Approach to Bouts

[Sins of the Fleche]

Let me first preface my question to all of you. A friend of mine who lives on my dorm hall goes to the same fencing club as I do. When we were leaving club one day, we were rehashing and dissecting our performances, as is our custom. At one point, he noted that he had improved in his ability to "feel" the match, and was trying to get to the point where he could fence more instinctively and not mentally scheme as much in a match. I remarked this was interesting, because I was trying to think more in my bouts, since I maintained that plotting your moves to get at observed weaknesses was key.

So therein is my question, do you try to fence mainly with instinct and reflexes, or do you favor formulating a plan after observation? Which method do you think is better, or do you think it depends on the individual fencer?

Thanks guys.

[MBalderson]

Short answer: All things in moderation
Long answer: One without the other can only get you so far, but you will undoubtedly hit a glass ceiling sooner than if you can use both of these aspects, in my experience at least

[Allen Evans]

If you're not using both, you're not really fencing.

[CvilleFencer]

As stated, the answer is both. As some simple examples, you need to be able to probe and feel out your opponent to understand how to match up your skill set to defeat them. You need to be able to think quickly once you have that information to set up actions and lay traps. What needs to be trained into instinct are the immediate actions themselves. Your footwork, parries and finishing actions should be matters of instinct that require no conscious thought. Feeling when is the right time to finish and being able to "fast slice" or instinctively process all the information you are getting and then act without delay or hesitation is the goal.

[Lady Quindecim]

I am reminded of a line from the film Top Gun.

But yeah, you have to have a bag o' tricks. You have plans A and B, but then, you have to feel for which trick to pull out.
Or something like that.

[stillchris]

I think the "thinking/planning is for greater than 15 ft distance or so. Inside that area it is more feel and re-action. This, of course, from someone who does both poorly.

--chris

[RkfdFencer]

More agreement with the answer of "both."

I will get touches that I almost feel lucky to get - no thought, little or no setup, just being in the right position at the right moment. Of course, all the drilling gets you to the point where you can be in the right position at the right moment.

However, I really enjoy the feeling of satisfaction from seeing what the opponent is doing, putting a plan together and scoring the touch. Even better when they loudly vocalize their frustration. :smile:

[Superscribe]

Personally, I think they represent two equally important parts of the fencing game. Relative to each other, I think instinctive and reflexive fencing represents the running game in football, and observing and planning represents the passing game.

What do I mean by that metaphor? Classical doctrine dictates you have to establish the running game before you go to the passing game in football. You have to get your opponent to respect your instinctive fencing (running game), before you can manipulate them enough for the observe/scheme fencing to work.

You have to establish your reflexes and instincts to a point where they are something solid, from which you can get creative. People I've seen have great success have trained to a point where they have excellent "go to" reactions. They are also creative enough to push or pull their opponent into a situation that they themselves can utilize said excellent "go to" reactions.

I think it's possible to be just be faster and stronger than any other fencer out there and have great success.

[Lady Quindecim]

Coach once described it something like:
Make your plan and go for it.
Control the distance so you can make your plan and be ready when the chance comes.

In this context, it is like, you have the plan laid out in your head, but you react on the current actions to get set up for your plan.

[Korts]

Instinct comes into play mostly concerning timing, reactive actions like ripostes, and distance. Planning your tactics and observing your opponent are important if you want to be offensive. The two are complementary, really, and if you want to be a well-rounded fencer, the answer is the one you've been given by every other poster here, i.e. both.

[MBalderson]

Originally Posted by Korts

Instinct comes into play mostly concerning timing, reactive actions like ripostes, and distance. Planning your tactics and observing your opponent are important if you want to be offensive.

The only problem I've got with this is that defensive fencers need to have the ability to think as well. If they keep doing a disengage from the same line because you keep doing that simple parry every single time...you still drop the bout.

[Korts]

Originally Posted by MBalderson

The only problem I've got with this is that defensive fencers need to have the ability to think as well. If they keep doing a disengage from the same line because you keep doing that simple parry every single time...you still drop the bout.

Fair enough; my point was that defensive fencers' actions rely more on reflexes than offensive fencers' moves; that doesn't mean that preparation doesn't improve performance.

[sabreur]

To paint bamboo, study bamboo for years. Become bamboo. Then forget all about bamboo and paint.

[Foil.Leicester]

Definitely both, my planned actions tend to revolve around probing to find out what actions in my repertoire will work. These actions tend to rely on instinct or trained muscle memory. Then I need another plan to be able to get myself and my opponent into a position where I can do this instinctive action.

Example:

I notice my opponent has a strong quatre parry, so I decide to set up a disengage attack, so give the feint, draw the parry and then from there the training kicks in to do the disengage in the right timing to avoid the parry and give me the opponening.

Its a simple example I know but I hope it illustrates my point.

[Sins of the Fleche]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the feedback.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Korts

Instinct comes into play mostly concerning timing, reactive actions like ripostes, and distance. Planning your tactics and observing your opponent are important if you want to be offensive.

If you're relying on instinct and reaction for your parries (and, worse, timing and distance) then you're not doing it right and probably not doing it well.

Why would anyone want to be reactionary on defense. The key is to control one's opponent. Create the attack at a time of your choosing, at a distance of your choosing, at a point on the strip of your choosing. Assuming that you've chosen all of that and are reasonably good at choosing wisely you should have an attack which you can handle. And you should score.

Play all of your defense as pure reaction to the plans your opponent has set up and initiated and you should lose most of the time.

Planning your tactics and observing your opponent are important whether you want to be offensive, defensive, counter-offensive, or any mix of those. Not to mention knowing WHICH you want to be.

-B

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Sins of the Fleche

So therein is my question, do you try to fence mainly with instinct and reflexes, or do you favor formulating a plan after observation? Which method do you think is better, or do you think it depends on the individual fencer?

Go read both The Inner Game of Tennis by Tim Gallwey and Winning Ugly by Brad Gilbert. Two very different approaches to the game. Each works for some people. Both work for some people. Almost everything in both books can be easily translated to fencing, just ignore the tennis-specific parts.

-B

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by sabreur

To paint bamboo, study bamboo for years. Become bamboo. Then forget all about bamboo and paint.

And hope that you don't encounter any hungry pandas.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

If you're relying on instinct and reaction for your parries (and, worse, timing and distance) then you're not doing it right and probably not doing it well.

Why would anyone want to be reactionary on defense.

OK, according to at least one analyst, that's been the road to success for one Mr. Dumitrescu.

It's pretty much what I do, too. I mean, I have a plan before each phrase, but it usually goes right out the window as soon as the opponent does something unexpected. Is that reactionary, or just the reification of the Publilius Syrus maxim that it's a bad plan which admits of no modification?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

OK, according to at least one analyst, that's been the road to success for one Mr. Dumitrescu.

Mmmm, that's a good point.

I think that very few people can have any significant degree of success if/once they cede the initiative and control to their opponent, assuming the opponent is of a reasonable caliber and knows what to do with said initiative/control.

Clearly Dumitrescu competes against people in that category, so I'll concede that perhaps for some exceptional individuals it is possible.

-B