Talk:Fencing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

I plan on overhauling this entire article and making it a featured article. If you're interested in helping, by all means say so either here or on my talk page. Linuxbeak | Talk]] 23:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Your plan is a good one. I can help edit. Problem: The SCA always breaks into articles and changes them to put their activities in the light they want them to be shown in. The "SCA" article, for instance, is useless. -KM

Count me in :) -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 19:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't help, but indeed, I believe this article could be great, good luck on the overhaul!

I'm up for this. How do you suggest we proceed? Kd5mdk 08:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm game. How about this for a plan:

1. Expand The emergence of modern fencing section into a proper history section, broken down according to geographical location and historical period, for each region/period giving a bit of information about typical weapons and famous practitioners (linked to "notable fencers"?).

2. Reduce the number of entries under [Contemporary] Fencing philosophies to a manageable number. Classical fencing is, essentially, a subcategory of historical fencing. SCA fencing does not really represent a distinct "kind" of fencing - it is either historical or sports fencing done in a live action role play setting.

3. Build a clearly organized section on modern Olympic fencing, something along the lines of:

a) Who and when laid down the FIE rules;

b) What the different weapons are;

c) Protective clothing (and general safety concerns);

d) Priority rules;

e) Dimensions of the piste;

f) Refereeing/scoring apparatus;

g) Cardable offenses;

h) Typical structure of competitions;

i) Wheelchair fencing.

4. Do a small section on coaching.

5. Reorganize the "notable fencers" according to what they've done (rather than where they are from and what ideological camp they belong to). How about

a) Fencers who have had a truly spectacular international competitive career, like Gerevich, Mangiarotti, Romankov etc.

b) Famous fencing masters, i.e. people who have written widely read books or trained a significant number of internationally successful fencers.

c) Other fencers who have made it into history books (mostly, for reasons which are nothing to do with fencing).

I don't think that extensive discussions of technique or equipment are a good idea. Our purpose is to create a layman's reference rather than a fencing textbook. The overwhelming majority of people who come to view the page will be "uninitiated", and you do not want to put them off with miles and miles of minutiae. Stuff like fencing footwork can be tucked away into separate entries. I also suggest, we get rid of the list of national associations. This information is readily available from the English version of the FIE website. Cat-o-nine-meows 05:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I DO think we ought to have extensive discussions of technique/equipment in other pages, and I also think we should briefly discuss more important stuff (disengages, etc.) here. I'm also a little concerned with the status of Classical fencing. I think it deserves its own place- it's definitely not a separatist movement like the SCA or historical fencing generally. There are a lot of classical thinkers out there who continue to argue for reform within the sport fencing community (like Evangelista, and there are plenty of sport fencers who have strong classical backgrounds (like myself, or practically anyone who uses a French grip these days).

I do hear where you're coming from in that I recognize that there are crazy classical fencers out there who want to abandon modern sport fencing to what they see as its terrible sin and create their own little world, presumably to be more or less the same as the historical fencing movement, but I think that the reformist people, and the classically-influnced sporters mentioned in the above paragraph justify Classical's listing as a style. KrazyCaley 19:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain exactly what I'm trying to say. Sports fencing and historical fencing really are different philosophies: historical fencers want to recreate a viable martial art; sports fencers want to play a game losely based on a martial art. A fair number of people who call themselves classical fencers want to practice the martial art rather than the game, which basically puts them in the same camp as the people who do stuff like broadsword and buckler. This is not in any way a put down - I think, these people do serious historical work with serious historical sources.

When it comes to sports fencing, all modern fencing is based on "classical" (i.e. old) techniques. Arguing about whose technique is more "classical" is pointless and divisive. It is incredible conceit on the part of people like Nick Evangelista to claim some sort of a monopoly on the history of fencing. There are plenty of "modern" fencing masters whose work is steeped in old traditions. A fencer once turned up at David Tyshler's club in Moscow and announced that he comes from a "classical fencing" background, to which Tyshler's response was "Oh? Is there another kind?"

As for SCA, so far as I know, it is much more about roleplay than fencing. Different groups seem to promote different kinds of fencing: some are basically happy with variations on the sports fencing theme; others take a more historically thorough approach; others still do what is probably best described as stage fencing. Cat-o-nine-meows 12:10, 31 January 2006 (GMT)

The problem, as I see it, is there is a quite tangible difference in approaching the SPORT of fencing. I agree with you that "classical" fencers who want to abandon sport fencing and do their own thing are, in reality, just another subset of historical fencing. I further agree with you that all sport fencing is based, to some degree, on the classical approach. However, within sport fencing, there are drastically different philosophies and ways of learning and participating in the sport itself. How are we to describe the difference between an individual who uses unorthodox techniques, began with saber, develops their personal technique through bouting rather than drilling, yells in joy after every touch in an attempt to convince the referee, etc., vs. a fencer that religiously started with foil, then maybe branched out to epee, does his or her salutes completely, to everybody, develops technique through drilling over bouting, and so forth? It seems to me that there is a recognizable difference between these two types of fencer; and certainly there are plenty of people who fall between these two examples. While it may not be the most accurate verbiage, the current convention in the sport is to call the latter kind of fencer one who adheres to the "classical" approach, Tyshler's valid criticism of this usage not withstanding. Perhaps "traditional" would be more appropriate, but no one uses that term. KrazyCaley 17:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as I understand, what you are basically saying is that, while all sports fencers play the same game, when it comes to the technical repertory and methods of training, there exists some sort of an orthodoxy, which classical fencers do adhere to and the rest do not - and therein lies the division. Right?

My problem is, how do you define what that orthodoxy is? Whose classical fencing? What period? What techniques do we count as "allowed"? Aldo Nadi, whom a fair few classical fencers consider their patron saint, talked about how turning the body to minimize the target was a totally acceptable thing to do in the "modern sport of fencing" (over sixty years ago) and poured scorn on all those fuddy-daddy types who held onto the outmoded belief that it was unmanly and amounted to cheating. So, does it come under "unorthodox techniques" or not? These arguments have been raging within the fencing community as long as it has existed. What is "proper" fencing? If you go by George Silver (or Shakespeare), it is definitely not what Italians do! Who says that foil is the "proper" starting point? Who defines the "proper" salute? I have learnt four different versions from four different venerable sources. As for the ideas that free fencing is not the most effective form of training and that technique must be drilled in, particularly where beginners are concerned, they are not unique to classical fencing - they are widely acknowledged truths. "Individuals who develop their personal technique" very rarely have much competitive success (although there are some notable exceptions).

It is true, in fencing, as in virtually every other sphere of life, there is a traditionalist versus reformist debate, and it is fair to say that the convention is to use "classical" in reference to some broadly conservative approach to technique and protocol. All this definitely warrants a mention. The question is, are classical fencers really that different from other fencers within the sport? Historical fencers, Mensur fencers and theatrical fencers all fence with completely different weapons and for completely different reasons. Are classical fencers as different as that? Cat-o-nine-meows 0.3:09, 2 February 2006 (GMT)

General Changes

I've removed references in the "Right of Way" section to "counterparry", which was misused. A counterparry is to parry with a circular motion, not the parrying of a riposte. However, after you have parried the riposte, the next step is to counter-riposte. It isn't consistant, but that's the way it is. Kd5mdk 07:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

We need to get some new images of the grips... The current ones are shamelessly ripped from the good 'ol folks over at Triplette. I can get pics of spanish offset and visconti, but I don't have any french's, so If someone could do that, it would be great. digitalme

I use the French and have a digital cam, will upload. KrazyCaley 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. KrazyCaley 07:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Question- Anyone know where the heck we can find a useable picture of an Italian grip? Or do we even need one, since it's more or less irrelevant these days? KrazyCaley 19:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Found and put in a user-created one from the foil article. KrazyCaley 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just restored the old Etymology section that was lost through vandalism. Cat-o-nine-meows 15:45, 14 February 2006 (GMT)

I've just rewritten the Electronic Scoring section. I have, to the best of my ability, tried to preserve all the information that was there before hand. I've restructured and slightly simplified the technical bits (again trying not to lose any of the information). I've also added a bit of detail about the recent timing changes, the motives behind them and the disputes surrounding them. Cat-o-nine-meows 15:56, 19 February 2006 (GMT)

I've reverted back to the earlier spelling of Onishchenko. There are various spellings in circulation, but this one is the most phonetically correct. I'll put in a note concerning the variations in spelling in the article about him. I'm also changing Romankov's first name to the correct transliteration "Alexandr".Cat-o-nine-meows 13:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the "Practice of Fencing" section and added a few extra details. I've also rearranged the sections inside the article along a more logical progression. Cat-o-nine-meows 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Boris and the magic épée

I've added a tiny reference to Boris Onischenko / Onishchenko / Onishenko (there's a variety of spellings on the net and in wikipedia). I don't know anything about fencing, so I didn't add an awful lot. The Guardian article The 10 greatest cheats in sporting history reckons that his misdeeds led to new rules about grips.

slightly inaccurate....it's not that the grips themselves were made illegal, but the there could be no covering on the grip that might hide a awitch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.30 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck for the overhaul! Andjam 15:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems Jon Henderson is a Letterman fan, except there is no number nine. The plot thickens ... Andjam 15:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked the reference desk, and they reckon it is Boris Onishchenko, with a suggestion to redirect Onischenko to Onishchenko. Andjam 12:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I've got my gear ready (I'm a fencer). I'm going to get a digital camera and have photos taken so we can get good photos of a bout, a fencer, the equipment, etc. Let's get started :-) Linuxbeak | Talk 16:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made a Featured Article in the past (see Civil Air Patrol), so the process should be pretty straightforward.

Featured Article push status

You will find the article that is being overhauled at Fencing/Featured article overhaul.

Steps completed

1. Start a new article -- Done, obviously. The article exists and we have a basic framework to it. However, I am personally under the impression that it could do with some changes. That's where the next step comes into play.

To do

1. Research and write a great article

A "POV" recommendation: as a fellow fencer I most definitely recommend you the book "By the sword: A History of Gladiators, Musketeers, Samurai, Swashbucklers, and Olympic Champions" written by Richard Cohen. It's a pretty good read and has the plus side of tons of sources quoted. Sadly my copy is stashed several hundred km away from me :-( -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, and I'll look to see if my university's library has a copy. I personally own two books on fencing: The Art and Science of Fencing and The Inner Game of Fencing, both by Nick Evangelista. I'll be using them as sources. If you have any more suggestions, please say so. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A warning to you - Nick Evangelista is generally considered a representative of the "classical fencing" movement, and his opinions are widely held to be irrelevent and wrong by the sport fencing community. Therefore, it is important to take everything he says with a grain of salt when it comes to the modern practice of sport fencing. Kd5mdk 07:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Understood. I'll look for other sources in addition, then. Thanks! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Evangelista, though IS a leader of that part of the classical movement that argues for a "retakeover" of sport fencing by classical ideas, and he has a lot to say on sport fencing that is valid, so don't discount him entirely. Everything he says about the execution or nature of particular techniques is solid. Where you run into POV trouble is in his complaints about modern sport fencing- he thinks the pistol grip is trash, etc. etc. The problem is that there aren't a lot of "sport fencing" books out there- sport fencing is kind of in the fencing world's zeitgeist more than anywhere else. KrazyCaley 18:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very interested in helping this article receive featured status. This is a solid article, but it could be a lot better. I'll begin making some changes in the near future, starting with expanding the glossary and putting some more details into the discussions of the rules. KrazyCaley 18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Check against the featured article criteria
2. Get creative feedback (Peer review)
3. Apply for featured article status
4. Featured articles

Oh, the rules! In "By the sword" (see my comment above) there is a memorable quote by somebody from the International Olympic Committee a few years ago. It went something like "half of your rulebook outlines rules that are aimed at preventing people from cheating, are you sure there's nothing wrong with your sport?" Discussing the rules will certainly be interesting. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. On a related note, I'd love to include the story of the fencer whose opponent kept getting on-target touches despite not even making contact. Eventually the fencer exposed his cheating opponent by making a really convincing feint of a fleche from long distance, and the opponent did a stop thrust that obviously hit nothing, yet the box indiciated an on-target. Later they found a weird little switch INSIDE the guy's grip that let him get an on-target whenever he wanted. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this story is either apocryphal or impossible to reference. If anyone out there knows where I can find something like this, it'd be a pretty amusing thing to put in to any discussion of the rules. KrazyCaley 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, wasn't that part of the "Boris and the magic epee" saga? I'm pretty sure I've read about a similar incident somewhere. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds very much like the Boris incident. As I heard it... Fencers have a tendency to argue calls, but this particular British fencer was well known for his sportsmanship, so it was very strange that he would vehemently deny being hit by his opponent, so the director was more inclined to beleive there was something fishy going on.--Whpq 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I've heard the Boris saga repeated under a ton of different names, and I've heard the offender's nationality reported as Czech, French, and German. I'm still trying to find a reliable source that will tell the real story.

The real story is that it happened at the 1976 Olympics, and there's a link right here in the Wiki article.

Good enough for meKrazyCaley 02:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Spanish grip still legal?

Could someone tell me if the spanish offset grip is still legal under fie rules? William Scales 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Extremely illegal, actually. KrazyCaley 18:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the version with the pommel a la french grip, but the version that is shown in the article. I recently took mine to an NAC and had no problems with it, but I've heard rumblings that it is no longer allowed, and last time I checked, Triplette was no longer selling them. --digital_me 16:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be on the way out, in either case. Does FIE or USFA have a comprehensive online rulebook? KrazyCaley 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They have a rulebook, but the rules governing the grips seem abiguous at best. They say (I think) that a weapon with orthopedic aids may only be held in one position, and if you're really good, you *can* post with the spanish offset, but it's not practical. Also, I saw something about your thumb has to be within 2CM of the bellguard, but that should be covered. But again, they probably *could* knock you on these, but I'm just not sure. --digital_me 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just make a note about the Spanish grip being of dubious legality. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is...if the grip has prongs like a pistil grip AND a French pommel, it'll be illegal.

Similarly, if yhou can post and STILL get a finger around a projection, it'll be illegal, because you're NOT trading power for distance like if you post with a French grip.

This is why the rules are a touch vague...you can't really ban a grip by name (like the Gardere), but must do so by it's characteristics.

The idea is to have it so the grip in and of itself does not allow for a significant advantage over the other fencer....the playing field must be as level as possible.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.191 (talk • contribs) .

European vs. European-originated

I changed this because there are plenty of non-European countries that have developed their own branches or styles of sport fencing technique, but it is true that all these branches and styles have their origin in Europe. Any thoughts? KrazyCaley 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

About the weight used

"This force, larger than the foil's force, is meant to simulate the force required to draw blood from an opponent, to connect epée to its classical roots."

I removed this sentence from the article until I, or anyone can find something to back this up. I am an epee fencer, and I've never heard this, but who knows. --digital_me 16:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that before, but never saw it anywhere authoritative. Sniffing around. KrazyCaley 19:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see how this "makes sense" but I haven't read it anywhere else either. It was a good idea to remove it until we can come up with a source. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A-ha. Evangelista in Art and Science of Fencing, in a section on reasons for classical conventions, says this, though he does not mention the specific weight. KrazyCaley 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

500 grams is the approximate weight of a foil....750 grams the approximate weight of an epee....and sharp point would not need that much force to draw blood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.191 (talk • contribs) .

Post v. Pommel

I've never heard it called "pommeling." The verb "to pommel" is one I've only heard in the context of a hypothetical bashing WITH the pommel, not the thing commonly known as posting. If this is actually a legitimate term, we should probably stop reverting, but honestly I've never come across that way of putting it in my fencing life. Has anyone else? KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always called it "posting". I've never actually heard of pommeling, but I suppose it could be a less common word. authraw 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of "pommeling" either. Hbackman 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

KrazyCaley has the correct definition. It's not something you would do in modern fencing unless you a) had a French grip and b) wanted a black card. You see it occasionally in stage fencing and historical fencing, and was actually used in older-style duelling and warfare. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You talking about posting, or bashing with the pommel? Because I see posting all the time. But I think that you're talking about bashing with the pommel. --digital_me 19:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And I've never heard of "pommeling" either. --digital_me 19:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant he had the definition of "pommeling" correct, from which we get the modern verb "pummel". TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as the dictionary difinition is concerned, you guys are right. The OED defines "to pommel" as "To beat or strike repeatedly with or as with a pommel; to beat or pound with the fists; to bruise". However, "pommeling" is used to describe the practice of holding the sword at or near the pommel by the majority of fencers this side of the pond. Cat-o-nine-meows 11:28, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

Uhhh...TCC? You seem to imply that pommeling/posting earns a black card....there is NO penalty associated with the action (although there may be one for switching from a full grip to posting DURING an action). Black cards are for brutality, manifest cheating, etc...posting is NOT cheating.

Posting serves no real purpose in foil, as it has nothing to do with right of way. It DOES have validity in epee because of the lock-out time...and to a lesser extent in sabre (I HAVE seem people grip a sabre all teh way back...although the extra reach is minimal compared to posting a French)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.191 (talk • contribs) .

I learned to fence in Georgia, and here it is called pommeling. Just say, "Posting, or pommeling, is ..." 131.96.149.151 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article overhaul

I've just gone and overhauled the featured article skeleton. It's still not polished, but there's only so much I can do in one night. Should we combine the two streams, or keep working on the other for now? I feel like I'm the only one who's still interested in pushing for featured article status. Isopropyl 06:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should keep them seperate for now, at least until we get the structure nailed down. I think that this second page gives a little more freedom for editing, since we don't have worry about immediate usability. --digital_me 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My time is somewhat limited these days, but I am wiling to pitch in on the featured article. From an effort standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to concentrate on the feature article separately, and simply let the current article stand unless there are some egregious changes? Whpq 12:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also willing to help, I have tons of free time this weekend. --digital_me 20:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Italian grip

Someone claimed under the Italian grip section that it's illegal because it could be used to break your opponent's blade. This is untrue. The Italian grip is illegal because it applies undue torque to the wrist, often breaking it. I have reverted the edits. Isopropyl 03:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's illegal? I was under the impression that people simply didn't use it because of the cost involved (custom ordered blades, etc...) Then again, I could be wrong. --digital_me 16:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The Italian is NOT illegal...you still see it (albiet rarely) in USFA competitions. Someone show the rule where it woul dbe illegal. The modern game does not lend itself to the Italian grip, but that does not make it illegal. Cost of blades is another factor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.191 (talk • contribs) .

The Italian grip is illegal in the most recent edition of the USFA rule book -- rule m.4 . xander 207.213.160.29 23:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The words "Italian grip" do not appear in the rules. What is specifically outlawed in both USFA and FIE rules is a cross-bar that extends past the guard, which effectively outlaws any Italian grip I've ever seen. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but look at section 6 of rule m.4 -- a grip with orthapedics (like an Italian grip) must fix the hand in one, and only one, position, and when the hand is in that position, the thumb must be within 2cm of the guard. It is possible to post with an Italian grip, which means that more than one position is possible; and in that second position, the thumb is not within 2 cm of the guard. Thus, while it is not specifically mentioned by name in the rules, the Italian grip is illegal because it has orthapedics and allows the hand multiple positions on the grip. xander 207.213.160.33 21:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it highly questionable that the Italian grip is "orthopedic". They're defined as a grip that fixes the hand in a single position. The Italian plainly doesn't do that, although certainly there's only one correct way to use it -- but the same might be said of a French grip. Added: On actually looking it up, I see that an orthopedic grip is effectively defined as any special shape that fixes the position of the hand. The regulation is that there can be one and only one such position. I suppose I can see how an Italian grip might fit this definition, but it's a matter of interpretation. One could say the same thing about the curve in the French grip, after all. The FAQ on the USFA website specifically contemplates legal Italian grips. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a subject of dispute, and, I recon, that's how we should present it. The way it was argued by Barry Paul, who runs the Leon Paul firm, is that a handle which is designed to fix the hand in a position where the thumb is more than 2 centimetres away from the guard is illegal (i.e. it would be illegal to use a pistol grip with an excessively long stalk but not a gardere). What I was told about the Italian grip by the folks who run Allstar UK is that the grip itself is not illegal, but strapping it to the wrist, which used to be common practice, is. You could argue that they are manufacturers interested in promoting their less popular products... Having said all that, I agree with Beefnut — I think, all this stuff should go into a separate entry instead of cluttering up the main article. Cat-o-nine-meows 13:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at M.4....specifically, M.4.6, which covers ortho grips...

"6. If the grip (or glove) includes any device or attachment or has a special shape (orthopaedic) which fixes the position of the hand on the grip, the grip must conform to the following conditions.

(a) It must determine and fix one position only for the hand on the grip.

(b) When the hand occupies this one position on the grip, the extremity of the thumb when completely extended must not be more than 2 cm from the inner surface of the guard."

Clearly, the Italian is not designed to fix the hand in one position...therefore, it is NOT an orthopaedic grip and this part of the rule does not apply to it.

Thus, the Italian IS legal for competition at any event, up to and including FIE Worlds.

The term "orthopaedic" for pistol grips is a result of the grip's origin...created to help a fencer grip his weapon after having lost a finger or two.

The Gardere is a totally different matter, and is the grip that best demonstrates the intent of the rule. Depending on how far back you move your hand, you can be fixed in any of 4 or 5 positions....and every one of them gives you added reach without surrendering control (as you would if you post with a French). Barry Paul has managed to push the Gardere into legaility, but ONLY at domestic UK tourneys...it would not fly at an FIE or domestic US tourney.

As US Level One armorer Donald Clinton is fond of saying...don't just quote the rule...UNDERSTAND the rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.81.231 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 16 May 2006.

Use of the term "Director"

Can anyone who is knowledgeable in this sport clarify for me the use of the term "director" as an alternate for President of Jury or Referee? Is it just a synonym for "referee" or are there differences? I am trying to disambiguate the link to something more specific than Director. Aguerriero 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the term "director" should be used when bouts are being reffered by a non refree-certified fencer. Usually this would happen at local level tourny where it would be impractical to get certified referees. At least this is how I have seen most people (including myself) use the term. --digital_me 04:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd dab it to "referee", although in Spanish we used the term "judge" (juez) regardless of certification. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is in the US, and I can't vouch for anywhere else. BTW, that second comment above was mine. I've never heard president of the jury in modern fencing (after all, we have no jury to preside over...) --digital_me 04:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

When I got into this sport in 1981 the position now called "referee" was the "director" regardless of whether the person was certified or not. I don't remember when "referee" became current, but it was some time after I left college. Unfortunately, I don't know about the prior history so I can't say for sure whether "director", "president", or "referee" is the older term, but my impression at the time was that the change to "referee" was part of the effort to make the sport more accessible to the American public. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, "referee" is the official term, but colloquially everyone here (New England) continues to use "director". This is at all levels that I've fenced at, amateur and college. I don't think I've ever heard "referee" used, actually. I'm not sure which the article should use. Isopropyl 05:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If the rules make consistent use of one term we should mention that (and probably use it for the article) making a note that other terms are colloquial but still used. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, too, at all levels and on both coasts, I've only heard "director" and never "referee". Thus, even if the rules use the latter term, until it actually becomes more mainstream, we ought to use "director". --Beefnut 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The English translation of the FIE rules makes use of the term "referee" consistently. The use of the term referee is now much more common, but being a recent switch in nomenclature, you still have other terms in use. For the article, I would say use the official term "referee". Whpq 21:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, "director" is an older term that has fallen into disservice in the last many years. I believe it comes from a time when there were no electric boxes. A bout would have a jury of two judges and a director. The role of the judges was to ensure that touches were reported, and to aid the director in enforcing rules (i.e. the boundaries of the strip). The director's responsibility was to call the action and award touches. With the introduction of electric boxes, judges were rarely, if ever, required, and bouts were officated by a single person who basically takes on the role and positioning of the director. However, as this person was also responsible for monitoring things that the judges formerly monitored (again, strip boundaries, covering target), they are more than "just" a director. As the English translation of the FIE rulebook does use "referee" to the exclusion of all else, I would suggest that "director" is something of an anachronism, and used only informally, while "referee" is the officially endorsed term. xander 207.213.160.105 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon, sir/madam, but the above comments clearly show that "director" is still very much in use. In the dry fencing system that you refer to, the "president of the jury" is the correct term, as he or she presides over the four judges who monitor the action. Also, you may want to review dry fencing rules; judges do not simply watch out for strip boundaries, as they also play a role in the awarding of touches. Thank you for your comments. Isopropyl 01:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Without disagreeing that the article should reflect the official rules, I want to mention that the change had nothing to do with electric fencing, or if it did -- which does not tally with my recollection -- it was specifically the introduction of electrical sabre. "Director" continued in use for many years after electrical scoring was introduced for foil and épée. (In Olypmic fencing that happened in 1956 for foil and 1936 for épée.) Nor is it true that judges were no longer required with electrical scoring. At least when I was competing in épée, it was not uncommon to use "floor judges" when a bout took place on an ungrounded strip. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My old club and coach constantly used the term "director" while the rest of the referees in my division (Virginia) insisted on being referred to as "referees". RECblue8 18:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fencing masters?

I'm only a complete newbie to fencing, but I'm curious as to why there needs to be a separate list for US fencing masters? Surely you could equally start making a list for every country then? Unless there's a particular reason why the US deserves special mention, perhaps the list should be removed or combined with the international list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.1.151 (talk • contribs) .

I've just rearranged the fencing masters and split up all the modern ones according to their country.Cat-o-nine-meows 03:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This section needs clarification

I found this in the sabre section, and can't really understand it:

Unlike foil and épée, in modern sport sabre, the crossover is not allowed. This rule change was made so that referees would not have to try to determine right of way when both fencers simply fleched, or ran at each other. However, recently some sabre fencers have been using a technique known as the "flying lunge", or "flunge" for short. This attack starts like a fleche, but the fencer pushes off from the ground, and flies forward. The legs almost cross at the high point of the jump, but then the front leg is brought forward to catch the fencer.

Ok, first off it defines this technique in jargon terms. It starts off saying that a "crossover is not allowed". Well what is a crossover in the first place? Do you mean crossing over of the legs as in a normal walking gait? And what, exactly is the "flech" that the flunge is modifying? If it is, as the article seems to state, simply the matter of running at each other, why is there even a term for this? And if I read the flunge correctly, one of the two fencers is jumping into the air and then doing something with his/her legs (the description is unclear). Are they striking the other fencer with their leg? Or by "catch" do you simply mean they land on their forward leg? If its the later, the wording should be changed to say that.

Maury 13:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could have looked at the glossary, which is linked from the top of the article. That's always a good place to go, and it has definitions of the fleche and crossover (cross). A fleche is not simply running at each other, but you would know that if you had read the glossary. The definition of a flunge is perfectly correct, and it isn't the fault of the authors of the article if you simply did not read the glossary. The description is quite clear, but maybe some images of a flunge would be helpful in your understanding. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any. However, you can try your own search to see if you can turn up any images. --digital_me 20:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

The new images for valid target area are sweeter than high fructose corn syrup. Props to whoever found them! Isopropyl 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! I raise my glass (well, not really :P) to whoever found them. The old ones sure were ugly!

They are nicely drawn but not very technically sound. The fencer looks ever so slightly off balance (for one thing, he clearly has most of his weight on his back foot). Is there a reason for why we cannot use the pictures in the FIE Rules and Regs? They are clear, stylish and unlikely to spark too much debate about technique. Cat-o-nine-meows 11:50, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

Yes. It's illegal. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely this would come under "fair use", provided we attribute the source etc. Cat-o-nine-meows 14:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, although fair use is a gray area. However, it's better to use a free alternative if one is available. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gauntlet/Right of way

First off, I've never heard "gauntlet" used to refer to a glove. Maybe it's a colloquial term for the manchette?

Second, the "new right of way" section that was added seems dubious at best. When I direct, I still call forward motion without intent as a march; I recognize priority when the fencer initiates an attack by moving his point relative to the opponent's target area. I haven't heard anything about giving forward motion priority. Isopropyl 04:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

From the applicable section of the current edition of the FIE rules:

(t.7.1) L'attaque est l'action offensive initiale exécutée en allongeant le bras et menaçant continuellement la surface valable de l'adversaire, précédant le déclenchement de la fente ou de la flèche (Cf. t.56 ss, t.75 ss). ("The attack is the initial offensive action executed by extending the arm and continually menacing the adversary's target area, preceding the release of the lunge or flèche." My translation without reference to existing English language rules.)

I refer those who believe in the existence of the new rule to t.56 for foil, and t.75 for sabre, which describes what constitutes an "attaque correctement exécutée" (correctly executed attack). In every case in both weapons, it says a valid attack occurs when the arm is extended (quand l'allongement du bras). Of particular interest is t.56.2.d, which explicitly states that for foil, advancing with a bent arm is not an attack but a preparation.

This is not to say that some directors don't act otherwise. Some are quite insistent about it. That doesn't make them right. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I agree with the rules above, but not what was added to the article:

"A new rule that has been put into practice is recognizing the forward movement of a fencer as right of way. This makes it considerably more difficult to score an attack in preparation, because it is necessary to take right of way from the advancing fencer by making blade contact. Otherwise, it will continue to be the advancing fencer's attack, and therefore his point."

The problem I have with the section posted to the article is that it refers to the "forward movement of a fencer" and not the fencer's arm or point. As you say, moving forward with a bent arm is not an attack, and the director would be correct to call it a march or a preparation. I'm glad we agree :) Isopropyl 06:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you. I provided a cite in case of a re-revert. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

There has been discussion on the right nomenclature to use (referee vs. director, and glove vs. gauntlet). It does not make sense to litter the article with parenthetical equivalents. I've removed the gauntlet reference. The English translation of the FIE rules uses the term "glove" with the term "gauntlet" to refer to the extended protective cuff.Whpq 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Need help on the external pages

The Foil page, the Sabre page, and the Épée page, are all in horrible condition. I've done quite a bit of work on the Sabre page, seeing as that's the only weapon I'm profficient in, however I think a lot of work needs to be done on all of the pages. In particular, I think we need some pictures for the Sabre page, and some better ones for the Foil and Épée pages, since most people won't get much from what's there. Vjasper 19:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved Épée to Épée_(Fencing), as per the naming of the other two external weapons pages.--digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Creating a new page for "anatomy of weapons"

To be straightforward - that section is pretty boring (at least the discussion on grips), and I believe keeping it in this "overview" fencing article will cause readers to lose interest. I'd create a new article for that material, but I don't know what would be an appropriate title. My gut tells me to move all the stuff on grips to a page called "grip (sport fencing)", and to remove the title "anatomy of the weapons" and clean up any mess afterwards. Comments? --Beefnut 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems like something logical to do, I would be willing to help with that if we decide to go forward with it. Grip (sport fencing) or Grip (fencing) would probably work well. We definitly need a section on the anatomy of the weapons, but the grip crap is just bogging it down. Hopefully, this will also allow us to add lots of nice details about all the grips. --digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs to go somewhere else. Perhaps it could be broken up into a series of Wiktionary entries. Failing that, "Hilt (Sword)" could be a good title.Cat-o-nine-meows 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Footwork

Something about the footwork section strikes me as odd. No offense to whomever wrote it, but I think it deserves to be looked at more closely. Isopropyl 21:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it. Sorry, I didn't have time to post a note up here at the time. I also let a few typos through, but I think I've now picked most of them out. What I basically tried to do was rewrite what was already there (minus the minor confusion between the fencing stance and the en garde position) in a way that would make more sense to a non-fencer or a novice. Is there a problem with what I wrote? Please discuss before reverting, because I honestly don't think the old version was that great.Cat-o-nine-meows 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything. I guess I'm just kind of unfamiliar with seeing the mechanics spelled out is all. You're right, the previous section wasn't glowing. Isopropyl 23:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Épée

I have just rewritten the Épée section. The old version contained one or two inaccuracies, and the wording was a little imprecise - hence all the disagreements and reverts over "light" versus "heavy". If people want to keep the weapon entries short, some of the details I included might be better off in the dedicated entry. (Pavel 15:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

Clothing

Might I suggest updating the kevlar reference?? Kevlar is no longer used, as it breaks down in chlorine and UV light (so if you wash an old kevlar FIE uni in the washing machine, then hang it in the sun to dry, you've screwed it twice).

There are other, newer ballistic fabrics such as Dyneema which ARE used in FIE gear because they don't have kevlar's weak points (that's what we get for using a fabric for use outside it's intended usage....but after Smirnov, kevlar was the only game in town)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.88.30 (talk • contribs) 2 April 2006 (UTC)

High School Fencing

Is it fair to say that high school fencing is mostly in New England? There is a pretty big conference in the Greater Chicago Metropolitan Area and another big one near Columbus, Ohio. Peaceman 02:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean high school fencing as in high schoolers who fence for a club, or high schoolers who fence for their high school? Because in Colorado, there are tons of fencers who are in high school, but fence for clubs. AFAIK, the only HS with a fencing "team" is Regis, but that's a club, and they never go to tournaments. -digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it's mostly confined to New England and New Jersey for whatever reason. I come from the Midwest, and to us fencing is what you use to keep the cows in. Isopropyl 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

lol whatever...it's just that my high school's team competes with other high schools from the local area and nearby states and such so I thought it might be worth mentioning. Peaceman 03:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following until it can be clarified. High school fencing is quite prevalent in Colorado/New Mexico/Arizona, so either the section should not be reinserted, or it should be edited.

Section follows:

== High school fencing ==

The practice of competitive fencing on the high school level is considered a small, local sport of the North Eastern region of the United States, particularly New Jersey and Long Island. The majority of ::schools in these areas do not have fencing programs, and it is traditionally run at only some schools. The sport of fencing is considered rather costly on the high school level, as many competitive high school ::teams are of private academies, who strive to excel at the sport through use of recruiting programs and talent scouts.

Instead of fencing for a school at this level, most fencers choose to fence for a club.

Section ends.--digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also a middle/high school fencing league in Southern California, drawing public and private school teams from Los Angeles, San Diego, and occasionally out of state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.81.231 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Foil

Just redid Foil - mostly rewording, also added a little information about history and removed some more contentious and less relevant bits (Pavel 18:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

A proposal for splitting out the anatomy of the weapons

The fencing article is currently clogged by the anatomy of the weapons section. I would suggest that this section be split from the article, so as to give it a more thorough and encyclopedic treatment. I would be more than happy to take care of this, but I need to know what the consensus is, I.E. what sections should be split, how they should be represented in the main Fencing article, etc... I am looking for an intelligent discussion here, because this issue has really been bothering some other people, as well as me.--digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Penalties

The description of the penalty for stepping off the side of the piste is incorrect. Stepping off the side of the piste is penalised by your opponent gaining 1m of ground, which is a huge difference - it means stepping off the edge of the piste within your own 2m warning area will almost certainly result in the loss of a hit. Also it's 'refusal to salute' not 'failure to salute' that gets you a black card. GBM 08:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you know if this same 1m penalty applies if you go off the edge of the piste during a fleche? Because whenever I've been fencing and have gone off/have had my opponent go off as a result of a fleche (which is almost always how you go off the side), we've just started back where we were (assuming no touch was scored.)--digital_me^(t/c) 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends. The one metre penalty applies any time you step off of the strip while in front of your opponent. So, if you step off of the strip before passing them, you will be penalised. If you step off afterwards, you will not be penalised. While there is an official definition of "passed" (I believe it is when the hips pass, but it may the shoulders *shrugs*), it is pretty much up to the referee. Most refs won't penalise you for going off during a fleche, even if you do so before you pass, as long as it is not terribly blatant.