PDA

View Full Version : Someone who has tested the new timings



gbm
-25th March 2004, 19:42
I just found this thread on fencing.net for all you people who don't go there. I think it's fantastic news.

http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10469&page=1&pp=30

A few summarisations:
Flicks to outside and back dramatically reduced (flicks to inside not tested).
Coach's success rate in flicks falls from 80% to 20% (clearly now an unviable attack).
Glancing hits less likely to score as well.
Some more counter attacks, but not dominating.
Move of choice - the parry riposte (clearly not killed by the new blocking time).
Ineffective of remises (killed by new blocking time?)
Defensive now more effective, but well-developed attacks just as successful (will promote both good quality attacks and good quality defence?)

Some people seem to have concluded this will reduce 'nuking from space' (thank God for that, that's been happening to me for 4 years...).

'New' flicks to inside will be parryable, so this is good.

gbm
-25th March 2004, 19:46
Will Leon Paul provide a similar modification to alternate between old and future timings on club boxes?

reposte
-25th March 2004, 20:29
Since we don't know anything about the fencing qualities of the writer, I think that we ought to remain in the dark until we see it on the international junior circuit.

gbm
-25th March 2004, 20:36
But there is significant changes! His/her coach could only get 20% instead of 80% flicks!

uk_45
-25th March 2004, 21:29
Yeah but we have to take in to account so many times for it to be a far test both boxes should have been running at the same time.

Robert
-25th March 2004, 21:50
Goodbadandme,

I read the thread as well, and I think you need to be careful about drawing too much into this regarding the flick. It is hard to tell how people will adapt and as epeecurean points out the standard of the fencers (even the coach).

The information about glancing hits is more interesting. Glancing hits not registering, a significant reduction on white lights on the sword arm. This seems independent of standard. So the timing change might have beneficial (and unintended) effects aside from the flick.

Robert

Threestain
-25th March 2004, 22:39
Also is it beneficial to remove remises? Surely they are not on your banned list too?

Allowing for further testing, essentially this makes foil more defensive and less attacking. Which makes it more like epee.

I'm sorry if this post sounds nasty or cutting, its not meant to be, I just feel that rules should not be made to cope for fencers failing to adapt and improve their game so that they can beat fencers who may well be better and more experienced (or not of course ;)), but just have a different technique. If we all fenced the same this sport would be dull. But uniform in ability. Easy to start and just as easy to leave.

gbm
-26th March 2004, 13:42
A 'valid' remise (i.e. one that is done against a lack of immediate riposte) will still register. Out-of-time remises will not, which is keeping with the rules of foil. Remises are valid in epee, but not foil, so removing out-of-time remises enhances ROW (less reliance on the referee really).
Foil is currently via biased to the attacker. A bit of a shift to the defender will not do anything except enhance the effectiveness of ripostes, which are also a 'foily' thing (they can and are used in epee, but they don't have the status that they do in foil).
These changes should only enhance the game; the changes do not stop anything that is a really valid action if performed well (flicks aren't a really 'valid' action in my book), but the changes will prevent a lot of invalid action - specifically out-of-time remises. Which is a good thing, because it reduces the reliance on the referee, which (no offence to referees) is a damn good thing.
Ideally, we should all be refereed by computer, but I suspect that's a few years off yet...
It will also increase the effective of counter attacks that land a period of fencing time ahead of the final action of a compound attack, which is also good.
And it will stop sneaky people hitting well after the've been hit!
It should increase objectivity and decrease subjectivity in refereeing.
I don't think the blocking time will help counterattacks made on bent-arm preparations, though. The removal of flicks may do this, though.

Threestain
-26th March 2004, 13:52
a valid remise is just one that happens to occur - ie no one waits for the opponent to pause and then attack. also it removes the "lucky" hit - one that hits because the reposte misses - would be out of time normally but counts due to the opponent being at fault - do you really want to remove such luck?

and you're wrong about the status of parries in epee - they carry a great deal of weight - you have to be damn sure you're going to hit with a counter attack or else you've given away a hit, which are much more precious in epee. They might not give you right of way, but they give you time to hit.

counter-attacks against compound attacks ar a good thing then? I think you mean attacks into preparation. counter-attacks would surely still be a bad thing. also it reduces the final action hit that I thought was a mojor component in foil - ie if I have ROW and start an attacking action, just because it is slow/takes a while doesn't mean its not valid, which is what this might remove (correct me if wrong - probably am).

Computers are not ideal for this type of thing - subtleties are key, and rules change - people can adapt computers can't.

Prometheus
-26th March 2004, 13:59
You are right Threestain. As you say slow attacks will be much more dangerous but it all depends on how slow an attack can be - just not a slow as you can do now.

The aim is to re-instate more of the very bladey style of fencing common 20 years or more ago as old codgers like Rene Roche think it is better than modern foil.

gbm
-26th March 2004, 14:04
Originally posted by Threestain
a valid remise is just one that happens to occur - ie no one waits for the opponent to pause and then attack. also it removes the "lucky" hit - one that hits because the reposte misses - would be out of time normally but counts due to the opponent being at fault - do you really want to remove such luck?

That would still come up (as there hasn't been a hit to active the blocking time yet)...


and you're wrong about the status of parries in epee - they carry a great deal of weight - you have to be damn sure you're going to hit with a counter attack or else you've given away a hit, which are much more precious in epee. They might not give you right of way, but they give you time to hit.

Agreed. I just meant they didn't give you ROW like they do in foil. In epee, the blocking time is so short that remises won't usually come up anyway, but in foil remises are only currently prevented by the rules. In other words, it's actually easier to get a remise to come up on the box on the weapon they are penalised in!


counter-attacks against compound attacks ar a good thing then? I think you mean attacks into preparation. counter-attacks would surely still be a bad thing. also it reduces the final action hit that I thought was a mojor component in foil - ie if I have ROW and start an attacking action, just because it is slow/takes a while doesn't mean its not valid, which is what this might remove (correct me if wrong - probably am).

In foil, if somebody does a compound attack, you are allowed to stop hit against it provided your stop hit arrives before the compound attack's final action begins. This is because the stop hit is a period of fencing time ahead of the compound attack and so is given priority.
Attacks on the preparation are done against preparations before the start of the opponent's attack; these will not really be affected unless the attack on preparation is so obvious anyway that there shouldn't be any confusion.


Computers are not ideal for this type of thing - subtleties are key, and rules change - people can adapt computers can't.

I was being facetious. :)

And what is the box, if not a very small computer (especially nowadays, where they are more software than hardware)?

gbm
-26th March 2004, 14:08
Originally posted by Prometheus
You are right Threestain. As you say slow attacks will be much more dangerous but it all depends on how slow an attack can be - just not a slow as you can do now.

The aim is to re-instate more of the very bladey style of fencing common 20 years or more ago as old codgers like Rene Roche think it is better than modern foil.

I wasn't even born twenty years ago, and I still think it must have been better (since every time people talk about correct applications of the rules people accuse them of loving the 70's...)

I believe even Sergei Golubitsky has been quoted as saying foil was more interesting in the past (presumably back 5-15 years?) Or something vaguely to that effect.

Prometheus
-26th March 2004, 15:02
I'm sure if it were possible we could all club together to get you a time machine so you can go back and find out. Damn,we can only afford a one way ticket :moon:

gbm
-26th March 2004, 15:07
Originally posted by Prometheus
I'm sure if it were possible we could all club together to get you a time machine so you can go back and find out. Damn,we can only afford a one way ticket :moon:

That's so kind of you to offer though... :)

But then I'd have to see foil go downhill for ten to twenty years...

I'm probably better off now seeing the revival of 'proper' foil.

Prometheus
-26th March 2004, 15:16
I'm probably better off now seeing the revival of 'proper' foil.

Why, are you planning on going to a decent club to see proper foilists then?:rolleyes:

Barry Paul
-26th March 2004, 17:07
We should have a new chip out just after Easter to go in our new F.I.E. standard club battery boxes so fencers should be able to try. But as yet no mangerotti points. P.S if you want to see old fencing just watch me or Graham at the Nationals. Barry Paul

DanInMI
-26th March 2004, 20:47
Originally posted by Threestain
Also is it beneficial to remove remises? Surely they are not on your banned list too?

Allowing for further testing, essentially this makes foil more defensive and less attacking. Which makes it more like epee.

I'm sorry if this post sounds nasty or cutting, its not meant to be, I just feel that rules should not be made to cope for fencers failing to adapt and improve their game so that they can beat fencers who may well be better and more experienced (or not of course ;)), but just have a different technique. If we all fenced the same this sport would be dull. But uniform in ability. Easy to start and just as easy to leave.
The rule changes have nothing to do with "fencers failing to adapt and improve their game so that they can beat fencers who may well be better and more experienced." The timing changes being implemented are designed to undo the changes in the game that advances in technology have brought about.

It happens in sports all the time that rules are adapted to adjust for advances in technology. For example, golf club manufactures COULD build clubs with super long, flexible, shafts that a duffer like myself could use to hit a golf ball 400 yards, but the rules have been adopted to prevent that because it would ruin the game. tennis ball companies could make 200mph tennis balls, but rules have been adopted because there would be no more long rallies and that would ruin the game.

In fencing the electronic scoring machines and super flexible steel blades made the flick a viable attack that had never been viable before. Over the years the fencers have learned to make extensive use of this attack and it has changed the game in ways never imagined when the game was created. These rule changes only serve to overcome this and return the character of foil to a thrusting weapon again.

Threestain
-26th March 2004, 22:37
I don't know whether these "super flexible" blades have made the impact that electronic scoring has but fair enough. I remember reading that electronic scoring has actually moved the sport closer to its roots than it was before - ie more like duelling in that you didn't have to show off how fancy your move was to impress the judges and get a hit, you merely got the hit because you hit. And also I don't think that technology has advanced as much as in golf or tennis (no offense Barry) merely because of a lack of market - golf and tennis are huge sports, with even the worst people demanding quality kit and willing to pay over the odds for it - therefore more R&D and more technology. Fencing is on a more reduced line as less money for R&D

So the slow attack is now in danger because of the blocking time - thank you Prometheus for clarifying. Surely this is a bad thing? Especially with spectators in mind. It might be very impressive to see a blur of action and a flashing light, but a really slow progressive attack that should have right of way, looking lovely, would be better surely?

And yes of course if someone misses no blocking time, d'oh! :)

Proper foil should be messy and stuff. No one wants to see clinical sport - think back to when you last watched sport - was it not emotions and genuine determination rather than style that got you more enthralled?

gbm
-27th March 2004, 09:57
I agree that electric scoring has moved foil closer to its duelling roots. I would never dream of fencing steam competitively.

But while the move has overall moved foil closer to its roots, in a few respects (i.e. flicking, the difficulty of seeing attacks on prep) it has moved it further away. So by tweaking the box, these unwanted introductions are being removed. Flicking is being removed, and overly slow actions are being prevented.

As for the slow attack, if your opponent hits you and you don't hit them in 300 ms, then in real life you'd be dead. If your opponent counters in a slow attack, you just have to finish quickly. If your riposte or attack is too slow, it's just silly.

I personally don't think the super-flexible blades are essential to flicking, although they do help.

Proper foil, like proper duelling, should be allowed to be messy (just don't ever say that when coaching), provided that actions performed do still fall under the general definitions of the rules. Attacks must have an straight or extending arm, or they don't provide the 'immediate threat' that is the basis of ROW.

And as for Prometheus, do you know any good fencing clubs within 20 miles of Newport or Cardiff? Other than Cardiff, which I will be going to every week very shortly?

Unfortunately, they mostly do epee (silly weapon :) ), except for Stuart Wheeler who comes often, and a few other people I haven't met yet.

Robert
-27th March 2004, 11:17
Originally posted by Threestain
So the slow attack is now in danger because of the blocking time - thank you Prometheus for clarifying. Surely this is a bad thing?

This is a total red herring. Both remises and slow attacks will be unaffected by the changes. To affect them you would have to drop to a much lower blocking time than 0.3s. Remember at the present time, a beginner can be hit by a remise, return to ciste, think about it, slowly stick arm out, and their light still comes on.

Also remember, most remises, even those that are out of time, arrive before the riposte, by virtue of the attackers point being closer to the target.

It also isn't going to stop a marching attack, any half-competent fencer could make three feints, and still flick to my back within 0.3s of my counter landing (if he couldn't I would be able to parry it).

The 0.7 to 0.3 block-out time was largely a house-keeping exercise by the FIE. As they pointed out in their studies last year no president ever awarded anything that arrived more than 0.2s after the oponents blade. Any riposte, remise, or attack, that arrives more than 0.3s after the oponents blade resulted from an error on the part of the fencer (what-ever their style).

Robert

Prometheus
-27th March 2004, 11:39
Originally posted by Robert
This is a total red herring. Both remises and slow attacks will be unaffected by the changes. To affect them you would have to drop to a much lower blocking time than 0.3s. Remember at the present time, a beginner can be hit by a remise, return to ciste, think about it, slowly stick arm out, and their light still comes on.


Perhaps , but I think not. We aren't talking about beginners - the FIE care nothing for the effects at the bottom of the barrel. Almost all remises I see occur at the same time or very closely to the riposte.


Originally posted by Robert

The 0.7 to 0.3 block-out time was largely a house-keeping exercise by the FIE. As they pointed out in their studies last year no president ever awarded anything that arrived more than 0.2s after the oponents blade. Any riposte, remise, or attack, that arrives more than 0.3s after the oponents blade resulted from an error on the part of the fencer (what-ever their style).

The claim was made in the context of the tests, not in general foil refereeing.



Originally posted by Robert
Also remember, most remises, even those that are out of time, arrive before the riposte, by virtue of the attackers point being closer to the target.


This can only be caused by very poor fencing skills.

Robert
-27th March 2004, 12:01
Originally posted by Prometheus
Perhaps , but I think not. We aren't talking about beginners - the FIE care nothing for the effects at the bottom of the barrel. Almost all remises I see occur at the same time or very closely to the riposte.

Which was my point. The block-out time will have a little or no effect.



This (remise landing before a riposte) can only be caused by very poor fencing skills.

Go and try it. Fencer A attacks, Fencer B parry. Fencer B holds the parry. When Fencer B ripostes Fencer A flicks the point back on with fingers. Before you make a bald statement like the one above actually try it. A lands just before or with B, never behind.

Why do you think epeists so rarely riposte with detachment? Why do foilists get hit by remises when they do carte-riposte in epee?
(the riposte arrives first on only two occasions, when the attack is deep and has to withdraw his arm to hit, when the shock of the parry causes him to hesitate).

I suspect you are just being argumentative but my point stands, the timing change of importance is the depression time on the tip. The 0.7 to 0.3 second change on block-out time is largely irrelevant to the discussion.

Robert

Rdb811
-27th March 2004, 15:42
Originally posted by Threestain
No one wants to see clinical sport - think back to when you last watched sport - was it not emotions and genuine determination rather than style that got you more enthralled?

Ah - the plucky Brit up against the silky skills of the of the wiley foreigner.

Much as I am a 'determined' fencer, I enjoy seeing displays of skill - I even once watched some clay court tennis (French Open) on TV a few years ago on TV to enjoy the skills displayed, not that I like tennis.

gbm
-27th March 2004, 17:29
Originally posted by Barry Paul
We should have a new chip out just after Easter to go in our new F.I.E. standard club battery boxes so fencers should be able to try. But as yet no mangerotti points. P.S if you want to see old fencing just watch me or Graham at the Nationals. Barry Paul

What happens to the thousands of non-FIE blue boxes then? Can old club recorders have new circuitry put in, either now or when the rule changes come into effect?

Prometheus
-27th March 2004, 21:58
Originally posted by Robert
Which was my point. The block-out time will have a little or no effect.

Go and try it. Fencer A attacks, Fencer B parry. Fencer B holds the parry. When Fencer B ripostes Fencer A flicks the point back on with fingers. Before you make a bald statement like the one above actually try it. A lands just before or with B, never behind.

Why do you think epeists so rarely riposte with detachment? Why do foilists get hit by remises when they do carte-riposte in epee?
(the riposte arrives first on only two occasions, when the attack is deep and has to withdraw his arm to hit, when the shock of the parry causes him to hesitate).

I suspect you are just being argumentative but my point stands, the timing change of importance is the depression time on the tip. The 0.7 to 0.3 second change on block-out time is largely irrelevant to the discussion.

Robert

The reason epeeists do ripostes with opposition is because they want a hit with one light not a double which implies avoiding a remise in time - all because their riposte and the remise may land within the 50 milliseconds either way.

I am being argumentative because your conclusion is based on suspect reasoning - and if you care to know I have had considerable experience fencing epee and foil - the latter at FIE competitions. Plus I coach both weapons professionally so like to think I have a fairly strong theoretical, as well as practical, understanding of the differences. What are your qualifications to express an opinion?:moon:

PS You don't spell Quarte as carte - carte is french for menu as in 'a la carte'. double :moon: :moon: :tongue:

Robert
-27th March 2004, 22:17
Originally posted by Prometheus
What are your qualifications to express an opinion?

I've tested it, because I've had the argument before. I'm right, you're wrong. In fact you contradict yourself in your own posts, as you both state the riposte lands first, but say at other points it lands at the same time, and that it lands within 0.05 seconds, yet you are argueing against a position that says it will land within 0.3 seconds.

To put it simply, when you parry quarte your oponent's point is closer to your target than yours is to them (measure it if your years of fencing experience have not given a basic grasp on this). Now while your fencing ability is not in doubt, if you think travel time is independent of distance then your grasp of basic physics is pretty poor.

As for your absurd suggestion about the epee parry, I know you're too good to really think that. You are being argumentative because you are that sort of awkward individual.

Robert

Barry Paul
-28th March 2004, 07:54
Robert Prometheus play nicely or I will set KingKenny onto you. Both risk being thrown into the pits hell (chit-chat) or worse.

I suggest that when we have a new apparatus program with the changes we can lend you both apparatuses to fence with and then report back. See me at Birmingham or PM me. Barry Paul

Prometheus
-28th March 2004, 13:09
Originally posted by Robert
I've tested it, because I've had the argument before. I'm right, you're wrong. In fact you contradict yourself in your own posts, as you both state the riposte lands first, but say at other points it lands at the same time, and that it lands within 0.05 seconds, yet you are argueing against a position that says it will land within 0.3 seconds.

To put it simply, when you parry quarte your oponent's point is closer to your target than yours is to them (measure it if your years of fencing experience have not given a basic grasp on this). Now while your fencing ability is not in doubt, if you think travel time is independent of distance then your grasp of basic physics is pretty poor.

As for your absurd suggestion about the epee parry, I know you're too good to really think that. You are being argumentative because you are that sort of awkward individual.

Robert

OK, I admit I am an awkward individual (to avoid the wrath of KingKenny) - and practicing for joining the Vets in a few years time :rolleyes:

sparkymark567
-29th March 2004, 14:58
What was the timing again, 0.3 to 0.7, that's a huge tolerence, all the scoring machines could end up completely different.

Also, does anyone know what the new contact time is, was it 12 to 15 mSecs.

Have these proposed changes been finalised or are they still under discussion.

Prometheus
-29th March 2004, 15:10
What was the timing again, 0.3 to 0.7, that's a huge tolerence, all the scoring machines could end up completely different.

No, it's not tolerance that Robert is referring to. This is the change in the blocking time that is going to be tested in the Junior A grades, down from 700ms to 300 is what was meant.

Robert
-29th March 2004, 16:41
Sparkymark,

As Prometheus correctly points out it is not tolerance that is being talked out.

At the moment if a hit arrives within 0.7s or your oponents hit it MUST be registered by the apparatus. If it arrives 0.8s after the oponent's hit it MUST NOT be registered by the apparatus.

It is this which we refer to as a 0.7s block-out time. This is to be reduced to 0.3s (which I presume means their will be some small range of tolerance around 0.3s like the present one). I feel this will have no effect, and Prometheus politely disagrees.

As for the depression time this works the same way. At the moment a depression of less than 2ms MUST NOT register, and one greater than 4ms MUST register. I understand they plan to raise it so that a depression of 15ms or less MUST NOT register (though again I don't recall the exact tolerances being mentioned in the FIE documents about this). This, I think, we all agree will make some difference, though we disagree on what that difference will be.

Barry,

Do you have exact figures the FIE are looking for with the upper and lower tolerances?

Robert

Prometheus
-29th March 2004, 23:57
I concur thoroughly with Robert's version. Our only disagreement refers to the perceived aspect of the change. The timing of remises etc. which is more, or less down to methodology.

I don't intend to progress this argument further. As I have hitherto stated the FIE are not concerned with this level of fencing (provincial - UK) but only the world cup level, so in my opinion such arguments are trivial until the BFA appreciate the importance of [standards in] provincial fencing to the greater good of British Fencing (my opinion only).

Enough caveats and clauses I think there;)


PS I once heard (third hand admittedly) that it was the opinion of the some of the 'great & good' that if one didn't fence in London then a fencer would never make it 'internationally'. Is this what British Fencing is about? Comments please....

On a postcard to the sticks :)

Prometheus
-30th March 2004, 00:06
Forgive the exorbitant use of commas in that last post. It's late.

rory
-30th March 2004, 08:29
doesn't live in London ... never make it "internationally"

I do hope Donnie Mackenzie doesn't hear about that.

Prometheus
-30th March 2004, 10:57
I do hope Donnie Mackenzie doesn't hear about that.


Quite.

I'd guess the same people would claim that as the exception that proves the rule.

sparkymark567
-1st April 2004, 11:13
O.K thanks Robert/ Prometheus.

0.3 sounds quite small to me. I guess it will make a difference, we'll have to wait and see.

gbm
-1st April 2004, 11:19
0.3 seconds is an eternity when someone's sword is flying towards your chest...

Barry Paul
-1st April 2004, 12:34
Contact time.

1. In the past the non-valid time regulation has been 2-10 ms , (We used 5 to 6)
2. Valid time 1-5 ms (We used 2 to 3)

This means our non valid contact time is always longer than the valid time.

The new trial regulations are contact time Valid 15 ms. However there has be no comment on non-valid contact timing. This will have been forgotten because very few people in the F.I.E. understand the problems. I am trying to get a firm answer from th SEMI.

So depending how the apparatus works, if its is an analogue circuit the non valid time will have to be longer than the valid time. For some microproccesors programs it might need complete re-write of the program.

Best if the non-valid hit is longer than the valid. However we might see fast hits on the mask being obvious but not being shown on the box. If and when non valid lights go this will not matter.


Barry Paul

Prometheus
-1st April 2004, 14:23
Good point.

I guess it ought to be a touch longer (forgive the pun) but you never know what the SEMI will say....:confused:

aao
-1st April 2004, 15:46
Originally posted by Prometheus
I PS I once heard (third hand admittedly) that it was the opinion of the some of the 'great & good' that if one didn't fence in London then a fencer would never make it 'internationally'. Is this what British Fencing is about? Comments please....


very few of our fencers ever do make it internationally whether they fence in London or not :(

out of those who have Louise and James W both live/lived out in the states, Richard Kruse lives in London and Georgina Usher was based in London for the vast majority of her career (when she wasn't in budapest). (i take 'making it internationally' as being able to regularily get a 16 or above at a senior A-grade i.e. not just being selected to fence internationally and getting the odd 64 or occasional 32)

The simple fact is that, virtually all of the top coaches live in London (yes there are one or 2 exceptions) and the vast majority of the top fencers do too. If you don't have a v.good coach and good (well as good as it get domestically) people to fence you are far less likely to make it. The only weapon where there seems to be a good non london base is sabre, with the NE lot but even then there are only 2 sabreurs of any international note and neither of them are even UK based!.

As for Juniors? the standard internationally is alot lower then in the seniors (this is not me being snobby its just a fact) so the gap between our domestic fencers and the internationals is not that great and as a result we get a far higher percentage of good results. The london based cadets and juniors do benefit from fencing the good seniors as the standard of our top seniors is pretty similar to that of the top range of international juniors, and the coaching element obviously plays a big part. A junior level you probably don't have to be based in London to have a chance of succeding providing your local area has a decent smattering of goodish senior fencers but still the majority of the top juniors are all London based (LTFC for example has provided virtually the entire Junior mens and womens epee team for the worlds)

Peoples best bet for 'making it internationally' move out of the country to somewhere like Hungary/Poland France etc.

Prometheus
-1st April 2004, 22:53
That's true. In fact I was flaming to draw a response that I knew was true. The question should be or could be : is Britain able to attain a better standard, if so how?

At present I see NO depth in the fencing mix that could possibly support any claim of consistent results compared to say France, Germany, Russia, Poland, Austria...... I'll stop there as the list could be endless!

PS anyone considered how Egypt does so well and we don't?

Rdb811
-1st April 2004, 23:39
Simple - build a much bigger popular base for the sport, so that there can be more full time coaches, more kids coming through the schools, more adult fencers to fund all this. etc.

Then with a much broader base the top of the pyramid can be higher and taller. (i.e. if you have 10,000 fencers, one of them would be able to'make it' internationally, with 20,000 you've got two and they can push each other along).

I suspect the Egyptians put there money into a handful of sports - including, bizarrely, golf croquet (which is neither golf nor croquet).

Prometheus
-2nd April 2004, 00:11
Golf Croquet???:confused:
What's that then? Is the best result a hoop in one?:rolleyes:

seriously,
Hmmm, that would take a group of professionals to run a sport that had so many noughts in the number!

Rdb811
-2nd April 2004, 12:07
Golf croquet has the reputation has the old ladies game - you play each hoop in turn - when a player wins a hoop, everyone moves onto the next (like a Stapleford in golf if my knowledge of golf is correct) - quick game, seen as an intro to the 'real' thing - which involves building breaks like in snooker / billiards. The Eqyptian golf croquet players are better at golf croquet than the best Association Croquet players (including Reg Bamford, best player of all time).

Rdb811
-2nd April 2004, 12:08
Originally posted by Prometheus


seriously,
Hmmm, that would take a group of professionals to run a sport that had so many noughts in the number!

Yes, in short.

Prometheus
-2nd April 2004, 13:03
Then with a much broader base the top of the pyramid can be higher and taller. (i.e. if you have 10,000 fencers, one of them would be able to'make it' internationally, with 20,000 you've got two and they can push each other along).

Of course you could try and with 10,000 get two or three. Or is this a revolutionary idea?

Rdb811
-2nd April 2004, 16:57
The problem is too deep seated.

I pulled the 10,000 off the top of my head, but my point remains the same - there isn't enough raw material to work with - getting 2 or 3 out of the 10,000 would be easier if the infrastructure existed (i.e. the top of the pyramid could then start to pull the second tier through).

Lynne
-11th April 2004, 10:09
I have no problem with Prometheus bitching about goodbadandme - he is asking for everything he gets.

I do, however, have a problem with the remarks about the club - I fenced there for many years, and the coach is my father.

So wind your neck in if you don't mind.

There are many provincial clubs where the fencers might not be world championship standard, but they are no less valid than the so called "top" clubs, and, in my limited experience, promote much more enjoyment of the sport as well as sportsmanship, which could be said to be absent a lot of the time from fencing.

By all means, tell Andrew what you think of him. But visit the club and benefitfrom some decent coaching before you start on those people who are good enough to put up with him in person on a regular basis.

gbm
-11th April 2004, 12:06
Originally posted by Lynne
I have no problem with Prometheus bitching about goodbadandme - he is asking for everything he gets.
Absolutely :)

Many clubs suffer from a poor or non-existent coach. Newport and Chepstow are not one of them. They have a very good coach, and I purposely miss the national Welsh coach at Cardiff Uni on a Monday to go to Newport and purposely miss Cardiff fencing on a Friday to go to Chepstow. Despite the fact that I already pay for the two Cardiff clubs, annually for one and monthly for the other and so have to pay extra for Newport and Chepstow, I still choose to go to these first. The atmosphere in the clubs is fantastic, and there is proper training (warmup, footwork, and exercises).
Newport and Chepstow do not suffer from a bad coach, or even an average coach. They 'suffer' from people like me, if you want look at it that way. I mostly fence at Cardiff Uni because of the great student atmosphere. I only go to Cardiff to fence new people.
Of course some people still think that having fun is more important than anything else...

Do you think Oddball represents the entire population of Guernsey?

Prometheus
-12th April 2004, 23:35
Originally posted by Lynne
I have no problem with Prometheus bitching about goodbadandme - he is asking for everything he gets.

I do, however, have a problem with the remarks about the club - I fenced there for many years, and the coach is my father.

So wind your neck in if you don't mind.

There are many provincial clubs where the fencers might not be world championship standard, but they are no less valid than the so called "top" clubs, and, in my limited experience, promote much more enjoyment of the sport as well as sportsmanship, which could be said to be absent a lot of the time from fencing.

By all means, tell Andrew what you think of him. But visit the club and benefitfrom some decent coaching before you start on those people who are good enough to put up with him in person on a regular basis.

Of course, as the smiley :rolleyes: I put against indicated it wasn't meant to be taken at face value or otherwise.

Prometheus
-12th April 2004, 23:36
Originally posted by Rdb811
The problem is too deep seated.

I pulled the 10,000 off the top of my head, but my point remains the same - there isn't enough raw material to work with - getting 2 or 3 out of the 10,000 would be easier if the infrastructure existed (i.e. the top of the pyramid could then start to pull the second tier through).

I think the raw material is available but as you say the infrastructure is not.

Lynne
-18th April 2004, 20:18
Originally posted by Prometheus
Of course, as the smiley :rolleyes: I put against indicated it wasn't meant to be taken at face value or otherwise.

Point taken - apologies for being snappy - someof us do get a bit fedup with being treated as second class citizens though. We can't all get to "Salle Wonderful" every week!

tigger
-19th April 2004, 07:58
QUOTE RDB811 - Then with a much broader base the top of the pyramid can be higher and taller. (i.e. if you have 10,000 fencers, one of them would be able to'make it' internationally, with 20,000 you've got two and they can push each other along).

Can anyone explain away Romania's success then?
30 clubs and 800 registered fencers in the country. At the last World Champs (Havana) they took home 1 Women's Sabre Gold, 1 men's Sabre Silver, 1 Women's Foil bronze, 1 foil team bronze and overall 5th place joint with France in the competition???? A very small base to their pyramid....

pinkelephant
-19th April 2004, 12:00
More of a pillar, really.

Insipiens
-19th April 2004, 13:06
may be it is the availability of scary Eastern European coaches ??

(after all most of the UK's top fencers seem to be coached by them).

Rdb811
-19th April 2004, 16:53
Originally posted by tigger
QUOTE RDB811 - Then with a much broader base the top of the pyramid can be higher and taller. (with 20,000 you've got two and they can push each other along).

Can anyone explain away Romania's success then?

A very small base to their pyramid....

Hmmm - perhaps the base doesn't get to fence - i.e. there is a lot of weeding out. Dunno - it could be the coaching.

gbm
-19th April 2004, 17:08
I wonder what there international standard coach:fencer ratio is?
And I wonder how the fraction of the 800 fencers who go to the top ten clubs in Romania compares with the fraction of fencers in the UK who go to the top ten clubs? I can't see us producing international level fencers except at the top clubs (maybe not the top ten, but most fencers have to move to better clubs, don't they?).

bmadigan
-20th April 2004, 22:19
These are allowed to confuse new foilists. I have (more than once) been skewered well after making what I thought was a valid touch. Out of time remises are fencing's sucker punches. I think novices are just confused by this, but maybe it does teach them to be more mindful of right of way.

Epeecurean
-21st April 2004, 08:51
Originally posted by Prometheus
PS anyone considered how Egypt does so well and we don't?

Egypt doesn't do well, GBR is considerably better. They have qualified more fencers for the Olympics though because of the zonal qualifying system. Qualifying out of Africa is a tad easier than qualifying out of Europe...

Prometheus
-21st April 2004, 09:48
Hmmm, I hadn't thought that through, had I...... :(

So we can put our lack of presence down to the not so level playing field that M. Roche has developed.

It's always more comforting to pass blame onto a 3rd party.

pinkelephant
-21st April 2004, 11:07
I think for this one you can probably blame the IOC rather than M. Roch - the sport has to be seen to be global or it is in danger of being kicked out of the Olympics.

Prometheus
-21st April 2004, 12:18
but that explanation doesn't suit my particular and unfounded vindictiveness.

J_D
-26th April 2004, 22:18
btw, when are the new timings actually coming into effect..ie when will they be used in Open tournements in the UK?

gbm
-26th April 2004, 22:23
Just guestimating now:
It is coming into effect for the Juniors in the 2004-2005 season. Therefore logically, it should extend to the seniors either 2005-2006 or 2006-2007 if delayed, and therefore should be pretty universal 2006-2007 or 2007-2008. Not so sure about the tips, though. Anybody here old enough to remember pineapple tips?

J_D
-26th April 2004, 22:31
I might be old enough, but I've not been in the game long enough :rolleyes:

3 Card Trick
-27th April 2004, 13:38
Seem to recall we called them "beehive".

gbm
-27th April 2004, 13:43
Assuming this shows that you are old enough to remember them used (I've only seen one of my coach's ones once), how did the changeover go? Was it from the top down, with a period of changeover, or was it a planned date at which point all foils had to have the next point?

i.e. are we looking forward to a few years of some people with mangarotti's, some people with old-style, or will we simply be told that from Season 2006/7 or so, all foils must have Mangarotti tips in all competitions?

srb
-27th April 2004, 13:51
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Anybody here old enough to remember pineapple tips?

We called them 'mushroom tips', and I've still got one in a box of bits somewhere.

srb

gbm
-27th April 2004, 13:58
How come we don't have funny names for the current tips? And how did the changeover occur?