The Lunge in Epee

[jBirch]

So in my program we spend a couple of classes at the beginning working on the lunge to the body, and then switch to attacking the forward target. I'm pleased with my students and their ability to hit and exploit opportunity of that target and relatively pleased with their intermediate performance (first competition).

However....

A lot of the epee game now relies upon explosive footwork and deep penetration to the body. My students have a weakness when it comes to developing the deep target that I want to work on. The footwork we can work on as it's just a matter of balance and muscle, but insisting to the body target still eludes me. In particular, teaching with pairs of students and teaching them to have a firm hand. My style comes from classical French foil, so I teach a soft (almost weak) hand with lots of blade avoidance and ceding actions. I'd like to change that and update it a bit, but I don't want a firm hand to turn into a hard hand.

We talk about vectors and how to attack forward, deep or deep/forward depending upon the footwork and the opportunity. What I'm curious about are drills involving students penetrating to the body target when the students are at the beginner/intermediate stage. Ie// the student can physically perform the actions, but have none of the refinements necessary to really make it work. All the drills that I do with my 1-1 lessons require a skilled partner to give the proper blade signals at the proper time.

I'm also curious about the nature of the body target in epee, and how one teaches groups of students to hit that target reliably. Is it just a matter of target practice on the boards at the right distance or is there any pattern of exercise that is particularly good for teaching a penetrating lunge?

Thanks for the ideas.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

So in my program we spend a couple of classes at the beginning working on the lunge to the body, and then switch to attacking the forward target. I'm pleased with my students and their ability to hit and exploit opportunity of that target and relatively pleased with their intermediate performance (first competition).

However....

A lot of the epee game now relies upon explosive footwork and deep penetration to the body. My students have a weakness when it comes to developing the deep target that I want to work on. The footwork we can work on as it's just a matter of balance and muscle, but insisting to the body target still eludes me. In particular, teaching with pairs of students and teaching them to have a firm hand. My style comes from classical French foil, so I teach a soft (almost weak) hand with lots of blade avoidance and ceding actions. I'd like to change that and update it a bit, but I don't want a firm hand to turn into a hard hand.

We talk about vectors and how to attack forward, deep or deep/forward depending upon the footwork and the opportunity. What I'm curious about are drills involving students penetrating to the body target when the students are at the beginner/intermediate stage. Ie// the student can physically perform the actions, but have none of the refinements necessary to really make it work. All the drills that I do with my 1-1 lessons require a skilled partner to give the proper blade signals at the proper time.

I'm also curious about the nature of the body target in epee, and how one teaches groups of students to hit that target reliably. Is it just a matter of target practice on the boards at the right distance or is there any pattern of exercise that is particularly good for teaching a penetrating lunge?

Thanks for the ideas.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're looking for, maybe because none of my epee students (aggressive animals that they are) has ever had any difficulty attacking to the deep target -- it's been more difficult getting them to change up and hit the outer target, or to set up an outer-distance attack and redouble to the deep target. So if you've got outer-distance attacks working well, it seems to me you've made a good start.

When you talk about the forward target vs. the deep target, are you distinguishing only two target depths? I think in terms of three: outer (hand/wrist/foot), middle (elbow/extended upper arm/thigh), and inner (body). If your system distinguishes two target distances, what do you include in each?

Can I ask what drills constitute your current "working set"? Since I'm not sure what you're already doing and where the issues are for your students, I'm hesitant to suggest anything.

In principle, if fencers are keeping guard at outer distance, something has to happen for an inner-target attack to succeed. Among the possibilities are (a) double close (e.g., lunge into the opponent's advance), (b) extra close (e.g., attack outer target, redouble to the inner target, and (c) luring the opponent close (e.g., making a series of short lunges to the outer target so as to convince the opponent to stand too close).

You could drill option (a) a couple of ways. In its simplest form: A and B are on guard, B advances, A lunges with opposition to the deep target. In a more complicated form, B advances, A lunges with a feint to the upper arm, B parries or opposes, and A deceives (possibly with opposition) to the body. In a somewhat more tactical form, A initiates by advancing with invitation, B tries to stop-hit the invitation, A takes the blade and lunges to the deep target. Any of these can be done from a static initial position or out of mobility, depending on the level of the students.

You could drill option (b) with a variety of opponent responses. For example, A makes a short-lunge attack to the outer distance, B does nothing, and A immediately redoubles with a long lunge to the inner target with opposition (or with another short lunge to the middle target). Or, A makes a short attack to the outer target, B withdraws the hand in a defensive reaction, and A redoubles directly to the body. Or, A makes a short attack, B counterattacks, A takes the blade with a lunge to the deep target.

Are these the sorts of drills you're looking for, or have I missed the mark?

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by jBirch

In particular, teaching with pairs of students and teaching them to have a firm hand....What I'm curious about are drills involving students penetrating to the body target when the students are at the beginner/intermediate stage.

What's the class size and student/coach ratio?

I've noticed that I can only supervise 6 to 8 students if the drill is moderately subtle. If I'm working with a larger class, then I try to stick with more obvious or controlled drills. Knowing the size of your class may help us in suggesting drills.

Also, is your group all approximately the same level, or is there a mix? That is, can you pair more experienced students with less experienced students at first to help make sure that the fencers are actually drilling the right skill?

[noodle]

rule of thumb i use:
going for the body, fleche.
going for the extremeties, lunge.

rules of thumb are breakable, and it always depends on tempo and the situation. in general, you're on the right track. (and of course, i summarized a huge ammount of nuance and strategy into two short sentences).

[jBirch]

Goldgar,

In our system we distinguish 4 different distances and three different "heights":

Forward-Middle (hand, wrist)
Forward-Low(Knee, Toe)

Middle-Middle (elbow)
Middle-Low (thigh)
Middle-High (Shoulder)

Deep-Middle (chest)
Deep-High (Head)
Deep-Low (Back leg)

Back-Middle (Back)
Back-High (Back Hand)
Back-Low (Back foot)

It's the "penetrating" ones that I'm having the most trouble teaching: deep-middle and deep-low because the way that you attack these ones depends upon a good penetrating "entrance" from en garde. The student really has to lead with the point and make a strong, aggressive, entering action. It's not that these aren't easy to teach 1-1, it's that the drills that work for coach-student require just the right distance and just the right timing and just the right hand pressure. Otherwise, the action ends up being "twitchy" or simply a lunge at the proper distance (which can just as easily be done against the target board).

As to the current working set, we do a lot of parry riposte and "upside, downside, inside, outside" attacks and stop hits. The footwork for the attack is student 1 shows target, student 2 hits with a short lunge. Student 1 recovers backward. Repeat. Same footwork for both parry/riposte and stop hits, with different blade actions and timings.

The parry riposte distance, obviously, has to be at a range where the attacker can hit. The problem is that now I want the attacker to be successful against a late parry and my students end up doing the "twitchy" parry, which I don't want either. I've tried varying the parry riposte drill to have the student start with a press preparation (and it's how we start doing beat, press, bind and glise preparation actions too), but it's hard to get the defender to stay untwitchy and we usually have this action finish to the middle target (the "vectors" I was talking about above, where we aim for the middle target and angulate to the deep target if we miss). And then, inevitably, I get the question about how the heck this technique could possibly work in a bout because it relies so much on distance and timing and a strong, dominating hand.

I was wondering if anyone had seen or used a drill that was particularly good at teaching the student to first penetrate with the hand, then follow up with a very strong lunge to hit the chest target. The idea being that once the penetration with the hand is accomplished, the lunge is virtually guarenteed to hit the target. But also how to hold the epee strongly through the hit.

[dridge]

At my salle, for group lessons at intermediate (and higher) level, after initial footwork, we next perform a competitive drill in pairs, designed to hone both timing and footwork.

From fencing distance and while in motion, either student may launch an attack to defined target. Initially, one may defend only with distance.

The nature of the attack is specified (eg "lunge" or "advance lunge"). Defensive blade actions result in loss of the touch.

More complicated actions are then gradually introduced, both for the attacker and defender, over the course of the lesson.

The drill partners change as well.

This approach simulates (to a degree) the motion and timing of bouting, promotes conditioning, and encourages attacks to the defined--usually deep-- target with "intent to hit."

For what it's worth, I'm one of the students, not a coach. However, occasionally I'm one of Goldgar's "aggressive animals."

[aamct2]

To teach an attack to the hand or elbow followed by an attack to the torso, I generally use the following.

pupil: lunge attack to the wrist or glide to the elbow
coach: parry or counter-parry
pupil: disengage to deceive the parry and redouble with attack to the torso

you can use variations off this drill as well, add attacks by the coach, change to pris-de-fer, flèche, etc.

as for hand pressure, i teach a gentle grip until the intended attack.

in the above drill, the pupil would begin with a gentle grip. once the first attack begins a stronger grip is used. after the first attack fails, switch to a gentle grip to allow a speedier/better disengage. then return to a stronger grip for the redoublement into the torso.

having your student use a glide for the initial attack means you can feel the change of pressure in the grip. so i like to start with that one before doing attacks without blade contact.

i hope this helps.

~aamct2

[pragmatist]

Originally Posted by jBirch

My style comes from classical French foil, so I teach a soft (almost weak) hand with lots of blade avoidance and ceding actions. I'd like to change that and update it a bit, but I don't want a firm hand to turn into a hard hand.

Because of the wide variety in epee attacks, many beginning students will be confused by it. You have to break the attack down into graded exercises. This happens with private lessons until they have understood the simple direct attack, then, you may teach them and let them do drills in groups. I suggest here that you stand behind your students and watch/correct them while they use their mirror image as their target. Drills with each other will give the students the feel of a real body target. After you feel that your students have a good “feel” of that technique, you increase the difficulty through private lessons again and group lessons/drills afterwards. Your students must understand that unlike foil (I assume that some started with foil,) in epee you score softly if they aim at the weak spots of the body (knee and under, arms and hand, head and groin) and attack hard on the “foil” targets. You don’t want injuries to be a part of the lessons. Furthermore, they have to learn to thrust in different angles with opponents in various stance.

[jBirch]

Pragmatist,

You bring up a good point: all the students start in Epee, so they have no Foil experience to draw on.

aamct2,

Thanks for the suggestions, but the problem isn't 1-1 coaching lessons. The problem is reinforcing/practicing/training with partners who may not have the nuanced hand to properly reinforce the correct technique. The nature of the drill itself needs to reinforce (or even force??) the correct action with poor/incompetent partners.

[Durando]

[quote=dridge;637727
From fencing distance and while in motion, either student may launch an attack to defined target. Initially, one may defend only with distance.

The nature of the attack is specified (eg "lunge" or "advance lunge"). Defensive blade actions result in loss of the touch.
QUOTE]


This is a good start. Your students will see that making this attack requires a change in tempo. I also do something that might seem artificial and counter intuitive at this point: after everyone has hit on a direct attack to the body, I'll give one side the instruction that they can only attack after beating the blade. The defenders of course drop any engagement and the attackers come much closer, either setting the defender up for a direct attack into preparation or, for the more crafty attacker, the counter-riposte.

For what its worth, in own club we rarely work on a lunge done in isolation; every lunge is an advance lunge (with the charge in tempo). The less experienced fencers are accordingly hit in preparation, but after a year, they are capable of putting a direct attack on just about anybody and they leave developed some of the mobility necessary to go on to higher levels. I've noticed that when fencing in the States, Hungary, and Switzerland, it seems much easier to attack the toe, thigh, and, knee.

[Allen Evans]

Four different distances and three different target heights seems like an awful lot to keep track of as a beginner. So much so, that I would worry about my students being able to process target selection quickly.

If you're having problems in drills with differentiating all these targets and modes of attack, I would simplify the target selection and concentrate on the footwork set up (with some simple blade actions).

AE

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Four different distances and three different target heights seems like an awful lot to keep track of as a beginner. So much so, that I would worry about my students being able to process target selection quickly.

If you're having problems in drills with differentiating all these targets and modes of attack, I would simplify the target selection and concentrate on the footwork set up (with some simple blade actions).

AE

Hey Allen,

This is a pedagogical framework and only the coaches really keep it in mind. It was just in response to the question Goldgar posed about deep/forward target classification.

Any ideas how to drill a simple lunge to chest in epee?

[Allen Evans]

I'm getting ready to put a discussion of this back on my website (I took it off for massive editing) but here's one idea:


Student: makes an attack to the coach's hand with an advance.

Coach: makes a largish parry of counter-6 while standing still.

Student: disengages or rolls off the parry and lunges to the torso.


For me, the important thing in this lesson is that the student makes the attack with an advance, and that initial attack ends with the student on balance and ready to make a powerful lunge to the chest. Durando is very correct, attacks to the body rarely are done without some preparation footwork, on the part of the student or the opponent.

Once the mechanics of this are under control, have the "coach" do the same drill with a small parry and a retreat. The student should see the difference and NOT lunge to the body (they can re-attack the hand, perhaps). Of course, this comes down to being able to make a strong, preparatory advance and ending in balance.

AE

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by dridge

At my salle, for group lessons at intermediate (and higher) level, after initial footwork, we next perform a competitive drill in pairs, designed to hone both timing and footwork.

From fencing distance and while in motion, either student may launch an attack to defined target. Initially, one may defend only with distance.

The nature of the attack is specified (eg "lunge" or "advance lunge"). Defensive blade actions result in loss of the touch.

Hey drigde,

We do this drill as part of our "limited bouting" exercises. It works, to a degree, but doesn't get that "insistent hand" that I'm looking for and, for some reason, it ends up getting a lot of double touches (where both fencers just lunge into each other over and over). Verbal correction doesn't seem to work too well (the fencers at the beginner level just try to lunge harder/faster without using their feet to set the motion up). I think I'm going to emphasise this drill a little more though.

I'm really looking for a drill that can be practiced with relatively little supervision that will craft this "insistent hand" to the body target. The kids are really good at angulated attacks/stop-hits to the various flavours of forward target and just need to learn how to penetrate to the body. They tend to "bail out" on body attacks and just end up parried or stop-hit.

Thanks for the suggestion though. I think yours has been the only one so far.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

I'm getting ready to put a discussion of this back on my website (I took it off for massive editing) but here's one idea:


Student: makes an attack to the coach's hand with an advance.

Coach: makes a largish parry of counter-6 while standing still.

Student: disengages or rolls off the parry and lunges to the torso.


For me, the important thing in this lesson is that the student makes the attack with an advance, and that initial attack ends with the student on balance and ready to make a powerful lunge to the chest. Durando is very correct, attacks to the body rarely are done without some preparation footwork, on the part of the student or the opponent.

Once the mechanics of this are under control, have the "coach" do the same drill with a small parry and a retreat. The student should see the difference and NOT lunge to the body (they can re-attack the hand, perhaps). Of course, this comes down to being able to make a strong, preparatory advance and ending in balance.

AE

Allen,

I totally forgot that drill. Thanks.

I'll give that one a try and see where it ends up. It's a good extension of the standard parry/disengage drill (we usually finish to the hand, but a lunge to the body will work just as well).

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by jBirch

In our system we distinguish 4 different distances and three different "heights".....It's the "penetrating" ones that I'm having the most trouble teaching....it's that the drills that work for coach-student require just the right distance and just the right timing and just the right hand pressure. Otherwise, the action ends up being "twitchy" or simply a lunge at the proper distance (which can just as easily be done against the target board)....I was wondering if anyone had seen or used a drill that was particularly good at teaching the student to first penetrate with the hand, then follow up with a very strong lunge to hit the chest target. The idea being that once the penetration with the hand is accomplished, the lunge is virtually guarenteed to hit the target. But also how to hold the epee strongly through the hit.

I think you lost me for part of that. I'll just make a few comments in the hope that any of it is useful.

With group drills, I like to structure things so that
1) each drill has one and only one focus
2) drills during the class build toward some specific goal

Sometimes it's easiest to start with one complete action. For example, maybe you want A to maneuver on strip, compress the distance with a threat to hand, and insist through a parry to hit body.

I might structure the drills like this (in all cases A is the attacker).

1) Fencer A makes an advance-lunge to body against a stationary partner. On the advance, the tip should present a threat to shallow target, but it should continue smoothly to chest. The footwork should be at real speed.

Focus: probably the the rhythm of the footwork, especially if you want a change in rhythm, without slowing down the extension.)

2) Fencer A makes an advance with a threat to shallow target and stops. Fencer B makes engages the blade but does not deflect it. Really, fencer B should just engage the blade and apply a firm pressure in the parry. Fencer B is not (yet) seeking to move the attacker's blade. Fencer A lunges while fencer B maintains contact with the blade, still not seeking to move the blade.

Focus: probably for fencer A to feel the parry and to learn to maintain a firm hand.

Variation: let them try the drill with multiple different parries/engagements and maybe different final targets. For simplicity, the partners can coordinate what actions they'll be doing so that there are no surprises.

3) Combine drills 1 and 2, initially at half-speed. That is, the footwork from fencer A should now be smooth and continuing to deep target, but fencer B will be engaging the blade at the end of the advance. You can rig it so that it works however you like. For example, maybe fencer B is not allowed to start the parry/engagement until fencer A has finished his advance. In that case, fencer A should be able to start his lunge before fencer B even makes blade contact, and you could let fencer B attempt to move the blade.

Focus: the synthesis of all of the tempo of the action and firm, early hand that will be required to hit through the parry. The defender should be concentrating on controlling the timing of the parry. That is, fencer B must be careful not to make the parry too early.

4) Now we add movement but we reduce complexity. Back to drill 1 with both fencers moving. You probably want to tell them who/how the action is initiated. That is, fencer B is just ghosting distance, and A should make a check-step back into B to start. Or maybe fencer B initiates by making a small retreat, and fencer A needs to realize that the distance is compressing and start his attack by the end of the advance. Once the action starts, fencer A is doing a smooth advance-lunge straight to chest. Fencer B will not defend with blade this time. You will also need to tell fencer B what footwork to use once fencer A starts. That is, is fencer B allowed to continue retreating? Can he accelerate his retreats? Should he stop and hold his ground?

Focus: learning the tempo of the action in a more realistic (moving) setting. Fencer B is also learning his part in this drill so that the final target makes sense.

5) Finally, putting it all together! We repeat drill 4, but now fencer B will make the parry. He should still be making the parry in the timing that you give him, which in my example is not until fencer A's back foot lands on the advance. Fencer B is still using the final footwork he learned in drill 4.

Focus: synthesis of this complete action. Fencer A gets a good tempo to start, and he maintains a firm hand against a late parry to finish deep.

Now that drill sequence was "dishonest." You structured it so that fencer B fed his partner all of the right variables. That is, fencer B wasn't trying not to be hit. The only thing fencer B learned in that entire sequence was how to control his own body and how to stay relaxed when he's about to be hit (both important skills even if the students don't believe it!).

But I think you want a rigged, dishonest drill when your students are first learning a skill. In a private lesson, you would do the same thing as a coach, carefully controlling how you build the action and making sure that the fencer has a successful action when all of the criteria (distance, footwork, blade) are good.

I find that highly structured drills like this make fencer B's job much easier. There are reasonable things for fencer A to do no matter how B responds, but if you want A to work a specific action, you can't let fencer B have many options. Otherwise, fencer B may change the timing of the parry or pull more distance at the end, and the action that you want fencer A to work no longer makes sense. That way, if one of the drills isn't "working," the pair can raise their hand. Most of the time, the defender is "cheating" in some way (usually without realizing it). He's providing a lead that makes fencer A's action impossible. Since the drills are very structured, it's easy to spot and correct.

Depending on your class, everyone may be fine with this approach to drills. They'll get used to a series of drills that teach them skills and build into a complete action.

Once you have a good foundation of skills, you can add decision points to these drills. In this example, you can have fencer B parry earlier and expand the space, and fencer A can do an initial for shallow, deceive, and lunge to the same or a different shallow target. Then, depending on how fencer B responds, fencer A needs to deceive and finish shallow or insist and finish deep. That's a pretty difficult decision to add, so I'd wait until most of the students are doing this first set of drills successfully.

Of course, all of this being hit stuff is just for coaches. You can make the drills build to an antagonistic finish where both opponents have the opportunity to score. In a group class, that can help keep both fencers more engaged in the drill (no pun intended).

In this example, fencer B may be able to make the parry earlier and closer to score with the riposte. Or maybe B makes the same timing on his blade action, but he is allowed to change the distance. In this case, depending on how fencer B responds, he will either be hit, or he'll be able to hit on the riposte.

So, a final drill with experienced partners may have fencer A looking for late parry and close distance to insist to chest or an early parry with longer distance to deceive and finish shallow. Fencer B is trying to cut the distance and timing pretty tight so that he can catch the parry without being deceived and still be at the right distance to score on the riposte. Sometimes, fencer B will just let himself be hit. (That will help catch fencer A if fencer A isn't really committing to his action.) Sometimes, he'll be doing his best to defeat the attack and hit. In all cases, fencer A should be trying to hit. This kind of drill helps fencer B learn how to draw his opponent's action and set up his defensive action against an opponent who is really trying to score.

Anyway, from personal experience, with a class of 6 - 8 students per coach, we can get through a good sequence of 5 drills that build to a complete action (possible with a decision point or an antagonistic element) in about 45 minutes, including explanation, correction, and having both partners play both roles.

I'm mostly working with a class of Div III fencers in the U.S. (D and under) at the moment. The key to good epee is good preparation. Same with coaching a group epee class. Good lesson planning (preparation) with a single focus for each drill has been critical. It has really helped the students recognize and work the individual skills. Without that, I think that I'd need to have experienced students who would self-adjust correctly so that the drill continues to make sense.

[jBirch]

tbryan,

Awesome. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

Thanks.