Compilation Video: Marti's Suavemente Attacks

[epeeslasher]

i do not like parries and try not to use them. i feel that they are an excuse for poor timing and poor distance: when your opponent has beaten your timing and distance you have to resort to taking a parry. and if you have lost on both of those things you dont really deserve the touch in my opinion

This I think is the reason why I don't like the phrase;

"the distance makes the parry."

It implies that parries are useless and only made to gain right of way. That just simply isn't true. Parries are an integral part of all three weapons. They stop you from getting hit. Good distance improves your chances of parrying, but deep parries when the distance is too close can save your neck. Who cares if they screw up the distance, what works works, just look at the truth in front of you.[/QUOTE]

[CyrusofChaos]

Wow...parries deemed a poor excuse? I think you found a statement capable of offending just about any Coach out there.

Parries Cyrus are not a "panic button" to be pressed. They are an integral part of fencing. There are few things more beautiful in saber than a clean parry riposte ESPECIALLY when by design (ie planned out ahead of time by the defender). If you cannot appreciate that in my opinion you shouldn't be making videos analyzing top fencers.

what i say in my videos and on my posts is simply my opinion, i have said that many times before. in my opinion the bout should be won with timing and distance, if you have to rely on your parries then you are doing at least one of those two things wrong. i also find that taking a parry is never as reliable as pulling distance, both from personal experience and watching a lot of high level fencing

if you liked the previous videos and the rest of my opinions then you shouldnt write off the rest of my stuff because of this one thing. that wouldnt be productive if you have enjoyed the rest of them and it wouldnt make sense. all i am saying is that i wont be making a video on them

This I think is the reason why I don't like the phrase;

"the distance makes the parry."

It implies that parries are useless and only made to gain right of way. That just simply isn't true. Parries are an integral part of all three weapons. They stop you from getting hit. Good distance improves your chances of parrying, but deep parries when the distance is too close can save your neck. Who cares if they screw up the distance, what works works, just look at the truth in front of you.

[/QUOTE]

i never said that phrase... and i dont argue that they arent useful and i dont refuse to do them. but i dont think they can every be as consistent as good distance is. dont get me wrong, when set up properly they can be very useful or if you are stuck at the end of the strip or if your opponent has been hitting to the same line every time. all i am saying is that i do not like them because if you have to take them it means *to me* that either you lack confidence in your distance or timing or your distance or timing is wrong

[rcmatthews]

to all four of you:

i do not like parries and try not to use them. i feel that they are an excuse for poor timing and poor distance: when your opponent has beaten your timing and distance you have to resort to taking a parry. and if you have lost on both of those things you dont really deserve the touch in my opinion

I think you're only looking at one aspect of a parry. As has already been said, many times a fencer will specifically intend for the action to end in a parry/riposte. While there could be many reasons for this, I think that my personal favorite is the domination factor. A well timed parry can cause the opponent to doubt his attack, which will then allow you to become much more aggressive. Also, parrying someone could also cause them to hold theie attack, enabling an easier attack in preparation.

I think that you should reconsider discounting an entire group of actions out of hand.

[RebelwithoutaCause]

what i say in my videos and on my posts is simply my opinion, i have said that many times before. in my opinion the bout should be won with timing and distance, if you have to rely on your parries then you are doing at least one of those two things wrong.

Timing and distance are both very important though I heartily disagree that an action that ends in a parry equals a "failure" in either one. Any fencer worth his salt has a large repertoire of both offensive and defensive actions (such as the aforementioned intentional parry-riposte). You have plenty examples of this "passive aggressive" tactic in your library of videos.

As rcmatthews said, taking a parry also helps to dissolve your opponents confidence.

all i am saying is that i do not like them because if you have to take them it means *to me* that either you lack confidence in your distance or timing or your distance or timing is wrong

The same could be said of your parries. Lack of confidence or incorrectly performed.

[CyrusofChaos]

The same could be said of your parries. Lack of confidence or incorrectly performed.

that seems pretty circular to me. you can go without parries, you cannot go without the other two. so thats what i try to do. i do not parry unless i have to because the other person has completely beaten me on distance and timing. if i have to get a touch that way i will but i prefer the distance and timing approach because to me that is all you really need

[RebelwithoutaCause]

that seems pretty circular to me. you can go without parries, you cannot go without the other two. so thats what i try to do. i do not parry unless i have to because the other person has completely beaten me on distance and timing. if i have to get a touch that way i will but i prefer the distance and timing approach because to me that is all you really need

Again, you're not taking into account the tactical applications of parries. What you describe sounds like very 1 dimensional fencing and will only get you so far.

You're going to be hard pressed to find anyone else that views a parry as as a mistake

[springdon]

to all four of you:

i do not like parries and try not to use them. i feel that they are an excuse for poor timing and poor distance: when your opponent has beaten your timing and distance you have to resort to taking a parry. and if you have lost on both of those things you dont really deserve the touch in my opinion

i am considering doing something on yakimenkos rocket attack

other ideas are strange preparations in the box: standing still, taking a step back, line to start, steps back in the beginning, etc. another idea is ways to pretend that you did not fall short: doing a ballestra, going to parry five, etc

I don't agree with your stance on parries (I think they are crucial for "old guy" fencing) but I certain understand what you are saying. I didn't mean for my suggestion to start any controversy, just was thinking that it was the one big class of actions you hadn't done.

I also like the idea of preparations in the box, or even yaki.

Again, I look forward to hearing whatever you have to say next and thanks so much for the videos.

[CyrusofChaos]

Again, you're not taking into account the tactical applications of parries. What you describe sounds like very 1 dimensional fencing and will only get you so far.

You're going to be hard pressed to find anyone else that views a parry as as a mistake

again, its just an opinion and if it seems that way i would like to defend it in a way that is not 1 dimensional but this thread is not the place to do it. i dont expect anyone else to share my views on this particular aspect of fencing. in fact i think you would be hard-pressed to someone who has opinions about fencing as radical as mine

also i started improving much more quickly when i stopped focusing on the parry and started focusing purely on my timing and distance

[epeeslasher]

Just imagine how much more you'll improve when you concentrate on both!

[Inquartata]

FWIW, in Moscow I had Nazlimov tell me pretty much the same thing Andrew is saying ( if I'm reading him correctly ). "Your bladework can be awful, as long as your footwork and distance are good you will win without it". He was very much less concerned with the blade than with the feet, which I think is in keeping with the modern sabre game.

That said, I like parries. A good 5 or 2 especially is very satisfying...so long as the opponent's remise doesn't lock out your riposte, which is all too likely these days, at least in my circles.

But then, making the opponent miss you by centimeters is also very satisfying.

Parenthetically, Pillet seems to do a lot of those "strange preparations in the box" you mentioned, Andrew.

[CyrusofChaos]

FWIW, in Moscow I had Nazlimov tell me pretty much the same thing Andrew is saying ( if I'm reading him correctly ). "Your bladework can be awful, as long as your footwork and distance are good you will win without it". He was very much less concerned with the blade than with the feet, which I think is in keeping with the modern sabre game.

Parenthetically, Pillet seems to do a lot of those "strange preparations in the box" you mentioned, Andrew.

thats basically my thinking too

the french, chinese, and romanian guys in general do a lot of that stuff. and some of the italians... basically guys who are/were coached by bauer

anyway i am thinking i will do keeths flunges and then strange preparations next. i will begin work on the next one as soon as i get hotspot data for the marti video. anymore suggestions?

[CyrusofChaos]

so i started collecting footage for keeths flunge and there are two different times when he will use it: when he is attacking and when he pulls people short he will often make a quick flunge to retaliate. do you guys want his attacks specifically or both? personally i think the retaliation touch speaks for itself but whatever you all want

[Foil.Leicester]

so i started collecting footage for keeths flunge and there are two different times when he will use it: when he is attacking and when he pulls people short he will often make a quick flunge to retaliate. do you guys want his attacks specifically or both? personally i think the retaliation touch speaks for itself but whatever you all want

It would be nice to see both I think, especially for comparitive purposes, what his balance is before he launches both etc. For the attack would be nice also to see attacks that he sets up without the flunge so we can understand how he conditions people to be not expect it.

[oiuyt]

I'd say it depends on how much variation there is.

If you basically have just two or three things where you could show dozens of examples of pretty much the same touch over and over again (in different bouts and against different opponents), I don't know that it would be all that interesting for 8-10 minutes.

If there are several different attacks and multiple preparations and you can reasonably do a full video exploring the options, when each is optimal, and how they break or fail, that would be great and probably shouldn't be cluttered by adding a completely different topic just because the delivery mechanism for the touch is the same or similar.

If the former case you could reasonably either do a shorter-than-normal video or could do a twofer and include a short video equivalent of attacks with flunge and a short video equivalent of the retaliation touches, ideally with connecting material highlighting differences and similarities.

-B

[CyrusofChaos]

It would be nice to see both I think, especially for comparitive purposes, what his balance is before he launches both etc. For the attack would be nice also to see attacks that he sets up without the flunge so we can understand how he conditions people to be not expect it.

after looking a little more i also think that doing an overall breakdown of his attacks would be better. this includes his attacks with point, his long reprises, and his flunges. i do not think i will be doing his retaliation flunge

[whtouche]

i do not think i will be doing his retaliation flunge

I agree with this decision, as the flunge-after-distance touch is pretty common, whereas keeth's attack, particularly with the flunge, is very unusual.