Another whinge. If you want to support the channel join the Slicer Sabre Patreon: / slicersabre Follow Slicer Sabre on Instagram for more fencing highlights: / slicersabre
really great points, I often am stewing with frustration because at my local club I feel like there are so many simultaneous actions but then I think "well, at competition with other refs, they would be hair splitting this call" so I feel like I then have to hair split on details that I feel less justified with. Re: your point about "who's less bad," our head coach tells me this joke: "I think in a decade with where saber is headed, competitions will have two pistes with two practice targets. Each competitor will get on the starting line, and advance lunge at the dummy, and the referee panel will score them"
the year is 20XX every sabre fencer is so good off the line that everything happens in the box, fencing has been pushed to the extreme now touches are decided before the bout based of which side has more A/C cooling them down making them slower by 0.00001%. This is the world the FIE want
It also seems bonkers cause there is no consequences after the initial touch you win and then the opposing touch is ignored. eg being touched within 0.2 seconds should be assumed the winning side had no defense and a point should not be awarded. Without protection in a traditional duel the opponent would be injured obviously since they would take a strike eg its a win without defense required. Like in the clip above both duel opponents would have stabbed each other basically which makes the sport kinda stupid.
Yeah because cutting is such an easy offensive action I would move priority to who: point in line, parry repost, evades, beat attacks. Running in and slapping should not be considered skill.
The whole "there's no such thing as simul trend" is such nonsense. There's a certain point where if both fencers start and finish at the same time it should correctly be called as "simultaneous attacks" not "too close to split". It's incredibly frustrating that the new generation of refs are being trained this way. It's so much easier to ref as well. Yes, if it's too loose you get non-committal chicken fencing, and that would be a huge issue on modern timings, but it's gotten ridiculous, and is acting to provide cover for some of the more egregious corruption.
Outstanding analysis of the current situation in sabre fencing. You have said out loud what other coaches and referees have said to me confidentiality in private.
I'm so glad to know I'm not the only one going "huh???" watching recent matches. I learnt sabre about 7 years ago, and simultaneous was taught as "no one made an withdrawal to their attack" (as in moving their arm back, etc) and "intent". I took a break from fencing for about 3 years and have recently started watching games again, there were so many touches that seemed like simultaneous to me were not called simultaneous by the ref. I thought there had been a change in rules in the years I haven't been watching games. This ruins so many amazing back and forths that could had happened and were actually of educational value. I'm relieved to know there are other people who also see this problem.
Excellent and a very level headed video! I like how you have discussed lately such important topics which, for some reason, do not get enough attention and are mostly ignored.
In all the recent videos about the controversies in fencing, watching the touches I was always thinking like almost all of them should have been simul. But I wondered if it was just that I've not fenced in long enough that I've gotten bad at seeing what happens, so I'm glad to know I'm not the only person thinking that's an issue.
Good analysis. You brought out the biggest problem with sabre fencing today--that is the unacceptably high percentage of spectator who would disagree with referees" call on almost every single touch in the course of pretty much any bouts. Yes, that's because there's way too much hair splitting going on in sabre fencing. I agree with you totally that the rules need to be updated/overhauled to the extent that you won't need two referees pouring over replays repeated on every single touch to determine who has the right of way. It should be readily apparent to a casual observer as to who won the touch. I have a very simple proposition: declare all simultaneous lights as, well, simultaneous, and toss them all out. That means basically getting rid of all right of way rules such as attack on prep. Only one light counts. This will force sabre fencers to fence in such a way that they hit the other guy without getting hit themselves, and any casual observer can ready tell who actually scored the touch and who didn't.
This would just turn sabre into a shitty version of epee. If only one light counts then there is no incentive to parry because you can easily negate any attack with a counterattack out of time.
As usual, I'm going to bring out my big insane suggestions. 1) Reducing timing back to 125 ms. I'll hate it, but I'll get over it. 2) Return to win by two points. 3) Sabre gets on guard on the two meter line and warning line, with 3 meters between the fencers. (You start at an end chosen by coin flip). 4) Every 4 validly started actions (false starts don't count) you start at the opposite end. 5) There is no simultaneous off of the line. If both fencers make an attack the fencer closer to their end gets the point. Congrats, sabre will now have many more marches. Every bout will take longer, but actions will have the same pace. I see this as a feature, not a bug.
Beautiful Video, Great work, I would apreciate if there was a video explaining the Attack-ContraAttack (or if anyone would like to explain in terms), it is always a bit complicated to understand it
I get what Cyrus of Chaos is saying about shorter lockout to reduce the number of actions in the middle. But for me the golden age of sabre wasn't pre 2012 it was that period between 2014 and 2019 where actions were being split in the middle, to allow for athletic AiP and punish hesitation. But not split so far that we get the "go to 0.01x slow mo and keep watching until you see a mistake, or make one up". I have thought what you've said for a while, we just need to go back to admitting that simuls exist, and that actions in the middle don't just need to be marginal, but clear to everyone who's point it is. That is better for the sport, the athletes, and the spectators.
In foil you get many of the calls where at 14-14 there is a simultaneous action multiple times in a row until someone does something creative enough, if simul would at least exist in Sabre that would force the fencers to fence more interesting.
Personally because the athletes are so fast and the weapons so lightweight I'd give them both a point if they land at the same time and move priority to parry repost, beat, point in line, and after a failed attack.
I personally am not a fan of the rule of right of way in the first place. Do you think removing it at all would be too drastic of a solution to the problem of "needing slo mo cameras" and causing fencers to need to beat the other clearly? Personally I think for sabre, two lights should indicate no point. It's faster than Epee, and as such, awarding a point to both would make matches go by much faster, and I personally think would incentivise better fencing, rather than simply continuous races to the centre where the point relies 90% on the ref making a call. Then again, removing right of way may completely change the sport as a whole and might end up looking like Epee with slashes. Perhaps this is my HEMA bias coming through, but I personally would prefer to fence under this ruleset. Any thoughts?
I understand that from a hema perspective double touches should not be awarded. However as you said this would turn it into epee but with slashing. Right of way cannot be eliminated from sabre and foil but the rules should be clearer and less subjective to referee decision.
We do this but the problem is that it is way too easy to get a light off on the box and the only always winning strategy is to just stand there and hit them at the same time. Modern electric sabers would need some sort of smart saber that insures only quality hits register but that still wouldn't stop people from either just blindly charging or counterattacking into any and all attempts by the opponent to hit.We can see this in some HEMA footage.
It seems that referees favor a direct straight attack; if the opponent simultaneously starts a compound attack and lands at the same time, they lose the point because I think the referee interprets it as hesitation, searching for the blade or whatever. It should still be considered simultaneous. I started fencing sabre in the pre-electric days and while the old judging system was fraught with its own issues, at least you didn’t have to worry as much about “cheap” touches resulting from parry whip-overs or just lightly brushing the target with the flat of the blade, which shouldn’t count, but the lights don’t know any better.
The "there is no such thing as simultaneous" thing annoys me to hell. I come from a kendo background which like fencing if not a bit more nebulous has rules dictating what touches are legitimate or not. Because of this like fencing we end up with a lot of mutual strikes situations where both players step off-line striking to the head. Indeed the more experienced you are the better you can read the situation and usually someone has the control and initiative but in many many cases it's just hard to figure it out. Yet even early level coaches are instructed that there is no such thing as "at the same time" like yeah in concept it doesn't in reality we have to go by our senses which may read it as mutual. Telling referes that mutual don't exist is encouraging them to make coinflip decisions and at that point I would rather you brought out an actual coin cause then atleast it for sure has no bias
I agree so much, in the recent years the simultaneous calls have disappeared, and that’s such a shame because as you said, it feels like the referees are tossing a coin to decide who to give the touch to. Sometimes you just can’t separate the actions…
@@MorganLefeuvre i agree, especially with actions like attack on preperation and remises. Both are so subjective right now you have now way of knowing what the referee will say. I think we just need to keep it simple. Whoever goes forward has right of way and the only way the right of way turns over is if the opponent beats the blade, makes the attacker stop, or the attacker searches for the blade. I also think that the focus should not be on this but with blade contact and whose parry/counterparry it is. More often than not i find these actions more frustrating than pure ROW calls
What if they just remove right of way? If both get hit, either no point or both get a point like in epee. Would that make sabre fencers move more carefully and make the game more entertaining?
@@peanutbutter141 true! And as an foil fencer i like the sport how it is. I have tryed epee, but i dont like it. Its too passiv for me. But i see the problems in saber. Maybe make the target size smaler in saber? Could help to have more parade riposte.
It will be simply épée with slashes, as someone else said, unless they start using literally hema sabres. It's kinda fun btw how, in fact, épée and sabre (olympic) differ so little.
@christianschellbruck9788 handling-wise? Not really, they are almost the same thing. Olympic fencing sabre is so light and handle-balanced it's absurdly light, to the point it is literally useless in any other application then sporting purpose. It's so light you can literally use it as an epee and see very little difference compared to trying to use historical sabre like that. Only rules make olympic sabre fencing different to olympic épée fencing, cause the weapon is virtually an épée with something acting like an edge. You couldn't cut so lightly with historical sabre as you can with olympic sabre, since the historical sabre is more blade-heavy. Also such a tippy-tap simply wouldn't be effective.
The FIE have never changed the fundamental rules that define the attack, parry, riposte etc. I believe that refereeing needs to return to respecting these rules, irrespective of what the feet are doing, notwithstanding crossing the feet going forward and irrespective of which direction the fencers are moving. In other words, respect what the hand is doing. I re-read the section (t.84) on simultaneous actions this morning. It's not easy at modern sabre speeds, however it is achievable. The referee ought to explain their decisions in such cases as presented here. Perhaps what we are seeing is an attempt to achieve this. Maybe we should only award points for single light hits? I also always come back to the concept behind the right-of-way, that it is attempting to answer the question, what if these were sharp weapons? Which is why we should respect what the hand is doing. The feet merely get you within range.
if we only awarded points for single light this would give the defender and incentive to only pursue counterattackes (i.e. to get their light on) instead of actually trying to defend and parry/get out of distance.
Why not use the electronics to make the call instead of relying on the video? Within 50ms or so should be split. Everything else should be one way or another. You will never get this kind of resolution with video and removes the pressure from the judge.
It is frustrating to watch both sides dramatically cheer after any contact. I get that they're trying to influence the judges, but it makes the sport so obnoxious.
This is why i prefer historic fencing over modern. In most tournaments any double/simultaneous hit is not counted. This prevents you from getting in the mindset of "I just need to touch him first" and requires greater emphasis on parrying incoming blows.
Whilst I appreciate where you are coming from, right of way is not about hitting first it is about attacking first. There is a very important difference.
@@SlicerSabrethat's what every MOFer turned HEMAist has told me. And every time they do I tell them that every single HEMA tournament that I have attended that uses ROW (EVERY SINGLE ONE) has turned into a bull rush to land the first attack where exchanges end in 1-2 moves, funny enough mirroring the issues with sabre exactly. And you know when someone has done MOF, especially sabre, because they will all attack constantly with very little care about preserving themselves. I said this exact same thing to them and they told me that in actually ROW promotes defense because if you successfully parry then you get priority. Therefore it "discourages doubles" and promotes careful fencing. But while they can say that however many times they want, I find that statement to be completely false and utter bullshit. In reality most people would rather go for the easy first touch win then try to anticipate an attack and make a successful parry. The expectation that people would not take a shortcut to win is fantastical, and directly contradicted by the state of Olympic fencing today.
Worse part is how they say no doubles occur in ROW fencing because there is always a winner, failing to realize that the only reason doubles do not occur is because they have changed the definition of what a double is. Where as to most people in HEMA it means two attacks hitting within the same tempo (i.e. if the latter attack was already in motion when the first attack hit), to MOFers turned HEMAists it means true simultaneous hits instead which of course would be rare. So they will count something to be a successful attack and not a double as long as it did not happen at exactly the exact time and both fencers were doing the same action of advancing/retreating. Either way I despise ROW and MOF that brouht it to popularity because I see it as a complete mockery of actual swordsmanship where the goal is to survive, not win and you either defend yourself properly or you die.
I think a second issue with Sabre, at least as a spectator sport, is the frankly embarrassing tendency towards over exaggerated, mask-off celebrations. Likely a reaction to this kind of refereeing, it really spoils sabre as a sport to watch. I enjoy playing all 3 weapons, but to me, epee is the best spectator weapon. Maybe because there's no referee controversy, but certainly because there's none of this OTT screaming going on.
Part of the issue too with the attitude "nothing is simul" is the rules as written don't dictate that simul means mirror image. The rules clearly talk about the timing of initiation of the attack not how you carry out the attack. Conventions however dictate you split as fine as possible and overall I find refs tend to award more towards short, direct attacks to a lower line than high line/head attacks even if the timing is very close. This video is a great tack on to CryusofChaos' series on rules and conventions
I fence saber, epee, and very occasionally foil at the local level. One thing that I have noticed is how much clearer it is to me in foil when I ask the referee about a call and they tell me what they saw. Foil: Ah yeah okay that makes sense, I/my opponent did do that. Saber: Really? Okay, if you say so... And I have also been told during a referee certification evaluation (USA) that there should be very few calls of simultaneous, and that to a certain extent I have to listen to my gut or my instinct, because part of what you are trying to read is intent. All of this makes my job as a coach more difficult, because I sometimes just don't know what to tell my students when they are confused about RoW and how they can get more favorable calls.
What's the worst thing about fencing? Is it referee corruption? Is it the money/funding? Is it the Olympic qualification process? Is it the interpretation of the rules are controlled too much by a closed group of influential referees? Is it that the rules should be clearer to reduce that influence? Is it the low rates of drug testing? Is it the severe burnout when young fencers are going to simultaneous rounds of cadet, junior and senior events? There are plenty of great things about this sport that keep me competing 30 years since I started, but hard to single out one thing right now.
You don't draw the line anywhere, I fought in sabre for many years. Referees are blind. Just make the rule that if you have 2 lights both players get 1:1, and if there is one light, one player gets 2:0. Then if at point 5 or point 15 you have a draw depending on the stage of the tournament, you play sudden death. Easy enough and you do not rely on people not blinking when the action is happening, opens up sabre to any style of play as long as one player is able to get single light. You also have simpler rules for clubs and amateur fencers have a lower barrier to enter the sport because there is literally zero arbitrary decisions being made on the looks. No amount of shouting from the players have the way of influencing the decisions so they can shout all they want.
1. Great alternative i keep advocating: Single light gives 2 points, double light with priority gives 1 point. Reduces referee impact by 50%, and makes single lights more exiting. Using it since years club internal and its incredible, everyone should give it a try. 2. On another topic, making priority more hand initiative based instead of movement direction, would help sabre. 3. To me simul is when both actions are inside human reaction time, so they *cant react* to each others action.
Im an epeeist who fences sabre on the side. I feel the really tight nuances of sabre make it extremely confusing. I usually ref when im taking a break during practice at my club. If they meet in the dead middle without clear hesitation, its simul. I dont have the ability to see everything going on all at once. My big gripe with sabre is what constitutes a beat or parry. Like i feel its now called a parry if your opponent's blade makes contact with yours, not even getting it off the line of attack, and they repost fast enough. Its definitely probably a misconception on my part but i feep sabre now just gets hung up on conventions rather than any remote realism to what it mimics. If you still died why would you get the point? I feel that its just become a game of pulling the wool over the eyes of observers and refs. I think they need to incorporate the accelerometer to gauge whether a hit would even realistically draw blood. The tiniest tap that isnt felt or seen just is boring. I wish sabre had a tight lockout like epee. If you dont parry it clean off the line in lieu for a faster riposte, it shouldnt be rewarded because of right of way. I know hema is a thing too but its not really what im interested in. I love sabre for those touches that arent just within the first half second. I find myself stepping away from sabre more often because of that.
The spirit of right of way is that, in a real fight, you would not start an attack once u see your opponent has already committed to an attack that is going to hit. If the fencers themselves cannot tell who started first, they cannot be expected to change their action. Simultaneous action should be called if the difference is not obvious enough to the naked eye. Splitting things with slow motion down to milliseconds is not the way to go, fencing is not a race.
Totally. I’ve been saying this for years. If it needs to be split with a fine tooth comb it should be called simultaneous. The idea that ‘there’s no such thing as simultaneous action’ is simply ridiculous. And in foil as well, even though foil reffing isn’t currently nearly as problematic as saber.
I agree. I don't think it's the job of a referee to compare attacks for quality. Do they start at the same time? Are they correctly executed? My guess is that the difficulty comes as much from the fear of calling both attacks as incorrect as calling them both correct.
Reestablish simultaneous attacks, and reestablish the flèche. The heyday of sabre was in the late 1970s when 5-touch bouts between fencers like Nazlimov and Maffei could last more than 3 minutes; but then Karpati changed it all because he wanted sabre to look as it was in the 1950s when he was fencing.
Okay, total noob here (2 months of olympic sabre, basic HEMA expierence) i kinda wonder why they just wont introduce more hema style approach, both in the weapon construction and scoring. I dont want to glorify hema, but nowadays it's so much more fun to watch hema sabre then olympic sabre. HEMA sabre shows you all different exchanges etc., while watching some olympic sabre sometimes turns into watching 2 guys touching eachother with 1st or 2nd attack 20 times. The "proplay" simply isnt fun to watch. (I'm not trashing olympic sabre as such, since I kinda fell in love in fencing myself. But to watch... hell nah, id rather see some hema sabre)
At this point, I have given up on WotC. There os no love of the game or respect for it, it's lore, the creators, and especially the players. Everything is just short sighted cash grab. Every product is just thrown together quickly and tossed out without any quality control. No world book is supported with any follow up adventures. Core elements of the setting are just forgotten or handwaved. Who needs ship combat in Spelljammer? WotC has become a graveyard for ideas, originality, and fun.
I'm pretty sure that if you played the footage of a match to a referee 5 years later without him seeing who gets which point he would rule differently. As a sports spectator, someone who loves the olympic games I find fencing painfully confusing and often boring. I'm sad being a fantasy fan I love the idea of sword fighting (kinda) made into sport. In current form though (I have no idea how to fix this BTW) it is unberable to watch.
If some rules were applied strictly then we mght have less simultaneous attacks, vis a line can be put out while retreating (yes?), so if it takes more than a step lunge for the guy coming forward to hit (assuming he doesn't beat the blade) then the line should get priority (yes?), since anything before the step lunge is preparation. This chasing down the piste with the arm baclk until the guy with the line stops at the back of the piste, would not work. In fact the guy with the line should be able to stop retreating once he has a distance that would require more than a finishing lunge from the guy coming forward. I feel this is more in the spirit of a martial art since once the guy coming forward 'attacking' can 'see' the point in line threatening him, if he had time (i.e. was not already about to lunge) he would obviously want to deflect the point so that he/she was not impailed!
There is only one solution to this problem I see. make priority alternate for each point, like serving in tennis, and you have to win by two points. The FIE would probably never take it up, but would make it much more entertaining for everyone and make everyone better at attacking and defending instead of just extending their arm quicker than the other guy
I haven't watched international sabre in a few years and I was shocked to see a complete lack of simultaneous calls in the Olympics this year. It just made the sabre competitions seem very arbitrary.
Your clips of long rallies and multiple back and forth are what I imagine fencing to be like (not being a true follower). A match without a lot of “simultaneous “ touches seems less about the fencers and more about the refs…
I feel the whole video's point is solved by saying that even by attack someone's arm reached first so the person whose arm reached first gets the point
Same thought! I wish it were like that. It's more realistic, and we might see more strategic moves instead of of fencers fighting for right of way, and strange referee calls.
@@peanutbutter141 No. I meant if the rules stay the same but make smaler target area so its more difficult to hit and maybe we see more parade riposte and longer duells
Loosen up the middle slightly, for sure. Also relax generous timing for reprise takeovers after a clear miss, maybe make tous les deux blade actions go to the defender instead of the attacker, and you've got a much more balanced offense/defense game.
ive noticed this a lot recently too, i took a break from fencing for a couple years and coming back and watching a lot of recent videos from championships im always left questioning the refereeing of them. So many in the box points that didnt make sense, as well as a lot of other touches called that just shouldnt have been in any way. For example 'Madrid World Cup Cavaliere v Aron Szilagyi' twice a point was awarded to Szilagyi after an attack no, then a reprise, claiming that Cavaliere didnt take over the attack quick enough despite it being almost impossible for him to have taken over any quicker. I know no referee is perfect but I never saw this many poor calls years ago, like as you said back in 2019 the years of Oh Sanguk.
I think the whole premise that simultaneous actions should be reduced or eliminated is misguided. I think it should be simply seen as a form of passivity. You have a lot of situations in epee with passivity from both sides. This is a bit similar - not taking a risk in order to gain priority in sabre is similar to waiting out of distance in epee. Even the 2019 era and the 2010 era and the 2000 era had similar problems, not as much, but many similarly controversial touches. That desire to reduce the amount of simultaneous actions is many decades old. And there used to be a very natural solution to it: awarding a priority explicitly after 3 simu actions by flipping a coin who goes first. It worked very well. They took it out with the idea of making it easier for spectators to follow (simpler rules apparently) - well, I don't think that objective was achieved. On the contrary, now even top fencers are confused by what is going on.
@@SlicerSabre Yup, exactly. I've often jokingly suggested that in this situations, it would be more fair to actually flip a coin a award the touch accordingly, rather than pretend there is some logic behind it and have people embarrass themselves by trying to rationalize the call.
Would you consider making a video analyzing HEMA sabre matches from your modern sabre perspective ? I have a few good ones I could send you. I think it could be very interesting
My problem with sabre isn't the game itself but the lack of consistency and objectivity in rules. In that regard HEMA doesn't sound much better- no electric scoring, no single ruleset, no international governing body, etc....
I haven't kept up with fencing as much these days, but I did notice that a couple years ago, Martilotti seemed to call quite a few good simuls the most compared to other referees. (He's the ref who called simul at that 4m action at 44-44 in the Korea Hungary final....the same match which got him and Papa Toure suspended for uhhh reasons.)
As much as I hated the shortened timing in Sabre from the 2000s to 2015 era (120ms) it did take a lot of calls out of the referees hands and did not allow quite such stupid holding type attacks as we see now. Also the referee prioritized the hand as the way of taking the RoW and not the foot. Go back and watch matches from the 2008 olymic games - it's almost unrecognisable. But better than the rock always wins we have now :(
When I used to fence I always hated facing off against opponents that would yell(cheer) and try and sway the refs after every simultaneous attack. I get that emotions can be high during competition but it always felt disingenuous. The annoying part was definitely when it worked and they would get the point. That's really my only nit pick for sabre. I feel like siml attacks were meant to gauge your opponents speed and eventually try and change the timing allowing for better touches.
Absolutely right, I am a foil fencer, and this olympics I was very suprised on how little simultaneous attacks called in sabre. This just encourages fencers to extend their arms slightly earlier than the other.
A few years ago there were too many simuls. I watched a DE in the US where there had to have been 20 simuls, one after the other. Ridiculous. Now there are almost no simuls. The pendulum always swings too far.
Maybe if boxes could record the timing it would help, so in simultaneous touches, the window is much tighter, say 50 ms. It would disambiguate some calls when neither party has priority
The issue is with the ruleset, not the referees. The referees has as much power as the ruleset gives them. I understand that it is not an easy task, especially with the level of athleticism today, to have a simple and clear ruleset where the referee will be more like an admisnistrator rather than a "decider". But in my humble opinion I think that this should be the way that FIE has to follow as a concept in updating the ruleset in the future.
