Future of Foil fencing

[Jarentz]

I'm interested in getting the opinion on some of the changes that appear to be in the future of foil fencing. From reading these articles it looks like these may consist of:

Eliminating the off-target
Eliminating the "flick-touch"
Eliminating the "Bent-arm-attack"
There are also some studies discussed here about expanding the valid target to include the mask and/or upper arm.

From what I understand reading the magazine, these are supposed to go into effect after the 2004 Olympics.


http://www.fie.ch/download/magazines...IE44_28-37.pdf

http://www.fie.ch/download/magazines...IE43_01-14.pdf

http://www.fie.ch/download/magazines...IE39_34-37.pdf

Does anyone have any more information about this?

[edew]

It's possible to eliminate the off-target. I have no problems either way: most people hit on target anyway, so an off-target is an infrequent occurrence. It's quite difficult to move off-target body parts to places to block a hit without it being obvious to side-judges or being ineffective. Worse yet, is attempting to cover with an off-target part and having the blade hit the off-target part first, and then slipping onwards to the on-target part. There's no stop because of the off-target doesn't occur, and the attack will be counted as one continuous action.

Flick touches will continue to occur as long as there's a tip to be depressed. It might require a hard flick or a flick hold or something. I guess it might be required that the wire in the blade be made to break off if the blade is too bent during the hit. That might prevent some flicks. I'd hate to police and check for tolerances on the equipment in that case.

Bent-arm attacks: as along as the defender is not willing to attack into a preparation, there's no requirement that the attacker must have a fully-extended arm. There is no rule (nor can there be) that requires a fencer to fully extend the arm. As long as I can get a light on, who cares if my arm is bent or not. If I can get my opponent to miss me, or to keep parrying, I have no reason to fully extend the arm.

Referees aren't particularly biasing towards those who attack with a bent-arm. In many cases, if the arm is not in the process of extending the right-of-way goes to the fencer who does extend first, as it should be, and have been.

[Wizardly]

There has been talk of making the mask and bib valid targets for a while now. Hasn't happened yet. I kind of hope not; I don't want to have to buy a new mask until mine has a hole in it. (I tell you, it's a conspiracy by the equipment vendors to sell more of the more expensive saber masks!)

Flick touches are impossible to eliminate without also eliminating a few straight attacks. However, there are ways to make them less common, which I believe is in the works for 2005.

There very easily can be a rule that requires a fully extended arm, but as of yet, it hasn't been written. It's difficult to enforce however; the human eye probably can't distinguish which fencer extended first if the extension did not preceed the lunge.

There is also a reason defenders dislike attacking into preparation - the call often doesn't go there way. Fencer A lunges with a bent arm, fencer B sees teh bent arm and begins extending to attack into preparation, fencer A sees fencer B extending and extends to hit fencer B; the call most often goes attack A, counter-attack B. This is exacerbated in flickland. Fencer A lunges with the elbow held back, fencer B sees the bent arm and extends, fencer A seeing no defense but instead an extension decides to extend to flick B on the shoulder; the call most often goes "attack A, counter-attack B." At least, this is how it goes in the lowly Div III world (where little of the best fencing is done but most of the fencing in general is done), where bad refereeing reigns supreme over all.

Most of the time you're only going to actually get an 'attack into preparation' call to go your way is if you counter-attacked and the attacker bends their arm after having already extended. At least, in the lowly Div III world with crappy Div III directing.

[AaronK]

I agree with Edew.
In all the anecdotes I have heard about testing the rule changes the results have had very little impact on the restults of the game.
Neither changing the timing on the box, nor the proposed foil tips that are "anti-flick" have gotten rid of the flick 100%. And I am sure that should it even cut down on them even by 95%, everyone is just going to go and practice to perfect the "sweet spot" and increase that percentage back to something useable.
Like in all sports, any time there is a rule change, you have a group of coaches and athletes who are attempting to win world championships who understand that you have to do whatever it takes to win (I suppose even practice outside the bounds of the rules)- including improvising technique and tactics that work with, or around the rules. They change.
Then there are others who don't. Or won't. Or can't.
I hope I'll change WHEN the rules do (even though I am not going to win any world champs!)

[neevel]

Keep in mind that this is the second FIE Congress in a row where the "ad hoc commission" had yet to produce a report. Admittedly, a desire not to introduce any major changes right before the Olympic Games is a large factor, but just because Rene Roch is pushing these changes (and, as is typical, making use of Escrime International as a vanity publication to talk them up) doesn't mean that all of them should be seen as anything close to a done deal.

There was a point round abouts '96 where the idea of making the bib target in foil was also pushed in the FIE, but nothing came of it then.

-Dave

[The0ne]

Eliminating off targets would be a mistake. It wouldn't effect elite levels as much but midrange levels would be effected alot. I liked Juff Bukantz's article in the lastest AF magazine because it basically points out all the things that I thought of when I heard of the changes. The FIE is also considering shortening the timing in the phrase by using a more like epee setting on the machine. THe time in which both lights go off is reduced so that quick remises, or early counterattacks would be a viable strategy because only the first light would go off. Keep foil the way it is, we dont need another epee-like weapon.

[Talyn]

*I mean no offense to anybody who supports FIE in even thinking of changing foil so drastically*

However...

Eliminating Off Target: Incredibly stupid... I mean honestly Off target is a great part of foil fencing and by removing it would change the sport so much that for the next decade or so coaches and fencers alike will have a hard time re-learning something that has been there for so long.

Bent Arm Attack: Pfft I'm not too edgy about this but I still think it's quite an important part to modern fencing (flicks and all that is)

Flicks: I see nothing wrong with flicks... It isn't doesn't give someone who can flick an unfair advantage over someone who can't and every decent on the planet can learn how to parry flicks within 10 mintues... nonetheless it's just another side of fencing... a side that makes it incredibly complex and admittedly annoying sometimes but above all ... damn interesting



And even if you do argue that these changes are 'for the better' think about this - How much will all these changes cost? How long will it take?

-The cost of changing some of these rules will be enormous. For flicks you will either have to change the foils or the boxes - maybe even both and IMO it will greatly discourage joining fencing during this period
-Coaches have to be re-taught or atleast re-educated on moves and etc again (so will students btw)



In the end, is it really worth it?

*sorry about the rambling but I really like the way foil fencing is right now and I'd be damned if some idiots start enforcing different rules 1 year from now*

...Have a nice day

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Talyn
[B
Eliminating Off Target: Incredibly stupid... I mean honestly Off target is a great part of foil fencing and by removing it would change the sport so much that for the next decade or so coaches and fencers alike will have a hard time re-learning something that has been there for so long.
[/b]

You know.....they are not talking about making EVERTHING target. They are just talking about not stopping action if the touch lands off target. I am not sure how I feel about this. I am not really concerened about the simple off target touch that really affects no other actions. But what about the off target that continues it's path and then hits on target? (ie. weapon arm then chest) should the attacker be rewarded with a point?

Originally posted by Talyn
[B
Flicks: I see nothing wrong with flicks... It isn't doesn't give someone who can flick an unfair advantage over someone who can't and every decent on the planet can learn how to parry flicks within 10 mintues... nonetheless it's just another side of fencing... a side that makes it incredibly complex and admittedly annoying sometimes but above all ... damn interesting
[/b]

I don't think that it is a question of whether flicking provides an unfair advantage over the non flicker. The question is..."is this really what we want fencing to be?"
In all sports you technology often excedes the parameters of the original game and the players have to ask, "hey, is this what we want to play? Or should we adjust the rules so that we have the game that we want?"

The electric scoring sytem made flicks a viable attack....before then it was not practicle because the touch is too quick and judges often would not catch it.....also the technology to make much more flexible weapons came about. It isn't any different than major league baseball declaring that players must use a wood, uncorked, bat. They have the technology to use equipment that will allow a lot more home runs, but they decided "hey, that isn't the game that we want to play."


As for making the mask and bib target area....I can not imagine a good reason to do that. It just makes it easier to score a touch...and harder to defend.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Wizardly

Flick touches are impossible to eliminate without also eliminating a few straight attacks. However, there are ways to make them less common, which I believe is in the works for 2005.

How do you know this? People keep saying this....but theydon't seem to have any evidence. I do not believe this is true.

Originally posted by Wizardly
There has been talk of making the mask and bib valid targets for a while now. Hasn't happened yet. I kind of hope not; I don't want to have to buy a new mask until mine has a hole in it. (I tell you, it's a conspiracy by the equipment vendors to sell more of the more expensive saber masks!)

I agree with you 100%. This is designed to sell more more masks with the FIE cartell stamp on them.

Originally posted by Wizardly

Most of the time you're only going to actually get an 'attack into preparation' call to go your way is if you counter-attacked and the attacker bends their arm after having already extended. At least, in the lowly Div III world with crappy Div III directing.

I agree with this too....this is the biggest reason to eliminate flicks. Most people that flick (other than world class fencers like Eric) wind up like they are swatting a fly. And most controversial calls regarding right of way involve an attempt at a flick attack.

[AaronK]

Flick touches are impossible to eliminate without also eliminating a few straight attacks. However, there are ways to make them less common, which I believe is in the works for 2005.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know this? People keep saying this....but theydon't seem to have any evidence. I do not believe this is true.


Are you refering to things that make the flick more difficult? or that the methods that they are considering eliminate some straight attacks.

The information that I consider reliable comes to me from someone on the SEMI commission (if you don't know what that is, it's the part of the FIE that is in charge of the technical aspect of fencing...i.e. the equipment.), Dan DeChaine. He would be happy to talk to you firsthand rather than trust my secondhand information- the SEMI commission's position on the flick is a safety issue, only from the perspective of mask penetration at the World Cup level and against FIE equipment. I don't think that any reason other than safety will be a driving force in rule changes that are dramatic for the foreseeable future.

Changing the timing on the machines has been tried (specifically changing the dwell time for breaking the circuit), and there are some fencers from germany and russia that are fast enough that some of their straight attacks would not register (because the machine thought that the circuit was not broken long enough to be a straight attack and had to be flicks).
I have seen the prototype foil tip that requires 2 different springs of different pressures (one 250, one 750, they average out to 500). The different springs allow the tip to only be pressed halfway down unless the tip hits nearly perpendicularly to the surface of the target with 500g pressure. The tests of this tip were only 95% effective at eliminating the flick. Of course it is not a sure thing when rules will change, though remember that people are working on things all the time.

I do agree that rumours of rule changes are rampant amongst the fencing community, and the "elimination of the flick" is probably one of the ones that appears most often. We can speculate, but to really wory about changes before they happen is premature.

[Jarentz]

One of the things I find impure about the "flick" is that the basic premise behind swordsmanship is that each attack should have a corresponding parry. There is no parry against the flick (to the back anyways) other than distance. None of the traditional parries taught in fencing were ever meant to stop an attack like that.

[MikeHarm]

I have successfully parried flicks to the back before.

[dnichols]

Originally posted by Jarentz
One of the things I find impure about the "flick" is that the basic premise behind swordsmanship is that each attack should have a corresponding parry. There is no parry against the flick (to the back anyways) other than distance. None of the traditional parries taught in fencing were ever meant to stop an attack like that.

Wow.

I thought I had a funny reply all ready to go about '...no parry against..." and "...traditional parries...", and then I re-read and got stuck on "...the basic premise behind swordsmanship...".

I dunno. I always thought, away back in the dawn of time, some clever bloke thought up some "new" attack nobody could stop. Until they ran into another clever bloke who stopped it with some "new" parry. I think it's way too much of an oversimplification to say "each attack should have a corresponding parry". What fun would that be? We would have all been taught "...if your opponent does this, you must do that..." Instead, it's 'if this happens, here are your options'. Fencing is improv, not choreographed performance.

The flick isn't new, remember. And it's a misconception to assume there is no parry against the flick, to the back or anywhere else. They're stoppable. You need to learn how and practice, but they aren't the infallible touch any more than another.

The defensive system, let's call it the 'international' system, meaning pick your favorites, involves a series of moves used in limitless combinations to stop any attack that comes your way. It's both traditional, yet modern! Yesterday and Today, with or without the Butcher Cover! Use the whole toolkit before determining there isn't a wrench made that could possibly unscrew that nut. Failing with the wrenches, grab a hammer.

Of course, I have in the past been accused of being impure. *sigh* I gotta go daydream.... :-]

-Doug

[The0ne]

I agree with this too....this is the biggest reason to eliminate flicks. Most people that flick (other than world class fencers like Eric) wind up like they are swatting a fly. And most controversial calls regarding right of way involve an attempt at a flick attack.

Ummm not quite correct. In fact most C level fencers and above flick well, without a big wind-up. Plus you can wind up as much as you want as long as they don't make an attack into preperation WITH THE CORRECT TIMING. I've heard so much of "He was marching down the strip with his arm back, my preperation attack" when the proceeded to retreat and at the last minute extend their arm and lunge, AFTER the begininng of the attackers extension on a advance-lunge.

is no parry against the flick (to the back anyways) other than distance.

Dead wrong. The parry against the flick is a change version of Sabre's parry 5. Of course you need to use the correct distance while parrying, but you need to do that with all parries. I think the modern foil game is very exciting now, and actually when I explain the flick to non-fencers, many find it the coolest part of fencing.

Talyn, i'm with you man!

[edew]

I'm more tempted to say that most people flick without a wind-up. Those who advance with a bent-arm aren't necessarily winding up for a flick. Many times, they bait their opponents to do the wrong thing, and finish with a simple thrust. A flick at that time works as well, but when you get your opponents by the 34LLs, you can pretty much do your favorite (or most spiteful) hit.

Fencers bend their arms not because they're cocking up for a massive flick. They're bending the arm to put the blade away from a possible beat or parry situation. If the blade is pointing away from the opponent, the opponent isn't likely to be successful when attempting to find the blade.


And certainly there are multiple ways to parry flicks to the back. Distance is key to prevent someone from even trying to flick. But then, distance is key to everything. Want to prevent your opponent from attacking? Modify your distance appropriately. As TheOne says, you need correct distance to make the parry, but that's the case against any sort of attack.

The parameters about flicks versus other touches, in the technical sense are force of hit and duration of hit. The problem I suspect (though I've never done any such measurement other than by anecdotal personal experience) is that the range of forces and tip-depression duration time for flicks overlap the ranges for non-flick hits. Thus, eliminating those flicks may eliminate non-flicks.

There's nothing that measures the bend of the blade prior to contact, hence the visual fact of a flick cannot be measured at the tip (thus it's not possible to build an anti-flick tip, because, how would the tip know it's part of a flick?).

It's neither too-bad or not too-bad. It's whether we want to go there or not. Personally, as a world class no-need-for-bent-arm-flicking foil fencer, I don't see a problem with the current status of foil fencing. Let things be.

[Jarentz]

o.k. maybe “impure” is too strong a word ;-)

I did say “traditional” foil parries… although without controlling the distance no parry is successful whether against a flick or any other attack. I personally find counter-attacks and distance are better defenses than trying to find the blade. Trying to parry something headed over your shoulder or at your back leaves you wide open out front, which is why flicks make such good feints
;-)

“flicking” just expands the target, all the principals of fencing remain the same.

The point here was not how to fence against the flick but whether it deserves to remain in the game or not. Sure it’s fast paced modern and exciting, I’ve heard it referred to as the “slam-dunk” of fencing. But there’s also people who think it’s just silly (they usually end up fencing epee)
I can bet a lot of this is driven by the desire for spectator appeal

Just as this was an unintended consequence of electric scoring, it makes me wonder what would happen to the game if it were eliminated. I personally like being able to hit the back because if you couldn’t hit there your opponent would bend over behind his mask to cover target. (makes me wonder if this is why the mask is being contemplated as target?) Lukovitch’s (sp?) book on electric foil fencing is interesting where he talks about the early points which didn’t go off easily enough and turned foil into a mini-epee like weapon where remises won out over ripostes that didn’t register.

I could fence with it or without it but if it went away I wouldn’t miss it.

[Jarentz]

The thing I read here that I found to be a more profound change proposed for foil is the notion of "returning the priority of the attack to the fencer with the extended arm"
From what I understand reading this, it used to be the convention that to have right-of-way, the attacker's arm had to be pointed at the opponent, a different definition of "extending" than we use today. I haven't been fencing long enough to have any experience with the old system if that was indeed the case.
Whether this would be accomplished by simply reverting the interpretation of the rules back to the old way or adding something to the game to encourage the attacker to extend the arm isn't clear.
Question; how was this interpreted under the old rules and why did it change?

[edew]

i don't think such interpretation of the rules have been around for the past 50 years, if not more.

[Jarentz]

Here's another article on the subject, this one dates from 2001
Sergei Golubitsky is interviewed here, which is interesting.

http://www.escrime.org/rules%20experts_dir/index.htm

[Talyn]

I guess most of this debate has centered around the flicking part...

And with the offtarget thing mentioned earlier - IMHO if you hit someone on the arm then go in it should be called 'offtarget' and you should restart. I mean.. realistically how are you supposed to hit the guy with your foil stuck in their arm?

I don't see a problem with the current status of foil fencing.

I hear ya brother .. neither do I

If it ain't broke don't fix it... and as far as I can see there aren't any major problems with fencing. And also judging from the responses 'People against flicks' and 'people for flicks' pretty much even out *I'm inclined to say that the people who don't really care are on the 'for the flicks side' :P After all they will have to pay for new gear oif there are rule changes*

As with the right-of-way and stuff i have very little problems with that and wouldn't care much if they were to make the rules on that a bit more specific

I personally like being able to hit the back because if you couldn’t hit there your opponent would bend over behind his mask to cover target.

I know someone who does that and its damn hard to hit him because unless I jab it up because if I hit straight it gets grounded out ( I don't tape more than 15 cm ;p) Before I learnt how to flick I lost to him 75% of the time... after learning how to flick properly (took 2 months) I haven't lost to him yet

Just out of interest does anyone here really HATE flicks? or are you just arguing for the other side?