New rules being brewed by the folks in the FIE

[edew]

Just heard this from the grapevine. Sounds totally ridiculous, and may be totally bogus, but here goes.

To make fencing more "viewer" friendly, the FIE is considering instituting new rules which will probably break 300 years of fencing tradition and technique. But oh well.

First rule: no scoring activity within 20 second, immediate halt. Flip a coin to determine which fencer will choose. Winning fencer will choose to be either the attacker or the defender. If attacker, he will have 5 seconds to COMMENCE an attack. If during his attack he stops, or steps backwards, immediate halt. Touch for the opponent. The defender, meanwhile, is not allowed to retreat or advance. Any footwork (see what I mean about 300 years of fencing tradition?) is immediate halt, touch for the opponent.

Simultaneous attacks in foil and sabre will count as points for both (like simultaneous hits in epee). If one is off-target and the other is on-target in foil, then only the one hitting on-target scores. I don't particularly dislike this one, although I can see how some foilists might get into some weird positions to better increase off-target possibility while making the attack.

Also, for simultaneous attacks, coin flip to determine who has "priority" for the next touch, where we go to the above where one is the attacker and must attack and the other is the defender and can only defend (no leg movement allowed).

Can we say, "see ya!" to fencing?

[veeco]

I heard something similar. Apparently this will be demonstrated at the Junior worlds in Trapani and was an idea proposed by Attilio Tas (sp?).

It might change the way fencing is fenced, but it might also be good, depending on how people react to it and what comes out of it.

I think that it's good that people are trying out different new things, we'll see what comes out of it...

[edew]

But what is broken that needs fixing, especially by such a heavy-handed hammer?

I know that the "lack" of drive in some bouts might make things boring. The women's foil gold medal bout in the 2002 WChampionships is one prime example: Bojko against Yucheva, both know each other, both from the same country, neither willing to commit to a real attack. Quite boring to watch.

Want to know a good way to make it exciting? $50,000 to the winner, $2,000 to second-place. Now, we'll see some blood spurting.

The trouble with "fights" in boxing, fencing, karate, and other martial sports is that if neither fighter wants to really dig in for the bout, you get some pretty boring bouts. Can't force people to do it. But you can dangle a very big carrot to entice one or the other to make it a sport. The other will then have to do something or capitulate.

[Gav]

Yeah I heard something similair to this recently. Although I'm not against the idea of simultaneous hits for Foil and Sabre I am definitely against this idea of 'coin tossing'.

Why not just issue us with a set of FIE-standard coins and be done with it? Why would this kind action make things 'more viewer friendly? Things are hard enough to explain [to the layman] as it is without having to explain why the 2 guys have stopped so that someone else can flip a coin.

[damianip]

Eric,

Does that first rule apply to all weapons?

These rules would only serve to make fencing more arcane than before and reduce all three weapons to pedestrian jousting.

I can't imagine any of this passing.

I agree that incentive rather than rules are needed to spice up bouts, however, as in boxing, careful, "boring" bouts will occasionally happen, no matter what the prize.

Paolo

[MikeHarm]

Do they ever do drug tests on the FIE members? I think it might be time to start if this is what they're proposing.

[Tomas N]

Hey Eric, it's a little early for April Fool's, isn't it?!? This sound ridiculous.

[edew]

Originally posted by damianip
Eric,

Does that first rule apply to all weapons?

These rules would only serve to make fencing more arcane than before and reduce all three weapons to pedestrian jousting.

I can't imagine any of this passing.

I agree that incentive rather than rules are needed to spice up bouts, however, as in boxing, careful, "boring" bouts will occasionally happen, no matter what the prize.

Paolo

Some times, it's "careful" boring bouts in boxing because neither are willing to get creamed, and both are happy with whichever portion of the purse. If you're a schlub like Mike Tyson. Er, no, that's not a good example...if you're some schlub with nothing to lose and they offer you at least $500K to get into the ring, you'll get in and just try to stay alive.

Fencing doesn't have that fundamental (and very real) fear of dying. You can get in and go for broke without worrying about being physically hammered.

The Duel In The Desert is a good example, with both fencers in the gala bout really putting up a good fight. The women's sabre was just a tad weak because neither fencer could really take the money.

[edew]

Originally posted by Tomas N
Hey Eric, it's a little early for April Fool's, isn't it?!? This sound ridiculous.

Now that you mentioned it, I might agree with you. But as you can see from above, these rumors are quite real.

Simultaneous attack in foil for double touches is a bit extreme, because when you are down on your side of the strip, sometimes, you need to make a couple simultaneous attacks to set up for a parry-riposte.

The FIE folks need to be reminded that fencing is a game, and the game requires perhaps doing things that wouldn't necessarily happen in a real duel. Like making several simultaneous attacks.

Simultaneous attacks in sabre sometimes serve the same purpose, but the new recent tactics can effectively deal with having to perform any simultaneous attacks.

[davidm]

Let's hope this is bogus. I see no way that the first of the rules could be implemented.
I find anything involving flipping a coin to be ridiculous in fencing anyway.

[AaronK]

The last time they had something similar in saber (random priority) it caused a landslide of new rules to happen.
I can understand why if anyone has tried watching Men's saber during that window of time when it was first electric you will notice that the play is barely watchable. The rules were to contrived that it was more predictable then chess.
Simultaneous, Simultaneous. Random priority. Attacker runs forward attempting to get two lights. Defender takes a line and attempts pris-de-fer as soon as they are in range. Swich tactics.
I think if they do something like this it will really hurt foil as a game. Allowing a double touch in a simultaneous situation will make ROW pointless, and other than a heavier weapon or different target, what makes that different than epee?
Forcing someone to stand still...yeah that really makes fencing more watchable. While we're at it why not allow the attacker to ride a bicycle and closeline the defender.
$50,000 would be a much bigger insentive to attack, I agree.
I doubt anything will come of these rules, and they won't last longer than a few exhibitions if at all. (After all, how many times a year do people mention...no flicks, no cross-steps, different points for different targets, no off-targets, etc.?)
It's interesting, but I wouldn't loose sleep over it.

[R. Exnicios]

One of the other ridiculous idea I've heard about is the round fencing strip.

I'll skip the soap box but thr rulrs need some work but not this sort of crap. The spectator bit has NOTHING to do with the actions, the masks, the machines etc. it'sall in the editing for TV and the grass roots movement. We need more fencers and commentators to explain the action. I've work with several olympic level gymnastics & Track & field events and both of them are editted to death so that the TV audience can enjoy it, (especially gymnastics).

The sport is fine! We have done demos at various places and can always hold a crowd. In one case we have close to 200 people watching. We just need more fencers and take the time to explain what is going on to anyone that will listen (and maybe drug test the FIE folks)

well maybe I did get on my soap box : )

[edew]

Originally posted by AaronK
[...]
I think if they do something like this it will really hurt foil as a game. Allowing a double touch in a simultaneous situation will make ROW pointless, and other than a heavier weapon or different target, what makes that different than epee?
Forcing someone to stand still...yeah that really makes fencing more watchable. While we're at it why not allow the attacker to ride a bicycle and closeline the defender.
[...]

It won't make ROW pointless (nice pun). Simultaneous attacks have to be simultaneous and attacks. Attack-counterattacks still give priority to the attacker as usual. So, under normal circumstances, before the 20 seconds of inactivity, fencing is just like normal (except for the simultaneous attacks situation). So, if I attack and you counter-attack, I still get the point. I attack, you parry, you don't do nuthin', I remise, I still get the point. You attack, I parry, make slow riposte and you remise, I get the point. (Ok, let's just be done with it, I always get the point. ).

Can't ride a bike in sabre as the back foot will cross the front at one time or another during the pedaling. Unless people choose to use Vespas. In that case, it must be done in a well-ventilated area so the exhaust fumes don't knock people out.

[veeco]

Originally posted by edew
Want to know a good way to make it exciting? $50,000 to the winner, $2,000 to second-place. Now, we'll see some blood spurting.

Well, but then, in the example you're giving, you might end up with Youcheva and Bojko agreeing before the bout that they'll share the 52 grand equally no matter what the outcome... It did happen in DITD before, didn't it?

Honestly, I don't know enough from these rule changes to say if they are good or bad, but the version I heard was a little different from yours (and I do agree that it seems a little too complicated for the average person). But it does also create more stragegic choices for the fencers during the course of one bout, which IMO does make it friendlier for the audience. Because in general people who watch sports understand more the strategic side of the sport than the tactical one.

For instance, when watching basketball, you can hear people saying "why did you go for a three?", or "come on, foul that guy". But a lot less people understand the subtleties of that defensive play or the zone defense versus one to one defense; and so forth.

It does also force fencers to be more well rounded overall, because they will be put for sure in positions where they will be either forced to defend or attack.

But that doesn't mean that I'm all for it. I just think that it's something worth trying, just to see what may come out of it.

Any change has potential benefits and disadvantages, after all!

[achilleus]

Originally posted by veeco
Well, but then, in the example you're giving, you might end up with Youcheva and Bojko agreeing before the bout that they'll share the 52 grand equally no matter what the outcome... It did happen in DITD before, didn't it?

True. At least in that situation both the exhibitors agreed to put a good show for the audience.


QUOTE]Originally posted by veeco
Honestly, I don't know enough from these rule changes to say if they are good or bad, but the version I heard was a little different from yours (and I do agree that it seems a little too complicated for the average person). But it does also create more stragegic choices for the fencers during the course of one bout, which IMO does make it friendlier for the audience. Because in general people who watch sports understand more the strategic side of the sport than the tactical one.

For instance, when watching basketball, you can hear people saying "why did you go for a three?", or "come on, foul that guy". But a lot less people understand the subtleties of that defensive play or the zone defense versus one to one defense; and so forth.[/quote]

That's why basketball, football, and many other sports have at least 2 announcers. 1 is the play by play announcer, and the other is the analyst. The 2nd guy says things like, 'Phil has taken Shaq out and gone with a smaller line up, so that the team will be able to better defend against the high pick and roll.'

That's what we need, break downs of the actions, and the reasoning behind it from knowledgable people, i.e. not Chambers.


QUOTE]Originally posted by veeco
It does also force fencers to be more well rounded overall, because they will be put for sure in positions where they will be either forced to defend or attack.

But that doesn't mean that I'm all for it. I just think that it's something worth trying, just to see what may come out of it.

Any change has potential benefits and disadvantages, after all! [/quote]

I agree, something to try, but let's not fool ourselves. These changes won't help get fencing on TV. There are many sports that make it TV with little or no excitement or strategy. The key for them lay in sponsorship.

[AaronK]

--Edew,
I guess I missread your first post. I think that if they wanted to go the route of making simultaneous touches score and allowing the touch for the person who scored on-target...why not get rid of the white light altogether? This probably would make certain penalties that have to do with covering target more difficult to determine, but the mantra of fencing being too difficult for the 'average joe' to watch isn't solved by making the rules more complicated.
(It's solved by slow-motion instant replay and some McEnroe-esque tantrums. That's not neccesarily "best for the sport" but it will get media attention.)
And definitely Vespas. The way most of the European teams smoke between bouts at World Cups, I don't think they will have a problem with the fumes.

[davidm]

Achilleus, you are so right. Sponsorship is everything.
In between my two fencing careers I was an ultramarathon bicycle racer. I competed in the Race Across America, which is held every year. It is the world's longest, toughest bike race. During its first 5 years it was broadcast on ABC's Wide World of Sports. They had the sponsorship of McDonalds Corporation. After 5 years, McDonalds backed out of the agreement and ABC went away shortly after.
So, most of you have probably never heard of nor seen the Race Across America, but you undoubtedly have seen and heard of a shorter, but better funded Tour de France.

[Boo Boo]

Originally posted by AaronK
The way most of the European teams smoke between bouts at World Cups, I don't think they will have a problem with the fumes.

No joke - you can't get into the venues without blindly treading your way through billowing smoke from referees and fencers.... (even found a bloke smoking in the women's changing rooms once!?).

Have come to the conslusion that smoking isn't bad for your fencing, it may even be good for it (at least considering the number of really good European fencers who smoke like chimneys...).

Boo

[Mulligan]

It seems pretty far-fetched to me. But you know, if the FIE does something like this that doesn't mean anyone has to fence that way. It's about time that there was an alternative governing body anyway.

[edew]

Originally posted by davidm
Achilleus, you are so right. Sponsorship is everything.
In between my two fencing careers I was an ultramarathon bicycle racer. I competed in the Race Across America, which is held every year. It is the world's longest, toughest bike race. During its first 5 years it was broadcast on ABC's Wide World of Sports. They had the sponsorship of McDonalds Corporation. After 5 years, McDonalds backed out of the agreement and ABC went away shortly after.
So, most of you have probably never heard of nor seen the Race Across America, but you undoubtedly have seen and heard of a shorter, but better funded Tour de France.

I have heard of the RAAM. I even know some of the names of those who participated: Michael Schermer. I am also well aware that when it started, it was fairly well publicized. I read it in the Bicycling Magazine and saw some additional write-ups in various mainline newspapers.

Now, I don't even know if it exists. It's probably still being raced, and the current racers are probably so much better and faster than the previous years, but you wouldn't know if from the mainstream press.

Sponsorship is indeed the key to everything. With the money from sponsorship comes capable play-by-play and analysts. With the good play-by-play and analysts come the emotional aspect of the game, which will attract the spectators, who don't necessarily know anything about the technical aspects of the sport. When that happens, then fencing can bootstrap itself to the next level.

We're doing that locally here in the Bay Area. We're trying different tacks. Maybe one will be the lucky strike.