Saber: beat vs parry

[picojeff]

I was having fun at club the other night, fencing and refing saber with some of my fencers and a guest at the club. One of the students who recently came from a freshly credentialed fencing master claimed that, in saber, parrying with the back of the blade had priority over any beat with the edge.

My head just about turned inside-out trying to understand this idea, and I need some help getting it back inside-in.

I would never lay any claim to knowing anything about saber, I have always been an epee fencer. I have been fortunate enough to travel to a few saber world cups, talk about saber with a few world class saber fencers including a world champion, and talk about saber priority with a couple FIE A referees. But just because one concept was never discussed in my limited survey doesn't mean it isn't really a valid concept.

All that said... my feeling is that this is a very "old fashioned" interpretation of saber, one I never heard about because I was never a saber fencer. Here is the idea again:

A fencer executing attaque au fer brings the middle of her blade down on the weak of the defender's blade, who is attempting to parry in quarte, and both finish properly on target with simple cuts. If the defender has turned her blade so that its back meets the front edge of her opponent's weapon, has she parried the beat attack, regardless of weak vs strong of the blades?

Every ounce of me says "not a chance", front vs back of the blade has absolutely no bearing on saber priority. Is there even a kernel of truth in the idea?

[Allen Evans]

Jeff:

I'm trying to visualize the action you are talking about, and I confess I can't see how the "parry" takes place with the back of the blade, unless the beat takes place after the inside parry starts and the defender moves the hand back in an attempt to close the opening line.

I'm no "credentialed fencing master", but I've spent a little time in saber, and the beat attack is guided by the usual criteria of who is initiating, and where on the defending blade it falls (saber is a little more rigorous about enforcing that than foil is). Front edge or back edge in terms of the parry has never been mentioned in any of my training. I would think that this would have been mentioned if it was still current practice.

Perhaps the student mis-understood his/her coach. That's not unusual!

[whtouche]

The only situation I can think of where it would be safe to assume "automatic parry" would be bellguard contact.
The back edge of the blade has no bearing on the situation at all, and furthermore seems like an awkward position to assume anyways.

[The Terran]

Originally Posted by picojeff

I was having fun at club the other night, ... Is there even a kernel of truth in the idea?

I don't know much about saber, but I thought I should point out that real sabers had a blade on the top 1/3 of the back of the blade. Mabey the student was thinking of this, and thought that the back of the blade would be a better place to parry, having "priority", but not necissarily affecting the sport matchup at all.

[KD5MDK]

Back-edge beats are a very useful tool and a favorite of mine. In fact, I just learned a few weeks ago a clever move utilizing them from my coach. However, they are not given the SLIGHTEST more priority or anything of the sort.

One of the students who recently came from a freshly credentialed fencing master claimed that, in saber, parrying with the back of the blade had priority over any beat with the edge.

Nope, not at all. In fact, the most revelent interpretation I have been taught is: "You cannot parry a beat", which is to say if both fencers make a blade action simultanously, and there is only one contact, then the person who was making a beat takes priority over the person who was attempting to parry. (This obviously doesn't effect actions where there are two blade contacts.)

[shinekomi]

Beats and parries are problematic at times. At the club I go to, they will call a beat attack against you if you are on the attack. The ideology here is why should you bother with the blade when you can just attack.

I too believed that to determine a beat versus a parry is dependent on the initation of the beat and the location of the beat on the defender's blade. And I don't think it would matter if you parried with the back of your blade- the actions are fast enough that just being able to parry would be sufficient, irregardless of hand position.

Now that I think about it, I think making a parry with the back end of the blade would be weird. I was taught that you should parry with the front side or the cutting edge of the blade. This is because you have the thumb to support the blade from the impact. If I am envisioning this action correctly, and the defender parries with the back side of the blade, then I believe her wrist is a 90 degree angle, with the palm facing forward. If she were to take quarte with this position, I would think the beat (if strong enough) would knock the defenders blade aside, since her thumb will follow through with the action.

[annacattiva]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

In fact, the most revelent interpretation I have been taught is: "You cannot parry a beat", which is to say if both fencers make a blade action simultanously, and there is only one contact, then the person who was making a beat takes priority over the person who was attempting to parry. (This obviously doesn't effect actions where there are two blade contacts.)

That's funny. I would say that the Only relevant interpretation is the opposite- "You cannot beat a parry." If your beat lands on your opponent's forte, it's no longer your beat, no matter what your intention. It's their parry.

[Purple Fencer]

I wonder if this may be more applicable to classical fencing (where's CFaustus??)

In modern sport fencing, WHERE the blade hit is irrelevant (except if the beat is too far down the blade or on the guard...then it's an automatic parry)


What distinguishes a beat from a parry is simply who starts the action...if you and I are fencing and I start sending my blade your way (directly to target, NOT to your blade), then you move to meet it, it's your parry. If, however, I simply advance and my blade's not moving, then you hit it and go, THAT'S a beat.

[El Chucko]

I always try to imagine the fencers' "intent" in muddled phrases/simultaneous touches like this. In other words, who begin to act and who is reacting to it.

In this case, did the attacker beat an extended or extending blade, or a blade engarde? Was the defender parrying in anticipation of a simple cut, or as a response to a beat attack? Basically, did steel-hit-steel because of one fencer's intentions, the other's intentions, or both?

Of course, it is easiest to just throw it out.

[picojeff]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Perhaps the student mis-understood his/her coach. That's not unusual!

I'm beginning to think there is a misunderstanding, based on the "beat with the back of the blade" idea. I think it's pretty cut and dry that a beat can't be parried, only an attack can be parried (assuming a properly executed beat on the top 2/3 of the opponent's blade). An attacker executing a beat attack and a defender making a simultaneous parry is a pretty clear situation if the blades meet in the middle: beat attack and counterattack. So the student is taught to beat with the back of the blade, and told that any such beat will have priority over a parry.

Now the fencer holds in his mind "actions with the back of the blade always have priority over actions with the front edge of the blade."

And 6 months later the muddled idea emerges in a well formed sentence that makes my head turn inside out.

Thanks for all the replies, I've already learned something about saber today. Not what I expected when I woke up this morning!

[MyrddinsPrecint]

there is stuff from sabre that's post-classical but not current (what some random collection of people were calling "modern" to our "post-modern") where the "false edge" can be used, but other stuff can't?

i dont' remember it exactly, but this sounds like something that would come from that collective.....

[keropie]

I don't think that parrying with the back of the blade would be mechanically advantageous, what with the thumb (your strongest finger) being on the wrong side of the blade in that case. When I have students who want to present the blade to me without placing the thumb behind the plane of blade contact, I (at least once or twice) do my best to send the weapon at least two strips down the room. I can't see as how parrying with the back of the blade would be any better.

Regardless of mechanical advantage, no, parrying with the back of the blade does not create any sort of magical priority. See above about beating the bottom third of the blade, or parrying a beat.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by annacattiva

That's funny. I would say that the Only relevant interpretation is the opposite- "You cannot beat a parry." If your beat lands on your opponent's forte, it's no longer your beat, no matter what your intention. It's their parry.

I can only say this is what I was taught by my FOC instructors.

Perhaps a heirarchy of how to decide would help illustrate my perspective:

1) If the blade touches the guard or lower 1/3 of the opponent's blade, it is automatically considered parried.

2) If one fencer is attacking and the other defending, and the attacker makes an action on the blade foible to foible, it's a beat attack.

3) If one fencer is attacking and the other defending, and the defender clearly makes an action on the blade foible to foible, taking control, then it is a parry.

4) If one fencer is attacking and the other defending, and there is an unclear or simultanious action on the blade, foible to foible, it is a beat. The rulebook specifically recommends priority be given to the offensive fencer.

5) If both fencers are attacking and both make attacks on the blade simultainously, then neither has priority.




6) If both fencers are defending for an extended period of time, give them both yellow cards for Epeeism and a round cursing out.

[Inquartata]

Right. Not only is the thumb in the wrong position to beat or parry with the back, the knucklebow of a sabre would also be in exactly the WRONG position to protect the hand. I can't even think that classical fencing countenances that sort of thing. If anything, it ought to be prioritized BELOW a proper edge beat or parry, not ahead of them.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by shinekomi

Beats and parries are problematic at times. At the club I go to, they will call a beat attack against you if you are on the attack. The ideology here is why should you bother with the blade when you can just attack.

Wow. I'd hate to fence with them. Do they do this at tournaments or just in training?

Now that I think about it, I think making a parry with the back end of the blade would be weird. I was taught that you should parry with the front side or the cutting edge of the blade. This is because you have the thumb to support the blade from the impact. If I am envisioning this action correctly, and the defender parries with the back side of the blade, then I believe her wrist is a 90 degree angle, with the palm facing forward. If she were to take quarte with this position, I would think the beat (if strong enough) would knock the defenders blade aside, since her thumb will follow through with the action.

I think the back edge beats (and beat parries) in this case are best done with a snapping motion, which knocks the blade aside, rather than the pressing motion sometimes used in fowards edge parries. Consider it a flick of the wrist or fingers against a not tightly gripped blade, I think. Also, I don't think its being recommended against beat attacks, just the mistaken belief that if it were used against one it would take priority.

[edew]

At club, I tell people to go after the body and not make unnecessary beats. At competition, they do whatever they can to win. Generally, if fencer X is moving down the strip after fencer B and makes a beat at full speed, B will hit X before X can get the shot in. It's easier and better for X to just complete the attack, make B do the necessary work to evade or parry.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by edew

At club, I tell people to go after the body and not make unnecessary beats. At competition, they do whatever they can to win. Generally, if fencer X is moving down the strip after fencer B and makes a beat at full speed, B will hit X before X can get the shot in. It's easier and better for X to just complete the attack, make B do the necessary work to evade or parry.

What happened to fencer A? Did he get black-carded for mask-flinging, or something?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

In modern sport fencing, WHERE the blade hit is irrelevant (except if the beat is too far down the blade or on the guard...then it's an automatic parry)

So, if fencer A attacks by smacking his foible against the forte of fencer B´s sabre, and in the process moves fencer´s B sabre and arm clear across the B chest and B sabre pointing backwards - then fencer B has parried?


I was fencer B at a club sabre fooling around. I am not small or weak, but fencer A can parry my arm with the middle of his blade. At one time he immediately followed up with a cut to my chest with the forte of his blade. At impact, his elbow was bent, but he straightened out so that I almost fell over backwards. (Not that I am complaining - I am a grown man, and I knew when I started fencing that some bruises here and there are part and parcel of the sport. I am not going to cheapen myself by being a whining wimp.) He is 16, BTW.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[edew]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!




What happened to fencer A? Did he get black-carded for mask-flinging, or something?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Fencer A is on-deck waiting to fence fencer G. Why'd you ask?

[edew]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!




So, if fencer A attacks by smacking his foible against the forte of fencer B´s sabre, and in the process moves fencer´s B sabre and arm clear across the B chest and B sabre pointing backwards - then fencer B has parried?


I was fencer B at a club sabre fooling around. I am not small or weak, but fencer A can parry my arm with the middle of his blade. At one time he immediately followed up with a cut to my chest with the forte of his blade. At impact, his elbow was bent, but he straightened out so that I almost fell over backwards. (Not that I am complaining - I am a grown man, and I knew when I started fencing that some bruises here and there are part and parcel of the sport. I am not going to cheapen myself by being a whining wimp.) He is 16, BTW.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Sure, it's still an automatic parry. That fencer B can't get a riposte in edgewise (pun intended) makes the point moot.

Last night, I was fencing saber with one of my clubmates. He's a strong, heavy-handed guy. I parried and basically, he just pushed my blade into my face. Touch for him. Yeah, I parried. But what good is it when you can't make a riposte out of it?

Maybe your 16 year old friend should sign up with WWE. Especially if that person is female!