Unusual fencing styles

What do you guys think about the worth of adopting unusual fencing
styles? I'm mostly talking in the context of sabre, although other
perspectives would be interesting to hear as well.

Some of the ones I've seen/tried are:
- Being bouncy. Some opponents like to bounce because they claim it
"keeps them light footed". Others say it just tires them out and maybe
makes them vulnerable to being hit for attacks that are timed when
they're at the top of their bounce.

- Unconventional en garde positions. Like some stances where the
fencers start with their blades in a head parrying position
(apparently to invite a horizontal cut), their blades extended (buys
you a few extra seconds to rest if you're knackered because the
opponents thinks "Huh?" for a while) and their blades dropped (loosens
up the fencing hand for a moment, and allows you to try to hit under
the forearms whilst pulling back at the same time).

- Whirly blades. This is one of the attacks I have great difficulty
defending against. One of the fencers at my club likes to whirl his
sabre around (his arm extended) before attacking. It is very confusing
where to parry, and if you pull back he just follows you.

Quite interested to know about other unorthodox tactics you've come
across as well.

justabeginner wrote:

>What do you guys think about the worth of adopting unusual fencing
>styles? I'm mostly talking in the context of sabre, although other
>perspectives would be interesting to hear as well.
>

A few of us on this newsgroup have fenced FIE and SCA and a couple of
other major groups. Suffice to say there are nearly infinite ways to use
swords in combat.

>Some of the ones I've seen/tried are:
>- Being bouncy. Some opponents like to bounce because they claim it
>"keeps them light footed". Others say it just tires them out and maybe
>makes them vulnerable to being hit for attacks that are timed when
>they're at the top of their bounce.
>

I've seen people be successful with this style, both in FIE and SCA. It
lets them start dynamically instead of statically. Basically they have
momentum built up and rather than lightly bouncing up, the propel
forwards. The timing you mentioned I've seen corrected by people doing
different heights to their vertical bounce; sometimes their feet just
clear the floor, other times their feet never leave the floor. If you
can watch, I bet they have a pattern to their bounce before they begin
their attack.

I've also noted the static fencers are a bit older than the dynamic
fencers. Bet that as the dynamic fencers get older, they too will become
more of the static variety. Doesn't mean they've lost something, just
means they've adapted their style.

>- Unconventional en garde positions. Like some stances where the
>fencers start with their blades in a head parrying position
>(apparently to invite a horizontal cut), their blades extended (buys
>you a few extra seconds to rest if you're knackered because the
>opponents thinks "Huh?" for a while) and their blades dropped (loosens
>up the fencing hand for a moment, and allows you to try to hit under
>the forearms whilst pulling back at the same time).
>

In the SCA, I've seen quite a few interesting styles. All of them based
off old texts and people are exploring them to see why the failed, why
they might have succeeded and for academic interest. One of my favorites
is done with case weapons (two swords). One held above the head and one
held at epee 5-position (in front). The idea is to allow your opponent
the opportunity to be hit from the top (above the head) or from the
straight-on. Most bouts wind up with both weapons just above waist level.

Strangest single-weapon en-guarde I've seen was supposivly based on a
german hanging guard. It had the hand in either a ponotated or supinated
at head level with the blade angled down to about waist-level in the
center of your body. Yes, all your arm and flanks are exposed. The
theory was you protect the exposed arm with the blade and you can whip
the blade around to strike at someone attacking your flanks. Only saw
someone do it once or twice successfully.

>- Whirly blades. This is one of the attacks I have great difficulty
>defending against. One of the fencers at my club likes to whirl his
>sabre around (his arm extended) before attacking. It is very confusing
>where to parry, and if you pull back he just follows you.
>

Timing. As he draws back on the whirl, attack. You could mentally play
with him by giving him lots of false body starts so he won't recognize
the true one until it's too late. This will draw a flame, but maybe take
a reverse lunge if he's in distance; hit then be prepared to give a
head-parry in case they continue through and it's their right-of-way.

>Quite interested to know about other unorthodox tactics you've come
>across as well.
>
>

Fence as many styles as you can. Experiment and read. Be prepared to
lose during practices. Do a post-mortum with your fellow fencers to find
what they saw that worked and didn't work. Have fun.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:37:38 -0500
Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
>
> I've also noted the static fencers are a bit older than the dynamic
> fencers. Bet that as the dynamic fencers get older, they too will become
> more of the static variety. Doesn't mean they've lost something, just
> means they've adapted their style.

I'm not sure you can equate "doesn't bounce" with "static".

My fencing master doesn't bounce, hates it, and teaches timing to deal
with it. He's also incredibly fast on his feet - he can do controlled,
balanced, utterly graceful steps back faster than most fencers can run
forward. (Then, of course, stop dead and impale you. Personal
experience? What gives you that idea?)

People who don't move much are usually injured - bad knees is my excuse!
But doesn't have to be so. If you have learned how to move properly,
you can be quite fast on your feet well into your 70s. If you have been
relying on your youthful strength and joints to carry you through bad
form, then as you get less strong and supple you find you can't move
much any more.

Many fencers - modern and especially SCA - have been badly taught,
and use too much energy and fight their bodies.


> In the SCA, I've seen quite a few interesting styles. All of them based
> off old texts and people are exploring them to see why the failed, why
> they might have succeeded and for academic interest. One of my favorites
> is done with case weapons (two swords). One held above the head and one
> held at epee 5-position (in front). The idea is to allow your opponent
> the opportunity to be hit from the top (above the head) or from the
> straight-on. Most bouts wind up with both weapons just above waist level.

Capo Ferro goes into detail about this, explaining why terza is the best
guard.

I believe that most of the pics you see of different "guards" are really
like the crane stance in various eastern martial arts. It's not a place
you start from, it's a place you transition through on your way to
somewhere else. But practicing different moves from that place means
that as you find yourself in it, you know your options and can move into
whichever you please with ease.

Broad ward for example. It's where you end up if you have parried 3rd
and stepped to the offside. So when you've done that, if you have
practiced starting from there you have a bunch of practiced options that
work.

>
> Strangest single-weapon en-guarde I've seen was supposivly based on a
> german hanging guard. It had the hand in either a ponotated or supinated
> at head level with the blade angled down to about waist-level in the
> center of your body. Yes, all your arm and flanks are exposed. The
> theory was you protect the exposed arm with the blade and you can whip
> the blade around to strike at someone attacking your flanks. Only saw
> someone do it once or twice successfully.

Sir William Hope called it the best of all guards with a smallsword.
There's a fencer in my local group who does it very well, one of his
favourite tricks. Helps that he's very tall and has good timing and
blade control.

Much less is exposed than you think if you have good sword control.
WIth the longer heavier weapons you have to know how to move them with
leverage not brute force - and many SCA fencers haven't learned that -
but if you can, you can be very quick with your attack. So the attacker
has to get that point out of the way and control the blade, not just try
for an exposed flank. It's mainly vulnerable to a fast attack to the
wrist or forearm while closing the line and stepping at an angle, but
you have to execute that correctly or you will be in trouble.


Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:37:38 -0500
>Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've also noted the static fencers are a bit older than the dynamic
>>fencers. Bet that as the dynamic fencers get older, they too will become
>>more of the static variety. Doesn't mean they've lost something, just
>>means they've adapted their style.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure you can equate "doesn't bounce" with "static".
>

Sorry, the definitions I was using where: Dynamic - constantly in
motion; Static moves when they feel a need or purposful advantage.

>My fencing master doesn't bounce, hates it, and teaches timing to deal
>with it. He's also incredibly fast on his feet - he can do controlled,
>balanced, utterly graceful steps back faster than most fencers can run
>forward. (Then, of course, stop dead and impale you. Personal
>experience? What gives you that idea?)
>

Yes. I've experienced them. Annoying, aren't they? Their lack of motion
doesn't give away anything. It's like a good poker player.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:23:40 -0500
Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------040500040001030702050400
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm not sure you can equate "doesn't bounce" with "static".
>
> Sorry, the definitions I was using where: Dynamic - constantly in
> motion; Static moves when they feel a need or purposful advantage.

Well.. why move when you don't need to? Don't need to be old to make
that decision "A good fencer is a lazy fencer - don't do more than
you need to."

Capo Ferro says that you have feet of lead when seeking the measure.
Don't leap about while out of distance, it serves no purpose and can
interfere with your ability to seize the moment. Once you are in distance
he says, *then* you move quickly to attack. But you don't leap into
that distance, you should only be there when you have the advantage.
So you move carefully and set things up so when you have the measure,
you also have the advantage.

He was worried about getting 3 feet of steel in him if he got it wrong
of course, so was very insistent on being careful.

I think people with lots of energy find they can use it and so do.
I am not sure it gives them any real advantage with a skilled opponent
and may well disadvantage them.

TO be light on your feet, be light on them. Knees bent, weight
fractionally off your heels, and lots and lots of footwork practice.
Footwork races are good for that, the more tired you get the more
efficient you have to learn to be. The more efficient you are in your
footwork, the faster you will be at the end of the event when it matters.

>
>>My fencing master doesn't bounce, hates it, and teaches timing to deal
>>with it. He's also incredibly fast on his feet - he can do controlled,
>>balanced, utterly graceful steps back faster than most fencers can run
>>forward. (Then, of course, stop dead and impale you. Personal
>>experience? What gives you that idea?)
>>
>
> Yes. I've experienced them. Annoying, aren't they? Their lack of motion
> doesn't give away anything. It's like a good poker player.

They can move as fast as they need to when they need to. As fast
as they need to can be like lightning - an explosive lunge or a neat
quick retreat - or it can be slow like a perfectly timed inquartata,
or simple step and parry.

Or not move the feet at all, and let the energetic ones who haven't
dealt with the opponent's blade properly find why speed isn't
everything...

I saw a marvellous object lesson in this being given to a fellow student.
He's the energetic leap in and be agressive kind. Who usually stop
hits people or just bashes the blade away and overwhelms them with
his speed of attack. Maestro just stood there, let him come in, and
executed perfectly timed disengages, so that the student kept impaling
himself on the suddenly re-placed blade that was also closing the line.
Poor lad was a bit of a slow learner but 4 or 5 hits between the eyes
finally slowed him down enough to be *sure* the opponent's blade was
controlled before he barreled in.

Zebee

"justabeginner" <nom_de_plume79@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b7ff0972.0411060346.2d8dafcb@posting.google.c om
> What do you guys think about the worth of adopting unusual fencing
> styles? I'm mostly talking in the context of sabre, although other
> perspectives would be interesting to hear as well.

Lots of styles can be made to work, provided the fencer knows what the
strengths and weaknesses are of the style he's using; how to apply the
strengths, and what to do when the opponent attacks the weaknesses.

> Some of the ones I've seen/tried are:
> - Being bouncy. Some opponents like to bounce because they claim it
> "keeps them light footed". Others say it just tires them out and maybe
> makes them vulnerable to being hit for attacks that are timed when
> they're at the top of their bounce.

There is some evidence that bouncing makes it easier to get the muscles
into motion for the real footwork -- provided *you* get to pick when it
is that the "real footwork" begins. Obviously, you are paying for the
bouncing in energy expenditure, which can add up over the course of a
long competition. Equally obviously, there are moments of readiness and
unreadiness in any bouncing motion, which the "bouncer" has to learn how
to work with, and the opponent may learn to predict and use against him.

There are definitely fencers who bounce, and do it successfully.
Personally, I don't bounce except as a training exercise, and never did
even when I was younger. I prefer to move when it's time to move, and
stand still when it's time to stand still. That usually means plenty of
movement anyway. But I'm not primarily a sabre fencer, so anything I
say about it should be taken as more academic than the voice of
experience. Still, I'm inclined to think that the time spent bouncing
could be better used making minute distance adjustments, applying
footwork tactics, or just putting mobility pressure on the opponent.

> - Unconventional en garde positions. Like some stances where the
> fencers start with their blades in a head parrying position
> (apparently to invite a horizontal cut), their blades extended (buys
> you a few extra seconds to rest if you're knackered because the
> opponents thinks "Huh?" for a while) and their blades dropped (loosens
> up the fencing hand for a moment, and allows you to try to hit under
> the forearms whilst pulling back at the same time).

I think a guard 5 position is probably way too far back from the
initiation zone to be a good strategy, and makes it pretty darn hard to
start an attack surreptitiously. I'd look on that as a one-trick-pony
position.

If by "blades extended" you mean "point in line", that's not a guard
position, but it's certainly a useful tactic. It has its strengths and
weaknesses like anything else.

I don't see anything particularly eccentric about a low-line or
"drooped" guard position, so long as you recognize (a) you have no line
actually closed, so there are no feints you can ignore, and (b) you may
have to sell the start of your attack to the referee a bit harder.

> - Whirly blades. This is one of the attacks I have great difficulty
> defending against. One of the fencers at my club likes to whirl his
> sabre around (his arm extended) before attacking. It is very confusing
> where to parry, and if you pull back he just follows you.

What's to parry? Attack.

> Quite interested to know about other unorthodox tactics you've come
> across as well.

Al Carlay, a foilist from NYC, was small but very agile. He used to
lure taller fencers into lunging slightly downward because his target
was relatvely low to the ground. Then he'd jump straight up, clean over
the attacking blade and often higher than the opponent's head, and hit
him in the back. It was really demoralizing to get hit with one of
those.

--

Dirk Goldgar

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

"justabeginner" wrote:

> What do you guys think about the worth of adopting unusual fencing
> styles? I'm mostly talking in the context of sabre, although other
> perspectives would be interesting to hear as well.

Usually they are just stunts. They work on you until you find the counter.

> Some of the ones I've seen/tried are:
> - Being bouncy. Some opponents like to bounce because they claim it
> "keeps them light footed". Others say it just tires them out and maybe
> makes them vulnerable to being hit for attacks that are timed when
> they're at the top of their bounce.

Not just the top. From the time they leave the ground until.they return,
they have no ability to change movement. Stay slightly further away from
them until they leave the ground. Then it's your footwork and bladework
against their bladework alone.

> - Unconventional en garde positions. Like some stances where the
> fencers start with their blades in a head parrying position
> (apparently to invite a horizontal cut),

It's quite open to a thrust, if you have a quick untelegraphed sabre thrust
in your repertoire.

> - Whirly blades. This is one of the attacks I have great difficulty
> defending against. One of the fencers at my club likes to whirl his
> sabre around (his arm extended) before attacking. It is very confusing
> where to parry, and if you pull back he just follows you.

Then back up when he starts it. This tactic's main effect is to tell you
when he's going to attack. If he's not doing it, he's not preparing an
attack. Finally, thrust on him using the same circle movement to avoid his
blade. (The circular motion doesn't parry you for the same reason that one
horse on a carousel never passes another.)

Good luck.

Jay Rudin

> Quite interested to know about other unorthodox tactics you've come
> across as well.

"Bouncing" is IMO next to useless in modern sabre. No decent opponent
is going to give you time to do it. He or she is simply going to seize
the ROW by attacking. It isn't the sort of deliberative fencing you do
with foil or epee, and you either move or you get hit.

I use a variety of guard positions, but most I don't hold for long.
For the same reason that one daren't "bounce", one daren't simply
stand and wait for an attack for long. If you watch the top sabre
fencers, they may take the quinte guard, but they don't stay in it.
Only the low guards seem to get held for extended periods ( I use the
term "extended" loosely, this is sabre after all ).

Molinellos ( what you call "whirly blade" ) is an invitation to a stop
cut.

Everything can be used to effect once in a while, but if unusual
stylistic elements are relied upon extensively your opponents will
eventually figure it out...and the top fencers all seem to do roughly
the same things because they work consistently. I personally would
rather practice and drill a few solid all-around techniques to
perfection than spend the time on "surprise" variations that may
garner a few touches now and then.

"orthodox" fencing styles and positions have evoloved because they are the most
economical and efficient

In rec.sport.fencing on 08 Nov 2004 05:33:21 GMT
PAN CYAN <pancyan@aol.com> wrote:
> "orthodox" fencing styles and positions have evoloved because they are the most
> economical and efficient

for the given ruleset.


Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:19:23 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au>
wrote:

>In rec.sport.fencing on 08 Nov 2004 05:33:21 GMT
>PAN CYAN <pancyan@aol.com> wrote:
>> "orthodox" fencing styles and positions have evoloved because they are the most
>> economical and efficient
>
>for the given ruleset.

That's why sabreurs have that funky fleche that isn't a fleche!