How many parries are really used in foil?

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

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.

But what if (s)he knows that you know that (s)he knows that you know?

Yep, good times.

Both fencers have free will.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

But what if (s)he knows that you know that (s)he knows that you know?

Yep, good times.

Both fencers have free will.

Sure, but do you know that (s)he knows, etc?

Can you trick them into fouling up anyway by appearing to make a small mistake in your action? Can you make them hesitate? Lose their nerve?

Like I said, the control isn't 100%. That's what makes this sport so fascinating, to me. Both fencers often end up reaching a compromise about where and when to fence... it's like a negotiation.

There is one way in which a fencer can have all or almost all of the control over the moment to start fencing, though... when the other one does nothing. I'll take 50% over 0% any day of the week.

As an aside, one thing I've believed more and more over the past few years is that the fencer who is more in control of the moment fencing happens, either by attacking or causing the opponent to attack, has a huge advantage and will get the touch much more often. I've started to make up some tactical drills for this in foil and sabre classes that I run, and I've found that by making them less cooperative on defense by being very disruptive, changing up the distance and tempo, making many false (and some real) counter attacks and searches and generally fighting the attacker as much as possible, defensive actions have begun to have a much higher success rate, particularly for the sabre fencers, but that may just be because the group there is much more hardworking and motivated.

[Mr Epee]

You are talking about two different, mostly unrelated, subjects. Maybe three.

- first-mover advantage
- second-mover advantage (generally, more informed decision making)
- overload strategy focused on decision impairment

As an aside, one thing I've believed more and more over the past few years is that the fencer who is more in control of the moment fencing happens, either by attacking or causing the opponent to attack, has a huge advantage and will get the touch much more often.

What do you think this means?

Also, how do you define 'more in control'... is this based on your gut?

If it's merely based on your observation of the bouts, I must assume that you are observing that fencers of superior ability/execution are getting more touches that fencers of inferior ability/execution. I'm not sure that's a major breakthrough.

[jBirch]

Brad,

I'm not denying that there is an offensive element in any defensive endeavour...and you're right the best "parries" are the ones where the opponent is forced into attacking at the worst time possible, either by false initial actions, or teasing opportunity, or trickery, or whatever.

But as Mr. E mentions, this must be applied in the context of imperfect control. The fencer is NOT going to fall for your traps all the time. You're not going to see the opportunity until it's too late. The opponent is going to execute good attacks, no matter how hard you try to make it for them.

In that context, it is my firm belief that the ACTOR, the fencer who is choosing to act as evidenced by the one making offensive actions with intent to score, will generally (though not always), win the touch. The purpose of the defensive game, in my mind, is to *prevent* the opponent from acting advantageously on you so that you can have the freedom to act on them.

But defense is a "back up" for offense. It creates space for offensive actions to develop and to work.

I think that deliberately crafting an entire game around a defensive mindset is a losing strategy...in all three weapons and pretty much all combat sports.

James.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

You are talking about two different, mostly unrelated, subjects. Maybe three.

- first-mover advantage
- second-mover advantage (generally, more informed decision making)
- overload strategy focused on decision impairment


What do you think this means?

I think of the moment fencing begins as the moment when one fencer stops preparing and begins an action which has a legitimate chance to score a touch.

Also, how do you define 'more in control'... is this based on your gut?

I'd say a fencer is in more control of the situation when the opponent is forced to react to them, either by attacking into an invitation/preparation/whatever action designed to draw an attack or being forced to defend against an attack they were not trying to draw.

If it's merely based on your observation of the bouts, I must assume that you are observing that fencers of superior ability/execution are getting more touches that fencers of inferior ability/execution. I'm not sure that's a major breakthrough.

I'm comparing bouts between the same group of fencers over time. While there certainly are fencers with a higher level of skill in the group, I've seen the ratio of touches scored on offense vs touches scored on defense* begin to shift. Before they started using this strategy, this ratio was heavily leaning towards offensive actions, and after the fencers started adopting it to various degrees, the ratio began to get a bit more balanced.

* Here I'm defining "touches scored on defense" as counter attacks, attacks into preparation and parries with a one tempo riposte. I know it's not the traditional definition, but these are actions that were being executed while the fencer who scored was being pushed back by their opponent.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

I think of the moment fencing begins as the moment when one fencer stops preparing and begins an action which has a legitimate chance to score a touch.

That's funny. I define fencing as pretty much everything that happens from the time the match-up in announced... and, H-e-double-hockey-sticks, usually a few things that happened before the announcement.

I'd say a fencer is in more control of the situation when the opponent is forced to react to them, either by attacking into an invitation/preparation/whatever action designed to draw an attack or being forced to defend against an attack they were not trying to draw.

Alternatively, they got lucky.

yeah, yeah, blah, blah, luck... opportunity... preparation.
Spare me your pithy, albeit ultimately flawed, syllogisms.

The reality is that, as a fencer, you are only able to make assumptions about your opponent's intent. As an observer, you are forced to make assumptions about both fencer's intent. Ultimately, this is pretty shaky ground. You know this.

I don't mean to jump off subject, but think about this... it's perfectly natural for an inferior fencer to assume a reactionary approach to fencing when faced with the task of defeating a superior opponent. I've observed this phenomenon literally 1,000's of times. Heck, I've done it.

[darius]

But as Mr. E mentions, this must be applied in the context of imperfect control. The fencer is NOT going to fall for your traps all the time. You're not going to see the opportunity until it's too late. The opponent is going to execute good attacks, no matter how hard you try to make it for them.

Replace attacks with defense, and you'll find that statement is symmetrical. "The fencer is not going to fall for your traps (preparatory) all the time. You're not going to see the opportunity until it's too late (counterattack time!). The opponent is going to execute good parries, no matter how hard you try to make it for them."

In that context, it is my firm belief that the ACTOR, the fencer who is choosing to act as evidenced by the one making offensive actions with intent to score, will generally (though not always), win the touch. The purpose of the defensive game, in my mind, is to *prevent* the opponent from acting advantageously on you so that you can have the freedom to act on them.

I do believe that the ACTOR generally wins. However, I'd define the actor differently -- the person who controls the collapse of space between a "safe" distance and a "hit" distance.

So if the defender is not ready, and the attacker catches them on a forward step, advantage attacker. However, if the attacker begins their final action from an extra large distance, the defender now has time to assess the distance and collapse it at their will. Advantage defender.

I think that deliberately crafting an entire game around a defensive mindset is a losing strategy...in all three weapons and pretty much all combat sports.

If that is your mindset, and it works for you, that's great. But accept that this is a mindset; given enough athletes, I'd assume that you'd find a few who would be better suited to a defensive game.

Consider this: Mr Epee brings up the first-mover advantage. If one fencer is beginning an attack, and the second fencer, recognizing this before the attack actually begins and adjusts their distance slightly to compensate, who is really the first mover?

Also consider that if defense and counter-offense are losing strategies, why the heck did all the Olympic WF bouts go 10-8?

darius

[RITFencing]

I know you said to spare you, but I'm saying it anyway: Luck favors the prepared mind. Like I said, several times, it won't work 100% of the time. Nothing will. And yes, each fencer has to make guesses and assumptions about the opponent, but these can be educated guesses, and we can use those to try and manipulate the course, and ultimately the outcome of a bout. I think a fencer should try to make situations in which they have a greater likelihood of getting a touch. Some of this is reacting to the opponent, trying to shut down their strengths and focus on their weaknesses (refusing to attack an opponent who is strongest on defense) while sometimes it's about focusing on the fencer's strengths (that same fencer who is strong on defense trying to bait the opponent into attacking them.)

My example here is an oversimplification, and there are a lot of things to take into account, but it's the best I could do without launching into pages of description that would derail me from my main point. Each fencer is trying to set up a situation that is more likely to result in a touch for them, rather than the opponent. Neither one will be completely successful, and sometimes they both have to do things outside of their normal strength (such as a fencer who keeps a close distance and baits the opponent into attacking launching the occasional attack of their own when the opponent lets them get too close, to keep that opponent on their toes and keep them honest about the distance, or just scare them into attacking next time before the fencer can get that close.)

It's like a game of poker... sure, the cards are all luck, and everyone has free will, but there's a reason some players consistently end up with more money. Even at a high level, they try to control what their opponents are thinking and how much they bet.

It's not like it's impossible to win playing a reactionary game if you have fast reflexes and recognition skills, high levels of concentration, a good technical repertoire and are able to save your commitment for the last possible moment. However, these qualities do not preclude proactive games, and I have had much better luck as a coach and as a fencer with proactive strategies rather than reactive ones.

Furthermore, it's impossible for fencing to exist if both fencers are being totally reactionary. SOMEONE has to make the first move.

Off topic, I can make just about any statement regarding what works and does not in fencing, and I'm sure someone on here can point out some very successful fencer who does the complete opposite. There's no one golden path to success, and that's one of the cool things about fencing. I can only say what I have seen working in action with my students and with good fencers that I watch, and my experiences have led me to believe that in general, a proactive strategy is much stronger than a reactive one.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by darius

Also consider that if defense and counter-offense are losing strategies, why the heck did all the Olympic WF bouts go 10-8?

darius

Goods points all around. Note the trend towards lower scoring foil bouts.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I think that deliberately crafting an entire game around a defensive mindset is a losing strategy...in all three weapons and pretty much all combat sports.

I disagree with this statement...

I think an active defense can be a very strong game, or at least a strong part of a game, in all three weapons.

I'll define active defense here as one that actively seeks to interfere with/control the end of the opponent's attack, the moment when the opponent really commits to the hit, and passive defense as one which waits for the opponent to choose the moment to commit to the attack.

I'll bring up, as Darius did, Mr. E's comment about first mover advantage and second mover advantage. In general, the first mover is in control and the second mover is reacting to them... unless the first mover is responding to a trap laid by the second mover, in which case... are they really the first mover? (I must be sounding repetitive now.)

If we look at things in terms of who commits to an action... if a touch is going to be scored then generally, the last person to commit to their action wins. That doesn't mean that it's a game of making the other person go first... if I never commit, then my opponent was both the first and last person to do so, and if any touch is going to be scored, it'll probably be theirs.

I look at it this way: Barring technical/tactical errors, I can get touches if I commit to an action that will resolve before the opponent can begin theirs (effectively making them commit too late) or by defeating whatever action they've committed to, making them commit too early.

An active defense is one that does its best to get the opponent to commit too early or too late to that attack. It doesn't work every time; sometimes the opponent won't fall prey to it or sometimes the defender will make their own blunder, say accidentally over committing to a false counter attack or letting the distance collapse a bit too far.

I feel like I'm going off on a huge tangent here, but I think these topics are very closely related.

[Mr Epee]

Note: Just so we are clear, I just wanted to point out that I never claimed that defensive fencing is a losing strategy... only that the reason for successful defensive fencing isn't limited to (or even deeply connected to) forcing your opponent into the moment you selected for them to attack.

RIT, you lose.

Badly.

Time to reevaluate. Quickly.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Note: Just so we are clear, I just wanted to point out that I never claimed that defensive fencing is a losing strategy... only that the reason for successful defensive fencing isn't limited to (or even deeply connected to) forcing your opponent into the moment you selected for them to attack.

D'oh! My fault for trying to juggle several things at once.

I still think my points about active vs passive defense stand.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

D'oh! My fault for trying to juggle several things at once.

I still think my points about active vs passive defense stand.

Maybe I expect too much from humanity, but do you know anyone who really subscribes to a passive system of defense? That would be sad. In fact, their probably exactly the sort of people who deserve to have their money taken by gypsy fortunetellers.

Originally Posted by Oiuty

NOTE: THIS POST DISAPPEARED SUDDENLY... I assume the forum malfunctioned. I swear it existed. :-)


Winning is even easier when you just get to declare your opponent the loser.

It's all about controlling the discussion.

You have learned something. Good to know.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Maybe I expect too much from humanity, but do you know anyone who really subscribes to a passive system of defense? That would be sad. In fact, their probably exactly the sort of people who deserve to have their money taken by gypsy fortunetellers.

Yeah, they tend to lose. A lot.

I think there are also degrees of passivity and activity, though, and I know I've seen many fencers who could stand to be much more active in it.

[Mr Epee]

What the hell? Oiuty pulled his post.

Good thing I caught it before he did.

What a hoopy frood.

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Yeah, they tend to lose. A lot.

I think there are also degrees of passivity and activity, though, and I know I've seen many fencers who could stand to be much more active in it.

Fair enough, but some people really can't be helped.

But, heck, take their money, if you can.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

What the hell? Oiuty pulled his post.

Good thing I caught it before he did.

What a hoopy frood.



Fair enough, but some people really can't be helped.

But, heck, take their money, if you can.

Yeah, but again... degrees. Some can't be helped, some can be helped a bit. Some can't learn to take control of things but can at least learn to take a fast parry riposte. There's generally something to help with.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

I disagree with this statement...

I think an active defense can be a very strong game, or at least a strong part of a game, in all three weapons.

Oooooo Active Defense! My current favourite theory! *grin*

I think of it like "Advancing to the rear": the retreat isn't disorganised and desperate (a la "The Gettawaygo"), but rather actively troublesome. The retreator is constantly mining their escape route so that the attacker must follow cautiously.

The goal, is to make the attacker stop attacking so that the initiative can be reclaimed.

The key, in my mind, of "staying active on the defense" is a realisation that the offensive fencer has an advantage of initiative that they're going to press home as well as they can. Until they decide what they're going to do, the defender can't do anything productive.

So good fencers at this stage are constantly looking for the opportunity to "regain the tactical balance" and start to influence the opponent ever more strongly. Each action is less and less reactive and more and more prepatory. The counter-offensive actions are designed to give the attacker pause so that the defender can pull enough space to initiate offensive actions again.

It's almost "Offensive-Defensive".

But again, it's a "back up" to a failed offensive or to a truly threatening action by the opponent. Deliberately starting at a disadvantage, doesn't, IMHO, make for good strategy.

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Yeah, but again... degrees. Some can't be helped, some can be helped a bit. Some can't learn to take control of things but can at least learn to take a fast parry riposte. There's generally something to help with.

Hang on a sec here...

I was speaking in the general case. You're thinking of specific character flaws in the students? Where they have psychological issue with the offensive? The kind of student that simply won't be good on the offensive ever?

In that case, I begrudgingly give you the point: maximising the potential of the student is always paramount. And you're right, some students, simply can't go forward. For those students, AND THOSE STUDENTS ONLY, I agree that a "defensive game" might be the best of a bad situation.

James.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

There's generally something to help with.

And occasionally something is the weight of their (of their parent's) wallet.

*nudge*

*wink*

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

And occasionally something is the weight of their (of their parent's) wallet.

*nudge*

*wink*

I like being able to pay my rent as much as the next guy, and if someone wants to keep taking lessons but refuses to learn, that's their problem.

I always try my best to help the fencer, though. I still have some morals, and frankly, it's much more enjoyable dealing with someone willing to learn, change and try new things.