Mask check question

Discussion in 'Armory - Q&A' started by Purple Fencer, Apr 26, 2008.

  1. telkanuru

    telkanuru Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,497
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    You need to read your own posts, and remove your assumptions.

    I do Control at 2-4 major (200+ fencers) tournaments a year. I am not inexperienced.

    "Tens of thousands of masks per year", eh? Um, I know armorers work harder than almost anyone else but just no.

    I test my mask once a month. I do not know if this is too often or not enough. It's just a habit. If I do not test my mask for 2 months I do not feel like I am risking my life.

    The legal argument is an interesting one. Testing a mask does not remove the threat of a lawsuit, however. A standardized guideline on how often a mask should be tested would give more legal weight to the test. You can't have a standard without data to back up the standard. "Well these guys over there said once a month is good" is not actually data for a standard.Testing is.

    Those people "with very little training" testing masks risk 1) your mask and 2) passing failing equipment because they are inexperienced.

    The largest Division in the USFA currently does not punch test masks before each tournament. There have been 0 fatalities and 0 injuries resultant from this practice.

    Fallacies only apply to academic debates. In engineering (ie. the real world) we can refer to things as 'close enough for all intents and purposes'.

    I'd like to see where I said not punch testing is more safe than punch testing. I'm betting you just made it up, because you can't be bothered to read. What I did say is that you can't prove punch testing once a month is statistically safer than punch testing twice a year. Which, by the way, you can't.
     
  2. fatfencer

    fatfencer Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,992
    Location:
    AZ
    I do Control at 2-4 major (200+ fencers) tournaments a year. I am not inexperienced. SO what do you do if you dont punch test? Get coffee? Or maybe test bodycords...

    "Tens of thousands of masks per year", eh? Um, I know armorers work harder than almost anyone else but just no. Glad to know you recognize hyperbole when you see it

    I test my mask once a month. I do not know if this is too often or not enough. So why test? What are you looking for how can you be sure without a stuy you are desperately asking for that you are doing ANY GOOD AT ALL?

    It's just a habit. If I do not test my mask for 2 months I do not feel like I am risking my life. Why not? Why do you feel like you do with no apparent study to back any conjecture you offer. What other evidence is there that is acceptable to you such that you test at all? Habit is an excuse for 'I don't know but I'm willing to bull**** myself and others'. Only you can know daily how much damage your mask receives. What is Control's function then? to assess at the time of event that your mask is in compliance regardless of what you say to ensure cross the board compliance, safety, and provide some legal umbrella protection. I've never said it made one lawsuit-proof but it is some level of protection. Certainly better than nothing. I suspect you test your mask monthly because you feel better about it. It feels safer to you

    The legal argument is an interesting one. Testing a mask does not remove the threat of a lawsuit, however. A standardized guideline on how often a mask should be tested would give more legal weight to the test. Generally I agree on this except for the fact that new studies come at cross purposes to old studies daily about the same topic. Look at dieting... more safety protocols are better than less in terms of pure safety, right? Studies are nothing without their assumptions.

    You can't have a standard without data to back up the standard. "Well these guys over there said once a month is good" is not actually data for a standard.Testing is. You talk about 'testing' as if it were a panacea. It would be great to SHOW empirically with a study that punching masks per tourney is a great idea... but enough veteran armorers with tons more experience than I ever care to accumulate say that it is so. I don't wish to burst your bubble but tests cost more money that the mask punch. Maybe I'm sensitive to that because I'm a former Sr. Finance Analyst.

    Those people "with very little training" testing masks risk 1) your mask and 2) passing failing equipment because they are inexperienced. This is reductio ad absurdam.. and given that you work Control you should know better. It takes 30 seconds to show someone physically strong enough to use a punch how to use one. Or just watch Purp's vid.

    The largest Division in the USFA currently does not punch test masks before each tournament. There have been 0 fatalities and 0 injuries resultant from this practice. Given the non hearsay testimony of experienced armorers who have seen with their own eye failures that masks have I would say that our divisions are safer than yours by at least 3 concrete examples in this thread. 3-0 is significant in that that's 3 people still fencing. 3 people who arent dead or severely injured... one of whom I think is Michael Marx if I recall....we aren't saving billions of lives. One is enough. What if you found your own mask failed before a tourney, right in the eyes. Would you agree then that a mask punch potentially saved YOUR life?

    Fallacies only apply to academic debates. In engineering (ie. the real world) we can refer to things as 'close enough for all intents and purposes'. This is as close to any debate that you are likely to see. Indeed close enough for government work. Engineers also dont call for studies to test the obvious. Gravity works, Sun is shining even on cloudy days, testing is safer than not testing by, according to 2 armorers on this thread by at least a couple of people.


    I'd like to see where I said not punch testing is more safe than punch testing. I'm betting you just made it up, because you can't be bothered to read. What I did say is that you can't prove punch testing once a month is statistically safer than punch testing twice a year. Which, by the way, you can't.

    You can't ask me to prove what you assert. You asserted 'isn't statistically safer'. I say prove it. Meanwhile you have been given examples of people who are around today that perhaps wouldnt be if not for testing of masks.

    Here's an idea:

    Testing = safety

    more testing = more data on safety

    your mask is tested 12 times per year. Mine 6 (per tourney, based on my attendance)

    Your mask= 2 times more solvent proof that your mask is safe for that tourney than mine. You have 2 times more data than I do. The more times you test without doing it incorrectly the more accurate your knowledge is about the safety of your mask. Test before each touch if you like. Even more data. With each test you approach absolute certainty about the statistical safety of your mask. So why not set a minimum standard for every tourney? That's all I've been advocating. Considering what little needs to be done to prevent a great deal of negative impact I'd say affirming a punch test before every tourney isn't going to hurt anyone and might help someone a great deal.
    Telk, you have been coat-tailing on other peeps args the entire thread. FIE does some kind of impact testing on the mesh to determine initial safety standards. Through use, those start to degrade. A visual AND a mask punch is the best way to determine how safe the mask is at this time. If you think that the couple of lives saved/injuries prevented isn't prima facie proof enough that mask testing is necessary AND safer by those 3 people/examples then I wonder.... why do you test your mask so much more frequently than even I do?
    Fatfencer

    [/QUOTE]
     
  3. telkanuru

    telkanuru Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,497
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Ok, I give up. You're retarded.
     
  4. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Hollywood, ca USA
    Nor am I...I probably do 800-900 tests per year...most likely more, due to the fairly high numbers at some events, and those people fencing foil/epee and sabre. Keep in mind that I do a lot of scholastic events, and those typically are very well attended....some of the collegiates as well.

    I would not call Don Clinton inexperienced, or Carl Oberg, or Dan DeChaine...we ALL run checks. In fact, Carl once walked OUT of an event (FIE, if I remember the story correctly) when he was told by the organizers to NOT check masks because it was slowing things down. If they wanted to assume hte risks of no check, he didn't want any part of it.

    Of the 4 I listed, 2 have worked Olympics and FIE events up to and including worlds, one has worked other fairly high level events that involved fencing (pentathelon champs), and any ONE of them has far more time behind the table than I do....I find it difficult to argue with Dan's 5 decades, let alone Carl's and Donald's time.

    Just yes...you're talking about all of SoCal...3 USFA divisions, a collegiate and a scholastic league....and WE ALL run the check....so running thousands isn't far-fetched. We may not see thousands of INDIVIDUAL masks, yes, but we DO run thousands of punch tests thorugh the season.


    [/quote]The largest Division in the USFA currently does not punch test masks before each tournament. There have been 0 fatalities and 0 injuries resultant from this practice.[/quote]

    And I'll counter with the fact that in all of SoCal (see the prior paragraph) we have ALSO had 0 fatalities and 0 injuries, and those 3 USFA divisions, plus the scholastic and collegiate leagues add up to a LOT more fencers than any one division.

    Fallacies only apply to academic debates. In engineering (ie. the real world) we can refer to things as 'close enough for all intents and purposes'.

    As to the prior questions:
    The line is established in the rules for FIE comps, and in the USFA ops manual (where it DOES say the mask much pass the punch...logic would dictate that a punch test must be applied in order to pass that rule.)

    Not even Dan DeChaine says you have to test after every touch....I would think Dan knows SOMETHING of what he's talking about.

    Even a jet pilot who does a walkaround before everhy flight isn't going to climb up into the engine and examine every compressor blade....he has to trust that the maintenance crew has done their job in maintining the aircraft.

    You can go and quote stats all you want, but you contonue to ignore the FACT that armorers like myself, Dan, Carl, Donald, et al HAVE failed masks, HAVE seen them fail the VERY FIRST punch test applied, HAVE come across masks that were unsafe to use in other regards (holes in the bib or the broken tongue I mentioned waaay back in the OP).

    The FACT is that if your division does not check masks, they are playing with your safety....period, stop, end of discussion.

    I would argue that Southern California is the safest place to compete, simply because of that fact.
     
  5. telkanuru

    telkanuru Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,497
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Of course they are. But how much are they playing with safety? You assert that there's a looming disaster in every bout and we've been damned lucky that nothing has happened so far. I think you're drastically overstating your case. Since you have no direct evidence, you can just keep on making blanket statements that make you look good. Heck, Dan DeChaine has said that an FIE mask really doesn't need to be tested for the first 2 years of its life.

    Personally, I'd rather figure this out, as it is interesting to me to know. I'll get back to you once I've established parameters for the test.
     
  6. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Hollywood, ca USA
    When I personally fail 8 masks in a month -- SEVEN of htem from the SAME manufacturer -- I don't think I'm overstating a damn thing. I will oint out -- as I did earlier in this thread -- that I was the one who


    brought these very weak Negrini masks to the attention of American Fencers, who is the Negrini importer to the west coast (maybe even the entire US...I don't know....but that's irrelevant). Had I not done so, Matt Porter would not have been made aware of it, would not have talked to Negrini about it, and Negrini would not have solved the problem. Further, had mask checks not been done, those masks would not have been discovered, and would probably still be in use presuming they hadn't failed ON THE STRIP.

    Had I not forced the issue of mask check at this years All-Cals, the mask with the broken tongue would've hit the strip...an unsafe mask in use.

    Sorry, but my experiences trump your stats every time.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2008
  7. telkanuru

    telkanuru Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,497
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Well, since you can't read, let's try this one more time

    I DON'T HAVE STATS AND NEITHER DO YOU. WE SHOULD GET SOME BEFORE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS
     
  8. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Hollywood, ca USA
    I can read very well, thank you...I don't need numbers when I have actual, in person, either hand-on or watching-it-happen experience with multiple mask failures that were caught by a proper mask check since I started fencing in 1997.

    Those were not asumptions....those were real incidents I personally witnessed in some form.

    Statistically, a fighter pilot stands a good chance of going his entire flying career without ever having an in-flight incident.....yet they still sit on an ejection seat, just in case (and part of the take-off procedure if removing the safety pins from the seat and holding them up to the ground crew so they can verify the seat's live)

    Statistically, the odds of a heavy airliner crashing at a relatively small airport would be so low that it would argue against training the airport safety staff like they worked LAX or JFK.....yet the Sioux City crash proved the value of that training, since it helped to save lives following the crash.

    Statictically, air travel is extremely safe....the odds of being involved in a crash are low...yet the air crew always goes through the safety lecture before EVERY flight (even if 90% of the passengers ignore it)

    I prefer not to take the chance, thank you very much.
     
  9. telkanuru

    telkanuru Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,497
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Sigh, a picture's worth 1k words, I guess.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2010
  10. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Hollywood, ca USA
    I can say the same thing right back at you...
     
  11. telkanuru

    telkanuru Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,497
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Yes, but the difference is that if you did, you'd be wrong.
     
  12. HDG

    HDG Podium

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,662
    Location:
    Miami
    I can't believe this circle jerk is still going on…
     
  13. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Hollywood, ca USA
    I DID ask Craig to close it awhile back....before the true nastiness started up.

    And Telk.....no....I'm not. You keep quoting stats and I'll keep quote real world experiences with actual masks.
     
  14. telkanuru

    telkanuru Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,497
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    *buries head in hands*

    I never quoted stats. I don't have any stats to quote. I've said multiple times that it would be a good thing if we found out what statistics say instead of relying on our own experiences, which are in no way scientific and therefore can by no means be said to be helpful in determining a level of safety.

    Your repeated insistence that I am giving statistics and don't think the punch test is useful is why I have repeatedly accused you of being unable to read.

    As for your "real world experiences", Brad sent me this, which I think illustrates a point nicely.

    And since we're giving the names of all the fallacies we're committing, this one is known as post hoc ergo propter hoc
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2008
  15. telkanuru

    telkanuru Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,497
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    See: my sig.

    The disease is incurable, unfortunately.
     
  16. DHCJr

    DHCJr Armorer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,481
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    I do see your signature and I would have understood it if it had said "Get the hell off of my internet". What does Get the hell of my internet?

    I had hoped that when you said you gave up we would get some peace.

    Let me tell you about some FIE masks that have failed on the strip and caused serious injury. One is a lost eye. These masks were never punch tested in the failed area.

    The medical commission reported some of these a couple of years ago. I've heard they were getting tired of these accidents being sweap under the table. One that was tried to be swept under the table happend in Italy to a Cuban fencer. The mask was confiscated by the FIE. Both the coach, and the head of the cuban medical commision has tried to get back the mask without success.

    Another happened this season. No word has come out how serious it was.
     
  17. HDG

    HDG Podium

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,662
    Location:
    Miami
    Do you know the make of either mask?
     
  18. telkanuru

    telkanuru Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,497
    Location:
    Boston, MA


    Click it.
     
  19. telkanuru

    telkanuru Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,497
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Again, no one is saying the punch test is not a useful safety measure. Some of us simply think its usefulness is being overstated, and there is no data to back up either side.

    It has been openly stated that if you do not punch test at every tournament, you are being willfully callous with people's lives. I do not believe that to be true, and again, I can find no data to contradict (or support) my opinion.

    I am trying to figure out why anyone would be opposed to the collection of such data. It's just a bit silly.
     
  20. DHCJr

    DHCJr Armorer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,481
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    I had, that is why I made the comment. Your original signature said, "Get the hell of my internet.

    I like after I posted you changed your signature.

    Why was that?
     

Share This Page