Co-ed NACs?

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Peach
How about this reason: if we didn't compete together, we rarely would even put together an "E" event in my division? Another reason is to build the sport so that we have some good competition, and to bring along the less-experienced fencers without turning them off to fencing completely.

Locally tournaments are co-ed, and I'm fine with that if it works. The Bay Cup is one of the few tournaments that I can think of that regularly segregate their events. I said so previously. I'm against co-ed NAC's, not co-ed locals.

Originally posted by Peach
That's not just about co-ed competitions, it's about skilled/nonskilled fencers in general. I won the last divisional open I competed in, for heaven's sake, and I'm a middle-aged woman. It was half male and half female, but that didn't matter.

No it's about co-ed NAC's. Top level athletes, male vs. female, isn't a good idea. At the local level, the better fencer will win regardless of sex. At the higher levels, take a male and female athlete fo the same national rank and have them fence. That's what this discussion is about.

Originally posted by Peach
People in this sport don't think male and female fencers should compete equally at the elite level, obviously, because the competitions are co-ed. At the basic, local level, some fencers are more competent than others and it doesn't have much to do with gender, at least not in my area.

The FIE doesn't. I don't. Somebody here asked 'why not?', and many people here agree with that attitude.

And yes I've seen many female fencers beat the guys. I've coached them to do so. But in these cases the woman or girl was clearly a superior fencer, like nationally ranked fencer vs. c rated fencer.

[Peach]

Sorry, I was referring only to the passage I quoted, which appeared to say that local competitions should not be fenced co-ed.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by oiuyt

Attempt an overhead hammer blow, tag, stopcut is good, opponent is gone. Hammer blow never arrives.

True to a point...but more often, it's stopcut, point, hammerblow keeps coming and whacks the stuffing out of you...even if you're trying to do a secondary parry. Or even more commonly it's an attack/counterattack where the counterattacker finishes late, but with a vengance.

Originally posted by oiuyt

A related question. You're at a local, fairly low-key event. One (or more) of the fencers in your pool is a relative newbie, possibly also young/small. Do you tone down your game and allow them to score a few touches to make them feel good and possibly help them learn something? Do you fence without going all out because you know you're going to win anyway and are still likely to record a shutout, and if not it'll only be a touch or two? Do you fence just to the level that will guarantee that each touch is yours? Do you fence them just as hard as you would the toughest other person in your pool hitting them with actions which they have no clue how you did?

Ok...at a local, low key event, are you there to destroy a newbie, (at very little gain to your level of training) or to encourage them to continue and prosper in our favorite sport? Of course I tone down my game. I give them openings, which, if they execute a proper action, will earn them a point or two. And when they take advantage of it...I tell them "Nice Touch!" That's what I consider sportmanship, rather than indulging in an orgy of ego self gratification.

QUOTE]Originally posted by oiuyt

Related question: If someone is in the first category, do they deserve a black card for favoring an opponent? If not why not?[/QUOTE]

At a local, low key event? Come on...! There's a huge difference between not carving up an inexperienced fencer, and collusion favoring an opponent. To me, it still falls under nurture a newbie, don't disembowel them. Any director who would award a black card under these circumstances should be forced to write "Strident Martinet" on the gym wall 10,000 times.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Ok...at a local, low key event, are you there to destroy a newbie, (at very little gain to your level of training) or to encourage them to continue and prosper in our favorite sport? Of course I tone down my game. I give them openings, which, if they execute a proper action, will earn them a point or two. And when they take advantage of it...I tell them "Nice Touch!" That's what I consider sportmanship, rather than indulging in an orgy of ego self gratification.

What about the Newbies who aren't lucky enough to be in your pool and are seeded lower than the one you threw touches to?? THAT is why favoring is illegal. it isn't fair to everybody else. When I'm fencing a newbie, I give them openings, too. the difference is that when they go for them, I don't just let them hit me! I do what I do when I draw the reaction on more experienced fencers: pick it up and hit them. There is a BIG difference between not going balls to the wall all out (which I agree you need not do on a newbie. hell, I don't want to waste that much energy on a novice) and favoring your opponent as you suggest. As a ref, the only reason I wouldn't card you is that its very hard to be sure that you are favoring. Were I that novice, btw, I would be HIGHLY offended. After all, when you are in competition, how do you feel about people who fence down to you??

-m

[Capt. Slo-mo]

The kind of meet I'm talking about is generally a one pool round robin, sometimes w/DEs, sometimes not, and usually, the margin of error in directing far exceeds a point or two from not fencing all out.

When I say give them an opening, for a sabre newby, that usually means I don't execute five straight attack/counters, but instead, pull a retreat, throw up a line, guard in five instead of 3, anything to let them have a chance to attack or counter riposte. I don't just let them hit me...they have to earn it by doing something I don't pick off in time...but maybe I don't do an immediate riposte each parry, so they get a second or third chance there as well.

As far a being highly offended, I suspect it's been a while since you were a novice fencing in a open meet. I've NEVER had a novice come up and say: "Hi, my name is Mike, and I'm deeply offended by your refusal to chop me into little bits of liver." OTOH, I HAVE had novices come up and thank me for giving them a chance, and then want to discuss the motions and moves we did during the bout. All you have to do is look in a novice's eyes after a bout and you can see if they're energized or humiliated.

Maybe it's just me...but even at a NAC level meet, if I'm clearly over-matched (which alas, happens far too often) I don't mind a bit if the person in the DE eases back a bit so I get a chance to try a few more things or doesn't just attack me relentlessly with a move I can't seem to counter. I'm always grateful for the added fencing and the minor lessening of humiliation...and hey, maybe I'll learn something in that interim for next time I fence.

[oiuyt]

It's been longer since I was a novice than Mike but I still remember such occasions. There was a fencer at the club I trained at who was one of the better fencers in the area, an A, etc., etc. Routinely when I fenced him the score would reach 8-8, he would stop the bout, give me some point of advice and then the score would finish 8-15. This pissed me off. Clearly he was much better than me, I knew that. Clearly he was giving up touches that he didn't need to during the first part of each bout. Did I ever mention it to him? No. This went on for a good year and a half.

Of course then I got better, figured out his timing, and in the span of a week lost to him in a tournament 13-15, two days later at club fened him three times 15-12, 11-15, 15-13, and five days after that upset him in a tournament 15-8. He never tried favoring me again after that. :)

I've seen people blatently give up a touch explicitly so that someone wasn't shut out or wasn't shut out in a pool. I've even seen a B level fencer intentionally drop a bout so that a newbie wasn't shut out for a pool. I've never reffed one of these bouts or I would have a serious dilemma on my hands whether or not I awarded the black card. I suspect that I would compromise my moral convictions and would choose merely to discuss the situation with the offending fencer later after the bout. And then I'd probably feel REALLY annoyed/disappointed in myself for a while. Doing this is illegal. It should be penalized as specified in the rules.

Club bouts and practice bouts are the place for helping a partner or opponent. In tournaments you have an obligation to fence to your ability. I agree with epeemike that this doesn't require "balls to the wall" all of the time. Conserving energy, doing just what is required is reasonable, especially in DEs where victory margin doesn't matter at all. Giving up touches (and ESPECIALLY giving up a bout) is a MAJOR offense and should be treated as such.

-B :)

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
The kind of meet I'm talking about is generally a one pool round robin, sometimes w/DEs, sometimes not, and usually, the margin of error in directing far exceeds a point or two from not fencing all out.

Heh, I can't remember the last event I was at that had only one pool.....

When I say give them an opening, for a sabre newby, that usually means I don't execute five straight attack/counters, but instead, pull a retreat, throw up a line, guard in five instead of 3, anything to let them have a chance to attack or counter riposte. I don't just let them hit me...they have to earn it by doing something I don't pick off in time...but maybe I don't do an immediate riposte each parry, so they get a second or third chance there as well.

and if it was just playing around a bit, then I wouldn't think it was a problem. I have no problem with somebody taking it easy in a bout. however, to give them "chances" they wouldn't normally have, and thus cede touches to them is a black cardable offense. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

As far a being highly offended, I suspect it's been a while since you were a novice fencing in a open meet. I've NEVER had a novice come up and say: "Hi, my name is Mike, and I'm deeply offended by your refusal to chop me into little bits of liver." OTOH, I HAVE had novices come up and thank me for giving them a chance, and then want to discuss the motions and moves we did during the bout. All you have to do is look in a novice's eyes after a bout and you can see if they're energized or humiliated.

Luckily (or not, depending on how you look at it) I have a pretty damned good memory. I DO remember this situation, and I WAS offended. I felt that my opponent was looking down at me. that he was a pompous, arrogant SOB.

Maybe it's just me...but even at a NAC level meet, if I'm clearly over-matched (which alas, happens far too often) I don't mind a bit if the person in the DE eases back a bit so I get a chance to try a few more things or doesn't just attack me relentlessly with a move I can't seem to counter. I'm always grateful for the added fencing and the minor lessening of humiliation...and hey, maybe I'll learn something in that interim for next time I fence.

Funny, if that happens, I feel I have failed. my goal in a bout in which I am overmatched is to not allow my opponent the luxury of playing around. if they play around and I don't punish them for it, I am pissed at both myself and them (moreso myself). Also, if I can't counter a move, i'd rather see it 15 times in the hopes that by the end of the bout I can counter it than have the person back down and show me moves that I don't need as much practice against.

Originally posted by oiuyt
It's been longer since I was a novice than Mike

Not by much.

-m

[swordsen]

I am with epeemike here. I have alwasy been offended if I thought my opponent was taking it easy on me.
I may not fence a beginer as hard as I fence some other opponents but I won't give away a touch. Ever. the most I will do is limit myself to certain attacks. (the theory being if I can't do the attack well enough to beat this person I don't deserve to win.) but when I do those attacks I do them all the way.

Most people can tell when they are getting self esteem points and they generally don't seem to appreciate it.

[nahouw]

Originally posted by epeemike81
So, its not that men ARE stronger, just that they feel the need to use their strength more?? I suppose its also not that men are faster, just that they feel the need.... THE NEED FOR SPEED!

-m

Sorry, but Mo is dead on this -- I was at a mixed competition at the NYAC, and I had just beaten one guy 5-4 -- he was a perfect gentleman, with an obviously well-adjusted ego, and didn't feel the need to try to win by hurting me, but just on skill throughout the entire bout. However, in my next bout, I was leading 2-0 against this guy, and then I noticed a change in him, that he was ready to hurt me in order to win and save face from being beaten by a girl like the last guy. Of course, my proper sense of not wanting to be injured kicked in, and I let the guy beat me -- I had no interest in trying to get touches and win -- it is more important to me to be safe than to win. I just focused on what he was doing and my objective was to minimize the impact of the injury that he was interested in inflicting me.

I have another guy in my club who only wants to fence me dry -- he doesn't like to see that he is losing to a girl.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by nahouw
Sorry, but Mo is dead on this -- I was at a mixed competition at the NYAC, and I had just beaten one guy 5-4 -- he was a perfect gentleman, with an obviously well-adjusted ego, and didn't feel the need to try to win by hurting me, but just on skill throughout the entire bout. However, in my next bout, I was leading 2-0 against this guy, and then I noticed a change in him, that he was ready to hurt me in order to win and save face from being beaten by a girl like the last guy. Of course, my proper sense of not wanting to be injured kicked in, and I let the guy beat me -- I had no interest in trying to get touches and win -- it is more important to me to be safe than to win. I just focused on what he was doing and my objective was to minimize the impact of the injury that he was interested in inflicting me.

So, he decided on a STRATEGY (yes, thats right, STRATEGY) of physical intimidation, and it apparently worked. Mo is right that this is a very good reason not to have co-ed NACs, but the issue is not so much that men DO physically intimidate more, it is that men CAN physically intimidate more. My point is that it comes down to physical, not psychological, differences.

-m

[nahouw]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Could be true...but I suspect it goes the other way far, far more often. How many big burly male sabre fencers are going to be cowed by anything a woman fencer does? Get beaten, perhaps, but intimidated by force? I think the only intimidation is mental...as in being afraid of getting outfenced, not out muscled.

>>>>>>>>> Yes, the only time when men will hit women harder in competition is when they are outsmarted by women -- and then their only reaction is to out-force the woman -- not very good sportmanship.

I've fenced in tournaments with youth fencers mixed in, and watched a bunch of these multi-aged bouts as well. Most adults fence kindly with youth fencers, but occasionally, an older man (and by older I mean age in relation to the youth fencer, not older as in 50+ veterans!) having trouble with a youth--and especially a female fencer--will resort to extremely heavy hitting as a method of intimidation. This is reprehensible and the epitome of poor sportsmanship. I don't expect anyone to fence at half speed, but you don't need to cut a 12 year old in half with a monster parry-riposte.

>>>>>>>>> And this is why the referees should be more cognizant and call brutality -- unintentional, if it would make everyone feel better -- but call it and stop it and make everyone behave in a sportsman-like manner. Safety is more important than winning.

First of all, I don't think there is a disclaimer anywhere on the waiver that reads: "Attention, youth and women fencers. Be advised that should you, at any time, threaten the emotional well-being of certain men entered in this tournament, you may be subject to vindictive, brutal touches resulting in contusions, broken skin, loss of nerve function and/or death."

>>>>>>>>> Good point here. But this is not just particular to men's emotional health -- it does also apply to some females who also have a problem with ego. I must say that I would much rather fence with men than women -- men have more skill and control than women, and I feel much safer with them -- I have been injured fencing many times with women, HOWEVER, I have never been injured when fencing with men. I had a Veteran women's Saber fencer injure my Ulnar nerve -- it was not fun to feel the nerve regenerate itself -- it took 6 months to heal, and I was reminded daily throughout the healing process. Just as I was getting through the longer psychological healing process of this, I had a Cadet women's Saber fencer avulse my arm -- that means she caused a hairline fracture, and since my muscle was activitated, it ripped the muscle from both sides of my arm from wrist to elbow. That also took 6 months to physically heal, but this time I was greatly impaired in normal daily functions, as well as work disability, and the psychological damage from this injury to my fencing took 2 years to heal.

By all means, we should go all out during a match. But all out doesn't mean open season for gigantic-behind-the-head-slashes on an overmatched opponent. The point of sabre fencing is not to beat the crap out of each other...it's to use brains and finesse and technique and strategy to score points. In sabre at least, a clever gossamer touch lights up the box just as brightly as an overhead hammer blow.

>>>>>>>>> CORRECT -- and when women and men fence together, men who have an ego problem if they lose to a girl need to be monitored by the referee -- he is the person to give the cards for brutality when he sees it, and to control the order of his strip to even avert this before it happens.

I think the point Mo was trying to make is that since some men have a well recognized problem with using excessive force for intimidation, that problem will only be magnified if a co-ed NAC is instituted. If it's a minor problem at a local tournament with little at stake, what happens when it counts for national points?

>>>>>>>>> I think that Mo is highlighting that in this country, is that we have a very well-known GENERAL problem with referees in this country failing to card fencers for brutal actions. That if we went to co-ed competitions, that this problem will be exacerbated by those men with this problem if they in addition have an ego problem and can't handle losing to a girl.

>>>>>>>>> It is well known in Europe that if someone says "You fence like an American' it is a a nicer way to say that you are brutal.

[nahouw]

Originally posted by epeemike81
So, he decided on a STRATEGY (yes, thats right, STRATEGY) of physical intimidation, and it apparently worked. Mo is right that this is a very good reason not to have co-ed NACs, but the issue is not so much that men DO physically intimidate more, it is that men CAN physically intimidate more. My point is that it comes down to physical, not psychological, differences.

-m

Yes, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT -- he chose a strategy -- but not a strategy of PHYSICAL INTIMIDATION but rather one of INTENTIONAL BRUTALITY, and I chose wisely to make sure I did not suffer another catastrophic injury from fencing just to pacify his inadequate ego and lack ofskill.

So, you mean it is an ACCEPTABLE STRATEGY for men to physically harm women in what is supposed to be a SPORT, rather than to rely on their obvious reach advantage and skill? I thought this sport has rules against brutality -- INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL.

Explain to me the strategy behind why this man had to resort to brutality in order to beat me when he was at least a full 12" taller than me with such an excess reach than me in epee?? The only thing that I can figure out is that his ego couldn't handle losing to a woman, and that I had very good point control and he exposed his arm alot. Please enlighten me otherwise.

[Mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81
So, he decided on a STRATEGY (yes, thats right, STRATEGY) of physical intimidation, and it apparently worked. Mo is right that this is a very good reason not to have co-ed NACs, but the issue is not so much that men DO physically intimidate more, it is that men CAN physically intimidate more. My point is that it comes down to physical, not psychological, differences.
-m

As usual, Mike, your glorification of intimidation completely illustrates what I am talking about. Might does not make right, to be a bit Arthurian.

It all boils down to motivation. If you are hitting really hard to put someone in their place, you are not fencing, you are not strategizing, you are brutalizing.

Some people are just plain nice. They want other people to enjoy what they are doing and enhance experiences. They do not have to win every single time either in a fencing bout or on a discussion board.

If someone is being condescending and formally spotting competitors "pity points" to begin a match because they think they are fencing people that are "beneath them" that is one thing. But if they are fencing someone who is in the meet for enjoyment and want to help other people to enjoy the meet, it is another.

My kid's coach says that local meets are for trying out what you learned in lessons and bouts. You are not there only to win but to be able to use what you need when it really counts. There is no shame in losing when you are trying to incorporate more weapons into one's personal arsenal.

A person who is angry does not fence as well as one who is level headed and hurting someone to win is often a sign of desperation. It is really hard to physically intimidate someone without actually hitting really hard. I've seen little females go up against big men and take the hits and win anyway. So all that is happening is poor sportsmanship.

The point IS that men can and do physically intimidate women, especially in a close bout. The point IS that just because they can, doesn't make it sporting.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by oiuyt
I've even seen a B level fencer intentionally drop a bout so that a newbie wasn't shut out for a pool. Doing this is illegal. It should be penalized as specified in the rules.
-B

Absolutely. There is a big big difference between not slaughtering a novice in a business like fashion at a low-key local meet, and actually throwing a bout. But that's not what we were talking about.

Originally posted by epeemike

Luckily (or not, depending on how you look at it) I have a pretty damned good memory. I DO remember this situation, and I WAS offended. I felt that my opponent was looking down at me. that he was a pompous, arrogant SOB.

Well, Mike, maybe that's one of the differences between us. Someone fails to devastate you on the strip, and you take it as an act of pompous arrogance. Someone does the same for me, and absent any evidence to the contrary, I take it as a sign of sportsmanship and enjoy the opportunity. Of course, maybe he was just messing with you to....*gasp* "intimidate" you and throw off your game!

Originally posted by nahouw

And this is why the referees should be more cognizant and call brutality -- unintentional, if it would make everyone feel better -- but call it and stop it and make everyone behave in a sportsman-like manner. Safety is more important than winning.

Two thumbs up, Nahouw!
We've had this discussion for years while watching sabre at the NAC level. In hundreds and hundreds of matches, I've seen a referee pull a card once...just ONCE! And that was for a Y14 boy fencing a kid half his size. He was nearly touching the strip behind him on his wind up before riposting the smaller kid. I can't count the times I've watched referees actually wince...WINCE! while watching someone handle their sabre like a meat cleaver, but no caution is made, no cards are drawn. Until they start to enforce the existing rules on brutality or touches made with dangerous, violent or vindictive action, it's not going to get any better.

And just in case it isn't clear, I do find myself in the strange postion of agreeing with both Mo and Epeemike on one thing...the NACs shouldn't be co-ed...for all the male/female brutality issues we've been discussing.

[TheOnlyPorthos]

Note: I am NOT arguing in favor of coed NACs, I think that they would be a mistake. But combining two events run the way NACs are run does not increase the total number of bouts required.

While true, that has no effect on the point I was trying to make.
The point is that if we lumped them both together, it would be like trying to carry all your boxes during a move at once. Sure it doesn't effect the number of boxes, but you still can't carry all of them at once. By keeping them separated and holding them on different days and times, it breaks the group up into more manageable chunks. If we did it all at once we would overwhelm the officials and spend the majority of the day resting on our laurels waiting for our turn to fence, something nobody wants.

By the way, I have noticed that everyone is arguing spiritedly against co-ed NAC's, and rather than debating on whether or not they should be held, we seem to be engaging in electronic shouting matches over the different reasons why they shouldn't.
If we all agree, then why are we arguing?

[Jason]

Originally posted by TheOnlyPorthos
If we all agree, then why are we arguing?

If everyone disagreed, there'd be nothing to argue about.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by nahouw
Yes, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT -- he chose a strategy -- but not a strategy of PHYSICAL INTIMIDATION but rather one of INTENTIONAL BRUTALITY, and I chose wisely to make sure I did not suffer another catastrophic injury from fencing just to pacify his inadequate ego and lack ofskill.

He may have chosen it because of ego, he may not have. I can't say. All I CAN say is he chose a strategy which emphasized his skills (strength, size, speed) and not yours. just as you chose one that emphasized your skills (point control, timing). And if it got you to stop fencing and let him win, then apparently his strategy was a good one (ahem, "good" is not a moral assesment).

So, you mean it is an ACCEPTABLE STRATEGY for men to physically harm women in what is supposed to be a SPORT, rather than to rely on their obvious reach advantage and skill? I thought this sport has rules against brutality -- INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL.

At the last meet I was at, two of my bouts with fencers from the same club started out with very hard flat flicks to the thumb. Took me out of my game a little bit. Also, it made it much harder to execute my game. I have no doubt that, while they were trying to get the touch, their choice of first target was designed to do just that. my thumb is still numb (more than 2 weeks later). My coach's reaction (not oiuyt, the other one)? "meh, its epee. its part of the game." He was and is right. does it change something that its a woman on the other side of the strip? If you think it does, then even local events shouldn't be mixed. The fact that you are a woman shouldn't enter into it at all, except that your opponent will generally try to exploit your smaller physical stature, be it through height advantage or intimidation. I did not see the bout you are talking about, so I can't judge if the touch was brutality or not. If it was, though, you should be pissed at the ref, not the fencer. I was at a tournament a while back, and somebody was nursing a leg injury (the refs were giving him WAY too many breaks for the same injury). My response to this was "If I'm fencing him, I'm gonna run him up and down the strip and then object to any break." is that a deplorable or unsportsmanlike strategy? I don't think so. to paraphrase an Australian tennis player, "If you fence, you aren't hurt. If you're hurt, don't fence." It was his choice to get up on strip with me knowing that he was at a disadvantage and was risking further problems with his leg. once he CHOSE to get on strip, I would do anything to win. Now, I'm not saying that hitting hard isn't a deplorable strategy, but it is certainly possible to hit hard and physically intimidate without being "brutal".

Explain to me the strategy behind why this man had to resort to brutality in order to beat me when he was at least a full 12" taller than me with such an excess reach than me in epee?? The only thing that I can figure out is that his ego couldn't handle losing to a woman, and that I had very good point control and he exposed his arm alot. Please enlighten me otherwise.

this is a MAJOR pet peeve of mine: just because a guy is pissed at losing or uses intimidation does NOT make him a male chauvenist. I am pissed EVERY time I lose, be it against man, woman, or child. In addition, I use physical advantages in many of my bouts. admittedly, I use them in terms of hard parries, not hard hits, but intimidation is a big part of my game, especially against those smaller than me. I am not going to argue that intentionally hitting hard is not deplorable, but it IS a strategy, and depending on the level, a legal one at that.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Mo
As usual, Mike, your glorification of intimidation completely illustrates what I am talking about. Might does not make right, to be a bit Arthurian.

Not glorification. not even a true defense, except to say that it is legal. intimidation is a perfectly valid strategy. depending on how it is carried out, it can be brutal, and then should be carded. but lets separate inimidation and brutality, since the former doesn't necessarily imply the later.

It all boils down to motivation. If you are hitting really hard to put someone in their place, you are not fencing, you are not strategizing, you are brutalizing.

And if you as the ref think somebody is doing that, then you should card them. What about Nahouw's story? she's winning on point control, one hard hit later she is no longer trying to win at all... is THAT strategy? it sounds like it is to me.

Some people are just plain nice. They want other people to enjoy what they are doing and enhance experiences. They do not have to win every single time either in a fencing bout or on a discussion board.

Gee, I wonder who you could be referring to here!

Small clarification: I do not feel the need to win on this discussion board, nor do I most of the time. Most of the people here are as intrenched in their opinions as I am in mine. however, I do feel the need to debate so that others on the board who may be reading, but not have an opinion, do see what I consider to be the right position. Also, I do, as you can tell, enjoy debating a great deal.

If someone is being condescending and formally spotting competitors "pity points" to begin a match because they think they are fencing people that are "beneath them" that is one thing. But if they are fencing someone who is in the meet for enjoyment and want to help other people to enjoy the meet, it is another.

This is a symantic difference. its all about how the opponent interprets it. is it pity, or kindness? is it condescension, or help? Either way, its a black card.

My kid's coach says that local meets are for trying out what you learned in lessons and bouts. You are not there only to win but to be able to use what you need when it really counts. There is no shame in losing when you are trying to incorporate more weapons into one's personal arsenal.

This coach is right (once you reach a certain level. til then, most people still care about local events), and I will NEVER object to somebody only winning 5-2 instead of 5-0 because they are working on something specific. However, losing 5-2 because they slowed down, created openings, and didn't riposte so that their opponent would have 2 or 3 more chances after they were parried is NOT working on something specific in their own game. Its collusion.

A person who is angry does not fence as well as one who is level headed and hurting someone to win is often a sign of desperation. It is really hard to physically intimidate someone without actually hitting really hard. I've seen little females go up against big men and take the hits and win anyway. So all that is happening is poor sportsmanship.

In terms of fencing angry, it depends on the person. I have met some people who fence very well while angry. I do not. For me to use it to fence well, I have to dull it so that I am no longer actively angry, but still motivated. You are really big on judging people, aren't you? What is happening is a failed strategy. He tried to intimidate her, and it didn't work. She didn't let it work. good for her. my guess is next time they fence, he won't try that.

The point IS that men can and do physically intimidate women, especially in a close bout. The point IS that just because they can, doesn't make it sporting.

The point is that just because she is a woman doesn't make it UNsporting. Also, just because a guy doesn't like losing doesn't make him a male chauvenist. see prior post for a little more on that.
-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Absolutely. There is a big big difference between not slaughtering a novice in a business like fashion at a low-key local meet, and actually throwing a bout. But that's not what we were talking about.

Ya know, oiuyt, she's right. there is a difference. the difference is that to throw a bout, you have to throw 5 touches. she is only talking about throwing 2, or 3, or 4. sorry, slo-mo, but the card is not for throwing a bout, its for favoring an opponent.

Well, Mike, maybe that's one of the differences between us. Someone fails to devastate you on the strip, and you take it as an act of pompous arrogance. Someone does the same for me, and absent any evidence to the contrary, I take it as a sign of sportsmanship and enjoy the opportunity. Of course, maybe he was just messing with you to....*gasp* "intimidate" you and throw off your game!

you think its "sportsmanship" to not respect you enough to actually try against you? to feel bad and throw touches so that you will feel better??? I guess we ARE just different.

Two thumbs up, Nahouw!
We've had this discussion for years while watching sabre at the NAC level. In hundreds and hundreds of matches, I've seen a referee pull a card once...just ONCE! And that was for a Y14 boy fencing a kid half his size. He was nearly touching the strip behind him on his wind up before riposting the smaller kid. I can't count the times I've watched referees actually wince...WINCE! while watching someone handle their sabre like a meat cleaver, but no caution is made, no cards are drawn. Until they start to enforce the existing rules on brutality or touches made with dangerous, violent or vindictive action, it's not going to get any better.

See previous posts.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by TheOnlyPorthos
If we all agree, then why are we arguing?

About co-ed NACs?? we aren't.

We are arguing about tangential issues, like brutality, physical intimidation, sportsmanship.....

-m