How to reduce flicks in foil

[Rolls]

I don't really care to discuss whether or not flicks SHOULD be in foil OR how ROW should be interpreted with them. I don't really care abotu that.

But I've seen a lot of talk of the FIE experimenting with different methods of reducing the number of flicks by increasing the time the tip must stay depressed, rule changes, etc. It seems most people say that these methods won't work without also eliminating some thrusts or dramtically changing foil.

Here was an idea that I had (completely what if).

What if you took a foil, and instead of putting a foil blade on it, used an epee blade. But you still had a foil tip, foil rules, foil guard, etc. It seems this may be effective in reducing the number of flicks (not all flicks by any means).

Is this even possible? Are there rules stating what the foil blade must look like (i.e. rectangular cross sections)? Pros/cons?

It seems like a better idea than removing fleching or making the arm on target or some of the other more extravagant rules.
Also, it would use existing technology.

Rolls.

[canthidefromme]

I think changing the timing on the machine would work and possibly making the spring hold 750g, but changing the maximum 'tilt' and bend in the blade? I really don't feel like going in and messing with my blades anymore than changing a spring (but then again I don't know what 20% looks like, it could still be hugely bent).

What confuses me though is where the FIE report says, "Hence, foil fencers look as though they are fencing sabre, or wielding an axe, that is when they are not simply 'casting' their hits as though they were fly fishing (flicks)."
It sounds there like they are trying to reduce people smacking people and having it register while technically proper flicks still register, but then the report goes on to say, "... in effect eliminating 'flicks' at foil."

[veeco]

The rules you mention are not being added or changed to remove the flick, but to make foil fencing easier to watch on TV and easier to understand and present to an uneducated audience.

Removing the flick is being done by changing the amount of time the tip must be depressed in order for a hit to be declared valid.

Using an epee blade would not only change significantly the way foil is being fenced, even for those types who use only straight thrusts, but it would also make the weapon more heavy, and the perceptions that foil fencers would feel would be different. Therefore I don't think it's a viable option.

Not to mention the loads of people who would simply say: "Foil isn't epee, using an epee blade doesn't make sense!"

And there are already quite a few who don't see the proposed rule changes with a condescending eye.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by veeco
The rules you mention are not being added or changed to remove the flick, but to make foil fencing easier to watch on TV and easier to understand and present to an uneducated audience.

No they aren't. Where did you get that impression?
The rule changes are being considered to return the weapon to a thrusting weapon, rather than a whipping weapon. I have seen nothing that has suggested that these changes are for the benefit of television. I don't think that television coverage is considered by most people to be important anyway.

Fencing does not need television to grow in popularity. Look at skateboarding in the US. There was a huge growth in popularity in the US in skateboarding in the US over the past 25 years, without the benefit of TV coverage. (sure you occassionally see skateboarding events on tv these days, but the huge popularity has brought about tv coverage, not the other way around)

As for using an epee blade wired like a foil.... that can be done, but it drastically changes more than just whether you can execute a flick. It is really very fun.

[Dave]

Surely the easiest way to eliminate flicking would be to ban pistol and orthopedic grips. It is possible to flick with a french grip but it isn't easy.

Foil then once again becomes a thrusting weapon with no other rule changes needed.

[onesandzeros]

Umm...I can flick just as easy with a french grip as I can with a pistol grip.

[whtouche]

Originally posted by DanInMI
No they aren't. Where did you get that impression?
The rule changes are being considered to return the weapon to a thrusting weapon, rather than a whipping weapon. I have seen nothing that has suggested that these changes are for the benefit of television. I don't think that television coverage is considered by most people to be important anyway.

From the source of the discussion that you obviously haven't read, linked to here:

http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2...0HOC%20ANG.pdf

Second page, third bullet, under "introduction".
And that's not the only place that it's been mentioned before, that changes to foil are being considered to make it more televisable.

Maybe you shouldn't post out of such ignorance.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by whtouche
From the source of the discussion that you obviously haven't read, linked to here:

http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2...0HOC%20ANG.pdf

Second page, third bullet, under "introduction".
And that's not the only place that it's been mentioned before, that changes to foil are being considered to make it more televisable.

Maybe you shouldn't post out of such ignorance.

Ahhhh you again.... still mad that i called you RUDE huh?

You remind me of the conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh that find one element that they can cling to and ignore all the other facts that contradict thier argument. Please notice that the report is a fairly new one, yet this debate has been going on for ages. While it DOES suggest that reducing flickage might improve television coverage, that is NOT the PRIMARY purpose. It is the THIRD bullet point. I suggest that that was added by the authors as an after thought. They considered it an added benefit.

The first two bullet points are exactly what I have stated all along as being the main reasons that the flick should be eliminated. 1. to return the foil to a thrusting ("preserve the specific character...")weapon. 2. To make it easier to determine ROW ("making it easier for them to correctly apply the Rules for Competition.")

Here is a quote from the report:

"-to preserve the specific character of both foil and sabre as conventional fencing weapons, while respecting also fencing’s character as a combat sport “par excellence” that is defined by its own natural and universal logic;
- improve working conditions for referees, making it easier for them to correctly apply the Rules for Competition, and also to explain fencing actions according to objective criteria;
- improve audience and television viewers’ comprehension of fencing, allowing them, as much as possible, to better follow and understand the action during foil and sabre matches."

[whtouche]

Originally posted by DanInMI
I have seen nothing that has suggested that these changes are for the benefit of television. I don't think that television coverage is considered by most people to be important anyway.

Im not sure what your entire reply was about, as the above quoted sentences from your original post were what I was replying to. And I was right. And you were wrong.
First of all it's mentioned all over that they are trying to make fencing more viable for television, probably just as long or longer than the flick debate has been going on. It's not you're fault that you're not that intelligent, you just don't have to go flaunting it about.
Your contention about fencing being made more televisable as the third bullet in a list is a non-issue. Not everything can hold the same spot, and nowhere does it say it's in order of importance. Infact if you knew anything about the debate in the first place you'd see that this is not at all an afterthought. But I don't have too much time to concern myself with your ignorance.

And if I were mad that you called me rude, you'd know. I'm just kindof ammused at how the irony of that comment is made apparant every time you decide to post. Without a leg to stand on you regress to insulting me and comparing me to rush limbaugh, by some diagonal "logic" that nobody but you understands.

You were wrong, I pointed it out. This makes me akin to "conservative political commentators"? Wow. You suck at life, friend. As for taking one point and sticking to it: I'm fairly certain Ive made about 3-ish replies to you thus far, different points in each, and I think this is the first one in which you were able to summon the male parts to respond back to me.
Heh.

[edew]

Originally posted by Dave
Surely the easiest way to eliminate flicking would be to ban pistol and orthopedic grips. It is possible to flick with a french grip but it isn't easy.

Foil then once again becomes a thrusting weapon with no other rule changes needed.

I think it's easier to thrust with a pistol grip than with a french grip, and easier to flick with a french grip (if one knows how to do it) than with a pistol grip.

The prongs on the pistol grip allow one to thrust as hard without worrying about a sweeping parry that takes the blade out of the hand, or having the thumb bang against the thumbpad after hitting something. The french grip doesn't have anything that slows down the movement of the hand when the blade meets target in a thrust.

On the other hand, the french grip is like a fishing pole, and is thus better at making the flicking action. I once tried using a french grip for fencing (competition-wise) after having used a pistol grip for many years. It really is quite easy to make flicks with the french grip. The problem with the french grip is not in flicking, but in making parries and big feints without tiring the hand so quickly, and then losing control afterwards.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by whtouche

First of all it's mentioned all over that they are trying to make fencing more viable for television, probably just as long or longer than the flick debate has been going on.

Yes.....that is true....but Making fencing more viable for television has never been part of the debate.

It is clearly NOT an important part of THIS report. The word television appears twice in the 8 page report. Once in the begining and once in the summary. The rest of the report is about the OTHER two bullet points. That is what I was basing this on. You should try reading that report.

Veeco said that :
"The rules you mention are not being added or changed to remove the flick, but to make foil fencing easier to watch on TV and easier to understand and present to an uneducated audience."

That is clearly not true. The proponents of these changes may have advanced that as one benefit....but certainly NOT as the main reason. Do you have ANY source that mentions television coverage as the primary reason that the flick should be eliminated, or are you basing this entire argument on two minor senences in an 8 page report?

As for the "diagonal logic" that I used in comaparing you to Rush Limbaugh, I thought I made that pretty clear. I said that you find ONE element that you build your argument around (in this case that would be those two sentences in an 8 page report that mention television) and build your whole argument around that element, (see....they want to eliminate flicks to improve TV viability.) Ignoring all the other facts (that would be the rest of the report that discusses returning the weapon to a thrusting weapon, and improving the reffereeing.)

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by edew
I think it's easier to thrust with a pistol grip than with a french grip, and easier to flick with a french grip (if one knows how to do it) than with a pistol grip.

The prongs on the pistol grip allow one to thrust as hard without worrying about a sweeping parry that takes the blade out of the hand, or having the thumb bang against the thumbpad after hitting something. The french grip doesn't have anything that slows down the movement of the hand when the blade meets target in a thrust.

On the other hand, the french grip is like a fishing pole, and is thus better at making the flicking action. I once tried using a french grip for fencing (competition-wise) after having used a pistol grip for many years. It really is quite easy to make flicks with the french grip. The problem with the french grip is not in flicking, but in making parries and big feints without tiring the hand so quickly, and then losing control afterwards.

yeah that's true....it is as easy or easier to flick a french grip.

[whtouche]

Im nearly done with you, and it's pretty amusing to see that the more wrong you realize you are the less insulting you become.

Veecos contention was not my contention. As I mentioned in my previous post, I was replying to a small section of your original post stating that nobody had ever before made making fencing more televisable a goal. I proved you wrong, and you suddenly make this about what veeco(and apparantly me? heh) said.

Also:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by whtouche

First of all it's mentioned all over that they are trying to make fencing more viable for television, probably just as long or longer than the flick debate has been going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes.....that is true....but Making fencing more viable for television has never been part of the debate.


I assume when you say "the debate" you mean the flick debate. Im just going to say you're wrong, and you're going to have to trust me based on past experiences. While I don't have any tie to what veeco said, I know for a fact that it has been debated in the past that removing the flick from foil in addition to 'returning it to its roots' would also improve its televisability. Wait a sec, you contradict yourself again:

The proponents of these changes may have advanced that as one benefit....

Now, you said that televising fencing has never been part of the arguement to remove the flick, yet here you are referencing part of a report at a very high level in the FIE talking about just that. Do you honestly think this is the first time this has come up? In this report?

Sigh. Keeping track of all your misinformation is getting tiring.

[The0ne]

People who complain that flicks have made foil into a "whipping" game should go get a smack in the face with the "wake up and smell the roses" stick. Flickers can do other actions, but since you obviously can't stop the attack to the back (since all you do is complain about it not deal with it) why shouldn't I attack there? If you're saying it's not like dueling go fence epee.

[labouche]

Originally posted by The0ne
People who complain that flicks have made foil into a "whipping" game should go get a smack in the face with the "wake up and smell the roses" stick. Flickers can do other actions, but since you obviously can't stop the attack to the back (since all you do is complain about it not deal with it) why shouldn't I attack there? If you're saying it's not like dueling go fence epee.

Good!!! You said everything I thought I was going to have to. Foil is a freaking sport, NOT the art of swordfighting like many people like to believe it is. If that is what you want go join nick Evangelista's club.

[vegan]

I'd have to agree with The One and Labouche,
However, some ideas about this . . . one Forcing people to fence with french grips will not help, if fact I find it way easier to flick using a french grip- just grab the Pommel, and swing and whip away! The point of changing foil is exactly to put it on TV more - thats the deal, that is Mr. Roch's goal for his administration as leader of the FIE!
In a number of cases he has made this rather clear.
Cheers,
B.
Ps. The epee blade idea will not stop some of us from flicking, it'll hurt our opponents a lot however!!!

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by The0ne
People who complain that flicks have made foil into a "whipping" game should go get a smack in the face with the "wake up and smell the roses" stick. Flickers can do other actions, but since you obviously can't stop the attack to the back (since all you do is complain about it not deal with it) why shouldn't I attack there? If you're saying it's not like dueling go fence epee.

I never said I can't deal with a flick. If I get flicked on the back , it's my own damn fault for fencing way too close.

I never even said that I am opposed to the flick. If you get too close to me I will bend one right over your shoulder.

I was arguing that primary reason that these rule changes are being considered is NOT to enhance TV coverage.

I also never said anything about fencing being swordfighting.

Also ....Evangelista is a con man.

Don't go putting words in my mouth.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by whtouche
Im nearly done with you, and it's pretty amusing to see that the more wrong you realize you are the less insulting you become.

Veecos contention was not my contention. As I mentioned in my previous post, I was replying to a small section of your original post stating that nobody had ever before made making fencing more televisable a goal. I proved you wrong, and you suddenly make this about what veeco(and apparantly me? heh) said.

Also:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by whtouche

First of all it's mentioned all over that they are trying to make fencing more viable for television, probably just as long or longer than the flick debate has been going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes.....that is true....but Making fencing more viable for television has never been part of the debate.


I assume when you say "the debate" you mean the flick debate. Im just going to say you're wrong, and you're going to have to trust me based on past experiences. While I don't have any tie to what veeco said, I know for a fact that it has been debated in the past that removing the flick from foil in addition to 'returning it to its roots' would also improve its televisability. Wait a sec, you contradict yourself again:

The proponents of these changes may have advanced that as one benefit....

Now, you said that televising fencing has never been part of the arguement to remove the flick, yet here you are referencing part of a report at a very high level in the FIE talking about just that. Do you honestly think this is the first time this has come up? In this report?

Sigh. Keeping track of all your misinformation is getting tiring.

Actually, I was thinking that the more I debunk your argument the more insulting you have become.
You have demonstrated NOTHING. I have not changed my stance from the beginning. Veecos stance was that these rule changes are being considered for the purpose of making fencing more viable to television....I maintain that the proponents of these rule changes would still advocate them regardless of this side benefit.
And you can not show me any evidence to the contrary.

What is so hard to understand?

[Gav]

Can I just point out right now that using an Epee blade will not stop flicking. This is a common misconception of people that don't really fence Epee. There are plenty of flicks at Epee and plenty of people using them. Yes, using an Epee blade would reduce flicks to back but considering that I can do them under the right conditions at Epee (admittedly you can't do 'fly fishing' actions easily) then you are not going to eliminate even this move.

[Rolls]

Well, I realy don't have a problem with the flick.

However, it does seem that the FIE is at least looking at options for reducing flicking. Maybe some of the proposed rule changes are not meant for that purpose, but the increase in time the tip stays depressed was intended for that. I heard a lot of people say that not only will this not work on reducing flicks, but it will also eliminate some otherwise fine thrusts.

I have never tried fencing with this change, so I can't really say. But back onto the topic.

The epee blade idea will not stop some of us from flicking, it'll hurt our opponents a lot however!!!

I don't get that argument. I never said that it would get rid of flicks just reduce the number of them. And how can you say it would hurt your opponent? Do epeeist regularly hurt each other? No, I would say not. If you're hurting your opponent no matter what weapon you use, it most likely is from a lack of control. The best fencers I've ever seen have always been the ones with the lightest, most precise touches not the power driver types.

Veegan made a better argument that it would change the feel of foil to those participating. Also, he said the weapon would weigh more. Valid points, although I don't think that it would alter it to a point that people couldn't adjust to it rather quickly.

don't really care to discuss whether or not flicks SHOULD be in foil OR how ROW should be interpreted with them. I don't really care about that.

That's a quote from my original post. I really didn't want this to be a thread on the values of flicking itself, but oh well.

Rolls.