Talk:Foil (fencing)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 16 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CylentRain.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

FIE legality of non-maraging blades

In the section describing blade material, it is stated that maraging steel is the only material legal for international competition when, in fact, any material is legal as long as it conforms to the requirements for shape, weight, flexibility, conductivity, length, and the SEMI committee's durability test. There have been experimental composite blades that were legal, but never produced because fencers preferred the balance of the steel blade instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.151.210 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The following doesn't quite meet NPOV, and is a little inaccurate:

"There are three main types of foil, the most common being the French style, with a grip (handle or hilt) designed to facilitate greater finesse. Other types include the Italian style, which is designed more for control and power, and the orthopedic, or pistol-grip, which takes the need for a firm hold on the weapon even further. Critics of the pistol-grip, however, claim this leads to a "deathgrip" on the foil and inhibits true mastery."

So I changed it to this:

"There are three main types of foil, including the French style, with a grip (handle or hilt) designed to facilitate greater finesse. Other types include the Italian style, whose grip is designed more for control and power, and the orthopedic, or pistol grip, which takes the need for a firm hold on the weapon even further. The French style is commonly found among classical fencing masters, while sport fencers often prefer the pistol grip. Critics of the pistol grip, however, claim this leads to a "deathgrip" on the foil and inhibits true mastery."

But those are the main ones, the main grips are only French and variations of the Pistol grip. Italian is uncommon, sure it is still used, but not as much as the main two. Yeah I kind of agree to the "deathgrip" because I've noticed that my hand sorta grabs onto the pistol a bit too hard sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.113.98 (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is a deathgrip? I've always used pistols, with the exception of dry weapons, and haven't noticed any ailments. Aside from that, I think that article is much better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.226.216 (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A deathgrip is simply gripping the weapon too hard.

I went and corected the grip section to indicate that the Italian, while legal, ir rarely used. In addition, I corected the part about the foil circuit....the light does NOT fire on completion of the circuit....that's epee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.88.17 (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the record, is it even worth mentioning the certain variations of the Italian grip? They resemble pistols except they have a small ring for the forefinger. I've never seen one in the states, so whether they're legal in competition is beyond me, although my brother fenced with one in the UK once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickiswalter (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the NPOV warning still needed for this section? The wording has moved on, and seems to have dealt with the issue which was raised. Random name (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree weith Random Name, the issue (whatever it was) appears to have been resolved; the editor who placed the tag didn't leave a comment as to what (s)he thought was NPOV. So I decided to be bold and removed it. Nibios (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I know the Italian grip is in the picture right now for historical reasons, but I think that it should really be an modern electric French or pistol grip. At the very least one should be present for comparison. Isopropyl 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about getting a picture of a foil.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the Italian grip is even mentioned in the article - as far as I know it is not used at all in modern fencing. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of sport fencing is with a pistol grip, and very few people use French. It tends to cause a more violent style of fencing due to much less control over the foil. --Katrielalex 23:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you know how to use it, the French grip gives an extreme amount of control over the foil, but most people do not know how to use it, and it also doesn't allow for flicking, which may or may not be re-introduced. In any case, the Italian grip is extremely rare in all weapons.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 03:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be rare, but the Italian is used by some in sport fencing. You could never get me to trade my Italian grip for a French or Pistol. It's saved me from being disarmed on at least two occasions where I only had my fingers in a ring but was able to recover before my opponent pressed the advantage.TerminalSaint 07:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC

But since a disarm stops the action, it is not terribly critical to keep from being disarmed.

Agreed. French grip, with accomplished fencer, is less violent in my experience.--Epeefleche 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I have no experience of international-level fencing so I'm just talking about what I know. In any case, Italian should go, right? --Katrielalex 07:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the violent people gravitate more towards the pistols than the pistols causing violence. It does make for a much more powerful beat, and it is also easier on the two main fingers when going against a larger opponent. Anyway, it is important enough to be worth a mention

Do we still want a picture of a french or orthopedic grip? I can provide either - shall I just replace the italian one? (To be fair, I was quite interested in the picture of the italian grip - I've never seen one before.) Random name (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's 2012 and the picture of the Italian grip foil is still there. No competitive foil fencer uses this grip, it's like having a picture of a penny-farthing replica in an article on bicycle racing. Can someone please upload a picture of a normal, ie visconti or belgian pistol grip foil? I'm not a foil fencer or I'd do it myself, but this is ridiculous. Baron ridiculous (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Todays Top Foil Fencers" section

Seems like just a bunch of badly formatted and mispelled assertions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.157.4 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Would someone with adequate knowledge of the sport (i.e. not myself) mind checking the last paragraph under "Foil Today" for accuracy and NPOV? 68.95.231.34 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Grips

I know a person who was carrying 30-ish pistol grip foils for his fencing team and when he entered the airport, the police said "what do you have in there?" and he said, "30 pistol grips"... I think you know what happened next.

Possibly apocryphal story: the airport security people were looking under the bell guard and fooling with the wires there, and the fencer said "don't mess around with the wires or it won't go off". I think you can guess what happened there, too! Jsavit (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fleuret

I wiki'd Fleuret and got redirected to foil, but there is no reference to fleuret here, so I am none the wiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceDragon64 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fleuret is French for "foil" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.1.16 (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In the current version of the article we find: "The foil was invented in France as a training weapon in the middle of the 18th century in order to practise fast and elegant thrust fencing". Definitely earlier, at least by 50-60 or even 70 years.
Assaut entry in a French etymological dictionary: http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/assaut
"3. 1680 escr. (Rich. : Assaut. Terme de maître d'armes. Combat de deux personnes à coup de fleuret). Du lat. pop. *assaltus, réfection du lat. class. assultus « assaut attaque » d'apr. saltus (saut*) (Virgile, Énéide, 5, 442 ds TLL s.v., 913, 61)"
One of the first French dictionaries, 1680, by César-Pierre Richelet (1626-1698).
-- Ulrich von Lichtenstein (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Competition scoring

Was watching the Olympics today, and the scoring seems to have changed since I was last near a sword (okay I never reached Olympic standard but I did fence for my college) it used to be first to 5 points with no time limits, can someone add something about scoring. Thanks. KTo288 (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there were time limits when you were in college, but they may have been ignored (contrary to the rules) in matches you fenced in. Years ago: 5 minutes fencing time in a 5-touch bout, now it's 3 minutes. The scoring is different in several ways from the rules decades ago: touches are now scored for the fencer making the touch rather than as "touches against" (expressed differently: if you score a touch you now have 1 added to your score, and the first fencer to reach 5 touches wins. Previously 1 was added to your score if you were hit, and the first person to be hit 5 times lost). Same thing effectively, but perhaps more easily understood. The other big change from decades ago is that most matches only have 5-touch individual bouts in a single round of "pools" (groups of 5 to 7 fencers each fencing one another round-robin style). The results of this round are used purely for seeding purposes for direct elimination ("DE") rounds, which are based on 15-touch bouts, with 3 periods of 3 minutes fencing team each, separated by 1 minute rest periods. As in the 5-touch bouts used in pools, the bout ends either when a fencer reaches the 15 or 5 touches for that bout format, or time runs out. None of this is specific to foil fencing, so should not be added to this article. Jsavit (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Anatomyoffoil.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All Caps Surnames

In the list of names at the bottom of the article, there are many surnames that are expressed entirely in capital letters. Is this standard in the sport / where does that come from. I know no reason for it, so I don't know why it should be the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.226.57 (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Foil as a thrusting weapon reference

I removed this reference...the rule does NOT mean that you can only score by "stabbing," it means that points can only be scored with the point, compared to sabre where any part of the blade can score.

Don't just read the rules....UNDERSTAND them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.37.180 (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

American fencers list

Country fencers lists IMO should not be linked to this page with 150 countries in FIE it is improbable to maintain. No troll (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But how many of them have lists? I'm willing to bet it's a lot less than 150. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All countries maintain lists of their fencers. Maintaining special lists leads to the opionionated articles that lose their neutrality. There is no logical link between rules of foil fencing an d alist of male foil fencers from USA.No troll (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

American Fencing League

Mentioning of American Fencing League in this article is clearly a promotion of small non for profit organization that is not needed to be mentioned as rules of foil fencing are explained. No troll (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Conventional Weapons

There are numerous descriptions of right of way between the different fencing related pages. I feel a separate page detailing 'Conventional weapons' (or something) should be created that can give a laymans description of right of way, rather than having separate descriptions on the Fencing page, Sabre page, foil page, and tactics page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslimmer (talk • contribs) 12:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no "conventional weapon" right of way - there are priority rules for foil, and there are priority rules for sabre. These priority rules have a lot in common, but a few differences. It is very difficult to write a basic, accurate, description of priority rules, because they are quite complex and involve specialized terminology - as is shown by the attempts at writing simple descriptions of priority rules. 130.216.60.4 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the rules of priority are different for foil and sabre are slightly different, but I still think they should be written about in the same place - or at very least, only one place for foil and one place for sabre. As it stands there are multiple explanations all over the different fencing articles.

Jslimmer (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Steam foil"?

I assume this is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek term for a non-electric foil. Perhaps someone could provide some additional content for this reference. 84.203.33.248 (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No tongue-in-cheek term ;-). Steam foil is a pretty normal fencing term. AFAIK dry (US)/steam (UK) foil. A quick Google test will confirm this.
-- Ulrich von Lichtenstein (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Women in foil

The wording of part of the introduction to this article is confusing. It states that: "Women were only able to compete with the foil until recently." This makes it sound like women are no longer able to compete in foil, although it is not even clear that that would be what this sentence means. Perhaps what is meant is that: "Women were not able to compete with the foil until recently."?

I only didn't want to correct it myself because I am not a fencing expert, just a confused native English speaker.

Crazyeirishman (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

History and Hamlet

The article says that the foil was invented in the mid-eighteenth century, but it is mentioned in Hamlet (Act 5 scene 2), which is 150 years earlier. Tigerboy1966  05:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Redundant subsection on priority / right of way moved here for discussion

The following subsection, which [a] is longer than the main article's section on the subject, [b] is overly long as a subsection in this section, and [c] is entirely without soucring, making it a violation of WP:VERIFY or WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH—is moved here so that it can be edited and shortened to a reasonable length, based on reliable, authoritative sourcing (which we appear to have been too lazy to research and pull, to date). Here is the overly long, and unsourced text:

Foil competition and scoring is governed by the rules of priority, also known as right of way. As such, points are not necessarily awarded to the first fencer to hit, but to the fencer who hits with the priority. As such foil fencing consists of not just trying to hit the opponent, but also 'battling for priority', which adds a tactical dimension to the game. Priority is established when one fencer starts a correctly executed attack. An attack which has failed (i.e. has missed, stopped forward progress or been parried) no longer holds the priority. The convention of refereeing will automatically give right of way to the defender provided they take over immediately with their 'answering' action. Priority automatically passes to the defending fencer when they parry; Where the attack was parried, the defender has the right to make a riposte, but it must be initiated without indecision or delay; In other words, if the defending fencer parries successfully, but then waits and does not immediately riposte, they lose the right of way. The fencer making the original attack may also make a new offensive action, a renewal or remise of the initial attack but there is certain risk in doing so, for example when they have been parried, because they would then be making renewal/ remise while their opponent had the priority. There are a special range of fencing actions in this situation; A classical response where the defender parries the attack successfully and begins riposting is for the attacker to recover from their lunge and make a counter parry (a parry of the defenders riposting action) and riposte in turn. This is called the counter riposte.

In foil only actions that arrive with priority are considered valid for scoring a point (unless only one fencer actually hits, in which case having the priority is immaterial, and the fencer whose action arrived would be awarded the point provided that it was on the target area).

In the case of both fencers actions arriving where the fencer with priority hit off target then even if the other fencer hits on target, no point is to be awarded, as priority takes precedence. However play is halted and the fencers reset to en guard.

In the case where both of the fencers hit on target, the fencer who had priority is awarded the point. There can be a situation when both fencers attack where the referee cannot decide who began; "simultaneous action", in which no point is awarded.

Please do not return this text to the article before:

• (i) reviewing and rationalizing this text with the other article containing the same content (in bullet/outline form, there, so even worse, see the further tag, that appears at the head of this subsection, in the article);
• (ii) deciding what small summary statement needs to be made here, so that on return of content, this subsection does not overwhelm the rest of the section; and
• (iii) improving both this and the main section on priority/r.o.w. by tying the content directly to authoritative sources.

Thank you for your consideration. Discussion or disagreements here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)