In einer eMail vom 3/6/2007 9:42:45 PM W. Europe Standard Time schreibt
sword_teacher@...:

Actually, I'd like to see a combination of things; i.e., the
4-judge/Director system we had as the norm years ago (not perfect, mind you,
but fairly
adequate), combined with the idea of having a definite 'bend-type' indication
to
substantiate a point. I would also favor using a double-touch system that
minuses a point from both fencers when a double-touch is scored. (Something
like this may be useful for Epee also, instead of awarding both fencers a
point, as is now the case under the Sport rules.) In this manner, a
double-touch
in Foil would have some meaning, rather than mere provision for stopping the
action. In concert, these concepts might work pretty well...certainly they
would provide some improvement toward realization that fencing should be 'as
if they were sharp'.




This is what we propose, with one exception: Thanks! We take "as if they
were sharp" totally seriously. "To hit and not be hit," too. We go a bit
futher and remove the jury and director and replace them with what we what we
hope with evolve into the equivalent of seconds. Oh--I'd always thought the
bent foible was a requirement, and what's happened, I guess, is that the
persistence of sport-based rules has allowed it and a sufficient parry to go by
the
wayside over time, and so imperceptibly. We'll be happy to cooperate with
you and others in developing a system that does indeed bring back some things;
I make no claim, none, zilch, to absolute certainty!

Thanks again,

Bill



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]