Drilling Deceptive Attacks

[InFerrumVeritas]

I have coached one-on-one as an assistant at our club for about a year now, as well as running simple parry-riposte drills and footwork warm-ups. Tonight, my coach had me run a parry-riposte drill and I put my own take on it (adding specific limitations to the footwork involved so as to also drill lunge recoveries and "distance-aided" parries). My coach was impressed that I was trying to develop skills that I saw lacking in general bouting as well as run the parry-riposte drill.

Now to the point: He asked me to prepare for next monday (the 14th) a drill which would help to improve the feint-disengages of some of out fencers. I am slightly stumped on how to run somthing like this. Does anyone have any suggestions?

[jBirch]

Ah yes, drilling the disengage.

Tough subject.

The classic way is to have fencer 2 (the attacker) make a realistic feint to the main target. Then fencer 1 "falls for" the feint by attempting to parry it and then fencer 2 disengages and hits to the target.

You can do feint in 4, disengage to 6. Feint in 6, disengage to 4. Feint in 7, disengage to 8. Etc...

The downside to this drill is that it requires fencer 1 to make a realistic reaction to the presentation of the feint. If they don't react in time, fencer 2 is supposed to carry through to hit the target...but often that's too much to expect from both fencers. What often ends up happening is that fencer 1 trains to parry a feint. But that's the classic way.

Another drill that works is for fencer 1 to make continuous, but slow circular parries with their blade. Fencer 2 then has to get their blade in to the feint while Fencer 1's blade is away, then "run away" from the parry by disengaging and pressing the attack home. It works, but this drill teaches Fencer 2 to make a feint that is pre-ordained to morph into a disengage (regardless of what fencer 1 does, fencer 2 will disengage).

So much of feint-disengage requires the attacking fencer to have a strong sense of both timing and surprise. They need to have scouted out what the opponent is likely to do when presented with the feint and that requires them to have the ability to scout, the ability to observe AND the ability to execute the disengage at the proper tempo.

Tough call.

When I'm teaching this, I usually introduce the students to the basic disengage. I'm interested in them refining the MOTION of a proper disengage and I'm not too interested in the creation of a realistic feint. We do a lot of simple circular parries at ever increasing speed with the attacker "failing" when the speed is such that they simply can't keep up with it. Then we move into more dynamic drills where the defender is walking slowly backward or forward while doing the same circular blade movements. The attacker then has to get tighter and tighter with their disengage to get a touch without getting parried.

When I want to teach the feint disengage proper, I move into private lessons where I can control very precisely the two canned responses. ie// Sometimes I parry, sometimes I don't. The student needs to figure out which I'm doing and react properly to it with either a continuation of the feint or a disengage of the parry.

But it's a highly nuanced drill that doesn't work so well for partner drills.

Allen Evans will probably have more advice for you.

Hope this helps.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Yes, that did help quite a lot. Thank you.

What I think I'm going to do is have them do partner drills (which is what we do after footwork every practice), but before I have them do the drills, go through the drill with each student (we have a small club).

I like the second drill a lot. I think I will use it to introduce the timing of the disengage, then use the first afterword emphasizing that they should only disengage if their opponent actually parries.

I hope it will work, and any other advice is certianly welcome.

[Rick Thompson]

There are several aspects to deception that are important, and you need to decide which you're going to concentrate on. JBirch's review of drills is an excellent summary of the types, isn't broken down to the component level.

A: "Selling" the feint - making the feint a realistic threat.
B: Evading the blade - the technique of executing the deceive (disengage, coupe, double', etc.)
C: Timing the evasion - the technique of responding the opponent's defensive action at the proper time.
D: Decision - The partially foreseen instance of an opponent's reacting or not to the feint - decide on continuing straight attack or make deception.
E: Choice of Deception - Given the possibility of an opponent making different defensive actions (including footwork), which deception to use.
F: Options upon Failure - what to do if the deception is intercepted and parried (or ends up out of distance), reacting to an opponent's riposte, etc.
G: Tactical Application - Changing the feint-deceive to the circumstances of a given opponent, or changing it against the same opponent. Involves timing changes, early/late feints, changing footwork, etc.

This list is roughly in increasing order of complexity (and I may have left out some aspects!).

All of these elements of feinting/deceiving should addressed in a comprehensive training curriculum. In working with individual fencers, you can select a given element to concentrate on. Working with a group, you need to come up with a middle-ground, and drills that everyone can operate with.

Of course, you shouldn't try to reduce your lesson to instructing only ONE of the elements - you need to combine them as appropriate for your style and for the students. But it's important that you, as the instructor, be aware of the breakdown and what comprises a complex set of actions.

I, and others, can give you specific examples of how to instruct each of the elements, but it's best if you think about it and discover some yourself. Happy to answer questions, and to provide futher examples if needed.

[sabreur]

Wall drills are another important (crucial in sabre) element in teaching the avoidance of a parry.

A stands against a wall (so cannot retreat).

B starts at advance-lunge distance (maybe for foil, you'd simply do this in lunge distance).

You set up the possible actions ahead of time. For instance:

A is in 6, and can either stay in six or parry 4.

B attacks in the 4 line, and can either attack directly, or with a disengage to six.

This teaches the correct presentation of the feint AS attack--if A doesn't parry, B finishes with a straight attack. It also teaches the defender to wait as long as possible before parrying.

For foil, you'd have lots of options... A is in 6, and can stay in six or parry circle-six. A can parry 4 or circle 6, etc.

[jBirch]

And since the uber-coach Allen Evans hasn't shown up yet, here's an article he wrote on the Feint:

http://home.earthlink.net/~allenevans59/LIES.HTML

Enjoy.

[Allen Evans]

There isn't an good way to do this in a paired drill, though there are a lot of bad ways. I have yet to find a partner drill that really teaches the timing of the feint-disengage very well. Most of the drills I used when I was teaching taught the mechanics of the disengage, rather than the timing of the disengage, when it's the latter skill that's the most important. The best drills let natural behavior occur, but only in a specific skill set and in specific actions.

I have experimented with:

A longish distance (disengages work better at long distances than short distances), line A makes a straight attack against line D. Line D is allowed to make only one parry and should parry the first two attacks by line A (you, as the coach, can decide if line A can attempt a counter-riposte on these three attempts). Line D is not allowed to retreat.

After the first three attacks, line A should now have the timing of line D's parry down, and may make either a disengage around the parry, or a straight attack that allows line A to make a counter-riposte. Line D, of course, is obligated to parry the attack every time, and is not allowed to make more than one parry in an action. Line A must attack deep enough to force a reaction from D. If A does not attack deeply, D is not obliged to parry.

Hits with the disengage are worth 3 points, hits with the counter-riposte are worth 1. If D scores with a riposte, it is worth 1 point to them. When line A or D reaches 10 or more points, switch roles. Conversely, you can not award points (if the class is small) and just switch roles every few minutes.

This drill should reward Line A in making a believable straight start to the attack, though most fencers will still make the mistake of disengaging and extending rather than extending and then disengaging. This should let line D parry easily and reinforce to A the need to start extending in an open line to start the attack.

The most important part of any drill is for the instructor to stay very engaged with the students, pointing out mistakes or where the students are "cheating". I find this works well by letting the students work in pairs while I wander around and help those fencers having problems. Occasionally you have to stop the class and put them on track again.

AE

[Rick Thompson]

Allen Evans wrote:

This drill should reward Line A in making a believable straight start to the attack, though most fencers will still make the mistake of disengaging and extending rather than extending and then disengaging. This should let line D parry easily and reinforce to A the need to start extending in an open line to start the attack.

Having acknowledged that most beginning fencers try to "cheat" by doing the disengage first and the extension after, I have embraced that in my progression of teaching.

Instead of introducing the disengage as a feinting action, I teach a movement dubbed a "change-line attack" prior to the feint-deceive. The Change-line attack is done from an engagement of the blades, where the attacker performs a disengage and changes lines (into the open line, preferably), and then extends and hits. At the speed (and often the distance) that beginners operate, this is actually an effective attack. But more to the point, it introduces the technique of disengaging in a natural manner.

The change-line attack is then applied to someone attempting to take the blade, especially with a broad action (initially slower for beginners). (Look! A derobement!)

As the beginners progress over the next several lessons/classes, the change-line attack is changed to a feint-deceive by altering the order of actions. By extending first, and then disengaging, the students learn to "sell" the threat and then deceive.

By introducing the technique of the "change-line" before it's considered a true feint, I find that teaching the timing of the disengage is much simplified, as the students can already perform the action. The earlier application of the change-line as a derobement instills the notion of using it against a parry, without having to explain it.

The transition from change-line attack to feint-deceive is actually one that students arrive at by discovery, rather than having it demonstrated. As they get better (and their reaction speed improves), the simple change-line does not work as well, and they often "discover" the extend-feint-disengage themselves. And, since they already understand how to evade the blade under the hilt, I have had much fewer problems with students retracting their extension to perform a deceive.

[AaronK]

Depending on the level of the students I would say that executing a feint-deceive (disengage) is really difficult if you are approaching it from the idea that they are going to disengage when (if) the opponent makes a parry- rather than a rote action. Posts above also brought up the difficulty to execute the skill without "cheating" and the fener's impulse to execute the change of line before the extension (effectively executing an indirect attack rather than a feint-deceive).

If the focus of your drill is going to be on timing the line change (disengage) I would suggest removing the footwork element from the paired drill initially. Have the fencers slow the extension down and instruct the defender to make a medium-speed parry at a variable time (early, medium, or late in the extension). Slowly increase the speed until it can happen at something approaching a bouting speed. I would add the footwork in by using an advance rather than a lunge (because you can move slowly and continuously). Of course you will have to have them attempt the skill on a lunge eventually.

If the attacking fener is trying to compel a parry (and then realize the moment to deceive), then I would work along the lines of what was suggested above- work a straight attack to find the moment the partner likes to parry and attempt to disengage at the last second. Occasionally the fencer making a feint-deceive should attempt to hit straight (randomly) to keep the defender consistant with their parry.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Originally Posted by AaronK

Occasionally the fencer making a feint-deceive should attempt to hit straight (randomly) to keep the defender consistant with their parry.

I will bring that last bit up to our coach. I think it will really enforce the need to parry and attack, but be ready for a feign to occur, which seems to be the major drawback of drilling.

[Durando]

After a cursory scan of this thread, I'd observe that it is probably not worth teaching a composed attack in absence of tactical context. Deception depends on observation of one's adversary and, more importantly, on the tactical context of the touch. When does it happen in the bout? Where on the piste?

Think of this: if your opponent has not responded to any of your feints (or you have made no feints), does it make much sense to try a disengage hoping that the opponent will somehow parry if the "feint is good enough"? Much thought has been given to making a feint good enough without first thinking about what the adversary is up to.

But, if I have just burned my opponent on a direct, simple attack in a given line, then of course the tactical context for a successful disengage becomes very strong. But, viewed solely from the perspective of technique (do this with your hand, do this with your feet at this distance, etc.) it is an action divorced of what makes it successful.

I really don't think you can teach deceptions properly unless you are also teaching within a tactical context. Trying to do so robs you (and your student) of necessary preconditions for the action's success. Normally, disengages are things that are relearned after someone has a given amount of competitive experience. In my fencing life, the concept of a disengage was introduced, practiced with very mediocre success in lessons, practiced with almost no success in competition, repeated in lessons, etc. It wasn't really until the action was integrated in a tactically realistic series of lesson actions that I started to catch on.

PS. From a technical drill standpoint, I think it makes a lot of sense to drill disengages and counter-parries at the same time, as they are very close to each other mechanically.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Originally Posted by Durando

After a cursory scan of this thread, I'd observe that it is probably not worth teaching a composed attack in absence of tactical context. Deception depends on observation of one's adversary and, more importantly, on the tactical context of the touch. When does it happen in the bout? Where on the piste?

Think of this: if your opponent has not responded to any of your feints (or you have made no feints), does it make much sense to try a disengage hoping that the opponent will somehow parry if the "feint is good enough"? Much thought has been given to making a feint good enough without first thinking about what the adversary is up to.

But, if I have just burned my opponent on a direct, simple attack in a given line, then of course the tactical context for a successful disengage becomes very strong. But, viewed solely from the perspective of technique (do this with your hand, do this with your feet at this distance, etc.) it is an action divorced of what makes it successful.

I really don't think you can teach deceptions properly unless you are also teaching within a tactical context. Trying to do so robs you (and your student) of necessary preconditions for the action's success. Normally, disengages are things that are relearned after someone has a given amount of competitive experience. In my fencing life, the concept of a disengage was introduced, practiced with very mediocre success in lessons, practiced with almost no success in competition, repeated in lessons, etc. It wasn't really until the action was integrated in a tactically realistic series of lesson actions that I started to catch on.

PS. From a technical drill standpoint, I think it makes a lot of sense to drill disengages and counter-parries at the same time, as they are very close to each other mechanically.

You make an excellent point. The thing is that I am trying to teach the technical side of it (and how to parry it, as this seems to vex beginners for some reason). The way my coach has taught (and so I am trying to be consistant) is that one learns the technique and then how to integrate it into their fencing.

The problem that I have found in earlier attempts is that the defender will just wait for the disengage to happen (which the attacker will do), and then parry in that direction. This is why I was looking for a way to sell the fient within the drills.

On a side note, thank you to Rick T. and Allen Evans. Both of your advice was very useful (as was everyone elses), and I think I managed to employ it with moderate success. Now we're working on second intentions...

[knave]

Originally Posted by InFerrumVeritas

You make an excellent point. The thing is that I am trying to teach the technical side of it (and how to parry it, as this seems to vex beginners for some reason). The way my coach has taught (and so I am trying to be consistant) is that one learns the technique and then how to integrate it into their fencing.

The problem that I have found in earlier attempts is that the defender will just wait for the disengage to happen (which the attacker will do), and then parry in that direction. This is why I was looking for a way to sell the fient within the drills.

Well, that sounds more like a range issue, than a feint issue. If someone is "waiting out" a compound action, they only have a certain amount of time. If the attacker travels into optimum hitting range and properly executes the final simple piece of his attack before the parry starts, then they should hit before the parry can intercept the blade.

I tend to have my students turn the unwillingness of the opponent to parry into a decision drill. The attacker presents a feint while penetrating distance. The defender, if trying to participate in the drill, will attempt to parry the feint. The attacker, who is anticipating the parry, will deceive and hit. If properly executed, even if the defender tries a second parry, it will be late. If the defender, trying to game the drill, declines to parry the feint, the attacker should continue in the line of the feint and finish. Not only is the a valuable decision to make in a real bout, but it also demonstrates that the defender has a certain amount of time to act, and if they wait too long (and let their opponent too close), then they will not be able to successfully defend.

[Openeyes]

Originally Posted by InFerrumVeritas

I will bring that last bit up to our coach. I think it will really enforce the need to parry and attack, but be ready for a feign to occur, which seems to be the major drawback of drilling.

I think this is the crux of the issue (as well as the reason it must be drilled and why drilling it is so difficult)

When I work by myself I _always_ drill an attack with a feint in tandem with the same attack without the feint. I do a one for one ratio- just one right after the other. Naturally this lets me fine tune the presentation of the feint so it will look just like the attack, but more importantly it unifies the muscle memory and focuses my attention on the disengage- the only element not present in both. This type of focus really helps put your 'decision point' where you decide to disengage or not- deeper into the attack.

Drilling this with my students is tougher, but when they're starting out with compound actions I'll have them run much the same drill in a partner format. Fencer A will touch 6, then feint 6 deceive and touch 4.(or any lines you wish) Fencer B will attempt to parry. At this stage in their development the students still have large technical flaws, so this drill helps both with two of the most common- Make fencer A focus on actually touching with the non feint- (so his feint doesn't look like the dreadful "quick poke towards nowhere in particular" feint) Fencer B focuses on making the smallest, most accurate, non-big parries possible.

I teach a lot of age groups, but even with the adult classes I've found it takes six or more months to truly get rid of the 'poke to nowhere' feint, and a lot longer for students to continue the attack when there is no parry.

Oh, doing the mechanics _really_ slowly helps a lot... But more than five minutes at a time seems too much for even the 'adult' attention span

cheers