PDA

View Full Version : Sabre ROW



John Rohde
-28th December 2004, 11:48
Apologies for re-posting part of another thread but I'd be interested in reactions in this forum to what must be an old idea but one that I haven't seen discussed in my time here: the abolition of the sabre ROW:-
The ROW isn't doing its job. It never did do its job very well. Its best chance is if we enforce it in its strictest terms but the attack would still be the higher form of warfare - it is in the nature of the weapon.
We need to generate a reaction to the attack or the counter-attack; scrapping the ROW could do it.
If mutual suicide is to be courted in our weapon, we might just as well allow the box to split the minute difference rather than leaving it up to a president to spot one hand's twitch before another.
We stand to gain extension of the arm, presentation of the blade and clear and undisputed scoring. What are the losses?

vil
-28th December 2004, 12:27
Originally posted by John Rohde
We stand to gain extension of the arm, presentation of the blade and clear and undisputed scoring. What are the losses?
My guess (as an epeeist, so take it as you will) is that you would lose all the "conversation of the blade". Parries would become too risky, so no one would ever attempt them; defence would be a choice between parry-by-distance and stop-hitting. Likewise, on the offence, it would make a lot more sense to keep on remising until you get through.

These things work pretty well in epee because of the character of the weapon. Parries in general are easier at epee and there are more opportunities for gathering up your opponents blade so you can make your hit safely - something which is a lot harder to do in sabre. I think sabre needs ROW to balance that out.

Interesting idea though. :)

John Rohde
-28th December 2004, 12:38
It just seems to me that in order to get first touch, the arm and blade would need to be extended for fear of the stop hit.
The defender could then take the blade.
On the other hand, if the stop-hit was going to score the attacker would have to break his attack to parry it.
That way one could get a conversation of blades by another route.
The alternative might be to insist that the arm is straight at the end of the first action of an attack in order to have the ROW.
I think scrapping the ROW, if combined with screwing the blocking time down to the minimum could produce happy results.
I think the fleche could then be re-instated and a more intelligible, less artificial and less contentious game would result.
At the moment we depend on a Pres. to discern which hand twitched forward relative to the fencers body first. It's hard to believe that she/he will get it right say, 29 times out of 29 and medals are often decided on one hit.

Saxon
-28th December 2004, 12:59
Sorry, but IMO you're talking pants.

ROW is still valid in sabre and works to a large extent. The new timings allow for lazy and incompetent referees to get away with their poor performance, giving them a "helping hand" in cases where they would normally be unable to commit themselves to a firm point of view. This is at the expense of the fencers in the case of late-but-in-time stop-cuts, and faulty box programming which is too quick (e.g. Allstar@Leciester).

Your arm extensions and blade presentations will still only be reliable if you hit wrist and forearm. Otherwise, you'll be too late, and a semi-extended, semi-presented cut to forearm will beat your "correct" presentation to chest or head almost every time.

Leave first-blood to epeeists.

John Rohde
-28th December 2004, 13:32
Ignoring the Wldean wit for a while ;-)
I'm not at all sure that ROW does produce the attack/defence exchanges that it was intended to produce.
Viewing the 2002 World Championships and then the semi-finals and finals of the Olympics, I saw the odd parry riposte but mostly double hits decided by the Presidents perception - often accurate, it has to be said - of who twitched first.
Banning the fleche has made the defence by running away an option, which has a skill of its own but I am not sure it has lot to do with a conversation of blades.
A semi-extended cut to the dorearm would invite the same sort of treatment that it gets at epee IMHO: a disengage cut or point to wrist or a parry of prime from the extention.
While the sabre of myth is a thing of beauty, the sabre of experience is at best a contest of footwork, at worst a shouting match.
Epee, on the other hand, seems to be seing a renaissance of fleche attacks, parry ripostes etc..
If sabre has to favour the faults of one weapon or the other, it seems better to me to choose those of a weapon who's numbers are growing relative to foil at a competitive level, rather than vice versa.

gbm
-28th December 2004, 15:28
While I don't fence sabre, it would seem to me that if you are complaining about parrys being rarely attempted, then the last thing you need to do is remove ROW so that forcing your remise through (surely much easier at sabre than epee?) is the way to hit?

'Conversation of the blades' is overrated anyway. It sounds nice, but isn't that important. Fencing is all about distance. Always has been, and always will be.

pinkelephant
-28th December 2004, 16:32
Ok - I'm an epeeist who occasionally fences sabre. I can and do parry. In one DE fight I got 6-0 up by stepping back and parrying before my opponent realised what was going on. The reason sabreurs don't parry has nothing to do with timing - it is a combination of fashion and rank stupidity. The best sabreurs can and do parry, and very enjoyable it is to watch.

John Rohde
-29th December 2004, 10:23
I've done the same thing on occasion - stepping back and parrying a badly executed attack. My observations were based most immediately on watching the video of the Men's Finals of the WC 2002 and Olympic semi -finals and final of 2004, neither of which featured much in the way of stepping back.

John Rohde
-29th December 2004, 10:34
>the last thing you need to do is remove ROW so that forcing >your remise through (surely much easier at sabre than epee?) is >the way to hit?

With the new timings the remise with point already beats the riposte in sabre unless the parry is made firmly with the cutting edge or with opposition - i.e. properly ;-)

>'Conversation of the blades' is overrated anyway. It sounds >nice, but isn't that important. Fencing is all about distance. >Always has been, and always will be.

The first part of the above is a matter of opinion and the FIE - and I - seems to disagree with you.
The second isn't true of fencing as a whole. The equal importance of blade work runs through all of the older literature of fencing. Sabre in particular always has had the problem that the attack is quicker than the defence - which is why the fleche was outlawed - and the ROW exacerbates that.
In fact, if you don't believe that parries would happe, parries by distance would be even more prevalent and you should be happy - if you fenced sabre at all that is ;-)

randomsabreur
-29th December 2004, 10:38
You don't have to step back when you parry, stepping in, drawing an attack (or a counter), then parrying it is one of the most satisfying things about fencing sabre, especially when it brings up one light.

Pink elephant is not an easy opponent at sabre, you need to think pretty hard, which makes it great fun.

If hand extends too early it is asking for a nice early stop hit thank you.

I am in the top 10 of the senior WS rankings (British) and I parry a lot, perhaps a little too often for my own good, but I probably made about 10 successful long attacks last season, and am still in the top 10. Parrying works very very well when you do it right, at the right distance and at the right time.

John Rohde
-29th December 2004, 11:21
>If hand extends too early it is asking for a nice early stop hit >thank you.

Do you mean before the final action?

randomsabreur
-29th December 2004, 12:22
I mean that if the hand is too far forwards too early, and at the wrong distance, it is asking for a stop hit. For a successful sabre attack the hand has to accelerate, if the blade is too shallow, or the hand moves forward to early or too slowly, it is easier to parry, take the blade, or do a nice angled stop hit on. Christmas come early basically.

I think that about 95% of the distance travelled by the hand towards the target should be covered very fast in the last possible second before the front foot lands and the attack ends, otherwise you are vulnerable to all sorts of defences.

John Rohde
-29th December 2004, 12:36
What I saw of the 2002 WC and the 2004 Olympics was that both fencers did that actually or very nearly simultaneously.

gbm
-29th December 2004, 14:58
Originally posted by John Rohde
What I saw of the 2002 WC and the 2004 Olympics was that both fencers did that actually or very nearly simultaneously.

These are very good fencers - they aren't very likely to counter-attack well out of time! They will go for the attack, and possibly misjudge it but only very slightly, and go just out of time, or go for a parry (or something even more sneaky)...

John Rohde
-29th December 2004, 15:13
>These are very good fencers - they aren't very likely to counter->attack well out of time! They will go for the attack, and possibly >misjudge it but only very slightly, and go just out of time, or go > for a parry (or something even more sneaky)..

My point exactly.

randomsabreur
-30th December 2004, 09:19
Originally posted by John Rohde
>the last thing you need to do is remove ROW so that forcing >your remise through (surely much easier at sabre than epee?) is >the way to hit?

With the new timings the remise with point already beats the riposte in sabre unless the parry is made firmly with the cutting edge or with opposition - i.e. properly ;-)

>

Not necessarily all that firmly, just at the right time and the right distance. An edge attack goes through a weak, badly formed parry a lot better than a point attack if you hit hard enough. Parries work perfectly well with the new timings provided they are done at the right distance and time. If you mess one of them up, you get hit (which I suppose is the way it should be)

Given just how reliant I am on parry ripostes, if they didn't work at WS under the new timings, I would not have had the best season of my career.

But removing right of way would mean that ripostes which are done "properly" are also killed.

Frankly if I wanted to fence epee I would do so, but I don't because I find the constant concentration involved too much like hard work, and am quite happy sticking to the idea of playing with epee occasionally, and basically only having to concentrate for seconds at a time when I fence sabre.

John Rohde
-30th December 2004, 13:34
>Frankly if I wanted to fence epee I would do so, but I don't >because I find the constant concentration involved too much like >hard work, and am quite happy sticking to the idea of playing >with epee occasionally, and basically only having to concentrate >for seconds at a time when I fence sabre.

Interesting that you should say that. Having started life as a sabreur, I took up epee a couple of years ago to coach a relative of mine.
I find that drifting in and out of concentration is my major weakness at epee, which leads to four or five self-impalements per fight at least, as I try to bind/beat/bash and rush my lankier opponents.
I'm a sabreur by temperament, physique :-( and background.

Winwaloe
-4th January 2005, 14:31
"While the sabre of myth is a thing of beauty, the sabre of experience is at best a contest of footwork, at worst a shouting match."


Very, very well put!!

John Rohde
-5th January 2005, 13:51
Thank you, Winwaloe!
I'd like some opinions on an incident that happened very recently that bears on this thread a little.
Fencers A and B are On Guard. I call, "Fence!" and A steps forward with - I think - his hand advancing slightly relative to his body. B took a step back. A and B both now straighten, step/lunge/flunge and hit.
I called first step-forward as the beginning of A's attack and gave him the point on the several occasions when the situation occurred.
During and after the fight B sought clarification on the lines that i) A had stopped moving forward at the end of his first step.
ii) that A had not threatened the target on his first step.
Re i) I couldn't swear that A's arm had continued to extend relative to his body without a break, however fractional, at the the end of his first step. I find it hard to believe that anyone could have done while watching the other fencer and the lights as well.
Re ii) B had a point. At the conclusion of the first fencing action, they were still where they were at On Guard except that A had pushed his hand forward a little.
I had called it in favour of A because it corresponded to the attack with a step-forward-lunge as stated in the rules. B had stepped back into it. B could maintain that he had reponded to the step by stepping back and that then they had both made simple lunges/flunges hits (and when does a short lunge become a long step %-( ). I gave it on the basis of a continuously extending - though never straight - arm from A.
The process depended on feel and in a later fight of my own, I had a president trying to judge by nanoseconds the priority in lunge-hit doubles.

J_D
-5th January 2005, 15:00
Fencer a was undoubtably continuously extending his arm, and certainly had the loud shout as he hit!

Saxon
-5th January 2005, 15:20
Originally posted by John Rohde
Fencers A and B are On Guard. I call, "Fence!" and A steps forward with - I think - his hand advancing slightly relative to his body. B took a step back. A and B both now straighten, step/lunge/flunge and hit.
I called first step-forward as the beginning of A's attack and gave him the point on the several occasions when the situation occurred.
During and after the fight B sought clarification on the lines that i) A had stopped moving forward at the end of his first step.
ii) that A had not threatened the target on his first step.
Re i) I couldn't swear that A's arm had continued to extend relative to his body without a break, however fractional, at the the end of his first step. I find it hard to believe that anyone could have done while watching the other fencer and the lights as well.
Re ii) B had a point. At the conclusion of the first fencing action, they were still where they were at On Guard except that A had pushed his hand forward a little.
I had called it in favour of A because it corresponded to the attack with a step-forward-lunge as stated in the rules. B had stepped back into it. B could maintain that he had reponded to the step by stepping back and that then they had both made simple lunges/flunges hits (and when does a short lunge become a long step %-( ). I gave it on the basis of a continuously extending - though never straight - arm from A.
The process depended on feel and in a later fight of my own, I had a president trying to judge by nanoseconds the priority in lunge-hit doubles.

A's hit all the way.
B steps back, A would have to do something fairly drastic to lose priority, none of what you describe shows that he did.

Things to tell B:

1. Sabre threatening counts as arm extending, with blade angled forwards 135 degrees - i.e. half way to being straight.
2. Attack is made "by extending the arm", not "with a straight arm".
3. Unless A actually stops moving, B's hit is simply a counter-attack into the final action.

As far as nanoseconds are concerned, it's up to the fencers to split the action. If the referee is unsure, he has no duty at all to trouble himself with working it out, the rules state that he must replace the fencers on guard, that they are at fault and must make it clearer for him.

Winwaloe
-6th January 2005, 14:18
If fencer "A" steps forward, with arm extending then stops (without hitting) then this is surely a preparation. When he stops he loses priority. If they then both flunge (or whatever) together then it must be together. Even if you consider "A" to have started an attack if he stops and then starts again it is, at best, a renewal. (This is assuming I have correctly understood the situation your description of the situation).

John Rohde
-6th January 2005, 15:34
Whether 'A' stopped is a moot point. There were often two fairly ponderous steps or a step-lunge or step-flunge, jerking forward in typical JD fashion ;-). I couldn't swear that the hand continuously extending across both actions.
I think the whole concept of a step-lunge is ludicrous - was it always in the rulebook?

gbm
-6th January 2005, 20:18
Surely it doesn't really matter whether it was a step-lunge or a lunge attack in this case - one fencer's extension of the arm prior to their (I am assuming) correctly executed lunge preceded the other's, therefore it is said fencers' attack?

PS If you dunno, you dunno. It happens.

Saxon
-6th January 2005, 20:29
Originally posted by John Rohde

I think the whole concept of a step-lunge is ludicrous - was it always in the rulebook? Possibly not, but "fencing time" I presume has.

For "one action", it seems the hand can override the foot - a step-lunge with a continuous hand is one action, whereas if the hand is not involved, the step is a preparation for the separate lunge.

Can't honestly say I understand *why*.

gbm
-6th January 2005, 20:52
Originally posted by Saxon
Possibly not, but "fencing time" I presume has.

For "one action", it seems the hand can override the foot - a step-lunge with a continuous hand is one action, whereas if the hand is not involved, the step is a preparation for the separate lunge.

Can't honestly say I understand *why*.

'Cos "thus it 'twas written"

Foilling Around
-6th January 2005, 21:24
The hand doesn't override the foot.

For me, a step lunge is effectively a compound attack i.e an attack covering more than one period of fencing time. The same as a one two.

This means that the conter action must ARRIVE before the commencement of the final period of fencing time.

At foil this is less likely because of the relative positions of the target areas.

At sabre is much more likely because of the proximity of the wrist to the opponant.

A) begins to straighten and steps forward
B) stop cuts to wrist into the straightening arm
A) then commences the lunge, both lights come up

I am only a part time sabreur, but to me that is a hit in Bs favour.

The attack can have 2,4,6 or 20 steps before the lunge, but as long as the stop cut arrives before the start of the final action then it is in time.

Obviously I stand to be corrected, as there are many more experienced sabreurs on this forum than me!!

Peter Pan
-6th January 2005, 21:59
Originally posted by Foilling Around
The hand doesn't override the foot.

For me, a step lunge is effectively a compound attack i.e an attack covering more than one period of fencing time. The same as a one two.



Not my understanding, but this is confusing:

"Rule T75
2. An attack with a step-forward-lunge is correctly carried out:

as a simple attack (cf. t.8) when the arm is straightening before the completion of the step-forward and when the hit arrives at the latest at the end of the lunge;

as a compound attack (cf. t.8) when, with the arm straightening in the correct forming of the first feint (cf. t.77) during the step-forward, the hit arrives at the latest at the end of the lunge."

So, the single period of time is set by the arm movement, not the feet in a simple step-lunge. So the stop cut must arrive before the arm starts to straighten in the step - a very brave referee if he gives this on a simple step lunge

I've always struggled with the concept of two movements of the feet (step-lunge) in a single period of fencing time determined by the straightening of the arm, but that's my understanding.

gbm
-7th January 2005, 22:10
Step-lunge correctly executed (beginning of the straightening of the arm preceding the end of the step) is a simple attack at sabre and foil...

John Rohde
-9th January 2005, 13:28
>I've always struggled with the concept of two movements of the
>feet (step-lunge) in a single period of fencing time determined >by the straightening of the arm, but that's my understanding.

I share your perplexity, Peter.
Once upon a time, the arm would have had to be straight at the end of the first step - and it still should be IMHO. It would save a great deal of difficulty.

John Rohde
-16th January 2005, 13:56
Of course, in foil, the first action should still be executed with a straight arm, viz:

2. Respect of the fencing phrase
<...>
4. Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent (cf. t.8).

So, a step-lunge where the arm was still bent, is just a preparation followed by a lunge (bent = not straight).
sabre doesn't have that clause, so we are stuck arguing whether, "straightened", in t.77 means, 'made less bent', or, 'made straight' - which reminds me a little of the, filioque, dispute in theology.

gbm
-16th January 2005, 15:43
Originally posted by John Rohde
Of course, in foil, the first action should still be executed with a straight arm, viz:

2. Respect of the fencing phrase
<...>
4. Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent (cf. t.8).

So, a step-lunge where the arm was still bent, is just a preparation followed by a lunge (bent = not straight).
sabre doesn't have that clause, so we are stuck arguing whether, "straightened", in t.77 means, 'made less bent', or, 'made straight' - which reminds me a little of the, filioque, dispute in theology.

Umm... no.
When it says actions performed with a bent arm, it means a complete action performed with a bent and non-extending arm (it's probably in the translation, but that's not important). An action performed with an extending arm is OK.

A completely straight arm is not the best way to do a compound attack anyway - it is far too easy to find the blade, and makes it very obvious. It also has other disadvantages over a progressive attack.

The arm does not have to be straight after the first action, it just has to not stop extending.

The difference between this and theology is that God doesn't come down and give the correct interpretation, whereas the FIE do. Sort of.

From the BFA Referees Guide available by clicking FIE Rules at the top of this page, which is based on stuff from FIE:
"The most important task at foil is to decide who started the initial offensive action and what happens to that action. It is important to remember that the attack is the initial straightening of the arm, causing the point to threaten the valid target of the opponent. Any subsequent bending of the arm may cause the right of way to pass to the opponent, depending on their actions. The arm of the attacking fencer does not have to be straight, but straightening and also threatening the valid target of the opponent.

However, a fencer advancing with a point aimed directly at the ceiling is not threatening the valid target. The point must be straightening between the vertical point above the fencer and the opponent."

"7. Watch for any pause or bending of the arm, which may allow the right of attack to pass to the opponent."

It takes either a pause in the extension or a bending to open up a 'window of opportunity' for the other fencer to begin their attack. (Attack Incorrect, Attack Touche or similar)
Of course, you can still have a counter attack valid over an attack if the attack is compound and the counter attack lands before the final action of the compound attack lands...

gbm
-16th January 2005, 15:54
PS Does the word used in the French for 'bent' suggest non-extending as opposed to not straight?

John Rohde
-16th January 2005, 21:21
In the official, French the term is, raccourci, means shortened - which doesn't help greatly but does have an ambiguity that the English, bent, doesn't have. That said, the rule used to be interpreted as requiring the arm to be straight at the end of the first action - it generally isn't now, I know.

>A completely straight arm is not the best way to do a compound >attack anyway - it is far too easy to find the blade, and makes it >very obvious. It also has other disadvantages over a >progressive attack.

That's the whole point! It's certainly not the easiest way but at foil at least, we used to do it that way ... once upon a time. Attacks were harder to execute, parries easier and bladework more important. One needed good stomach muscles to maintain form.
The, Wait-for-it! Wait-for-it! form of attack wasn't possible and compound attacks had to be rapidly and dexterously executed. Lunges had to be capable of instantaneous recovery for the counter-parry, counter-riposte. A little more of that would be just what the doctor ordered for both of the conventional weapons IMHO.

Nick_C
-4th February 2005, 11:29
Sorry to hijack the thread, it's on a similar theme.

Was reffing a couple of days ago and gave a point-in-line into preperation, and the "attacking" sabreur was like "what are you talking about?", so I re-phrased the point like any polite president would do. But then this guy starts laughing (which was nice) and says "you dont know what your talking about". So I say 'en gaude', and he goes "no, i'm not ready" and carrys on pretending to laugh for about 30 seconds.

Anyway, my point is, I didnt have a rulebook handy, so at what do you start dishing our cards for this kind of thing?

He was also giving me attitude from the side of the piste when he was NOT fencing too. Is this any less acceptable, or just as unacceptable?

Sorry to go off on one - i just wanted to check.

pinkelephant
-4th February 2005, 12:14
Yellow card for refusal to obey the referee should shut him up while "laughing".

gbm
-4th February 2005, 13:46
Plus yellow card (to be followed by black card if required) for disturbing good order while not on the piste.

Quite frankly I would be disgusted by that sort of behaviour, and would just have to prove to him that they were one the who didn't know what they were talking about, not you.

Nick_C
-7th February 2005, 13:24
I think it's a good judge of character as to how you react to a bad ref decision. Assuming that no referee is perfect, it is likely that we all come up against "incorrect" decisions. Whether you accept that one decision and move on more determined, or whether you insult the referee is, perhaps, reflective of your character.

It would be arrogant of me to suggest that I have never made a refereeing mistake, however, I make a point of asking the ref to phrase the point if I feel that he has not adequately explained why he awarded it that way. ("I'm giving it to him; I dont really know why" didn't especially inspire me, on one occasion)

As far as i'm aware, I think the fencer is allowed to ask the ref questions; eg "Can you phrase that please? Did I not parry it?", but I think he is not allow to provide his own analysis, eg "I parried that; It was my attack" etc.

Is this right?

stevejackson
-7th February 2005, 20:13
Originally posted by Nick_C
As far as i'm aware, I think the fencer is allowed to ask the ref questions; eg "Can you phrase that please? Did I not parry it?", but I think he is not allow to provide his own analysis, eg "I parried that; It was my attack" etc.

Is this right?

In my opinion no. Rule t122 (qv) specificly bars questioning on the facts, if the referee phrases the bout such that it is clear that they didn't see a parry then to ask "Did I not parry it?" challenges the facts.
Asking the phrase is valid, and then you can question the interpretation of the rules provided this is all done courteously.

However I'm an armourer so get one of the national referees (Keith Smith, Ian Hunter etc) to check this.

Saxon
-7th February 2005, 20:34
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Plus yellow card (to be followed by black card if required) for disturbing good order while not on the piste.

Hell, why not - straight black for unsportsmanlike conduct. Or for refusing to fence.

Anyone who can find not being given a hit amusing for 30 seconds deserves to have everyone give up on him and go to the bar.

tigger
-8th February 2005, 08:34
I was going to write a long post to explain how this proposition is flawed and betrays the fundamental basis of sabre fencing. However the proposition is SUCH a load of cobblers that i can't even be bothered...that doen't happen often!

David
-10th March 2005, 08:29
I hate to say it but for once i am going to have to agree with Tigger. The person who started this thread had obviously not watched the way that nations have adapted to the changes in sabre over the past few years.

Some of us remember fleching and double hits and priority and i for one feel that Sabre fencing now is alot better than it was ten years ago.

The whole idea of scrapping the right of way is ludicrous. Any decent referee can determine who is attacking and who should be awarded the hit. Rather than critisise the way sabre fencing has developed why not adapt and move on?

It is not the first rule change to have come our way over the last few years and i am sure it will not be the last.

John Rohde
-10th March 2005, 11:39
Originally posted by David
I hate to say it but for once i am going to have to agree with Tigger. The person who started this thread had obviously not watched the way that nations have adapted to the changes in sabre over the past few years.

Some of us remember fleching and double hits and priority and i for one feel that Sabre fencing now is alot better than it was ten years ago.

Having fenced more sabre recently, I don't find that many problems with the ROW - but then, in my experience, there never was any problem with ROW in friendly fights in clubs, which is what i have been having.
My speculation was based on reviewing the last few World Championships and what little of the Olympics was shown this year. There were a lot of simultaneous attacks.
I don't disagree that sbre is better than ten years ago - I remember the flick-from-the-hip style that reminded me of swinging handbags.
I don't agree that banning the fleche solved the problem - it just gave us the whip-style instead. IMHO it was better presiding and stiffer blades that did that.
The new timing has been a big plus IMHO as it, to some extent, punishes invitation-attacks without depending on the president. I find it frustrating when my parry-quarte-riposte is locked out by a remise but I'm willing to pay that price.

Winwaloe
-11th March 2005, 10:47
Originally posted by David


Some of us remember fleching and double hits and priority and i for one feel that Sabre fencing now is alot better than it was ten years ago.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole idea of scrapping the right of way is ludicrous. Any decent referee can determine who is attacking and who should be awarded the hit. Rather than critisise the way sabre fencing has developed why not adapt and move on?

It is not the first rule change to have come our way over the last few years and i am sure it will not be the last.

"decent referee" - - what level? - There are quite a few comps where there is little standardization of refing espec. when fencers ref their own poule. It may not happen at "A" but not every comp is an "A" and not every sabreur is an international

randomsabreur
-11th March 2005, 11:45
To be perfectly blunt the FIE could not give a stuff what happens at non international competitions!

Sabre at the top level is fine, and full of plenty of varied actions. I can't really see that removing r o w, or reducing the block out time will do anything more than further limit the choice of actions. I am living proof that you can survive on more than attacks (because I am rubbish at attacking, but can still beat people).