Counter-Time Drills/Examples

[thekoby]

After searching through this site and reading several posts on counter-time, I'm left with a few questions in regards to how to approach teaching counter-time properly to beginner epee students and advanced foil students (although most posts I read stated that counter-time was practically useless in foil and that it should be substituted with second-intent).

First off, what are some drills that I can run my epee students through in order to give them a general idea of counter-time? I'm not really looking at them mastering it any time soon, but looking at a post made by Allen Evans on another thread, as long as I give them the general idea of an action they should be able to understand how it use it later one in their more advanced lessons. Here is one example for epee I came across in my searches ( L=leader, P=pupil):

P: Drops point, opening upper arm
L: Initiates Stop-thrust (hit) towards arm
P: Stop-thrust to leader's weapon arm

Obviously there is a clear and deffinate intential opening of a line in order to draw an attack. At first I thought of second-intention, but as I read the exercise over again I saw that it differed slightly in that my understanding of second-intention is as follows:

P: Stop thrust, falls short
L: Initiates stop-thrust
P: Follows through with initial attack

Although they seem similar, I feel the counter-time is more of a "knowing" what your opponent is going to do rather than "hoping" what your opponent will do. What other drills are out there to give new fencers a general IDEA of counter-time (they can later perfect it in private lessons or advanced classes).

Something else I had a question about is something I find myself doing from time to time on the strip. I will control the strip by retreat, drawing my opponent towards me, while performing a slow windmill action with my blade. As soon as the opponent is within lunge distance and attempts to hit my arm while I am mid-action, I stop-thrust and drop my point into their elbow, mid-extention. Is this a good example of counter-time without the clear invitation?

[darius]

First of all, second-intention is a TACTIC, not a TECHNIQUE.

Marx (and this probably comes from somewhere else as well, but I don't have sources available right now) classifies all second-intention actions by the type of 1st intention action (prepratory, offensive, defensive, counter-offensive), and then the type of 2nd intention action (offensive, defensive, counter-offensive) that results from it.

So the commonly-used false-counterattack / parry-riposte would be counter-offensive, defensive.

A planned attack-remise would be offensive / counter-offensive (or offensive-offensive, if the opponent didn't riposte).

Counter-time is defined by the Coaches' College glossary as "Action made against a counter offensive action." I had a fleeting thought that it had to be with blade contact, but that could be my right-of-way-centrism showing. I think of it as an offensive / defensive or preparatory / defensive 2nd intention action.

The problem with your first example is that it doesn't actually represent counter-time. The pupil is inviting an attack, the leader is attacking, and the pupil is counterattacking.

Your second example is better, but your use of the word "stop thrust" for the pupil's action would imply that something else is going on there. Try this on for size:

P: Attempts to pick at the hand (with whatever footwork you want).
L: Counter-attack.
P: Simultaneously move backward and hitting the counter-attacker with angulation to the hand.

That won't help much for foil, though. More often than not, I see countertime taught with blade contact.

P: Attempt to attack short target (in epee) or make absence preparation (in foil/sabre)
L: Counter-attack.
P: Parry the counterattack and hit on a riposte.

Ideally P's movement should be fast and small -- fast because you want to trigger the counterattack response, and small because they'll impale themselves if they take a big step.

This help?

darius

[catwood1]

In both foil and epee, I like using a "non-definitive counter time." I have no better term for it...

The basic idea is that the attacker is in prep / presenting an opening while he is approaching a 1 tempo distance. If he reaches the 1 tempo distance, then he should simply finish the attack. But, if before he had reached that distance, the opponent counter attacks, the attacker should make parry riposte.

It can be very effective for a fencer to "make an intentional mistake" if the opponent is looking for it. While obvious invitations are often passed over when someone is retreating and shows an invitation, if the attacker shows an opening, I've found the defender often reacts to it.

For example, in foil. If I know my opponent is looking to make an attack in prep against me. I'll be out of distance, advancing on him. BEFORE I have reached a 1 tempo situation, I'll pull my hand with a big step forward. So long as I'm still at an OK parry riposte distance this will be fine. The defender will often see this "mistake" and react to it with an AiP. However, if the defender doesn't react, and I complete the step, and am now in a 1 tempo situation, I should simply lunge for the score.

I don't like the idea of someone making EITHER an attack OR a counter time, and not being willing to change it in the middle of an action.

[Adler]

Something else I had a question about is something I find myself doing from time to time on the strip. I will control the strip by retreat, drawing my opponent towards me, while performing a slow windmill action with my blade. As soon as the opponent is within lunge distance and attempts to hit my arm while I am mid-action, I stop-thrust and drop my point into their elbow, mid-extention. Is this a good example of counter-time without the clear invitation?

No this isn't a good example beacuse its not counter time.

As for the rest of your post I think you need to be clear in your mind about what counter time actually is.
I would recommend reading Understanding Fencing The unity of Theory and Practice By Zbigniew Czajkowski specifically Fencing actions: Terminology, classification and application (p58-61), it should answer your question quiet nicely.

[Allen Evans]

Darius, it's certainly possible to make a counter-time action by making a counter-attack into a counter-attack (without blade contact) as was lectured to me during my Prevost exam quite a few years ago.

Student: begins attack.

Coach: makes counter-attack.

Student: finishes attack with increasing angulation to score to forward target.

Under your system you could classify this a number of ways, but the end result is the same: an action taken against the counter-attack. It could be argued, I suppose, that the final action is simply a continuation of the first action, but if the intent is to draw the counter-attack, then the student as made counter-time.

As we all know, counter-time in foil doesn't exist, except as a thought experiment.

AE

[Allen Evans]

Marx (and this probably comes from somewhere else as well, but I don't have sources available right now) classifies all second-intention actions by the type of 1st intention action (prepratory, offensive, defensive, counter-offensive), and then the type of 2nd intention action (offensive, defensive, counter-offensive) that results from it.

Post script -- I've heard this same break down from French trained Maitrés (ala Leon Auriol).

[Adler]

As we all know, counter-time in foil doesn't exist, except as a thought experiment.

AE

You could argue that going for two lights when your opponent counter attacks in for foil or sabre is a specific form of counter-time.

[Allen Evans]

I think it would be a bad argument, though I know what you are getting at.

In foil, if you have the attack, you should finish it. If you don't have the attack, the opponent isn't making an counter-attack, they are making an attack (perhaps against your preparation, but that phrased is used too much), and you must avoid it or parry it. Hence, no real counter-time, at least to the outside observer. Between the two fencers, however, there is often a realization of counter-time (and feint in tempo) so it may only exsist inside an internal frame of reference ("I meant to attack, but I was attacked in prep, instead, so had to parry and riposte, ie counter-time").

Of course I'm just being silly. In reality, we all use the phrase "counter-time" and "Feint in tempo" all the time, and understand what we're talking about. But I have this discussion a lot to convince students not to break of perfectly good attacks simply because the opponent makes an attempt to catch them in prep.

AE

I see that Darius and I gave almost identical examples of counter-time in epee without blade contact.

[darius]

Under your system you could classify this a number of ways, but the end result is the same: an action taken against the counter-attack. It could be argued, I suppose, that the final action is simply a continuation of the first action, but if the intent is to draw the counter-attack, then the student as made counter-time.

What would differentiate the action you described from just being attack-counterattack?

In foil, if you have the attack, you should finish it.

I believe this -- in theory. In practice, however, it's useful in two ways: 1) when the ref can call blade contact, but can't see tempo to save their life and 2) when you can't quite place the tip due to the nature of the counterattack.

It's generally taught as preparatory/defensive (you prep, I attack in prep, you parry-riposte), but I like the idea of making the fencers think offensive/defensive, because going hard like you're going to make a quick absence-of-blade attack will force the opponent to either 1) counterattack, 2) parry, 3) run away, 4) some combination of the above.

Michael generally doesn't teach a slow start, which was a little odd to me; I taught people to start variable, not let them know the tempo, but the idea of starting fast and using surprise to create an immediate response is appealing, because it allows our fencers to dictate the timing. (Of course, this all assumes good preparatory work, and setting up the correct distance - starting fast out of distance does nothing.)

darius

[Allen Evans]

What would differentiate the action you described from just being attack-counterattack?

Intent on the part of the initial attacker.

Though you make a good case. Sometimes what we call things in fencing depends on the point of view of the observer. Does the opponent know that what the attacker did was intentional? Does that make it more or less a type of counter-time? Good essay question for your next fencing class test.

I believe this -- in theory. In practice, however, it's useful in two ways: 1) when the ref can call blade contact, but can't see tempo to save their life and 2) when you can't quite place the tip due to the nature of the counterattack.

Of course, you're right here, which is why all of us still use the phrase "counter-time", and teach the action. But this takes the action out of the relationship between the two fencers and introduces a third party (the referee). This is practical fencing: responding to the complete situation. We also have to take into effect the timing of the box in some of these actions as well, which is one of the reasons why I'm teaching, er..."counter-time" to my foilists a lot more than I use to.

Michael generally doesn't teach a slow start, which was a little odd to me

Interesting, after the timing switch I started introducing a fast approach to draw the opponent's reactive counter-attack/AIP as well. I'm sure he saw some of those lessons at a NAC and copied me. Ooooooo....wait until I talk to my attorney(s) in the IP group!

AE

[jBirch]

Counter-time actions are done against STOP HITS.

In order to drill them, you have to set up STOP HIT actions first.

After that, you go through the entire gamut of responses, from simple hits, to compound hits, to hits with preparations, to second intention hits with and without various foot work patterns.

So...how do you set up stop hits as a coach? I like this drill:

Phase 1: Intro
S: Feint
C: Attempts to parry
S: Hits with compound

Repeat Many times.

S: Feint
C: Stop Hit

Phase 2: Counter-Time (or what to do when Coach keeps hitting me!)

Variation 1: Opposition
S: Feint
C: Extend
S1: continue with opposition

Variation 2: Parry
S: Feint
C: Extend
S2: Parry Riposte

Variation 3: Beat
S: Feint
C: Extend
S3: Beat-Hit

Variation 4: Prise de fer
S: Feint
C: Extend
S4: Bind-hit

Variation 5: Footwork
S: Feint
C: Extend
S: Retreat out of range

Variation 6 (RoW weapons Only): "Fool me once"
S: Slow extension
C: Extend in a counter-attack
S: Finish

James.

[darius]

What would differentiate the action you described from just being attack-counterattack?

Intent on the part of the initial attacker.

Though you make a good case. Sometimes what we call things in fencing depends on the point of view of the observer. Does the opponent know that what the attacker did was intentional? Does that make it more or less a type of counter-time? Good essay question for your next fencing class test.

And see, I'd say that counter-time requires an additional tempo; it's either:
1. initial preparation / attack
2. draws response (stop hit/counterattack/attempted AiP)
3. deals with response to that (stop hit/counterattack/parry-riposte)

But I can't say for certain; I recognize that by the very generalized definition that comes from Beguinet et al, you could justify anything, but doesn't that create a super-slippery slope where everything is second intention?

S: Extend.
C: Counterattack.
S: Lunge.

The extension is the first intention, the lunge is the second intention. And while you're probably thinking, "Gee, that's a silly argument," using the idea that countertime takes a 2nd unit of fencing time (you're either stopping to grab the blade or stopping to fire off a counterattack) is what separates it in my mind from those situations where one's opponent responds with a counterattack and you just hit on the initial action anyway.

darius

[Allen Evans]

But I can't say for certain; I recognize that by the very generalized definition that comes from Beguinet et al, you could justify anything, but doesn't that create a super-slippery slope where everything is second intention?

I don't want to scare you, but there are some coaches out there who DO define a lot of things as second intention (such as feint and disengage), even though to your and eyes and mine, we would have problems with that approach. It can be justified, but is it really? Probably not.

This is the nature of the sport, in which we have a lot of things that look the same, and produce the same results, but are slightly different due to starting conditions, intent, or tempo. Since we have very limited terms for all of these actions, we end up talking past each other a lot, and doing a lot of internal translations. Is is a compound attack, or a feint-in-tempo? Hard to say without making a lot of qualifications and assumptions, right? Hence the internet, which provides perfect illumination and clarity on these subjects for us.

JBirch: I assume you are defining a stop as a subset of counter-attacks? The teaching I've been exposed to has opened up the definition of counter-time to include any sort of counter-attack as the initiating action, even what I would prefer to call an attack in prep, rather than a counter-attack.

AE

[thekoby]

No this isn't a good example beacuse its not counter time.

Is it more of an example of Counter-attack in tempo then?

Counter-time actions are done against STOP HITS.

In order to drill them, you have to set up STOP HIT actions first.

Right... (t.8 d4) Counter-time - Every action made by the attacker against a stop hit made by his opponent

So the question becomes is a counter-attack (simple or compound) made against a stop hit considered counter-time? I might be wrong on this, but I always thought of counter-time as the idea of catching your opponent mid-action, whether it be a stop hit or attempted parry (changing the timing of the attacks).

Variation 6 (RoW weapons Only): "Fool me once"
S: Slow extension
C: Extend in a counter-attack
S: Finish

James.

I love this move! I've used it a lot in my foil fencing recently because they don't see the slow extension, especailly if you are moving forward, controlling the strip. Add a quick disengage to throw them off even more and a good solid lunge and you have a nice little tactic for controlling a slow tempo attack against someone who is all about faster tempos.

I don't want to scare you, but there are some coaches out there who DO define a lot of things as second intention (such as feint and disengage), even though to your and eyes and mine, we would have problems with that approach.

Yes!! This is how I used to view second-intention until I got on here and read a bunch of posts on the subject. I found out that I was way off and have changed my lesson plans to fit more accurately with the true second-intention method. Counter-time can be used as a slight example of second-intention, right?

[darius]

I don't want to scare you, but there are some coaches out there who DO define a lot of things as second intention (such as feint and disengage), even though to your and eyes and mine, we would have problems with that approach. It can be justified, but is it really? Probably not.

I can't think of a coach whom I've ever heard espouse such an opinion that I'd consider qualified, but my sample size is quite limited. (And clearly, I'm not a fencing master, so grain of salt with my opinion, right, MdA? )

Let me take a stab at it: In the silly case, the compound offensive action is designed to hit. Clearly it's disguised to look like a simple offensive action, but on the whole, the final one-tempo action is designed to score.

In second intention, we want the first part to be designed to score too if possible (if you can hit on your false-counterattack, parry the final attack, and then hit on your riposte, that's quite useful), but the TACTIC is used to draw a response which facilitates yet another action, rather than just making it easier for the first action to score.

This is the nature of the sport, in which we have a lot of things that look the same, and produce the same results, but are slightly different due to starting conditions, intent, or tempo. Since we have very limited terms for all of these actions, we end up talking past each other a lot, and doing a lot of internal translations. Is is a compound attack, or a feint-in-tempo? Hard to say without making a lot of qualifications and assumptions, right?

Well, I'd say that a compound attack has to be the INITIAL offensive action, right? A feint-in-tempo starts off as a counterattack, but the opponent breaks off their attack to parry.

In this case, intent doesn't really matter. Whether the first mover was intending to finish their original attack and abandons it due to a scary-looking counterattack (or AiP), or the first mover intends to draw a counterattack and initiate a countertime action, it doesn't matter. The same goes for the second-mover. They may be attempting feint-in-tempo, knowing that the opponent will call off their attack and bite on the parry, or they may be starting a counterattack, see the parry begin, and make a change-of-decision. Much of this depends on initial positioning, but I don't quite see the ambiguity with regards to action classification there, as long as the context is known.

Hence the internet, which provides perfect illumination and clarity on these subjects for us.

Thank god for the internet!

JBirch: I assume you are defining a stop as a subset of counter-attacks? The teaching I've been exposed to has opened up the definition of counter-time to include any sort of counter-attack as the initiating action, even what I would prefer to call an attack in prep, rather than a counter-attack.

That does seem to be the case with the teaching I've been exposed to as well. However, from my standpoint if somebody is making an obvious invitation ("i'm in prep, attack me!"), I'm thinking it's a trap and will compound my AiP, making a feint-in-tempo instead. I generally teach consistently with that; the first-mover has to sell the action well enough to trigger a direct counterattack.

darius

[jBirch]

JBirch: I assume you are defining a stop as a subset of counter-attacks? The teaching I've been exposed to has opened up the definition of counter-time to include any sort of counter-attack as the initiating action, even what I would prefer to call an attack in prep, rather than a counter-attack.

Nyes.

*grin*

I look at a stop hit as an offensive action into the first part of a compound offensive action. Kinda text book, I guess.

So I see AIP as a stop hit in time, rather then the other way round.

The drill I posted was an introductory way to teach the manouvre, even though you could certainly execute a technically correct counter-time action against a counter-attack, a riposte, a continuation OR an attack.

Make sense?

The key characteristic to counter-time is that, instead of responding to your threat with a parry or distance, the other fencer responds with an attempt to hit you. All the various things you do against a regular attack, work against a stop hit too.

The caveat being that, in the RoW weapons, you also want to consider whether you have priority or not.

James.

[AdamH]

Responding to the original post:

One way foil countertime actions are introduced is as part of the choice-reaction exercise.

-----------
Fencer A steps firmly or ballestras in, forward reach engaging a light counter-sixte, opening the line and lightly gliding the point to target.

Fencer B does nothing
- Fencer A finishes direct.

Fencer B presses back, attempting to close the line
- Fencer A finishes indirect.

Fencer B dettaches and attempts a counter-disengage engagement
- Fencer A finishes indirect.

We can introduce the counter-time action as a response to Fencer B deceiving the attempted engagement with an indirect offensive action from Fencer B.
- Fencer A parries quarte and finishes direct.
-----------

As Fencer A is making what pretty much amounts to what most referees will read as an attack (forward motion of the point to target, ticking the boxes), this is a fairly safe way to introduce a preparation and attach the counter-time option at the end as an obvious 'feel'.

Yes, there is the argument that a ref may say the fencer moving forward is either going for body or blade, ie attacking or not. Most referees are still going to call this as attack as noone is a mindreader regarding the intention of the fencer straightening their arm whilst moving forward

The same can be applied from other engagements and suitable parries.

The student may be instructed to pause miniscually after the jump/smart step in initially, as the objective of the game is to make the right choice.

It's probably a better introduction than asking the student to jump in while presenting their blade then bang out a big counter-sixte parry-riposte. Although absence of blade counter-time is also bread and butter.

edit: In response to the question, "Why doesn't Fencer A just finish the attack?"

As has been noted well previously by another poster, countertime is a tactical choice.