Psych!

[veeco]

I think everyone would agree with me that fencing is as much a physical sport (which people would relate to skill in the context of this discussion) than it is a psychological one.

Trying to guess what someone else is going to do. Trying to make them react a certain way to one of your actions.

Your demeanor on the strip in between touches can actually steer those reactions in one way or another.

I know I use it. It's nothing personal, again, and I don't think it makes me less of a "gentleman" because I do it. After the bout I will congratulate my opponent no matter what the outcome of the bout is. Actually, I take that back. I will congratulate my opponent if I lost. If I won, I will probably not say anything, let the person get over their loss, and try and be nice with them and talk about the bout later if I see them again during the tournament.

It's my opponent's job to realize that me screaming loudly after one touch might just be me trying to get them angry and come after me all out, therefore doing mistakes. Once they see that and realize that it's nothing personal and don't get angry, I'll switch to other tactics.

[Slavheart]

Everyone tip their hats to Epeemike81 who is quite the orator! In this post he admirably uses the term "rank beginner" in respectful reference to other members of this board. And in an unrelated thread he used the very eloquent phrase of "quit yer *****in'" in responding to a fencer who voiced a valid perspective and complaint.

What a fine example of the kind of tolerance, constructive engagement, and sportsmanship that we need in sports these days.

Something tells me that his response to this, if any, will most likely only further my point.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Slavheart
Not one of the writers I've read, from earlier times to Nadi to contemporaries, ever advise doing this sort of thing. In fact, some even consciously discourage it. It really amounts to a conspicuous effort to humiliate a fellow sportsman.

Well, Nadi sold touches and fixed his bouts. He also claimed that every time he lost he was cheated. So I wouldn't use him to support any argument about sportsmanship.

[epeefencer74]

Originally posted by veeco
I think everyone would agree with me that fencing is as much a physical sport (which people would relate to skill in the context of this discussion) than it is a psychological one.

Trying to guess what someone else is going to do. Trying to make them react a certain way to one of your actions.

Your demeanor on the strip in between touches can actually steer those reactions in one way or another.

I know I use it. It's nothing personal, again, and I don't think it makes me less of a "gentleman" because I do it. After the bout I will congratulate my opponent no matter what the outcome of the bout is. Actually, I take that back. I will congratulate my opponent if I lost. If I won, I will probably not say anything, let the person get over their loss, and try and be nice with them and talk about the bout later if I see them again during the tournament.

It's my opponent's job to realize that me screaming loudly after one touch might just be me trying to get them angry and come after me all out, therefore doing mistakes. Once they see that and realize that it's nothing personal and don't get angry, I'll switch to other tactics.

Couldn't agree more with you Veeco. This is the nature of combat, whether real or in a sport. However you look at fencing it is in the end still combat. In combat you use skill with your weapon and psychological tricks to defeat your opponent. The difference is in sport you get to walk away alive when you lose.

Whether I win or lose is a combination of psyche and skill. I have lost to beginners because they were able to get under my skin and I have beaten veterens because I was able to get under thiers. In any case, whether I win or lose I will still thank my opponent, because without him I would not be able to fence at all.

[Inquartata]

Well, it just reminds me of the early chess "master" who could muster nothing better in the way of strategy than advising the player to set up the board so that the light reflected off it into his opponent's eyes...

Maybe he'd have been better off improving his chess than dreaming up devious extracurricular distractions. And maybe we'd be better off trying to fence better than trying to figure out how best to annoy or intimidate our opponents.

[BugabooX]

Originally posted by Slavheart
Everyone tip their hats to Epeemike81 who is quite the orator! ...

(respectful nod) Indeed. I stand in awe of his diplomacy.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Well, it just reminds me of the early chess "master" who could muster nothing better in the way of strategy than advising the player to set up the board so that the light reflected off it into his opponent's eyes...

Maybe he'd have been better off improving his chess than dreaming up devious extracurricular distractions. And maybe we'd be better off trying to fence better than trying to figure out how best to annoy or intimidate our opponents.

Again, I am not suggesting that anybody should spend their time practicing tricks or thinking them up (nor have I seen anybody else suggest that). I just feel that if you notice something psych's your opponent out, you should do it a liitle more, just like if you notice parry ripostes work very well against somebody you should use them more. Does this mean that you should practice parry ripostes in practice to the detriment of all else? of course not. Why do people on this board insist on seeing things as black and white? You can be a good fencer and still use head games. Likewise, you can choose to not use head games (conciously, at least) and still be good, I just think its gonna be harder. You don't NEED a parry to be good, but it sure as hell helps.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Slavheart
Everyone tip their hats to Epeemike81 who is quite the orator! In this post he admirably uses the term "rank beginner" in respectful reference to other members of this board.

Well, what term would you prefer to describe two fencers each with a whole year under their belt who are telling FAR more experienced fencers what they should and shouldn't do? I guess "arrogant beginner" would work better....

And in an unrelated thread he used the very eloquent phrase of "quit yer *****in'" in responding to a fencer who voiced a valid perspective and complaint.

Gee, thanks for the context, slav....

Originally posted by epeemike81:
mfp, how about we raise dues to $100 a year?? that should easily cover a fax machine, full time web programmer, and some extra clerical staff.

Don't like the idea of a massive dues increase?? then quit yer *****in! The USFA does its best with VERY limited resources.
Do like the idea? then start getting a petition together of fencers willing to pay more. or, better yet, just encourage people to make a donation on their annual membership form.

Please note that this was a CONDITIONAL. This was in response to a post suggesting that the USFA should really be more professional and hire more full time staff. I pointed out that to fund that money would have to come from somewhere, most likely from the membership. Thus, I said IF he didn't like that idea, he shouldn't be complaining about USFA's lack of professionalism. The USFA staff does a VERY good job for the small amount of resources at their disposal (for the most part. I'm sure somebody can come up with a story where they screwed up, but we shouldn't generalize from that). seems pretty reasonable to me..... If you disagree, oh well. (if you want to vocalize your disagreement, please do so on the other thread, since I don't want this thread to degrade into even further chaos).

What a fine example of the kind of tolerance, constructive engagement, and sportsmanship that we need in sports these days.

Something tells me that his response to this, if any, will most likely only further my point.

Tolerant? guess it depends on your point of view. My philosophy is that you are welcome to your opinoins and I am welcome to disagree with them. seems tolerant enough to me. Intolerance is a buzz word used FAR too often in this country. Tolerance is, indeed, a pretty low bar. seems tolerant enough to me. constructive engagement? Well, it would be if you could manage to see past the word "yer" and actually attempt to comprehend my point. Sportsmanship?? what is unsporting about disagreeing with you, or about pointing out that you are less experienced than ALL of the people you are arguing with? I think its a pretty valid point.

-m

[mfp]

Originally posted by epeemike81
This was in response to a post suggesting that the USFA should really be more professional and hire more full time staff.

You are mistaken. The post you responded to suggested the USFA should be more professional but did *not* suggest more full time staff be hired. In fact the post was about ways to improve services to members while reducing the busy work load on staff. Apparently you did not comprehend the post or read/comprehend the followup where it was explained for you once again.

Originally posted by epeemike81
if you could manage to see past the word "yer" and actually attempt to comprehend my point.

Good grief -- you're one to talk

As for the original subject of this thread, "Psych", it seems you somehow think of and treat the people with which you interact on this board as being your opponents, and then (borrowing your words) ...

Originally posted by epeemike81
my bet is that your demeanor changes. Regardless of whether you conciously do it, you DO do it. in life, not just fencing. talk to any anthropology major. many encounters in life are about head games.

[veeco]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Well, it just reminds me of the early chess "master" who could muster nothing better in the way of strategy than advising the player to set up the board so that the light reflected off it into his opponent's eyes...

Maybe he'd have been better off improving his chess than dreaming up devious extracurricular distractions. And maybe we'd be better off trying to fence better than trying to figure out how best to annoy or intimidate our opponents.

Some of the best chess masters used head games: capablanca, I think, was known for pacing around the board and his opponent, smoking cigars and copiously blowing the smoke in his opponent's face. Note that I am not advocating behavior like this in fencing ;-). But some others will play a move looking at their opponent right in the eyes. I don't see what's unsportsmanlike about that. It's a way to tell the other person that they are going to have to put up a fight to win.

Whether you should spend time at home rehearsing your psychological tricks or not, that I don't know. I guess some people are just good at this and it's a part of their personality. It makes for a more interesting watching experience, I think. I'd rather watch a fencing bout between to people who are trying to psych each other out and play some kind of drama comedy, while going at it with all their strength and their hearts, than just two people going at it with all their strength and their hearts.

You just have to acknowledge that there are people who do it, and know how you want to respond to it.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
Some of the best chess masters used head games: capablanca, I think, was known for pacing around the board and his opponent, smoking cigars and copiously blowing the smoke in his opponent's face.

I suspect that this was because he was an a****** ( many chessmasters are, ah, highly flawed human beings. I also suspect that he would have been affronted had anyone suggested that he won matches because of these antics, instead of because he was a great player...

But some others will play a move looking at their opponent right in the eyes. I don't see what's unsportsmanlike about that. It's a way to tell the other person that they are going to have to put up a fight to win.

Chess at higher levels can be extremely nerve-wracking and a lot of nervous behavior comes out. I'm talking rather about deliberate "prepared variations" of the interpersonal variety, not unconscious tics and symptoms of inner turmoil...

I'd rather watch a fencing bout between to people who are trying to psych each other out and play some kind of drama comedy, while going at it with all their strength and their hearts, than just two people going at it with all their strength and their hearts.

Heh, well, lots of people prefer the WWF to Olympic wrestling matches, too...

But seriously, I find all the extra sturm-und-drang offputting, and somehow embarrassing. I took up fencing, after all, not theatre.
But to each his own...

[Aoife]

Well, I don't do it intentionally, but I find I sometimes unnerve people in freeplay I;ve never done any contests). Mind you, I unnerve people in real life too

See, everybody in my fencing group is utterly new (except the instructor of course). There's a few of us who've been there since the first lesson, all of two months ago ( ) and some who only started this week. I enjoy it loads, and so spend a lot fo time smiling- seemingly some people get a little unnerved when somebody is grinning maniaclly when coming at them with a sword.

I can't see why.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Nebuchadnezzar
I'm all for defeating your opponent with good psychology,i mean honestly that's half the game. If all fencing is is simply fine tuned reacting (or not so fine tuned reacting) it wouldn't really be as wonderful of a sport. This psychology, however, should be kept on the strip. A good fencer won't need to play mind games with his opponent before the bout.

But you'r.e all for it?!?!

Psyching someone out before a bout, to me, is just subtle cheating with a different label.

Some people used to say the same thing about parrying!

[Inquartata]

Some still do...about distance parrying, at any rate!

[Chris]

Originally posted by BugabooX
I guess the only psych-out ploy I use on a regular basis is to compliment my opponent for his (or her) spouse's sexual prowess. That tends to upset most of them a teensy bit for some odd reason.

Well, that and one other thing: When we test epee bell guards, I pull mine away before he can touch it and yell, "Psych!" Then I grin and tell him I was just kidding, hold my bell guard up again and repeat the process. By the third attempt to test his weapon, the guy starts to look tense.
(snip)

OK, now that's just annoying AND juvenile!

The only mind game tactic I really ever used is a fairly standard 'game face' thing, where I am pretty smiley, friendly and jovial whilst the referee performs the obligitory activities, but as soon as I step up to the line, I suddenly put a cease to all that, and change the mood.

If anything, I would do this, as much, or more, for my own benefit, than to intimidate the opponent; I would do it to communicate to myself, and perhaps my opponent, that we are doing a different thing now, so that, hopefully, we can earnestly compete on the strip, and leave it there, when we are done.

Originally posted by epeemike81
Notice how it is largely rank beginners who are arguing that this is improper (apologies to Inquartata, and any other experienced people I have missed)? notice it is experienced fencers who are saying its part of the game and NOT improper? Does this tell you anything????

-m

No offence to you Mike, but there's a lot of experienced people who share Slavheart's opinion on competitor's expressiveness; As you'll see, personally, I disagree with a lot of them, as you do, but you shouldn't generalize about them in this way.

Recently there was a picture posted at "http://home.columbus.rr.com/salliearamis/" of a sabre fencer, 'sans masque' apparently shouting at the camera, as he turned away from his opponent; numerous people posted on RSF about how shameful that was that he was 'spoilt brat' or that he must think he was 'god's gift to fencing' - could it be that he just broke a blade?...

Many people think that fencing should be calm, quiet and serene; elegant, and sophisticated, like a ballet, with no one showing any emotion, confining themselves to 'a simple impassive "thank you" to convey their message. Well, all I can say is that it's NOT the same message, and that these sorts of people almost killed tennis in the early 70's.

Seriously, all theory and sportsmanship aside, modern fencing is only three or four steps away from a knife fight in a back alley, and "frank and courteous" doesn't exactly mean we are constrained to "please" and "thank you" (though that IS a good way to stay out of trouble!)- It's unreasonable to expect that fencers don't have emotions, (though they must stay in control of them) if we can't see that the fencers are excited about what they are doing, how in the world can we hope spectators to get excited about it?

Now, granted, there clearly need to be limits, and it's always a problem to agree on what those should be, and get consistent enforcement.
(Apparently, almost no one wanted to black card Sean McLain (sp?) because he was supposed to be on the World Team...well, too bad, if he did a dangerous thing, purposely throwing his weapon, then he should have gotten punished.)

And the rule book, (which I must assume Mike uses to level out the washing machine) is pretty clear on NOT saying things to your opponent. Now, some ref's will let some of this slide, as long as it seems to be truly friendly, but will step in if anything seems to turn nasty or antagonistic.

On the other hand, 'Self-talk' is a viable, and promoted psychological technique, and someone who 'does the "yes" as one scores a touche' may or may not be celebrating or trying to intimidate the opponent, but rather exercising positive reinforcement, for motivational purposes.
(Hey, when I am down 13-10, I need SOMETHING!)

Originally posted by Slavheart
I disagree with just about everything that Eppemike81 has to say on this subject.

I disagree with you: there's absolutely no way you could possibly have heard everything Epeemike81 has to say on the subject!

(snip)...And, in my view, doing the "YES" when you score a touch is simply against the grain and tradition of good sportsmanship in fencing. Not one of the writers I've read, from earlier times to Nadi to contemporaries, ever advise doing this sort of thing. In fact, some even consciously discourage it. It really amounts to a conspicuous effort to humiliate a fellow sportsman. There are other names for this...since most of us probably enjoy examining how aspects of the game can apply to other areas of life, why not ask how this behavior is exhibited in other contexts? Most likely, it would look like this: Being smarmy. Smug. Sanctimonious. Self-righteous. Pompous. Rubbing it in. Rubbing someone's face in it. Adding insult to injury. Essentially, kicking someone when they're already down.

You are clearly bringing some idealistic preconceptions to this discussion, as well as some of your own attitude issues. When I do it, I am usually the guy who is 'down'.
Obviously I AM kind of 'tipping my hand' that I think I 'know the answer', but well, my opponent may well realize something is up, since I just hit him , so I think it's moot.

Clearly, many authors on ANY sport are going to warn against getting TOO emotional, HOWEVER, fencing is not about who can be the nicest guy! Granted, no one really likes the guy who is a total jerk, whether he wins, or not, and I don't think anybody wants to BE that guy.

On the OTHER hand, there's nothing wrong with being a 'fierce competitor', and a lot of people understand that that is going to manifest itself in different ways for different people; obviously, some people don't.

Some people seem to think (you might seem to be one) that the fencer should say nothing and show no emotion whatsoever, and that is certainly ONE approach to fencing (or any sport), and it's valid, BUT, A. some (other) people would find that behaviour, arrogant, conceited, and contemptful; and B. That is NOT necessarily the way for EVERY person to do their best.

Is that really the character anyone wants to cultivate and exhibit? Looks like a lot of people are o.k. with this sort of thing and the game belongs to everybody.

As I said, you may be making some incorrect assumptions as to what the people are really doing. Of course, that being said, I guess we SHOULD be aware that some (albeit, I think small) segment of the public may make the same ones.
And that is one of the things a referee should keep in mind when observing some emotional behaviour: It's (obviously my opinion that it's) OK for the fencer to show that he has an emotion, as long as he shows he's in control of it. Note that a referee should ensure that no inflammatory comments are tolerated, but that a fencer can show they are out of control without actually saying anything.

So, as much as I dislike it, there's nothing to do about it but grin and bear it and surpass it whenever possible with superior fencing skills that rely on well-practiced movements and strategy. For my part, I'll stay silent when I score a touch and let the judges or anyone watching make their own comments...whether silent or voiced.

And I honestly hope that works for you; somtimes it works for me; sometimes I need to do something else.

See you around!

[Chris]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Like I said, what the fact that so many experienced fencers advocate this says ( to me, at least ) is that the behavior is so ingrained in the culture that it's become ingrained in them, too. Rather the way experienced criminals seem to aquire the attitude that if they want or need something they are perfectly entitled to take it from someone---and are bewildered at the notion that perhaps they ought to work for it instead. The smarter ones build up elaborate rationalizations to justify it; the stupid ones just figure that's the way it is, that the world owes them things because they are who they are; only the relative novices suffer any pangs of remorse...

I hasten to add that I see the two attitudes as similar in nature psychologically, not in any morally equivalent sense.

But again, I make a distinction which you don't seem to grant existence, ie intent. just as in the law, intent is a major element of the worthiness or unworthiness of any behavior.

Said the pot to the kettle!
You do exactly the same thing, you seem to interpret vocal expression as an offensive actin intended to intimidate the opponent, without considering the intent of the expressor.

If I kill someone, it matters very much whether I meant to do it, does it not? So too with this psychological warfare that goes onm in fencing, I think. If you are just a skilled fencer, and that intimidates your opponent, it is his problem, his weakness. If you deliberately concoct stratagems and gestures and the like in order to achieve the effect, that is a different kettle of fish in my kitchen.

And yet, you have generalized fairly grossly about other's behaviour.

(snip)
As for myself, I couldn't tell you what my demeanor looks like on strip---I've never been able to watch myself fence.

Well, your profile is a little 'thin' but it does say USA, and there's camcorders all over the place, you SHOULD be able to get someone to roll some footage on you.

All I can tell you is that it is not calculated to produce an effect on my opponent or on the referee. If I try to relax, it is because tensing up is having a deleterious effect on my performance. If I try to rouse more intensity, it is to remedy a perceived lack which again is making me fence worse than I ought to be doing. If I express satisfaction or disgust at an outcome, it is directed at myself. Intent is all I can control.

So it sound like you are saying "Whatever I do is OK, but anything more, is bad!" Well, that would be what most people would probably say.

Personally, I WILL say that, though I have never been Black-carded, there's been a couple times that I did something I wished I hadn't done, and I really couldn't have blamed anyone but myself if the card had been shown. (that being said, there's been a couple times when I COULD HAVE blamed someone else, as well, i.e. OTHER people should have gotten carded, first.).

C'est la Vie!

[Chris]

Originally posted by achilleus
Well, Nadi sold touches and fixed his bouts. He also claimed that every time he lost he was cheated. So I wouldn't use him to support any argument about sportsmanship.

To be fair, it was a strategy the many countries have used in tha past, in pool finals, for a countries team mates to 'throw' their bouts to the 'favorite' in a effort to buoy him to the championship, by A. ensuring the favorite had those victories, and B. did not have to work too hard to get them, and could thus, go on to meet the other finalists as 'fresh' as could be.

Don't think that I approve of this, as I don't, but though it was done by many countries in Europe, not just Italy, I am not sure that it is documented that Aldo Nadi did this, OR sold touches, and I after reading some about him, find it a little hard to beleive that he did: He liked to make everyone pay to watch him, but was too arrogant to let people think someone might be even close to his level, if they weren't.

On the other hand, while he DID gripe about a match he fought in France, before the FIE was able to unify the rules, and claimed he would have won under other circumstances (i.e. other rules), he didn't claim that he was cheated, per se, only rather that he was pressured, at the last minute to agree to the French rules of foil that counted upper arm (of the sword arm) as target, which was not the case in Italy, where he learned from his father. That being said, he is credited with the sage about a champion fencing with (adapting to) a broomstick, so it would appear that he had a little problem with self-perspective. (He couldn't adjust to the target area.)

All THAT being said, there's certainly no one person that should serve as a basis for opinion on this sort of subject matter.

Have a nice day!