Sabre Fencing is Broken - Time For a Balance Patch

[@stevep1762]

TL:DW There are two practical problems with current sabre fencing. It's boring and the referees have too much influence. To expand, there's FAR too many attacks in the 4M, more than 4 times what there was pre-2012. Some statistics shown to demonstrate that this is the case from analysing all the Olympic footage since 2008. Proposal is to reduce the lockout time from 170 to 90ms to help with this problem. More one light hits means you can take it out of the box a bit more as defending becomes more statistically viable and reduces the ability for referees to make errors. (personally I think 90ms might be too far, 120 might be better). I'm ready to support this change as at least it's a viable suggestion, but I think there are more rule changes we should be making as well as some changes to the scoring boxes. None of this addresses the (alleged) corruption in the sport due to money and Olympic selection, both of which are very serious problems IMO, but at least we have a positive suggestion that might well prove quite popular.

[@stevep1762]

Box changes: Show the ACTUAL time between the hits on a screen. Show me whether the attack was parried/malparried/caught by whipover protection. Show me if a connection that didn't register was due to resistance.

[@stevep1762]

Rule changes: Enforce attack invalid while falling. Allow referees to call simultaneous and not try to separate marginal actions. Red card for deliberately leaving the piste for a halt. Referees cannot say Ready/Pret before both fencers are still and engarde. Video replay judge presses a button for their opinion in real time, goes to offsite VAR if they don't agree.

[@stevep1762]

Changes to Olympic qualification criteria to remove the teams qualification route. Top 8 teams and top 64 fencers by ranking only. No wildcard places.

[@archardor3392]

This is basically going around in circles. In 2016, the timing was increased in order to give the defender a better chance of hitting a riposte after a parry, since the flexible weapons would bend and do a remise before the defender could do their riposte. This killed counter attacks but made parry riposte more viable. Reducing the lockout time (which I prefer personally) will just revert the change to pre 2016 times. Correct me if I am wrong, of course. As long as people are allowed to gather momentum, attacks will be OP in my opinion.

[@cuttingedgefencingcoaching5455]

@@archardor3392 why the fixation on parry? Defense is defense, weather with distance, blade, or tip/timing. Andrew already proved that defense just isn’t viable any more.

[@h-r-z-]

One metric I don’t think you touched on is the required contact duration in Sabre and how that has also been adjusted. Trying out a shorter the lockout timer and a slightly longer required contact duration could give saber a much needed balance adjustment!! Ty for all your hard work!

[@GPFencing]

Great video ! Love the video game analogy, unfortunately the FIE doesn't have the best track record for taking community feedback :(

[@CyrusofChaos]

they certainly dont, but i have the support of a lot of top athletes on this, some of whom are on the athlete council. once i get feedback from coaches and can put something together i will send it to them and they have assured me that they will make sure it gets put in front of the right people!

[@GPFencing]

@CyrusofChaos not all heroes wear capes ! Looking forward to the outcome !

[@cuttingedgefencingcoaching5455]

Extremely thorough analysis. "Move into the mobile game" was pretty much the go-to coaching advice back when I started coaching for dealing with a frustration in the first zone. While watching this video I started remembering all sorts of drills we used to do with regards to the mobile game, both offensively and defensively. I don't do these as much any more because they're just not as useful. The defensive drills revolved around the use of false stop-hit to generate opportunities for parry/distance defense. The offensive drills revolved around being patient on your push and making the opponent commit to a defensive strategy. Mobile offensive and defensive drills are completely different now. Mobile offense is all about trying to overwhelm your opponent, and mobile defense is about trying to guess the correct line for the parry. As Andrew says, "BOOOOOOOORRRRING." I do want to comment on a number of statements I'm seeing both in the chat and the comments with respect to the how a short timing favors a counter-attack strategy and how that is somehow "less pure and holy" than a parry. I disagree; defense is defense. To quote Michele Sicard (who I suspect many of the sabre folks don't know, but, they should) - there is no such thing as counter-offense: There is defense with distance, defense with the blade, and defense with the tip/timing. The (IMHO) unholy fascination with parrying is, as Andrew clearly demonstrated, wrecked substantial damage to the game. If I keep you from hitting me within the rules/technical specifications, that is successful defense.

[@kotaro6985]

Great video, I've been thinking of that as well and this data is strong enogh to make discussion started officially. I hope this kind of patch apllied, and new clarified rule book.

[@donaldbadowski290]

Here's the thing. Where sabre referees are not so Top Of The Line, like at high school level, the fencing is more interesting. And the reason for that is simple. If the ref cannot discern that my attack is so much more correct than my opponents', in the box, the ref will call simultaneous. And the fencers start to look outside the box to score. But at the international level, we expect the referees to make these tough, tough calls. The result? "Fencer A's tiny little preparation was superior to Fencer B's tiny little preparation. Therefore the attack is for Fencer A." Look, with 4 meters between them, there is no way you can attack off the line without a preparation. Advance lunge or balestra, that first footwork move combined with the arm coming out is a preparation. And this gives the ref every excuse to apply what I just described. One little preparation superior to the other. We are very used to the idea that non-fencers can't tell why one fencer got the touche when there are two lights on the box. And we expect newbe fencers to take a while before they "get it". But when two highly trained, highly experienced, world champion level fencers can't understand why the ref is calling it this way instead of that way? Yes, even if the ref isn't favoring, like we were talking about 2 months ago, this is a big problem. The answer is for the refs to let it go, to not call them so tight, dare I say like they did back in 2008. Funny thing. I started fencing in the mid 90s. Back then, the only way you got to see high level fencing, besides traveling to see it, was to order VHS, then DVDs of the world cups and championships. I still have some of those VHS tapes tucked away in my basement. Watching the 1997 championships for the first time, I couldn't understand why the ref would call it they way they did. On repeated watchings, I got it. And it stayed that way till the 2003 timing change. First time watching, I'm lost again, not seeing why the ref was calling it this way instead of that. Repeated watchings and I started to get it yet again. Then instant replay, meant to correct the things that the ref missed. Good idea we all agreed, or mostly agreed. But refs started to go to the instant replay of their own volition, to see those "grind" touches again. What does this tell you? It tells me that they were not so afraid of missing something as there were of looking for something. They are looking for reasons to call it one way, in slow motion, on repeated watchings, rather than call it simultaneous. This is beyond human reaction time. Average human reaction time is 250 milliseconds. The supermen among us can get that down to 90 to 100 milliseconds. And things are happening in high level sabre fencing that are quicker than 100 milliseconds, for the fencers and for the refs. Now, are we ready to tell these high level refs that they have to start calling it simultaneous again, or are we worried that in doing so we will hurt their feelings?

[@JeffBodner-hg4tx]

Has anyone played with the idea of increasing the en-garde distance back 1-2 more meters? (Maybe in addition to the timing change) The current distance is just enough to reach your opponent with a single advance-lunge by both parties. If the distance were longer, I think there'd be more time to see what's coming and adjust, leading to more attempts at parry-riposte. Near-simultaneous actions would be more rare when you need something like advance-advance-advance-lunge to reach the other fencer.

[@BorislavIordanov]

Love the game designer's perspective and I have to say that the sense of boredom is not only on the spectator side, but also on the fencer side. So one thing is clear, that something has to be done to balance out attack & defense success rate and going back to previous lock out time or shorter is a good idea. If you make a public petition on that I will sign it :) On the middle game, it's much less clear how to fix the problem. Calls appear completely random and have been for a long time, even before 2008 or even before 2000, it's always been the same problem. The only period where we didn't have this problem of splitting hairs who started first, is it about the speed or the initiative or the intent or the mistake in movement or whatever, was when we were flipping a coin after 3 simultaneous actions. Most people who watch your video would not have known that period, and it was a bit weird, but it worked. I think it was argued that it was hard to understand by outsiders - but look we are now, it's even harder to make sense of the calls. It's so funny how refs try to justify their "gut feeling" and intuition with BS reasoning, it is a sad state of affairs. I like your proposal to stick to the rule book, but I think refs will argue that they are doing precisely that - apply the rule as per the book. There are a bunch of words in there like "continuous" and "threat" that, like most words, leave some wiggle room of interpretation. Hence the problem. I also get the sense that once certain trend starts, you will have a large majority of the refs exaggerate in that direction and loose common sense. For example, with the trend of recent 1-2 years to not allow a successful defense to take too long initiating a riposte. I love that, it's how it used to be back in the day - after you make someone fall short if you don't start reposting immediately you loose your priority. This had disappears for about 20 years and now it's coming back - great! But now refs are going insane with this and not allowing a riposte even if the defender just needed an extra small movement to rebalance. The mere fact that we are talking about "trends in judging" instead of "trends in fencing styles" says it all. IMO, the objectivity and stability of interpretation of the rules is the biggest problem to solve. The enjoyment of outsiders is important, but most will probably agree that objectivity is the most important part. Sabre fencing is pretty fast paced. If one thinks of simultaneous actions as a form of passivity (like in boxing or epee), it shouldn't be a big deal for observers. Not every touch something has to happen. So I agree with several folks from other comments that it's much better to call simultaneous than randomly awarding the attack to one side. So how to solve for the lack objectivity? Anything that relies on human judgement will always lead to subjective calls, regardless of the rules. We won't be able to increase objectivity by somehow formulating better rules. It's all about interpretation and enforcement of the rules and until there is a technical solution (e.g. AI), the only possibility is some form of continuous improvement process and accountability on the refs. There could be reviews, corrections, whatever, some sort of "internal affairs" to make sure there is consistency across the board. I suspect once a referee reaches a certain status, they have very little accountability or incentive to be consistent with the others. They probably care more about their own viewpoint and trying to impose it rather than making refereeing more predictable for fencers. All right, I will stop. PS: Why isn't anybody mentioning a return of AiP during a long attack? How is it consistent to call AiP in the first zone, but not in other zones?

[@TPLim-wv3nd]

Thank you for an outstanding video, Andrew. I did a similar study with data up to 2021, though not as comprehensive as yours, but came up with similar conclusions. I was concerned with the over-reliance of attack actions over the last few years and I 100% agree that we should narrow the timing. As a sabre coach, I have had to continuously adjust my training to ambiguous referee calls which is not really a complaint as it is my job to do so. What I am uncomfortable with is the trend of giving too much power to referees to control bout outcomes. It is an uneasy feeling and I suspect the IOC has its eyes on the suspected level of corruption we have been seeing recently. We all know how a certain Kuwaiti fencer qualified for Paris 2024 and I fear this is not the last of it. Yes, bring back the old timing and comments from Syilagi, Oh and Kim JH certainly should get the conversation going. Once again, thank you for the meaningful work you do. I am not shy to say that your channel is a useful resource for me.

[@CyrusofChaos]

I would love to see the data you collected!

[@EstellammaSS]

My coach who fenced Sabre always tells us the Sabre timing change was not to help Sabre fencing, but rather to stop the Koreans from dominating. I think reducing the lockout time to 120ms would be good but any lower you would probably see counter attack becoming the primary way to score in lower categories which is not good(it would be a slapping fest), that or you increase the contact time as well. You want the attacker to be at least slightly favored to encourage more dynamic matches.

[@catlikearcher9955]

I think the success rate of attack and defence should be about 50/50, the exact timing needed for that is up for debate but 120ms is a good starting point. Attack in preparation definitely needs to be consistently called, reprise after a failed long attack should only be an option if the defender doesn’t try to take over. The attacker shouldn’t just be able to keep going forwards with no break and have that be called reprise. The box should display the timing between hits, it makes calling parries easier and is just helpful for everybody to know what happened (got locked out/didn’t hit etc). Radical suggestion: maybe the box needs to be longer? I’m 6ft and an ok sabre fencer but I can step lunge from my engarde line and hit my opponents engarde line pretty easily. Maybe that makes it too easy?

[@casperhowell8738]

I think one key change in addition to the timing that has got to happen is moving back to much stricter criteria for splitting actions in the middle. Actions that would have been called simultaneous 10 years ago are now routinely attack in preparation or attack counterattack. When close actions in the middle were split less often, fencers had to take their actions out of the middle in order to score. Now you can get a full 15 touches with reprise/AoP/Attack-Counterattack variations and it makes the game boring as shit to watch. It also makes the cheating allegations we've seen recently less likely to happen- if middle actions are split every time it's very easy for someone to feel like they're getting screwed

[@casperhowell8738]

And of course with a shorter timing, a clear AoP or Attack-Counter is muuuuch more likely to be one light to the attacker anyway

[@archardor3392]

I agree with your opinion, but back when most actions were called simultaneous, it was decided that this was too boring and not engaging for the viewers, so they decided to break it up and actually call something. And we didn't have any less action in the middle compared to now.

[@GeorgeAlbu-ib5cu]

Hey Cyrusof I'm a very young sabre fencer and I have never fenced with the old timing but I found myself thinking in the same way after watching a lot of older matches prior to 2016 and I found fencing much more enjoying to watch then it is now and I also love defence but its so hard that most of the times its not even worth it. I would agree to your changes but the questions that I'm having is how can we "enforce" these changes or at least suggest them so that they are being implemented

[@marvindixon-vc7qf]

There is a way to fix most of these problems .... In 1988 when saber went elect. they could not do one thing ,,they tried 4 too 5 different ways and no fix ..... The technology was not there to fix this problem ,,,,,,, and so the people who were in charge just allowed sabre to be fenced with what we had at the time .... What they had at the time was a saber blade with 4 sides and the tip that could make a point ,,, turn on a light ,,,,, and not be fully parried but that was all they had so they went with it. Sabre before elect. scoring only the cutting edge and the tip was allowed to make the points... So only two place on the blade could make the point ,,,,,,, with elect. sabre blades both the right and left sides and the top and bottom ( cutting edge ) and tip can make the points .... This makes saber so fast not event the best referees can see which side of the blades made the point and this is what is making all the problems in sabre today...... I know that this is not what any of you elect sabers fencers want to hear but with out insulating the sides and back of the blades to were only the cutting edge and tip make the points nothing you try will fix all these problem ... I know this is a very big thing to say and that most of you will not even gave it the time of day ,,,,,, but this one little thing will make all the different in sabre fencing ....... The Insulating technology is now here to fix this problem ..... and only after 36 years better late when never I say ....... The insulation dose not cost much money and is easy to apply to any saber blade and can be added to any saber old or new the blade just need to be elect. Also if you go with the clear insulation in place of the black you can add some LED lights for show or the lights can be fixed to go off when a point is made just the new mask do.... I have fixed 7 of my own sabers with this new insulation and they work very will ..... The club I fenced at worked with the new sabers blades and they all liked the way the sabers worked and the way it changed the way saber is fenced .... This will changed sabers for the better ..... let me know what you think of insulating the blades .... Marvin

[@jacobikinz]

Two things: Almost always before patches are put out, the devs do some testing. If you could take a scoring box and make the timing 90 ms and test it with different fencers, I would be very interested to see what they think and more importantly if data collected in the same way you did with the Olympics reflects the changes you want. I'm a foilist. In foil, attack in preparation is called if one fencer makes a simple direct attack (must be simple and direct) into the actions preceding the attacking part of a compound attack. In other words, in a compound attack, the actions preceding the attack are preparations. Under this view, it makes perfect sense why a simple attack would have priority under right of way if done in time (the person making the compound attack has not actually started their attack yet). I don't know much about sabre rules. Is this different from how attack in prep is called in sabre?

[@joeberry1373]

AiP is called similarly in sabre (I think). To me a attack-counter is that both fencers go for the attack, just one was ahead of the other by a bit. For it to be AiP one fencer has to make a 'mistake' such as pulling their hand back (ie attack non correct) and the other does a lunge into this mistake. I'm sure there's different examples and interpretations but that's what I can make of it

[@stevep1762]

@@joeberry1373 That's spot on. The mistake can be attacking with a more bent arm than your opponent, or to say another way, to straighten your arm fully later than your opponent.

[@alexthegreat38]

Correct me if I'm wrong on this but I think one of the complaints people have about sabre today as well is that it's nearly impossible to get attack in prep outside the box. Attack in prep does get called in foil outside the box a fair amount but you rarely see it in sabre.

[@joeberry1373]

@@alexthegreat38 yeah attack on preparation doesn't exist outside of the first zone in sabre - that being said some refs have been calling "attack stop left, reprise right" kinda thing where the defending fencer attacks into the break (where the attacker is taking a jump back, very passive, very late with the hand)

[@periscopem8502]

The key is to cancel the current minimal risk attacks (attackers light on = attack called automatically), therefore forcing to decide every little move (not intention, thats the problem!) in the middle, is to teach referees to consequently decide and apply contra attacks making defense a viable option

[@CyrusofChaos]

As I said in the video I think it is a very bad idea to give more decision making power to the ref: attackers lights on = attack is one of the few situations where the ref doesn't need to make a decision

[@periscopem8502]

Automatic decision making refs??😂😂Its a convention based sport. @@CyrusofChaos

[@davidburns2885]

I agree with shortening the timing but going with 90ms would make attacks faster to get the light. A slow, straight attack would be penalized for 'being to slow'. A 130 or 140ms would allow a 'slow' attack to arrive and get a light but also strengthen the AIP. This isn't a hill I will die on but only a slight disagreement while agreeing to the over all idea of timing change.

[@FreeFencer]

What you said about attack in prep should be applied to foil as well.

[@LaltraBudapest]

I am old enough to remember non electrical sabe, with the priorities system. That for sure obliged to defend

[@jasoneel76]

Thinking about doing something similar for foil?

[@CyrusofChaos]

i was not! i think with the exception of a few very minor things, i think mens foil is in a very good place right now: in my opinion it is BY FAR the most interesting weapon when fenced at the highest level at this moment. i have issues with the chest protector in womens foil really slowing down the game but it is necessary for protection so i dont really have any constructive ideas for how to change that. i also dont have the same level of expertise in foil as i do in sabre so i wouldnt have anywhere near the same level of confidence in what i would be saying

[@Strytller]

missed the live chat... but ​​I'm worried that a 90s time out would increase "defense" but still completely ruin the parry

[@CyrusofChaos]

this was a point I did not remember to mention in the video: on the 120ms timing there was an additional "secret" feature called whip over protection. This meant that for a short period of time after blade contact there could not be any light on the machine. It was short enough that if you slapped the crap out of someone's blade and hit them anyway it would not give you a light, but the person who parried would still have time to get their light on. I would definitely advocate for whip over protection as well if we do change the timing

[@stevep1762]

@@CyrusofChaos wait was whipover protection removed post-2016?

[@steveheck4348]

@@stevep1762I checked and it only mentions the change to 170 ms ± 10. See below. https ://static dot fie dot org/uploads/28/141008-123895-new%20rules%20for%20sabre_cover_ang.pdf NEW RULES FOR THE SABER 2014 Adjustment of the functioning times of the scoring apparatuses, identification of the apparatuses. Procedure to be followed: Preliminary notes After consulting the national federations, it was decided to apply a new rule, which implies the modification of the registering times of electrical scoring apparatus. 8. After a hit has been registered, a subsequent hit made by the other fencer will only be registered if it occurs within a maximum of 170 ms (± 10 ms). Application: starting season 2016-2017. Table for the new blocking time for saber: Characteristics to be modified Former rules Time for double hit 120 ms ± 10 New rules 170 ms ± 10 AIMS OF THIS DOCUMENT allow a proper implementation of the new rules to modify the scoring apparatuses; the use of an identification plate in order to make easier the checking of modified scoring apparatuses or new apparatuses built according to the new rules; give information of the checking process; make sure that the adjustment of the scoring apparatuses cannot be modified. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SCORING APPARATUSES MANUFACTURER The manufacturers will have: to implement all the modifications necessary for the correct functioning of the scoring devices the new standards, even if these modifications are not explicitly described. For the devices of former generations, to be modified: adapt the characteristics of the device to the new standards of regulation, with the implementation of new elements as a replacement of the former system of regulation. For the new devices: new series of manufacturing to programming microprocessors following the new standards. Identification label for scoring devices: Stick a special identification label, allowing to recognize that the device corresponds to the new standards. Features of the label: anti-tamper label. The identification plate of 2 x 4 cm, of magenta colour, will bear the following text in black letters: FIE 2016. Blinking lights: When the unit is set to saber, it has to be a particular blinking of lights to allow the referee to make sure the settings on the new time.

[@steveheck4348]

@@stevep1762 Not mentioned in NEW RULES FOR THE SABRE 2014 Procedure to be followed: Preliminary notes After consulting the national federations, it was decided to apply a new rule, which implies the modification of the registering times of electrical scoring apparatus. 8. After a hit has been registered, a subsequent hit made by the other fencer will only be registered if it occurs within a maximum of 170 ms (± 10 ms). Application: starting season 2016-2017. Table for the new blocking time for saber: Characteristics to be modified Former rules Time for double hit 120 ms ± 10 New rules 170 ms ± 10 AIMS OF THIS DOCUMENT allow a proper implementation of the new rules to modify the scoring apparatuses; the use of an identification plate in order to make easier the checking of modified scoring apparatuses or new apparatuses built according to the new rules; give information of the checking process; make sure that the adjustment of the scoring apparatuses cannot be modified.

[@CyrusofChaos]

@@stevep1762 it was indeed removed: the logic was that there is now enough time on the machine to still get a riposte if you take a valid parry

[@sumdumpitch]

Great video! Thanks for sharing your data as well, that is a commendable effort on your behalf! It’s nice to have some sort of metric to gauge how sabre fencing has changed over the years and how these patch updates affect the overall meta. Will these data be made public? No worries if not.

[@CyrusofChaos]

check the video description :)

[@mlmasters61]

I agree with our observations that saber is messed up. It has been messed up for very long time. All fixes give new challenges. Look at saber when it was dry (not electric) and side judges had to decide if a hit was really landing. Stop cuts to the wrist were never seen. Favoring the attack was worse than now. Also crossing the feet was allowed so it was impossible to break distance. The two fencers ran at each other. Sometimes the only was to get the side judges to see a hit was to make the opponent say ouch! Not the best way to play. Then fencing was made electric and stop cuts could be registered but the running attack was still allowed. The record as far as i am aware for simultaneous attacks in saber was 30, set at a World University Games. Electric saber invented 1989. see below. Next idea was that after three simultaneous attacks a random coin flip gave the next together action to the winner of the coin toss (random event generator) Then the opponent was given the priority on a simultaneous attack. Then the 'slate' was cleared and the fencers would do three togeher actions and the coin would be flipped again. Imagin that nightmare! Then they tried simaltenous points, like epee. if both attack and hit both get a point. That lasted about 4 months. Them they said no running, crossing the feet no fleching either and soon the flunge was born. That is largerly out of fashion now, too many injuires. The first electric sabers 1989 had accelarometers in them so that you really had to hit which lead to fencers cranking they wrists to have a sharp enough cut to trigger the sensor. It did not work well. often cleary together actions gave only one light but the gear was working so a touch had to be awarded in a situation that clearly should have been a double The timing was shortened before. The problem with the shorter timing is that it does help the stop cut, attack prep. but also encourage remising even when not logical. Coaches were teaching that after a head cut or chest cut that was parried to just lean on the cut and land a remise before the correct ripost could arrive. That was a disaster. I recall teaching oppostion four and bind five riposts like epee! The "box of death" shortening the starting distance was an interesting idea but that lasted about 6 months. I think the blade should be insulated on the sides so that the fencers really have to hit with the edge. Not sure how you would do it and it would have to be redone frequently. In teaching more emphasis on correct technique and ideas of a real sword fight. Not just by faster and more athletic.

[@Tekazurik]

It’s a very good point that shortening the timing also encourages leaning into parries to force the attack through. I’m wondering what the solution is to that, and realistically I don’t think it’s changing how the blade is made. I also think that while romantic, encouraging coaches to teach more as real sword fights go just isn’t realistic. The goal of competition is winning and therefore it becomes all about the meta which is dictated by the path of greatest chance of victory. There’s never a world where fencing more historically accurately wins over the most direct path to victory without major rules change

[@geringasG]

My problem with this video is that the model of RPS has not got anything to do with Sabre fencing. Sabre is initiation and response. An attack initiated can be responded to with parry but parry can't be responded to with parry, that doesn't make sense. When two players hold a parry 5 and stare at eachother the touche doesnt end in a tie or a hit, without any initiator we are still waiting for the decision. In fact an attack can initiate and through a fault in timing be responded to with counter-offense but! counter offense against counter offense unlike parry against parry can, it can, it can be understood and then result in a hit. For example an overwhelmingly fast attacker can drop a counter attack short and at the same time perform a counter attack against the counter offensive failed with the skyhook -> this is intelligible and a classical sabre move called counter-tempo. Moreover, to mutually attempt defence by distance is not a tie, similar to the parry situation, it causes a race for initiation again. The fencing we saw in 2008 was quite corrupted and apart from the roots of the game which value initiation. Looking through a fine comb at every possible error of an attack made many of the touches you showed unintelligible in their awarding of points to defenders. It looks like make-believe fencing. The room for referee manipulation was perhaps greater for finding so many faults in 2008 and selectively not seeing them when the attacks went the other way. 2008 was a grind, it was just a different kind of grind. In the grinding era you are lamenting 2012-2016, the simultaneous situation at least did not permit referees to favour one and not the other since neither would be awarded a hit. We can't assign or award strength to actions assuming RPS model of balance, we have to use sabre terms and talk about rate of success of sabre actions. This requires education in what sabre actually is for the analysis to be performed correctly.

[@geringasG]

Changing timing: I've counted the frames to extend the arm in veterans, womens, mens, and youth fencing. Mens roughly 3/24s = 125ms, Women 5/24 =208ms sometimes 4/24 = 167ms, youth fencing 6/24 = 250ms, Veterans 8+/24 >= 333ms. We use the same box for all these events causing wildly different changes in the meta for all of them. If you say you want standardization, you cannot speak about any timing shorter than 400ms! Or else we need to study the outcomes in every segment and adjust the box for every event.

[@CyrusofChaos]

Whenever there is any metric where the referee has to make a decision that is not clearly defined there is opportunity for corruption to creep in. I don't agree that in 2012 there was more non corruption. I remember many cases where one fencer would get both attack counterattack and attack in prep whenever either side went for an action The issue I'm discussing is one of entertainment value. I personally feel (and so did the other fencers who I brainstormed these metrics with) that these were the predominant factors contributing to our entertainment level in the sport so that is what I went with I think the idea of measuring extension times for different age groups and making different times for that is interesting but the idea of completely opening up the timing and essentially giving the referees MUCH more power is a very very bad idea in this climate of a lot of alleged corruption

[@esgrimaxativa5175]

Great video!!! I am happy to see I am not the only one who thinks 90ms would be ideal, although there are some concerns about the destruction of the parry/riposte. (heavier sabers solves this but that's way more complicated) Uniformity on AIP at any place along the strip combined with 90ms would be great too. I think your statement "It's a miracle that there is any semblance of a sport left" speaks volumes. I am happy to see someone of your level and importance coming out on this and recognizing that the sport is truly broken. You are correct in saying the long attack has too much power and that we need to change this but you are wrong in saying that at no point in time has the long attack ever been stronger. Up until 1994 we could run at each other. There was little defense except for the point in line. The long attack was so strong we had to ban forward running, which brings me to my point. Those who forget their past know not their future. The solution you seek is to be found within the great body of literature on this sport. I suggest you look into what all this has to offer. Message me and I'll send you what I have found from authors who spoke about the exact same problems you mention but 50 years ago.

[@CyrusofChaos]

i dont remember exactly what i said about the power of the attack, but the implication was "during the period of time that i have collected statistics for". i know very little about what sabre fencing was like before 2008 because there is very limited video record from before that time

[@jerryduffey1118]

Problem: A) Sabre is not as fun to fence B) Sabre is not too difficult to understand for spectators and difficult to watch C) referees have too much Influence on the game D) Bonus - easier to train and get new referees Solution: 1) change sabre lockout time to 120ms 2) Score only allowed with single light - double light is no touch 3) turn the clock on for Sabre These solutions are relatively inexpensive - reprogram the scoring machines. Single light to score a touch fixes the problem with referees & spectators. It is also forces cleaner attacks and cleaner defense. The game balance is good.

[@emanuellabradorrodriguez7056]

So basically sabre is now foil/epee

[@geringasG]

The problem is you either tune the timing for the stop hit or you tune it for the riposte. With a long timing like now you have the riposte but you have to judge the stop hit by eye which they do not

[@jerryduffey1118]

@@geringasG Solid assessment.

[@Spec9118]

Hello everyone. I am writing with the help of an online translator, so I apologize if something goes wrong, but I will try to explain my position. First of all, I want to thank the author of this video for his tremendous work (undoubtedly, this is really a titanic work). I agree in many ways with the author of this video, if you look at the current appearance and essence of fencing, you can understand the indignation of now still fencing (competing) athletes (let's say the older generation), and you can also understand the perception of fans who have long been imbued with fencing, the fencing as it was for 15 years Go back. However, I want to look at the fencing that we have at the moment from the position of a very young fencing athlete. Children U11, U13 ... began to learn, discover fencing and learn it exactly in the form that we have after all the changes in the rules that the author mentioned in this video, and therefore the current fencing for modern young fencers (and these children are the future of fencing) is familiar without any reservations like, fencing in previous years was different... So, I mean that modern fencing in the form in which we observe it now is the only fencing option that young fencers are familiar with, and therefore fencing in its current form for young fencers is familiar and close to them. The current picture of fencing upsets us (fencing dinosaurs - current athletes of the older generation and fans of the older generation), but for the most part, modern fencing does not cause such negative emotions among the younger generation. In life, it happens that not all innovations have a positive effect (or maybe it seems so to us), it just so happens that the current athletes of the older generation have witnessed a change in the rules and they need to accept it. As a person related to the younger generation of fencers, I can state that they are satisfied with everything and fencing in its current form is understandable and close to them.

[@oldschooljeremy8124]

So is point in line rock, paper or scissors?

[@CyrusofChaos]

hah! touche! the essence of point in line is the idea that the extension has power: if we are dueling each other in real life and you walk onto my extended arm, you will die. that is why point in line exists in sabre and foil and why its not necessary in epee: in epee they are both trying to avoid getting hit at all at all costs anyway. i could the the argument for why point in line isnt necessary anymore though, and if it was to go the way of the dinosaurs, i wouldnt miss it too much!

[@foillion]

I've always tried to explain PiL as an option that "breaks" RoW. Another choice the defender has besides pulling distance, counter attacking, or making parry-riposte. It forces the offensive fencer to deal with the line before continuing which gives the opportunity for attack in prep, stop-hit, beat/parry or the all too rare occurrence just hitting with the damn line. It adds another dimension to defense and is something that a spectator can clearly observe and appreciate. A well executed PiL is one of the prettiest touches in fencing and I think it would be a tragedy to remove it from the defensive list of options. Anything that can slow down long attack and create another point in the decision tree is something we need to keep around.

[@CyrusofChaos]

@@foillion in my opinion there are way better ways to use your space on defense. If my kids use point in line they better be very active while they do

[@mysteriousquestions6145]

i think that most of the complaints about fencing being bad come from old fencers who get rolled by newer fencers. one thing that is true is that referees sort of have too much power, this is usually mitigated in later stages of tournament when there’s video and two refs for each bout.

[@MrPalelight]

Yes, the meta changes constantly, it is up to each individual athlete to be able to adapt but i think the issue here its this changes are favoring a type of meta than its not fun to watch or fence, plus the refering is too inconsistent over the years, they should regulate it a lot more and stick to the rules not change them as they go.

[@stephencheng1785]

I disagree that subjective nature of the sabre fencing judging is mitigated by videos or two referees for each bout. Any observers, whether casual or seasoned, can tell you that modern speed of advanced sabre fencers has long ago rendered right of way rules uninterpretable in sabre to the naked eyes, even with replays. Trying to say which fencer has the right of way when both are charging each other at full speed from the get go is a fool's errand. This is not something timing changes can rectify. The only possible solutions to solve this subjective nature of judging in sabre is to simply throw out all simultaneous touches and right of way rules such as attack in preparation and force sabre fencers to actually fence in a way that allow them to hit the other guy without being hit themselves.

[@esgrimaxativa5175]

@@stephencheng1785 I have done this experiment and run competitions with this. It's cool until everyone figures out that if double hits don't count the always viable strategy is to only attack and remise. if you hit, good. if they hit you at same time, no harm done. If they defend by distance and parry and your remise no harm done, so what happens are very ugly bouts. You need some system to punsih the perosn who provoked both being hit. This is why right of way developed. Currently, HEMA are having a number of problems with how to get rid of doubles.

[@CyrusofChaos]

@@stephencheng1785 classic "you had us in the first half"

[@mysteriousquestions6145]

it’s hella easy to see right of way if you’ve fenced for a while i would disagree with the first part of your response

[@archardor3392]

You will burn me on the stake for this comment but here we go. Bring back the box of death.

[@MrPalelight]

Love the gaming jargon

[@CyrusofChaos]

i wanted to mix it up :)

[@sevoto]

Fencing is moving forward towards athletics, fast decisions, fencing with minimal errors and its completely normal for the old school generation to be against bc its harder, and bc they`ll also have to change. Well...your statistics shows only the improvement of sabre fencing. TL DR - the old generation will always be against the new changes in all aspects of life, but still the new will prevail and evolve.

[@TheRealMatyiLudas]

You are so wrong. Dont forget the old generation teaches now the new ones

[@sevoto]

@@TheRealMatyiLudas I am part of the old generation but still I teach the new ways. And I pity those who does not change...and prophesize staying with the old ways. I remember the sabers barely moving 20 years ago and I love every change from then to now. Pls stop crying and ADDAPT.

[@CyrusofChaos]

in what ways do you think these statistics show improvement? i also teach the new way and have been pretty successful doing so: one of my students got third at cadet world championships last year, and two of my students are currently top 16 in the world in juniors. i am not resistant to change, which is why i want to change things, because i myself, and most of the athletes i have talked to about this, do not like the way the sport is currently or the direction the sport is moving in. shouldnt world champions and olympic champions have some say in how the sport evolves? these are not people who were successful and who are complaining because they are not anymore: all three of them are world champions and olympic champions on the new timing. they have all adapted very successfully and they all think that sabre has gotten worse as a result of the timing change

[@patrickyuen8093]

@@sevoto Ya Szilagyi needs to stop crying and ADDDDAPT. Nice joke XDD

[@showwhite7320]

1. Exchanges aren't what leads to enjoyable playing/spectating per se. It's the fact that the fencer can do something intelligent in response (aka skill). I mention this to emphasize that anything that incorporates intelligent response and adaptation (rather than luck although a little luck is fun) is going to lead to fun. (The amount of complexity must be balanced. If it's too intellectually demanding, it won't be fun.) 2. The average human response time is .23 seconds. This is basically the same for professional athletes and a random guy off the street. (Athlete's slightly better but not substantially so.) This is a lot longer than people realize. Any action that is within quarter of a second, a person won't be able to react. As a result, if two fencers start their attack within .25 seconds of each other, it should be called a simultaneous. Within .25 seconds, it's not as if the fencer could have reacted to the other's attack. So it would be arbitrary if one fencer was awarded a point just because he started his attack .1 second before the other. It takes no skill, just luck. 3. Timing I didn't watch the entire video, but I didn't understand the issue with timing. (I'm a foil guy.) Why does it matter that much? With a longer timing, then the advantage is given to the attacker because he could land his touch much later than a counterattack. And if the timing is narrowed, then a slow attack will be locked out. But why would you want to do that? As long as the timing is reasonable (not like 3 seconds), priority should be more important rather than who actually landed their touch first. 2. How to Improve Spectating This is the biggest improvement to fencing that should be made. What makes chess boring to watch is the inability of the spectators to know what the player is thinking. Poker was also very boring to watch decades ago, but, when each player's holding cards were revealed by camera, poker skyrocketed. Audience members need to be told exactly what's happening during the bout, especially what each fencer is probably thinking and what he must do to win the bout. Further, refs should not explain their decisions to the fencers. They need to explain their decisions to the audience. Replay the point on a huge projector screen and have the referee explain via loudspeaker how he arrived at his decision. (As a bonus, this will improve consistency and fairness.) It would be great if a commentator chimes in during the bout about what each fencer might be thinking about and what each fencer must do to win. Audience members could use their Bluetooth earbuds and listen to this commentating. 3. Written Rules It's insane to me that fencing doesn't have an official rulebook. It demonstrates how disorganized fencing is. The current FIE rulebook is more of a guildeline from decades ago that's basically ignored when necessary. Instead, refs collectively decide among themselves what the rules are. To make fencing better, FIE needs to meet every year and actually update the written rules WITH detailed explanations. If they don't provide evidence of rulebook improvement, they need to be replaced. They should also publish a series of videos of what constitutes an attack or parry. For example, a video can show Garrozzo (who abuses the definition of an attack) attacking and explain in detail why or why not it's an attack. Every year, these videos should be updated to conform with changes in current thinking. Fencing usually have smarter people than average. So it surprises me how stagnant the sport is. I understand conservatism in our general society, but why does it occur in fencing? We should constantly trying to improve the sport so it's more fun. The rules should be changing every year. We should stop and think about why a sport is fun. Consult research papers on game theory. For example, wouldn't it be fun to have an event in which fencers fence with all 3 weapons? Or we should discuss whether flicks should be part of the game in terms of game theory. Or how to create a blade with modern tech that measures the strength of a hit which would be reflected in the score.

[@CyrusofChaos]

1. there is a lot of intelligent decision making in the type of steps taken to make a preparation, as well as the speed and the size of those steps. even in the way the blade moves towards the target. but because this is all so subtle it is not very fun to watch. i have the same opinion about epee, where most of the game is very subtle distance changes and blade work. again, not very fun to watch. people moving back and forth where there are more obvious attempts to influence the attacker by the defender are a lot more interesting, not just in my opinion, but in the opinions of many of the people i talked to to form these metrics in the first place 2. i completely disagree. if i start my attack significantly before you (and i would argue that 1/5th of a second is pretty significant) then i should get the touch for committing early if we both decide to attack each other. your assumption that "Within .25 seconds, it's not as if the fencer could have reacted to the other's attack" is completely incorrect: if im far enough away from you when you start your attack then i will have more time to see, therefore it wont matter if i dont start my reaction within 0.25 seconds because from the right distance i should still be able to get away, parry, etc 3. I thought I explained this point rather well in the video which you already admitted you didn't watch in its entirety so its difficult to have a real conversation from there. Unlike in foil where it is actually hard to hit valid target and get your light on, in sabre it is so easily you should generally never miss when the person is in distance. as a result, if you give the person as much time to hit in sabre as you are given in foil, counterattacks would literally never work. why is this a problem? because threat from the counterattack (and attack in prep which doesnt exist on long attack) is what makes people want to finish their attack. weak counterattack means the attack doesnt have any good counter options. no good counterplay for any tactical option means that that option will quickly become too strong, which is what we have happening here 2.2 there is something to this, however it would be quite a delay to the bout if the referee paused to explain in detail what he was doing. i do however think that if the referee was forced to answer questions about the action if asked (within reason) and those explanations could be picked up by the camera so the spectators would hear it would be very beneficial not just the fencers and spectators, but also to ensure fairness as well 3.2 technically we do have an "official rulebook" and if you ask most referees they would tell you that they call things by the rules. the issue is those important rules have not been updated and so the referees are in a peculiar position where they have to adhere to current conventions and outdated rules. theoretically it shouldnt be hard to rewrite the rules (in most places) to match current convention, like i tried to do for this video, and in places where we cant come up with an adequate, simple definition, thats where i personally believe that changes need to occur

[@CyrusofChaos]

@@showwhite7320 1. "you need to think about what games are" this is exactly what im doing in the video. i have identified several areas where sabre fencing is becoming less interesting to watch and less fun to play through the use of statistics and data and i am proposing ways to change those things "fencers really can't think about how to react on the piste" is straight up incorrect. i myself have always fenced in a why where i decide how i want to "react" to something and i teach my students to do the same thing 2. i believe you are the one who needs to rethink this. not giving an advantage to someone who has made a decision over someone who is watching and waiting is a bad idea for the health of the sport. even if, as you say, you definitely couldn't react in time to change what you were doing (which is a point i still strongly disagree with) the person who decides first should have an advantage over someone who waits and still makes the same decision 3. "I didn't watch the entire video, but I didn't understand the issue with timing" "[counterattacks would work] would if you consider an attack finished when the attacking fencer pauses in his attack". you clearly do not understand the issues i raised in the video or in sabre fencing in general right now: many people are saying there is a corruption problem where referees are making decisions for the benefit of certain individuals. whether or not you agree with this particular point, many sabre fencers also agree that referees have too much power in the sport right now. most sabre fencers also agree that the attack is too strong. my solution to fix both of these problems is to reduce the timing which would both decrease the number of touches referees need to decide on and make the power of the one light counterattack stronger. your response to this is "lets give even more power to the referee by allowing them to make decisions in the one area where sabre calls are actually black and white". no 2.2 "you might be right that it might be longer, but how do you know if you don't at least try it?" i have tried it. ive done unofficial events where there are mandatory 30 second breaks between points for the commentators to talk. even in practice fencers get very antsy if you pause the bout to explain something, either to one of the fencers or to someone watching. you can also see this at world cups in bouts where constant replays slow things down. i agree that referees should be required to give an explanation of their last call if asked by a fencer, which is what i always did when someone asked me to explain a call, but we cant have the referee explaining the intricacies of every touch or call to the audience whenever a touch happens. that is the job of the commentator. you mention chess here. chess arbiters dont explain to the audience what each player is trying to do or what they are thinking, the commentators do that on stream. it also seems silly to complain about me being too conservative on a video i made suggesting changes to what i view as a sport that is becoming stale 3.2 we completely agree on this point, that is why i mentioned it in the video. either the rules need to be kept more up to date or we need to have referees stick to a more literal interpretation of the rulebook

[@showwhite7320]

@@CyrusofChaos Sorry, but I had to remove my posts because some of the info involves personal research. Good luck!

[@noelabsol2834]

❤❤❤

[@Sciabola13]

This is a fencing masters thesis project. Hit me up if you want to go for any usfca certs.

[@CyrusofChaos]

i will keep that in mind!

[@Argiur]

3 things. 1. This becomes Andrew's Game. What gives you the right to change the rules? 2. 90ms is too short. It would be more difficult for short fencers to even finish an attack (let alone have time to riposte), thus bringing back tall fencers to the meta. It would be as boring as watching basketball where there's no skill if everyone can dunk a ring. 3. I hope you like constructive feedback, because I'm on your side, but if we are an echo-chamber of confirmation bias, then we hear what we want to hear, no? The above are my 2 cents. GLHF.

[@Argiur]

That being said, if no changes were to occur, then the only solution would be the convention of reffing (I.e, the good old days when attack-in-preparation balanced the first zone). This is an uphill battle against corruption.

[@showwhite7320]

"This becomes Andrew's Game. What gives you the right to change the rules?" I don't think this is a valid point. It's obvious that the rules need to be changed since spectating has gotten boring. Moreever, fundamentally, rules always should change. We need to keep moving forward and make progress. The inherent nature of conservatism is wrong. It's human nature to fear change because with change, there inevitably comes mistakes. And mistakes hurt. But we need to accept that mistakes will happen and it's ok. If we don't progress, others will and we will be left behind. This applies not only to fencing but to society as a whole.

[@CyrusofChaos]

"I hope you like constructive feedback but you have no right to suggest rules changes that you think will improve the game." I hope you like constructive feedback as well, because attacking someone immediately is not a good way to make them receptive to anything you say after. Many people have disagreed with certain points in this thread and others and I am happy to converse with those people. 2. How do you know? "Bringing back tall fencers to the meta". The tallest fencers who were around on 120ms timing were Ben Igoe, Andriy Yagodka, Aliaksandr Buikevich, Nicolas Rousset, and Seppe Van Holsbeke. Only three non-satellite FIE events were won by any of those three fencers during this time period and those were all won by Buikevich. Montano did quite well during this period, as did Szilagyi, both of whom are not particularly tall. I don't think that 90ms is necessarily the best timing, I am just making a suggestion to rebalance things based on the original stipulations set forth by the Russians: "we want more parries and stronger defense than we had at 120ms". I personally thought that the game was very healthy during the early part of this period so "Andrew's Game" would actually be to go back to 120ms. Instead of condescending to me for proposing a change that i think will improve the sport, you propose one. What's your idea to improve the issues I put forth in this video? GLHF

[@Argiur]

@CyrusofChaos I would be against changing down to 90ms. It was not mentioned, but height could be more relevant. I would compare it to epee - the shortest timing weapon favours taller fencers. Solutions. 1 - No changes, but hold referees more/less accountable 2 - (nerf to ~145ms, not 90ms), or 3. Bring it back to 120ms 1. There are some aspects of the new timing that people enjoy. Like the easier interpretation of RoW. But referees can be bought. 2. The FIE thought extending the timing from 120ms would be good. Then, maybe extending is still the right call. I always thought the original intent was to reduce simultaneous actions, which was the main criticism back then(?). 2016 seemed the best. 3. Keep to the original essence of the game. The neutral game was balanced and complex, but it was difficult for audiences.

[@steveheck4348]

@@CyrusofChaos What about Nicolas Limbach? He fenced under 120ms.

[@stephencheng1785]

Agree completely that timing in sabre should be shorten significantly. 90 millisecond or even shorter if possible. Yes right of way rules are virtually uninterpretable given the speed of modern sabre fencers, so instead of anguishing over how to change it or improve it, why not just get rid of it. Shorten the timed out time as much as posssible, get rid of right of way rules such as attack in preparation and throw out all simultaneous touches--these changes will take subjective elements out of judging and force sabre fencers to fence in a way that'll alow them to hit their opponents without getting hit themselves.

[@archardor3392]

But then why should I bother parrying? I can just make a simultaneous touch and it will be thrown out. This will make defense way too powerful, like in epee, except in epee you have to stab for a simultaneous which is much more difficult than just touching the opponent like sabre.