foil parry practice

JDzik wrote:

> David Neevel writes:
>
> >I think this gets back to differing notions of "lunge distance". I would call
> >the
> >distance you describe
> >as being out of effective lunge distance for the attacker, and thus a bad
> >distance to make a simple direct
> >attack from.
>
> Hmm... I sense a certain amount of circular reasoning here.
>
> You seem to define lunge distance as the distance where, if the attacker
> lunges, the defender must retreat in order to successfully parry. Clearly, if
> that is the definition, than any successful parry against a lunge launched from
> lunge distance will require a retreat.

That's the whole idea. This should be taking place in the context of a set-up which
will
catch you unready to retreat at the correct time, to maximize the likelihood of my
success. If I'm working in a first intention offensive frame, I don't want to
create a drawn out phrase. I want to hit and be done with it.

>
>
> (Note that, under that definition, every different fencer against every
> different opponent will have a different lunge distance. I'm guessing that the
> distance at which my lunge can beat out the parry of an olympic fencer is
> awfully short, even if my distance against a duffer at the local club is a bit
> longer.)

Bingo. What that distance is is going to vary from person to person. Part of what
you need to
do in any initial probing actions against an unfamilar opponent is to find that
distance.

>
>
> I will claim, however, that there is a distance from which a lunge can be
> launched, and can be successful, but from which a successful parry can be made
> without retreat. Note the "can" in both of the clauses. That's what I usually
> think of as "lunge distance."

Only, as I alluded in my post, if you've done a good set-up distance and tempo
set-up to
catch them unready to defend. Even then, a disengage will usually be required. What
I read as
being discussed was a simple, direct attack (i.e., no line or target changes) with
lunge. Against
anybody who has even a minimal amount of training at how to recognize and
manipulate distance, such an action, unprefaced by preceeding set-up, is simply not
going to work.


>
> It often makes sense, for various tactical considerations, to launch a lunge at
> that distance. And it is possible to defend against it without retreating.

Yes-- it's called second intention. I make my attack at a distance where, unless I
catch you
sleeping, you'll be able to parry and riposte, and I'm planning on a
counter-riposte or remise. I can also set up a real attack with one or two false
attacks at that longer distance (to lull you into thinking you wont need to
retreat), then steal distance and make my final action from effective lunging
range.

Now, more elaborate compound attacks can be (and usually are) initiated from longer
distance,
but again I was addressing the specific case of simple, direct attack.


-Dave

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:44:43 -0500
>Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>You are absolutely right about it Zebee,
>>
>>But all comes from the ref that can't figure the difference between a remise
>>(that usually hit a lot later than the riposte) and a missed parry. I don't
>>know what thay could do about double hit, maybe expulsing from the
>>competition all fencers who double hit more than 3 times in a match.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Change the scoring. Score points against, count double hits as a point
>against each, and the one with the least points wins.
>
>Alternatively, go back to points d'arret, and use kevlar t-shirts...
>
>Zebee
>
>
I've advocated using a point-system depending where on the body it was
hit. Not terribly important for Foil, but it would make the referee
useful in Epee again. Head = 3 touches, chest = 2 touches, arms = 1
touch, toe and fingers = 1/2 touch.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

In article <bvpk97$hqe$1@news.monmouth.com>,
Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:

> I've advocated using a point-system depending where on the body it was
> hit. Not terribly important for Foil, but it would make the referee
> useful in Epee again. Head = 3 touches, chest = 2 touches, arms = 1
> touch, toe and fingers = 1/2 touch.


I hate to be sarcastic, but:

Yeah, let's encourage people to go for the target that is most likely to
cause serious bodily injury!

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 03 Feb 2004 21:54:42 -0500
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:
> In article <bvpk97$hqe$1@news.monmouth.com>,
> Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
>
>> I've advocated using a point-system depending where on the body it was
>> hit. Not terribly important for Foil, but it would make the referee
>> useful in Epee again. Head = 3 touches, chest = 2 touches, arms = 1
>> touch, toe and fingers = 1/2 touch.
>
>
> I hate to be sarcastic, but:
>
> Yeah, let's encourage people to go for the target that is most likely to
> cause serious bodily injury!
>

Is that "Target that would cause injury if this was real" or "target
that has highest chance of causing injury if the protective gear fails"?

Good old Linear Electric Wire Tag....

Mind you, given either meaning, I dunno the head should be the highest
scorer. Is it really that easy to kill with a swordthrust to the face?
Don't you have to be going up, not horizontal, or get exactly into the
eye?

Zebee

In article <slrnc20pcg.c4g.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

> Is that "Target that would cause injury if this was real" or "target
> that has highest chance of causing injury if the protective gear fails"?
>

The second one. Even iif the gear doesn't fail, I don't know how good it
is for your neck to get clotheslined.

> Good old Linear Electric Wire Tag....
>
> Mind you, given either meaning, I dunno the head should be the highest
> scorer. Is it really that easy to kill with a swordthrust to the face?
> Don't you have to be going up, not horizontal, or get exactly into the
> eye?

Pretty much. It's not easy to kill with a head thrust, which is why, I'm
told, that they left the head OUT of the foil target area: they wanted
to train people to hit the most vital areas.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:48:04 -0500
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> Pretty much. It's not easy to kill with a head thrust, which is why, I'm
> told, that they left the head OUT of the foil target area: they wanted
> to train people to hit the most vital areas.
>

I suspect they wanted to train people to *defend* the most vital areas.

Zebee

Harold Buck wrote:

>>Good old Linear Electric Wire Tag....
>>
>>Mind you, given either meaning, I dunno the head should be the highest
>>scorer. Is it really that easy to kill with a swordthrust to the face?
>>Don't you have to be going up, not horizontal, or get exactly into the
>>eye?
>>
>>
>
>Pretty much. It's not easy to kill with a head thrust, which is why, I'm
>told, that they left the head OUT of the foil target area: they wanted
>to train people to hit the most vital areas.
>
>--Harold Buck
>
>
I forgot about LEWT! I can see the arguement that a head-shot wouldn't
lead to death like a punctured lung or cut belly, especially if
untreated. You can survive with a one eye, but it's hard to live with
your intestines severed.

Yeah and maybe we could hire some physicians, doctors and use video sequence.
After deliberation of an executive commetee we can have the report

Here ya go flick to the face 3 points.
Sorry, I abused a little.
Just cancel the touch for double hits would do.

Agleos

"Amy & Joseph Kormann" <ajkormann@monmouth.com> a écrit dans le message de news:bvpk97$hqe$1@news.monmouth.com...
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:44:43 -0500
Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
You are absolutely right about it Zebee,

But all comes from the ref that can't figure the difference between a remise
(that usually hit a lot later than the riposte) and a missed parry. I don't
know what thay could do about double hit, maybe expulsing from the
competition all fencers who double hit more than 3 times in a match.


Change the scoring. Score points against, count double hits as a point
against each, and the one with the least points wins.

Alternatively, go back to points d'arret, and use kevlar t-shirts...

Zebee
I've advocated using a point-system depending where on the body it was hit. Not terribly important for Foil, but it would make the referee useful in Epee again. Head = 3 touches, chest = 2 touches, arms = 1 touch, toe and fingers = 1/2 touch.


--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

In article <DC7Ub.7862$bp1.409109@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

> Yeah and maybe we could hire some physicians, doctors and use video sequence.
> After deliberation of an executive commetee we can have the report
>
> Here ya go flick to the face 3 points.
> Sorry, I abused a little.
> Just cancel the touch for double hits would do.


Then you're turning foil into epee with a restricted target area.
Throwing out double hits = throwing out right of way, since right of way
only applies when both people get hit. Throwing out right of way makes
foil into something completely different.

If anyone *really* cared, they could look into putting a sensor on the
weapon arm of each person and on their hip to determine electronically
who began extending first and whether the arm had been withdrawn,
allowing the other person to take over right of way. They could also
have the system detect parries based on blade contact. With some
work--and a lot of money--you could eliminate most of the work for foil
referees, limiting them mostly to giving out cards and saying "Fence!"

Of course, I don't think enough people fence right now to make
undertaking such a system profitable. :-)

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Right of way or not, a double hit is still a double hit, double wounds and
potentialy a double kill. When i think of right of way I prefer seeing it as
what I should do, not what I must do, I just think of right of way like this
: prevent them to attack then move in for the kill and if they attack first,
defend. When someone is not caring enough and throw you a counter attack
that would hit, you it is better to withdraw your attack then, parry-riposte
or trying to control his blade. When a double hit occur, I think that both
fencers are stupid enough to allow the hit, or unlucky, or not skillfull
enough.

Agleos



"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:no_one_knows-708F90.10431704022004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <DC7Ub.7862$bp1.409109@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
>
> > Yeah and maybe we could hire some physicians, doctors and use video
sequence.
> > After deliberation of an executive commetee we can have the report
> >
> > Here ya go flick to the face 3 points.
> > Sorry, I abused a little.
> > Just cancel the touch for double hits would do.
>
>
> Then you're turning foil into epee with a restricted target area.
> Throwing out double hits = throwing out right of way, since right of way
> only applies when both people get hit. Throwing out right of way makes
> foil into something completely different.
>
> If anyone *really* cared, they could look into putting a sensor on the
> weapon arm of each person and on their hip to determine electronically
> who began extending first and whether the arm had been withdrawn,
> allowing the other person to take over right of way. They could also
> have the system detect parries based on blade contact. With some
> work--and a lot of money--you could eliminate most of the work for foil
> referees, limiting them mostly to giving out cards and saying "Fence!"
>
> Of course, I don't think enough people fence right now to make
> undertaking such a system profitable. :-)
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

In article <oTaUb.14922$9U5.826748@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

> Right of way or not, a double hit is still a double hit, double wounds and
> potentialy a double kill. When i think of right of way I prefer seeing it as
> what I should do, not what I must do, I just think of right of way like this
> : prevent them to attack then move in for the kill and if they attack first,
> defend. When someone is not caring enough and throw you a counter attack
> that would hit, you it is better to withdraw your attack then, parry-riposte
> or trying to control his blade. When a double hit occur, I think that both
> fencers are stupid enough to allow the hit, or unlucky, or not skillfull
> enough.


Okay, then, if you think that you should be fencing epee, not foil.

Foil is a game, with a set of rules. Right of way is one of the core
rules of the foil game. Epee has a different set of rules--it's still
not duelling, but it's closer to what you want.

Of course, you're free to write your OWN set of rules and see if you can
get people to play your game. Just don't whine if no one wants to play.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

I should
But foil is good, epee too, like it was 30 years ago,
you know all that whackin' now, it makes the right of way hmmm .... I mean
that there are many double hit now, too much so something should be done.

A mix of epee and foil would be nice we could call it hmmm ... don't know

Agleos



> > Right of way or not, a double hit is still a double hit, double wounds
and
> > potentialy a double kill. When i think of right of way I prefer seeing
it as
> > what I should do, not what I must do, I just think of right of way like
this
> > : prevent them to attack then move in for the kill and if they attack
first,Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:no_one_knows-6BD015.13580704022004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <oTaUb.14922$9U5.826748@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

> > defend. When someone is not caring enough and throw you a counter attack
> > that would hit, you it is better to withdraw your attack then,
parry-riposte
> > or trying to control his blade. When a double hit occur, I think that
both
> > fencers are stupid enough to allow the hit, or unlucky, or not skillfull
> > enough.
>
>
> Okay, then, if you think that you should be fencing epee, not foil.
>
> Foil is a game, with a set of rules. Right of way is one of the core
> rules of the foil game. Epee has a different set of rules--it's still
> not duelling, but it's closer to what you want.
>
> Of course, you're free to write your OWN set of rules and see if you can
> get people to play your game. Just don't whine if no one wants to play.
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

In rec.sport.fencing on 05 Feb 2004 02:59:57 GMT
HMS Lion <hmslion@aol.com> wrote:
> advantage increases - and I put four inches of blade into your bicep. Your
> fencing takes a BIG hit - and my third hit goes right through your lungs.
> That's why duels were fought to first, second, or third blood, depending on the
> gravity of the offense - and a duel to third blood was considered lethal, while
> a duel to first blood was considered minor.
>

Where did you find that info?

everything I've read - Bryson, Brantome, de Bazancourt are the names
off the top of my head, but there are plenty others - indicate that this
"first blood" thing (let alone 2nd or 3rd) was not common.

Duels were fought "to satisfaction", and what would satisfy varied a lot
from place to place and time to time.

For example, Nadi's famous duel had both people hit several times, and
was only stopped when Nadi got over his funk and got serious. German
duels were fought to the death as often as possible, and were arranged
to get someone killed. (Student duels were different, and fought for
different reasons.) French duwls varied amazingly, although it appears
the very late 19thC French duel was where this "first blood" thing
mostly came from.

Plus there are plenty of accounts of people with quite serious wounds
just keeping on going. I've had 3" of metal in my leg and it didn't
slow me down much, and I'm no macho man.

Zebee

hmslion@aol.com (HMS Lion) nattered on
thusnews:20040204215957.22659.00000950@mb-m19.aol.com:

> right through your lungs. That's why duels were fought to first,
> second, or third blood, depending on the gravity of the offense

When and where?

Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> nattered on
thusnews:slrnc23e2m.lt7.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au :

> Plus there are plenty of accounts of people with quite serious wounds
> just keeping on going. I've had 3" of metal in my leg and it didn't
> slow me down much, and I'm no macho man.

HMS Lion <hmslion@aol.com> wrote:

(snipped)
> As a consequence, a point system for epee is not appropriate - though a return
> to the classic one-touch bout could be justified.

I could argue here, that a point system for any form of dueling is not
appropriate. However; modern foil, epee, and sabre are not dueling. They're
all sports! If you MUST duel for authenticity's sake, then join the SCA
or form a new sport.

Don't get me wrong--I love fencing, and I have a fascination with
classical swordplay. I just don't see that there's enough similarity
between them anymore to argue (endlessly!) over which form of modern
fencing and scoring is closest to "correct."

OK, that's all.
Colin

In fact I am moving a lot,
I began with foil and do a lot of saber so when I fence epee I can't slow
down, however that doesn't mean I double touch often, when I am beign
counter attacked or just attack i prefer driving of my opponent blade then
have a hit rather than double touch i prefer beign touched alone. I know a
fencer who as soon as he get 1 point of avantage only do double touch and
menage to win. But you almost cannot get the advantage cos he always touch
you at the same time. Lot of fencer have trouble with him but not me. I try
to have only one light hit, always. I remember last match i meet him. It
goes 5-1 for me but he beaten the guy who eliminated me 15-6 his match was
like this : 1-1,2-2,3-3,4-4,5-5,6-5,7-6,8-7,9-8,10-9, like this to 15 .
One of the more boring match i never seen.

Agleos


"Jonathan Jefferies" <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> a écrit dans le
message de news:402196d7$0$32589$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.co m...
> Trim Plus Expert wrote:
> > I should
> > But foil is good, epee too, like it was 30 years ago,
> > you know all that whackin' now, it makes the right of way hmmm .... I
mean
> > that there are many double hit now, too much so something should be
done.
> >
> > A mix of epee and foil would be nice we could call it hmmm ... don't
know
> >
> > Agleos
>
> A sabreur of my acquaintance, lovely Rita Cooms, once commented that
> epee was like two preying mantises staring each other down.
> The first one that blinked loses.
> That may have been true in days past but today the
> younger set particularly the top level epeeists move.
> Hey that's true even in the veterans, just watch John Moreau
> or better yet try fencing him. And if you're moving a lot
> then the possibilities of a double touch are greatly increased.
>
> I suspect that based on the tenor and subject of a number of
> posts that you guys are just letting getting old get to you! =
>
> J.
>

Harold Buck at no_one_knows@attbi.com wrote on 2/4/04 09:43:

> If anyone *really* cared, they could look into putting a sensor on the
> weapon arm of each person and on their hip to determine electronically
> who began extending first and whether the arm had been withdrawn,
> allowing the other person to take over right of way. They could also
> have the system detect parries based on blade contact. With some
> work--and a lot of money--you could eliminate most of the work for foil
> referees, limiting them mostly to giving out cards and saying "Fence!"


*shudder* You MUST be joking. Just the thought of that sends me in to a
panic, remembering the "bad old days" of sabre captuers and their little
constantly malfunctioning accelerometers. You know, the ones designed to
know when you were actually moving your arm...

Cheers,
David Sierra

To reply off-list remove NOSPAM from address

Sara,

Here's a suggestion to verify if your parries are being made properly: use a
mirror and a friend.

Work through the parries in order, concentrating on position (especially
controlling the point so that it's inward of your hand -- opponent's blade
will be deflected outwards on a completed parry.) Hand should generally be
at the outline of your body - minimum distance needed to have your
opponent's blade miss you. (Conservation of energy -- yours)

For foil, the basic four are best -- quarte, sixte, septime and octave. Work
one side, always starting from sixte and returning there; then going from
quarte.

Once you feel really comfortable, your friend now stands in front of you
(back to the mirror, covering your reflection) and starts calling parry
positions at random (yes, just like Simon says). Their other job is to
visually check your position from their perspective but only quickly (too
far! not enough! good!)

Next step is to do a variation on the Grand Salute. Instead of calling the
shots, you now go back and forth parry-riposte-parry-riposte, slowly at
first and then picking up the pace. No motion of the bodies, pure arm
motion.

Sorry if it sounds stilted -- I learned under a student of Roger Crosnier.
Big emphasis on repetition to nail down the body's actions and reactions.

The really down part is that I have three left feet -- doing things with a
rhythm is almost impossible for me unless I'm trying to do something without
rhythm -- nicke an animated metronome.

"Sara Stearns" <frankitamonkita at nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvaiov011n8@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I'm only in my first year in fencing and I'm having trouble with my
parry's.
> Does anyone have any suggestions, as far as drills and such go, how I
could
> improve my defensive skills?
> Thanks!
> Sara
>
>

In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:05:02 -0500
Byrocat <strikemaster2000@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Sara,
>
> Here's a suggestion to verify if your parries are being made properly: use a
> mirror and a friend.
>
> Work through the parries in order, concentrating on position (especially
> controlling the point so that it's inward of your hand -- opponent's blade
> will be deflected outwards on a completed parry.) Hand should generally be

Be careful though.... the more inwards the point, the easier it is for
the opponent to come around the side and go past your blade.

Zebee