Vezzali vs Lamanova YouTube ROW question

[forethought]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

What if they're actually taking your blade?

If they're TRYING to take my blade, I attack. If they DO take my blade, obviously, I do not, unless I think I can push through their prise de fer and attack with opposition.

It's much more complicated than what you're describing.

Maybe so, maybe no.

The first touch discussed, which I have to assume is what you're talking about, was clearly a beat attack for Lamanova. If what you were taught disagrees with that, then you were taught wrong.

I guess that all boils down to one's individual perspective on fencing, and the motivations of the practices thereof.

[edew]

I would love to fence forethought.

All I'd do is pretend to try to take the blade, let him attack and then complete my attack and get the call. Ho-hum.

It's much easier than what people are describing.

[forethought]

Originally Posted by edew

I would love to fence forethought.

All I'd do is pretend to try to take the blade, let him attack and then complete my attack and get the call. Ho-hum.

It's much easier than what people are describing.

When people try to take my blade, if I think I can get away with it, I derobe and attack (if I can't derobe, I don't attack). If the ref is paying attention, it should be my attack.

Or is that part of the rules open to interpretation too?

[edew]

It's all a matter of perception. When I am taking your blade, the reality is that you perceive that I am attempting to take your blade. What you perceive is not necessarily what others perceive. What I would do is make it appear to you as an attempt to take while making it appear to the referee that I'm just attacking.

That can be done by exploiting the different viewing angles of the two persons in question (a matter of sines and cosines) and by body language and knowing what you were doing just prior to the (false?) search and by a whole host of different things. Body language is a big deal. It's possible for me to make your attack me without me making anything even remotely resembling an attempt to search for your blade. And it's possible for me to make your flail away, attempting to parry, without doing anything other than being in the right posture and making a well timed twitch or motion.

And if you think you are immune to such things, well, you're not fencing. You're swordfighting. Or rather, swordflailing.

Fencing is closer to acting and street magic than it is to boxing.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by forethought

When people try to take my blade, if I think I can get away with it, I derobe and attack (if I can't derobe, I don't attack). If the ref is paying attention, it should be my attack.

Or is that part of the rules open to interpretation too?

The problem is that it's hard to get away with this kind of action since, 1) a lot of times it doesnt look to the ref like the other person was trying to take your blade, and 2) sometimes it looks to you like they're trying to take your blade and they're not. It's even worse if they're moving forward, cause then you almost surely wont get the touch.

Hell, I dont know how many times I can get an easy touch by just circling my blade a little as I step in and watch the other guy dive into a counter-attack. Easy as pie! And more than half the time they think I was trying to take their blade... lol! Women especially, I'm not sure why, seem to love to counter on this action.

Pie I tell you!

.

[edew]

Originally Posted by OROD

The problem is that it's hard to get away with this kind of action since, 1) a lot of times it doesnt look to the ref like the other person was trying to take your blade, and 2) sometimes it looks to you like they're trying to take your blade and they're not. It's even worse if they're moving forward, cause then you almost surely wont get the touch.

Hell, I dont know how many times I can get an easy touch by just circling my blade a little as I step in and watch the other guy dive into a counter-attack. Easy as pie! And more than half the time they think I was trying to take their blade... lol! Women especially, I'm not sure why, seem to love to counter on this action.

Pie I tell you!

.

Yeah, too bad it doesn't happen for you that way outside the strip. With the women, I mean.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by edew

Yeah, too bad it doesn't happen for you that way outside the strip. With the women, I mean.

.

[jeff]

Case in point (fencing, not women) - Jack Tichacek made a lot of his actions both an attempt to take, and a forward motion extending towards target. If he took the blade, fine - if not, he wanted it to be his attack. A real PITA to direct, because you had to decide on a case by case basis whether an action where he didn't catch the blade was his attack or a failed attempt to take because the opponent derobed and hit.

In fencing you are trying to deceive the opponent, while making your intentions clear to the referee. Seemingly two contractory goals, and a subject entirely invisible to the beginning fencer.

Back to the actions in question: the mistake is thinking that a continuous, no hesitation, beat attack is not a beat attack. That's where forethought is confused.

forethought - aren't you the person who was saying last month how great the Italian grip is, and asking what qualifications people had to say it isn't? IIRC, I asked you what your qualifications were, and you never answered. So, what's your background that entitles you to second guess international referees (and the collected wisdom of experienced fencers here)?

[edew]

Ah yes, the Tichacek gambit. I never figured out how to defeat it. All I know is that he invited me to hit him with a big "Free for asian men" neon flashing sign on his chest and I bit. Then he hit and it was against me. If I refused to go for it, he did a beat attack and hit me. Either way, I was caught. I think I know what to do now, but back then, I was too naive.

[jeff]

I knew you were of the right age group to relate to it... Jack was a very strong fencer, and very shrewd as well. Lots of people had difficulty with him.

[edew]

The thing that made his actions so unique to everyone elses was that he moved at you like molasses. He'd step towards you like an invalid. Then he'd go even slower and you're just sucked into attack him, then he makes this little twist with the hand to put the point towards your body, makes a slow lunge, both hit and the referee gives him the touch.

Everyone else would come at your much faster and more "athletically" but Jack was alone with his slo-mo movement. (I would say Alex Simmons would be the closest in the modern time with the slow attack.)

[jeff]

... and when he got you conditioned to expect the slow attack (typically with a fast finish) he would catch you with a full speed attack. He was very good - which was why he was one of the US's top ranked foilists. I personally did okay fencing him (translation: he was much better and beat me most of the time, but I occasionally beat him in competition) because I disproportionately do better with lefties and didn't find it too hard to do a pris de fer in octave for his low line gambit.

Your "matter of perception" comment a few posts back was quite right. The opponent sees the lateral motion of going for the blade and sees it as attempt to take. The referee sees the 90 degree rotated picture which showed the arm extending towards target - because both of those were happening at the same time.

[edew]

Originally Posted by jeff

...

Your "matter of perception" comment a few posts back was quite right. The opponent sees the lateral motion of going for the blade and sees it as attempt to take. The referee sees the 90 degree rotated picture which showed the arm extending towards target - because both of those were happening at the same time.

And which is why the overhead shots that some TV producers think would make for great visuals are just plain stupid. No one knows what the heck is happening (not to mention not being able to tell who's who from an overhead shot).

The perception thingee is a good way to help my sophomore-level fencers who are struggling with trig.

[finnfence]

Originally Posted by jeff

Also, people can be so darned literal minded, and inappropriately. For example: a beat-coupe involves bending the arm and lifting the point enough to clear the opponents blade (deviating it from target), but it's still a correct attack as long as done without hesitation or delay. If it's a coupe riposte we're discussing, then it's simple and indirect despite the bent arm and the momentary deviating the point from target, as per t.8. A very classical (!) action is the "coupe underneath" in which the blade taking is followed by a circular rotation of the weapon initially in the direction opposite to the opponent. Done without hesitation it is still a correctly executed prise de fer or riposte, even though the arm is bent, and point briefly facing away from target - and it's been called that way for a century. t.60(c) helps.

So it is in this video clip as well. Context of the rules counts.

I agree with you, but tell it to the people here. The way the rules are translated into Finnish, the semantic field indicates that there is no attack unless the point is literally pointing at the target area at all times, and an attack is indicated by an extendED arm, not an extendING arm. You can just forget about getting a coupe attack called - it'll be called prep every time, and counterattacks into a low-line attack are almost always "sur le marche". Sigh. This is what happens when people start obsessing with geometry instead of the actual action the rules are trying to describe.

[jeff]

I don't disagree with you, but find it odd, because a coupe is by definition (in the rules) a simple attack, even though it takes the point geometrically off target for a moment - including in the standard (over the blade) coupe. Oh well...

[finnfence]

Originally Posted by OROD

Women especially, I'm not sure why, seem to love to counter on this action.
.

I tend to counter on actions like that because I get a significant number of hits in prep on people who are diddling around with their blades and not yet attacking. I try to use hair-exact timing to compensate for my relative slowness and the fact that my hand is weaker and it is therefore harder for me to control the tip as well - especially since, like many women I've seen, I don't use my core properly and tend to use neck and shoulder muscles to compensate for weak arm and mid-back muscles, tightening up the wrong bits and further impeding quick, well-controlled bladework. In fact, in competition, I get something like 90% of my hits on men with prep attacks and counterattacks.

Used to be able to just go under the flick and get points that way, too, at the cost of a few bruises to the shoulder, but now that Mr R has decided to make foil two-dimensional again, it's more a matter of stop-hits and direct attacks in prep, luring the opponent to get too close and pretending to be passive until he gets ready to lunge, at which point I extend and (hopefully) pop him in the chest or flank while he is too close to be able to parry effectively, no matter how clumsy and slow I am.

I do it a lot with female opponents, too, because a lot of women, faced with an aggressive counter, will abort the attack and start flailing around looking for my blade. Not women who are very good, but it becomes a habit if you fence a lot of timid beginners. Or so I find.