Romankov and the sentiment du fer

[drippingwet]

"Romankov is a master of sending the wrong signals down the blade." Taken from the Romankov biography (fencing.net).

1. Is sentiment du fer used much these days?

2. Was it used much in Romankov's day (apart from Romankov)?

3. Modern fencing doesn't seem to use engagements, using tempo, marches, attacks on prep, and therefore general absence of blade, and threfore no oppertunity for sentiment du fer.

4. What's the secret to this apparently romantic notion? Do you need long engagements? How can you read the opponent through the blade and send misinformation through the blade?

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

1. Is sentiment du fer used much these days?

Reading signals off the blade happens naturally for fencers with a lot of experience, so you can't help but use it. It's another form of input that can be useful. In the same sense... long ago I was fencing on a raised strip, and I realized I was using the vibrations of the strip to warn me that the opponent was making a serious attack.

Originally Posted by drippingwet

2. Was it used much in Romankov's day (apart from Romankov)?

I've mostly seen late-80's Romankov. In my videos, he was using his bladework against Germans and Italians who were already minimizing their blade contact time with flying parries, sweeps, and blade-absent attacks. But I'd hazard that the further back you go, the more important this sensitivity was to the fencers. The heavier the blade, the less it could move -- you had to make darn sure you were making the right movement, and you would use your entire sensorium to make these decisions.

Originally Posted by drippingwet

3. Modern fencing doesn't seem to use engagements, using tempo, marches, attacks on prep, and therefore general absence of blade, and threfore no oppertunity for sentiment du fer.

With the new box timings, there will be fewer glancing, sliding, and flicked hits. These hits will necessarily be replaced by the last remaining kind of hit -- the direct, blade-bending point hit. To make a point hit, you can't be too close to your opponent, you have to keep them in front of you. Fencers will use longer distance, and lunge from further away, so that the opponent can't close distance suddenly and cause the fencer to miss. But attacks from further away also means that the defender has more of a chance to take a parry. The attacker will know this, and have 2nd-intention actions ready.

In short, the language of foil will grow more complicated again, there will be less grunting and more of a back-and-forth conversation. It is during the longer exchanges that fencers with a good feel for the blade. Every engagement, every parry, every taking of the blade will give them information about the opponent's next action, sort of like mind-reading.

Originally Posted by drippingwet

4. What's the secret to this apparently romantic notion? Do you need long engagements? How can you read the opponent through the blade and send misinformation through the blade?

Your blade can touch the opponent's blade in many different ways; the different ways are divided by how they meet the blade, and what they do on the blade afterwards.

- engagement: meets the blade lightly, rests on the blade, no sound.
- beat: meets the blade sharply, springs off the blade, one crisp sound
- take: meets the blade softly, rests firmly on the blade, no sliding sound
- transfer: meets the blade softly, moves the blade firmly, a sizzling sound
- close-out: meets the blade harply, stays on the blade firmly, slurping sound
- &etc etc.

You can get a training partner, and practice different ways of finding the blade. Engage, press, tap, tap-tap, tap-beat, coulé, transfer. Have your partner echo what you do, and switch off. Concentrate on what each action feels like, and start noticing differences. For example, try taking the blade when your training partner is completely relaxed; it feels different from when your training partner is tense or fidgety.

One attack drill you can try: Take the opponent's blade, and press it while making an advance. If the opponent does nothing, simply release the blade and lunge. If the opponent presses back, disengage and lunge.

A defense drill: The opponent attacks you, and you parry. If the opponent does nothing, just riposte. If the opponent presses back against the parry, disengage and hit. Make sure to use an opposition parry, the sort that holds the opponent's blade and moves it to a different location. "Beat" parries merely deflect the blade, and give you no time to think or feel. When you're parrying, and you feel the opponent pressing back against your parry, you know they're going to make a lateral counter-parry.

[drippingwet]

Thanks Walter for all your answers.

[nahouw]

1. Only if you have an opponent who will let you. Many actions today are with abscence of blade. I had a bout once with a Russian woman -- I was very impressed by her training, because no matter how I used various subtle blade movements and pressures, she didn't respond. It was very interesting, because although people watching the bout thought that nothing was going on, both she and I both knew what was going on. She was smart enough to know what I was doing to not fall for it.

2. In Romankov 's time, I'm sure.

3, Yes, you don't see it as much -- but then again, like a coach who was supervising me with younger fencers said "Don't let her touch your blade" -- if you are fencer that has sentiment du fer, then with the contact of your opponent's blade, you know their action before they do.

4. Ahh.. the secret for the ages.... it all amounts to the fine art of fencing Through it , you learn to feed misinformation as part of you strategy.

Originally Posted by drippingwet

"Romankov is a master of sending the wrong signals
down the blade." Taken from the Romankov biography (fencing.net).

1. Is sentiment du fer used much these days?

2. Was it used much in Romankov's day (apart from Romankov)?

3. Modern fencing doesn't seem to use engagements, using tempo, marches, attacks on prep, and therefore general absence of blade, and threfore no oppertunity for sentiment du fer.

4. What's the secret to this apparently romantic notion? Do you need long engagements? How can you read the opponent through the blade and send misinformation through the blade?