Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

One thing that's worth recognizing is that in order to surprise your opponent, the proper time to hit is generally while he is moving. In other words, you hit while he opens a line, rather than after the line has been opened; you hit while he's taking a step, rather than after the step is complete. That will be the moment when your opponent's reaction will be most delayed.

If I'm opening a line, my student should make a direct attack into the opening. He will be able to hit (if his execution is correct) before I have time to make a parry. If I step back, however, he will no longer be able to hit before I finish opening. My step back will create more time for me to finish the opening and, therefore, put me in a position to be ready to close it again (thereby parrying the direct attack). It is this change in timing that necessitates the feint. Much as my step back creates more time for me to open (and, if need be, close) the line, the feint will create more time for the student to make his attack and hit during my movement (which now includes the parry made as a reaction to the feint).

What this demonstrates, of course, is the interrelationship between distance and timing and how that informs the choices you need to make in order to surprise your opponent (aka tactics).

I'm looking at situations in which one tactical choice is a better choice than another, and words to describe those situations that have more precise meanings than "surprise" or "tempo", though I have often used the word "tempo" just as described.

Imagine a coach and a student very close to each other. The coach opens a line, the student starts to lunge, and the student hits before the coach can close the line again. Imagine the same situation, except now the coach steps back as he opens the line. The student makes a feint in the lunge, disengages around the coach's parry, and scores. This is an exercise that the coach and student should be able to do without a word being exchanged.

For most coaches (and students) this is a trivial exercise. Yet I'm surprised how few books on fencing talk about what is happening here in concrete terms as I attempted to express above (the rates of movement between the coach and the student are fixed but the distance is changing, requiring a tactical change from straight attack to feint and disenage). I'm also surprised how many coaches don't explain this to their students in a meaningful way.

I've been re-reading some fencing books as late, and one in particular discussed the straight attack and moved right to the compound attack, with no mention of why you would do one over the other, other than the mechanical action of the opponent's parrying. Yet, opponent's parry ALL of the time against straight attacks. But because those attacks are carried out at the right time and place -- the right tempo -- the parry is late.

Jason says "surprise" and you say "tempo"...and I agree with both of you. But all of us are speaking from a shared language of many many many bouts and lessons. How is this explained to someone who is holding a weapon for the first time, or in their first year?

For someone like Jason (and even me) this seems so obvious that it may not need to be talked about, or expressed in such an awkward way. But having watched two coaches in recent history (one a very high level fencer now coaching, the other a very well established coach with many successful junior fencers) teach a lesson in feint and disengage in which the student gets to the right space to make a simple attack and actually SLOWS down to make a feint, I wonder what the message is here.

Jason might argue (if I can put words into his mouth) that I'm actually confusing technique with tactics in my example above. And to some extent, I agree with him. But this simply (to me, at least) points out the validity of his original argument that distance control, technical skill, changes of speed, and other factors all contribute to surprise. But I wonder if "surprise" can't be looked at in more detail.

In looking at tactical choices, does one factor of surprise in an action contribute more to the success of that action than another? Can we identify which factors are associated with which tactical actions? If that's possible (and I'm still asking myself that question) knowing which factors of surprise contribute the most to each tactical action would make teaching that action easier, or at least, clearer, wouldn't it?

A

Allen,

I think that what you are trying to get at with word "surprise" is actually what my coaches describe as "tempo." Not tempo in the sense of time, but rather in the sense of the moment when your opponent is caught off-balance for an instant, either mentally or physically, and cannot react to your action, at least, not in time to defend successfully against it. One of my coaches used to describe it as the instant of "coming between"--essentially of getting inside your opponent's time.

The triumvirate in fencing has always been time, distance and speed.

I would say that the surprise factors for a compound attack vs a simple attack must differ, rather than may differ. Otherwise, why do one over the other (besides laziness - grin- )? Whether they are created by the fencer or by the opponent (or by both, which is often the case) differing surprise factors should drive different tactical choices.

You point out quite correctly that the paragraph is so generic that it doesn't advance the discussion of performing a simple attack verses performing a compound attack. This still leaves me looking for concrete factors for making tactical choices in a bout/lesson. Something one step ahead of the tactical wheel, in which the assumptions made are completely unrealistic and arbitrary.

Thanks for your comments, Jason. They've been helpful in pointing out where this paragraph shouldn't go, which gives me some ideas of where it should be heading.

Different actions have different requirements in terms of "surprise factors". The distance and timing of a compound attack may differ from that of a simple attack--but they both require distance and timing. The result is, then, different ways to create surprise. The important elements are still the same, the difference is in what the fencer does with those elements for each particular action (and in any particular situation).

I think you'd agree that a compound attack "is a successful action when performed in proper distance, with speed, good technique, and executed as a surprise to the opponent." Not to mention that a parry-riposte "is a successful action when performed in proper distance, with speed, good technique, and executed as a surprise to the opponent." In other words, the same things are constantly important, just in a different form (e.g. the technique for compound attack is not the same as that for simple attack).

And what is necessary for the "form" of those elements to be correct is that they create the conditions for you to surprise (and hit) your opponent.

I think that one of the things I'm reaching for here is a way to differentiate tactical actions from each other (for instance a simple attack and a compound attack) in terms of how the elements of the attack vary from one to the other. Obviously, a compound attack is different from a straight attack in more than just the technique of a disengage or coupe. Otherwise, every attack should be a simple attack and we wouldn't bother with anything else.*

Your argument might be that a simple attack has more of the surprise elements in favor of the attacker than a compound attack. One of those elements would certainly be distance, but the others would certainly come into play as well, such as the timing of the attack, the defenders technical skills, and so forth.

Would that be correct?

If you agree, than it could be that we're talking the same things here, with the difference being in the concept of "surprise". I'm not going to post again until I reread ZC's writings on this.

Though one final thing...of course, in teaching, we often might discuss only an element of a complex action (especially when that element is a source of failure of the entire action), as I pointed out in the example of the fencer who executed a simple attack from too far away. This is in keeping with the whole/part/whole approach to teaching.


*Of course, at the highest levels of fencing, the scoring actions tend to be very simple ones, without the complex interplay of actions that you see at some of the lower levels. At least, that has been my observation.

The word "surprise" means "to catch unawares" or even "to assault without warning". The meaning is, of course, the same in fencing.

In order to successfully score, we need to catch our opponent unawares and without warning. All manipulation of distance, timing, rhythm, etc., are done to achieve this goal.

There's no sense in separating some elements of surprise to discuss in detail while leaving others clumped together. Better, for both clarity and learning, to either talk about all of the separate parts or the whole thing as one. In other words, you can't say, "Let's work on distance and timing now and surprise later." It doesn't make any sense.

In coaching, we often talk about certain things as a whole at times and in terms of their component parts at others. I might discuss lunging, or I might talk about certain elements of the movement. It would be strange if I referred to lunging as just the movement of the back leg and the movements of the fingers, while regarding all of the other movements involved as something separate. I would certainly expect my students' understanding of what a lunge actually is to suffer.

I'm going to go back and read the pertinent articles from CZ again so I'm not talking out of my butt here, but just on the face of it, I have some difficulty with your analysis. In wrapping up so many factors in the word "surprise" it becomes difficult to really talk about the sucess or failure of an action in a meaningful and simple way.

If my student makes a simple attack with good technique, at the right time (lets say, on the opponent's forward step) and good speed but gets parried and riposted because he was too far away, my critique of the action COULD be that the student didn't "surprise" the opponent. But it would be more helpful to tell the student that they didn't have the proper distance for that attack to be successful.

So, in writingabout surprise, I think it's helpful if I remove distance, speed, and technique from the "surprise" factors. This helps focus the discussion of an action on more solid ground (for me, at least). What does this leave as "surprise"? Some factors might be:

• Opponents inattention
• Use of misleading preparations (you've always attacked with a beat before, and now you attack without one, for example).
• Choice of action.
• Choice of time to go.
• Intangiable mental processes I can't accurarely list.

I think my idea here is to remove the tangiable factors from the intangiable ones to be able to analyse the action in more detail and provide specific feedback.

This might mean I'm drawing some bright lines that are artificial. I'm goingto re-read CZ and give some more thought to this. In real life, I agree that all of these factors intefere and intermix to create successful actions, and it's useful to consider their total relationship.

But it can make teaching and feedback a *****, especially when the fencer is not a world class athlete.

Since your example relies on the mistakes that beginners might make, it's easy to extend that same fault to any action a beginner might make. Just as a beginner might accidentally score a clumsy remise--due to a lack of control of any "surprise factors" (if I can extend your thinking to that point) on both fencer's parts--a beginner can also accidentally score an attack through random flailing. No action is impervious to the errors of beginners. Therefore I don't think your example of the accidental remise negates my argument that these "surprise factors" are the core elements of any action. If anything it raises an idea that ZC has noted in his own discussions of surprise.

ZC describes both "positive" and "negative" surprise. Positive surprise relates to how effectively I can surprise my opponent; negative surprise to how effectively I can be surprised. Both are in play for any action (as, after all, both fencers influence what happens in any touch).

It is then, I'd argue, not simply certain "surprise factors" that determine the success of a touch, but the differential of control of those "surprise factors" between the two fencers.

Hmm....lets change the wording of my answer a bit, then, in the case of the accidental touch. I agree, all of the four factors are playing a role in the touch occuring, but my argument is that NONE of the two players involved is actively controlling any of the factors in a meaningful way, and certainly not in the initial action (the orginal direct attack) or what should have been the proper defense (the parry riposte).

Someone finally does score through "speed" and "surprise" but are these two factors really present in a meaningful way, ie, under the control of the fencer scoring? If the factors AREN'T under the control of the fencer scoring, can "tactics" really be used in the context of how the hit occured?

I would argue that in my example, no tactical decisions were actually made to score the hit.

To follow up on your "surprise" note, I'd say that what you're really exploring is not what makes for a successful simple attack, but what creates surprise.

Even in the example of the accidental remise, the distance, speed, technique (however unorthodox), and surprise of the action are what determined whether or not it would hit. If the distance was wrong, no remise; if the speed was wrong, no remise; if the technique was different, no remise; if the opponent knew it was coming, no remise. Also, beyond the issue of beginner's weirdness, what well-executed action wouldn't require those four things as paramount to success?

The maximum speed of the fencers really isn't that important, as you demonstrate in your own explanation. Therefore the discussion really needs to be about the value of change of speed and earliness of execution as primary factors in a successful action. These are, of course, elements of surprise but, as I mentioned before, so are the rest of the factors you note.

I agree that the technical knowledge doesn't change, but it's not the abstract sense of "knowledge" that matters in a successful action, but the reality of execution--and that, of course, can both improve and degrade over the course of a bout.

An additional thought:

"Surprise" is a complicated word in fencing, and I think that it needs to be defined based onthe context it's used in. In addtition to the factors you mention, the attention and abilities of the opponent (espe. in terms of their concentration and focus) play a larger role than simply a side by side comparison of technical skills.

Distance plays some role in surprise, but changes in distance might be more critical, and this throws back to how much attention the opponent is or isn't paying.

In any discussion of tactics, I think the word "surprise" has to be very carefully (and perhaps narrowly) defined by the author.

I'm going to make a note of that.

I think that in making a direct attack, those four qualities are paramont. I would argue that with intermidiate or beginning fencers, you often see hits score by "accident". One fencer makes an attempt at a direct attack and is parried. The riposte from the opponent is slow, delayed or misses. The orginal attacker rolls off and scores with a remise, often because the defender has stepped in and flubbed the riposte. A fencer has scored, but almost NONE of the four factors have been involved in making that touch happen.

Yes. I'm speaking of maximam speed, with the assumption that both fencers will be working at their maximum speed at the time of the ultimate (or final) action. This speed will almost always be faster than the speed used to manuever (though there are some exceptions to this rule).

If both fencers are fencing as fast as they can, with no variations in tempo, there is almost no surprise--just speed. This is often very trivial to deal with in an opponent, simply by making an adjustment in the distance that fencing occurs. When we start talking about changes of speed, direction, size of step, and acceleration, almost all of that comes under the heading of surprise, which now moves it into that part of the equation. You may be faster than I am in terms of absolute speed, but if I use changes in rhythym to out fox you, we aren't talking about speed at this point, but surprise.

With some fencers, they do "settle" into the bout, and their execution of technical skills improves as nervousness disappears. However, their technical knowlege does not increase over the course of a bout. I would find it surprising if a student walked in a pool or DE bout not knowing how to do a croise, and walked out of the bout suddenly having that ability.

Allen,
One could argue that those four qualities are the requirements for any fencing action.

What do you mean by "absolute speed"? Certainly the speed of the fencers' movements vary greatly over the course of the bout--not to mention the course of the touch. I assume you mean maximum speed. But, of course, it isn't the speed of the action that matters as much as the change in speed and the timing of the action's start.

I'd also add that while a fencer's knowledge of technique won't likely change during a bout, his execution might, due to the effects of nervousness, fatigue, etc.

Additionally, "surprise" is itself a function of elements such as distance, technique, and various elements of speed (and speed, in many of its forms, is a function of technique).