Right of way in foil

[geronimojox]

Originally posted by Lowell Boston
The argument here is that fencer B's hit is invalidated, because fencer A's hit was passé. Does a passé hit truly invalidate another fencer's hit if the other fencer did not have right of way?

fencer b's hit would be valid as passe' is not counted and does not stop the phrasing of the bout.

fencer a would get the point.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Boo Boo
The scarey thing is that the ref has been fencing foil for about 5 years (admitedly non-electric foil), but he has no idea of right-of-way...

He has been fencing for 5 years, but only dry?
Is there any kind of explanation for that?

[Boo Boo]

He occasionally fences electric foil, but really rarely.

I don't know. The senior foilists in our club tend to be split into two groups:
- The first is the adult beginner foilists and most of the foilists who learnt at the club as adults. This group is coached by a "traditional" coach (i.e. no flicks, no broken time etc...) and virtually always fencers dry.
- The second group is the competitive foilists, promising juniors (who have graduated from the junior club) and recreational foilists who like to fence electric all the time.

There isn't much movement between the two groups. None of group two like non-electric fencing. Those in group one don't seem to like putting all of the electric kit on and don't tend to agree with some of the styles of fencing used by group two (flicks, broken time etc.etc). If those from group one fence group two they tend to get beaten rather badly, so would rather fence the rest of group one.

There is even a special box and spools set aside for Group 1, but it virtually always goes unused.

Its like our club is split into two different worlds for foil: each use different equipment and seem to have their own sets of rules and right-of-way...

Boo

[Jason]

Originally posted by Boo Boo
I don't know. The senior foilists in our club tend to be split into two groups:
- The first is the adult beginner foilists and most of the foilists who learnt at the club as adults. This group is coached by a "traditional" coach (i.e. no flicks, no broken time etc...) and virtually always fencers dry.
- The second group is the competitive foilists, promising juniors (who have graduated from the junior club) and recreational foilists who like to fence electric all the time.

I think that there is nothing more absurd that this division among "coaches" in fencing.
I do not think that there are very many sports in the world where it is acceptable to ignore years of change.
What would happen if a basketball coach adhered only to methods and rules that are decades old, ignoring the modern game?
It's madness, I tells ya, madness.

[oiuyt]

Jason- It's simple, his/her team would lose whenever it ran into a modern-coached team, same as happens in fencing. The difference is that in fencing many more people who are in the non-competitive mode actually encounter competitive fencers. When's the last time a recreational pick-up league started running Phil Jackson's triangle offense? Or for that matter Princeton's ball-control, 3-point happy, stretch-out-the-time-and play-solid-D style? The difference is that in basketball the old school inefficient styles are rarely if ever directly pitted against a modern style team. The inefficient styles tend to "compete" at a different level (if/when there is competition involved). In fencing people expect to be able to take the outdated styles and directly oppose them to the current styles. It's not that old (less good) styles aren't around still in other sports it's that they are used in seperate leagues.

-B :)

[edew]

Originally posted by Boo Boo

[...]

There is even a special box and spools set aside for Group 1, but it virtually always goes unused.

[...]

Ha ha! I wonder if the box is one of those old Leon Paul twenty-pound machines with the mechanical relays, and maybe cause an electrical shock every once in a while. No wonder they don't want to use the machines!

EDEW

[Jason]

Originally posted by oiuyt
When's the last time a recreational pick-up league started running Phil Jackson's triangle offense? Or for that matter Princeton's ball-control, 3-point happy, stretch-out-the-time-and play-solid-D style? The difference is that in basketball the old school inefficient styles are rarely if ever directly pitted against a modern style team.

The bigger difference, I think, is that in most sports, people who teach the obsolete aren't generally paid to be coaches. In fencing, oddly, there are plenty of paid coaches teaching as though the year was 1892.
Obviously there is always a range of level in any profession, but I have seen coaches who are paid (albeit not very much) to teach things that were outdated when they themselves were competitors.

[Boo Boo]

Originally posted by edew
Ha ha! I wonder if the box is one of those old Leon Paul twenty-pound machines with the mechanical relays, and maybe cause an electrical shock every once in a while. No wonder they don't want to use the machines!

EDEW

No, Eric - we aren't that cruel: they get a standard, modern box like the rest of us (it is Leon Paul, but not the old fashoined type) :-)

Boo

[achilleus]

Originally posted by oiuyt
Jason- It's simple, his/her team would lose whenever it ran into a modern-coached team, same as happens in fencing. The difference is that in fencing many more people who are in the non-competitive mode actually encounter competitive fencers. When's the last time a recreational pick-up league started running Phil Jackson's triangle offense? Or for that matter Princeton's ball-control, 3-point happy, stretch-out-the-time-and play-solid-D style? The difference is that in basketball the old school inefficient styles are rarely if ever directly pitted against a modern style team. The inefficient styles tend to "compete" at a different level (if/when there is competition involved). In fencing people expect to be able to take the outdated styles and directly oppose them to the current styles. It's not that old (less good) styles aren't around still in other sports it's that they are used in seperate leagues.

-B

You raise some interesting points. I agree that coaches shouldn't ignore the changes in fencing, and basketball is a great example, only, some of the strategies you mention, like the triangle, are old school. Also, the offenses you mentioned require a high degree of practice and skill, not often seen at the rec league.

The big difference in sports is not that strategies and tactics become outdated, because we can all attest to the fact that a disengage is still effective, is the rule changes and the athletes.

For instance, in basketball the dunk was originally illegal. Think of how different the game would be today without it. The athletes adjusted to the rules, and over time, the rules affected the style of play.

Same as in fencing. The flick, for example, is a result of a rule interpretation and the ever increasing athleticism of the fencers.
But it's possible to fence at top levels without using the flick.

Look at the french foil fencers. Highly athletic, very good, and they don't flick. The difference is that they acknowldge the existence of the action, and learn to deal with it.

The point I'm trying to say? Old school strategy and tatics still work in fencing today, as lond as the coaches, and their students, adapt to the modern game.

If the coach refuses to acknowledge the rule interpretations, well, that's a different story.

That would be like a coach in basketball not acknowledging the 3 point line. And claiming that his team was cheated when the other team scored 3 points.

[sallearmourer]

Nine times out of ten if fencer A starts a flick attacked and fencer B counter into it with a standard point attack. I will give it to fencer B because that fencer A is not thearting target with his point. If its a single light fencer A will get it. I base this on my training with the boynet on the end of a M 14 rifle if the point was in the air you can't kill your nemieis. I will called it this way every time in foil.


Tim

[achilleus]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
Nine times out of ten if fencer A starts a flick attacked and fencer B counter into it with a standard point attack. I will give it to fencer B because that fencer A is not thearting target with his point. If its a single light fencer A will get it. I base this on my training with the boynet on the end of a M 14 rifle if the point was in the air you can't kill your nemieis. I will called it this way every time in foil.


Tim

And here is an example of someone not acknowledging the 3 point shot....

[Purple Fencer]

Thanks for the warning, Tim...I'll keep that in mind if I every try a flick on your strip. If I start a flick and don't get hit until AFTER I start the actual flick action, it's mine all days long unles I don't fire the light.

[veeco]

AAAAAaaaaah! Not again!!!!

[latenight]

[I base this on my training with the boynet on the end of a M 14 rifle if the point was in the air you can't kill your nemieis. I will called it this way every time in foil.


Tim [/b][/quote]


Well, maybe you should base the way you call it on the rules and not on completely unrelated military training.

Last time I checked, no one was trying to kill anyone using a modern foil.



If they are winding up like fly fishing you are correct. If their hand is moving forward to deliver a proper flick, you are not.

[Gav]

Gaaaaagghh!

Pa55w0rd truly has eaten some people's brains.

[Artisan]

Well, maybe you should base the way you call it on the rules and not on completely unrelated military training.

Last time I checked, no one was trying to kill anyone using a modern foil.

If they are winding up like fly fishing you are correct. If their hand is moving forward to deliver a proper flick, you are not.
-----------------------------------------

I have to agree. Because of definitions. At the beginning of the flick, the point is a threat because a flick ends with the point on target. The key is the use of the term "threatening target" and not "with point aimed at or near to target" The other part of the rule concerns "continuing foward motion of the tip" which a properly executed flick does - no fly fishing cast allowed.

Though I'm new here, I image this subject comes up often.

[peircer]

[i]I will called it this way every time in foil.


Tim [/b]

God I hope:

A: You're joking

B: If you're not, you never ref me in foil, ever.

[Psi Shadowdark]

i wiesh paswrd wud puk me brian

[edew]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
Nine times out of ten if fencer A starts a flick attacked and fencer B counter into it with a standard point attack. I will give it to fencer B because that fencer A is not thearting target with his point. If its a single light fencer A will get it. I base this on my training with the boynet on the end of a M 14 rifle if the point was in the air you can't kill your nemieis. I will called it this way every time in foil.


Tim

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. A foil is not a bayonet. We're not fight a war. The target is threatened because the hit arrived. The action by B is a counteraction, as you wrote. That makes his action out of time, and will count only by hoping that A's attack failed. BY DEFINITION.

[achilleus]

As a novice in the art (or is it sport?) of bayonet fighting, I have some questions:

1) Is it true that the bayonet gets it's name from the south of France, where the inhabitants of Bayonne first attached knives to the end of their rifles?

2) In US competitions, are we required to use FIE maraging bayonets?

3) Is it legal to fire the rifle while bayonet fighting?

4) If the answer is yes, how do I wire my bullet to use during electirc competitions?

Thanks in advance for your help.