Teaching Preparitory Footwork

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by acaba

Allen, can you explain what you mean by "classes" of preps? Is a class a particular combination of footwork/bladework? Can you give a couple of examples?

I dont have any good examples of this for epee -- I've only heard it alluded to in conversation* -- but think of the examples in saber such as:

Actions from Breaking the Distance: The opponent is made to lunge into an expanding space in order to execute a counter-attack, take over attack, or simple parry riposte.

Actions from Simultaneous: actions done after one or more simultaneous actions such as a parry in the expected line of the opponent's cut, breaking tempo by attacking a near target, and so on.

Counter-time Actions while Coming Forward: small blade invitations to encourage a counter-attack, changes of tempo of the feet to encourage the opponent to attempt to attack into preparation (and the methods of finishing with simple accelerated attack or parry and riposte), and so on.

Just a few ideas. Some of these could be subdivided or put into a different catagory, or different "Classes" could be created (lumping all parry and ripostes together into a class, for instance). The idea is to find actions that are "sort of the same" and show a few examples of each to the student, when time is limited. In saber, it might be possible to cover all possible actions (though not all possible distances, but one tends to drive the other).

In epee, perhaps not so easy. But if the student can be taught a few actions from each "Class" one might hope that the student could use past knowledge to build and learn new actions in that class**.


Allen

*This was part of my geas to put a tactical stucture on epee, which I'm still pursuing with little success.

**I realize that this is a huge leap of faith.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Here's how he seemed to deal with it. Once I was good with an action, he and I would move back and forth at the edge of diastance, just playing with it, playing with the blades a bit as well. The actions themselves were set up so that his cue would collapse the distance a bit, and that my first action would collapse it a bit more, to the point where I was in range for second and/or third intentions to higher percentage targets like the chest and flank. He also gave the cues at very good times, generally when the distance between us was right for it, or something I had done with the blade seemed to warrant him making the cue. This was not something discussed, just what I seemed to get out of the lesson. There really was not much talking going on.

All in all, though, it seemed like an excellent approach. Having the cue be a realistic action and giving it when this playing with distance/bladework seems like a great way to teach a fencer to draw that cue and begin the collapse of distance. I was quite impressed.

This sounds very much what Gary Copeland at NCF would call a "hunting" lesson. One or two actions are specified, and the coach manuevers at the limit of distance, occasionally "falling" for traps set by the student, while giving cues much like the opponent would give in the bout. Depending on the level of the student, the coach can give a lot of misleading cues and force the student to discern the right time to go, or keep it simpler, and simply demand that the student respect the space.

It's actually a very easy lesson to give, but a very hard lesson to take. The student should have strong technical skills to start with.

Allen

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

This sounds very much what Gary Copeland at NCF would call a "hunting" lesson. One or two actions are specified, and the coach manuevers at the limit of distance, occasionally "falling" for traps set by the student, while giving cues much like the opponent would give in the bout. Depending on the level of the student, the coach can give a lot of misleading cues and force the student to discern the right time to go, or keep it simpler, and simply demand that the student respect the space.

It's actually a very easy lesson to give, but a very hard lesson to take. The student should have strong technical skills to start with.

Allen

Yeah, it wasn't easy. He would do the first repetition without the movement, and then eery one thereafter was very boutlike. Also, after some of them he would attack me and I would have to parry, score on a riposte, and then score on a remise. Not strictly in line with this thread, but it was a sueful part of the lesson. I'm not sure if it was random or if it was based on some facotr like my vulnerability to an attack at any given time.

[darius]

So, very simply put:
Cue = wrong, Distance = wrong. Fencer = dead.
Cue = right, Distance = wrong. Fencer = dead.
Cue = wrong, Distance = right. Fencer = dead.
Cue = right, Distance = right. Coach = dead.

Death-avoidance Solutions for Fencer:
- Don't react to the false cue/false distance.
- Change the action to suit the cue/distance.

With a little thought, it makes sense in all 3 weapons, too. The application is different, of course.

Regarding classes of preparation:

I dont have any good examples of this for epee

I'm just going to throw something at the wall here, and see what anybody else can come up with.

- Invitations.
- False attacks: thrust or flick (usually at close targets, wrist/foot).
- Engagements: beat or press.

They can be combined and function as foreseen, unforeseen, or partially-foreseen, depending on how the coach/fencer want to structure the lesson/bout/strategic universe.

Example (partially-foreseen):
S: Beat-flick
- C: Counterattack, S: Countertime w/ opposition.
- C: Withdraw hand, S: Remise w/ Fleche.
- C: Break distance, S: Bounces.

Example (foreseen):
S: Beat-flick, C: counterattacks.
S: Beat-flick, C: counterattacks, S: countertime w/ opposition.

darius

[RITFencing]

Darius, I'll respond in full later (bit busy atm) but that seems like the next step in the progression. I wasn't getting any false cues in the last lesson, and they were always delivered at a decent distance (or, more precisely, they always adjusted the distance approriately for the next part of the action.)

I have another one on Friday; maybe it'll get into more decision making stuff. Lord knows I could use it.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by darius

I'm just going to throw something at the wall here, and see what anybody else can come up with.

- Invitations.
- False attacks: thrust or flick (usually at close targets, wrist/foot).
- Engagements: beat or press.

They can be combined and function as foreseen, unforeseen, or partially-foreseen, depending on how the coach/fencer want to structure the lesson/bout/strategic universe.

Darius:

This is pretty straightforward for epee, and the sort of thing I've toyed with before. These preparations usually occur at the edge, or just inside of, criticial distance. There are many many good lessons to be given just as you have described above.

My question has always been -- at least in epee -- is there a class of preparations that has to be considered just beyound that? In other words, preparations that have to be considered outside of advance lunge distance? Perhaps there is not, but I'm not sure. I have a lot of anecdotal evidence -- from watching fencers get hit at their own advance lunge distance -- that tells me that something else is going on.

Perhaps it's just bad preparation on the fencer's part (and in a large number of cases, it certainly is). But is that the only reason these touches happen?

Allen

[darius]

My question has always been -- at least in epee -- is there a class of preparations that has to be considered just beyound that? In other words, preparations that have to be considered outside of advance lunge distance? Perhaps there is not, but I'm not sure.

I guess the issue is that in the convention weapons, there is a sense of state that doesn't exist in epee. If I make a movement outside of fencing distance, and my opponent reacts to that movement, the referee will use that movement as a context for what happens next.

In epee, that doesn't exist, so it's natural to throw things that happen outside of fencing distance out.

I have a lot of anecdotal evidence -- from watching fencers get hit at their own advance lunge distance -- that tells me that something else is going on.

I've watched far less epee than the other two weapons. That said:

I'm now thinking about Adam Watson, who capitalizes on this a lot. He's smaller than most of his competition, but he has great foot speed, so he starts from extremely long distance and then makes basically a convention attack to the arm with a double-advance lunge. The preparation happens at a longer distance that most epee by nature of the fact that he wants to stay away, but the sequencing of preparation/real action still holds. It's just that the critical distance is different based on the tactical matchup.

You can catalog what any given fencer does outside of distance, but you're going to have a pretty large book - the variability in movement in epeeists who are keeping "safe" distance is greater than the other weapons. From a teaching standpoint, there's a huge argument for simplicity. From a knowledge-seeking standpoint, this is incredibly interesting, but I'm a little skeptical that there's much that would significantly affect outcomes. (Other than causing the other epeeist to get bored, and rush.)

darius

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Darius:
My question has always been -- at least in epee -- is there a class of preparations that has to be considered just beyound that? In other words, preparations that have to be considered outside of advance lunge distance? Perhaps there is not, but I'm not sure. I have a lot of anecdotal evidence -- from watching fencers get hit at their own advance lunge distance -- that tells me that something else is going on.

Perhaps it's just bad preparation on the fencer's part (and in a large number of cases, it certainly is). But is that the only reason these touches happen?

Allen

Isn't this just zone theory by another name?

James.

[Adler]

Originally Posted by darius

- C: Break distance, S: Bounces.

Are you being serious?

[darius]

- C: Break distance, S: Bounces.

Are you being serious?

Don't let this thread drift -- it's really good stuff here!!

My tongue is firmly in cheek here. (Earlier in the post, I insinuate that based on the action, either the coach or the fencer dies. That doesn't really happen, I promise.) But the action is real enough; if distance breaks during the students preparation, they should be resetting. Pushing is OK, but trying to finish an action as the opponent is going backwards hard is a recipe for disaster, IMHO.

darius