To Flick or Not To Flick ...

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by whtouche
First of all, since when was fencing designed to simulate a duel to the death? Epee fencing, which has the closest resemblance to dueling, was traditionally to first blood. As such, Im pretty sure a scratch counts.

Second, you've been fencing a 'handful' of YEARS and you can't defend against a flick to the shoulder?
Im a sabre fencer, and I can defend against a flick to the shoulder.

Third, after the first time you counter attacked(key word) and your opponant was awarded the touch you should have changed strategies.

Fourth, this complaint has seen this board many times. If you wish to commiserate consult the archives.

First of all, you are incredibly rude and if you are tired of the flick conversation stay the hell out of the thread.

Second, I don't see anywhere that JrsAt524 said that fencing is "designed to simulate a duel to the death." Although I would hazard a guess that he is referring to foil not epee, you dumb stump.

As for not being able to handle a flick to the shoulder, that is not surprising considering that he seems to have not been exposed to flicks until recently.

[Ky-Fi]

I agree with the idea that using it yourself is optional, but learning to defend against it is not. I'm a bit more interested in the martial background of fencing, and the flick seems kind of cheap to me, and it's something I don't care to employ. I'm also a bit older and more interested in recreational fencing rather than competition---my opinion might be different if I had serious aspirations for competition. But I really don't mind when skilled people attack me with a flick---I feel like learning to defend against it is a nice challenge.

But what DOES bug me a lot is when beginning fencers try to flick before they've learned traditional attacks and point control. A couple weeks ago I almost got two fingers on my left (non-sword) hand broken when they took the full force of a way-off target flick by a young fencer.

[jeff]

Originally posted by oiuyt
Which proves exactly one thing....

Yeah, it proves you don't ask an epee fencer opinion on ROW. They don't understand it.

Or, you know, just make up the way the rules are going to be on our strip... *roll_eyes*-B

Nope. I give fair warning that weapon pointing at ceiling is not an attack, and that a stop thrust that comes in after the arm is descending is too late to get ROW. People are pretty happy with my directing; I get asked to do more than I want to do. Read Jeff Bukantz' article a few issues ago where he described the slow-motion replay that justified his decision to award a touch against somebody who has his arm pulled back - so I think my criteria are in line with what first-rate directors do. FWIW, I first met Jeff B when I directed him.

The rulebook is there for a reason. Excuses for ignoring it have been around forever. I sure as hell don't want anybody directing me who thinks directing with resemblance to the rulebook is irrelevant.

[whtouche]

Originally posted by DanInMI
First of all, you are incredibly rude and if you are tired of the flick conversation stay the hell out of the thread.

This statement made ironic by virtue of the fact that it comes from someone who started a reply, in a different thread with:

That is one of the dumbest things that I have ever heard.

Second, I don't see anywhere that JrsAt524 said that fencing is "designed to simulate a duel to the death." Although I would hazard a guess that he is referring to foil not epee, you dumb stump.

Well in the rudeness department you just made yourself a hypocrite again. As for the point on a duel to the death, maybe if you'd read Jrs' original post you you would have seen the last line, which was:

I simply ask of the many fencers here, is our sport now so far removed from its bloody origins that a mere scratch counts as a kill?

Now doesn't that look like he's supposing that fencing is designed to simulate a duel to the death? No? Then why is he asking about kills. You sir, are an idiot. Or you can't read - which I suppose doesn't make you an idiot outright but it does nudge you a little closer in that direction.

As for his talking about foil not epee, I know/assumed that also. But, had you any reading comprehension skills and had you applied them to my post you might have seen that I was trying to explain something by way of the 'simulation of a duel to the death' to him. I was NOT, as you seem to think, assuming he was an epee fencer and telling him why epee isnt a simulation of a duel to the death.

As for not being able to handle a flick to the shoulder, that is not surprising considering that he seems to have not been exposed to flicks until recently.

First of all it's doubtful that this is his first experience with a flick. Fencing for 2-ish years, I assume he's been to tournaments before, even another open probably. And you know what, flicks don't only happen at open tournaments. People of all levels and abilities flick. After having fenced for a few years, and not being able to parry a flick to the shoulder shows a lack of development as a fencer. Maybe he has other priorities, that's Ok. Fencing isn't life for everybody. But despite his statement that he was sure the director was right about the call, his post has a self-righteous quality, as if he's coming here after having been battered to complain about the flick and commiserate with other people who don't like it. Am I wrong? maybe. But read the last line of his post. He isn't asking for enlightenment or a clarification of the rules, he wants to complain and have others sympathize. Sorry, can't do that.

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Talyn
...EXACTLY

I'm a fond supporter of the flick even though I've been the victim of it for almost 3 years now. It wasn't till about august that I actually learnt how to flick and its been great, I mean... sure before that getting flicked really sucked even though I knew how to parry it and etc but I lived with it and I adapted.

Just on a side note there are pretty much 3 stands on flicks right now as I see it:

1. There are some people who really like flicks because it looks really cool and flashy and it's also extremely effective. I don't see many people like this on the board but I do know some on real life. In my opinion most people who can flick go through this stage where they flick a lot and depending on how smart they are it may take a few days to a few years for them to realise that it just isn't effective if it is repeated again and again.

2. Then there are those who don't really mind flicks either way. They use it because it's effective but not excessively like those in category 1. I think most of fencers are in this category and realise that current FIE rules mean that flicks are still used. I would count myself in this category even though I would hate it if FIE changed the rules.

3. Now here are the fencers who don't like flicking for one reason or another which includes anything ranging from "Wasn't used centuries ago" to "It's not fair" to "I just don't like it". These guys in my opinion are either real quiet and just don't flick or are incredibly loud and start whining about it (no offense JrsAt524).

When it comes down to it I really have little to no respect for people who whine about flicks not being fair or should not have ROW or etc. I'm sure most people have been in a competition where their opponent did something to them that they just couldn't cope with. But instead of seeing it as the 'ultimate move' they just learned from their past experiences and became better fencers that where ready for the same move next time they encounted it.

What I'm really trying to say is.. If you don't like the flick... FINE but don't start questioning the whole sport because it IS a sport and it has rules. If you really don't like it then instead of whining in a forum maybe you should do something about it like adapt or go to the FIE council or something.

Since when did questioning the use of a move, in this case the flick, become whinning? I have read several opinions on the subject and what I have noticed is that the pro-flick crowed is very deffensive when it comes to anyone questioning the move. It seems to me that the greatest defenders of the flick are the most callous when rebutting the anti-flick crowds objection. One might observe the debate and think, "Thou protest to much", when it come to defending the precious flick.
I do understand that the flick is part of modern fencing and I should prepare myself to defend against it.
In my opinion, the flick IS a perversion of the sport. I will be satisfied when the FIE council decides to change the rules to reduce the use of the flick, or decide the flick is a perfectly fine move and end the debate. Flick or no flick, fencing is a great sport and we should show each other a little more respect when debating each other. Talyn, you may have little to no respect for me but I respect you even if I disagree with your opinion.

[arcon]

Can this thread catch the "how to get a girlfriend" thread in the
Cooler. Stay tuned.

Seriously though, this subject has come up many times in the past
since ive been a member. We have to realize that there are new
people joining the board everyday so subject matter is and will continue to
be repeated. So ill be another to second the motion that if you
have a problem with discussing the Flick(again) just ignore this
thread and go somewhere else. Its a big board out there.

I dont think the flick is as resilant as the roach. One day it will die.
My opinion anyway

[vegan]

Hi guys,
Once again we circle up our words and attempt to discuss this most contenious of topics . . . .
ARGGHH!!
My two cents:
The flick is a part of modern foil, I personally love it- however I think that it can be used to much, and at the wrong time or distances buy mid level (and lower, and higher) fencers.
John Tiompkin usually hits his flicks, if not the other fencer was for sure doing something to prevent it, becuase it is real hard to stop! (who was he fencing, Mclain, or Kellner, or someone who's been on the national team with him- come on, they know each other, and each others styles, and distances pretty well!)
Around right of way, if fencer A attacks with flick, and fencer B, retreats and then extends- B is making counter attack or stop hit- if both lamps are lit . . . .
Finnally, if we all fenced epee, no one would be having this debate - epeeists flick quite a bit as well, and they seem to like it that way.
Cheers,
B.
Ps. The FLICK will never die!!!

[ysbadadden]

The flick is (1) an entertaining move that (2) has multiple effective defenses against it.

But (3) it is unfairly aided by rotten directing at every level.

Consider two actions:
(A) While I execute a coupé, you counter-attack. My touch.
(B) While I carry my bent arm forward, you attack (on my preparation). Your touch.

Directors routinely confuse these situations. If they didn't, there would be no problem with the flick. ...

Except from the fencers who think that there stops are NEVER out of time.

[Catlady]

Okay, in brief the best way to defend against a flick is mess up the distance. When you see the flick coming either move too far out, or too far in.

As for learning it, it's nice to have as many "tools" at your disposal as you can. However, the truth is, despite how it seemed to you, most points are not scored on the flick. Yes, it looks cool, and yes it's frustrating when another fencer scores on you with it repeatedly, but percentage-wise the simple stuff should be your "bread and butter" because well executed, yet simple moves are often what really gets touches. But, as I said, it won't hurt to know how to do it, just don't practice it to the exclusion of more important actions.

[Talyn]

Originally posted by Rogue
Since when did questioning the use of a move, in this case the flick, become whinning? I have read several opinions on the subject and what I have noticed is that the pro-flick crowed is very deffensive when it comes to anyone questioning the move. It seems to me that the greatest defenders of the flick are the most callous when rebutting the anti-flick crowds objection. One might observe the debate and think, "Thou protest to much", when it come to defending the precious flick.
I do understand that the flick is part of modern fencing and I should prepare myself to defend against it.
In my opinion, the flick IS a perversion of the sport. I will be satisfied when the FIE council decides to change the rules to reduce the use of the flick, or decide the flick is a perfectly fine move and end the debate. Flick or no flick, fencing is a great sport and we should show each other a little more respect when debating each other. Talyn, you may have little to no respect for me but I respect you even if I disagree with your opinion.

I completely respect posts that are logical and bring up something new about flicking but if its about the same old things that have been gone over again and again it's just plain boring and wasting time. Everyone knows that this is just gonna be another thread about how the FIE might do this and that, and eventually people will just stop posting and it'll disappear.

I mean honestly who hasn't seen this exact topic argued over again... It's like a text book thing now. Whether or not you support flicking or not I think that if it's a point that has been brought up more than 10 times it should really... REALLY stop. Type Flick into the search and you'll see what I mean.

[DanInMI]

whtouche,

The point was that you seem to feel that it is perfectly acceptable to come in and tell others what they CAN and CANNOT talk about. It is like walking into a room where two other people are having a convcersation and rolling your eyes and saying "ohhhhhh geeze, are you guys talking about THAT?" If you don't want to discuss flicks then don't read the thread.

You asked:
"Now doesn't that look like he's supposing that fencing is designed to simulate a duel to the death?"

No. It sounds like he he is supposing that <b>FOIL</b> fencing was designed to train for a duel to the death. Which it WAS. (I stand behind the "dumb stump" remark I made earlier.) Either you had problems understanding that or you chose to bring up the unrelated subject of epee because it could be twisted to make your argument.


You said:
"First of all it's doubtful that this is his first experience with a flick. Fencing for 2-ish years, I assume he's been to tournaments before, even another open probably. And you know what, flicks don't only happen at open tournaments."

I don't doubt at all that he has never encountered a flick before.

He said:
"...an attack against which I haven't trained a defense. My impromptu solution was to simply counter.... "

Sounds to me like it was a new thing to him....it sounds like it was his first tourny. I know many fencers that have fenced for YEARS and never been to a tournament. Don't you?

Perfectly understandable that someone who has been fencing a couple of years in a club that teaches that foil is a thrusting weapon might be a bit distraught when he encounters the "flick" for the first time.

And so what if he came here to "commiserate with other people who don't like (flicking)" YOU don't have to read the thread if you are bored with it. You don't have to participate in the conversation if you don't want to. Just ignore it.

But I am sure that you are way to arrogant to ignore a thread that involves a subject that you disagree with.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by jeff
Yeah, it proves you don't ask an epee fencer opinion on ROW. They don't understand it.

Nope. I give fair warning that weapon pointing at ceiling is not an attack, and that a stop thrust that comes in after the arm is descending is too late to get ROW. People are pretty happy with my directing; I get asked to do more than I want to do. Read Jeff Bukantz' article a few issues ago where he described the slow-motion replay that justified his decision to award a touch against somebody who has his arm pulled back - so I think my criteria are in line with what first-rate directors do. FWIW, I first met Jeff B when I directed him.

The rulebook is there for a reason. Excuses for ignoring it have been around forever. I sure as hell don't want anybody directing me who thinks directing with resemblance to the rulebook is irrelevant.

Hear, Hear!

Up until very recently, it was understood that "point threatening target" meant that it was pointed AT the target. There is a seperate line that staes that it should be moving forward also. Clearly, Moving forward and "threatening" are two seperate concepts.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Talyn
Whether or not you support flicking or not I think that if it's a point that has been brought up more than 10 times it should really... REALLY stop. Type Flick into the search and you'll see what I mean.

You ever notice that the people that say that they are bored with this subject ALWAYS have to give thier opinions on it? Talyn had one of the longest posts on here.

REALLY if you are bored with the subject, shut up and read a different thread.

[Feanor]

Originally posted by JrsAt524
I simply ask of the many fencers here, is our sport now so far removed from its bloody origins that a mere scratch counts as a kill?

Couldn't a counter-argument put forth that it is "first blood" rather than kill? Weren't many duels fought in this way too? I would think that if a foil was sharpened, a successful flick would inflict a painful wound...

I'm still so new to fencing that I have not yet learned to flick correctly (I'm trying to form a very solid base of the fundementals first), and I have only been flicked successfully a handful of times (Its always a rather abrupt surprise )

When I think on the validity of the flick as it pertains to a sport that has its roots in duelling, that very phrase seems to answer its own question. Modern Fencing is a sport, based on duelling, it is not duelling made safe, held stringently to the rules that governed that dangerous activity so many years ago.

The FIE rulebook is very clear about the target area and what constitutes a "touch" I guess until that changes a flick is less about a bending of the rules (no pun intended), and more about a technique, borne of a compettive spirit and a mind determined to win.

When I think of Fencing, I think of Judo, which is a sporting Martial art which is based on the deadly styles of unarmed combat. In judo, grappling to throw your opponent off balance and to the ground is a major objective. People will say "Why don't they just run at each other and punch and kick?" Its obvious to those in the sport why this is not so, even though the majority of the time that would be the most effective way to subdue and defeat your opponent. It violates the spirit of the sport AND the rules... It might not make alot of sense logically and when thought about in the context of killing your opponent, but those are the rules of the "GAME"...

In the end, Judo is "based" on combat, and Fencing is "based" on combat, they are not combat themselves any more than say a game of chess is combat. There are rules, and flicking doesn't appear to break any of the current fencing rules any more than say, performing Inquartata...

I salute whoever came up with the technique originally It shows a level of creative problem solving, skill, and imagination that few other athletic endeavors will prioritize above say, mindless brute strength or dumb luck...

Just my opinion...

[Popper]

And the moral of all this story is... fence epee... then you dont have to bother about the RoW rule..

[Feanor]

Originally posted by Popper
And the moral of all this story is... fence epee... then you dont have to bother about the RoW rule..

I actually specifically chose foil BECAUSE of the RoW rules... and I suppose there will always be that schism between those who like and dislike the dinstinction...

Maybe we should do a poll and see how foilists and Epeeists cross reference against computer games that are turned based combat vs. First person shooter *laughing*

[Talyn]

Originally posted by DanInMI
REALLY if you are bored with the subject, shut up and read a different thread.

I read it because every now and then someone does have valid points about flicks that ARE interesting but most of them are just repeats. A few weeks ago there was a great topic on how FIE plans to change flicking and stuff which was great.

[vegan]

ysbadadden,

Yes, Directors often confuse actions around the flick (or anything else that uses a drawn counter attack (slow attack, designed to draw a counter). In your post you are saying that director confuse the extending arm with the non moving arm- Right?
That being the case, I would challenge you to try to tell the difference when fencer A is moving foreward very fast, with a bent arm- and B counters, and A moving with a slowly extending arm, and B counters.
I find it hard to see, and I am an ok Ref (not great-!); no wonder fencers and directors have different ideas about it. any thought about making it easier to see?
Cheers,
B.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Feanor
Couldn't a counter-argument put forth that it is "first blood" rather than kill? Weren't many duels fought in this way too?

Yes Feanor.....they call that Epee.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Talyn
I read it because every now and then someone does have valid points about flicks that ARE interesting but most of them are just repeats. A few weeks ago there was a great topic on how FIE plans to change flicking and stuff which was great.

I agree, that was a very interesting thread.

I think it is important that we do not shout down the discussions that we think are redundant for that very reason. If the person that started that thread had NOT started it because they had seen others get criticised for bringing up the "flick argument" again then we would have really missed out, wouldn't we?

It doesn't take long to determine whether a thread is something that you are interested in reading or not. I don't bother with 99% of the stuff that is posted, but it would be rude of me to suggest that others should not discuss these things just because I think the subject matter is boring.