Steel Sabre Guards

[zenpharaohs]

Desci of the Hungarian team with a very forward position many times. Even on the retreat he would use this forward position and multiple stop-cut feints (attempts?) to slow down the attacker. The downside of this is that even though Desci has surprising lunging length for a sabre fencer, he still failed to land many of his most impressive lunges.

You have actually put your finger on a couple of the points. It is totally classic to use that forward position for that stop cut covered retreat. You also get the benefit of reducing the number of lines the opponent is likely to come in with simple attacks.

But you are right - you can't extend your arm as much when you are far forward. But controlling the distance for attacks is the responsibility of the feet. If you have a long lunge that doesn't land, that just means you didn't launch it from the correct distance.

[Hauptman]

You have actually put your finger on a couple of the points. It is totally classic to use that forward position for that stop cut covered retreat. You also get the benefit of reducing the number of lines the opponent is likely to come in with simple attacks.

But you are right - you can't extend your arm as much when you are far forward. But controlling the distance for attacks is the responsibility of the feet. If you have a long lunge that doesn't land, that just means you didn't launch it from the correct distance.

True to a point; the point being that both you AND your opponent are attempting to control distance, and you need to do what you have to do at the right time.

For instance, I prefer a more extended arm position but if I am having trouble getting inside my opponents distance I will pull my arm back to mess with his distance perception.

In epee, I love an extended arm for the ability to pick up my opponent coming in, but on the flip side if they have an excellent attack to my arm then I will have to pull it back a bit to take that option away.

The obvious conclusion should be that all technique should be context specific, and you should make conscious decisions as to what to use and when to use it, and not lock yourself into one, easily predictable, style.

[zenpharaohs]

Could it be that the more rapidly compressed distance of an attack from a backwards guard was something with which the fencers of his day had had little experience.

We had guys that fenced way back. Which was a bad idea. Too far back made the parries wider and easier to sucker the guy with serious feints.

We NEVER worry about the other guys "compressed distance of attack from a backwards guard" because we were not about letting the other guy launch attacks at his choice of distance. Frankly, we were not much about waiting around for the other guy to launch attacks at all. A guy starting forward with any sort of pulled back, lifted, or otherwise unextending hand to me meant "GREEN LIGHT".

The other thing about holding the guard back is that some directors didn't give you the attack until the arm was extending. The typical call when you hit someone who didn't extened by advanced was "on the march". Which I think was correct of them. This meant that people who wanted to start extending very slowly on their attacks (which is actually a good thing to do) had to make sure it looked right from the director's point of view. The whole "when does your attack begin" thing, at least in those days, came down to "when does the director realize your attack begins". Not every director would let you extend only late in your action.

[Sean Butler]

The other thing about holding the guard back is that some directors didn't give you the attack until the arm was extending. The typical call when you hit someone who didn't extened by advanced was "on the march". Which I think was correct of them. This meant that people who wanted to start extending very slowly on their attacks (which is actually a good thing to do) had to make sure it looked right from the director's point of view. The whole "when does your attack begin" thing, at least in those days, came down to "when does the director realize your attack begins". Not every director would let you extend only late in your action.

There are directors who still call the actions that way today. I think it depends largely on the quality of the fencing. A good fencer whether advancing or retreating can begin to extend at the right time to be ahead of the opponent. Funny enough, the last tournament I fenced in I ran into a case of this "old" style of calling the extensions.

In several cases in my seeding pool, the fencers would simply bent-arm-advance. I caught on early to the director's sense of the extension and would make straight, one-line, advance lunge cuts after "allez" with a rapid arm extension from the first advance. I think my pool-mates were surprised as I won about 10 points total on what they thought were simultaneous attacks. This was great because it saved me a ton of effort. :-)

I got fewer and fewer of these calls as we went deeper into the DE rounds. Mostly, I think, because the fencers were better and would extend on their attacks. It's interesting too, to watch how the calls were made in the Olympics. Several times I did see a two-light stopcut called in time. I don't think the old way of judging has gone, I think that many of the styles today are just faster and more invitational since the fleche has been removed from the possible defensive actions. You can afford to really push your opponent back without actually attacking since his counter attacks have lost a lot of their distance. When I watch Pozdniakov, for example, I see a fencer who thrives on the invitational march. He waits for poorly timed counter attacks and finishes, or for properly timed counters and he parry-ripostes. I love watching stuff like that; it inspires me to copy him.

[zenpharaohs]

In several cases in my seeding pool, the fencers would simply bent-arm-advance. I caught on early to the director's sense of the extension and would make straight, one-line, advance lunge cuts after "allez" with a rapid arm extension from the first advance. I think my pool-mates were surprised as I won about 10 points total on what they thought were simultaneous attacks.

Tell them to start "fencing the director" more. It's enormously important, especially when your opponent isn't as good as you.

I got fewer and fewer of these calls as we went deeper into the DE rounds. Mostly, I think, because the fencers were better and would extend on their attacks.

That makes complete sense too. When you get to guys who get further into tournaments, you expect that they have been better at "fencing the director" in the pools and earlier rounds.

[Inquartata]

Even on the retreat he would use this forward position and multiple stop-cut feints (attempts?) to slow down the attacker.

Yes, a very common thing on defense these days. The first few times I watched it I was struck by how similar it was to the old Italian guard position...

I think that one of the best aspects of a withdrawn guard (besides its obvious defensive benefits) is the distance the final attack can cover when both the arm and the legs are compressing the distance simultaneously. It makes the defender's distance control more difficult to judge.

Logatchov out in Colorado teaches this. I watched a couple of his students at Vet Worlds in Sydney last year...their guards were almost touching their hips. That's their guards, not their elbows. I thought "Wow, that's not smart---you'd have to parry really broadly to stop whipovers from landing." But you know what? I tried it a few times in practice, and in addition to changing the distance relationships I found myself getting a lot of ROW calls that might well have been simultaneous attacks...because my arm had a longer range of extension and the referee seemed to be seeing it more clearly than the shorter extensions from my usual Polish style guard position...

So I've added it to my bag of tricks. Changing from that to Italian makes for a really enormous change of distance relationships!

Could it be that the more rapidly compressed distance of an attack from a backwards guard was something with which the fencers of his day had had little experience. I am not so sure that the success of a new method always invalidates the old one.

No, but someone should have learned to cope eventually. They seem not to have done so, though.

Arrival of the flat of the blade was not to be counted as touches.

No, it was that way when I started fencing, too. I was asking rather about the "drawcut" business. That was never a part of the sabre I learned, and I was curious where you heard about it being part of the judging process.

Parenthetically, it IS a necessary part of SCA rapier fencing. They don't allow sabre-style percussive cuts, only "slicing" ones...and it makes for a somewhat odd dynamic.

Now that you mention Santelli, my coach had some lessons from him. I'll ask him about this.

Look. We're fencers, right? There is one obvious way to test this. On the strip.

Well, it would probably be fun, but without controlling for other factors such as skill levels, fitness, length of arm, style, and so on, I can't see how it would really test the competing theories themselves.

The other thing about holding the guard back is that some directors didn't give you the attack until the arm was extending. The typical call when you hit someone who didn't extened by advanced was "on the march". Which I think was correct of them.

This is perhaps my single greatest perplexity with sabre refereeing. The rules say, very clearly, that the attack begins with the extending of the arm. Yet referees, almost to a man, go by the theory that as long as you are moving forward even if the other fellow starts to extend first all you have to do is finish and hit and it's your ROW. I have seen a defender launch an attack into ( by the rules ) a preparation, and his blade be 9/10ths of the way to the opponent before the latter started to extend and cut...and still be called a counterattack out of time.

So one fences that way, of course. But it ain't right.

There are directors who still call the actions that way today.

Man, I wish I knew some of 'em.




I

[zenpharaohs]

Well, it would probably be fun, but without controlling for other factors such as skill levels, fitness, length of arm, style, and so on, I can't see how it would really test the competing theories themselves.

Control schmontrol. I like winning. I frankly don't really care if the last fifty generations of champions would agree with me or not. I know what I want. And I know the physics of how it works - it's not an illusion. And I've won with it before.

Plus, if you want a little control, have two opponents fence, then swap guards and fence some more. That would be a limited sort of control. There's no way to do it as a blind control because you can feel the difference. And, it doesn't control for practicing with the heavy guard.

This is perhaps my single greatest perplexity with sabre refereeing. The rules say, very clearly, that the attack begins with the extending of the arm. Yet referees, almost to a man, go by the theory that as long as you are moving forward even if the other fellow starts to extend first all you have to do is finish and hit and it's your ROW.

I was talking to a couple people in passing the past few days about whether referees are like the "old days". One guy who I know was around roughly the same as my old days, but who has kept up with the sport - Mik'ail Sankofa - told me that actually quite a few referees do it the "right" way - by using the extending of the arm as a requirement for the beginning of an attack. Another thing that came up was my old "why I hate electric sabre" issue of the riposte that is correct in fencing time, but not in "machine" time, and he said that not only are the referees supposed to call that touch the "old" way but he said he's actually seen it done.

So I certainly am not in touch with how referees are calling things these days, but from what I hear, it sounds a lot like the old days - arm must be extending and point or cutting edge continuously moving toward target, etc. ("respect for the fencing phrase"). One thing I mentioned previously is that it can be a really good idea to initiate your attacks with a slow extension as opposed to a fast one. The referee is (Ok they should be) in a much better position to see that extension than your opponent, so you can grab the right of way before the opponent realizes you are extending if the referee is good. Remember that the rules don't require any fixed degree of extension - just an extending motion - so it need not be much at all. The big thing to avoid is anything that looks like pulling the hand back.

[zenpharaohs]

For instance, I prefer a more extended arm position but if I am having trouble getting inside my opponents distance I will pull my arm back to mess with his distance perception.

It can be worth trying that, but usually when a guy pulls his guard back against me, it's just means he is exposing cuff. Either statically, which is not so important, or more importantly, dynamically.

By "dynamically" I mean that I can uncover a guy's cuff by feint a lot more easily if his hand is back. Usually by making a thrust to the inside, which if he parries (with the large motion required by the withdrawn guard) is easily disengaged to his outside cuff, which he now so thoughtfully presents. I might have to steal an inch or two of lateral displacement with my feet on the way in, but that is easily done. And if he does not make the parry? I can land the thrust - as far inside as practicable. The idea is to make him want to make that big parry as soon as possible. This undermines his confidence in the parry (which means if I can make him do it again he may exaggerate that motion - especially since he has undoubtedly trained that motion a lot if he is comfortable fencing with the guard back) and that makes it easier to get around to the outside cuff.

Almost all my game will center on taking the guy's cuff if he has a hand that moves - if he regards his hand motion as his strength, his comfort, his advantage? That's my number one goal - to make him feel wrong about that. If I can get any lift, any displacement of hand, some cuff is going to come uncovered. I spent a long time working on being able to hit cuff in sabre like an epeeist, and although my hand is way out of practice, my head is already solidly bent in that direction.

Yesterday I fenced a guy new to the club that I had never fenced before. We fenced three consecutive 15 touch bouts, which I won handily. I must have scored at least 40 of the touches on his cuff. In fact, I remember only two touches that weren't cuff so maybe it really was 43 touches to his cuff. So yes please, give me more angles to your cuff. Please move your hand so I can hit it. Conversely, like a lot of people who have developed some strong aspects of the game, I perhaps disproportionately fear those same things in my opponents. (Well, if I were him what would I be doing to me?) One of the things that makes the light guards I am using feel "unsafe" is that I feel like my hand is more mobile, and that my point is slow.

So yeah, if we take an elite fencer, then he is probably good enough to avoid giving targets of opportunity when he adopts a deep guard, that's fair enough. But my experience is that a whole lot of not elite guys can't really move their hand much without giving away the store.

[oiuyt]

Another thing that came up was my old "why I hate electric sabre" issue of the riposte that is correct in fencing time, but not in "machine" time, and he said that not only are the referees supposed to call that touch the "old" way but he said he's actually seen it done.

Could you clarify what you mean by "supposed to call that touch the "old" way"?

If a quick remise locks out a simple-but-slower riposte such that there's only a single lamp illuminated on the scoring machine the remiser will score the touch. If Mik'ail said anything else then it's extraordinarily likely that either he misunderstood your question or you misunderstood his answer.

If you mean a quick remise turns on a lamp before a simple riposte turns on a lamp I'm not sure what way there is other than the "old" way of awarding the touch to the riposter.

-B

[Sean Butler]

Right; no one gets a point if the scoring apparatus doesn't register a hit by them. No matter how well executed the riposte, it can still be stopcut if it delays landing for more than 120 ms. Thus, there really is no way to ref in the "old way" unless you only mean cases where there are two lights.

[zenpharaohs]

If a quick remise locks out a simple-but-slower riposte such that there's only a single lamp illuminated on the scoring machine the remiser will score the touch.

The fact that people recognized that whipover is not a remise is the whole reason that machines have timings (that sort of approximately work). Whipover is not only not a remise, it is not supposed to be any sort of touch at all.

Note that an immediate direct riposte would have priority over a remise, no matter how much clock time elapses for the riposte to arrive, whatever the machine thinks. Once the direct riposte has started, a remise is out of time.

[zenpharaohs]

Right; no one gets a point if the scoring apparatus doesn't register a hit by them. No matter how well executed the riposte, it can still be stopcut if it delays landing for more than 120 ms. Thus, there really is no way to ref in the "old way" unless you only mean cases where there are two lights.

This is the interesting thing. I agree with you about how the machines work, and I can't remember having seen anyone overrule them in the way that would correspond to the "old way". Which is why I was mildly surprised that Mik'ail said that some referees still do.

[oiuyt]

The fact that people recognized that whipover is not a remise is the whole reason that machines have timings (that sort of approximately work). Whipover is not only not a remise, it is not supposed to be any sort of touch at all.

Note that an immediate direct riposte would have priority over a remise, no matter how much clock time elapses for the riposte to arrive, whatever the machine thinks. Once the direct riposte has started, a remise is out of time.

This is the interesting thing. I agree with you about how the machines work, and I can't remember having seen anyone overrule them in the way that would correspond to the "old way". Which is why I was mildly surprised that Mik'ail said that some referees still do.

I still not sure that we're effectively communicating with each other.

If a whipover occurs it may or may not be blocked by the anti-whipover timing. If it registers on the machine and, due to that, the (immediate and direct) riposte doesn't, the point will be awarded to the attacker/remiser.

If Mik'ail said that there are referees that would either not award a point in this situation or award a point to the riposte, which didn't register on the machine, we're back to the situation where I strongly suspect either he misunderstood your question or you misunderstood his answer. While it's certainly possible for him to actually have an incorrect belief about what would happen in this situation, the odds of that are extraordinarily remotely low.

Just to be crystal clear about this, other than as a result of a penalty (a red card or for leaving the end of the strip) there is no way for a referee to award a point for a fencer if a touch hasn't been registered by the scoring apparatus.* In what appears to be the case you're describing the riposte does not register on the machine. No point will be awarded to the riposter for that action.

-B

* Note that in foil there is a method whereby a touch that registers non-valid can result in a point being awarded, although that's irrelevant in a purely sabre discussion.

[Inquartata]

Control schmontrol. I like winning. I frankly don't really care if the last fifty generations of champions would agree with me or not. I know what I want. And I know the physics of how it works - it's not an illusion. And I've won with it before.

Well, but this comes perilously close to the fallacy of Invincible Ignorance, does it not?

I mean, I could just say "Poppycock, sir, it is I who know the physics, and I know that what I do works better than what you do, that's not illusion either and I have won with THAT. A lot." And then our "knowledges" cancel each other out...

Plus, if you want a little control, have two opponents fence, then swap guards and fence some more. That would be a limited sort of control.

Extremely limited. It's still unsatisfactory, because the differences in physical endowments and style are not simple reversible elements. There's a gestalt to the way any good fencer fences, and it's not to be negated by altering one element of it.

Plus, you still run into the problem of sample size. It's been a long time since I had any statistics, but I seem to recall that significance only began to become reliable above about 30 responses...

Mik'ail Sankofa - told me that actually quite a few referees do it the "right" way - by using the extending of the arm as a requirement for the beginning of an attack.

From his lips to the FOC's ears. And I wish that I could arrange to have them preside over all my bouts henceforth.

Another thing that came up was my old "why I hate electric sabre" issue of the riposte that is correct in fencing time, but not in "machine" time, and he said that not only are the referees supposed to call that touch the "old" way but he said he's actually seen it done.

Yes. I have lost count of the fencers who have argued to me that the timings "should" dictate the calls. For instance, some insist that if you truly make a valid cut to the arm across the opponent's guard, it is somehow impossible for him to get a light as well given the lockout time. They believe that there is a sort of rule of thumb: two lights means that the attack arrived, period. But if this were the case we'd have no need for "en coquille" calls, and I think we've all seen instances of a defender managing to get a light on when the timing "should" have prevented it. However fast the lockout times may be, they still do not appear to be faster than human reaction times. And then there are those who argue that any contact with the bell means that your attack was parried if the opponent gets a light! That it's impossible for him to put a light on unless your blade has been parried!

At least I fancy that this is the sort of thing you mean, rather than that referees are awarding touches that they think are correct in spite of being locked out by a one-light stop or AIP...yes?

One thing I mentioned previously is that it can be a really good idea to initiate your attacks with a slow extension as opposed to a fast one. The referee is (Ok they should be) in a much better position to see that extension than your opponent, so you can grab the right of way before the opponent realizes you are extending if the referee is good.

In my experience, just the opposite.

The human eye is naturally drawn to quick, sharp motions. I suspect that this goes back to the primordial savannahs, when our ancestors' perceptions evolved to key in on movements which might indicate a hidden predator rather than a gentle breeze. Slow, steady extensions seem to get crowded out of the observer's attention by fast, vehement ones---or else one's feet and body "outrun" the extension and make it look like there is none.

There was an advanced referee seminar at Nationals this year, and Arianna Klinkov talked at one point about referees needing to look for slow extensions because they were as valid as the fast ones. But the skill seems as scarce as hen's teeth from what I've observed on the ground, as opposed to in theory.

By "dynamically" I mean that I can uncover a guy's cuff by feint a lot more easily if his hand is back. Usually by making a thrust to the inside, which if he parries (with the large motion required by the withdrawn guard) is easily disengaged to his outside cuff, which he now so thoughtfully presents. I might have to steal an inch or two of lateral displacement with my feet on the way in, but that is easily done. And if he does not make the parry? I can land the thrust - as far inside as practicable.

Well, but the modern game consists in the main of simply getting out of distance, so that your attack falls short and is done. There is in this sense often no need to parry at all...and with the present lockout time that's much safer than parrying in any case.

So what will actually happen in your scenario, given a skilled fencer, is that you'll make the thrust and he won't try to parry at all. He'll simply step back, doubtless with some motion intended to induce you to finish, which you'll do about six inches away from him. And then he will attack in turn.

Unless you mean that you do this as a counterattack into his march, rather than as an attack of your own?

Anyway, I miss the old parry-riposte game, too, but the modern one does have its compensations.

So yeah, if we take an elite fencer, then he is probably good enough to avoid giving targets of opportunity when he adopts a deep guard, that's fair enough. But my experience is that a whole lot of not elite guys can't really move their hand much without giving away the store.

OK, but---define "elite".

[zenpharaohs]

Well, but this comes perilously close to the fallacy of Invincible Ignorance, does it not?

Well, but the modern game consists in the main of simply getting out of distance, so that your attack falls short and is done.

Your "ignorance" remark: Meet me on the strip sometime, OK? You might be better than me and you might win. But I think I can cut down the chances you would suspect me of ignorance.

As far as I can tell, my attack rarely falls short because I close distance faster than my opponent can retreat. Always did in the past, and my recent experience, even with a relatively elite fencer, leads me to believe the same is still true.

[Inquartata]

It wasn't a personal inference. It's a description of the sort of argument you were making, not of you.

If one holds so tightly to a belief that one discounts even the possibility that contrary evidence could ever prove it wrong, faith has entered the picture. If you are so convinced that you are right on this point simply because of your own experiences that you really think that you cannot be mistaken, you are arguing out of that particular fallacy---saying that because the converse of your belief has not been proven to you it must be correct:

"Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) "


http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/ig.htm


I did not mean to attach any further meaning or insult to the statement.

[InfernoXV]

But if we are talking about the Pecararo depicted here

http://www.amfence.com/html/590.html

then I don't see any openings...

Monsignor Inquartata,

that doesn't seem to have openings, but how do we handle the bit about the surface being convex? The FIE rules seem to prescribe that it be convex, but they doesn't say 'partially', 'mostly', or 'entirely' convex.

Many thanks for whatever light you can provide, I do much appreciate it!