Ioan Pop, Technical Director of the FIE

[Epeecurean]

(From an interview in the latest issue of Escrime Internationale)

[...]
* Can all the studies currently being undertaken on the future of foil lead to a better spectacle in this weapon?
The contradiction that requires us to work on the modernization of fencing and at the same time think about returning to the attack with the straight arm is only an illusion. It is obvious that the compromise which consists of retaining the essential spirt of the weapon and making efforts to reform it is probably the most difficult to undertake. In any case, I will never agree with the loss of foil's specific identity. For it to remain foil, as a Maitre d'armes, it appears to me that if the attack is not made with an extended arm, then there are no more guidelines for teaching and refereeing.

You mean that it is impossible to fence foil with a bent arm?
For me, foil and sabre with a bent arm is no longer conventional fencing. It is practiced in this way of course but this is not fencing any more. Fencing is a dialogue between two fencers with actions and basic technique. However in foil at the moment, there are two parallel monologues instead of a dialogue. Fundamentally, we have gone a long way off track. If the action does not threaten with the point, the direct attack no longer exists, neither does the compound attack. From both sides, we have destructive actions rather than an action and a reaction.

Is the current situation not due mainly to a much greater mobility on the piste? In other words, can we go back? Is it desirable to return to fencing as it was practiced in 1935 or 1955?
I am not saying that we must go back to the past. But all the same I ask the uestion, how can we expect the spectators to be interested in fencing if we no longer know what we are doing? We have come to a position where there is a total lack of consistency between the rules and the refereeing. We cannot say in the rules that the attack must be performed with the extended arm and then do exactly the opposite on the piste or when coaching. Moreover, teaching becomes superficial and minimalist. It becomes limited to actions that speculate and rely on the human limits on the referee's perception instead of developing the basics and the technical complexity of our sport. It is the credibility of foil that is threatened. This is the major project which the FIE will undertake over the months to come.

[Barry Paul]

I am in total agreement with Iaon, it is only a pity it has taken 20 years to make a stand for the need for foil attacks to be made with a blade which could be parried. Keep up the good work Barry Paul

[wflaschka]

...This is the major project which the FIE will undertake over the months to come.

Does anybody know if this is connected with the rules changes we discussed at length in the thread: Timeline of decisions on proposed rule changes for foil and sabre?

Moreover, teaching becomes superficial and minimalist. It becomes limited to actions that speculate and rely on the human limits on the referee's perception instead of developing the basics and the technical complexity of our sport.

Woohooo! I'm quite excited about any shift in emphasis back towards longer blade exchanges and complexity in general. But Ioan Pop's use of "extended" rather than "extending" throws up a red flag. "Extending" is quite crucial and fundamental to the definition of an attack. An attack with extending arm is not a "bent arm attack." I wonder what it means that Pop [1] got "extending" wrong, or [2] changed "extending" to "extended."

[edew]

I guess I'll just keep my arm extended. An extended arm, even if the blade is beat or parried, can be replaced as extended before the defender can fully extend his or her arm.

I'll just claim that Ioan Pop wants the extended arm to have right of way. Well, my arm's always extended.

We'll probably have to go back to all those heavy bind attacks.

[Dee EffEll]

For me, thre was an easy solution. I donated my foil gear to the club, and I fence only epee. No extended arm, no touche. Simple.

[Epeecurean]

Hi wflaschka,

Yes, it's connected with those proposed rule changes, plus, I'm guessing, a reeducation campaign to improve refereeing and make it more consistent. The -ing/-ed thing needs to clarified though! (How long does it, or should it, take to for someone to extend an arm for it to be considered an attack?)

Like Barry, I too am in favour of restoring foil's essential character. Much more interesting to watch a conversation of blades than a psycho-shouting match.

[SJB]

Oh joy! Forty to fifty parry-riposte-counter-ripostes per foil bout!

What a great way to improve the sport .

[Wizardly]

I'm really not all that concerned with longer conversations. Simple actions will always reign supreme so long as foil retains its identity and doesn't become saberfoil or the vile epeefoil.

I'm really more concerned with what Mr. Pop is getting at: a ruling is long overdue. Ed or Ing, that is the question...bent arms...

My take on this dialogue is that Mr. Pop is stating that until the arm is straight, the blade is not threatening. That is, the arm coming out is the act of establishing the threat, but the threat is not established until the arm has finished extending.

Note in the dialogue the emphasis on threatening with the point, not with the body, not with the arm coming out, not merely with the point extending forward with the arm: the point must be in a threatening position in relation to the opponent, the intent must be clear and imminent, not perceived and eventual (I feel as though this last sentence should be inserted into the rule book in t.7 ) If I wanted to be anal, I might define this as, oh, say.... Clear and imminent: the combined motion of the body and arm in the direction of the blade's axil length (or perhaps the direction of the hand/arm) will conclude with a hit upon the opponent (implying proper distance) by the termination of the last forward step, be it a bounce, advance, cross step, lunge, or fleche (also a kind of cross step) and the blade and body maintain continuous though not necessarily uniform relative separation until the arm is fully extended, in which case continuation of the last step is sufficient to continue the attack. Perceived and eventual: the blade is not yet in such a line as to be threatening, the body and hand do not maintain continuous relative separation, no attempt is made to extend the blade at all, multiple steps are required to effect the hit (compound attack). (Wow, I pulled that outta my *** with surprising ease).

In my opinion, a clarification is long overdue one way or the other. The lawyers have had their say, the philosophers have interpreted, and that there is discussion at all signifies the unanswered question, "what was meant?"

If Ing becomes Ed, the flick (prior to the full extension and resulting blade bending) and the bent-arm attack will not vanish just as the counter-attack has not. The mere fact of advancing will not signify an attack to the unclear director. They will all still have their place and time to be useful, just not all the time. I still maintain that this is probably the simplest change rather than the technical changes proposed and I wonder how much of it was simply due to the problem of translating french to english (especially for we rule-phillic americans). After all, look at the falling-penalty debacle in 2002.

Either way, foil will change. Some will hate it, some will like it. In an event, specificity at last I hope!

[schlager7]

We'll probably have to go back to all those heavy bind attacks.

Sometimes I really like those.

[jeff]

I think this review of foil is long overdue. We really need to get back to a reasonable interpretation of what constitutes an attack.

Barry Paul's sentence captures it nicely: if it can't be parried, then its not an attack. If it can't be parried it's not pointing at and threatening the opponent, that's why! I've seen directing in which the attack is construed purely by leg movement while the weapon is pointing at the ceiling or spectators. A pity, and contrary to the rules as written.

I'm not too worried about the extending vs. extended issue. If Fencer A starts to extend and then Fencer B starts to extend, then it's most likely that Fencer A will complete the extension first. If by some fluke he/she doesn't - say, due to poor technique like starting with the weapon behind his/her hip - then fine, let Fencer B get the touch. In normal cases this would wind up being Fencer A's touch either way.

[wflaschka]

Originally posted by jeff
Barry Paul's sentence captures it nicely: if it can't be parried, then its not an attack. If it can't be parried it's not pointing at and threatening the opponent, that's why!

It would be wonderful if it were that straightforward. Of course, exceptions abound. Flicks are parried easily, yet some folks hate to call them attacks. Some attacks threaten target, yet aren't pointing at the opponent.

People who complain about unparryable attacks are usually timing the parries incorrectly. If you make a parry as the opponent coupés or disengages, do you blame the opponent because you couldn't find their blade? Parries should come at the beginning or the end of the attack, as the attack begins or as it reveals -- but not in the middle during the obfuscation. I picked this concept up from Laszlo Szabo, and it really works with my students.

I've seen directing in which the attack is construed purely by leg movement while the weapon is pointing at the ceiling or spectators. A pity, and contrary to the rules as written.

Often it's tough to say how the director is construing an attack. No director worth talking about would say they're assigning attacks based on leg movement. Perhaps this director was following the rules: The 1999 rules indicated that a step- or jump-lunge was considered an attack even if the extension began with the lunge (i.e., counter-attacks into the step/jump would not be awarded) -- t.8.??. This is now gone from my 2002 revision.

I'm not too worried about the extending vs. extended issue. If Fencer A starts to extend and then Fencer B starts to extend, then it's most likely that Fencer A will complete the extension first.

I, too, believe it will sort itself out. Still, I worry because I see so many trusted and reputable officials getting so much wrong about fencing in general. Ioan Pop messing up extended/extending is just one example.

Have these officials, for example, really thought about the mechanics of the straight arm, and how frustrating it is to do anything at all if your arm is locked? When straight-armed, the elbow joint becomes fully opened (god help you if you are double-jointed), the shoulder becomes engaged, tight and raised, and all you can do are those weak point-in-line disengages, and it takes forever to unlock the arm again. Technically and aesthetically, I prefer the muscley, tiny, aggressive tip movements of the extending arm rather than the extended.

And, the worst case scenario will have foilists finding it expedient to just leave their arms extended, full-time, like beginning Epee fencers. Why risk breaking the arm out of its extension to make a parry? -- if the opponent leaves their arm out and hits you, your extending riposte will be called a preparation into the opponent's extended attack.

Who knows what the future will bring. It's all very exciting. I'm one of the only people I know who is happy with the proposed rule changes for Foil. However, this straight-arm stuff makes me concerned. If they futz with the notion of extending/extended attacks, they run the risk of obviating a century of pedagogy.

I'm betting there won't be any extending/extended change. The other proposed rule changes are very adequate to correct the problems facing modern foil.

[jeff]

I think we're in agreement - I was referring specifically to people striding down the strip with the arm waaaaay back, yet getting that called an attack. Sorry for the imprecise language - I certainly did not mean "conventional" attacks with coupé or disengage. I meant "the weapon is nowhere near you". BTW, thanks for typing "coupé" so I could cut-and-paste and not have to look up how to put in the accent

I can't speak for Barry's intention of course, but imagine he means the same thing.

On your next point: At a recent competition, another fencer told me he'd been told in all seriousness that the legs conveyed intention, and that this established attack; and in some people's minds, retreating established the other guy's attack: if you're retreating, it must be his attack! Yikes... (maybe it's wanting to keep proper distance or not get steam-rollered?)

I also agree it would be A Bad Thing if people started fencing with rigidly locked arms. Ugh.

[Sildar]

A couple things;

There is one simple change in equipment that would force people to fence in a way more like what the rules were written for, yet I've never heard anyone advocate it: simply increase the amount of travel for the point to, say 1cm, or somewhere in that vicinity? This would eliminate most of the poking, tapping, slapping slop shots I see in competition all too often, and force people to actually (gasp) perform real thrusts! Then we might actually see bladework come back into style...

A redesigned tip could address a number of these issues, and stop foil from becoming another "all offense all the time" game like sabre was for a while. Even for trained eyes, there's something pitiful about watching 15 double lights, and seeing one guy "win" because of technicalities and the director's personal interpretation of ROW.

I would also dearly love to see ROW no longer determined by what direction you travel. If I had a dollar for every time this has happened:

1. Fencer A charges forward aggresively while completely opening all of their target area, presenting a perfect opening.
2. Fencer B steps back and lunges, or simply extends, and fencer A walks (or runs!) directly onto the point of B's fully extended weapon.
3. Fencer A hits B one full advance (or more) after walking straight onto B's point.
4. Fencer A is awarded ROW, because he was moving forward, without respect to who actually attacked who first.

Personally I'm skeptical that any real improvements will come out of this, but perhaps if we all bombard them with letters...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Snips below by me.

Originally posted by Wizardly
I'm really more concerned with what Mr. Pop is getting at: a ruling is long overdue. Ed or Ing, that is the question...bent arms...

My take on this dialogue is that Mr. Pop is stating that until the arm is straight, the blade is not threatening. That is, the arm coming out is the act of establishing the threat, but the threat is not established until the arm has finished extending.

Counter example: Both fencers attack, and miss. They end up in very close infighting. One fencer is slow, and has his tip behind the other´s back. Meanwhile, the fast one has his tip 10 cm in front of the middle of the chest of the slow fencer.

Does the fast fencer have his elbow bent? Yes. Is he presenting a credible threat? Yes.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[edew]

It's no point arguing with those who claim only an extended arm makes a threat.

In practice, one can be threatening without so much as move a muscle. It's all in the attitude and ability to influence the other person.

If I can make my opponent make a parry action, or become indecisive, then I've made the proper threatening actions. If I make my opponent attack me, then I have not made threatening actions.

[Wizardly]

I myself am more of a fan of the distinction of "clear and imminent versus perceived and eventual" rather than "extended versus extending."

Your point is well taken: changing Ing to Ed probably wont solve the all problems of clarity.

Of importance to this discussion is the distinction between threatening and what should be called something else, perhaps intimidating. Intimidation is causing someone to react through posture, attitude, etc... it is Barry Paul's unparryable offense. It is definitely a "threatening" posture, but it will not, by itself, result in a touch. I think this was Pop's point: the liberal interpretation of "threatening," hence, emphasis on the tip, not just the attitude. Someone moving towards you is intimidating, but someone placing a point near your chest is threatening. A lunge may be an aggressive and intimidating motion, but unless preceded by placing the tip near the target, you aren't threatening. I think Pop wants to change Ing to Ed to enforce this, hence the straight arm comment.

Personally, I think the problem was the lacking realization that "extending" does not necessarily mean "threatening," and that the "intimidating" connotation of "threatening" was adopted rather than the "imminent danger" connotation of the word.

[CvilleFencer]

IMHO there is nothing wrong with foil that one big judges/coaches conference and a clarification of some of the rules could not fix. There are things that might be fun to try, butnothing is broken.

Newbies and fossils aside, the problem with the flick is that it is called so inconsistently by Judges that I think most people do not know what to do about it, when to try it, or what the call should be when it is tried!

Instead of a bunch of fencers from a past era trying to take the sport back to what they think was its prime (guess what... that just happens to be when they were fencing) they just need to clarify a few often misinterpreted rules and move on.

Modern foil is fast, tactical, technical, and beautiful. Any of this idiotic straight armed epee tip nonsense will only detract from the sport as you will have people calling all of that wrong as well. Look at Pop! Even he does not know if it should be ing/ed! Foil is fine. Just get decent training for the judges, pull the rating of the screwups/nonconformists and move on to the important stuff. Like letting in colored lames!

[CvilleFencer]

And very good points by PeterGustafsson and Edew.

[mtarascio]

I'm curious in what lanquage Mr. Pop gave this interview. Is there a possiblity that there is a problem in the translation?

[pkt]

Originally posted by Barry Paul
I am in total agreement with Iaon, it is only a pity it has taken 20 years to make a stand for the need for foil attacks to be made with a blade which could be parried. Keep up the good work Barry Paul

Barry,

I know you are a busy person, etc. but I beseech you to use the proper basics of writing such as punctuations...:
Read this line that you wrote and you tell me what it says:
[sic] " Keep up the good work Barry Paul"

I takes your readers a moment to realise that you're not an egomaniac by giving yourself encouragement but that you simply dropped a full-stop and a new line...


Clear communication is to say/write something so the others can understand without misconstruing what the speaker/writier mean.

Best wishes,
PK