decision point/straight attacks

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by fencerontheline

Taking a little time out of my day to complain about the overintellectualizing of fencing is definitely my sweat-earned right.

I guess I can agree with the sentiment, if I understand it right. It's something like going to the salle, determined to train like a madman -- and then waiting and waiting while the other fencers chat, test weapons, chat some more, put on a jacket, chat, and finally migrate over to the strip, where they discuss every touch. It's just so much wanking. Is that close? Because that always ticks me off.

IMHO, tho, intellectualizing about fencing in the off hours is not detrimental. (fencerontheline says we're overintellectualizing, but it seems to me that we're just intellectualizing.) It lets fencers fill an empty space when they're not fencing, and moreover, abstractions and theory are useful for handling complexity, and fencing is complex. So discussing fencing isn't bad, per se. In the thousands of years before Fencing.net appeared, fighting was discussed over beers, in letters, in books, in salles, between friends. It's just that now we can do it online.

Another criticism is that we can't learn practical fencing from fencing.net. I hope we're safe from that! Given that the posts are in text, all we can do is trade tips on armoring and discuss concepts and theories. So there's no point in slamming text-messages for not imparting practical fencing skill. Better talking here, than in the salle, I say.

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

What, and not everyone has that right? For some people, advanced tactics are developed through feeling. For some, they're developed through learning. You are obviously one of the former, and drippingwet is obviously one of the latter. I do a little of both.

At the moment, I learn stuff primarily from my coach. Sometimes I pick things up from other fencers. Sometimes I pick things up from F.NET. Sometimes I pick things up from books. Etc. But most of all, I learn from my coach. And he's a good coach. But that's not all, we don't just drill, we also have discussions, watch bout footage, etc.

[SmokeyTheCat263]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

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.

Walter - Thank you for responding to this random schmoe's voodoo argument.

However, before I go on, I would just like to say that I'm going to ignore drippingwet's recent posts, partially because he just asked like four more questions, but mostly because I never understand him anyway. Additionally, Walter, this will break your heart, but I have not read your article, nor do I care to anytime soon.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

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.

Beautiful job name dropping. I won't stoop to that level. I will say that I've read parts of Aladar's book, and I do drills with Buckie every sunday and receive regular on strip coaching from Ed. None of them have ever used the term "march". Infact aside from maybe one newbie coach I know, I've never heard attacks called "march" outside of fencing.net.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

There is one article in English about the marching attack. That's one too many for SmokeyTheCat263, though.

Could it be because no other coach has used such terminology other than you??

Originally Posted by wflaschka

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?

I'm not attacking intellectualizing fencing. I believe fencing must be looked at in an organized and technical manner. However, if you are gonna do it, I'm gonna need you to do it right. Just because you are old and know-nothings listen to you down in hickville Missippi and you've been doing this for a while doesn't mean you have become infallible in your intellectualization. When you start raising high-rated fencers or top national fencers, maybe then i'll concede, because atliest you're getting the job done. From what i've heard, however, you're raising what us active competitve fencers would likely call "random schmoes".

Walter, when it comes down to it, I understand fully that a short attack, a long attack, a compound attack or a straight attack are very different things, with different situations and results. I believe each situation can and should require proper training with a coach.

Nevertheless, I believe you are erroneous to distuingish a "marching attack" from just an "attack", because you are not acknoledging the multitude of grays in between .Because of these unlimitied amount of gray in-between situations, top coaches do not train their fencers to deal with either a "regular attack" or "marching attack", nor do they train them to think that way. Instead, they focus on the much more intrinsic timings that occur at close distance when defending against ANY attack, whether it be long, short, marching, regular, jumping, or flying .Discerning the "march" from attacks as a proper situation to train fencers against is much too extrinsic of a situation, and naive because it ignores the multitude of un-labelable attacks.

I realize this last paragraph may be confusing. I don't make any claim to writing in perfect prose and clarity. Atliest its not as bad as drippingwet.

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

However, before I go on, I would just like to say that I'm going to ignore drippingwet's recent posts, partially because he just asked like four more questions, but mostly because I never understand him anyway.

My original questioning was this (in post #1):

Originally Posted by drippinwet

The thing that I don't get about decision point, is that just because you can ignore their false actions until you reach decision point, what if they do a real action before decision point? If the answer is to attack, then wouldn't you be responding to the same cue as for a false action?

From what Walter's written, it seems that neither fencer is hittable until decision point, but why, because the retreating fencer could hit you if he/she lunged couldn't they... you're not that far away are you? Or is it that strictly speaking you are both in hitting distance before decision point, but you are both outside each other's reaction time... vulnerable to parry riposte?

Post #13:

Originally Posted by dripingwet

Yeah, but what I haven't yet found an answer to, is this:

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.

Also, sometimes questions just come out of discussion. Like, you might originally ask someone, "Did you turn the box on?" They might say, "It's not working." As a result, you might then ask another question... "Why?"

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

I realize this last paragraph may be confusing. I don't make any claim to writing in perfect prose and clarity. Atliest its not as bad as drippingwet.

What's hard to understand about anything I've posted in the thread? If you never understand me, then as an example 'cause it's quoted above, that means you don't understand post #13 doesn't it? Achilleus seemed to understand it.

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

I will say that I've read parts of Aladar's book, and I do drills with Buckie every sunday and receive regular on strip coaching from Ed. None of them have ever used the term "march". Infact aside from maybe one newbie coach I know, I've never heard attacks called "march" outside of fencing.net.

Golubitsky uses 'promenade' instead of 'march' doesn't he? I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just wondering about the whole thing about labelling this way of fencing.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

Walter, this will break your heart, but I have not read your article, nor do I care to anytime soon.

I couldn't finish your post, guy. The thread is about the article. Why blather about stuff you don't know? Is it so people will pay attention to you?

I have nothing against willful ignorance, except you lead this discussion down a blind alley and wasted some time.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

Golubitsky uses 'promenade' instead of 'march' doesn't he? I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just wondering about the whole thing about labelling this way of fencing.

What smokeycat doesn't know is that the first paragraphs of "the article" talk about how the term "March" doesn't seem to exist as a real term. That doesn't stop him from talking -- he's a true NYU student. I, too, remember the good ole days of talking out my *ss.

Language tends to splinter, but formalized usage (e.g., from dictionaries) tends to pull it back together.

So we have promenade, chase, march, stepping -- it's all marching. Buckie Leach is the 'inventor' of the popularly known "Rochester March," the particular marching footwork used by Marsh, the Zimmermans, &etc. A past USFCA article (with a picture) has him parsing this stuff & also applying his getawaygo to different actions.

Ed Elterman teaches long preparatory moves (like The Russian Killer Dance Attack) but he doesn't call it marching. That's why I said, ask "Ed about the different preparations of attack," rather than "Ask Ed about marching." (That said, my best Elterman action evar was a strip-crossing chase during a dual meet with UNC.)

So, a bazillion people have a different term for marches. Promenade, chase, march, stepping, getaway-go, long compound, long preparation, as well as walking- and running-attack. Hmmmm.... How to get some clarity? Just call the move a marching attack. It's apparently the oldest term that doesn't have a prior meaning, showing up in 1989 on video and earlier than that in The Fencing Dictionary.

So if a person is not saying "march this, march that," but they are talking about marchy stuff, then they're talking about marching. Our brains must be used to translate the term inside our heads. It's mere complexity, but some folks will reject complexity as "AP ph.d rocket science" (or something). Talking about fencing requires a lot of this translating, to wit: deceive, disengage, derobe.

[Mr Epee]

Smokey

Good posts and good observations. It can be difficult to debate with Walter cuz he don’t read good sometimes. Plus he is usually exhausted from his daily plyometric drills where he jumps from one conclusion to the next.

Walter,

I’m going to write this as simply as possible, but even so you might want to read it a few times before responding.

In fencing there are ATTACKS, and PREPARATIONS. This is where you have gone awry. You simply cannot lump these two separate things together. Feel free to write as much as you want about different types of preparations.

I know that you struggle with not having access to top fencing, but here’s the skinny.

These days, directors (I mean the good ones) are calling the attack very tight. This is intentional and is good for fencing. The extended preparations are being called just that; preparations, and attacks into the preparation are being awarded. If you had regular access to top referees [Cotton, Oliver, et al (because you like name dropping)], then you would know this to be true. This is the way that folks are training. Now just because you and your friends run backwards like total ninnies, as soon as someone takes your blade and embarks on an extended preparation doesn’t mean that means that the attacker will maintain ROW throughout their action. The maintenance of ROW has almost more to do with the defenders response than the action preformed by the fencer moving forward.

Btw. I have read your article and it’s rubbish for anyone with any serious fencing experience. It might be fun reading for a novice, because it does a good job of sympathizing with a low level fencer who just got clocked doing 38mph on I-95.

The grammar is pretty good though.

[wflaschka]

For those who don't know, Mr Epee stalks all my messages and posts meaningless, sarcastic responses. Search Mr Epee's past posts for his net contribution to fencing. I'm not the only one Mr Epee trolls, but he seems very attached to me.

So, sorry SmokeyCat, for getting support from Mr Epee: It's not your fault and I don't hold it against you. Let me amend my impatience from an earlier post: I dig some of your points, but we have a fundamental disagreement.

Mr Epee:
Usually when you have nothing to add, you merely officiously grade other people's posts. B- for this. 13 out of 19 for that. While I appreciate having my own little fact-checker, who watches my every single post with erotic fixation -- if you have nothing to add you should do this sort of stuff in the privacy of your own home. When you have one of those urges you can't deny, you should just keep it out of public view.

I won't feed the Mr Epee troll today. If marching attacks don't exist, and you care that people think they do exist, then write an article debunking them. Better be quick about it -- the whole topic is moot since the timing change.

[Mr Epee]

You obviously need help, please see a professional.

Feel free to "march" on the way there.

[rory]

I'm going to de-lurk and drop my 2 pence into this argument.
I think SmokeyTheCat and MrEpee are being unfair here.

Here in the UK the term "marching attack" is, and has been for years, in very common usage, both amongst high level fencers and high level referees.

It's used to refer to exactly what Walter describes: a long series of apparent preparations, with the hand making multiple feints, typically finishing when the opponent begins to panic (the decision point in Walter's parlance) and makes an overly precipitate action.

So saying that this is a term which Walter has invented is patently false.
Now, I'll be the first to agree that drippingwet would be better off fencing more and asking less questions (no offence meant!), but I think that getting into a long, drawn out argument about overintellectualisation (yikes, long word) is utterly pointless.

As I see it, you're all correct. SmokeyTheCat will tell you (more or less) that you attack, your opponent runs away, you follow him, pushing, then finish when he's off balance.

Walter and DW will launch into an in depth discussion of exactly *when* is the correct time to launch the final attack.

You're all doing the same damn thing.

I'd say that some opponents are susceptible to the marching attack, and it's worth practising it as a tactic for that type of fencer. Actively setting up a long series of preps, forcing the opponent to make a decision, and acting on it is a worthwhile thing to work on.
However you look at it that's different to just launching a fast attack: it's a different tactical situation.

I'd also stop talking about it online and go practice, in a fencing hall, with people holding big bits of metal, but that's just me.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by rory

As I see it, you're all correct. SmokeyTheCat will tell you (more or less) that you attack, your opponent runs away, you follow him, pushing, then finish when he's off balance.

Humble thanks for your post, which shows me how I could have been discussing things. I've been overlooking the commonalities between SmokeyCat's arguments and my own. Sorry, SmokeyTheCat263, I apologize for my side of the acrimony. I plead irritation, stemming from my personal stalker-troll.

If anybody wants a real laugh... I groaned when I recently re-read my old posts where I get fixated on the idea of making marching attacks in Epee. If you don't believe in marching attacks, you won't see the problem with the posts... but if you do believe in marching attacks the you'll see an object lesson on the dangers of overintellectualization. Okay, maybe it's not ha-ha funny, but it's still pretty silly. (I still gotta try it out, though.)

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Humble thanks for your post, which shows me how I could have been discussing things. I've been overlooking the commonalities between SmokeyCat's arguments and my own. Sorry, SmokeyTheCat263, I apologize for my side of the acrimony. I plead irritation, stemming from my personal stalker-troll.

If anybody wants a real laugh... I groaned when I recently re-read my old posts where I get fixated on the idea of making marching attacks in Epee. If you don't believe in marching attacks, you won't see the problem with the posts... but if you do believe in marching attacks the you'll see an object lesson on the dangers of overintellectualization. Okay, maybe it's not ha-ha funny, but it's still pretty silly. (I still gotta try it out, though.)

Hahaha... at JO's I there was a guy in my pool who actually did have a marching attack... and it worked.

[Craig]

nice post rory - thanks for bringing us back to some civility in this

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by rory

Now, I'll be the first to agree that drippingwet would be better off fencing more and asking less questions (no offence meant!)

For me, F.NET = addition, not subsitute for actual fencing.

[Genjuro]

Btw, Drippingwet, how long have you been fencing?