Co-ed NACs?

[edew]

I find (and employ) several very good vindictive tactics that do not require hitting hard.

First off, I'll admit that I'm naturally a hard hitter. Most people tell me that, even though I don't feel it myself. I'll just accept their claim. (My rationale is that I managed to get them coming at me while I'm in my attack; so the brunt of the force is from their momentum.)

But, when I fence people who keep doing stupid things, like whacking me hard attempting to flick, I would step in and make a counter-attack, letting the flick miss. Aggravates them to no end.

If I get hit (on or off target), I'll make a deliberately late riposte. Just a tap like I'm testing my weapon. Another peeve.

Or, I'll give up a touch and say, "ooh, good hit." That makes them wonder whether they had me all set up, or whether I'm dissing them.

Another is to feign injury, especially with a hard flick. Other times, it's showing, "no big deal" when nailed really hard with a flick.

I scored a lucky touch? Congratulate myself for making a brilliant set-up and execution. Scored a well executed touch? Say, "ooh, lucky hit."

Doing those things are more effective than plain muscular brutality. As someone posted above, a gossamer-light touch is just as effective as the hammer-of-thor hit to the head (in sabre). If the light touch results in a point, the opponent IS effectively thwarted.

I'm 5'7" 145#, I'm in no condition to bowl someone over. But I'm also nimble and experienced enough to not be intimidated by someone much bigger than me bowling me over.

The thing to realize with the mental aspect of the game is not to do something that might inspire your opponent to do better. If screaming at his face riles him up to do better, don't do it. If screaming at his face makes him cower further back, then go ahead (modulo what the referee might say about it). You have to find those buttons on your opponent and push them.

[achilleus]

Fening is a sport. Intimidation, physical and mental, are a part of sports. Physical intimidation is not neccessarily intentional brutality. Watch the NFL. There are plenty of hard hits that are not considered brutal and worthy of penalty.

Also consider that a hit delvered by a 6'2'', 200 lb. guy delivered to a another 6'2" 200 lb. guy won't be considered brutal, hard or vindictive, yet against a 5'5" 130 lb woman, it's a different story.

[Saber-Psycho]

Originally posted by epeemike81
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??
-m

What's the difference between giving a new fencer a few opportunities; note I say opportunities ... to make a few good touches, (I don't give them touches, I just practice my actions.) and just not being on your best game? What about referees? Surely if you get a new or just plain bad referee, wouldn't that make the bigger difference than two or three touches?

Oh and epeemike can you post a few more times? I don't think you got your point across.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by TheOnlyPorthos
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.

Even worse, it'd be like trying to arrange for 45 friends to come help carry, instead of 5. Portos has a salient point. Sure, 200 men and 200 women in separate events equal the same bouts as 400 together...but try to arrange for that many more strips, that many more refs, that many more pieces of paper and computer entries for the bout committee to keep track of in a timely manner, all simultaneously, and I suspect the event collapses under its own weight.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Saber-Psycho
What's the difference between giving a new fencer a few opportunities; note I say opportunities ... to make a few good touches, (I don't give them touches, I just practice my actions.) and just not being on your best game? What about referees? Surely if you get a new or just plain bad referee, wouldn't that make the bigger difference than two or three touches?

Oh and epeemike can you post a few more times? I don't think you got your point across.

well, from this post, it is clear that I haven't yet gotten my point across... Also, I posted 1 response to each of the responses to me. that is hardly excessive.

the difference is that one is a black card and the other isn't. period. in actuality, it is quite difficult to determine if you are favoring, so you probably won't be black carded. you should be, however. There is a reason that favoring is a card.

-m

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81

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.
-m

Epeemike? Pissed at the thought of losing?
::clasps back of hand to forehead, reels woozily::

Originally posted by epeemike81

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. -m

In both of the above quotes, absolutely right, but off target to what Nahouw and I are saying. When a man fences a woman, gets pissed at losing, and THEN begans whacking the crap out of her, he BECOMES a male chauvinist, a bad sport and a jerk to boot. Be pissed all you like, but don't engage in vindictive actions. I've seen it and it sucks, and no amount of dancing around it justifies the actions.

And so you don't I'm only picking on men, some of the worst examples of vindictive behavior I've witnessed were between cadet women fencers...so men don't have a lock on brutality. It's still no excuse.

[vigia]

When a man fences a woman, gets pissed at losing, and THEN begens whacking the crap out of her, he BECOMES a male chauvinist, a bad sport and a jerk to boot.

So at 6'4 220 lbs, If I am fencing sabre with a 130 lb woman, get pissed at losing, and start whacking the crap out of her, I'm a male chauvinist, a bad sport and a jerk.

If I am fencing sabre with another large, 6'+ male, get pissed at losing, and start whacking the crap out of him (and he doesn't seem to feel it or blink, or could care less), then am I still a chauvinist etc?

I am fencing the same way in both situations -- same strategy, same tactics. Your analysis is context dependant, which makes it unsupportable. I am with epeemike on this. You get on the strip with me, I might whack the crap out of you. I absolutly will use my size and strength to intimidate you of short of getting carded by the ref. He cannot nor should not card me any differently for whacking a small woman as whacking a large man. I'm not going to treat any one competitor different than another, right? So why does that make me a chauvanist if you don't like facing my strategy and tactics? I would be a chauvanist if I *DIDN'T* whack you as hard. Remember men opening doors for women? That was chauvanistic. Treating you an iota differently on the strip as I would any man is exactly chauvanistic.

You can't have it both ways -- you either want me to be a sensitive male who takes your size and gender into account, or you want me to treat you like an equal. Make up your mind.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
In both of the above quotes, absolutely right, but off target to what Nahouw and I are saying. When a man fences a woman, gets pissed at losing, and THEN begans whacking the crap out of her, he BECOMES a male chauvinist, a bad sport and a jerk to boot.

a jerk? perhaps. a bad sport? debatable. a male chauvinist? not necessarily. That is my point. just because he is hitting a woman hard (even if it is vindictive) does NOT make him a male chauvinist.

-m

[edew]

Originally posted by vigia
So at 6'4 220 lbs, If I am fencing sabre with a 130 lb woman, get pissed at losing, and start whacking the crap out of her, I'm a male chauvinist, a bad sport and a jerk.

If I am fencing sabre with another large, 6'+ male, get pissed at losing, and start whacking the crap out of him (and he doesn't seem to feel it or blink, or could care less), then am I still a chauvinist etc?

I am fencing the same way in both situations -- same strategy, same tactics. Your analysis is context dependant, which makes it unsupportable. I am with epeemike on this. You get on the strip with me, I might whack the crap out of you. I absolutly will use my size and strength to intimidate you of short of getting carded by the ref. He cannot nor should not card me any differently for whacking a small woman as whacking a large man. I'm not going to treat any one competitor different than another, right? So why does that make me a chauvanist if you don't like facing my strategy and tactics? I would be a chauvanist if I *DIDN'T* whack you as hard. Remember men opening doors for women? That was chauvanistic. Treating you an iota differently on the strip as I would any man is exactly chauvanistic.

You can't have it both ways -- you either want me to be a sensitive male who takes your size and gender into account, or you want me to treat you like an equal. Make up your mind.

Of course there is a difference. Beating up on a 130lb woman is being a jerk. Making the exact same action against a 200lb guy is fighting with parity.

Whatever methods you use, you must adapt it to the opponent. Sometimes, you have to bang heads to get your, erm, point across. Sometimes, you need to play a little finesse.

For example, without adding the "vindictive" element into it, one person I fence against in club is a follower. He lets others dictate the footwork tempo. If I move too quickly, he takes that to his advantage and I get hit. So I don't move against him. Makes his attacks easier to see because he won't move until he attacks. But another fencer moves a bit more fluidly. So I go into hyperdrive to outmove him to be successful. Different opponent, different tactics, different successes.

Of course, if your definition of success is causing pain and harm, then I guess pounding everyone and everything in sight would be the optimal tactic.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Epeemike, let me make two predictions:

1. It is not unheard of that after a large competition, there will be a banquet, dance, and maybe a bar-hop. If you find you success with the fencing ladies who read fencing101 less than stellar at that occasion, you might want to reconsider your posts in this thread.

2. Sooner or later you will fence a bout against someone who is clearly smaller than you - and a beginner to boot - and you use the strategy that you have outlined in numerous posts in this thread. Later in that competition, you will be on the strip against that fencer´s big brother, or teammate, who is an 6`8´´, 230 lbs, A-rated guy.

And then...

Just a thought.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
Hi!

Epeemike, let me make two predictions:

1. It is not unheard of that after a large competition, there will be a banquet, dance, and maybe a bar-hop. If you find you success with the fencing ladies who read fencing101 less than stellar at that occasion, you might want to reconsider your posts in this thread.

2. Sooner or later you will fence a bout against someone who is clearly smaller than you - and a beginner to boot - and you use the strategy that you have outlined in numerous posts in this thread. Later in that competition, you will be on the strip against that fencer´s big brother, or teammate, who is an 6`8´´, 230 lbs, A-rated guy.

And then...

Just a thought.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

First of all, let me point out for the umpteenth time that I do not generally hit hard. if I use my size to my advantage, I do it with harder parries and beats, not hard hits. I personally find such strategies deplorable. My major point is not about the strategy, but rather about the prevailing attitude that any man who hits a woman hard is doing so because their ego can't stand losing to a woman. Little anecdote: I got home from college today, and I was talking to my mother. my mother is a VERY independant and successful woman who, of course, believes whole heartedly in equality. When she heard the comments of some of the people on this thread, her reaction was "well, thats rather sexist." the comments which got those reactions were those which basically portray men as neanderthals who can't handle losing to the "weaker" sex.

Once again, I want to clarify: If you don't consider it brutality against a man, you shouldn't consider it brutality against a woman.

-m

[Mo]

So at 6'4 220 lbs, If I am fencing sabre with a 130 lb woman, get pissed at losing, and start whacking the crap out of her, I'm a male chauvinist, a bad sport and a jerk.

If I am fencing sabre with another large, 6'+ male, get pissed at losing, and start whacking the crap out of him (and he doesn't seem to feel it or blink, or could care less), then am I still a chauvinist etc?>>>>

No you are just a poor sport in the need of a black card.


<<<I am fencing the same way in both situations -- same strategy, same tactics. Your analysis is context dependant, which makes it unsupportable. I am with epeemike on this. You get on the strip with me, I might whack the crap out of you. I absolutly will use my size and strength to intimidate you of short of getting carded by the ref. He cannot nor should not card me any differently for whacking a small woman as whacking a large man. I'm not going to treat any one competitor different than another, right? So why does that make me a chauvanist if you don't like facing my strategy and tactics? I would be a chauvanist if I *DIDN'T* whack you as hard. Remember men opening doors for women? That was chauvanistic. Treating you an iota differently on the strip as I would any man is exactly chauvanistic.

You can't have it both ways -- you either want me to be a sensitive male who takes your size and gender into account, or you want me to treat you like an equal. Make up your mind.>>>>>

Vigia,
This post makes my skin crawl. I am the mom of a 5 foot plus-a-little 125 lb saber fencer and if you EVER started beating the crap out of her because you were mad because she was beating you, which she probably could, you would have her mother, father and rather large brother on your *** not to mention any referee in the vicinity.
You lack of ability to recognize that this is wrong, even to the extent of saying you could "get mad and start wacking the crap out her" shows you do not deserve to ever have a weapon in your hand.
Fencing is not about that and if you have to win at the cost of beating the crap out of ANYONE reguardless of size or sex you need to turn in your USFA membership.
If you bruised a woman or ANYONE in a meet in front of witnesses, they could press charges against you. What you are talking about is assault, not fencing.
(I'm not talking about the basic fencing bruises which happen all the time. Some bruises from deliberate hits can break bones or severely injure a fencer. )

[Mo]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
Hi!

Epeemike, let me make two predictions:

1. It is not unheard of that after a large competition, there will be a banquet, dance, and maybe a bar-hop. If you find you success with the fencing ladies who read fencing101 less than stellar at that occasion, you might want to reconsider your posts in this thread.

2. Sooner or later you will fence a bout against someone who is clearly smaller than you - and a beginner to boot - and you use the strategy that you have outlined in numerous posts in this thread. Later in that competition, you will be on the strip against that fencer´s big brother, or teammate, who is an 6`8´´, 230 lbs, A-rated guy.

And then...


Just a thought.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

And suddenly EpeeMike backpedals... Oh no he wouldn't do that, it is "deplorable blah blah."
I like the way you think Mr. Gustafsson!!

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Mo
And suddenly EpeeMike backpedals... Oh no he wouldn't do that, it is "deplorable blah blah."
I like the way you think Mr. Gustafsson!!

backpedal? I think not. give me a quote from an earlier post. when did I EVER say that I would employ this strategy??? I have said all along that I do not. I don't think it is that helpful, frankly. to paraphrase a famous saying, "I don't agree with your strategy, but I'll defend your right to try it (assuming it does not get to the point of brutality)." My point is that hard hits are part of fencing and are not necessarily brutality. furthermore, my point was that to assume that hitting an opponent who happens to be a women hard is CERTAINLY not chauvinistic. I simply said that it IS a strategy, and frequently not related to the gender of the opponent. As far as I'm concerned, once you get on strip against me you are an ageless, genderless thing which I like to call an "opponent". You seem to have a habit of holding men to a different standard from women, and believing that men need treat women better than they need to treat each other. This doesn't jive very well with a sense of the equality of the sexes. If treating a woman on the piste the same way I would treat a man makes me a chauvinist, well then I guess I'm a chauvinist. however, I always thought it was the other way round....

As to your post in response to Vigia, I agree with some of it, but one thing which stuck out is that you said he could be charged with assault if he ever bruised somebody. Are you telling me that any time your kids get bruised you think it is brutality and unreasonable???? I currently have... hold on, let me count.... no less than 5 bruises from fencing, and that is just on my bicep. I have no idea when I got these, as they are relatively routine. Bruises are a part of fencing. get used to it.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by edew
Of course there is a difference. Beating up on a 130lb woman is being a jerk. Making the exact same action against a 200lb guy is fighting with parity.

Whatever methods you use, you must adapt it to the opponent. Sometimes, you have to bang heads to get your, erm, point across. Sometimes, you need to play a little finesse.

For example, without adding the "vindictive" element into it, one person I fence against in club is a follower. He lets others dictate the footwork tempo. If I move too quickly, he takes that to his advantage and I get hit. So I don't move against him. Makes his attacks easier to see because he won't move until he attacks. But another fencer moves a bit more fluidly. So I go into hyperdrive to outmove him to be successful. Different opponent, different tactics, different successes.

Of course, if your definition of success is causing pain and harm, then I guess pounding everyone and everything in sight would be the optimal tactic.

Yes you should tailor your strategy to your opponent. however, the real question that vigia should have asked is if he hits a 130 lb. woman hard, is that worse than hitting a 130 lb. man hard. Many of the people on this board are saying it is, which I disagree with. your thoughts?

-m

[oiuyt]

How has he backpedalled? All along he said that it wasn't a strategy that he utilized, that he thought it should be carded when it crossed the line of legalty, and that intentional brutality was deplorable. He hasn't wavered from this stance.

Normally I'd let mike argue on his own, but here you're clearly putting words into his mouth and claiming that he's shifting his position.

In seperate issues, proving assault when legitimately participating in a combat sport is REAL ify at best. Could it happen? Yes of course. A fencer might get upset enough at a loss to reverse his/her epee and smack the bell down on the back of an opponent's head. Would actions, up to and including ones which could and are penalized with an intentional brutality card open someone to criminal charges? Again, I can imagine that it's possible, although except in the absolute most extreme cases it clearly wouldn't. Civil liability, perhaps, given our legal system (spilling coffee on yourself and driving for another 3 minutes while it burns your lap is worth $2,000,000....) but I know that I'd be hard to convince if I were on such a jury. All of the above of course goes with the proviso IANAL.

If you find you success with the fencing ladies who read fencing101 less than stellar at that occasion, you might want to reconsider your posts in this thread.

Oh come on, his lack of success with the ladies has much more to do with his smooth pick-up lines than his posts on a message board. :)

-B :)

[Inquartata]

Intentional brutality may at times be a strategy, most times it is merely anger, frustration or a fencer's personal "issues" seeping to the surface of his game. In either case it is equally unacceptable. ( The trouble of course is how accurately and dependably we can judge "intent". )

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by vigia
So at 6'4 220 lbs, If I am fencing sabre with a 130 lb woman, get pissed at losing, and start whacking the crap out of her, I'm a male chauvinist, a bad sport and a jerk.

Vigia: The original context for this debate began with discussing men who began heavy hitting on women competitors BECAUSE they were losing TO a woman.

So for the sake of argument, if you get pissed at losing while fencing a woman, and, completely divorced from any context of ego/embarassment at losing to a member of the opposite sex, start whacking the crap out of her, then perhaps you're not a chauvinist. You're still a jerk and a bad sport.

Now, there's chauvinism and then there's chauvinism. If you feel you need to open a door out of politeness, or not break a 14 year old girl's collarbone with a thundering riposte out of a sense of sportmanship, that's a socially acceptable form of chauvinism.

If, for example, you feel the need to verbally rate all the women fencers based on the size of their breast protectors, or feel the need to show a cadet woman fencer (who is cleaning your clock) just who the "man" is on the strip by whacking the crap out of her, then IMHO that is an unacceptable form of chauvinism.

If you get pissed at a physical clone of yourself and start whacking the crap out of him as a form of retaliation or vindictiveness, it's still bad sportmanship and should be a cardable offense. It's supposed to be fencing, not Neaderthal Club Fighting (albeit with skinnier clubs & a higher iron content)

Originally posted by epeemike
(in response to the post by Mo)
As to your post in response to Vigia, I agree with some of it, but one thing which stuck out is that you said he could be charged with assault if he ever bruised somebody. Are you telling me that any time your kids get bruised you think it is brutality and unreasonable????

Mo's post, I thought, was very clear. Her disclaimer: (I'm not talking about the basic fencing bruises which happen all the time) was pretty straightforward. She's talking about vindictive hits during retaliation, in specific reference to Vigia's "get pissed at losing and start whacking the crap out of her" theory of fencing.

Bruises happen all the time...probably more than they should, but they happen. But, just like the hockey player who was charged with assault for deliberate sticking when it was obvious he was purposefully trying to injure an opponent, if a fencer makes a deliberate and premeditated attempt to injure an opponen