Why is footwork the way it is?

[KD5MDK]

It's not balance in the odds of falling, so much as balance as the ability to quickly change directions along a single linear dimension.

[flynniec6]

I just wanted a couple of different people to chime in, since I don't get to discuss the finer points at my school. For example, we're always being drilled to have the feet at 90º (but nobody seems to be able to explain why 85º won't work) and not to move up and down. So I wanted to see what drove the current system.

KD5MDK and whtouche I think said it best - that it was evolved for a particularly limited movement area. I had problems reconciling this with what I thought a serious sword-based fight would require (more circling) but I see now it makes perfect sense. Thanks for all the answers.

[Teme]

Pray tell, how does one change direction quickly, if one is falling??

Seriously though, I was taught to think footwork (sans attacks) as a way to move your on-guard stance along the piste and in relation to your opponent -- the less time you spent between the starting and ending positions, the better, 'cause during the step you can't attack nor defend (in a cohesive and controlled way, at least). A step is merely a transition between two on-guards, really, and cross step is too sloooow way to do it...

[KD5MDK]

Pray tell, how does one change direction quickly, if one is falling??

By contorting ones body so as to fall somewhere else, of course.

Seriously though, I was taught to think footwork (sans attacks) as a way to move your on-guard stance along the piste and in relation to your opponent -- the less time you spent between the starting and ending positions, the better, 'cause during the step you can't attack nor defend (in a cohesive and controlled way, at least). A step is merely a transition between two on-guards, really, and cross step is too sloooow way to do it...

What weapon do you fence?

As a sabre fencer, I feel as able as ever to defend myself with my blade during movement. In fact, that's how it should be done. Retreat while parrying, then stand still to riposte. (depending on what they do)
Advancing, retreating, everything that counts (torso and arms) is in the same position it would be in an on-guard standing still.

Finally, I consider footwork to be either me attacking, or me avoiding the attack. But if there isn't an attack going on, something's wrong. As I said, sabre.

[flynniec6]

I found a list of "Fun Fencing Facts" on http://www.fencingmedia.org/funfacts.asp. Specifically these three caught my eye:

4. Fencing is conducted on a 14m x 2m "strip" or "piste" to replicate combat in confined quarters such as a castle hallway. The end of the fencing strip represents the line drawn in the earth by duelists' seconds: to retreat behind this line during the duel indicated cowardice and loss of honor.

5. The 750 gram weight test used to ensure a touch is scored with sufficient force is based on the amount of tension required to break the skin. In a duel, honor was done when blood was first drawn -- even if from a minor wound such as a blister.

6. The target area in sabre, originally a cavalry weapon, is from the waist up because it is contrary to the rules of chivalry to injure an opponent's horse.

Now - I like the above. That gives me a "sensible" reason as why things are the way they are. I hate to take things on faith, and having a logical reason (even if untrue) is great.

[Teme]

What weapon do you fence?

Saber, naturally
I'd say the parry is done at the same moment the trailing foot hits the ground, so the riposte can be delivered from the correct distance with great balance. You don't do much feints in your salle, eh? Sorry, let's not go there...tomato, potato... it's all the same, really

Finally, I consider footwork to be either me attacking, or me avoiding the attack. But if there isn't an attack going on, something's wrong. As I said, sabre.

Me, I consider it preparation. After all, attack (as in the final movement leading to hit) is the easiest part, getting there is the tough cookie. And I sense we're talking of the same thing here, too, just from a different angle.

6. The target area in sabre, originally a cavalry weapon, is from the waist up because it is contrary to the rules of chivalry to injure an opponent's horse.

This is clearly bogus! The 'modern' saber is decendant of duelling saber, not cavalry saber. Never used by a mounted swordsman. The legs were valid target until about hundred years ago (perhaps not totally coincidentally with the introduction of epee) they realised that gentlepersons don't brutalize each others lower parts.

[Ordway]

I just wanted a couple of different people to chime in, since I don't get to discuss the finer points at my school. For example, we're always being drilled to have the feet at 90º (but nobody seems to be able to explain why 85º won't work) and not to move up and down. So I wanted to see what drove the current system.

Now that you see how footwork has developed to allow the fencers on the strip to execute their actions successfully, it's instructive to compare footwork across the different weapons - particularly sabre vs. epee, but also comparing sabre to foil. Because the tactical and technical game is different, the footwork has evolved into a slightly different form to suit each weapon (with clear similarities, since all three weapons have so much in common fundamentally). You can tell when a person who is experienced in one weapon is fencing in a different one, just from body position and footwork.

Take the rear foot position that you mention - actually, a lot of sabre fencers (myself included) do, in fact, keep it at a less than 90-degree angle. Sabre has much more of a forward-moving style than foil or epee, so it's advantageous to be slightly predisposed to move forward. Foilists, on the other hand, tend to go for the 90-degree position, which I assume works better for them. (Epeeists seem to just stand around, so who knows what they're up to ).

[MikeHarm]

I think that the fencing stance in fencing you can see echoed in other styles. From the V steps of phillipine knife fighting to the older shotokan forward stances.

Its strong for anyone attacking from the front or rear, weak on the sides. You can add some pivot steps in to make it circular if you want. I think its roots probably came from the battlefield. If you're marching in a long row of soldiers I don't think you had to worry so much about someone charging from the side so it would make sense to learn that stance.

With attacks based more on circular or flanking actions as the primary method of attack you can do better for maneuvering around the opponent. If we had gone the path of keeping the flick and taken up the idea of fencing in a circle you could of seen fencing footwork change to mirror some of the ones uses by the circular martial arts styles I would think.

[KD5MDK]

I think its roots probably came from the battlefield.

Not at all. Among other things, battlefields were very rarely places where you want to stop moving forward and start moving back at an instant's notice, there will always be someone behind you to run into if you do, and they most important thing is absolutely to stay shoulder to shoulder with your comrades so cavalry couldn't tear you apart.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Just to re-rehash what has already been said but maybe in different, simpler words:
Fencing footwork is the way it is currently because it is effective for the task at hand. ...

Or in other words, "form follows function."

Given the specific rules for scoring touches on valid target (as well as what is not allowed in the process), a martial art evolves actions to accomplish that in the most sound manner possible.

If something else worked as well, we'd use it.