decision point/straight attacks

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

It's not a march.
It's not a marching attack.
It's just an attack.
Get over it. There's nothing special about it. It's called run down your opponent and hit him.

"It's not a parry six.
It's just a parry.
Get over it.
There's nothing special about the parry six [which distinguishes it from, say, a parry 4]. Just swing your blade and hit theirs. [That's all you need to know.]"

Sorry, but that's not enough. Fencing is interesting. So people are going to talk about it. Especially if practice doesn't start for 6 hours.

[SmokeyTheCat263]

Walter- For this post, I will use your terminology of "marching attacking" for easier understanding on your part.

The reason why the term "marching attack" makes competitve foilists cringe on this message board is as followed:

1. There is no difference between a "marching attack" and what you would call a "regular attack". They are the same action simply on opposite sides of the spectrum. One is compact, the other stretched out. You can do the same action over different distances. So what constitues a "regular attack?" 2 meters? 4 meters? is 5 the limit before its marching??

2. No sucessful foilist in their right mind ever thinks on the strip "okay, time to do a march". We may think "attack" and if our opponents choose to run, are we no longer doing a "regular attack" but instead doing a "marching attack"? I think not.

3. I would suggest the term "marching attack" was coined by foiliists who hated the flick and simply believed that this "march" was not worthy of being called an attack, but rather it was some kidnve cheap move that competitve foilists do just to gain the advantage. By distinguising a longer attack as a "march" rather tahn an "attack" it is essentially saying it is not a TRUE attack. This is wrong. Instead we should accept that both are valid in modern competive fencing, and stop whining "boo hoo i couldnt stop his march".

4. I do realize, that aside from the elongated distance, you do tend to associate a "marching attack" with a displaced point. Well let me ask, what competitve foilist in their right mind can actually catch up to a retreating opponent with their arm straight out? It simply can't be done. So please dont cry "marching attack!" just cuz foilist move at their opponent with their tip to the floor a bit, or even facing the ceiling. It's still the same thing as a "regular attack". Just different distances, different starting places.

An attack is an attack. End of story.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

Walter- For this post, I will use your terminology of "marching attacking" for easier understanding on your part.

Yikes. I don't know where to begin. In fact, I won't try. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

FWIW, the concepts aren't very hard.

[SmokeyTheCat263]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Yikes. I don't know where to begin. In fact, I won't try. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

FWIW, the concepts aren't very hard.

Oh please, enlighten me with your AP Fencing theory physics. Shed some light in this dark chasm i'm in. Clearly i'm just not smart enough to keep up with such a great fencing mind.

[fencerontheline]

I'm kinda interested in seeing where this epic battle goes.

Walter, I think it's your turn.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by fencerontheline

I'm kinda interested in seeing where this epic battle goes. Walter, I think it's your turn.

It's not an epic confrontation. I'm sure I've had this conversation several times before...

The thread is drippingwet asking about a weird thing with "decision point" which is a minor concept in a marching attack. That is the thread.

One guy thinks there's no point in discussing fencing tactics. A different guy has somehow convinced himself there's no difference between a short attack and a long compound attack. What can I do about that? These sorts of guys either disappear, or grow up and start thinking, or they start coaching.

When a guy says: "Durrrr... an attack is an attack is an attack. There is no point to thinking about attacks. Just hit da other guy" -- Then the burden of proof is on him. He has to say why Kogler, Szabo, Vass, Lukovich are idiots for rationalizing the chaos of a bout. He has to say why Allen Evans, David Littell, Bucky Leach, fricking Agrippa -- basically every fencer who ever put a structure to swordfighting -- he has to explain why these guys are clueless for writing things down.

Think of it this way: Thousands of fencers are launching hundreds of marching attacks every day, for years. Let's say that's millions of long compound attacks a year. There is one article in English about the marching attack. That's one too many for SmokeyTheCat263, though.

So, I don't care to defend the Marching Attack article against random schmoes. [a] The article has to stand or fall by itself, and [b] if the schmoe really believes in something about fencing, they'll write an article for the site, and then let the community take potshots at it.

[RebelFencer]

*slaps forehead*

[beaten by a much better response]

[fencerontheline]

I still don't think you refuted Mr Smokey's point...

And I gotta get to sleep now. Waking up early tomorrow to run and swim in the morning. Will write a more elaborate response then.

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

The thread is drippingwet asking about a weird thing with "decision point" which is a minor concept in a marching attack. That is the thread.

What's weird about wondering about this...

Originally Posted by drippingwet

If an opponent tries to draw your attack with false attempts at turning the corner, managing decision point apparently means you can ignore those attempts. So if you ignore those attempts, you might inadvertently ignore a real attempt at turning the corner, so the opponent could lunge at you because you ignored the warning sign.

...???

achilleus said my observation was fine and when I asked how can you do this...

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Before decision point, the attacker can ignore everything the opponent does, false or real, because the attacker can't be reached.

...he said this...

Originally Posted by achilleus

Easy.

Here's the deal dude:

The attacker has to be ready to finish on a real action from the defender. As soon as the defender commits to their action, that's the best moment for the attacker to finish.

For the defender, the false actions have to be believable, otherwise the attacker won't finish.

Do attackers get hit in prep? Yes, for exactly the observation you noted. They don't believe the action is real, just aren't ready to finish, or some other reason.

The better the attacker, the better the false actions have to be to draw the attack.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

What's weird about wondering about this...

It's not weird to wonder about it.

I said it's a weird thing with DP, and that caused you to wonder.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by fencerontheline

I still don't think you refuted Mr Smokey's point...

I hate to do this -- the darn article explains it so I don't have to. It's a matter of repetitive stress injury.

Originally Posted by Smokeycat

1. There is no difference between a "marching attack" and what you would call a "regular attack".

There is a difference between a short attack, a compound attack, and a long compound attack. For one, they take different preparations, or preparations in different moods. Ask Ed Elterman at NYU about the different preparations, or read David Littell's "Lessons with Victor". The footwork is also different -- for short attacks (arm, step, lunge) there's not much to it, but you get to work with simple tempo attacks -- attacks on hand tempo, attacks on foot tempo.

For compound attacks, the footwork gets more interesting -- you can vary the rhythm, disjoin hand-and-foot tempo. For long compound attacks, you get even more to work with in terms of body and foot. The tschuslutar (sp!?), body feints, stop-shorts -- there's video on this bboard about the Peter Westbrook Foundation, a news story by 60 Minutes II -- around the middle, Spencer El and somebody else are doing a demo bout for an audience. That has beeoooootiful body and foot-tempo work.

Further, for compound and long-compound attacks, which feature multi-part blade actions, you have different moods of bladework. There are rehearsed, reflexive, or generally "unthoughtful" actions, where the fencer does stuff without needing the opponent (a 1-2 attack). On the other side of the spectrum, there are the thoughtful and reactive versions, where the fencer needs feedback from the opponent (a feint-disengage attack).

The 1-2 vs the feint-disengage -- vastly different. So even when you're changing the line twice, you can do it with two different sensibilities in the blade. You can [a] switch lines twice and then hit the opponent, profiting from the general air of confusion you generated, or [b] you can feint, wait for the opponent to parry, and disengage to hit.

There are similar important, critical concepts in fencing, even way down to the simple engagement level. So of course there are important, critical things in something as vast and interesting as a marching attack.

2. No sucessful foilist in their right mind ever thinks on the strip "okay, time to do a march". We may think "attack" and if our opponents choose to run, are we no longer doing a "regular attack" but instead doing a "marching attack"? I think not.

Nobody ever pretended this, so you're safe in disputing it.

3. I would suggest the term "marching attack" was coined by foiliists who hated the flick and simply believed that this "march" was not worthy of being called an attack, but rather it was some kidnve cheap move that competitve foilists do just to gain the advantage. By distinguising a longer attack as a "march" rather tahn an "attack" it is essentially saying it is not a TRUE attack. This is wrong. Instead we should accept that both are valid in modern competive fencing, and stop whining "boo hoo i couldnt stop his march".

This is just silly. It's like SmokeyTheCat263 made up stuff because he needed a #3.

The march is distinguished from other attacks because the article is about the march, and not some other attack. Why did I write an article on the March? Because nobody was really talking about it, and I was sick of seeing fencers of every level walking onto the opponent's stop-hit like newbies. Decision point, baby.

Meanwhile, flick-haters were *****ing and moaning about getting tagged on the back. They were also complaining about how pulled-hand attacks, or "hand-waving" attacks were getting priority from directors. They were calling it the 'ruin' of foil, or saying "foil is being degraded by absence of blade attacks."

WTF is that about? Just stop the attack. Just parry when it reveals. They had no clue about that, they didn't think it was possible. Much of the time, these folks didn't seem to have a clue about the structure of the marching attack. These attacks had an unbeatable, "nuke them from space" feel, and they didn't know what to do. They didn't see that the March is just an abstract version of an attack.

So now there's one article that talks about that. (Whether it's still relevant after the timing changes remains to be seen.)

4. I do realize, that aside from the elongated distance, you do tend to associate a "marching attack" with a displaced point.

The march is interesting, in part, because the nature of the threat it generates. Short and compound attacks create a threat to target, which is direct and immediate. Even a newbie can feel it.

Long compound attacks / marches are harder, because although they create a continuum of threat for as long as the attacker can attenuate the march, it's not a "real" threat. It is not something a newbie, and many non-newbie fencers will see as threatening.

So it's implied threat, which is what confuses people. The defender must intellectually acknowledge the threat, which is only threatening because of what will happen 2+ tempos later. If the defender doesn't believe in that threat -- well, the attacker and the director will soon teach him to believe.

If the timing-changes stick, then the implied threat in marches will go the way of the dodo. The dumbed-down handwork often used in Marches will simply be too risky for the attackers. I think we'll know what comes "next" by looking backwards: trompements, in the old sense. Series of deceptions with constant threat, tight, tippy, with the opponent in front of the tip. There's that scene in The Princess Bride (I think...).

These sorts of trompements are not very plausible anymore. But fencers will figure out something. Look at the video of Brice Guyart's lesson, and you see some very pretty compound attacks at the end, with a heavy emphasis on tight tipwork.

Personally, I will miss marches, because they're just so beautiful. (I won't miss seeing 3-month newbies getting smoked 15-1 by them, though. That's just abuse of power.) I don't think that we were seeing the last word on the March -- the Italians were making interesting things happen, the anti-march stuff was getting very sophisticated (2003 World Champs Mens indiv foil final). Also, the French and Chinese were showing very promising non-march solutions.

We may never know how marches would have ultimately evolved. We're on a different road now, we'll see where that takes us.

[drippingwet]

There does seem to be a difference between marching and doing a multi-step compound attack. When marching, you don't need to be making blade feints. When doing a multi-step compound attack, you do.

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

2. No sucessful foilist in their right mind ever thinks on the strip "okay, time to do a march". We may think "attack" and if our opponents choose to run, are we no longer doing a "regular attack" but instead doing a "marching attack"? I think not.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Nobody ever pretended this, so you're safe in disputing it.

So using that Cassara/Coutant clip again, you don't think Cassara actually intended to 'march' and it just happened 'cause the opponent retreated? Maybe he wanted the opponent to retreat so he could 'march'. After all, if a march is an easy way to score, why wouldn't you plan to march? Maybe he didn't intend to march, I don't know.

[wflaschka]

Arrrgggh! Drippingwet!! You're killing me!!! We need another thread to figure out what you're doing with all these answers you solicit from everybody.

Originally Posted by drippingwet

So using that Cassara/Coutant clip again, Cassara didn't actually intend to 'march' and it just happened 'cause the opponent retreated? Maybe he wanted the opponent to retreat so he could 'march'.

We can only guess at Cassara's thoughts. But he clearly likes to work the march.

A fencer who is good at hitting flank always seems to find a lot of chances to hit flank; a fencer who can riposte finds a way to do a lot of parries.

In the same way, Cassara will work things around so that he can deliver a march. Watch him in other bouts -- he hates to change direction, so he's a natural for marching. As soon as Coutant's attack self-terminated, Cassara knew (any fencer would know) that he could use the opportunity to attack. Since Coutant was running away, Cassara's attack grew longer and longer, and turned out to be marchy.

But a fencer would think "I'm gonna march" only as often (and as generally or vaguely) as he thinks, "I should try 2nd intention" or "I'm going to hit flank."

For me, it's like: "Oh! I seem to be marching now. Let's remember decision point." If the opponent is submissive or likes to retreat, then I might think, "This attack is gonna cross the room." In a hard bout, there's no time or reason to think like that (in words); it should all just gel.

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Arrrgggh! Drippingwet!! You're killing me!!! We need another thread to figure out what you're doing with all these answers you solicit from everybody. We can only guess at Cassara's thoughts. But he clearly likes to work the march.

I didn't plan this question, it came out of the discussion. Answers generally get added to my fountain of knowledge.

[Genjuro]

One more thing to add to this discussion,
what I actually miss here is how the point-inline is used.
Doesn't it also create a desicion point before the point where the defender can change direction and make a lunge?

[Allen Evans]

When one starts to teach fencing, there becomes a need for structure – as teachers, we have to have a common vocabulary with our students or our lessons revert to: “Ugh…you come forward…you smack opponent”. There are so many things that we do in fencing – so many actions and tempos – that, at the very least, broad categories are necessary or there is huge confusion.

To make statements that imply that a straight lunge and a long, drawn out movement down the strip are the same thing is a gross over simplification of both actions. Yes, as fencers, we all understand that these are both attacks and that they both share very similar characteristics. But past that, there is a world of difference in terms of possible blade actions, tempos, preparations…..the list is so large I don’t know where to begin!

When I was first taught to fence, many years ago, a long attack might be considered an advance and fleche. Footwork tempo was implied to begin slow and accelerate, and “feint-one-two” was the limit of compound blade work. Then, years later, all of this got stretched out to a longer tempo. Now attacks were multi-step, with two or three tempo changes involved. Blade actions included implied threats, real threats and misinformation from both sides of the equation. This is interesting. It’s also subtle and completely new compared to “advance and lunge”. Why not give it a new name….a new category? Especially since when it failed, referee’s had already given it a name: “On the march….”

[Mr Epee]

Walter,

If your article can stand on it's own two feet, then why don't you let it?

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

If your article can stand on it's own two feet, then why don't you let it?

Thank you, Mr Epee. It's nice of you to say the article can stand on its own two feet.

But your concern is misplaced. CatSmokey didn't read the article, however, so the things he brought up were not related to anything the article said. And my response likewise barely touched on the article.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Thank you, Mr Epee. It's nice of you to say the article can stand on its own two feet.

But your concern is misplaced. CatSmokey didn't read the article, however, so the things he brought up were not related to anything the article said. And my response likewise barely touched on the article.

What the sam hell?

That's not what I said.