Basic strategy

[drippingwet]

I can ask me coach this stuff next time, but it's interesting to hear a lot of people's views aswell.

So is it basic strategy to play defence against defensive fencers and attack against offensive fencers, or is it more than that? I face a lot of offensive opponent's, and as soon as I get my attack sorted (which probably won't be long now I'm getting good coaching), it would be interesting to see how much I can screw up their game by marching THEM down the piste!

If you're a defensive fencer, which I'm trying to break out of being, and you're facing an attacker, then are you both feeding each other's game or will attack usually come out on top?

Especially against marching fencers, is it easier/more common to take over the march and start your own attack instead of trying to parry or stop hit or AIP?

[sabreur]

Basic strategy is to hit the other guy and not get hit yourself.

Advanced strategy is to score more points than the other guy.

MR

[LUDICROUS]

Originally Posted by sabreur

Basic strategy is to hit the other guy and not get hit yourself.

Advanced strategy is to score more points than the other guy.

MR

Oh, the "dumb sabreur" crap you're gonna get...

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by LUDICROUS

Oh, the "dumb sabreur" crap you're gonna get...

Stupid question.

Simple answer.

It would be the same, regardless of the weapon.

MR

[JackSparrow]

Hey dw, firstly I want to say that it sounds like your making good progress (not at all surprising with your levels of enthusiasm). Particularly encouraging that you've decided to break away from just being a defencive fencer. It can certainly never hurt to develop a good all round game, in fact people will often encourage you to always work on your weaknesses in between competions. As you say above, it's going to enable you to tailor your tactics to hinder your opponent. I does still leave you with a dillema. Do you fence in a way that is perhaps unusual for you but inhibits your opponents fencing style, or do you fence your A-game and put the pressure on your opponent to try and find a way to defeat your most natural style and set of tactics? I don't really have the answer to that but developing your attacking game will certainly give you more options and increase the versatility and range of tactics which you can employ in your stategy.

[DangerMouse]

You need to be able to do both. Maybe you hit the guy on an attack, then the next time look for the counter-parry riposte. Maybe start an attack, get him flustered so he charges and get the parry-riposte or the stop hit. If you can't change it up, you get predictable and easily beat.

[keith]

Originally Posted by DangerMouse

You need to be able to do both. Maybe you hit the guy on an attack, then the next time look for the counter-parry riposte. Maybe start an attack, get him flustered so he charges and get the parry-riposte or the stop hit. If you can't change it up, you get predictable and easily beat.

agreed, variation of strategy. Mix up AIP, counter attacks (of all varieties), and attacks (of various sorts not just the march). Predictability is your enemy, unless of course you have a single unbeatable action .

[esskreemr]

It all depends on 3 basic factors:
1) Your skill
2) Your opponent's skill
3) How the director is going to call it.

There are two kinds of marchers: 1) Those who know what they are doing, 2) those who are imitating those who know what they are doing.

An attack into prep or stop thrust in time doesn't matter unless the director calls it. A fencer that know what he/she is doing may be waiting for this to launch a counter-time attack.

Alot of beginner marchers have a "trigger" point. If you hit them at just the right moment, it shuts them down.

[Pancakes]

Originally Posted by sabreur

Basic strategy is to hit the other guy and not get hit yourself.

Advanced strategy is to score more points than the other guy.

MR

I like the way you think

[Irensaga]

It isn't really so much a matter of being defensive of offensive, as it is a matter of controlling the tempo.

The idea is to get them responding to you instead of playing their game.

By way of example. Last year I was in a sabre tournament. It was just a small local match and I was doing pretty well. In direct eliminations, I ended up fencing one of the best sabre fencers in our area.

My strategy in sabre has always been to charge immediately into range, execute a quick change of line, and plant the blade underneath a now-upraised arm or some other unguarded spot. It had always worked well for me (especially since my parrying ability is a little lacking).
But against this guy it was kind of falling apart and I received about 4 or 5 parry ripostes before I figured out what was going on. The guy had excellent parrying skills. He'd lure you in, catch your blade quickly and execute a quick riposte while you were over-extended. Essentially, I was using an agressive style against a guy who liked playing defensively. I was playing his game.
I remembered watching one of my opponent's earlier matches. The person fencing him got burned enough that he started refusing to attack. My opponent did everything to try and lure him in (like blantant point-in-line designed to tick you off). But the fencer didn't budge. I remembered my opponent getting a little irritated at the guy for refusing to attack. So I thought maybe I could use it and throw him off his game.

So I switched tactics. I'd charge in first, but then deliberately stop just short of lunging distance, or I'd wait for him to initiate, or I'd pretend to miss my attack. I mixed it up, but I never went for a straight attack. Instead, I tried to draw him out and get him doing what I wanted him to do.

All-in-all it was a big success. I still lost, but only 15-13. It was even more gratifying when spectators said it was the most entertaining match they'd seen all day.

The most important aspect of the match was footwork. It's impossible to really fake-out an opposing fencer unless your footwork sends a clear message: "you'd better stay sharp or I'm going to run you into the ground." You can play around with the blade if you want, but you really project your intentions (or false intentions) through the legs.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

I can ask me coach this stuff next time, but it's interesting to hear a lot of people's views aswell.

So is it basic strategy to play defence against defensive fencers and attack against offensive fencers, or is it more than that? I face a lot of offensive opponent's, and as soon as I get my attack sorted (which probably won't be long now I'm getting good coaching), it would be interesting to see how much I can screw up their game by marching THEM down the piste!

If you're a defensive fencer, which I'm trying to break out of being, and you're facing an attacker, then are you both feeding each other's game or will attack usually come out on top?

Especially against marching fencers, is it easier/more common to take over the march and start your own attack instead of trying to parry or stop hit or AIP?

It's more than that. If your attack is better than their defense then attacking is a good strategy. If your defense is better than their attack then making them attack you is a good strategy. Which one you should do depends on how much better you are at you thing than they are at theirs.

If they are an offensive fencer with no defense then making them defend might make them completely fall apart even if you like to defend yourself. But it's all relative to how good they are at the counter of your potential tactics. Some people can be guided into doing the thing that they like best, and might even be good at, when you want them to precisely because they like doing. Others, who aren't as cooperative, can be frustrated by *not* allowing them to play their game.

Analyzing an opponents strengths and weaknesses and preferences and them comparing them to your own strengths and weaknesses and preferences to develop a strategy, or sequence of strategies (because better fencers will change theirs if what they are doing isn't working and having a backup plan can be a good thing), can be very complex, or very simple.

It's simple if you only know how to do one thing, that's what you do. But against someone who knows how to prevent you from doing that thing, you always lose even if they aren't any good otherwise.

An example: I'm fencing Ann Marsh. We are both extremely aggressive attacking fencers. She is better at it than I am. I'm pretty good at it, but she's better. So if I adopt an attack, attack, attack strategy (which works really well for me against most people) I always lose 15-10 because she does the same thing back to me better than I do. On the other hand, if I try to make her attack me she gladly accepts, refuses to attack me *exactly* when I want her to and she hits me repeatedly. Her attack is better than my defense. Then I lose 15-6.

My strategy is then to mix it up. I will attack off the line, then false attack parry-riposte, feint-in-tempo dodge counter-attack mixed with feint-in-tempo step in prise-de-fer, and if I can execute will enough to get her worried about missing me when I dodge, or getting her blade taken then I can add feint-in-tempo invitation parry-riposte. When I do this, depending on wether I am *on* with my timing and execution I will lose anywhere from 15-8 to 15-14, averaging about 15-12, and if she's off I will even beat her if I'm on. But with a strictly attacking strategy even if she's off and I'm on, I'll still lose 15-11, because *off* for her on this strategy is still better than regular with her other strategies.

Against 95% of the people I fence the relentless attack is my most effective strategy, but it's all relative.

gary hayenga

[jBirch]

I like what Sabreur said: "basic strategy is to hit the other guy". Make sure you don't outthink yourself.

The use of strategy on the piste is to adopt tactics that are inevitable to your opponent. So, if they fall for one move, again and again, then you use that move, again and again. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The basic idea is to set them up at a disadvantage before you even start fencing by applying your strengths to their known weaknesses. After that, you're into a tactical game.

In the context of the tactical wheel (ie// what works against what) simple offense works against simple defense (if you can go faster), simple defense works against simple offense (if you can call the attack), middling offense works against simple defense (counter-riposte). The best way to fence is to adjust your tactics to your opponent's movements and to control their movements to your best advantage.

For attacks, I call it "calling the attack" where you cause the opponent to attack in a place and time that you can parry-riposte from (or stop hit or whatever your opportunity is). For defense, it's a feint-disengage (or counter time or whatever they use). Throw a feint to get the parry, then disengage and hit. The basic strategy being throw offense at a defensive fencer and defense at an offensive fencer. The rationale is that a fencer is going to be most predictable doing the trained reflexes that they have. If you can "call forth" those responses at will, you can take advantage of them. Obviously, as the level of competition gets higher, you're into a different type of game, though the principal of controlling your opponent is the same.

Hope this helps.

[ViewtifulMisho]

The best thing about fencing is that there is no definite strategy that will let you win all the time, at least not one more specific than was described in the first reply.

If you're fencing an offensive fencer and you are an expert defender, you might be able to score a lot on defense and win. Or perhaps the opponent is not used to being attacked, so you should become more offensive in that bout. It depends on the fencer and on the context of the bout.

Don't try to think of any overruling strategies because there are none.

[Twinkletoes]

Garyhayenga, I really enjoyed reading your reply to what was a somewhat
general and complex, strategy topic.

You focused your reply on analysing the opponent and adapting your responses to what you are seeing/feeling,playing against their strengths.
Plus,you gave some nifty bout
examples complete with scores to illustrate the variables against opponents with different fortes than yours and how your adapted strategy modified the outcome. I liked that part

Altough this may seem like common sense to most expert fencers, it was written in a fashion that a semi-begginer like myself can relate to. IE. "I've got a pretty good lunge and I'm going to do that, over and over" duh on me.I have seen the light!

Good post,

cheers

Marc