To Flick or Not To Flick ...

[Feanor]

Originally posted by DanInMI
Yes Feanor.....they call that Epee.

No no no I was talking about "First Blood" with RoW...

Even though I have endless respect for the discipline of Saber (I keep wanting to spell it "Sabre") I think I would venture into Epee maybe after a year or two of foil, though I am fairly certain at this point that foil will always be my first choice...

What draws me to foil right now and continues to engage me is the method of interaction between foilists because of RoW... The phrasing, and the unfolding of the exchange of move vs countermove. I am still a beginner but the few times so far in impromptu bouts where the exchange was initiated by an aggressive straight thrust with lunge, followed by the riposte, then a counterattack, then a counter to that, then a mistake (usually mine) resulting in the touch is simply... invigorating. Pardon the cliche, but its like a full game of chess in the blink of an eye, with all the tension and excitement distilled in that few seconds....

I have only very limited knowledge of Epee, but to me, it appears to encompass a strategy of assessing your opponent and waiting for the proper moment to "explode" and sometimes this sizing up portion of the engagement may take some time...

I have no doubt that it is an equal amount of strategy as foil and Saber, simply on a different plane of thinking... Much the same way there is beautiful art in many different forms.

The Epee weapons do appear quite a bit stiffer than even the stiffest Foil weapons, and I was always wondering if they are more painful when agressively hit...

Have a good one!

[Aestro]

in most forums I frequent, it's usually common courtesy to check the first page or two of threads to see if your topic is being discussed. If it is, revive that thread. If it's not, feel free to make a new one. Flicking should always be a fine topic since it's always being discussed, and there could always be new members that've come or even old members that simply have changed their opinion, as well as rule changes or differences in interpretation that might come about. The flick's always a hot issue, so even if it's been done it should still be a valid topic.

In regards to the history, epee came about as the "first blood" style due to people being arrested for killing their opponents in foil. There have been "first blood" fights in foil, but from what I've ever heard of the sport, foil points do represent a lethal blow, meaning a bout is the first person to kill his or her opponent 15 times. :-)

Also, saber and sabre are both acceptable spellings, like gray and grey.

In regards to pain, an uncontrolled epee hit will hurt worse, but I normally get more bruised in foil for two reasons: the flick doesn't happen in epee, so you don't have a blade bending around your collarbone from a poorly placed flick. Also, epee puts more emphasis on a defensive attack (due to the double-touch), so doing something that most often results in pain in foil (the fleche, ultra-strong attacks in hope of forcing insufficient parry) often leads you open for the simultaneous attack in epee. As such, they're far less common. A lot of the points are simply precision shots to the hand or arm anyway, so there's not much reason to be overpowering.

[OCTAVIA]

Originally posted by JrsAt524
I've only been fencing for less than a handful of years, and am not rated. Recently, I competed in an open tourny (foil) and was swiftly eliminated by an A-rate. Though I admit a just demise, I feel deprived of several points for the following reason.

This teenage A-rate relied heavily on the shoulder flick; an attack against which I haven't trained a defense. My impromptu solution was to simply counter directly to his six (he's also left-handed) as he made the attack. The result was a simultaneous touch .. in his favor.

I politely approached the director (afterwards) to state the case that although my opponent was extending first, he was extending out of line; ie, his tip was not pointing at me (the target). I would counter has his tip was sweeping in a downard arc. Ovbiously, the director disagreed, and I'm sure he's correct in reqards to the rules.

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?

--------------------------
Please! the teenage A rated relied heavily on the shoulder flick - which he learned and practiced, while you, a beginner couldn't defend against, please! give us a break. You actually complained that you lost because you 'didn't learn the defense'? I am going crazy listening to this. Please! heat up the baby bottle. Flick back.

[Feanor]

Originally posted by Aestro


In regards to the history, epee came about as the "first blood" style due to people being arrested for killing their opponents in foil. There have been "first blood" fights in foil, but from what I've ever heard of the sport, foil points do represent a lethal blow, meaning a bout is the first person to kill his or her opponent 15 times. :-)

In regards to pain, an uncontrolled epee hit will hurt worse, but I normally get more bruised in foil for two reasons: the flick doesn't happen in epee, so you don't have a blade bending around your collarbone from a poorly placed flick. Also, epee puts more emphasis on a defensive attack (due to the double-touch), so doing something that most often results in pain in foil (the fleche, ultra-strong attacks in hope of forcing insufficient parry) often leads you open for the simultaneous attack in epee. As such, they're far less common. A lot of the points are simply precision shots to the hand or arm anyway, so there's not much reason to be overpowering.

Aestro,

Thank you for the info expanding a bit more on Epee... It does have an intriguing attraction. I'll most definitely look to it in the future after I feel quite a bit more competent with the foil. I think the RoW facet of foil helps my tactical decision making process as in making it more sound, controlled and even speedier, and as the old Vietnam helo pilots used to say, "If you can fly a Huey while people are shooting at you, you can fly a Huey when they aren't" Stating the point that when added complexity and stress are removed, things may not automatically be easier, but you can devote your mental resources to other areas of combat...

I'm confused about your information about Foil though. My understanding was that Foil was a terminology that referred to the blunting and "making safe" of the weapon for practice purposes. To wit Taking a rapier and "foiling it" (making it blunt, flexible, and unsharpened... Were you referring to Rapier (point thrusting) duelling from which foils were a spin off and a "version of?

I think I will spell it Sabre there seems to be a bit more mystique in that *laughing*

have a good one!

[labouche]

Well, I'd have to say I am definitely a supporter of the flick. I think it is definitely over-used by some fencers, but those fencers are weeded out much before top level fencing. However, flicking at top level still DOES happen.
If the flick were taken out of fencing you would see a lot of fencers simply starting their attack with their arm back in the stomach (like the french style of fencing).
So, my point is I really don't see a reason to remove the flick. It is a part of modern fencing. Get used to it.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Aestro


In regards to the history, epee came about as the "first blood" style due to people being arrested for killing their opponents in foil. There have been "first blood" fights in foil, but from what I've ever heard of the sport, foil points do represent a lethal blow, meaning a bout is the first person to kill his or her opponent 15 times. :-)

The fencing foil was never used in duels, it was designed as a training weapon. During that time period, the most common duels were to first blood.

Originally posted by Aestro
In regards to pain, an uncontrolled epee hit will hurt worse, but I normally get more bruised in foil for two reasons: the flick doesn't happen in epee, so you don't have a blade bending around your collarbone from a poorly placed flick. Also, epee puts more emphasis on a defensive attack (due to the double-touch), so doing something that most often results in pain in foil (the fleche, ultra-strong attacks in hope of forcing insufficient parry) often leads you open for the simultaneous attack in epee. As such, they're far less common. A lot of the points are simply precision shots to the hand or arm anyway, so there's not much reason to be overpowering.

Wow, you must fence somehwere I've never been. The epee I see on a regular basis is full of flicks, attacks that push trhough parries, strong, real parries, and especially fleches. Have you seen some of the recent world cup tapes?


Except for the beginner wind-up flick, epee is more brutal than foil.

[ysbadadden]

According to the strict rules of honor, duels were never to first blood. They did continue until one of the opponents was "unable to continue." In practice, this meant stopping the action after each hit to see whether the wounded fencer could continue. (Naturally, in the cold light of dawn, many pairs of opponents were disposed to agree that honor had been satisfied at first, or second, or third blood, before anyone got killed.

The ROW rules are one answer to the question of "what if they were sharp?" The modern epee school (one touch, pre-machine) is another answer.

Oh yes, the flick.

Sergei Golubitsky, the best foil fencer of the last decade and one of the first top-level world fencers to use the flick, reports in his forthcoming book, Fencing Is My Life that he scored 90% if his touches without it and doesn't recommend fencers to learn it before they have a complete repertoire of classical attacks.

[downunder]

no matter what the FIE do to attempt to remove the flick (such as 750g tip and having the tip being down longer to register hits) people will still be flicking, and often doing it quite well.

The problem is, is that people think it is directed poorly. Sometimes, granted, it is. However, in most instances, you have the situation of one person chasing another down the strip, and by the time the other fencer thinks about counterattacking and extends, the 1st fencer has completed the action and 2 lights go on.

Why is this? Well. If the fencer claims they have point in line, i'd be guessing the first fencer started his final action as soon as he saw the extending arm, so thats clearly not correctly executed.

If the fencer claims it is an attack in preparation, one has to remember that an attack has to be followed by a lunge or fleche, which i can guarantee doesn't happen in 90% of cases.

The 2nd fencer will complain that they has right of way first, but in reality this is not the case. Just get the fencer to watch a video of their own fencing, and it will clearly be obvious.

[Talyn]

Originally posted by DanInMI
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.

There is no way you can support your first statement about "If the person ... we would have really missed out, wouldn't we?" so I won't even go there.

Anyway, I think it's pretty much agreed that the first poster would benefit a lot if he read past posts with similar or almost identical problems to the ones he has. It would just be far more efficient and helpful to him thats all then waiting for everyone to respond again.

Aestro - There are a handful of people out there who give flicks a bad name because they perform it so shockingly. Then again I'm sure there are FAR more people who are hurt by straight attacks than flicks. After all I'd rather get flicked to the shoulder hard than have a straight hit to my heart when the foil deoesn't bend ( those things are just plain bad).

And as an end note I'm only against people who start 'text book' flick threads that can easily be answered by searching it I.E. 'Flicks are bad because I was beaten by someone who did it' or 'when I counter-attack into a flick shouldn't it be my point?'.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by achilleus
Wow, you must fence somehwere I've never been. The epee I see on a regular basis is full of flicks, attacks that push trhough parries, strong, real parries, and especially fleches. Have you seen some of the recent world cup tapes?

Except for the beginner wind-up flick, epee is more brutal than foil.

I agree with you there...yes some touches are simply touches to the hand or arm, but there are a lot of very hard attacks in epee.
Probably why a lot more accidents that involve injury happen in epee.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Talyn
There is no way you can support your first statement about "If the person ... we would have really missed out, wouldn't we?" so I won't even go there.

What do you mean I can't support that?

You stated that you thought it was a very interesting thread. If that person had thought to himself "Geeze, the last person that posted a thread about flicks was made to feel foolish by Talyn......I guess I won't bother." Then we would not have had that thread.

What is there about that statement that is unsupportable?

[veeco]

Originally posted by ysbadadden
Sergei Golubitsky, the best foil fencer of the last decade and one of the first top-level world fencers to use the flick, reports in his forthcoming book, Fencing Is My Life that he scored 90% if his touches without it and doesn't recommend fencers to learn it before they have a complete repertoire of classical attacks.

Getting OT a bit: That's the first time I've heard of such a book. Do you know when it will be available? From what sources?

Thanks

[Agent_V]

Originally posted by downunder
no matter what the FIE do to attempt to remove the flick (such as 750g tip and having the tip being down longer to register hits) people will still be flicking, and often doing it quite well.

uh huh, now increase the required contact time to 50ms. I'd love to see anyone consistently land a flick...

The problem is, is that people think it is directed poorly. Sometimes, granted, it is. However, in most instances, you have the situation of one person chasing another down the strip, and by the time the other fencer thinks about counterattacking and extends, the 1st fencer has completed the action and 2 lights go on.

Why is this? Well. If the fencer claims they have point in line, i'd be guessing the first fencer started his final action as soon as he saw the extending arm, so thats clearly not correctly executed.

If the fencer claims it is an attack in preparation, one has to remember that an attack has to be followed by a lunge or fleche, which i can guarantee doesn't happen in 90% of cases.

The 2nd fencer will complain that they has right of way first, but in reality this is not the case. Just get the fencer to watch a video of their own fencing, and it will clearly be obvious.

Whoever said that an attack MUST be followed by a lunge or fleche? Rule t.7 states that the attack is the initial offensive action mande by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent's target, preceding the launching of the lunge or fleche.
Imagine this scenario: both fencers at extension distance, one of them extends first and hits, the other delays for a split second and then starts an extension and a lunge. Are you going to tell me that the person who just extended and hit doesn't have the right of way because he didn't lunge?

Now, you really described the situation quite poorly. First of all, the current refereeing problem is that someone with a bent arm, marching forward, is called an attacker. Some people in further defense of this have suggested that when the opponent tried to attack in preparation, he's most likely going to be out of time, as the marcher has already started his finish by that time. However, this is really bullsh1t. Think about it. If you're getting chased down the strip by the opponent with a bent arm, and you are keeping out of lunge distance, then unless your opponent is retarded, or has second intention in mind, there is no reason why he would start his finish then. Now, if right at that moment you start a simple attack, you have right of way. No question. So what's the deal? Well, you are damn lucky if even at the NAC level someone calls it the attack in preparation. At the very top level it is usually called, one of Golubitsky's best abilities is his being able to see exactly when his opponent is in preparation with a bent arm, and when his opponent is actually extending. And the referees at that level can usually call the attack in preparation.
I remember all too well how one of the best directors in the U.S. was booed at for calling this action correctly at the IFA's last year - by my team no less.
So yes there definitely is a major problem with foil refereeing today. Read the following opinions posted previously by wflashka (I think) on a different thread. Golubitsky's is especially interesting, as is Thyshler and Omnes.
http://www.escrime.org/rules%20experts_dir/index.htm

-Alexander

[edew]

A person marching forward with a bent arm is not an attacker. The other person retreating and attempting to parry defers the right of way to the forward marching person.

[wflaschka]

Originally posted by ysbadadden
Sergei Golubitsky, the best foil fencer of the last decade and one of the first top-level world fencers to use the flick, reports in his forthcoming book, Fencing Is My Lifethat he scored 90% if his touches without it and doesn't recommend fencers to learn it before they have a complete repertoire of classical attacks.

Shucks. SG is just a great fencer with a point-style approach to hitting. I'd bet he scores more than 98% of his touches without the flick (regardless of what he writes) -- that's just how he fences. In his Golden Bouts video, for instance, out of 45 touches scored, I only remember one flick ("One of my favorites!" says G).

Also, he certainly wasn't anywhere close to the first top-level fencer to use the flick. You can watch a teen-aged G being subbed into the Russian team during the Colorado World Champs, and he's going up against Germans who had been flicking for their whole career. For learning about the usefulness of flicks, I'd check in with a flicker. Is a vegetarian going to be able to recommend meat sauce recipes?

I'm glad that Golubitsky seems to be writing a book. I'm worried that he's already gotten so much wrong about himself.

(edited to fix quoted str)

[Agent_V]

Originally posted by edew
A person marching forward with a bent arm is not an attacker. The other person retreating and attempting to parry defers the right of way to the forward marching person.

And who said anything about searching?
I was talking about a straight attack.

[OCTAVIA]

Originally posted by arcon
A double spring tip has been engineered that if used will signifcicantly reduce the effectiveness of the Flick. Two springs will require more direct inline contact for the tip to be depressed and the point to register(box light). Its my understanding the percentage of points landing by using the flick
will drop dramatically but not be completely iliminated.

Ok......................theres no humor in this response.
Is this more enlighting?

I don't know if I like that,however, it's probably correct. But the flick is a good attack. I still like it, and see no reason to eliminate it; the director has the responsibility to call a halt or card a fencer for excessive brutality, we need better trained directors??? [as mentioned above] see also comment re: 'chasing down the strip or piste' if you're using correct footwork then you're not really "running" I hate to say this but a veteran fencer, male, who fences foil and epee, does "quite well" only because he actually runs down the piste, instead of using good footwork, then because we see this constant problem of someone running down the strip welding his weapon incorrectly and whipping someone over the shoulder, then turning around and leering toward the director that 'he won his point', is a real problem, it should be advance advance with correct footwork using the crossover once in a phase before your attack; I think it's been the unspoken rule, that distinguishes the crossover from a running attack.

[I just want to reign]

[Talyn]

Originally posted by DanInMI
What do you mean I can't support that?

You stated that you thought it was a very interesting thread. If that person had thought to himself "Geeze, the last person that posted a thread about flicks was made to feel foolish by Talyn......I guess I won't bother." Then we would not have had that thread.

What is there about that statement that is unsupportable?

Simple, because there is no possible way you can possibly know what other people are thinking.

1. Your argument is based on too many assumptions which take it away from facts. So IF:assuming that he does think to himself like that, he will also have to have misread or misunderstood my posts and after generalizing about almost everything then it still depends on the person whether or not we would have the thread and the outcome is still unclear. Besides if he misreads or misunderstands my posts then that pretty much clears me of most of the responsibilty anyway.


2.I think it's assumed that most fencers here are intelligent enough to seperate text book flick threads from new and interesting ones. Suggesting that some people can't tell the difference between threads is just plain insulting.

[downunder]

Originally posted by Agent_V
Whoever said that an attack MUST be followed by a lunge or fleche? Rule t.7 states that the attack is the initial offensive action mande by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent's target, preceding the launching of the lunge or fleche.
Imagine this scenario: both fencers at extension distance, one of them extends first and hits, the other delays for a split second and then starts an extension and a lunge. Are you going to tell me that the person who just extended and hit doesn't have the right of way because he didn't lunge?
[/b]

t.7 states that a simple attack, for it to be executed correctly, must have a lunge or a fleche occur after the extension.

I'll provide a better situation to describe this than the one you did.

Fencer A and Fencer B are at lunge distance apart.

Both start extending at exactly the same time. Fencer A lunges and hits B, as B hits A.

Two colored lights.

Who gets the hit?

clearly A does, because by B not lunging, he is attempting to establish a Point in Line, and fails to do this in adequate fencing time

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by downunder
t.7 states that a simple attack, for it to be executed correctly, must have a lunge or a fleche occur after the extension.

I'll provide a better situation to describe this than the one you did.

Fencer A and Fencer B are at lunge distance apart.

Both start extending at exactly the same time. Fencer A lunges and hits B, as B hits A.

Two colored lights.

Who gets the hit?

clearly A does, because by B not lunging, he is attempting to establish a Point in Line, and fails to do this in adequate fencing time

Neither it is simultaneous.