Beat Attack: Simple or Compound?

[reawl]

The debate at the club is currently whether a beat attack is simple or compound. One side claims they've been told by fencing masters that the beat attack is compound, going on, they explain it is a beat plus an attack. The most convincing argument being that if you miss the beat (ie. opponent derobes), the opponent then has a chance to make an attack and score.

The other side responds with the beat not fitting into the category of a compound attack as a compound attack is defined as "a simple attack proceeded by one or more feints or preparations". Both sides agree a beat is not a feint, but the idea of a beat being a preparation or not is a little foggy. This side arguing that the beat attack was simple demonstrated that a feint caused a visual "break in time", that there was a pause and that any preparation would have the same effect.

In the end, all of us agree on how it is executed and called, etc. etc. The real reason for asking is in regards as to where to lump it in to a fencing curriculum: either with the simple attacks or with the compound. Rep points for anyone who can site printed or equivalent reliable source.

[RebelFencer]

It is a compound attack. Is the beat the attack? No. The attack is the attack. A beat by itself is a simple action. An attack by itself is a simple action. Two simple actions combined equal a compound action.

[keropie]

And of course on the other side it's a simple attack, in that you require no response by your opponent. Another way of defining a compound attack is an action where you make a preparation/feint to read your opponent's reaction and then make an appropriate decision. The beat attack fails that definition (usuallly) as you smack the blade, smack the guy.

A feint-deceive satisfies that definition, as that you feint, wait for the parry, deceive the parry and hit the target. Of course, there are other possibilities, but the feint is there to draw a reaction, and then you deal with the reaction. The beat is (rarely) used that way.

I've always heard this as a French (simple) vs. Italian (compound) argument. Depending on how you want to define it, either is correct. If you want to use the rulebook's concepts of simple vs. compound, I'd have to say it's compound (simple attacks are not open to attacks into preparation (since they don't have one), and a derobement/trompement would be an attack on preparation vs. a beat attack). Most of the foil coaches I've worked with, however, define the beat attack as one of the four simple attack (along with straight thrust, change beat attack, and disengage).

Clearly, this is just a difference of opinion based on different schools of thought. No real right or wrong answer.

[mrbiggs]

The beat is not part of the attack at all. It is an action used to prepare for the attack.

A beat-simple attack is a simple attack, while a beat-compound attack is a compound attack.

As you said, if the beat succeeds, it guarantees RoW for the attack that follows immediately, whereas if it fails, it loses RoW. It's the same as a parry in terms of RoW; it doesn't affect the resulting attack apart from ensuring RoW.

But that's just my opinion.

[epeemike81]

It is a compound attack. Is the beat the attack? No. The attack is the attack. A beat by itself is a simple action. An attack by itself is a simple action. Two simple actions combined equal a compound action.

the beat is not a simple action, it's a non-action.

-m

[RebelFencer]

the beat is not a simple action, it's a non-action.

-m

Isn't it an action on the blade though? It seems to me that a non-action would be, you know, not doing anything. *shrugs* I could be wrong, but that's how it works in my mind.

[CvilleFencer]

A beat is a preparation. What you do after the beat can be simple, compound, direct, indirect, offensive, defensive or nothing at all. It would be like saying an advance lunge is a compound action because it is an advance + lunge...

[RebelFencer]

A beat is a preparation. What you do after the beat can be simple, compound, direct, indirect, offensive, defensive or nothing at all. It would be like saying an advance lunge is a compound action because it is an advance + lunge...

I get what you are saying, and that makes sense. Although the footwork analogy doesn't necessarily work since footwork is not as direct as blade to blade contact. But I do get your point.

[oiuyt]

(excerpts from chapter 2)

Simple and Compound Actions
Regarding the complexity of movements, all fencing actions may be divided into simple actions (one movement) and compound actions (more than one movement). Generally, we may state that simple actions consist of one movement of the weapon while compound actions comprise more than one movement of the weapon (for example, a compound attack or a thrust preceded by actions on the opponent's blade).

<SNIP>

Here it must be mentioned that in the French school, all actions on the blade (engagement, pressure, beats, bindings, transfers) are considered as preparartory actions -- so called preparations of the attack. In my opinion, actions on the blade ought to be considered as preparatory only when they fulfill the purposes listed previously under Preparatory Actions (hindering the opponent's concentration, trying to assess how strongly or lightly the opponent holds the weapon, disturbing his attention, etc.). Actions on the blade ought to be considered an integral, introductory part of a compound attack when the beat, binding, pressure or transfer is followed smoothly and immediately by a thrust, cut or feint. In other words, when the action on the blade and the following part of the attack form one technical and tactical unit and are executed fluently, they should be classified as a compound action (for example, fourth-beat and disengagement in foil, sixth-binding and direct thrust with opposition in epee, fourth-beat and cut to head in sabre, etc.).

Seems a reasonable view to me.

-B

[qatet]

Pish tush. That guy gets beat attacks confused with drunken carousing butterflies. What could he _possibly_ know?

[RebelFencer]

Hooray! I'm not crazy!

[oiuyt]

Hooray! I'm not crazy!

Well, let's not get carried away.... :)

-B

[jBirch]

There are two distinct ways of looking at this issue:

From a refereeing perspective, beats = preparatioons. Period. As such, all beat-attack patterns are compound actions.

From a coaching perspective, the issue is a little more muddy. When we teach beat-attack we can divide the movement down into "simple beats" and "compound beats".

Simple beats are those actions where the purpose of the beat is to move the blade physically out of the way so that a simple thrust/lunge/fleche can score. In this scenario, the beat-attack is executed as a single unit with the extension immediately following the beat. You can think of this as a simple action because the extension will follow regardless of the opponent's response. Another term for this is a "prepared" action or an "eyes closed" action.

Compound beats are those actions upon the blade that are designed to elicit a response from the opponent. These are the beats that are designed to draw a counter-beat which can then be disengaged or to disrupt an opponent's efforts to create opportunity (a counter-preparation as it were). As such, they must be executed with a slight hesitation between the beat and the following action. In this way they can be thought of as compound because they are executed in two distinct parts: different things may follow the beat depending upon the perceived response. Another term for this is a "partially-prepared" action or an "eyes open" action.

Hope this helps.

James.

[Allen Evans]

Is "compound beat" a Canadian naming convention? I've never heard the phrase used in US seminars. I've always heard this type of beat simply refered to as a preparation, or a "beat in preparation".

Allen

[jBirch]

Is "compound beat" a Canadian naming convention? I've never heard the phrase used in US seminars. I've always heard this type of beat simply refered to as a preparation, or a "beat in preparation".

Allen

Nah, I just adapted the concept for this thread. "Beat in preparation" creates the belief that there are "beats that are preparations" and "beats that are not preparations", which is confusing.

I actually never learned the official nomenclature for the various types of beats. I was always taught simply that there are "three beats: strong (to deflect the blade), medium (to invite a disengage) and weak (to disrupt the opponent)"

Besides, you're just jealous that we beat you guys in the World Junior's of Hockey.

James.

[noodle]

i don't see a beat as preparation. for you fellow CS/CE guys, i see it as a transition, not a state. you can't be beating the blade for any length of time, because if you do, it turns into a press.

because of the transition from preparation into an attack, it is compound. it isn't just one state, its a multiple state action. compound.

(this seriously got me thinking about building a finite state machine on how to fence)

[epeemike81]

From a refereeing perspective, beats = preparatioons. Period. As such, all beat-attack patterns are compound actions.

uh, these two sentences are contradictory... if I prepare and then attack, is it a compound attack? no. it's a simple attack after a preparation.

-m

[jBirch]

Isn't, by definition, the first part of a compound action a preparation???

James.

[oiuyt]

jBirch: "eyes closed" vs "eyes open"

Uhm, these aren't what separates simple from compound. Compound actions can be "eyes closed". I have a premeditated plan. I'm going to feint to wrist, draw a four-parry, and hit with a disengage. I execute my plan. That was an example of an "eyes closed" action. It was also an example of a compound action.

Open vs. closed refers to the premeditation of the finish, not whether or not the finish is the initial action.

Noodle: The initiation of an extension is a transition. One cannot be initiating an extension for any length of time, it's an instantaneous thing. It is a transition from a preparation to an attack (assuming other qualities of an attack -- opponent isn't attacking, is within distance, etc.). "because of the transition from preparation into an attack, it is compound. it isn't just one state, its a multiple state action. compound." Therefore a straight thrust is compound.

I think we can all agree that the conclusion is wrong, therefore there must be a flaw in the argument. I posit that the flaw is the quoted assertion.

-B

[oiuyt]

Isn't, by definition, the first part of a compound action a preparation???

James.

No, because then in-time stophits would be attacks in preparation. They are different things.

The first part of a compound attack is part of an attack. Preparations are what you do before the attack begins.

Note: check out the second portion of the Czajkowski quote above, where he points out a difference between his terminology (which can allow for beats, etc. to be the first portion of a compound attack) and the French terminology (which moves them exclusively into a preparation role. Either Czajkowski or the French would consider a feint to be a part of a compound attack and neither would consider it a preparation.

-B