How many parries are really used in foil?

[MdA]

Originally Posted by kuroutesshin

Francophile! Or shall we call it a Gleistoß?

At the German Academy (ADFD) we learned the French first in order to use the common fencing terms...and then the German equivalents... Gleistoß ist auch richtig.

[MdA]

Back to the topic...here is a link to some manuals with excellent pictures of all the parries and your croises...and filos...and other stuff

Lets Talk First Lessons and Drills

[Don Badowski]

Taking level 2 foil at Coaches College last year. I don't recall how the subject came up, but we were talking about when to use the C6 over a 4. I chimed in (can't shut me up for love or money) that the closer the point was to your guard, the more you should choose the C6. Much to my surprise, Alex said No. Ideally, Yes. Practically, No. The fencing is usually moving far too fast for the defender to make that observation and act on it. Instead, the defender has to make that decision before the opponent finishes. While the C6 may not be perfect for catching a point that is coming in far from your guard, it is good enough if timed well.

OK, I can understand that. But then Alex went on to demonstrate that by dropping the hand just below the elbow while doing the down portion of C6, then raising it back up as you finish, you can also defend the low lines. At first I thought I was hearing things. Dropping the hand! Isn't that one of the biggest no-no's of parrying? A few tries showed that this can work well. A little practice and it worked great.

So as long as I don't fence anyone who can do a circular disengage, I can just C6 my way to victory! Right? Right?

[MdA]

Right...C6 and a good counterattack. that just about covers it in foil today!!!

[KD5MDK]

In epee I know a girl who "circle-6 flick to forearm"'d here way from no particular distinction to a silver medal at a Cadet NAC, before she encountered Courtney Hurley. She has since developed a much more rounded game, but for that tournament it was pretty consistantly the same thing again and again.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Don Badowski

The fencing is usually moving far too fast for the defender to make that observation and act on it. Instead, the defender has to make that decision before the opponent finishes. While the C6 may not be perfect for catching a point that is coming in far from your guard, it is good enough if timed well.

This is correct... and not to pick on Don, specifically... really.

This is happily representative of where backwater (too much time alone, or away from quality fencing) 'fencing theory' stumbles directly into the brick wall of practical application at advanced levels.

[jBirch]

Technically, you can parry any attack in foil with one parry from the current blade position if you include elevated and lowered versions of each.

Most coaches drill c6 and 4 to death so that's what you see a lot of. Then they introduce 7, 8 before completely forgetting about them except to occasionally remind the student that theoretically there are low line parries too. Then, when infighting starts to happen, 1 appears. c4 doesn't really get taught because the student starts en garde for most lessons.

So, at intermediate/beginner levels, 4, 6 and c6. At advanced and elite levels, c6,4,6 and 1.

I haven't really seen much 3 or 5 in foil, but it could just be the way we Canadians play.

Remember, parries are generally a reflexive action, not a deliberate one, since the timing is initiated by the opponent. What "shows up" is what the fencer has been drilled at. And since every curriculum starts with 4, 6 and c6, that's what you see most often.

Ideally, you want "different stuff" to show up whenever a parry is called for so that the action initiated by the opponent always has a significant "unknown" element to deal with. 4, c6, c3, e2, e7, e8, 1, 5 can all protect the high inside line. Similarly, L4, c8, 7, c2, Lc6, 1, L5 can all protect the low inside line. Each ends with the tip in a different position with different angulation, and different riposte opportunities and each takes a different trajectory to get there.

"planned" or "eyes closed" actions by the opponent can't really be executed against an opponent who is varying their responses this much, so the higher level game says, "screw it!" and just simplifies back to distance and timing. Which also, in turn, tends to simplify the defense which gets back to...4, 6, c6 and 1...with occasional "different" parries thrown into the mix to shake things up.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget about "distance parries".

James.

[darius]

Remember, parries are generally a reflexive action, not a deliberate one, since the timing is initiated by the opponent.

If you're building a defensive game, you never want to parry because you have to, only because you want to. What that means is that I'd like my students to have the ability to defend with their feet at all times, and think of parry-riposte as an OFFENSIVE action (not in terms of classification, but in terms of attitude) ... you're teeing off and jumping on an overly weak or overcommitted attack.

I haven't really seen much 3 or 5 in foil, but it could just be the way we Canadians play.

In foil, 5 is just an overpronated 4, which I see all the time in WF. Not that it's good.

I've replaced c6 with c3 in my own fencing, which has dramatically increased the percentage of flicks that land; it's just a more natural position for me. I'll keep c6 for an opposition riposte, but like the 3 for coming off the blade, which is more typical in modern foil...or maybe I just spend too much time with sabre fencers.

darius

[keith]

Originally Posted by darius

In foil, 5 is just an overpronated 4, which I see all the time in WF. Not that it's good.

You know there are a couple of handy uses for that horrid overpronated 4.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Remember, parries are generally a reflexive action, not a deliberate one, since the timing is initiated by the opponent.

I agree with Darius.

Why should parries be a reflexive action rather than deliberate? Why would I be willing to stipulate that the timing be initiated by the opponent?

Create the moment for the attack. Control your opponent and make him/her attack at the time of your choosing. In the line of your choosing.

Much easier to be successful when you do that. The trick, of course, is learning how to do that.

edit: As an additional note, given that this is a coaching thread, note that the way most coaches teach it's hard for the student to learn this. We teach that when the coach attacks they should react. So of course the student learns that a parry is a reactionary move. We need to teach our students to control the attack. It takes significantly more thought to do this well than just sticking out a blade. It also results in a significantly stronger student who is likely to have considerably more success.

-B

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I agree with Darius.

I agree with Darius, too, but most people argue with me when I do.

Having more than one parry (no matter how perfectly timed) is important to do just what Oiuyt says: for instance making a false 4 to drive the opponent to a line in which a real parry can be made. Or a false parry in a line to turn into a real counter-attack. I realize that no one here is actually advocating teaching only one parry, but having "parry diversity" is a good idea for changes of tactics. And like Dairus, I find the three to be a good pre-cursor to a flick.

What I don't see is the need for is a complicated system of hand positions and rotations (ala the old Italian school). I usually teach 4 parries (two high line and two low line) and circular parries for two or three of them and that's it. Is that too many? I don't think so.

Allen Evans

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I'm into teaching all of them, yet only actively practicing a couple (Counter 6, 4, and counter 8).

After a while, they usually pick up the other parries that work for them, and disregard those that do not.

Darwin did Jeet Kune Do.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

I agree with Darius, too, but most people argue with me when I do.

I guess I get to be "most people" today...*grin*

Why would anyone craft an entire game around ceding initiative to the opponent?

And when I'm talking "parry" I'm talking about actually stopping an attack. The "defensive beat" to take RoW is a completely different thing, IMHO and we shouldn't get them mixed up here.

James.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I guess I get to be "most people" today...*grin*

Why would anyone craft an entire game around ceding initiative to the opponent?

Having a defensive game and ceding initiative are NOT the same thing.

Maintaining control over the opponent when on defense is additionally independent of whether or not the overall game is defensive.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Create the moment for the attack. Control your opponent and make him/her attack at the time of your choosing. In the line of your choosing.

Parrying, done well, does not involve ceding initiative.

-B

[keith]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Why would anyone craft an entire game around ceding initiative to the opponent?

... and yet I suspect you already do aspects of this in your teaching.

After all when you teach advance/engage, lunge I suspect on occasion you deceive the engage and attack in prep?

This is just over intellectualizing heads I win, tails you lose

The problem is in teaching a 'false' search, it's much the same as teaching a feint as something different to an attack (IMHO).

[jBirch]

I'm not saying that a parry can't win against a poor attack.

What I'm saying is that parrying as a *planned action* must, by design, WAIT for the attack to start..and that the attacker must CHOOSE the moment to make their action against your planned defense. If they are any good, they are going to choose the absolute worst moment for you to defend...regardless of your preparations.

Which means that for it to work as a strategic game, you have to have control over your opponent...and they still have the freedom to act in defiance of your plan.

I'm not a fan of crafting a game presupposing that the fencer has tactical and technical dominance over their opponent. If it's that mismatched, they should easily be able to win with attacks.

James.

[darius]

What I'm saying is that parrying as a *planned action* must, by design, WAIT for the attack to start..and that the attacker must CHOOSE the moment to make their action against your planned defense. If they are any good, they are going to choose the absolute worst moment for you to defend...regardless of your preparations.

Not at all. A good defensive fencer can force the moment by making a false-counterattack or a false-parry at a distance/line which "compels" the attacker to finish. (A strong counterattack makes this much easier; the attacker will be forced to finish at any hint of a counter or risk a one-light touch against them)

I've seen fencers who aren't even that proficient at counter offense have a primarily defensive game, if they have the tactical sense to stay close enough to draw the attack and then give themselves just enough separation to not get hit, but be able to lay into the riposte.

Which means that for it to work as a strategic game, you have to have control over your opponent...and they still have the freedom to act in defiance of your plan.

You could say the same thing about the attack as well. Good luck hitting if your preparations haven't given you that control.

I'm not a fan of crafting a game presupposing that the fencer has tactical and technical dominance over their opponent. If it's that mismatched, they should easily be able to win with attacks.

But you're supposing tactical and technical dominance are one category; of course, that fencer will win. However, in reality, fencers have certain physical, technical, tactical, and emotional strengths and weaknesses. The question is, how do those strengths match up against their competition, and how do you maximize those strengths / minimize the weaknesses?

darius

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jBirch

What I'm saying is that parrying as a *planned action* must, by design, WAIT for the attack to start..and that the attacker must CHOOSE the moment to make their action against your planned defense.

And I'm saying that if you're waiting for your opponent to choose when and what to do that you're doing it wrong. Pretty much regardless of what your planned response is going to be.

Break out of the assumption that parries are a response to an action initiated by the opponent and you will find a whole new, almost certainly more effective, world of parries (and other defensive actions).

-B

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

And I'm saying that if you're waiting for your opponent to choose when and what to do that you're doing it wrong. Pretty much regardless of what your planned response is going to be.

Egocentric Defensive Methodology 101

Me Me Me Me Me Me ME!!!

Basic assumption is that the opponent is a dumb cow. Good luck with that.

Break out of the assumption that parries are a response to an action initiated by the opponent and you will find a whole new, almost certainly more effective, world of parries (and other defensive actions).

-B

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

And I'm saying that if you're waiting for your opponent to choose when and what to do that you're doing it wrong. Pretty much regardless of what your planned response is going to be.

Break out of the assumption that parries are a response to an action initiated by the opponent and you will find a whole new, almost certainly more effective, world of parries (and other defensive actions).

-B

I agree with Brad. I find that any defensive action works better when attempting to either trick or force the opponent into attacking (or finishing their attack) at an inopportune moment.

There is a world of difference between WAITING for the end of the attack and CAUSING the end of the attack.

Is it 100%? No. But letting the opponent take complete control over the time to finish their attack is folly.