The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by Sasha Zucke » Wed, 16 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Well, after years of threats from the FIE, the flick shot may be in real
danger of removal from foil fencing. I was told that at the Olympic
Festival this year the timing of the foil machines was adjusted such that
flick shots that didn't hit solidly would not register. I guess the point
has to be in contact with the lame for a longer time of something, instead
of just lightly touching the surface for less than a second.  Flick shots
will still land, I guess, but only ones that land solidly. I wasn't at the
Olympic Fest myself, ( I was, like, 40th alternate...  :-) ) but I heard
this from an athlete who was there. Apparently, the officials informed the
athletes of the change in timing to the boxes before the start of the
competition. flick shots could still be landed but only if the point
arrived solidly.

I think this is really ironic because I remember reading on this newgroup
an idea for getting rid of the flick shot that was very similar if not
identical to the one that was actually used.

Anyway, I think it's a good idea because it will keep cheezy flicks from
landing or maybe even those cheez touches that go off but _barely_ brush
your lame. Don't you just hate those? I know I do!

On the other hand, why do we want to get rid of the flick? The only
trouble people are having is referees figuring out if flicksters are
attacking when all they're doing is moving their wrist and sort of waving
their blade in the direction of their opponent.

It doesn't matter what happens to the flick shot because, jsut like when
they got rid of the fleshe in sabre, the good fencers will win, the bad
fencers will lose.

-sasha

 
 
 

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by Mike Buckl » Thu, 17 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Say it isn't so!  I just started fencing foil and I played with the
flick on Saturday at a tournament.  I can understand why it is used so
heavily.  It is so much fun!  I did't even mind giving up the
occasional counter-attack (it was a friendly tourney) just for the joy
of finishing flicks.  I even got a feel for what Andrew Mullhaupt has
been ***ing about all this time.  Chasing someone down the piste
with certain death is much fun.  And you say it might end?



Quote:
>Well, after years of threats from the FIE, the flick shot may be in real
>danger of removal from foil fencing. I was told that at the Olympic
>Festival this year the timing of the foil machines was adjusted such that
>flick shots that didn't hit solidly would not register.

Can anyone more official substantiate this?  I've heard lots of
rumors.

Quote:
> I guess the point
>has to be in contact with the lame for a longer time of something, instead
>of just lightly touching the surface for less than a second.  Flick shots
>will still land, I guess, but only ones that land solidly. I wasn't at the
>Olympic Fest myself,

Ahh.  How long can they make the contact time?  I can still flick in
epee, and it requires that the point go all the way in and stay there
for a few miliseconds.  I'd be surprised if they make foil more
stringent than epee.  I suppose I'll just have to enjoy it while it
lasts.  I mean, its not like Canada is going to go out and replace
every machine in the country just to appease some aestheticians.

Quote:
>On the other hand, why do we want to get rid of the flick? The only
>trouble people are having is referees figuring out if flicksters are
>attacking when all they're doing is moving their wrist and sort of waving
>their blade in the direction of their opponent.

I have seen the future of foil (sans flick) and it is Canadian women's
foil.  Instead of flicking, the tactic of choice seems to be
withdrawing the arm (to the hip or the shoulder) at the right time,
making an effective parry impossible.  If often gets real ugly.

Quote:
>It doesn't matter what happens to the flick shot because, jsut like when
>they got rid of the fleshe in sabre, the good fencers will win, the bad
>fencers will lose.

Yup.  But I'll have less fun, winning or losing :-(
--

 -- Mike Buckley

 
 
 

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by Alastair Sh » Thu, 17 Aug 1995 04:00:00

...
: has to be in contact with the lame for a longer time of something, instead
: of just lightly touching the surface for less than a second.  Flick shots
: will still land, I guess, but only ones that land solidly.

...encouraging people to hit harder? -isn't there enough of a problem of
this already? Personally, one of the shots that annoys me with fencing the
most is the badly executed, usually quite heavily landing, flick shot. Why
change the rules in a way that may possibly induce people to hit harder?
Like any other shot, there is an art to doing it properly. If someone can
hit me on the back light enough so that I can't feel it - then good on them,
I can appreciate the time it took them to get that degree of finesse into
their fencing.

: Anyway, I think it's a good idea because it will keep cheezy flicks from
: landing or maybe even those cheez touches that go off but _barely_ brush
: your lame. Don't you just hate those? I know I do!

Yep, but your opponent still has to hit you 5 times to make it count. If
they can get that close to scoring, surely what difference is a another
milli second or 2.

: On the other hand, why do we want to get rid of the flick? The only
: trouble people are having is referees figuring out if flicksters are
: attacking when all they're doing is moving their wrist and sort of waving
: their blade in the direction of their opponent.

Agreed. In my experience far too few presidents have bothered figuring out
that an attack requires a straight arm somewhere along the line... Moving
forwards quickly waving the foil around and throwing a flick out somewhere
has never been in the rules as a valid attack, and hopefully never will.
As with anything in fencing, there's a correct way of flicking. Done well,
it looks good, lands lightly, and is as easy to preside as any other
fencing. Converesly, bad fencing is bad fencing, whether a flick is involved
or not.

: It doesn't matter what happens to the flick shot because, jsut like when
: they got rid of the fleshe in sabre, the good fencers will win, the bad
: fencers will lose.

Definitely. If someone is prepared to put the time in to be a good fencer,
they'll succeed with or without a flick shot.

just my 2c,

alastair

 
 
 

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by Sasha Zucke » Thu, 17 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

> Say it isn't so!  I just started fencing foil and I played with the

hey, I don't make the news...

Quote:
> flick on Saturday at a tournament.  I can understand why it is used so
> heavily.  It is so much fun!  I did't even mind giving up the
> occasional counter-attack (it was a friendly tourney) just for the joy
> of finishing flicks.  I even got a feel for what Andrew Mullhaupt has
> been ***ing about all this time.  Chasing someone down the piste
> with certain death is much fun.  And you say it might end?
> Can anyone more official substantiate this?  I've heard lots of
> rumors.

Heard this from Sherry Posthumus and her daughter Jenny.

Quote:
> I have seen the future of foil (sans flick) and it is Canadian women's
> foil.  Instead of flicking, the tactic of choice seems to be
> withdrawing the arm (to the hip or the shoulder) at the right time,
> making an effective parry impossible.  If often gets real ugly.

That's not really anything new. What ever happened, I ask, to the feint-
decieve?

anyway, I'll just be happy when they've made a final (at least for a
while) decision about "zee fleek." <--- bad phony french accent.

I've heard also that in europe fiberglass blades have been developed with
the wire running inside the middle of the blade, and with the infamous
blade that has the spring in the handle instead of the tip. supposedly
they're being tested on young'uns who can't do flick shots anyway.

All I can say for myself is that I personally believe my fencing and
results would improve my results a lot if I only used flicks occasionally
and used the point more expertly.

-sasha

 
 
 

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by H. William Oliv » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Sasha speaks true.  The timing of the box has been changed.  The original configuration required that the point remain in contact with the lame for 1 milisecond.  This has been increased to 8 miliseconds.

What I noticed at the festival was that certain fencers weren't much effected.  Their flicks seemed to register without problem.

Other fencers were very effected.  One fencer failed to land one flick in entire encounter, batting 0 for about 50!

On the whole, I don't feel that then new timing effected the outcome of the tournament, except in a few specific cases.  Most fencers adapted their style appropriately.

I also noticed a significant number of fast, hard, straight attacks not going off either.  This problem has reared it's ugly head on Triplett boxes in the past, so might not be related to the new timing, but I've found that on older, manual-relay machines, very fast attacks can bounce off the lame (not so much breaking contact with the lame, but closing the point connection).  Also, hard hits can open the point connection, then continue on to ground the spring, faster than 8 miliseconds.

I suspect that this latest "experiment" will have larger implications to foil fencing than intended.  We can only wait and see.

---
   Bill Oliver

 
 
 

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by Chris Holzm » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00

: I've heard also that in europe fiberglass blades have been developed with
: the wire running inside the middle of the blade, and with the infamous
: blade that has the spring in the handle instead of the tip. supposedly
: they're being tested on young'uns who can't do flick shots anyway.

   there is an old national geographic piece on fencing.. yes nat'l geog
of all things.. and it shows fibreglass blades being used. ive only got
one problem with fibreglass used as a blade, when they break, the dont
just break, they shatter, and whatever is left attacted to the pommel is
razor sharp. i cannot see how that could be avoided. thankfully, i can
leave that one to the experts.  i would like to see the cup type point
adopted though, and it would certainly be less expensive than having to
replace all your blades.

: All I can say for myself is that I personally believe my fencing and
: results would improve my results a lot if I only used flicks occasionally
: and used the point more expertly.

      odd, i do too..  i wonder if that might be some sort of uncanny
coincidence or if you might just be onto something.   have you ever
noticed that its a whole lot easier to make a feint-disengage when using
a french grip or even the oft maligned italian than with a pistol grip?  
odd the way the world works.   that and girls who i like that stay with
jealous controlling boyfriends are the two things in life ill never
understand :>

: -sasha

                                      -chris

 
 
 

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by AMullhau » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
Shar) writes:
>Agreed. In my experience far too few presidents have bothered
>figuring out
>that an attack requires a straight arm somewhere along the line...

Umm. No, an attack need not require a _straight_ arm. An attack
requires a somewhat unspecified amount of "extending" arm, not
"extended" arm.

The only places in the rules which mention a straight arm are the
rules relating to the _point in line_.

 
 
 

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by AMullhau » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00

In article

Quote:

>It doesn't matter what happens to the flick shot because, jsut like
>when
>they got rid of the fleshe in sabre, the good fencers will win, the
>bad
>fencers will lose.

There is a lot more that matters than who wins or loses. If all that
matters is
who wins and who loses, why not replace the whole bout by a coin toss.
 
 
 

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by obr.. » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>There is a lot more that matters than who wins or loses. If all that
>matters is
>who wins and who loses, why not replace the whole bout by a coin toss.

Cuz then we couldn't scream "Epee-LAAAAA!" a whole bunch of times
during the bout, of course.   Jeeez, some guys :)

                Jeff "wait a minute, haven't we done this thread
                                already?" O'Brien

 
 
 

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by Mike Buckl » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00



Quote:
>Sasha speaks true.  The timing of the box has been changed.

At who's behest?  Was this from the USFA, or from the FIE?

Quote:
>The original configuration required that the point remain in contact
>with the lame for 1 milisecond.  This has been increased to 8
>miliseconds.

This is amazing.  Epee only requires 2ms (max allowed is 10).  I can
imagine that there will be some odd hits as a result.

Quote:
>On the whole, I don't feel that then new timing effected the outcome
>of the tournament, except in a few specific cases.  Most fencers
>adapted their style appropriately.

I would hope so.  The flick is fun and powerful, but not essential.

Quote:
>I also noticed a significant number of fast, hard, straight attacks
>not going off either.

This is what I feared.  Just look at the whipover timing problems
sabre has had.

Quote:
>I suspect that this latest "experiment" will have larger implications
>to foil fencing than intended.  We can only wait and see.

Ick.  And I was just beginning to enjoy foil.  I might have to go back
to epee.
--

 -- Mike Buckley

 
 
 

The beginning of the end of the flick shot.

Post by obr.. » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>So, tell me, what else matters besides winning? ;-)

>-sasha

        Making time with all those cute fencing groupies*** around
        the piste eyeing up all us white-clad fencer dude/dudettes, of
        course.

                        Jeff "Cherchez les femmes" O'Brien