Rene Speaks

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by keith

well a simple attack takes one period of fencing time a compound attack two - so any simple action into the first fient has priority.

Fortunately the only time this is called is in Edew's example against the compound riposte. As to circular perambulations through the lines most good refs are able to spot whether the hand is going forward or not, which tends to be the basis of how the attack is assigned.

Well then if you advance and feint at my four line and into that feint I bend over and make a straight thrust at your eight and you then are forced to change lines and hit me in the flank because my four line is gone, are you claiming that Eric is claiming that my duck lunge should have priority because you changed lines and I didn't?

(I'm aware that Eric doesn't referee this way and is posing a purely theoretical question for discussion, and yes the Bukantz loopy attack *should* have been called preparation because he never extended his damn arm at *all*)

gary hayenga

[keith]

Originally Posted by flyingfencer

snip

How is this different than a marching attack that does the same thing with the only difference being that fencer A is advancing and fencer B is retreating."

What you describe is correct but it is not the infamous 'march'. People use the term 'march' since the attacker uses an assemblage of preparations and attacks with the final action being a simple attack (disengage or high/low or coupe etc), there are real attacks that are not fully developed at various points in the march. So good 'marchers' make multiple fients (which allow them to retain priority) together with multiple preparations (which help to confuse the opponent).

There is a difference between running down the piste in broken time and making a composed series of actions designed to break down the opponent. Good refs can see the difference.

[keith]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Well then if you advance and feint at my four line and into that feint I bend over and make a straight thrust at your eight and you then are forced to change lines and hit me in the flank because my four line is gone, are you claiming that Eric is claiming that my duck lunge should have priority because you changed lines and I didn't?

This is a perfect example of the potential problems of tightening up the preparation/attack distinction - although depending on whether I hesitate before changing lines the action you describe could be called against me now. How straight is my arm on my initial action into quarte? Was it a perfectly straight extension or did I make a circular action during my extension? Was my initial intention a direct attack or a compound attack to flank?

I think Eric's arguement is right in that the preparation/attack distinction does need to be tightened, just not this tight

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by Craig

Gary,

The way I read this was the attack where you make the big search from 6 to 4 back to 8 so that if there is a blade in the way, you get a beat-attack and if not you get a loopy attack. Since you are "clearing out" the area ahead of you and not making a feint, disengage the blade coming at you, hit it *should* be called a search for the blade (preparation) and not the attack, but that would be in a perfect world where the referee can pick it up a lot easier than you can when standing off to the side.

Eric - Please correct me if I'm off base on my interpretation of the action you described.

Craig

But if you are making an action that would be called an attack if there were no blade present than it is still an attack if there is a blade present, no?

gary hayenga

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by keith

I think Eric's arguement is right in that the preparation/attack distinction does need to be tightened, just not this tight

Well I would agree with you there.

gary hayenga

[flyingfencer]

Originally Posted by keith

There is a difference between running down the piste in broken time and making a composed series of actions designed to break down the opponent. Good refs can see the difference.

Yes! You are absolutely correct about the composed attacks. I have no problem with marching with a series of composed actions and feints threatening valid target during the march and ending with a touch.

I have a problem with a march that consists only of an initial threat, an absence of blade, pointing at the ceiling or anywhere but the valid target, ending with a flick.

I have seen a great many of these attacks at both local and national levels given ROW over a defender who I believed clearly had established ROW by attacking into this fencer's prep.

I've also seen the march with a series of composed attacks that are continously threatening target through a series of fients, disengages, etc... I have no problem with these.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by keith

What you describe is correct but it is not the infamous 'march'. People use the term 'march' since the attacker uses an assemblage of preparations and attacks with the final action being a simple attack (disengage or high/low or coupe etc), there are real attacks that are not fully developed at various points in the march. So good 'marchers' make multiple fients (which allow them to retain priority) together with multiple preparations (which help to confuse the opponent).

There is a difference between running down the piste in broken time and making a composed series of actions designed to break down the opponent. Good refs can see the difference.

Exactly. At the NAC's and World Cups I've seen good referees would call the attack-in-preparation if it was timed right and executed correctly. Which was still very difficult against a good fencer. And good fencers would be prepared to parry that attack-in-preparation.

Not-so-good referees would claim it was a continous attack. Not-so-good fencers fail to understand that (with a good referee) during the time between their seeing the preparation and actually starting their action their opponent began *another* attack and they were still out of tempo. But the referee will (and should) still only call 'attack right, counter-attack left'.

There are also not-so-good referees who fail to see things the opposite way. They see a preparation and assume that anything the opponent does after that has priority.

gary hayenga

[flyingfencer]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Well then if you advance and feint at my four line and into that feint I bend over and make a straight thrust at your eight and you then are forced to change lines and hit me in the flank because my four line is gone, are you claiming that Eric is claiming that my duck lunge should have priority because you changed lines and I didn't?

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Exactly. At the NAC's and World Cups I've seen good referees would call the attack-in-preparation if it was timed right and executed correctly. Which was still very difficult against a good fencer. And good fencers would be prepared to parry that attack-in-preparation.

gary hayenga

This is an excellent discussion! A frequent sparring partner of mine utilizes exactly the move you give in your example. I feint with the intention of doing a one two, coming back to four, but he bends over and completely closes the four line, and I have to score on his flank. Clearly, we both know it's my ROW, but he's trying to catch a one light situation where I don't adjust and miss. This is a good example of where AIP should not be called.

How about some clear examples of where it should be called?

As to the march, I've seen this called both correctly and incorrectly. It should be difficult to do an AIP against a well executed march that maintains ROW with feints, disengages, etc.. even ending in a flick. I don't fence on the World Cup level, but the better fencers that I've seen are very difficult to catch in prep during their march. I've also seen the march that I was describing where a valid AIP was not given ROW. I've seen this on both the local and national levels, more on the local level, and I guess my gripe would be more directed to the local level.

[rsy]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Well then if you advance and feint at my four line and into that feint I bend over and make a straight thrust at your eight and you then are forced to change lines and hit me in the flank because my four line is gone, are you claiming that Eric is claiming that my duck lunge should have priority because you changed lines and I didn't?

Unless I misunderstand what Eric was saying, it is not the change of line that loses the priority, it is the compound action losing priority to a stop hit that arrives before the final movement of the compound action begins. Rule t.59 says:

When compound attacks are made, the opponent has the right to stop hit; but to be valid, the stop hit must precede the conclusion of the attack by an interval of fencing time; that is to say that the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has begun the final movement of the attack.

If by ducking and closing your four line your opponent changes his line of attack, he still has ROW as long as his final movement began before your point arrived.

-r

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

But if you are making an action that would be called an attack if there were no blade present than it is still an attack if there is a blade present, no?

gary hayenga

No
That is not true.
I had a director from your neck of the woods say that to me a couple of weeks ago.

He said that if the attacker attempts to take the blade, and the defender derobes the attacker, but the attacker follows through on the same line and arrives on target that the attacker still has RoW. That is incorrect. If the referee sees that the attacker attempts to take the blade, (whether it be a beat or a bind,) and does not, then it is a failed attack and the RoW passes to the opponent just as if he had parried the attack, regardless of whether he follows through on the same line. (according to the three top coaches I know.)

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by flyingfencer

Yes! You are absolutely correct about the composed attacks. I have no problem with marching with a series of composed actions and feints threatening valid target during the march and ending with a touch.

I have a problem with a march that consists only of an initial threat, an absence of blade, pointing at the ceiling or anywhere but the valid target, ending with a flick.

I have seen a great many of these attacks at both local and national levels given ROW over a defender who I believed clearly had established ROW by attacking into this fencer's prep.

I've also seen the march with a series of composed attacks that are continously threatening target through a series of fients, disengages, etc... I have no problem with these.

Yes. Exactly. But also, it is NOT a compound attack if the elbow is bent and the weapon withdrawn. Reason that matters is for the defender to take RoW into a compound attack he must HIT before the final action begins. If the final action is not a part of a coumpound attack he only must BEGIN to EXTEND before the final action begins.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

You mean the electronic scoring that was introduced (in foil) in the mid-50's?

-B

I mean electric scoring made it possible to register touches that were too fast for the human eye. Eventually blades were developed that would flex further and more often without breaking. These two developments were nescessary to make flicking a viable strategy.

I have a friend that is 76 years old that used that original equipment as a fencer for wayne state. (he won the NCAA championship) He told me that original equipment was horrible to fence with. The wire was actually threaded through the blade. They were very rigid, and broke easily. So whenever they had to fence with it the fencers would promptly break them so they wouldn't have to fence with it.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

No
That is not true.
I had a director from your neck of the woods say that to me a couple of weeks ago.

He said that if the attacker attempts to take the blade, and the defender derobes the attacker, but the attacker follows through on the same line and arrives on target that the attacker still has RoW. That is incorrect. If the referee sees that the attacker attempts to take the blade, (whether it be a beat or a bind,) and does not, then it is a failed attack and the RoW passes to the opponent just as if he had parried the attack, regardless of whether he follows through on the same line. (according to the three top coaches I know.)

I said:

But if you are making an action that would be called an attack if there were no blade present than it is still an attack if there is a blade present, no?
)

Where did I say anything about attempting to take the blade?

I'm on guard in six. I decide to attack my right-handed opponents eight. I drop my point into eight, extend and lunge. Why should I care where your blade is? You're not attacking me, I'm attacking your eight line.

gary hayenga

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

I said:



Where did I say anything about attempting to take the blade?

I'm on guard in six. I decide to attack my right-handed opponents eight. I drop my point into eight, extend and lunge. Why should I care where your blade is? You're not attacking me, I'm attacking your eight line.

gary hayenga

i apologize. I read too much into it. I thought you meant that the blade was in the way and the opponent moved it out of the way.

[dramamine]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Well then if you advance and feint at my four line and into that feint I bend over and make a straight thrust at your eight and you then are forced to change lines and hit me in the flank because my four line is gone, are you claiming that Eric is claiming that my duck lunge should have priority because you changed lines and I didn't?

(I'm aware that Eric doesn't referee this way and is posing a purely theoretical question for discussion, and yes the Bukantz loopy attack *should* have been called preparation because he never extended his damn arm at *all*)

gary hayenga

If I understand isn't that an indirect (simple) attack still? He only changed lines once.

[edew]

Let me clarify what I mentioned (currently on page 2) about the circumlocutious attack versus a direct attack. First off, a number of referees are making the call for the strong direct attack over a plodding, curvy attack. It's similar to saber calls where one fencer makes an enthusiatic and determined attack while the other sort of dogs it with a very slow extension. Both fencers have to be "equally intense" to make it count as simultaneous.

In foil, it's even more crucial because the target is deeper (the torso) so a meandering extension can easily be converted into a parry so that the meandering extension attacker basically has a riskless situation by extension in a convoluted manner. If the referee will call a convoluted extension equivalent to a direct extension, then the one utilizing the convoluted extension has a distinct advantage: at any time during the extension, he may choose to make a parry-riposte, or he can just continue on expecting a simultaneous attack call. It's as though one person is allowed to use rock, paper or scissors, but the other is only allowed rock and paper. In this case the one with the additional action will play either paper or scissor, resulting in either a win (paper over rock, scissors over paper) or a tie (paper with paper). It's almost a no-lose opportunity, and that must be fixed.

The not-as-good referees will give the call of simultaneous when one makes an intense-effort direct attack while the other dogs the attack with a lazy, slow hand.

While I can certainly appreciate the slow-hand approach (and frequently use it in my repertoire of tactics and techniques), I see the utilization of the slow-hand during the "simultaneous actions" as patently unfair. So, what prevents the other from also doing a slow-hand attack at the same time? Certainly, if the referee isn't going to see the faster, more deliberate attack as having priority, then it's no point trying to change the referee's mind. It's better to make simultaneous slow actions. But what if that plays into the opponent's strength? Then it's jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire when deciding to follow what the referee prefers.

[blademaster]

I think this description cuts to the heart of what is wrong in ROW today. Although the "slow hand" attack is useful, it should not be allowed to become the ultimate attack simply because a referee is too lazy or too intimidated (by a fencer's reputation or club) to perceive the difference between someone who is on the cusp of attacking and one who is truly committed. We expect saber directors to be able to make this call.

[Insipiens]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

Where does it say that a compound attack loses right of way to a simple attack?

gary hayenga

FIE rules

t.59 (d) When compound attacks are made, the opponent has the right to stop hit; but to be valid the stop hit must precede the conclusion of the attack by an interval of fencing time; that is to say that the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has begun the final movement of the attack.

Does this not meant that if I do a simple attack on the 1 of your 1-2 (presuming it arrives before the 2) then it is my hit?

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by Insipiens

FIE rules



Does this not meant that if I do a simple attack on the 1 of your 1-2 (presuming it arrives before the 2) then it is my hit?

Yes...that is what that means.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by Insipiens

FIE rules

Does this not meant that if I do a simple attack on the 1 of your 1-2 (presuming it arrives before the 2) then it is my hit?

But we're not talking about something that arrives before the 2, which woudl be a stop-hit, but both arriving at the same time.

In the case of it arriving before the start of the 2 of the 1-2, the 1-2 attack maintains right-of-way but loses on tempo. So if I start a 1-2 and you hit me first, before I start the 2, if my 1 hits you accidentally, say in the arm during your counter-attack, I still have right-of-way, but if I start the 2 and haven't hit you yet then you've stolen the tempo and it doesn't matter if my 2 lands or not.

But we're discussing what should be called if I do a 1-2 and you do a 1 and we both hit at the same time.

gary hayenga