Beats vs. parries-when is it?

[jeff]

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...

Personal testimony from a number of kareteka that got pounded, and from my own instructors (tae kwon do, kung fu, hapkido) telling cautionary tales. Obviously I don't have a "citation" for people losing street fights. They're hardly well-documented historical events

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?

One would imagine that people under stress resort to what they were trained, skills that became automatic to them, otherwise why bother training in any martial art? I can imagine both situations happening. Different people, training, circumstances. Hardly conclusive.

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?

I have bot foils and smallswords at home. Holding one isn't really all that different from holding the other. Lunging with one in my hand certainly isn't all that different from lunging with the other. Yes, it's a little different - but not that different, really. Best of all: you don't pull it at the last moment, which I think is a real disqualifier for "reality", and trumps any minor differences in weapon balance and length.

Sport karate teaches you to pull your punch. You have to, in order to not get disqualified in competition. I know individuals (brown belt and higher) who got their butts kicked and said that was part of the reason. Sport fencing teaches you to (among other techniques) make a direct thrust that would puncture flesh.

All that said, don't make my claim bigger than it is. I'm not saying that karate is unrealistic while fencing is, or that fencing is more realistic than karate. Not at all. I was responding to our new board member, billpealer, and saying that both activities have controversy about "reality", and that it's erroneously to dismiss fencing as we do it today out of hand as being unrealistic when compared to Asian martial arts. Regardless of what position you take on the question of "reality" in karate, the controversy really does exist, and people argue over it quite a bit. That's what I was saying.

[parrythis]

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.

I have to agree with this. My understanding (others may disagree) is that if you establish ROW and your opponent succeeds in doing anything to deflect your blade (no matter how little, no matter how short a time) they have the opportunity to take ROW from you. The key is the timing. If your opponent parries or beats then reposts in fencing time (in the director's eyes, of cours) then they take ROW from you. So it doesn't really matter if it was a parry or a beat. It's the timing of the action after the parry that decides the matter. If they reposte immediately, they take ROW. If they delay at all, and fail to immediately take advantage of the fact that they have parried you, your remise will give you the point.

So in your situation, as soon as you felt your opponent's blade touch yours, you were faced with a decision. If you thought that your opponent was going to launch a good reposte immediately, you should have gone into defence mode and prepared to parry or avoid his attack. On the other hand, if you thought that your opponent was going to delay at all, or deliver a poorly aimed reposte, you could gamble and continue on with your attack. (Which is what you did.) Sometimes the gamble pays off - if the opponent hesitates at all before reposting, or does not land the repost on your body the remise will give you the point. But in your case, it appears that your opponent did not hesitate and succeeded in landing the point on target - so the point was his.

[billpealer]

Yes Jeff. The answer is yes.
I do believe that his attack, was good ( by good i mean successful) in one time, BUT i also undertand that is not how the rules go. Blade contact is enough, end of story. Fine. That's how i play. Not how i used to play 4 years ago, But thats how i play now. Why should i pick one rational or the other? To undertand both is to understand how foil fencing WAS a martial art. I understand both point of views. And you are so missing the point. What we do in foil, 90% of it is impractical, Not happneing, usless, retarded, obsurd, oofas con doofas, Fencus Moronici. Sure it's hard (difficult), sure it's fast, sure it's complicated. But NO it's not practical. But so what!? It's fine with me. (not fine as in I agree, but fine in that i can't do anything about it) I still like it and do it. The more i fence and talk to people that have more experience, and going through this learning process is half the fun. Why should i be happy when i learn these things? These guidelines and procedures that take the game (IMO, no matter how worthless it is))farther and farther from its true root. Why shoudln't we question rules? Why? How will we progess if we just blindly accept everything?

-----------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
Dude, I said FOIL fencing. And I took karate for 3 years and Kempo for 2., not to mention, wrestling, baseball, football, lacrosse, volleyball, tennis, ulitmate frisbee. I know the differance between sport and martial art. All of the stuff we learned was practicle. Excect maybe kata, but kata is more for body memory than for practicality. Its use trickles down. its an exercise like when we practice perfect lunges. How does a whip over (flick) apply to the small sword? (or any) A thrust to the face is a thrust to the face. hard OR soft. you hit for the face, your arm and fist moves in a direct line to the face, in the same or similar manner as would a real punch to the jaw. and it lands on the face. If you were in sparring match, and your fist got close to your opponent, or made light contact, but it didn't arrive there in the manner of a punch. It would not be rewarded as a punch. The opposite it true of the whip over. Its delivery is ludicrous. It's,. it's silly. Waving you arm in the air like you are cracking a bull whip.

[flyingfencer]

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

Actually, an "Ask the Ref" area would be great, but even better would be some short video clips showing an action with a text or audio description.

[achilleus]

Actually, an "Ask the Ref" area would be great, but even better would be some short video clips showing an action with a text or audio description.

Do you remember the you make the call threads?

Those things went on forever, and people constantly argued and disagreed even when Golubitsky gave his take on the calls...

[darius]

These guidelines and procedures that take the game (IMO, no matter how worthless it is))farther and farther from its true root.

That's all loaded language. What was the "true root" of fencing? The day somebody decided, "Hey, if we blunt these a little bit and don't aim for the eyes, this could be a lot of fun!" The era after masks were invented, enabling the sport to be safe? I'm not a historian, but surely there were folks who decried that invention. Perhaps the years of Nadi. Or Romankov. Or Golubitsky.

In general, fencing has trended further away from it's roots in sword combat. That's not entirely true: hits to targets that would be obscured from judges, such as the flank, are more possible now than in the days of dry judging. Also, I would submit that the objectivity of the box makes things more real. Where judges can be swayed by bias or blindness, the scoring machine provides an "electronic bloodstain" which is consistent for both fencers.

However, I don't think that trend away from "sword fighting" is a bad thing. At most of the junctures where fencing has made an evolutionary leap forward (naturally pissing off the classicists of the time), the tactical possibilities have increased. The mask meant that the head was valid target. Electrical scoring enabled hitting the flank. The arcing attack meant the back was fair game. As those tactical possibilities increase in number, the game becomes more interesting.

Sure, we came to fencing because we got to play with swords. But why do we stay? For my part, it's the joyous complexity of the game (and an inexplicable desire to make my quads feel pain) which keeps me coming back.

It has nothing to do with practicality. If I got jumped in a darkened alley, I'd drop the foil and fight with my hands. But for what it's worth, if I got jumped in a darkened alley with a foil super-glued to my hand, I wouldn't thrust, I'd whip the ever-living #&^@# out of 'em.

darius

[jeff]

Yes Jeff. The answer is yes.
I do believe that his attack, was good ( by good i mean successful) in one time, BUT i also undertand that is not how the rules go. Blade contact is enough, end of story. Fine. That's how i play. Not how i used to play 4 years ago, ....etcetera...

Good for you that you're so confident of your knowledge that you dismiss foil fencing as useless and use (as darius says) loaded words like "doofus", "retarded" and so on. You might want to hold back such judgemental words till you know more about this - including the history of what foil was always intended for - as a training weapon, not as a realistic one.

[Zara_athlen]

its all about the electric.

[Inquartata]

Personal testimony from a number of kareteka that got pounded, and from my own instructors (tae kwon do, kung fu, hapkido) telling cautionary tales.

OK. Now, with respect, these suffice to have convinced you....but they aren't really transferable. "I knew this guy who" isn't the sort of thing that's going to convince others. If you're advancing a proposition, that's important, no?

Obviously I don't have a "citation" for people losing street fights. They're hardly well-documented historical events

I don't see why not. Given the wild success of programs like "Jackass" and the various "reality" shows I'd think there were hordes of people lining up to render accounts of their own pain and humiliation.

I have bot foils and smallswords at home. Holding one isn't really all that different from holding the other. Lunging with one in my hand certainly isn't all that different from lunging with the other. Yes, it's a little different - but not that different, really.

Yes, but we don't train and practice with smallswords. The sport of foil is done with foils. Replace the foils with epees and it's not foil any more. The basic sport has been changed. If we are comparing foil to karate, we need to consider foil as it is practiced, not foil enhanced thus and so to make it more effective...

Best of all: you don't pull it at the last moment, which I think is a real disqualifier for "reality", and trumps any minor differences in weapon balance and length.

Again, this is fine as a personal standard, but if you're in an argument and trying to convince then settling on that as the deciding factor isn't automatic. If it isn't accepted by the audience as as important as you deem it, it won't be effective...and there are other factors which can compete for dominance in that respect. ( Sheer force exerted is one, as I've mentioned: i.e. a properly executed karate blow will render much more destructive kinetic energy to an opponent than will a foil flick. )

All that said, don't make my claim bigger than it is.

Hey, now when have I ever been known to seize on a minor point and blow it up into a major issue just to have something to argue about?

[jeff]

OK. Now, with respect, these suffice to have convinced you....but they aren't really transferable. "I knew this guy who" isn't the sort of thing that's going to convince others. If you're advancing a proposition, that's important, no?

Comments from professional instructors takes it out of the "I knew a guy" level. I personally knew a 6th degree black belt in Shaolin kung fu who got badly beaten up (he was hospitalized). He practiced forms (kata) rather than actually fighting/sparring. In school, I always objected to kata-only learning because I felt it was unrealistic. I was told that it was more realistic than schools that permitted sparring "because you don't learn to pull the punch". Obviously those schools would disagree (as did I). My point is that the subject is a bone of contention in martial arts circles, and I saw that that this is the case.

As far as more durable, less personal records: when I stopped being actively involved in martial arts, I gave away all my back issues of Inside Kung Fu and Black Belt magazines, where the subject of martial arts' being realistic or not came up frequently.

I don't see why not. Given the wild success of programs like "Jackass" and the various "reality" shows I'd think there were hordes of people lining up to render accounts of their own pain and humiliation.

I guess they're not funny enough for "Jackass", or permanent enough for "Darwin Awards"!

Yes, but we don't train and practice with smallswords. The sport of foil is done with foils. Replace the foils with epees and it's not foil any more. The basic sport has been changed. If we are comparing foil to karate, we need to consider foil as it is practiced, not foil enhanced thus and so to make it more effective...

I don't disagree - and it's worth discussing (I would argue that the mechanics of foil fencing are so close to the mechanics when holding a smallsword that it's not that big an issue) However, both karate and fencing are safe, modified derivatives of lethal disciplines, and are therefore comparable. For another example, consider the post-World War II martial arts that grew up in Japan (judo, aikido) that were less dangerous derivatives of older martial arts. The evolution is very comparable.

Again, this is fine as a personal standard, but if you're in an argument and trying to convince then settling on that as the deciding factor isn't automatic. If it isn't accepted by the audience as as important as you deem it, it won't be effective...and there are other factors which can compete for dominance in that respect. ( Sheer force exerted is one, as I've mentioned: i.e. a properly executed karate blow will render much more destructive kinetic energy to an opponent than will a foil flick. )

I'm not intent on making an argument about which is more realistic than the other - I'm just arguing that the "ball is in play", if you will: the subject is broached in both disciplines. Which isn't to say we can't have fun with it, of course.

Regarding the force you mention: a properly executed karate blow for sparring and light/no contact competition will not have force on the target area. Either it stops short of the target, or touches it lightly. The flick (which I ruefully note creates welts) sure can have more kinetic energy. Mileage varies: there are styles with heavier contact (plus padding). Also: I am not defending the flick. I don't like it. But what I really don't like is the prevalent "march forward with arm not extending yet still get ROW", which I think is the real problem. Fix that, and the flick becomes a minor nuisance. All my humble opinion, of couse.

Hey, now when have I ever been known to seize on a minor point and blow it up into a major issue just to have something to argue about?

Nah, I can' think of any such thing.

[Inquartata]

He practiced forms (kata) rather than actually fighting/sparring. In school, I always objected to kata-only learning because I felt it was unrealistic. I was told that it was more realistic than schools that permitted sparring "because you don't learn to pull the punch".

Agreed.

Both sort of school at least use the makiwara and the various sort of bags and targets, don't they? If not, I don't see the point...just take an aerobics class. The surroundings will probably be far more, ah, decorative...

[foilz]

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.

And in either case, the person who did either the parry or the beat can immediately take control of the right of way, if he should desire. Unfortunately, too many people don't bother to take control of the right of way. Advice: once you find your opponent's blade, take control of the right of way and don't let go!

My understanding (others may disagree) is that if you establish ROW and your opponent succeeds in doing anything to deflect your blade (no matter how little, no matter how short a time) they have the opportunity to take ROW from you. The key is the timing. If your opponent parries or beats then reposts in fencing time (in the director's eyes, of cours) then they take ROW from you. So it doesn't really matter if it was a parry or a beat. It's the timing of the action after the parry that decides the matter. If they reposte immediately, they take ROW. If they delay at all, and fail to immediately take advantage of the fact that they have parried you, your remise will give you the point.

These comments (spanning a year-and-a-half) really struck me. ROW is a complex issue, as everyone knows, as a fencer or as a director. What edew and parrythis say, the key to understanding it ... is TAKING IT!

That really simplifies ROW, IMO.

[billpealer]

Darius,. what were you doing in a dark alley with a foil? And yes you eat peices of $hit like me for breakfast.


loaded language? you didn't like the Fencus Moronici? I though it was great.

No one ever touched my comment about delivery either. I'll refresh.
If you were in sparring match, and your fist got close to your opponent, or made light contact, but it didn't arrive there in the manner of a punch. It would not be rewarded as a punch. The opposite is true of the whip over. Its delivery is ludicrous. It's,. it's silly. Waving you arm in the air like you are cracking a bull whip.

Sure tacticaly foil has more options but if we want more tactics i have a whole other hand just sitting here, why not use that? why not make the whole body a target? oh wait maybe because we are talking about foil here. And that is supposed to mean something.

"Someone's closer!"

I know all of what you say, and i understand it as fact. i have heard it a million times. (not just from you) i have learned my lesson from debating this with you in person And i have learned more from you (on the strip and in observation) and your directing, than probably any othe person. The last time i fenced with you directing i think was a little over a year ago at Hamilton, i think i received more ROW decisions from you, knowing you'd call it from mere advancemt, than actually from extension. I won more 2 lights in that match than i can remmeber. I never used to even try to 2 light. I would defend and riposte as to NEVER 2 light. I know foil is evolving, i may not like it. I AM NOT A CLASSICALIST. I wasn't taught to be, nor trained to be. All the opinions about fencing are mine, and have developed through my own internal exploration of the logistics of foil.

-----------------------------------------
"You eat $hit for breakfast?" -Happy to Shooter