PDA

View Full Version : evil flick hits



nirvana
-20th June 2004, 15:58
Why does every one make out flicking to be some kind of evil?Which it's not? if some one uses flick to excessive then its very easy to deal with and you can win 15-0.

sparkymark567
-20th June 2004, 19:16
because people who use flicks are usually pretty good. If flicking was made impossible, then I would be almost as good as them.

No not really. I'm not sure that there are many people who are anti flick. Perhaps they're are some but I think the idea is:

"not anti flick but pro-tip". as per the Sword magazine.

I expect that many people will now tell you that flick hits are actually evil..................but usually you'll find that those people have been fencing maybe once or twice (usually less times than the number of posts they have managed to clock up).

reposte
-21st June 2004, 10:01
usually less times than the number of posts they have managed to clock up

Now that's one for the books!

masterwojtek
-21st June 2004, 10:46
amen to that

Saxon
-21st June 2004, 10:56
Originally posted by sparkymark567
because people who use flicks are usually pretty good.

Nope.
Usually because people who use flicks are actually pretty ropey. The ones with whom it is a problem usually have poor distance and hand control, and so they slap two feet of blade down your back, or clip you round the back of the mask.

The ones who flick correctly usually have plenty of other things they can hit you with, it's just that they don't often need them :)

dunastor
-21st June 2004, 11:36
Where's goodbadandme?

He can explain why he thinks a flick attack isn't an attack, but a lot of preparation.... ;)

Insipiens
-21st June 2004, 12:02
Originally posted by dunastor
Where's goodbadandme?

He can explain why he thinks a flick attack isn't an attack, but a lot of preparation.... ;)

except of course he can't
:rolleyes:

Saxon
-21st June 2004, 12:04
Originally posted by dunastor
Where's goodbadandme?

He can explain why he thinks a flick attack isn't an attack, but a lot of preparation.... ;)

As should any reasonable foil referee. Strictly speaking, the flick attack is an attack, but it doesn't usually happen until the flicker has done half a piste's worth of preparation.
But let's not go there, eh?

gbm
-21st June 2004, 12:16
I agree with that, and will give a flick priority if it is initial from the point where the arm is continuously extending and the point is not aimed at me/a spectator/his line judge (as in the one at his end!)/the ceiling.

I think flicks are 'evil' because they are just silly. And they make fencing odd, because you can hit someone with a 4 foot sword while standing on their toes, or charge down the piste and hope, often sucessfully, that referee will give your attack because you made it look continuous by finishing with a flick, and not worry to much about overrunning because you can flick from short distance, and hit target that you can't even see (surely line of sight should be a requirement in sword-fighting)...

But none of that is important, because in a few months time flicks will been effectively removed from the top junior competitions. And as a junior, I think everybody else should stop flicking me! (joking, I'll wait for the changes to filter through)

PS I don't actually think flicks are evil, just silly. Evil suggests nastyness. Flicking is just silly.

PPS My gosh, where did all that come from?

srb
-21st June 2004, 12:41
:stop:

Another pedantic circular argument!

"The Attack

This is the initial straightening of the arm, with the point threatening the valid target of the opponent. In reality this means at foil the first offensive action, at sabre attacks can be with the point or cutting edge.

There was a heated debate at a recent FIE Referee’s Seminar (in Rome prior to the Cadet and Junior World Championships held in Hungary) about how you would attack the back shoulder and it was agreed that the point would need to be raised a little to allow this, but that if it was pointing at the ceiling, with the arm in a vertical position, then this was not an attack. It was added that the attack could be delivered with no foot movements, or with a step forward, a lunge, a step and lunge or a fleche (at foil)."

If that doesn't make sense, then maybe speed chess is for you.

srb

dunastor
-21st June 2004, 13:03
OMG, I really opened a can of worms didn't I..... :rolleyes:

uk_45
-21st June 2004, 13:19
Yep. Also when you get some one who is doing flick after flick tthere is normally two reasons

i) s/he knows you can't blco them or do anything about them, in which case learn to
ii) s/he has no other attacks in which case try a few beats and see what happens

dunastor
-21st June 2004, 13:31
Originally posted by srb
the attack could be delivered with no foot movements


Good to know....

dunastor
-21st June 2004, 13:34
Originally posted by uk_45
s/he has no other attacks in which case try a few beats and see what happens


I've never seen anyone who knows only flicks. Don't people first learn proper foil fencing ie point thrusts?

uk_45
-21st June 2004, 13:42
Yes but you do (all be it at low level comps) spot the odd person whom always does a flick (normally they have only just learnt it)

gbm
-21st June 2004, 14:21
Should the person who only uses point attacks be treated with equal derision?

sparkymark567
-21st June 2004, 15:16
Originally posted by sparkymark567

I expect that many people will now tell you that flick hits are actually evil..................but usually you'll find that those people have been fencing maybe once or twice (usually less times than the number of posts they have managed to clock up).


yep, I thought that would happen.

srb
-21st June 2004, 15:25
I tried to stop it, but it didn't work.

:(

srb

gbm
-21st June 2004, 15:42
This is a thread about 'evil flick hits' after all, isn't it?

How could I resist...

sparkymark567
-21st June 2004, 16:35
NO It's not actually:


Originally posted by nirvana
Why does every one make out flicking to be some kind of evil?Which it's not?

it has nothing to do with evil flick hits. It merely says why do some people make them in to some kind of evil which they are not.

Dalby
-21st June 2004, 17:07
Originally posted by sparkymark567
it has nothing to do with evil flick hits. It merely says why do some people make them in to some kind of evil which they are not. :mexwave:
Hurrah! A valiant attempt to wrestle the thread back on topic!

I think that the perception of flick hits as evil can come about for various reasons. In my own case I rather enjoy fencing with a flicky opponent as it brings out different parries, footwork and a real emphasis on distance; and a well landed, painless flick is something to be admired, even from the receiving end.

I will characterise flicks as "evil" if faced by an opponent that's attempting to fence sabre with their foil and landing painful slapping hits (usually out of time).

In the same way I dislike point hits delivered in an uncontrolled manner (I especially dislike hits to shin - this is foil for heaven's sake!).

To summarise: controlled, well delivered hits "good"; unco-ordinated thuggery "evil".

gbm
-21st June 2004, 17:54
Well in that case I have just outlined some reason why some people (e.g. me) think flicking is evil.

haggis
-21st June 2004, 21:08
Goodbadandme

No. You've just outlined why you think badly-executed flicking is evil. Be careful or I and the rest of the forum may have to give you a virtual shaking and slapping-about again:chair:

Regards

Haggis

gbm
-21st June 2004, 21:30
:confused:

Reasons I gave for not liking flicking:
You can hit someone with a 4 foot sword while standing on their toes. You can do this with a spectacularly well executed flick.
You can charge down the piste and hope, often sucessfully, that referee will give your attack because you made it look continuous by finishing with a flick. This will actually work better if your flick is better.
You can not worry to much about overrunning in a march because you can flick from short distance. Surely the closer you get, the better executed your flick needs to be?
You can hit target that you can't even see. Well you can get even further from line of sight the better a flicker you are.

So it's not badly executed flicks that I don't like. It's just flicks in principle.

haggis
-21st June 2004, 21:40
In any of the scenarios that you describe it is possible to score with a flick but it is equally possible to score without flicking. Even if the new timimgs are introduced all of these will still happen (it's called skill)

Regards

Haggis

p.s. I did rather misread your second last post but I still think you're full of it;)

Saxon
-22nd June 2004, 08:32
Originally posted by goodbadandme
:confused:

Reasons I gave for not liking flicking:
You can hit someone with a 4 foot sword while standing on their toes. You can do this with a spectacularly well executed flick.

Umm - no.
Once you're standing on their toes the phrase should long since have been stopped. And just about any kind of action would work at this range, you just need to get your hand a foil's length from the target and point it in the right direction. The normal jiggling about which happens when foilists get this close should take care of the hitting part.



You can charge down the piste and hope, often sucessfully, that referee will give your attack because you made it look continuous by finishing with a flick. This will actually work better if your flick is better.

Umm - no.
It works if the referee cannot distinguish a correctly executed attack from a preparation. Which is unfortunately the case with many fencers who referee, because from experience they also would expect to be given the hit.



You can not worry to much about overrunning in a march because you can flick from short distance. Surely the closer you get, the better executed your flick needs to be?

Umm - no. (are we spotting a pattern here?)
Your flick will only work in a small range of distances. Too close or too far away and a flick calculated for a different distance will miss. Your flick, to be successful, needs to be executed just as well to hit a four-inch target six feet away as a four-inch target two feet away.



You can hit target that you can't even see. Well you can get even further from line of sight the better a flicker you are.

Don't be ridiculous.
Ever hit someone under the wrist at epee?
Were you sitting on the floor looking up at it, or just guessing that the lower half of their arm was the same shape as anyone else's?



So it's not badly executed flicks that I don't like. It's just flicks in principle.

Throughout much of our history, whatever is not understood has been labelled "wrong" or "evil". It is quite plain you don't understand foil flicks, and so quite understandable that you think they're evil. Just don't evangelise your ignorance upon the rest of us.

gbm
-22nd June 2004, 14:22
OK, I mean line of sight if I surgically removed your eyes and attached them to the guard.

And basically, I agree with Golubitsky, though he is obviously slightly better qualified than me...

From one of the fencing101.com interviews:


FN: At lower levels, there are a lot of foilists who complain about the flick and how it is given priority. Watching bouts at the high levels, do you feel this to be the case?Is the flick really something that is wrong with foil fencing?

SG: For those who haven't seen my "Golden Bouts" video and new one "Once upon a time": the percentage of flicks I make is very low. In my opinion a touch with thrust is more secure then a flick.

The points to consider are:
The flick is performed faster than a touch
it's much more difficult to retreat after action finished by touch than the one by flick
The flick gives you a chance to come much closer to opponent.

The advantage of flick is obvious.

When a fencer is going to finish his attack with flick it creats no problem. The problem appears when a fencer (fencer A) is walking forward, pretending to have right of way, in fact is waiting for "counter attack" of opponent (fencer B). Of course it's important how fencer B is performing his attack on preparation (body language). Fencer A finishing his "attack" with flick (if he'd finish it with touch/thrust, his mistake would be too obvious for referee and point would be given against him. Therefore he has no choice but to finish with flick).

It's very difficult to win a tempo against "flicker".And again we've arrived at point when the role of referee is very important. He is the one who has to "read" intentions of fencer A. Attack which lasts 30 minutes isn't attack anymore. Promenade isn't attack. Fencing developed the way that arriving to the top you "forced" to use flick more frequent then touch. I'd say it's because of poor technical and tactical repertoire rather than being up-to-date.

In the end of my career I returned to touching technique,while right after Junior age preffered flicks (at that time it was hot, it was a "new wave"). For the present Senior and Junior generation the fencing is good the way it is. But they didn't see "the good old fencing" (I did. I even fenced with Romankov from 1989 thru 1991 for the USSR team.) It's very popular these days complain about "oldies" which don't understand anything in modern fencing.

I'd say that fencing 10, 20, 25 years ago was much more interesting than nowadays. Fencers like Gregory, Cerioni and others agree with me. So,assuming all this, I guess, some changes have to be done in today's foil fencing.

How many times have I posted this now? Not enough. If I could fit it in my signature I would.
Incidentally I've just bought 'Once Upon A Time' on DVD, so I am a bit of a Golubitsky fan!

dunastor
-22nd June 2004, 14:48
Originally posted by goodbadandme
For the present Senior and Junior generation the fencing is good the way it is.


So you also agree with that one? :)

gbm
-22nd June 2004, 15:31
Originally said by Sergei Golubitsky, Master of the Universe:
But they didn't see "the good old fencing" (I did. I even fenced with Romankov from 1989 thru 1991 for the USSR team.) It's very popular these days complain about "oldies" which don't understand anything in modern fencing.

J_D
-22nd June 2004, 15:48
Originally posted by haggis
Goodbadandme

No. You've just outlined why you think badly-executed flicking is evil. Be careful or I and the rest of the forum may have to give you a virtual shaking and slapping-about again:chair:

Regards

Haggis

***Picks up the vitual trout and gives GBM a proper slapping********

Note:
Originally posted by Goodbadandme


the percentage of flicks I make is very low. In my opinion a touch with thrust is more secure then a flick.


even the mighty Sergei uses flicks when appropriate, put the tool in your bag and use it when it's the right one for the job

gbm
-22nd June 2004, 15:58
So I have a question...

is it possible to fence competitively today without using flicks?

Threestain
-22nd June 2004, 16:05
Besides, perhaps you could also read between the lines in that interview, or maybe the first sentence. The interview was done to promote his videos, and therefore he extolls the virtues of what he shows. However, he also puts in a clear example of fencers evolve (which is also very clear in epee, from my limited experience)

Cadet International level:

Simple, relatively basic fencing, where one or two "killer" moves lead to success.

Junior International level:

More experienced, more advanced fencing, with many more tricks and a greater level of strength allowing seemingly "fantastic" manouevres. Better standard overall.

Senior International level:

More experienced again (anything up to about 20 years of senior fencing here), meaning tricks are fallen for the first time of meeting, but not the second. Virtually all moves are viable for all fencers, so its not a case of special moves. Solid technique and excellent distance and footwork underlie all. Timing is key. Fencing is relatively simple once more, with all hell breaking loose on an obstacle to a plan.

In his interview you can see that he starts out flicking as junior - new tricks and all, but goes back to relatively simple technique later. He can still do the flick, but he utilises it more appropriately. Merely another tool.

Another quote - Norman Ackermann, who at 21 is just out of juniors, and was one of the top fencers in the world, and made the German senior team in his last year of so of juniors - as soon as he started doing seniors his junior results fell away, due to a complete difference in timing et al. - "I don't understand junior fencing anymore - senior fencing is much more simple". But no-one is claiming senior fencing is easier are they?

And I'm sure it is pratical to fence without flicks competitively but why would you want to limit yourself? Seems stupid to me, to purposely hamstring yourself just to feel slightly superior to others, even if they beat you.

gbm
-22nd June 2004, 16:16
Originally posted by Threestain
And I'm sure it is pratical to fence without flicks competitively but why would you want to limit yourself? Seems stupid to me, to purposely hamstring yourself just to feel slightly superior to others, even if they beat you.

a) Because I'm making the assumption they will be gone from foil in a few years. I may be wrong, but then I'll just have to learn to flick, won't I?
b) I don't feel superior because I don't flick. I know I'm naff - look at the words next to my avatar! I know that the 90% of fencers who can beat me now will still be able to beat me without flicks. But I am still desperately waiting for the changes because that's what I want to fence, just like you want to fence epee not sabre or foil.

I'm also desparately waiting for the rankings to be updated so that I have one, and so I can say 'this is how rubbish I am now. Next year I only want to be this rubbish'. But it's also just me being a bit silly as well!

And anybody who puts outtakes on their fencing video is just too cool!

Threestain
-22nd June 2004, 16:27
I don't think that flicking will be gone in a few years, especially as some of the changes have been revoked. It might change flicking somewhat, but will not remove it.

The best way to become good, is to look at the current best people in the world, and copy them. Otherwise, you might be going down a dead end.

Dalby
-22nd June 2004, 16:31
Originally posted by goodbadandme
....I'm making the assumption they will be gone from foil in a few years. I may be wrong.... Yes

As you'll recall from the comments on the threads dealing with the new box timings the overall response is that flicks will still be possible - just rather more difficult.


Originally posted by haggis
....I and the rest of the forum may have to give you a virtual shaking and slapping-about again.... Agreed!


Originally posted by J_D
***Picks up the vitual trout and gives GBM a proper slapping********

I'd go for the swordfish option - he'll just complain about flick hits from the tail!

dunastor
-22nd June 2004, 16:34
If you want to fence without flicks, go fence without flicks... there's nobody stopping you....

sparkymark567
-22nd June 2004, 17:40
just like there is nothing stopping us from giving GBM a good thrashing if we ever meet at a comp. We could probably stick in a few flick hits just for a laugh. Yeah that would be funny....

gbm
-22nd June 2004, 21:05
I'd be disappointed if it went any other way...

Markst0rm
-13th July 2004, 01:32
This is a nice discussion, and I'm happy to say that I've learned some stuff while reading it. Personally, I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the flick in competition. If it is there to be used, then it is your choice whether you use it. I personally do not flick but then again, I am a novice fencer and am still in the "classical" stage.

That said, I would really love to see a foil tip created that would be flick-proof. My reasoning is that fencing should be based on actual swordplay. Yes, I've heard the "there is a difference between sport fencing and classical" argument. I also find it to be completely illogical. The sport of fencing is meant to simulate combat. The whippy blade (which allows the flick) is only a safety feature to prevent the breaking of the blades. Therefore, while the safety feature should be kept in place, a flick-proof tip would allow fencers to get back to mock combat, as opposed to whipping each other with glorified tv antennae.

tigger
-13th July 2004, 09:27
The sport of fencing hasn't really simulated combat for 200 years!

Flicking will stay but become a little more limited - the only changes being enforced are the box timing (which will help counter-attackers/stop hitters) and the contact time required for a hit to register. Good Epeeists manage to flick with 750G springs, so I'm sure good foilists will manage to flick with longer contact times. Flicking will probably be mostly used on fast parry-ripostes?
Why risk it on an attack, when you can:
A. Be hit with a counter/stop hit or
B. risk not contacting the target for long enough and getting no light

gbm
-13th July 2004, 10:06
Originally posted by tigger
Good Epeeists manage to flick with 750G springs, so I'm sure good foilists will manage to flick with longer contact times.

I have to say, that's a spurious argument. Because epeeists can flick despite a 750g spring, then foilists should be able to flick despite something completely unrelated?

Secondly, the blocking time will affect nothing - a fast counter-attack will always get two lights. Only actions performed well out of time will not register.

Markst0rm
-13th July 2004, 15:03
Originally posted by tigger
The sport of fencing hasn't really simulated combat for 200 years!



Oh, I'm sorry. I must be behind the times. The last time I checked, the foils we hold in hand symbolized something: a French small sword (hence the thrusting motions, parry-riposte, etc). I guess you could be right. Fencing probably has nothing to do with sword-fighting and should instead be employed with a bullwhip style.

glowstix
-23rd July 2004, 18:39
Originally posted by dunastor
I've never seen anyone who knows only flicks. Don't people first learn proper foil fencing ie point thrusts?

oh, i've seen this quite a few times. and you'd think its unusual.

Foilling Around
-23rd July 2004, 23:31
Foil is a point weapon. When I teach I describe the hit as having "charactertistics of penetration" (note the double entrendre!). I can flick hit, and have done so with great success over the past 20 years, but it does not make sense within the character of the weapon.

Flicking relies on the weighted end of a foil. A sharp point, capable of drawing blood, could not flick in this way. The minute length of contact and the oblique angle of contact, which the current box timings and mechanics of a foil tip allow to produce a valid hit, are too far removed from the origins of the sport.

Obviously we are a sport and no longer training to kill people, but we must be careful to keep within boundaries. A flick does look spectacular, but as with anything, too much of it is boring. I was watching the 2003 Foil World Championships video today and to be honest the flick was not over used either in the individual or team finals. The main use was as a riposte where the flick to back has become the answer to taking the parry at too close a distance.

I personally think that the increase in contact time will make the major difference. Increasing spring weight to 750 grams will be marginal. Most of us hit with many kilos of pressure anyway!!

Finally to go back to a previous point in this thread. The rules say "arm continuously straightning and threatening the target" for an attack. They do not say pointing at the target. For me, refereeing, which I do often, any movement whose logical culmination would be a hit on the valid target, this include a fishy flick from vertical to the touch on the jacket even though it only points at the target at the moment of the hit.

Oh dear, this was not meant to be such a long contribution..... aaargh is that the time, I really must go to bed!!!!!

Rdb811
-23rd July 2004, 23:56
I've seen a few with about 2kg weight.:rolleyes:

glowstix
-24th July 2004, 02:43
Originally posted by Foilling Around
I was watching the 2003 Foil World Championships video today and to be honest the flick was not over used either in the individual or team finals.

people say this about this DVD but i still disagree. vanni used the flick a lot to finish all of his slow marching attacks against joppich. not all the time but over 50% of the time. he even flicked when he fell on his butt and joppich was over him. i still don't know how he turned the light on that time.

as for the team bouts, cassara used the flicks relentlessly. one bout he finished 5-2 or so with all flicks. he too does the slow methodical march which finishes with the flick.

they all still flick no matter what. at that level, though, everyone pretty much knows how to stop it but the italians still use it effectively.

ConfuzzledNewbi
-24th July 2004, 04:56
excuse me...anyone here pls explain to me what a flick is and how it is executed?:confused:

sparkymark567
-24th July 2004, 12:05
Have you have ever seen marbles?, this game is normally played by trolls and as far as I'm aware flicking is more or less the same in fencing. What happens is you kind of flick (using your middle finger) your foil towards your opponent. Some people dislike this particular move. It’s generally used more commonly in the weapon of foil, as the epee considered a bit heavy for flicking and can result in muscle strain around the middle finger.

welcome back once again Troll

Rdb811
-24th July 2004, 13:53
Sparkymark - that's out of order.

It could be a genuine question, so there's no need to be rude - it's a bit like using your foil in the same way as a fly fisherman using his fishing rod.

If you are a genuine beginner, then do ask questions - it's just that we had a bad incident of trolling some time ago and we're all a bit sensitive.

sparkymark567
-24th July 2004, 17:12
ConfuzzledNewbi: my earlier comments are on the assumption that you are a fake rather than a real newbe. We have seen quite a few fakes around here recently. The usual intention of a fake is to spark off lots of discussion over nothing.

ConfuzzledNewbi
-24th July 2004, 22:30
troll...?
I'm confused...was sparkymark giving me inaccurate info beforehand? Um....ill give some background info for ya'll i guess....im 14, live in canada and just started taking fencing lessons a few weeks ago:)

Boo Boo
-25th July 2004, 00:00
Originally posted by ConfuzzledNewbi
troll...?
I'm confused...was sparkymark giving me inaccurate info beforehand? Um....ill give some background info for ya'll i guess....im 14, live in canada and just started taking fencing lessons a few weeks ago:)

I think that Sparkymark was "surprised" at the level of your questions... certainly I would hope that the word "riposte" would come up in the first couple of weeks. The "flick" is also a very common term.

In general, a lot of clubs would go through basic terms/glossary with beginners - so that everyone can speak a common language.

Nobody meant to be unfriendly.

Boo

ConfuzzledNewbi
-25th July 2004, 00:38
the only terms we learned were "disengage" and "lunge" :rolleyes:

Boo Boo
-25th July 2004, 00:48
What about "parry"?

Have a look at that glossary link I posted on the other thread - might help... :)

Boo

sparkymark567
-25th July 2004, 14:36
Originally posted by Boo Boo
Nobody meant to be unfriendly.
Boo


confuzzledNewbi
I'm confused...was sparkymark giving me inaccurate info beforehand? Um....ill give some background info for ya'll i guess....im 14, live in canada and just started taking fencing lessons a few weeks ago.

yep, sorry about that, my info was a complete load of tosh.

Rdb811
-25th July 2004, 17:26
To be honest, we often forget how much we've learnt over the years and what the learning curve is - it may take a couple of weeks to be taught what a riposts is, and a couple more to know what it is. Simialarly, you could go a long time without coming into contct with 'flicking' - I'm sure I didn't for the first couple of years after I started fencing.

Perhaps we ought to have a sticky thread in 'new members' for basic terms.

Farrago
-25th July 2004, 19:41
Poor Newbie, I know how it feels. We didn't even get to touch a weapon for the first few sessions (due to there being about 20 foils and about 150 beginners). I think we did footwork and lunges in the first couple of weeks before we moved onto actual swords (well foils anyway :tongue: ) I can now say I'm no longer a begniner (apart from when I'm fighting someone better than me then I tell them I've only been fencing a few months (about 8 now!!!)

ConfuzzledNewbi
-25th July 2004, 22:58
is it just me, or does the condition of your grip on your foil make all the difference? (sometimes i unluckily get a foil with crappy old slippery grip that blisters and I seem to fence poorly that lesson)

Rdb811
-25th July 2004, 23:09
If it's the clubs beginners kit, then yes (I can just remembr that far back)

Robert
-26th July 2004, 10:55
Originally posted by ConfuzzledNewbi
is it just me, or does the condition of your grip on your foil make all the difference? (sometimes i unluckily get a foil with crappy old slippery grip that blisters and I seem to fence poorly that lesson)

Yes, and no. The physical effect is tiny, the mental effect is huge. Give the rubbish grip to one of the experienced fencers in your club and use his super-flash blade, you won't score a single point more. Give him the rubbish grip when he is last-16 against some-one of his own standard and he'll go to pieces.

Robert

break_charmer
-26th July 2004, 12:30
Originally posted by ConfuzzledNewbi
is it just me, or does the condition of your grip on your foil make all the difference? (sometimes i unluckily get a foil with crappy old slippery grip that blisters and I seem to fence poorly that lesson)
Yeah I’ve been told the weapon is just a piece of dead steel – its what you do with it that counts.
But as a beginner, if you do don’t feel comfortable with it you’re on the back foot before you start. right?

I found the perfect club foil one week and my fencing felt great! – could I find the same one again? - no chance!

Buying my own foil was untimely the best solution..

JackSparrow
-26th July 2004, 13:56
Talking about getting rid of flick hits from foil is like John Mackenroe trying to convice everyone to bring back wooden rackets in tennis. I'm pretty sure that a) it's never gonna happen and b) if it did it would only be a good thing for our sport.

gbm
-26th July 2004, 14:23
:)

But I do think flicking will be gone within 3 years...

sparkymark567
-26th July 2004, 16:17
GBM: good for you.

Please nobody argue with GBM....he's entitle to beleive what he wants to..... and I hate threads which go round in circles.

Newbe: please post as many questions as you like.

gbm
-26th July 2004, 16:33
You just know I'm right :grin: ;) :tongue:
Besides, a thread about 'evil flick hits'? Where else could it go but in circles (until the timing changes come in of course ;) )

ConfuzzledNewbi
-26th July 2004, 18:45
robert how about rubbish grip against another newbie with a good grip? :eek: