Parry and reposte

[big daddy]

I am trying to decide if I should teach my beginner s class to retreat and parry , then repost with a lunge. Or the classic stand and parry; reposte with an extension. I like both but im afraid that teaching both might be a little too much at this level. What are your thoughts on this subject?

[Allen Evans]

What footwork is the attacker using to make the attack?

What distance are you starting the attacker/defender at?

AE

[big daddy]

I'll be starting the attackers at lunge distance then later move them to advance lunge distance.

[Allen Evans]

Start them JUST inside the attacker's lunge distance. Have them retreat, and parry. Then the riposte can be done with a simple extension. For those that retreat too much, they can make a little lunge on the riposte.

AE

[big daddy]

Just inside the attacker lunge? why so close?

[Allen Evans]

"Just inside" meaning 3-6 inches inside, depending on the skill of the students. A small retreat should take the defender just outside of the lunge distance of the attacker.

Why so close? If you have them far away from each other, and the defender retreats on the parry, the distance becomes very artificial. Why should the attackers be lunging over a distance they can't possibly hit at? Why should the defenders parry if they can't be hit with the lunge?

If you just want to teach a mechanical exercise in making parries and ripostes, that's different. I would just have the "attackers" extend and advance slowly, and the defenders parry and riposte (also slowly). This is a mechanical exercise in executing a fencing "thing" (the parry and riposte) and will work as well as anything when teaching a technical skill.

If you are teaching a fencing skill, there isn't any reason not to make it slightly more dynamic. It won't be as pretty a drill, but the smart ones see right away that this whole fencing thing involves distance AND blade work.

AE

[big daddy]

I understand, at that distance they will have to retreat and parry or be hit. Once again Allen, thanks.

[jBirch]

I've found reasonable success with teaching beginners to "stay in the fight".

(at lunge distance)
A: Lunge to chest.
B: Parry, riposte.
A: Recover backward.
B: Lunge to chest.
A: Parry, riposte.
B: Recover backward.

I find this teaches a number of things.

1) Parries are scary. We should only employ parries when we can't move our feet. We have to take parries much closer then we would like and at the last possible moment. BUT, if we do a good parry, we're safe.

2) There is an opportunity to hit right after you make a parry. If you don't do it fast enough, you'll miss that opportunity.

3) It's generally not a good idea to "chase" your opponent right after a parry. Riposte with the arm first, then think about the lunge.

4) If you are parried, make sure you lunge in balance so that you can recover before they hit you.

5) When you lunge, don't "over-lunge". Your back foot shouldn't move (in a beginner lunge).

I prefer NOT to complicate the instruction of a basic blade technique by coupling it with footwork as I prefer to emphasise that the purpose of a parry is to set up a riposte. So, I like to focus on what happens AFTER the parry, rather then do things WITH the parry. In order for the riposte to work, they have to make the retreat AFTER the riposte.

And introducing movement into an already hard drill (remember, parries are all about timing as well as correct technique) just sets them up for failure, IMHO. I would like to add though, that we also teach a "distance parry" riposte drill with lunge:

At adv-lunge distance:
A: Adv-lunge to chest.
B: Retreat after the advance.
B: Stop.
B: Lunge to chest.
A: Recover Forward.
B: Recover Backward.
B: Retreat.

When we get to the intermediate level of skill, we start introducing dynamic concepts into the execution of all the basics. Retreat and parry. Advance and parry. Lunge and parry. Step, parry, lunge. Etc... But not at the beginning.

Hope this helps.

James.

[keith]

Since neither Jbirch or AE have touched on them here are another couple of issues;

The attacking fencer is by the second or third repetition unlikely to be delivering an attack that would reach the opponent.

When you are using a drill which incorporates a step back on the part of the parrying fencer that fencer is likely to begin initiating the step back on the arm extension/front foot movement of the lunging fencer.

These are both problems that are going to come back and haunt you as a coach. Specifically;

You do not want your fencers lunging half heartedly at retreating fencers and you also don't want your fencers to learn to step back/parry automatically on the opponents extension/front foot.

So I would try and add in as soon as possible the following aspects (which can be done as a game with the fencer who tricks the opponent gaining a point);

Should the attacking fencer draw a riposte out of distance they win (distance being simple extension to hit). Introduce the counter riposte to show why they win.

Should the defending fencer remove themselves from distance with a single step back they win.

Also as quickly as possible get the fencers making sequences of steps - but not foot tempo changes at this stage; distance then tempo. Although changes in arm tempo should be encouraged.


As an aside I like to immediately switch from defensive to offensive actions on the partners front foot - so after doing this attack-parry-riposte drill have them, at the same distance, perform a beat direct on the extension/front foot of the partner.

[Durando]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Start them JUST inside the attacker's lunge distance. Have them retreat, and parry. Then the riposte can be done with a simple extension. For those that retreat too much, they can make a little lunge on the riposte.

AE

Hi Allen,

I think it takes a very long time to learn this, owing to most people instinctively retreating to defend themselves: asking them to parry while retreating insists they conjugate hand and foot motion right away. "Well," you might say, "Fencing is hard."

I think you are better off teaching a stationary parry followed with a riposte delivered with an advance. This absolves beginners of the dissonance inherent to defense (parry? retreat? both? when?) and of distance difficulties in the riposte (most beginners naturally make "attacks" which are neither advances or lunges; regulating distance with forward motion is something they naturally want to do). On top of it all, if you teach it this way, you are also teaching them to draw the attacker into a parry/riposte.

You can then set it up as a competitive drill: Fencer Alpha seeks to manipulate distance and score on a direct lunge; meanwhile, Fencer Zulu is looking to provoke that lunge, check his movement, parry, and deliver the riposte. Of course the coach's role is then to ask questions which refine the action.

[Adler]

Originally Posted by Durando

I think you are better off teaching a stationary parry followed with a riposte delivered with an advance. This absolves beginners of the dissonance inherent to defense (parry? retreat? both? when?)

I tend to agree but i prefer to teach the riposte with a lunge rather than a step as the longer duration makes the coordinaton of the hand and foot easier.

[Teme]

I try to teach that the foorwork (in riposte) depends on the distance...

1. Reach with tip/blade (or "start with the hand!")
2. If short, close distance ( or "now finish it!")

Then again, they're mostly adults, and always sabre

[Durando]

Originally Posted by Adler

I tend to agree but i prefer to teach the riposte with a lunge rather than a step as the longer duration makes the coordinaton of the hand and foot easier.

Not sure I understand, Adler: isn't the lunge or the advance done in the same tempo?

The lunge is one of those things that learners tend not to do correctly until they see a reason for doing it naturally: in the lesson I outlined above, you can put the question to the students who get it and let the others continue to concentrate on distance and tempo.

My kids who don't yet lunge well would probably drop the tempo worrying about the correct mechanics of the lunge. I think the drill I suggested above would also be too easily frustrated by a counter-parry should the riposte come with a lunge. This isn't necessarily bad--but it does distract from the notion of setting up the parry riposte.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Durando

Not sure I understand, Adler: isn't the lunge or the advance done in the same tempo?

It is, though the speed of the action can be longer (though it shouldn't). I too prefer to introduce the lunge as the first footwork action on a riposte as it helps reinforce both why we do a lunge and how to do it correctly.

I prefer not to introduce the full advance as I'd rather reinforce the instant ATTACK after the parry rather then start a chase. Plus, I'd rather reinforce the hand first then the lunge as the distance changes, which is perfect in a parry/riposte situation.

The lunge is one of those things that learners tend not to do correctly until they see a reason for doing it naturally: in the lesson I outlined above, you can put the question to the students who get it and let the others continue to concentrate on distance and tempo.

My kids who don't yet lunge well would probably drop the tempo worrying about the correct mechanics of the lunge. I think the drill I suggested above would also be too easily frustrated by a counter-parry should the riposte come with a lunge. This isn't necessarily bad--but it does distract from the notion of setting up the parry riposte.

Agreed. I'd wait to introduce distance changing on the riposte, until the student gets in the habit of making an immediate riposte with extension after a parry. Though I agree that the first change of distance after the parry, should be forward (and not backward).

The reason I would teach this is that if you can retreat, you don't need to parry. And the very first parry we teach is defense with distance. Further, if you've taken a good parry, you've got an awesome opportunity for a riposte if you stick close enough to finish the action. I like to see FORWARD as the direction of preference after a parry.

James.

[RITFencing]

I really agree with Durando here; I prefer to teach all hand actions starting with no footwork. I don't want my fencers to think that hand tempo nd foot tempo have to be the same, or that they can only do one hand action per foot action, or that a hand action must begin/end during a foot action. The proper distance for hand stuff might come about during the middle of a foot tempo (say, proper distance for a stop hit occurs halfway through a retreat) and I don't want my students to worry about messing up their feet to make the hand in time, or missing the timing/distance on the hand because they have to finish the feet.