Better to react than act: scientific study about reaction times

[milstdfarm]

The study was not directly connected to fencing but should apply.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2010/203/1

(Not sure what copyright allows me to do so I'm not pasting the article, just the link)

[crquack]

I am not sure why you concluded that it is "better to react than to act" on basis of the sudy quoted. In fact the last paragraph pretty much says the opposite: Your reaction to a draw will never be quick enough to beat the action.

There are people who study this very seriously and act out scenarios with Airsoft. The conclusions have been that in a reactive situation you have to "get off the X" while drawing in response to an assailant's draw. To "stand and deliver" is to die unless the assailant misses with his first shot.

The situation is even more confused in fencing (and other martial arts). How long does it take to execute a lunge? How long does it take for me to move my hand six inches to parry? I do not want to bring ROW into this

My epee coach certainly holds that defense will beat offense in epee. At least one historical text promotes defense over offense as a way to win a sword duel. I have no reason to argue with either but I doubt that the reason is faster reactive movement.

[migopod]

I am not sure why you concluded that it is "better to react than to act" on basis of the sudy quoted. In fact the last paragraph pretty much says the opposite: Your reaction to a draw will never be quick enough to beat the action.

There are people who study this very seriously and act out scenarios with Airsoft. The conclusions have been that in a reactive situation you have to "get off the X" while drawing in response to an assailant's draw. To "stand and deliver" is to die unless the assailant misses with his first shot.

The situation is even more confused in fencing (and other martial arts). How long does it take to execute a lunge? How long does it take for me to move my hand six inches to parry? I do not want to bring ROW into this

My epee coach certainly holds that defense will beat offense in epee. At least one historical text promotes defense over offense as a way to win a sword duel. I have no reason to argue with either but I doubt that the reason is faster reactive movement.

I think I agree. The problem with basing a game on reaction is that instinctive reactions can be drawn out with feints leaving a fencer more vulnerable to second intention (not as big a problem for pistol duels). A defensive or counteroffensive epee game is more founded on inviting attacks in lines where and when you want them to happen which in turn exposes the attacker to your cleverly constructed counterattack, bind or other straterey, not just sitting there waiting for the attack and hoping your reaction is quick enough and accurate enough to pick off an otherwise unanticipated attack. So that raises the question of if a counteroffensive epee strategy is even really a reaction if you're setting up your opponent to attack in your time and to the line you want them to attack, or if it's actually action on the part of the counterattacker.

Pistols are easy from a tactical wheel perspective. Point the thing at someone and squeeze the index finger. Ain't no parries nor ripostes nor remises involved. Fencing weapons have a greater complexity* that require decision making and not getting feinted into reacting in a predictable way.



*Except of course for sabre.

[griffindm]

The study was not directly connected to fencing but should apply.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2010/203/1

(Not sure what copyright allows me to do so I'm not pasting the article, just the link)

Interesting. I am in the process of putting together a system to track metrics in fencing. I intend to start with foot speed, hand speed, and lunge distance. I had considered adding in latency (reaction time) as well, but was not sure it would vary enough for me to track via video (30fps). I could use a faster camera, but it adds to the cost.

[tchwojko]

Doesn't it also depend on what you're reacting to, and what you're reaction is?

[edew]

[...]

My epee coach certainly holds that defense will beat offense in epee. At least one historical text promotes defense over offense as a way to win a sword duel. I have no reason to argue with either but I doubt that the reason is faster reactive movement.

Defense beats offense in epee only because in epee, an offensive action shows your "hand" (hand as in poker hand). The defense's reaction to an offensive action in epee could be one of three things: do nothing (or maybe a slight retreat), counter-attack, or parry (or retreat+parry). As an attacker, you won't know what your opponent will do.

In foil and saber, with the RoW rule in place, yes you also show your "hand" when you attack. But in this case, if the opponent does nothing or counter-attacks, you just finish your attack and get the point. You show your hand, but you also force your opponent to defend. That's not the case in epee.

But back to this thread: reaction time is never as fast as action. And unprepared reaction is never as fast as prepared reaction. Reaction to a tactile stimulus is quicker than a reaction to an aural or visual stimulus. (Beat, counter-beat is easier done by feel than by sight.)

[slow_learner]

Also here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ster-gunfights

[oiuyt]

Pistols are easy from a tactical wheel perspective. Point the thing at someone and squeeze the index finger. Ain't no parries nor ripostes nor remises involved.

Unless one is The One.

-B

[Dev]

Or perhaps a Grammaton Cleric First Class.

[migopod]

Or perhaps a Grammaton Cleric First Class.

True, but they're not reacting.

[davtsung]

Better to set-up, than to guess.

[whtouche]

Unless one is The One.

-B

Or The One.

[Inquartata]

the last paragraph pretty much says the opposite: Your reaction to a draw will never be quick enough to beat the action.

Not exactly. Welchman's experiment did not resemble Bohr's very closely. He added sequencing as well as straight reaction time. This is a mental task which a simple draw doesn't require. Just as fencers have a lot of the basic, essential motions ingrained in muscle memory, so that the body performs them almost automatically, so too with a lot of a gunman's motions, such as cocking the hammer. Welchman did not appear to have had his subjects practice enough to achieve this level of familiarity with the secondary task.

Why do scientists so love boxes with buttons and lights for these things? Why not reproduce and test the actual freaking experiment Bohr conducted?

OTOH, Bohr's sample size was too limited to be of much use. There Welchman was right, he might indeed simply have been a faster draw.

To "stand and deliver" is to die unless the assailant misses with his first shot.

Which they very often do, unless at very close range. This is why guys like Bill Hickock and Wyatt Earp were so successful in gunfights: They took a little extra time to be sure of their aims, and hit their faster opponents while they blasted away at the air or the ground.

OTOH, there are guys who can draw and fire several shots in less than the minimum human reaction time. This means in effect that you could draw on them, bring your weapon to bear, and they could still shoot you before you could squeeze the trigger...

[AdamH]

Perhaps we can recognise the club and competition scenario in which a relatively new foilist has a very fast parry of quarte and direct riposte.

Parry-riposte, parry-riposte, parry-riposte; click-bang.

All very good if the gun fight we are involved in is limited to direct attack, quarte-parry riposte, rinse and repeat.

The argument sort of extends to the more generally useful fallback option of a sweep-all counter-sixte or prime parry but probably stops there. The counter-attack in foil is possibly a better limited defensive game choice.

Luckily, foil is more interesting than that.

Right of way is an incentive to the creative and trained fencer. It allows them to define a situation in which their opponent's responses are limited (preparation) and then finish accordingly and with one of the several actions they have trained repeatedly in for precisely this given situation.

With foil right of way, if you go for your gun first, it shouldn't matter overall if the opponent reacts and shoots you first. If they instinctively blind-fire their parry or counterattack it's probably even helpful.

Additionally, by making the preparation, controlling the distance and controlling the fight it's more akin to getting to choose whether the game is a fast draw, march and shoot, range day or a punch up as you see fit.

[crquack]

Which they very often do, unless at very close range.

Most gunfights take place within 8 feet (FBI stats).

OTOH, there are guys who can draw and fire several shots in less than the minimum human reaction time. This means in effect that you could draw on them, bring your weapon to bear, and they could still shoot you before you could squeeze the trigger...

Draw from where? A speed rig? Do you see many people walking around with those?

BTW the last standard I looked at (and this may have changed by now) was 2 seconds draw from a concealed carry and a completed double tap.

[gladius]

I found this topic and the comment below interesting. I asked Maestro Giancarlo Toran to put in his two cents for my own benefit. I share his comments about the article and some comments in the thread.


Better to react than act: scientific study about reaction times

Unfortunately it ain't so and it can be proven rather easily. He who acts first has the advantage. Furthermore, in fencing, he who makes things happen, and is conscious about it, has the advantage.

My epee coach certainly holds that defense will beat offense in epee. At least one historical text promotes defense over offense as a way to win a sword duel. I have no reason to argue with either but I doubt that the reason is faster reactive movement.

Defense is not simple reaction. If that were the case we'd be...cooked as we say [the actual Italian expression is we'd be fried ]. He who defends himself is not just sitting there looking, waiting for the hit to parry or to stop it. To keep the distance, to anticipate, to provoke...these are all complex actions the defender does also. The material execution of the hit is only the final act and it has a higher chance to succeed if the preliminary actions were done perfectly. He who foresaw has the advantage, not he who only saw.

The problem with basing a game on reaction is that instinctive reactions can be drawn out with feints leaving a fencer more vulnerable to second intention (not as big a problem for pistol duels). A defensive or counteroffensive epee game is more founded on inviting attacks in lines where and when you want them to happen which in turn exposes the attacker to your cleverly constructed counterattack, bind or other straterey, not just sitting there waiting for the attack and hoping your reaction is quick enough and accurate enough to pick off an otherwise unanticipated attack. So that raises the question of if a counteroffensive epee strategy is even really a reaction if you're setting up your opponent to attack in your time and to the line you want them to attack, or if it's actually action on the part of the counterattacker.

Pistols are easy from a tactical wheel perspective. Point the thing at someone and squeeze the index finger. Ain't no parries nor ripostes nor remises involved. Fencing weapons have a greater complexity* that require decision making and not getting feinted into reacting in a predictable way.

I pretty much agree with all this if I interpreted correctly. In part it says what I said above.

Defense beats offense in epee only because in epee, an offensive action shows your "hand" (hand as in poker hand). The defense's reaction to an offensive action in epee could be one of three things: do nothing (or maybe a slight retreat), counter-attack, or parry (or retreat+parry). As an attacker, you won't know what your opponent will do.

An attacker, if he is an intelligent/smart fencer, decides to attack only when he thinks that he has understood--therefore correctly foreseen--what the other will do. The match between the intelligence of the two fencers is exactly this: to try to understand the opponent and make the opponent not understand what you will do (deception).

In foil and saber, with the RoW rule in place, yes you also show your "hand" when you attack. But in this case, if the opponent does nothing or counter-attacks, you just finish your attack and get the point. You show your hand, but you also force your opponent to defend. That's not the case in epee.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. If it were as you say, the possibility of an effective counterattack wouldn't be there.

But back to this thread: reaction time is never as fast as action. And unprepared reaction is never as fast as prepared reaction. Reaction to a tactile stimulus is quicker than a reaction to an aural or visual stimulus. (Beat, counter-beat is easier done by feel than by sight.)

This is indeed the crux of the matter. Reaction implies that first there is a stimulus to which one reacts, then the riposte. The riposte, because of physiological reasons can't but arrive after. I thought I had made this point clear enough in my article on the choice of [fencing] time. One thing is to react, another thing is to choose your tempo (which presupposes a preexisting rhythm, known, and foreseen).

It is another thing altogether if the opponent is so clumsy that he signals the start of his action with anticipatory movements so that I can start to move together with him or even before him. Typical and very informative is the game with the glove: one is on guard with his bent arm. The other, in front of him, holds a glove at shoulder's height at a distance equal to the extended arm so that the first one to grab the glove all he has to do is to extend his arm. The first one has a net advantage, unless he "telegraphs" his start by tensing his shoulder before extending his hand forward.

Then the topic--a bit off topic-- is on instict referring to automtic reactions which became such because of long and repetive drills. But the problem remains the same.

Another thing is to say--and this is correct--that in the brain there are preferred and quicker paths for situation where survival is at stake. I covered this in my article on where to look. But in the end the reactive response is always delayed with respect to the stimulus from which it originates.

[JacoKierkegaard]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why my counteroffensive epee game is the shizzle.

[edew]

[...]
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. If it were as you say, the possibility of an effective counterattack wouldn't be there.
[...]

Well, the counter-attack has to be effective. Not only does it have to hit, the counterattacker also has to NOT get hit (even off-target, in the case of foil).

In foil -- and saber as well, the attacker shouldn't worry about the possibility of a counter-attack. The attacker should welcome the possibility of the counter-attack. Then, if the training is good, the attack will arrive: no amount of spinning, dodging or other funky motion will get that counterattack to land while evading the attack. Of course, there are material things that might make the attack fail: nerves, bouncing off that damned chest protector, PL (pure-luck) parries, etc.

The effective counter-attack are against those who have been set-up to expect a strong and sustained defense.

[Inquartata]

Most gunfights take place within 8 feet (FBI stats).

Not sure I'd want to bet my life on averages...but...


As it happens, we just had a judgemental training session/evaluation yesterday. One of the scenarios was an active shooter exercise. I cornered the "subject" in a dark restroom. My weapon malfuntioned and I couldn't get a shot off. He fired 5 or 6 shots at me, from about 6 feet. Missed every time. And he was in ambush, set up and ready.

I have heard a story about a firearms and DT instructor whose introduction to close-quarters stress shooting was a simulation similar to ours, in which he was clearing a building and went around a corner, only to encounter his subject. Both already had weapons out and ready, the distance was 2-3 feet, and both immediately began firing. When the evaluators stopped them, neither of them had a paint mark on them. Both had missed completely with every single shot...

I once read an account of an attempted mob hit. The button men had the victim between them in the back seat of a car and both attempted to shoot him. They managed to hit each other several times, but completely missed the victim, who scrambled out and escaped...

Draw from where? A speed rig? Do you see many people walking around with those?

A valid point, but I rather suspect that those guys could do pretty well from a standard holster or even the waistband. And how likely is it that your average banger or mugger has practiced enough to beat even a semi-fast draw?

[crquack]

And how likely is it that your average banger or mugger has practiced enough to beat even a semi-fast draw?

Apparently they do (again FBI sources). Also they are far more ready to shoot. In most normal people including LEOs part of the reaction time is a "shoot/no shoot" decision which is absent or already resolved in a banger. They tend to initiate and do not try to beat an opponents draw.

I cornered the "subject" in a dark restroom. My weapon malfunctioned and I couldn't get a shot off. He fired 5 or 6 shots at me, from about 6 feet. Missed every time. And he was in ambush, set up and ready.

This is why punching paper targets at the range does not constitute learning to fight with a gun.