A great deal of my lessons were not about "surprise" but about funneling the opponent down a set numbers of options. Assuming the fencer was competent, the "correct" response to a certain preparation is one of a number of actions, each of which is prepared for.

Then, when you give the preparation and the opponent responds with option 1, you have your response, etc.

There were a couple of recent lessons where we were working specifically on creating a "surprise reaction" using half steps and check steps. In those, when the "surprise" is sprung, there are one or two responses expected from that.

Is that the sort of thing you're getting at?

What I'm really thinking about (here and on Google +) is that while everyone says surprise, I'm not sure it's ever well defined. I can make a quick change of direction, but if I'm not in distance, there is no surprise. Someone will say (using either a few words, or a lot of words) that "surprise" is an unexpected or un-anticipated action by the opponent (or by you) but my question might then be: WHY is in unanticipated? There are only so many actions an opponent can make in a bout that have a chance of being successful. Certainly there are not so many that they are uncountable or unknown.

There has been some mention of "choice reaction" lessons, and perhaps they have a place in the training of the fencer, but ulitmately, the coach is deciding what happens in that lesson, which seem to be one step removed from "surprise".

But how many people take lessons (at an intermidaite or beginning level) in which the coach -- who is standing in for the opponent, after all -- is surprised?

Allen - Yes, the coach is "simulating" what they think should happen if you do "surprise" your opponent. For the check-step / half step lessons it was about setting up a pattern and then breaking the pattern, resulting in a surprise collapse or expansion of distance to have the opponent fall into some reaction to that new situation.

In actual bouting, it's much harder to set up - at least one of the actions I've been working on - and I'm attributing that to being able to disguise the intentions of the set up. We all know that our opponent *should* be trying to set us up for something, so we're all aware of patterns and should be looking for ways that those patterns may be broken to create a tactical advantage.

Are you thinking that instead of surprise you're looking at tactical recon? So that you can build up the response funnel so that the opponent is almost forced down a particular path?

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

WHY is in unanticipated? There are only so many actions an opponent can make in a bout that have a chance of being successful. Certainly there are not so many that they are uncountable or unknown.

The action itself does not have to be unknown to be surprising. Very often what makes an action surprising is when and where it occurs.

Coaches can certainly train students to be better able to surprise their opponent (and less susceptible to being surprised)--arguably most training really ought to be directed toward that goal. Exercises involving contradictory tasks by the coach and student are useful here. One of the most basic (and most difficult) examples is to have the student maneuver and attempt to hit with a direct attack while the coach attempts to score with riposte. The only way for the student to succeed is to properly prepare and execute the action so that he catches the coach by surprise. There are, of course, many other examples as well.