decision point/straight attacks

[drippingwet]

A lot of straight attacks seem to fail, but doesn't it sometimes seem to happen too much? How often in a single bout do you see loads of straight attacks that fail because the opponent parried or retreated for instance?

The better the opponent, the harder they may be to surprise. Launch a straight attack at even a fairly novice fencer, from lunging distance, and good chance it'll get parried more than it won't. You're outside their reaction time... there's enough time for them to react and form the parry in time. A solution may be to close inside their reaction time, but this may also be difficult against an experienced opponent. This may be why the march appears to be a staple tactic among experienced foil fencers, perhaps because it's big on distance and cooking that right situation for a simple attack.

Decision point:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but marching and decision point play an important part in finding the shorter distance between fencers for launching a straight attack (marches don't often seem to finish with compound/second intention attacks). Maybe this is confirmed by the large number of marches that (recently???) finished with a flick... how could you finish to the back from the lunging distance?

The march allows the distance to close, otherwise you may have a hard time closing the distance by not marching. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but using decision point allows you to ignore the opponents attempts to draw your attack (e.g. false attacks) because you know when you'll be close enough to hit with your straight attack (inside their reaction time). Therefore you won't be suckered into launching too early.

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?

Thanks.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

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?

Thanks.

Yes.

gary hayenga

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Yes.

gary hayenga

Which one?

[fencerontheline]

Why do you people make fencing seem smarter than it is? To attack, you find a way get into distance and you hit the other guy. One's method is one's individual perogative.

Regardless of what's been written, regardless of how the greatest fencers in history have fenced, that's attacking in a nutshell.

[smeric28]

this is beside the point but shouldn't the judge have used a coin instead of a pen

[drippingwet]

Well if being outside decision point means being outside each other's reaction time rather than outside each other's hitting distance, then what if they do lunge at you outside decision point? If you are ignoring their false actions, then wouldn't you end up ignoring the cue for a real action that is launched outside decision point? Therefore wouldn't you likely miss the cue to parry a real action and react too late?

In that clip in the first of Walter's march articles, and also what maybe Sanzo does sometimes, is a parry in response to the false attack from the opponent. The parry may meet thin air, but is it to provide that bit of extra security or what?

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

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? ...

Decision point is that (very short) period in the march where the attacker can be hit by the defender. Not "can be hit" as in the defender owns RoW, but rather "can be hit" as in being physically able to reach the attacker. Before decision point, the attacker can ignore everything the opponent does, false or real, because the attacker can't be reached. Before decision point, everything the opponent does is "false," even if the opponent might be very earnest. After the decision point, nothing the defender does is meaningful because the attacker will hit with RoW.

When the two fencers close to hitting distance, that precise moment is the decision point. The defender can actually hit the marching attacker, and own RoW, so that moment is when the attacker must be most alert. Marching attackers who understand this will make safer marches, and defenders who understand this will defeat more marches.

In the recent St Petersburg article, page 2, Mocek vs Guyart, there is a video clip of Mocek marching down Guyart. Mocek completely ignores everything Guyart does, and cuts it very close -- by the end, he was showing open target without even trying to parry. He knew he was safe by 3-5 inches, and he knew that showing open target would encourage Guyart to keep making useless stop-hits. Mocek was using decision point (or however he's rationalized his distance), and relying on experience with Guyart and/or all fencers to know when DP would happen. For example, Mocek is pretty confident that Guyart won't be able to lunge suddenly.

About overintellectualizing... Tactics like marches and decision point can be intellectualized -- off strip. It's just another means of modeling a bout, so that these models can be applied very quickly to emerging tactical situations. On strip, the fencer oughtn't engage intellectually during an action, but should rely on feeling and experience (these models) to get the job done.

[drippingwet]

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.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

and relying on experience with Guyart and/or all fencers to know when DP would happen. For example, Mocek is pretty confident that Guyart won't be able to lunge suddenly.

Thanks Walter.

I still don't get why the attacker can't be reached before decision point, if the defender lunges. But then the latter quote above may explain this in a way, except for why wouldn't Guyart suddenly be able to lunge? If I knew that, maybe I could understand why the marcher can't be reached before DP.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

I still don't get why the attacker can't be reached before decision point, if the defender lunges. But then the latter quote above may explain this in a way, except for why wouldn't Guyart suddenly be able to lunge? If I knew that, maybe I could understand why the marcher can't be reached before DP.

I see what you're getting at. A defender can extend, or a defender can lunge -- so which is the 'real' decision point that the attacker must watch for? Lunge distance, or extension distance?

In practice it never comes to that level of precision. There is never a definitive "lunge" distance, and fencers don't really lunge (most lunges get screwed up, or get turned into big steps, &etc). The description of decision point fudges this by merely calling it "hitting distance" -- the distance is an abstraction that varies based on the action, the fencer and what the fencer is doing.

In the sample video, Mocek knew that Guyart couldn't lunge suddenly, because Guyart was making quick retreats. For Guyart to lunge, he would have to [1] stop his backward momentum, and then [2] switch it to forward momentum with a lunge (at least two tempos of work). From Mocek's perspective, Guyart would [1] stop retreating and then Mocek would hit him (one tempo) (and then, while Mocek is cheering, Guyart's [2] intended lunge would appear, very late). So Mocek believed he was safe from lunges, and Guyart believed it too or he would've lunged.

But let's say that Guyart is not retreating. Mocek marches up, seeing how Guyart is not running away. Mocek can easily launch a long lunge off of his momentum from the march -- that will nullify lots of what Guyart can do. But what if Mocek marches into the standing-Guyart's decision point? Since Guyart is not moving, Mocek knows Guyart's hitting distance is very long, because Guyart can use a sudden lunge: Mocek has to be careful from further away.

So it depends on the context. If the march is slow, or the opponent is planted, then factor a lunge into the defender's "hitting distance." If the march is fast, the defender won't be able to turn the corner quickly, so don't worry about the lunge -- worry about a sudden stop instead (the defender ducks, or does a sudden stop+esquive) because that's all they'll be able to do. With their bodies. They can do other stuff with their blades.

So generally, decision point is a "you know it when you see it" sort of thing.

[JackSparrow]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

About overintellectualizing... Tactics like marches and decision point can be intellectualized -- off strip. It's just another means of modeling a bout, so that these models can be applied very quickly to emerging tactical situations. On strip, the fencer oughtn't engage intellectually during an action, but should rely on feeling and experience (these models) to get the job done.

Great advice from Walter as always, as my country's top foil coach says 'there is nothing more practical than a good theory'.

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

In practice it never comes to that level of precision. There is never a definitive "lunge" distance

Maybe I should've said 'medium' distance rather than lunging distance. Although I'm not sure whether this would be variable too.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

In the sample video, Mocek knew that Guyart couldn't lunge suddenly, because Guyart was making quick retreats. For Guyart to lunge, he would have to [1] stop his backward momentum, and then [2] switch it to forward momentum with a lunge (at least two tempos of work). From Mocek's perspective, Guyart would [1] stop retreating and then Mocek would hit him (one tempo) (and then, while Mocek is cheering, Guyart's [2] intended lunge would appear, very late). So Mocek believed he was safe from lunges, and Guyart believed it too or he would've lunged.

But what I'm wondering is, what if Guyart pretended to stop, to draw Mocek's attack so it could be parried or whatever? It sounds like the only reason why you can ignore the opponents attempts to draw your attack is because the opponent couldn't be intending to actually attack because they know you'd attack first. But what if they expect you to ignore their pause in momentum, so they pause and then lunge into you? You didn't expect it so you perhaps didn't have time to react?

So does the whole getting inside opponent's reaction time come into this whole thing? Because otherwise, it would seem that for Mocek, DP would be medium distance, but for Guyart, it would be short (extension) distance???

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

Great advice from Walter as always, as my country's top foil coach says 'there is nothing more practical than a good theory'.

Wojciechowski?

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

If the march is slow, or the opponent is planted, then factor a lunge into the defender's "hitting distance."

Fencers start at long distance (advance-lunge). Fencer A starts a slow march, knowing that decision point will be medium (lunge) distance. Fencer A can ignore everything Fencer B does before reaching the medium distance; if B lunges, he won't reach. If B advance-lunges, A will have much time to react. A eventually reaches medium distance (decision point), A and B lunge at the same time...

Wouldn't this just be simultaneous?

...or A eventually reaches medium distance (decision point), A lunges and B parries.

What has been gained by marching?

[Allen Evans]

The decision point isn't some arbitrary distance, dw. It is a palable feeling you have during the march that the opponent has exhusted his or her possiblities for defense and is now open to be hit. One of the ways I simulate it in lesson is to take shorter and shorter steps as the student presses me - showing them that it's time for a decisive feint and disengage, or, with the "old" timing, an accelerated attack ending in a flick to the open target. Alternatively, I stop all together and "fish" for the blade, so the student protects the blade and finishes with an advance and lunge.

The student starts to feel that moment approach and knows that when he (or she) reaches it, they should have seen the opening they want to exploit.

Remember that the march exploits certain conventions of right of way. If I'm dominating the space coming forward and see you attempt to "turn the corner" and lunge, I'm going to finish my attack (simple or compound) and the referee is going to call "attack, counter-attack" unless I've made a huge error in executing this attack.

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Remember that the march exploits certain conventions of right of way. If I'm dominating the space coming forward and see you attempt to "turn the corner" and lunge, I'm going to finish my attack (simple or compound) and the referee is going to call "attack, counter-attack" unless I've made a huge error in executing this attack.

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.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

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.

You made an observation here.

What's your question?

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by achilleus

You made an observation here.

What's your question?

What do you think of the observation?

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

What do you think of the observation?

It's fine.

Was that your question?

[drippingwet]

Originally Posted by achilleus

It's fine.

Was that your question?

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.

...???

If you look at the clip in the first of the march articles, you can see Cassara looking like he made a parry in response to an apparent false attack from his opponent, rather than ignoring it.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

How can you do this...

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.

Originally Posted by drippingwet

If you look at the clip in the first of the march articles, you can see Cassara looking like he made a parry in response to an apparent false attack from his opponent, rather than ignoring it.

I'm not Cassara, and I don't know why. Mayber Cassara was setting something up. Maybe the ref made an earlier call against Cassara that made Cassara think he wouldn't be given the attack. Maybe in a previous touch/bout/tournament, Cassara saw and got hit by this fencer making and hitting the same action. Maybe Cassara just wasn't ready to finish and got caught off guard.

[RebelFencer]

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.

The whole thing with decision point (at least how I was taught) is that it doesn't matter. If you're before the decision point, anything your opponent tries to do is false. They're retreating and at a distance where they can not reach you with the foil. Regardless of whether they're trying to break your march with fakes or if they're trying to break your march with real attempts at something you're safe. Once you reach the decision point you just have to ask yourself if the opponent's reaction feels real or if it feels like he's just throwing stuff out there to screw you up, because it is at this point when you are within his range. Good question DW, I think you're just overanalyzing the concept a little bit.