely that foil and sabre timings are going to change again---because Usmanov has offered to pay to reconvert every box in the world, removing one major objection---and that the fleche is coming back to sabre ( but not the passe-avant ).
Fun times!
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
{snip}and that the fleche is coming back to sabre ( but not the passe-avant ).
Huh. That would be... interesting.
The banning of cross-overs/fleches happened in between my periods of active fencing.
FWIU, the move was meant to "clean up" an excess of saber fencers just running at each other--which does seem to be more a function of the passe-avant rather than fleching, itself.
Was just banning the passe-avant and not the fleche discussed at the time?
As I understood it, it's more to get rid of the flunge, which is thought to me uglier and less safe than the fleche. Hard to argue with the 'uglier' part, at least. And this way the FIE would never have to deign to notice the existence of the flunge for purposes of the rules.
I'm not sure how it would work. Allow one cross to finish? Two?
Passe-avant is just an advance with the feet crossing. As Philistine said, it was the basis of the running attack that plagued sabre for awhile. Good riddance.
The fleche is a much different creature. If you think Ivan Lee or Keeth Smart flew doing those, you should have seen Westbrook and others fleching...
Though I don't miss it myself ( being of a certain age and a certain decrepitude of leg ), I did always think that it was wrong to prohibit one of the basic actions of fencing for just one weapon while still allowing it in the others.
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
{snip}
I'm not sure how it would work. Allow one cross to finish? Two?
{snip}
That's what I was wondering, too.
Be interesting to see how it was worded, and then the attempts to game it--multiple mini "fleches" in a row perhaps.
When I first came back, I was dubious about the no cross-over/fleche rule (for much the same reason you gave), but I do have to admit it's cleaned up sabre footwork nicely.
And God knows, I'm happy to see two-meter warnings and flipping a coin for priority to be things of the past, too.
When I first came back, I was dubious about the no cross-over/fleche rule (for much the same reason you gave), but I do have to admit it's cleaned up sabre footwork nicely.
The current problem in foil is the result of too many rule changes....more changes will increase the problem....nobody knows what ...or how...to teach anymore....just do whatever is working.....this month.
But have the ROW rules themselves changed that much, or has it been the interpretation of those same rules? I mean, was the wording of t.56 at some point different (for example)?
He doesn't have to understand the topic, he's just pointing out shortcomings in your statistical analysis., i.e. more fencers doesn't necessarily make it harder.
downunder, do you really think that the top forty in Italian épée are there because there is a high incidence of "crappy" or "leisure" épéeists, using the words of other posters? Yeah, yeah, I understand that some people want to talk about statistics. It's kind of beside the point.
The depth of field and quality in Italian épée is probably the highest in the world, outside of France. It's worth mentioning because, since the renaissance of US Fencing, the majority of these posters who began fencing after, say, 1995 really have little idea of how good a "mediocre" French or Italian épéeist is likely to be.
Looking at the problem--and "épée drift" is surely a problem--from a federation and club standpoint is pretty important for the US.
Linear Mode
