PDA

View Full Version : right of way regarding flicking



reposte
-29th April 2003, 17:42
Is there a right of way specification regarding flicking? Do you think there ought to be one if not?
For example allowing flicking only as a last part of a compound fraise?
Or perhaps to accommodate change of distance?
Forgive the non professional terms - I don't know them in English.

(Boo Boo: No harm no foul - thank's for your input on Lisbon finals,
I watched the video again - you're absolutely right)

Cyranox11
-30th April 2003, 09:03
No, in my opinion there does not need to be a specific rule vis a vis the flick. The flick is a type of attack just like any other.

In fact the flick is really just a coupe that hits the target not normally presented to the fencer (ie the back or shoulder).

Referees simply need to call the timing etc of the flick as they would for a 'traditional coupe (ie one that landed on the chest or similar target area).

Also, imho, for a flick to be an attack it should be preceded by a feint otherwise it is not an attack, it is a counter! Sometimes people seem to think that a flick that lands MUST be valid. This is obviously not the case.

But this all applies to any offensive action made by the fencer, not JUST flicks.

reposte
-30th April 2003, 10:14
Doesn't your opinion of flick in an attack correlates with my description of the last action in a compound fraise?
Why not make it official?

Basically what I mean is: Two fencers advance one towards the other after the Allez is given, the first has one arm strait ahead and the other has it pointing ominously upwards albeit not entirely to the ceiling. Let's make one of them inferior and force him to either take right of way in the familiar ways
or retreat. It'll make the fight more fluid and I think would adhere to the intention of the old masters about us as fencers learning
when we have an inferior hand. Surely, a sword plunged into the chest is more of a risk than a flicking blade on the shoulder?

Jambo
-30th April 2003, 10:16
Originally posted by Cyranox11
Sometimes people seem to think that a flick that lands MUST be valid. This is obviously not the case.


I've been very annoyed by refs that do that, cos it's flashy and harder to do than a straight lunge it gets given all the bl**dy time!

Arturo
-30th April 2003, 10:30
Aahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! New forum, same old arguments. Surely all of this has been covered in the 'I blame the refs' thread?

Muso440
-30th April 2003, 10:41
This is not me being picky and pedantic (well, not completely) but a genuine question from a beginner who doesn't know all her fencing terminology yet - is it really a 'compound fraise', or a 'compound phrase'? I mean, maybe it 's the former, but that would be saying it's a 'compound strawberry'. Which is a nice image. Maybe that's what those wacky French fencing guys *did* mean?

Cyranox11
-30th April 2003, 11:53
Reposte,

If the two attacks start together then they start together.

My point is that an attack is an attack. Neither the flick, nor the 'classical' attack is intrinsically better than the other!

Jambo,

I have had this happen to me too. Solution: flick as well as your opponent, or with more panache and flair. Either you get the point or the referee sees the error of his ways... either way you 'win'.

Muso440,

Strawberries are compound fruits. Foilists tend to be compound/complex/fruity characters. Therefore we are strawberries.

Now lets berry the hatchet!

Later

Jambo
-30th April 2003, 11:57
Oh gods, the humour level is dropping fast.

As for learning to flick, I found an answer thats easier and better....changed to sabre:grin:. My point control is too bad to ever be a good foilist.

reposte
-30th April 2003, 12:48
It's "phrase", my bad.
that's what happens when Hebrew is your mother language.
I did apologize forthe terminology, I only know it in Hebrew...

And I know what the call is in the case I depicted, I'm asking you what your opinion is on changing the rules in order to accommodate
a different call.Do you think it may add to contingency of fight?
The original thread refers to your opinions on introducing something, not on interpretation by existing rules.
At least I learned that fraise is a sort of fruit, Don't know if that will make me a better fencer, and I'm not even sure it will improve my
English, but I'm still young and hopeful regarding both accounts.

:party:

oiuyt
-2nd May 2003, 14:45
There's nothing in the rules (nor should there be) that requires a flick be part of a compound action. Nor that it follow from a coupe.


Also, imho, for a flick to be an attack it should be preceded by a feint otherwise it is not an attack, it is a counter!

WHAT?!?!?!?! Where does THIS come from? I can start an attack w/flick from out of distance, never feint, and if you don't close the line, hit. Why is that a counter-attack? Heck, let's make it even more obvious, same situation, you never extend. How is the flick a counter attack?

While flicks and coupes are somewhat related they are not the same thing, nor is either a subset of the other.

A flick is merely one of the alternative methods of delivering the hit and the end of an attack. The rules for the attack are the same regardless of the final method of delivery. No "extra" rules are warrented to penalize flicks.

-B :)

harry
-2nd May 2003, 15:23
Are we not yet tired of having the same discussions over and over or is there a slim chance that people will accept foil for how it is. the only people i hear complaining so much are the older generation of fencers and the non foilists.

And can we not forgive the referees rather than attack them when a bad decision is given when it is the most thankless task in fencing. (remembering that they give up there weekends with no financial reward only to be shouted at and abused for a weekends fun. And we as fencers moan like hell when we have to referee ourselves at bigger competitions.

Let me ask you all as well. How many of you can actually referee foil competently enough?
I would be honest- 9 out of 10 us probably couldn't but we are all quite happy state the rules over and over again and not know how to apply them!

Leave the ref's and the rules alone now- life is too short!

Muso440
-2nd May 2003, 16:20
Originally posted by Cyranox11


Foilists tend to be compound/complex/fruity characters. Therefore we are strawberries.


Hey, I like that description! Count me in :)

reposte
-2nd May 2003, 18:14
"is there a slim chance that people will accept foil for how it is... ...the only people i hear complaining so much are the older generation of fencers and the non foilists. "



;) ;)

Firstly, I'd like to stress that I like foil just the way it is.
what often happens with medium level fencers, such that have just now discovered the wonderful world of flicking after some years of training "the old way" ( - a rather dismissive way of expressing one's self, don't you think?) and have not yet reached
mature level of fencing, and they usually tend to stand like two cowboys in a western and make a flicking match.

I think that by way of natural evolution, world class fencing has proven to be much more like the much abused "old way", as the
team finals in Lisbon have shown: The leg work and tempi are rather modern, but quite straight forward attacks and touches.
Not much flicking.
As a matter of fact, the ones who did most of the flicking when they had right of way were the french, and oddly enough it was
into the more advanced parts of the bout, when they got a little nervous about the ominous results...

Yours truly, a very young and foilist from scratch

:party:

haggis
-3rd May 2003, 00:03
I'll go with ouiyt and reposte on this. The flick is merely a way of delivering the hit and foil has evolved to the point where where "old" methods and conventions are accepted and modern methodology are adapted to suit them. The rules do not require to be changed!!

Foil has been a minefield of a wepon for a long time but now there is a developing trend that combines the best of the old and the new. It hasn't required the kind of heavy-handed direction and rule-changing that sabre needed but, I believe, foil is a reforming sport that will still prove the conoisseur's weapon of choice (because of the intelligence, invention and adaptability that it requires).

Sorry if you you're an epeeist (where theres little in the way of options for reform) or a sabreur (where someone else always knows what is best for your weapon) but foil is the weapon that has the ball for how our sport is refereed, governed and fenced.

Regards

Haggis:)

Cyranox11
-5th May 2003, 07:46
Hi,

Sorry, I should have contextualised my statement: fencer a walks forward in en garde, fencer b executes a straight lunge as fencer a starts walking forward, fencer a then hits with a flick (flick starts after b has started the lunge). Both land. Now, imho this should be attack to fencer b. Either as attack in the preparation, 'attaque-sur-le-marche' or simply attack for b and counter attck 'out-of-time' from fencer a.

I had this situation called as attack from a consistently at a competition the previous weekend and was feeling a little bitter at the time. I will be more precise in future, I promise :o

oiuyt, of course the flick and the coupe are not identical, I was referring to the similarities in technical application and how referees could make life easier for themselves and for the fencers. As well as ensuring some sort of consistent application of the rules. I am also, I will admit, speaking from a peculiarly South African position, where I will admit there are wide discrepancies in the refereeing of foil we have some excellent refs who call actions very well, we also have some apalling refs. Perhaps the solutions I have posited will work in SA and not elsewhere...

At an international level I would say that things are pretty much fine as they are. I have very little problem seeing why actions are called in a particular manner. I do not think we need to overhaul foil rules at an international level, but it does seem to me that most countries do have serious problems at the local level and here some clear guidelines which EVERY ref follows, I believe, would help alot. These should be guidelines on the interpretation of the current rules, NOT a rules overhaul!

Haggis, it seems we agree, but on my reading of all reposte's posts (with the exception of his last one), it is he who wants to change the rules. Am I wrong?

reposte
-5th May 2003, 14:35
Cyranox11, you ARE wrong.

Firstly, I started this thread out of intention to hear what others think, to raise a discussion and learn from everyone's input.
I'm being consistently "persecuted" ;) by people in this forum who seem to ignore the question marks I raise and interpret my question as a misconception on my part of rules or situation.

I am very happy to see modern foil fencing evolving in the manner it does, utilizing the best of all the schools that prevailed through the last half of the century.

The reason I started the thread was because - as you yourself pointed out - there is a lot of "bad form" both in judging and in fencing at the national levels, and not a few days before I began the thread I watched such national championships.

If you think that foil is fine as it is wen it's properly called - we're in agreement.
There is nothing wrong with a little academic license, is there?




:party:

oiuyt
-5th May 2003, 19:57
Originally posted by Cyranox11
oiuyt, of course the flick and the coupe are not identical, I was referring to the similarities in technical application and how referees could make life easier for themselves and for the fencers.


In fact the flick is really just a coupe that hits the target not normally presented to the fencer (ie the back or shoulder).

Silly me for thinking you were saying that they were the same. :)

-B :)

Cyranox11
-6th May 2003, 12:56
:eek:
:upset:
:o

As I said, I admit my post was badly composed and in trying to simplify things I made some errors in composition, thus making myself unclear...
The fault is mine, not yours...

Reposte I am sorry you feel that way, if I misread you I apologise.

:o

Cyranox11 signing off for a while: I can feel the holes forming in my asbestos jacket...

reposte
-6th May 2003, 13:28
You didn't offend me at all.... did I not put in a smiley...?

I just wanted to point out the difference between my personal view and a thread beginning
as an invitation for many much more experienced than I to contribute their input...

come on cyranoux, don't be a spoil sport - give us a smile!



:) :) :)

Cyranox11
-6th May 2003, 13:39
:moon:
Happy?
:)

reposte
-6th May 2003, 14:27
You'd get a flick from me, right of way or no... and a yellow card I should think :-))

Alcatraz83
-6th May 2003, 14:57
i've just started fencing recently and my instructor always flicks me and gets the point for it. I CAN"T STAND IT!!!!
I never know what to do, and it vexxes me because back in the old days, two people dueling would flick their swords, that would cause any damage to the other and their swords didn't bend like that. Well this is what I think now, maybe once i learn how to flick and to defend one my perspective will change

oiuyt
-6th May 2003, 15:50
Try asking your instructor what to do. If s/he is just getting his/her gits and shiggles off of hitting you, s/he isn't doing a very good job. How often do you fence against your instructor? Does s/he not tone your bouts to what you've been working on/can handle? If not, ask him/her to. Doesn't help you at all to have his/her superiority proved repeatedly. Presumably you already KNOW that you're less experienced and not as good, hence the need for instruction in the first place.

-B :)

Alcatraz83
-6th May 2003, 16:02
i totally agree with you on that, i do know i am not as good as him, i am definetly not a cocky fencer. i do beat all the other students in my class though and i think that he just wants to put me in my place

reposte
-6th May 2003, 16:25
I have to say that your instructor seems like a vary shady character...

I don't think that coaches are meant to hit you at all... I've heard of several coaching schools and witnessed some two, and I never saw a coach land a touch on anyone, it's always the coach that "opens" himself for the student.

Coaches usually hit students when they're demonstrating a move, or feinting an attack and even then they don't aim to hit.

I'd move along if I were you - you can't be taught by someone in whom you haven't absolute confidence.

Gav
-6th May 2003, 16:49
I've seen plenty of coaches demonstrate a students inability to follow a move by demonstrating why they should follow what they are sayin. Having said those that I am referring to never hit hard or any way brutalise their student.

If you come up against your coach on the piste ... now that's a different matter.

haggis
-6th May 2003, 20:50
In my experience, Gav's coaches have never brutalised him on the piste. Made him look foolish, goaded him into doing something stupid, embarassed him with soft hits, sure. But never brutalised him!:grin:

If a coach gets his laughs hitting a pupil during a lesson he's in the wrong game.:(

reposte
-6th May 2003, 21:43
Looking at his picture - he kinda looks brutalised, the poor thing, don't he?

:tongue:

:party:

Alcatraz83
-6th May 2003, 22:31
yeah, i sometimes get a hit on him but its usually him always getting me. i have already paid for lessons so i am just goin to finish them up and then find someone else. thanks for the advice

oiuyt
-7th May 2003, 15:57
That's not a lesson, that's you paying to fence him.

That said, I disagree that it should be taken as a given that a coach should never land a touch on a student. Depends on the lesson, what is being taught, and the type of lesson. Working on parries it's reasonable that at least some of the coach's attacks should be intended to land unless the student successfully executes. Teaching students only how to parry things that can't hit them is stupid. That doesn't accurately reflect what they will face on the strip and teaches fencers to parry sooner than they really should.

MOST of the time the coach is getting hit. Nearly every touch should be scored by the student. I've given lessons with students both in full gear and in only a mask and glove (of protective equipment). Obviously how the student is equiped dictates what is available to the coach as far as hitting. I've taken lessons in both full gear and in just a mask and glove.

Generally when this discussion comes up on fencing.net it degenerates quickly into people that interpret "coach hits student" as brutal and stop listening and people who start trying to show that hit != brutality. Obviously there are some coaches who use brutal hits to inflict pain/"correct" their students. I disagree with this philosophy. In the above discussion when I say hit I mean score a touch upon. No more brutal than any typical hit in a bout.

If I'm giving a sabre lesson and my student is coming forward with their wrist open, yes they're likely to get a light stopcut. It helps demonstrate what they are doing wrong.

Sounds like Gav and I have a similar viewpoint here. Reposte and I apparently disagree.

-B :)

reposte
-7th May 2003, 16:34
I'm not so sure...

First of all I never fence sabre so I can't tell.
Secondly, I think - and I'm only basing my definitions on impressions received from Alcatraz83 - that by way of "hitting me" he means a constant dynamics that occurs while "dry fencing" in front of class; You should mark that the impression received by Alcatraz83 is such that he feels his instructor wishes to demean him in front of the class, sort of put him in his place.
Such dynamics between pupil and instructor are - in my personal view - unbecoming and damaging any learning process.

Because the climate where I live is so hot, all of my tutorages so far have been mask & glove.
When my coach wants to prove a point he tells me before hand or demonstrates it a couple of times - always gently, till I get the point.
When he thinks I'm parrying to soon - believe me, he comes through my defences without so much as clicking the spring in the tip of the foil.
Not just because I'm unprotected, but also because he believes that a student can only learn by embracing his coach's advise and not whilst bracing himself waiting for the next hit to land.
I think that hits into action during tutorage are acceptable if they are a part of the manoeuvre, and not preformed in a demeaning spirit.
I kind of get that impression from Alcatraz83 - he sounds hurt...

Last thing: Haven't you learned by now that it's not wise to disagree with me?

:transport

(that's a man disagreeing with me, sleeping with the fish)

randomsabreur
-9th May 2003, 17:28
Getting hit (on preparation for instance) it very educative in its place. If you are "Faffing around" at too close a distance, you will get hit. better to learn that in a lesson than in a DE fight you really want to win. Seriously, the pupil should get most hits but there are times when a gentle touch is worth a thousand words! I agree sometimes, the coach doesn't need to hit, especially when you have tripped over your own feet and are in a tangled heap at his feet!

Cvillefencer
-5th June 2003, 14:37
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alcatraz83
I never know what to do "reguarding flicks from my coach"
Sorry to pick on you Alcatraz, but this argument drives me nuts, and you are the first I have heard us it on this board, so forgive me if I am more of a jerk than normal in the following! :)

As to what to do, there are about a million things. When I flick a student it is because they are leaning forward or dipping the shoulder before they attack. It is not a flick the student hobby, but a training tool. Even in parry drills if they stoop/dip, I am going to swat them and they learn to keep proper posture. Eventually! So I am a horrible brutal coach. I can live with that, being a horrible brutal fencer. Any you should have met my Kenjitsu Sensei. At least I do not bruise ribs or break wrists while fencing.

As to what to do, do not lean over, do not dip your shoulder, vary your distance, parry five and counter flick, try a "cat hop" to change distance, bend your knees, hit him as soon as his arm goes up but before it begins to extend, take and keep point in line before he can close, and a bunch more!

I would have to fence you to give you better advice. Just keep in mind that A. It is a difficult attack to defend against if done properly, and that is why it is used to begin with. and B. Your coach should be able to hit you at will with any strike he pleases, as he is by definition better than you. Do not get discouraged, and just keep fencing.

And now to the part that pisses me off!

and it vexxes me because back in the old days, two people dueling would flick their swords, that would cause any damage to the other and their swords didn't bend like that.

Swell. If you ever find yourself in a "real" sword fight, don't flick. Seems simple enough to me! :grin:

Now having said that, I have several schlaggers and rapiers lying about and guess what, I fence with them too. If you have the means and the wrist strength I challenge you to try this. Take any old swept hilt schlager with a decent blade (American Fencer, France Lames, and that German forge I can't think of make the best), a pumpkin, and a tall table or stand.

Set your pumpkin up there, put a silly little musketeer hat on it, and, turning your blade over so that the flat is towards your opponent, flick that puppy! I can get about 3"inches into the pumpkin, 2" if I have to go through the felt hat.

Most duels, contrary to TV, were fought to first blood. Whack your opponent with the flat of the blade on his guard, your blade arcs over behind his glove (There is a reason they wore huge long gloves) and draws blood. Fight over, you win, bring on wenches and ale.

If a sword blade has no flex it will break. Pure and simple. Even the Japanese blades have a soft steel core and spine to give it a little wiggle! You may not have been able to flick with a bastard sword or claymore, but you could have with a rapier!

reposte
-5th June 2003, 17:29
That makes me giggle too, every time I hear the "never would have flicked on a real duel" argument.
Guess what, you wouldn't have given right of way as well!

Is it any fun btw, the schlägger business?

Cvillefencer
-5th June 2003, 19:10
Originally posted by reposte
That makes me giggle too, every time I hear the "never would have flicked on a real duel" argument.
Guess what, you wouldn't have given right of way as well!

Is it any fun btw, the schlägger business?

I will have to add that to my argument! Very good point by the way.

As to the schlagger, I think it is grand fun, but it is not the best cross training for foil or saber! It is not bad for epee as you need great distance and have to be patient to get a good shot. The blades and weapons are very heavy compared to epees, so it is almost like strength training for your wrist and arm.

I am not sure if the have the SCA in your neck of the words, but you might look them up. They are the largest worldwide group that uses schlaggers. Also there is the European Medieval Martial Arts Association, and they do all the old weapons. They are not my area whoever.

I would recommend it to anyone! It is great fun and the ability to make draw cuts and grab the other guys weapon with your free hand, or use a dagger or another sword in it is grand fun!