improving offensive skills in foil

i started fencing one year ago and i'm practising 3x/week. since a
couple of months (since the summer break to be precise) i find myself
having troubles with offensive actions. my parry-riposte is working
pretty reliable, but i simply can't find a way how to prepare a
successful attack. either i start advancing and just before executing
my attack i'm hesitating and waiting for my opponent to start an
action (which happens most of the times), or i'm already hit while
still in preparation. to make it short, i'm good at reacting to my
opponent's play but bad at imposing my own play on them. oddly enough,
it happened to be exactly the other way round before summer
break...also, my feints are pretty good during lessons, but complete
rubbish when bouting...
does anybody have some suggestions how to get over that offensive
shortcoming?
thanks,
maroni

maroni wrote:

> i find myself
> having troubles with offensive actions. my parry-riposte is working
> pretty reliable, but i simply can't find a way how to prepare a
> successful attack. either i start advancing and just before executing
> my attack i'm hesitating and waiting for my opponent to start an
> action (which happens most of the times), or i'm already hit while
> still in preparation. to make it short, i'm good at reacting to my
> opponent's play but bad at imposing my own play on them.

It's pretty natural - you know that you are stronger on the defense, so some
part of your brain is "holding back" something for the defense in case the
attack doesn't work, or you're trying to find the "perfect moment" to
attack so that it will work. Unfortunately, this leaves you vulnerable to
attacks into preparation, as you've noticed.

I suggest practicing *committed attacks*. In practice, decide "I'm going to
do such-and-such an attack" and then DO IT. Don't worry about whether it
works or not. Don't hold back trying to parry. Just do the attack. You want
to train your brain that it's OK to commit and follow through, so you have
to practice doing that.

When you do this, it's crucial to visualize *exactly* what you are going to
do. Just saying "I'm going to attack" won't help - that's what you're doing
now, and it leaves you hesitating. Decide on a method and target: for
instance, "I'm going to do a beat attack and hit his torso" or "I'm going
for a straight attack to the low line." This gives you something concrete
to do, so that you will not hesitate - as soon as you are close enough, you
do it. When practicing this, make sure you don't change your mind midway -
for this exercise, it's preferable to make the decisive attack and get
parried (or land off-target, or whatever) than to hesitate.

Cheers,
Holly

> maroni wrote:
>
> > i simply can't find a way how to prepare a
> > successful attack.
>
"Holly E. Ordway" replied:
>
> I suggest practicing *committed attacks*.

Warning -- Holly is a sabre fencer.

A foilsman might tell you to add false attacks
to your repertoire. After two or three bogus
actions from out of distance, the "boy who cried
wolf" syndrome sets in, and your opponent will
be caught by surprise when the real attack comes.

An epee fencer would probably say, "What's the problem?"

Joe

Joe Hoffman wrote:

> "Holly E. Ordway" replied:
>>
>> I suggest practicing *committed attacks*.
>
> Warning -- Holly is a sabre fencer.

Hehe. Yes, I am. I do also fence foil (though not so seriously) so it's not
like I'm completely out of touch (pun not intended) with foil!

Anyway, it's foil that still has the fleche, so you can't say there are no
all-out attacks in it! Now, I'm not saying that every attack has to be like
that (nor do all my attacks in sabre end in flunges) but if you're going to
land, you have to commit enough so that the tip actually hits the target.

(I would even say, more so in foil, because the target is always so far
away! No nice hands or arms to hit - just a dinky little patch of torso
that's maddeningly a little farther away than it ought to be...!)

> A foilsman might tell you to add false attacks
> to your repertoire. After two or three bogus
> actions from out of distance, the "boy who cried
> wolf" syndrome sets in, and your opponent will
> be caught by surprise when the real attack comes.

Hmm.... a good idea in theory, but if I read the OP correctly, the problem
is A) he gets hit in preparation, which means he's likely to get hit during
the bogus attacks (until he fine-tunes the distance, of course) and B) he
never gets up the gumption to make the real attack.

My idea of practicing committed attacks is to make it so he *can* finish an
attack - when he feels confident about it, and grasps the distance and
timing necessary to finish the action, then he can wrap it up in whatever
context of false attacks he wants. But if he can't commit in the first
place, he'll never hit.

Just my two cents - maybe a cent and a half, since foil's not my primary
weapon

Cheers,
Holly

"Holly E. Ordway" wrote:
> Hmm.... a good idea in theory, but if I read the OP correctly, the problem
> is A) he gets hit in preparation, which means he's likely to get hit during
> the bogus attacks (until he fine-tunes the distance, of course) and B) he
> never gets up the gumption to make the real attack.
>

I got hit in preparation. Why?

Maybe it's because my opponent blindly counterattacked without
realizing a compound action was coming. That is, she got lucky.
Or maybe she saw the timing and inferred what I was about to do.
Either way, it only worked because I finished the compound action
in a predictable way from a predictable distance.

If I do two or three false compound attacks that are too short
to hit, it separates those two kinds of fencers. The lucky one
sticks out her point when I'm still a step too far away. I can
take the blade and finish.

The perceptive one realizes that these are feints. Therefore she
can't infer what's coming, and therefore has to change her plans.
While she's changing plans, I can re-take the initiative with a
change of tactics. One of Holly's committed attacks would work
very nicely, here.

Of course, if she's really good, she'll pretend she's going for
an attack into preparation, which will lure me into finishing
straight, right into her parry and riposte. So I have to pretend
to take the bait. Now we're really fencing foil!

Joe

In article <404B51CD.DC21F115@patriot.net>,
Joe Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net> wrote:

> Of course, if she's really good, she'll pretend she's going for
> an attack into preparation, which will lure me into finishing
> straight, right into her parry and riposte.

I have a question about terminology:

If I do an action--such as parry riposte--against your attack into
preparation or stop hit/cut, that's countertime, right?

And if you do a compound attack into preparation--deceiving the
countertime parry--that's feint in tempo, right?

Does what you describe (pretending to counterattack and then doing
parry-riposte when you lure the other person into finishing) have a
technical name?

--Harold Buck


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

We could call it a second intention action. Since the first action
(counter-attack, however not pretending to do it, but doing it for real
without hoping it to hit but that it could in case your opponent overcommit
in his prep.) is not what you want to hit with. You keep that for the parry
riposte. But you second action is still in counter time. However it is a
partially forseen (tried to set up your opponent to do a specific action
that hasn't happend yet ) action instead of your parry riposte wich is an
unforseen action (were reacting, if you wern't luring opponent into a
counter attack for example by overcommiting your prep.). All depend on the
situation

Agleos



"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:no_one_knows-061A21.18105907032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <404B51CD.DC21F115@patriot.net>,
> Joe Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net> wrote:
>
> > Of course, if she's really good, she'll pretend she's going for
> > an attack into preparation, which will lure me into finishing
> > straight, right into her parry and riposte.
>
> I have a question about terminology:
>
> If I do an action--such as parry riposte--against your attack into
> preparation or stop hit/cut, that's countertime, right?
>
> And if you do a compound attack into preparation--deceiving the
> countertime parry--that's feint in tempo, right?
>
> Does what you describe (pretending to counterattack and then doing
> parry-riposte when you lure the other person into finishing) have a
> technical name?
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

I call it a "mensonge russe".

J.

Trim Plus Expert wrote:
>
> We could call it a second intention action. Since the first action
> (counter-attack, however not pretending to do it, but doing it for real
> without hoping it to hit but that it could in case your opponent overcommit
> in his prep.) is not what you want to hit with. You keep that for the parry
> riposte. But you second action is still in counter time. However it is a
> partially forseen (tried to set up your opponent to do a specific action
> that hasn't happend yet ) action instead of your parry riposte wich is an
> unforseen action (were reacting, if you wern't luring opponent into a
> counter attack for example by overcommiting your prep.). All depend onthe
> situation
>
> Agleos
>
> "Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:no_one_knows-061A21.18105907032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> > In article <404B51CD.DC21F115@patriot.net>,
> > Joe Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, if she's really good, she'll pretend she's going for
> > > an attack into preparation, which will lure me into finishing
> > > straight, right into her parry and riposte.
> >
> > I have a question about terminology:
> >
> > If I do an action--such as parry riposte--against your attack into
> > preparation or stop hit/cut, that's countertime, right?
> >
> > And if you do a compound attack into preparation--deceiving the
> > countertime parry--that's feint in tempo, right?
> >
> > Does what you describe (pretending to counterattack and then doing
> > parry-riposte when you lure the other person into finishing) have a
> > technical name?
> >
> > --Harold Buck
> >
> >
> > "I used to rock and roll all night,
> > and party every day.
> > Then it was every other day. . . ."
> > -Homer J. Simpson

> > "Harold Buck" <no one knows@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > news:no one knows-061A21.18105907032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> > > In article <404B51CD.DC21F115@patriot.net>,
> > > Joe Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Of course, if she's really good, she'll pretend she's going for
> > > > an attack into preparation, which will lure me into finishing
> > > > straight, right into her parry and riposte.
> > >
> > > I have a question about terminology:
> > >
> > > If I do an action--such as parry riposte--against your attack into
> > > preparation or stop hit/cut, that's countertime, right?
> > >
> > > And if you do a compound attack into preparation--deceiving the
> > > countertime parry--that's feint in tempo, right?
> > >
> > > Does what you describe (pretending to counterattack and then doing
> > > parry-riposte when you lure the other person into finishing) have a
> > > technical name?


After thinking about this, I think the best thing to call it might just
be "false counterattack." Depending on the situation, you also might
call it "feint into preparation."

--Harold Buck


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

You are too much thinking, it is a second intention,
you are trying to mess up fencing action wich is simple, we are not in the
ages of the famous (bottes secretes).
First intention counter attack,
Second intention parry-riposte,
what could be that simple.
The first intention is to lure,
second is to hit.
Basic tactic.

Now you are messing up intention, and phrasing.

Agleos


"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:no_one_knows-236C83.11104510032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> > > "Harold Buck" <no one knows@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > > news:no one knows-061A21.18105907032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> > > > In article <404B51CD.DC21F115@patriot.net>,
> > > > Joe Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Of course, if she's really good, she'll pretend she's going for
> > > > > an attack into preparation, which will lure me into finishing
> > > > > straight, right into her parry and riposte.
> > > >
> > > > I have a question about terminology:
> > > >
> > > > If I do an action--such as parry riposte--against your attack into
> > > > preparation or stop hit/cut, that's countertime, right?
> > > >
> > > > And if you do a compound attack into preparation--deceiving the
> > > > countertime parry--that's feint in tempo, right?
> > > >
> > > > Does what you describe (pretending to counterattack and then doing
> > > > parry-riposte when you lure the other person into finishing) have a
> > > > technical name?
>
>
> After thinking about this, I think the best thing to call it might just
> be "false counterattack." Depending on the situation, you also might
> call it "feint into preparation."
>
> --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 <vrH3c.18996$6y1.1022047@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

> You are too much thinking, it is a second intention,
> you are trying to mess up fencing action wich is simple, we are not in the
> ages of the famous (bottes secretes).
> First intention counter attack,
> Second intention parry-riposte,
> what could be that simple.
> The first intention is to lure,
> second is to hit.
> Basic tactic.
>
> Now you are messing up intention, and phrasing.


Second intention is a ***BROAD*** term which covers a lot of things. I
think calling it a false counterattack clearly describes what is going
on. I'm sorry if you don't agree.

--Harold Buck


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

There is about 250 000 000 diffenrent action that could be done in fencing,
hopefully there is not an exact term for every of them, but a whole broad
system that can be exact when explained correctly.

"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:no_one_knows-706E52.13280910032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <vrH3c.18996$6y1.1022047@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
>
> > You are too much thinking, it is a second intention,
> > you are trying to mess up fencing action wich is simple, we are not in
the
> > ages of the famous (bottes secretes).
> > First intention counter attack,
> > Second intention parry-riposte,
> > what could be that simple.
> > The first intention is to lure,
> > second is to hit.
> > Basic tactic.
> >
> > Now you are messing up intention, and phrasing.
>
>
> Second intention is a ***BROAD*** term which covers a lot of things. I
> think calling it a false counterattack clearly describes what is going
> on. I'm sorry if you don't agree.
>
> --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 Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:15:39 -0500
Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> There is about 250 000 000 diffenrent action that could be done in fencing,
> hopefully there is not an exact term for every of them, but a whole broad
> system that can be exact when explained correctly.

Heh. Go read Gaugler's "science of fencing" and then tell me there's
not a description for every one of them.

Because of course there is. It's a closed system and has been fully
analysed. Each term is sensible and built on a system, but it exists.

Beware... remember that "a little learning is a dangerous thing".

Zebee

There is no terms for complete fencing phrases, that would be impossible. I
know there is a term for all actions, but into a phrasing you must combine
theses terms that describes systems of actions not something like a special
manoeuver.

You say exactly the same thing i am saying to harold.
Beware ... not paying enough attention to meaning is a dangerous thing.


"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrnc4usdj.ges.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:15:39 -0500
> Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> > There is about 250 000 000 diffenrent action that could be done in
fencing,
> > hopefully there is not an exact term for every of them, but a whole
broad
> > system that can be exact when explained correctly.
>
> Heh. Go read Gaugler's "science of fencing" and then tell me there's
> not a description for every one of them.
>
> Because of course there is. It's a closed system and has been fully
> analysed. Each term is sensible and built on a system, but it exists.
>
> Beware... remember that "a little learning is a dangerous thing".
>
> Zebee

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:09:51 -0500
Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> There is no terms for complete fencing phrases, that would be impossible. I
> know there is a term for all actions, but into a phrasing you must combine
> theses terms that describes systems of actions not something like a special
> manoeuver.
>

Aren't there? Are you absolutely, 100% sure of that?

Zebee

by action I mean principe, technique, movement with intentiton ...
anyway hope you understand the point here. Sorry my vocabulary is limited
here since english isn't my native nor second language.


"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> a écrit dans le message de
news:jCK3c.26091$hG.297785@news20.bellglobal.com.. .
> There is no terms for complete fencing phrases, that would be impossible.
I
> know there is a term for all actions, but into a phrasing you must combine
> theses terms that describes systems of actions not something like a
special
> manoeuver.
>
> You say exactly the same thing i am saying to harold.
> Beware ... not paying enough attention to meaning is a dangerous thing.
>
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
> news:slrnc4usdj.ges.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> > In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:15:39 -0500
> > Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> > > There is about 250 000 000 diffenrent action that could be done in
> fencing,
> > > hopefully there is not an exact term for every of them, but a whole
> broad
> > > system that can be exact when explained correctly.
> >
> > Heh. Go read Gaugler's "science of fencing" and then tell me there's
> > not a description for every one of them.
> >
> > Because of course there is. It's a closed system and has been fully
> > analysed. Each term is sensible and built on a system, but it exists.
> >
> > Beware... remember that "a little learning is a dangerous thing".
> >
> > Zebee
>
>

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrnc4uv63.h9r.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:09:51 -0500
> Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> > There is no terms for complete fencing phrases, that would be
impossible. I
> > know there is a term for all actions, but into a phrasing you must
combine
> > theses terms that describes systems of actions not something like a
special
> > manoeuver.
> >
>
> Aren't there? Are you absolutely, 100% sure of that?
>
> Zebee

Yes I am it's just logical Zebee that there is not an exact term for every
phrase, since the number of phrase posibility is infinite however action
from 1 to 2 exanges is about 250 000 000 and about 62 500 000 000 for 3
exanges would you think there would be something else than a step by step
system to describe it not exact term for everything ? it would take about
125 000 000 pages of writing for only 3 exanges without including almost
infinite intentions by the players. I dont say it's imposible if i refer to
probability however considering humans limitations .... yes i am 100 % sure
that nobody was stupid enough to write a term for every action, insted of
classifing them into category...

Sincerely, and I hope you are sure now, mathematics are indeniable

In article <apL3c.29454$6y1.1067126@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

> Yes I am it's just logical Zebee that there is not an exact term for every
> phrase, since the number of phrase posibility is infinite however action
> from 1 to 2 exanges is about 250 000 000 and about 62 500 000 000 for 3
> exanges would you think there would be something else than a step by step
> system to describe it not exact term for everything ? it would take about
> 125 000 000 pages of writing for only 3 exanges without including almost
> infinite intentions by the players. I dont say it's imposible if i refer to
> probability however considering humans limitations .... yes i am 100 % sure
> that nobody was stupid enough to write a term for every action, insted of
> classifing them into category...


Well, it's really not clear what you're getting at here, nor where
you're pulling these numbers from. Just because there are lots of
different "exchanges" possible--by which I think you mean, for example,
action from fencer A, then from B, then from A, and so on--doesn't mean
that a limited vocabulary can't be used to describe every one of them.

--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 Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:39:55 -0500
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well, it's really not clear what you're getting at here, nor where
> you're pulling these numbers from. Just because there are lots of
> different "exchanges" possible--by which I think you mean, for example,
> action from fencer A, then from B, then from A, and so on--doesn't mean
> that a limited vocabulary can't be used to describe every one of them.

After all.. is "circular parry" a term, or a pair of terms joined?

What about "counter attack with opposition"?

<Gaugle Gaugle>[1]

"DOuble feint by glide to the inside line"
"feint direct to the inside high line and deceive"

And so on. Perfectly possible to describe everything using a set of
building blocks. Those are describing more than one physical move, and
I see no reason why any attack by second intention can't be described
in the same way to distinguish it from other 2nd intention attacks.

And no reason why a compound term has to be used, if a smaller term can
do the same job.

"attack by second intention" is as broad a classification as "compound
attack", and if you want a finer grain then you use more words. you
might use Dr Gaugler's classification scheme or another one.

Zebee

[1] a version of googling, where you go to Dr Gaugler's comprehensive
work and scare yourself witless.

Zebee, you are saying exactly the same thing I am tring to explain to
Harold, ok ill get simpler ... Harold, you don't have to invent special word
for every exchanges, just use the right commond terminology if you want
others to understand you.

I give an exemple : Fencer A attack fencer B. Fencer B use the (famed) coup
de Jarnak. Fencer B get the hit.

I understood what happenned, but did you ?

Ok I will explain : Fencer A attackfencer B. Fencer B parry prime then coupé
to the head. Fencer B get the hit.

Oh, Harold for the comming of the numbers, : take all possible preperation
with no more than two changes (including taking the blade) then multiply it
by the number of attack you could do, then multiply by the average number of
feint +1 (for the simple attack) in the exange ( I used 3), then by the
number of parry the opponent could do, then the number of riposte including
the number of remise, redoublement etc. by the attacker. You will get
approximatly 250 000 000 for this, then multiply this number by itself for
every exanges. I calculated this when I began fencing, I was thinking at
this moment that I would practice every fencing moves, and I realised how it
was stupid, and what was really important is to understand the system, and
manipulating adversity. Anyway ...


"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrnc4vb6g.kn3.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:39:55 -0500
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, it's really not clear what you're getting at here, nor where
> > you're pulling these numbers from. Just because there are lots of
> > different "exchanges" possible--by which I think you mean, for example,
> > action from fencer A, then from B, then from A, and so on--doesn't mean
> > that a limited vocabulary can't be used to describe every one of them.
>
> After all.. is "circular parry" a term, or a pair of terms joined?
>
> What about "counter attack with opposition"?
>
> <Gaugle Gaugle>[1]
>
> "DOuble feint by glide to the inside line"
> "feint direct to the inside high line and deceive"
>
> And so on. Perfectly possible to describe everything using a set of
> building blocks. Those are describing more than one physical move, and
> I see no reason why any attack by second intention can't be described
> in the same way to distinguish it from other 2nd intention attacks.
>
> And no reason why a compound term has to be used, if a smaller term can
> do the same job.
>
> "attack by second intention" is as broad a classification as "compound
> attack", and if you want a finer grain then you use more words. you
> might use Dr Gaugler's classification scheme or another one.
>
> Zebee
>
> [1] a version of googling, where you go to Dr Gaugler's comprehensive
> work and scare yourself witless.