Goloubitski attack/total point scored ratio

[dunastor]

I've always learned the same list of terms but with different definitions for second intention (an attack which is expected to be parried, in order to make a second parry-riposte

.

I think that's just a counter-riposte, nothing second intention about it.
If you think already your attack is gonna be parried, finish in another line

[Peach]

.

I think that's just a counter-riposte, nothing second intention about it.
If you think already your attack is gonna be parried, finish in another line

It's second intention because the first intention of the attack is not to land but to draw a predictable riposte. It's useful when your opponent has an excellent first-action defense. It's also demoralizing to your opponent .

If you finish in another line, it's just feint-attack or indirect attack. A first intention attack.

[Peach]

I think I got confused. According to my list, counter-time is an action against the opponent's counter-attack, while feint-in-tempo is a feint of counter-attack to draw the opponent's action. I also love feint-in-tempo.

[dunastor]

It's second intention because the first intention of the attack is not to land but to draw a predictable riposte. It's useful when your opponent has an excellent first-action defense. It's also demoralizing to your opponent .

Yes but I don't think it will fall under the tactical wheel. If you look at the Wheel, you see it are all actions which are intended for you to get hold of RoW. To "intentionally" let yourself be parried is maybe convenient for a counter-riposte, but it is giving away RoW in fact. If it works, fine, but I don't think it is a leading example of second intention...

If you finish in another line, it's just feint-attack or indirect attack. A first intention attack.

That's right. I always like to keep my actions as simple as possible (although I really like countertime)

[oiuyt]

Yes but I don't think it will fall under the tactical wheel. If you look at the Wheel, you see it are all actions which are intended for you to get hold of RoW. To "intentionally" let yourself be parried is maybe convenient for a counter-riposte, but it is giving away RoW in fact. If it works, fine, but I don't think it is a leading example of second intention...

The point of the tactical wheel is NOT to gain ROW, it's to score touches... same as in fencing.

Second intention is a tactic in which one's first action fails deliberately in order to draw a response (presumably a response that one can easily deal with to score).

If I KNOW my opponent always follows a parry 4 with a head cut and I can deal with that riposte (given that I know when it's coming and can set the distance) then I have a perfect opportunity for a second intention action. I pick the time, I pick the distance, and feed them an attack that they can feel comfortable attempting a parry 4-headcut. I know it's coming, I should be able to pick it up and land the counterriposte. It should be very plausible that I have better odds of pulling off this entire move than I would of hitting directly (or for that matter with a feint deceive, etc.). If I can hit in first intention I won't complicate things by going to second intention. If I can't, I still need some way to score. Frequently second intention is what does this. It's not a problem that my first action doesn't score, it's not intended to. What it does is set up a situation where another action CAN score. I don't need to hold ROW all of the time as long as I can get it when I want it.

More to the point, the tactical wheel definitely applies in epee. ROW doesn't come into play there.

-B :)

[Hamley]

And this is why i like Epee


Noah

[dunastor]

The point of the tactical wheel is NOT to gain ROW, it's to score touches... same as in fencing.

Second intention is a tactic in which one's first action fails deliberately in order to draw a response (presumably a response that one can easily deal with to score).....

OK I see your point.

But at least let me say then that it isn't necessary in a counter-riposte for the first attack to be second intention.
As in: in second intention one way is a counter-riposte, but not all counter-ripostes are in second intention...

[oiuyt]

Yes, of course. It's impossible for anyone outside the fencer in question to know whether the counter-riposte was the final part of a second intention action or a first intention action that follows the failure of an earlier first intention action (oh, there are indications, especially when the sequence is repeated in a way that appears intentional, but in theory it could just be a quick reaction to the failure of an action that had been intended to score).

-B :)

[dunastor]

Thanks, that's what I meant..