Sabre rules ... forwarded from mailing list

Sabre rules ... forwarded from mailing list

Post by Edwin Wis » Thu, 09 Dec 1993 19:27:05


I am forwarding this from Anton Oskamp on his request:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet fencers!

I've got it figured out now!
Via GOPHER I can read the postings on rec.sport.fencing USENET group.
But I can't respond. This is a pity because the most interesting
discussion takes place on newsnet.
I'll try to get the system manager here to create access to newsnet.
Meanwhile, I'll ask Edwin Wisse to forward my TOUCHE-mailings to the
newsnet.

Anyway, to pick up the sabre discussion again:
I have been amazed reading all the very creative solution namely
the Americans on Newsnet have proposed to solve the sabre-problems.
It seems to me to everybody agrees on two things:
1. the new Nancy rule (use of fleche and crossover allowed, but simo's
not counted at all) will take us back to the bad pre-priority days
(which I do remember, Andrew)
2. forbidding the fleche and the crossover is a bad thing.

What most of the writers on newsnet ignore however in their
opposition to the new rules is the facts. Or rather the difference
between international sabre meets and bouts for 'fun'. In this last
category one tends to fence for nice points: technical, creative and
daring, involving high risk. The interests are not that large etc. In
international bouts the case is quite different. Winning is more
important. Most people are not likely to take high risks (I don't)
resulting in many simo's.
This feature was controlled by the priority rule: by turn, a fencer
was forced to make a defensive (=risky) move, or an offensive one on
the stride of the guy with priority (=even more risky). Taking out
the fleche reduces the risk of these movements, because the attacker
(guy making the fleche) knows that he is not going to pass, and that
if his attack is parried, he'll be hit with the riposte. This
increases the importance of footwork, distance and creative fencing.
Therefore the rule is a good one. It doesn't take out the root of
sabre fencing (which many of you seem to think is the fleche) but it
brings it back in. THe root of sabre fencing is IMHO: attack, parry,
riposte; preperation, counterattack; preperation, attack, contre
temps; footwork; creativity; out-daring your opponent.

Lets work on it!

Anton
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anton Oskamp                              | tel +31-20-5254042
Dept. of Physical Planning and Demography | fax +31-20-5254041

Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130                  |
1018 VZ  AMSTERDAM   THE NETHERLANDS      |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_________________________                                  ___      

"Heden verse mosselen, morgen gij"                         ___ | | |

 
 
 

Sabre rules ... forwarded from mailing list

Post by Morgan Bur » Fri, 10 Dec 1993 05:49:08

|>
|> I am forwarding this from Anton Oskamp on his request:
|> [...]
|> This feature was controlled by the priority rule: by turn, a fencer
|> was forced to make a defensive (=risky) move, or an offensive one on
|> the stride of the guy with priority (=even more risky). Taking out
|> the fleche reduces the risk of these movements, because the attacker
|> (guy making the fleche) knows that he is not going to pass, and that
|> if his attack is parried, he'll be hit with the riposte. This
|> increases the importance of footwork, distance and creative fencing.

If passing is the real concern, then the FIE should experiment with a
"No passing" rule, instead of banning the fleche.  For example, passing
your opponent could be a yellow card offence.  If it isn't clear who
passed who, give the card to the fencer who cross-stepped.  If both
cross-stepped, give cards to both.

Then if a fencer can score on the fleche, he can go for it, but if it
fails, he pays the price.  This would discourage unrestrained use of the
fleche and running attacks, but wouldn't prevent them from being used
in appropriate and obvious circumstances.

|> Therefore the rule is a good one. It doesn't take out the root of
|> sabre fencing (which many of you seem to think is the fleche) but it
|> brings it back in. THe root of sabre fencing is IMHO: attack, parry,
|> riposte;

Isn't that the root of foil fencing?

|> preperation, counterattack;

That's epee fencing, no?

|> preperation, attack, contre temps; footwork;

Okay, that's sabre.

|> creativity; out-daring your opponent.

That's just fencing in general.  :-)

-- Morgan Burke


 
 
 

Sabre rules ... forwarded from mailing list

Post by Susan Mullhau » Fri, 10 Dec 1993 23:50:00

Quote:


>|>
>|> I am forwarding this from Anton Oskamp on his request:
>|> [...]

>If passing is the real concern, then the FIE should experiment with a
>"No passing" rule, instead of banning the fleche.  For example, passing
>your opponent could be a yellow card offence.  If it isn't clear who
>passed who, give the card to the fencer who cross-stepped.  If both
>cross-stepped, give cards to both.

No. Passing is the _main reason_ why the fleche is not just a modified
advance/lunge . Thee is another aspect that the fleche has a wonderful
uncertainty - unlike any other footwork, the fleche can support a simple
_or_ a compound attack without modification. When you do a simple attack
on a balestra lunge it's really a second intention. The reason not to
forbid the fleche or passing is that these are important and interesting
parts of the game. It's really boring to hear all the people in Europe
try to make the game more interesting with the hand by hobbling the feet.
It's sort of like assuming that one should be blinded in order to correct
hearing deficieny. The right thing to do is to improve fencing, and more
importantly improve directing.

Quote:

>Then if a fencer can score on the fleche, he can go for it, but if it
>fails, he pays the price.  This would discourage unrestrained use of the
>fleche and running attacks, but wouldn't prevent them from being used
>in appropriate and obvious circumstances.

But it wouldn't do this. Just because you know the other fencer _might_
get a yellow card doesn't mean you can forget about defending yourself, and
defending yourself in sabre means giving some ground. But when you give
ground, you reduce the chance of being passed, and you're back to
square one.

Quote:
>|> Therefore the rule is a good one. It doesn't take out the root of
>|> sabre fencing (which many of you seem to think is the fleche) but it
>|> brings it back in. THe root of sabre fencing is IMHO: attack, parry,
>|> riposte;

Somebody get this guy a horse. For many years, mobility has been the
great characteristic of sabre fencing. This goes back to the turn
of the century. The development of the game _naturally_ passes through
phases where foot or hand dominate. We're in a time where it seems to
some that the foot is more important. This may be true, but the better sabre
fencers I know have _very_ good hands. Come on, let's get a little
realism here. If your opponent is Carl Lewis but he lifts his hand
even a little bit, which one among us will not cut up his cuff something
serious? So when you see a fencer _successfully_ making extreme running
attacks you have to realise that this is also very technically good
fencing with the hand.

Take it another way. Almost any beginner can stand en garde the way that
his master has showed him. But look at his garde when he has just
landed a balestra - probably not quite the same. The difficulty of
maintaining the hand goes up roughly as the _square_ of the foot speed.
This is one reason why epee fencers, who require  great point control, move
around the strip slowly. Now if you restrict footwork in order to 'improve'
the sabre game, you will certainly get what _looks_ like cleaner fencing
since you will have eliminated the thing which makes it difficult to
maintain a quiet hand. You will have also introduced a tremendous artifice
which degrades the more important skills which differentiate sabre from
the other weapons. It's kind of like saying that soccer is too one-dimensional
because the players can only think of kicking the ball.

Leave the rules alone for a little while, say, twenty years, and we'll
certainly see that the game changes on its own. _This_ is what makes
fencing interesting. Look at epee fencing and foil fencing; they survived
electrification and are now fine games. If we could only keep the rules
the same from one month to the next we could develop the directors and
fencers to rediscover the full breadth of sabre fencing.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt

Later,
Andrew Mullhaput

 
 
 

Sabre rules ... forwarded from mailing list

Post by Vincent J Cocc » Sat, 11 Dec 1993 02:41:44

It seems to me that the big problem here is twofold:

        1) A subthread of this arguement is that the directing in local (and
probably world class) tournaments has become lax. This relaxation of the
fencing standards has lead to a pre*** of "run and hack" sabreplay
which is technically out-of-time and visually ugly. I agree. If the directors
would start enforcing rules on the books now re: timing of the fleche and
disallowing running attacks, these ugly (yet effective) attack styles would
fall into disuse. Any meddling by the FIE in the sabre rules should be to
ensure more rigorous enforcement of these rules.

        2) If the double hit rules are part of the problem, then let's change
that! Personally I would favor a return to the priority system used before.
It meets many of the criteria we have discussed here: it is fairly even-handed,
it speeds up boring bouts (ie those with a lot of doubles), and it compels
at least one fencer to give up the run and hack offense. Of course it is
difficult to use, and the rules are clunky and ugly, but then I think (IM very
HO) that any of the possibilities put forth in this forum would have similar
problems. I do not think that the simo touch problem is going to go away,
mainly because sabre emphasizes a fast attack. The problem is engrained in the
weapon, but it can be dealt with by forcing someone to be a bit less careless
on the attack.

Mr. Oskamp (sp? sorry if it is wrong) points out correctly that there is more
to sabre than the running attack. I think that maybe we can emphasize good
fencing by compelling good fencing with some sort of priority rules. Even the
'sabre elite' would have to start fencing again if they couldn't win with a
running attack.


 
 
 

Sabre rules ... forwarded from mailing list

Post by Morgan Bur » Sat, 11 Dec 1993 04:45:08


|> >If passing is the real concern, then the FIE should experiment with a
|> >"No passing" rule, instead of banning the fleche.  [...]|>
|> >
|> >Then if a fencer can score on the fleche, he can go for it, but if it
|> >fails, he pays the price.  This would discourage unrestrained use of the
|> >fleche and running attacks, but wouldn't prevent them from being used
|> >in appropriate and obvious circumstances.
|>
|> But it wouldn't do this. Just because you know the other fencer _might_
|> get a yellow card doesn't mean you can forget about defending yourself, and
|> defending yourself in sabre means giving some ground. But when you give
|> ground, you reduce the chance of being passed, and you're back to
|> square one.

You cannot forget about defending yourself.  In fact, you *must* defend
yourself (with a parry, yet) to get your opponent carded, since it is only
then that he will pass you before then end of the action.  If you don't
defend, you will get hit, and the action stops before the pass happens.  
Simple.

If one fencer fleches, and the other retreats, then parries or stop-cuts,
then yes, you're back to square one.  But guess what?  Square one is sabre
fencing!  If one fencer fleches, the other parries, and the first passes
him, then the first is penalized, and we have incentive to parry, and
disincentive to run at the enemy.  Hey, that's good too!  If both fencers
fleche each other, hit, and then pass, well then it's just a simultaneous
attack with no penalties (since the hits came before the pass).  That's not
so great.

-- Morgan Burke

 
 
 

Sabre rules ... forwarded from mailing list

Post by Nai Ying Kw » Wed, 15 Dec 1993 11:17:52

[Stuff deleted which I agree with to a certain degree]

Quote:
>Leave the rules alone for a little while, say, twenty years, and we'll
>certainly see that the game changes on its own. _This_ is what makes
>fencing interesting. Look at epee fencing and foil fencing; they survived
>electrification and are now fine games. If we could only keep the rules

                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is of course, open to debate, like how so many people complain
about the advent of flicking in foil, and how the FIE are now trying to
reinterprete (or rather, to get presidents to interprete correctly,
depending on your POV), the priority rules in foil with regards to a
legitimate attack was the point not directly threatening the target.
This doesn't mean that flicks will be totally invalidated, but it does
mandate a much more controlled use of the flick, or indeed any attack
initiated with a bent arm. Personally, I think foil is fine the way it
is now, and I even agree with the reinforcement of the cross-over rule
(right of way only in the first step etc), and the emphasis on having
the point directly threatening target area before right of way is
achieve can only serve to clean up the fencing, but the point remains
that not everyone agrees that foil and epee are now fine games in their
current manifestation (maybe epee, considering the fact that there are
almost no rules :-) ).

I think the old priority rules in sabre were pretty stupid and left just
too much to chance, personally. But I don't really see anything improved
in the new rules.

NY

Quote:
>the same from one month to the next we could develop the directors and
>fencers to rediscover the full breadth of sabre fencing.
>Later,
>Andrew Mullhaupt
>Later,
>Andrew Mullhaput