Reflexive vs. Intentional

[journalmom]

When does a fencer start to fence with planned actions with intent rather than reflexively? Or does it matter how he/she does it as long as she gets the touches?

[Allen Evans]

The answer depends a lot on the fencer, and a lot on the action. You have to distinguish between technical actions and tactical ones. A technical action -- say a parry -- is probably automatic and "without thought" within the first two years. A tactical action -- say: "I'm going to invite with a strong step and parry the attack in preparation" -- may take as little as two years, or....never. The acquisition of that skill depends a lot on proper coaching and a proper environment at the club.

It does matter how touches are scored (the question makes me think that you are describing a fencer who has been fencing for less than three years). The better fencers usually win because of a mix of technical ability and tactics.

The ability to control the opponent in the bout is critical to success at a high level. That is NOT done simply by making reflexive actions (though there are those fencers who have a great ability to "fight" their way out of trouble). The fencer must be able to set up situations with known endings (they know what stroke they will start with and end with), as well as those situations in which they have to make a choice in actions, or even change tactics entirely (this latter part is more reflexive than planned).

All of this can take a long time to master. Especially if the fencer has not had an introduction to tactical thinking at the very start of their career, sometimes this ability blooms very late, if at all. I'd address specific concerns with your coach.

AE

[emagdnim]

Thanks AE, that was extremely informative and useful.

I usually just lurk around f-net forums out of boredom but i actually learned something from that.

[MdA]

I will sometimes work on a specific technical action with a student for a year before she or he can perform it in a bout. It takes time and good coaching for a fencer to become pre-planned...but in order to be a good fencer you must eventually make this transition.

If you always fence by reflex you can never move to a higher tactical level. I agree with Allen that after 2-3 years most fencers will begin to set things up. Some earlier than that with good coaching and some never...even with good coacing.

[thekoby]

My coach has basically stopped teaching me the technical things about epee fencing and is letting me learn things on my own, like how to set up second-intentions and stuff like that.

I agree with AE about the method of being taught, even if he may not agree with my coach's approach to making me learn this (I'm not sure if he agrees or disagrees, I'm just making the statement). If I hadn't learned on my own how to set these attacks or defences up on my own, I believe I will still be trying to learn them.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by MdA

I will sometimes work on a specific technical action with a student for a year before she or he can perform it in a bout.

Let me clarify because this might seem confusing based on Allen's comment. It might take a year for my student to see...or set up the tactical situation...where they will use a specific technical action.

They may perfect the technical (memorize) action in a few weeks...but to set it up and use it in a bout (tactical) may take more than a year.

Once the technical action is pefected, a good coach will help set up the tactical situation in a lesson. Even after many lessons...moving from the controled environment of the lesson to the strip in a real bout still takes time.

The student should not be afraid to fail...especially in practice bouts. They should be willing to try to set up a tactical situation (pre-planned or intentional) even if it fails.

One of the things that keeps fencers in the reflexive mode is the need to always win bouts...even in practice. They will abandon a tactical approach and revert to reflex in an effort to fight and win. An experienced fencers needs to overcome this urge to revert to "fighting reflex" because this can be predicted by experienced opponents.

Most fencers tend to react in similiar ways...and those that react in non-traditional ways can be quickly analyzed.

[thekoby]

Originally Posted by MdA

The student should not be afraid to fail...especially in practice bouts. They should be willing to try to set up a tactical situation (pre-planned or intentional) even if it fails.

Good advice. When I am free fencing with members in my club, I'm often working on developing tactics that will help me score points. This helps me find out my weaknesses as well as my strengths.

[MHS Fencer]

I'm going to offer up a slightly different view that you want all of your actions to be reflexive. If you have to sit there and think, 'Okay, he's lunging, I want to take a parry 4,' then you're probably too late. You want to train the right responses to the right stimulation, and to fine tune those responses so you respond differently depending on tempo, score, time remaining and a general strategic plan going into the bout.

Then again, I've never been very good at responding to specific advice like, "drop your hand, when he comes in high take a counter-six and fleche," because I just become preoccupied with the one action and suddenly he's attacking my leg and I just look like an idiot as I impale myself on his blade while taking the weakest 7 you've ever seen. I've found that other people whom I have given advice respond the same way, though, which is what makes me advocate for learning your actions by rote and then applying them reflexively.

In my strategy the intentional comes in when setting up the action and in the posturing prior to any decisive action - keeping a long distance on the guy who leaves his arm out when attacking, staying in tight with somebody with a large preparation, etc.

Of course, ymmv, and it depends on the individual, (and every now and then a pre-planned hail mary works out).

[MdA]

Do you take lessons using the reflexive method?

[MHS Fencer]

Short Answer: I don't take lessons, but when I did one of my coaches taught me to react reflexively in tactical situations, which became more and more developed as we worked together year after year where I can now (5 years after my last lesson with him) still throw myself into a bout and just close distance and go on autopilot with pretty good results - think Harmenburg's Epee 2.0.


Long Answer:
This turned out long (and narcissistic), so apologies. My coaching history, minus my first coach who taught me the basics/instilled me with a love of sport:

It's been a while since I've had a lesson now, but I would say that my second coach (who gave me most of my lessons in my career) emphasized the quick rote reaction - this is also when I had my most success. When I'd miss an action that we had been working on, he would continue through, and I would learn my lesson. When I did something else I'd get a wary look and the next time I'd do it "wrongly" he'd go through the counteraction at full speed and show me why it was a weaker move (he'd also do this on what I was working on, but would then have the lesson proceed based on this evolution, as any lesson should proceed). When I was on my game I would pick up on the first and maybe the second evolution of the wrong action, but by the third in a single progression I was tied up in knots, whereas when I stuck with his system I would remain ready and balanced (or well past him), so I adapted to "right" and "wrong" responses to different situations (which vary very finely).

When I went off to school I had another coach who seemed somewhat similar, although less rigid (we had no shared language, so we could only communicate through actions), and after a period of adjustment I was fencing quite well, although I think he was more working with what I brought to the table rather than any specific vision he had, until I seriously injured myself, and, after a year-long formal break I took lessons from a fourth coach for about a year who didn't seem to have a system but rather a collection of actions that I didn't find very useful (percentage shots, rather than the right action for the right situation), followed half a year later by a month with a much more cerebral coach who helped reset my mind (which was addled for a number of non-fencing reasons) but whose style did not mesh well with mine, and it has now been more than a year since my last lesson.

I'm sure there's more I could have learned from that last one as it probably would have enabled me to add a third game, but sadly I had to be moving along, and in the past year I've practiced (and done minor competitions) on occasion but no lessons.

So, yes, I suppose I've had lessons with this method, although never formally explained as such - it was more something I've put together on my own. Part of the crystallization came from some discussions/bouting with Johan Harmenburg regarding his "olympic touch" theory (and some input from Eric Sollee), but that was more of an after-the-fact explanation of the process that I'd been using to train/condition myself and with which I'd had success.

When I look at old videos of myself fencing I tend to be very timid and awkward, and then suddenly when something triggers that reflex everything just flows, and when it's not, well, then I'm just asleep, but that's what more years of training/experience have been/are for.

[Hauptman]

I would say that one should be learning to plan actions from the very beginning, but that success in this will be limited based on the technical progression of the fencer.

A fencer who is still preoccupied with their technique will have less attention to spend on planning their actions, and will have less success in carrying out those plans because of flawed technique. Until the fencer reaches a certain level of technical competence the tactical aspects of their game will have limitations as well.

Another aspect of the reflexive/tactical ratio is the level of your opponent. As the skill of your opponent increases compared to your own you will be less able to successfully plan your touches, and more will be scored reflexively. (Although there is the "beginner" paradox where the beginner, knowing less but thinking less, acts more quickly, while the intermediate fencer, knowing more but also thinking more, is slower.)

Often two high level fencers of near equal ability are playing a guessing game of what the other will do. When the action actually begins they will see who guessed correctly and the other fencer will most likely have to correctly react reflexively or lose the point.

My two cents...

[MdA]

My original answer was directed to Journalmom. It was intended to follow Allens comment about fencers with less than 2-3 years experience. My advice was intended for that intermediate fencer who, as you point out, is probably thinking too much.

Most experienced fencers who have been thru many years and several coaches will fence in the reflexive mode you have described. But after you description, it appears you do it within the context of the lessons you have received. This is the point I was trying to make.

Your experience has given you a sense for tactics...you don't need lessons to set up tactical situations...most fencers transitioning from begginner to intermediate need tactical lessons.

[jBirch]

I'd caution that the classification is a little too simplistic.

The concept that you're searching for is the progression from "closed eyes" actions, where the fencer simply does SOMETHING, to "mindless eyes" where the fencer can do a simple reflex, but can't do anything AFTER that, to "robot eyes" where the fencer can set up a simple sequence, but then simply executes that sequence regardless of what the other fencer does, to "planning eyes" where the fencer sees an opportunity that they can "trigger" in their opponent and executes a planned action to take advantage of it, to "military eyes" ("no plan survives first contact with the enemy") where the fencer sets up a planned action, but is aware of the necessity for changes to the plan (and can execute adaptive responses!) as it is underway and finally to "hunting eyes" where the fencer is constantly putting themselves in favourable positions (and their opponent in unfavourable ones) and using reflex to exploit fleeting opportunity when it arises.

I think what the original poster was asking about, is about when the fencer goes from robotic execution to actually being able to "see the ice" and control their opponent (in a limited fashion) by conceiving and executing a simple plan.

The answer to that is, as most things, *it depends*. Some fencers do very well with a "force it" approach (what is sometimes called a Fighting fencer) where they simply go "harder & faster". Other fencers take a "technician" approach and really try to consciously control their opponent. Generally, both styles are acceptable with "fighters" getting a lot of early success and "technical" fencers getting a lot of later success. Some fighters seem never to be able to set up a plan.

The technical approach is often the more spectacular when it works (it makes the fencer look very smart), but can cause the technician to be behind the action for most of the bout (time spent trying to execute a plan is time wasted scoring touches).

The modern fencing game now is much simpler (and harder!) then it was before. The simplest action (a straight thrust) executed with exquisite timing is what is winning games these days and so a reflexive training regime (coupled with a limited ability to get oneself out of trouble) is what most coaches are developing. The idea in this case is that the coach is the one doing the planning and the thinking and the fencer is the one executing the plans precisely.

As they say, "two minds are better then one".

Hope this helps.

James.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by thekoby

My coach has basically stopped teaching me the technical things about epee fencing and is letting me learn things on my own, like how to set up second-intentions and stuff like that.

This is probably a very bad idea. I have a number of students who do well in strong competitions, and we continually go back and refresh, refine, rehearse technical actions, and they are "A" and "B" level students.

Technical skills can be de-emphasized during a period of training, but they should never be ignored. You're an "E" in foil and epee, correct? Especially in epee, technical skills are very important, and past a certain point, you won't advance without them.

AE

[MdA]

I agree with Jbirch and Allen...more later

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

This is probably a very bad idea. I have a number of students who do well in strong competitions, and we continually go back and refresh, refine, rehearse technical actions, and they are "A" and "B" level students.

Technical skills can be de-emphasized during a period of training, but they should never be ignored. You're an "E" in foil and epee, correct? Especially in epee, technical skills are very important, and past a certain point, you won't advance without them.

AE

My coach has said that making a fencer is like taking a square block of wood and attempting to make it a sphere by cutting off one corner at a time. I think it's an apt analogy.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

My coach has said that making a fencer is like taking a square block of wood and attempting to make it a sphere by cutting off one corner at a time. I think it's an apt analogy.

This is a good analogy. My opinion, when a coach stops giving you lessons, he either has nothing more to teach...or the fencer has become non-receptive. Either way it is not a good thing...ask him to start working with you again or get another coach. The block is not round enough, yet.

[bob46]

Originally Posted by MdA

This is a good analogy. My opinion, when a coach stops giving you lessons, he either has nothing more to teach...or the fencer has become non-receptive. Either way it is not a good thing...ask him to start working with you again or get another coach. The block is not round enough, yet.

Unfortunately, it never is quite round enough. First of all, we're all blockheads at heart. (lol just kidding about that) But have you ever wondered why the Olympians still have coaches? Because they still need to have someone to help improve their techniques more.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by bob46

But have you ever wondered why the Olympians still have coaches? Because they still need to have someone to help improve their techniques more.

There are probably additional reasons why high level fencers continue to be coached. One of them is the continued correction of technique, but there are many many other reasons as well, such as (in no order):

• tactical advice
• opponent analysis and reconnaissance
• monitoring of ongoing physical preparation and training
• interfacing with National and International Governing bodies
• identifying trends in tactics and new rules of play
• emotional support

As well as the role(s) the coach may play in the training club itself.

Allen Evans

[bob46]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

There are probably additional reasons why high level fencers continue to be coached. One of them is the continued correction of technique, but there are many many other reasons as well, such as (in no order):

• tactical advice
• opponent analysis and reconnaissance
• monitoring of ongoing physical preparation and training
• interfacing with National and International Governing bodies
• identifying trends in tactics and new rules of play
• emotional support

As well as the role(s) the coach may play in the training club itself.

Allen Evans

yeah that stuff too...