To Flick or Not To Flick ...

[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?

[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.

[arcon]

How many flick threads have we seen on this site in the past
3 years? I guess every so often it needs to be done for new
people but it sure seems like a worn out shoe to some of us.

The Flick will never go away untit the day arrives that the
F. I. E. get serious and decide to kill it.

What is the F.I E.'s present stance or slant on the flick?

[JrsAt524]

You don't have many friends, do you? Would anyone else care to give me an actual, *enlightened* response?

(1). I said I've been fencing for "less than a handful of years" ... less than three, to be exact ... and recreationally, I might add.

(2) I didn't say that fencing was designed to be a simulated duel. I am saying that prior to electric fencing, foilists trained to make hard, fast touches with a certain degree of bend in the blade to help eliminate questions.

(3) If I had other strategies, I would have employed them. My hope was to simply beat him to the touch, as I was also lowering myself during the counter.

Let me restate my question ... is extending off target still considered a legal "extension"?

[Cerian]

According to my understanding, the point has to threaten the target. In the flicking motion, the impending curve of the point towards the target area counts as threatening, as it's approaching the target area in a curvilinear approach, just as valid as a linear one...

[Aeric]

The FIE is trying to reduce the probability of a flick getting a point by either

1) Adjusting the scoring box or foil tip to somehow remove the flick as a sensible attack, (probably add travel distance to the point, or adjust the scoring box to register only when held for small time).

2) Re-adjusting the rules so that the flick cannot be both a defensive and offensive move at the same time. Currently, different directors call things VERY differently, which should not be. (Althought different directors should have opinions about calls, the present form of the difference is intolerable.)

My main problem is the second idea. I can stop-thrust into just about any flick when I see the guy beat, then pull his arm back. He starts lurching forward, tip pointing at ceiling, hand at shoulder. I extend with lunge. He begins flick on shoulder. We reach at same time. I am under the impression that I definately got the touch, but it is awarded to the other guy for some reason.

A fencer who beats and then goes back en guarde is NOT attacking. However, a fencer who beats and then pulls his arm back toward the ceiling IS attacking? Wha..?

So hopefully we won't have to do crazy blade actions to try to parry the flick soon, because they won't register or won't be called an attack until the finale.

[JrsAt524]

Ah, an intelligent response ... thank you! Of course, with a beat, there is no question about ROW.

In my particular situation, there was NO beat. Being a lefty, this kid was taking full advantage of my inexperience and simply moving very quickly.

As you reinforced, though, he was bringing his arm up and backward to get the flick.

Dont' get me wrong .... I would have lost the bout no matter what. But instead of 15-3, it could have been 15-7 (in my humble opinion).

[Aeric]

However, gaining right of way is done by beginning the EXTENSION from en guarde. Since the point is (somewhere) near a 45 degree angle, it must travel in a line toward the target when one extends. This directly threatens target and begins from defense. The right of way is gained because there is a LINE from the tip to target during the extension.

This flick is an extension in a circular arc toward the target. Even though it is coming forward, there is NO DIRECT LINE OF ATTACK. Unless calculus derivatives or some such way to find the slope of a line in an arc is used, we can only guess when that part of the arc has a slope that will touch the target if continued. This moment is where the right of way should be gained by the flick.

I would have no problem with this. But, the current analysis of the flick is that the slope the arc at [t = h] (lim h->0) is an attack even though the line of attack is threatening somewhere other than the target (which is why you can't normally parry a flick prep, it's designed to travel around the parry).

It's humanly impossible to judge where a flick begins to threaten the target with a line of attack, but it is between the middle and just before the end of the flick action. Until this middle/end, the flick CAN be immediately used in a defensive action, just like en guarde can be immediately used in a defensive action.

This is the flicking paradox, because again it is humanly impossible to judge the slope of the arc of the point to the target.

[Prometheus]

Originally posted by Aeric

My main problem is the second idea. I can stop-thrust into just about any flick when I see the guy beat, then pull his arm back. He starts lurching forward, tip pointing at ceiling, hand at shoulder. I extend with lunge. He begins flick on shoulder. We reach at same time. I am under the impression that I definately got the touch, but it is awarded to the other guy for some
reason.


You can stop thrust into a flick. However, your attack is indeed a stop-thrust and does not receive right of way. As defined by the rules, a stop thrust into a compound attack must land before the initiation of the final part of the attack; otherwise the initial attack receives priority. This goes for any compound attack, flicking or otherwise. If he began forward before you started your counterattack he began his final attack before you even started the counter.


A fencer who beats and then goes back en guarde is NOT
attacking. However, a fencer who beats and then pulls his arm back toward the ceiling IS attacking? Wha..?


When a fencer beats, pulls back and finishes it is a compound attack.
It does not matter where the foil is pointing as long as its threatening target.


So hopefully we won't have to do crazy blade actions to try to parry the flick soon, because they won't register or won't be called an attack until the finale.

There are ways to "parry" the flick that have been discussed exhaustively on this board. But really, the flick isn’t the issue, the action would be the same regardless of how the attacker finishes.

Once right of way is established with a beat, the fencer can advance with absence of blade and maintain right of way. (I have in the past heard this referred to as the "Rochester March" after the success of some of the American women's foilists, but I believe that the action is actually quite ubiquitous.) As I said, attacking into your opponent’s absence is a counterattack and does not receive right of way.

As far as I know the "textbook" response to beat, attack with absence is to make a false counterattack, parry repost. Or, in other words, pretend to make the stop hit as you have been doing. This should correctly cause your opponent to finish his or her attack, as they have right of way. Then you must parry their attack and land the repost.

The reason that some of the others were a little brusque is that we have been through this issue quite a number of times. These threads can be accessed using the search function.

There may be changes in rules or technology. It seems like there are every year. But for now the rules stand as they are.

Originally posted by Aeric

Let me restate my question ... is extending off target still considered a legal "extension"?


Yes.

Right of way is defined by an extension that threatens legal target. If he hits you on the back, it is legal target. Therefore, the beginning of a flick threatens legal target. Whether or not my logic is correct, this is how it is called by competent ref’s.


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?

Duel to the first blood. We are after all ladies and gentlemen. Not to mention the trouble killing opponents will get you in with the King’s law...

Seriously though, In epée you can score a touch on the tip of my shoe, in saber you can score on the tip of my elbow. There have also been a great number of discussions on this board of how much our sport resembles its martial origins. The final verdict seems to be somewhere between somewhat and not at all.

[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?

[swordsen]

Simple answer, no calculus or math.
If the arm is extending he has the attack. It doesn't matter if his tip is pointed straight at your heart or at the ceiling, or at the wall.

No theory, no tradition, no spirit of the game, just how it is.

[Bonehead]

Despite the rules saying that an attack is defined as the extending of the arm rather than an extended arm, and the fact it can be said that the point of your balde is threatening the target area during a flick action (through an oblique angle as the case may be), there remains the first rule in the foil section of the rules, which I don't belive has been changed.

The Foil is a thrusting weapon.

I feel anyone who feels that the types of flick attacks that are being executed in modern fencing can be considered thrusts, are off their rocker.

That Being said, the flick is a large component of mondern fencing and in order to compete at a normal level you must be prepared to deal with it and exploit it.

The best way to defend against a flick (I find) is distance.

A flick attack is extremely distance dependant. If your too close your blade may not curve enough for the point to land. If your too far your tip may land flat so as to not register a hit (One of the atvantages of a thrusting attack, it will land anywhere within the range of the attack, if correctly executed). Because of this distance dependancy, if you as the defender can control the distance you can defend against flick attacks.

The first way is counter attacking into the flick in an attempt to get under the point, (ducking may not help you avoid the hit because it tends to expose a large portion of your back to the flick). Also if you intend to step into a flick attack it is probably a good idea to make your opponent think your going to be farther away by some means, so that their reaching with their flick when they need to be bending the blade in tight.

The other way to defend against a flick is to step back when parrying (or step back farther than you normally do if you find they still hit through your parry). This will bring the parry closer to the tip of their blade so that the "wrap around" effect is reduced or even eliminated. You can also try to bring your parry back a little farther than usual to aid in reducing the wrap around.


One of my coaches ideas to eliminate the flick from fencing is to drasticly redisgn the scoring system on the foil, by moving the pressure sensor to the base of the blade instead of having it in the tip (you would replace the current tip with a blunted end). That way any wrap around hits would not set of the "button" and would not register. Also it would make wiring a blade a lot easier too. And finally any breakage of the blade would more likely occur at the base rather than midway through, so that when a blade does break, you are left holding simply a harmless guard rather than something that could impale your opponent.

The draw backs might be,

A) going through the hassle of changing it when there are many fencers, policitcally powerful and otherwise, who use the flick religiously who would not want to change.

B) Replacing everyons blades would take a lot of money and piss a lot of people off.


I hope what I have said makes sense and doesn't sound too stupid. I apologize for any spelling mistakes.

[arcon]

Its a given that if you fence youll eventually encounter the flick, a certainty if you compete. I guess the very bottom line is adapt or die. I use to hate the move.
Now i try and look at it as a challenge. To defend aganst it AND to use it.

[Talyn]

Originally posted by arcon
Its a given that if you fence youll eventually encounter the flick, a certainty if you compete. I guess the very bottom line is adapt or die. I use to hate the move.
Now i try and look at it as a challenge. To defend aganst it AND to use it.

...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.

[Nialscorva]

Even if it was simultaneous, he got a reputation touch. If you don't like reputation touches, get a reputation.

[The0ne]

I sounds to me like the A was marching and JrAt was retreating down the strip and so JrAT was like i'll counter-attack now and the A-rated fencer finished. Not suprising that the A got the touch. Next time set up with a closer distance, and close distance very fast as you make the hit.

[jeff]

Originally posted by swordsen
If the arm is extending he has the attack. It doesn't matter if his tip is pointed straight at your heart or at the ceiling, or at the wall.

Except that this is contrary to the rules as they were written and interpreted until recently (last 10 years). And he doesn't have the attack this way when I am directing! Several of the other dozens of flick related threads quote the related rules, as well as link to quotes from Pop, Omnes, Golubitsky and others saying that foil is currently broken in this regard.

That said, it's part of today's foil, and until it's fixed, we have to deal with it one way or another: use it onself is optional, learn how to defend against it is not.

[Agent_V]

Originally posted by Talyn
[b]...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).

I don't really fall into any of these catagories. I've been fencing now for about 9 years, in my 3rd year of fencing I started to learn how to flick along with a teammate of mine because our coach did not teach the flick back then, and by my 5th year it became pretty much the only real action that I relied on, even my standard parry-4 reposte was a light chest flick. Well, in my last season I finally started to realize that the flick was not the one and only action used by top fencers, and I tried reincorperating straight attacks into my game. However, my previous 4 years of flicking (and not very precise flicking at that) had screwed up my sense of distance and timing with the straight attack. This last summer I spent training in Russia with one of the top coaches there, with almost the whole focus of the lessons being just on the technique of the straight attack. Now I don't flick at all. In this current season I see no reason to flick (with the exception of infighting): when I keep perfect form, distance, and timing, my straight attacks simply outpace any flicking actions, and when an opponent manages to score on me, it's not simply because he managed to wip his blade all the way across my shoulders, but because his whole setup with distance and timing had outpaced mine in order to score.
So my opinion regarding the FIE trying to block the flick is one of both apathy and hope. Apathy, because removing the flick is not going to change my game at all, but also hope, because in the end it will benefit US fencing as a whole. There currenly is a serious problem at middle-level fencing, where those who can use the flick have apparent domination over those who don't, which leads people, especially those using it (I was one of the most serious cases of this) to believe that the flick is the only way...
This problem also has as a symptom the group of coaches, who in their push for quick results, simply leave proper form and hand-foot technique to the wayside and start initially with a whole system based around the flick itself. Their fencers may achieve decent cadet and div-2 results in a couple years, but I feel sorry for those fencers because without a whole reworking of their technique they will never be able to achieve the very top levels of fencing.
These problems would be very quickly eliminated through the increase of the contact time required for a valid hit. While some people on this board have tried to argue that this simple time increase would just increase the difficulty of flicking, and that in the end people would learn how to work around it, they have in my eyes missed the whole point. With this increased contact time there will just be that much less reason to flick, as it no longer will be that sure-fire hitting action, and will not be seen either as that magic bullet like it currently is seen as in the lower levels of fencing...

-Alexander

[AllezCat]

Originally posted by Agent_V
I don't really fall into any of these catagories. I've been fencing now for about 9 years, in my 3rd year of fencing I started to learn how to flick along with a teammate of mine because our coach did not teach the flick back then, and by my 5th year it became pretty much the only real action that I relied on, even my standard parry-4 reposte was a light chest flick. Well, in my last season I finally started to realize that the flick was not the one and only action used by top fencers, and I tried reincorperating straight attacks into my game. However, my previous 4 years of flicking (and not very precise flicking at that) had screwed up my sense of distance and timing with the straight attack. This last summer I spent training in Russia with one of the top coaches there, with almost the whole focus of the lessons being just on the technique of the straight attack. Now I don't flick at all. In this current season I see no reason to flick (with the exception of infighting): when I keep perfect form, distance, and timing, my straight attacks simply outpace any flicking actions, and when an opponent manages to score on me, it's not simply because he managed to wip his blade all the way across my shoulders, but because his whole setup with distance and timing had outpaced mine in order to score.
So my opinion regarding the FIE trying to block the flick is one of both apathy and hope. Apathy, because removing the flick is not going to change my game at all, but also hope, because in the end it will benefit US fencing as a whole. There currenly is a serious problem at middle-level fencing, where those who can use the flick have apparent domination over those who don't, which leads people, especially those using it (I was one of the most serious cases of this) to believe that the flick is the only way...
This problem also has as a symptom the group of coaches, who in their push for quick results, simply leave proper form and hand-foot technique to the wayside and start initially with a whole system based around the flick itself. Their fencers may achieve decent cadet and div-2 results in a couple years, but I feel sorry for those fencers because without a whole reworking of their technique they will never be able to achieve the very top levels of fencing.

Very well said. Most of the top fencers have figured out that against somebody with good timing and distance, the flick doesn't really work very well, except as a close-distance riposte.

In the Division I Men's Foil gold medal bout in Austin, I counted Tiomkin's flicks. By my count, he attempted seven of them, and four of them landed. So I tell my students that if they get good enough to be a Division I national champion, they can expect a little better than 50% success on their flicks.

These problems would be very quickly eliminated through the increase of the contact time required for a valid hit. While some people on this board have tried to argue that this simple time increase would just increase the difficulty of flicking, and that in the end people would learn how to work around it, they have in my eyes missed the whole point. With this increased contact time there will just be that much less reason to flick, as it no longer will be that sure-fire hitting action, and will not be seen either as that magic bullet like it currently is seen as in the lower levels of fencing...

-Alexander

This is the only thing that I might disagree with slightly. Unfortunately, making flicks more difficult to execute or less reliable by changing the machine timing is not going to decrease their allure for the aspiring hotshot. I've seen plenty of fencers who insist on flicking despite the fact that it goes "thwap" 90% of the time, and they get beat doing it. Most teenage boys just aren't that smart.

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by jeff
Except that this is contrary to the rules as they were written and interpreted until recently (last 10 years). And he doesn't have the attack this way when I am directing!

Which proves exactly one thing.... that you aren't a very good referee. How do we measure referees? We compare them to what is commonly accepted as good practice. We compare them to what the best referees in the world do. If you make up your own interpretations (whether they bear resemblance to the rulebook or not is irrelevant) you intentionally move yourself away from correct calls. You're intentionally making yourself a bad referee.

That said, it's part of today's foil, and until it's fixed, we have to deal with it one way or another: use it onself is optional, learn how to defend against it is not.

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

-B :)