Speed in fencing

I had a recent discution with one of my friend who say that in fencing,
faster is better. But I disagree with him. My point was that if you are too
fast or too slow for your opponent you are more likely to get caught by his
response. Too fast and you may not be able to dissengage a parry and too
slow and you might get caught on a stop-hit. Can someone give me his/her
opinion on this? I think that you have to be perfectly tune to your opponent
rythme too be in the perfect attack/defence position. But I am sure that
some more knowledgeable than me can explain to me if I am right. Thanx of
your help.

In article <f8C1d.137$9g.1349@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

> I had a recent discution with one of my friend who say that in fencing,
> faster is better. But I disagree with him. My point was that if you are too
> fast or too slow for your opponent you are more likely to get caught by his
> response. Too fast and you may not be able to dissengage a parry and too
> slow and you might get caught on a stop-hit. Can someone give me his/her
> opinion on this? I think that you have to be perfectly tune to your opponent
> rythme too be in the perfect attack/defence position. But I am sure that
> some more knowledgeable than me can explain to me if I am right. Thanx of
> your help.


You need to be aware of your opponent's tempo. If you do feint-disengage
so fast he doesn't register the feint, you end up finishing on his blade
just in time for him to think "Aaaaah! Something's happening! I'd better
stick out my arm!" and score the touch. This is one reason good fencers
have such a hard time with beginners.

One of the Coaches College instructors used to like to tell us to
emphasize the difference between going faster and going sooner. In the
lesson, you want people to go slowly enough that they can make the right
decisions. However, you want them to start right away when you give the
cue.

--Harold Buck


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

That's an interesting concept. Sooner and not faster. that's remind me of an
old treatise of arm, of someone I can't remember the name, that was teaching
the before and after the opponent. So if I understand well, you have to act
when something happen, so reaction time become important, not pure speed.
When speaking about reaction time, is there anyway to improve it, I think
that I actually have a good one (about 160 ms) but there is always room for
improvement.


"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:no_one_knows-86277A.12495114092004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <f8C1d.137$9g.1349@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
>
> > I had a recent discution with one of my friend who say that in fencing,
> > faster is better. But I disagree with him. My point was that if you are
too
> > fast or too slow for your opponent you are more likely to get caught by
his
> > response. Too fast and you may not be able to dissengage a parry and too
> > slow and you might get caught on a stop-hit. Can someone give me his/her
> > opinion on this? I think that you have to be perfectly tune to your
opponent
> > rythme too be in the perfect attack/defence position. But I am sure that
> > some more knowledgeable than me can explain to me if I am right. Thanx
of
> > your help.
>
>
> You need to be aware of your opponent's tempo. If you do feint-disengage
> so fast he doesn't register the feint, you end up finishing on his blade
> just in time for him to think "Aaaaah! Something's happening! I'd better
> stick out my arm!" and score the touch. This is one reason good fencers
> have such a hard time with beginners.
>
> One of the Coaches College instructors used to like to tell us to
> emphasize the difference between going faster and going sooner. In the
> lesson, you want people to go slowly enough that they can make the right
> decisions. However, you want them to start right away when you give the
> cue.
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

My coach (Hi Stuart!) tends to emphasize acceleration over speed. The idea is
that the move doesn't need to go fast overall, but when the right moment comes,
it should pop!

Joe

Trim Plus Expert wrote:
> That's an interesting concept. Sooner and not faster. that's remind me of an
> old treatise of arm, of someone I can't remember the name, that was teaching
> the before and after the opponent. So if I understand well, you have to act
> when something happen, so reaction time become important, not pure speed.
> When speaking about reaction time, is there anyway to improve it, I think
> that I actually have a good one (about 160 ms) but there is always room for
> improvement.

Also, it isn't purely reaction time you need to improve. I've seen old,
slow guys beat the stuffing out of fast, strong kids. These "more
experienced" fencers may not be as fast, but they know WHEN to go, and
what speed to do it at. Take a simple action: A makes a straight
attack, B makes parry-riposte.

If B parries very early, A will notice that a parry has been made, and
break off the attack.

If B parries very late, A will have already scored the touch.

If B parries just right, A will be commited to the attack and will not
have time to reach. Touch for B

Assume B is the old, slow, but very smart fencer and A is the young
whelp. B may SEEM very fast to A, but in reality he/she is actually
slower. B just makes it seem fast by being in the correct place, and
correctly executing the action.

Faster is not always better. If I am fencing an opponent who has a
blindingly fast parry, I may make a quick preparation followed by a
S..L..O..W attack. The opponent will then make the fast parry, but get
nothing but air, since I'm not even there yet!

In article <ci7mr9$kq6$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
Aaron Caba <acaba2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Faster is not always better. If I am fencing an opponent who has a
> blindingly fast parry, I may make a quick preparation followed by a
> S..L..O..W attack. The opponent will then make the fast parry, but get
> nothing but air, since I'm not even there yet!


A really fun action is a "broken time" or "broken tempo" attack. You
make a big, obvious lunge with your arm back. The other person parries,
but gets nothing because your arm is still back. Then you extend and
hit. If done right, the other person is scratching their head wondering
how the hell they "missed" the parry.

Of course, you're also watching for them to attack into preparation, in
which case you parry-riposte (counter-time).

--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, 14 Sep 2004 16:17:52 -0500
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> A really fun action is a "broken time" or "broken tempo" attack. You
> make a big, obvious lunge with your arm back. The other person parries,
> but gets nothing because your arm is still back. Then you extend and
> hit. If done right, the other person is scratching their head wondering
> how the hell they "missed" the parry.

I'd have said a competent opponent would see that... They'd certainly
see the arm was not extended when the lunge started and that will change
the timing right there.

I was taught to do broken time by varying the speed of the lunge. Snap
the back leg hard at the last instant, and a good parryer will start too
late as they've timed from the start of the lunge.

ONly going to work on *good* opponents though... wasted on someone who
doesn't have good just-in-time parries.

I second that it's timing not speed. WHich was known as far back as
Capo Ferro in 1610 when he talks about how your motion is based on your
opponent's stillness and vice versa, and how you each move with the
other until the vital moment.

Speed is much easier to achieve, especially if you are young and
athletic. Timing takes a lot of hard repetitive slog plus the ability
to analyse what is going on.

At least that's what I tell myself....

Zebee

I'll say this:

As a referee, the way calls are being made in foil now are starting to
become more like sabre calls. The book may dictate that your arm must
be extending, but, more and more, calls are being made with more
attention to body momentum. Making an attack while your opponent is
attacking with a bent arm is becoming next to impossible at the Div II
NAC level and above. I am not saying that this is due to any error on
the part of the referee or rules, but the nature of the evolution of
the sport. Maybe it's just me, and if it is, I'll shut up.

The way I perform (and call) a split tempo attack is just that, a
change in the speed of the attack at some point during the attack.
Often, this is a change from fast to slow to allow time for the
opponent to make the desired reactions (when dealing with an
inexperienced fencer).

Lastly, speed is something that you need to know when to use.
However, you will find yourself lacking if, when it is
required/advantageous, your "speed reservoir" is empty. Reaction time
and, as my coach says, "understanding the game" will get you through a
tough bout, but sometimes it can be much easier to make the fast touch
when the target becomes available.

Matt

I'm afraid I must agree with your friend. Faster is always better.
Anyone who says otherwise is merely bemoaning their increasing years, or
lack of fitness. With the new box timing, this will be emphasized,
as if you are 1/3 sec faster (for foil) there will be only one light!

It's only if your movement and reaction speeds are relatively equivalent
that you need to worry about such second intention subtleties as feints.
If you are significantly faster, or your opponent lets you get too close
(speed and distance are inverse), a beat attack, or change beat attack
is such a high percentage move, that it's practically unsporting.
However, if you do not vary your speed, thats when cunning old fencers can
get you, as we can keep increasing distance up to the point where our
slow, but perfectly timed parry and riposte works.

Regards
AJ

Trim Plus Expert wrote:
> I had a recent discution with one of my friend who say that in fencing,
> faster is better. But I disagree with him. My point was that if you are too
> fast or too slow for your opponent you are more likely to get caught by his
> response. Too fast and you may not be able to dissengage a parry and too
> slow and you might get caught on a stop-hit. Can someone give me his/her
> opinion on this? I think that you have to be perfectly tune to your opponent
> rythme too be in the perfect attack/defence position. But I am sure that
> some more knowledgeable than me can explain to me if I am right. Thanx of
> your help.
>
>

I don't think the new box timing will change something, you know 130ms is
relatively slow, a good lunge is finished in about 400ms while a simple
counter attack is in about 100ms. Average reaction times are 220ms. So if
you take the lunge and the box timer time together, about 530ms (for someone
fast) then you substract an average reaction time 220ms. You still have 310
ms left to counter attack. However you have to counter attack before getting
hit. But with the old time at 500ms you could get hit on a stop hit and
after finish your attack with about 280 ms left to counter attack. You may
say that good fencer could cheat with the right of way, especially a good
flicker. A flick is almost impossible to parry at close distance. That is
why they changed the box timing. But I know old epeeist that can always
menage to double hit and the timer is set at 40ms so you can say that 130ms
is slow... really really slow.


"Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:41496abe@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> I'm afraid I must agree with your friend. Faster is always better.
> Anyone who says otherwise is merely bemoaning their increasing years, or
> lack of fitness. With the new box timing, this will be emphasized,
> as if you are 1/3 sec faster (for foil) there will be only one light!
>
> It's only if your movement and reaction speeds are relatively equivalent
> that you need to worry about such second intention subtleties as feints.
> If you are significantly faster, or your opponent lets you get too close
> (speed and distance are inverse), a beat attack, or change beat attack
> is such a high percentage move, that it's practically unsporting.
> However, if you do not vary your speed, thats when cunning old fencers can
> get you, as we can keep increasing distance up to the point where our
> slow, but perfectly timed parry and riposte works.
>
> Regards
> AJ
>
> Trim Plus Expert wrote:
> > I had a recent discution with one of my friend who say that in fencing,
> > faster is better. But I disagree with him. My point was that if you are
too
> > fast or too slow for your opponent you are more likely to get caught by
his
> > response. Too fast and you may not be able to dissengage a parry and too
> > slow and you might get caught on a stop-hit. Can someone give me his/her
> > opinion on this? I think that you have to be perfectly tune to your
opponent
> > rythme too be in the perfect attack/defence position. But I am sure that
> > some more knowledgeable than me can explain to me if I am right. Thanx
of
> > your help.
> >
> >

In article <41496abe@duster.adelaide.on.net>,
Andrew John <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> wrote:

> I'm afraid I must agree with your friend. Faster is always better.
> Anyone who says otherwise is merely bemoaning their increasing years, or
> lack of fitness.


Very few things are "always" anything. You can easily go so fast that
the opponent doesn't hav time to react properly, in which case you screw
yourself.

--Harold Buck


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

True Harold, nothing is always something.
The only speed that would be enough fast would be a lunge faster than the
eye can see. I doubt that is possible .



"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:no_one_knows-960629.12325516092004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <41496abe@duster.adelaide.on.net>,
> Andrew John <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid I must agree with your friend. Faster is always better.
> > Anyone who says otherwise is merely bemoaning their increasing years, or
> > lack of fitness.
>
>
> Very few things are "always" anything. You can easily go so fast that
> the opponent doesn't hav time to react properly, in which case you screw
> yourself.
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> I had a recent discution with one of my friend who say that in fencing,
> faster is better. But I disagree with him. My point was that if you are too
> fast or too slow for your opponent you are more likely to get caught by his
> response. Too fast and you may not be able to dissengage a parry and too
> slow and you might get caught on a stop-hit. Can someone give me his/her
> opinion on this? I think that you have to be perfectly tune to your opponent
> rythme too be in the perfect attack/defence position. But I am sure that
> some more knowledgeable than me can explain to me if I am right. Thanx of
> your help.

Faster is ALWAYS better. But not necessarily faster in action.
Faster thinking leads to faster response time, leads to the luxury of acting
as fast or as slow as is required.

But is acting faster always better? Not unless (perhaps) you're not able
to vary your tempo. In a direct attack to an open target, speed is essential.

Colin

I do not think faster is always better. For example, if I initiate a feint, and
disengage before my opponent has a change to perceive the threat I want him to
perceive, I will attack into a closed line.

There is a reason change of tempo is important. I like what my fencing master,
Bin Lu, says on this matter (and he means this only in a tactical sense):

"Start slow. Finish fast."

B.C. Milligan
Baltimore Fencing Center

"Aaron Caba" <acaba2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ci7mr9$kq6$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>
>
> Assume B is the old, slow, but very smart fencer and A is the young
> whelp. B may SEEM very fast to A, but in reality he/she is actually
> slower. B just makes it seem fast by being in the correct place, and
> correctly executing the action.
>

My first fencing coach got training under C. L. deBeaumont, who was the
British Epee Champion at least 30 years after he won his first one as a
young guy.

Precision, tempo and a set of fine-tuned reflexes.

He apparently could rattle a tuppence (two pence coin about the size of a
Canadian Twonie) down a wall by releasing and extending. Challenged the
young bucks a beer if they could do the same even a couple of times. Never
paid for a beer.

Practice and variety.

"Byrocat" <strikemaster2000@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:arh5d.32450$pA.2301313@news20.bellglobal.com
>
> My first fencing coach got training under C. L. deBeaumont, who was
> the British Epee Champion at least 30 years after he won his first
> one as a young guy.
>
> Precision, tempo and a set of fine-tuned reflexes.
>
> He apparently could rattle a tuppence (two pence coin about the size
> of a Canadian Twonie) down a wall by releasing and extending.
> Challenged the young bucks a beer if they could do the same even a
> couple of times. Never paid for a beer.

Well, there goes *my* weekend!

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[VELISARIOS]

Hello to you. To be someone quick in action give him more propabilities to win than some one who is slow. But in fencing the most foundamental thing is the mind of the fencer.