Premature Parrying

[Grasshopper]

I prematurely parried all over my opponent last night. Very embarrassing.

[edew]

I don't disagree with this, but I don't think because there are better things to do in a situation a beat/parry situation should be interpreted as losing priority.

I use this rule with the kids who have a propensity to do nothing other than swatting each others' blades. After fifteen beats (or parries), it gets kinda irritating and I tell them to hit the body, not the blade.

[KD5MDK]

It's a good coaching rule. I'd use it on adults who do more than one beat and can't give a good reason for it. Possibly even any beats. I just didn't find your discussion with Michael Marx expecially convincing as to how the "conventions of right of way" should be evaluated.

[edew]

The point of the discussion with Marx was that actions and consequences have to be fair. Otherwise, I'd just advance at my opponent waving my blade. If I catch it, it's my beat. If I don't, I'm "disengaging". Either way, I win. That's not fair. Either I'm going for a beat or I'm going for a disengage. That's the basic premise of the discussion.

Also, the oft-discussed rule concerning searching for the blade and failing has its converse: if I search for a blade and find it, I should take over right of way (modulo cases such as beating the forte in saber and such). That's pretty simple.

[striker]

.................................................. .........
Better opponents will not have this "Double advance lunge" habit and will push you down the stip without committing to an action, This opponent will finish when you run out of space and stop. These opponents will require more sophisticated footwork on the retreat, attempting to lure them into one of the three conditions above.

Or you could just always move forward and hit THEM, instead.

Allen,

Is it possible to expand a little more on this specific case?
I am not clear on what is involved when you mention
"require more sophisticated footwork".

Also, If the opponent is pushing you down the strip then he must
have the right of way. In your last sentence when you mention
"more forward and hit THEM", I am assuming that you are suggesting
to move IN and counterattack into their forward moving attack. Is my
understanding correct ?

[oiuyt]

Is it possible to expand a little more on this specific case?
I am not clear on what is involved when you mention
"require more sophisticated footwork".

Checks, changes of tempo, changes of the size of your steps, various false actions with the blade, body, and feet. Basically things other than just taking three retreats while waiting for your opponent to finish on his/her own. As Allen points out, this (three retreats) is all that it takes against a significant percentage of low-level sabre fencers.

Also, If the opponent is pushing you down the strip then he must have the right of way. In your last sentence when you mention
"more forward and hit THEM", I am assuming that you are suggesting
to move IN and counterattack into their forward moving attack. Is my
understanding correct ?

I think he's suggesting attacking BEFORE they establish the chase -- if you can't deal with defending against the chase, your best option is to avoid the situation by being the attacker.

-B

[KD5MDK]

The point of the discussion with Marx was that actions and consequences have to be fair. Otherwise, I'd just advance at my opponent waving my blade. If I catch it, it's my beat. If I don't, I'm "disengaging". Either way, I win. That's not fair. Either I'm going for a beat or I'm going for a disengage. That's the basic premise of the discussion.

Also, the oft-discussed rule concerning searching for the blade and failing has its converse: if I search for a blade and find it, I should take over right of way (modulo cases such as beating the forte in saber and such). That's pretty simple.

I have generally seen (perhaps not enough high level events to see thing properly, and I'm sabre focused) that a fencer who waves their blade around without any noticable attempts by their opponent to find it is considered to have searched unsuccessfully and lost priority, or to be in preparation (a compound attack) and vulnerable to stop hits.

[edew]

(Sorry for the double post. Removing this one for the clearer one.)

[edew]

Sure, a person waving the blade aimlessly doesn't have RoW. But what happens when fencer H advances, waving the blade, has his blade meet fencer ^'s blade (where fencer ^ is retreating and waving the blade as well)? Who has right of way then? In this case, I might go with H, but really have to see the situation before I can make the call.

[KD5MDK]

The classic right answer.

I'll note the rulebook says in uncertain situations the benefit of the doubt should go towards the attacker.

[Allen Evans]

Ouiyt is correct on both counts. If you are going to retreat in saber, the idea is to be pulling the opponent after you, not letting the opponent push you down the strip.

Going backwards or forwards, the excellant saber fencer is always controlling - or attemtping to control - the space.

[jeff]

Fencers J, 7, H and ^ -- Edew must be really bored with the traditional "Fencer A and Fencer B"...

[edew]

I kick their 4$$es up and down the strip so often I don't bother fencing them anymore. They have absolutely no clue about right of way either.

[striker]

Ouiyt is correct on both counts. If you are going to retreat in saber, the idea is to be pulling the opponent after you, not letting the opponent push you down the strip.

Going backwards or forwards, the excellant saber fencer is always controlling - or attemtping to control - the space.

Arrrgh, my apologies. I should have been more specific
since the beginning.

It seems like you folks are talking about Saber and I was
asking about Foil. Anyhow, do any of these discussions
and techniques apply to foil or are there differences ?

[KD5MDK]

When it comes to random blade movements, I think foil and sabre are relatively similar. The main differences come in how timing is determined.

[tonybogdan]

yeah, if both ppl are searching for blade, both find, ROW goes to the attacker, since neither beat really establishes much (you can't parry the attack before it's an attack, right?)

Both sides are difficult to argue, but that could also be interpreted as a pris-de-fer, if done right..

However, i've seen dozens of scenarios where inexperiences sabreurs parry wildly on the defense hoping to get lucky, end up making contact with the blade while their opponent attacks, and argue pris-de-fer; NO! The correct call is beat-attack. Pris de fer is taking an offensive action (beat) on the defensive. You clearly have to make the action well in tempo before the opponent attacks, or the ref can call it as he/she sees it.

[lindajdunn]

Wow! This is more information than I can assimilate in a weekend. I'm going to need to print out this thread and review it periodicially to assist in figuring out how to properly parry in time such that the referee recognizes it as a parry.