Coaching: (Epee) Counter-attacks w/ opposition vs. Parry-Riposte w/ opposition

[jBirch]

Hey All,

I was speaking to another coach at a competition recently and he was of the opinion that instead of teaching classic parry 4-riposte (hand in almost full pronation, tip curve heading out-to-in) as part of the epee curriculum that we should be teaching engage in 4 counter-attack with the hand in neutral position (tip curve going down).

For those of you less technically inclined, instead of taking the parry and riposting smoothly, we simply "jam" the attack as it comes.

Thoughts? Is this just a stylistic thing that will work for some and not others or is it a technically superior base to build the defensive aspect of epee upon?

James.

[Epee Scherma]

From my experience, I've been taught to hardly ever roll my wrist around in a parry four, i leave my hand in the "neutral" (thumb at 12 oclock) and yaw over to four while extending.

As far as I know, rolling the wrist over into four is kinda old school classical...isn't as fast or effective. I've also noticed that point control of the reposte is better if the wrist doesn't pronate because its not a very natural way to make an extension and the tip curve is all out of whack (not in the standard position).

In regards whether to make defintiive parry-reposte versus an extending counterthrust in opposition of the line, it really depends on the situation. Sometimes one is necessary while other times the latter can be used. If the latter can be used, its generally more effective then your standard parry reposte but requires a little more anticipation and timing of your opponent's attack and the line it is following.

The latter type of parry reposte you have been describing, that seems to "jam" the attack, its kind of in the hazy middle area between a counter attack and parry reposte in categorization don't you think?You describe this action as not very smooth, more as a jamming motion...however I believe when done in good distance it's generally a very beautiful response to an opponents attack IMHO.

[DJ Apostrophe]

When I finish an action in four (regardless of how I got there), I always roll my thumb over if I'm fencing a righty (I'm left handed), it gives a better angle for my point to stick and not slide off... fencing another lefty, I'm more likely to keep my thumb more vertical, or roll it less because the angles are different.

-w

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Thoughts? Is this just a stylistic thing that will work for some and not others or is it a technically superior base to build the defensive aspect of epee upon?

I think both actions have their place primarily because the two actions have a different timing. The hand action is similar, I would think, but the timing of the hit will be different. I think that which action is safer or "more right" depends partially on the timing and distance of the attack they're defending against.

From what I've seen, newer epee students have an easier time with the counter with opposition. It feels more natural to them, especially if you've already taught them to defend with the point. The timing is the same; they're just making the counter in opposition now. With the parry riposte, they tend to rush and often start moving into the riposte too soon (before starting to extend and/or before the attack is really over). That leaves them open to the immediate remise. But I believe that the timing of the riposte is still useful in many situations. An opponent who gets used to the counter attack in opposition timing will someimtes feel that the exchange is over, and the defender can sometimes catch him starting to relax just as the riposte starts to penetrate to target.

In any case, I feel that teaching these two actions back to back is a good way to start getting students to think about the timing of their actions. Make the hand position similar enough, and they basically have one action that they can do at two different times. It forces them to control the timing of the engagement and the thrust. It may also force them to change how they hand coordinates with the feet, which is a good thing. Finally, it gives them something very simple to do with the hand and lets them focus on feeling the timing of the hit. That hopefully starts them thinking about the other actions they know and gives them the idea to experiment and fiddle with the timing of other actions they know.

My $0.02.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I was speaking to another coach at a competition recently and he was of the opinion that instead of teaching classic parry 4-riposte (hand in almost full pronation, tip curve heading out-to-in) as part of the epee curriculum that we should be teaching engage in 4 counter-attack with the hand in neutral position (tip curve going down).

i've never been taught to parry in full pronation. its usually about 15-20 deg. CCW of neutral.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by noodle

i've never been taught to parry in full pronation. its usually about 15-20 deg. CCW of neutral.

Right. I probably should have mentioned that in my replay. I don't think that I've ever taught (or seen taught) a parry 4 where the hand ends up in full pronation. I like a more neutral hand position for most parries.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by keith

it really depends on the movement of the opponent.

This sentance right here is really important, at least IMHO. Not just for this action, but for fencing in general, it's a great thing to keep in mind.

As far as the parry riposte vs counter with opposition... I think both should be taught. As far as which should be taught first... I'd have to say the counter with opposition. I'll have to start doing it this way with my students. I'm not even sure I'd start it as a counter attack; just a thrust with opposition.

I don't think it's a good idea for epeeists when just starting out to get into a foil-like mindset of offense and defense; there's no right of way in epee; either you hit him going forward or hit him going back. What blade action you do depends on your distance and your opponent's action. That way, they stop thinking in terms of right of way, however loose, and start thinking "I got him to get in distance and give me the blade. Cool. *hit*" whether they're being attacked, pressing the opponent, or whatever.

[seven6ty]

If the blade is curving in, you're more likely to hit target that is closer to you. If you keep it straight up and down, you'll have to go further before hitting your target. Why would you want to make yourself reach further to hit?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

As far as the parry riposte vs counter with opposition... I think both should be taught. As far as which should be taught first... I'd have to say the counter with opposition. I'll have to start doing it this way with my students. I'm not even sure I'd start it as a counter attack; just a thrust with opposition.

I don't think it's a good idea for epeeists when just starting out to get into a foil-like mindset of offense and defense;

Imre Vass and some of the more reputable coaches around here disagree. They believe that epee is built upon the foundation of foil and that therefor parries are taught before counter-attacks.

there's no right of way in epee; either you hit him going forward or hit him going back.

Beautiful quote.

What blade action you do depends on your distance and your opponent's action.

As one of my younger students says, "Well D'UH!!" *grin*

Good comments so far, but nothing insightful yet...

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by keith

As a general thought for epee parries - the initial hand position should always be neutral (quarte/sixte/octave) any additional movement is dependent on how much/little extra angle is required for the hit to be delivered.

This foregoes the notion that a parry should dominate the attack. The hand position also needs to tilt to take the insistence of the attack into account as well...

And that brings up a thought: the riposte CONTROLS the stong straight remise better then the counter-attack which must, by necessity, be mechanically weaker.

Hmmm...

James.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Imre Vass and some of the more reputable coaches around here disagree. They believe that epee is built upon the foundation of foil and that therefor parries are taught before counter-attacks.

Ok, I am going on a slew of tangents all over fnet today...

Sure, a lot of people who know way more about fencing than I do say that epee (or sometimes all of fencing) should be based of of foil. There are also many who know a lot more than me who say otherwise. I think in epee especially, it's about making whatever you do work, using the distance and the tempo and other actions to set up what you want. That's one of the things I find so interesting about epee; it can be very free form.

For me, and for most of the people I teach, teaching epee as its own identity rather than based on foil seems to work well. While foil like actions can certainly score, I think it's important to remember that these actions are not the only ones available, and to base all of epee off of the conventions or right of way is very limiting, tactically. I prefer to teach fencers to think like an epeeist first, to think more about the distance opening and closing and opportunities being created than who is attacking, who is defending and who is counter attacking. After that, I start to talk more in fencing terms, but I still try to be careful about locking them into a frame of mind.

The bit about the distance, I think is one of the huge differences between epee and foil. In foil, it matters who is going forward and who is going back; who is attacking and who is defending. In epee, whether you are going forward or back, if you want to hit with a bind, be it a take and hit ala parry riposte, or a thrust with opposition, you need to adjust that distance and possibly get the opponent to stick out their blade. That could be done coming forward with a short attack as an invitation and taking a counter time parry riposte, it could be done with a simple prise de fer attack, or it could be done by allowing a chasing fencer to close distance and then taking a parry riposte or thrust with opposition while moving back. Three very different situations, and there are certainly others as well, but in each the blade action is the same.

I realize that in foil the fencers must be able to control the distance and tempo just as well, but in a very different way. There it matters who is attacking and who is defending (duh.)

To come back to the original question (finally) I think that both should be taught, but not as a counter attack and a parry riposte. Teach fencers to do both going forward and going back, as an aggressor and a defender. Get them thinking about how to create the opportunity to do this in multiple situations, and stress that it doesn't matter if they were attacked, counter attacked, whatever. Just that they closed the distance enough, controlled the tempo to keep control of the distance, got their opponent to give them the blade, and hit. Attacks, parries, whatever... that's just flavor text. Just teach them to bind and hit, and thrust with opposition. Kids are so damn smart that they'll figure the rest of the stuff out if you give them a few hints.

[jBirch]

To come back to the original question (finally) I think that both should be taught, but not as a counter attack and a parry riposte. Teach fencers to do both going forward and going back, as an aggressor and a defender. Get them thinking about how to create the opportunity to do this in multiple situations, and stress that it doesn't matter if they were attacked, counter attacked, whatever. Just that they closed the distance enough, controlled the tempo to keep control of the distance, got their opponent to give them the blade, and hit. Attacks, parries, whatever... that's just flavor text. Just teach them to bind and hit, and thrust with opposition. Kids are so damn smart that they'll figure the rest of the stuff out if you give them a few hints.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're thinking that a parry is just another way to get the opponent to give you the blade, right? Rather then protecting yourself from the attack (and through the insistence) and then taking advantage of the moment after the attack is foiled (ha!), you're actively using the parry to take control of the opponent's blade. The subtle difference being, the parry in foil is a largely REACTIVE action, while the parry in epee is a largely ACTIVE one.

Interesting idea...

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by keith

the word dominate perhaps overstates the aim - after all the whole principle or forte to foible is that you rely on physics to do the dominating not your muscles. A counter with opposition is just an abbreviation of the parry riposte with opposition action - the physics should (if you are doing it right) be the same.

Perhaps. What I was thinking was that the primary purpose of the parry in epee is to stop the attack from arriving and then further to prevent the insistence from forcing through. It must therefor "dominate" the attack through mechanical advantage so that the attack simply can not arrive. The purpose of the counter-attack/stop hit w/opposition is to hit them first and then to make it difficult for the insistence to arrive without triggering at least a double touch. It's essentially a "Mutually Assured Destruction" type strategy. One is a largely defensive action, the other, offensive/defensive (best defense is a good offense kind of idea).

Hand position plays little role here - what it does achieve is better angles, and a psychological effect. Try taking quarte or sixte or octave with a neutral hand then separately adding the pronation/supination. Assuming you have parried correctly the neutral hand protects from the remise but it may not provide the angle for the riposte or draw a reaction from the opponent; this is what the extra movement adds.

I disagree. I've found that the pronation of the hand on parry 4 creates better mechanical advantage (similar to forte on foible) for the insistence. It serves not just an angular advantage on the riposte but primarily a physical one to stop the attack.

The danger of adding this into the action of the parry is that if your parry is deceived your have more open target - and every square cm counts in epee.

I disagree. Both parry styles require roughly the same amount of opening of the outside target to stop the attack.

not necessarily - both control the remise equally well but the counter action is much more dependent upon timing. A badly timed counter attack (with or without opposition) is asking for trouble - hence the point of parries first even in epee. In any weapon first and foremost is distance - and while you are learning this parries are safer.

The point of the counter-attack w/ opposition is not to control the remise per se, but rather, to make it too dangerous to continue. The point of the parry is to fully stop both the attack and any straight continuation. I agree that there is a subtle distance difference and a slight timing difference as well: the counter must be executed slightly farther and slightly faster then the parry.

It is also I think (or rather I have been taught to think) easier to separate the actions of riposte with opposition and counter with opposition if one first has mastery of the parry riposte.

So my pedagogy dictates as well.

James.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by jBirch

So, if I understand you correctly, you're thinking that a parry is just another way to get the opponent to give you the blade, right? Rather then protecting yourself from the attack (and through the insistence) and then taking advantage of the moment after the attack is foiled (ha!), you're actively using the parry to take control of the opponent's blade. The subtle difference being, the parry in foil is a largely REACTIVE action, while the parry in epee is a largely ACTIVE one.

Interesting idea...

James.

Almost... I think you have to get them to give you the blade before you parry (some epeeists fence with the blade out there already, but many move the tip around, fence absence of blade, whatever.)

You've got the gist of what I'm saying, though. I don't necessarily think of it as defense, or at least I try not to. It's just another way to control the opponent's blade and use that to hit.

As far as take and hit vs thrust with opposition, I think distance is the big thing to determine which you should do. If the opponent's tip is far away, a thrust with opposition will work fine because you have to bring the forte and bell guard forward in a diagonal motion (at least that's how I do it) to catch the tip. When their tip is much closer to you, a diagonal motion will not catch their tip/foible, so taking a more lateral bind without that forward motion is better to ensure good opposition.

Sometimes, of course, a fencer might have to defend himself with a bind. In epee especially, absolutes don't seem to work very well. However, I think a fencer should always try to be in control of the bout, trying to control when the opponent attacks (or just gives you the blade) and at what distance they do so, and if a fencer is successful in this, they are really not in very much danger. Like I tell me kids, if you're doing what you want, and they're doing what you want, you're probably going to score.

Oh, and while I'm not an expert on foil, I've been thinking about it a lot lately... should a parry really be reactive and soley defensive in nature there? I know that by a strict defintion, parries are a defensive action, but don't good foilists also try to set up parry ripostes and counter parry ripostes? In terms of right of way and fencing terminology, sure, that's defense, but any defense that active and assertive just looks like a preparation and offense to me.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Oh, and while I'm not an expert on foil, I've been thinking about it a lot lately... should a parry really be reactive and soley defensive in nature there? I know that by a strict defintion, parries are a defensive action, but don't good foilists also try to set up parry ripostes and counter parry ripostes? In terms of right of way and fencing terminology, sure, that's defense, but any defense that active and assertive just looks like a preparation and offense to me.

I agree completely. The primary tactical purpose of the parry to score with the riposte. If you're just parrying to defend yourself, you give up control of the bout. The primary defense is footwork.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

I agree completely. The primary tactical purpose of the parry to score with the riposte. If you're just parrying to defend yourself, you give up control of the bout. The primary defense is footwork.

Yeah, but this presupposes that all defensive actions are preconceived (ie// I can choose between a parry and footwork). I would argue that the first duty of a good parry is to stop the attack. Period. And that it should be coupled with a "re-establishing" action to regain some equilibrium between the fencers (ie// a riposte, a retreat, a feint, a beat, whatever). After that, a choice of offensive actions should follow based on any conditions that are presented as a result of stopping the attack.

I don't agree with the mindset of "parry-riposte" as a deliberate strategy as it cedes control of the bout to the opponent. Note, that a "parry-riposte" strategy is different from an "entice the blade to take it" strategy. In the first, the attack is allowed to penetrate. In the second, the attack is taken over either with distance ("turning the corner actions") or with blade work (prise-de-fer actions) or with body evasions (esquives). In this second regard, what looks like a parry, is really an offensive action with opposition.

My question is really about teaching this reflexive OH SHI! action. Should it be a parry, or should it be an opposition attack?

James.

[RITFencing]

Quote: