"Parry with distance" -- friend of Santa and Easter Bunny?

[Sciurus-Rex]

(for newbies)
The imaginary concept of "parry with distance." Discuss.

[noodle]

What is a Distance Parry?


It is the short and often confusing name for a commonplace action. An attacker can carry Right of Way until the end of their initial attack. If the attacker finishes their initial attack and misses (becaues it was adeptly avoided by the defender using carefully timed footwork, or the attacker simply can't hit the broad side of a barn), the defender then has a chance to immediately take Right of Way by making an attack of their own. This process by which the defender pulls distance causing the attacker to miss and then immediately seizing Right of Way is often referred to as a "distance parry" and is not an actual parry.

http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...tml#post263822

[Fencing Jesus]

Next time I see a ref blow this call Ill jsut refer him to the handy f.net faq.

Thatll settle everything.

[rory]

"Attack from my left no. Attack from my right touche."

Or vice versa.
When explaining to n00bs (... and losers...) I am tempted to say "your attack was short. his attack is touche".

If they still do not understand and keep arguing, just card them and get on with the fight.

[rcmatthews]

Well, you always have a parry with distance. Whether that distance is correct or not is an entirely different matter.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

by opening my (print) fencing journal, one discovers that at a national-ish collegiate tournament (niwfa champs) last year, i was down something rediculous-- 4-1 or something, and then won the bout by bouncing in, bouncing out, having her miss, and then easily hitting her. 4 times in a row.

yay sabre.

my conclusion?

less like santa and more like st. nicolas.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Part of the problem with the term is that it includes the word "parry," which we teach new fencers as some sort of action on an attacking blade. Based on that, we're faced with an almost comical visualization: Parry with this, um, intangible distance thingy you're not really holding in your hand ... and, try to riposte with it, too?

So is "distance parry" actually referenced in a widely recognized fencing document? (Other than this message board, thank you very much!) How legitimate is it, really?

[oso97]

Part of the problem with the term is that it includes the word "parry," which we teach new fencers as some sort of action on an attacking blade. Based on that, we're faced with an almost comical visualization: Parry with this, um, intangible distance thingy you're not really holding in your hand ... and, try to riposte with it, too?

So is "distance parry" actually referenced in a widely recognized fencing document? (Other than this message board, thank you very much!) How legitimate is it, really?

It depends upon what perspective you are looking from. There are three that could be considered. The fencer, the coach and the referee.

Let us consider them seperately. And let us furthermore discuss concerning sabre (although, foil is not too far off).

For the referee, its a fairly straightforward thing. A parry is an active measure, taken to block an attack by using the forte of one fencer own weapon on the foible of the opponent's. After the parry, the fencer who WAS parried, looses his right of way, and the fencer who DID parry gains the right of way. If two lights are on, the fencer who made the successful parry is awarded the point (leaving aside discussions of insufficent parries, etc). So, in this point of view, there is no such thing as "parry with distance." However, an opponent who successful avoids his opponent's attack by causing it to fall short, may gain the right of way, provided he immediately siezes such opportunity.

From the point of view of the fencer, its a little more complicated because we have to consider tactics. Assuming the referee is calling the action as described above, the fencer has two ways of gaining right of way when his opponent is attacking. The first is to block the attack with the blade (a parry) and the second is to cause the opponent to fall short (a "distance parry). Tactically, the function in much the same way - execute the action (parry or distance parry) and then go on the attack. Additionally, there are now concerns about setting up the action, performing it in the proper tempo, varying the setup so that the opponent doesn't have a chance to figure it out, and other matters. But from this perspective, again, it is how such a maneuver fits within the tactical plan.

From the point of view of the coach, one must consider all of the things the fencer is thinking of, as well as how to teach such a maneuver. Often, the "distance parry" is a preplanned (forseen or partially forseen) action, used as part of a setup. A parry with the blade is typically a reaction in response to an action (unforseen). I start my beginners off with games and drills that help develop their distance work and allow the attack to fall short, beacuse teaching a forseen or partially forseen action is a lot easier than teaching an unforseen action. Starting with using distance to cause the opponents attack to fall short in a preplanned (forseen) manner, then work on making that distance they fall short smaller and smaller, until one needs to also block the opponent's blade. This is backwards from how most foil-centric beginner programs teach things, because there, bladework is paramount. But I teach a much more mobile game, and we rarely if ever do static blade drills beyond the point of learning the positions.

As far as Santa and the Easter Bunny, well, no, its not mythological. But when well executed, its almost a gift!

[luv2fence]

Concerning ROW rules,
if your opponent attacks and misses,
you can take ROW by attacking immediately.
It woud not matter, if he missed you because you
1) backed up 2) ducked 3) moved sideways or
4) just stood still.
I think most directors would see this, most of the
time. Distance is not the critical factor for this,
your opponent's miss is critical.

A very theoretical use of distance, is to retreat
out of step-lunge distance: your oponent's blade
no longer theatens, so his attack is "no". You must
immediately start your own attack to gain ROW.
Note: your opponent does not have to miss for this to
apply.
I do not expect to see a director call this,
because any director has too many other things to
watch and consider. Also, even if a director did
observe this movement out of step-lunge distance,
the timing of your attack would be critical,
because your opponent could start another attack.

There are older threads on this. Bill Oliver wrote an
article on this, which may still be linked by this site,
and I originally found it using Google.

If the experiences of others are different than
what I wrote, please help me out here. My experience
is very limited: observing local tournaments and 1 NAC.

luv2fence

[mrbiggs]

Part of the problem with the term is that it includes the word "parry," which we teach new fencers as some sort of action on an attacking blade. Based on that, we're faced with an almost comical visualization: Parry with this, um, intangible distance thingy you're not really holding in your hand ... and, try to riposte with it, too?

So is "distance parry" actually referenced in a widely recognized fencing document? (Other than this message board, thank you very much!) How legitimate is it, really?

It's not an actual call. (But neither is malparry (sp), either, and that can come in handy for describing fencing actions.)

But I think that the term can actually be helpful for explanation to beginners. A distance parry is, in terms of RoW, on equal footing with a blade parry. So why not give it this name, so as to simply RoW for beginners?

[Araznal]

It's not an actual call. (But neither is malparry (sp), either, and that can come in handy for describing fencing actions.)

But I think that the term can actually be helpful for explanation to beginners. A distance parry is, in terms of RoW, on equal footing with a blade parry. So why not give it this name, so as to simply RoW for beginners?

The reason nobody should use such an explanation is because of this situation:
Fencer A attacks, falls short, and then both A and B begin new attacks at the same time.
Any good referee would call that simultaneous attacks, but fencer B will often complain that he took a "distance parry". So what you might ask? Well, this can result in unnecessary argument, leading to unnecessary cards and a general waste of time. Best if people just knew the rules.

As for "malparry"... this is total bull. It's like saying, "Oh, I know what you were trying to do. You were trying to parry, and it was OH so close, but I'm sorry, it looks like you failed. So I'm sorry, but I CAN'T give you the touch..."
Either the fencer made a parry or not. Refs shouldn't make up stuff to try to please some fencer who's complaining. If someone says, "I made parry!", a ref should say, "No, you didn't."

[KD5MDK]

Any beginner ought to be able to see that their attack missed. That the opponent was then able to take over priority is just a natural extension of that.

[downunder]

its just a way of saying attack, counterattack.....

Assuming you all used your signals and terms correctly, this would not be an issue. It would look very odd making the parry sign without there being any blade contact.

[KD5MDK]

It's another way of saying "attack no, counterattack", you mean.

[rcmatthews]

Well, technically, when you say mal parré (I think thats how you spell it), you are saying exactly that "badly parried". Same as saying there was not a parry, I think, though I don't like to use the term for simplicity's sake. Although if a fencer says, "Didn't I make a parry?" and the ref says "No, you didn't" the fencer could be confused.

[downunder]

Well, technically, when you say mal parré (I think thats how you spell it), you are saying exactly that "badly parried". Same as saying there was not a parry, I think, though I don't like to use the term for simplicity's sake. Although if a fencer says, "Didn't I make a parry?" and the ref says "No, you didn't" the fencer could be confused.

but the fencer didn't make a parry.

The correct call is attack.

if it gets queried i usually say it immediately landed. The fencer will thus have no doubts to my interpretation of the action.

[oso97]

Well, technically, when you say mal parré (I think thats how you spell it), you are saying exactly that "badly parried". Same as saying there was not a parry, I think, though I don't like to use the term for simplicity's sake. Although if a fencer says, "Didn't I make a parry?" and the ref says "No, you didn't" the fencer could be confused.

Which is why the initial call should be "attack arrives" and accompanied by the appropriate hand signals. Very clear, very simple, and if the fencer is paying attention, he will get it. Perhaps with a very slight bit of emphasis on the "arrives" part to make the point even more clearly. Then if the fencer asks, "did I parry?" the follow up can be - "no, the attack arrived." And leave it simply at that.

One COULD indicate a "mal-parrie" with a preparation signal, as in: "Preparation from my left, attack from right arrives." I've seen a few people make the call this way. I'll inquire with an FOC next weekend in Pitt if this is an acceptable convention.

[downunder]

One COULD indicate a "mal-parrie" with a preparation signal, as in: "Preparation from my left, attack from right arrives." I've seen a few people make the call this way. I'll inquire with an FOC next weekend in Pitt if this is an acceptable convention.

its not exactly an incorrect attack if there was no attack in the first place.

honestly, just the attack signal is what is expected.

[rcmatthews]

Striving for simplicity. The less you say, the better.

[Inquartata]

"Attack, no. Attack, yes ( or whatever action follows )."

The attack after the opponent's attack falls short cannot be a counterattack. A counterattack has to be against or into an attack. If the initial attack is short it is over, and there is nothing to be 'counter' to...