Recover with the counter parry?

[catwood1]

In teaching beginner foil, is it correct to tell the fencer to recover if their attack is parried, if they are going to counter riposte? I've been told by assorted coaches to either always recover after getting parried, or never recover. It seems like the answer is both / neither. A fencer should be able to do both, so you can choose which to do when setting up an action.

But as a fundamental, this is your 3rd time with a blade, type of drill, should fencers be told to recover there? Thats what I have been teaching because it encourages moving, and not holding a lunge while playing tic tac with the blade.

Essentially, my argument is this: Be able to do both eventually, but be able to recover in that situation first, THEN learn top not recover with it.

Do you guys agree?

[Allen Evans]

First ask yourself the question you're ignoring:

Why is my student making more than one parry and riposte?

AE

[catwood1]

I mean, if a student's attack is parried, in making their coutner riposte, should they recover?

I didn't mean they were making more than one parry riposte.

[telkanuru]

It seems to me as a general rule, if your opponent makes his parry while running away you should not move backwards, but if the distance remains close, you should take the retreat. I would structure the lesson around that.

[Allen Evans]

I can't read these sorts of posts without going a little crazy....

Fencing can't be taught by these sorts of rules "...always recover to make a parry and riposte..." or "...foil fencers shouldn't remise...".

If the initial attack failed, it could have failed for a number of reasons. Maybe the student telegraphed the attacked, or attacked from too far away (outside of the one tempo distance). Perhaps the student tried to make a disengage and failed, and got caught by the opponent's parry. Perhaps the opponent stepped back when the student attacked.

All of these things have some bearing on the action of the student when they make the parry. Did the student attack from too far away? Recovering backwards isn't going to make that riposte any more effective. Did the opponent move in to make the parry, or are they moving in to make the riposte? Then recovering is probably a good idea.

Beginners shouldn't be taught to make actions by rote. They should be taught right from the first to respond to the distance between them and the opponent. Even a beginner, in this drill, should be taught to recover forward, stay in place, or recover backward, based on the distance/action of the coach/opponent. For a beginner, each one of these drills will have some merit,and all should be taught.

AE

[RITFencing]

I think a fencer should be able to recover while doing a blade action, perform another blade action while still in a lunge, and be able to perform another blade action while going forward. I try to dissociate the hands and feet a bit; the fencer should be able to do whatever they need with the hands while the feet set up the distance.

I think Allen is right in that you should not have a robotic response every single time a lunge is performed, but the ability to do something else with the arm is valuable not only in being able to perform a counter parry, but in keeping the arm and hand (and the mind, which might be more important) loose enough to perform any sort of section intention action, whether it's a counter parry, a remise, a redoublement, a get away and go, or any other action.

Many beginning fencers I see have the problem of locking up when they perform an action, offensively or defensively. Having drills where they must stay malleable, IMHO, is very helpful to their development in all three weapons.

I think it's a good idea to change it up, though, having different second actions in drills. Have them make attacks and recover with parries. Have them make attacks and remise and then close out or break distance. Have them make attacks and then parry without recoving. Have them make attacks and then parry while bringing the back foot up, and lunge again. Make sure the partner in this drill is performing a reaction that calls for each of these, and possibly have them mix up the partner's responses while telling them not to perform a response necessarily randomly, but with whatever feels right for that situation. If you want to get really cerebral, tell the attackers to think about what can draw each response and how they can narrow down the opponent's options. Actually, I wonder if I'm overthinking this here...

Notice that I'm not saying that the first attack has to fail. I think for many sorts of section intention actions, it's possible to have a successful first intention. If that first intention works, awesome. If it fails, they're in the position to do another. If they do a first intention that hits, and then perform a second intention that hits, that's fine too, they won't be penalized. It's perfectly valid, againt at least IMHO, to perform drills and even actions in bouts where multiple hits are performed.

[jBirch]

Personally, I prefer to have beginners hang out there in the lunge after they've been parried. With the new timings, the continuation of the attack actually has a place again.

My CUE for them to do this though, is to simply freeze in the parry. I wait, they wait. If I make a retreat, they should follow. If I make an advance, they should retreat. If I make an offensive extension, they should counter-parry. If I make a compound riposte, they should make a stop hit.

We introduce realism and difficulty by accelerating the responses and decreasing the pause after the failed action.

Remember though, that these are BEGINNERS. Keep it stupid simple.

Hope this helps.

[jBirch]

I forgot to mention...

...teaching responses to failed attacks is very passe. The idea (ported over from sabre, I think) is to make the first attack successful rather then to drill the "back up" for when you get caught out like a dummy.

James.

[catwood1]

Ok, allow me to rephrase this.

From advance lunge distance, student makes advance lunge, coach makes small retreat. Coach makes parry 4. The student is now holding his lunge, at the coach is at an extension distance to the student. Should the student not recover from his lunge to take the counter parry?

Jbirch, doesn't a student still need to know when the attack fails? Yes, I prefer the student to make a good attack, and hit every time, but thats not realistic. Sometimes, they get parried. Shouldn't they know what to do at that point?

[tdwg83]

Ok, allow me to rephrase this.

From advance lunge distance, student makes advance lunge, coach makes small retreat. Coach makes parry 4. The student is now holding his lunge, at the coach is at an extension distance to the student. Should the student not recover from his lunge to take the counter parry?

Jbirch, doesn't a student still need to know when the attack fails? Yes, I prefer the student to make a good attack, and hit every time, but thats not realistic. Sometimes, they get parried. Shouldn't they know what to do at that point?

My take is this.

Teach them to recover.

1. After a failed attack, if they can recover and get to a comfortable distance they are on equal footing again. There is never a problem with starting from equal footing.

2. I agree with James that whatever happens they need to wait for a response. Just because they are parried does not mean to immediately recover. What you will probably find is students lunging short or not attacking for real because they know they have to switch directions.

3. I see staying in place as appropriate to cover when you start talking about second intentions. This is mid level tactics. Not for beginners.

I think that teaching them to hold ground can cause problems in situations were you need to recover. Recovering quickly and in balance is a necessary skill.

[Allen Evans]

From advance lunge distance, student makes advance lunge, coach makes small retreat. Coach makes parry 4. The student is now holding his lunge, at the coach is at an extension distance to the student. Should the student not recover from his lunge to take the counter parry?

Quickly:

If the student recovers upon being parried by the coach, and the coach ripostes without changing the distance (this will often happen because the student will recover before the riposte starts, and a beginner coach will often riposte automatically without making an adjustment to the distance) the recovered student will then have to lunge again to make the counter-riposte (a term I prefer over counter-parry and riposte).

This may not be the end of the world, but in a real bouting situation, the student is likely to be parried again and finally hit, as they over penetrate the space (their initial lunge should have taken them right to the space, the second lunge will take them past it).

It's better for the student to respond to the coach's change in distance--if any--when making a parry after a failed attack.

JBirch gave the outline for an excellant lesson to show the student what to do when the attack fails. I'm not sure where the confusion is.

AE

[RkfdFencer]

I took the original post to be in regards to group drilling, beginners with beginners. I think that was me placing my own interpretation into it.

I agree (and am learning from) the later posts that stress the need to provide more varied scenarios for a beginning student to work with. This should be easy enough to do one on one, coach to student.

For group work with 3rd hour students and my attention divided, I have given a single scenario for some repetitive drill. I would use the recovery scenario, as I stress the importance of footwork and distance. I also have the constraint of a six-lesson introductory session. Those who continue on beyond this will get more one-on-one time and the chance to do partner drills with more experienced students.

My question, as I ramble along, for the rest of you - is how early do you introduce a varied drill like James outlines for paired student drilling (one student provides James' cues, the other responds)? How successful do the students seem to be in taking on the responsibility? (I know this will depend on the students/group, but am trying to improve on what I teach)

[deepwave]

It seems to me as a general rule, if your opponent makes his parry while running away you should not move backwards, but if the distance remains close, you should take the retreat. I would structure the lesson around that.

I agree. Distance isn't emphasized enough today in fencing, even though it is very important.

[keith]

From advance lunge distance, student makes advance lunge, coach makes small retreat.

why? The parry riposte is more likely to be successful if the parry is made as (or just before the front foot lands) and you are at, or within, extension distance. Taking a step back pulls you out of distance - unless the student is lunging three feet through you in which case there are other issues.

Coach makes parry 4.

I'm sure I'll think of a problem with this eventually.

The student is now holding his lunge, at the coach is at an extension distance to the student. Should the student not recover from his lunge to take the counter parry?

the coach could;

make an immediate (and by immediate I mean immediate) riposte - student counters while in the lunge.

coach steps back - student recovers forward.

coach advances without extension - student remises in the lunge.

coach holds blade - the student now has a couple of options;

immediate remise with a renewal of the lunge (assuming they are not in their full lunge)

recovery to en guarde.

I'd suggest that you not encourage the student to 'hang out' in the lunge - it is far to vulnerable a position.

Of course with beginners you may want to encourage actions while in the lunge as a way of ensuring that they are stable in this position, but this is technical not tactical.

[jBirch]

My question, as I ramble along, for the rest of you - is how early do you introduce a varied drill like James outlines for paired student drilling (one student provides James' cues, the other responds)?

Great question.

As in all things Fencing, it depends. Dynamic drills are very difficult to introduce with beginner students and especially difficult to introduce in paired drills. The students must be mature and in control of their bodies.

Personally, I haven't been able to make them work in paired drills yet.

To develop the same skills though, we use various forms of games. Glove tag, push-pull games, that kind of stuff.

Drills tend to focus on distance and technique at the expense of timing. One student cues (shows the opportunity), the other student responds with prepared footwork and bladework. For 4 parry riposte drills, for example, we show chest target, "call the attack" at lunge distance and then parry riposte to the various targets. The footwork is scripted: @lunge distance; lunge, parry, hit, step back, recover forward repeat.

The purpose of the attack in this defensive drill is to be parried and so, obviously, this trains the attacker to attack at the wrong moment. To counter that, the next drill in the series is an attacker drill, usually feint, disengage.

To me it's important to focus first on attack, then on defense. All of the defensive drills we do have an "active" component where the defender is the one initiating the action. The theory is that, whether on attack or defense, the fencer must strive always to control their opponent and not be controlled by them.

How successful do the students seem to be in taking on the responsibility? (I know this will depend on the students/group, but am trying to improve on what I teach)

Badly. They can barely hold the blade, let alone deal with the nuance required. This kind of stuff usually shows up in footwork games and controlled bouting, which are other critical components of learning to fence in the beginning.

Unfortunately, I've only encountered two ways to convey the sense of distance and timing that great fencing requires: bouting/games and individual lessons with a good coach.

Hope this helps.

James.

[jBirch]

Ok, allow me to rephrase this.

From advance lunge distance, student makes advance lunge, coach makes small retreat. Coach makes parry 4. The student is now holding his lunge, at the coach is at an extension distance to the student. Should the student not recover from his lunge to take the counter parry?

Sure, this is one option. So long as you realise that it's only one of many possible options, it's a fine one to drill.

What you're teaching is for the student to make weak attacks and then to "gettaway go" with a hand recovery if it fails. If over-emphasised this leads to overly-defensive mindedness: the student won't attack simply, they'll set up the counter-counter-counter-counter-...

Jbirch, doesn't a student still need to know when the attack fails? Yes, I prefer the student to make a good attack, and hit every time, but thats not realistic. Sometimes, they get parried. Shouldn't they know what to do at that point?

Yes and no. Reflexively, SOMETHING is always better then NOTHING. The student should be taught to be ACTIVE after the attack fails. There are two primary purposes, IMHO, of action after the failed attack:

1) Keep the advantage and hit the target. Do this if the opponent is hesitant, fearful or reactive.

2) Run away. Do this if the opponent has an aggressive counter-action/riposte. By the way, "Run Away" can also mean "Step forward". The idea is to get away from the opponent's tip as fast as possible.

Ideally in my mind, you want your student to learn to react INTELLIGENTLY to the failed attack. And that starts first with observing what the opponent does when the attack fails in the specific way that it did.

...which is why I like to drill beginners to "hang out" in the lunge, observe and THEN decide.

Hope this helps.