Coupé and Disengage, Removing the Point
Don Badowski
My opponent began a straight attack, with the arm out. I began a
counterattack (don't ask me why). He pulled his point up, bending his elbow
a little in the process. I landed valid, and then so did he. Our director
called it for me, saying my opponent had withdrawn his arm, and was
therefore in preparation. My opponent said it was a coupé, not an arm
withdrawal.
Later, we are all discussing this. I pointed out to my opponent that if I
was counterattacking (and I was), the correct action for him would be to
simply finish his attack. And you are only supposed to do a coupé or
disengage to avoid an opponent's parry.
Then he asked me a very poignant question, which I am still wrestling with.
"When you're directing, and you see Fencer A doing a disengages even if
Fencer B is not parrying, do you still give him the attack?"
Thinking back, I can remember plenty of times that I have attacked,
expecting my opponent to parry, so I slip in a few disengages. Just a
simple dropping and raising of the point. When my opponents counterattack,
I still claim the touché. And when I direct, I am inclined to call it the
same way.
My thinking is this: The simple disengage still keeps the point on target,
continuously threatening the target area. A coupé does not.
So, leaving out the part about my opponent bending his arm to execute the
coupé, my question to directors is this: Would you still give the attack to
someone doing disengages if his opponent simple counterattacks? Would you
do the same to someone doing a coupé?
Yours,
Don Badowski
Illinois Fencers Club
Eric Dew
Don Badowski <Do...@totheescrime.org> wrote:
>I recently had a foil bout where the following situation came up.
>My opponent began a straight attack, with the arm out. I began a
>counterattack (don't ask me why). He pulled his point up, bending his elbow
>a little in the process. I landed valid, and then so did he. Our director
>called it for me, saying my opponent had withdrawn his arm, and was
>therefore in preparation. My opponent said it was a coupé, not an arm
>withdrawal.
>
>Later, we are all discussing this. I pointed out to my opponent that if I
>was counterattacking (and I was), the correct action for him would be to
>simply finish his attack. And you are only supposed to do a coupé or
>disengage to avoid an opponent's parry.
>
>Then he asked me a very poignant question, which I am still wrestling with.
>"When you're directing, and you see Fencer A doing a disengages even if
>Fencer B is not parrying, do you still give him the attack?"
>
>Thinking back, I can remember plenty of times that I have attacked,
>expecting my opponent to parry, so I slip in a few disengages. Just a
>simple dropping and raising of the point. When my opponents counterattack,
>I still claim the touché. And when I direct, I am inclined to call it the
>same way.
But when did your opponent counter-attack? I can pull arm back, make
disengages, point the tip towards the ceiling, floor, etc., and complete
my attack as long as you don't extend your point out before my final action.
The situation you mentioned above sort of suggested that your opponent
chased you down with a point in line, you in turn put out your point in
line. He lost his point in line when he pulled his arm back, and so
his attack is late. It would be the same thing if he chased you down
with an extended arm, you extend YOUR arm, and then he made multiple
disengages. However, if he made a simple disengage, it would be his,
since his attack is a smooth transition from his point in line (i.e.,
your point in line never took over the priority).
EDEW
Stuart Johnson
I would give him the attack. Or at least I feel that I should, but
mistakes have been made in the past and will in the future.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
dsc
news:qSd68.613$A%3.7...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
> I recently had a foil bout where the following situation came up.
> My opponent began a straight attack, with the arm out. I began a
> counterattack (don't ask me why). He pulled his point up, bending his
elbow
> a little in the process. I landed valid, and then so did he. Our
director
> called it for me, saying my opponent had withdrawn his arm, and was
> therefore in preparation. My opponent said it was a coupé, not an arm
> withdrawal.
If he was making a coupe into another line on his attack, regardless of
whether you were trying to parry or not, your counter attack had to land
before the coupe--the final action of his attack--began. Did it?
Sounds to me like he intended to attack with a feint and a coupe into
another line. When he saw you moving, he executed his coupe and hit. A
slight flexion of the elbow during a coupe doesn't immediately cause right
of way to pass to the opponent.
This is another one of those calls that American directors almost
universally blow.
HaroldBuck
>So, leaving out the part about my opponent bending his arm to execute the
>coupé, my question to directors is this: Would you still give the attack
>to
>someone doing disengages if his opponent simple counterattacks? Would you
>do the same to someone doing a coupé?
>
As they banged into my head when I did a refereeing seminar, "A coupe *IS* a
simple attack" according to the rules.
-Harold
david arias
if you have a group of referees at a tournament, particularly if the group
includes referees with which you are not familiar, what is the FIRST thing
you must do before fencing begins? have a blasted referees meeting!
discuss some of these issues, discuss right-of-way, POL, one foot off the
side of the strip, running off after a fleche, etc... make sure everyone is
on the same page. you will still have problems, but you can at least
minimize them. Lord knows we still have problems at tournaments, but at
least we are making an effort to solve them. referees are a resource and
you have to manage them to get the best result. stuff like using the better
ones for the more difficult bouts (and knowing which will be difficult
beforehand). are people just not doing this kind of stuff?!?! wake up
*slap* *slap*
where the heck is all this complaining coming from? i have 12-year-olds in
our club that can do a pretty decent job of refereeing. if they miss a
call, big frigging deal. i have see that happen in the world cup tapes.
discuss it during practice as a way to teach, but when you get to a
competition just fence.
david
(no more postings for awhile... this is too frustrating)
dsc <d...@gol.com> wrote in message news:Bgn68.6937$T4.6...@nnrp.gol.com...
John Twernbold
> more complaints... more inaction...
"dsc" clearly just wants to piss 'n' moan about US directors, rather than do
anything constructive about it. Notice how he brings it up in every message
he posts, always exaggerating the issue and being as insulting as possible.
> (no more postings for awhile... this is too frustrating)
Don't let "dsc" get your goat. That's his intent, it would seem.
--
John Twernbold
jtwernbold (at) yahoo.com
Dirk Goldgar
news:a3c954$5kf$4...@og1.olagrande.net...
> The situation you mentioned above sort of suggested that your opponent
> chased you down with a point in line, you in turn put out your point in
> line. He lost his point in line when he pulled his arm back, and so
> his attack is late. It would be the same thing if he chased you down
> with an extended arm, you extend YOUR arm, and then he made multiple
> disengages. However, if he made a simple disengage, it would be his,
> since his attack is a smooth transition from his point in line (i.e.,
> your point in line never took over the priority).
WHAT? Point-in-line my a**, this is an attack! Furthermore, you can put as
many disengages and properly executed coupés into an attack as you want,
without losing right of way -- the drawback to doing so is that they afford
your opponent an opportunity to hit you in time; i.e., before the start of
your last fencing action.
That's not to say that an improperly executed coupé couldn't lose right of
way on an attack. I can't tell from the original description of the action
whether the coupé was properly executed or not. The mere fact of a slight
bend in the elbow doesn't in itself constitute a withdrawal, in my view.
--
Dirk Goldgar
(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)
Don Badowski
> disengages, point the tip towards the ceiling, floor, etc., and complete
> my attack as long as you don't extend your point out before my final
action.
>
> The situation you mentioned above sort of suggested that your opponent
> chased you down with a point in line, you in turn put out your point in
> line. He lost his point in line when he pulled his arm back, and so
> his attack is late. It would be the same thing if he chased you down
> with an extended arm, you extend YOUR arm, and then he made multiple
> disengages. However, if he made a simple disengage, it would be his,
> since his attack is a smooth transition from his point in line (i.e.,
> your point in line never took over the priority).
>
> EDEW
No, there was no chasing down the strip. I believe he just took an advance
to get into distance. Then I moved forward with my point. He started the
coupé, and I (seeing him in prep, is I see it) lunged. Then he finished.
Don Badowski
> whether you were trying to parry or not, your counter attack had to land
> before the coupe--the final action of his attack--began. Did it?
I believe so.
> Sounds to me like he intended to attack with a feint and a coupe into
> another line. When he saw you moving, he executed his coupe and hit. A
> slight flexion of the elbow during a coupe doesn't immediately cause right
> of way to pass to the opponent.
I agree. I do it all the time myself. But the real question is, does
taking an parry avoidance action, like a coupé or disengage, when you don't
have to, cause right-of-way to pass to your opponent if counterattacks.
> This is another one of those calls that American directors almost
> universally blow.
After watching all of the World Championship tapes from Eric Dew and Fencing
Footage, I can honestly say I the European directors are not much better.
If you don't believe me, ask the Cubans (1997) or the Chinese (1999).
Eric Dew
So, pulling your arm back, bending your elbow, etc., then should not be
considered as a coupe.
EDEW
Eric Dew
Dirk Goldgar <dgol...@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:
>"Eric Dew" <ed...@olagrande.net> wrote in message
>news:a3c954$5kf$4...@og1.olagrande.net...
>
>way on an attack. I can't tell from the original description of the action
>whether the coupé was properly executed or not. The mere fact of a slight
>bend in the elbow doesn't in itself constitute a withdrawal, in my view.
>
severe enough. But, I would imagine that if the person had the arm
fully locked straight, and then bent it at the elbow, the referee would
see it as breaking the extended arm. This is why fencers are taught to
extend slowly so that the elbow is bent for most of the time (and mostly
in the process of unbending), before the final extension which takes
the arm to fully extended state. If you extend too soon, you're ony
asking for trouble in more ways than one.
EDEW
Eric Dew
your perspective, it may appear that he's just advancing, but from the
referee's (and your opponent's) perspective, he's advancing with a slowly
extending arm. In that case, his attack with the coupe (assuming a reasonably
well-executed coups) would count and your point in line was late. However,
if he just advanced, you put out a point, and then he decided to attack,
then it wouldn't matter whether he attacked with a coupe or not. His
attack occurred after you placed a point in line.
EDEW
Don Badowski
advance
> >to get into distance. Then I moved forward with my point. He started
the
> >coupé, and I (seeing him in prep, is I see it) lunged. Then he finished.
> >
> Was his advance just and advance, or did his blade move towards you? From
> your perspective, it may appear that he's just advancing, but from the
> referee's (and your opponent's) perspective, he's advancing with a slowly
> extending arm. In that case, his attack with the coupe (assuming a
reasonably
> well-executed coups) would count and your point in line was late.
However,
> if he just advanced, you put out a point, and then he decided to attack,
> then it wouldn't matter whether he attacked with a coupe or not. His
> attack occurred after you placed a point in line.
>
> EDEW
As I remember it, he only took the one advance. Then I lunged. And my
opponent does nothing slow. Nothing.
dsc
news:Zip68.347299$8w3.81...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
> "dsc" clearly just wants to piss 'n' moan about US directors, rather than
do
> anything constructive about it.
The only constructive thing that I am in a position to do about it is to try
and persuade US fencers that there is a problem. I don't think anything can
be done about the self-appointed nobility of US fencing, because I don't
think they will ever admit that they've been wrong all these years, but I
can hope that a younger generation will do better.
> Notice how he brings it up in every message
> he posts, always exaggerating the issue and being as insulting as
possible.
I've been posting on it for a few days, now, but that's hardly "every" post.
I don't exaggerate the extent of the problem, but understate. As for
"insulting," well, sorry if you find my remarks to be too blunt. They do
enjoy the defense of being the truth.
> Don't let "dsc" get your goat. That's his intent, it would seem.
No, my intent is to try to get people thinking about this problem at every
competition, to get them looking for differences between the way things are
called in the US and the way they're called in Europe, and to make them
understand that this is costing the US any chance of doing really well
internationally.
One of my fencing masters back when I was competing used to tell me, "Slow
down, slow down, these directors can't see what you're doing."
Directing shapes fencing; bad directing deforms it.
dsc
> > If he was making a coupe into another line on his attack, regardless of
> > whether you were trying to parry or not, your counter attack had to land
> > before the coupe--the final action of his attack--began. Did it?
> I believe so.
If so, then the counterattack was in time. But bear in mind that the
beginning of his final action was not the replacement of the coupe in line,
but the withdrawal of the blade. A coupe is a simple attack.
> I agree. I do it all the time myself. But the real question is, does
> taking an parry avoidance action, like a coupé or disengage, when you
don't
> have to, cause right-of-way to pass to your opponent if counterattacks.
Nothing can cause ROW to "pass" to anyone. You have to take it. Besides,
unless he's a mind reader, how is a director going to distinguish between a
disengage to avoid a parry, and a simple change of line? People often make a
feint followed by a change of line and attack. Especially if it is a coupe,
the attack proceeds no matter what the opponent tries to do--so long as he
doesn't find the blade, of course. Even if he never moves from the position
of on guard, you can still coupe into the low line and hit him under his
elbow.
Suppose a fencer attacks with a 1-2-3. He feints into 4, disengages into 6
(with no blade contact) then disengages back into 4 and hits. His opponent
remains in the on guard position throughout, never attempting to parry. Why
should ROW "pass" to his opponent just because he disengaged a parry 4 that
didn't happen?
Even if you make the argument that the feint into 6 wasn't threatening
because the line was closed, that feint was followed immediately by a
disengage and touch. If we call that the beginning of a new attack, the
opponent would still have to take right of way by beginning his attack
before that final disengage commenced, which as a practical matter would
mean during the disengage from 4 to 6. That would allow him to hit so early
as to render the whole argument moot.
So, no, right of way doesn't "pass" to the opponent just because one is
making successing feints in different lines.
> After watching all of the World Championship tapes from Eric Dew and
Fencing
> Footage, I can honestly say I the European directors are not much better.
> If you don't believe me, ask the Cubans (1997) or the Chinese (1999).
The Europeans do make mistakes (and sometimes cheat), but they are making
mistakes at a much higher level than American directors. I maintain that it
is these systematic and pervasive errors that are keeping American fencing
at a lower level.
dsc
> So, pulling your arm back, bending your elbow, etc., then should not be
> considered as a coupe.
The notion that any slight flexion of the elbow during a coupe gives
right-of-way to whatever the opponent does, is one of those pervasive errors
that are so harmful to American fencing.
John Twernbold
> I don't exaggerate the extent of the problem, but understate.
Ahh, so claims like "999 of a thousand American directors would have called
it wrong" are not exaggerations, but understatements? How remarkable...
Carol
Look at this -- we are discussing how a _slight_ bend of an elbow during
a coupe, where some will think right-of-way is lost, but yet, in
America, with the flick, with the _full_ elbow bend -- elbow pointing at
the opponent -- with the hand to the shoulder and point behind the body
_is_ given right-of-way.
Stuart Johnson
forward motion. an attack into the wind up is a good attack in prep.
Although there are those (not so many now as there used to be I think)
that give the whole swinging thing the priority.
sigh.
SJ
(I know "the whole swinging thing" is not very clear terminology but I
expect most of your know what I mean)
On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 02:49:07 GMT, Carol <carol....@verizon.net>
wrote:
Stephan Khinoy
into 4, >disengages into 6
>(with no blade contact) then disengages back into 4 and hits. His opponent
>remains in the on guard position throughout, never attempting to parry. Why
>should ROW "pass" to his opponent just because he disengaged a parry 4 that
>didn't happen?
I think I'd rather say that the 1-2 was preparation and the disengage-3 was
the simple attack. If the "attacker" gets hit before his final, he's hit.
Doesn't matter if the defender was trying to hit him or not. ROW only
applies when two lights are on.
Steve Khinoy
dsc
> Ahh, so claims like "999 of a thousand American directors would have
called
> it wrong" are not exaggerations, but understatements? How remarkable...
Perhaps it only seems remarkable to you because you are unaware of the
magnitude of the problem.
dsc
news:rKJ68.69519$d16.12...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> I think I'd rather say that the 1-2 was preparation and the disengage-3
was
> the simple attack. If the "attacker" gets hit before his final, he's hit.
> Doesn't matter if the defender was trying to hit him or not. ROW only
> applies when two lights are on.
Yes, that's correct.
However, I was responding to a question regarding ROW "passing" to the
attacked if the attacker makes an unnecessary disengage.
The answer is, as you say, that the attacked must take ROW by hitting the
attacker before the final movement (the 3) of the attack *commences.* ROW
does not "pass" to the attacked just because "the 2" is a disengage of a
parry that didn't occur, or because it's a feint into a closed line.
John Twernbold
"dsc" wrote:
> > Notice how he brings it up in every message he posts
>
> I've been posting on it for a few days, now,
> but that's hardly "every" post.
But you have a loooong history of ranting about American directing. I didn't
make the connection during any of the previous times, but the other day I
looked at your email address and realized I had seen it before! Many times
before, in fact. A quickie search at Google Groups revealed your DOZENS of
posts on this same topic:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B21756D5
In fact, the vast majority of your messages here in rec.sport.fencing are
complaints about American directing.
I also noticed that whenever you start up this tired old debate, your
credentials are questioned. And every time, you dodge the question. (In
fact, that's what jogged my memory--around here we don't get too many
self-proclaimed fencing experts with Japanese email addresses who bash
American directing and then refuse to divulge any credentials....) Don't
get me wrong--I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert on American directing
or even fencing in general. But then again, we certainly don't know that
*you* have the knowledge and experience you claim. In contrast, some of the
fencers here have a great deal of experience and skill, and can easily prove
it (e.g. National points standings, Coaches College, etc.).
So, how 'bout it? What's your background? If you want to be taken seriously,
perhaps you should finally throw out a nugget of information. Be sure to
include how much fencing you've done in Europe, since you've always made
such a stink about American vs. European directors.
dsc
> [reposted after an ISP error; I apologize if anyone sees this message
twice]
> But you have a loooong history of ranting
If you're going to talk like that, you ought to apologize for anyone seeing
it once.
> In fact, the vast majority of your messages here in rec.sport.fencing are
> complaints about American directing.
You're mistaken. I'm not complaining; I'm preaching. About a problem that I
hope is fixed some day. I do it because I love the sport of fencing.
> I also noticed that whenever you start up this tired old debate, your
> credentials are questioned. And every time, you dodge the question.
But that's the thing, you see: the people with "credentials" in American
fencing *are* the problem.
> But then again, we certainly don't know that
> *you* have the knowledge and experience you claim.
You don't need to. I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything. I
only want people to look and think and learn for themselves.
> If you want to be taken seriously,
> perhaps you should finally throw out a nugget of information.
Nope. There's always someone who wants to make personalities the subject of
the discussion, but I'm not playing. I generally post until somebody like
you gets nasty, then, because I have no interest in flame wars, I go away
for a while. This looks like my cue.
John Twernbold
> > If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps
> > you should finally throw out a nugget of information.
>
> Nope. There's always someone who wants to make
> personalities the subject of the discussion, but I'm not playing.
It has nothing to do with "personalities", but with experience. You claim
you've been fencing for 30 years, yet we have no proof of that. Hell, for
all we know, you've never even picked up a weapon. You act like you have
extensive knowledge of current American and European directing (I refer you
again to your exaggerated claims about 999 out of 1000 American directors),
yet you've had Japanese email addresses for at least a decade; when's the
last time you've actually seen an American director in action? Or a European
director?
And I'm curious as to why you're so hesitant to reveal that your name is
"David Crosslin". Does anyone here remember this guy? Is he a former fencer,
coach, director, World Champion, etc.? Is there any reason we should believe
he has the experience and knowledge he claims? Until you tell us otherwise,
David, it looks like we may have to write you off as an anonymous crackpot.
If you want to be taken seriously, give us a reason to believe in you.
Joe Hoffman
How long do you have to be in America before your refereeing
becomes incompetent?
At South Bend, my referees were: 2 Americans, a German, a Spaniard,
a Canadian, and a Russian.
No signs of incompetence, but maybe it takes more than a weekend
for the rot to set in.
Joe
-------------
dsc
> It has nothing to do with "personalities", but with experience.
It has everything to do with you looking for a reason to dismiss what I say
without diligent investigation of your own.
> And I'm curious as to why you're so hesitant
> to reveal that your name is
> "David Crosslin"...Until you tell us otherwise,
> David, it looks like we may have to
> write you off as an anonymous crackpot.
You just showed why. When it is the "credentialed" elite who *are* the
problem, you can't win a battle of dueling credentials. And as soon as you
were able to place a name with the opinion, you immediately tried to change
the debate from one concerned with an issue to one concerned with
credentials.
> If you want to be taken seriously
> give us a reason to believe in you.
I don't want you to believe in me; I want you to get out there and see it
for yourself.
dsc
news:3C5C166D...@patriot.net...
> How long do you have to be in America before your refereeing
> becomes incompetent?
> At South Bend, my referees were: 2 Americans, a German, a Spaniard,
> a Canadian, and a Russian.
> No signs of incompetence, but maybe it takes more than a weekend
> for the rot to set in.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, sarcasm, sarcasm. I wouldn't expect incompetence from
Germans, Spaniards, Canadians, or Russians. I have been on about American
directors, not European directors.
Okay, I tried to tell the truth, and the hostility level is getting
ridiculous. To those of you who will not see, good luck.
John Twernbold
> When it is the "credentialed" elite who *are* the
> problem, you can't win a battle of dueling credentials.
If I go into a medical newsgroup and loudly proclaim that eating lettuce
causes heart attacks, you can bet that the first two questions people will
ask are: "What is your medical training?" and "What evidence do you have to
support your claim?"
Similarly, if you come into rec.sport.fencing and insist that American
directing is incompetent and inferior when compared to European directing,
people will ask about your background. They'll expect to hear that you are
an experienced fencer (i.e. someone who has a great deal of knowledge about
the subject) and that you have plenty of recent experience fencing (or
observing fencing) in both the US and Europe.
However, you refuse to say *anything* about your backgroun. In fact, from
what little we know about you, it sounds like you've been in Japan for a
decade or more. If this is true, how can you make these claims about current
American and European directing? It sounds like you came to these
conclusions about the supposed inadequacy of American directing a very long
time ago, and you stick to these preconceived notions even though many
fencers/coaches/directors here in RSF have told you that current top
American directors are equal to or better than European directors, even
according to European FIE officials. Why should we believe your information
is current?
So please, set us straight. We don't need "credentials" in the form of
advanced degrees or certification, or even National point standings. Rather,
just some evidence that says you've seen a lot of *recent* American and
European directing, and that you have enough experience & skill as a fencer
to be able to evaluate said directing. In fact, if you DO have such
experience, I'm sure you'll quickly tell us about it to dispel any doubts.
And if you don't... well, I think we all know what conclusions can be drawn.
And suggesting that I do such director evaluation myself isn't necessary,
for all fencers are constantly aware of directing. But I'm not going to
start looking for imaginary deficiencies based solely on the urging of
someone I know nothing about, just as I won't avoid lettuce based on the
advice of some crackpot in a medical newsgroup. :-)
HaroldBuck
>> > If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps
>> > you should finally throw out a nugget of information.
>>
>> Nope. There's always someone who wants to make
>> personalities the subject of the discussion, but I'm not playing.
>
>It has nothing to do with "personalities", but with experience. You claim
>you've been fencing for 30 years, yet we have no proof of that. Hell, for
>all we know, you've never even picked up a weapon. You act like you have
>extensive knowledge of current American and European directing (I refer
>you
>again to your exaggerated claims about 999 out of 1000 American directors),
>yet you've had Japanese email addresses for at least a decade; when's the
>last time you've actually seen an American director in action? Or a European
>director?
Exactly! You don't get to have it both ways. Either who you are is unimportant,
and you argue based on facts and logic, *OR* we should believe what you say
because of your extensive experience.
In other words, you argue based on your credibility, yet you refuse to provide
reason to give you any.
THEN you go around threatening ridiculous lawsuits. Good luck with that one, by
the way. Don't spend more on legal fees than you can afford to lose.
I think I have a new candidate for the old killfile.
-Harold
Chris Hagen
(HaroldBuck) writes:
>As they banged into my head when I did a refereeing seminar, "A coupe *IS* a
>simple attack" according to the rules.
>
>-Harold
That should read according to the instructor; not the rules.
Have Fun: Fence!
Chris Hagen
Chris Hagen
<Do...@totheescrime.org> writes:
>After watching all of the World Championship tapes from Eric Dew and Fencing
>Footage, I can honestly say I the European directors are not much better.
>If you don't believe me, ask the Cubans (1997) or the Chinese (1999).
Well, depending on who you talk to, sometimes performance is selectively
consistent.
:-|
Chris Hagen
>
>Sounds to me like he intended to attack with a feint and a coupe into
>another line. When he saw you moving, he executed his coupe and hit. A
>slight flexion of the elbow during a coupe doesn't immediately cause right
>of way to pass to the opponent.
>
>This is another one of those calls that American directors almost
>universally blow.
Well, the problem is, if they don't blow it one way, they blow it the other
way:
They either try to call any bending of the elbow as a break, or insist that the
elbow can do anything and everything, as long as the feet keep moving.
Chris Hagen
>
>WHAT? Point-in-line my a**, this is an attack! Furthermore, you can put as
>many disengages and properly executed coupés into an attack as you want,
>without losing right of way --
Yes, but how many steps can you take?!?
> the drawback to doing so is that they afford
>your opponent an opportunity to hit you in time; i.e., before the start of
>your last fencing action.
>
>That's not to say that an improperly executed coupé couldn't lose right of
>way on an attack. I can't tell from the original description of the action
>whether the coupé was properly executed or not. The mere fact of a slight
>bend in the elbow doesn't in itself constitute a withdrawal, in my view.
>
Chris Hagen
<jtwer...@remove-this.yahoo.com> writes:
>"dsc" clearly just wants to piss 'n' moan about US directors, rather than do
>anything constructive about it. Notice how he brings it up in every message
>he posts, always exaggerating the issue and being as insulting as possible.
Well, he's definitely going through a phase, I'll grant you that, but it's you
that are exaggerating about his behavior.
Oh, and By The Way, if he's in Europe, what, exactly is he supposed to do about
improving refereeing in the US?
(Enquiring minds want to know...)
And (no offense, John) when is the last time you were at a US tournament: are
you buying tapes of US NAtionals?
Even if you are, that's a marginally adequate sample of US referees, as you
(should be) seeing only the best US referees doing those.
>> (no more postings for awhile... this is too frustrating)
I assume you're still reading...
>Don't let "dsc" get your goat. That's his intent, it would seem.
Oh, I don't think so, he's just a little 'bent out of shape' and with
reasonably good cause.
;-)
Chris Hagen
<Do...@totheescrime.org> writes:
>Subject: Coupé and Disengage, Removing the Point
>From: "Don Badowski" <Do...@totheescrime.org>
>Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:00:22 GMT
>
>I recently had a foil bout where the following situation came up.
>My opponent began a straight attack, with the arm out. I began a
>counterattack (don't ask me why). He pulled his point up, bending his elbow
>a little in the process. I landed valid, and then so did he. Our director
>called it for me, saying my opponent had withdrawn his arm, and was
>therefore in preparation. My opponent said it was a coupé, not an arm
>withdrawal.
>
>Later, we are all discussing this. I pointed out to my opponent that if I
>was counterattacking (and I was), the correct action for him would be to
>simply finish his attack. And you are only supposed to do a coupé or
>disengage to avoid an opponent's parry.
>
>Then he asked me a very poignant question, which I am still wrestling with.
>"When you're directing, and you see Fencer A doing a disengages even if
>Fencer B is not parrying, do you still give him the attack?"
>
>Thinking back, I can remember plenty of times that I have attacked,
>expecting my opponent to parry, so I slip in a few disengages. Just a
>simple dropping and raising of the point. When my opponents counterattack,
>I still claim the touché. And when I direct, I am inclined to call it the
>same way.
>
>My thinking is this: The simple disengage still keeps the point on target,
>continuously threatening the target area. A coupé does not.
>So, leaving out the part about my opponent bending his arm to execute the
>coupé, my question to directors is this: Would you still give the attack to
>someone doing disengages if his opponent simple counterattacks? Would you
>do the same to someone doing a coupé?
>Don Badowski
>Illinois Fencers Club
Don,
A coupé is, in essence, a disengage. Think of it as such.
One involves changing lines by moving your blade below the opponent's bell, and
presumably, the blade;
the other involves changing lines by moving your blade over the opponent's
blade (and bell).
These definitions from the rule book:
The compound attack (cf. t.8) is correctly executed when the arm
is straightened in the presentation of the first feint, with the point
threatening the valid target, and the arm is not bent during the
successive actions of the attack and the initiation of the lunge or
the flèche.
(t.56)
5. If the attack is initiated when the opponent is not ‘point in line’
(cf. t.10), it may be executed either with a direct thrust, or by a
disengage, or by a cut-over, or may even be preceded by a beat or
successful feints obliging the opponent to parry.
(t.76)
3. If the attack is commenced when the opponent’s blade is not ‘in
line’, the attack may be completed either direct, or by a disen-gagement
or by a cutover, or else be preceded by feints (cf. t.77)
which oblige the opponent to parry.
All require that there be an attack initiated before discussing the use of
disengage, or cutover (coupé).
Normally, a disengage is most effectively executed when the opponent's hand is
in a position higher than yours, as well above the middle of their target area.
This allows freedom of movement below their hand; so you feint with your point
high enough to draw the pary in forth position, while keeping your hand as
close to the level of your guard position as possible (while still getting the
response.) and change lines within the extending action, delivering point
withou delay.
(or feint to draw their six pary with the same conditions.)
Similarly, a coupé is most effectively executed when the opponent's hand is in
a position below yours, and their blade is
not very high; and preferably low.
So a feinting action to draw a pary in seventh, or eight position executed
without lowering your hand too much, will allow the coupe over the blade to be
quickly, and easily executed for the hit.
As with the disengage, the coupé works best when executed with the fingers,
and hand/wrist - NOT the arm.
Obviously, a coupe over a blade that is being held high can still be
performed; as can a disengage below a blade held low.
It is easy? Is it FAST?? Does it interupt the threatening action? (attack, or
riposte)
Well, unfortunately, these are not questions that many people are asking.
If a 'disengage' is executed with such interuption to the attack:
If someone parried 'eight', and you disengaged BELOW it, would you expect to
get the touch?
(I would not - I might GET it, but then again, I might NOT even hit, as by
making such an awkward disengagement, I may have given my opponent time to hit,
and then parry me. )
Therefore, you should not expect to get the touch when making a big coupe over
a high blade, especially if the action makes an interuption of your attack.
[i.e. the point starts going AWAY (noticably) from your opponent.]
That being said, certainly, you MIGHT get the touch, depending not on the
efficacy of the technique, but rather in the innefficacy of your opponent.
Many fencers pary to a position, so there may not be an attack* from them for
an amount of time; *(you have quit your attack without hitting, so the 'window
of opportunity is open'), and so many times you will be able to make a new
attack, and still extend, again before they do, so it will be:
Attack from the right - NO; Attack from the right YES - your hit.
Or 'Second attack from the Right is good' - your hit.
I suppose someone might try to get fancy, and use words like redoublement, or
reprise, depending on what your feet do.
UNFORTUNATELY, many people will simply say 'Attack from the right is good'
even though you interupted it, and started over again. This gives the false
impression that threat was continuously maintained, when, in fact it was not.
(only that any threats from the left were always preceded by an immediate
threat from the right.)
And experienced as well the inexperienced will internalize this.
THAT being said, it is possibe, especially when someone is tall (and I know you
are!), that you MAY easily execute a coupé against a shorter person, even when
they are making a pary in fourth, or sixth, and STILL maintain a continuous
threat.
It all depending on the geometry and the timing.
Unfortunately, there are some misguided people out there, spreading
misconceptions.
The rule book clearly says that an attack with coupé is valid attack; and they
interpret this to mean that the coupé itself initiates the attack. The is
incorrect by the rules, and by effect.
Certainly an attack with disengage is a valid attack, but it's an attack FIRST,
(i.e. extending arm; continuously threatening target, etc), then has a
disengage in it, which should not interupt the threat.
Likewise, an attack , (i.e. extending arm; continuously threatening target,
etc.) with a coupé in it, IS a valid attack, by virtue of the extending arm,
and the point threatening target area, NOT by virtue of the coupé. The coupé
is an elusary action, not a threatening action. The coupé it for avoiding a
pary, or at least avoiding the blade; it cannot be assumed that the point of
the coupe is to draw the counter-attack, when an intitial attack has not been
established. Unless I made a threat BEFORE I make coupé, my threat starts
AFTER the coupé, which leaves a lot of time for the opponent to initiate a
prior threat, as an action, not reaction.
(In other words, coupé; attack is not the same as attack with a coupé
included;)
Likewise the opponent's point need NOT necessarily hit before the initiation of
the final action of this attack, is it does NOT have priority: when it may
well, in fact be the counterattack. It all depends on the timing.
So, YES, just as you could stand there, disengaging back and forth below the
blade, and then initiate an attack, you won't have an attack until you start
extending; you can coupé (or cutover the blade), and THEN intitiate an
attack, which may have priority NOT because of the coupé, but because you
dazzled, or hypnotized your spudly opponent, and they didn't attack you.
Now this is not always an easy this to tell, and it takes experience, and
constant practice (which, lords knows, I don't get enough of!). Unfortunately,
many people in the US don't understand they have to look for this, as they have
been told that the simple act of the coupé establishes the attack.
It's no wonder that our refereeing is so inconsistent: some people are trying
to apply the rules, some people are not.
I hope this made some sense.
Have a nice day!
John Twernbold
> And (no offense, John) when is the last time you were
> at a US tournament: are you buying tapes of US NAtionals?
No offense taken--I have nothing to hide. I've been purchasing the WC tapes
from Eric Dew for several years now and I went to the US Division I
Nationals a couple years ago (merely as an observer, not a competitor), but
that's all irrelevant. *I* am not the one making claims about the quality of
American directing, primarily because I'm no expert on the subject--and
that's something I've admitted many times. I'm simply asking David Crosslin
to provide some evidence and background info in support of *his* claims,
especially since they've been contradicted by a number of known RSF
regulars. In other words, by people I trust because they have far more
experience & knowledge than me.
To use an analogy from a previous message of mine, if you were reading a
medical newsgroup, who would you trust: experienced doctors, or a crackpot
who refuses to disclose his level of expertise?
Chris Hagen
>
>The only constructive thing that I am in a position to do about it is to try
>and persuade US fencers that there is a problem. I don't think anything can
>be done about the self-appointed nobility of US fencing, because I don't
>think they will ever admit that they've been wrong all these years, but I
>can hope that a younger generation will do better.
Well, I am not so sure the European crowd is any different on this count...
>Directing shapes fencing; bad directing deforms it.
No arguement there.
Dirk Goldgar
news:20020203011236...@mb-ma.aol.com...
[much snipped]
Chris, I think this is misleadingly phrased. When I first read the above, I
thought you were saying that a coupe or disengage attack must include a
preliminary feint, which is patently not the case. Now I believe you meant
that the action of the coupe or disengage must be coupled with the extension
of the arm and threat to the target -- overlayed on them, as it were --
which I can agree with. I did want to post here to clarify the point (or
else find that we are in violent disagreement!).
--
Dirk Goldgar
(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)
Eric Dew
Don Badowski <Do...@totheescrime.org> wrote:
>> >No, there was no chasing down the strip. I believe he just took an
>advance
>> >to get into distance. Then I moved forward with my point. He started
>the
>> >coupé, and I (seeing him in prep, is I see it) lunged. Then he finished.
>> >
>> Was his advance just and advance, or did his blade move towards you? From
>> your perspective, it may appear that he's just advancing, but from the
>> referee's (and your opponent's) perspective, he's advancing with a slowly
>> extending arm. In that case, his attack with the coupe (assuming a
>reasonably
>> well-executed coups) would count and your point in line was late.
>However,
>> if he just advanced, you put out a point, and then he decided to attack,
>> then it wouldn't matter whether he attacked with a coupe or not. His
>> attack occurred after you placed a point in line.
>>
>> EDEW
>
>As I remember it, he only took the one advance. Then I lunged. And my
>opponent does nothing slow. Nothing.
>
>
In that case, it may be for him rather than for you.
EDEW
Eric Dew
I'm just surprised that you know 1000 US referees.
EDEW
Eric Dew
Joe Hoffman <jhof...@patriot.net> wrote:
>Just curious, David:
>
>How long do you have to be in America before your refereeing
>becomes incompetent?
>
>At South Bend, my referees were: 2 Americans, a German, a Spaniard,
>a Canadian, and a Russian.
Either:
a) You fenced many events (you can't be doing Junior events, eh?),
2) Went very far in your pools and DE, or
iii) Had referees rotate through your pools because (presumably)
of incompetence or something.
Six referees? I guess that's not impossible.
EDEW
Joe Hoffman
One sometimes sees extremely-post-junior
lefties fence both foil and epee.
Joe
-------------------
HaroldBuck
I said what I meant to say: the instructor said that the rules said a coupe is
a simple attack.
However, as I look at the rules I see they don't specifically say that. They
do, however, specifically say that a coupe can be used for a simple riposte.
-Harold