New article on fencing tactics

[tbryan]

A Mr Hoffman apologist? Oh Internets, you never disappoint.

Whatever. The way you talked about Mr. Hoffman, it sounded like you were talking about one of those local fencers who had competed for years and was just "2 points" away from earning his D. But then he retired from competition to teach some terrible fencing.

You'd think he'd introduce topics of 'tall,' 'lanky,' 'left-handed,' or 'massive spastic' at some point.

LOL. Well, at least it's clear that you've seen him fence. Of course, I'd also argue that he's fits at least these criteria: "the ability to focus and having a passion for kicking ass."

[Mr Epee]

Isn't this an over simplification in the opposite direction?

Oversimplification? Yes, of course it is, and defeasible to boot.

However, certainly not in the 'opposite direction'.

[tbryan]

I can sort of see where he's trying to go with it, but then I'm extrapolating based on my own tactical ideas - and a lot of those remain fuzzy concepts in my head that I understand but haven't figured out how to parse into something someone else would understand.

Heh...last time I heard, neither had Mr. Hoffman. That is, he's trying to say something, this wheel was a way to talk about it, and no one he talked to understood what he was trying to say or could use it in any actionable way on strip.

My take away was something closer to Allen's discussion of "tempo" in fencing actions. The idea that distance changes equate to more or less time in the action.

There's a distance where I can launch a simple attack, and you won't be able to see it, react, and make a successful parry. If I create the opportunity to finish with a simple attack at that distance, I should hit (barring any technical flaws). With the same action, if the distance is just a little longer, the defender has more time to react and may be able to complete a successful parry (and riposte).

For example, I did a successful parry-riposte. If you can trigger the same action, you may be able to defeat it with a simple attack by creeping in a little closer before starting that action. To me, it feels like the same action, but you hit before I had "time" to parry. The distance adjustment is very small, and at a Div II level, the defender may have no idea what went wrong or what was different. He saw two things that looked identical. One time, he made a successful parry-riposte, and the other time, his parry was late. Similarly, you may be able to get around the parry-riposte by doing a compound action, but you may need to create a little more time for the compound action by starting from an inch or two farther away.

Of course, I don't think that the wheel with blue and red lines is a useful way to talk about this topic with students.

[Strytllr]

I don't agree with the idea that the "too close attack" prompts a counter-attack from the opponent....

I agree. I think that he is making a poor assumption about the fencer who is "under stress". When under stress, typically you will respond with what you know and do best. If you are a parry-riposte person, you will generally attempt to parry a close attack, even when that's not always the best response. If you are a counterattack person, you will generally counterattack when stressed.

It's not always absolute. The brain is hard-wired to respond in a conditioned, predictable fashion when under stress. But then, the TW is also not always absolute either.

[Bonehead]

I never really fully wrapped my head around the tw. I remember it really resonating with the math geek in me. It's so concrete, and seems to provide a simple solution to the tactics of fencing. Water type beats fire type. Fire type beats plant type.

But in my fencing I would repeatedly miss direct attacks against counter, or happily parry compound actions, while getting caught on direct attacks. Its clear to me that its not useful to summarize tactics as an action vs action sort of thing, but instead the whole context of the situation, must be considered.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk

[bigdawg2121]

I think the tactical wheel can be moderately useful as a framework for understanding likely responses from rational opponents but it requires a sort of expanded understanding of what each option really is. As everyone has noted you won't really get anywhere if you actually try to use it literally or as-is. Also I personally find the shortened version of the tactical wheel to be beyond useless.

[dramamine]

I don't know the guy who wrote the article. I'm sorry if he's I sound mean. It sounds like someone is trying to make fencing tactics complicated and objective and it is neither, really. I don't really buy it. But I will make sure to keep a copy in my pocket for the next time I am at a 1min break and not sure what I should do... although I might need a few extra minutes to make my head stop spinning...

[Tomas N]

This Monty Python skit came up in conversation today, and I immediately thought of this thread. Not that anyone has staked out a position that mimics either actor, but...