Counterattacks by displacing target – an exhaustive classification

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

In “The big book of fencing” Rudy Volkmann dedicates a section to counterattacks by displacing target. In this section, he describes a grab-bag of techniques in which the counterattack is carried out not by parrying, as is usual, but by moving one owns body out of the way, letting the original attack run its course, and see to it that the attacker impales himself during that. Volkmann notes that most of these attacks are rare, as the opportunity for using them rarely presents itself. This is due to the fact that the blade is easier to move than the body, the latter being much heavier and therefore much more difficult to accelerate. Volkmann also notes that most of these counterattacks come from the Old Italian school. This makes sense, since at that time the blades were heavier than now, so the opportunities to use them must have been more common.

Since these counterattacks are presented as a list without any internal classification, it seemed reasonable to me that if one classified them, one might come up with more possibilities, apart from the simplicity that a logical classification gives. The following is an attempt at doing just that.

I classify the evading counterattacks by which movements the counterattacking fencer, or rather his center of gravity (COG), does. Since the counterattacker plans that the original attacker will not react to the counterattack, the motions of the original attacker need not enter into the classification. For simplicity, I introduce a right-hand Cartesian coordinate system with its center in the counterattacker´s COG. Since the positive Z-axis should be directed upwards – anything else would cause confusion – one gets a positive X-axis directed to the right, and a positive Y-axis directed forward. There are six independent types of motion, one translation and one rotation for each coordinate axis. For simplicity, I note only three different magnitudes of motion for each type – negative, none, and positive. With this description, one gets 3^6 = 729 different types of evading counterattacks, many of which are anatomically impossible to perform. Many more are of no tactical use since they require too long time to perform and/or do not put the counterattacker´s blade is a good position for the original attacker to impale himself on. The remainder, however, should be numerous enough to fill a lifetime of fencing lessons. ;-)

The general evading counterattack can be written in the notation (x, y, z, Rx, Ry, Rz) with the values -, 0, or + in each position. A few examples:
1. The Coup d´arret. Here, the legs are pulled backwards and straightened out, so the COG moves backwards and up. Since the upper body leans forward while the legs go backwards, the body rotates around the X-axis in the negative direction. This is notated as (0, -, +, -, 0, 0) in this proposed system.
2. The Passata di Sotto. Here, the whole body drops and is move backwards, and one leans forward. In the same way, this gets the notation (0, -, -, -, 0, 0)
3. The Inquartata. In this complex motion, one spins clockwise around the vertical axis, moves to the right and somewhat forward, and straightens out as much as possible in order to present as little target as possible. The notation is (+, +, +, 0, 0, +)
4. The complete squat. This is a geometrically simple motion, no rotation of the body as a whole and only straight downward translation. The notation is (0, 0, -, 0, 0, 0)
5. Construct your own evading counterattack!

One might ask: Why? Well, I think that once one can describe something in a systematic way, one also has a wonderful tool to think new thoughts with – one just has to enter stochastic values here and there, and see if what comes out is in any way useful. What follows pertains not only to evading counterattacks, but also to fencing movements, and their description, in general.

Also, there is the topic of accurate description. I think that the present way of describing fencing movements is similar to that of pre-notation music. At first, music was preserved as oral tradition only. Before musical notes were invented (11th or 12th century, IIRC) there were first distinct names for various features in the music, but there was little systematic in these names. After that came the neumes, which are predecessors to present-day notation, but the lacked several of the ordered features which make it possible to convey a lot of precise information in a small space, as do modern musical notes. Compared to music, fencing is in the second stage. Old musical sheets are still useful, despite that nobody alive has heard what the composer several centuries ago intended the music to sound like. If one reads fencing manuals of the same age, one notices that they are often quite difficult to interpret. Actually, contemporary fencing books can be difficult to figure out! Pictures help a lot, but only if they are photographed from the right angle and are done well. A more structured fencing movement description system, a fencing notation, would alleviate problems of less than prefect photographs and ambiguous descriptions.

One could also look at existing notation systems for body movement. There are at least two, ballet notation and the purely mathematical system used for robots – quartinion notation. The former has the advantage of being intended for two persons. Quartinion notation can be used for calculations, which is its advantage when used for robots. However, it requires a lot of space on paper, and is therefore ill suited for being used in combination with text in descriptive manuals. Furthermore, it requires that the reader has a natural aptitude for fairly complex mathematics, which limits the possible readership - even among fencers.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[mfp]

Your system might be a tough sell to a group in which many found sabre Roh-sham-bo to be, uhm, "taxing" ...

Some very basic fencing notation systems do exist -- the last one I ran across was in Terry Kingston's "Epee Combat Manual" in an appendix. I recall it as being an attempt at a shorthand for notating fencing exercises.

[JEC]

"With this description, one gets 3^6 = 729 different types of evading counterattacks ..."

Your system reminds me of why the Old Spanish Fencing Masters were overshadowed by the French and Italian Schools to the point that their contributions to Fencing theory are now often forgotten.

[Craig]

Ron Miller, head coach at UNC-Chapel Hill, created a notation system for fencing movements/phrases for his dissertation.

I'll have to contact the University to see if there is a way to publish that and get some feedback from the fencing community.

I found it helpful to use when creating scouting reports on other fencers; it was a fencing short-hand that made it easier to jot down the top actions of other fencers. Of course, I've forgotten all of it by now.

Cheers,
Craig

[Craig]

Ron Miller, head coach at UNC-Chapel Hill, created a notation system for fencing movements/phrases for his dissertation.

I'll have to contact the University to see if there is a way to publish that and get some feedback from the fencing community.

I found it helpful to use when creating scouting reports on other fencers; it was a fencing short-hand that made it easier to jot down the top actions of other fencers. Of course, I've forgotten all of it by now.

Cheers,
Craig

[carlos]

There is a system, and of course, software to go with it.


What is Cyrano?

Cyrano is a program for notation of choreography for fencers.

Weapons, motions and actions of two fencers/fighters can be written down in a clear tablelike way with new developed symbols. They can be easily learned due to the clear sytematics. The motion of both hands (armed or unarmed) as well as motion in space are shown simultaneously. Even with actions corps a corps that have been complicated to write down so far Cyrano will help you. Special symbols for hits, kicks and throws allow using of Cyrano for 'unusual' fights that are not settled with classical fencing arms. Boxing matches, brawls and scuffles with different objects and even knifings can be written down in an easy way.

http://www.bergsoft.de/english/index.html

[Inquartata]

I am very tired now.

PS The inquartata involves a blade action, the croise, along with the body-voiding step, the demi-volte. So technically only the latter should be classifies as an avoidance parry, not the whole action...

[epeefencer74]

Originally posted by mfp
Your system might be a tough sell to a group in which many found sabre Roh-sham-bo to be, uhm, "taxing" ...

Some very basic fencing notation systems do exist -- the last one I ran across was in Terry Kingston's "Epee Combat Manual" in an appendix. I recall it as being an attempt at a shorthand for notating fencing exercises.

Hey, I have that book and I'm using that notation to do two things. One is to record a point by point description of my students' bouts in comps and the other is to write down training excercises. I am also trying to teach it to my students.

[Sildar]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
Volkmann notes that most of these attacks are rare, as the opportunity for using them rarely presents itself. This is due to the fact that the blade is easier to move than the body, the latter being much heavier and therefore much more difficult to accelerate. Volkmann also notes that most of these counterattacks come from the Old Italian school. This makes sense, since at that time the blades were heavier than now, so the opportunities to use them must have been more common.

19th century and earlier Italians were also fond of using longer blades than are currently allowed; they often used 37 or 38 inch blades (or longer) before the FIE standardized weapon length. Some pre-sport Masters noted that longer blades were better for counterattacking, shorter blades were better for parry-ripostes, so you chose a weapon that suited your style. Also, the FIE rules favored the French style of fencing which didn't rely as much on counterattacks.

Since these counterattacks are presented as a list without any internal classification, it seemed reasonable to me that if one classified them, one might come up with more possibilities, apart from the simplicity that a logical classification gives.[/quote]

Ah, but they do have internal classification. The coup d'arrete is the counter for a lowline attack, the inquartata for an inside attack, and the passata sotto for high line attacks. There are even voiding actions for outside line attacks, but they are difficult to perform against shorter blades, and are rarely taught now. So you simply use the action as you would a parry; observe the line in which the attack is coming and respond in kind.

[Chris]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
Hi!

In “The big book of fencing” Rudy Volkmann dedicates a section to counterattacks by displacing target.

Peter, you pose an interesting concept of the sort I might expect from a fellow engineer, and I do not mean to nit-pick your english skills, for fun (Your multi-linguism is certainly several orders of magnitude beyond mine.), but I must say that, in this case, using the word 'by' implies that the displacement itself constitutes the countattack, when in fact one often displaces WITHOUT actually trying to hit, (displacement is also used in pary-riposte, as well, especially in epee).

It really needs to be counter attack while displacing target.

This sort of confusion on language seems to have led to the idea that a coupé is an attack; which of course it is not: it is only a manner of avoiding the defender's parry, and is no more an attack than is a disengage. No one thinks you can attack someone with a disengage, all by itself: An attack must live up to the definition of attack; the utilization of a coupé, or disengage, does not, necessarily, invalidate the attack, but neither the coupé, nor the disengage, of its own virtue, constitutes a threatening action, and cannot establish priority.

But I digress, that's really another thread...

In this section, he describes a grab-bag of techniques in which the counterattack is carried out not by parrying, as is usual, but by moving one owns body out of the way, letting the original attack run its course, and see to it that the attacker impales himself during that. Volkmann notes that most of these attacks are rare, as the opportunity for using them rarely presents itself. This is due to the fact that the blade is easier to move than the body*, the latter being much heavier and therefore much more difficult to accelerate*. Volkmann also notes that most of these counterattacks come from the Old Italian school. This makes sense, since at that time the blades were heavier than now, so the opportunities to use them must have been more common.

* Certainly, but it's all a matter of timing, and mere inches; often LESS than an inch: many people, with some training and practice can learn to move their body a couple inches fairly quickly; the trick is to develope the visual acuity & depth perception, and to learn the timing!

** Sometimes, it's actually DE-celleration that you want to do, which again, has it's limits, but (see above).

Since these counterattacks are presented as a list without any internal classification, it seemed reasonable to me that if one classified them, one might come up with more possibilities, apart from the simplicity that a logical classification gives. The following is an attempt at doing just that.

I classify the evading counterattacks by which movements the counterattacking fencer, or rather his center of gravity (COG), does. Since the counterattacker plans that the original attacker will not react to the counterattack, the motions of the original attacker need not enter into the classification. For simplicity, I introduce a right-hand Cartesian coordinate system with its center in the counterattacker´s COG. Since the positive Z-axis should be directed upwards – anything else would cause confusion – one gets a positive X-axis directed to the right, and a positive Y-axis directed forward. There are six independent types of motion, one translation and one rotation for each coordinate axis. For simplicity, I note only three different magnitudes of motion for each type – negative, none, and positive. With this description, one gets 3^6 = 729 different types of evading counterattacks, many of which are anatomically impossible to perform. Many more are of no tactical use since they require too long time to perform and/or do not put the counterattacker´s blade is a good position for the original attacker to impale himself on. The remainder, however, should be numerous enough to fill a lifetime of fencing lessons. ;-)

The general evading counterattack can be written in the notation (x, y, z, Rx, Ry, Rz) with the values -, 0, or + in each position. A few examples:
1. The Coup d´arret. Here, the legs are pulled backwards and straightened out, so the COG moves backwards and up. Since the upper body leans forward while the legs go backwards, the body rotates around the X-axis in the negative direction. This is notated as (0, -, +, -, 0, 0) in this proposed system.
2. The Passata di Sotto. Here, the whole body drops and is move backwards, and one leans forward. In the same way, this gets the notation (0, -, -, -, 0, 0)
3. The Inquartata. In this complex motion, one spins clockwise around the vertical axis, moves to the right and somewhat forward, and straightens out as much as possible in order to present as little target as possible. The notation is (+, +, +, 0, 0, +)
4. The complete squat. This is a geometrically simple motion, no rotation of the body as a whole and only straight downward translation. The notation is (0, 0, -, 0, 0, 0)
5. Construct your own evading counterattack!

An alternate approach, and I would think slightly more easy to grasp, conceptually, MIGHT be to use relative referencing, to allow left-handed and right-handed people to discuss moves more directly: i.e. a positive lateral move (represented by x=1) would mean moving towards center , whilst a negative lateral move (x= -1) would represent moving towards one's flank. (as opposed to left or right which mean different things to the lefty)

Likewise, your angular rotation reference, Rz=1 would mean 'turn in' - rotating the body 'forward' i.e push the lead shoulder, and Rz= -1 would mean 'turn out' - rotating the body, withdrawing the lead shoulder; regardless of which is the lead shoulder.

Additionally, I think you may want to consider including information as to the base conditions; starting positions, since this can certainly going to be a factor if one wants to analyze the tactical frequency, and also, the tactical effectiveness.

Boy, this IS starting to sound complicated!
Maybe that's why robots don't fence, yet!

One might ask: Why? Well, I think that once one can describe something in a systematic way, one also has a wonderful tool to think new thoughts with – one just has to enter stochastic values here and there, and see if what comes out is in any way useful. What follows pertains not only to evading counterattacks, but also to fencing movements, and their description, in general.

Well, there's certainly several reasons to come up with notations to describe fencing actions/moves, etc.
Off hand, I have to agree with Eric, your rough proposal might seem a little complex, and find a limited audience.
However, world-class coaches may have somewhat different attitudes than some of the rest of us.

(snip reference to music...)

One could also look at existing notation systems for body movement. There are at least two, ballet notation and the purely mathematical system used for robots – quartinion notation. The former has the advantage of being intended for two persons. Quartinion notation can be used for calculations, which is its advantage when used for robots. However, it requires a lot of space on paper, and is therefore ill suited for being used in combination with text in descriptive manuals. Furthermore, it requires that the reader has a natural aptitude for fairly complex mathematics, which limits the possible readership - even among fencers.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Well, if there are any high-level dancers out there reading this, I would imagine they would say that the notation is a way to communicate the general specifcs of tracking around the stage, and the moves that will be done, but probably still leave out of lot of the subtle, ancilliary motions of hands, head, eyes, that accomplish a lit of the artistic expression.
But, hey!
What do I know? I am just a clod with a stick in my hand!


Have a nice day!

[Sildar]

Originally posted by Chris
...but I must say that, in this case, using the word 'by' implies that the displacement itself constitutes the countattack, when in fact one often displaces WITHOUT actually trying to hit, (displacement is also used in pary-riposte, as well, especially in epee).

It really needs to be counter attack while displacing target.

This sort of confusion on language seems to have led to the idea that a coupé is an attack; which of course it is not: it is only a manner of avoiding the defender's parry, and is no more an attack than is a disengage. No one thinks you can attack someone with a disengage, all by itself: An attack must live up to the definition of attack; the utilization of a coupé, or disengage, does not, necessarily, invalidate the attack, but neither the coupé, nor the disengage, of its own virtue, constitutes a threatening action, and cannot establish priority.

Not necessarily. There's nothing wrong with saying someone did a counterattack by passata sotto, for example, since all of these moves mentioned are voids and counterattacks in one action; they may be somewhat passive attacks, since you basically let the opponent run themselves onto your point, but they still involve keeping the point on line and extending the arm.

Also, if you are referring to the coup d'arret, this is in fact a counterattack. The coupe and coup d'arret are two different things; coup d'arret is simply the French term for "stop thrust" or "arrest." In this context the term is being used to mean arrest with reassemblement.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Sildar
Not necessarily. There's nothing wrong with saying someone did a counterattack by passata sotto, for example, since all of these moves mentioned are voids and counterattacks in one action; they may be somewhat passive attacks, since you basically let the opponent run themselves onto your point, but they still involve keeping the point on line and extending the arm.

Yes, though passato sotto can be used in attack, or counterattack, it implies a thrusting action is included, but that is a more specific technique/action, and the inclusion of a thrust in any evasion cannot be generalized: You cannot attack by displacing target; you attack by attacking; you cannot counterattack by displacing target area (you can only evade) by displacing; to make a counterrattack you must make an attack (though it will not be the FIRST attack), the fact you may choose to evade the original attack by displacing target area may be part of your decision, but it's the attack against the attack that makes it a counterattack, not the displacement (or evasion).

Also, if you are referring to the coup d'arret, this is in fact a counterattack. The coupe and coup d'arret are two different things; coup d'arret is simply the French term for "stop thrust" or "arrest." In this context the term is being used to mean arrest with reassemblement.

No I was NOT refering to coup d'arret, I was refering to the mistaken perception that a coupé action intiates an attack; it does not, just as a disengage does not initiate an attack; when properly done, they do not invalidate a previously established attack.

[magma]

i need to study your topic again, in reading it briefly, i can only compare it to the f of x, the spanish mystic circle, or leonardo's atomic man thing...... the bottom line of all of it is, executing the movement. does anyone know the exercises that are done to promote quick movement in executing these moves?

also, they're considered to be outdated, but whyso? i believe it's because they're difficult to do and the preparation in advance for the fencer to be able to execute the move correctly takes a lot of practice which people want to avoid, it's difficult enough to get people to do footwork, much less run laps while touching the floor periodically. I recall a fencer performing a passta de Soto correctly, and getting mildly reprimanded. My feeling was that the movement was unfamiliar to the director at that time and he became flustered. There is an element of surprise to these movements. The duck was very popular at one time in modern fencing, then fell out of favor as the flick came into popularity. the passta di soto is like the en passent of chess, we know it's there, we try to remember to use it, but it rarely comes about when you play someone of superior strength.

[Repechage]

Originally posted by magma
The duck was very popular at one time in modern fencing

Still is. I use a mallard myself.

[Inquartata]

And the tape fixes everything.

[magma]

WHAT is the MATTEr with YOU! I enter into a perfectly solem discussion with a person who knows what the hell he's talking about and I get hit on the head and wrapped in duck tape! You know what I went through with that maniac in France? Do you know that I had to move 10,000 killowatts away from him ? WOuld you please let me have ONE fencing discussion without having to hear about tapes and so forth?

Thank you.

and....I saw you up on a chair, and if it weren't for me the other guy wouldn't have stood up on the other chair in order to help you not look like a total nut.

your welcome

[magma]

Originally posted by JEC
Your system reminds me of why the Old Spanish Fencing Masters were overshadowed by the French and Italian Schools to the point that their contributions to Fencing theory are now often forgotten.

you're correct, that was my point.

[Sildar]

Originally posted by JEC
Your system reminds me of why the Old Spanish Fencing Masters were overshadowed by the French and Italian Schools to the point that their contributions to Fencing theory are now often forgotten.

I was biting my tongue, but I guess I'll make the digression, since several people have mentioned Spanish fencing...

1. Spanish fencing using the circle and an upright stance was practiced from the mid-sixteenth century well into the 19th century, and several fencers from other countries during that time say that they were dangerous duellists, so it can't have been totally ineffective.

2. The Spanish school went out of fashion for a number of reasons that have little to do with the fencing itself; social and cultural changes that led to the decline of duelling throughout Europe pretty much caused the death of Spanish fencing, the same way countless other styles of swordfighing went extinct or nearly so in the last 150 years.

3. Spanish fencing Masters felt that students needed to have an understanding of the logic and theory behind fencing before they learned the techniques, so that they could apply the correct principles to their practice. Most of the geometry that governs the basic principles of Spanish fencing are simple things, such as a straight line being the shortest distance between two points and things like that. The circle itself is simply used to determine correct distance. It gets more complicated than that as you get into all the "what ifs," but simply because Egerton Castle and other Victorian Englishmen who had never seen Spanish fencing in practice didn't understand it, doesn't mean it's absurdley complex or worthless.

[magma]

it's all about executing the movement. standing upright in a circle makes sence, while standing lower engarde makes sence in a long rectangular shape, following a different set of rules, such as not crossing to the side. probably what cyrano does, is encrypt the fencers' movements, in the same manner as the algebraic formula can calculate the f of x and graph it on paper in a bell shape. this may not make sence, but that's what those folks back 'then' were trying to do, so was leonardo, trying to take the fluid human form and calculate it in some way. why? because those men need to understand things in scientific or mathmatical terms, and need to put those answers on paper. it's another way of understanding the human being.