Closing distance and opponents steps

[Grasshopper]

In foil, when is the best time to close distance related to your opponents footwork? Just as your opponents front foot touches the ground? Before? After?

I have a feeling is "just as it touches" because at that moment your opponent will have the most difficulty changing lines....any thoughts?

[dunastor]

That would be just as your opponent lifts his front foot to make a step.

When he has both his feet on the floor he has the ability to change directions and/or speed.

[mollusk]

The best time to close distance is when they least expect it. I know it sounds like a smart a** answer, but it is true.

[Craig]

In foil, when is the best time to close distance related to your opponents footwork? Just as your opponents front foot touches the ground? Before? After?

I have a feeling is "just as it touches" because at that moment your opponent will have the most difficulty changing lines....any thoughts?

What is the purpose of closing the distance? Depending on your purpose, there may be a different optimum time.

For attacking into a person who is moving forward, the best time is right when the front toe is up and weight is shifting. The fencer is committed to some forward movement and won't be able to back out of it and retreat as quickly.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Close the distance when hes not expecting it. Suck him into your footwork.. attack, make him want to riposte, retreat alot, make him follow you down the piste, keep your distance, when he's not expecting it, advance lunge into his advance. He wont have time to react if hes following you at full speed with long strides.

[J.Harris]

advance lunge into his advance. He wont have time to react if hes following you at full speed with long strides.

Yes but when is the best time to close distance related to your opponents footwork? Just as your opponents front foot touches the ground? Before? After?

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I'd say when their front foot has left the ground.

[acaba]

> Yes but when is the best time to close distance related to your opponents
> footwork? Just as your opponents front foot touches the ground? Before?
> After?

I wouldn't say that there is a 'best' time to close distance, it all depends on what you want to do. When to close distance depends on how you want your opponent to react.

Say your opponent is making a stepping forward/step back pair. You can initiate the action at one of three points: 1) When the opponent is in the process of stepping forward, 2) when your opponent's front foot has just landed and his/her momentum is changing from forward to back, 3) after he/she has finished the advance and is starting backward.

For each one, your opponent will typically have a different response. For 1), since the momentum is forward, a typical result is for him/her to attack/counterattack. Good setup for your parry-riposte. For 2), your opponent is stuck and cannot move well. Good setup for feint-decieve. For 3), your opponent is going away from you, so will probably defend. Good setup for counter-parry riposte.

The best way to train this is to actually watch your oppponent's feet, and time your attack/feint/distance-change for different times in your opponents advance. Do this at practice, and you will notice that suddently your club mates are reacting predictably to your attacks.

[wflaschka]

I've found that it's very difficult (ergo unrewarding) to get too specific about things involving an opponent. Best time to close distance with an opponent -- when they're advancing. But what's better than that? When their front foot is lifting for the advance. And better than that? When their toe is lifting for the advance. For some problems, using a microscope keeps you from seeing the big picture.

For my own fencing and sanity, I've tried to simplify stuff into "big truths." A fencer closes distance with an opponent why? -- They want to generate surprise, and catch the opponent unawares. The best way to generate surprise is change in speed. Slow/fast, fast/slow -- there's a good (or at least long) article The Value of Timing in Tactics by Zbigniew Czajkowski.

It has been noticed long ago that certain situations are more conductive to scoring a hit. This has been called in English "timing" or "choice of time", in Italian "scelta di tempo", in French "L'a propos". The expression used by Polis fencers "zaskoczenia" (literal translation - "surprise") or "wyczucie zaskoczenia" (feeling of surprise) better depicts the situation than an expression which only considers the element of time.

After enough practice, fencers find their bodies "settling into" good timing. You'll naturally be launching attacks when the opponent is least prepared. You'll naturally close distance when the opponent is about to step forward. As it turns out, this stuff is intuited, trained in by long hours, and non-decisional.

[Peach]

For me, the best time to close distance is when you have made your opponent do what you want them to do. Do you want them in the middle of changing directions? Make them believe they can get you to fall short if they make a retreat. Do you want them trying to run away? Make them believe they can get away fast enough to set up a new action. Coming toward you? Make them believe you are a sitting duck. Do you want them to lunge into your attack? Make them believe your attack is over. I would argue that it's more important that your opponent is doing what you want than that you try to time the details of their actions.

[jBirch]

As everyone else has said, the answer is "it depends".

If your purpose is to attack into an opponent unable to retreat, then I'd actually advocate moving when the weight shifts to the back leg before the front toe lifts. If you're looking to time into an opponent "turning the corner", then as soon as their weight drops to change direction.

If your purpose is to turn the corner yourself, then you want to time the motion right when they are shifting their weight forward to stop their step. The time it takes them to perceive that you are now advancing will either freeze them in place or carry them forward into their next step. Ideally, you want to get them right when their back foot starts to lift, so that they have to overcome their muscle inertia AND shift their weight to the other leg.

What you're trying to do is time your action so that your opponent has the most inertia to overcome to get out of the way. Depending on the action, you can find these points if you break the footwork down as low as you can go.

Granted, these timing points assume an opponent who is going to perform a footwork action and are not simply feints to suck you in. You'll have to gauge your opponent to figure out which is which.

Hope this helps.

[Grasshopper]

Of course I agree with idea of doing things that your opponent least expects, but I am talking about dissecting timing in footwork here.

I found it strange that nobody brought up the relation between hand and foot timings on this one. I believe that for most fencers, the most difficult time to change lines (in a marching attack for example) is the moment their front foot hits the ground. Since you don't want to be counter-attacking while your opponent's hand is moving forward in the same line (because he will probably hit you by just continuing forward), it seems the best time to close-distance for a counter-attack is when he is changing lines.

Also, imagine counter-attacking into a march where your opponent clearly has ROW:

a) If you shoot forward when your opponent's front foot has just lifted of the ground, he sees this and is required to do only one simple push with his back leg to finish and hit you.

b) On the other hand, if you shoot forward as soon as his front foot hits the ground, before he can hit you, he must first shift his weight to his back leg, and then push - which is two motions, not one, and will probably appear to the referee to be preparation.

My point is that there is a one tempo difference between a) opponent just pushes with back leg to finish and b) opponent shifts weight to back leg then pushes back leg to finish.

Any comments?

[kalivor]

Of course I agree with idea of doing things that your opponent least expects, but I am talking about dissecting timing in footwork here.

I found it strange that nobody brought up the relation between hand and foot timings on this one.

I've always taught (and been taught) to keep the hand and feet seperate -- they need to be co-ordinated, but not dependent on each other. I think you'll find that good fencers don't get their hands caught up in their feet. The bad fencers -- well, you'll have less problems fencing them.

Also, imagine counter-attacking into a march where your opponent clearly has ROW:

a) If you shoot forward when your opponent's front foot has just lifted of the ground, he sees this and is required to do only one simple push with his back leg to finish and hit you.

b) On the other hand, if you shoot forward as soon as his front foot hits the ground, before he can hit you, he must first shift his weight to his back leg, and then push - which is two motions, not one, and will probably appear to the referee to be preparation.

My point is that there is a one tempo difference between a) opponent just pushes with back leg to finish and b) opponent shifts weight to back leg then pushes back leg to finish.

Any comments?

Again, most *good* fencers move fairly smoothly. If you move forward as they step down, they'll just abbreviate the back foot's forward movement, and make their lunge quickly. Could look like acceleration. As most fencers aren't teeter-tottering down the piste, I expect that the rhythmic swaying will be subtle at best.

[Grasshopper]

Again, most *good* fencers move fairly smoothly. If you move forward as they step down, they'll just abbreviate the back foot's forward movement, and make their lunge quickly. Could look like acceleration. As most fencers aren't teeter-tottering down the piste, I expect that the rhythmic swaying will be subtle at best.

I totally agree that most "good" fencers move smoothly but a "better" fencer should be able to dissect weaknesses of a "good" fencer. If you admit that there are no holes in your opponent, you will never beat them.

Imagine you are facing Cassara or Bissdorf or Sanzo in a World Cup level competition. All three fencers have very solid games and move smoothly. But there ARE times in their movement when they are more vulnerable than others. I am asking "At which point during X-fencers stepping is a counter-attack going to be most effective?"

Walter, I don't think I'm over-analyzing here. This is basic foil theory, but it gets overlooked these days. Before flicking and march attacks (I'm talking mid-80's here) everything in foil fencing was smaller - smaller steps, smaller bladework, shorter distance - look at Romankov, Omnes, Numa. These days, everything is BIG. Big marches, big flicks, big parries, longer distance - Cassara, Bissdorf, Sanzo, and Bayer for that matter...

I still think there is merit to analyzing footwork on a detailed level and I bet my last dollar that the top fencers in the world have been trained extensively on this. In my opinion, the more details we skip training because we think they are "intuitive" or "not really important", the more reactionary and sloppier we become.

[Grasshopper]

Walter: reading on through the author you suggested I found this:

"If we could imagine a highly sensitive machine registering a graph of your adversary's mental concentration, we should visualize an undulation line and we should attack with every downward turn of the pen, with the recording of each depression"."

This is what I am talking about - I think that there is a special moment, or blind spot if you will at the moment when the opponents front foot touches the ground on a step. The author is talking about mental concentration, but I think the undulation line analogy could also be used for finding holes in footwork.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Most good fencers realize their weaknesses, and either correct them or hide them.

[kalivor]

I totally agree that most "good" fencers move smoothly but a "better" fencer should be able to dissect weaknesses of a "good" fencer. If you admit that there are no holes in your opponent, you will never beat them.

Oh, I understand what you're saying, my response is just to say that a decent fencer won't change their next step into a two-tempo action because you launch your attack as they put their foot down. Nor are they likely to have a sudden inability to change lines. If anything, I'd say it's the worst time, as they have the most options open to them -- they could move in either direction, and have more options, tactically.

My comments were intended as a rebuttal to the "two-tempo and inability to change lines" argument, rather than meant to mean that it's impossible to successfully counterattack a good fencer (or attack into their preparation).

If you're suggesting that there's some sort of lapse in concentration at that moment (which you may be, given your response to Walter), you're welcome to test your theory and get back to us. I suspect that there may be a kernel of truth to it -- everybody starts by learning a simple, direct, one-tempo attack, so a beginner will, on some level, feel their action to be ending with every step and resuming with the next. Again, I very much doubt that this can be applied to higher-level fencers across the board. Individual cases may vary ... I'm sure there are some fencers who would be highly vulnerable to such attacks.