At the start of the 2004 season, the FIE announced that the timings for hits in foil and saber would change. In foil, the dwell time – the amount of time the foil tip has to be depressed to record a hit – was increased from to 1-5 ms (milliseconds) to 15 ms. The cut off time in foil – the window during which an one fencer has a chance to turn on a light when his or her opponent's light is already on – was shortened from 350 ms to 300 ms. The FIE hoped that changing the dwell time would put an end to "flick attacks". There was further hope that changing the cut off time would discourage marching actions, in which the fencer advances down the strip with the arm back, waiting until the last second to commit to finishing the attack. The FIE felt that marching attacks ending in the flick had ruined the character of foil, and that the timing changes would force fencers to rely on more convention actions.

The fencing community was universally against the new timings. The belief by many was that the new timings would turn foil into a sort of light weight épée, that the remise would dominate all foil phrases, and foil tactics were dead. I posted in a several public forums that while some things had changed: specifically the marching attack down the strip ending in a flick, much had not. I wrote a brief response to the new timings based on what I saw a few NACs at at the local level in fencing and put it on this website (Lesson Adaptations to the New FIE Timings in Foil). In that article I mentioned that I would be changing my lessons in some ways.

"I am spending perhaps 5% of my lesson time on flicks..." 

1. I would save flicks for only the most advanced fencers.

2. I would emphasize the coupé more in lesson.

3. Hand placement on the attack was going to be critical.

4. Students would be trained to keep the opponent in a specific "distance box" to facilitate scoring.

5. I would be teaching the remise more.

Now, with the end of the 2006 season, I look back at the changes I've made in my lessons, and what conclusions I can draw. I think that my first, and overwhelming response is that the new timings have not been the death of foil, as announced by many. My second conclusion is that while foil has changed under the new timings, it has mostly changed for only the most advanced fencers, and especially for those fencers who placed a great emphasis the marching attack followed by the flick. The new timings were forced upon fencers to return foil back to "its true character of blade actions" according to the FIE. Where this has in fact happened, my lessons reflect it. In others ways, this has not happened and my lessons reflect that, as well.

While the new timings have not ended the use of the flick, the flick is much harder to land than before. Prior to the implementations of the new timings, it seemed that every new foil fencer learned to get on guard, lunge, parry, and make a simple attack, and then ran off to learn to flick before they started to fence. Having a flick seemed de riguar for all fencers, no matter what their level. Anyone could flick, and almost everyone did.

Now setting off the flick consistently takes more training in the hand, and a better appreciation for distance. Even so, I am surprised just how many flicks still continue to go off. Flicks seem much more reliable as ripostes than attacks, probably because the distance is easier to control and "set up" when a fencer is defending. I also suspect that the momentum of the opponent helps carry his or her target into the tip of the flicking weapon, insuring that the contact time is sufficient to light up the box.

I teach only my advanced fencers (B and above) to flick, and then, to flick only on the riposte, for the reasons given above. When I teach the riposte with the flick, I teach it from a "blocked" parry action, rather than as "flying parry" and riposte, as I originally did before the new timings. This seems to help the fencer feel the hand action they need to make to set off the box. As a "safety" action, I have been adding a second action after the flick: either an immediate remise (closing the distance) or an immediate "clearing" of the opponent's blade with a strong, sweeping parry.

On the attack, I have been encouraging a "thrown" coupé action to the front of the shoulder. The "thrown coupé" is more of a tossing or flipping action with the fingers, rather then a "chop" action in which the point is thrown from the elbow. I try to teach these lessons while the student is hooked up to a scoring machine with the new timings, so he or she can get feedback about the success of their action. In many cases, these "thrown coupé" actions are flicks themselves, but without the hard, chopping action characterized by flicks under the old timings. I purposely do not ask for a "flick" at the end of the attack, as this word always causes my students to tense up, "chop" the arm, and have the action fail to score.

I am spending perhaps 5% of my lesson time on flicks with my advanced fencers. Intermediate fencers get drilled in delivering the point with the fingers, and do some coupé actions, but short of making them into flicks. Beginners are taught the coupé on the attack, but are discouraged from doing the flick on the riposte. Those fencers who relied heavily on the flick before the new timings are not being encouraged or taught the flick at all in lessons, while their hands are retrained.

I do not teach many beginning fencers. Most of my students have been fencing for several years and come to me for more advanced lessons or tactical training. One of the things I have noticed about all of the fencers that come to me is how poorly trained their hands are. They hold the blade too tightly and are not use to making small finger adjustments to manipulate their blade. The positions of their hands do not change when making attacks to different lines (such as pronating when when going to the outside low line). They often finish their attacks by twisting or jerking their weapon.

I believe that all of these habits contribute – but are not the sole cause – of those times when a straight hit on the valid surface of the opponent fails to register a touch. I emphasize good mechanical actions of the hands and fingers when manipulating the weapon. I have seen fewer failures to set off the box since I have been focusing on finger control and hand position on my fencers. Coupling this with an increased awareness of the "distance box" the opponent has to be kept in in order to score has reduced scoring failures against opponents wearing rigid chest protection.

Many fencers are accustomed to putting the blade into play very late in the action. Previous to the new timings, a blade action was the icing on the cake after the proper distance was found at the end of a march. Under the new timings the fencer no longer has the unrestricted target they once had (by being able to flick over or around a parry) and blade actions are important earlier in the phrase. For this, a soft hand and the ability to manipulate the weapon is important – no longer can a fencer simply power through or around defense. Fencers have found that odd positions, ducking and twisting can cause the foil point of the opponent to glance or skid off of the target. Point control is especially important with fencers trying to remove the target. Often I ask my students to make straight attacks to very small areas of my target, such as the upper shoulder. I am spending considerably more time in lesson doing finger drills and forcing the student to manipulate the weapon to keep the point on target, even as I turn, spin, or duck during the attack.

Intermediate fencers are being taught the coupe as a natural outgrowth of learning to control their weapons with the fingers. As these students learn to relax their hands, and make the coupé with their fingers, the action speeds up, and is delivered with a more "thrown" hand. Eventually this coupé becomes a flick without any additional work by me.

Immediately upon the introduction of the new timings, the law of unintended consequences arose. Many observed that the very attacks the FIE had been attempting to promote – the classic lunge with an extended arm – failed to set off the scoring machine, despite landing on valid target. This phenomena was very pronounced in the first few NAC's I attended. Several of my students lost critical points at NAC's and the Junior Olympics when their straight attacks failed to score against an opponent, and they were hit with a remise or counter-attacks.

As of the time of this writing (September of 2006) a lot of theories have been put forward about why this phenomena happens. Improper hand placement, "micro-breaks" in the scoring machine circuit, the foil tip grounding against the opponent's lame due to improper taping, and the use of chest places to alter the debounce time of the opponent's point, all have been put forward as possible explanations. While none of these causes have been examined and proved to the definitive cause, it does seem critical that the fencer hit hard enough to depress the point, but no so hard that the blade suffers any unusual force or bending. This implies that the attack must be delivered at an optimum distance.

Right before the timing change, I had been drawing inspiration for foil from watching high level saber footwork. The advanced saber fencing at that time was characterized by little or no blade work (blades were often kept far back) and dynamic footwork to get to the proper distance before delivering a simple cut. Parrying in saber was difficult, and classic feint/disengage actions resulted in stop cuts.

For me, the parallels between saber, and the marching attack in foil (coupled with the flick) seemed obvious. Before the new timings were introduced, I had been moving my advanced foil fencers to many tempo actions done entirely with the feet, with the point delivered by a flick or simple thrust at end of the attack. Distance was not so critical as long as the fencer was "close enough" to reach the target. If the fencer had over-penetrated the space, they could simply flick to a target that was further away, such as the back. In some cases, this was the ideal, since flicks to the deep targets were difficult to parry and only the most athletic fencers could "squirm" out of them.

The new timings in foil caused me to completely rethink this approach. I felt that the only way to solve the problem of hits which failed to register was to insure that the attack was delivered at the perfect distance: not too close, and not too far away. Instead of simply trying to penetrate the distance and finish with an attack the opponent had no parry for, I felt that the fencer now needed to return to more classical push and pull and distance stealing exercises. With the reduction of target area (the back is now very difficult to hit, again), the attacker needs to keep his or her point between themselves and the target. No longer can the fencer compensate for being too close by flicking to "far" target. The new lock out times make stops in time more of a possibility and the fencer that executes too many broken time attacks is likely to receive one light hits. In the last year, many of my lessons have focused on slowing down my faster students, to keep them from over penetrating and putting themselves into a position from which no target is accessible. This has been a culture change for many of them, to be sure.

My experience has been that the phrases in fencing are much longer under the new timings. There is more give and take with the distance as each fencer has to work much harder to penetrate the defense of the opponent without opening him or herself up to attacks on preparation, or stops. In addition, unusual postures and positions (ducking, turning) require that the final action of the attack be carefully hidden. The foil fencer has to be prepared to set up actions much more carefully, and to abandon distance set-ups if the opponent does something unexpected. All of this has required much more exhaustive work on footwork preparation and coordination of the hand with the attack. The point must lead the way to the target in order to score effectively.

Because of these factors, I have been teaching longer phrases in foil. Students who are successful on hitting on the initial attack may still be asked to recover, retreat, and start another attack over or make a parry riposte. When asked to do a preparation in lesson, the student may find that I "break the tempo" of that preparation. The student then must reset and make the same preparation (or an alternate one). These actions encourage the student to never be done with a phrase, but always be ready to continue the action if their attack does not set off a light, or if the distance set up does not allow them to finish. To be sure, I still teach attacks with long, almost marching, footwork. I emphasize, however, that these attacks are not the norm, and rely on a weak or cooperative opponent.

One of the last areas I explored in the new times was a more active use of the remise. Many fencers were predicting that the new lockout times (the time interval after which the opponent could set off a light after being hit) would result in even simple ripostes by the defender being defeated by a fast remise by the attacker. Just before the Richmond NAC in 2004, I over heard a coach tell his (high level) fencer to ignore making a parry and counter-riposte if his attack failed, but rather, just remise as quickly as possible. I thought, at the time, that this was over-stating the case by a large degree, and in fact, this fencer did NOT have a good result in the event.

A little experimentation showed that the remise could only defeat the riposte if that riposte was greatly delayed, or if the initial parry took the defender's blade far out of line. My students have found the remise very effective against fencers who make "lost time ripostes". After making a hard parry, the opponent withdraws their blade before making the riposte. Under the old timings, the defender had to search for the opponent's blade – or escape the opponent's riposte entirely. Now the defender can score by making an immediate remise into the delayed riposte. For many fencers, this pause between the parry and the riposte is automatic. My advise against those sort of fencers is to make a simple attack with a very soft hand, and an immediate remise with fleche when the opponent pauses on the riposte. Whether this is taking advantage of the new timings, or simply a good fencing action, I'm not entirely sure. I also advise fencers to remise against the defender who finishes their parry off balance, especially if they are leaning backwards. This is how I cue it in the lesson: taking a parry with the weight shifted to the back foot. The student who finishes the attack slightly out of distance, but in balance, has a good chance to score on a one light action with a remise.

Another use of the remise is in an épée-like action: an attack is made into the preparation of the opponent, and the opponent over reacts to the attack with an exaggerated counter-time. When this parry is wide, pulling the defender's blade out of position, the attacker has an opportunity for a quick remise. Again, the emphasis is on a soft, relaxed hand, and the use of the fleche. The distance on this action is critical, however, and if the opponent is comfortable in making a counter-time action, the remise will usually not beat the riposte.

Finally, for those times when the student arrives at the end of an attack off balance, or is very close to the opponent, the remise has a role to play in attempting to score (either valid or non-valid) before the opponent can riposte.

For my fencers that are shorter than their opponents, the remise presents a difficult problem. Especially in the cadet and youth events, there is often a large height difference between fencers. The taller fencers have learned to make an attack and remise into the riposte while opening the distance. I have been teaching my shorter fencers to hold the blade after a parry, or to make a riposte with a bind. Another solution I have started to pursue is an old fashioned "destruction parry", in which the opponent's blade is transported after the initial parry to another line. This has proved to have limited success, and the attacker's remise into the riposte is still a problem.

In some ways, my lessons have returned to the lessons I took as a beginning student: an emphasis on blade work, careful distance set up, and mixing up the coupé and disengage on the attack. Distance set up with the feet before the final scoring action is still the key in foil fencing, but this can more often be negated by blade work (poor blade work on the part of the attacker, or good blade work on the part of the defender). My fencers are getting comfortable with the constraints in using the flick, and bringing it back into their games. The remise is a new dimension in foil that I am experimenting with as a planned action, or as an action of last resort.

At the time of this writing (September 2006) the new timings for both foil and saber seem destined to stay. I have found that they have made foil different – not better, or worse – and changed the conditions our fencers must fight under. Rather than protest, I think it behooves all of us to adapt and bring out the elements of style that keep foil one of the most dynamic and tactically rich of the three weapons.

Created: September 2006, last edit November 2006