Footwork vs. Bladework

[epeemike81]

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

nah, but I have been fencing a lot more sabre lately than epee. I still get lessons in both.

-m

[epeemike81]

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.

now you've just shifted points. the original discussion was about which was MORE IMPORTANT to excelling at fencing. The basketball player example is quite true, but not very relavent.

I will, clearly, agree that if you aren't holding a weapon, you aren't fencing.

-m

[epeemike81]

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.

your definition of "footwork" covers about 5% of what is ACTUALLY encompassed in footwork. each of those actions can be done at a myriad of speeds (for that matter, HALF steps are done at varying speeds), and combined to form intricate tempos. it is these tempos that EVERYTHING is based upon. in contrast, much of the bladework you mention is unnecessary and not very useful in the modern game. in modern sabre, for example, 2,3,4,5 are all you really need (maybe a prime every once in a while).

But, yes, I'll agree that footwork is fundamental. as in the basis for the rest of the sport. again I harken back to how much easier it is to win with good footwork and little bladework, and how tough to win with little to no footwork and good bladework.

-m

[noodle]

now you've just shifted points. the original discussion was about which was MORE IMPORTANT to excelling at fencing. The basketball player example is quite true, but not very relavent.

I will, clearly, agree that if you aren't holding a weapon, you aren't fencing.

-m

excelling at fencing?
thats not what the title or first post says...
its just importance.
(i didn't respond to some of your stuff because they were valid points i had no arguments with, i'm allowed to make other statements, right? i had more cards up my sleeve)
footwork is more important when playing the game, but to the fundamental aspects of what the structure of the game is, bladework is more important. no bladework, no fencing. no footwork, (usually) no success in competition. approximately equal importance in my book.

[The0ne]

you kind of proved the footwork point. YOur basketball guy just picked up the weapon, obviously didn't perfect his bladework in 3 weeks, but his footwork made him win tournaments. .

[epeemike81]

excelling at fencing?
thats not what the title or first post says...
its just importance.
(i didn't respond to some of your stuff because they were valid points i had no arguments with, i'm allowed to make other statements, right? i had more cards up my sleeve)
footwork is more important when playing the game, but to the fundamental aspects of what the structure of the game is, bladework is more important. no bladework, no fencing. no footwork, (usually) no success in competition. approximately equal importance in my book.

so, now importance measured on different scales is comparable?

whatever. my argument: Footwork is more important to achieving success in fencing.

-m

[noodle]

shrug. ambiguous question leads to multiple interpretations.

i've just been arguing for fun, more or less.
i also believe that footwork produces more results than bladework.
though i do believe that you have to have both for success.

[Schiavona]

I once won a small club sabre tournament using only bladework. I was talked into fencing with a sprained ankle. Learned a couple of things that day; 1) a calm mind and a good parry-riposte can do wonders 2) winning by fencing in a manner that was alien to me (i.e. not attacking!) was not any FUN!!! Yup, learned a lot that day.

By the way, these days footwork is the most important, but if a deeper, 'richer' bladework was taught it would be less so. The time-in-training factor greatly favors footwork over bladework and rightly so. There, my two cent$.

[Schiavona]

Parries 1,3,5,and 9 are rarely used.

(Just so you know ahead of time, this is foil, although the lesson applies to the other weapons)

Parry 9????

[Soldier]

your definition of "footwork" covers about 5% of what is ACTUALLY encompassed in footwork. each of those actions can be done at a myriad of speeds (for that matter, HALF steps are done at varying speeds), and combined to form intricate tempos. it is these tempos that EVERYTHING is based upon. in contrast, much of the bladework you mention is unnecessary and not very useful in the modern game. in modern sabre, for example, 2,3,4,5 are all you really need (maybe a prime every once in a while).

But, yes, I'll agree that footwork is fundamental. as in the basis for the rest of the sport. again I harken back to how much easier it is to win with good footwork and little bladework, and how tough to win with little to no footwork and good bladework.

-m

I'm just talking about the actions themselves. Even at different speeds and therefore tempos, the actions remain pretty much the same. It is easy enough to string together a bunch of advances, retreats, crossovers, and lunges to keep up a good random tempo. I know; I have been told before I look like I'm dancing, and that it's maddening as hell, because they never know where I'm going. I do that without thinking. In order to get bladework right, however, requires a lot more mental effort, in my opinion.

As for the various parries: First off, I've never heard of nine of them. Ever. Anywhere. Second, I used all eight with about equal frequency - also quite effective, since it gives you more options in response to any given action. A lot of times, too, you'll get a touch and leave the other guy saying "What the hell did you just do?"

[mrbiggs]

Okay, everybody, my coach taught me that parry 9 was to block a shoulder flick. I always assumed that that was correct, but it's not impossibile that it was made up.

I'm not even going to get in to parry 10 (just kidding )

[Schiavona]

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.

I really should read through the threads before I post

I have a theory on the rise of footwork and the simplification of bladework and it all comes down to time-in-training. Twenty years and more ago, colleges really didn't have the trained fencers entering college they have now. How to train competitors when it may take 2-3 years to train a really good understanding of bladework? Change the game. Concentrate on footwork-distance and timing, teach flicks and absence of blade. This can really produce a good competitive fencer FAST! And fast fencers can evade good bladework, unless they get pinned to their end of the strip!

[Soldier]

To block a shoulder flick - we used a high fifth. I suppose it depends on how you define fifth, though; we called fifth a horizontal sweep up to just over your head, not the really low fourth that some places teach.

So now we're making up new parries for rotten attacks?
What is the fencing world coming to?

[Schiavona]

Okay, everybody, my coach taught me that parry 9 was to block a shoulder flick. I always assumed that that was correct, but it's not impossibile that it was made up.

I'm not even going to get in to parry 10 (just kidding )

I was always taught that parry 9 was the retreat! more footwork.......

Can you describe your coach's parry 9? Inquiring minds want to know.......

[Schiavona]

To block a shoulder flick - we used a high fifth. I suppose it depends on how you define fifth, though; we called fifth a horizontal sweep up to just over your head, not the really low fourth that some places teach.

So now we're making up new parries for rotten attacks?
What is the fencing world coming to?

I always felt that a straight-in flick to the shoulder or back was more like a sabre head cut, so I teach a high 5 ala sabre though a high 3 works better for the riposte more bladework......

[mrbiggs]

It's the same parry you said (and it was described that way), only it's called "parry 9". Nothing new, just a new way of talking about it.

[Soldier]

I always felt that a straight-in flick to the shoulder or back was more like a sabre head cut, so I teach a high 5 ala sabre though a high 3 works better for the riposte more bladework......

Exactly what it was.

[epeefencer74]

Okay, everybody, my coach taught me that parry 9 was to block a shoulder flick. I always assumed that that was correct, but it's not impossibile that it was made up.

I'm not even going to get in to parry 10 (just kidding )

Nope it's not made up there is such a thing as a ninth parry. I've read about it in some of the older manuals, but can't visualize it from the description.

As for the question at hand, I reckon footwork to be more important than bladework, simply from the fact that no matter how good your blade work is, if you can't reach your opponent you don't score.

My Irish coach has always emphasied the point that the perfect fencer must have perfect distance and timing, everything else is extra.

[Inquartata]

cross-step (unless you're a sabrist and haven't evolved that far yet )

Ah, such touching naivete, Soldier! You have it wrong way 'round, actually. Passe avant used to be all the rage in sabre, but we evolved past the need for such a primitive means of locomotion. Perhaps one day you backward pointy-weapon folk will manage to accomplish this as well....

[Inquartata]

The so-called St. George's Parry ( sabre parry of quinte but with point aimed in the opposite direction and elbow across the body ) was sometimes labelled parry #9...