Parry or non-parry?

In article <3E499997.3AE1254D@patriot.net>,
Jonathan Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net> wrote:

>
> Notice that it says nothing about blade contact. (All the rules that
> talk about sufficient blade contact refer to removing a point in line.)
> E.g., if you make the arm motion to place your blade in the position
> of parry 4 at the same time as you retreat, and the attack (in 4) falls
> so short there is no blade contact, you still have the right
> to a riposte. The motion was done to prevent the attack from arriving;
> the fact that the attacker wimped out does not deprive you of the parry.
>


Keep in mind that this can be called "attack is no, counterattack is
good," since the initial attack fails when the front foot hits the
floor. But calling it a riposte is common in saber.

--Harold Buck


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

tcate@zoo.uvm.edu (Thom Cate) writes:

> "What constitutes the parry?"
[...]
> Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
> A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
> arrives, A's remise arrives.

Hm, the direct attack of fencer A didn't arrive, so I would say the
parry was sufficent enough and the reposte ok.

If the attack were performed correctly, it would had arrived, if the
parry didn't move the point out of line (parry not performed
correctly).

Or the other way around.

If fencer A says, my remise counts as the parry didn't move my point
out of line, fencer B can say, my parry-reposte counts as the attack
wasn't performed correctly and didn't arrive.

So, I would give the point to fencer B.

Cheers,
Rudiger

tcate@zoo.uvm.edu (Thom Cate) writes:

> "What constitutes the parry?"
[...]
> Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
> A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
> arrives, A's remise arrives.

Hm, the direct attack of fencer A didn't arrive, so I would say the
parry was sufficent enough and the reposte ok.

If the attack were performed correctly, it would had arrived, if the
parry didn't move the point out of line (parry not performed
correctly).

Or the other way around.

If fencer A says, my remise counts as the parry didn't move my point
out of line, fencer B can say, my parry-reposte counts as the attack
wasn't performed correctly and didn't arrive.

So, I would give the point to fencer B.

Cheers,
Rudiger

It all comes down to whether there was sufficient blade contact.
Fencer A doesn't think so, but the director (oops, referee) does, and
his opinion is the one that counts.

The post said:<quote>"Fencer A says "I never felt or heard the blade
contact." Fencer B says "I parried." Independent observers agree
there was defensive blade contact by Fencer B.</quote>

So, Fencer A doesn't believe there was contact at all, let alone
whether it was adequate. Whether any of us would have called it a
parry or a 'mere grazing' can't be resolved without having seen it.
But, there no conflict in _principle_ - just the question of whether
the director's judgement was good or bad. The rationale is entirely
traditional: for example, a pris de fer acquires right of way without
making an opposition parry that closes the line.

When I was taking my first directing course, Giorgio Santelli came
upstairs from his office to talk about "adequate parries". He said two
things that stuck in my mind: one is that there is no such thing as
mal-parre': either the attack is parried or it isn't (so, in dry
judging, only say "yes", "no", or "yes, but off-target").

Second, and apropos of this thread, he demonstrated via a light tap on
the blade and catching the tapped blade at the widest part of its arc,
that even a light tap - done correctly - deviates the blade from
target. He said "A director is not a protractor" who measures the
angle. In other words, it's solely the director's job to apply
judgement to the blade action.

In practice, it would be called for A if he hit at the same time as
the blade action (since the simultaneous hit and blade action proves
the blade wasn't deviated). If the blade action occurred before the
finale, then it's quite another story (see above). Since the original
post mentions a remise, it sounds like the initial offensive movement
did not land. Without the video tape there's no way to tell if B took
over right of way.

It all comes down to whether there was sufficient blade contact.
Fencer A doesn't think so, but the director (oops, referee) does, and
his opinion is the one that counts.

The post said:<quote>"Fencer A says "I never felt or heard the blade
contact." Fencer B says "I parried." Independent observers agree
there was defensive blade contact by Fencer B.</quote>

So, Fencer A doesn't believe there was contact at all, let alone
whether it was adequate. Whether any of us would have called it a
parry or a 'mere grazing' can't be resolved without having seen it.
But, there no conflict in _principle_ - just the question of whether
the director's judgement was good or bad. The rationale is entirely
traditional: for example, a pris de fer acquires right of way without
making an opposition parry that closes the line.

When I was taking my first directing course, Giorgio Santelli came
upstairs from his office to talk about "adequate parries". He said two
things that stuck in my mind: one is that there is no such thing as
mal-parre': either the attack is parried or it isn't (so, in dry
judging, only say "yes", "no", or "yes, but off-target").

Second, and apropos of this thread, he demonstrated via a light tap on
the blade and catching the tapped blade at the widest part of its arc,
that even a light tap - done correctly - deviates the blade from
target. He said "A director is not a protractor" who measures the
angle. In other words, it's solely the director's job to apply
judgement to the blade action.

In practice, it would be called for A if he hit at the same time as
the blade action (since the simultaneous hit and blade action proves
the blade wasn't deviated). If the blade action occurred before the
finale, then it's quite another story (see above). Since the original
post mentions a remise, it sounds like the initial offensive movement
did not land. Without the video tape there's no way to tell if B took
over right of way.

In article <6a855241.0302120823.56a29097@posting.google.com >,
jsavit@mail.com (Jeff Savit) wrote:

> When I was taking my first directing course, Giorgio Santelli came
> upstairs from his office to talk about "adequate parries". He said two
> things that stuck in my mind: one is that there is no such thing as
> mal-parre': either the attack is parried or it isn't (so, in dry
> judging, only say "yes", "no", or "yes, but off-target").
>
> Second, and apropos of this thread, he demonstrated via a light tap on
> the blade and catching the tapped blade at the widest part of its arc,
> that even a light tap - done correctly - deviates the blade from
> target. He said "A director is not a protractor" who measures the
> angle. In other words, it's solely the director's job to apply
> judgement to the blade action.
>
> In practice, it would be called for A if he hit at the same time as
> the blade action (since the simultaneous hit and blade action proves
> the blade wasn't deviated).

But here, if you call "mal parre'," it lets everyone know that, yes, you
saw the attempted parry, but it didn't stop the attack. Otherwise the
fencer who got hit is thinking "How could this guy not see/hear that
parry!?"

While you're probably technically right that you don't need the term, I
think it might be useful in practice.


--Harold Buck


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

In article <6a855241.0302120823.56a29097@posting.google.com >,
jsavit@mail.com (Jeff Savit) wrote:

> When I was taking my first directing course, Giorgio Santelli came
> upstairs from his office to talk about "adequate parries". He said two
> things that stuck in my mind: one is that there is no such thing as
> mal-parre': either the attack is parried or it isn't (so, in dry
> judging, only say "yes", "no", or "yes, but off-target").
>
> Second, and apropos of this thread, he demonstrated via a light tap on
> the blade and catching the tapped blade at the widest part of its arc,
> that even a light tap - done correctly - deviates the blade from
> target. He said "A director is not a protractor" who measures the
> angle. In other words, it's solely the director's job to apply
> judgement to the blade action.
>
> In practice, it would be called for A if he hit at the same time as
> the blade action (since the simultaneous hit and blade action proves
> the blade wasn't deviated).

But here, if you call "mal parre'," it lets everyone know that, yes, you
saw the attempted parry, but it didn't stop the attack. Otherwise the
fencer who got hit is thinking "How could this guy not see/hear that
parry!?"

While you're probably technically right that you don't need the term, I
think it might be useful in practice.


--Harold Buck


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

R.S.E. wrote:

>
> Any classical fencers in Tucson?
>

Are there any fencers in Tucson?? I was there
a while back and couldn't find a salle. Just
was wondering if the situation has changed.

J.

R.S.E. wrote:

>
> Any classical fencers in Tucson?
>

Are there any fencers in Tucson?? I was there
a while back and couldn't find a salle. Just
was wondering if the situation has changed.

J.

R.S.E. wrote:

>
> Sport fencing is not real and barely related to sword play.

A minor quibble:
My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
i.e. a way to teach. And from the very first it focused on form and
creativity as much as sword play. And allowing that it has morphed
over the years with the introduction of electric scoring I don't see
it being that out of step with what it was first designed for.
Just a philosophical point but I am told
that in Japan one can pinpoint the very higth of japanese
swordsmanship to a specific century, a specific year and even a
specific man. Whereas I prefer to believe this isn't true in the
west but that the very best may yet be next year. My point is that
the japanese model is tied to what was whereas I prefer to
believe that western study of the blade is still continuing.

Epee comes
> the closest.

which is one reason why I favor the epee. But even it has things I
find troubling, Such as the double. Really feel that any double
should be thrown out. Many epeists will play a game of get a couple
of points up and then double out.

> But geeze the officials ought to know and follow the rules. I see
> laziness and a lack of honor and honesty here as much as anything else.
> Gone are the days when opponents would acknowledge touches against them
> I guess.

Sorry but there's nothing new here. Read Aldo Nadi's description of
his bout in Paris and how he felt the french influenced the results.
If it's important to win then someone will go over the top.

> Another reason my grandchildren will probably not fence "Olympic" style.
My sympathies then.

J.

R.S.E. wrote:

>
> Sport fencing is not real and barely related to sword play.

A minor quibble:
My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
i.e. a way to teach. And from the very first it focused on form and
creativity as much as sword play. And allowing that it has morphed
over the years with the introduction of electric scoring I don't see
it being that out of step with what it was first designed for.
Just a philosophical point but I am told
that in Japan one can pinpoint the very higth of japanese
swordsmanship to a specific century, a specific year and even a
specific man. Whereas I prefer to believe this isn't true in the
west but that the very best may yet be next year. My point is that
the japanese model is tied to what was whereas I prefer to
believe that western study of the blade is still continuing.

Epee comes
> the closest.

which is one reason why I favor the epee. But even it has things I
find troubling, Such as the double. Really feel that any double
should be thrown out. Many epeists will play a game of get a couple
of points up and then double out.

> But geeze the officials ought to know and follow the rules. I see
> laziness and a lack of honor and honesty here as much as anything else.
> Gone are the days when opponents would acknowledge touches against them
> I guess.

Sorry but there's nothing new here. Read Aldo Nadi's description of
his bout in Paris and how he felt the french influenced the results.
If it's important to win then someone will go over the top.

> Another reason my grandchildren will probably not fence "Olympic" style.
My sympathies then.

J.

The action is quite clear as u described...so it's B right; unless A's
attack touch immediately when B is doing the parry, in that case is B's
mal-parè, A's right. But if it's so clear (noticeable tempo between the
actions) the blades' contact, then B's right. It doesn't matter the
deviation from the target!!!

If the problem is explaining this to a 19yo boy....well, that's fencing my
friend....the little particulars are more important than he thinks ;-)

Pier
ITA





"Thom Cate" <tcate@zoo.uvm.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4c1bba3.0302110816.4c6a3a0@posting.google.com ...
> Dear all:
>
> I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but as a coach with a handfull
> of headstrong foilists to manage, I do like to stay on top of things.
> So, with lower lip clenched firmly between teeth I ask:
>
> "What constitutes the parry?"
>
> Now, before you start thinking "Who is this bozo?" (Ok, too late), let
> me set up the scenario.
>
> Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
> A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
> arrives, A's remise arrives.
>
> Fencer A says "I never felt or heard the blade contact." Fencer B
> says "I parried." Independent observers agree there was defensive
> blade contact by Fencer B.
>
> Question: is B's action actually a parry? Or is the blade contact
> inconsequential, as Fencer A's point did not appear to deviate from a
> line with the target?
>
> The referee called the action as described above, basically "Attack,
> parry-riposte, remise. Parry-riposte for B arrives." There are those
> who say "The referee said it, his opinion is inviolate as regards the
> reconstruction of the phrase," and that alone should tell Fencer A he
> was--in fact and in deed--parried.
>
> Yet, as a coach, explaining this to a 19-year old hothead, this seems
> insufficient, a cop-out even. (I observed the action in question and
> agree with the referee's call)
>
> Any help here?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Thom Cate
>
> tcate@zoo.uvm.edu

The action is quite clear as u described...so it's B right; unless A's
attack touch immediately when B is doing the parry, in that case is B's
mal-parè, A's right. But if it's so clear (noticeable tempo between the
actions) the blades' contact, then B's right. It doesn't matter the
deviation from the target!!!

If the problem is explaining this to a 19yo boy....well, that's fencing my
friend....the little particulars are more important than he thinks ;-)

Pier
ITA





"Thom Cate" <tcate@zoo.uvm.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4c1bba3.0302110816.4c6a3a0@posting.google.com ...
> Dear all:
>
> I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but as a coach with a handfull
> of headstrong foilists to manage, I do like to stay on top of things.
> So, with lower lip clenched firmly between teeth I ask:
>
> "What constitutes the parry?"
>
> Now, before you start thinking "Who is this bozo?" (Ok, too late), let
> me set up the scenario.
>
> Fencer A makes direct attack. Fencer B makes parry, such that Fencer
> A's point does not visibly deviate from B's target. B's reposte
> arrives, A's remise arrives.
>
> Fencer A says "I never felt or heard the blade contact." Fencer B
> says "I parried." Independent observers agree there was defensive
> blade contact by Fencer B.
>
> Question: is B's action actually a parry? Or is the blade contact
> inconsequential, as Fencer A's point did not appear to deviate from a
> line with the target?
>
> The referee called the action as described above, basically "Attack,
> parry-riposte, remise. Parry-riposte for B arrives." There are those
> who say "The referee said it, his opinion is inviolate as regards the
> reconstruction of the phrase," and that alone should tell Fencer A he
> was--in fact and in deed--parried.
>
> Yet, as a coach, explaining this to a 19-year old hothead, this seems
> insufficient, a cop-out even. (I observed the action in question and
> agree with the referee's call)
>
> Any help here?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Thom Cate
>
> tcate@zoo.uvm.edu

I agree that it conveys useful information to the fencer. I think
Giorgio was making the point that, technically speaking, there is no
such thing as a 'mal parre' (he was talking to a bunch of director
newbies, after all). Also, the context was dry fencing and the
response from the side judge when polled by the director, not the
reconstruction by the director. Sorry for not making that clear. This
occurred a long time ago, obviously...

For the youths among us: in The Old Days, the director would ask a
human if the touch landed, can you imagine? He or she would call halt,
say something like "attack from my left, parry-riposte, and remise",
and then point at you (a side judge) and ask "the attack?". At that
point a simple "yes" is pretty clear.

(Later, in the locker room (or bar), we all had the consolation of
saying "I hit, but that blind director didn't see my perfect, subtle
attack". :-)

regards, Jeff

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<no_one_knows-4E228F.10345512022003@netnews.attbi.com>...
> In article <6a855241.0302120823.56a29097@posting.google.com >,
> jsavit@mail.com (Jeff Savit) wrote:
> But here, if you call "mal parre'," it lets everyone know that, yes, you
> saw the attempted parry, but it didn't stop the attack. Otherwise the
> fencer who got hit is thinking "How could this guy not see/hear that
> parry!?"
>
> While you're probably technically right that you don't need the term, I
> think it might be useful in practice.
>
> --Harold Buck

I agree that it conveys useful information to the fencer. I think
Giorgio was making the point that, technically speaking, there is no
such thing as a 'mal parre' (he was talking to a bunch of director
newbies, after all). Also, the context was dry fencing and the
response from the side judge when polled by the director, not the
reconstruction by the director. Sorry for not making that clear. This
occurred a long time ago, obviously...

For the youths among us: in The Old Days, the director would ask a
human if the touch landed, can you imagine? He or she would call halt,
say something like "attack from my left, parry-riposte, and remise",
and then point at you (a side judge) and ask "the attack?". At that
point a simple "yes" is pretty clear.

(Later, in the locker room (or bar), we all had the consolation of
saying "I hit, but that blind director didn't see my perfect, subtle
attack". :-)

regards, Jeff

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<no_one_knows-4E228F.10345512022003@netnews.attbi.com>...
> In article <6a855241.0302120823.56a29097@posting.google.com >,
> jsavit@mail.com (Jeff Savit) wrote:
> But here, if you call "mal parre'," it lets everyone know that, yes, you
> saw the attempted parry, but it didn't stop the attack. Otherwise the
> fencer who got hit is thinking "How could this guy not see/hear that
> parry!?"
>
> While you're probably technically right that you don't need the term, I
> think it might be useful in practice.
>
> --Harold Buck

jsavit@mail.com (Jeff Savit) wrote


> Giorgio Santelli came
> upstairs from his office to talk about "adequate parries". He said two
> things that stuck in my mind: one is that there is no such thing as
> mal-parre': either the attack is parried or it isn't

He is coming to be vindicated in modern directing, too, at least in
sabre, where "attack not parried" is quite commonly heard these days
in place of "mal parre". Amazing how long it took for us to come
around, eh?


> Second, and apropos of this thread, he demonstrated via a light tap on
> the blade and catching the tapped blade at the widest part of its arc,
> that even a light tap - done correctly - deviates the blade from
> target. He said "A director is not a protractor" who measures the
> angle. In other words, it's solely the director's job to apply
> judgement to the blade action.
>
> In practice, it would be called for A if he hit at the same time as
> the blade action (since the simultaneous hit and blade action proves
> the blade wasn't deviated). If the blade action occurred before the
> finale, then it's quite another story (see above). Since the original
> post mentions a remise, it sounds like the initial offensive movement
> did not land. Without the video tape there's no way to tell if B took
> over right of way.

jsavit@mail.com (Jeff Savit) wrote


> Giorgio Santelli came
> upstairs from his office to talk about "adequate parries". He said two
> things that stuck in my mind: one is that there is no such thing as
> mal-parre': either the attack is parried or it isn't

He is coming to be vindicated in modern directing, too, at least in
sabre, where "attack not parried" is quite commonly heard these days
in place of "mal parre". Amazing how long it took for us to come
around, eh?


> Second, and apropos of this thread, he demonstrated via a light tap on
> the blade and catching the tapped blade at the widest part of its arc,
> that even a light tap - done correctly - deviates the blade from
> target. He said "A director is not a protractor" who measures the
> angle. In other words, it's solely the director's job to apply
> judgement to the blade action.
>
> In practice, it would be called for A if he hit at the same time as
> the blade action (since the simultaneous hit and blade action proves
> the blade wasn't deviated). If the blade action occurred before the
> finale, then it's quite another story (see above). Since the original
> post mentions a remise, it sounds like the initial offensive movement
> did not land. Without the video tape there's no way to tell if B took
> over right of way.

Yup: see The Arizona Fencing Academy:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/arizonafencing/

Yvonne O. Gallego seems to have a pretty good reputation. She has
turned out some nationally ranked competitors and at least one women's
epee champion IIRC.
Not Classical though. Seems collegiate. They also have some problems
with their space and how "welcoming" they are to new folks. By
welcoming I do not mean that they are rude but that their location does
not allow casual observing. She does no marketing that I can find and
is difficult to talk to. Seems to be a small hard core type of place.
They need better facilities.


RSE

Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
> R.S.E. wrote:
>
>>
>> Any classical fencers in Tucson?
>>
>
> Are there any fencers in Tucson?? I was there
> a while back and couldn't find a salle. Just
> was wondering if the situation has changed.
>
> J.
>

Yup: see The Arizona Fencing Academy:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/arizonafencing/

Yvonne O. Gallego seems to have a pretty good reputation. She has
turned out some nationally ranked competitors and at least one women's
epee champion IIRC.
Not Classical though. Seems collegiate. They also have some problems
with their space and how "welcoming" they are to new folks. By
welcoming I do not mean that they are rude but that their location does
not allow casual observing. She does no marketing that I can find and
is difficult to talk to. Seems to be a small hard core type of place.
They need better facilities.


RSE

Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
> R.S.E. wrote:
>
>>
>> Any classical fencers in Tucson?
>>
>
> Are there any fencers in Tucson?? I was there
> a while back and couldn't find a salle. Just
> was wondering if the situation has changed.
>
> J.
>

Jonathan Jefferies wrote:

> My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
> i.e. a way to teach.

Sort of true. Some found that the foil could serve quite well in
combats and duels. Sharpen the point and voila not just a training
tool. The target is designated to assure the likelihood of really
finishing a real fight as opposed to the "first blood" honor rules of epee.

Have you seen and or read the Spanish novel or movie: The Fencing
Master? He and other use foils to "good" effect. Good movie and book too.

I have a passing acquaintance with the Japanese sword and its use. I
think that your analogy may miss slightly if one considers that during
virtually all of its history Japanese fencing has had one ultimate
outcome: to kill your opponent as quickly as possible. Most blows with
a katana would be fatal. Just as an interesting aside, Musahi, perhaps
that penultimate swordsman you mention, used a bokan or similar rather
than steel almost exclusively later in his career and people were trying
to kill him not just score points. He died of old age they did not.

I think that Kendo, with its european fencing like limitations on target
and strikes, while an interesting game requiring great skill, does not
realistically prepare one for combat with the sword any more than modern
foil prepares one for combat with a small sword. (try flicking with one)
Iado, Kenjutsu and some forms of Aikijitsu are intended as "real" combat
training and the dearth of bouting rules reflects this. Even Kendo is
played at full speed and full contact and any landed cut or thrust would
probably end the fight if not instantly fatal.
I recall a story, that may be true, of a Korean sword master (who may
still be teaching in Boston) who upon his arrival in Japan to test his
skills, faced the then leading Kendo masters. He, to put it bluntly,
cut them to ribbons. Figuratively of course. Combat is just different.

> which is one reason why I favor the epee. But even it has things I
> find troubling, Such as the double. Really feel that any double
> should be thrown out. Many epeists will play a game of get a couple
> of points up and then double out.

And in real life they would be bleeding all over the place and honor
would not be satisfied so it wouldn't happen.


> Sorry but there's nothing new here. Read Aldo Nadi's description of
> his bout in Paris and how he felt the french influenced the results.
> If it's important to win then someone will go over the top.
>
Yeah I know, its the same in all sports and yes I've read the Nadi
material too. Fascinating family in an interesting time.


>> Another reason my grandchildren will probably not fence "Olympic" style.
>
> My sympathies then.

I will not dissuade them but I will not encourage them either. I do not
see the life lessons that I want to teach in current fencing style and
competition.
Honesty, integrity, self reliance, honor, and civilized behavior.

Enough or I'll get in more trouble than I am already.

A most stimulating discussion. I've learned a thing or two, always a
good sign.

Thanks

>
> J.
>