PDA

View Full Version : New foil point



tomanepb
-7th May 2004, 12:54
Hi
Does anybody know when the new foil point will be available, and what it'll look like?

Thanks
:confused:

kingkenny
-7th May 2004, 13:00
Which new foil point?
The Lp point or the marangotie(have no idea how to spell that)

wingnutLP
-7th May 2004, 13:01
It will be a while coming if it ever arrives...

I have never even seen a sample so it will most likley be at least a year.

tomanepb
-7th May 2004, 13:53
I think the name is Mangiarotti but, not shure of it.
By the new FIE regulations, it'll begin next season on Juniors World Cups only, along with other regulation changes.
:confused:

Australian
-7th May 2004, 14:06
Originally posted by tomanepb
By the new FIE regulations, it'll begin next season on Juniors World Cups only, along with other regulation changes.
:confused:

Nope, the delay (or non-existance) of the point has meant that only the new timings will be used, no change to the existing tip

pinkelephant
-7th May 2004, 15:07
Only the FIE would introduce a rule about a bit of kit which doesn't even exist without consulting the manufacturers.

reposte
-7th May 2004, 17:12
Only the FIE would introduce a rule about a bit of kit which doesn't even exist without consulting the manufacturers

You don't really think it's a biggy getting a stock of the new point, do you? It's all poiltics, trying to hold off the change until the demand for it loses momentum and the change will be recanted.

oddball
-7th May 2004, 19:36
Now it would be funny if the FIE tried to inforce the use of a piece of kit that wasn't actually put into production!!

gbm
-7th May 2004, 21:04
Do the specifications for the tip yet exist so that manufacturers can make their own i.e. max-min diameters internal-external, travel distance, method of working e.t.c.?

gbm
-7th May 2004, 21:45
Originally posted by Australian
Nope, the delay (or non-existance) of the point has meant that only the new timings will be used, no change to the existing tip

Where did you here that? Is it something the FIE have not officially admitted yet?

wingnutLP
-10th May 2004, 08:51
Originally posted by reposte
You don't really think it's a biggy getting a stock of the new point, do you? It's all poiltics, trying to hold off the change until the demand for it loses momentum and the change will be recanted.

It is not a question of getting stock of an item some manufacturers like to make their own equipment and design of a new item like that can easily take 6-12 months.

It is ridiculous that the FIE have not discussed the design of the point with the companies that manufacture a majority of the worlds fencing kit.

50 says the point will never come into use.

reposte
-10th May 2004, 09:19
It is ridiculous that the FIE have not discussed the design of the point with the companies that manufacture a majority of the worlds fencing kit.

Why? It's not their job to do so. Whome should they consult? If they were to consult with the leading company (Allstar) there would probably have been claims that the FIE aligns itself to suit the top brand.

I think the FIE have enough people that know enough about the relationship between the technical qualities of a weapon to the sport practiced by it and they figured that a Mangiarotti point would best suit the sport they envisage.

You say 6-12 months, the changes are not due to enter before that, only after the Olympics and even then only at the Junior level.


50 says the point will never come into use.

m'affraid we're of the same mind here...

Australian
-10th May 2004, 10:36
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Where did you here that? Is it something the FIE have not officially admitted yet?

from the head of one of the largest manufacturers in the world, and two senior FIE referees

gbm
-10th May 2004, 10:48
Why? It's not their job to do so. Whome should they consult? If they were to consult with the leading company (Allstar) there would probably have been claims that the FIE aligns itself to suit the top brand.

Actually I would say that if the FIE wants to bring in a new design of point, then the FIE must actually tell manufacturers what they want, and it would only be sensible to hold a consultation with the major manufacturers (Allstar, PBT, LP e.t.c.) as the manufacturers might point out that something is impossible, but that it could be done this way instead...
It is a bit silly that the manufacturers have not been consulted in this way. What are the specifications for the new point, anyway?

I just hope that they either bring it in next time round, or they increase the contact time to 25ms to compensate.

When the FIE admit that it isn't going to happen next year, the s*** is really going to hit the fan...

oddball
-10th May 2004, 11:34
Yes, that is rather stupid.

gbm
-10th May 2004, 11:51
Which is a shame, really, as the ideas behind the FIE's proposals are very good.

sparkymark567
-10th May 2004, 11:55
Originally posted by goodbadandme

I just hope that they either bring it in next time round, or they increase the contact time to 25ms to compensate.


I guess your really not a fan of flick hits then. (I am by the way)

I don't think 25mS has ever been considered. This will cause many visable hits not to register. and that would be really stupid. You may as well throw the scoring apparatus away if you don't want it work properly

.... 25 mS. Why would you want to do this? The new foil point means you'll have to hit harder, which is completely different to hitting for longer.

I think the technical issues have to be separated from a personal opinion about flick hits. But the only way to find out what the effects are, is by practical testing.

From your various posts you are implying that you don't like flick hits, so the new timing should be as long as possible in order to give you biggest advantage over people who use flick hits.

I wish people would stop posting stupid comments, about technical issues which they don't understand. I shouldn't and won't comment on the timing because I do not know what the implications will be. The only people who can possibly have a valid opinion are those who have tested it!!!

People really must learn to leave the technical issues to the technical people... i.e. the people who have the most experience of the practical implications! (I agree with goddbadandme w.r.t the foil point, but the same applies to the timing issue.)

Prometheus
-10th May 2004, 12:05
I just hope that they either bring it in next time round, or they increase the contact time to 25ms to compensate.

And how does increasing the contact time compensate for the point not being a Mangiarotti exactly? This is designed to induce a travel factor in tip depression for depth of penetration not longer contact time!

gbm
-10th May 2004, 12:09
When the FIE were first detailing the changes, they said that 25ms would completely eliminate flicks, but that they didn't want to do that because they didn't want to scare foilists completely or something like that. So they said they were going to have 15ms that would eliminate 50% of flicks. Which makes all the effort of the new point silly, since they could have just bit the bullet and had 25ms.

And, you are right, I am not a fan of flick hits for three reasons, in reverse order of importance:
a) They are just silly. I mean you haven't even got line of sight to the target in many cases? How are you meant to do that with a real sword?
b) They make the sport less accessible, both to beginning fencers at non-sporty clubs, and to spectators who can't see the hits.
c) They have, IMO and the FIE's opinion, a negative effect on the sport of foil. They permit numerous abuses of ROW and shift the sport too heavily to the attacker. Currently, almost any forward motion is an attack because the flick dramatically extends the definition of 'threatening' and thus extends what your attack can do. This allows what previously would be considered 'dubious' attacks at best within the now-twisted framework of ROW, and spoil the sport a bit.
Also, marching attacks are currently more viable because if the defender closes the distance unexpectedly, the attacker can finish with flick which can be done from a short distance than a straight attack.
But worst is that flicks allow you to withdraw your arm during an attack, then draw the valid counter-attack, then finish with flick, but the flick makes it look like your attack even though it wasn't. Flicking makes refereeing harder, and allows more abuse or ROW.

sparkymark567
-10th May 2004, 12:25
So you don't like flick hits because (a) (b) (C). How often do you use them. approx what percentage??

most people who have such an opinion usually don't use flick hits extensively.

I go from say 20% to 80% flick hits, depending on the opponent. Flicks bring lots of tactics and blade actions into play and in my mind make the GAME more interesting and difficult (and I mean GAME and not an old fashioned duel which fencing obviously isn't)

However I agree on the ROW problem (c) (so does Prometheus I think), as a ref he won't let you get away it. But this issue will be made a little better by the other timing on the box, i.e. the blockout time which currently about 0.8 secs will be reduced to 0.3 secs.

gbm
-10th May 2004, 12:36
The blockout time will do nothing, it's already long overdue. Modern fencers are nothing if not fast, and 300ms is a long time to do a remise. The only actions that will get cut out are actions that occur well afterwards anyway.

And you are right that I don't use flick hits; I'm only just really starting to fence competitively, and I'm not even really any good yet, but it seems a bit pointless to learn flicks when they are all going to at least change considerably in a year of two, and when I disapprove of them so much. I don't think you can really prove a lot from "people who don't like flicks don't flick". Also plenty of good people don't like flicks, such as Sergei Golubitsky, although he probably still uses them a bit. At his level I imagine you have to do everything to win. At my level I still lose even if I do everything to win!

sparkymark567
-10th May 2004, 12:39
So ??? to anyone technical. back to the M point.

More travel means you'll have to have something like an epee point. How can this be done with a 'push to break' switch. It would be v. complicated. or: we'll have to use a 'push to make' switch. and that won't work without two wires will it???

and also with a 'push to make', you won't know if your foil point is not working. At the moment the 'push to break' system is good because the off-target light tells you when your foil is not working.

vil
-10th May 2004, 12:47
Originally posted by goodbadandme

And, you are right, I am not a fan of flick hits for three reasons, in reverse order of importance:
a) They are just silly. I mean you haven't even got line of sight to the target in many cases? How are you meant to do that with a real sword?


It's been a long time since fencing had anything more than a superficial resemblance to sword fighting. Get over it. Or join the SCA.



b) They make the sport less accessible, both to beginning fencers at non-sporty clubs, and to spectators who can't see the hits.


I don't think there's any effect on the accessibility of the sport to beginners. Beginners may find it hard to do flicks, but that's just a matter of getting more practice; it's no different to mastering the disengage, or learning correct technique for a lunge. On the flip-side, a beginner on the receiving end of a flick hit can usually tell they've been hit. My experience is that they say "wow, how did you do that?" and get an explanation.

I think you're probably right about spectators though. Flicks are flashy looking moves, which is good for the spectators; but they are going to be left wondering what the hell just happened. There again, maybe it's no worse than the offside rule in football... :tongue:



c) They have, IMO and the FIE's opinion, a negative effect on the sport of foil. They permit numerous abuses of ROW and shift the sport too heavily to the attacker. Currently, almost any forward motion is an attack because the flick dramatically extends the definition of 'threatening' and thus extends what your attack can do. This allows what previously would be considered 'dubious' attacks at best within the now-twisted framework of ROW, and spoil the sport a bit.


That's a good point. IMO this would be helped by referees being more willing to call "attack on preparation". With flicks to shoulder, for example, often the hand moves upwards to obtain the right line for the flick prior to the extension of the arm. A counter-attack initiated during that upward movement should be given as a successful attack into perparation IMO. That this often isn't given, whether because it's tough to spot or because referees don't know any better, is unfortunate.

Just for the record, I don't tend to use flick hits very much. They're something I'll try as a last resort, when an opponent is defending too well for me to get other hits through. Partly that's because I'm crap at them and they usually fall a few inches short. :o But I've worked on them to increase the breadth of my game and I want to be able to use them if I choose.

gbm
-10th May 2004, 12:52
So ??? to anyone technical. back to the M point.

More travel means you'll have to have something like an epee point. How can this be done with a 'push to break' switch. It would be v. complicated. or: we'll have to use a 'push to make' switch. and that won't work without two wires will it???

and also with a 'push to make', you won't know if your foil point is not working. At the moment the 'push to break' system is good because the off-target light tells you when your foil is not working.

Yes, I've wondered that as well. The only way I can see to do it is with a sliding contact, which is asking for trouble, or with a reverse-contact-spring (but I have no idea how the hell you would set that up in practice).
The sliding contact idea would be terrible, because you would inevitably get poor contacts where dust and dirt surround the point.

It has to be the push-to-break or you have to lose the un-hittableness of the guard. Also, as you said, push-to-break is a superior system.

Unless you have a contact spring to register on-target hits only, and keep the current no-travel grub screw arrangement to register off-target hits, but this is also a silly solution.

Personally I'd rather see the results of testing with 25ms because I have no idea how the Mangarotti point is supposed to work.

But at the end of the day I'll be happy with just 15ms.

sparkymark567
-10th May 2004, 12:55
Originally posted by vil

That's a good point. IMO this would be helped by referees being more willing to call "attack on preparation". With flicks to shoulder, for example, often the hand moves upwards to obtain the right line for the flick prior to the extension of the arm. A counter-attack initiated during that upward movement should be given as a successful attack into perparation IMO. That this often isn't given, whether because it's tough to spot or because referees don't know any better, is unfortunate.


So we need referees a bit like Prometheus then. He does seem to solve the problem, to my dispair!!!. But he is fair, and probably right too, so you can't blame him. T

gbm
-10th May 2004, 12:59
Unfortunately all attempts to rely on good referees to magically appear in large numbers has failed, especially at British competitions. 90% of my competitions are more than half self-refereed anyway.

srb
-10th May 2004, 13:05
The changes are going to be introduced in three phases depending on the success of the previous phase:

1. Blocking time
2. Contact Time
3. Point

If the desired goal is achieved in phase 1, the other phases will NOT happen, and so on. So at the moment there is still a very strong possibility that a new point will NOT be introduced at all!

Saying that, I have heard a rumour that some 750g LP prototype points have got into the market place be accident. They supposedly still use a 500g spring, but pre-compress it with a shim so the spring will support 750g. However, this is all rumour, so I'm sure Kingkenny or Barry could correct me on this.

srb

gbm
-10th May 2004, 13:18
Do you honestly believe that the blocking time is going to do anything? The FIE ran some sort of experiment which showed that referees did not give anything that landed more than 200ms later anyway.

sparkymark567
-10th May 2004, 13:31
not sure who that question was to, assume it's me since I suggested it eariler.

Maybe step 1.5 should be reduce blocking time further.

Any way we'll see what happens. I wouldn't want to speculate.
The order 1 to 3 (see srb's post) does seem sensible. Maybe the FIE are not so silly after all.

gbm
-10th May 2004, 14:00
The FIE wanted 200ms.
But blocking times can never totally eliminate remises, since these can arrive before a valid riposte.

Australian
-10th May 2004, 14:20
guys stop speculating

*sigh*

i've been told that for the junior world cup season next year, all the changes except the new point are going to be in.

These changes are all written down on the FIE site.

This means a 500g spring will still be used

gbm
-10th May 2004, 14:31
That's what I thought. Have the FIE officially announced that they aren't going to use the point this time round yet? Because this will surely be embarressing to the FIE when they do (I do believe you Australian, just I couldn't find any information on the decision NOT to use the point this time round yet, so I assume you have heard this from behind the scenes, and it will be announced soon).
And this is all coming in September/October, isn't it?

What I'm speculating about is what they will do the year after - whether they will follow their plan to use the point, or whether they will abandon it as a result of pressure from the manufacturers, which might cause them to change something else if they still weren't happy. Does the FIE currently have a plan beyond the next season? Do they have any plans to introduce it to the senior circuits if the next year goes well?

srb
-10th May 2004, 15:27
Originally posted by Australian
guys stop speculating

*sigh*

i've been told

I was told that the world was flat, and that the Sinclair C5 was going to revolutionise transport

:blaaaa:

srb

Epeecurean
-10th May 2004, 16:28
Originally posted by goodbadandme
When the FIE were first detailing the changes, they said that 25ms would completely eliminate flicks, but that they didn't want to do that because they didn't want to scare foilists completely or something like that. So they said they were going to have 15ms that would eliminate 50% of flicks. Which makes all the effort of the new point silly, since they could have just bit the bullet and had 25ms.

I think one of the issues was that while increasing the interval/debounce time to 25ms did eliminate flicks, it also had the unwanted effect of nullifying some valid non-flick hits. I think they decided on the combination of 15ms/750grams/mangiarotti point parly for that reason.


Originally posted by goodbadandme
And, you are right, I am not a fan of flick hits for three reasons, in reverse order of importance:
a) They are just silly. I mean you haven't even got line of sight to the target in many cases? How are you meant to do that with a real sword?
b) They make the sport less accessible, both to beginning fencers at non-sporty clubs, and to spectators who can't see the hits.
c) They have, IMO and the FIE's opinion, a negative effect on the sport of foil. They permit numerous abuses of ROW and shift the sport too heavily to the attacker. Currently, almost any forward motion is an attack because the flick dramatically extends the definition of 'threatening' and thus extends what your attack can do. This allows what previously would be considered 'dubious' attacks at best within the now-twisted framework of ROW, and spoil the sport a bit.
Also, marching attacks are currently more viable because if the defender closes the distance unexpectedly, the attacker can finish with flick which can be done from a short distance than a straight attack.
But worst is that flicks allow you to withdraw your arm during an attack, then draw the valid counter-attack, then finish with flick, but the flick makes it look like your attack even though it wasn't. Flicking makes refereeing harder, and allows more abuse or ROW.

Nicely put! ...needless to say, I agree! :cool:

Epeecurean

Prometheus
-10th May 2004, 16:42
Originally posted by sparkymark567
However I agree on the ROW problem (c) (so does Prometheus I think), as a ref he won't let you get away it.

Hoping for some leniency next time?



Originally posted by sparkymark567
So we need referees a bit like Prometheus then. He does seem to solve the problem, to my dispair!!!. But he is fair, and probably right too, so you can't blame him. T

This flattery just won't work you know, just ask ChubbyHubby & srb.....

srb
-10th May 2004, 19:29
Australian, an extract...

...I had a discussion with Ren=E9 Roch in Plovdiv. He told me, that for the
=
> > next season the have the following plan:
> > 1.. introduction of the new settings of the signalling units in foil =
> > for all Junior World Cups=20
> > 2.. only if after a period of experience with 1.) the desired effect =
> > is not achieved: introduction of the 750g spring for foil=20
> > 3.. only if after a period of experience with 1.) + 2.) the desired =
> > effect is not achieved: introduction of the new 'Mangiarotti point'
> > Therefore I think the introduction of the new spring is a) not very =
> > likely and b) will not be in the near future...

srb (Not the 'I' in question)

Chris
-10th May 2004, 20:06
Ok, um...I don't understand most of this, but I've got a question that is hopefully vaguely relevant and possible to answer. I'm a beginner (been fencing about 15 months) and I'd love to be learning a weapon that is elegant, where decent flicks are a viable hit (because they look cool) but also don't dominate the sport. I've seen some people that are pretty good fence and they look wicked doing it. I also think I downloaded some World Championship match, and this dude just did a marching attack, almost seeming to respond to any attempt to do an AOP by the other bloke, and he was eventually given the hit. I can't referee at all well, but the attack did look did LOOK crap which seems a bit of a shame. Anyway, my question is:

Are the changes, in your opinion that are likely to be implemented, going to produce a sport anything like that described above (ie with flick hits as a possible attack, but straight attacks used most of the time...essentially making a flick a stylish (and effective in some circumstances) way of getting a hit).

Anyway cheers for that, apologies if I've misinterpreted anything.

gbm
-10th May 2004, 21:43
Originally posted by Epeecurean
I think one of the issues was that while increasing the interval/debounce time to 25ms did eliminate flicks, it also had the unwanted effect of nullifying some valid non-flick hits. I think they decided on the combination of 15ms/750grams/mangiarotti point parly for that reason.

That would make sense, it is a shame though that there isn't an easy way of eliminating all flicks.

And to Chris:
It is unlikely that any game with significant flicking in will produce a 'nice' sport, which is what we are all after. Your response just shows why we do have to change foil! Attacks on preparation at the moment are somewhat less likely to be given than a US withdrawal from Iraq. You are right, attacks nowadays are rubbish. But I blame it primarily on the flick.

sparkymark567
-10th May 2004, 23:04
Originally posted by goodbadandme
It is unlikely that any game with significant flicking in will produce a 'nice' sport, which is what we are all after.

*please stop venting your opinions as fact.

The above statement is your opinion !!!! But it's obviously not what "everbody" wants? else we wouldn't have had that discussion about flicks vs no flicks that we had earlier in this thread. I accept you and many others don't like flick hits, that's fine by me. But you must also accept that many people do like flick hits. so stop stating you opinion as fact Q.E.D.*

and stop this thread from going round in circles!!!

gbm
-11th May 2004, 08:12
Sorry. But I would say that the FIE's opinion agrees with mine, since they are trying to ban it. For all this argument of not being anti-flick but pro-tip, what they are actually doing is preventing flicks from registering. The heady world of fencing politics.
And threads make such pretty circles...

Australian
-11th May 2004, 09:37
Originally posted by srb
Australian, an extract...

...I had a discussion with Ren=E9 Roch in Plovdiv. He told me, that for the
=
> > next season the have the following plan:
> > 1.. introduction of the new settings of the signalling units in foil =
> > for all Junior World Cups=20
> > 2.. only if after a period of experience with 1.) the desired effect =
> > is not achieved: introduction of the 750g spring for foil=20
> > 3.. only if after a period of experience with 1.) + 2.) the desired =
> > effect is not achieved: introduction of the new 'Mangiarotti point'
> > Therefore I think the introduction of the new spring is a) not very =
> > likely and b) will not be in the near future...

srb (Not the 'I' in question)

yeah thats similarish to what i've heard - cheers mate

Australian
-11th May 2004, 09:39
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Sorry. But I would say that the FIE's opinion agrees with mine, since they are trying to ban it.

They are not trying to ban it, as stated by the FIE on countless occasions, rather they are requiring some thrust in the flick (like epee) for it to land

gbm
-11th May 2004, 09:42
Well they are trying to prevent some types of flick then.

Australian
-11th May 2004, 09:44
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Well they are trying to prevent some types of flick then.

just the grazing flicks... let me assure you, the flick and coupe are still going to be major parts of foil, they'll just be wearing a different hat

gbm
-11th May 2004, 09:58
As will you... having eaten yours! ;)

Well, it's a start... might even work. I'm happy that changes have been made at all. And I like the coupe. I bet nobody would have called a lot of what people call 'flicks' today flicks before the big grazing-to-back flicks.

The flicks that will still be possible will be from full distance as they are more direct, rather than the overly-short distance now possible, won't they? As in, if you overrun in a marching attack, you cannot finish with flick while standing on their toes. Thereby eliminating the distance problem?

Neo
-11th May 2004, 19:35
the moral of the story... start practising your flicks, cos come the new changes only people who *can actually flick* will be able to. :D