Absence of the Blade (terminology)

[jjefferies]

Ok, I was reading Jeff Bukantz's book, Closing the Distance. Jim Adams recommended it to me in Col Spgs. after a bit of personal irrationality with a personage mentioned in the book. Not a bad read and considering it was remaindered out for USD 3.00 well worth having.

His father's advice about keeping the distance rang true to me. But at one point Jeff commented on one tactic, pressing his opponent's blade until the opponent pressed back and then releasing and going under the guard in a parry/bind for the riposte and termed it "Absence of the Blade". Now Bukantz is very high level fencer, olympian, and referee (I am told). But I wondered at the terminology as I've always understood that "Absence of the Blade" meant just that. At least in epee, as I've learned the game, you don't give your opponent any opportunity to take your blade. You hold it out of their reach waiting until the right time to make a thrust/lunge/fleche/whatever. So is this a difference between epee and foil (Bukantz is a left handed foilist and I believe his description was to begin by pressing in 4th). Or possibly just a personal idiosyncrasy?

[Kettch]

absence of blade = blade held in a position where it is out of the opponents reach.

That is the most common interpretation.

[muaddib]

I haven't read the book, but I'll take a stab at what he meant. Sometimes when you pris-de-fer or press on the blade, you "keep" the blade in opposition as you lunge. I think Jeff was just saying to disengage and release the blade and hit without opposition, ie abense of blade.

But yes, if someone said "I like to fence absense of blade", they mean they drop their blade during en guard or keep their blade out of reach of their opponent.

Hope this helps.

[Superscribe]

I think absence of blade means the blade is not there.... and that's all it means in the strictest sense. Attacking with your blade held back? Well that's attacking with absence of blade. When you parry and then pull your blade back or position it such that the opponent cannot parry, afterwhich you riposte, well then you riposted with absence of blade.

That's the only way I can justify what Mr. Bukantz is saying. I agree that the only times i've heard absence of blade was in reference to an attack with the blade held back.

[oiuyt]

it was remaindered out for USD 3.00 well worth having.

Where?

-B

[Hauptman]

My understanding has always been that "absence of the blade" merely represented tactics in contrast to actions "on the blade".

I don't agree that it refers to holding your blade back, or out of reach of your opponent, but more so to evading your opponents blade during an offensive or counter-offensive action.

Some actions, I think, don't clearly define themselves tactically. For instance, if you repost with opposition it is clearly an action "on the blade". To me, a compound repost by disengangement would clearly be "absence of the blade". But what about a simple repost without opposition? Would that be considered "absence of the blade"? Probably not.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by jjefferies View Post
it was remaindered out for USD 3.00 well worth having.

Where?
-B

I believe it was Amazon. I just looked and they currently show 21 used @USD 5.15. Guess the book ages well and is increasing in price. I recollect my price was less than the shipping charges but a few pennies more than $3.00. Generally I've had good luck with Amazon, though I do prefer being able to peruse the book before buying it. But a copy of Nick Evangelista's the "The Inner Game of Fencing: Excellence in Form, Technique, Strategy and Spirit." ordered at the same time arrived with water damage. I think I paid a dollar more for it but didn't think it worth the trouble of returning as I could still read it.

[Jvanhousen]

I think I paid a dollar more for it but didn't think it worth the trouble of returning as I could still read it.

How about then?

[telkanuru]

See, the mistake was buying the book in the first place.

[the ancient one]

I have another tactic:

Absence of the Brain.

It was easy to learn.

[Greybeard]

Every time I try to use absence of blade my opponent finds my body

[jjefferies]

I don't agree that it refers to holding your blade back, or out of reach of your opponent, but more so to evading your opponents blade during an offensive or counter-offensive action.

What weapon are we speaking of here? Have you ever fenced epee with Bob Cotter of GGFC? That's who introduced me to the concept. I think he hid it behind his back just to dare you to come in a bit closer.

[CvilleFencer]

Odd thing about fencing, depending on who is talking, the meaning of the words change. When I sit down with other coaches or fencers that I haven't worked with before or who's coach I don't know the first thing I do is try to come up with a common lexicon, otherwise there are guaranteed to be misunderstandings. The older the coach (or the fencers coach) the more pronounced it is likely to be, as there has been more modification/modernization/drift/corruption of fencing terms over the coaches career in the sport. Add in the club being away from major fencing centers and it gets even more strange...

[nahouw]

His father's advice about keeping the distance rang true to me. But at one point Jeff commented on one tactic, pressing his opponent's blade until the opponent pressed back and then releasing and going under the guard in a parry/bind for the riposte and termed it "Absence of the Blade".

I haven't read the book, but from your explanation, I can see where he comes with the terminology of abscence of blade. I will give an example (of what I am understanding of what he is meaning): if I have a fencer who presents the blade, I can just press the blade, just to feel the "sentiment du fer", and upon feeling that he intends to parry me, I then disengage and hit him. So, in efect, in this engage, I have technically never contacted his blade (either by beat, pris-de-fer, or parry-riposte), and then I hit, so, technically, it is abscence of blade. True to say this is not the current understanding of abscence of blade, but it does fall into that genre.

[nahouw]

What weapon are we speaking of here? Have you ever fenced epee with Bob Cotter of GGFC? That's who introduced me to the concept. I think he hid it behind his back just to dare you to come in a bit closer.

I agree with Hauptman. It is more of a tactic, in which there is a toolkit to apply, and one of which is the arm withdrawn.

[OROD]

...if I have a fencer who presents the blade, I can just press the blade, just to feel the "sentiment du fer", and upon feeling that he intends to parry me, I then disengage and hit him. So, in efect, in this engage, I have technically never contacted his blade...

Actually, technically, I think you did.

.

[nahouw]

Actually, technically, I think you did.

.

Actually, I just pressed his blade, very lightly at that -- a slight moment in time in which both blades just happened to be in contact in which I was able to feel the twitch in which my opponent telegraphed his action; did the referee hear a beat? no. did the referee recognize a pris-de-fer? no. did the referee actually see a parry-riposte? no. So hence, as far as the referee is concerned, there is no blade action that transfers the right-of-way.

[OROD]

Actually, I just pressed his blade, very lightly at that -- a slight moment in time in which both blades just happened to be in contact in which I was able to feel the twitch in which my opponent telegraphed his action; did the referee hear a beat? no. did the referee recognize a pris-de-fer? no. did the referee actually see a parry-riposte? no. So hence, as far as the referee is concerned, there is no blade action that transfers the right-of-way.

Hehehe, oh I know what you mean, I'm just saying that you're stretching the meaning of "absence of blade" way past the breaking point.

Of course I'm no fencing historian, so I cant say whether or not at some point in the past this term meant something else. I'd imagine Andy Shaw would be a good person to ask. However, by the current meaning of the term we usually mean that the blade is not made available to the other fencer to be taken. Not that the other fencer tries and fails to take it, he just cant because you hold it back... hence, absent.

.

[Rock]

From "Reglement D'Escrime", 1909, Ministere de la Guerre - The French military physical education fencing manual through at least the early 1930's.

(p. 25)

"Absence De Fer
36. L'absence de fer repond a deux objets:
1º Au point de vue defensif: Echapper aux effets de puissance et, d'une maniere general, remedier a l'inferiorite de main;
2º Au point de vue offensif: Provoquer une action adverse pouiir en tirer parti. - (On lui donne, dans ce dernier cas, le nom d'invite.)"

I'm not fluent in French and it's too late here for me to dig out my French dictionary, so maybe an educated person can translate this shortly.

Also, I rarely use the French accent marks on my computer and don't have time to find them right now, so please excuse my misspellings.

[Goldgar]

Actually, I just pressed his blade, very lightly at that -- a slight moment in time in which both blades just happened to be in contact in which I was able to feel the twitch in which my opponent telegraphed his action; did the referee hear a beat? no. did the referee recognize a pris-de-fer? no. did the referee actually see a parry-riposte? no. So hence, as far as the referee is concerned, there is no blade action that transfers the right-of-way.

Um ... a press is an attaque au fer, and can serve equally well as a beat in creating an opportunity to take right of way. Like a beat, it doesn't grant right of way in itself -- it has to be followed by an attack. Whether the referee sees the press is another matter, and will depend on the execution of the press as well as the referee's sensitivity to such things.

I think, though, you aren't talking about a true press, but rather an engagement. In that case, it has no direct effect on right of way, but it is still, by definition, a blad contact.