Newb lunge question

[cowpaste]

Do you people *really* extend before you lunge? It just seems so slow. Using my (usually flawed) common sense, it seems to be the fastest way to perform a lunge attack would be to extend while lunging. Enlighten me please.

[Peach]

Yeah, we really do. And it's faster. Doubtless others will be able to enlighten you as to the physics of the matter.

[fencingguy]

It may feel slower, but it's not. Same thing for fleching. More importantly though, it's more accurate. Work hard on this one or you'll regret it later.

[Craig]

As one of my coaches would say: "Hand before foot and you will have God, justice and right on your side."

There are specific times when you may want to wait until you are into your lunge, or even after your lunge to extend, but these are advanced tempo changes that you don't want to make a habit of.

Now, you don't need to wait for your arm to fully extend before you lunge, you just want your hand to start forward. Your feet follow your hand.

Cheers,
Craig

[jeff]

As Craig pointed out, you needn't: 1. Extend arm till locked, 2. Visibly pause, 3. Lunge - (you would get hit somewhere around #2). It's often taught this way to beginners until they learn how to coordinate the different arm and leg motions. Practiced properly it needn't slow you down - you learn to "let the hand pull you forward" in a smooth continuous action, and you _never_ lock or stiffen the elbow or shoulder.

Leaving aside Right Of Way for now, this helps you have the right body mechanics for executing the lunge. It creates the threat to the opponent, helps you aim, and helps prevent getting "tangled up" and unable to make disengages.

Some "classic fencers" insist that the arm must always be fully extended before the lunge, but they can safely be ignored Modern fencing lets the lunge start while the arm is extending, rather than fully extended. This lets you overlap the time you're making the extension with the time you're making the lunge, for a faster total attack. However, it's important to learn "hand first, then foot" before you try attempting this. Correctness first, then speed.

[wflaschka]

Great question! Last night we videotaped our lessons, so the students could see what they look like. My express goal was to show them their lunges, because talkin' about them ain't fixing them. There are some great reasons for going hand-first during a lunge.

- Flexibility: You start your attack, but the opponent doesn't retreat. Or, worse, they step in. Are you still going to lunge? Naw -- save those calories. Just keep your en garde and extend. You can only do this if your hand starts first.

- Reach: You start your attack, and the opponent notes this and starts to flee. Let's say your arm extension gives you 6 inches of reach, and your lunge gives you 4 feet. Your total reach is 4'6". Put that 6 inches up front, rather than at the end... because that 6" inches is faster:

- Speed: The arm is fast, the lunge is slow (comparatively). Is your standing lunge faster than a prepared opponent's retreat? Mostly, no. You need to cover as much ground at the beginning of your lunge as possible. Put the fastest accelleration up front (hand), and then tack on the slower accelleration (lunge) at the back. You will get nearer to the opponent sooner. One goal for your lunges is to hit with the tip before your front foot lands.

- Reliability: In general, you will miss or hit awkwardly (bending the blade down) more often if you're trying to aim and extend while your body is flying through the air. If you follow the steps -- "aim", extend, lunge -- this problem all but disappears and the hits are solid.

This helps me: To cultivate the hand-first lunge, one can imagine a string is connecting the bell guard to the toe of the front foot. The hand starts extending, and the string starts to tighten. The hand extends more, and the tight string pulls the front foot along with it. This visualization works both for a standing lunge, or a lunge with preparation (beats, feints). As soon as the hand extends a certain distance from your body, your front foot needs to move, either with an advance or a lunge. The string says so.

It seems like an extending arm would be easier for the opponent to parry. This mostly isn't true, but when it is, its one of the situations that Craig pointed out where you use a late-arriving hand to futz with the opponent's timing.

In general, lunges are so slow and ponderous that you want to obscure the lunge's launch. Use footwork and distance to disguise your real all-out lunges. Even simple, straight lunges are deadly, with the proper timing. A better word for "timing" or tempo might be "feeling of surprise." From: The Value of Timing in Tactics,_by Zbigniew Czajkowski. Lunges hit not because of the arm, but because of surprise.

[jeff]

Great post , wflaschka!

[Chris]

Originally posted by wflaschka
Great question! Last night we videotaped our lessons, so the students could see what they look like. My express goal was to show them their lunges, because talkin' about them ain't fixing them.

Yes, there's nothing like perspective...

There are some great reasons for going hand-first during a lunge.

Yes, there are, and despite your good efforts, below, I can't say you've got them all straight. The primary reason for initiating the extension prior to moving the feet is that, (in foil, and sabre) the rules (for various reasons) favor the one who does that first.

- Flexibility: You start your attack, but the opponent doesn't retreat. Or, worse, they step in. Are you still going to lunge? Naw -- save those calories. Just keep your en garde and extend. You can only do this if your hand starts first.

Your scenario seems to include either an unstated assumption of the distance being very close, or an invalid assumption that noone is moving to begin with.

- Reach: You start your attack, and the opponent notes this and starts to flee. Let's say your arm extension gives you 6 inches of reach, and your lunge gives you 4 feet. Your total reach is 4'6". Put that 6 inches up front, rather than at the end... because that 6" inches is faster:

Wow! 4 feet! How tall are you?!?

Seriously, though, you are way off base on this analysis: You are correct, in that the hand is faster, but what's the point of burning up your speed move at the beginning: so what if you can extend your arm really fast? If you haven't hit them by that time (i.e. you are at 'normal fencing distance') all you are doing is locking yourself into finishing slow, with your feet?

If you are attacking, you will do better to think about your extension taking some time; it will start out with a little speed, slow down (while continuing to extend, and probably avoiding, or contacting the opponent's blade), and then finish faster with the hit: the idea is that you want the point to be moving its fastest as (or right before) it hits.

Otherwise, all you are doing is slowing yourself down, and giving your opponent a MUCH better idea of where your point is going to end up.

- Speed: The arm is fast, the lunge is slow (comparatively). Is your standing lunge faster than a prepared opponent's retreat? Mostly, no.

Que? How do you come to this conclusion?
A. Most people, lunge much farther (~twice as far) as they retreat,
B. The full retreat requires you move BOTH feet; the lunge, only one.
C. Even a 'prepared' retreater, STILL has to react. (i.e. takes time.)

Only if one completes full extension of the arm before thinking of moving the feet (and neither the rules, nor the logic of efficient mechanics indicate it should be thus) does the equation become even close to equal.

You need to cover as much ground at the beginning of your lunge as possible. Put the fastest accelleration up front (hand), and then tack on the slower accelleration (lunge) at the back. You will get nearer to the opponent sooner. One goal for your lunges is to hit with the tip before your front foot lands.

Whoa! Slow down, there buckeroo!
Covering all that ground at the beginning and getting you nearer the ooponent, gets you nothing, and exposes all.

The 'goal' of hitting before the front foot lands again is a partially a rules-driven issue, although there is logic behind it. And, although I would like to see more consistent understanding and consideration of that in refereeing, it really does not translate in what you are saying here.

- Reliability: In general, you will miss or hit awkwardly (bending the blade down) more often if you're trying to aim and extend while your body is flying through the air. If you follow the steps -- "aim", extend, lunge -- this problem all but disappears and the hits are solid.

Again, yes, you start out with a valid point: operating from a stable platform has a definite effect on accuracy, however, practice will tend to improve this significantly. Moreover, as you indicate, generally, you will still be moving, and your conclusion is not really supported.

Certainly, the simpler the moves you do, the easier it will be to hit; but also, the easier it will be for your opponent to see what's coming, but the bottom line is that if you 'aim' first, then you are still doing 2 moves (extending, and lunging) before you hit, and frankly, you are much better off prolonging the duration of the extension until the lunge is underway, so that the hand can make final adjustment to the influence of the lunge, and the opponent's response.

This helps me: To cultivate the hand-first lunge, one can imagine a string is connecting the bell guard to the toe of the front foot. The hand starts extending, and the string starts to tighten. The hand extends more, and the tight string pulls the front foot along with it. This visualization works both for a standing lunge, or a lunge with preparation (beats, feints). As soon as the hand extends a certain distance from your body, your front foot needs to move, either with an advance or a lunge. The string says so.

This illustration, while prompting a beneficial visulization, seems a little inconsistent with what it seems that you do from what you say, higher up.

It seems like an extending arm would be easier for the opponent to parry. This mostly isn't true, but when it is, its one of the situations that Craig pointed out where you use a late-arriving hand to futz with the opponent's timing.

In general, lunges are so slow and ponderous that you want to obscure the lunge's launch. Use footwork and distance to disguise your real all-out lunges. Even simple, straight lunges are deadly, with the proper timing. A better word for "timing" or tempo might be "feeling of surprise."

In general, much of what one sees on a fencing strip is not very good, and frankly, I do feel that the lunge is a slightly overrated move (but that's another thread); one must be careful about making theoretical conclusions about things without analyzing the source of the data. Lunges, and fleches, CAN be done with suprising speed, and efficiency, or they can be done with a smooth, but deliberate, technique, which is intended to attract the engagement of the opponent (rather than scaring them off), OR, they can be done with all the grace of a break-dancing elephant!

From: The Value of Timing in Tactics,_by Zbigniew Czajkowski. Lunges hit not because of the arm, but because of surprise.

Well, there's certainly validity in that, but it hardly supports your conclusions here.

YES, Your hand IS faster; all the more reason to save it for last! (as much as is possible.)

(To 'borrow' from classic Kendo teaching) he who goes first (usually) loses. Fencing is about who goes first (who is committed): Make the OTHER person commit to the action first, and you have the advantage of flexibility; This commitment can be percieved of having 3 components: mental (intellectual & emotional), manual, and pedual (?).

Mental - for whatever reasons (sometimes for emotional reasons, sometimes a thinking error), a person 'commits' themselves to a course of action (i.e. attacking versus defending, or attacking here, versus there) which is not the best way to achieve their desired results...once this choice become apparent to the opponent, adaptation can be made.

Pedual - (I may be making up this word, but whatever) once you commit yourself to any footwork action, there is a period of inflexibility, wherein you cannot really do anything but complete the move; once completed, a new move might (or might not) be continued.

Manual - like the footwork, once the hand is committed to an action, is will be occupied in doing that move for a short period of time, until the something else can be done.

The person who first commits themselves to the higher degree may not always lose the touch, but IS surrendering the advantage.

Since the footwork invloves larger masses moving farther distances, it makes a lot of sense to try to orchestrate your opponent's commitment in that dimension first, of course, getting them to commit their hand AND their feet, while you do neither, is clearly better!

The biggest thing to remember is that fencing is a game of open skills, and there's always more than one way to get something done, and if everyone knows what the 'best' one is, it's probably not the best, anymore.

[wflaschka]

Originally posted by Chris

...The primary reason for initiating the extension prior to moving the feet is that, (in foil, and sabre) the rules (for various reasons) favor the one who does that first. Your scenario seems to include either an unstated assumption of the distance being very close, or an invalid assumption that noone is moving to begin with.

Meh. Good thoughts (excellent post, actually), but you didn't interpret everything as liberally as you could have.

The first task in building a lunge is not building a "double-advance, retreat, lunge". It's just building a lunge. You evaluate the baseline or atomic action, the action which is indivisible. So, get rid of any thoughts of other movements.

Taking a standing lunge, it's a pretty sorry move in terms of speed and surprise. This isn't new information -- the lunge is one of the biggest controlled displacements in fencing, and the smaller ones (parry, extension, retreat) trump it in terms of speed.

Seriously, though, you are way off base on this analysis: You are correct, in that the hand is faster, but what's the point of burning up your speed move at the beginning: so what if you can extend your arm really fast? ...

It's simple. If we take some estimates for a sloooow fencer: 6" extension = 1 second, 4' lunge = 4 seconds (or 1 foot per second). Distance to opponent = 3 feet from tip.

If you lunge and hold your extension, you cover those 3 feet in 3 seconds.

If you start your extension at the beginning, your tip is (in aggregate over life of lunge) ~6" closer to the opponent, so your opponent is now 2.5' away, which you cover in 2.5 seconds with the lunge.

You hit in 2.5 seconds with the extension+lunge, and 3 seconds with a lunge without extension.

And, if you start your extension late, say 1 second after the lunge begins, you still lose out because you don't get the speed boost of the extension until 1/4 of the time has passed. Real speeds may vary, but the net gain is a no brainer.

In your post there's a lot of valid discussion about avoiding the opponent's defenses "in flight" during a lunge, say during a multipart action. I'll only respond that I didn't originally dwell on that stuff because it's not connected to the main question: why hand first for lunge.

You also mention how directors need the extension, since rules dictate the extending arm is the attack. This is true, but I don't find it fruitful to dwell on it, because directors will give the attack to the forward-moving body. Even if you don't believe this about directors, once someone reads "attack is extending arm yadda yadda" it needn't influence their training for a good lunge.

Que? How do you come to this conclusion?
A. Most people, lunge much farther (~twice as far) as they retreat,
B. The full retreat requires you move BOTH feet; the lunge, only one.
C. Even a 'prepared' retreater, STILL has to react. (i.e. takes time.)

Ah, but it's not as simple as that. Fencer A launches a lunge, and Fencer B reacts after a moment. Fencer B takes a retreat, extending distance, in effect creating more time before the arrival of Fencer A's point. (Actually, they're delaying the arrival.) Things are now looking better for Fencer B.

In the end, you could say it's subjective. But, really, a retreat is faster than a lunge. You can go by experience, you can go by time estimates, or you can go by fencing dogma that has been ratified by fencers over hundreds of years. If someone is lunging against you, use a retreat to give yourself that extra fraction of a second to take the parry; the retreat will be over before the lunge.

Again, yes, you start out with a valid point: operating from a stable platform has a definite effect on accuracy, however, practice will tend to improve this significantly. Moreover, as you indicate, generally, you will still be moving, and your conclusion is not really supported.

Basic dogma: The fencer trains to separate leg movements from torso, so that the torso can be relatively still and the arm has a steady "launching" point. For the same reasons, you don't launch airplanes off a storm-tossed carrier. The ideal of footwork is that you're gliding across the floor, as if you're sitting in a rolling chair. You don't want to train yourself to rock your whole body with each step, it just messes things up.

So, with advances and retreats, you can still have the stable platform. Different story with the lunge, though you can train up the stability. But we're only talking about the lunge, not the other movements.

Whoa! Slow down, there buckeroo!
Covering all that ground at the beginning and getting you nearer the ooponent, gets you nothing, and exposes all. ... The 'goal' of hitting before the front foot lands again is a partially a rules-driven issue, although there is logic behind it.

Nah. If you're able to hit before your front foot lands, it just indicates a few things: [1] You're attacking with your tip, not your body; [2] You achieved the proper "sproing" in your lunge. It's nothing mystical and certainly not rules-driven. It's an indicator of an explosive lunge; certainly an indicator of a flying lunge. After you note that you're doing it (or can do it), its value as an indicator evaporates.

Certainly, the simpler the moves you do, the easier it will be to hit; but also, the easier it will be for your opponent to see what's coming, but the bottom line is that if you 'aim' first, then you are still doing 2 moves (extending, and lunging) before you hit, and frankly, you are much better off prolonging the duration of the extension until the lunge is underway, so that the hand can make final adjustment to the influence of the lunge, and the opponent's response.

If we're to believe your post, the lunge is faster than a retreat and a superfast move in its own right. It's perplexing then that you are worried about the opponent seeing what's coming -- as if, in Chris-world, the opponent could do anything about it and indeed make a response.

You are right when you say the opponent will see what's coming. That's why, if we're talking about baseline standing lunges, you maximize your speed to hit, so the opponent has less time to do something about it. If you're developing your standing lunge, you absolutely don't want to slow it down and swish your blade around to disguise your intentions. Lunges are slow, but they're not that slow. Save the multi-part stuff for multi-part actions, I say.

Having said that, we're close to the realm of one-two attacks and coupés, which are multi-part but usable as quasi-direct attacks. They, too, posit an extending arm.

And remember, it's not "two moves" before you hit. The lunge is one move.

This illustration, while prompting a beneficial visulization, seems a little inconsistent with what it seems that you do from what you say, higher up.

I wrote: If you follow the steps -- "aim", extend, lunge -- this problem all but disappears and the hits are solid. I ought to have written "aim", begin extension, lunge. The "aim" is in quotes because quotes mean "not really." I've found it helps to say the word while describing the lunge. By no means is the lunge a mechanical chunk-chunk-chunk process, LOL, rather it's a smooth and continuous action.

Well, there's certainly validity in that, but it hardly supports your conclusions here.

But remember, I'd brought up obscuring the origin of the lunge, using footwork, distance and tempo (surprise) to mask its launch. We should do this because the lunge is a slow creature compared to other fencing actions, no matter how fast we make it.

You said roughly the same thing about obscuring -- "speed up, slow down, speed up" the extension ?!? to mask the goal of the lunge. But you also said the lunge is faster than other actions. It doesn't compute; is a baseline standing lunge slow or fast in nature? We can't have it both ways depending on the paragraph we're in.

(To 'borrow' from classic Kendo teaching) he who goes first (usually) loses. Fencing is about who goes first (who is committed): Make the OTHER person commit to the action first, and you have the advantage of flexibility; This commitment can be percieved of having 3 components: mental (intellectual & emotional), manual, and pedual (?).

Meh, eastern fencing. The stuff about tactical considerations is pretty solid. One of my long-standing desires is to write (or better, discover) a concise "how-to" on how to develop elongated marching attacks. If you assess a footwork action as "something that must complete" (which is untrue), then the aggressor is indeed at a disadvantage, and the aggressor must make the defender buy into the action long enough that they remain defensive until footwork action concludes.

The biggest thing to remember is that fencing is a game of open skills, and there's always more than one way to get something done, and if everyone knows what the 'best' one is, it's probably not the best, anymore.

For myself, life is too short to re-invent a parry, re-invent an esquive. I prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants, better view. These moves are the game pieces which fencers play with, and, if you want to be precise about it, every fencer invents their own versions anyway.

Lots of dogmatic fencing actions are time-tested, very effective, best-practice; the results are proven by every fencer that ever walked away from a duel. The fun part is in using these pieces in cool and interesting combinations for tactical effect. Like chess.

Short summary: Save a lot of grief, and preface your attacks with an extending arm.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally posted by cowpaste
Do you people *really* extend before you lunge? It just seems so slow. Using my (usually flawed) common sense, it seems to be the fastest way to perform a lunge attack would be to extend while lunging. Enlighten me please.

Well, if you step forward without an at least partially extended arm, you will be hit by your opponent. It only takes a simple extension on his part, and that goes fast.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Wizardly]

Yes, stop-hit followed by parry or in time is fun when they've given you enough time to pull it off by not extending first. Even more fun when they've started their lunge first and became so surprised by the counter-attack that they forget to extend at all.

Extension preceeding the lunge is a good baseline from which to work. It's not the right move 100.0000% of the time (note the significant digits), but it's a good place to start. Kind of like "retreat before you parry," "front foot before back food when moving forward," and "go to the bathroom before beginning a long road trip;" things that are taught as a baseline for later.

[Queen of Hearts]

Well I don't know about you but we start to extend before lunging and finsh it while lunging then we score!?!?!?! That is what we do in my club I don't know if it is right or not though.