Coaching attack reactions

[InFerrumVeritas]

That's why I always practice turning my back immediately after the lunge.

Force a legal halt would probably be better wording.

[RITFencing]

Force a legal halt would probably be better wording.

Lol yes.

[theodore.norvell]

Back to the OP's question.

Here are some ideas.

(a) My original coach, when I was a kid, did not allow counter attacks to score, ever. This is probably a bit extreme. (I had to learn to counter-attack as an adult.) But every once in a while change the rules of training bouts to disallow all counter attacks. (She also banned remises, with the result that I can not fence Epee .)

(b) Your fencers need to learn variety. Instead of trying to teach them to parry instead of counter-attack, teach them to choose well. Do drills in which students strictly alternate between parry-riposte and good counter attacks (by good, I mean with an esquive or a step in). Then let them mix it up. I'd probably do this with a beat attack or disengage attack. In a lesson you could use open-eyes exercises so that they have to distinguish between a good attack --that needs to be parried-- and a poor attack --esquive/counter-attack.

(c) Teach them to land every attack. E.g. even if you are planning to score with a counter-riposte, your attack should land in the absence of a parry. If you can get you club members to make good attacks, they will have to make good defences.

[catwood1]

(c) Teach them to land every attack. E.g. even if you are planning to score with a counter-riposte, your attack should land in the absence of a parry. If you can get you club members to make good attacks, they will have to make good defences.

QFT. Why do so many coaches NOT do this...

[Jason]

QFT. Why do so many coaches NOT do this...

Probably because it's a bad idea.

[catwood1]

Probably because it's a bad idea.

Why do you say that? If I'm trying to set up a 2nd intention counter riposte, and my opponent doesn't parry, why shouldn't I hit him?

[Wetmelon]

Yea, I don't know why it would be a bad idea. I guess there's a difference between "Make sure every attack hits" and "Recognize when there's no parry and modify your intentions"

That's how i learned... if the other guy doesn't do anything, whack him.

[prototoast]

Why do you say that? If I'm trying to set up a 2nd intention counter riposte, and my opponent doesn't parry, why shouldn't I hit him?

Because you can't always have everything. Sometimes in order to give the counter riposte a chance, you need to be starting at a further distance than if you're close enough to hit. Sure, in a perfect world you may always be able to recognize everything that your opponent is about to do, but that guy probably doesn't have any difficulties fencing unless he's really fat or uncoordinated. In the real world, sometimes you have to a little probabilistic modeling and choose the action with the highest expected chance of success.

[catwood1]

If you're attacking from out of distance to start with, and your opponent is going to make a realistic parry riposte anyway, your opponent is a fool.

Granted, I'm speaking more about foil at the moment. A counter riposte is sabre is a slightly different animal.

[prototoast]

If you're attacking from out of distance to start with, and your opponent is going to make a realistic parry riposte anyway, your opponent is a fool.

It's not that you're attacking from out of distance, it's that you are intentionally pulling up a little short.

Now, disclaimer that I am a saber fencer, and I can't authentically change that perspective, but I can try at least relate to foil. Relating a comparable situation to something I will actually do in saber against an opponent who is having success parrying my attacks, I will make an attack that I stop just a little shorter than usual. I will stop short of hitting him, but the result of this is that he can't hit me without moving forward. If I go deep enough to hit should he not parry, his riposte only need extension and will surely hit me. From here ideally he reads the cue to advance and I can catch him holding to hit on the remise (that's option A). Alternatively, if he has to advance, that at least gives my counterparry a fighting chance.

Obviously every action has a counter, and I'm ignoring a lot of alternatives, and nuances of bladework and such, but reducing it to essentially a one dimensional problem of distance it's essential to give up the chance of the first touch to significantly improve the odds of the second.

Or, mathematically:

(chance to score on initial attack, chance to score on counterriposte);total odds of scoring

A
(.5,.1);.55
B
(0,.75);.75

I know I just made up those numbers to prove a point, and there certainly are examples where the numbers could favor choosing A over B, but if the deliberate failure of one action increases your odds of scoring through subsequent actions by more than your chance of scoring on the initial action, it would be foolish to plan around trying to hit anyway.

[Allen Evans]

If you're attacking from out of distance to start with, and your opponent is going to make a realistic parry riposte anyway, your opponent is a fool.

And if you're making a completely committed attack into a distance in which the opponent will score against you with a simple counter-riposte before you can execute your planned 2nd intention action, it doesn't make YOU too smart, either.

There's a logical discontinuity between "making an attack designed to score on the initial action" and "setting up a second intention action", which works from the assumption that the attack will be parried or defeated in some way and you will take advantage of the opponent's actions after that.

Second intention counter-riposte works because the opponent makes a mistake on their riposte that you can take advantage of. They might parry too early. They might pull too much distance on the parry. They might delay the riposte when attacked in certain lines. They might always riposte into the same line from a particular parry. Your job -- as the initial attacker -- is to generate the conditions in which the opponent makes that mistake. This means not that your attack is always committed to scoring, but that you make the opponent's job in the riposte as difficult as necessary to generate the mistake you want to take advantage of. This mistake will vary depending on the opponent, and yes, might mean attacking from slightly out of distance and ending a little short. Or attacking very deep and doing a remise on the opponent's delayed parry, or something else, completely different.

Second intention may mean making a strong attack to a particular line, but -- as always -- it depends on the opponent.

[eac]

The point would be that it might be better not to teach second intention per se in foil, but instead create a style where you're always in a good position at the end of your attack, so if you get parried you have options like counterriposte or remise or whatever.

And you can bias your if-i-get-parried contingency towards a particular counterriposte or a particular remise if you have an idea about how to exploit some problems with the person's parry, but having in your head the explicit idea that you do not intend to score with a given attack might make you less likely to score on that action overall because

a) if there are problems with the other person's defense, like if they counterattack wrong or parry wrong or whatever, you're less likely to hit them, because you're too focused on the bad riposte and

b) you might get the flawed riposte less often, because you're not the world's best actor. Acting is important, but the best way to sell something can be to just have it be true.

[catwood1]

I'm not saying an initial attack should be this all out, as deep as possible attack, thats an all or nothing thing, but it should still be realistic, and able to hit.

How often does it happen that a fencer says "I'm going to score with a counter riposte." They make their false attack, and the opponent counters for an easy 1 light touch.

I'll concede that its occasionally helpful to make that attack from a little out of distance that ends short, with a few opponents, but I think thats the extreme minority of situations. Because of that, I'd focus more on teaching a realistic first attack, and have the student adjust from there, rather than trying to adjust to making realistic attacks from false ones.

People disagree?

[Jason]

I'm not saying an initial attack should be this all out, as deep as possible attack, thats an all or nothing thing, but it should still be realistic, and able to hit.

How often does it happen that a fencer says "I'm going to score with a counter riposte." They make their false attack, and the opponent counters for an easy 1 light touch.

I'll concede that its occasionally helpful to make that attack from a little out of distance that ends short, with a few opponents, but I think thats the extreme minority of situations. Because of that, I'd focus more on teaching a realistic first attack, and have the student adjust from there, rather than trying to adjust to making realistic attacks from false ones.

People disagree?

If I have a strong and immediate parry-riposte, then I am controlling the distance well and hitting my opponent while he is finishing his lunge (rather than after it has already finished), and I'm close enough to reach with only an extension.

In order to "break" this situation, the attacker has several options: he can finish at a different time (earlier than the parry arrives; later than the parry arrives); he can finish at a different distance (closer--undermining the opponent's ability to parry; farther--undermining the opponent's ability to riposte).

Actions like feint-attack and second intention counter-riposte create different time and distance conditions for the attacker, enabling him to defeat his opponent's defense.

In order to successfully execute 2nd-int. counter-riposte, the attacker needs to be at a distance that prevents the opponent from executing his immediate riposte during the attacker's lunge. This requires the attack to fall a little short (particularly in foil--one can make the argument that false attacks in epee or sabre can be theoretically close enough to hit something, but foil lacks such near targets). The attacker needs to make a strong, fast false attack that appears at its start as though it is going to go deep enough to hit but, in fact, does not. If executed correctly--with proper technique, at the right time, and against an opponent who is likely to make an immediate parry-riposte--the opponent's riposte will not be in its optimal distance, allowing the attacker to counter-riposte.

If you find that your false attacks are being met with counter-attacks instead of parries then you are likely executing the false attack with poor technique, executing it at the wrong time or distance, or executing it against the wrong opponent (an opponent who routinely counter-attacks, one who does not use immediate ripostes, etc., are not likely good opponents against whom to use 2nd-int. counter-riposte).

[Allen Evans]

I'm not saying an initial attack should be this all out, as deep as possible attack, thats an all or nothing thing, but it should still be realistic, and able to hit.

How often does it happen that a fencer says "I'm going to score with a counter riposte." They make their false attack, and the opponent counters for an easy 1 light touch.

I'll concede that its occasionally helpful to make that attack from a little out of distance that ends short, with a few opponents, but I think thats the extreme minority of situations. Because of that, I'd focus more on teaching a realistic first attack, and have the student adjust from there, rather than trying to adjust to making realistic attacks from false ones.

People disagree?

Yes. People disagree, and I think Jason summed up the situation even better than I did.

It could be that your previous experience with 2nd intention parry and counter-riposte is very old school, in which the initial attack was done slowly and very short to set up the counter-riposte with a redoublement (that is how I was originally taught to do second intention). But this is Very Old School, and most coaches have moved past this to a tactical context that Jason is speaking to, and that I alluded to.