Parrying Drills and Feinting

[sevaridaemon]

I have recently begun aiding my instructors and acting as an assistant coach at our club, and I have a question reguarding the use of drills.

When a student encounters an attack which they consistantly have a difficult time parrying, how beneficial is it to run a drill on parrying that attack. This occured last night, where a fencer was consistantly beaten by a single attack, when all of his opponents other attacks were easily voided through body parrys, parrys, and good form.

The downside to these drills, that I can see, is that the student will expect the attact and the defense perhaps not be as effective in a real bout as it is in drills, especially in the case of feints.

The attack was a wonderfully executed double disengage on against a left-handed fencer, which when the defender parried, would get caught pressed against the defender's arm so that the attack would still land in six, on the defender's left chest, if any of you have advice on teaching a defense against this particular attack.

[RITFencing]

Depends on what the attack is; a parry might not be the best response.

Can you elaborate on the situation? What kind of attack, what weapon is it, what sort of distance are the fencers at, why does the fencer have a tough time defending against it?

EDIT: Never mind, just reread your post. I am not smart...

Expect a response in a few minutes.

[RITFencing]

First, a quick note on drills... They do not have to be so simple as "Fencer A makes attack. Fencer B parries in 6 and hits with riposte."

You can have the fencers use different footwork, give them options (Fencer A fients in one line, if B parries, A disengages and attacks another line, if B does not parry, A finishes in same line) and present many variations.

Now to your question... in a bout situation, if there is an attack I cannot figure out, I have a very simple solution. Bail. Just back up out of distance; they can't hit me if I'm not there. Obviously I will eventually run out of strip, so this is not a permanent solution, but this gives me more of a chance to think and might give me openings to exploit or an opportunity to mount my own attack.

Given that this was a double disengage attack to the arm and the fact that you are talking about parrying in six, I would assume that this is epee you are talking about. I might attempt a stop hit first, get the opponent while they are parrying. If that fails (or even if it hits, or if you are fencing foil) you can have the fencer change the direction of their blade action after the first disengage. The opponent is expecting another search in 6, and so begins a disengage, only to find that the fencer already has their blade in 8. I use that sort of tactic from time to time with a decent amount of success; sweep in one line to force a disengage to a line of my choosing, then change directions and intercept their blade while they are still committed to that disengage.

The fencer could also change the hand tempo they use for their parries; if the opponent disengages two parries made at the same tempo, speed the second one up.

Thirdly, the fencer could just take a simple step back (or an extra step, or however many they need to get in the correct distance) while making the parry... if they get caught while looking for the opponent's blade, then maybe the need to open up the distance a bit more to give themselves time to clear out the line properly. This is especially true if the fencer is planting their feet during the action... distance is ALWAYS important, we shouldn't stop adjusting it just because we've started to use the hand.

Going back to parry drills in general... yes, when starting with simple drills, fencers DO learn to just parry simple attacks. They need to start somewhere, though, and as I mentioned above, the drills themselves can evolve. I certainly don't give the same parry riposte drills to newbies as I would give to fencers with 5 or 10 years of experience. Fencers can learn to use the distance with their attempts to parry to get the opponent to finish at a time of the fencer's choosing, not the opponent's, and in a line of the fencer's choosing, making it much easier to pick up the parry.

I'm rambling a bit, so I'll end this and see if you've got any questions, if there's anything I should clarify, or if someone else has answered this better.

[sevaridaemon]

Actually it is foil, the attack was not to the arm, but to the chest. The blade would catch against the arm so that his parry did not move it away, but the tip was past the arm and hit his chest.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by sevaridaemon

Actually it is foil, the attack was not to the arm, but to the chest. The blade would catch against the arm so that his parry did not move it away, but the tip was past the arm and hit his chest.

Then I'd say take a step back, use a different action or learn to parry faster (especially on the second one; taking a first attempt at one tempo and then changing it for the second is a nice trick). The distance is collapsing too fast for the fencer to use what they are currently trying. So, one of three things has to change: The rate at which the distance collapses, the time it takes to do the action, or the action being done. Any of them are viable from a tactical standpoint, and all three are good to learn.

[sevaridaemon]

I said all of those things, but the fencer in trouble did have a point: As he moved forward is when the opponent would do this attack, taking advantage of him not being able to retreat quickly, the opponent also had reach on him, and would retreat as he counter attacked with the double disengage, so as to make the fencer's right of way difficult to maintain. I must admit, it was very good strategy for somone who had only been fencing for about two years, but I felt bad for the student who was beaten by the same attack.

I told him to "feign" a step forward, then retreat as soon as his opponent acted, and it worked well.

But I basically wanted to ask if practicing drills to parry feints was effective, and how to effectively do so. Thank you for the advice.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by sevaridaemon

I said all of those things, but the fencer in trouble did have a point: As he moved forward is when the opponent would do this attack, taking advantage of him not being able to retreat quickly, the opponent also had reach on him, and would retreat as he counter attacked with the double disengage, so as to make the fencer's right of way difficult to maintain. I must admit, it was very good strategy for somone who had only been fencing for about two years, but I felt bad for the student who was beaten by the same attack.

I told him to "feign" a step forward, then retreat as soon as his opponent acted, and it worked well.

But I basically wanted to ask if practicing drills to parry feints was effective, and how to effectively do so. Thank you for the advice.

A false counter attack in foil to draw the end of an attack is an excellent tool that should be in every fencer's box.

If he can't change directions quickly, though, then that's something he should work on.

I'm having some trouble envisioning the situation as you describe it, though... is this right?

Fencer steps forward, opponent begins attack.

Fencer attempts to parry, opponent uses double disengage

Fencer aborts parry to counter attack and opponent retreats? This is the part I'm having trouble with. Honestly, if my opponent reacted to a counter attack by retreating, he just gave up right of way. If I land that, it's (his) attack no, (my) counter attack yes.

[darius]

You don't do drills to parry feints. You do drills to parry attacks. So if your fencer recognizes the difference, they should ignore the feint and parry the real threat.

Obviously, your student can't always tell the difference between a feint and a real attack (none of us can -- a good feint looks like a real attack!). The important thing is to have something to fall back on, in case they already bite on the feint and then realize that their parry has been derobed.

Here's the basic framework of a drill--

Coach: Attacks.
Student: Parries 4. If successful, riposte.
C: Attacks w/ feint disengage.
S: Parries 4, then 6. If successful, riposte.

Do these at random, so the student isn't able to discern a difference, they have to react accordingly. If they struggle, do them sequentially, fixing technical issues until they get comfortable.

Important things:
- The student should be moving their feet. In this case, I want the student to be taking steps backward. If they stop with the first attempted parry, the attack with disengage should hit them.
- They will have to change direction as soon as they make blade contact, so this will help with a poor change-of-direction.

Obviously, you can do these with any parry sequences you want, depending on what your student is getting hit with.

This is easy enough to make into a drill between peers, and you can make it competitive; attacker's goal is to either hit straight or hit with a single disengage. Defender's goal is to make the parry and hit with a riposte.

darius

[And Sean, I love that your initial response to a post about parries is "what about counterattacks?"]

[sevaridaemon]

What is happening is this:
1. Fencer moves forward, and begins attacking.
2. Opponent steps backward and uses his superior reach to counter attack in six. Disengages to four.
3. Fencer attempts to parry the disengage.
4. Opponent disengages again (really a double disengage) back to six, before the fencer can take the blade. Closes distance sligtly.
5. Fencer attempts to parry again, catches the blade, but not until his opponent's point is past his shoulder. The blade is unable to be moved away as the fencer's arm is in the way.
6. Touche.
The fencer is left-handed. The best defense I have found against this is the circle parry, and ofcourse to retreat.

[RITFencing]

Ah, I see. In this case, I would say that the fencer should just finish their attack.

It's foil. When I start attacking (not preparing, but actually attacking), I have right of way. If my opponent counter attacks and hits first, then GREAT. That means they're not actually stopping my attack. All I have to do is push into my lunge and I'll still hit them. If both lights are on, it's going to be my touch.

Don't worry so much about the counter time game right now; it can be useful, but in the situation you are describing, the fencer is losing their right of way by abandoning their attack.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by darius

[And Sean, I love that your initial response to a post about parries is "what about counterattacks?"]

Well, he talked about what sounded like a complex attack hitting the arm... sounded like epee to me, and how many touches do I score with that? (hell, how many times have I scored on YOU with that?)

[darius]

RIT is correct. To be very clear, what should happen is this:

1. Fencer moves forward, and begins attacking.
2. Opponent steps backward and uses his superior reach to counter attack in six. Disengages to four.
3. Fencer lunges and hits.

When in doubt, try to eliminate complexity from the situation.

(hell, how many times have I scored on YOU with that?)

But I had right-of-way every time!

darius

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by darius

But I had right-of-way every time!

Don't you guys love it when foilists fence epee?

[riceboy]

Just a thought, but since the actions he's describing are in response to simple parries, erhaps drilling more complex parry patterns (i.e. circle-six/four, or ) with the student might be helpful? This would address the problem of being hit consistently with a 1-2, and would move him away from simple parries.

[darius]

In theory I agree, but when he broke it down, the action really became a feint in time. Feint in time is dependent on the attacker doing countertime; ie, looking for the blade.

If the attacker doesn't look for the blade and just finishes their attack, it's an attack-counterattack situation. Once you've gained right-of-way (which was indicated by the original poster), don't give it away by looking for the blade.

If I were working on this with a student, I'd want them to differentiate between the two. If I attacked in preparation immediately on their first step, they'd have to retreat and parry (whatever sequence we were working on). If I started late, they'd have to finish their attack and hit the appropriate target.

darius

[riceboy]

Originally Posted by darius

In theory I agree, but when he broke it down, the action really became a feint in time. Feint in time is dependent on the attacker doing countertime; ie, looking for the blade.

If the attacker doesn't look for the blade and just finishes their attack, it's an attack-counterattack situation. Once you've gained right-of-way (which was indicated by the original poster), don't give it away by looking for the blade.

I agree, a feint in time is countered with a straight attack. At the same time, I got the sense (perhaps mistaken) that the two fencers were relative beginners, and that the counterattacker was using a very fast compound feint in response to a foot movement.

Here is how I read the action.

1. Fencer moves forward, and begins attacking.
2. Opponent steps backward and performs a feint by disengagment in time,
3. Fencer attempts to parry 6.
4. Opponent feints by disengagment to inside high line.
5. Fencer attempts to parry 4.
6. Opponent disengages and makes the touch to the outside high line

So yes, the initial attacker should have simply continued his attack and scored the touch. Assuming of course that he had really begun his attack and not just stepped forward (attack in prep)

At the same time, if the counter-attacker is relying on a preset series of parries in order to make his feint-in-time. Cleaning up the parries would not be a bad thing and would eliminate this action from his opponents toolbox.

Finally, actions in countertime are actions opposed to counterattacks. Much like feints are opposed to parries. In countertime, I want to provoke a counterattack, and then parry it to get the touch. And a feint in time is opposed to such actions where the defender is trying to draw the counterattack into a situation where it can be parried. Here the defending fencer is not ready for the attack, and did not expect a counterattack. Thus, I get the feeling that the defending fencer is acting out of reflex and trying to get out a potentially bad situation. Thus, cleaning up his parries, so that he can use a more complicated parry pattern to get out could be a valid solution to the problem.

I suppose that I've been working with beginners too long.

[darius]

At the same time, I got the sense (perhaps mistaken) that the two fencers were relative beginners, and that the counterattacker was using a very fast compound feint in response to a foot movement.

If experience is the factor here, that would make it even more likely for me to want them to simplify. The chances of the counterattacker being able to steal the tempo without the attacker's help (by abandoning the attack for a parry) is fairly slim if they're both relative beginners.

Sean pointed out a reluctance to teach countertime. In the case of inexperienced fencers, I agree, because it only reinforces beginners' instincts to attack the blade, not the opponent.

darius

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by darius

The chances of the counterattacker being able to steal the tempo without the attacker's help (by abandoning the attack for a parry)

Agreed. What I kept wondering is how the counter-attacker ever hits. The description we're given is "1. Fencer moves forward, and begins attacking. 2. Opponent steps backward [and counter attacks]."

As others have said, the first thing I might correct is simply to have the attacker finish his attack (if the range is correct).

But, if he abandons the attack and starts to parry the counter attack, why is he still moving forward without the blade? If he's not still moving forward, how did the counter-attacker hit? Was there a missing "change of direction" in the description?

So, the second thing that comes to mind is that the student shouldn't be closing the distance while searching that much for the blade. Find the blade on the way in, and if you don't find it, get back out. Or find the blade and then move forward.

If these are beginners, I wouldn't want to teach any more complicated bladework on this action. They'll naturally want to solve the problem with their blade, but I think that they really need to solve the distance problem first. That is, if you're in range to hit, just hit. If you're not in range to hit, let's work on how to get yourself to the right range to hit so that you don't impale yourself on your opponent's blade.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by darius

Sean pointed out a reluctance to teach countertime. In the case of inexperienced fencers, I agree, because it only reinforces beginners' instincts to attack the blade, not the opponent.

I wouldn't say I'm reluctant to teach countertime; I think it's a viable tactic in all 3 weapons. I'm saying that in this case, since it sounds like the attack has already begun, then it doesn't seem the right thing to do.

And yes, with beginners I think that it is not a good idea to teach them counter time in foil or sabre; let them learn basic RoW FIRST, then get into the more complex stuff.

[sevaridaemon]

Thanks. I'd like to note that the opponent had about 6 inches reach, so carrying the right of way was difficult as the opponent would hit and back away before he could hit the target.

Anyway, the advice was helpful, and the problem is eliminated (and the opponent who was relying on his cunning counter attack found out that it was easily beat).