Loud People on the Piste

[veeco]

definitely more than 200 ;-). We can keep going at this one.

This is probably one of the biggest ones in the fencing section though!

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by Catal
The American public would rather watch, strong, fit, and elite fencers compete on television; not old, fat, sloppy average amateur fencers.

As an OFSAA fencer, I'd like to say I resemble that remark.

As much as I detest excessive screamers, there is a small (very small) physiological benefit for a few fencers. In whitewater rescue training, people are instructed to exhale sharply after hitting the cold water and bobbing to the surface. (This isn't thread drift, there's actually a point coming!)

Otherwise, the swimmer tries to inhale on already inflated lungs, and can't get new oxygen into their system...and feel like they're drowning. In some cases, the same is true for fencers.

A fencer who is concentrating so hard on their actions that they hold their breath and forget to breathe properly is decreasing their aerobic capability. For them, a forced exhalation (read scream, grunt,yell) will empty the lungs and force them to get a new dose of fresh air.

However; a small scream, grunt or yell suffices. You don't need to rip off your mask and stomp in circles, repeatedly shrieking so loudly that the bats outside the Austin Convention Center begin flapping about in confusion. That kind of display is a delay of game, and should be carded instantly.

[Ramrod]

I'm with the Capt., OFSAA'ers unite!

I don't think most people have a problem with grunting or screaming as part of an action. Fencing is an emotional as well as a physical confrontation, especially during the final rounds of a tournament.

As long as the emotional release is not aimed at one's opponent, the director, or other individual it's understandable. After a touch a fencer is going to be angry with themselves if they lost the touch or excited if they got a difficult touch that they were not expecting.

What is detracting from the sport is the shreeking, histronics, and over-the-top displays that should be cardable offenses.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
However; a small scream, grunt or yell suffices. You don't need to rip off your mask and stomp in circles, repeatedly shrieking so loudly that the bats outside the Austin Convention Center begin flapping about in confusion. That kind of display is a delay of game, and should be carded instantly.

delay of game at the LEAST. what you describe is a group three for disturbing order on my strip. I think that people who dislike screaming in general tend to overestimate how much of it is over the top, as described above.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Ramrod
I don't think most people have a problem with grunting or screaming as part of an action. Fencing is an emotional as well as a physical confrontation, especially during the final rounds of a tournament.

As long as the emotional release is not aimed at one's opponent, the director, or other individual it's understandable. After a touch a fencer is going to be angry with themselves if they lost the touch or excited if they got a difficult touch that they were not expecting.

Not only is it understandable, it's desirable, IMO. I WANT to see emotion when I'm watching. it makes it easier to root one way or the other regarding a bout that people I know aren't involved in. makes it more exciting to watch.

What is detracting from the sport is the shreeking, histronics, and over-the-top displays that should be cardable offenses.

Not only should they be cardable, they ARE. they are frequently carded.

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Wizardly
Inquartata:

please reveal to us the evidence that you have that vocalized exertion has no effect at all. I'm very interested to hear the basis of your opinion.

As I said above, I am not contending that at all. I do not maintain that it has no effect at all,because I have seen no evidence to support that thesis. What I am arguing is that the same standard ought to apply to those advancing the proposition that yelling HAS an effect: I'd like to see some evidence for that. And THAT thesis a lot of people ARE advancing.

At this point, I think that the very most that can be said is that it may or may not have an effect, and any effect may be either positive or negative. And testimonials or informal observations aren't going to reveal which: some sort of objective data is needed.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Tudor Saitoc


Why do you think yelling is bad? I don't understand your way of thinking. I don't see one bad thing about it.

It is, or rather can be, obnoxious, arrogant, disruptive, rude, and even painful to the ears of bystanders, referees, and the other fencer.

It is distracting as all get out, not just to the opponent but to fencers on nearby strips as well...and to anyone trying to concentrate on a task.

To the extent that it is intended to influence the judgement of the referee, it borders on unsportsmanlike behavior.

It makes the performer look ridiculous and egotistical.

It is a breach of decorum, grace, dignity, or what have you.

And to the extent that it is used to ( supposedly ) intimidate or anger the opponent in order to obtain advantage, it is a tacit admission by the performer that he or she cannot "get the job done" on the strengths of his or her fencing alone. A confession of deficiency, in other words.

These are what I see as the "bad things about it". They are only opinions, not statements of fact. You may disagree with them...but that does not mean they don't exist.

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by Inquartata
As I said above, I am not contending that at all. I do not maintain that it has no effect at all,because I have seen no evidence to support that thesis. What I am arguing is that the same standard ought to apply to those advancing the proposition that yelling HAS an effect: I'd like to see some evidence for that. And THAT thesis a lot of people ARE advancing.

At this point, I think that the very most that can be said is that it may or may not have an effect, and any effect may be either positive or negative. And testimonials or informal observations aren't going to reveal which: some sort of objective data is needed.

Can you commont on the evolutionary theory of tactic then?

I just want to point out that we're getting very close to a burden of proof fallacy here.

I was also under the impression that you wanted no screaming or celebration (during the lunge and after the hit, respectively) committed on the strip. You are indeed entitled to your opinion, however, please justify it to us in terms of performance, not manner and etiquette (as they are cultural/individual i.e. subjective standards).

I'll agree with you that unsportsmanlike conduct can be obnoxious, arrogant, disruptive, or rude. I'll agree that an influence of the director is unsportsmanlike. (I will not agree that the point of ROW is to influence the director; the director is a 3rd person perspective that has of the job of informing the fencers of what DID happen, not what they BELIEVE happened.) Manners and decorum is a subjective standard that is not universally held. You're entitled to those unjustified opinions.

Finally, tacit admission of inferiority is NOT a valid conclusion to be drawn from screaming. Even the decision to actually cheat is not an admission of inferiority (it is an admission of unwillingness to perform in a superior manner, not that it can't be done). If it were true, the fact that a fencer must perform any particular act is an admission of inferiority. "He fences left handed therefor he must be an inferior right-handed fencer." "He uses the fleche, therefore he can't hit me by lunging alone, therefor he is inferior." "He has to circle parry since his simple parry can't defend my attack, therefor he is inferior." The use of any valid or accepted action is not admission of inferiority of any kind.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Wizardly
Can you commont on the evolutionary theory of tactic then?

If you can expatiate on what you mean by it, sure.

I just want to point out that we're getting very close to a burden of proof fallacy here.

In what way?

A claim which is made, such as "yelling improves fencing performance/results", can be tested. If it is to be accepted, it SHOULD be tested. To ask to see the results of such testing before accepting the validity of the conclusion is fallacious...how?

I was also under the impression that you wanted no screaming or celebration (during the lunge and after the hit, respectively) committed on the strip.

That would be my preference---IMO it would leave the actual fencing to settle bouts, instead of outside factors---but I can understand involuntary outbursts, or even karate-type ki-yis. What I most object to is the drawn-out "In your face, I GOT THAT TOUCH! Nya nya nya!" celebratory screams, and the "What! That was MY touch! You're robbing me!" ones, both of which are clearly both petty and intended to influence results via means which have nothing to do with ones skill, ability, experience or tactical cunning. With fencing, in other words. I also am most strenuously opposed to the empty-your-lungs extended screeches we hear from time to time. Often after every. Single. Phrase.

You are indeed entitled to your opinion, however, please justify it to us in terms of performance, not manner and etiquette (as they are cultural/individual i.e. subjective standards).

And may thus be summarily dismissed?

Etiquette matters. Manners matter. If you believe they do not, try hawking and spitting in your grandmother's living room next time you visit. Try omitting all words such as "please" and "thank you" from everyday speech. Etc.

(I will not agree that the point of ROW is to influence the director;

I cannot recall averring that it was. I DO believe that the lion's share of the vocalization and gesturing that occurs on the strip in ROW weapons is intended to do that; but not the institution of ROW itself...

Manners and decorum is a subjective standard that is not universally held. You're entitled to those unjustified opinions.

As you are entitled to the opinion that they are "unjustified"...but...right back at ya!

Finally, tacit admission of inferiority is NOT a valid conclusion to be drawn from screaming. Even the decision to actually cheat is not an admission of inferiority (it is an admission of unwillingness to perform in a superior manner, not that it can't be done).

It is, though. It is an admission that ones skill is not up to the task at hand...and instead of accepting the judgement of the contest, one decides to seek elsewhither for assistance. I do not see how that can be seen as anything OTHER than a confession of inferiority.

If it were true, the fact that a fencer must perform any particular act is an admission of inferiority. "He fences left handed therefor he must be an inferior right-handed fencer." "He uses the fleche, therefore he can't hit me by lunging alone, therefor he is inferior." "He has to circle parry since his simple parry can't defend my attack, therefor he is inferior." The use of any valid or accepted action is not admission of inferiority of any kind.

Those are all actions not merely tacitly accepted but defined by and regulated by the rules of the sport. Compare yelling to unjustified appeal, for instance, would IMO be more apt.

But this angle has been discussed nigh to death before. Do a search on "mind games" and you ought to get more than you care to read on the subject...

[Dragonfly]

1. How many people are involved with this 'tacit' agreement!
2. Even the 'tacit' agreement to cheat...." could be laziness, an unwillingness to concentrate, or for that matter to let loose, in that a truely fine fencer doesn't really need to think strongly or even see the target in minute detail, a truely fine fencer can hit the target blindfolded.
3. As for the 'thesis', all I see is a hypothesis. It's not even the the stage of research design, however, other studies have been done to test the reactions of everyday individuals to various stimuli including moans, screams, yells and shouts for help, fire, and so forth. The results were tabulated and show clearly that if a person has something to gain by disregarding the aforementioned he will ignore most of it. Thus the tacitness of the scream comes to play. If all the people in the room agree that the particular sceam that they have heard is allowable and even encouraged, fine, it's 'go ahead and scream'; if someone disagrees who has authority [see study mentioned above, the authority figure was wearing a lab coat], then the other primates will more than likely agree; what we count on is the perception of the authority to discern the type of scream that we hear, interpret it's root cause and through actions, speech and other non-verbal cues allow the others to understand its meaning.

[Scott Allen Abf]

I recall a bout with a much better fencer. He beat me, without effort.

But every single touch he screamed, pumped his fist, and went on and on like he just won the Olympics. It was pretty damned annoying! Not to mention ridiculous looking, I was trying not to laugh right there in the bout...

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
As I said above, I am not contending that at all. I do not maintain that it has no effect at all,because I have seen no evidence to support that thesis. What I am arguing is that the same standard ought to apply to those advancing the proposition that yelling HAS an effect: I'd like to see some evidence for that. And THAT thesis a lot of people ARE advancing.

At this point, I think that the very most that can be said is that it may or may not have an effect, and any effect may be either positive or negative. And testimonials or informal observations aren't going to reveal which: some sort of objective data is needed.

IF we are contending that vocalizing helps in general! however, if we are contending (as I am) that vocalization helps in SPECIFIC cases, then testimonials and informal observation is QUITE sufficient.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
It is, or rather can be, obnoxious, arrogant, disruptive, rude, and even painful to the ears of bystanders, referees, and the other fencer.

if it is TRULY disruptive, then it should be (and is) carded.

It is distracting as all get out, not just to the opponent but to fencers on nearby strips as well...and to anyone trying to concentrate on a task.

distracting to the opponent? well, sounds like you DO think yelling helps!

To the extent that it is intended to influence the judgement of the referee, it borders on unsportsmanlike behavior.

not at all. if you find that you're ref calls very tight preps, and you adjust to cut into things you normally wouldn't to get the attack into prep call, is that unsportsmanlike? after all, you are doing things you normally wouldn't to try and steal calls from the ref! It is the SAME THING! if I find that my ref feels attacks belong to the person who screams, I'm going to adjust to his/her definition of an attack!

The fact that I'm adjusting to a crappy ref doesn't make me unsportsmanlike. It does mean that the ref should be removed.

It makes the performer look ridiculous and egotistical.

depends on how its done. In my case, regardless of how it makes me SEEM, I am FAR more egotistical if I'm NOT yelling. As previously noted, yelling helps my performance. If I DON'T yell during a bout, it's because I don't need to. I can beat this person handily without it.

It is a breach of decorum, grace, dignity, or what have you.

Oh, c'mon! we are FAR from the origins of fencing. it has evolved. that is a GOOD thing. If what they do on strip would be considered acceptable in other sports, I consider it acceptable in this one. we are a competitive sport! we need to get away from the elitist image, which talk of "decorum" sustains.

And to the extent that it is used to ( supposedly ) intimidate or anger the opponent in order to obtain advantage, it is a tacit admission by the performer that he or she cannot "get the job done" on the strengths of his or her fencing alone. A confession of deficiency, in other words.

First, screwing with your opponent's mind is a METHOD of getting the job done. Fencing is a mental game. the point is for me to freeze you or make you go the wrong way. I can do this with feints, appels, distance games, timing games, or yelling. yelling is similar in almost EVERY way to the appel. you aren't arguing that THAT is an admission of inferiority, are you?

These are what I see as the "bad things about it". They are only opinions, not statements of fact. You may disagree with them...but that does not mean they don't exist.

He didn't say that your opinion didn't exist, just that he didn't understand why you thought that.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Wizardly
I'll agree that an influence of the director is unsportsmanlike. (I will not agree that the point of ROW is to influence the director; the director is a 3rd person perspective that has of the job of informing the fencers of what DID happen, not what they BELIEVE happened.)

you have correctly identified the job of the ref. it's not that the point of ROW is to influence the director. It's that as a fencer you must adjust to your directors definition of what is preperation, what is attack, what is counter-attack, what is a parry v. a beat...

If my ref calls VERY tight preps, I may not agree with what he considers a preparation, but you better believe I'm going to time into it if my opponent does it. what do I think I did?? counterattack. why did I do it, despite not having ROW in my mind? because such an action gets a call from the ref of attack into prep. I don't need to agree, just execute. Similarly, if the ref calls simuls for the fencer who yells, I'll be yelling. do I think that was my attack? It doesn't matter what I think! you MUST adjust to your ref! Is that ref a bad ref?? sure! That, however, isn't MY fault!

YOU SHOULD NOT BLAME THE FENCERS FOR A BAD REF!!!!!

-m

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

Originally posted by Catal
I wonder when USFencing is going to get the clue and start penalzing people for acting like brats on the strip:


http://www.msnbc.com/news/925166.asp?cp1=1

It seems the title of this topic is being taken in a different way than what was meant in your original post, which is saying that "loud people" are "complainers", not "people who grunt, yell in power, etc. on the strip".

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
IF we are contending that vocalizing helps in general! however, if we are contending (as I am) that vocalization helps in SPECIFIC cases, then testimonials and informal observation is QUITE sufficient.

-m

Still no. Again, these can only confirm the BELIEF that it helps.

Once there was a religious sect whose members believed that they were impervious to bullets, so long as their faith was strong. Guess what their success rate was when the belief was put to the test?

You can THINK something all you want; without measuring an effect, it is still no different than believing that that penis enlarger you've just bought is really working...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
if it is TRULY disruptive, then it should be (and is) carded.

When? Where? I have yet to see this happen.

Moreover, the definition of "distracting" seems in this case to be the sole province of one referee. So if someone on the next strip is truly being distracted, his discomfiture doesn't matter. Neither does that of the other people in the venue, who may number dozens, or hundreds. And as we have been discussing, the refs
( many of whom are themselves fencers who yell or coaches who advocate yelling ) have more or less accepted the practice. So there's no help to be had there.

distracting to the opponent? well, sounds like you DO think yelling helps!

Helps influence the ref to make a call which may well not have happened? Absolutely! ( And thus it is IMO inexcusable. )

Helps your fencing? Still not buying it until I see some evidence beyond faith in its efficacy.

if you find that you're ref calls very tight preps, and you adjust to cut into things you normally wouldn't to get the attack into prep call, is that unsportsmanlike?

We have been down this road before, and it leads through orchards of apples and oranges. Yelling is not fencing, anymore than mopping your brow on the strip is part of fencing. It is merely something which some fencers do, and which has crept into commonality.

Is yelling footwork? No. Is it bladework? Is it thinking, either tactically or strategially? No. What else IS there to fencing? And if it's not a part of fencing, it doesn't belong on the piste.

after all, you are doing things you normally wouldn't to try and steal calls from the ref! It is the SAME THING! if I find that my ref feels attacks belong to the person who screams, I'm going to adjust to his/her definition of an attack!

Then shame on you...and still more, shame on that ref, for he is permitting his judgements to be influenced by an extra-fencing factor. It is no different than awarding attacks to the fencer he feels is "better", or from the better club.

If what they do on strip would be considered acceptable in other sports, I consider it acceptable in this one. we are a competitive sport!

Yes? In which other sports is it acceptable to hit your opponent with a length of steel? It wouldn't be acceptable, so it isn't in this one, right?

we need to get away from the elitist image,

Simple question for you:

Why?

First, screwing with your opponent's mind is a METHOD of getting the job done.

Yeah. So is poisoning his water bottle, or stealing his weapons while he isn't looking to get him carded....

yelling is similar in almost EVERY way to the appel. you aren't arguing that THAT is an admission of inferiority, are you?

The day they write a uniform technical definition of the proper fencing yell into the manuals and the rule books, and it is formally accepted as such by the FIE, I will accept it as a part of fencing. And not before.