Premature Parrying

[lindajdunn]

Often times when my opponent is advancing, I will parry and riposte at the same time that the opponent ripostes and it's called a parry riposte for the opponent.

Any suggestions on how I can force myself to stop reaching out to meet their blade rather than waiting for it to arrive? There are always two lights when this happens and I'm annoyed with myself for so frequently handing a point to my opponent.

[RebelFencer]

wait for their final action and calm down.

[sabreur]

If you can reach your opponent's blade, they are too close, and you are right to take the blade.

The action should be a clear pris de fer or strike-beat/strike-parry, rather than a simple attempt to meet the blade the way you would with a classic parry (if you just meet the blade, you may get a malpare called against you, although this happens less with the new timings). You have to "show" that you are taking the blade--which is why a quinte, counter-three or counter-four strike beat are more effective than a simple beat in quarte.

You also MUST make sure that your blade contact is with the upper third (upper half will actually work) of your opponent's blade--otherwise your action on the blade will be called as their parry.

[jeff]

What sabreur and RebelFencer said! Make sure it's clear that your blade taking is the one that controlled the action, and control the distance. Also, a longer distance might make it clearer that it was the other person's initial beat-attack, followed by your parry-riposte. Linda, what weapon are you fencing?

[lindajdunn]

Thank you for your responses.

I began fencing sabre about a year and a half ago and that was my first experience fencing.

I'll be at Reno for the veteran fencing and this is one of those major problem areas that I'm trying to correct before then.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

[KD5MDK]

You also MUST make sure that your blade contact is with the upper third (upper half will actually work) of your opponent's blade--otherwise your action on the blade will be called as their parry.

Specificly, the rulebook says "top two-thirds", but it's much safer to go for top half or one third - much easier for the referees to see.

[edew]

This is a major beef of mine with some referees. If fencer J is advancing and fencer 7 is retreating while making sweeping motion with the blade, and there's blade contact, fencer 7 should take over right of way and has the right to riposte, unless the blade contact was way down near the forte of J's blade.

Here's how to think of it: J has the presumptive right of way because J is advancing and 7 is retreating and searching earnestly for the opponent's blade. J has no obligation to make a beat attack while 7 is mightily obligated to find the opponent's blade.

So unless it's VERY evident that J is making a pris de fer or beat or that 7 smacked J's forte, any blade contact should be given to 7, the defender.

Why should 7 wait for the final attack? Preemptive action is much better than waiting for the last moment. Given the chances for remises, whip-overs and what-not, if I can make a beat-parry while my opponent is just advancing on me, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

The problem is the referee not seeing the defensive action as a defensive action. Or, the defender (7) making a bad beat. In almost all cases, the call should not be for J making a beat attack.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

It could just be a second intention parry on the part of J.

[keropie]

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?)

[rcmatthews]

well, whos the attacker? just because you are moving forward does not mean that you are the attacker.

[edew]

Moving forward alone does not make you the attacker. But going backwards seaching for the blade makes you the searcher. And if there's a blade found, it's yours.

I had a discussion about this with Michael Marx at Summer Nationals a year or so back. We were discussing Jeff Bukantz's article about the beat versus parry. Jeff wrote that a beat has priority over a parry. That is, if fencer 7 parries a beat by fencer J, fencer J's beat has priority.

What Michael said, and I completely agree with, is that if J has established right of way, and then chose to beat while fencer 7 made a parry, then fencer 7's parry has precedence. Fencer 7 is obligated to parry. J isn't obligated at that point to make any beats. If 7 finds the blade, 7 gets to take over right of way.

This rule applies equally to saber as to foil (which we were discussing). So in other words (in foil), if fencer J is making an attack and makes multiple disengages while fencer 7 is attempting to parry, then any blade contact should NOT be construed as a beat by J and, rather, be construed as a successful parry by 7. It would definitely not be kosher to consider the blade engagement as J's beat. The only way that would be called as such is if 7's blade is immobile and while J is making (unnecessary) feints, decides to beat the blade as well. Even then, it might still be called a parry by 7 if 7 even so much makes a twitch to attempt to parry, or in the case of saber, the beat occurred near 7's forte.

[KD5MDK]

That sounds to me a lot like "there is no beat, only parries". The beat isn't always about gaining priority. It also clears your opponent's blade from a line you'd like to attack, or forces them to react in a perhaps predictable way (the traditional beat-4-disengage).

If I advance with entending arm and you retreat, it is generally considered I have established priority (I have the attack). To then say that in this case I should abandon all beats as having less priority than parries seems to be a distinct disadvantage to the attack.

In general, if there is blade contact and it doesn't appear the attacker intentionally caused it, it will be called a parry in my experience. Therefore there's a special case for actions intentionally caused by the attacker, of beats, and I think that weakening this case hurts the attacker unduly.

[sabreur]

First of all, a note to Linda:

Rereading your post, I think it is important to emphasize that you should be picking the time and the line in which you want to take your opponent's blade--a semi-automatic (or unconscious) twitching or reaching for their blade will get you killed--repeatedly.

On the larger issue of beating when you already have right-of-way, I have a hard time thinking of a situation where it would be beneficial. To beat, you have to be close, and at close distance, any action other than finishing the attack is asking for bad things to happen, especially with the new timings. Academically, I can say, yes, you might want to beat, but realistically, I just think it would be an unnecessary action.

If you are close and you want to open a line (I assume because you think your opponent would be able to parry a direct attack), I think a strong feint-cut is a far better choice. There are VERY few sabreurs who will not bite at a strong feint to chest or cheek from close distance.

And the ones who are good enough to not bite at a four-feint from close distance sure as hell aren't going to let you beat their blade at close distance.

[Allen Evans]

Any suggestions on how I can force myself to stop reaching out to meet their blade rather than waiting for it to arrive?

In all weapons, it's always better to CHOOSE to parry rather than be FORCED to parry. I often find that when a student parries early, it is because they aren't attepting to make the distance - on the defense - work in their favor. I'll guess (since I've never seen you fence) that you might be one of those fencers that takes one or two retreats and then stops to try to deal with the opponent's blade.

In saber, there are only three ways to win an action: make the opponent finish too early, make the opponent finish too late, or make the opponent finish in a line that you control or have plans to control. Linda, you might pay attention to where you are on the strip when you get hit. If it's close your on guard line or right in front of your two meter warning, trying taking one or more extra retreats WITHOUT moving your blade at all. Many opponents have the opposite problem from you: they always take one or two advances and then lunge, even if they are still out of distance.

If you are not opening the space enough, taking an extra step or two WITHOUT MOVING the blade might allow you to easily see the finish of the attack and the parry should come at the right time.

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.

[Jason]

On the larger issue of beating when you already have right-of-way, I have a hard time thinking of a situation where it would be beneficial. To beat, you have to be close, and at close distance, any action other than finishing the attack is asking for bad things to happen, especially with the new timings. Academically, I can say, yes, you might want to beat, but realistically, I just think it would be an unnecessary action.

If you are close and you want to open a line (I assume because you think your opponent would be able to parry a direct attack), I think a strong feint-cut is a far better choice. There are VERY few sabreurs who will not bite at a strong feint to chest or cheek from close distance.

And the ones who are good enough to not bite at a four-feint from close distance sure as hell aren't going to let you beat their blade at close distance.

There are situations in which one beats when one already has right-of-way in sabre (and, of course, foil), particularly with the new timings.
Though one does not want to do it habitually or too often (as with anything), a beat is good element to add to an attack against an opponent who likes to attack in preparation or counter-attack.
Podznakov, for example, uses this often enough while chasing opponents.

[sabreur]

There are situations in which one beats when one already has right-of-way in sabre (and, of course, foil), particularly with the new timings.
Though one does not want to do it habitually or too often (as with anything), a beat is good element to add to an attack against an opponent who likes to attack in preparation or counter-attack.
Podznakov, for example, uses this often enough while chasing opponents.

Yes, but he doesn't use it in the final action of the attack, but rather, as you note, when he is pursuing. He often comes forward with a quinte-seconde invitation that tends to sweep a lot of stuff out of the way.

Tarantino used to prepare/pursue with a flashy counter three, with a similar effect.

Both are useful to prevent/short-circuit an attack in prep or a counter-attack, as you note.

But you're also talking about very high level sabre, and about actions that are as much counter-time as simple attacks.

But I stand corrected--there are occasions where you have right of way, and an action on the blade can be very useful.

I do see a lot of beginners who get fascinated with beats though--I constantly have to get after my kids to attack when they have right of way, not bang on the other guy's blade. D'Artagnan syndrome.

[edew]

That's my rule #2 at the club: hit the body, not the blade.

[Inquartata]

I will very often beat when I have the ROW, in one specific circumstance: when the opponent tries to throw out a point. Even if he's too close to establish, many refs ( especially those who primarily fence foil or epee ) are somewhat prejudiced in favor of the PIL and will give it anyway. A beat here is insurance.

Once in awhile I can read an opponent trying to set up a stop cut, advancing his blade slyly as he retreats. With the new timing, it can be prudent to have the insurance there, too.

[Dan H]

Linda, if you're looking for specific advice on what to do to train yourself not to search for your opponent's blade too early, try concentrating on keeping your blade and arm still in a guard position while your opponent prepares the attack. I must add a disclaimer that beyond a certain level of fencing, you don't always want to do this, but if you're just trying to train a bad habit out of your game, it might be what you want. Just pick a guard position (tierce, maybe, if you're fencing saber), and when your opponent advances, concentrate on staying right there without moving a muscle in your arm while you make the distance you need with your feet. Use your footwork to control the distance and dictate to your opponent when to finish, and once your opponent has committed to a final attack, only then move your arm to parry.

This is, of course, easier said than done. But it's basically only two things to think about: "control the distance" and "arm still."

If you do this in bouts, you'll probably find that your success is largely a question of how well you control the distance with your feet. If your opponent gets a favorable distance and tempo to attack you, it will be hard for you to parry no matter how good your technique. The bad news is you might lose a bunch of touches trying to adjust - you are, after all, working on your technique, not going all out for touches here. The good news is that you'll be working intensively on your footwork at the same time you're training yourself not to parry too early.

Again, this is no ultimate strategy for defense - a crafty opponent will note your defensive habits and start hitting you with something like feinting the finish in 4 and disengaging to hit your wrist when you go to the parry. Eventually, you'll have to change up your defense. In general, though, it's probably better to have a "base" defense of dictating and drawing your opponent's action than swinging for his blade before he's committed to finish.

[KD5MDK]

That's my rule #2 at the club: hit the body, not the blade.

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.