Strategies for teaching epee?

I coach a high school fencing team, and I get new people with no
experience every year and have to teach them to fence fairly quickly.
I've done coaches college for all three weapons, and for foil and saber
I think I've come up with a fairly logical and productive order for
introducing techniques and topics, probably because of the structure
that right-of-way imposes.

Not so for epee. It seems like once I get past very simple attacks,
there always seems to be something I wish they already knew when
teaching a group of related actions.

For example, after simple attacks I'd like to teach a package of actions
involving remises, but after the first few actions I'd like the student
acting as the coach to be able to do parry 4 or counter 6 so the student
can learn a disengage remise. However, I don't really want to teach
parry-riposte before remises since I don't want them to be thinking
"parry-riposte" all the time for epee.

Thus, I'm thinking about just teaching the parry for coaching
purposes--and not parry riposte--when we first work on remises, but I
thought I'd check in with the group to see what your approaches are for
introducing epee actions to beginners.

Thanks!

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold:
I've been in a similar situation, and wound up teaching a very simple and
straightforward set of moves. My normal drill sequence was:
Straight attacks to wrist.
Beat-attacks to wrist.
Feint-attacks to wrist.
Bind-attacks.
Stop-hits.
Parry-riposte.
Attack-draw stop hit - parry stop hit - land with continuation.

I strongly advise to teach the parry-riposte as a single action. As a matter
of policy, never let an opponent attack without making him pay for it. The
trick is to teach epee-style parries, which usually take the form of a
counter-and-control movement instead of the make-a-sound-and-trigger-ROW of
foil and saber. That, and simple deflection of the tip with the guard.

Hope this helps.

V/R:
Mike McDaniel

In article <20021030101949.28904.00000035@mb-ba.aol.com>,
hmslion@aol.com (HMS Lion) wrote:

> I've been in a similar situation, and wound up teaching a very simple and
> straightforward set of moves. My normal drill sequence was:
> Straight attacks to wrist.
> Beat-attacks to wrist.
> Feint-attacks to wrist.
> Bind-attacks.
> Stop-hits.
> Parry-riposte.
> Attack-draw stop hit - parry stop hit - land with continuation.
>
> I strongly advise to teach the parry-riposte as a single action. As a matter
> of policy, never let an opponent attack without making him pay for it. The
> trick is to teach epee-style parries, which usually take the form of a
> counter-and-control movement instead of the make-a-sound-and-trigger-ROW of
> foil and saber. That, and simple deflection of the tip with the guard.

Yeah, I always try to teach "parry-riposte" as one thing, since the
tendency is for people to parry and then congratulate themselves for not
geting hit, and of course by the time they're done congratulating
themselves they've been hit. I think I'll just have to pass on teaching
disengage remise and remise with opposition for a while until they learn
4 and counter 6

I usually try to avoid introducing beats too early, since then beginners
spend all of their time trying to whack the other person's blade and
little time trying to hit the other person.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

I was reviewing this last night with Harold Hayes. Harold stated that there
is a distinct difference between the parry riposte (two actions within a
single phrase) and - I believe I have the name correct - the thrust in
sixth with opposition (a single action).

Perhaps with a bit more review I may yet see the distinction correctly
and with more application may be able to effectively use it.

j.

HMS Lion wrote:

> I strongly advise to teach the parry-riposte as a single action.
> :
> Mike McDaniel

In article <3DC0364D.5030700@alamedanet.net>,
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:

> I was reviewing this last night with Harold Hayes. Harold stated that there
> is a distinct difference between the parry riposte (two actions within a
> single phrase) and - I believe I have the name correct - the thrust in
> sixth with opposition (a single action).
>
> Perhaps with a bit more review I may yet see the distinction correctly
> and with more application may be able to effectively use it.


I always thought of it as:

parry-riposte:
Two actions. Make the parry and control the blade, but then follow
IMMEDIATELY with the riposte. This is why the other poster was calling
it a "single action," but really he means two actions which should
essentially ALWAYS be done together.

or

opposition counterattack:
One action, where you are extending your weapon arm at the same time you
are blocking the opponent's attack.

The difference is that in the parry-riposte, the arm stays back until
controlling the blade, while in the opposition counterattack the arm is
extending right from the start.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Yes, the parry-riposte can be two distinct actions - but it must be a single
thought. We've all seen people make a parry and just sit there, instead of
seizing the opportunity (and the opponent's blade) and making a riposte.

V/R:
Mike McDaniel

Yes, but the difference that people are talking about is between the
parry-riposte in foil, in which right-of-way protects you from the
opponent's continuation (and hence, you can do a beat style parry) and
the stesso-tempo of the epee style parry-riposte (which you must do a
parry in which you close the line and hold it - an opposition parry).

In the epee version, you have the box lockout to protect you; and , in
the event that you do a beat parry instead of the opposition parry, and
if you are a tempo ahead, you are still protected.

In the foil one, you have the discretion of the director to contend with.

Years ago, when the switch was made from counting touches against to
counting touches for, it has caused the shift in the directors to hold
more for the attack and ignore the conventions -- hence, the rise and
the need to use the epee style stesso-tempo parry-riposte in foil. What
is needed is to go back to the scoring conventions years ago to that of
being touches against. The change instituted for touches scored has not
made it more spectator friendly as was origianlly thought; but, rather,
it has made the fencing more confused and the directors hence more
confused, and of course, more confusion for the spectators.

It is not a question of those who delay a riposte -- that is obvious.
It is more a question for referees that they see and abide by the conventions.

HMS Lion wrote:
>
> Yes, the parry-riposte can be two distinct actions - but it must be a single
> thought. We've all seen people make a parry and just sit there, instead of
> seizing the opportunity (and the opponent's blade) and making a riposte.
>
> V/R:
> Mike McDaniel

Carol:
I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I was referring to the classical epee parry,
which involves not just parrying, but taking the blade of the opponent and
riposting. My own experience has been that in the right-of-way weapons, any
blade contact will be taken as a parry by directors. An epeeist can't rely on
making a noise, he has to stop the attack.
The big problem is that most epeeists have a limited arsenal of techniques,
and what parrying they know is foil-based - and there are too many directors
who cue on sound, instead of blade deflection.
However, my fundamental point remains. When training in parrying, it is
imperative to teach the student to riposte immediately. It has to be
reflexive, or the opportunity will be lost.

V/r:
Mike McDaniel

<<
Yes, but the difference that people are talking about is between the
parry-riposte in foil, in which right-of-way protects you from the
opponent's continuation (and hence, you can do a beat style parry) and
the stesso-tempo of the epee style parry-riposte (which you must do a
parry in which you close the line and hold it - an opposition parry).

In the epee version, you have the box lockout to protect you; and , in
the event that you do a beat parry instead of the opposition parry, and
if you are a tempo ahead, you are still protected.

In the foil one, you have the discretion of the director to contend with.

Years ago, when the switch was made from counting touches against to
counting touches for, it has caused the shift in the directors to hold
more for the attack and ignore the conventions -- hence, the rise and
the need to use the epee style stesso-tempo parry-riposte in foil. What
is needed is to go back to the scoring conventions years ago to that of
being touches against. The change instituted for touches scored has not
made it more spectator friendly as was origianlly thought; but, rather,
it has made the fencing more confused and the directors hence more
confused, and of course, more confusion for the spectators.

It is not a question of those who delay a riposte -- that is obvious.
It is more a question for referees that they see and abide by the conventions.

HMS Lion wrote:
>
> Yes, the parry-riposte can be two distinct actions - but it must be a
single
> thought. We've all seen people make a parry and just sit there, instead of
> seizing the opportunity (and the opponent's blade) and making a riposte.
>
> V/R:
> Mike McDaniel

>><BR><BR>

www.fencingmaster.co.uk

My strategy for introducing epee is to first to teach the 4 different
methods of hitting, and the targets appropriate to each style of hit. After
that the techniques of hitting can be applied as attack, riposte, following
or with prise de fer and as renewals. I feel that too much emphasis on
remise too early can dull the tactical appreciation of the fencer as it can
become too automatic; rather I like students to build a greater variation of
hits and targets.

Jes Smith


Harold Buck wrote in message ...
>I coach a high school fencing team, and I get new people with no
>experience every year and have to teach them to fence fairly quickly.
>I've done coaches college for all three weapons, and for foil and saber
>I think I've come up with a fairly logical and productive order for
>introducing techniques and topics, probably because of the structure
>that right-of-way imposes.
>
>Not so for epee. It seems like once I get past very simple attacks,
>there always seems to be something I wish they already knew when
>teaching a group of related actions.
>
>For example, after simple attacks I'd like to teach a package of actions
>involving remises, but after the first few actions I'd like the student
>acting as the coach to be able to do parry 4 or counter 6 so the student
>can learn a disengage remise. However, I don't really want to teach
>parry-riposte before remises since I don't want them to be thinking
>"parry-riposte" all the time for epee.
>
>Thus, I'm thinking about just teaching the parry for coaching
>purposes--and not parry riposte--when we first work on remises, but I
>thought I'd check in with the group to see what your approaches are for
>introducing epee actions to beginners.
>
>Thanks!
>
>--Harold Buck
>
>
>"I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

I have been a epeeist for many years on and off. The basic thing that is
most important is that of a proper epee stance which provides the least
amount of target and allows for the best defense when one is being attacked
(I was taught this by an old epeeist when I first started, so I won't claim
an credit).

Stand straight , blade arm at side, wrist straight, elbow bent with blade
tip resting on (but not pressed) on the floor. Assist the student in
raising the arm (without changing the inital positioning) so that guard is
covering the forearm and part of the upper arm as viewed from the
opponent). Now drop the tip slightly down and in (1" in both cases) .

The student is now in a position which is very difficult to attack as all of
the easy hits are removed and any reflexive reactions can result in a stop
hit. Try and attack the student and you'll be surprised at how hard they
are to hit (at least while they remain in this position more or less). A
good defensive position is easier to achieve than any aggressive position
and offers less chance of giving up a point. Let the opponent make the
mistake and give up the point while attacking.

This should always be a good fall back, to achieve the correct defensive
position.

Next....train, train and train everything else.

Good simple basics, can't be beat, short term or long term.

Have fun,

GS
Epee rule #1, Hit and Hit first.



"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-EB10F3.20442929102002@netnews.attbi.com...
> I coach a high school fencing team, and I get new people with no
> experience every year and have to teach them to fence fairly quickly.
> I've done coaches college for all three weapons, and for foil and saber
> I think I've come up with a fairly logical and productive order for
> introducing techniques and topics, probably because of the structure
> that right-of-way imposes.
>
> Not so for epee. It seems like once I get past very simple attacks,
> there always seems to be something I wish they already knew when
> teaching a group of related actions.
>
> For example, after simple attacks I'd like to teach a package of actions
> involving remises, but after the first few actions I'd like the student
> acting as the coach to be able to do parry 4 or counter 6 so the student
> can learn a disengage remise. However, I don't really want to teach
> parry-riposte before remises since I don't want them to be thinking
> "parry-riposte" all the time for epee.
>
> Thus, I'm thinking about just teaching the parry for coaching
> purposes--and not parry riposte--when we first work on remises, but I
> thought I'd check in with the group to see what your approaches are for
> introducing epee actions to beginners.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

Andrew John wrote:

> HMS Lion,
>
> Begin a foilest I should keep my mouth shut in an epee thread,
> but where's the fun in that.
>
> Wouldn't an "epee" style riposte be called a riposte along the blade, or
> a parry-bind-riposte, to keep the line closed ? There must be some
> fancier term for it ?



If you are simply keeping the line closed, then it is a riposte with
opposition. A bind-riposte would change the closed line.

Try teaching parry´s in epee not by beating oponents blade, parry with
your own epee guard just to deflect oponents blade and at the same
time go forward for your touch.

J.E.