Epee books.

[redcoat]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good fencing book.
I've never read a fencing book, but I decided recently it might be nice to read a book that teaches epee technique.
So any recommendations?
Thanks.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by redcoat

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good fencing book.
I've never read a fencing book, but I decided recently it might be nice to read a book that teaches epee technique.
So any recommendations?
Thanks.

Epee fencing a complete system by imre vass.

Don't try to learn epee fencing from a book though, you'll end up a mess. However, it cant hurt to read the book.

[howtobrew]

The Epee Combat Manual is nice. As DFP says, it can't take the place of a coach, but it does have nice diagrams and a logical presentation of the different moves. I like it because it gives me ideas of things to try, things to watch out for, etc.

[oiuyt]

I'll second howtobrew's suggestion. Incidently, the author is Kingston (Terrence?). I think LP carries it, among others.

-B :)

[Zasha]

i agree. Epee Combat Manual by Terence Kingston, excellent.

[Allen Evans]

Terence Kingston’s Epee Combat Manual is not a bad book for someone new to epee, but I would avoid Vass’s Epee, a Complete System unless you've been fencing epee for a while. Vass’s book is more a taxonomy of epee actions, rather than a real manual. There is some wisdom there, but it has to be dug out, and it’s not easy.

I am still waiting for a book that truly covers the fluidity of epee, rather than treating it like foil with a different target area.

[the doc]

i entirely agree with allen about vass' book.

to me it is a little old fashioned in its ideas and presentation and there were large parts of it i didn't like or think was appropriate in the modern age.

especially the parts with parry ripostes and starting with detached ripostes (as in foil, is the way he describes it) as a basis for developing on.

there are parts that need to be taken with a pinch of salt in my opinion and if you are new to the game, it is hard to pick the good and bad.

my advice to all new epeeists is to learn the basics perfectly and keep your actions simple but very well timed

[redcoat]

Ok, I've ordered the epee combat manual and the vass book, so I'll find out if either of them are any good.

I'm not trying to learn epee from scratch, I've just reached a point where I can't learn much from my coaches because they are not really epee coaches.

Even if I can get just a little bit of knowledge out of each book it will be worth it.

Thanks for the advice guys.

[needle]

Any Russian-speaking epeeists here? What did you think of the epee section in Tyshler's 1997 book "Sportivnoe Fehtovanie", if you had a chance to read it? If not, it's here - http://lib.sportedu.ru/Texts.idc?DocID=79066

[jspierre]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Epee fencing a complete system by imre vass.

Don't try to learn epee fencing from a book though, you'll end up a mess. However, it cant hurt to read the book.

Someone with ambition, and thorough understanding really needs to explain what Vass is saying in the book. The English translation is really kind of impenetrable.

The Hungarian epee guys study this book, and they build up their training system from it, as far as I know. Would be nice to get an intrepretive understanding what Vass is really trying to say.

[Lemberg]

Needle, I am a Russian-speaking fencer, although I have not come across this book as of yet. Thanks a lot for the link though, I'll be sure to give it a read! Wow, now I'm actually somewhat excited about going to work
Eshe raz ogromnoe spasibo

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by the doc

i entirely agree with allen about vass' book.

to me it is a little old fashioned in its ideas and presentation and there were large parts of it i didn't like or think was appropriate in the modern age.

especially the parts with parry ripostes and starting with detached ripostes (as in foil, is the way he describes it) as a basis for developing on.

I must respectfully disagree. A lot of modern epeeists are terrific at close and correct distance to the hand/arm. It is when they get in closer (close and correct distance to the chest) that their point control game begins to fall apart. This lack of 'in fighting' skill leaves them nicely open for detached ripostes. If one has enough nerve and control they can advance with their parry of an attack to the arm and create the closer distance necessary for the detached riposte. I also find the detached riposte to be an excellent second intention attack technique, as there is often very little time for the slower opposition movements.

All that being said, a strong opposition game is invaluable in epee. But being able to do both is optimal.

For the beginner, 'beat' parries (followed by detached ripostes) impart precision and control faster than opposition parries (with ripostes with engagement) which in the beginning tend to be more overwide than their detached bretheren. This control then translates to other areas of a new fencers technique as he or she becomes confident in the efficiency of his or her motions. Once the fencer has control of this they can then develop the difficult subtlties of engagement much more easily.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

I must respectfully disagree. A lot of modern epeeists are terrific at close and correct distance to the hand/arm. It is when they get in closer (close and correct distance to the chest) that their point control game begins to fall apart. This lack of 'in fighting' skill leaves them nicely open for detached ripostes. If one has enough nerve and control they can advance with their parry of an attack to the arm and create the closer distance necessary for the detached riposte. I also find the detached riposte to be an excellent second intention attack technique, as there is often very little time for the slower opposition movements.

Upon what do you base these observations?

How many are "a lot", and how good are these guys you are talking about?

Presumably, you are drawing on your many years as a national competitor, or is it your extensive international experience.

Did you mean to say, "there are a few guys in my division who are not good at infighting and could possibliy be hit with detached ripostes"?

Oops! Or please please tell me that this is your analysis after watching videos in the basement.

Originally Posted by cfussy

For the beginner, 'beat' parries (followed by detached ripostes) impart precision and control faster than opposition parries (with ripostes with engagement) which in the beginning tend to be more overwide than their detached bretheren. This control then translates to other areas of a new fencers technique as he or she becomes confident in the efficiency of his or her motions. Once the fencer has control of this they can then develop the difficult subtlties of engagement much more easily.

The above is simply not true. A good epee coach will use opposition type actions as guides to ensure proper positioning is maintained through-out the action.

[keith]

In defence of the disengage riposte in epee; the simple rule I learnt, and which still holds true, is that once your opponents point is past your target going indirect is a viable and, sometimes, a good strategy.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by keith

In defence of the disengage riposte in epee; the simple rule I learnt, and which still holds true, is that once your opponents point is past your target going indirect is a viable and, sometimes, a good strategy.

You've confused me...

If your opponent has action that misses you entirely, then why not just hit 'em?

Are you thinking of a situation where the attacker fleches, the defender parries, and the attacker continues past? Again... just hit 'em.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

For the beginner, 'beat' parries (followed by detached ripostes) impart precision and control faster than opposition parries (with ripostes with engagement) which in the beginning tend to be more overwide than their detached bretheren. This control then translates to other areas of a new fencers technique as he or she becomes confident in the efficiency of his or her motions. Once the fencer has control of this they can then develop the difficult subtlties of engagement much more easily.

I agree that treaching a beginning fencer "beat" parries with a detached riposte gives the beginning fencer a certain precision (as well as a satisfying feel of smacking the blade and hitting the opponent). However, I think it is a short term approach. After beat parries, it is difficult to train a fencer to give up that habit and take the time to control the blade. I have had students in epee come to me after being taught to only make beat parries by inexperiance coaches. Training them to do opposition was very difficult.

As Mr. Epee points out, starting with opposition also lets the coach develop the thrust correctly from the start. I have used the same technique with remedial foil students who only "poke" instead of thrust....I can use the pressure of my blade to help correct the thrust.

My experiance is that after a student is trained to the control of opposition, beat parries with detached ripostes are natural and take little prompting. Teaching with opposition in epee is one of the few "old fashioned" teaching things I still use.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Are you thinking of a situation where the attacker fleches, the defender parries, and the attacker continues past? Again... just hit 'em.

no the situation where the attacker is managing distance and attacks say to the upper arm. You parry sixte, or anything else.

Now if your opponent has a poor hand/body position you tonk them in the mask or as required.

....but the simple direct riposte is sometimes not available against a good epeeist. You know the ones, those awkard fellows who unlike the average epee coach don't relax back their arm after your parry to give you an easy target to hit .

So let us imagine the strange epeeists who is quite happy to attack (on the lunge), force a deep parry then cede counter riposte (as a variation to attack, force deep parry, redouble). In which case an indirect riposte is useful.

[Mr Epee]

Keith,

It's very difficult to discuss something that happens so quickly.

I'll try, but I'm still having difficulty visualizing the actions you describe.
It's possible that we are thinking very different types of fencing.

Also, let's toss out scenarios where the fencer has poor form/technique... that's a very different matter unless they are extremely intellegent, experienced, and athletically fit - then they can probably be defeated without having to fence them. Simply hit them and punish them for their deficiencies.

Given that most epee actions should be very simple, and that many attacks are developed with the specific intention of eliminating the possibility of encountering a parry riposte (Think: Shallow attacks from out of distance, attacks to the foot, binds and other controlling actions to the body... etc), and that I suspect that the majority of successful parry-ripostes are the direct result of drawing the attacker out (jukes, presses, counter-time etc...) then it would be pretty shakey to intentionally set up an action that requires a compound riposte.

For some reason immediately after writing that painfully long sentence - I realized that that I was trying to communicate something fairly specific about how Travejo of Cuba used to fence... I don't know if that visual helps..

I guess my thought is that the execution is almost always very simple, but how you get to the execution is very complex.... don't get stuck while trying to execute a complex action.


Y

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by keith

....but the simple direct riposte is sometimes not available against a good epeeist. You know the ones, those awkard fellows who unlike the average epee coach don't relax back their arm after your parry to give you an easy target to hit .

So let us imagine the strange epeeists who is quite happy to attack (on the lunge), force a deep parry then cede counter riposte (as a variation to attack, force deep parry, redouble). In which case an indirect riposte is useful.

I understand what you're talking about here, but the hypothetical good opponent will simply remise off of an indirect riposte and score. Admittedly, it may not happen on the first occurance, but it'll happen soon enough. Parries with "detached" ripostes are very vulnerable to this counter-action, especially if the opponent is using an extended French grip.

Ripostes against these opponents do have to start with opposition, and when the ceding parry comes, the "indirect" riposte occurs more as a roll off. This can be planned, but now we're fencing epee at a very sophisticated level. So sophisticated it's begging for a straight fleche to the body with no preparation, which starts the process of preparation and false actions all over again.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

I understand what you're talking about here, but the hypothetical good opponent will simply remise off of an indirect riposte and score. Admittedly, it may not happen on the first occurance, but it'll happen soon enough. Parries with "detached" ripostes are very vulnerable to this counter-action, especially if the opponent is using an extended French grip.

Absolutely it is only really useful as a one of action or as a specific action for a specific type of opponent. Which is why I said viable and sometimes a good idea, often it is a bad idea - but against an opponent who presses deep and then recovers while covering the direct riposte line it can work well again and again and again. Some epeeists do forget to remise or stop remising after being hit with binds/envelopment actions

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Ripostes against these opponents do have to start with opposition, and when the ceding parry comes, the "indirect" riposte occurs more as a roll off. This can be planned, but now we're fencing epee at a very sophisticated level. So sophisticated it's begging for a straight fleche to the body with no preparation, which starts the process of preparation and false actions all over again.

.... again I agree - I am not suggesting that the indirect action comes before the opposition riposte in the tactical scheme.