Coaching attack reactions

[FencingLincoln]

I'm having some issues with my club. We don't have a proper coach, so I'm doing all the teaching.

A lot of the club has bad habits and I'm trying to break them.

The issue I'm trying to fix currently is reactions to attacks.
When you put a lot of the people in our club into a bout and someone launches an attack their first reaction in the split second after the launch, when they should be retreating or parrying, is to attack.

Now this would be ok in Epee, but we're a mostly foil club.

Also since we're an entirely dry club since our college doesn't really fund us all that well it makes for really difficult judging.

How can I break people of this habit? Any suggestions for drills or anything?

[InFerrumVeritas]

I'm having some issues with my club. We don't have a proper coach, so I'm doing all the teaching.

The club's founder, a girl who graduated a year ago left a lot of bad habits with the club members and I'm trying to break them.

The issue I'm trying to fix currently is reactions to attacks.
When you put a lot of the people in our club into a bout and someone launches an attack their first reaction in the split second after the launch, when they should be retreating or parrying, is to attack.

Now this would be ok in Epee, but we're a mostly foil club.

Also since we're an entirely dry club since our college doesn't really fund us all that well it makes for really difficult judging.

How can I break people of this habit? Any suggestions for drills or anything?

I see this a lot at two local Community College clubs. The best way, IMO, is to drill. After you drill the proper reactions, which are retreating and parrying, in bouts make sure you call RoW correctly. If someone isn't getting the points they want by counterattacking and know how to execute a parry-riposte, they usually will parry-riposte after a while.

The biggest thing is to make sure that you drill the action properly and are consistent in your calls when refereeing.

[FencingLincoln]

Yeah, I figured. Generally I do call RoW fairly well. If it's too close to see I'll just throw the exchange out and refuse to give either side a point until both people stop attacking at the same time.

Any suggestions for drills specifically?

[darius]

People usually want to do what works, so make it clear that counterattacking doesn't work.

Sometimes we avoid teaching something we don't want. But then the kids find it on their own, and that may be less constructive. Instead, teach them the difference between the two. Teach both an effective counterattack (with an esquive or opposition) and an effective parry-riposte as solutions to a specific attack, and give them the ability to use both.

darius

[thekoby]

Here's an example of a drill I run with my beginning foil fencers (who are also college students):

Fencer A makes a beat-attack with a step-lunge (beat on the step, then lunge)
Fencer B retreats as Fencer A lunges, makes a parry, riposte immediately

Simple enough. Have them do the exercise 4-5 times standing still and trading roles after every touch, or until you think they have a good feel for it, then tell them to do footwork and control distance. When Fencer A feels they have the distance to make the beat-attack with a step-lunge, they go for it while Fencer B does a parry-riposte. Exchange roles after each touch.

I also do counter-riposte in the same fashion:

Fencer A makes a beat-attack with a step-lunge just shy of distance
Fencer B retreats, parries, and ripostes immediately
Fencer A recovers with a parry, riposte immediately

Same as before, once they get a feel for it standing still, run it with a distance drill/footwork.

It may not grant you immediate results with people who have already formed the habit of attacking when they see the other fencer attack, but run it slowly, step by step, before allowing them to speed it up and run the whole drill on their own.

[Allen Evans]

The drills needed to teach people to parry an attack are pretty obvious. One of the fencers attacks, and the other fencer has to parry and riposte. This drill can be structured from a purely mechancial point of view to a very tactical point of view (more about this in a minute).

What isn't so obvious is why this reaction is occuring in the first place. Blindly counter-attacking isn't even smart in epee all of the time. FencingLincoln, you don't mention how the students are being initially trained in defense or how soon they are allowed to bout without any structure in their practice. My gut reaction is that the initial instruction of parry and riposte is probably not being covered in depth, is being taught at too fast a speed, and that the students are "free fencing" without any attempt to make that time useful.

I would suggest that in addition to purely mechanical drills (in which one side is practicing an attack and the other, a parry and riposte) you also enforce theme drills in which the fencers can independantly manuever, but one must be the "Attacker" and one must be the "Defender". The Defenders have the option to either escape an attack with footwork (and then immidately make a take over attack of their own) or to make a parry and riposte.

Finally, a teaching tip: you're not trying to "break" a bad habit of making late counter-attacks, you're trying to instill a new habit of making a parry and riposte. Reinforcement through the calling of RoW is an important aspect of building this new habit.

[noodle]

Also since we're an entirely dry club since our college doesn't really fund us all that well it makes for really difficult judging.

actually, it sounds like it makes it even easier. if it looked like the initial attack lands, call it as a valid attack, even if it maybe missed by a little bit. its easy to say that it looked like it was good. attack, counterattack, attack lands, touch.

giving the little extra leeway to the attacker, since you're fencing dry, should make the counterattackers want to stop, should give them incentive to do other things. a lot of times, people who just counterattack reactively a lot do so because it "works" for them. make it clear that it doesn't always work (sure, a well timed one works sometimes, but not all the time).

this is, of course, in addition to the good drilling advice given earlier.

[Ron West]

As a fairly new fencer (< 2 years), in a club that fences dry, I had this same problem and the best reinforcemente for me was losing touches at tournaments.

[K O'N]

I'm having some issues with my club. We don't have a proper coach, so I'm doing all the teaching.

A lot of the club has bad habits and I'm trying to break them.

The issue I'm trying to fix currently is reactions to attacks.
When you put a lot of the people in our club into a bout and someone launches an attack their first reaction in the split second after the launch, when they should be retreating or parrying, is to attack.

Now this would be ok in Epee, but we're a mostly foil club.

Also since we're an entirely dry club since our college doesn't really fund us all that well it makes for really difficult judging.

How can I break people of this habit? Any suggestions for drills or anything?

I should preface this by saying I'm an amateur coach, and you should listen to people who are actually qualified to give advice if they give you advice, but this is how I deal with something like this for beginners:

First, the real problem, I bet, is that they're locked into one spot and not moving. The lack of retreat and counter out of time are the problem, not the lack of a parry. From what I remember about fencing foil lo those many years ago, you usually don't want to sit still and parry-riposte, you want to retreat and parry-riposte. Make them move, and once they control the distance better they'll have time to react correctly. To that end, play "The distance game":

Phase one: one person (attacker) gets a foil. The other person (defender) does not. Attacker tries to hit. Defender tries to not get hit by keeping distance, but tries to stay as close as possible all the time. Attacker may not fleche, of course. Play for 90 seconds, take a break, play again. Then switch roles, two more 90 second bouts. An important point here is that the defender needs to stay close. If the defender is too far away, the attacker may taunt the defender in a french accent; "Ha! You are afraid of me, eh? You are frightened of my formidable attack, oui? Eeet ees sad," etc. Really, for the defender it's supposed to be a game like teasing a cat, you try to stay as close as you can.

If the attacker pushes the defender off the end of the strip, the defender wins. The attacker is not supposed to just advance relentlessly. If the defender stays a very long way away all the time, the attacker wins.

This is supposed to wake up your legs as a primary response to an attack, rather than your hand, and to encourage footwork tricks like redoublements and half retreat-lunge, stuff to trick an opponent who's staying close.

Phase two: Both fencers get foils. Attacker is on guard, defender is invito in eight. Ready, begin; same game. No parrying, no blade contact allowed at all, and any blade contact is the fault of the defender. Play for a random length of time, then coach yells, "Switch", and the attacker and defender switch roles in the middle of the game. Then yell "Switch" again, etc, again for about 90 seconds. Random "Switch"es will reward defenders who are staying close. As soon as you yell "Switch" the new defender must drop to invito, and must only defend by using distance.

A variation is to play advance lunge distance game; there, you switch as soon as the attacker makes an advance lunge. You can play this either with foils or just as a glove slap game, I think I saw that recently on a video somewhere.

The point of this is to wake up the feet as a primary response to an attack, rather than the hand, and to think in more than just one tempo. Then you can work on a variety of responses; retreat and take over the attack, or retreat parry riposte, whatever you like.

K O'N

[Fiat Slug]

I'm not a coach so this is strictly from personal experience as a student.

Do you think these students are counterattacking because they are not yet confident of their parries? If so, then why not just have them do simple parry exercises? Have one person execute a simple lunge attack and have the other person just parry. No riposte. You can even add distance parry to the exercise to force the defender to move his feet.

[MdA]

I'm not a coach so this is strictly from personal experience as a student.

Do you think these students are counterattacking because they are not yet confident of their parries? If so, then why not just have them do simple parry exercises? Have one person execute a simple lunge attack and have the other person just parry. No riposte. You can even add distance parry to the exercise to force the defender to move his feet.

Answers to your questions are; Yes. Yes…but then add the riposte. Forget about the distance parry at this early stage and just concentrate on multiple parry riposte drills. Make the correct calls during bouting. Do not reward the counterattack.

[Fiat Slug]

Answers to your questions are; Yes. Yes…but then add the riposte. Forget about the distance parry at this early stage and just concentrate on multiple parry riposte drills. Make the correct calls during bouting. Do not reward the counterattack.

I know I'm a dying breed...

Shouldn't students learn parry first before adding riposte? I know I'm on dangerous grounds here but I've seen lots of parries with bad forms. The younger coaches I know all seem to be okay with this as long as the student riposte. There's an intermediate fencer at my club who has a fast windshield parry followed by a riposte. This person has perfected this technique such that the point control on the riposte is very good. In the old days, a windshield parry would be called mal-parry but that concept is now obsolete. Sigh.

[Allen Evans]

Why not train good parries AND the riposte after the parry? The two skills are not mutually exclusive.

Training the parry without the riposte often trains students who parry, parry, parry, but never riposte.

It must have been very old days indeed, if the fencer could make a parry, avoid getting hit, and land the riposte and still be called for not forming a sufficient parry.

[MdA]

…..
It must have been very old days indeed…..

I agree….A good coach (or opponent) should be able to show this guy why a “windshield-wiper” parry riposte is not a good idea. The referee doesn’t need to get involved in correcting form. This guy will continue to get away with this at your club…or in your division until exposed to superior technique.

You can’t arbitrate good form. It must be learned through practical experience.

[MdA]

……..You can’t arbitrate good form. It must be learned through practical experience.

Having said this in my last post….and now considering the imminent debounce timing changes currently under discussion at the 2009 World Championships for foil….see following thread

Antalya report: Marco Siesto on changes in refereeing...

I was wondering if Allen meant the old “old days” or the new “old days”. The new timing changes will once again define the “superior technique” that I was talking about my last post.

What is currently superior technique in foil may not be so when the new timing adjustments or “tweaks” take effect…and vice versa.

In my opinion, the counter attack problem described in this thread will be less of a problem with the latest timing adjustments because more attacks will be valid…..but how does all this rule changing really effect foil instruction at the grass roots level?

The OP said, “we're an entirely dry club since our college doesn't really fund us” so the original counterattack problem is really not affected by electric timing changes…or is it?

So my question is …What is “superior technique” in foil fencing and how is it taught and reinforced in dry (non-electric) foil fencing classes?

Marco Siesto in the thread referenced above says they are going to have refresher courses for the referees because of the new timing adjustments. That means they are going to change the way referees determine ROW based on the new timing changes.

So does that mean that coaches are going to need to change the way they teach dry foil? Will the “windshield-wiper” parry riposte become effective again?

And is there superior foil technique that is truly insulated from all these electrical timing changes in the scoring machine? Are there things that a coach should teach in foil that will always be correct? What are these things?

When teaching dry foil at the grass roots level, should you try to regulate/referee/arbitrate your fencers to the current electrical foil standards?

[darius]

When teaching dry foil at the grass roots level, should you try to regulate/referee/arbitrate your fencers to the current electrical foil standards?

At the end of the day, what determines a hit is defined somewhere, whether it's:

- What sets off an electrical box (with pre-2004 timings, t2005 timings, t2005-a timings).
- What any specific AFL side judge is likely to see.
- What is determined to be a hit by the coach / referee at any given club.

"Superior" technique is the one that gets the job done. Talking about parries, NWFC's study guides say that parries have to do the following:

- Be done in one motion.
- Completely deflect the attacker's tip.
- Be made with the defenders forte against the attacker's foible (exceptions
for searching parries & early parries)
- Facilitate the riposte.

Notice that as long as a parry technique fulfills those 4 things, it might be taught. So a classical French four, moving the bell-guard and leaving the tip still facing the target might be the right solution to a problem, as might an extremely heavy-handed four from the shoulder, which aggressively smashes the inside line closed and takes the opponent's blade extremely far out of line. The technique you choose should depend on:

1) Context. If I'm flicking to the chest, that classical French four will not help you one whit; the tip will arrive with your parry.
2) Athlete. Each athlete has certain tendencies. They may not be able to learn or apply some techniques, and may be pre-disposed to a certain type of movement. As a coach, I should take that into account when teaching.

Of course, I'm one of those "young coaches", so I might not be able to opine on proper technique.

darius

[Fiat Slug]

When teaching dry foil at the grass roots level, should you try to regulate/referee/arbitrate your fencers to the current electrical foil standards?

IMHO, dry foil is not a separate sport. Therefore, dry foil students should learn the same techniques and be referee'd to the same foil rules.

- Be done in one motion.
- Completely deflect the attacker's tip.
- Be made with the defenders forte against the attacker's foible (exceptions
for searching parries & early parries)
- Facilitate the riposte.

I really lie these guidelines. I especially like the point (no pun intended) that the parry must deflect he attacker's tip.

Of course, I'm one of those "young coaches", so I might not be able to opine on proper technique.

Sorry Darius if you took offense at my young coaches comment. It was not meant as an insult against you or any other coach, however young or old; I was just commenting on how our sport has changed.

[Jason]

Talking about parries, NWFC's study guides say that parries have to do the following:

- Be done in one motion.
- Completely deflect the attacker's tip.
- Be made with the defenders forte against the attacker's foible (exceptions
for searching parries & early parries)
- Facilitate the riposte.

This is no doubt based on Czajkowski's work.

He lists these five criteria for a correct parry:
-It should be made in one movement
-It should cover a given area of target
-It should facilitate a riposte
-It should facilitate the taking of another parry
-You should control the attacker's foible with your forte.

I would argue that the forte-foible contact isn't universally necessary or relevant in modern foil (and obviously meaningless in sabre).

The ability to easily take another parry is pretty important.

[RITFencing]

As a tangent, one of the hallmarks of good technique (to me) and something I try to teach in all of my lessons is that ANY action should always either leave you in position to perform another action or force a halt to occur.

[prototoast]

As a tangent, one of the hallmarks of good technique (to me) and something I try to teach in all of my lessons is that ANY action should always either leave you in position to perform another action or force a halt to occur.

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