Footwork vs. Bladework

[epeemike81]

perhaps. not the case in sabre or epee though. doesn't that even it out?

yes, it is the case in sabre and epee.

-m

[HilandDoug]

There was a great fencer by the name of Yogi Beara who said, "Half this game is 90% footwork!"

[noodle]

yes, it is the case in sabre and epee.

-m

no its not.
unless you hold your guard way out in sabre, you're in no position to score points from guard with no extensions unless you're practically bumping chests. you won't even get row without the extension, which is not possible if you're holding it in guard the entire time.

tempo and timing DEFINITELY belong in the realm of footwork. the extension doesn't mean a thing without it. it's the footwork which a) created the opportunity and b) puts you in position to capitalize on it.

footwork, by far.

you can't tell me that tempo or timing have nothing to do with bladework. i've stood still and extended into someone's attack and scored a clean touch. in fact, i've won a DE 15-1 in this manner (hope they don't read this forum). i did nothing but well timed and placed extensions to the hand/wrist and the occasional body shot because they were absolutely predictable and open.

if you don't have timing, you'll parry late or miss parries. parries are not possible without bladework. neither a nor b are necessarily true, either.

one is useless without the other. some people can excel excessively in one while lacking in the other but still manage to produce results. until someone can quantify bladework and footwork, the line is very thin as to which one is more important in the end.
(i've had this argument in martial arts form before, its a tough sell until someone experiences it firsthand)

[mrbiggs]

no its not.
unless you hold your guard way out in sabre, you're in no position to score points from guard with no extensions unless you're practically bumping chests. you won't even get row without the extension, which is not possible if you're holding it in guard the entire time.

It may be true that you have to have SOME bladework in sabre, but footwork is still more important. Sabre is, I think, the most difficult weapon to parry in, so distance parry-ripostes are very important. Also, with the rule against crossovers, it is very helpfull to have quick advances and retreats.

[noodle]

It may be true that you have to have SOME bladework in sabre, but footwork is still more important. Sabre is, I think, the most difficult weapon to parry in, so distance parry-ripostes are very important. Also, with the rule against crossovers, it is very helpfull to have quick advances and retreats.

yeah
footwork is important in sabre
but i know a man who thouroughly deserves his A in epee and he does not move, though maybe you'll get an advance or retreat out of him occasionally. he's a veteran and hitting him is really tough to do if you've never fenced him before. smart guy with excellent bladework.

<i>edited to add</i>
yes, everyone by default stresses footwork. have you ever tried to train someone who, at the start, stresses bladework? i haven't, i'm asking because i'm interested. also, i'm mainly perpetuating this argument because i'm bored and i like to argue where i see valid openings

[The0ne]

basically, my bladework is almost as good as the top 8 cadet fencers. The reason that they are a step above me is their footwork, and the distance and timing when they place their actions. That's what fencing is all about today, and that is all from your feet.

[noodle]

basically, my bladework is almost as good as the top 8 cadet fencers. The reason that they are a step above me is their footwork, and the distance and timing when they place their actions. That's what fencing is all about today, and that is all from your feet.

the point i'm trying to make is that what if your bladework was better than the top 8 cadet fencers by the same magnitude between their footwork and yours? is this even possible to determine since you can't really determine the magnitude of these skills? how do you compare people's bladework or footwork?

[The0ne]

Fast bladework makes no difference when made at the wrong distance. . . You can tell, when you watch a bout who's footwork is good, and who's is bad, it's one of those things that you can just see. My personal opinion is that footwork is way more important than bladework.

[noodle]

footwork is only there to facilitate bladework. remove bladework from the sport and you have what? boxing maybe? crappy boxing. remove footwork from the sport and you still have fencing. something like/equivalent to wheelchair fencing, perhaps. fencing nonetheless.

[epeemike81]

no its not.
unless you hold your guard way out in sabre, you're in no position to score points from guard with no extensions unless you're practically bumping chests. you won't even get row without the extension, which is not possible if you're holding it in guard the entire time.

Actually, my last lesson involved work on EXACTLY when an extension wasn't necessary in sabre. In case your wondering about the credentials of my coach, earlier this year she traveled to Plovdiv to coach a student at Cadet World Championships.

you can't tell me that tempo or timing have nothing to do with bladework. i've stood still and extended into someone's attack and scored a clean touch. in fact, i've won a DE 15-1 in this manner (hope they don't read this forum). i did nothing but well timed and placed extensions to the hand/wrist and the occasional body shot because they were absolutely predictable and open.

Well, I hope you try to use the same strategy on me if we ever fence. the fact that there exists an opponent not good enough to capitalize on this doesn't mean you were using good tempo, just that your opponent wasn't very good.

if you don't have timing, you'll parry late or miss parries. parries are not possible without bladework. neither a nor b are necessarily true, either.

I do not deny that you'll miss parries if you don't have timing, or for that matter if you're in the wrong distance to do the parries. what I'm pointing out is that parries aren't necessary in epee (though they are QUITE helpful). tempo, distance, and timing (of footwork) are FAR closer to self-sufficient than bladework alone (even counting a well-timed extension as bladework). the original claim was that footwork alone will score more touches than bladework alone. this is, IMO, quite clearly true in epee.

one is useless without the other. some people can excel excessively in one while lacking in the other but still manage to produce results. until someone can quantify bladework and footwork, the line is very thin as to which one is more important in the end.
(i've had this argument in martial arts form before, its a tough sell until someone experiences it firsthand)

a few issues here. first off, NETIHER is useless without the other, though they are clearly far more useful in tandem. Second, I don't agree that the line is thin as to which is more important. Footwork is DRASTICALLY more important. the best evidence of this, IMO, is the existence of high level fencers with relatively weak bladework, and none that I've seen with bad footwork.

I've had this argument before, it's a tough sell until you experience it firsthand, as I have, many, many times.

-m

[epeemike81]

footwork is only there to facilitate bladework. remove bladework from the sport and you have what? boxing maybe? crappy boxing. remove footwork from the sport and you still have fencing. something like/equivalent to wheelchair fencing, perhaps. fencing nonetheless.

Well, while you're "facilitating bladework," I'm going to be hitting you with the tempo my feet set up, since I see the purpose of footwork as hitting your opponent.

-m

[Inquartata]

Actually, my last lesson involved work on EXACTLY when an extension wasn't necessary in sabre. -m

'Ere wot?! Are you going to be changing your handle to sabremike81 in future?

[noodle]

Well, while you're "facilitating bladework," I'm going to be hitting you with the tempo my feet set up, since I see the purpose of footwork as hitting your opponent.

-m

i've never said that i don't see the importance of footwork.
the simple point i was making is that fencing is defined as a sport by bladework, the presence of 'swords'. good legs let you excel in many sports. what makes fencing different is the bladework.
give a previously atheletic, say, basketball player a sabre and teach him the basics and i'm sure he'll excel. why? he has footwork that is much better than the average beginner. but what makes him a fencer and not a basketball player? he puts down the ball and picks up the weapon.
if that doesn't count for something then i don't know what does.

[Artisan]

give a previously atheletic, say, basketball player a sabre and teach him the basics and i'm sure he'll excel. why? he has footwork that is much better than the average beginner.

Gotta disagree with you here Nood. Your hypothetical basketball player won't have better footwork than the average beginner - may even be worse since he's conditioned to basketball type motions. He'll have strong legs, but that won't give him the weird assymetric footwork of a fencer, nor the ability to sense and control distance. As an athlete, he may LEARN fencing footwork faster than a typical beginner without any athletic skills...but thats kind obvious.

Hand and feet go together, but I'm with Mike in the sense that just because there's a weapon in our hand, doesn't mean thats where the emphasis or core of the sport is. You hit with your feet. You parry with your feet. Yes the blade is taking the action, but the distance set by your feet. Feet make it happen by creating the space and the TIME for the bladework.

[Peach]

A (Div I) basketball player is taking our adult beginner's class, and she says it's really hard because of all she has to unlearn.

[Joan of Ark]

A (Div I) basketball player is taking our adult beginner's class, and she says it's really hard because of all she has to unlearn.

What is she having to unlearn?

[Peach]

What is she having to unlearn?

From the brief conversation I had with her, in which she demonstrated everything that was giving her trouble:

direction of feet (she normally stands with them pointed symmetrically away from her center)
movement of feet (when to move them and when not to move them)
position of knees (on-guard stance)
angle of trunk (tendency to lean forward)
orientation when changing directions (she has to overcome the urge to swivel her trunk and face the other direction)
position of arms

Other than that, not much

She has the advantage over her other, less athletic classmates that she is aware of her body and has control over what it does, plus she understands the importance of training with correct form.

[noodle]

Gotta disagree with you here Nood. Your hypothetical basketball player won't have better footwork than the average beginner - may even be worse since he's conditioned to basketball type motions. He'll have strong legs, but that won't give him the weird assymetric footwork of a fencer, nor the ability to sense and control distance. As an athlete, he may LEARN fencing footwork faster than a typical beginner without any athletic skills...but thats kind obvious.

Hand and feet go together, but I'm with Mike in the sense that just because there's a weapon in our hand, doesn't mean thats where the emphasis or core of the sport is. You hit with your feet. You parry with your feet. Yes the blade is taking the action, but the distance set by your feet. Feet make it happen by creating the space and the TIME for the bladework.

shrug
had a basketball player join our club last year
he found footwork really easy (was fencing sabre) and was quite good for the time he put in.
won a local tournament or two, placed well in a major collegiate open after fencing for only two weeks or so, and quit because he claimed the sport was too easy
(he was a cocky jerk, btw)

anyway, i was a martial artist and i converted quickly, sure i had to unlearn stuff, but i still managed to excel quickly from the sports background.

yes yes, feet do all that stuff. footwork is important. but without the blade, this is a different sport. surely this means something? and i'm not arguing bladework is more important. i'm arguing that they're similar enough in importance, albeit in different areas, to be approximately equal (since you can't really quantify footwork or bladework).
<font size="1">p.s.: i'm also arguing this cause because it was the one with the least votes and this is a boring memorial day weekend, no hard feelings to anyone, i sometimes just like to argue</font>

[Soldier]

The other issue to consider is complexity: Footwork is simply far simpler than bladework.

Footwork has, what? Advance, retreat, lunge, cross-step (unless you're a sabrist and haven't evolved that far yet), ballestra, fleche, and maybe half-step? Once you get those down, you just use different combinations of them.

What does bladework have? Eight parries, counter-parries, extension, disengages, derobements, beats, feints, blade takes, opposition parries...and most of those movements are different for many or all of the eight different positions. From all of those, the combinations that are made require differences in timing and movement of each of the constituent movements.

Footwork, therefore, is fundamental. You need good footwork to be able to use bladework decently, but good footwork is not nearly as hard to accomplish as good bladework. It is more a matter of knowing when to implement what, instead of knowing how to actually execute it. That is probably why you haven't seen top-notch fencers with poor footwork.

[mrbiggs]

Footwork may be more fundamental, but that deosn't mean it's easier.

Running in a straight line may be more fundamental than, say, playing Magic the Gathering (you've been running since you were 3 at the latest, I've been playing Magic for 5 years and I still don't know all the deatils), but winning a 26-mile marathon, or even completing one, is a truly impressive accomplishment, while even becoming the best Magic player in the world won't give you more than five minutes of fame. It's the simplicity of the footwork that makes it hard.

About six months ago, I thought I had my footwork down pretty good. Then, I was given a private lesson by a coach in my club who I had never taken a lesson from before. He fenced about 20 or 30 years ago, and is the club expert on form. We spent the entire half-hour working on simple form, mostly advances, reatreats, lunges, and the en guarde position. It turns out I had many problems with even the simplest actions, yet I had never noticed them because of their simplicity. I still probably have problems with my footwork even while I'm doing it in slow motion. Even if I didn't, I would still have the challenge of making it faster, both in one direction, and in changing directions.

Bladework, on the other hand, is comparitively simple. Parries 4,6,7,and 8 are the same actions exectued at different angles. Parries 1,3,5,and 9 are rarely used. The rest of the actions can be thought of in the same way, most are wither variants of another action, or very rarely used. Bladework can be done reasonably well by a second-year fencer.

(Just so you know ahead of time, this is foil, although the lesson applies to the other weapons) My coach and I are a good example of this. We are probably the extremes of the footwork vs bladework styles. I am very much a bladework fencer, not because I think bladework is better, but because that happens to be how I was born. My coach, on the other hand, is a footwork fencer. My bladework is as good as his, and probably better, but his footwork is better than mine. He could easily beat me 15-0 in a DE bout. Why? Because when I fence him, I can see the openings that would allow me to score a touch, but I don't get a chance to use my bladework. I could make a perfect parry, but I am unable to riposte because he is already out of range.

Sorry for the long, rambling post that for some reason touches on a card game, but I got really into this thread. (probably because I'm supposes to be doing homework )