http://www.fencing.net/forums/blogs/knave-8681/ en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:14:10 GMT Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:25:01 GMT http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss vBlogetin craig@fencing.net craig@fencing.net http://www.fencing.net/forums/blogs/knave-8681/tempo-is-a-three-edged-sword-7290/ Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:25:01 GMT This is from an email exchange I had with several coaching friends a few years back. I was reminded of it by several of the discussions about the word tempo in Allen Evan's blog. I've revised it a bit to be more applicable to a blog entry.

Up until a few years back, I'd never had any direct, coherent instruction in tempo. This is hardly surprising given the strength of American fencing coaching (which has been vastly improved) and the chimeric nature of the word tempo, used differently by different coaches, in different situations.

I was introduced to the concept of tempo as a useful (even critical) fencing/coaching concept at a coaching clinic given several years back by Allen Evans. I have since worked with a variety of coaches, as well as done my own reading and coaching.

I've heard "tempo" described as:

1) The time it takes for a fencing movement to be accomplished. This
is, of course, a variable amount of time, depending on the speed of
the movement. Expressions that seem to rely on this basic definition
of tempo are "one-tempo situation", and "stealing time/tempo".

2) The rhythm or cadence of fencing movements. This builds on
definition 1, but chaining "tempos" together and analyzing the pattern
as a whole. Expressions that seem to rely on this basic definition of
tempo are "change of time/tempo" and "broken/lost time".

3) The moment or distance, tactical, and movement relationship when a
given fencing action is appropriate. This is primarily the physical
situation between the fencers. Expressions that seem to rely on this
basic definition of tempo are "in the tempo", or "with tempo".

4) Executing an action that surprises the opponent. This can be
related to definition 3, but may be purely an exploitation of a mental
lapse on the part of the opponent.


What "tempo" means to me:

I talk about tempo as the piece of time that a given fencing movement
takes to accomplish. From that definition, it follows that for a
given fencing movement there is a relationship between fencers
(distance/movement/tactical situation at a given moment) where either
that technique will arrive before the opponent opponent is able to
effectively react or that technique will initiate a more favorable
situation for a later "one-tempo" action/situation.

What does that mean? For me, a lot of this is tied to what a fencer
can and can't react to, both mentally and physically, based on the
situation they find themselves in when they need to react. This is
both a factor of reacting at the right time (both quickly enough and
at the right moment to be effective) and reacting correctly.

Based on my reading, fencing, and coaching experience, I identify 3
basic types of reactions that are relevant to fencing: triggered
reactions, simple reactions, and complex reactions.

Triggered reactions are actions that are prepared to be execute on an
expected stimulus. I'm being attacked consistently to my outside low
line. I decide I'm going to parry eight as soon as a see the attack
start. As soon as I feel the attack begin, I parry eight, regardless
of what my opponent actually does. This is the fastest reaction, but
it is guessing, and therefore usually wrong at least 50% of the
time--more often if I'm unlucky. Also, if the opponent realizes that
the fencer is guessing, they can stay one step ahead making the
triggered reaction always or often wrong, even if still very fast.

Simple reactions are actions that are always the same. This could be
whenever anything happens a fencer counterattacks, or whenever they
feel a threat, they parry four. These reactions are not as fast as a
triggered reaction, but still fairly fast. Unfortunately, as it is
not really in the conscious control of the reacting fencer and it is
consistent, the opponent can reliably draw the reaction and devise an
appropriate counter to it.

Complex reactions are actions that are chosen based on learned
criteria. They are learned reactions, chosen subconsciously, but they
allow a fencer to have a variety of learned responses that are chosen
based on a variety of stimuli. A fencer begins extending as they
advance, threatening valid target area with a feint. If their
opponent does nothing, they finish straight. If their opponent
attempts a parry, they finish indirect. This obviously can get much
more complex. It is slower than either of the other two fast
responses, but it has the advantage of more likely being correct for
the situation.

The downside of complex reactions are the more stimuli a fencer has to
pay attention to, and the more reactions they need to choose from, the
slower their reaction time becomes.

This is governed by Hicks Law. In short, more choices mean a longer mental processing time to weed out the incorrect choices and decide upon the correct choice. The up shot of this is reaction time does not increase linearly as possibly choices increase, it increases very quickly once the choice is beyond a simple yes or no situation.

This reaction time can be improved through extensive specialized
training, but we are talking many thousands of repetitions where the
fencer has to choose, not just technical execution. It's the choice
that needs to be fast (and correct), not just the execution of the
action. I'm guessing 2-3 lessons a week for at least a year, though I
would like to count the number of choices one might make in a lesson.
We're talking in the tens of thousands of repetitions of a choice.

All this is pretty unsurprising, but it is useful for me to keep it in
mind when thinking about whether an action will work in a given
situation or not. If an action is expected and planned for, an
opponent will react more quickly to it. If an action is a surprise,
the opponent will react more slowly, or will panic with a reaction
that is out of their control.

Clearly, as an action is executed from farther away, the opponent is
given more time to choose a correct response. From that, it seems
that there is a maximum effective distance for a given technique in
its most basic form. If you've seen Allen Evans' "one-tempo"
demonstrations (stolen, I believe he said, from Ed Richards), and I think that's a really good example of this.
This distance may be different than what a fencer is able to reach
with a given movement (say lunge or fleche). Distances beyond that
effective range need to be covered by more than just a simple,
one-motion action (a beat attack or a compound riposte, for example).

But I don't think this is the whole story regarding distance.
Distance is rarely a static situation on the strip--even in epee!
Usually one fencer is either advancing or retreating, often both.
Distance is more of a dynamic relationship between two fencers. It
may be contracting, expanding, or remaining constant and it may be any
of those three while fencers are moving forward or backwards, or
remaining stationary. Clearly the effective distance of a move is the
actual (ruler) distance that must be covered in order for the move to
arrive in the given situation. So an effective attacking action may
need to be launched from a closer distance against a retreating
opponent than against a stationary opponent.

But still that doesn't seem to be whole story to me. If I'm not ready
to make a lunge, even if it's a good distance and tactical situation
for a lunge, I can't make a lunge (or at least, not the same lunge)
until I am ready to make a lunge. To me, I am ready to make any
action from an on guard, but if I'm not in my on guard, I do not have
the same actions at my disposal. I call anything out of on guard
being in transition. If I'm in transition, a situation I might be
able to exploit if I were ready, I cannot exploit in the same way. If
I'm in transition, my options are different than if I'm ready.

Additionally, I think if I'm acting, not reacting, I have an
advantage. I get to choose the situation that develops. If I am only
reacting, my opponent has that luxury. I refer to this as having the
initiative. What advantage the initiative gives depends on the
opponent and how they are reacting. Against a weak fencer, it may
only give you control of when they counterattack. Against a strong
fencer, it may give you the ability to effect how the action develops.

How do I fit this whole mess together? Basically, I try and look at
situations as being either simple (seen and exploited from on on
guard) or compound (seen in transition, exploited in order to create a
simple situation to finish in).

Simple situations should be one-tempo situation and therefore the type
(parry, counterattack, etc.) and nature (triggered, simple, etc.) of
the opponents reaction should be irrelevant (if action is executed
correctly). For example, I'm ready my opponent advances into a good
distance for me and does a large attempted beat, I do an indirect
attack, avoiding his blade, and hit. Ready, simple action, if I
execute correctly (no hesitation, avoiding the attempted blade
contact, crisp attack, etc.) I should hit before my opponent has time
to react to his error.

Compound situations require more care as you must react to the
opponents reaction, whatever it is. In transition, I think the same
situation should be handled differently. During my advance, my
opponent advances into a good distance for me and does a large
attempted beat, I do an indirect feint (into the opening his blade
creates by going for my blade) as I finish my advance. Since I cannot
exploit this opening immediately, my opponent most likely will have
time to attempt a parry of my feint. If I'm ready for that I can
finish with an indirect attack with a lunge, avoiding his attempted
parry and hitting him before he can parry a second time. By
initiating into my opponent's preparation, I do not have to give up on
exploiting his error because I'm in transition.

So that is how I tend to think of tempo.

Here's how I think what I refer to as tempo fits in with other
definitions of tempo:

1) Rhythm is useful because of what we can do to it, causing
difficulties for an opponent. We can execute our actions faster,
slower, at the same speed as the preceding action, or we can pause
before executing the next action.

Based on what I've read, when triggering a reaction, particularly an
interception action like a parry, we estimate the velocity of the
target and execute based on its current path and speed. We do not do
as well if it changes speed, either faster or slower, or if there is a
pause after we start our reaction. This is why fast-slow, slow-fast,
and lost time actions are so effective.

Additionally, regarding footwork, changes in footwork speed and
distance covering, force an opponent (who is reacting to changes in
distance) to fight their own momentum if they are moving, or their own
inertia if they are not. Again, fast-slow, and slow-fast, as well as
stutter steps.

2) Teaching a fencer to recognize certain situations as "moments" to
execute certain actions in--as a short hand for teaching them what
stimuli to react to and what choices they need to consider--has a
clear advantage when considering Hick's Law. If the fencer knows what
to expect in certain situations, what to pay attention to and to
ignore, and has a limited number of responses to choose from, then
their reaction time can be improved.

3) Acting with surprise is clearly a useful skill. This has two real
components, surprise caused by initiating an action at a physically
disadvantageous time for the opponent and surprised caused by
executing an action when an opponent is expecting something else.
Clearly, it's most surprising if it is both a physically surprising
and psychologically surprising situation.

One important thing to keep in mind, as I was reminded in reading over
one of my books that addresses tempo, was that an advantage in tempo,
surprise, rhythm, whatever you call it, has both positive
characteristics and negative characteristics.

If I initiate a beat, I provide an opening for my opponent to execute
an indirect feint into my preparation. If I initiate a feint,
expecting to deceive a parry and hit, I react more slowly to a counter
attack with esquive because I am expecting to deal with a parry or a
straight finish, not an angulated finish or to parry and riposte in
countertime.

Ultimately, all this typing just says tempo is all about doing the
right thing, at the right time, good enough to hit, before your
opponent does it to you.]]> knave http://www.fencing.net/forums/blogs/knave-8681/tempo-is-a-three-edged-sword-7290/