Sabre: attack vs defense

[741]

I've had coaches telling me that in sabre, you always have to attack since a greater number of hits scored in sabre is done on the attack. Some have told me that the percentage of hits scored on the attack in sabre is 90%. I've also heard 60%. What is it really?

[Philistine]

It's 73.57%.



To me 90% is high. 60% is probably slightly low (but closer to the truth).

While the actual amount will obviously vary depending on the fencer, his opponent and the situation, a good attack in sabre is essential. I would disagree that you should "always attack" in competition -- but that's not necessarily a bad training technique for those learning sabre.

--Philistine

[Dalton]

With the elimination of the fleche and the introduction of the S2000 blades, blocking boxes and now the new timings, I do have to say that attackers do have to be more carefull these days. If one would have to give a number, I would say more like 70 / 30, but it really depends on the skill levels and strenghts and weaknesses of the fencers.

So I doubt there is an easy answer. But in most cases an beginner with little skill to rely on stands a better chance if at least tries to attack. Go for it!

[wflaschka]

Based on this thread started by Sabreur, the percentages depend on who you are, or how you're fencing.

Based on the last 62 actions resulting in a touch during the 2004 Olympic Men's Team Foil Bronze match, USA vs Russia, 77% of sabre actions resulted in a touch.

Touches for the USA were scored with attacks on an 8:1 ratio (31 attacks, 4 defense). Russia's ratio was 3:1 (23 attacks, 8 defense).

Footwork-wise, the USA used distance to cause 50% of all Russian attacks to fall short, the Russians used distance to cause 33% of all USA attacks to fall short.

The numbers reflect the incredible physicality of the USA team. Russia made up the deficit by working tempo and bringing lots of actions to the director. Of all touches, 41% were from doubling out scenarios, and 18% required the director's judgement.

Note: The statistics are not pure; they're from a small sampling; these are my conclusions and not Sabreur's; Sabreur cautions against drawing conclusions from mere numbers.

Nonetheless, here's a conclusion: If you're in shape and have a good attack, your attack will give you most of your points. When you're defending, you need to be good enough to to make the opponent work really hard before they hit you. So, attacks are for scoring, defense is for showing.

[prototoast]

It really depends on who you are. Ultimately you need right of way to get the point, and so the easiest way to get right of way is to not give it up... that is, attack.

Personally, I'm not very good at attacking, and so I probably get more than half of my touches on defense (parries, distance, stop cuts, attack in prep). Basically, I'm best on the near side of the center line. The trick is to get them to do what you want. Even on defense, you have to be aggressive. Attacking to keep them honest, because if you outright give your opponent the attack, they'll hit almost every time.

Ultimately, you have to do what you do best, and you have to make your opponent do what you want him (or her) to do, but when it comes to right of way, you have to be aggressive, and when you go to defense you still need to still be threatening to attack them so they can't build up a big attack.

[AndrewH]

Besides, if your opponent realizes that your doing nothing but attack, he can easily set you up to fall short. Best strategy is to stay unpredictable.

[Irensaga]

Basically everything everyone else has said is true. However, as a general matter, you're better off attacking in sabre.

The ability to use the entire blade in sabre makes it TONS easier to score a hit with a sabre than with an epee or foil. It's also really hard to guard against a sabre attack; it requires good use of retreating while feinting, but all the time, you're losing ground. All of this speaks highly in favor of an attack.

The most important aspect of fencing is the ability to control the tempo of the match. Starting each touche defensively is not a good way to control tempo.

True, it's important to stay unpredictable. But you can easily do that simply by executing each attack differently.

Finally, for inexperienced sabre fencers it is doubly important to always attack in competition. You can practice parrying and stuff outside of competition. But when at competition, you will likely be fencing someone better than you. In this case, allowing them to go first is essentially suicidal. They WILL hit you and you will be left wondering why your parry didn't work. Don't ever allow a more skillful fencer to get right of way in sabre. They'll use it to beat you.

If you're charging off the line right from the word "fence," you'll have a better chance of gaining right of way. If you don't get right of way, at least you'll get a double touche. As an unranked fencer, I often went up against A ranked fencers in local tournaments. I guarantee you, if I had played defensively they would have taken me apart 15-0. Playing aggressively at least got me a lot of double touches and closed the score up to a more respectable 15-6 loss.

Your coach is right though. Sabre is heavily weighted toward offensive play.

[wflaschka]

I'm mostly a foil coach, but I need to be a competent three-weapon coach. The statistics were useful to me for figuring out which aspect of sabre I needed to work on first, to be useful to my students at the earliest point.

Assuming the Olympics is a good benchmark for sabre fencing, 77% of all actions result in a touch. This is pretty close to 80%, so it's fair to say that only 1-in-5 actions will not result in a touch, which is negligible in terms of the big picture.

So, if there's an action, you can generally say, there will be a touch. From the 8:1 / 3:1 ratios of USA / Russia, if we average the two, the general rule of thumb seems to indicate that sabre attacks score 11:2 or roughly 5:1 over defense.

This was firm enough for me to decide to study the intricacies of the sabre attack. If you're going to be in a sabre action, 80% chance of a touch, you want to be the one attacking, 80% chance of success. In the broadest terms, the numbers show that if I attack 18 times, I will score 15 touches. (If it were only that simple!)

Moreover, attacks are 1-step-to-touch, whereas defense is often 2-step-to-touch. If you're attacking, you usually hit (80%). If you're defending usually you cause the opponent to fall short (cause of near 50% of failed attacks) before you can launch your own attack and get your 5:1 chance of hitting. In this case, you have to "roll the dice twice" and get the right combination both times to score a point.

Besides, if your opponent realizes that your doing nothing but attack, he can easily set you up to fall short. Best strategy is to stay unpredictable.

I concur. The fencer needs to show a strong defense, or they'll get steamrolled. But the raw numbers show that defense won't get the job done (unless the defender is light years beyond the attacker). The French and Russian teams strategically refused to go on the defense against the USA for this reason (I hypothesize).

Granted, all these numbers are mostly voodoo; but stats are useful to other sports and I'm trying to find how to make them useful to fencing. Someday when I have time I'm going to chart a few more high-level bouts, and see if the assumptions hold up.

[Teme]

Don't ever allow a more skillful fencer to get right of way in sabre. They'll use it to beat you.

In modern sabre the skill is getting the right of way. Almost anybody can make a valid hit in sabre, it's not difficult. But getting there to make it, and get it awarded (by the machine and referee), that's the trick...

[Irensaga]

In modern sabre the skill is getting the right of way. Almost anybody can make a valid hit in sabre, it's not difficult. But getting there to make it, and get it awarded (by the machine and referee), that's the trick...

True. My point is that if you're a newer fencer, the best way to do this is to charge the moment the director says "fence." When fencing someone better than you, it's always best to keep your actions simple and economical. Complicating things will just provide the better fencer with more tools to turn against you.

[AndrewH]

True. My point is that if you're a newer fencer, the best way to do this is to charge the moment the director says "fence." When fencing someone better than you, it's always best to keep your actions simple and economical. Complicating things will just provide the better fencer with more tools to turn against you.

Yes and no. I can tell you that if I was fencing a newbie who did nothing but charge, I would bring out the stopcuts. However you are correct on the idea of keeping things simple when fencing someone better than you. Obviously there's no one tactic to use- some bouts just aren't winnable. But the universal strategy is to "fence smart"- analyze your opponents actions and respond, instead of fixing on "i must attack!" or "i must parry!". If you start each touch fixated on doing one action, you have nowhere to go when that action fails. Best idea is to start each touch with a plan, then adapt to the opponent from there.

[davtsung]

Based on this thread started by Sabreur, the percentages depend on who you are, or how you're fencing.

Based on the last 62 actions resulting in a touch during the 2004 Olympic Men's Team Foil Bronze match, USA vs Russia, 77% of sabre actions resulted in a touch.

Touches for the USA were scored with attacks on an 8:1 ratio (31 attacks, 4 defense). Russia's ratio was 3:1 (23 attacks, 8 defense).

Footwork-wise, the USA used distance to cause 50% of all Russian attacks to fall short, the Russians used distance to cause 33% of all USA attacks to fall short.

The numbers reflect the incredible physicality of the USA team. Russia made up the deficit by working tempo and bringing lots of actions to the director. Of all touches, 41% were from doubling out scenarios, and 18% required the director's judgement.

Note: The statistics are not pure; they're from a small sampling; these are my conclusions and not Sabreur's; Sabreur cautions against drawing conclusions from mere numbers.

Nonetheless, here's a conclusion: If you're in shape and have a good attack, your attack will give you most of your points. When you're defending, you need to be good enough to to make the opponent work really hard before they hit you. So, attacks are for scoring, defense is for showing.

It would be interesting to see a similar breakdown analysis for the Men's Foil.........

[Inquartata]

With the advent of the new timing, I'm not sure the ascendancy of the attack has not passed, or at least been greatly attenuated.

We have found that with stop cuts, attacks in prep ( even when there is no real prep, ie you're just faster than your opponent ) and remises locking the lights faster than before, we are having to work harder, be more alert and to an extent more cautious when attacking.

It's early on in the shakeout period, and perhaps too soon to know what the prevailing dynamic is going to be. But I have noticed a definite adjustment in my fencing, especially with regard to the long, hard attacks that I am used to making---because I've been getting stopped a lot more.

What do those of you who have been using the new chips for a while think?

[AndrewH]

I totally agree with Inq about having to be more cautious on the attack. The trend that I'm seeing now is a long marching attack with lots of tempo changes, to try and draw a counterattack, as opposed to an accelerating attack that doesn't attempt to make the opponent react. You have to be ready to finish at all times, as soon as you see the opponent try for the counterattack.

Also, the remise is now officially a valid tactic to practice. At our last dual meet I fenced a certain german from Penn State, and the only touch i got was from a remise, made after a long, tempo-changing attack. I attacked at the end of the strip, got parried, and made a fast remise before going past that locked out his riposte. My coach has been working on that with me, making at attack, remise, then step back and parry. I think we'll be seeing a lot more remising and redoubling at the higher levels pretty soon.

[sabreur]

I think there has been a trend in sabre for quite a while to favor an attack in prep over a long, careless attack. The new timings will just emphasize this further. I hesitate to describe a decent attack in sabre as a "marching" attack--there are more tempo changes and threats to finish in a good sabre attack--I associate "marching" with those weird foil attacks where one fencer basically advances down the strip with exaggerated absence of the blade and scores when the opponent runs out of strip and has to counter-attack. Tempo in sabre has been called very tightly for a number of years, and someone executing a foil-style marching attack is a sitting duck for an attack in prep.

But Andrew and Quart are correct--you have to be very aware when preparing in sabre, and ready to finish at every instant.

By the way, I have always heard that the split favoring the attack in sabre is 70-30. The caveat though is that it is a correctly executed attack, not the preparation or an attack executed out of distance or without tempo. I.e., the first fencer to extend and hit, with an advance-lunge, lunge or flunge gets the point about 70 percent of the time.

There are still all the footwork and other games designed to win tempo, make the other guy end short, stop, counter-attack or attack in prep, and basically set up the final attack.

MR

[AndrewH]

I hesitate to describe a decent attack in sabre as a "marching" attack--there are more tempo changes and threats to finish in a good sabre attack--I associate "marching" with those weird foil attacks where one fencer basically advances down the strip with exaggerated absence of the blade and scores when the opponent runs out of strip and has to counter-attack. Tempo in sabre has been called very tightly for a number of years, and someone executing a foil-style marching attack is a sitting duck for an attack in prep.

Yea "marching" isn't the correct word to describe it, its just the first word that came to mind. What I'm trying to convey is an attack that is stretched out over as much of the strip as possible, including multiple tempo changes and feints.

[prototoast]

Yea "marching" isn't the correct word to describe it, its just the first word that came to mind. What I'm trying to convey is an attack that is stretched out over as much of the strip as possible, including multiple tempo changes and feints.

Generally I just call that a "long attack."

[wflaschka]

I associate "marching" with those weird foil attacks...

LOL. The march is suddenly outré, and sabre is trying to distance itself from it? I guess the term 'march' is mostly applied to the foil version, because the wealth of different kinds of attacks requires specific terminology. But the march is one of sabre's gifts to foil, the concepts and practice are not dissimilar, and I think it's interesting how one weapon has 'colonized' another.

What I'm trying to convey is an attack that is stretched out over as much of the strip as possible, including multiple tempo changes and feints.

Yep, that's the march. Some sabrists have the approach, "I'm fixin' to attack; do I do the short one or the long one?" But of course there's more to it than that; and the march really shows its full bloom in sabre. I wouldn't be so quick to disown it.

[mrbiggs]

My foil coach's lesson is equally applicable to sabre: Defense compliments offense. In sabre, your offense is the most important part; it's the easiest way for you to score a touch. But, you can't do all offense-a good defense will compliment your offense, and make your game more complete. You can't just do one and not the other, but in sabre, offense is much more important.

[jBirch]

I would caution an over-reliance on attack. Any fencer that is able to "call the attack" to the target of their choosing at the time of their choosing, will win. I've got a sabre student who only attacks, and gets destroyed by AIP and parry riposte. Part of the reason they only attack is that some other fencer told them that defense was essentially useless in sabre: attack, attack, attack. The key differential, at this initial stage, is the ability to get the attack to come where you want it to and show the ref that you actually stopped the attack before riposting. Fencers that can do that, win, those that can't, lose.

Just some thoughts. Great thread. Walter, those stats are awesome. May I borrow them?