Knowing your opponent.

[Epee Scherma]

In the Sergei Golubitsky's video, "Once Upon a Time" he explains how he doesn't understand the benefits of rushing in and hitting an opponent before understanding their actions.

I agree that we need to spend more time scoping out our opponent before attacking. Do you feel like you rush in (I'm speaking about only in DE's)? I have to admit that I only know my opponent near the end and not the begining because I focus strictly on making the touch. I'm just wondering what everyone's opinion is when it comes to knowing your opponent.

I made a couple graphs of "time to make a touch" v. cumulative points in an high level fencing competition. I did it with a stop watch and videos I had downloaded. The idea that high level fencers examine their opponents in the begining of a DE is only slightly evident in each of the trend lines. I think Golubitsky is right. We need to learn more before jumping in.

These were both epee matches I timed, so their could be a discrepancy if relating this data to foil (and definately saber). In both of the matches I timed, they ended up 14-14 la belle before finishing.

The attached are my data recordings, with a moving average trendline (stock-market like) and a smooth trend line.

I made the graphs with excel and saved them as .gif picture files so everyone without excel can still download them.

Personally, I was surprised that even high level fencers did not take much time understanding each other's moves out. It seems to takes the chess part away from "physical chess".

I'd be very interested in anyone's comments.

[Elemental]

My coach explained the benifits of studying your opponent during your DE before my first tournament. I can't really concieve of fencing any other way. You just need to be sure to remember to vary your tactics lest your opponent figures out your game...

[ThatReallyHurt]

But couldn't part of understanding your opponent be seeing if you could just walk in and get a hit? See how they react/parry/retreat/etc?

Someone told me a little while ago that you should always try to keep your offensive momentum going - if you study your opponent for too long, don't you run the risk of finding yourself defending?

[acaba]

Personally, I was surprised that even high level fencers did not take much time understanding each other's moves out. It seems to takes the chess part away from "physical chess".

That depends on how much time you define as 'much'. Looks like first touches were scored at around 25-40 seconds. That is more than enough time to get a first order aproximation as to what your opponet will do. Until you actually commit to an attack, you often don't know your opponent's real intentions/reactions. So a first action after 30 seconds of probing seems to be reasonable to me.

Thirty seconds of fencing time is actually a lot mor than it seems.

[Micheezehead]

I agree that 30 seconds is a long time in "fencing time." I would also consider in the bouts that were timed if the fencers had faced each other before. Or even watching each other at some other time.
Personally, I try to scout out my opponents before I even get on the strip with them. And even using knowledge from previous bouts from other tournaments.
So I would say that "fencing time" would play a part but alot of information can be gained by just watching.

[achilleus]

Any of you ever watch football? Or basketball during the playoffs?

During each week in football, the team prepares for it's next game by watching video, and drilling to exploit the known weakness of the opponent.

In playoff basketball, they do the same thing, with the added knowledge of having played the team at least twice in the regular season, and adjust after each game.

In fencing, especially at the high levels, they know each other. They've fenced each other. They have films of each other, and they know what each fencer likes to do, dislikes, and where they are weak. You think Ivan Lee knows Pozdniakov? He only wrote a paper on him for school. You think he hasn't watched video of him? Modeled his game after him? He knew Poz's game by the time he stepped up on strip at the Games in '04.

The feel out part of the bout is short for this reason, and one other. Top level fencers identify, exploit, adjust and adapt quicker than lower level fencers.

[keith]

the other place that you get to see your opponent is during warm up drills they do with their coach/clubmates - worth watching to see what set of reactions are most likely to be first out of the box in a bout, and what order they are prone to do their parries.

[davtsung]

Of the time I spend scouting an opponent by watching them fencing someone else, I would hazard to say that it is not as beneficial for me as scouting them during actual fencing. Each bout has a different rhythm, and we all have a good feeling what it is in about 3 minutes (speaking of DE's that is) I try my best to test out what I can, can't, should, shouldn't do within that time, and work for the remaining time to implement the necessary changes. Good fencers can impose their tactic on weak opponents, but can't necessarily adjust; great fencers on the other hand can adjust to whatever their opponents are throwing at them. Thus great fencers are hard for me to scout before hand. It is true that we all have strengths and weaknesses and some consistent set of tactics we employ, but against trully humbling opponents its all one crap shoot. I will listen to what I team-mates have to say about an opponent and take it into heart, but I guess I rather have the results decided on the piste rather than thinking about it before hand. Just what seems to work for me.