In foil, I am wondering when, or if, there is a specific reason to use a 4 vs using a circle 6. I've heard a little bit of discussion on here before, when the consensus was to use a 4 from farther away, and a 6 from then the attack is from a closer distance.
Is that the only reason to use 1 over the other? Obviously, in a bout, both should be used, otherwise its an easy disengage. But, in a lesson standpoint, is there any reason to have a student doing 1 over the other?
I am hesitant to just say do a 6 from close and a 4 from far away, because it seems like that is "programming" a 6 as the instinctual reaction parry when you don't have time to think. I would think doing either parry from either distance will be more effective.
Is there any good reason to do one over the other?
You could look at the effects of each parry. If my opponent has a good counter parry riposte in 4, then I might want to make a c6 to not give them the opportunity. Similarly, if my opponent likes to make an opposition counter riposte in 6, I might want to make a 4.
Other thoughts?
__________________
"Sir, didn't I parry"
"You didn't take advantage of his blade enough, so no."
Considering simply the mechanical performance of the parry, and not the tactical aspects, the parry should find the blade along the most optimal path. In on guard, place the finger of your non-weapon hand in the center of your chest, and consider that the ending point of an attack from an opponent. Make a parry 4 and a parry 6. Which parry has the longest path to the target, and then moves the opponent's blade by the shortest path to a position where a remise would be difficult to push through? Obviously, parry 4, in this case.
Now move the aiming point to the pectoral muscle closest to the weapon and do the same analysis. Now, parry 6 might be a better choice.
This is a gross over simplification. But it's one of the things to consider when making a choice of parries.
Haha, well yes. But my question is, what about the attack exactly should determine it?
If either parry can parry an attack to the high inside line effectively and efficiently, why use 1 over the other?
For mechanical efficiency, the spatial relationship of the blades is very significant, as Allen pointed out. For tactical efficacy, using a parry that the opponent doesn't expect, or leading to a riposte that is harder for the opponent to parry, has great value.
Also, a counter-six parry-riposte tends to control the opponent's blade more thoroughly, while a four-parry-riposte tends to get to target faster. So you might choose one over the other based on your own relative strengths, compared to your opponent's.
I've never heard anything about the closeness of the attack distance having a bearing over which of these parries to do. I'd be interested to hear the rationale behind that.
When I was first starting out a few years ago, my coach had me always use circle 6 vs parry 4 because my sweeping parry was extremely huge.
But.. I believe a circle six should mainly be used to scoop up a low-line attack.
At least that is how I used it.. and alot of the attacks were low because I am somewhat tall.
When I was first starting out a few years ago, my coach had me always use circle 6 vs parry 4 because my sweeping parry was extremely huge.
But.. I believe a circle six should mainly be used to scoop up a low-line attack.
At least that is how I used it.. and alot of the attacks were low because I am somewhat tall.
I don't like that description of a c6. A technically perfect c6 wouldn't "scoop up" a low line attack. A wrong c6 would, but a good one wouldn't. If you are being attacked in low line, why don't you just make a low line parry of 1, 7, 2, or 8?
__________________
"Sir, didn't I parry"
"You didn't take advantage of his blade enough, so no."
I don't like that description of a c6. A technically perfect c6 wouldn't "scoop up" a low line attack. A wrong c6 would, but a good one wouldn't. If you are being attacked in low line, why don't you just make a low line parry of 1, 7, 2, or 8?
Well, when I was first starting out, I was only taught parry 4 and 6. :P
I don't like that description of a c6. A technically perfect c6 wouldn't "scoop up" a low line attack. A wrong c6 would, but a good one wouldn't. If you are being attacked in low line, why don't you just make a low line parry of 1, 7, 2, or 8?
Mr Epee, you really do like going around being a d*** on this forum, don't ya?
I'm not saying that 1 is better than the other. If I fence Garek, he can do a 4 or he can do a 6, either way, he'll kick my ass. You can develop either parry to be very effective. I'm wondering if other more experianced coaches have specific reasons when they have a fencer use 1 parry over the other, and why they would make that choice.
I'm not saying which is better. I'm asking what reasons there are for doing one in a specific situation over another. I'm not trying to solve fencing...
And yes, if you only know 4 and 6, 6 is probably easier to use against a low line.
__________________
"Sir, didn't I parry"
"You didn't take advantage of his blade enough, so no."
Mr Epee, you really do like going around being a d*** on this forum, don't ya?
I support people thinking for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I. Kant - "What is Enlightenment?" (1784)
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.
If we can agree that the meaning of the word BETTER is the superior of two alternatives, then it may not be what you are saying, but it's definitely what you are asking. Keep your story straight.
Additionally, your question is so simplistic that you - as has already been pointed out - neglected the fact that there are multiple accepted, and commonly practiced variations on each parry. There is not one version of 4, and there is not one version of 6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catwood
And yes, if you only know 4 and 6, 6 is probably easier to use against a low line.
If a fencer only knows 4 and 6, then it probably doesn't matter which one they use.
To go back to the original question, I wouldn't make this decision based on distance alone, in fact unless the distance is at an extreme, either really far away or really close I wouldn't consider it very much, let you own footwork make the distance right for the correct parry.
From a technical perspective, I'd say teach the correct parry to go with the correct attack. Someone attacks weapon side and high, parry 6; weapon side and low, parry 8; middle to outside high, parry 4; middle to outside low, parry 7. When you add in 1, 2, and 5 things get more interesting, but lets forget that for now.
From a tactical perspective, you choose your parry for other reasons as well. Will this allow me to make a riposte I can actually hit on this guy? Does he know which parry I'm going to do, in which case he might disengage? All of these factors come into play.
In Epee especially, I tend to go with the technical methodology because a less controlling parry means you get hit with a remise more often. I also extend the range of 6 and 8 to go further across the body, whereas in foil I would execute 4 or 7.
You also need to consider binding or beating. In Epee I prefer to bind and always control my opponents blade (if I ever grab it in a parry). In Foil I'm happy to just beat and count on a fast riposte. This is a major generalization, I will happily do beat parries in Epee and binds in Foil, but the strengths of the bind work very well in Epee, and with Priority I find that a beat parry allows me to use speed (or disengages) instead of blade control to better effect.
Hi Cat,
I agree that it is generally not the best to teach a fencer to use a specific parry to cover an attack perceived to threaten a certain sector of the target.
I would add or add to a few perspectives about choosing a parry that I didn't see or I had overlooked in previous posts:
The choice of parry may be dependent on the choice of riposte. Same handed opponents may have a difficult time making ripostes in opposition after a "parry 4", but less difficult after a "parry 6".
Again looking at the riposte, the momentum of the blade off the riposte can facilitate or hinder the striking motion- as was mentioned below, a lateral parry may facilitate an immediate-direct riposte.
The reaction of the opponent to the parry (I am more especially considering a beginner opponent), the opponent who balls-up when parried may unintentionally re-take your riposte when you make a parry 4, or at least hinder a direct riposte, where as the circular parry may allow easier access to the back or flank in the same situation. If the opponent has a great deal of lean in their torso this may be the case as well.
The choice may be dictated by the physical abilities of the fencer: the movements of the fingers/hand/arm may be physically faster or easier to produce than the other...a lateral motion of the blade is mechanically easier to produce than a circular motion. A fencer may choose the simplest/fastest parry if they feel overpowered by the opponent's speed.
Related [to the above] may be that they simply choose one because it has been statistically more successful against a specific opponent, or group of opponents.
The choice of parry should be related to the choice of defensive (or offensive) preparation made by the fencer. For example, if a right-handed foil fencer was making continuous clockwise sweeps with their blade to hinder the opponent's attack [potentially finding the blade and allowing them to take over the ROW], they may find that a parry 4 will intercept the attack most successfully (because it is moving in the opposite direction of the opponent's deceives).
Depending on the relationship between the fencer's lateral position on the strip, certain parries may be more or less effective: consider the "classical" situation of the lefty taught to hug the sideline to hinder an attempt to strike the back. If the right-handed opponent stays in the middle of the strip they see more of the "inside" target and less of the "outside" target. If they move to the "fighting line" and match their opponent, they should have less inside target visible and relatively more outside target. In either situation, the left may make a parry choice based on where his opponent decides to fight. Most opposite-handed fencers have experienced the advantage in leverage gained by making a parry 4 against their opponent.
The choice of parry may be a tactical imperative. By using a mixed combination of parries, it forces an opponent who wishes to score with an offensive action to either: Attack in a manner that gives them more time to respond to the parry (attack from farther away or sooner than they should) or risk closing the distance to attempt to arrive ahead of the parry. The impact on the opponent (of slowing their action, attacking from farther away, or closing the distance) may have guided the choice.
It may be a strategic axiom of the coach [meaning a standing order of the coach's philosophy on how to construct the bout]: chosen because of perceived sector of the attack, specific relationships between fencers, specific moment in the bout or following a tactical train of thought. Examples: parry circular 6 only when the attack is made with the tip close to the guard, parry circular 6 following two successful attempts to parry 4 and riposte, make a circular parry 6 the against the opponent's first two attacks, etc.
The reasons specific to including one or the other in a lesson:
1. To teach/learn the skill for the first time and later to perfect the skill
2. To strengthen the muscles through repetition, or to elicit some other physiological change (endurance, hypertrophy, etc.)
3. To add variety or complexity to the lesson (by demanding more attention of the student, or allowing them creative freedom)
4. In a training bout restrictions on the type of parry, or requirements to choose one parry over another can moderate the difficulty for the student (a coach can adjust the success/failure ratio by changing the type of skill).
5. Changing the type of parry will change the timing (indirectly) of the parry- a lateral parry 4 can be executed much later (relatively speaking) than a circular parry 6 on the opponent's attack. Likewise the choice of targets and the paths to get to those targets is different.
6. To train the perception of the fencer. We can use the idea that the fencer must make a specific parry to counter a specific attack-cue. For example: a coach may instruct a fencer to distinguish between a disengage-attack and a coupe-attack, parrying circle-6 against the disengage-attack and parry-4 against the cutover/coupe. The parries themselves are feedback that the fencer is correctly perceiving the difference between the two "cues" and able to respond appropriately. The difference between this idea and X-parry is for Y-distance is that the coach may change the response to a particular cue.
In truth, I dont understand how this can even be a question....
Anyways, maybe its helpful to think of a cartesian graph.
Assuming a right hander:
People parry 4 (most common parry) when it comes to the inside high line
People parry 6 when its outside high line
" 7 when inside low line
" 8 when outside low line.
The question implies that its possible or plausible or feasible to parry using the 'outside' high line parry for the inside high line parry. They are, essentially, mutually exclusive. Or at least, diametrically opposed, and thus this whole line of thinking is flawed.
In the old Italian School, or in Nadi's school,at least, this could almost make sense as he held a totally central guard. Thus, even if the incoming blade was clearly in his 4 he could transport it to 6 using a circular parry.
The reverse is also true.
However, in general, this is a goofy line of thinking that can only be rigorously upheld by someone like Nadi, while using a very unique foil that was predisposed to both circular parries and transports.
The short answer is, however, YES THERE IS A SPECIFIC REASON!!!!!!!
FF
PS: AaronK I really dont understand your reasoning. Parries are prescriptive. For example, in Saber where there is really only parries 3-5 if I'm coming at you in your 3 and you pary 4 you are in trouble. Please explain your reasoning as to why it is improper to teach a parry based on the sector it comes in.
Last edited by fatfencer; 02-15-2009 at 10:17 AM..
The question implies that its possible or plausible or feasible to parry using the 'outside' high line parry for the inside high line parry. They are, essentially, mutually exclusive. Or at least, diametrically opposed, and thus this whole line of thinking is flawed.
The question is about quarte versus circular sixte not simple sixte so the question makes sense.
FF:
Though the question was initially raised about foil, I would make the same case for all three weapons.
You gave a silly example to illustrate your point. I believe your point was that no one is going to make a parry in the opposite direction of an incoming cut (on purpose) and expect to deflect a blade. I agree with that argument.
I probably will have to define some fencing terms (as I use them) to clarify what I was saying.
A position is a frame of reference, a fencing posture, usually in reference to the placement of the weapon and arm relative to the body. We usually reference them by numbers. i.e. 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, etc.
A line is a potential path for a weapon to travel in, they are described by the relationship of your weapon and your opponent's. High-Inside generally means the potential for a fencing action above your guard and [if you are a right-handed fencer] to the right of the guard.
A parry is a motion of the blade to deflect an opponent's weapon from striking the target. There a system of defining the parry by the final position of the blade at the end of the movement, as well as by the entire movement: such as circular or counter 6, lateral 4, diagonal 7th or semi-circular 8th.
Targets are often described in relation to the numbered positions or the "lines", Target-4 or a "High-Inside Target". This would make no sense to a non-fencer in terms of clarity...a fencer only understands them from context. Let me demonstrate:
Consider if I said that in Epee I was going to attack your "8" what does this mean? Am I attacking the flank? The thigh? The toe? Under the arm? If your hand was in the 2nd position am I still attacking 8? If we said the low-outside line, again that must imply that there is target to find under the guard (which should be likely) but also must be to the left of your guard [unless you are a lefty, then to the right of your guard]. Some guard positions of epeeists would not allow a "low outside" definition to be accurate.
If I say that I am going to make an attack to the knee (if I have to say lead knee we are getting perhaps too nit-picky), I think it is more clearly understood. It also does not require you to be in a specific position relative to me.
Saber doesn't only have 3 parries. Consider:
1. There are two methods for arriving at a parry in 5th to defend against a cut to the head. Depending on the coach you may only use one, but both are effective. One is made by simply elevating the guard and fully pronating the wrist, the other is made with a clockwise motion of the tip to attempt to "scoop" under the attack [circular motion].
2. From a normal saber guard position (3rd) an attack to the head can be deflected by either of the two motions to 5 above OR by a lateral deflection to 4th position. Both French fencers and Hungarian fencers have been using a high 4th parry to deflect head cuts and protect against remise. [Information comes from Mt. Delmar Calvert who was in France a few years ago, and Eileen Hassett who has fenced against more than one Hungarian in the past].
3. Parry 2 is still a highly effective parry, and there are cases when it is better to make a parry ending in 2nd than to attempt a parry ending in 3rd. This was demonstrated by Mt. Rene Geuna on a French television program sometime in the 1990's (I don't recall the exact year).
I will admit that attacks made with a flick or cut do limit the practical number of parries compared to attacks with the point (thrusting), however there are always options to be made by the fencer. Without the option to effectively vary parries against the same attack we quickly run the gamut toward predictability.
What I find a little awkward about the example you gave was that the normal guard position for saber (3rd) makes an attack to the high-outside line risky at best because you would have to attack from a wider angle around the blade (opening yourself up to attack in preparation) or be in danger of getting closed out by a counter-attack (intentionally or otherwise). You may even parry yourself attempting to get around the blade without any defensive blade movement on the part of the opponent. A fencer is likely to make a movement to 4th position ONLY because of a mistake, not because of a choice.
Saber doesn't only have 3 parries. Consider:
1. There are two methods for arriving at a parry in 5th to defend against a cut to the head. Depending on the coach you may only use one, but both are effective. One is made by simply elevating the guard and fully pronating the wrist, the other is made with a clockwise motion of the tip to attempt to "scoop" under the attack [circular motion].
There is a third method. Ask Wang Yung to show you the next time you are in Seattle.
Linear Mode
