Parry 8 Vs. Parry 4

[Alexander Kai]

Hi

Originally when I first learned fencing, I was taught parry four first. This made sense to me, I learned to do it better and better and life was good.

Then I learned parry 8, and I discovered that not only did it cover the low-line, but it could also cover the highline as well.

Now I am teaching (if you could call it that), and am considering teaching parry 8 first, and parry 4 second.

Parry four is (in my simpler terms) an across the body high line parry.
Parry eight is (in simpler my terms) a circular parry drawing a C (or a backwards C) ending in the low line and keeping the hand in the correct position.

I feel as though new fencers are generally able to understand keeping their hand in the same place, and have a better time putting circles together (parry 8). I find that there is some difficulty in maintaining a proper parry four position (they sometimes extend or retract their hand as they parry, their point will wander WAY outside, and insert other mistakes that newer fencers often make)

However, I have not worked with parry 8 as much in a class settings, so I assume that there are mistakes beginning fencers might make with parry 8 that I simply haven't thought of.

So my dilemma in a nutshell is this "If I teach new fencers a circular parry that covers both the high line and low line, what can possibly go wrong compared to teaching them the traditional highline 'cross the body' parry (4) first."

Oh, and this is Epee, and I'm working mostly with non-beat parries =)

[Allen Evans]

I'm not sure where to start here, because I'm not entirely sure what you're doing. Is this an offensive or defensive action? By your use of the word "parry", I am going to assume defensive.

Parry 8 isn't a high line parry. A BIND from 4 to 8 would do what you seem to ascribe to the Parry 8, and I suspect that this is what you are actually teaching (whether you know it or not).

By teaching the bind as one motion that automatically moves through 4 on it's way to 8 you're making it easier for opponent's to decieve this action and hit with a compound attack or to "roll off" the attempt to find their blade and to hit your students with a remise. Your method of teaching this is probably going to result in students with big hand actions as they try to sweep through too much space as they cover both high and low lines with the same action.

You've also left out what distance context you're teaching this in. in most distances the opponent will either not be caught by this action, or will just push through to hit. It's hard to tell without actually seeing you teach this.

By not teaching the position of 4 and then a transport, you're removing the chance for the students to learn a croise (another type of transport from the position of 4), compound parries, false parries with counter-attacks, and probably a few more things I'm forgetting.

I think you need to re-examine this, or explain what you're trying to do more precisely.

AE

[erooMynohtnA]

To expose the flaw in teaching 8 as a parry before 4, especially the way you're doing it, I will ask a question.

Why not just teach a giant circle six first since that parries everything?

[Alexander Kai]

I'm not sure where to start here, because I'm not entirely sure what you're doing. Is this an offensive or defensive action? By your use of the word "parry", I am going to assume defensive.

Parry 8 isn't a high line parry. A BIND from 4 to 8 would do what you seem to ascribe to the Parry 8, and I suspect that this is what you are actually teaching (whether you know it or not).

By teaching the bind as one motion that automatically moves through 4 on it's way to 8 you're making it easier for opponent's to deceive this action and hit with a compound attack or to "roll off" the attempt to find their blade and to hit your students with a remise. Your method of teaching this is probably going to result in students with big hand actions as they try to sweep through too much space as they cover both high and low lines with the same action.

You've also left out what distance context you're teaching this in. in most distances the opponent will either not be caught by this action, or will just push through to hit. It's hard to tell without actually seeing you teach this.

By not teaching the position of 4 and then a transport, you're removing the chance for the students to learn a croise (another type of transport from the position of 4), compound parries, false parries with counter-attacks, and probably a few more things I'm forgetting.

I think you need to re-examine this, or explain what you're trying to do more precisely.

AE

I am essentially teaching a bind. As you have described it, I have thought about it, and have come to this realization.

So in short, it would be better to teach 4 first, because 4 lays the foundation for many other kinds of movement and blade work, where 8 does not necessarily do this.

This is my truncated response, I will provide more depth later.

[Jason]

You can teach more than one parry at a time.
There are also a few more that just 4 and 8 for you to consider.

[Fencergrl]

The advantage of teaching more than one parry at a time is that not all students will "get" how to do one parry but are fine at the other one you show them.

Also combining parries (such as moving from a 4 to a 6 or vice versa) can also be fun & useful for your fencers and it gives a progression to the lesson and the needed fluidity to the action.

[Tomas N]

In epee, I teach C6 and 8 before 4. In foil, I teach 4 first.

[RITFencing]

In epee, a 6 opposition (without a circle) is the first blade action I teach because it allows me to use my blade as a way of guiding theirs into what is a solid extension. This is done BEFORE just a straight extension because the path that the hand and arm travel in the extension is extremely important and a solid 6 opposition will serve as a generally excellent way of teaching a strong, efficient path that is (relatively) well defended against stop hits, as well as a good starting and ending position for the hand. After that, I teach the circle 6 as a two tempo action, first close out the line/control the blade, second extend. Learning to take a 6 opposition, circular or not, is of course a vital part of most epee fencers' games, but what I am really working hard to do is teach a good extension. The finer points of hand actions both on and off the blade will work better once the student can actually extend, and a lack of the ability to do so cleanly and effectively can severely hamper any epeeist's (or foilist or sabreur/sabreusse) progress.

I realize that this may not directly answer your question, but I think the information therein will give you some much needed food for thought. Also, it drives me up a wall to hear any variation on "I'm doing this because that's the way I was taught," so good for you for questioning your own basic assumptions!

[MdA]

In foil, teach 4 first. They are going to do it anyway so make sure it is correct.

[Alexander Kai]

In epee, a 6 opposition (without a circle) is the first blade action I teach because it allows me to use my blade as a way of guiding theirs into what is a solid extension. This is done BEFORE just a straight extension because the path that the hand and arm travel in the extension is extremely important and a solid 6 opposition will serve as a generally excellent way of teaching a strong, efficient path that is (relatively) well defended against stop hits, as well as a good starting and ending position for the hand. After that, I teach the circle 6 as a two tempo action, first close out the line/control the blade, second extend. Learning to take a 6 opposition, circular or not, is of course a vital part of most epee fencers' games, but what I am really working hard to do is teach a good extension. The finer points of hand actions both on and off the blade will work better once the student can actually extend, and a lack of the ability to do so cleanly and effectively can severely hamper any epeeist's (or foilist or sabreur/sabreusse) progress.

I realize that this may not directly answer your question, but I think the information therein will give you some much needed food for thought. Also, it drives me up a wall to hear any variation on "I'm doing this because that's the way I was taught," so good for you for questioning your own basic assumptions!

While I am only quoting RIT here I would like to thank everyone for their responses.

At this point in the semester I have not yet begun teaching blade-work, which gives me a bit of time to think about how I want to approach methodology in parries. I was taught by a teacher whose primary weapon was foil, which is why I learned 4 first, but I questioned it because of my hand orientation.

I question it now, because I want to do a combination of things, I want to keep my students attention, and I also want to teach them the parry that works best (generally speaking, in Epee, but I do cater to all three weapons)

Thanks again for all of your advice.

[AaronK]

I think the choice is ultimately yours. Everyone will have their own rationale for teaching skills in a specific order, what's going to work for you may not be another coaches choice.

There are plenty of valid reasons to teach any* parry first, and to echo Jason's comment, you certainly could teach multiple parries at the same time rather than tackle them individually.

*Personally I have made choices to introduce specific parries over others in different situations, many have been already stated in this thread by previous posters.

Take this unusual suggestion simply as food for thought:
A coach colleague of mine suggested that (for his beginning foil class) a "High 7" parry might actually be an excellent parry to teach first (rather than 4, which is a fairly common place to start). The rationale for selecting this parry was that:
The movement was more likely to enforce the coordination of the finger/wrist (fine) and arm (gross) motor movements, as opposed to 4 where beginner students may neglect any motion not made with the arm.
The final position of a high-7 parry may keep the weapon in a position to encourage a direct riposte.
Because the blade is met from underneath the opponent's weapon, it could help prevent the beginner student from balling-up into a "fetal position" common to Y10/12 fencing because they tend to push a parry 4 downward trying to prevent from being touched.
Etc. As in there were several other reasons that do make sense.

[Alexander Kai]

Well put, and thank you. I will keep it in mind.

[DangerMouse]

Take this unusual suggestion simply as food for thought:
A coach colleague of mine suggested that (for his beginning foil class) a "High 7" parry might actually be an excellent parry to teach first (rather than 4, which is a fairly common place to start). The rationale for selecting this parry was that:

I had really never thought about that, but I think I like it for more than just the suggestions above. One of the big problems working with a large class of beginners is that they don't understand the different extensions required to help another beginner make a proper parry. Starting with high 7 means the extension from the person getting parried (hand at roughly shoulder height with point straight out or slightly down) is appropriate to building muscle memory of the extension as well.

[catwood1]

In foil, teach 4 first. They are going to do it anyway so make sure it is correct.

Idk about that. It seems to me like their natural inclination is to make a gigantic sweep through 4 that ends in 2, possibly with a brief stop off in foil/epee 5...

[catwood1]

In epee, a 6 opposition (without a circle) is the first blade action I teach because it allows me to use my blade as a way of guiding theirs into what is a solid extension. This is done BEFORE just a straight extension because the path that the hand and arm travel in the extension is extremely important and a solid 6 opposition will serve as a generally excellent way of teaching a strong, efficient path that is (relatively) well defended against stop hits, as well as a good starting and ending position for the hand. After that, I teach the circle 6 as a two tempo action, first close out the line/control the blade, second extend. Learning to take a 6 opposition, circular or not, is of course a vital part of most epee fencers' games, but what I am really working hard to do is teach a good extension. The finer points of hand actions both on and off the blade will work better once the student can actually extend, and a lack of the ability to do so cleanly and effectively can severely hamper any epeeist's (or foilist or sabreur/sabreusse) progress.

I do the same thing, although I've also been doing the same in foil. While the 6 opposition does sometimes get used, its not all that much. Its still a great way to teach an extension. It also helps a beginner build that feel for the blade.

[RITFencing]

I do the same thing, although I've also been doing the same in foil. While the 6 opposition does sometimes get used, its not all that much. Its still a great way to teach an extension. It also helps a beginner build that feel for the blade.

Agreed. It's more of a pedagogical technique for foil than a finished product, but it does still see use, more as a counter attack or prise de fer than a real parry riposte, and in these cases it would be done as a one tempo action.

[darius]

I think that action doesn't get used enough in foil fencing -- watch Ariel DeSmet for the way it should be done: expand the distance, get your opponent chasing, and when you see a blade presentation do a one-tempo fleche through 6.

I've been working opposition in almost every line with many of my foilists - it's fun, develops sentiment-du-fer as well as problem-solving -- taking a drill that starts from engagement in one line and asking the student to execute the same drill from a different engagement.

darius

[Fencergrl]

I happened upon a pattern that seemed to work well last night for my beginner epee students.

1) Student A (or coach) extends the blade, student B does a simple parry-riposte in 6 with a lunge.

2) Student A (or coach) extends the blade, student B does a parry-riposte in 4 with a lunge.

3) Student A (or coach) does either parry, and student B disengages, and lunges with a riposte.

4) Student A (or coach) extends the blade, student B does a parries in 4, then disengages under the blade to change to a 6 for the riposte.

What I like about this drill, is that it taught the high-line parries, but also showed the student that they can avoid being parried with a disengage. It also finishes with a combination that is not only useful but put all the pieces together in a pattern.

The other thing that was nice about the pattern, is by switching from inside to outside lines, the student usually gets the feel of the blade and does a solid parry-riposte. I watched students struggle with the individual pieces, but execute the pattern with all the pieces correctly. This allows the drill to end on a good note.

Overall, the drill felt like it had a flow to it that made sense.

[RITFencing]

I think that action doesn't get used enough in foil fencing -- watch Ariel DeSmet for the way it should be done: expand the distance, get your opponent chasing, and when you see a blade presentation do a one-tempo fleche through 6.

I've been working opposition in almost every line with many of my foilists - it's fun, develops sentiment-du-fer as well as problem-solving -- taking a drill that starts from engagement in one line and asking the student to execute the same drill from a different engagement.

darius

Like I said, one tempo action, done more like a counter attack/attack into prep.

You should also look at something that epee fencers enjoy doing: a false search to draw the opponent's AiP into an opening line, then a parry riposte or just thrust with opposition against their hit. Works rather well.

[darius]

False search? Why not a real search?