Tips on determining beat vs. parry

[RoninX]

I am an epeeist by trade, foilist by circumstance, and sabreur by marriage. I fence and enjoy all three weapons. I also direct all three weapons at a club level. My current club is a foil heavy club but VERY short on directing. Most people decline to call the action and often two lights are thrown out in confusion (to my disbelief). I have been told by more experienced directors that I have good "vision" and a good sense of the tempo and timing. I am IMHO a pretty good amature ref.

Many of the fencers at my club are relatively new to fencing (2 years or so) and worse, most have not fenced much competition OR had much quality reffing during free bouting at the club. The qualified refs are also the primary instuctors for the beginning and intermediate class and are otherwise engaged or conducting lessons during much of the free bouting time. You simply cannot advance past a certain point in your fencing career unless you receive some quality directing or bad habits and lazy habit (slow arm or complete lack of extension) set in.

In an effort to set a good example I have set about trying to incorporate the "proper" vocab and more recently hand signals into my reffing. However one major problem I have, with relative beginners in particular, is the beat or parry question. When directing more experienced fencers they are much sharper in their movements and I can distinguish this much more easily (they parry the foible and beat with the forte to a much greater degree).

Beginners clash the middle or their blades together and then procede to both attack/riposte. Sometimes other factors (arm extension, tempo etc) allow me to make a good call in good conscience but othertimes I just can't see it. Any advice for someone trying to work on this aspect of their reffing?

[edew]

Most beginners do beat at around the same time. In that case, it's simultaneous beat attacks, no touch. Some telling points may be whether one lunged or not, whether one was extending during the beat or not. If both beat, but one lunged, I'm likely to give the attack to the lunger (the other fencer is sort of waiting for the opponent to impale himself with the lunge, so the lunger is doing the attacking and the other person is probably parrying a beat). If the arm is extending during the beat, then it looks like an offensive action. If the arm is pulling back, then it's clearly acknowledging a threat and attempting to parry. Hence, it's again a parrying-the-beat scenario.

A lot of beginners don't move much, so to compensate for the closeness, they have to parry sooner. One thing you can do is do the beat-attack/parry-riposte drill where one fencer is supposed to beat and attack (for real) and the opponent is supposed to parry and riposte. Since both parties know who the beater is and who the parry-er is, they know their assignments. Now, make sure they are aware that there has to be two distinct and clear "clicks" of the blades, the first is the beat and the second is the parry. If there is a click-smush sound, then the parry is done too soon. Ask the parry person to make that second click as late as possible. Tell them to retreat some to make that possible.

Also, instill in the beginning fencers an absence of blade game. Use more "distance parry" tactics to avoid being hit.

[keropie]

However one major problem I have, with relative beginners in particular, is the beat or parry question. When directing more experienced fencers they are much sharper in their movements and I can distinguish this much more easily (they parry the foible and beat with the forte to a much greater degree).

Beginners clash the middle or their blades together and then procede to both attack/riposte. Sometimes other factors (arm extension, tempo etc) allow me to make a good call in good conscience but othertimes I just can't see it. Any advice for someone trying to work on this aspect of their reffing?

Well, three things that I tend to keep in mind. If you can tell who has control of the meeting of the blades, that person should get the call (pris-de-fer, tac-a-fer, attack, riposte, whatever you wanna call it). If you can't tell who controls the beat, don't use it to decide who has priority. As edew said, if both take the blade, then one lunges and one extends, you probably do have someone parrying a beat, in which case the lunger attacked, the not-lunger counterattacked. And finally, if you can't decide between the too, they did it badly, no one gets a touch. When they complain say 'I can't tell who controls the action. Both are seeking the blade, both find it, both attack. If you want the call, make it clearer.' This is the intended effect, of course, of edew's drill. If you're trying to parry and the other person is consistenly beating at the same time, you need to either allow his beat and then beat back, make a different parry (circular, closing, something), or find a tactic other than parry/riposte.

[jBirch]

I always try to determine intention (I know, I know) in the action. The guy acting defensively is doing a parry while the guy acting offensively is doing a beat attack. As edew said, after that it becomes which guy did what in what order. The last guy to hit the blade has priority.

James.

[RoninX]

I always try to determine intention (I know, I know) in the action. The guy acting defensively is doing a parry while the guy acting offensively is doing a beat attack. As edew said, after that it becomes which guy did what in what order. The last guy to hit the blade has priority.

James.

Thanks all, I'm pretty much on the right track then and I'm explaining what they need to do in a similar manner to others. I guess the only thing left is to keep on keepin' on. Hopefully some of the others start calling actions if they hear enough similar actions called.

I can hope

[catstance]

I think it'd rather be important to stick to the rule, be it a beginners game or not; we don't want to give the wrong idea in terms of rule application.

To my understanding, two things constitute a parry -- 1) foible meeting the forte, the forte side is parrying 2) a parry should effectively blocking (delineates) the attack away from its line of target. #1 balances #2 out by requiring both sufficient force and technique in a parry -- the martial and the art element in fencing.

And if both elements are ambiguous, we would THEN go by the control of blade and then distance closing. I think parry is an act of attempt to steal the ROW, a civil act that requires the application of rules rather than a general rule of thumb on interpreting the control and distance -- it wouldn't be fair to either side to apply a personal version of "common sense," when there are landmarks clearly stated in the rules.

In other words, a beat wouldn't have a foible beating the forte, we should look for signs of the initiation of the attack (extension of the arm, before the advance or the beat, by rule). And if you beat at the wrong place, tough luck -- lesson learned the hard way, but should still be worth it.

[peet]

Another rule-of-thumb that can sometimes help distinguish a beat-attack from a parry & riposte:

When:
1) Fencer A is clearly the attacker
2) Fencer B is clearly the defender
3) There is one blade contact, but it's not clear to whom it belongs

If, had there been no blade contact, you would have called Fencer A's action an attack to the target, The blade contact is probably B's parry, not A's beat.

Why? The basic idea is: A can either look for the blade or the target, but not both with the same action. If they're looking for the target (attacking), they can't be looking for the blade, so B found the blade, not A.

You can't apply this to all situations, of course, but sometimes it helps.

(Credit to Michael Marx).

-P

[catstance]

....Why? The basic idea is: A can either look for the blade or the target, but not both with the same action. If they're looking for the target (attacking), they can't be looking for the blade, so B found the blade, not A.

You can't apply this to all situations, of course, but sometimes it helps.

(Credit to Michael Marx).

-P

Exactly, because one can be extending arm while having the entire arm and blade closing into opponents' blade(target and blade at the same time)...that'd probably require a slight bit more advance level fencing.

[Inquartata]

I thought that one of the primary features of the old Italian sabre style was to parry and hit with one action. At least, when I tried my hand at that style I very often ended up doing just that: hitting as I caught my opponent's blade on my guard...

[oiuyt]

To my understanding, two things constitute a parry -- 1) foible meeting the forte, the forte side is parrying 2) a parry should effectively blocking (delineates) the attack away from its line of target. #1 balances #2 out by requiring both sufficient force and technique in a parry -- the martial and the art element in fencing.

These are poor choices of what to use to help you judge (especially in foil).

MANY parries are done with the foible. Other than in a technical sense many parries do not block the attack significantly away from target other than momentarily (with a fast enough camera you'll see a relatively large deflection of the attacker's tip when even a light beat parry is executed, but this doesn't mean that the attacker, continuing his/her action, won't hit target without significant interruption (the tip having automatically rebounded to position during the remainder of the lunge/whatever)).

Sufficient force is basically just enough to make a clicking noise. Yes, incidental scraping of the blades isn't a parry. If there's intent to create a contact and any not-insignificant contact is made, the parry had sufficient force.

-B

[jBirch]

One other bit of advice for this zombie thread...

When ref'ing beginners, I often have very loose timing in judging simultaneous actions. If there is any sort of mushiness in the action then I often call simultaneous and encourage the fencers to fence better rather then parse the phrase minutely. Helps the parents too.

James.

[KD5MDK]

It wasn't specifically stated, although edew alluded to it several times, but for any beginners reading this: You cannot parry a beat.
Except of course, in sabre, when the foible of the blade beats on the forte, or when the blade touches the opponent's guard.

[oso97]

It wasn't specifically stated, although edew alluded to it several times, but for any beginners reading this: You cannot parry a beat.
Except of course, in sabre, when the foible of the blade beats on the forte, or when the blade touches the opponent's guard.

Allow me to state it a little better, so as to clear up any further confusion.

The Beat itself cannot be parried. If a fencer moves to take a beat, and the other moves to make a parry, the beat has priority. However, after a beat occurs, the subsequent attack CAN be parried.

[KD5MDK]

I was thinking of the specific case that the beat action lands on the forte or guard.

[catstance]

These are poor choices of what to use to help you judge (especially in foil).

MANY parries are done with the foible. Other than in a technical sense many parries do not block the attack significantly away from target other than momentarily (with a fast enough camera you'll see a relatively large deflection of the attacker's tip when even a light beat parry is executed, but this doesn't mean that the attacker, continuing his/her action, won't hit target without significant interruption (the tip having automatically rebounded to position during the remainder of the lunge/whatever)).

Sufficient force is basically just enough to make a clicking noise. Yes, incidental scraping of the blades isn't a parry. If there's intent to create a contact and any not-insignificant contact is made, the parry had sufficient force.

-B

MANY parries are done with the foible. -- which is wrong.

Sufficient force is basically just enough to make a clicking noise. -- which is also wrong, it has to be able to block the attack by definition. By camera, by eye or by 4th sense -- wouldn't matter, the requirement is that it needs to happen to constitute a parry; be a remise happen or not.

What you wrote is essentially that -- because it has been called that way, it should be called that way -- there's flaw in the logic...

the two requirements I wrote were something I picked up from a while back, I can't find citation source in the mean time...but I'd like to listen to others' expert opinion on a definition (rather than loose observation)/their version of the idea.

[epeemike81]

What you wrote is essentially that -- because it has been called that way, it should be called that way -- there's flaw in the logic...

Almost... what he wrote is that because established referees call it that way, new referees should call it that way. sounds right to me.

the two requirements I wrote were something I picked up from a while back, I can't find citation source in the mean time...but I'd like to listen to others' expert opinion on a definition (rather than loose observation)/their version of the idea.

so, you're looking for an expert opinion? Well, Brad's a 3-rated referee.

I, as well, am a 3, and I agree with Brad's points.

other refs care to chime in?

-m

[jBirch]

Catstance,

There are many "quirks" between the literal interpretation of the rule book, and the application of the rules on the piste by top level referees. The very first lesson any ref needs to learn is that the interpretation of those rules is set by convention amongst the highest level refs around.

A beat in foil is different then a beat in sabre. A parry in foil is different then a parry in sabre. In sabre, there is the concept of a failed attack which does not exist in the rules for foil.

A failed attack is one which is not executed correctly (ie// has a technical flaw as defined in the rules) and has the lowest priority. In sabre, the criterion for an attack includes the stipulation that the cut does not land on the forte of the opponent's blade. It also, FWIW, includes the criterion that the edge form an angle of 130-degrees to the target (unless executing an attack with the point) and the attack land on the target before or with the front foot landing.

In foil, there is no such stipulation: you can beat on the forte and it is still considered a beat (odd, I know). You can hit well after your front foot has hit the floor. Your blade can be pointing vertically down behind your back when you start your attack and maintain that position up to your front foot landing. Because of this, a parry needs only to connect with the opponent's blade for it to be considered a parry (regardless of whether it prevents the remise from arriving or not). This is why it is difficult in foil to determine the difference between a beat and a parry. In fact, there is an established school of fencing pedagogy at the Olympic level that teaches one to parry attacks with beats.

Before we go down the rules citation route, trust me that this topic has been rehashed again, and again, and again, and again, been commented on by FIE refs and handed down from on high as being this way. You simply can not read the rules in isolation and apply them correctly without understanding the convention in interpretation as well.

Best Regards,

James.

[Allen Evans]

MANY parries are done with the foible. -- which is wrong.

Sufficient force is basically just enough to make a clicking noise. -- which is also wrong, it has to be able to block the attack by definition. By camera, by eye or by 4th sense -- wouldn't matter, the requirement is that it needs to happen to constitute a parry; be a remise happen or not.

You would be surprised how little force it takes to move a blade out of the way -- constituting the removal of the attack. Foil blades are especially whippy, and a light tap often causes BOTH tips to flex off the target, depending on the flexiability of the blades involved.

Referee's eyes don't work that fast, hence the convention of calling a tap, even with the foilable, a parry, if the defender has intiated the action, and it is done in the proper tempo.

[rcmatthews]

(rather than loose observation)/their version of the idea.

Ouiyt's loose observations likely count for more than most peoples heavily thought out opinions in this area.

[catstance]

Catstance,

There are many "quirks" between the literal interpretation of the rule book, and the application of the rules on the piste by top level referees. The very first lesson any ref needs to learn is that the interpretation of those rules is set by convention amongst the highest level refs around.

A beat in foil is different then a beat in sabre. A parry in foil is different then a parry in sabre. In sabre, there is the concept of a failed attack which does not exist in the rules for foil.

A failed attack is one which is not executed correctly (ie// has a technical flaw as defined in the rules) and has the lowest priority. In sabre, the criterion for an attack includes the stipulation that the cut does not land on the forte of the opponent's blade. It also, FWIW, includes the criterion that the edge form an angle of 130-degrees to the target (unless executing an attack with the point) and the attack land on the target before or with the front foot landing.

In foil, there is no such stipulation: you can beat on the forte and it is still considered a beat (odd, I know). You can hit well after your front foot has hit the floor. Your blade can be pointing vertically down behind your back when you start your attack and maintain that position up to your front foot landing. Because of this, a parry needs only to connect with the opponent's blade for it to be considered a parry (regardless of whether it prevents the remise from arriving or not). This is why it is difficult in foil to determine the difference between a beat and a parry. In fact, there is an established school of fencing pedagogy at the Olympic level that teaches one to parry attacks with beats.

Before we go down the rules citation route, trust me that this topic has been rehashed again, and again, and again, and again, been commented on by FIE refs and handed down from on high as being this way. You simply can not read the rules in isolation and apply them correctly without understanding the convention in interpretation as well.

Best Regards,

James.

Thanks for the explanation, James. I do understand that there's always a slight bit of gap between how things are done in reality and it being interpreted in different manners by the book.

What I'd like to know, is how far does the literal interpretation gets implemented in reality...and obviously, by the way most are explaining, that we're very much limited by the capability of referee in seeing it (for the parry, in this case) that draws the general convention of calls. Now, should it actually be visible, would referees be concious enough to stick by the definition and call it malparry or whatnot in reality?

btw, I do live in reality, and of course I know how its generally being called...but should it be called, and how far could/should we redefine the definition owing to reality (redraw the mean by the ends) -- I think that'd beg for a totally different response to the thread.