Compound attacks - 2+ or 1 period of fencing time

[Weird Howler]

Having read some past threads discussing some points similiar to this I was interested to see most people seemed to be seeing compound attacks as always at least 2 periods of fencing time. I have always seen them this way HOWEVER

here in the UK the B.A.F. (at least and some others) see a "progresive compound" attack (i.e with one foot movement usually a lunge) as a single period of fencing time.

Having started coaching training I have found this a little hard to accept, but obviously I am wrong as those that state this have far more experance

I'm interested in your comments?

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Weird Howler

Having read some past threads discussing some points similiar to this I was interested to see most people seemed to be seeing compound attacks as always at least 2 periods of fencing time. I have always seen them this way HOWEVER

here in the UK the B.A.F. (at least and some others) see a "progresive compound" attack (i.e with one foot movement usually a lunge) as a single period of fencing time.

Having started coaching training I have found this a little hard to accept, but obviously I am wrong as those that state this have far more experance

I'm interested in your comments?

Well, how do you define one fencing time? Is it the time it takes to do one foot action? One "foot tempo" if you will?

A compound attack by necessity uses more than one hand action and therefore takes more than one hand tempo, but it can be taught with one or more foot tempos, whether linked to the feet (disengage with advance, disengage again with lunge vs. one disengage with the first foot of an advance and another with the second foot) or independent of the feet (start lunging and do two disengages before the lunge is complete.)

Bear in mind that the hand tempo and foot tempo do not have to be be one and the same.

[Durando]

I guess if one day I'm going to be a coach, I've got to start stepping into these waters even if I get pulled under right away. Fortunately, my coach just explained this to a bunch of kids yesterday. I'll try to set it out as he did.

One time/tempo equals the time to make one action. It is also a subjective measure in that some referees will see hesitation if the action is too slow while others will see a single, continued action. In a just world, a referee always calls time the same way once he has begun.

The previous posters comment seems wrong to me: a compound action is the opposite of a simple action (direct attack, disengage, or coupé). A compound action is one in which more than one tempo is necessary.

Can't we just go back to talking about épée fencing now?

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by Weird Howler

Having read some past threads discussing some points similiar to this I was interested to see most people seemed to be seeing compound attacks as always at least 2 periods of fencing time. I have always seen them this way HOWEVER

here in the UK the B.A.F. (at least and some others) see a "progresive compound" attack (i.e with one foot movement usually a lunge) as a single period of fencing time.

Having started coaching training I have found this a little hard to accept, but obviously I am wrong as those that state this have far more experance

I'm interested in your comments?

By definition, a compound attack comprises more than one period of fencing time. If you layer multiple small tempos over one large tempo -- as with multiple disenages in a lunge -- it is the smaller tempo that determines whether this is a compound attack. This definition is fairly explicit in the rules. Note that it's also possible to have an attack with one bladework tempo but multiple footwork tempos; for example, a straight attack executed with double-advance + lunge. This is still a compound attack, by virtue of the multiple footwork tempos.

Are you sure that knowledgeable, authoritative people in the BAF are teaching otherwise, or is it possible that you have misunderstood them? I am very surprised to hear that.

Of course, from a coaching point of view, it may well be useful to talk about an attack with simple footwork to distinguish it from one with compound footwork; however, that's not the essence of what the definition of a compound attack is all about.

[Allen Evans]

Footwork can be single or multi-tempo and blade work can be single or multi-tempo, but it is the combination of both that makes the attack, and this is how the attack should be called.

To say that a compound blade action in the lunge is a "single tempo" action may be right from a practical point of view (it's very difficult to make a stop into this action simply by exploiting the tempo of the action -- unless it's performed very badly), but I think it's very misleading to categorized it that way from a pedagogical point of view.

It's probably worth going back and quizzing the coach(s) involved. It could just be that what you thought was a compound blade action in one foot tempo was really just an indirect attack.

AE

[riceboy]

While this is just tangentially related, I was thinking about how the classical Italian system (through Gaugler) classifies tempi in regards to compound actions.
In foil there are four simple attacks: the straight thrust, the disengagement, the glide, and the cut-over (coupe)
Compound actions are actions that take two or more movements, and are classified as either feints, or actions on the blade. They take as many tempi as required to execute the action (single feint=2, double feint=3 etc.)

This is pretty straightforward, and normal. But...

Compound actions using footwork are classified differently, The straight thrust with an advance-lunge is two tempi, a single feint with an advance lunge is two tempi, but the double feint with an advance lunge is also two tempi. Thus, using the tempo of the foot to classify the action.

By this logic, I could understand a compound feint from the lunge comprising two tempi of blade movement, and only one of foot; thus making the entire action one tempo....

At the same time, I strongly agree with Allen Evan's comment. The action you describe could very well be an indirect attack, rather than a true compound attack (i.e. feint).

[Weird Howler]

Where this understanding has come from is the BAF's official position on at least their "Foil - Key Teaching Points" and on their questions for coaching exams. I have been told & the questions for the exams don't differentiate that the timing is seen the sam for Sabre (but I might be wrong)

Certainly in foil is going to be hard to get a stop hit in time against a "one-two" (but maybe a counterattack?) but in sabre I have seen it often (eg stop hit to arm)

Even though I'm, a sabreur I am trying to use the word Fencing Time and not Tempo if only it's nice to keep as close to the rules if possible and FT is defined, Tempo isn't

In one way I am please to see most (all?) are seeing a "progressive compound attack" as at least two periods of fencing time as that is how I have always seen it.

I think it agrees entirely with the rules as;-

one period of fencing time=time for a simple action

compounds are NOT defined as simple attacks, hence must be more than one period of FT

But obviously I'm no closer to seeing their point of view.

Interestingly a step-lunge is defined as a simple attack, but the BAF states that a compound on a step (1st fient), lunge is two periods of fencing time.

Do the Rules would suggest that a step lunge is one period of fencing time or is this taking it too far! (Sabre ref hat on - YES!). So its all likely to be done to lack of proper definitions and writing of the rules against defined definitions?

Still confuded

WH

[keropie]

Well, technically even if you make a single lunge and feint during that lunge (part 1), wait for a reaction, and then deceive the parry (part 2), it's a compound attack. A good saber ref who sees an action like that will likely give the other fencer the attack IFF during part 1 the 'defender' (who will now score) attacks rather than search for the blade. The tricky part is the determine, in your own opinion, if the 'attacker's' attack was in reaction to the 'defender's' attack or not.

So, fencer A feints and looks for a response, fencer B begins an attack, both finish with a lunge and hit. While fencer A started first, it should be fencer B's attack. However: fencer A feints and looks for a response; fencer B goes crosseyed for a second; fencer A and fencer B both simultaneously lunge and hit. Arguably, it's simultaneous, but in practice, unless A's delay between the feint and the lunge is large, it's A's attack.

Bear in mind that while the rules are the same, in foil fencer A has a LOT more leeway in the pause part. It takes something mildly special for A to 'lose' his right of way merely by feinting in foil. Like, a really bad feint, or stopping the attack when B makes his attack, or trying to parry, or something like that.

And of course the really tough part is that if fencer A is making an indirect attack, it can look very similar. Certainly the way I see actions called in foil, an indirect attack may contain any number of disengages/coupes/whatnot and still be indirect and simple. Assuming, of course, that the hand makes forward progress the entire way, doesn't pause, and (and here's the kicker) is made in such a way that the disengages/etc. are not in response to an offensive action by B. There is no particular rule about what path an attack must make to be simple, just that it be a single unit of fencing time (and move forward, blah blah blah), so a curved attack is just as simple as a straight attack, if you will. In saber, you get less leeway there, and it matters less with the much shorter lockout.

My 2 cents.

[keith]

well it's been a while since I encountered a BAF exam but here is my contribution;

If that's what they want you to say, then just say it. Exams are easier if you give the required answer - after that you can attempt to persuade the Profs that the guide is wrong.

As to the question;

Bear in mind there are two uses of the word 'tempo' the old one and the new one.

The old one (this will be the BAF required answer )
A tempo is the unit of time taken to up by fencing actions, one fencing action takes place in a single tempo. So both a step, a lunge, or a fleche take one tempo (the fleche can obviously take a second/third etc if it doesn't hit immediately). Also the step lunge is a single tempo action if the arm extension is initiated on the step. In this usage tempo is principally about what the feet are doing - it is the footwork of an action that defines an action that occurs in a single tempo - any footwork action that can be used to deliver a simple attack occurs within a single tempo, but it doesn't mean that only a simple attack can occur in a single tempo.

A compound action refers to a threat in an initial line and a hit in a different line - so if I extend my arm to hit octave, initiate my lunge, and then during my lunge disengage your octave riposte to hit in sixte I have performed a compound action in a single tempo.

Now the more fashionable usage is almost a straight lift from a musical context - it is the strategic flow of movement in a fencing phrase and as such involves both fencers. Hence, controlling, stealing, breaking tempo.

Both are common uses - just make sure that you know which is being invoked and it will save much confusion, belligerent misunderstanding and failure of exams.

It is possible of course to totally mix them up;
Fencer A attempted to make tempo however fencer B stole tempo but then allowed A to regain tempo when they broke tempo which resulted in fencer A scoring with a compound attack in a single tempo.

[Allen Evans]

This is one example of the reasons I hate "coaching tests".

AE