change is in the air...

At the start of the 2004 season, the FIE announced that the timings for hits in foil and saber would change. The dwell time in foil was increased from to 1-5 ms (milliseconds) to 15 ms. The cut off time in foil was changed from 350 ms to 300 ms and in saber from 350-400 ms down to 120 ms. At the time of this writing - January of 2005 - the timings are fairly new. It is apparent that FOIL will change significantly under the new timings. Saber, on the other hand, will not be affected much, if at all. Because of this, I'll spend most of the space here discussing foil changes. I'll first examine some of the background of the changes and then discuss what adaptations, if any, I am going to be making to my lessons. I would appreciate any feedback (positive or negative) from other coaches. You can reach me at

in the past...

Before the fall of 2004, advanced foil marked by "the marching attack". This attack was characterized by an initial offensive action by an attacker, giving him or her priority on the attack. The attacker would move down the strip, pushing the opponent before them, and threatening areas of the opponents target. When the distance was correct (or the opponent decided to stop retreating and make a stand) the attacker would finish with an strong action, often a flick to a "corner" target. The blade actions from both sides of the attack were big: the attacker kept his or her hand well back while moving to threaten sectors of the opponent's target and the defender would make large, sweeping actions in an attempt to find the attacker's blade and regain the initiative of the attack.

The flick and the marching attack brought a new dynamic to foil. There was an argument by many that the marching attack and the flick to the back were not realistic actions in the spirit and character of foil as it was understood by older masters. The weight of the priority given to the marching attack, and the difficulty in parrying the flick gave great dominance to the attack and slighted the defense. The speed of the footwork - and the difficulty of defending targets such as the back - made defense difficult, if not risky. Instead of the traditional defense with blade actions, defense was found in dynamic control of the distance, tempo-breaking actions, and the occasional attack into a preparation that was too big, or done too close to the opponent. Exchanges of ripostes - which marked the older tradition of foil - were seldom seen at the higher levels in the game, after the introduction of the flick.

As well as being difficult to parry, the flick aided the attacker in its ability to adjust the distance. The attacker could use the flick, or any other strong, angulated attack, to compensate for distance mistakes made in the course of the attack. If the opponent was a little further than the attacker expected, the attacker would simply extend the hand in a traditional attack and lunge. If the opponent was closer than expected the attacker would raise the hand and finish to the shoulder, or the back, or the small of the back, depending.

Many fencers and coaches felt that the open distance, the use of the flick, and creative infighting brought a new dynamic to foil that made it athletic, challenging, and entertaining to watch. Others argued that by leaving the conventions of foil behind, the referee's opinion was at worst a guess, and at best left a large area of interpretation that opened the officiating up to charges of favoritism and corruption. There was a growing feeling that foil had drifted a long ways from its tradition as a training weapon for the duel. There was much discussion about "saving" foil from the trend to more and more abstract actions and interpretations of priority. New tips, weapons,and rules were proposed.

Finally, after some rudimentary testing, The FIE mandated changes to the impact time of the foil and the lockout time between hits by opposing fencers. Oddly enough, it was felt by many that foil was already returning to some of the ideas of old, thanks to pressure from the FIE for stricter interpretation of the priority of foil. Many felt that while the balance between attack and defense was still not equal, the attack no longer had carte blanche.

Consequences...

The first tournament that I observed with the new timings was the Div 2/3 in Atlanta Georgia, in October of 2004. It was the first National tournament in which the new settings on the box were in effect. I observed a number of saber bouts and foil bouts (perhaps 30 of each, in all) up to the final 16.

In saber, I saw very little effect of the timings. While several fencers scored in the early rounds of the pools and direct eliminations with remises, these actions did not seem to be an issue in the later rounds of the direct eliminations (from the table of 64 up). There were several one light attacks on the preparation which would have been called correctly in the old timings.

In foil, I thought the fencing was of such poor quality that I couldn't tell what effect the new timings were having. Most of the fencing was characterized by many flat, late, or out of control actions. I did see very few flicks go off. On the other hand, at this level of fencing, many flicks are attempted and few actually land well enough to set off a light - even under the old timings. I saw an occasional straight attack fail to set off a light, but it was difficult to tell if this was the result of the box timings or the action of the fencers involved, all of whom bent their arms immediately upon attacking, or attempted last minute angulations of the wrist in the course of the attack. My conclusion at the Atlanta Div 2/3 was that the new timings didn't look too different from the old timings.

The next tournament that I observed was the Junior World Cup in Louisville, Kentucky. While this tournament did not have a strong international turnout, it was an opportunity to see some of the best foil fencers in the United States and Canada fence under the new timings. I observed that many of the results wished for by the new timings had been achieved. I saw very few flicks score, and I saw only one flick to the back score during the entire time I watched. I saw a number of big preparations shut down by well timed attacks in preparation that scored one light. One of the other things that I noticed was an effect that had been described to me before: a perfectly valid straight attack failing to turn a light on them machine. I also saw several slow fencers scored upon with a remise when they attempted to revert to a lost time riposte with a flick. For the first time I heard comments about the use of the rigid chest plate being an advantage in the foil bout. I did did not personally observe any of the bouts with fencers using chest plates, but there was much post-bout discussion about the merits of the chest plates among the fencers.

In December I watched the Richmond NAC (Division 1 and Veteran event). By this time, there was a great deal of discussion about the new timings on the Internet. It was obvious that the fencers had been working with the new timings for some time: very few flicks were being attempted (though the ones that were attempted almost all went off). Most of the fencing was very straight forward. Simple attack, one-two, and parry riposte dominated. I saw a number of straight attacks fail to set off a light, especially those attacks that were finished with a strong bend in the blade. I saw several hits in preparation that resulted in one light, when before there might have been two, and some doubt by the referee. I saw a number of remises score, usually after an attack FAILED to score. I also saw the use of chest plates as a means to reduce the effectiveness of attacks. I still saw little effect in saber, other than the occasional wild remise scoring before a riposte.

Finally, I have just returned from the Div I/Junior event in Overland Park, Kansas. I saw a large number of straight hits (perhaps 1 in every bout) fail to score: actions which I believe would have scored with the new timings. Several fencers felt confident enough to score with remises against opponents with delayed or late ripostes. Oddly, I saw a larger number of flicks attempted and a larger number succeed, including several flicks to deep, middle of the back targets, which the new timings were supposed to prevent. I saw more fencers wearing chest plates in foil. Again, in saber, I saw little, if any effect.

Some conclusions...

# 1. Flicks still work, but only to specific target areas, and only when executed with the fingers, as softly as possible. If the flick is done with a action resembling a "snap" or throwing of the fingers, they seem to score. The chopping flicks that use the flexibility of the blade to place the point do not. This makes sense, as the blade flexing and then un-flexing probably does not give the point long enough time on the target, where as using the fingers probably "sets" the point slightly longer. Flicks seem to work the best as ripostes, rather than attacks. This might be due to the forward momentum of the attacker pushing the point down a few milliseconds longer than a retreating opponent would when flicking as an attack.

# 2. Placement of the point onto the target is critical, and the method that seems to work the best is very old fashioned finger work like I was taught when first learning to fence. Fencers getting the point on the lame any old way are finding that many of these hits fail to score. Now, the hit has to be far more deliberate and precise. Infighting - especially the use of the prime flick by opposite handed fencers against each other - seems to often result in no light, or at best, an off target.

# 3. The attacker has a smaller range of distances from which he or she can make an effective attack. This "box" that the opponent must be kept in is not only smaller, but is also further away from the attacker. The hand can no longer adjust for rapidly closing distance with a flick to the back or flank in order to make up the adjustment. The march can still be done, but now the fencer must finish the march in a much more critical distance. This means that the opponent's defenses can no longer just be defeated, but they must be defeated at a very specific time in the action, so that the lunge can be allowed to unfold to score. Attacks finishing with a large bend in the blade run a high risk of failing to score. The defender now can mix "active" defense with a "passive" defense, by combing the use of a chest plate with stepping into an attack during its final tempo. This change of distance, coupled with the hard surface of the chest plate defeats those fencers without the ability to radically and quickly change their point on the target.

# 4. Those fencers used to scoring with a very delayed riposte (lost or broken time riposte) will be punished under the new timings. Fencers who make a simple or indirect riposte will not be "timed out" by the box, no matter how fast the remise. It does seem slightly easier to make a stop into a poorly formed attack and escape the finish of the attack resulting in one light, but this still remains a very dangerous action unless the fencer has a great deal of reach on the opponent and times the stop very well.

# 5. Chest plates worn under the jacket seem to confer some immunity to attacks. The fencing community, however, is frowning on their use as a performance enhancing device. There is a certain amount of public censure directed at the male foilists who wear chest plates, even though there is a very strong argument for wearing one in terms of simple safety.

# 6. Worrying about the timings seems to be affecting people as much as the timings themselves.

Changes in my lessons...

• Obviously, the flick is going to be pushed even higher up the learning curve than I had pushed it before. I have allowed fencers with decent technical skills to flick, but now my flick lessons are probably only going to be introduced to those fencers who have excellent finger work, and can properly toss the point onto the target.
  
  
• I will emphasize the coupé more in lesson. Not only is it good training for the fingers, but the action of the coupé seems to bring the point in contact with the lame with much more sureness, and seems less likely to skid off.
  
  
• No longer can I allow fencers to over close the distance and score with a large bend in the blade. They will have to work harder to make the distance PERFECT when making an attack. The opponent will have to be kept in a "box" that isn't too close and isn't too far away but is "just right".
  
  
• I am going to continue to teach marching attacks, but the march is going to be much more conservative: more of an old school push and pull attack, in which counter time actions by the attacker are going to be more important. A student is going to be making an attack, and if distance is not closing (ie, we are not in the final tempo of the attack) they will have to consider the possibility of an attack into their preparation. Previously I might have encouraged a strong finish. Now I will be more cautious in how distance is closed with the opponent. Distance will now collapse as a series of actions, rather than just running down the hapless opponent like a gazelle and snapping a blade over their shoulder to score, as was previously possible.
  
  
• I will teach the remise more often than I had before. Remises might be the only possible in-fighting move. Fencers should probably be lowering themselves and look for the proper placement of the point, rather than trying to jump up and flick to a deeper target. The goal here will not be to get the first remise off fast but to remain cool, look for the target, and place the point. There are certainly situations in which a remise is applicable: for instance, the opponent who makes large parries and is not balanced, and unable to continue forward with an immediate riposte. These opponents are vulnerable to the remise, not just because of the new lock out time, but because they must score with a more conventional thrusting action, rather than an immediate flick to the back. Now, rather than close the space with a flick or prime action, the aggressive fencer should be able to score by staying low, closing the space and making a remise.
  
  
• Fencers will have to keep longer distance, do more preparation, and because of both of these factors, the initial tempo of the attack will be slower. In all, everything except the final action of the attack will slow down, to give fencers more time to set up the distance for the attack, and deal with attacks into their preparation.
  
  
• I think we are back to the day when the hand can actually play an important part in the setting of the tempo of the bout. If your hand actions are too big or too slow, the remise will score. To that end, I will be working harder on making my students make good technical blade actions in the preparation. A slightly big hand is deadly. This will mean a return to more technical blade drills in the lesson, to teach the hand to be alternately soft and strong. The fencer must be able to make strong actions on an opponent's blade yet still place the point with appropriate force and placement.
  
  
• I have instructed each of my fencers that they will have to make their own decisions about the use of a chest plate under the jacket (if they are male, female fencers have not choice). Against the very best fencers, there seems to be no advantage to having a plate on.

Last, but not least...

It must be remembered that the timings for foil and saber are still in a testing phase, as mandated by the FIE for the 2004-2005 season. Whether these timings will become mandatory for foil is still unknown. Under the previous timings, the marching attack was a direct growth out of the the ability to flick to previously inaccessible targets (I should point out that this is not exactly a new observation). The real question of the new timings is not whether they will dramatically change foil, but how fencers will turn them to their advantage during this period of experimentation.

At this time, the new timings appear to be VERY unpopular. The goal of the new timings was to return foil to a more "classical" series of actions, in an attempt to remove ambiguity from foil. The law of unintended consequences has already made itself known: the very attacks the FIE was attempting to promote now sometimes fail to score. Will the FIE continue in this direction, against the popular sentiment of the fencing community? It is difficult to guess. Until then, we, as coaches, continue to look for the advantage on the field for our students.

Last edit: September, 2007, for formatting.