Talk:Fencing/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: I use the French and have a digital cam, will upload. KrazyCaley 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  KrazyCaley 07:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Boris and the magic épée 

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

text: Maybe we should just make a note about the Spanish grip being of dubious legality. KrazyCaley/<FONT SIZE="-2" COLOR="#00FF00">That's Krazy Talk </FONT> 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish grip still legal? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  European vs. European-originated

message: :"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)
replies: text: I've heard that before, but never saw it anywhere authoritative.  Sniffing around. KrazyCaley 19:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About the weight used 

message: 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/<FONT SIZE="-2" COLOR="#00FF00">That's Krazy Talk </FONT> 08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: And I've never heard of "pommeling" either. --digital_me 19:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Post v. Pommel

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am also willing to help, I have tons of free time this weekend. --digital_me 20:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article overhaul 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Italian grip 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of the term "Director" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fencing masters? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This section needs clarification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need help on the external pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Creating a new page for "anatomy of weapons" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Footwork 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Épée 

message: 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)
thread_title: Foil

message: 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)
thread_title:  A proposal for splitting out the anatomy of the weapons