93 World Final, Koch vs. Golubitsky

[epeeslasher]

Didn't see anyone post this yet so here's a link:

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z47yvxLPQE

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-0bgv0-bAE

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M4miUCxR6s

Just a note that the lights were reversed before 2000, the fencers score if they set the light opposite of themselves off here.

[Dev]

Awesome, thanks for posting.

That looks almost like modern saber, with fleches. Feels like more of a track meet than modern foil, and they resolve the action very quickly. There are an awful lot of flicks. There are several actions in which either Golubitsky or Koch will miss the flick--in slow motion you can watch the blade curve and end up short of the target--while their opponent's is on target.

Interestingly, there is a discrepancy between the video of this bout and Golubitsky's own account of it in his book, Fencing Is My Life. He indicates that the score was 2:2 in the third bout when the referee blew a call--Golubitsky's attack on Koch's preparation called a counterattack--to put him down 2:3 and he lost his head, and the bout.

However, on the video, he's down in the third 1:3 and the attack on Koch's preparation is called correctly: Golubitsky down 2:3 afterward. Then three simultaneous actions and a pair of one-light touches for Koch to close it out.

[epeeslasher]

My favorite action was either when Koch made a counterflick against Golubitsky's horizontal flick and had G's tip slides up onto his guard for a parry. Or when Golubitsky goes to the lead shoulder and Koch makes a spinning counter-attack.

[downunder]

Interestingly, there is a discrepancy between the video of this bout and Golubitsky's own account of it in his book, Fencing Is My Life. He indicates that the score was 2:2 in the third bout when the referee blew a call--Golubitsky's attack on Koch's preparation called a counterattack--to put him down 2:3 and he lost his head, and the bout.

However, on the video, he's down in the third 1:3 and the attack on Koch's preparation is called correctly: Golubitsky down 2:3 afterward. Then three simultaneous actions and a pair of one-light touches for Koch to close it out.

I think you're mistaken, not Sergei. It clearly goes from 2:2 to 2:3 on the attack counterattack call.

[edew]

It would be very good to show this clip, along with the 1980 NCAA finals clip, plus some late 90s and mid-00s clips and the more recent 08-09 action and show that to fencers at the club, explaining how within 30 years, fencing has gone from X to Y to Z back to X (or moved to X').

On the other hand, you can show tennis from 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago and it's still the same. Golf, same. Cycling, same. Football, same. Baseball, god yes, the exact same thing (although the batters are now beefier with steroid goodness), soccer, track swimming... that's what make fencing interesting: it's a constantly evolving sport and constantly changes with each generation learning how to defeat the previous generation.

[catwood1]

Eric, I disagree with your claim that other sports don't change. I think its easy to say that based on an in depth knowledge of fencing compared to other sports.

I think plenty of other sports are evolving in the same way. Baseball isn't really the same game it was 30 years ago. 2009 baseball is much more a game of letting the strong guy hit some homers then 1970 baseball. Look at how bullpens are used for an extreme example in changes in the game.

I think a layperson could watch this foil bout, then watch 2009 foil, and think they aren't very different. Its our expertise in the sport that makes us see the subtlety. I don't know a whole lot about the history of cycling, swimming, tennis, etc, but I'm confident that they are changing.

Look at the way technology affects things like swimming! With modern swim suits, athletes don't need to be in as good of shape as with traditional suits.* This is changing the way the sport is played.

I think they are all evolving.

*mediocre example due to the recent ban on certain high tech suits...

[eac]

I imagine you're right about golf/cycling/baseball, but it's completely false about football. Football is fantastically complicated (arguably more so than fencing), and pro football has evolved at least as much as fencing in the last 30 years, and college football probably more so, because people from random colleges with random crazy ideas randomly beat everybody up from year to year.

Fencing has other things over football, like that you aren't a demented cripple after a long successful career in fencing.

Edit: Baseball pretty much is the same. People hit more home runs, and people started to do statistics and notice that it was good for people to take their walks, but it's very minor, and the knowledge hasn't permeated baseball participants generally, because baseball is so random that from a day-to-day view, random events dominate the statistical observations, so people stay superstitious.

[Dev]

I think you're mistaken, not Sergei. It clearly goes from 2:2 to 2:3 on the attack counterattack call.

Er--yeah. You're right. Got messed up by the reversed lights and the only intermittent displays of the score. I thought it was 3:1 Koch at that point, not 2:2, so when the score changed I thought the call went Golubitsky's way. Also, Golubitsky tips his foil to the referee after that touch, while Koch looks to be arguing, which also threw me.

Then, much later afterwards, Golubitsky looks unhappy and the camera focuses on the referee.

[Gav]

On the other hand, you can show tennis from 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago and it's still the same. Golf, same. Cycling, same. Football, same. Baseball, god yes, the exact same thing (although the batters are now beefier with steroid goodness), soccer, track swimming... that's what make fencing interesting: it's a constantly evolving sport and constantly changes with each generation learning how to defeat the previous generation.

My emphasis. I get the impression you don't watch much tennis...

Or Soccer (which is quite differnt from when I was a kid let alone any longer than that).

Tsk. Woolly thinking Edew.

I don't have enough experience of the other sports but I would be very surprised if they had stagnated to any meaningful degree.

[contre-Sixte]

It would be very good to show this clip... and more recent 08-09 action ... explaining how within 30 years, fencing has gone from X to Y to Z back to X (or moved to X').

Reword:

It would be very good to show this clip and more recent action to explain within 30 years how foil directing has gone from X to Y to Z back to Q', with no one being sure of what is right.

[edew]

Really? I watched tennis quite a bit, as it's one of the few sports that is interesting to watch on TV. It's still the hit the ball back and forth. There's more emphasis on power now, so that the rallies back and forth are diminished. Also, athleticism has increased in the sport since the 70s and 80s, but I think the technological improvements on the racquet is the main contributor to making most of those fantastic hits.

Soccer...eh. I admit I don't watch too much soccer. But really, are there some serious new tactics being used? I just don't see it. The scores are still 1-0, 2-1, so it's not as though some club devised a really cool tactic to score points.

[edew]

Reword:

It would be very good to show this clip and more recent action to explain within 30 years how foil directing has gone from X to Y to Z back to Q', with no one being sure of what is right.

That too. There was that one simultaneous call in the first clip that I felt was Koch's attack into prep. I think refs back then were way too lenient on what is considered an attack.

And the three simultaneous attacks from the on guard in the third clip. Who'd do that now?

[pigeonmeister]

My emphasis. I get the impression you don't watch much tennis...

Or Soccer (which is quite differnt from when I was a kid let alone any longer than that).

Tsk. Woolly thinking Edew.

I don't have enough experience of the other sports but I would be very surprised if they had stagnated to any meaningful degree.

Soccer is very different- lighter balls swerve more and heading the ball doesn't give you an aneurysm. Plus, when goalkeepers were no longer allowed to pick the ball up from a pass back or throw in the game completely changed. Also when the rule on substitutions changed. We now also have completely new intepretations of off side. What about the invention of the penalty shoot out in 1970? Oh and the brief flirtation with the golden goal. The away goal rule? I could go on...

Cricket- we now see unrecognisable forms of the game such as 20:20 (I would go on but no one cares on this forum about cricket)

Rugby- huge changes in rules and in style (see note above)

Sports science has in general changed all sports related to speed, endurance and strength. Basically athletics, swimming, cyling etc...

Tennis changed enormously when people stopped using wooden rackets.

But anyway, I enjoyed the footage. It is very different and, to be honest, I viewed it with less nostalgia than I thought. I liked the athleticism and pace, but I think the fencing was quite one dimensional.

I was dead set against the new timings and a big flicker myself, but frankly I think the game is now a lot more tactically astute, easier to follow and the flicks that land really have a wow factor. Poor distance and shabby preps just weren't punished then as now. Plus, you very rarely see simultaneous actions.

But don't ask me to watch women's foil on new timings.

I would also be lying if I said I don't want to get an old timings box out now.

[edew]

I imagine you're right about golf/cycling/baseball, but it's completely false about football. Football is fantastically complicated (arguably more so than fencing), and pro football has evolved at least as much as fencing in the last 30 years, and college football probably more so, because people from random colleges with random crazy ideas randomly beat everybody up from year to year.

Fencing has other things over football, like that you aren't a demented cripple after a long successful career in fencing.

Edit: Baseball pretty much is the same. People hit more home runs, and people started to do statistics and notice that it was good for people to take their walks, but it's very minor, and the knowledge hasn't permeated baseball participants generally, because baseball is so random that from a day-to-day view, random events dominate the statistical observations, so people stay superstitious.

I would say football is closest to fencing in terms of the "continued arms race" on tactics. The coaches find flaws and exploit them. Next year, the patch up their own flaws and exploit new ones.

College and High School football is where you see the wacky trick moves. It's too bad they don't percolate up to the pros. How often do pros do double handoffs? The fake hike and let the guard pick up the ball to run with it? Ok, those multi-lateral runbacks may be cool to watch when they succeed (80s Cal vs Stanford and their marching band), but that's not really in the playbook, are they?

Basketball has certainly evolved from the 70s and 80s. Now that the players are stronger and more muscular, there is a greater emphasis on going to the board as opposed to perimeter play. To me, that's akin to tennis going for the aces and slams rather than for more back and forth volleying. If you can hit a ball 120 mph whereas 30 years ago, it might never break 80mph (just guessing), you're not obligated to working on placing that serve just right. Just zoom that thing past the guy every time.

[edew]

[...]
But anyway, I enjoyed the footage. It is very different and, to be honest, I viewed it with less nostalgia than I thought. I liked the athleticism and pace, but I think the fencing was quite one dimensional.

I was dead set against the new timings and a big flicker myself, but frankly I think the game is now a lot more tactically astute, easier to follow and the flicks that land really have a wow factor. Poor distance and shabby preps just weren't punished then as now. Plus, you very rarely see simultaneous actions.

But don't ask me to watch women's foil on new timings.

I would also be lying if I said I don't want to get an old timings box out now.

The number of flicks that fell short was rather amazing. I'm tempted to attribute that more to the fact that they're both top opponents for each other so nervousness and anxiety are more of a factor after a long day's competition rather than inept flicking technique.

However, I've got clips from 1997 onwards and the flicks there in the gold medal bouts are all pretty spot on. Very few flicks that missed short or long. Was this the first gold medal match for both? I can imagine the nervousness being a huge factor in causing their mistakes.

[NGV]

Thanks for the link. These videos reinforce my belief that timing changes have improved foil, even with the various resulting problems.

Both those guys are obviously amazing fencers, but the action itself is often pretty ugly and (to my eyes) tactically uninteresting. Flicks and attempts to stop them dominate the bout, and the ROW on two-light touches is overall pretty murky.

[pigeonmeister]

The number of flicks that fell short was rather amazing. I'm tempted to attribute that more to the fact that they're both top opponents for each other so nervousness and anxiety are more of a factor after a long day's competition rather than inept flicking technique.

However, I've got clips from 1997 onwards and the flicks there in the gold medal bouts are all pretty spot on. Very few flicks that missed short or long. Was this the first gold medal match for both? I can imagine the nervousness being a huge factor in causing their mistakes.

Even later, 2003-4, Cassara was a machine with flicks. He just never missed but his preps were simply enormous.

Again, flicks were not technically difficult and, with a poweful wrist, could be executed at pretty much any distance in attack or defence. I love nothing more to see a sweeping parry 5 flick to shoulder/back- it says domination more than any other action. But as I mentioned before, that action has a wow factor now that simply didn't exist then.

You can rarely justify the risk of flicks as an offensive action against right handers now. flicks to flank against left handers are still reasonable reliable- and they can be worth the risk as a parry against any opponent. I think the right balance has been struck.

[Superscribe]

I thought the footwork and distance looked sloppy compared to what i see today.

Maybe that's just me.

And Big G was missing a LOT. I think it's interesting (read disingenuous) how in his book he emphasizes how important the straight attack is, but in this bout, his go to is the flick. Off the line he flicks to shoulder. His counter ripostes are all planned as a flick.

[epeeslasher]

I think it's interesting (read disingenuous) how in his book he emphasizes how important the straight attack is, but in this bout, his go to is the flick. Off the line he flicks to shoulder. His counter ripostes are all planned as a flick.

Yeah but Koch makes a great half-step to slow fleche right into Golubitsky's winding flick near the end of the bout and gets a one light hit. The video shows clearly that straight attacks and displacing counter-attacks definitely had their place even before the new timings came about.

[edew]

I thought the footwork and distance looked sloppy compared to what i see today.

Maybe that's just me.

And Big G was missing a LOT. I think it's interesting (read disingenuous) how in his book he emphasizes how important the straight attack is, but in this bout, his go to is the flick. Off the line he flicks to shoulder. His counter ripostes are all planned as a flick.

I don't think it's disengenuous at all. In the book he's rather sanguine about him doing way too much flicking. Now that he is more mature, he has learned to work the straight attack more often. Remember, this bout is in 93 when he is just coming into his own as a top level fencer. He doesn't winhis first WC until 97. And by then, where is Koch?