Delaying the parry

[drippingwet]

1. Is delaying the parry worth the risk?

2. It didn't always work for Romanknov did it?

3. Isn't it better to throw out a combination of parries after each plausible threat until you find the blade?

I find parry 4 and then 7 works very well.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

1. Is delaying the parry worth the risk?

Maybe - depends on the exact tactical situation. Once you've been fencing for a while you'll start to get a feel for it.

2. It didn't always work for Romanknov did it?

Romankov lost some bouts, so nothing always worked for him. He was just better at putting it all together and forcing his opponents to play his game more often than he was forced to play theirs.

3. Isn't it better to throw out a combination of parries after each plausible threat until you find the blade?

No. While you may pick up the blade, you also open yourself up to feint-disengage attacks. Throwing out a parry-combo with blind hope that you'll find the blade and actually be able to riposte is exactly what an attacker on the march is waiting for you to do. Once you give in, you are more likely to be hit than not.

Craig

[Rolls]

I find that whenever I throw out a "combination" of parries I miss with them all. Usually, it's because you have to think about which parries you want to throw (you said 4 and 7) before hand rather than looking at the threat and deciding what parry best defeats it in its current form.

Just my 2 cents

Rolls

[achilleus]

Drippingwet,

You have a lot of questions, but I think you seem to be missing something crucial to understanding fencing.

There is no absolute, universal answer for most of your questions, nor is there one absolute best way to fence. If there was, everyone would be doing it.

For example:

1. Is delaying the parry worth the risk?

Depends on the situation. Is it working against your particular opponent? Have you not tried it, and your losing? Have you not tried it, but you have a 10 point lead?

2. It didn't always work for Romanknov did it?

And here is where I really see the problem I mention. Nothing always works for anybody. Romankov, although great was not undefeated or untouchable. He lost bouts. People scored on him. It happens to all fencers.

3. Isn't it better to throw out a combination of parries after each plausible threat until you find the blade?

I find parry 4 and then 7 works very well.

It is useful to do, until your opponent solves the problem. They can make delayed bent arm attacks, while you're searching for the blade, or if you make a pattern, they can learn and avoid your parries.

In fact certain coaching systems rely on training combination parry patterns from a very young age. It's predictable, but if started young, the adult fencer can execute them so fast, without thinking, and at the right time that going around them is very, very difficult.

Really, you would find it more helpful to alter your line of questioning just a little, for example:

1) When is it a good idea to use a delayed parry?
2) How did Romankov set them up so that the delayed parry was successful?
3) How did his opponents defeat the delayed parry?
4) When is it effective to use a combination of parries?

[Grey]

Actually compound parries are rather useful except that you need a lot of drilling to be efficient with it. A few tips to take note will be distance and your choice of parries to use. I frequently use quarte, circular quarte, sixte, circular sixte so on and so forth. Other good combinations would be like quarte, septime, circular quarte. Cover a few lines and include circular parries.

Although it does defend very well against thrusts and disengages or coupes, it'll do very little against flicks unless you use distance too, keeping your opponent well enough away to prevent him from executing a flick to your shoulder.

If a simple quarte or circular sixte works, don't bother with all the compound parries.

[drippingwet]

1) When is it a good idea to use a delayed parry?
2) How did Romankov set them up so that the delayed parry was successful?
3) How did his opponents defeat the delayed parry?
4) When is it effective to use a combination of parries?

Anyone feel like answering these questions then?

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

1) When is it a good idea to use a delayed parry?
2) How did Romankov set them up so that the delayed parry was successful?
3) How did his opponents defeat the delayed parry?
4) When is it effective to use a combination of parries?

In addition to all the other good advice, I'd say that the parries weren't delayed so much as they were relaxed.

That is to say, Romankov wasn't watching the attack get closer, closer, closer, while saying to himself, "Not... just... yet..." It's just that he made his parries in an unhurried fashion. What sort of opponent frightens you the most: An opponent who immediately slashes at the barest hint of an attack, or an opponent who is relaxed and composed and only parries when he might get hit?

If you have a relaxed hand, and you're unruffled by your opponent, and you take a retreat with each parry (that oughta be a law), then your parries will happen "just in time" -- and moreover, the opponent will be fully committed, strung out, tense, and you will be relaxed.

The killer thing about Romankov's parries was not the parries themselves -- it was the omniscient ripostes. If you watch the tapes, you'll see that R's parries almost always left him with a perfect setup for a riposte. It sometimes looks like child's play. With his relaxed hand, R could riposte to inside, outside, high, low, and score even as his opponents fleched past him.

Against a fencer with a calm hand, you can try 2nd-intention. Your first attack won't get through, so be prepared with a counter-parry riposte. If that doesn't work, you can escalate again, to marching attacks.

A long while ago, there was a thread on "just-in-time" parries that dealt with this. You could probably search on it.

[drippingwet]

Full retreat with parry or half-retreat with parry as I've come to know?

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

Full retreat with parry or half-retreat with parry as I've come to know?

There are people on both sides of that question. I learned the full retreat; some great coaches say half-retreat.

When drilling, doing footwork, or taking lessons -- make a whole retreat. This will satisfy the baseline need for distance, and you'll keep your feet underneath you. Moreover, it gives you more time to make your parry, which will keep the parry more relaxed.

In bouting and competition -- well, we're always trying to be a little faster. In the heat of the bout, you take the distance you need, and sometimes that means a half-step back (or no step back). You don't necessarily want to train with a half step, because when you have to make a second parry, or a third, your body will just move the back foot, and/or your legs will end up spread too far apart.

[drippingwet]

That's another fencing fundamental solved (for me at least)!

Oh...

1. Would you always have to lunge to deliver you're riposte after stepping back/half-retreating with a parry?

2. And if you have to lunge, is the riposte by definition, a riposte? And if not, should it be called a beat attack?

3. Whats the coordination between parry and retreat?

4. Does the retreat start just after the opponent's lunge starts?

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

3. Isn't it better to throw out a combination of parries after each plausible threat until you find the blade?

While I realize you're talking about foil (I fence sabre), from my own experience, trying to follow every threat opens you up much more than you otherwise would be. When I'm attacking, I love when an opponent tries to follow every feint, as then I can prolong finishing my attack until I can find a sufficient opening (which there will be if you're allowed to explore so many attacking options).

When on the defensive, following every threat does not work as a first intention, however, I will sometimes attempt to appear as though I'm trying to parry everything, and then try to surprise my opponent with a quick stop cut.

Either way, the important thing to remember is that nothing will work all the time. There are different techniques for different situations and different opponents. You must think, and decide which is best suited for the situation at the time. In fencing, there is never a single "right" thing to do in any given situation (though there certainly are "wrong" things to do), and then challenge is to attempt to do what will actually work at the time.