Escrime-inspired rant

[sabreur]

I have been getting Escrime , the FIE magazine for a couple of issues--not sure why--I don't have an FIE license.

Highlights of the most recent issue:

1. An ad for PBT's "transparent" sabre mask, which highlights 30% greater visibility and 30% reduction in TARGET AREA! I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but this seems over the top--use the transparent mask because it gives you an advantage over your opponent--I always thought the rules about equipment were intended to ensure that equipment does NOT give an advantage. In all fairness, the likelihood of a cut hitting only the faceplate strikes me as pretty minimal, but I do remember a video of Touya winning a point in the post-world championships gala event where he was hit across the faceplate and it didn't register.

2. An article by some 22 year old Venezuelan foilist about the shortcomings of modern sabre--which is completely devoid of anything other than rhetoric--the author implies that there was a time when sabre consisted of longer phrases--as someone who fenced during the steam era, I would say that a counter-parry-riposte used to be slightly more prevalent, but only because side judges missed a lot of touches that the electrics register....

3. And finally, the obligatory article about the need for fencing to be more attractive to television, with the obligatory call for changes to make the sport more attractive to television, supported by the obligatory comparisons to major spectator sports.... I have a fairly clear position on this. Fencing will NEVER be a major spectator sport, and anyone who thinks it will has been smoking dope for a long time, or is stupid. Spectator sports are a mature, saturated market, with extremely intense competition. If you want to penetrate the market, you start with an analysis--what is the total audience, what segments might be interested in your sport, ..... I have never seen anything approaching a professional market analysis of fencing. I have seen a lot of wishful thinking about how great it would be if we were on TV more, and what benefits that would bring to the sport, and a lot of anecdotes about how people love to watch fencing if you can just get them to watch...

I would say that fencing should look at sports that have prospered without TV and possibly (heresy) without the Olympics. I think we need to admit that our sport is esoteric and difficult for outsiders to follow. One of the hallmarks of television sports is that they are either:

a. easy to follow--john hits the ball, it goes over the net, bill hits the ball back, it goes over the net, john doesn't hit the ball--point to bill--I got it, even if I don't have a clue what was involved in terms of footwork, disquising the shot, spin on the ball, placement, etc.

or:

b. overtly spectacular/pretty/expressive of a "cool" lifestyle. See Jane, see Jane execute a triple Lux in her pretty sequined outfit. See Jack, see Jack do a groovy weird thing on his skateboard, with his piercings, tattoos and baggy-*** shorts (apologies to all you skaters out there....)

The FIE obviously has become a fat bureaucracy, whose primary focus is preservation of itself and its perks, rather than the furthering of the sport. I may be completely wrong about fencing's marketability, but it is absolutely clear to me that what is needed is an independent market survey that provides some accurate data and realistic forecasts about what the market for the sport is, and how to promote it.

What is being done right now is amateur night at the zoo.

MR

[Boo Boo]

Don't forget the "Rene Roch field trip to some exotic land" + several dozen photos of Mr Roch distributed throughout the magazine - wouldn't be an issue of Escrime without both of these...

Boo

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by sabreur
1. An ad for PBT's "transparent" sabre mask, which highlights 30% greater visibility and 30% reduction in TARGET AREA! I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but this seems over the top--use the transparent mask because it gives you an advantage over your opponent--I always thought the rules about equipment were intended to ensure that equipment does NOT give an advantage. In all fairness, the likelihood of a cut hitting only the faceplate strikes me as pretty minimal, but I do remember a video of Touya winning a point in the post-world championships gala event where he was hit across the faceplate and it didn't register.

LP also advertised with this claim when they first came out with their lexan sabre mask. Not sure if they still do or not. According to a member of the SEMI commission, in the FIE testing they didn't find a single touch that didn't register due to the lexan bit. If you hit lexan you also ALWAYS hit some metal bit as well. Now I find this claim hard to believe, and you provide a nice counter-example. The FIE is happy with the trade-off and apparently doesn't care about what marketing claims are made.

-B :)

[D'Artagnan1673]

I realize that the point is not frequently used in sabre, but would it be possible for a point shot to hit the lexan plate and nothing else?

[veeco]

Originally posted by sabreur

1. An ad for PBT's "transparent" sabre mask, which highlights 30% greater visibility and 30% reduction in TARGET AREA! I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but this seems over the top--use the transparent mask because it gives you an advantage over your opponent--I always thought the rules about equipment were intended to ensure that equipment does NOT give an advantage. In all fairness, the likelihood of a cut hitting only the faceplate strikes me as pretty minimal, but I do remember a video of Touya winning a point in the post-world championships gala event where he was hit across the faceplate and it didn't register.

To be fair, I really don't see this as an issue. I don't like lexan masks for other reasons, but I think that cuts that hit the face place and only the face place are really minimal.

Futhermore, I fail to see how one small lexan faceplate can reduce sabre target area by 30%. 30% is a pretty large amount, when you take into account the whole sabre target area. Removing the back as a target area for example might account for a 30% reduction in target area. Removing one small area on the face doesn't seem that big of an area.

I think the advantage you get from using this mask, if you gain one, is really minimal. Furthermore, the FIE has decided that they were legal, so they are legal. If you want to use them and feel like you could get an advtange over it, then use them. If not, then either you feel like they don't provide an advantage, or you feel they do, but you don't have the money to have them, which is another issue.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by veeco
{snip}
Futhermore, I fail to see how one small lexan faceplate can reduce sabre target area by 30%. 30% is a pretty large amount, when you take into account the whole sabre target area. Removing the back as a target area for example might account for a 30% reduction in target area. Removing one small area on the face doesn't seem that big of an area.
{snip}

I think the 30% reduction would be reduction of the target area of the mask only. Thus, if a regular mask had 1m^2 target area, the Lexan mask would have .7m^2.

--Philistine

[pkt]

A point attack that lands on the lexan face plate should in practice continue on to hit other parts of the mask, hence registering a hit.

A cut if it lands with the tip on the lexan bit might not register a hit. But if cut a bit deeper, it should get other parts of the mask thus registering a hit.

So, my question:
How often does one make such a precise hit with the point or with a cut that lands ONLY on the lexan piece without touching any other part of the mask?

I'd venture to answer:
Rarely.

so, what's the problem?

PK

[veeco]

Originally posted by Philistine


I think the 30% reduction would be reduction of the target area of the mask only. Thus, if a regular mask had 1m^2 target area, the Lexan mask would have .7m^2.

--Philistine [/b]

Well, I am sure that's the fact, but I think it is still a little bit on the edge of false advertising...

[pkt]

The problem may not lie in the targeting.
The problem may lie in the lexan piece breaking.

I heard that some manufacturer drill holes in the corners in order to secure the lexan piece... this process obviousy will weaken the lexan.

I have to admit that I'm not a material scientist. So if anyone more in the know, can you please educate us?

PK

[Peach]

Since any number of times I have been in bouts where a solid touch didn't set off the light (for and against me), while touches apparently made to the air managed to register, I doubt that a small addition of off-target area will do more than add a little more twilight zone to the marvel of sabre fencing as it exists already.

[cowpaste]

Even if the lexan reduces target area by only a little bit, I still don't think they are very fair. There is still a possiblity that you will lose a touch because of the mask, so therefore it is possible you lose a bout because of the mask. Of course, since the FIE has declared them legal, my opinions do not matter. :P

It's kinda funny what the advertisers say though. Even if the mask indeed reduced head target area by 30%, it doesn't reduce touches scored against the person wearing the mask nearly as much.

[Inquartata]

Precisely.

How would you foilists like it if the FIE in its infinite wisdom decided to place a plastic non-target area the size of those masks windows in the middle of your opponent's lames? How'd you epeeists like having your opponents hands or feet made off-target, but not yours?

It's never a problem until it's your ox being gored.

I have made stops in time with both edge and point to the center of the mask. In both cases, you're making the attack and immediately ( and I mean immediately ) getting back out of distance---taking your weapon with you, so it's not necessarily going to "go on to hit other parts" of the mask or lame.

However, even if this were almost never a possibility I would still object to such an alteration in a basic part of fencing merely in order to chase the will-o-the-wisp of "spectator appeal". I did not take up fencing for the pleasure of spectators, and I do not care to make ANY concessions in this snipe hunt...

[HilandDoug]

Marc (sabreur), I laughed my @ss off when I read your post. Thanks, I needed that.

[fencer1960]

I couldn't agree more with your 3rd point. I've been fencing since 1979. I have heard people gas about how we should make fencing easier to follow and more appealing to the general public for about as long. I've never heard of any professional market study being done to identify a target audience. Has anyone else?

And without such a study, what is the point of changes made to our sport? To attract viewers? Who? Here in the United States we vibrate with happiness when we see 2.5 seconds of fencing in a commercial, as if this exposure will push us into the big time. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Yet we are making changes. Big ones, like the rumored elimination of off target in foil; little ones, like flashier multicolor uniforms, all to attract this hypothetical audience. I'm not irrationally against change... changing the lights, for instance, was a good idea. So was scoring touches for instead of touches against, but we shouldn't let these changes be driven by the desire to attract TV viewers.

I think we all dream of the day when fencers can pull down huge salaries as professional athletes. Be careful what you wish for. We could end up with cage matches, blood squibs, blind referees, and all the trappings of another "professional" combat sport, wrestling.

Fencing is making progress. When I started, competitions in my area were hard to find. I could go a whole season fencing in maybe 5 or 6 tournaments. Now, if I had the time, I could find an event within driving distance of my home almost every weekend. This in the southeastern United States, where football, NASCAR, and Baptist are the main religious denominations. I'm pretty happy about this development.

Sorry to run so long, but this has been bugging me for a while.

[sabreur]

My point with the ad was not so much the accuracy of the claim that the mask provided benefit by reducing target area (I agree that hits to the Lexan alone would be far and few between, although the Touya incident I mentioned did show that they will occur), but that the claim is made at all--it is the moral equivalent of the FIE requiring that women foilists wear jackets and lames that expose their belly-buttons, because it would make for better television--people tuning in to see those lovely foilist belly-buttons... and an equipment manufacturer started making a lame with a see-through, nonconductive patch over the belly-button, and advertising it as a competitive advantage. This is clearly reductio ad absurdum, but....

Actually, the article by the Venezuelan foilist on the true nature of sabre ticked me off more than anything else..


Cheers, MR