role of strategy

[drippingwet]

I was wondering what the role of strategy is, even in high level fencing. The reason I ask is that when I watch high level bouts, and when I fight bouts myself, I can't tell how much of it is going on in my opponent's mind and the minds of those fencers in high level bouts. Hits sometimes seem to happen in isolation, with no apparent pattern. I mean, sometimes certain actions can happen over and over again, but other times, the bout can appear more chaotic. When I get on the strip, (I'm defensive lately), if my opponent is a marcher, I can expect to do lots of stop hits/lines/AIP. If my they make more direct attacks, then I can parry riposte. That's about it, and I change from parry riposte to counter-attack as necessary. Is this an example of strategy, or is it just tactics? Any examples of strategy and the differences between tactics and strategy?

Thanks

[wflaschka]

Any examples of strategy and the differences between tactics and strategy?

"Tactics" and "strategy" are frequently bandied about in online discussions... but when I was looking, I had a really hard time finding solid examples of what they mean to fencing. To solve it for myself, I used the definition I'd picked up from some war-book. A tactic is a subclass of a strategy, a means to realize the strategy. I came up with this:

Generally, strategies are general approaches to a problem, and tactics are concrete and specific attempts to solve the problem. Strategies are what fencers think about when hooking up against an opponent they are familiar with; tactics are screamed from the sidelines by coaches. A fencer's distance strategy for a bout might be to "Keep long distance and hit with fleches," but the fencer's tactics might be a panoply of glides, stepped-fleches, false retreats, or other combinations, all used in the service of that strategy.

So if you've been fencing defensively lately, your grand strategy is "defense." More specificially (but still imprecise), as you hook up to fence, you're thinking about finding parries for short attacks, and destroying marches using distance and threat. You move the tactics for those strategies into your short-term memory, so they're right there at the top of the stack.

The tactics you would employ for parries of short attacks are very specific:
- Invite to a certain target, and be ready to parry in that line
- Alternate 4 and c6 to keep the opponent guessing
- Show a lot of deep 4 parries, and be ready with a 6 when the opponent disengages
- Prime yourself for interception parries, which are tough unless you've gotten yourself ready to do them
- Alternate opposition and beat parries, to amuse the opponent

(And then, as a subset of tactics, there is technique, which is the realization of tactics. Some technique is core technique, generally useful, like the parry or extension. Some technique is specific, contingently useful, like the flick, the parry6 before the flick, or (IMHO) parry7.)

Some high-level bouts look like a big mess, some look regular and plodding. Usually they're a mix between the two, resulting in something that looks chaotic but has underlying structure.

As a fencer works a strategy, the tactics are varied, but they're generally trying to impose their will on the opponent; the opponent is trying to do the same thing. So there is a lot of surprise going on, and surprise leads to reflexive actions which might be pretty or ugly, but are very non-decisional and "unthoughtful."

The regular-and-plodding parts of bouts are the fencers working generally towards the goal of winning. The Mr. Thompson Goes To Cuba DVD reveals elements of this -- Thompson's narration is useful for showing when he is working with the "big picture." The messy parts of bouts are when tactics fail, or when an opponent falls prey to the fencer's tactic and the opponent thrashes around.

But there is always a way to regard a bout so that the strategic and tactical levels are clear. In a past thread, Sabreur recorded, point by point, the scoring actions used by Team USA vs Team Russia in the 2004 Men's Team Sabre match. At the end of ?85? touches, the analysis showed the Russians working hand and finesse strategies, and USA working speed-power (IIRC). Using the location of the hits, the method of the hits (riposte, attack), and the distance situation, you can generally see what strategies the fencers/teams have in the forefront of their minds.

In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.

Tactics (plans) are varied, and can fail in detail. But you'll win if your strategy (planning) is one that really pounds the opponents' weaknesses.

[drippingwet]

Great thanks for the post. I don't remember seeing the quoted stuff from the Foil Actions CD in my copy. Is there a new version?

[O_O]

when you combine strategy and tactics, you get tactegy

[riceboy]

when you combine strategy and tactics, you get tactegy

How about tactegery?

wflaschka, that was a great post, gave me a lot to think about.

[drippingwet]

Can I get your opinions please...

If your defence is better/equal compared with opponent's attack, and your attack is worse than opponent's defence, then you should adopt a defending strategy.

If your defence is worse than opponent's attack, and your attack is better/equal compared with opponent's defence, then you should adopt an attacking strategy.

If your defence is better/equal compared with opponent's attack, and your attack is better/equal compared with opponent's defence, then you should adopt a mixed strategy of attack and defence.

Is this basically how you select your strategy?

If you haven't fenced someone before, how do you find out the strength of your attack and defence relative to the opponent's until you've actually fought them and possibly lost some points in the process?

[rory]

You're working on a very large scale.
There are aspects of someone's attack/defense that can be good, and some bad. You need to work to take advantage of those aspects.

For instance, at the Slough I fenced against an older, very experienced fencer whose main tactic is to counterattack, and remise off it if possible. In this respect, this fencer has a very strong defense. He uses a french grip, frequently pommels with it in fact.
And he doesn't generally find it necessary to attack.

So what can you do? By your last post, you're sunk.
However, there's a flaw in my opponent's defence that can be exploited: it's possible to take the blade and attack deeply. If you keep control of the blade, in opposition, he can't remise. And you get the hit.

I guess what I'm saying is that there aren't many *useful* rules you can apply without seeing a fencer. You need to watch their previous fights, and if that's not an option then you have to feel them out on the piste. Spend some time fencing at a slightly longer distance move them about, make some attacks at about 80% effort: enough to hit if they're sloppy. Learn their panic parries, whether they like to AIP/counter-with-a-twist/run away, whatever.

Just don't rush.

[Boo Boo]

Ideally, you always want a fairly mixed approach - to keep them guessing and uncertain. If someone knows that you are very likely to "be defensive" or "be attacking", then they are going to be better able to be prepared for you or adjust to it.

Ok, if you see a major chink in their armour (in competition, not training - using such things in training is a waste of time), then exploit it. However, "mixing it up" a bit will open more doors to you. The more doors you open, the more aspects of the fight you can control, the more unsure and hesitatnt your opponent is likely to get...

In my mind, a defensive fencer should always be aggressive/pressuring and an attacking fencer should be careful to set-up opportunities and be ready to handle defensive situations.

Also consider the use of second intention: be ready for and draw your opponents strengths in a way that you can deal with. Again this is you taking control of your opponents actions.

As Rory says, the best ways to find out the strengths and weaknesses of a fencer that you don't know is to:
- watch their other fights in your poule, and
- use recognisance actions (short attacks, feints, beats, body feints and other preparations) that draw a reaction from your opponent. You should be able to use this to help work out what to do.

Boo

[drippingwet]

So what can you do? By your last post, you're sunk.

But in your example, if his defensive tactics can be taken advantage of, then maybe his defence isn't better than your attack, or at least equal. So going by my last post, your strategy would be a mixture of attack and defence. He may not want to attack, but once you're ahead, he may have little choice. So you adopt a mixed strategy, starting out with attack to pull ahead by a couple of points, then moving onto defence as he feels the need to attack, then shift back to attacking him, etc.

What are you thoughts on the above?

I'm wondering if you should just stick with your own style and try to get the opponent to play your game, but if the opponent's game is attacking, then you're playing your game but letting them play theirs. You're not hindering their game, your feeding off it, so it's like which path to take. But then again, there seems more factors involved than simply whether to hinder or feed e.g. their attack might be better than your defence, so it might not be a good idea to stick with your style.

Do you vary the strategy/tactics once your opponent has caught on, or should you do it before that point?

[Tydive]

DW, perhaps a change in viewpoint would help here. You are using "better than" as a guide to strategy. But really it's about your game and finding holes in the other persons game. A good strategy should include, mental, physical, emotional, energy, intention, location and ability aspects. While you are just looking at ability in the post above.

If you can't beat somebody because they have "better" technical skills then beat them by using your mind, your movement, etc... My overall strategy is "Find the weaknesses and exploit them".

Below find a quick (and less than full) list of strategic questions that I ask myself to determine my specific tactics in a given bout.

Mobility:
Does he/she move fast/slow?
Does he accelerate quickly or slowly?
Does he change direction quickly?
Does he fall into patterned movement?
How can I control his/her movement?
Where is his center of gravity?

Blade:
Fast or slow hands?
Quality of point control?
What attack lines does he prefer?
What are his reflexive defensive moves?

Psychology:
Is he aggressive or passive?
Is he emotional?
Is he distracted or focused?
What is his focus?
How is his energy level and how can I change it?

General Skill:
Is he better than me?
Does he understand complex attacks?
Does he use false openings?
Is he tactical or strategic?

[oiuyt]

If you go to the files that Craig recently posted in the training section of the downloads section of fencing.net the second file (TRAIN2.pdf) includes a section towards the middle (around page 8-20 IIRC) that talks about both strategy and tactics as they apply to fencing bouts.

There's a 1-page (I think) bit on devising a strategy, and then a 9ish page section on tactics.

Might help with clarifying some of your ideas.

-B :)

[oiuyt]

Okay, went back through the file now that I have a couple of minutes. The portions that I was referring to are page 6 and pages 10-19 in TRAIN2.PDF.

http://www.fencing101.com/dmdocuments/TRAIN2.PDF

Hope that's useful.

-B :)

[drippingwet]

I've had a look at the first two and they look amazing.

Thanks.

[drippingwet]

So what sort of strategies are you looking at if you have a highly attacking style? 'Cause it's like, if you're good at attacking, then if you're against a highly tactical, manoeuvring fencer, then you can just press them down the strip and therefore take away their game by not allowing them to move around. If you're against a pressing fencer, then again, you take away their game by pressing them. Plus if they are pressing fencers then they may not be optimised for defence which is even better when you attack them.

So it's just really defensive fencers who you might have a bit of trouble with when attacking, but then you can just switch to defence. But maybe their defence still can't stand up to your attack. Besides, if you're gonna march 'em down, then the march doesn't care about parries, it doesn't care about attacks on preparation, so why not attack defensive fencers as well?

Yeah there are ways to beat the march, but when the opponent starts using them, maybe that's when the game really takes off e.g. you march down opponent, opponent tries to break it by stuttering backwards, false counterattacks, etc, then takes over the attack (or parry ripostes), then you try to break apart the march, then you take it back... up and down the strip until one of you finally scores.

So basically, it seems like pressing fencers deny their opponents time to think (solves highly tactical fencers), denies much chance to defend (solves defensive fencers), and denies much chance to attack (solves other attackers).

Maybe this is why attack is such a big thing in foil??? How much of this is affected post-timing change?

[rory]

I really, honestly, deeply believe you're worrying about this too much.

Constantly pressing can have its advantages against some tactical fencers. However, anyone who's good will use it against you: let you come on too fast, draw the attack and counter or parry. Or break distance slightly and use line. or use body feints to break your march then take over ROW or whatever.

I know you're trying to learn as much as possible online and that's laudable: I think you've got us all thinking about this stuff more than I've seen in years on the board. But there really is no substitute for actually fencing people.

Use some of the money you're spending on internet access to travel to a bigger club and get thrashed a few times: there's no better way to learn than to lose.

[drippingwet]

I really, honestly, deeply believe you're worrying about this too much.

You have to think if you're gonna win. If you simply rely on strip-time to improve then it might take a long time. Successful people don't seem to rely on strip-time alone, but maybe on discussion, coaching, fitness training, blah, blah, blah. Online discussion is just one part in how I've been learning.

Constantly pressing can have its advantages against some tactical fencers. However, anyone who's good will use it against you: let you come on too fast, draw the attack and counter or parry. Or break distance slightly and use line. or use body feints to break your march then take over ROW or whatever.

I said there are ways to beat the march, and also that that may be when the game gets even more interesting.

I know you're trying to learn as much as possible online and that's laudable: I think you've got us all thinking about this stuff more than I've seen in years on the board. But there really is no substitute for actually fencing people.

I also learn from my coach, my sparring, bout footage, books, competition, etc. It's not a substitute, it's an addition.

P.S.

But in your example, if his defensive tactics can be taken advantage of, then maybe his defence isn't better than your attack, or at least equal. So going by my last post, your strategy would be a mixture of attack and defence

Actually... only if your defence can equal/beat his attack. Anyway, not that I'm saying this is the way to determine strategy.

[Boo Boo]

You can also think things too and make them too complex - especially with the new timings. You me be on some complex tactical plain, but your opponent is a "stick your arm out and pray" type: if you try to overcook it, you are going to try to loose.

If you oppnent has strengths then either you prevent them from using them OR you use them against them.

Boo

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

To be a "strategical" fencer, you need to know your own weaknesses, and do what you can to minimize them, and find your strengths, and try to maximize them. Do the same to your opponent, only allow them to play their weakest game, dont give them the chance to whip out the stuttering-omege-quasiarmeggedon-nuke march that they've been working on since they were a toddler, cause if they can start that march, you're screwed. If your strength is parry riposte, MAKE them attack, and get that parry riposte, dont play aggresive if its not your game, cause you're gonna get raped.

[Craig]

I'm wondering if you should just stick with your own style and try to get the opponent to play your game, but if the opponent's game is attacking, then you're playing your game but letting them play theirs. You're not hindering their game, your feeding off it, so it's like which path to take. But then again, there seems more factors involved than simply whether to hinder or feed e.g. their attack might be better than your defence, so it might not be a good idea to stick with your style.

As a general rule:

If you are a better fencer than your opponent (in your estimation), then play your game and let them play theirs and your chances of winning are greater.

If your opponent is the better fencer, then you want to disrupt their game, because over time their game will beat yours.

So, if my opponent has a strong attack, and I have a decent defense, but my opponent's attack and my defense are equivilent, then I should work more to take over the attack to prevent my opponent from getting into the flow of their "A" game. Once I've frustrated their attack, then I can shift to a few defensive phrases since my opponent will be more likely to rush their attack once I give them the opportunity. After a couple of phrases, I'll need to push back and take over the attack again, or else they get back into a flow for their game and I'm toast.

Craig

Craig

[DanInMI]

As a general rule:

If you are a better fencer than your opponent (in your estimation), then play your game and let them play theirs and your chances of winning are greater.

If your opponent is the better fencer, then you want to disrupt their game, because over time their game will beat yours.

So, if my opponent has a strong attack, and I have a decent defense, but my opponent's attack and my defense are equivilent, then I should work more to take over the attack to prevent my opponent from getting into the flow of their "A" game. Once I've frustrated their attack, then I can shift to a few defensive phrases since my opponent will be more likely to rush their attack once I give them the opportunity. After a couple of phrases, I'll need to push back and take over the attack again, or else they get back into a flow for their game and I'm toast.

Craig

Craig

Nice job Craig. That was very good advice, well stated.