Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Bebop and Rocksteady · 06-29-2002, 07:17 PM

I've noticed that the majority, no, all of the fencing 'how-to' books and websites I've been to have all stressed using small steps over large steps. The most common reason for this is that in the process of moving forward, you're vulnerable to an attack. I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind this, since being vulnerable while advancing suggests that retreating is this fencer's only means of defense. If you know how to parry, this shouldn't even be an issue!

Let's look at what else longer steps can do for us as opposed to smaller ones. Let's take the lunge, as an example. The sole purpose of it is to close the distance in order to score, right? And since closing the distance most efficiently would require a big step forward in addition to a straightening of the rear leg, a lunge would be more quickly detected, and therefore more quickly parried. Any fencer can easily distinguish a small step forward with a lunge!

Of course, smaller steps are useful in some situations, but for most of the time, it would just make things harder. I realize that fencing takes place at a faster level today when it comes to footwork. Try moving as fast as you can with longer advances with shorter ones, and you'll quickly realize you can't.

Discuss.

afc fencer · 06-29-2002, 08:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind this, since being vulnerable while advancing suggests that retreating is this fencer's only means of defense. If you know how to parry, this shouldn't even be an issue! <hr /></blockquote>Retreating should almost always be your first line of defense. Doing a parry at close distance will result in one of to things, A: You react to quickly to a persons attack. Or B: The persons blade whips over.

It is also hard to change tempo when you are taking big steps. Whereas if your start with slow small steps it is very simple to change to a quick tempo and it is much harder to get caught in preparation.

neevel · 06-29-2002, 10:29 PM

Small steps allow you to:

- Control distance much more precisely. Against a competent opponent, being off in your distance for a given situation by just a couple of inches can be the difference between success and failure.

- Insert more foot tempos into your actions. Every interval between steps is an opportunity to change something-- be it direction, speed, or the size of your next step. The fencer taking the smaller steps will have that many more opportunities to react to openings or threats, and be much better able to set up an opponent and exploit the created hitting tempos. I don't think you know who Gia Kvaratskhelia and Bakhyt Abdikulov are, B&R, but one of the most memorable bouts I've watched was one in which Bakhyt soundly defeated Gia by using small, precisely timed footwork in the face of Gia's very strong, fast-moving actions. Bakhyt is a master at fooling you in to thinking that you "just missed", and thus making you try to attempt the same action again stronger-faster-harder, which he'll still be able to defeat handily. His small, accurate footwork is the foundation of that skill.

While the finish of an attack should generally be a large, strongly committed action, the initial movements shouldn't be. In fact, for compound attacks, the initial actions and steps should actually be done pretty slowly, with the acceleration coming as you commit to the lunge. This accomplishes two things:

1. You will be better able to perceive if your opponent's initial response will allow you to successfully complete the attack, or if they've gotten to parry-riposte distance or started a potentially sucessful stop-hit or counterattack.

2. You will make it more difficult for your opponent to correctly judge the timing and speed of your finish based on the timing and speed of your initiation.

This accelerating (i.e., slow-fast) tempo change is one of the fundamental skills to master in making compound attacks. When beginners act wowed by an opponent's speed, they're usually failing to perceive that it's the tempo change, not the raw speed, that is catching them. A tempo change from reeeally-slow to middling speed will usually be more effective than just going full speed from the get-go. Of course, as you get more advanced, you can execute more complex sequences of tempo changes (fast-slow-fast, etc.)

Distance changes (in most cases, a retreat) are an essential part of executing parry-ripostes against competent opponents. Unless your opponent has made a mistake in the distance at which their attack is initiated, you will need to make some kind of distance change prior to parrying. If you were to try and stand still and parry against me, I can pretty much guarantee that I'd be able to land nice, classical, feint-disengage attacks on you at will. In turn, if you were to initiate and attempt to complete feint-disengage attacks against me, and I were to retreat to the correct parry-riposte distance before your lunge, I'd be landing one riposte after another. In the first case, there is time for three actions (1. my feint, 2. your parry, 3. my decieve + finish), while in the second case, the widening of distance due to the retreat allows time for four actions (1. your feint, 2. my first parry, 3. your deceive + finish, 4. my second parry + riposte). Bear in mind that the retreat prior to the parry is not so large as to make your attack fall short, but just large enough to give me time to see what line you're finishing to and make an adequate parry.

-Dave

neevel · 06-29-2002, 10:31 PM

[double post deleted]

[ 06-30-2002, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: neevel ]

MikeHarm · 06-30-2002, 10:49 AM

Isn't it better rather than just picking big steps or small steps to have a variety of different steps you can use to throw off your opponents ability to judge your distance and tempo?

Jeeves · 06-30-2002, 11:43 AM

Mixing up small and bigger steps can give you a bigger arsenal of ways to get in and out of the action. However. Some fencers fall into repeating patterns with their foot work for certain setups or situations and, if you watch closely, you can learn to predict the next action. Kind of like counting cards at a blackjack table in Vegas. The trick is to be unpredictable, and not to be a creature of habit. Ceratures of habit are easy to catch.

***Craig*** · 07-01-2002, 10:31 AM

Smaller steps are better because each time you have both feet on the ground you have a decision point and can react to what is going on around you.

When you have one foot in the air, it is much more difficult to make an adjustment/reaction to your opponent - and this includes making a decent parry or beat to their counter-attack.

Also, with smaller steps you are going to keep your "flow" better than with larger steps. It becomes much easier to change direction, to start and stop, and to change speeds. The number of options you have during your attacks increases and you get many more options on defense as you have many more decision points to play with.

Practice the smaller steps - it takes a while to get them working for your game as it's easy to cheat with large steps. After a few weeks, I think you'll find that you actually move more quickly using smaller steps.

Cheers,
Craig

D'Artagnan1673 · 07-01-2002, 10:40 AM

Sorry, B&R, I must concur with everyone else.

Another thing to consider. If both people were in proper measure and used a long step to preface their lunge, SMASH!!!. We'd have a nice corps-a-corps since neither fencer could slow down in time.

edew · 07-01-2002, 11:45 AM

The difference between a long step and a short step is like the difference between digital and analog. If you want the fine-tuning of analog, you have to have short steps. If you want the discreteness of digital, then take long steps.

sabreur · 07-01-2002, 11:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
The difference between a long step and a short step is like the difference between digital and analog. If you want the fine-tuning of analog, you have to have short steps. If you want the discreteness of digital, then take long steps.<hr /></blockquote>Or, perhaps, one could say that small steps represent the smooth continuum of a Newtonian universe, while long steps are the here now, there then, nothing in between of quantum space.

Or, as it used to be expressed in my neighborhood, "Say what? What have you been smoking, man?"

Short steps and long steps both have their place. An important thing to remember is that you can adjust the length of the next advance or your lunge by ending the advance with your back foot closer to your front foot than normal--this is actually a very subtle way to play with distance.

Cheers, MR

edew · 07-02-2002, 12:09 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by sabreur:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
The difference between a long step and a short step is like the difference between digital and analog. If you want the fine-tuning of analog, you have to have short steps. If you want the discreteness of digital, then take long steps.<hr /></blockquote>Or, perhaps, one could say that small steps represent the smooth continuum of a Newtonian universe, while long steps are the here now, there then, nothing in between of quantum space.

Or, as it used to be expressed in my neighborhood, "Say what? What have you been smoking, man?"

Short steps and long steps both have their place. An important thing to remember is that you can adjust the length of the next advance or your lunge by ending the advance with your back foot closer to your front foot than normal--this is actually a very subtle way to play with distance.

Cheers, MR<hr /></blockquote>It would be nice to employ some Heisenberg uncertainty principle in making feints: whoops there's the blade, no, THERE'S the blade..oops, it's here now. Whap! That'll be good. Of course, use the Pauli Exclusion Principle to clear up all ties for third and such.

Niceguy4186 · 07-02-2002, 09:54 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
The difference between a long step and a short step is like the difference between digital and analog. If you want the fine-tuning of analog, you have to have short steps. If you want the discreteness of digital, then take long steps.<hr /></blockquote>if the fine-tuning of analog is worth it, why is everything switching to digital? :-D

edew · 07-02-2002, 11:00 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Niceguy4186:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
The difference between a long step and a short step is like the difference between digital and analog. If you want the fine-tuning of analog, you have to have short steps. If you want the discreteness of digital, then take long steps.<hr /></blockquote>if the fine-tuning of analog is worth it, why is everything switching to digital? :-D<hr /></blockquote>Because current digital devices is using digital sampling at a very high rate, which would be analogous to very small steps.

The analogy would be more apt if I were to say that digital sampling of sound at 44 kHz is better than digital sampling of sound at 4 kHz, which would be the analogy between many small steps and one big step.

three_hundred_fifty_five · 07-02-2002, 10:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Niceguy4186:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
The difference between a long step and a short step is like the difference between digital and analog. If you want the fine-tuning of analog, you have to have short steps. If you want the discreteness of digital, then take long steps.<hr /></blockquote>if the fine-tuning of analog is worth it, why is everything switching to digital? :-D<hr /></blockquote>Not everything is switching over to digital and in some cases, analog is preferred over digital. In some cases, digital is preferred over analog.

Either way, long steps = bad.... short steps = good.

servdragoon · 07-03-2002, 07:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Either way, long steps = bad.... short steps = good. <hr /></blockquote>This as a generalization is a wrong answer.
There are situations in which long steps could be considered bad, or just not as a benefit to you in the bout, just as there are situations in using small footwork is not the best option. One of the best ways to decieve an opponent is by mixing up your footwork in order to grab the tempo. In this case using both small and long footwork is beneficial to you.
If you really see using long footwork as bad, i would think that is suggesting you dont understand its purpose and hence can't use it to your benefit. If that is true its very understandable because footWORK, takes a lot of work.

swordsen · 07-03-2002, 07:49 AM

Actually I think I have fenced people who can do this. At least everytime I was certain the parry was made there came this vastly annoying beeping sound with a light of the wrong color.
sigh.....

[/quote]It would be nice to employ some Heisenberg uncertainty principle in making feints: whoops there's the blade, no, THERE'S the blade..oops, it's here now. Whap! That'll be good. Of course, use the Pauli Exclusion Principle to clear up all ties for third and such.[/QB][/quote]

three_hundred_fifty_five · 07-03-2002, 12:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by servdragoon:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr /> Either way, long steps = bad.... short steps = good. <hr /></blockquote>This as a generalization is a wrong answer.
There are situations in which long steps could be considered bad, or just not as a benefit to you in the bout, just as there are situations in using small footwork is not the best option. One of the best ways to decieve an opponent is by mixing up your footwork in order to grab the tempo. In this case using both small and long footwork is beneficial to you.
If you really see using long footwork as bad, i would think that is suggesting you dont understand its purpose and hence can't use it to your benefit. If that is true its very understandable because footWORK, takes a lot of work.<hr /></blockquote>You may think taking long steps is beneficial. Small steps let's you control your direction going both ways. It is generally harder to recover from a long step than a short step, that's the basis of using short steps.

Long steps is a sign of sloppy footwork.

MikeHarm · 07-03-2002, 01:43 PM

The correct steps to use is that which accomplishes what you are trying to do on the strip. Locking yourself into one particular sort or the other is being inflexible which would limit the directions you could go with your footwork development.

servdragoon · 07-03-2002, 03:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> You may think taking long steps is beneficial. <hr /></blockquote>I not only think it is beneficial, i know it is because ive used it to make it work in a bout, and have seen quite a few fencers like jason rogers, keeth smart, aki spencer, Csaba Koves, sada jacobson, Touya, Tarantino, Pozdniakov, to name a few, use long footwork as well.

veeco · 07-03-2002, 06:08 PM

Well, I'll just say that I kind of agree with 355 here.

To quote one of the most respected US coaches, namely Buckie Leach, in one of his interviews in American Fencing:

American Fencing: what is one of your favorite "pet peeves"?
BL: Big steps.

I don't remember the exact words in the article, but he was saying that people who take big steps are lazy and that just a little bit of concentration would generally get rid of that mistake. He did not say that taking big steps was something that you could do in particular situations, and emphasized on the fact that people should take steps as small as possible.

Generally, a lot of people confuse big steps with half lunges, jumps or appels, which are done to provoke a reaction from an opponent. As far as preparations and steps, they should always be as little as possible, making a tempo as short as possible. An example of this is a comment from Anne-Lise Touya on the double advance lunge:

"The first step should be as small as possible, your back foot should not cross your engarde ligne. The second step would be much faster, setting up the explosion of the lunge."
She never says that you should increase the size your steps.

As far as servdragoon saying that you need to mix short and long steps in order to "grab the tempo" I would say that tempo and length of footwork are two different things. The time required to make a long step and a short step is pretty much the same, at the same tempo. If you want to grab the tempo, it's generally more beneficial to mix the speed of your footwork, keeping the same length to it, or using half-advances/half-retreats, which conducts an opponent to think that you have conceded a tempo when in fact you gained half of one.