Beats vs. parries-when is it?

[hawaii kid]

Peregrin -
I sympathize with your frustration but, if the referee calls your beat-and-in a parry/repost for the other guy, I would (as your coach) suggest that you make your action a little clearer for the referee. If he still can't see it, then yes, it's time to do something different.

Interesting that you mention the clarity of the basketball rules as something fencing rules should aspire to.
concepts like "palming", traveling, double dribble, and fouling seem to have very liberal interpretations in modern NBA basketball.

I'm all for clarifying the rules of ROW, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. I'll try to keep up with the latest interpretations and do the best I can to make the ref happy.

[Peregrine]

NBA has this "rule" about not calling travelling on anyone and not calling anything on popular players...

Making sure the other guy's light never comes on always works, but in the story, they were fencing dry, something I'll never do again.

[Craig]

Originally posted by Peregrine
These damn ROW rules need to be spelled out in detail for all to see, know, and not have to debate over.

The ROW rules are spelled out very well. It's in how referees decided to interpret them that is the issue. Some referees get it in their head that X action can't be an attack b/c the arm isn't fully extended (vs. extending) and that gets us to another 100 post thread argument about what really constitutes an attack.

I see the need for a casebook, but the ROW rules are clear to me and spelled out well enough to govern the bout. Keep reading Bukantz's column in American Fencing and submit questions to him and the FOC. I'm working to get an "ask the ref" or "ask the expert" feature here that will live outside of the forum...more info on that when it's available.

In baseball, it's very clearly defined what is a ball and what is a strike, but look at what Qestec started when they attempt to hold umpires to the "letter of the law". No matter how clearly defined the rules are (down to number of milliseconds in an attack), there will always be complaints about calls.

Referee training is the key - the USFA and local divisions are moving in the right direction.

Cheers,
Craig

[hawaii kid]

Peregrine -

Thanks for helping to illustrate my point.

I love fencing dry! it's great for my students. Makes them pay attention to what they are doing and making the actions fit changing scenarios, a common situation to find yourself in while on the electric strip. It also helps them to be better directors by understanding the thought process the director has to go through when awarding a touch.

In daeceg's situation, fencing dry at club, this is a perfect opportunity to calmly discuss what the director saw and how he interprets it. If he's (the ref) got a firm grasp of the rules, then you know what to do. If he doesn't, that's a completely different problem that needs a completely different fix. Finish the bout and get on line for some clarification, which he has done admirably.

It doesn't take much blade contact to "take it out of line". The timing is what is most important.

[daeceg]

Hmmm....
So let me get this straight: I initiate the action, he attempts a parry which just moves my point from one side to the other, still on target. My hit can be disregarded because the parry is considered good, or because the director can rule that my opponent's move was a beat. Even though I was advancing with point-in-line.

For some reason, it strikes me as odd that in a martial art, an unsuccessful attempt to block which results in the hit occurring can override the point landing.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time out to explore this issue. Sounds like the rules in this situation aren't quite as clear cut as I had thought.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by daeceg
For some reason, it strikes me as odd that in a martial art, an unsuccessful attempt to block which results in the hit occurring can override the point landing.

Sport fencing is not a martial art. It's a martial sport.

The martial art aspect of fencing can be learned, but it is difficult to compete in the USFA/FIE tournaments if you focus on the martial art aspect.

[edew]

Originally posted by daeceg
Hmmm....
So let me get this straight: I initiate the action, he attempts a parry which just moves my point from one side to the other, still on target. My hit can be disregarded because the parry is considered good, or because the director can rule that my opponent's move was a beat. Even though I was advancing with point-in-line.

For some reason, it strikes me as odd that in a martial art, an unsuccessful attempt to block which results in the hit occurring can override the point landing.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time out to explore this issue. Sounds like the rules in this situation aren't quite as clear cut as I had thought.

The fact that he TOUCHED your blade before your tip hit his target is sufficient. Did it push it out of the target area? Who cares? In reality (as in if you played that action in slo-mo to see whether it did or not move outside the target area), it probably did. It's quite amazing how even a slight tic on the blade is enough to deflect the tip away from the target. It really is.

[Wizardly]

Look at it this way - if the rules were that the parry must close out all lines, the logical conclusion of any attack would be to keep moving forward despite the parry and end up in corps-a-corps, running past the opponent, or leaving the strip (::sniff:: smells like epee). Or look at it like this - "my opponent just controlled my blade; this means I'm not in control of my blade; this means if I keep moving forward I'm being suicidal; if I'm being suicidal I don't have ROW."

Your original example did not mention you advancing with PIL. It said the parry occurred during the lunge in 4. Advancing with the arm extended is a whole different animal.

Edew is right - very little force is actually required...behold the power of the Dirac delta function in action. (I love dynamics).

[daeceg]

I did advance with PIL the entire way. The only blade-on-blade contact was that parry of dubious quality (in my mind at least) made after I lunged.



Wizardly, you do make a good point about how it may have been enough of a parry to remove my point at least briefly. Hadn't considered that. From my perspective, I established ROW with my point in line, thrust, felt his blade touch mine, then I saw my point touch on target. After that, I felt his riposte land. <shrug>

[Artisan]

Originally posted by daeceg
I did advance with PIL the entire way. The only blade-on-blade contact was that parry of dubious quality (in my mind at least) made after I lunged.

ahh...more information, and the picture becomes even clearer..it even more obviously NOT your touch.

Wizardly, you do make a good point about how it may have been enough of a parry to remove my point at least briefly. Hadn't considered that. From my perspective, I established ROW with my point in line, thrust, felt his blade touch mine, then I saw my point touch on target. After that, I felt his riposte land. <shrug>

The thing here, to do, practice / learn /work on.... the thing about foil is to hone in on that minute moment when your opponent has the opportinity to react; in this case to make a parry be it well formed or otherwise. It is at that moment that the next "level" of fencing begins, where you will be able to breakoff your attack and make the counter parry-repost... or even better demonstrate control of the bout and mastery of your opponent by KNOWING what they will do (or better yet, MAKING them do what you want) and launch second or third intention attacks. This is the essence of fencing and the purpose of the rules of right of way, and what separates Fencing from boxing or stickfighting .

The focus of training on form and technique is not for the purpose of making fencing pretty or elegant but to allow for these moments to be created in the course of a bout. When it occurs it will be by its implicite nature, elegant. It is a sweet thing...

[jeff]

In very traditional (and martial) style you would make sure to both close the line with the parry and riposte along the closed line to make sure that you weren't hit. Obviously this provides safety in a duel, and also helps prevent double touches in sport. The argument against it is that forming a full opposition parry and riposting along that is slower. Axelrod always said you should make a "slap" parry-riposte for the best speed; a firm slap done at the right time definitely moves the point away from target.

As far as what is "enough": the rules state that "a mere grazing" isn't enough, and it really doesn't take a lot of blade force to move the point out of line. At a director's class I attended in early 1970s Georgio Santelli came up to give a "guest lecture": Georgio talked about what makes a parry "sufficient", and had us do a little experiment: one fencer lunged, and the other fencer gave the blade a light tap on the foible. Georgio caught the parried blade in his hand at the widest part of the arc caused by the tap, and had the defender advance towards it - and the point didn't touch him. This showed that even a light tap, delivered in the right distance and time, definitely could move the point out of line enough to make it miss. Georgio said (I remember distinctly) that "the director isn't a protractor", and cannot measure the angle directly, and therefore must use judgement. Clearly, an attack can be defended against without strong blade contact or opposition with a closed line. It doesn't take a lot of force (if you do it right) to move the blade out of line.

[edew]

Hits to the chest don't open a nasty wound. It's symbolic. Parries on the blade don't have to knock the tip to the next time zone. It's also symbolic. That fact that your opponent touched your blade indicated to him and you and the referee that he had you.

If you felt your blade being touched, then you were parried.

[billpealer]

----------------------------
For some reason, it strikes me as odd that in a martial art, an unsuccessful attempt to block which results in the hit occurring can override the point landing.
----------------------------------------
daeceg:

I just went through this with these guys, and it urks me as well. Changes your whole opionion of the sport you might find your self obsessed with. If you are a martial artist or have taken any Martial arts, foil fencing you will soon learn. is not a martial art, it's not a martial sport either. IDC what achilles says. Its just a sport. A new and evolving sport. There is very little remnants of sword play in the foil game at all. Except maybe the bell guard. Even ROW, designed to prevent double deaths, is now just a technical formality. A mere handshake. The defender some how made contact with your weapon during the attack, it made a noise, it's a parry. I was always taught that a parry WASN"T a parry untill it actuallty stopped the one attack in time, from begining, till end. And a riposte technically wasn't a riposte till the attack was successfully thwarted, ALL of the attack was stopped! But now. No. If your blade is touched during your attack, pull back don't finnish your attack. Because to the director, that touch to your blade durring your attack, just disected your attack into 2 parts. A parried attack and a remise. I know logic is not on our side. So get rid of it and move on. Or learn Epee. These things are barley debated in Epee. Or your could make your attacks faster. If they are parring weak, they probably know the way the bout will be called and will riposte with speed after the limp wristed parry. Disengage or attack so much faster. Your odds of one lighting will go up. Have you tried beating more? Limp wristers shouldn't fair well with a good beat. If they are light parriers they prbably have their parry ripostes all planned out. If you beat before you attack, it might make it much harder for them to riposte if their bell just got rung. I have disarmed many. And if they start anticipating your beats, feint. I play a strong game as well.

so dont make the same mistake i did when i started. We do not fence because we thinks its cool to be skilled with swords, or we have a love of martial arts. We fence because we like how we look in knickers. I fence now with more passion then when i started. Just to beat the people that i feel are on the wrong side of the foil debate. I mean how can you love fencing if you hate the sword?

[jeff]

Aren't you the guy that started on this board by complaining that he'd really parried an attack, even though he was hit in the back? Are you for calling it a parry only if it blocks the offensive action, or not? You had some argument before about "altering" attacks. Pick one rationale or the other, please.

You miss the point of the above posts: they say is that if you felt the blade contact, it was strong enough to have deflected the original attack, and thus was a valid parry. The initial attacker has to make a new attack to point the weapon back at the target. I think you need more experience fencing so you can understand this better.

Since you mention other martial arts, you may as well know that the same arguments happen there all the time, for the same reason. Fencing is just as much a martial art as (say) light or no contact karate.

[mike morgan]

Aren't you the guy that started on this board by complaining that he'd really parried an attack, even though he was hit in the back? Are you for calling it a parry only if it blocks the offensive action, or not? You had some argument before about "altering" attacks. Pick one rationale or the other, please.

You miss the point of the above posts: they say is that if you felt the blade contact, it was strong enough to have deflected the original attack, and thus was a valid parry. The initial attacker has to make a new attack to point the weapon back at the target. I think you need more experience fencing so you can understand this better.

Since you mention other martial arts, you may as well know that the same arguments happen there all the time, for the same reason. Fencing is just as much a martial art as (say) light or no contact karate.

Well said Jeff!

[Inquartata]

I'd have to quibble with that last sentence. A snap-kick to the knee, for instance, though learned in sport will have an effect if used in earnest in actual combat circumstances. It will damage an attacker if properly executed. A foil thrust to the torso or flick to the back almost certainly will not...

[jeff]

Except that the snap kick to the knee would normally be pulled a few inches in front of the opponent (as you would be disqualified for landing that kick, especially if done with force, except in full contact competition). Not exactly a habit-forming distance training that would be useful "in the street". You also pull punches and kicks so they're light contact, and limit target areas (depending on style), so karateka can get in the habit of making light hits. All of these are reasons sport karate is not particularly more realistic than fencing. I'm not even getting into the subject of kata... That's why I said the same argument exists in martial arts, where there are people saying that karate isn't realistic. Even full-contact is called unrealistic by some, because there's padding and protection, and useful things like eye gouging aren't allowed.

A thrust to the torso will do just fine - using a sharp blade with more rigidity that a foil - in fixing somebody permanently. The flick to the back less so, but let's remember that duels were often fought to first blood, and a flick with a sharpened point would achieve that.

[Inquartata]

A thrust to the torso will do just fine - using a sharp blade with more rigidity that a foil - in fixing somebody permanently. The flick to the back less so, but let's remember that duels were often fought to first blood, and a flick with a sharpened point would achieve that.

Yes, but we're comparing sport to sport, not sport to altered-sport. The blows taught in karate are effective done with the instruments used in that sport, to the targets taught in that sport. Foil blows would not be, as taught and practiced.

As for force, are you saying that a karateka would be unlikely to be able to make himself connect with real force if he wished, simply because he's practiced otherwise? Hey, I cut lightly with my sabres, but I daresay I could hit harder if the need arose!

[jeff]

Yes, I am saying that. Karate schools have tons of stories about people getting into fights and getting badly beaten up because (among other reasons) they pulled their punches and kicks. Somebody trains with thousands of repetitions to do something, they're probably going to do that in a pinch (or at least, not be as effective as doing something they didn't train to do). I don't make any distinction of "sport" vs. "altered sport" distinguishing karate or kung fu from fencing. Both fencing and karate have altered in style over the decades. When masters first came over from Okinawa decades ago, the expected broken bones and teeth in the dojo as a predictable side effect of training. That's definitely not the case in the karate school down the street today.

In contrast - a fencer making a lunge to the torso is going to make a lethal attack if the blade is sharp, using the exact same body mechanics as he does on the club's piste. Which isn't to say that sport fencing doesn't has lots unrealistic aspects.

[Inquartata]

Yes, I am saying that. Karate schools have tons of stories about people getting into fights and getting badly beaten up because (among other reasons) they pulled their punches and kicks.

Can you cite one or two? No offense, but there are lots of urban legends floating around passing as documented fact, and lots of "common wisdom" that's, well, apocryphal. I've heard the same thing, but pressed to back the contention up with facts I'd find myself hard pressed even to recall where I'd heard it...

Somebody trains with thousands of repetitions to do something, they're probably going to do that in a pinch (or at least, not be as effective as doing something they didn't train to do).

And an equal and opposite theory holds that under stress the adrenaline dump is going to rob one of all fine motor functions and leave one with only gross ones, increase strength and reduce control...and there are the same sorts of stories floating around about hapless people killed by karatekas who were startled or otherwise galvanized. Which do we credit?

I don't make any distinction of "sport" vs. "altered sport" distinguishing karate or kung fu from fencing. Both fencing and karate have altered in style over the decades.

No, what I was getting at was that by taking the foil out of the foilist's hand and giving him a "sharp, stiffer weapon", you have altered the sport. Foil is taught and practiced with foils, and to say that it would effective if only we change this and that is to alter the parameters of the comparison. I might say that the sport karateka would be more effective if we give him Wolverine claws, too, but that alters the things we're trying to compare...

Badminton might be a martial art if we substituted battle-axes for racquets, but that'd be taking a wee liberty with the argument, no?