Hi,

The answer is: Are these beginners using foils? Use the classical foil
rules.

If these are experienced fencers with epee's, then no priority - first touch
scores, or simultaneous touches score.

And throw the flicks out because they would be worthless except unless they
were poison tipped.

sincerely, cheers,

Joe Phillips
HM - SDCMF
Columbus, Ohio
-----Original Message-----
From: fencing_SaEF [mailto:fencing_SaEF@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 1:36 PM
To: JPHILL32@...
Subject: Re: [CFML] Thinking about Rules



'Lo Joe,

hmm, then we need an answer to the following problem : A has row,
goes to touch; B counterattacks but A ignores that; B touches, then
parries before A touches, scores; or even more frequently B can't parry in
time, and A touches and scores.

By "as if sharp" notions, this would be impossible: A would be dead
and B would not need to parry, row or no row.

I have done this many times - so I should be dead many many times
over.

I have undergone bayonet training as well, when a mite younger, and
the question of priority did not really come up - only who was still alive
or dead.

Re competitions, when I referee, I do watch for row. Admittedly
can't always tell . So - decide by gut instead of absolute truth. By God,
I am NOT God (notwithstanding persistent rumors )!

Harry (the lively corpse)



-------Original Message-------

From: JPHILL32@...
Date: 3/6/2007 5:31:36 PM
To: fencing_SaEF
Cc: jphill32@...
Subject: Re: [CFML] Thinking about Rules

Hi,

I prefer to continue to teach priority with foil and sabre as a
means
of teaching to avoid mutual suicide.

Now you know as well as I do that even in local tournaments priority
is
a wisp of the wind.

When priority is taught correctly a student is taught to account for
the opponents attacking sword!!

Now when Marines and Enemies are both doing a Bayonette charge at
each
other perhaps priority may not be quite so evident!!!

sincerely, sante'

Joe Phillips
SDCMF
Columbus, Ohio

----- Original Message -----
From: fencing_SaEF <fencing_SaEF@...>
Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: [CFML] Thinking about Rules
To: flanconade@...
Cc: jphill32@..., classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com

>
>
> Gentlemen/Ladies,
>
>
>
> Q: will the "right of way" be kept? If yes, then "as if sharp"
> does not
> hold, since I know we all disregard the opponent's foil if we have
> the right
> of way.
>
> Q: If the row will be discarded, and first-to-touch will score,
> we get
> essentially epee rules with faster action since the foil weapon is
> lighterand can have higher accelerations and bend more.
>
> Q: will double-touch be preserved or be penalized by declaring
> the bout
> null and void? It opens the bugaboo of deliberate double-touching
> by the
> fencer about to lose. A solution is to have 5 consecutive one-
> touch bouts.
> To disqualify the fencer that does predominantly double touches,
> the referee
> might have the right to declare loser the fencer that disregards
the
> opponent's blade three times in five one-touch series.
>
>
>
> Harry Shamir
>
> SaEF Clubs
>
> MA, USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
>
>
> From: flanconade@...
>
> Date: 3/6/2007 1:04:42 PM
>
> To: jphill32@...; classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com
>
> Subject: Re: [CFML] Thinking about Rules
>
>
>
>
>
> In einer eMail vom 3/6/2007 4:42:28 PM W. Europe Standard Time
> schreibt
>
> jphill32@...:
>
>
>
> Surely with that entourage it can be decided who got the touche'
> and who had
>
>
> priority.
>
>
>
> You'd think that. Maybe it's true. We only suggest--I emphasize
>
> suggest--that there are perhaps better ways to assure clean
> assaults based
> on
>
> disciplined actions, not on the fiction that ambiguity dealt with
by
> elaborate
>
> conventions does so better.
>
>
>
> There's also a question of personpower, I mean, can you always
> assume all
>
> judges hastily assembled know what they are seeing? I agree having
> people
>
> observe and comment on what they see is great training. We do that
> all the
> time.
>
> But is fencing based on the vote? I recall a guy who regularly
> directed
>
> telling me, "You have to play to the director." How do we handle
> the
>
> subjectivity issue? Which may, in fact, not involve intentional
> biases at
> all but
>
> very normal perspectival ones?
>
>
>
> Walter Green has pointed out that teacher replacement in fencing
> generally
>
> has reached a crisis, so where will all those competent directors
> be coming
>
> from? If you assume points are sharp, that rule-based ambiguity
> looks like
>
> pretty inexact a way to fence! How would you duel with sharps? is
our
> premise.
>
>
>
> That demands an emphasis on defense, which is, as we're finding
> out, very
>
> demanding itself. A question in favor of orthodoxy today is
> whether it is an
>
>
> efficient investment of time and effort, not because people don't
> want to
>
> fence well, but because today's fencers do not come from the
> highly leisured
>
>
> classes, a very tiny fraction of the population in the past, who
> could make
> the
>
> investment. We could be bonkers to think with the kinds of working
> hours
>
> people have and club resources available today we can produce what
> we aim
> for.
>
>
>
> I'm surprised no one's leaped to defend points d'arret, a
> prohibition we
>
> share with the AHF. Oh, well. Great cure for sliding epee buttons
> as some
> have
>
> argued? The stickums were a crude sport scoring device. What's
> wrong with a
>
> properly executed attack that ends with a bent foible? Seems more
> real to
>
> me than poking with a barbything.
>
>
>
> My position is a properly executed attack in terms recognizably
> "classical"
>
> shouldn't need a prosthetic. It's like the later argument for the
> pistolgrip.
>
> Even against jackets polished for sport fencing, and they've been
> around a
>
> long time, or those undergirded by plastic chest protectors now
> fashionable
>
> even among male sport fencers, one can execute the thrust the
> situation
>
> requires without a crutch.
>
>
>
> Like the light, it--the barbystickum--is incentive to replace
> technique with
>
>
> simultaneous attacks. Who can hook whom first?
>
>
>
> Tactically, well....Why angulate in sport situations with somebody
> slicked
>
> out? But I've seen people do it. I make a mistake against a female
> fencer
>
> with a protector, and all we do is foil, I don't cry foul and
> yearn for a
> barbed
>
> thingy, I think oops! I made a goof, and adjust my tactics
> accordingly or
>
> diagnose what was wrong with my extension when I performed the
> failed action
>
>
> Besides, last time I fenced a guy with his epee one, he couldn't
> for the
> life
>
> of him make it stick and I was actually wearing Allstar FIE gear
> perfect for
>
>
> that one, slippery-target sport-fencing rationale!
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





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