Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by Spenzario, Oct 22, 2018.
So now they have to standardize the re-arm time. Did they think about that?
Like saber I believe
Paging Peach. Peach to white courtesy phone.
Getting rid of the off-target in foil has been proposed by various people and periodically tested for at least 20 years. I'm not holding my breath.
I think I'm getting a headache.
Maybe they'll do away with Saber and foil and everyone will have to do epee?
Then we can make a training 'epee' which encourages the fencer to block or parry the incoming attack.
And call it...epoil?
So... there's a fencing "game" that I include with VSM called "Quick Foil" that has no white off-target lights. Off target hits are detected and penalized, however, to prevent the jab-fest. What it does is to deactivate the weapon of the fencer who hits off-target for a short time (like 1 second) so that his/her only option is to parry and or retreat rather than remise. I think it fences pretty much like foil does now. The very nice advantage is no metal piste is required, just like in Sabre. Try it if you have VSM. It's free. And you can tinker with the parameters.
Or 'Slepee' if you prefer slashing actions.
We do and it's a lot of fun.
This is one of the really great things about the VSM system. You have freedom to experiment with the output and change parameters and how inputs are interpreted.
Has the VSM ever been FIE homologated (or the process ever investigated)? It seems like by far the best system to experiment when the FIE wants to try something new. It could even be a great source of data (gasp) to inform future decisions about things like timing changes. I'm a geek for such things but a world cup run on VSMs could produce a wealth of data on what the contact-time distribution in high level foil actually is, for example.
I also think a 'quick foil' set of rules is by far the best modification for removing off-target lights and making the game still make sense, if that is one's goal.
The white light loses right of way has an obvious but unintended consequence of perversely incentivizing displacement and squirmy counter-attacks, which are already something of a bane in foil.
But... it's foil's turn to get the next "new stupid rule change". *blink blink*
That's why in post #17, I tongue-in-cheek proposed, "a hit on-target has priority against an off-target, within the lockout time would be easier to explain. And when there's two on-target lights, you get into RoW." We do this at the Univ sometimes to work on-target point control.
Yes, I agree with keropie here. The counterattack is already so effective in foil, it doesn't need to be stronger.
Right now, if you're fencing someone in foil who is good at using counterattacks as part of an active defense, the standard strategy for the attack is "have right-of-way and always turn on a light." It doesn't matter if the attacker is off target as long as he can get the light on. That way, you may have 10 off-targets for every real touch, but at least the opponent isn't scoring on his counterattack. If the white light didn't prevent the counterattack from scoring, it would be extremely dangerous to attack certain opponents in foil. (I don't think that anyone is asking for their to be less attacking in foil, are they?) In bouts with at least one effective counterattacker, foil would start to look more like epee. Both fencers would be fighting for that critical advantage just at the edge of critical distance, and no one would want to commit first.
Unless, of course, they make other changes to make the counterattack less effective...
Right, but I'd prefer that they just don't try to go down this route.
To me, the balance in foil at the moment is fine. (Maybe that's because I'm better at this version of foil than I ever was pre-2004.) I find some World Cup foil boring to watch, but much of it is exciting, active fencing with lots of hits (on- and off-target).
It would help if there was a statement of what they want to see from foil. In particular, the elimination of white lights seems like it's geared to the spectator: don't stop the bout unless a touch is scored. But they really need to decide what the character of the weapon is. If they make changes for the spectators, but they turn it into a epee light, it's just silly. Just eliminate foil entirely in that case.
For me, foil has right-of-way and should generally reward the attacker. Right now, it's hard enough to turn on any light in foil that it makes the attack protected but risky. Certainly, it's much riskier than the attack in saber. I don't know why they'd ever consider or test any change that makes the attack less effective or that makes it more vulnerable to the counterattack.
Yes. If they want to tinker with foil, I agree that this would be a much better way to go. If they want to see fewer white lights / stopping the action with no touch scored, then focus on making it easier to hit! I think that they could set the debounce closer to 8 - 10 ms, and keep the lockout where it is, and it would already be a valuable shift.
Even with a debounce at 8 - 10 ms, I bet that the straight hits with no light would mostly go away. From what I've seen on the VSMs, with a debounce closer to 10ms, decent flicks will still land, but they'll require a fair amount of skill to hit against an active defender. Flick ripostes would become fairly safe for anyone with a half-way decent flick.
At a 6 ms debounce, flicks will become fairly easy to hit again. I think that you'd see a lot more flicking at the Div 2 level, and I suspect that the elite fencers might go back to fast attacks with the point in the air, finishing to back/chest/flank with a flick. (I'd like to see the current Korean team fencing on the pre-2004 timings!) I don't think that the FIE wants to go back to that style of foil even if all of the pre-2004 foil fencers would rejoice.
I'm personally less concerned about the current lockout time. I know that the focus was to have fewer two light actions, and it certainly does that. Personally, I get locked out when I'm rushing or when my balance is way off. Either that, or I'm being so repetitive that my opponent can make a closed eyes, attack with lunge, immediate remise, and then recover. (Curse you, Stephen!) It's really the combination of the current lockout and the debounce that really slows things down. The high debounce makes the hit less certain, which requires a lot more care on the attack. But the short lockout forces the attacker to finish immediately in the face of a counterattack. That combination makes it challenging to manage the space and target selection on the attack.
If they were going to go as low as 6 ms on the debounce, I think that there's little chance that the lockout time changes. Which probably makes sense. Make one small change, see how that impacts the fencing. Then try another.
But I guess a large part of the impact on fencing would still come down to this part: "Keep the same concepts (with minor adjustments as necessary) to interpretation of ROW, keep it tight." There's a reason that the FIE tinkers with the timings and material rules. Much easier than keeping the referees in line.
I can't help but wonder (and I should remark that I have no evidence to back this up) if the FIE doesn't sometimes bring groups of people in to watch high-level bouts in all three weapons and then get their reactions to what they've seen, without any attempt to educate the group on what they should be looking for.
Then the FIE reacts to the group impressions and comes up with wacky ideas to change each weapon.
It's like my occasional impressions of soccer when I happen to watch a game: why are there so many people on the field? Why is the field so damn big? Why have I been watching this game for 15 minutes and no one has scored yet? What's the difference between appearing to trip someone and drawing a foul, and doing what looks like the same thing and not drawing one?
You can imagine what would happen if my impressions were turned into soccer rules.
(Please note, do not take this as a request for any of you to educate me on the nuances of soccer).
That's giving them far too much credit. Something like the "Russian Box of Death" could only come straight outta the tuckus.
Epee is already 'sle-epee' enough as it is.
It also discourages compound ripostes.
Separate names with a comma.