Psych!

[veeco]

Originally posted by Inquartata
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...

So would a lot of high level fencers.

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...

And fencing isn't nerve-wracking? I think directly looking at someone's eye while doing a move is a pretty concious decision and would not classify as an unconscious tic...

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...

Of course, some right of way cutting weapons do go to certain extremes, which might be classified as theatre . On the other hand letting out a little bit of steam never killed anyone.
Other psychological tricks that I have heard of or seen: you get hit by a nice touch, your opponent starts screaming at the top of his lungs, go back to your en-guard line with your head down, your arms falling. Once the director says "fence!" you attack with an explosive direct attack.

Would this be thought of as "cheating", or "improper behavior"? My God, you actually took someone to believe that you were upset by that previous touch, effectively lying to your opponent.

Surely in such a chivalrous and gentlemany sport as fencing one would not go to such "extremes" and rely on skill rather than on those petty tactics. Yet, some would argue that this is a part of the skill required by fencing.

A lot of fencing literature deals with the fact that fencing is about deceiving your opponent, hiding your intentions, you used another form of deception, that's all. It might be different than a feint disengage, but you would not think about telling your opponent before the referee says fence that you are going to feint in 5 and then go to the flank, would you? You try and make them believe that you are going for the head. Well, when you play a part on the strip between touches, you are doing the exact same thing, and I think it's as much of an offense as doing a feint-disengage.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Chris
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.

No, I just think it's stupid, juvenile and laughable, I don't much care why they scream. Some do it intentionally, some may do it unconsciously ( though I have a hard time believing that ) but in both cases it's just embarassing. IMO.

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

I see you're posting disagreements with just about everyone, on every issue. Or are you just being equal-opprtunity disagreeable?

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.

Perhaps I'm not that narcissistic...

Perhaps no one wants to break their lenses on me...

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.

I'm saying that people should fence when they're fencing. If they want to play mind games, let 'em go on a dating reality show. If they want melodrama, let 'em hang out on soap opera sets.

Do you think that anything a person wants to do while fencing should fall under the rubric of "laissez faire"? How 'bout if I want to recite the ballade in rhyme from Cyrano while fencing? How 'bout if I want to use smoke bombs and sparklers to distract my opponent? How 'bout if I want to go ninja, and "totally flip out and kill people"?Hey, just exercising my rights to individual expression and methodology on the strip, ya gotta problem with that?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Do you think that anything a person wants to do while fencing should fall under the rubric of "laissez faire"? How 'bout if I want to recite the ballade in rhyme from Cyrano while fencing? How 'bout if I want to use smoke bombs and sparklers to distract my opponent? How 'bout if I want to go ninja, and "totally flip out and kill people"?Hey, just exercising my rights to individual expression and methodology on the strip, ya gotta problem with that?

Now, I KNOW you are intelligent enough to differentiate between these levels. As long as its not disturbing order, go for it. what you list above is VERY much disturbing order, and in one case, illegal.

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
So would a lot of high level fencers.

And if they are practicing these non-fencing techniques deliberately, they would be wrong. Or else the techniques are ineffectual in winning touches or bouts, in which case they're just a ridiculous waste of energy.

And fencing isn't nerve-wracking?

In my experience? Not even in the same league.

In fencing, there is release of tension through physical activity. In chess, there is none.

I think directly looking at someone's eye while doing a move is a pretty concious decision and would not classify as an unconscious tic...

Then my previously expressed opinion of the egotistical nature of these extracurricular gambits would apply.

Of course, some right of way cutting weapons do go to certain extremes, which might be classified as theatre .

Heh, that's an understatement!

On the other hand letting out a little bit of steam never killed anyone.

Can you prove this?

Other psychological tricks that I have heard of or seen: you get hit by a nice touch, your opponent starts screaming at the top of his lungs, go back to your en-guard line with your head down, your arms falling. Once the director says "fence!" you attack with an explosive direct attack.

Would this be thought of as "cheating", or "improper behavior"? My God, you actually took someone to believe that you were upset by that previous touch, effectively lying to your opponent.

IMO, yes, it would. Remember, that's all we're talking about here: personal opinion.

Surely in such a chivalrous and gentlemany sport as fencing one would not go to such "extremes" and rely on skill rather than on those petty tactics. Yet, some would argue that this is a part of the skill required by fencing.

Some would, I'm sure. Opinion, again.

Mine would be that it has nothing to do with chivalry, just with doing what you're supposed to be doing: fencing, not performing in an opera, not matching wits with Doctor Moriarty.

A lot of fencing literature deals with the fact that fencing is about deceiving your opponent, hiding your intentions, you used another form of deception, that's all.

And there are a lot more things you could do in this line. Many of them, fortunately, are prohibited by the rules. Why? Because at some time in the past it has been recognized that they are not integral to the actual fencing. Between then and these "mind games" there is only a difference of magnitude, not of kind...

It might be different than a feint disengage, but you would not think about telling your opponent before the referee says fence that you are going to feint in 5 and then go to the flank, would you?

Maybe because talking on the strip is prohibited by the rules?

You try and make them believe that you are going for the head. Well, when you play a part on the strip between touches, you are doing the exact same thing,

Nope. The former is a fencing action. It is defined in the rules, taught by every coach, mentioned in every book, relied upon DURING the phrase. It is, in short, fencing. The latter is none of these things. It is, as you say, between touches, that is, before fencing begins.

Fencing occurs between "fence" and "halt". Everything else is merely preparing to fence, or evaluating one's fencing.

IMO.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by The0ne
I bet all the people who are saying that its "dishonest" or "dishonorable" are people who also say the flick is from the devil, its ruining our sport etc. etc.

How MUCH will you bet?

( As a sabre fencer, I couldn't care less about the flick...or about any foil action. And since I don't fence foil I shouldn't even be entitled to an opinion on the flick. I am therefore neutral at worst on the matter. )

]
Fencing is a sport, and in sports you try and win, pyschology is just another weapon

Well, I suspect that there will be no new Olympic medals for Mens Psychology, Womens Psychology, or Team Psychology forthcoming from the IOC...

In fencing, there are three weapons only: foil, epee, and sabre. There is no provision for "another".

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Now, I KNOW you are intelligent enough to differentiate between these levels. As long as its not disturbing order, go for it. what you list above is VERY much disturbing order, and in one case, illegal.

-m

And more importantly, they are not fencing.

So who gets to define what is "disturbing order"? Maybe the person being "intimidated" should have a vote in it? His order is certainly being disturbed, assuming the opponent's actions are having an effect.

Is the ear-splitting screaming in which some engage after every touch that pcauses people three strips over to put their fingers in their ears "disturbing order"? Perhaps the fencers on the next strip might find it so? Yet that is tolerated....why not my Cyrano impression?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
And if they are practicing these non-fencing techniques deliberately, they would be wrong. Or else the techniques are ineffectual in winning touches or bouts, in which case they're just a ridiculous waste of energy.

It doesn't follow that if these actions aren't practiced, they won't work. I do not practice psych games, but I have used them VERY effectively many times. (note: I am assuming that by "practice" you mean "work on in practice", as opposed to "use". If you mean use, then it is a rather meaningless statement: "if you don't use them, then they are ineffective.")

Mine would be that it has nothing to do with chivalry, just with doing what you're supposed to be doing: fencing, not performing in an opera, not matching wits with Doctor Moriarty.

and how would you define fencing? I would define it as "using physical prowess and mental cunning to score touches on your opponent within the bounds of the rules." In this interpretation, psych games are covered under "mental cunning".

And there are a lot more things you could do in this line. Many of them, fortunately, are prohibited by the rules. Why? Because at some time in the past it has been recognized that they are not integral to the actual fencing. Between then and these "mind games" there is only a difference of magnitude, not of kind...

the difference between a normal touch and brutality (unintentional) is "only a difference in magnitude". the difference between corps a corps and jostling is "only a difference in magnitude". Differences in magnitude matter just as much as differences in kind.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
And more importantly, they are not fencing.

So who gets to define what is "disturbing order"?

who gets to define it??? um, the ref....

as for his order being disturbed, it is also disturbed when his opponent scores a particularly good touch. maybe we should make that illegal.....

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
It doesn't follow that if these actions aren't practiced, they won't work.

No, I meant "practicing" as in "performing", not as in "working on outside of competition"...hence, "if they are using thse techniques deliberately, they would be wrong". Sorry for the imprecision.

If you mean use, then it is a rather meaningless statement: "if you don't use them, then they are ineffective.")

Not at all. I meant that if you use them, and they don't do you any good, they are a waste of time.

I would define it as "using physical prowess and mental cunning to score touches on your opponent within the bounds of the rules."

I would add, "during the actual phrase", ie between the commands "fence" and "halt". It'd be rather ludicrous to contend that actions taken before or after were fencing. Is hooking up fencing? Is tying your shoes? Is drinking water fencing? Is browsing the merchants fencing? No. Fencing is what you do on the strip, after "Fence!" and before "Halt! ".

Thus, this subtile nonsense which goes on BEFORE fencing begins is properly something else. It may be legitimate, in some people's opinions. It may have an EFFECT on the fencing ( just as diet and sleep and medication do ) but it is not itself fencing...

[/b][/quote]the difference between a normal touch and brutality (unintentional) is "only a difference in magnitude". the difference between corps a corps and jostling is "only a difference in magnitude". Differences in magnitude matter just as much as differences in kind.

-m [/b][/quote]

And the differences are subjective. They exist only until the rules committees decide otherwise. In other words, these psych techniques are fencing, but only until the FIE says otherwise? Anything the rules do not proscribe is "fencing"???

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
who gets to define it??? um, the ref....

So, the ref on the next strip gets to card a fencer on yours for screaming if it's disturbing his/her order?

as for his order being disturbed, it is also disturbed when his opponent scores a particularly good touch. maybe we should make that illegal.....

-m

Again, that takes place DURING FENCING. Not before, not after. These mind games are no more fencing than tightening your hex nut is fencing.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Not at all. I meant that if you use them, and they don't do you any good, they are a waste of time.

maybe they don't do YOU any good, but they do ME a great deal of good. As I said, I have FREQUENTLY used mindgames to great effect.

I would add, "during the actual phrase", ie between the commands "fence" and "halt". It'd be rather ludicrous to contend that actions taken before or after were fencing. Is hooking up fencing? Is tying your shoes? Is drinking water fencing? Is browsing the merchants fencing? No. Fencing is what you do on the strip, after "Fence!" and before "Halt! ".

Thus, this subtile [sic] nonsense which goes on BEFORE fencing begins is properly something else. It may be legitimate, in some people's opinions. It may have an EFFECT on the fencing ( just as diet and sleep and medication do ) but it is not itself fencing...

well, first of all, the real issue is if it is (or should be) legal, not if it "is fencing". secondly, many of the mind games you have cited DO occur during the phrase. I tend to scream. it has nothing to do with intimidation or mindgames, just the adrenaline rush it provides me (I know somebody who says she screams because it adds 2 inches to her lunge. I certainly don't know why, but she knows empirically that it does). However, if I notice on one of the touches that I scream on that it makes my opponent hesitate, prompts a reaction, or just unnerves them, then I WILL scream every touch. that is a mind game, yet occurs during the phrase. is that innappropriate IYO?

And the differences are subjective. They exist only until the rules committees decide otherwise. In other words, these psych techniques are fencing, but only until the FIE says otherwise? Anything the rules do not proscribe is "fencing"???

again, the important issue is NOT what "is fencing", but rather what "is allowed". We both know what is allowed, but the issue for this discussion is what SHOULD be allowed. I believe that the rules are fine as is.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Again, that takes place DURING FENCING. Not before, not after. These mind games are no more fencing than tightening your hex nut is fencing.

Again, so does the screaming, and again what "is fencing" is irrelevant. and, btw, if what you mean by "is fencing" is "is part of the sport of fencing", then, yes, conduct between the touch "is fencing".

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
maybe they don't do YOU any good, but they do ME a great deal of good.

Mike, Mike, READ the sentence!

"if you use them, and they don't do you any good, they are a waste of time."

Note the "if'...and" conditional.

I'll restate it ( sigh ).

If ONE uses a tactic, and it does no good, then it is a waste of time. If PEOPLE use a given "mind game" and it doesn't have any effect, then to use it is worse than pointless, it is a loss of energy with no gain.

I have never seen you fence, I could scarcely have been talking about you specifically, could I?

As I said, I have FREQUENTLY used mindgames to great effect.

How do you know? How do you know you wouldn't have done every bit as well without them? Did you control for all other factors? Have you tested the hypothesis by fencing the same slate of opponents under the same conditions both with and without the extrafencing tactics? If not, all you can say for sure is that you BELIEVE that they helped you...which may be enough to make them worthwhile for you, but makes them objectively no more demonstably effective than a lucky rabbits foot...

well, first of all, the real issue is if it is (or should be) legal, not if it "is fencing".

No, that is the ONLY issue. My original contention was that using these tactics is a tacit admission to onesself that ones fencing technique is inadequate to the task. One cannot win on fencing alone. One needs to drag out extrafencing deviousness in order to win. Moreover, the post to which I was replying said "how would you define fencing? I would define it as "using physical prowess and mental cunning to score touches on your opponent within the bounds of the rules." In this interpretation, psych games are covered under "mental cunning"." In other words, intimidation and demeanor when not actively fencing, as between phrases, is "mental cunning", a part of fencing.

This is the axis upon which the whole issue revolves: whether something which is done off the strip, with your back to the opponent, mask off and weapon dangling leisurely from the cord, can be called "fencing". I say it cannot. If it can, katie bar the door, because using the restroom between DE's is fencing as well.

secondly, many of the mind games you have cited DO occur during the phrase. I tend to scream. it has nothing to do with intimidation or mindgames, just the adrenaline rush it provides me (I know somebody who says she screams because it adds 2 inches to her lunge. I certainly don't know why, but she knows empirically that it does).

And you will recall from previous arguments that I have no problem with this. I understand the concept of the kiai. What I object to..."is that you automatically treat me like an inferior!" Er, no, wrong bit, heh heh! What I object to is celebratory or disgruntled or referee-influencing screaming, AFTER or with the halt, in the aftermath of the actual action. And you are not doing this deliberately, as a tactic, are you? So it's outside the bounds of the matter at hand.

However, if I notice on one of the touches that I scream on that it makes my opponent hesitate, prompts a reaction, or just unnerves them, then I WILL scream every touch. that is a mind game, yet occurs during the phrase. is that innappropriate IYO?

That's a tougher one...it does fall within the fencing phrase. I guess I would still have to call it inappropriate, inasmuch as even within the phrase inappropriate things CAN still occur, intentional and otherwise. I would not stigmatize it as much as I would a cooked-up plan to intimidate going in...

again, the important issue is NOT what "is fencing", but rather what "is allowed". We both know what is allowed, but the issue for this discussion is what SHOULD be allowed. I believe that the rules are fine as is.

-m

No, I still hold the opposite view: what is fencing is pivotal.

Let's take another example. I'm at an NAC. I know which two or three people are likely to give me the most trouble in the coming day. So I get a few friends to stay up all night and phone those rivals every fifteen minutes, keeping them awake all night while I get a good sleep. Tomorrow I hope they will be bleary and irritable, their reactions will be slower, and I will have an easier time beating them. No law is broken, no rule transgressed, only those of fairness, I suppose. Is this, to you, fencing? Or, on your terms, is this a legitimate tactic? And if so, how is it any different from rattling an opponent with a glare just before the "en garde"?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Again, so does the screaming,

SOME of the screaming.

and again what "is fencing" is irrelevant.

No, it is not. Saying that it is irrelevant does not make it so. If you wish to establish that it is, you must prove that it is, not simply wave it off because it is inconvenient to your thesis to have its relevance averred.

and, btw, if what you mean by "is fencing" is "is part of the sport of fencing", then, yes, conduct between the touch "is fencing".

-m

Nope. No Eastern Zen mysticism, please, and no Clintonesque legal quibblings over the meaning of "is" Fencing is what we do on the strip, attack, parry, riposte, all of that. It is not brushing your teeth the night of a tournament, or discussing the ball game with your friends between events. It isn't pumping your fist after the halt, and it isn't sighing in desolation, or delaying the next phrase to unnecessarily tie back your hair.

If what we do between phrases were fencing, it would fall under the rules of fencing. Remove your mask---card. Turn your back---card. Talk to your coach---card. If you can do a thing prohibited by a fencing rule without being penalized, you aren't fencing. I can do a fleche while warming up for my sabre pool if I wish, with impunity. I cannot do so while fencing. Ergo, warming up is not fencing. It is warming up. And stomping up and down the strip grumbling after the halt, or making grimaces at your adversary before tha halt, isn't fencing either.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Mike, Mike, READ the sentence!

"if you use them, and they don't do you any good, they are a waste of time."

Note the "if'...and" conditional.

I'll restate it ( sigh ).

If ONE uses a tactic, and it does no good, then it is a waste of time. If PEOPLE use a given "mind game" and it doesn't have any effect, then to use it is worse than pointless, it is a loss of energy with no gain.

I have never seen you fence, I could scarcely have been talking about you specifically, could I?

I apologize! I thought you were saying something at least SLIGHTLY more meaningful than this! I will NOT make the mistake in future. well, hell, if ONE uses a parry, and it does no good, then it is a waste of time and energy. I have SEEN parries fail, so clearly they are (or were in that instance) a waste of time and energy! yet, I would suspect that tne fencers keep using them.

How do you know? How do you know you wouldn't have done every bit as well without them? Did you control for all other factors? Have you tested the hypothesis by fencing the same slate of opponents under the same conditions both with and without the extrafencing tactics? If not, all you can say for sure is that you BELIEVE that they helped you...which may be enough to make them worthwhile for you, but makes them objectively no more demonstably effective than a lucky rabbits foot...

How do I know that they work? I have seen my opponents VISIBLY unnerved by them. I have seen their performance tank after I start using them. If you don't accept my judgement call on that, then by the same token, we don't know if feints work. after all, I feint, I see him follow my blade as I hit him in a different line, but I can't judge that! He may have been moving his blade completely independently of my feint! the feint is no more effective (necessarily) than your lucky rabbits foot.

And you will recall from previous arguments that I have no problem with this. I understand the concept of the kiai. What I object to..."is that you automatically treat me like an inferior!" Er, no, wrong bit, heh heh! What I object to is celebratory or disgruntled or referee-influencing screaming, AFTER or with the halt, in the aftermath of the actual action. And you are not doing this deliberately, as a tactic, are you? So it's outside the bounds of the matter at hand.

Actually, it is FREQUENTLY after the halt, in my case. however, it is, as I said, in pursuit of adrenaline.

That's a tougher one...it does fall within the fencing phrase. I guess I would still have to call it inappropriate, inasmuch as even within the phrase inappropriate things CAN still occur, intentional and otherwise. I would not stigmatize it as much as I would a cooked-up plan to intimidate going in...

are you now suggesting that I avoid doing things I do anyway (in this case screaming) because it unnerves my opponent??? that seems rather counter productive to me.

No, I still hold the opposite view: what is fencing is pivotal.

Let's take another example. I'm at an NAC. I know which two or three people are likely to give me the most