Which do YOU find more mentally taxing to set up?

[cfaustus]

A recent conversation over the merits of particular weapons triggered this poll. Basically, the person I was talking with posited that his favorite weapon had a higher degree of mental activity involved. I argued that a well conceived attack/phrase in any weapon requires a good deal of mental activity. Later, I was thinking about what the more advanced, but commonly used attacks in the weapons were and felt that he was wrong... some common attacks used in the weapon he was derriding I felt were more mentally straining than those in his weapon of choice. So I place it here for f-net to discuss.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

For me, fencing is very rarely a mental game. Its all about feel. The second intentions and counter times and all that stuff just flows out in the mish mash of bladework and footwork. The only mental part, for me, is trying to keep the right mindset, and keep focused.

[oso97]

Actually, I find setting up complicated actions mentally stimulating, but not taxing. I come away from a good bout where I'm doing things like that mentally energized. So, the poll is flawed .

[cfaustus]

Now you are just being difficult oso :-P

:-)

Let's assume that if an area is stimulated it is being used, i.e. its resources are being taxed. So for you, which 'stimulates' you more mentally?

[Mr Epee]

C-Fussy does not understand fencing.

People who think in terms of "A triple tempo compound attack." -or- "A second or third intention attack delivered in countertime" probably find fencing more physically taxing than mentally taxing.

Constantly digging your opponent's point out of your chest must be exhausting.

[Craig]

Both options are well past the "foreseen" actions and into the "eyes open" area of execution. I don't find setting up or attempting those actions taxing, but rather an inefficient way to approach the bout.

What is more mentally stimulating (to me at least) is predicting what your opponent will do based upon what you are giving them and coming up with the immediate counter to that action.

As DFP says, at that point it becomes more about feel than anything else as the actual actions and possible choices should be well ingrained in muscle memory by all of the drills and lessons.

Craig

[cfaustus]

Both options are well past the "foreseen" actions and into the "eyes open" area of execution. I don't find setting up or attempting those actions taxing, but rather an inefficient way to approach the bout.

What is more mentally stimulating (to me at least) is predicting what your opponent will do based upon what you are giving them and coming up with the immediate counter to that action.

As DFP says, at that point it becomes more about feel than anything else as the actual actions and possible choices should be well ingrained in muscle memory by all of the drills and lessons.

Craig

I totally understand and agree where you are coming from. However, I guess I consider the prediction based upon observation of an opponent's responses part of 'setting up' such an action. Of course, one must be dynamic and fit fencing to the situation, however, I feel that one of these is much more closely related to a muscle memory system than the other. But that is just MY opinion. I appreciate all of YOURS'.

[Allen Evans]

I’ll be difficult, too.

A “…second or third intention attack delivered in counter time” ? Why would anyone “set up” this attack? This sort of construct is more an intellectual exercise than a real fencing action. There are so many assumptions here in terms of the opponent not recognizing the correct distance not just once, but two or three times, that I can only see this happening with a very skillful fencer against a very poorly trained (but perhaps very fast) fencer. We can’t all be that lucky.

Someone once asked me what my most difficult touch was to set up and I told them: “A straight attack with lunge against an Olympic Team member”.

[keith]

Someone once asked me what my most difficult touch was to set up and I told them: “A straight attack with lunge against an Olympic Team member”.

... and one of the few 'hits' I remember was a slow step-feint into closed sixte followed by the disengage/lunge into open sixte against just such a fellow.

The bout ended about ten seconds later, but I had my moment

[Li'l Bebe]

I agree with DFP. For me at least, fencing is more "look for the hole and hit." I have a general plan on what type of action I want to finish on, based on previous points with the opponent, like "I'm going to parry-riposte to whatever's open when they try to finish." But what I do to get them to try to finish is left up to feel. So by the time the action has finished, it might be a compound attack with a counter-riposte with displacement, but I still finished the way I want. You can't get too technical in planning your attacks, because you don't know what stuff they're going to do or not.

[Mr Epee]

There are so many assumptions here in terms of the opponent not recognizing the correct distance not just once, but two or three times, that I can only see this happening with a very skillful fencer against a very poorly trained (but perhaps very fast) fencer. We can’t all be that lucky.

Allen illustrates the issue excellently, without resorting to trendy jargon.

The fencer who is most likely to fall victim to a hyper-complex action, does not have the technical competency to be controled throughout the action. Sooner, rather than later, the complex fencer will be hit with a random reflexive counter action.

Good fencing isn't about literally thinking several moves ahead. (Neither is good chess, really) It's about limiting the positive actions available to an opponent, then squeezing the opponent, and capitalizing as efficiently as possible.

Someone once asked me what my most difficult touch was to set up and I told them: “A straight attack with lunge against an Olympic Team member”.

And yet top fencers are routinely hit with straight attacks, by their peers.

[Sol Invictus]

Allen illustrates the issue excellently, without resorting to trendy jargon.

The fencer who is most likely to fall victim to a hyper-complex action, does not have the technical competency to be controled throughout the action. Sooner, rather than later, the complex fencer will be hit with a random reflexive counter action.

Good fencing isn't about literally thinking several moves ahead. (Neither is good chess, really) It's about limiting the positive actions available to an opponent, then squeezing the opponent, and capitalizing as efficiently as possible.

And yet top fencers are routinely hit with straight attacks, by their peers.

Good chess is thinking several moves ahead. That's one of the reasons it doesnt make sense to think of fencing as physical chess.

Agreed on other points though.

[Epee Scherma]

I voted a triple tempo compound attack. I don't think I've ever done a triple tempo compound attack in my weapon, i'd probably find myself impaled on a blade before i got to set up the final part of all that. Is it possible to set up that successfully? Yes. Is it practical in application of my weapon? No.

The other option... the second or third intention with countertime?

So in this action the following occurs hypothetically:
A decides to make a compound action that will be in the third intention and involve counter-time.

A -attacks (first intention phase)
B -parry ripostes
A -counterparry riposte (his second intention phase)
B -renews his parried attack with a counterattack in the instant of the A's second intention parry riposte (pretty damn amazing if he can pull all that off in the instant of A's parry riposte)

A -countertime (third intention) touche!

I can honestly, and gladly say I've never experienced such a situation. Cfaustus, you say this action would be entirely predetermined by fencer A. IMHO, fencer A must have spent a significant time fencing B to be so confident in setting up such an attack. To know that B's response between the second and third phase of his action would be a counterattack that he could countertime on is pretty extreme.

It's just not practical. Getting to the point... this is mentally taxing? No. It's mentally retarded to do that option when a beat attack with disengage or any other single intention combination could get you the point. It sounds to me like the person doing a third intention attack hasn't taken the time to:
1. Try out other single intention actions (compound and simple)
2. Use different tempo changes in these actions
3. Apply a little more preparation in the timing of the action
4. Tried to hit on parry-riposte or counteroffensive actions rather than attack.

I believe fencing is a mental game, but also involves the feeling that DFP or Craig had mentioned earlier. Without that feeling you acquire through fencing, you can't set up many complex actions. As a fencer I come in with a preplanned game if I know my opponent (similar to the quote in my signature line). But that's too far fetched to be done with repeated with success in a bout with a fencer.

[cfaustus]

Thank you so far for your input.

Perhaps I have simply been fortunate in my fencing, however, I have found myself needing to use the actions I described above due to the competency of my opponents.

Let me explain.

I believe that all actions are simply tools. You use the proper tool for the proper circumstance.

In fencing, you want to use the most efficient tool for the circumstance.

When one finds themselves using more complex tools, it should be in response to the fact that the opponent they are facing has made some simpler tool less effective. Therefore:

a simple attack is generally good against someone who is slow or off their guard/balance - which is why it is harder to land a simple attack against a better fencer.

but if one is facing an opponent who has a very good parry, one may have to try a compound attack (feint by disengage-disengage-hit or some such). More complex compound attacks are only good against the opponent who parries well but does not riposte or whom you intimidate into not riposting.

If they riposte, then you have a second intention as a tool which you could use... you attack, they parry you sufficiently as you expected, then they riposte in the manner you have noticed that they have a tendancy to, and you are ready for it so you either parry and riposte yourself or counterattack into their riposte. Hopefully this works. If however they are good enough (or you executed the action poorly) then perhaps it won't and you will have to develop some other strategy.

I do not propose that anyone should step onto the piste intending to do complex actions. One should always try to use the simplest action to achieve one's goal. However, one may find oneself against an opponent against whom such complex actions are called for due to what they present to you.

I think this is basically what some of you are saying n'est pas?

So, in the circumstance where you find yourself needing to pull off one of the above moves, based upon what some of you are saying, a second intention attack with countertime is simply muscle memory? This seems to be contrary to the very term 'second intention' as it implies pre-meditation.

[RebelFencer]

Hmm, I don't think in terms of terminology or such. I try to have a basic gameplan, but want it to be flexible enough to where if something goes awry I've got lots of options. I'm kinda with DFP on the whole "feeling" aspect, although I'd argue that it shouldn't be exclusively feeling and have some strategic component in there.

[Epee Scherma]

Muscle memory is like a reaction that requires little thought process and is a response to a stimulus, I believe. If the countertime is premeditated as second or third intention, I believe that while it was premeditated, your muscle memory was used to complete the action in an efficient way. So, you know you will react to the counterattack with a countertime before it occurs, and when it does occur you say to yourself "here it is" but don't think about the actual physical motion. That's because muscle memory is doing the work. It sort of "happens" in an instinctual way while you were aware of its happening before and during the action. It's a combination of both.

[Inquartata]

Meh, this poll seems very foil-centric ( therefore, well, you know---and even the last option isn't all inclusive, because even if I DIDN'T like to be difficult it would still be, you know ).

I do sabre, there's no TIME for complex actions.

[darius]

If they riposte, then you have a second intention as a tool which you could use...

Second intention is a broader term -- making an action that is not designed to hit on the first attempt, but to provoke an opponent into reacting in a predictable way that will cause you to hit. Even if the opponent does not riposte, a re[prise/mise/doublement] can be a second intention action -- you might set up an attack to fall short, knowing your opponent will parry and back off, and then make a sudden continuation of the attack.

The term often is substituted for "counter-riposte", but counter-riposte is a subset of second-intention actions.

I doubt most fencers could accurately create 3rd intention unless their opponent is overly predictable. What's more likely is that the fencers involved are too slow and uncreative to do anything more than a simple riposte, potentially with a line change, which allows their opponent to counterriposte and do the same thing. That rarely happens in competition, even with the little kids, because the athletes are messing with the distance: either pulling it to gain time to create a new action, or collapsing it to provoke infighting and/or a halt.

What you're ignoring in this over-intellectualized discussion is preparation and distance. If a second-intention action isn't working, you don't just add "-intentions". Instead, you adjust the distance, timing, and line your weapon is threatening to draw the opponent into a vulnerable situation.

darius

[Valerio Versace]

Once again I agree with DFP and Mr. Epee.
It's about feeling and istinct.
I try to provoke a reaction from my opponent, work from there and when the tip of the blade passes his guard, bang, I deliver the touch.
I work on general ideas, not with specific attacks in mind.
Surely I try some complex or compound actions during individual lessons, but from there during bouts everything must be automatic.
Automatic reactions are faster and cleaner: if you must actively THINK about the attack you're trying to execute, you'll probably concentrate on some aspects, loosing focus about some other key stuff (how many times do you see noobs who try to do something they just learnt and, while they do, they totally forget measure or tempo, because they're thinking about how they should deliver that attack?)
Having a general idea of the bout and leading your actions (and those of your opponent) to specific sets of possible consequences where you have a higher chance to score is my approach.

[Grasshopper]

I'm going to agree with most of the above about feel and add that I think of an attack as what comes at the very end of my preparation. My preparation might have multiple tempos, 2nd intention, etc., but I think of my attack as the final lunge or fleche (ie 1 tempo action). This way, I can keep my balance and eyes open in the set up, until I see my chance, when I will finish.

I think too many fencers think of the attack as the whole process starting with any forward movement. By clearly separating in your mind, "prep" and "final attack" you can avoid the pitfalls that many fencers experience - running on to counterattacks, appearing predictable, going off balance, etc. Also, you can have a lot of fun, experimenting with different kinds of prep, without risking so much. So it should look like: In out in out in out go!

Anybody can lunge anybody can step, but the true is the champion is one that can out play the opponent until they see a chance - and then take it. The best hits in fencing is when mid phrase you realize that you have out played your opponent and simply have to extend your arm to finish him off...