Different footwork epee v. foil

[crquack]

Yesterday I was told that the correct way to advance in epee is to move the back leg forward first, then the front foot. This in distinction from foil (and, presumably, sabre) where the front foot moves first.

I have never been taught this difference before thus using the same footwork for all three. What is the basis of this?

[oiuyt]

There is no basis for it.

-B

[trafl926]

I can see some reasoning behind it, the same behind Advanced into the lunge, but it seems like a trick move and nothing to do all the time.

[peet]

This makes no sense to me at all.



I'm no big time fencing master or anything, but I can see no good reason for this in epee any more than either other weapon.

-p

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by crquack

Yesterday I was told that the correct way to advance in epee is to move the back leg forward first, then the front foot. This in distinction from foil (and, presumably, sabre) where the front foot moves first.

I have never been taught this difference before thus using the same footwork for all three. What is the basis of this?

I've never heard of such a thing. While I can understand the concept behind it, I think the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages -- except, as trafl926 mentioned, as a trick. Tricks are, by definition, not what you do as standard practice.

[veeco]

Originally Posted by crquack

Yesterday I was told that the correct way to advance in epee is to move the back leg forward first, then the front foot. This in distinction from foil (and, presumably, sabre) where the front foot moves first.

I have never been taught this difference before thus using the same footwork for all three. What is the basis of this?

You were told something wrong. The correct way to do an advance is the same in all weapons: front foot first, and back foot next.

There are footwork actions that will make you move your back foot first (for example a crossover) but those aren't commonly used.

The other thing you might want to do with your back foot is a half-retreat-step-in, but it sounds like this is something you'll want to work on later, if you're just learning to do advances.

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by crquack

Yesterday I was told that the correct way to advance in epee is to move the back leg forward first, then the front foot. This in distinction from foil (and, presumably, sabre) where the front foot moves first.

I have never been taught this difference before thus using the same footwork for all three. What is the basis of this?

You wouldn't happen to be from upstate NY, would you?

[crquack]

You wouldn't happen to be from upstate NY, would you?

Nowhere near. However, given the context of the discussion and the consensus of opinion, should I advise my relatives to move away from there?

BTW, I cheerfully ignored the instruction regarding the epee footwork. I tried it once, just out of interest, and nearly fell on my snout.

That is one of the problems with not having a certified coach in the club...

[Tomas N]

Originally Posted by crquack

That is one of the problems with not having a certified coach in the club...

If you want to see all the basic footwork moves, go here: http://www.youtube.com/user/davidlittell

You don't have to be certified to know how to do proper footwork. Perhaps you should send your coach the link to this page too.

Tomas

[Gav]

Originally Posted by crquack

Yesterday I was told that the correct way to advance in epee is to move the back leg forward first, then the front foot. This in distinction from foil (and, presumably, sabre) where the front foot moves first.

I have never been taught this difference before thus using the same footwork for all three. What is the basis of this?

The US really does have some craaaaaazy coaches.

Having said that... one of our coaches advocates a complicated footwork pattern where you bring your rear foot forward and then your front (the action is slightly more complicated and I am finding it hard to describe). However this is a training exercise - though I know he says you can throw it in at the right moment to upset your opponent. He's merely an ex-Olympian. What would he know.

Oh; and he really really really wants you to have good basic conventional footwork.

[KD5MDK]

However, given the context of the discussion and the consensus of opinion, should I advise my relatives to move away from there?

Only if they want to be competitive fencers.

[Durando]

Originally Posted by Gav

The US really does have some craaaaaazy coaches.

Someone should say this again and again.

Originally Posted by Gav

Having said that... one of our coaches advocates a complicated footwork pattern where you bring your rear foot forward and then your front (the action is slightly more complicated and I am finding it hard to describe). However this is a training exercise - though I know he says you can throw it in at the right moment to upset your opponent. He's merely an ex-Olympian. What would he know.

Sure you aren't see (or he describing) a bit of an advance lunge? Commitment to action is indeed initiated off the back foot, but the ensemble of it begins with the front foot advancing. You will see fencers feinting attacks, particularly flèches, by bringing their back foot forward quickly.

Learning to advance with the rear foot first will surely lead you to being unable to change tempo in an advance lunge.

[Gav]

Sure you aren't see (or he describing) a bit of an advance lunge? Commitment to action is indeed initiated off the back foot, but the ensemble of it begins with the front foot advancing. You will see fencers feinting attacks, particularly flèches, by bringing their back foot forward quickly.

No.

It's more complex. It's part of a wider sequence culminating in an advance lunge. I tend to avoid practising it for fear of screwing what footwork I am capable of doing.

The actual movement feels like you are rolling forward on wheels... can't think how you describe it. Bring your front foot forward and, before your back foot lands, hop forward with the first. You should land in en-guard and ready for the next bit.

[oiuyt]

Sounds like you might be describing a slide -- half advance followed by a jump forward.

-B

[Durando]

Originally Posted by Gav

Tactual movement feels like you are rolling forward on wheels... can't think how you describe it. Bring your front foot forward and, before your back foot lands, hop forward with the first. You should land in en-guard and ready for the next bit.

Sounds like a fantastic moment to attack into his preparation.

[JEC]

Seems that the hop is what changes the distance as compared to a simple advance lunge.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Durando

Sounds like a fantastic moment to attack into his preparation.

The point is that you do it quick and low to the ground. Your feet shouldn't come together and it's more of an inverse jump (if that makes sense).

It's a surprise move.

He doesn't advocate it as anything other than that and does NOT recommend bringing your rear foot forward so that your legs come closer together.

For the hard of reading I will reiterate a couple of points.

The coach in question is an ex-Olympian. I am not making that up. He has the best footwork I've seen outside of video footage.
He uses it as part of his footwork training in class. Although it is used as a training manoeuvre (mostly to disassociate one foot from the other) he asserts you can chuck it in as a surprise move. I wasn't intending to right a treatise on one specific movement*... there is a ton of extra stuff I am not even bothering to mention because [frankly] I am not writing a dissertation today.

* there is a tactical discussion that should also be thrown in.

[edew]

The proper way to move in epee is both foot at the same time, either forwards or backwards.

[oiuyt]

*wonders how long until someone posts claiming that epee fencers don't actually move, so which foot goes first is moot*

-B

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Gav

The US really does have some craaaaaazy coaches.

Well, using the word coaches to describe some of the people wearing plastrons in this country IS a bit of an over statement.

AE