Unintended consequences...

[edew]

The 2005 foil timing change brought a lot of unintended consequences which allowed for a whole new set of tactics.

The original intent of the timing change was to reduce the number of flicks and force foilists to fence more "traditionally".

But what I've been seeing on videos and in person is that the result is becoming MORE flicks.

Here's what's happening. Because of the new timing, the new tactic is to attack short, then close distance and remise. That is, fencer X attacks short (not too short), maybe move the blade out of line further, forcing fencer Y to make a bigger parry. Then, fencer X closes distance to hit with the remise. So what's Y's response? Well, Y could have retreated more, but if X caught Y at the right time, Y couldn't do much retreating. And X would have run up towards Y to maintain the super close distance to prevent a straight thrust to the chest.

So Y's response is to, yes, flick to X's back! That's the only available target left.

So the evolution of tactics have shown that the new timing change does not, in fact, reduce the number of flicks to the back, but indeed impels the fencers to make the non-right-of-way action of remising (X's attack, then remise) and the opponent to cope by making flick ripostes.

Can we change it back to the old timings? At least the right of way issue is better preserved and there can be longer phrases with more back-and-forth for the visual excitement.

[Bonehead]

I have not really seen a lot of this situation. I can't really picture someone remising while closing the distance, and being easy to hit with a flick unless they're really covering with their head.

I hear some rumours about shortening the depression time slightly though, which I think would be good.

[rudd]

I agree with Bonehead. I haven't seen much of what you are describing. Could you like to a video example?

As a counter example I'm quoting Edew from another thread.

"I also noted how Cassara has completely changed his game since 2004 Athens and now. He doesn't bother once with a flick, even if it might be useful in some cases (as when Baldini ducks)."

[Bonehead]

I agree with Bonehead. I haven't seen much of what you are describing. Could you like to a video example?

As a counter example I'm quoting Edew from another thread.

"I also noted how Cassara has completely changed his game since 2004 Athens and now. He doesn't bother once with a flick, even if it might be useful in some cases (as when Baldini ducks)."

So did you save that thinking "Some day Edew is gonna change his tune, and mark my words, I'll embarass him with this!"

[rudd]

So did you save that thinking "Some day Edew is gonna change his tune, and mark my words, I'll embarass him with this!"

Nope just a happy coincidence.

[erooMynohtnA]

But what I've been seeing on videos and in person is that the result is becoming MORE flicks.

Here's what's happening. Because of the new timing, the new tactic is to attack short, then close distance and remise. That is, fencer X attacks short (not too short), maybe move the blade out of line further, forcing fencer Y to make a bigger parry. Then, fencer X closes distance to hit with the remise. So what's Y's response? Well, Y could have retreated more, but if X caught Y at the right time, Y couldn't do much retreating. And X would have run up towards Y to maintain the super close distance to prevent a straight thrust to the chest.

So Y's response is to, yes, flick to X's back! That's the only available target left.

So the evolution of tactics have shown that the new timing change does not, in fact, reduce the number of flicks to the back, but indeed impels the fencers to make the non-right-of-way action of remising (X's attack, then remise) and the opponent to cope by making flick ripostes.

I have seen the situation you're talking about, but to claim it results in more flicks overall is simply incorrect. It is so clearly incorrect that I am forced to wonder if you have gone temporarily insane or if you're just trying to willfully mislead people.

[Superscribe]

Can you give some idea where you are seeing this? That would help a lot. A local tournament in the Bay area is not a good indicator of how fencing is evolving else where. Trust me. Also, just because Chamley Watson does it doesn't mean it's the next best thing.

[Superscribe]

let me also aplaud your Old Testament style complete exclusion of female athletes when referring to "fencing".

[TooLoftheDeviL]

All of the story part aside... I do pine for a slight roll back in the debounce timing... Just a little? Meet ya in the middle?

[Craig]

Part of this summer will be spent learning to hit with a softer hand. In one of the vet events I "gave up" 3 points to an opponent who was not wearing a chest guard, but who did blow into me on counter-attacks.

Two of the hits I saw go directly onto deep chest target. (no glancing blow or even a hit to the sternum) Was frustrating to say the least.

Of course the standard disclaimers apply...

[Bonehead]

All of the story part aside... I do pine for a slight roll back in the debounce timing... Just a little? Meet ya in the middle?

I will gladly meet you there. I hate that the mask isn't even off target anymore and that it's not a rare thing to hit square in the chest 'too hard' and not get a light.

[edew]

I agree with Bonehead. I haven't seen much of what you are describing. Could you like to a video example?

As a counter example I'm quoting Edew from another thread.

"I also noted how Cassara has completely changed his game since 2004 Athens and now. He doesn't bother once with a flick, even if it might be useful in some cases (as when Baldini ducks)."

Cassara is doing a different tack that works for the taller fencer: keep a long distance away. The shorter fencers are closing distance.

[edew]

Youtube search for Baldini vs Kleinbrink Tokyo 2009.

[edew]

Regardless of whether there's more or fewer flicks, I think everyone will agree that the new timings have resulted in a) fewer long-drawn out attacks, b) more short attacks (attacks that reach just beyond the guard against a standing opponent), c) fewer counter-parries: just attack, parry-riposte, remise, d) more counter-attacks, e) slower overall game.

It's the c) and d) that's causing them to have to resort to flicks to hit because closing distance is one way to avoid getting hit. It's clear that you're not going to see too many marching attacks that end with a flick, a la Elvis Gregory-Gil.

[gladius]

I have not really seen a lot of this situation...

I agree with Bonehead. I haven't seen much of what you are describing. Could you like to a video example?

I have seen the situation you're talking about, but to claim it results in more flicks overall is simply incorrect. It is so clearly incorrect that I am forced to wonder if you have gone temporarily insane or if you're just trying to willfully mislead people.

Can you give some idea where you are seeing this? That would help a lot.

All these questions, being a doubting Thomas myself but giving more credence to edew, I asked Maestro Toran to comment on the OP.

Maestro Toran

I agree for the most part with edew. He looks at things a bit differently than I do but I believe this is because we use different terminology to describe the same thing. He teaches fencing to (young) students and is a keen observer.

What one sees in a fencing bout varies a lot from person to person and depends on what one understands and knows about fencing. If one does not know certain things or does not understand them he'll have a hard time to see them even if they happen under his nose.

The specific situation edew is talking about, which I call "chiusura" (closing) a term you will not find in the treatises, he calls remise, because it follows a first failed attack or one which was short on purpose.

I don't call it the way edew does because technically it is not a remise.

Remise: is a new thrust/hit you will execute in your own tempo, when the first does not touch because you made some mistake or the other has parried. It is in your tempo because it does not depend on what the other does.[/B]

"Chiusura" (closing): is a counter-attack; you launch it when the opponent also starts his (from a close distance). Consequently, your tempo depends on his tempo. This is why "counter-attacks" are part of what we call in Italian "uscite in tempo" (exits in tempo).

If you pay close attention almost always a successful "chiusura" is preceded by a searching for the blade which induces the other to widen his movements or to go for a different target which will then be eluded and "closed off."

Flick actually is not the best solution against the "chiusura" nor is the only one but this is another discussion and a rather complicated one. I agree however with those who say that explanations should be always accompanied by images, better yet by videos.


I had asked Maestro Toran to explain to me, a non fencer, the "chiusura" to help me render the concept and the term in English. Here is his reply:

Difficult to explain in writing the "chiusura" to someone who does not fence, but let me give it a try.

One prepares this action in such a way that the attack of the fencer who will be subject to "chiusura" starts from a close distance, and searching for his blade, after understanding that his typical way to avoid this searching of the blade is to widen the moves of his weapon arm, thus bringing the blade quite well outside from the line. At that point one snaps the "chiusura" and the attacker cannot put back his point on the target because he is too close and he is impeded by the position of the blade and of the body of the fencer who closed the distance.


There is a reason why a Maestro is a maestro...

[erooMynohtnA]

1. If flicking has really increased we wouldn't need to search, because it would be the predominant action, like it was before.
2. One video does not make a trend, or someone in 2000 could show one flick light bout and claim it wasn't happening.
3. Here is your bout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2pQKG_cLyE Here is the first pre-2005 bout that I pulled up, which unsurprisingly has more flicking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO7Cv6sM0rs
4. Really?

[erooMynohtnA]

All these questions, being a doubting Thomas myself but giving more credence to edew, I asked Maestro Toran to comment on the OP.

Maestro Toran

(A bunch of stuff not about flicking)

Flick actually is not the best solution against the "chiusura" nor is the only one but this is another discussion and a rather complicated one. I agree however with those who say that explanations should be always accompanied by images, better yet by videos.

(A bunch of stuff not about flicking)

There is a reason why a Maestro is a maestro...

I'm not saying that chiaroscuro doesn't happen. People love chiaroscuro. I'm just saying there are far fewer flicks now than there were before. In fact, one reason chiaroscuro is so popular is that the flick to the back is a bad solution, because it's not that reliable, particularly at the lower levels. If the flick to the back were really that great, no one would present that target.

[edew]

Of course there were more flicks in pre-2005 than now. What I'm saying is that, over time, people will learn new tactics inspired by the new timing. The evolution would be to make attacks, then close distance and remise (or chiaroscuro or whatever: the point being, not attempt to make a counterparry). The resulting counterattack would have to be ripostes with flicks to the back or flank because it'll be almost impossible to hit the chest area with the opponent closing in. Now, if you're a taller fencer, you could get away with keeping a slightly larger distance and prevent the shorter attacking opponent from closing too much, with a stop-hit while retreating. In that case, the flick may not be necessary. But for those fencers who like to play a close distance game, or is forced to do so, the simple tactic is to attack and then close distance. And the counter-tactic is to make fast ripostes with flicks. The slow riposte by pulling the arm back putting the point on target takes too long and will be timed out by the quick remise.

In other words, the parry-flick is quicker than the parry-pull-back-point-and-thrust. Yes, you might lose by not having that flick land, but you're almost guaranteed to lose if you pull back to point the tip to target. If you're happy hitting off-target for many such actions, then you could go the hit-whatever's-available route until you get a better distance/situation opportunity for a score.

[erooMynohtnA]

Of course there were more flicks in pre-2005 than now.

That's the opposite of what you were saying. In fact, you said the result of the new timings is MORE flicks. If you are saying that people flick more in 2011 than in 2005, yeah, I agree. It's becoming more viable as people are still adjusting, and that's not a surprise to me.

The original intent of the timing change was to reduce the number of flicks and force foilists to fence more "traditionally".

But what I've been seeing on videos and in person is that the result is becoming MORE flicks.

So the evolution of tactics have shown that the new timing change does not, in fact, reduce the number of flicks to the back

[edew]

I meant more than the intended result of the timing change. The timing change was to decrease the amount of flicking. For a while, it did. But as the tactics evolved to suit the new timings it seems that flicking with return with a vengeance. Maybe not more than pre-2005 (certainly not during marching attacks), but maybe as much during parry-ripostes.