Fencing Absolutes

[catwood1]

Then why no glove on the unarmed hand? Safe is safe.

There are actually a decent number of fencers I've seen do that. Mainly some of the vets guys.

I'm not saying its gonna kill you, I'm just saying it IS a safety thing. If you're fencing epee how often do you get hit passe in the leg? How often do you get hit passe in the unarmed hand?

Sigh.. this is unfortunately similar to the cup argument...

[epeeslasher]

[QUOTE=catwood1;776109]But if the parry is late, then by definition, the attack has ALREADY arrived.

/QUOTE]

Not late in the sense that the attack has arrived, but late in the sense that it is impossible to disengage against (considering the arm leads and precedes the foot everytime)

I have heard the term 'late' used in both fashions.

[AaronK]

epeeslasher:

I think there are a number of reasons why you are coming across contradictory information about "how you should fence". I would assume that each coach was telling something that was both "true" and something they could prove would get a successful result repeatedly.

I would think that each of those statements has some built-in assumptions that the statement itself doesn't contain. For example, I would agree that it is difficult to make a feint-deceive against someone who tends to parry late. The assumption here is that I am not able to compel my opponent to respond defensively, or close the distance so that my direct attack will arrive ahead of the (late) parry. I am not sure what the part in parenthesis means so I really can't address that.

Some of these statements may come from different fencing eras, and can only really apply to the assumptions of their time. For example: the closer the distance, the deeper the parry. Perhaps if we were talking about an older era of fencing where the distance began from engagement and the referee required a large deflection of the blade in order to classify a specific movement as a "parry". Think about modern foil or saber where blade contact sufficient to make an audible noise may constitute a sufficient parry in the mid of the referee.

There may be cases when the coach's particular fencing paradigm is based on personal experience, and they have found one particular idea more effective than the antithesis. I have found that if you keep asking yourself the "why's" of an idea- think about it critically- you can find out when it is true and when it is false.

As Allen mentioned, some parries would be impossible to execute with the fingers alone, so you have to ask yourself WHY should the parries be executed with the fingers alone? If the assumption is that you want to make a small motion so that you can execute a second parry in the event the first fails, executing a parry with the fingers may be the right choice.

There are plenty of examples of radically different or completely opposite ideas in fencing that have both been found to be successful: take something as simple as where should the hand be held in the guard position...
We may all agree that it should be in a position such that we can ideally execute both offensive and defensive actions effectively, but I'm sure that there are going to be quite a few differences of opinion on where that is exactly.

[tlucente]

Fair enough; the plastic protector my LP mask has is pretty snazzy, but I mean in general.

**Sigh** No one gets me.

[catwood1]

**Sigh** No one gets me.

Hey, I repped you for ur post!

[tlucente]

Oops, so you did. Thanks.

[telkanuru]

**Sigh** No one gets me.

It's entirely possible that I did and was purposefully obtuse for comedic effect.

[LordShout]

From the right distance a straight attack cannot be parried

Ohh come on people, really? It's just a matter of speed or hand position. I'm not saying thats not a good rule of thumb, but if we're talking absolutes there can be no situation where the rule breaks down.

If the attack is placed 1 inch from the blade it can probably be parried even if the distance is perfect, if you disagree with 1 inch then substitute any smaller distance. Likewise if it is ten inches but the parry moves at a fast enough speed it'll get made.

That said, I'll take a straight attack from that distance over any other way of trying to score a touch, its just not an absolute.

Addition: I've had a blade run across the back of my neck and the side of my neck, was lucky enough to avoid splinters, so its only unlikely that someone wont rub their blade on the back someone else neck. I wasn't even infighting... although thats when I imagine it would happen more often.

[Lady Quindecim]

I'm not saying its gonna kill you, I'm just saying it IS a safety thing. If you're fencing epee how often do you get hit passe in the leg? How often do you get hit passe in the unarmed hand?

Let me just say, in support of this, any bleeding is a safety issue in fencing. Albeit not always a big issue, but potentially a very big issue. Just ask me.

The legs covered rule probably is just a leftover from pre-electric scoring, but hey.

[epeelion]

Legs covered definitely helps. Anyone who's been hit in the shin can tell your that.

I certainly agree that a correctly timed straight attacks from a correct distance cannot be parried. This is why you see so many straight fleshes landing in epee. What do you think all that jockeying around for position is for?

[Superscribe]

Jockeying around?

I've always thought it was because of your inability to get enough testosterone pumping and mount a decent attack when the ref tells you to go, what with your limp wristed prancing and generally ambigous motioning of the blade.

Pretty typical from society of lawless degenerates with an inclination for sexual depravity.

I'm disgusted.

[telkanuru]

Legs covered definitely helps. Anyone who's been hit in the shin can tell your that.

Painful is not a safety issue.

[Superscribe]

You shut your whorish mouth too. You're just as guilty of "jockeying".

[Rockstar44]

You MUST get more touches on your opponent than he gets on you!

[telkanuru]

You MUST get more touches on your opponent than he gets on you!

That entirely depends on your ref, now doesn't it?

[keith]

[Lady Quindecim]

He said _get_ more, not score more.
you 1 opponent 4 - opponent gets black carded, you win 1 - 0, right? More touches.
you 1 opponent 1 - time runs out - runs out again and you get priority, you win 2 - 1, right? More touches.
you 1 opponent 14 - quick, um, favour for the ref, you win 15 - 14.
But I have never studied the rules on that very closely, so, in practice.... well, I probably should not even post this.

[foibles]

Jockeying around?

I've always thought it was because of your inability to get enough testosterone pumping and mount a decent attack when the ref tells you to go, what with your limp wristed prancing and generally ambigous motioning of the blade.

Pretty typical from society of lawless degenerates with an inclination for sexual depravity.

I'm disgusted.

This type of post is not ok.

[erooMynohtnA]

Gender discrimination?

[RITFencing]

-Successful fencers must attempt to read the opponent's thoughts and put doubts into their mind while avoiding the same beeing done to them. This is one of the most important aspects of fencing and is second only to distance and timing.

Not necessarily, no.

-A fencing technique done with good distance, timing and choice with bad technique will often succeed against one with good technique done at the wrong time.

Define "good technique."

I personally believe that good technique is defined by effectiveness; my attacks aren't good because they look like a picture in a book, they're good because they hit good fencers. Form is just a vehicle for that.