retreat on the parry

[its_me_mango]

big poppa, i was taught to retreat on the parry by a hungarian, but recently was taught to stay put on the parry

[ravana83]

i find it easiest to parry when i am retreating just bec its harder to obtain clean parries with the saber

[neevel]

Basically, there is a 'parry-riposte' distance that you generally want to be at to execute a successful parry-riposte. If you're already at that distance when your opponent makes the attack, you don't need to retreat. If your opponent makes their attack from closer than that (i.e., at a good attacking distance), then you'll need to put the retreat in. Since most decent opponents will work to make the finish of their attacks from
the appropriate attacking distance, you'll need to put that retreat in most of the time.

Of course, there are no such things as absolutes in fencing tactics-- there are plenty of circumstances in which staying put (or even closing distance) for the parry will work. But the majority of instances will have the retreat as the best option, not only to allow you to make the parry, but to make it easier to land the riposte-- if you're just a hair too close, you'll have a tough time changing line or target section for your riposte if your opponent closes out or displaces the most direct target.

-Dave

[DamedEscrime]

My Croatian coach has taught me to retreat with the parry also, but not in ever case. I think this gives the opponent a chance to "walk into" your weapon.

[its_me_mango]

hi, thanks, i think maybe the saborist and maybe especially from the baltics were trained to retreat in parries, and move forward in the reposte, but in foil it's different. I do tend to retreat in the parry, but then you have to lunge for the reposte, but then it is an obvious "attack", but then you have to be prepared for their counter reposte, in which case you stay in the lunge and continue fencing....but that again is probably the baltic method, i think the current methods are more interesting, lighter and less heavy. thanks for the input.

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: its_me_mango ]

[ravana83]

just to clarify: I retreat when i parry because by putting more distance between my opponent and me I can hopefully avoid whip overs (flank/belly and head)

[Stryder]

I say you should develop a habit of retreating every time you parry.
Once your habit is established, you are free to change it, but when you do so, you are effectively attacking-into-preparation.
Using a different strategy or tactic than a simple parry-riposte.

Standing firm, or even stepping into your opponent's attack before you have successfully taken his blade can be very effective. But as a rule, "always step back."

So sayeth the Stryder.

Where's that "pompous blow hard" gremlin?

[its_me_mango]

i agree stryder, retreat on the parry as a matter of habit, but maybe later on, when your skill level develops, you can discern the necessity of the retreat in a particular situation, for example, if you know your opponent is a weak in-figher, you may want to step in if he makes a big enough movement, what do you think.

[veeco]

Basically it goes 1-2-3:

1- Back leg goes back
2- Front leg goes back
3- At the moment your front foot hits the floor, you should parry.

This is the optimum sequence because as you take your parry, you are already ready to push on the back leg for the riposte.

[MikeHarm]

I think wether you retreat or not depends on the sort of riposte you're doing.

Mike

[Stryder]

Mango-
I agree. As I said, "Once your habit is established, you are free to change it,"

Veeco-

I disagree.
You should parry while your rear foot is still in the air. That way still have the option of continuing your retreat if your parry is deceived. There is ample time after the parry to plant the backfoot and begin your forward action.
This extra movement backwardds goves your ecxtra room to recover your blade and riposte with more speed.

[saberkid]

hmm, i never really thought about parrying while going bakcwards, or forwords, or, when i preform the parry, i find the more i think about it, the more chances i have to screw it up, i let my coach train me, in a lesson on when to parry, if i do it wrong, he corrects it, and i dont think about it, i just DO IT

Chris

[veeco]

<STRONG>
I disagree.
You should parry while your rear foot is still in the air. That way still have the option of continuing your retreat if your parry is deceived. There is ample time after the parry to plant the backfoot and begin your forward action.
This extra movement backwardds goves your ecxtra room to recover your blade and riposte with more speed.
</STRONG>

I talked to my coach yesterday about this, because I still puzzled by your answer, Stryder. While what you are saying kind of make sense, I still disagree.
Actually my coach gave me a lesson yesterday, and he specifically told me to parry at the same time I was putting my front foot on the floor (therefore after back foot had reached it).

The problem with your approach is that you're saying that you have time to continue your retreat if you parry is deceived if your back foot is in the air. I would like to see you do that, because I don't think that when your back foot is in the air you can really 'continue' your retreat. You might be able to extend it a little more than what was originally planned, but against a strong enough opponent, this won't make a difference, because they are allegedly able to lunge, are at the right distance, and they will hit you no matter what if your parry is deceived and if you're in this position.

In my case, however, if your parry is deceived, your footwork for the retreat is finished, so you are stable and on your two feet, ready to start another retreat if necessary, which will in this case give you extra space to avoid being touched on the deceive.

[Stryder]

Veeco-

If the first part of a retreat is picking up your rear foot, how can you retreat more quickly with that foot on the ground than I can with it in the air?

The same goes for your attack. Your front foot should still be in the air when you hit.
Your action ends when your [second] foot hits the ground. Until it hits the ground, you still have options within that tempo. After it hits the ground, you can start a new action, but it will be one step behind.

[veeco]

Originally posted by Stryder:
<STRONG>Veeco-

If the first part of a retreat is picking up your rear foot, how can you retreat more quickly with that foot on the ground than I can with it in the air?

The same goes for your attack. Your front foot should still be in the air when you hit.
Your action ends when your [second] foot hits the ground. Until it hits the ground, you still have options within that tempo. After it hits the ground, you can start a new action, but it will be one step behind.</STRONG>

I don't think you understood my point. I meant that if you parry while you back foot is in the air, you are not able to gain enough ground if your parry is deceived. Basically it comes down to this:

1- Parry and retreat when you back foot is in the air = one (1) retreat.

2- Retreat with your back foot, then parry while you plant your front in the floor = one retreat. If parry is deceived, retreat = one /more/ retreat.

You will see that this is what most if not all of the russians do if they retreat on their parry.

[Stryder]

Veeco-

If I find myself deceived I can extend my retreat to greater distance within one tempo.
If I plant my feet to parry, I get hit by any successful disengage. Since as we all know, a disengage takes only one tempo to complete. Planting your feet before you make successful contact with the blade, will get you nailed.

[Craig]

This extra movement backwardds goves your ecxtra room to recover your blade and riposte with more speed.

Also, if you give yourself extra time to recover and start your riposte, you also give your opponent more time to react to it.

Food for thought,
Craig

[veeco]

Originally posted by Stryder:
<STRONG>Veeco-

If I find myself deceived I can extend my retreat to greater distance within one tempo.
If I plant my feet to parry, I get hit by any successful disengage. Since as we all know, a disengage takes only one tempo to complete. Planting your feet before you make successful contact with the blade, will get you nailed.</STRONG>

Well, I guess you are not going to agree with me, but if you wish, give it a try next time, you will see that parrying when your back foot is on the floor will give you more time to retreat.

Your point about the disengage taking one tempo is well taken, but my point is that your parry is deceived when you are putting your front foot on the floor. The tempo for the disengage comes after this, and during this tempo you have time to do your second retreat.

You are right in saying that you can extend your retreat further if you are deceived, but you can only retreat so much farther with one retreat. Doing 2 retreats in my case will still give you extra space compared to your one retreat. If you are fencing someone who can lunge, this extension of your retreat in the middle of an action won't make a difference.

Also, my coach gave me this advice. He fenced on the Ukranian national foil team for several years, and has had many successful students. I would not want to doubt that what he says in this case is wrong.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: veeco ]

[Stryder]

Craig-
I prefer letting my opponent have time to be set up, rather than rushing into the action. But that is a case-by-case situation. There are plenty of times when one should rush the action. I prefer to leg-out my ripostes. "Doing the work," rather than "rolling the dice."

Veeco-
I would suggest that you clarify your coach's position on this. Stopping your retreat before you make contact with your opponent's blade is a no-no. Regardless of where you're from. Also, you put an extra negative in your last sentance that made it sound like you agreed with me over your coach. But I know you didn't mean it. I just found it funny.
This is something that can only be decided on strip. Let me know if your in town, I'll hit you with a disengage, then we'll know.
No offense meant.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Stryder ]

[veeco]

I would not want to doubt that what he says is wrong... Yeah I guess I would have been better saying that instead:

I would not want to think that what he says is wrong :-).