Coupe

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by 3weaponsabre

I honestly am not huge on flicking...

Flicking is the new pink.

[piste off]

Originally Posted by Bryn Ralph

The French method employs the arm; the Italian method employs the wrist.

As to the pedagogy, this depends upon the instructor's background and training in foil fencing.

... and the correct method employs the fingers, wrist, arm and legs - driven by a brain that takes into consideration distance, timing and tempo.

In other words: Fencing Motherhood.

R-

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying here.

A croisse is a transfer from a high line (or low line) to a corresponding low line (or high line) on the same side: 4 to 7 or 6 to 8 (or vica versa). I would disagree that the coupé and croisse achieve "pretty much the same thing".

Unless your use of the word croisse is different than mine.

Ae

What's the terminology for the technique that starts (r-r) engaged in 6 and finishes to 4/7 by "cutting across" and down the blade? The tip is "flicked" around the bell to "dig" into the belly target.

I was taught (perhaps in error) that that is a "croisse".

James.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jBirch

What's the terminology for the technique that starts (r-r) engaged in 6 and finishes to 4/7 by "cutting across" and down the blade? The tip is "flicked" around the bell to "dig" into the belly target.

I was taught (perhaps in error) that that is a "croisse".

James.

croisse - a hi to lo transfer on the same side

bind - a hi to lo transfer on a diagonal (6 to 7, or 4 to 8)

[Allen Evans]

This sounds more like a bastardized bind or froissement. Technically, I don't think you can call it a croisse.

Allen

[forethought]

Originally Posted by Durando

A coupé is not an action au fer.

I know, but I've heard people say 'coupé' when they meant 'froissement' before, hence my question.

[erooMynohtnA]

My first coach taught me the weirdest thing, and it relates to doing a coupe action au fer.

When I learned the coupe, my coach always had me strike the blade while pulling back, so I was basically doing a reverse froissement. For the first four years of my fencing career, I didn't even understand the idea of a coupe as a disengage.

My first lesson ever in college my coach asked to see a coupe and after three times he asked "Are you trying to hit my blade?" to which I responded "That isn't how you do it?"

[Adler]

Originally Posted by forethought

I know, but I've heard people say 'coupé' when they meant 'froissement' before, hence my question.

Are you sure they weren't saying coulé?

[forethought]

Originally Posted by Adler

Are you sure they weren't saying coulé?

Yep, pretty sure.

[Durando]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

My first coach taught me the weirdest thing, and it relates to doing a coupe action au fer.

When I learned the coupe, my coach always had me strike the blade while pulling back, so I was basically doing a reverse froissement. For the first four years of my fencing career, I didn't even understand the idea of a coupe as a disengage.

My first lesson ever in college my coach asked to see a coupe and after three times he asked "Are you trying to hit my blade?" to which I responded "That isn't how you do it?"

Yep. Your first coach had you learning the mechanics using his blade as a reference. And eventually you can and should teach it without giving the blade. Just because it is initially taught this way doesn't make it an action au fer, though. I've learned actions where there is a froissement precedent to the coupé. The logic is the same as a beat designed to draw a reaction.

[Durando]

Originally Posted by keith

croisse - a hi to lo transfer on the same side

bind - a hi to lo transfer on a diagonal (6 to 7, or 4 to 8)

Affirmative.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by Durando

Yep. Your first coach had you learning the mechanics using his blade as a reference. And eventually you can and should teach it without giving the blade. Just because it is initially taught this way doesn't make it an action au fer, though. I've learned actions where there is a froissement precedent to the coupé. The logic is the same as a beat designed to draw a reaction.

I doubt it. She had me doing it that way for four years.

[Durando]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

I doubt it. She had me doing it that way for four years.

Well, then she didn't teach it like we teach it in France.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Durando

Yep. Your first coach had you learning the mechanics using his blade as a reference. And eventually you can and should teach it without giving the blade. Just because it is initially taught this way doesn't make it an action au fer, though. I've learned actions where there is a froissement precedent to the coupé. The logic is the same as a beat designed to draw a reaction.

A bit off topic, but I find that using the blade as a reference is very useful not only for coupes but also indirect attacks, especially in foil. Having them hold onto my blade when, for example, making an attack that starts with the tip high in a 6 and ends onto the flank, helps them learn to keep their hand in a good position so that later they can learn to make a clean, efficient attack without touching the opponent's blade, but using the same motion.

I feel as though I'm explaining this very poorly; anyone who knows what I'm trying to say care to chime in?

[keith]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

I feel as though I'm explaining this very poorly; anyone who knows what I'm trying to say care to chime in?

I suspect that what you are trying to say is that blade contact provides a way for a student to measure distance to the target, or the correct distance for initiating the final action.

Of course given that you appear to have just discovered di Rosa I would ask the question; why are you training a student to judge distance by blade contact when it is highly unlikely that any opponent will allow them to do this?


The action you describe sounds like one I was taught and Durando mentions, engagement in a hi-line followed by a froissment and a coupe to hit in a low line. Not a plain vanilla coupe.

[darius]

I suspect that what you are trying to say is that blade contact provides a way for a student to measure distance to the target, or the correct distance for initiating the final action.

It can, but I don't think that's what he's saying. Which blunts your criticism to some extent -- having the blade there can provide a pathway which makes sense for developing a nice efficient motor habit. Ideally, that indirect action should work well whether the blade is there or not, right? By putting the blade there, the coach provides a reference point which allows the student to understand the leverage relationship necessary to control the blade, which also happens to be the optimal tip trajectory for hitting the target if the blade isn't there.

darius

[Allen Evans]

When I was first learning foil, I was taught to make a coupé from engagement, both initiated by the coach and initiated by me. This usually resulted in a "backwards froissment" as I made the coupé. Later, my coach moved away from this method and I performed the coupé without blade contact. I suspect that if someone's foil pedagogy was arrested at this point, they might continue to teach the coupé in this manner and not know any different, perhaps even confusing the coupé with coulé and thinking that blade contact was necessary.

Just a thought.


AE

[keith]

Originally Posted by darius

It can, but I don't think that's what he's saying.

Well if misrepresentation, deliberate or otherwise, was disallowed the internets would be a very dull place.

Originally Posted by darius

.......having the blade there can provide a pathway which makes sense for developing a nice efficient motor habit. Ideally, that indirect action should work well whether the blade is there or not, right

It should, equally if the action you are attempting to train is an attack in absence incorporating a coupe to evade an attempted search/parry the mechanics are different. As is the timing.

Originally Posted by darius

By putting the blade there, the coach provides a reference point which allows the student to understand the leverage relationship necessary to control the blade, which also happens to be the optimal tip trajectory for hitting the target if the blade isn't there.

If you are using a coupe as a component of an action au fer then contact (and how to establish that contact safely) is all part of the mix.

Which I think is the point AE addresses, which action is being worried about? The coupe as an evasion of a search following the initiation of an attack (in absence of blade), or the coupe as a component of an action involving blade contact whether a successful search or parry.

[piste off]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

My first coach taught me the weirdest thing, and it relates to doing a coupe action au fer.

When I learned the coupe, my coach always had me strike the blade while pulling back, so I was basically doing a reverse froissement. For the first four years of my fencing career, I didn't even understand the idea of a coupe as a disengage.

My first lesson ever in college my coach asked to see a coupe and after three times he asked "Are you trying to hit my blade?" to which I responded "That isn't how you do it?"

I'm not a foil fencer, but my first club was loaded with good ones. More importantly, the maestro there was about as direct a link to the Hungarian school as you can get, as he was the successor to Italo Santelli.

From what I remember coupes were done exactly as you describe (blade action on the back movement). Even the national champions did it this way not just the beginners). I assumed that is the way they were done, perhaps it is reflective of the Hungarian school which favors blade control (in general) to the others.

Sharon Everson or Nikki Franke (perhaps Oiuyt could ask) might remember differently and certainly more accurately if you can ask them.

R-

[Rick Thompson]

Jbirch:

What's the difference between a coupe and a flick?

To employ some geometric distinctions of blade movement: A coupe', along with a straight attack and a disengage attack, is a vector attack, while a flick is a tangential attack.

A vector-based attack moves the point directly or indirectly towards the target in a thrust, intent upon impacting the target (and thereby depressing the tip) in a line that extends along the blade. Thus the point and blade travel along a vector (roughly) towards the plane of the target (usually perpendicular to the vector of the attack). For foil and epee, it is advantagious (especially for beginner & intermediate fencers) to focus on vector attacks, for as long as the point is travelling in a vector towards the target, the point will land on the target as long as it is not deflected evaded. The vector of the point towards the target means that unexpected changes in distance do no entirely negate the possibility of scoring (e.g. the opponent rapidly closes distance).

In a coupe', once the weapon clears the point of the opponent's blade, the intent is to straighten the blade out so it returns to a vector approach.

A flick, on the other hand, has the point travel along an arc which is not in line with the final target. The arc, with the final "flick" of the foible at the end to direct the point into the target, is intended to intersect the target at only ONE POINT during its entire length. (hence the name tangential, since it intersects at only one point.) Because the point must hit the target at designated point in its arc, the timing of the flick and the distance control for it is much more demanding. End up too close, and the target's inside the arc, and the middle of the blade whacks the opponent's target. Too far away, and the blade just wiggles in empty air....