Psych!

[veeco]

Originally posted by Inquartata

We know, even if for the purposes of this debate we will not admit it, that THINKING about fencing is not fencing, any more than THINKING about having sex IS having sex, or THINKING about telling off your boss IS telling off your boss. Planning to steal a car is not theft; thinking about how best to pull off a kidnapping for money is not kidnapping, or a lot of authors would be in prison. And thinking about fencing, or planning how best to get a touch, is not fencing...until one actively begins to FENCE. Is this really so controversial?

I just fail to understand how this is related to the subject at hand...

Nor can I. But then, I am not advocating that anyone do so. I am merelt stating my opinion that to use these extra-fencing gimmicks is to admit inferiority---to admit that one's fencing isn't good enough to succeed on its own...

Again, I would like to point out as you did that those "gimmicks" as you call them are not fencing. There has to be good enough fencing to occur as well for the touch to happen.
It's just more fun and more interesting, in my opinion, to complement the two and try and put your opponent in a state of mind that will complement your game. Or to psychologically steer someone into fencing with certain actions that you will have planned responses for...

[Chris]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Exactly. Not a waste of time---they are working.

They are still, however, an admission that one's fencing is not good enough to win one the touch or the bout, one feels the need to dream up something extra-fencing to supply the lack.

And parries are just for those people whose footwork lacks something, so they have to dream something up extra with the blade to balance the lack; everyone knows parries just open you up!

Oh, wait, footwork is just for those people whose bladework is so bad that they have to run away!

May I surmise that, even though they have made a special rule for Sabre fencers to have a time-out during Direct elimination matches, that you decline to have anyone approach, or coach you?

If you're doing some fencing action that doesn't work, it IS a waste of time. It may work against someone else, or at another time, but at that moment it is a waste of energy to keep trying it.

If you go into a given line several times and your opponent closes it like a steel door and nails you every time, do you keep on going into that line? Or do you try something else?

So let me get this straight, when you fence, you only do 5 actions, because any actions that doesn't hit is a waste of time. (Well, that does sound like a sabre fencer...)

No, YOU are missing the point here, or making up your own: as you said, 'READ it AGAIN'. I said that many fencing actions don't work, per se; in that they didn't directly lead to a touch, ANY touch; you made some kind of quantuum leap into assuming that that meant I get nailed all the time, totally not what I was talking about.

Not every exchange will lead to a touch awarded, nor, should it. One should never assume that they have a workable solution to the problem of the opponent, without some basis for that decision.
[/b][/quote]

They write about drills, exercises, sports medicine, stretching, warming up, and all manner of things, too. So does that make yoga "fencing"?

So, what are you saying, that warming up is just some admission that your fencing isn't good enough to win when you are cold, so you do do extra, non-fencing stuff to win?

I am sure all the world-class fencers will be happy to learn they can stop wasting all that time before their matches.

Again, the point keeps getting lost. It is not that these things can't ever work, but that they are needed only for the person whose fencing isn't good enough to win for them.

Like warming up, and taking lessons...

If you can win on fencing alone, you don't NEED "mind games", and I've seen fencers who succeed without them. These are the ones I admire---not the ones with the "by hook or by crook" attitude endemic in modern sports...

I resent the implication that just because I may or may not choose to interact with my opponent in a somewhat different manner than you, within the bounds of cordiality, that I am somehow dishonest, and would win any any cost, which is just flat-out NOT true! (and I can provide testimonials to that fact!)

Analysis? Anticipation? Obviously, you don't fence sabre!

Actually, my competitive record in sabre, while not too remarkable, DOES include National Championship Events in Junior, Open (before Div 1), as well as Div 2 and 3. But I prefer weapons where it's a little harder to hit by accident.

But seriously, you're right. I would not minimize the importance of the mental and tactical aspect of the game. And when you're doing them on the fly, as it were, during the course of the phrase, you are doing them while fencing. If you're laying plans before the "allez", though, I'd say you are only PLANNING to fence, PREPARING to fence. When you put them into action, you are fencing, but not until then. Otherwise, thinking about what you want for lunch during the minute break too is "fencing", and I think that stretches the definition a bit far...

My point, more succinctly put, is that your objective in fencing is to find a way for the other person to make a mistake, and there are many ways to get them to do that, for many different people; but people change, and the key is to continue to find a way to get them to make mistakes; it's all the result of mental processes that do not stop when the referee says "Halt!".

Again, the point keeps getting lost. It is not that these things can't ever work, but that they are needed only for the person whose fencing isn't good enough to win for them.

And YOU keep losing it; the point is that fencing is not something that can be objectively assessed as good or bad, it is ONLY judged in the context of whether you have found a solution that works. If my personal, and unoffensive behavior or interaction with my opponent leads them to make the wrong decisions, that IS part of the process.

Do I scream in my opponent's face; NO.
Do I paint faces on my mask; NO.
Do I purposely hit my opponent real hard; NEVER; neither in frustration, nor in retaliation.

Do I try to figure out what my opponent's coach will tell them, YES,
Do I try to get my opponent to be over-confident; YES!*
Do I try to frustrate my opponent, YES!*

* I may do any number of things, IF I feel it will lead them to make mistakes, I might do it: fencing is about mental and emotional control, as well as physical control, and if they don't have it, I may honestly exploit that.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Hey, yeah! And I've NEVER seen a referee reverse a call because a fencer complained that it should have been his! But by all means, folks, keep on making petulant spectacles of yourselves, it's SUCH an effective "technique"...

well, judging from this forum, the ratio seems to be about 5:1 in favor of people who DON'T think I am making a "petulent spectacle" of myself. So, I believe I can live with being considered a spectacle by those few impertinant fools.

The point is, people can be thickheaded enough to think they're accomplishing something with a "mind game" when they aren't, but they keep on doing it because...well, there are probably dozens of reasons.

this may be true, but it is irrelevant. as you point out in one of your posts above, if an action isn't working, and you keep doing it, then you are guilty of the same problem. This does not negate the effectiveness or acceptability of mind games, just says that they don't always work. that is true of EVERYTHING.

And ONCE again: parry=fencing, the stuff you're talking about=NOT fencing. Can you stop trying to equate disparate things?

This is why I changed your useless question of what "is fencing" to what is "part of the sport of fencing". As Chris points out, your argument can be repeated to say that lessons, coaching, warming up, and even physical training are crutches for those whose actions aren't good enough. I disagree.

And of course there's NO difference between perception and reality, so...

I find it interesting how you ignored the sentence that followed this. Again, if you won't take perception as an argument, then I defy you to tell me that a feint ever works. after all, the fact that they moved their blade could well be independant of your feint. btw, here's what I mean by perception. I was up on somebody 6-5.... by no means winning solidly. I noticed that this person got noticably upset when I screamed on touches. so I screamed. I won 15-6 with no change to my actions, just a scream. THAT is an effective mind game.

Why no, Mike, do as you please. I have at no point been "suggesting" any course of action. I have merely been reiterating my opinion that anyone who thinks these little
extra-fencing ruses designed to shake or intimidate are a great idea is tacitly admitting that he cannot get the job done with his fencing alone.

I must once again point out that utilization is NOT dependence. lets compare this to coaching. I have seen people who depend on coaching, and falter when it isn't there. they have gotten so used to being coached that without it they are useless. THAT is stupid. however, most people are not dependant on it, but do find it useful. That is what mind games are like. if you actually depend on them, you are screwed (and I have NEVER seen somebody who does). however, they can be very useful to augment your game.

Wrong, once again. Fencing is only the fencing part, between "allez" and "halt". Everything else is extraneous. You can try to keep making "fencing" include things you can do without a weapon in your hand or a mask on, but until you can convince the FIE, the USFA and the rest of the fencing world of it.

well, given that mind games are a very well accepted part of both national and international fencing, I think it is YOU who needs to "convince the world" that anything other than actual actions are irrelevant. Again, see above where I note that though they are not strictly fencing, they are a part of the sport of fencing. strictly speaking, I wouldn't say that walking between holes "is golfing", but I would certainly say it is part of the sport of golfing.

Can you show me the rule which distinguishes between Black Card ( Fencer ) and Black Card (Spectator )?

A black card is a black card. You can get one for acts while fencing, or for acts while not fencing; that is the only distinction
( and even that's a pretty artificial one ).

please go study your penalty chard. a fencer black (which you get if commit an offence against sportsmanship on strip, even during the halts) is a group IV card which can ONLY be given to a fencer. the penalty is disqualification from the tournament. Similar action off strip will result in a spectator ejection (colloquially known as a black card), by which you will be physically removed from the venue. They are two different cards. this is a differentiation from when you are a spectator (off strip) and when you are a fencer (on strip).

Are you seriously contending that if you're sitting at the end of the strip during the minute break, mask off, lame unzipped, water bottle in one hand and towel in the other, while four of your buddies are standing around you, you are "fencing"???

Well, I am contending, first of all, that four of your buddies shouldn't be around you if you have a good ref. ONE coach, please. Secondly, yes, I am saying that the minute break is a part of the sport of fencing. it allows you to catch your breath, rehydrate, strategize, amd be coached. if it were NOT a part of the sport, they would get rid of it so that thournaments would run faster, not add it to sabre.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
I am merelt stating my opinion that to use these extra-fencing gimmicks is to admit inferiority---to admit that one's fencing isn't good enough to succeed on its own...

this same argument could be used for literally ANYTHING. it could be used to negate the value of the flick, coaching, training, parries, footwork..... ANYTHING.

Also, it could be used for anything in life. after all, cars are just a crutch for the incompetant walker.

-m

[Razor]

I'm 6'9" tall [250#] so just seeing me is enough of a head trip for most people........ till they find out I can't fence worth a darn. But.... I still get touches through intimadation. Hopefully some day I'll get them through skill!

First post, cool BB glad I found it. Better late then never!

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Chris
[b]And parries are just for those people whose footwork lacks something, so they have to dream something up extra with the blade to balance the lack; everyone knows parries just open you up!

Oh, wait, footwork is just for those people whose bladework is so bad that they have to run away![/b

Once again ( sigh ) these are FENCING ACTIONS. They are done WHILE FENCING, while ALL of the rules of fencing are in force. They are not of the same nature as scowling at an opponent BEFORE the fencing begins in an attempt to freeze him with fear, or whatever the proponents of this stuff think they are accomplishing with it. Parries=fencing, "mind games"=NOT fencing. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

May I surmise that, even though they have made a special rule for Sabre fencers to have a time-out during Direct elimination matches, that you decline to have anyone approach, or coach you?

Although I do not quite see the relevance, yes, you may so surmise.

So let me get this straight, when you fence, you only do 5 actions, because any actions that doesn't hit is a waste of time. (Well, that does sound like a sabre fencer...)

When I fence, all FENCING actions are legitimate. Gibbering or glowering or screeching or what have you BEFORE fencing begins is another matter entirely.

you made some kind of quantuum leap into assuming that that meant I get nailed all the time, totally not what I was talking about.

Why is it that every time I make a GENERAL statement, someone thinks I am talking about them specifically?

OK, for the obtuse:

"If A FENCER, ANY FENCER, A HYPOTHETICAL FENCER goes into a given line and THE opponent closes it like a steel door and nails HIM HER or IT every time, ought HE SHE or IT keep going into that line? Or ought HE SHE or IT to try something else?"

Honestly...

Now, as to your point about a given action not leading directly to a touch being indistinguishable from mine about a given technique not working...please note that it was you who added the "directly" condition, not I. If you wish to modify your own arguments, feel free, but please leave mine in their originsal condition.

So, what are you saying, that warming up is just some admission that your fencing isn't good enough to win when you are cold, so you do do extra, non-fencing stuff to win?

Ay, caramba...

Perhaps we need a few flying monkeys in here, to disperse all the straw men.

Yes, and fencing with my eyes open is an admission that I am not good enough to win while blind. And showing up is an admission that I cannot win by astral projection...

within the bounds of cordiality

You find attempting to intimidate someone "cordial"? Really?

Actually, my competitive record in sabre, while not too remarkable, DOES include National Championship Events in Junior, Open (before Div 1), as well as Div 2 and 3.

Er, I was making a self-deprecatory joke with that remark, Chris, not impugning your experience or ability. As in "we sabre fencers don't analyse or anticipate, we just charge".

My point, more succinctly put, is that your objective in fencing is to find a way for the other person to make a mistake, and there are many ways to get them to do that, for many different people; but people change, and the key is to continue to find a way to get them to make mistakes; it's all the result of mental processes that do not stop when the referee says "Halt!".

I completely agree...only I suspect you are trying to get something more across than what I am reading. If you're saying that fencing is not all physical, I concur. If you are saying that using extra-fencing techniques, applied before or after fencing begins or ends, in order to upset the opposing fencer, is also fencing, or is no different than performing a second-invitation action during the phrase, I cannot...

Some of these techniques, as I noted yesterday, have been proscribed by rules. Others, because there are such an enormous and subtle variety of them, have not. But they are all of a piece, IMO, varying only in degree. To me, beetling
your----excuse me, beetling ONE'S brows at the antagonist in order to frighten him or her is little different than mouthing threats or obscenities at him or her. It is an attempt, not to deceive him as to one's intentions, but to alter his state of mind for the worse. I don't see that as very admirable. Or particularly clever. Or terribly honorable, in a contest between equals in which supposedly the superior skill wins...

And while the mental processes do not stop at the halt, the fencing does. And so should the contest. If instead the contest is considered to be still going on, then perhaps we ought to extend all of the rules of fencing to cover ALL time spent on the strip, including between phrases and during minute breaks...

If my personal, and unoffensive behavior or interaction with my opponent leads them to make the wrong decisions, that IS part of the process.

And you are the only one in the equation allowed to have a say in deciding what is "offensive" and what is not? Personally I find a good deal of the non-fencing shenanigans that go on on and of the strip offensive. But that opinion doesn't count when I am fencing you, because it limits your choices?

Do I try to figure out what my opponent's coach will tell them, YES,
Do I try to get my opponent to be over-confident; YES!*
Do I try to frustrate my opponent, YES!*

And you truly do not see that this is NOT what I am on about?

Figuring out what his coach is advising depends on analyzing what the fencer has been doing, or not doing, AND it is a purely internal thought process which does not seek to produce any change in his mental state while off the strip.

Trying to get him to be overconfident with your fencing is perfectly fine, albeit perhaps best left to inherently sneaky weapons such as foil. ( Feigning a limp after an action to achieve the same thing would IMO NOT be so fine. )

Frustrate away, with your fencing---I can scarcely think of any way to do it otherwise, but perhaps I am merely guile-impaired...

It isn't fencing with thought and cunning to which I object. It's naked cunning alone, while NOT fencing, designed to frighten, intimidate, irk, anger or otherwise affect the opponent's equanimity BEFORE fencing begins...

[a517dogg]

I don't see what the big deal is with people objecting to things like yelling. You yell in soccer when you score a goal, a good part of the highlights on Foxsportsworld is stuf flike people doing flips cuz they scored. people do the chickenwalk after scoring a touchdown. i fail to see waht harm there is in a fencer yelling hohpahlacho after scoring a point.

i also see no harm in manipulating your opponent through things like asking the ref for the score, the time, asking if any cards have been given, asking what period it is, tying your shoe, asking to chcek the bends of blades, etc etc. obviously anything thats blatantly dishonest is off limits, but if it's not i dont see what the problem is.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
well, judging from this forum, the ratio seems to be about 5:1 in favor of people who DON'T think I am making a "petulent spectacle" of myself.

Mike, my head is in my hands here.

Must I give up the vernacular use of the general, nonspecific "you" entirely in order to keep you from taking personal umbrage at every phrase?

If you were to read, in Bartlett's quotations perhaps, the saying "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas", do you really believe that the author was addressing you specifically?

How many times must I say this? I do not know you, I have never seen you fence, HOW could I possibly have been talking about YOU? Are you "folks", as well?

When I talk about "petulant spectacles", it refers to people I have SEEN. You have seen them, too, Mike. It's the girl who, every time the box sounds, puts her elbows at hip level, fists at her shoulders, bends double and shrieks for a count of five, and if the touch goes against her pantomimes disbelief and desolation and whines "Nooooo! That was MY touuuuch!" It's the guy who, after the halt, leaps in the air, windmilling his limbs, and lands in a crouch, screaming "OPASOLALALALAOWOWOWYESYESYES!"...and gets more demonstative with each successive touch. It's the fellow who drop kicks his mask, slings his weapon across the room, and refuses to shake the victors hand.

Even though none of these behaviors accomplish anything in terms of changing a referee's mind.

If you go to these extremes, then I was talking to you. Otherwise...

Gad.

as you point out in one of your posts above, if an action isn't working, and you keep doing it, then you are guilty of the same problem. This does not negate the effectiveness or acceptability of mind games, just says that they don't always work. that is true of EVERYTHING.

Quite. Exactly the same. And so I say again, if you---I mean, if ONE persists in "mind games" even though they don't work, one is wasting ones energy. Which was a minor enough point, I thought, when I stated it, and how it is worthy of all the quarreling which has followed it I cannot fathom....

If you try a fencing action, and it doesn't work---stop it. If you try a "psych out" and it doesn't work---stop it. And if it NEVER works-----which, unlike fencing actions, where the proof is evident, why use it at all? Like arguing with the referee, it accomplishes nothing, so why bother?

And too, the former is a fencing action, the latter is not, and so properly has no place in fencing, IMO.

This is why I changed your useless question of what "is fencing" to what is "part of the sport of fencing".

Sigh...

"Part of the sport of fencing", quotha!

Very well. Rewiring your blade is "part of the sport of fencing". Should you be allowed to do it on the strip?

Talking, and acting out fencing actions, and yes, even tantrums, go on in the fencing world, so they too are "part of the sport of fencing". Does that make them acceptable?

A coach screaming at his student during a lesson is a fairly familiar "part of the sport of fencing". So is screaming at your opponent on the strip acceptable?


We are discussing things which should legitimately be permitted into the contest between two individuals, to affect the outcome of a bout, not things which are tangentially connected to the sport in some abstruse way. At least, I thought that we were.

I find it interesting how you ignored the sentence that followed this.

Egad, now I'm being taken to task for things I DIDN'T say...

Fine, Mike, what WAS the devastatingly convincing sentence to which you refer? I shall endeavor to explode it...

I was up on somebody 6-5.... by no means winning solidly. I noticed that this person got noticably upset when I screamed on touches. so I screamed. I won 15-6 with no change to my actions, just a scream. THAT is an effective mind game.

Is it possible that what you interpreted as "upset" was in fact no more than a nervous twitch or freeze-up induced by the sudden, loud noise? Even if not, I'm not entirely convinced that it truly qualifies as a "mind game"...lung game, maybe. Thought up, to be sure, but still almost unthinking...

But again, I am a bit on the fence about this one. After all, it DID take place DURING the phrase...during actual fencing, in other words. Most of my disdain is reserved for extra-fencing "mind games". In other words, if you can tie your shoes, pull up your socks, fix your hair, look dejected or triumphant or fierce or threatening so that your opponent can register it and be affected right through your mask in the middle of a phrase, maybe I'd change my mind about them...

Nevertheless, your fencing alone was apparently insufficient to the task, by your own admission, no? This is what I was originally on about....

I must once again point out that utilization is NOT dependence. lets compare this to coaching. I have seen people who depend on coaching, and falter when it isn't there. they have gotten so used to being coached that without it they are useless.

However, they do not take it onto the strip with them; nor is it used to affect the OTHER fencer's attitude or demeanor; nor does it answer wholely and only at their own volition. They do not turn it on and off in an instant, at will, to supply a particular lack at a particular instant against a particular opponent.



Have to go for tonight. I'll try to finish up tomorrow---mustn't omit an exhaustive analysis of some lurking pivotal syllable, lest it be construed as intellectual shirking or dishonesty...

[Mo]

Originally posted by Inquartata


Have to go for tonight. I'll try to finish up tomorrow---mustn't omit an exhaustive analysis of some lurking pivotal syllable, lest it be construed as intellectual shirking or dishonesty...

Inquarta,
How could you let this go?
EpeeMike Says:
"well, judging from this forum, the ratio seems to be about 5:1 in favor of people who DON'T think I am making a "petulent spectacle" of myself."

I think this would be an excellent survey question. I think he is a petulant spectacle.
Anyone else?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Mike, my head is in my hands here.

Must I give up the vernacular use of the general, nonspecific "you" entirely in order to keep you from taking personal umbrage at every phrase?

If you were to read, in Bartlett's quotations perhaps, the saying "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas", do you really believe that the author was addressing you specifically?

How many times must I say this? I do not know you, I have never seen you fence, HOW could I possibly have been talking about YOU? Are you "folks", as well?

When I talk about "petulant spectacles", it refers to people I have SEEN. You have seen them, too, Mike. It's the girl who, every time the box sounds, puts her elbows at hip level, fists at her shoulders, bends double and shrieks for a count of five, and if the touch goes against her pantomimes disbelief and desolation and whines "Nooooo! That was MY touuuuch!" It's the guy who, after the halt, leaps in the air, windmilling his limbs, and lands in a crouch, screaming "OPASOLALALALAOWOWOWYESYESYES!"...and gets more demonstative with each successive touch. It's the fellow who drop kicks his mask, slings his weapon across the room, and refuses to shake the victors hand.

Even though none of these behaviors accomplish anything in terms of changing a referee's mind.

If you go to these extremes, then I was talking to you. Otherwise...

Gad.

well, as somebody who plays head games, I did use me as an example. I did NOT imply that YOU were speaking directly to me. Concerning the above, well, the first and second are (by your design) the most extreme exampes, only marginally related to mind games, and probably cardable for disturbing order at that point. The third example is NOTHING resembling a mind game and is further more illegal. I believe that all of us have said that mind games between touches are acceptable WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE RULES!
[quote]Quite. Exactly the same. And so I say again, if you---I mean, if ONE persists in "mind games" even though they don't work, one is wasting ones energy. Which was a minor enough point, I thought, when I stated it, and how it is worthy of all the quarreling which has followed it I cannot fathom....[/quotee]well, the part I am having trouble fathoming is what relevance this has you your argument that head games are somehow unacceptable and wrong. everything in fencing is misused by somebody, that doesn't mean its wrong! And if it doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, then please stop bringing it up. I am perfectly willing to accept that IF a mindgame doesn't work you should stop doing it.

Sigh...

"Part of the sport of fencing", quotha!

Very well. Rewiring your blade is "part of the sport of fencing". Should you be allowed to do it on the strip?

Sigh...

note, AGAIN, that we have all said WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE RULES. Although, AFAIK, there is no rule against this, so if you can do it fast enough so as not to be delaying bout, go for it.

Talking, and acting out fencing actions, and yes, even tantrums, go on in the fencing world, so they too are "part of the sport of fencing". Does that make them acceptable?[/qutoe]talking and acting out fencing actions??? sure! I see that all the time and find it perfectly acceptable. as for your third example, well, that is, once again, cardable.

Again, cardable.

yes, we are discussing what should be allowed in the course of a bout. my contention is that the rulse are fine and anything allowed by the rules in the course of a bout is fine. Thus, citing examples of things already disallowed by the rules is not very helpful.

And then you ignore it again!

PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS: if you won't take personal observation as evidence, then how are we to know that feints ever work??? after all, maybe his movement of the blade was a nervous twitch.

Is it possible that I don't care which of these it was? the fact is that be it freeze up or upset, he fails to get touches when I scream. THAT is all that matters.

Whatever. I could cite more manipulative examples... besides, by your theory, tying my shoe in order to gain time to think (which I have done to great effect many times) is a mind game, even though I don't have any intention of manipulating my opponent.

Actually, much of it took place AFTER the halt, but he knew it was coming, and it rattled him.

many of the above are not meant to manipulate your opponent (though they certainly can), but rather to buy you time to think. As for looking dejected or intimidating, though these are extreme examples, I once again propose that everybody changes their demeanor to their advantage, conciously or unconciously.

No. If you will notice, I was winning BEFORE I started the mind game. however, you are correct that at times, I have used mind games effectively enough to beat people who are better executors of fencing actions than me. the difference between you and me is that you equate better execution with better fencing. I don't. it is just a part of the whole.

However, they do not take it onto the strip with them;[/b]

Sure they do! coaching would be rather ineffective (by definition) if it didn't effect the bout.

nor is it used to affect the OTHER fencer's attitude or demeanor;

Sure it is. It can be very nerve-racking if their Olympic coach comes over and is very non-chalant and calm. After all, what does he know that you don't? why does he think that his fencer has it in the bag? clearly he knows enough about fencing that this should worry you (which is, after all, the intent)

b[] nor does it answer wholely and only at their own volition. They do not turn it on and off in an instant, at will, to supply a particular lack at a particular instant against a particular opponent.[/b]

nor do mind games like demeanor. I do NOT conciously alter my demeanor (usually), but I am aware that I sometimes do it subconciously better than I ever could concoiusly.

Have to go for tonight. I'll try to finish up tomorrow---mustn't omit an exhaustive analysis of some lurking pivotal syllable, lest it be construed as intellectual shirking or dishonesty...

k.

To make your life easier, I will tell you two things I would like you to comment on:

1. How you can tell feints work without accepting perception as evidence

2. please respond to the difference in black cards. why is somebody on strip but between touches considered a fencer, and somebody off strip (still in the competition) not?

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Mo
Inquarta,
How could you let this go?
EpeeMike Says:
"well, judging from this forum, the ratio seems to be about 5:1 in favor of people who DON'T think I am making a "petulent spectacle" of myself."

I think this would be an excellent survey question. I think he is a petulant spectacle.
Anyone else?

Mo, I REALLY don't think its in your best interest to get into a discussion of what people come across as on this board.....

-m

[Chris]

Originally posted by Chris:
And parries are just for those people whose footwork lacks something, so they have to dream something up extra with the blade to balance the lack; everyone knows parries just open you up!

Oh, wait, footwork is just for those people whose bladework is so bad that they have to run away!

Originally posted by Inquartata
Once again ( sigh ) these are FENCING ACTIONS. They are done WHILE FENCING, while ALL of the rules of fencing are in force. They are not of the same nature as scowling at an opponent BEFORE the fencing begins in an attempt to freeze him with fear, or whatever the proponents of this stuff think they are accomplishing with it. Parries=fencing, "mind games"=NOT fencing. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Sigh! This was sarcasm, is this so difficult to grasp?

Although I do not quite see the relevance, yes, you may so surmise.

When I fence, all FENCING actions are legitimate. Gibbering or glowering or screeching or what have you BEFORE fencing begins is another matter entirely.

Why is it that every time I make a GENERAL statement, someone thinks I am talking about them specifically?

Well, when you quote part or their posting, and follow it with a statement, that link tends to warrant some consideration.

OK, for the obtuse:

"If A FENCER, ANY FENCER, A HYPOTHETICAL FENCER goes into a given line and THE opponent closes it like a steel door and nails HIM HER or IT every time, ought HE SHE or IT keep going into that line? Or ought HE SHE or IT to try something else?"

Honestly...

Honestly, what!
Your example of the hypothetical fencer was not relavent to that statement I made, nor really relavent to the thread. We are not talking about someone's failure to make a proper tactical adaptation of technique.

Now, as to your point about a given action not leading directly to a touch being indistinguishable from mine about a given technique not working...please note that it was you who added the "directly" condition, not I. If you wish to modify your own arguments, feel free, but please leave mine in their originsal condition.

And the same to you, Inq.

My point was that only one move really scores the touche, yet several (and sometimes dozens) precedent moves are usually required as well, to create that opportunity; sometimes several complete, and separate exchanges, and we don't always know how much or how little is really required to achieve the desired result.

Simply because we cannot directly observe every cause and effect relationship does not mean the activity has NOT been beneficial, and perhaps necessary to support the objective.

Ay, caramba...

Perhaps we need a few flying monkeys in here, to disperse all the straw men.

Yes, and fencing with my eyes open is an admission that I am not good enough to win while blind. And showing up is an admission that I cannot win by astral projection...


You find attempting to intimidate someone "cordial"? Really?

First, I must say that I never said I tried to intimidate anyone(although other people have said that they do), and I don't; at least not in the sense that people will think they will be hurt, or experience physical pain from our encounter, and I frown on that sort of behavior.

I must say that, like many other things, "intimidate" means different things to other people. IF, by 'intimidate', you mean that people do not feel free to execute some aspect of fencing technique for the 'fear' that it will result in my scoring on them, well, that's pretty the game we are out there to play.

Er, I was making a self-deprecatory joke with that remark, Chris, not impugning your experience or ability. As in "we sabre fencers don't analyse or anticipate, we just charge".

I completely agree...only I suspect you are trying to get something more across than what I am reading. If you're saying that fencing is not all physical, I concur. If you are saying that using extra-fencing techniques, applied before or after fencing begins or ends, in order to upset the opposing fencer, is also fencing, or is no different than performing a second-invitation action during the phrase, I cannot...

Some of these techniques, as I noted yesterday, have been proscribed by rules. Others, because there are such an enormous and subtle variety of them, have not. But they are all of a piece, IMO, varying only in degree. To me, beetling
your----excuse me, beetling ONE'S brows at the antagonist in order to frighten him or her is little different than mouthing threats or obscenities at him or her. It is an attempt, not to deceive him as to one's intentions, but to alter his state of mind for the worse. I don't see that as very admirable. Or particularly clever. Or terribly honorable, in a contest between equals in which supposedly the superior skill wins...

Hey, I never said that,
A. I did ALL of this stuff
B. I thought it was (necessarily) clever
C. I thought it would work all the time
D. I thought it would work on everyone

HOWEVER, that being said, I have always liked the saying about fencing; "To hit, and NOT be (hit)..." that is the game I am playing; on TOP of the physical technique, much of it involves mental skills of concentration, focus, analysis, and emotional control; If you can't control your emotions, or your concentration, I will try to let you fail.

Do I try to 'stare down' all of my opponents; no that would be neurotic behavior, though I have thrown a glare or two in my time; do I endeavor to create opportunities for my opponents to make false assumptions about my skills, my intent, or my condition, well, sometimes, yes but not really so much as they jump to those conclusions of their own accord; However, while I occaisionally implement some of this, I don't practice (i.e. rehearse) them, nor do they actually take time and energy to do.
AND, by the way, I often AM doing them between "Fence." and "Halt!", which seems to so important to you to be relevant to the issue, though I do NOT hereby concede that point.

And while the mental processes do not stop at the halt, the fencing does. And so should the contest. If instead the contest is considered to be still going on, then perhaps we ought to extend all of the rules of fencing to cover ALL time spent on the strip, including between phrases and during minute breaks...

Actually, they pretty much DO, except when they can't!

And you are the only one in the equation allowed to have a say in deciding what is "offensive"