Fencing Absolutes

[epeeslasher]

I have been given some fencing advice from coaches and fencing books that seem to contradict each other, along such lines are:

-If you can disengage with 'open eyes' attacks all the time you can beat anyone.

-It is very difficult or impossible to disengage against someone with late parries. (The arm should always lead the body and never move back)

-Late parries can be defeated by not letting the hand lead the body continuously.

and

-The closer the distance, the deeper the parry

-The parry must always be made with the fingers and use little to no forearm.



How would you reconcile such statements with each other assuming they are true? (and if you feel they are not, give a reason why)

[Adler]

I would be wary of any coach or book that suggests that there is only one way to do anything in fencing.

[Allen Evans]

The closer the distance, the deeper the parry

I've only got time to attack one of these, so I'll take the easiest.

The proposition above is based on an old notion of a parry blocking the line completely. In this fencing scheme, it is certainly correct, and interally consistant. However, if you step outside of a classical scheme, and start considering beat parries and cone parries, this statement quickly falls apart.

For instance, I make a second intention attack and on my opponent's riposte to my inside line, I make a cone parry of 4. The distance is fairly close, but the cone parry lightly picks up the opponent's blade and my riposte comes off quickly to score. In many cases, the opponent's riposte will often score, but is now a remise. Under the modern rules, this is not an issue. A more classical scheme, however, would suggest that the opponent's riposte should not score at all, and thus, the parry should not be a cone parry, but a deeper, blocking one.

When ever someone says "You MUST" there is always a question in my mind about the "MUST" part.

AE

[catwood1]

The absolutes of fencing:

1) You MUST wear a mask free of dents and defects.
2) You MUST wear a jacket and plastron made of sufficiently robust material.
3) The entirety of your legs MUST be covered at all times.
4) You MUST cover all skin other than your back hand. (And the back of your head.)
5) I'm probably missing a few, but INHO the only absolutes in fencing, are ones of safety.

[telkanuru]

3) The entirety of your legs MUST be covered at all times if Sharon is around.

Fixed that for you.

Socks are an aesthetic issue, not a safety one.

[Allen Evans]

Okay, I was wrong, these are pretty easy too:

-If you can disengage with 'open eyes' attacks all the time you can beat anyone.

-It is very difficult or impossible to disengage against someone with late parries. (The arm should always lead the body and never move back)

-Late parries can be defeated by not letting the hand lead the body continuously.

When you translate these three statements, they come out as:

"If you can defeat the opponen'ts parry system, you will beat them every time."

"Some parry systems are harder to beat than others, especially if your disengage attacks always follow a hand first-scheme."

"Here is one way to beat a tough parry system, if you're willing to abandon the hand-first scheme."

These statements don't seem to contridict each other, though the first one assumes that the opponent defends him/her self only through parries. That's not a completely ridiculous assumption, though it's a big jump.

AE

[Allen Evans]

5) I'm probably missing a few, but INHO the only absolutes in fencing, are ones of safety.

Hmmm.....t.87

Before the beginning of each bout, the two fencers must perform a fencing salute to their opponent, to the referee and to the spectators.

AE

[Lady Quindecim]

Hmmm.....t.87

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

AE

And good sportsmanship has more to do with safety than getting a touch.

[catwood1]

Good point Allen. You MUST salute before and after the bout.

Telk, I think socks are still a safety issue. While they don't protect your leg from being peirced, they protect have having blood drawn. If you have a blade graze against skin, its not that hard for a metal splinter to come off, and make somebody do a good amount of bleeding. Won't be a serious injury, but it will take some time to clean up the blood.

[Allen Evans]

The parry must always be made with the fingers and use little to no forearm.

Finally, the last one. This is quite ridiculous, as some parries (such as prime) HAVE to be made with something other than the fingers. This, again, seems to be from a classical mantra that values rules over effectiveness. I might agree with this if it was rephrased to:

"The parry must always start with the fingers."

But that isn't what's being said.

So. Interesting that youve collected these. A MORE interesting exercise might be to come up with some of your own "MUSTS" -- statements that are less obvious, consistant with each other, and are tied to real world fencing.


AE

[telkanuru]

Telk, I think socks are still a safety issue. While they don't protect your leg from being peirced, they protect have having blood drawn. If you have a blade graze against skin, its not that hard for a metal splinter to come off, and make somebody do a good amount of bleeding. Won't be a serious injury, but it will take some time to clean up the blood.

Yeah, bull****.

Make 800N socks, and I'll concede the point.

[catwood1]

Yeah, bull****.

Make 800N socks, and I'll concede the point.

Take a pretty beat to H*** foil blade. Run a bare hand up and down over it for a while. Ur gonna get alot of metal splinters. Now do the same thing with a fencing glove on. It doesn't need to be 800N to do alot of good against metal splinters...

[erooMynohtnA]

I have an issue with anyone who says you should always do something or never do something. There is always a situation in which doing the "right" thing will fail, and there is always a situation in which the "wrong" action will succeed.

Back to the question at hand, don't even worry if something one coach says contradicts another. Coaches have systems. There are styles of fencing. One coach might stress small parries a lot, and he sees deep parries as a bad habit, but that's working within his own system. If you're have small parry point control, you're using small parry distance, and working with small parry timing, you absolutely shouldn't use deep parries. He's right. If another coach might teach you to prefer deep parries, and views small parries as ineffective. If you're at deep parry distance, using deep invitations, and blade opposition actions, small parries are probably a bad idea. He's right, too.

Of course, there's always the chance that the coach is letting his mouth run, and blurting out stuff that only makes sense to him.

[telkanuru]

Take a pretty beat to H*** foil blade. Run a bare hand up and down over it for a while. Ur gonna get alot of metal splinters. Now do the same thing with a fencing glove on. It doesn't need to be 800N to do alot of good against metal splinters...

Which I guess is good if you're rubbing a foil up and down your leg.

Man you just can't turn that sewage pipe off, can you?

PS- Getting metal splinters is painful, but not unsafe.

[erooMynohtnA]

Take a pretty beat to H*** foil blade. Run a bare hand up and down over it for a while. Ur gonna get alot of metal splinters. Now do the same thing with a fencing glove on. It doesn't need to be 800N to do alot of good against metal splinters...

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

[telkanuru]

Never mind that, what happens if someone vigorously rubs their foil on the back of my head? The dangerous metal splinters might damage my brain!

[tlucente]

No chance of that.

[telkanuru]

No chance of that.

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

[epeeslasher]

A MORE interesting exercise might be to come up with some of your own "MUSTS" -- statements that are less obvious, consistant with each other, and are tied to real world fencing.


AE

-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.

-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.

Also, some more inconsistent statements:

-A straight attack will never succeeded against a late parry

-From the right distance a straight attack cannot be parried

[catwood1]

-A straight attack will never succeeded against a late parry

But if the parry is late, then by definition, the attack has ALREADY arrived.

-From the right distance a straight attack cannot be parried

This is REALLY REALLY true. I can't overstate how important it is that people realize this.