[CFML] Extended vs. Extending

[Jeff Savit]

Following the conversation Rez and I have begun, I want to show why ROW
should begin with an extending arm during an attack, and not only once
the arm is fully extended. To make it clear: I am not talking about
bent arm attacks, or an arm that is extended and then subsequently bent.
The latter are not properly executed attacks as described by FIE rules
(see below.) And yes, this is explicitly an invitation for discussion.

I do want to have some fun (and lighten this up) a little, so, let's
consider two sets of motions by our old friend, Fencer A:

1) Fencer A extends his arm, and in a smooth and continuous motion
begins to lunge when his arm is fully extended. This is the classic way
to describe a lunge, and is utterly safe and proper technique. A lunge
with a fully extended arm.

2) Fencer A extends his arm, and *before the extension is complete* begins =
his
lunge. The mechanics of both motions are *same* as before, except overlappe=
d
in time instead of done serially. That's the only difference. Oh, it comple=
tes
(say) 1/4 second faster, a valuable advantage making an attack. A lunge wit=
h
a continuously extending arm, and it is extended by the time he hits.

Now let's bring in our other friend, Fencer B. We'll assume he's in lunge
distance from A. I'm afraid he's going to come off badly in this exercise:

If B counter-attacks into A's lunge in situation (1) we all agree he's wron=
g.
Shame on Fencer B. Touch for Fencer A. (We'll come back to this...)

In situation (2) though, Fencer B has read the references demanding a full
extension before the lunge. He extends into Fencer A as soon as he sees
Fencer A begin his action. Who's right?

Fencer A is right. He's the one that threatened first, with a forward moti=
on
of the extending point towards Fencer B's chest. Fencer B then starts his =
own
extension, ignoring A's point, which embeds itself in B's chest 1/2 second
later. B has committed suicide. Shame on Fencer B. Touch for Fencer A.

Now, several things could have happened: Fencer A *probably* completed his
extension before B completed *his* extension. This would make everybody
happy. But, we probably won't see that, since we have two bodies hurtling
towards one another, and it's hard to see the exact angles of their arms un=
der
those conditions. Or, Fencer A could be trying to play games with the
director, and only sloooooowly straightened his arm. In this unlikely case=
,
we walk over and smack Fencer A in the mask for being a jerk and making our
directing hard. So, we could ask "who completed the extension first?" Unl=
ess
A made excess motion or never completed his extension (in which case he
gets what he deserves), A probably completed the extension first anyway.

Now let's consider situation (1). Fencer A extends, and then lunges. Now,
suppose Fencer B, that sneaky fellow, has read the doctrines that one must =
be
*extended* before there's ROW. Now, as soon as Fencer A starts, Fencer B
immediately makes as fast an extension as he possibly can, moving nothing b=
ut
his arm. He starts a little later than Fencer A (after all, he's reacting =
to
Fencer A's extending arm), but before Fencer A is fully extended.

Who do you call for in this case? Fencer B *might* be fully extended befor=
e A
is fully extended (though I doubt it). Will you actually see that? Does it
matter? No - I hope you'll award the touch in A's favor anyway. In which ca=
se,
it shows that *extending* gained the right of way, not the state of being
extended.

Why should this matter? Because you can speed up your attack if you begin
your lunge while the point is accelerating forward. If you fail to complet=
e
the extension, or attack into a closed line because your hand was behind yo=
ur
feet, then too bad for you (so it's still wise to teach "hand first, then
foot"). But, if you can master this technique you can gain a slight advant=
age.

I always teach the traditional "extend and lunge", saying "the hand pulls y=
ou
forward", emphasizing that it should be a smooth continuous motion. It's
essential to get that across for proper execution. It's hard enough for
example, for beginners to clear the line in a disengage - if they're alread=
y
lunging its darn near impossible. Same for any action involving taking the
blade - if they try to do it all at once it's just too much. Separating th=
e
two is good pedagogy. But, you can to overlap the two sets of motions, and
reduce the total elapsed time. For purposes of ROW, it's equally valid: th=
e
point is threatening just as soon, and in fact is accelerating towards targ=
et
even faster. Hence "extending", rather than "extended".

I understand and appreciate the many references and quotes, but remember, i=
n
the 1850's it was not known that all of a horse's hooves leave the ground
during a gallop. We can usefully apply things learned since those days.

Now, the other day I mentioned that Adam Adrian Crown discusses this in
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/Grim.shtml Since I am a pedant
with respect to language, I want to play with this as well.

He quotes USFA rules as follows:

'The 1991 Rulebook also says:

"2. The compound attack is correctly executed when, with the arm extending=
in
the presentation of the first feint, the point threatens the valid surface =
and
the arm is not bent during the successive actions of the attack and the
initiation of the lunge or flech=E8." (my own emphasis added)' [Jeff: in=
the
preceding, "my own" is Crown's]

He then says:

'But notice here that the arm is to be "not bent" during the initiation
of the lunge. Well, isn't "not bent" the same thing as "straight?"'

Well, the answer to the question is "no", once you realize that "not bent" =
is
a verb phrase, not an adjective. If you read the rule in French you can see
this (I quote from the USFA/FIE rule, now renumbered to t.56(a)2).

In English: "The compound attack (cf. t.8) is correctly executed when the a=
rm
is straightened in the presentation of the first feint, with the point
threatening the valid target, and the arm is not bent during the the
successive actions of the attack and the initiation of the lunge or the
fleche".

In French (without accents, sorry): "L'attaque composee (Cf. t.8) est
correctemente executee quand le bras s'allongeant dans la presentation de l=
a
premiere feinte, pointe menace la surface valable sans raccourcir le bras
pendant l'execution des mouvements successifs de l'attaque et la declenchem=
ent
de la fente ou de la fleche."

Now, "sans raccourcir le bras" means "without shortening (bending) the arm"=
..
So, it's not the *condition* of "not (being) bent", that is, "(being)
straight" (which Crown points out would be nonsensical: you can't be both
straight and bent at the same time). It's the difference between "his arm =
was
bent" and "he bent his arm".

Hence, the attack is correctly executed if you don't straighten (threaten)
and then (subsequently) bend your arm. In other words, the fencer must not
make a break in the attack.

Happy fencing, everybody (it's much better than rules lawyering),
Jeff




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. h=
ttp://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=3D5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier b=
lunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=20

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20

[Ken Mondschein]

Jeff wrote:

> Why should this matter?

Because they're both lousy excuses for classical fencers, that's why.

Sure, according to your illustration, fencer B is clearly in the wrong.
True, Fencer A may hit a quarter of a second sooner, and true, we
understand bodies in motion much better these days - but those facts are a
red herring, not germaine to the issue. Fencing time, as has been known
since (at least) the sixteenth century, is a relative, not absolute thing.
By launching his attack with his arm still extending, rather than
extended, Fencer A opens himself up to a stop-hit, for starters. Sure, he
may score the point, but in the classical fencing he loses - because
classical fencing is about hitting without being hit.

--Ken Mondschein




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jeff,

----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jeff Savit" <jeff.savit@sun.com>
>In situation (2) though, Fencer B has read the references demanding a full
>extension before the lunge. He extends into Fencer A as soon as he sees
>Fencer A begin his action. Who's right?

>Fencer A is right. He's the one that threatened first, with a forward
motion
>of the extending point towards Fencer B's chest. Fencer B then starts his
own
>extension, ignoring A's point, which embeds itself in B's chest 1/2 second
>later. B has committed suicide. Shame on Fencer B. Touch for Fencer A.

I couldn't resist replying even though I don't have time to read the entire
scenario since I'm at work.

But briefly, it ALL depends upon who reaches full extension first, because
that is the definition of "Attack" (or threat).

In classical fencing the "attack" or "threat" as you call it is defined as
the one which reaches full extension first.
In your above example A hasn't "attacked" yet. He is still in preparation
because his arm has not reached full extension yet.
So the question is, in B's attempt to arrest the development of A's
extension, does B's arm reach full extension before A's.
The one that reaches full extension first is the Attack, regardless of when
it was launched (first or second).
The one that reaches full extension second, is the counter attack,
regardless of when it was launched (first or second).

In sport fencing foil, attempting a stop thrust against an opponent who is
extending his arm is more dangerous than in classical fencing because the
attack begins the moment the arm begins extending. In a simply attack a stop
thrust couldnt land a period of time ahead. And we all know that a counter
attack doesnt get priority against an attack.

However, in Classical fencing a stop thrust against an extending arm has a
better chance because it might actually accelerate fast enough to beat the
opponent to the full extension thus gaining the label of "attack" and thus
ROW.

I'll read the rest later.
Thanks for opening this can of worms Jeff.
Rez


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Jeff Savit]

Hi Ken, Rez,and thanks for the posts.

We will have to agree to disagree (in the nicest, most polite way possible, of
course!) What we've done is repeat to one another our definitions of what
constitutes an attack that gains ROW, and they just don't match. I strongly feel
that "if it were sharp", B would be committing suicide, and a convention of ROW
that is true to that would call it against him. "De gustibus non disputandem."

By the way, Rez, very cool e-mail address.

cheers, Jeff

Rez said
>Thanks for opening this can of worms Jeff.

Any time! You aren't being a teensy sarcastic, are ya? ;-) Do you want me to
continue with the stuff on Albie and response to the remainder of your prior
post? Or are we all exhausted by now? There were only a tiny number of posts on
this forum the first half of this year, maybe we should generate a little traffic.






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Brian D. Schenck]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:22:05 -0500, <1@msfencing.org> wrote:

:>But briefly, it ALL depends upon who reaches full extension first, because
:>that is the definition of "Attack" (or threat).
:>
I'm curious Rez, but where could I find an example of the definition of the
attack in classical fencing? I looked through Gaugler's "Fencing
Terminology" and couldn't find any definition for attack (even the modern
one) and could only find the terms for offensive and counter-offensive
actions.


:>However, in Classical fencing a stop thrust against an extending arm has a
:>better chance because it might actually accelerate fast enough to beat the
:>opponent to the full extension thus gaining the label of "attack" and thus
:>ROW.
:>
I'm more curious now, because if the principle of "as if they were sharp"
were to be followed, would one really want to try this? Because, by
countering into the "action" from the first fencer, you have one of three
scenarios; A) to get hit and not hit your opponent, B) both you and your
opponent hit each other and C) to hit your opponent and not get hit. Given
two of those three actions are outcomes to be avoided, why execute a stop
hit in this scenario, even if you think you can accelerate fast enough?

It seems to me, to treat an extending arm as an attack is better, because
it is a threat (it stands the real possibility of striking and injuring
you) -- and hence why it was changed in the modern rules. If anything,
because the truly proper response would be to either avoid this threat, or
to parry it and then to respond with the riposte.


-Brian

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Aaron Chusid]

>2) Fencer A extends his arm, and *before the extension is complete* begins his
>lunge. The mechanics of both motions are *same* as before, except overlapped
>in time instead of done serially. That's the only difference. Oh, it completes
>(say) 1/4 second faster, a valuable advantage making an attack. A lunge with
>a continuously extending arm, and it is extended by the time he hits.
>

<snip>

>
>In situation (2) though, Fencer B has read the references demanding a full
>extension before the lunge. He extends into Fencer A as soon as he sees
>Fencer A begin his action. Who's right?
>

Define "before the extension is complete". Are you talking 90% extension,
then lunge? Or 50% extension, then lunge? Or 10% extension, then lunge?
Biggest problem isn't that your opponent will simply extend a point on you
(if this is the case, Fencer B has still allowed a Double to happen; the
fault is B's); the problem is your opponent will extend through your
extending point, and the force of your lunge and your extension will force
your blade into a bind, while B's point takes your kidneys out for dinner
and a movie. Yes, this happens; no, it's not an impossible level of skill,
speed, perception, etc. Many fencers cue on the lunge; most good ones (or
at least carefully trained ones) can tell nearly instinctively if there is
a current threat on them or not. If you lunge at me with no previously
established line, I will oppose into your blade, trapping it and hitting you.

In such a scenario, outcome matters almost as much as the actual actions or
intent. If A lunges and B simply extends, then B has been foolish. If A
lunges without full extension and B takes the blade, then A has been
foolish and the point is B's. If A lunges and B attempts to take the blade
but fails, then there has been an attempted action on the blade, and ROW
goes to A anyway. If A lunges and B extends and displaces target (or
closes the line or something similar), A misses and B gets the point, clearly.

In practice, yes, there is considerable overlap between the end of the
extension and the beginning of the lunge. Of course, we're also talking
about actions so quick that most people can't accurately measure them
unaided. Furthermore, extended arm doesn't mean arm stiff, elbow locked;
if the point is on and the arm is signifigantly forward, it is extended.
If there is still forward motion in the arm, it is extending. If it is
extending, it can be easily taken, disrupted, countered, etc. If it is
extended, it is a threat.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Aaron Chusid]

>I'm more curious now, because if the principle of "as if they were sharp"
>were to be followed, would one really want to try this? Because, by
>countering into the "action" from the first fencer, you have one of three
>scenarios; A) to get hit and not hit your opponent, B) both you and your
>opponent hit each other and C) to hit your opponent and not get hit. Given
>two of those three actions are outcomes to be avoided, why execute a stop
>hit in this scenario, even if you think you can accelerate fast enough?
>

Well, let's ask again, what are the specifics? If A's point is already on,
and the "extension" merely consists of the arm straightening and the point
moving farther forward, B needs to treat it as a threat. If, however, the
"extension" means the point is not fully on-target yet, and the sword is
out of line, B is being perfectly sensible to stop thrust, counter, take
the blade, etc., because B will have a much shorter distance to move the
blade to complete the action than will A (especially if B retreats, passato
sotto, reverse lunges, etc.). If "extension" means the point is on, but
the hand is out of position, there is still a strong opportunity to foil
the attack because my tip can react much more quickly than your forearm,
and I don't need to beat your tip's speed in this case if I can beat your
arm's. You will get your hand into position and, in the process, put my
point into your forearm. It's quite possible adrenaline will be enough to
continue the attack, but I still got a solid hit, made a sensible action,
and will probably be retreating like hell (and closing out the line if
possible) as soon as I hit.

>It seems to me, to treat an extending arm as an attack is better, because
>it is a threat (it stands the real possibility of striking and injuring
>you) -- and hence why it was changed in the modern rules.

But the change went too far. It's been admitted on both sides that lunging
with unextended arm is foolish; you are talking about such a small
difference (the 90% extension/10% lunge overlap) that to practice it is
silly; it'll come. Much better to practice, teach, and think extend first
so that you don't do such foolish things. Remember that rule one is not
get hit; hit your opponent is a far distant rule two.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Brian D. Schenck]

--- Aaron Chusid <aaron@to-the-point.org> wrote:
> Well, let's ask again, what are the specifics? If A's point is already on,
> and the "extension" merely consists of the arm straightening and the point
> moving farther forward, B needs to treat it as a threat. If, however, the
> "extension" means the point is not fully on-target yet, and the sword is
> out of line, B is being perfectly sensible to stop thrust, counter, take
> the blade, etc., because B will have a much shorter distance to move the
> blade to complete the action than will A (especially if B retreats, passato
> sotto, reverse lunges, etc.). If "extension" means the point is on, but
> the hand is out of position, there is still a strong opportunity to foil
> the attack because my tip can react much more quickly than your forearm,
> and I don't need to beat your tip's speed in this case if I can beat your
> arm's. You will get your hand into position and, in the process, put my
> point into your forearm. It's quite possible adrenaline will be enough to
> continue the attack, but I still got a solid hit, made a sensible action,
> and will probably be retreating like hell (and closing out the line if
> possible) as soon as I hit.
>
As I understand it, if I am extending, I should be threatening target (no
points towards the ceiling or the floor, or out into thin air). Of course,
there are complications with whether it is direct or indirect, but I would
think that there is no question about whether my point is on target or not. If
I'm not on target with it, I would not be threatening, and therefore not
attacking. Correct?

I agree, there are numerous scenarios where a counter is appropriate -- a
counter-attack with strong opposition (to move the opponent's blade off target)
works very well. As does a counter-attack into an opening presented by the
opponent during his attack. Or, if it is made in time against a compound
attack. Certainly, these are all valid and plausible scenarios. But still,
there are one of three outcomes presented here -- either I am hit, and my
opponent is not; I am hit and so is my opponent, or I hit my opponent and am
not hit. I think I risk an awful lot by countering into an action made by my
opponent -- even when an extending, not extended, arm.


> But the change went too far. It's been admitted on both sides that lunging
> with unextended arm is foolish; you are talking about such a small
> difference (the 90% extension/10% lunge overlap) that to practice it is
> silly; it'll come. Much better to practice, teach, and think extend first
> so that you don't do such foolish things. Remember that rule one is not
> get hit; hit your opponent is a far distant rule two.
>
Well, again, if the extension (whether extended or extending) comes first
(which is how the attack is still defined in the USFA/FIE rulebook), it should
always precede the launching of the lunge (or fleche). No, what I am most
concerned about is the fine distinction made between extending and extended --
if, as you say, rule one is not to get hit by your opponent, and rule two is
hitting your opponent (defense versus offense), then would it not be a more
appropriate action to treat an extending arm as a threat, and therefore, an
attack? And that one would want to either parry or avoid the extending motion,
in order to launch a counter action when it was appropriate to do so (i.e.,
when you will not get hit)?

What I am seeking to understanding is this philosophical aspect of classical
and modern fencing -- in classical fencing, the proper attack is with the arm
extended. And I can see very valid reasons for it. But, even if one's arm is
extending, one risks a lot to have the arm extended into it, if your own
extension started after your opponent's. So, it would be better, IMO, to treat
the extension made by the opponent as an attack, because of the notion that you
may not finish your extension in time to be extended before your opponent is
extended. Therefore, the proper action would be to parry and riposte, even if
the arm is extending.


-Brian

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Jeff Savit]

Hi all,

Brian explains my point of view very well - thanks, Brian!

Foil explicitly is not a "weapon" intended for real duels with blood. It is a
"conventional" weapon, including in CF, with conventions that define proper
actions, and an abstraction called ROW that rewards proper actions. When I want
to fence a weapon that requires literally not being hit, as opposed to not being
hit in the context of ROW, I fence epee.

In fact, my point in starting this thread was (besides trying to get a little
conversation going) was to show why the FIE rules are legitemate when they say
"extending" instead of "extended", which some authors have vehemently denied in
sources I've quoted previously.

Aaron makes these points:
>Furthermore, extended arm doesn't mean arm stiff, elbow locked;
>if the point is on and the arm is signifigantly forward, it is extended.
>If there is still forward motion in the arm, it is extending. If it is
>extending, it can be easily taken, disrupted, countered, etc. If it is
>extended, it is a threat.

I am certainly talking about "significantly forward", but with "still forward
motion", so you could sweep the whole thing under the rug and say (by Aaron's
first clause) that it's extended anyway in the examples I've provided. I have no
argument with that... ;-) And, I certainly do mean an advancing blade that can
be taken as Aaron describes. I explicitly do NOT mean what unfortunately happens
in too many SF situations: a bent arm with the point not threatening target.

Aaron makes these points:
>you are talking about such a small difference (the 90% extension/10% lunge
>overlap) that to practice it is silly; it'll come.

I endorse Brian's comments following this - and we are talking about a fine
distinction. That's a good thing.

Some people, like Aladar Kogler, feel that it's worth teaching this to fencers
at the right level. It gives a perceptible speed up to the attack. It's not for
everyone or every situation, but it's useful.

regards everybody, Jeff


--
Jeff Savit


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Robert L. Browning II]

I've been thinking about this "extended vs. extending" argument for some
time, and don't think that extending is a good idea for several reasons,
which follow:

- Extending during the lunge increases the number of moving parts,
increasing the likelihood of missing (cet. par.) the intended target.

- Were the weapons sharp, extending during the lunge means the point
penetrates the target through a little less body weight and quite a bit more
tricep contraction. The extending lunge gives the protected target a
marginally better chance of surviving the attack, because the point didn't
penetrate. Note that this would apply to the epee as well.

- The extended blade provides maximum protection by putting the maximum
distance between YOUR point (something an adversary must avoid or move) and
YOUR valid target (or your hide, in the case of sharps). An adversary
attacking with a bent arm, or even an extending arm will impale themselves
upon the extended arm in the case of simultaneous attacks.

- The whole problem with accepting an extending a blade in SF is directors,
especially if they call themselves "referees" (sheesh), are becoming less
effective at distinguishing the difference between the extending attack and
a faulty attack. I'm just not convinced anyone can consistently determine
who was extending first. Since fencing time is relative, why should the
director grant priority to the first person who performs the smallest
portion of a simple attack and may not get the time (esp. in the case of a
stop hit) to finish it? The director is assuming the attacker WOULD HAVE
CORRECTLY FINISHED the attack were it not interrupted, which by the
frequency of bent arm attacks in SF, is a pretty big reach.

Now, none of this isn't anything we don't already know, but consider this:

- Attacking with an extending arm limits your own ability to do feints.
Feints are typically taught by simulating a simple attack, which means one
places the blade in line with some body language to convince the adversary
to react as if it were a real attack. The last thing one would want on the
strip is for the adversary to know whether your next action is an attack
(executed with an extending arm) or a feint (noted by the extended arm).

Now I do see some people who disengage mid-lunge, but I've never seen anyone
perform more than one action mid-lunge.

Thoughts?

Robert L. Browning II
browning5800@comcast.net



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Brian D. Schenck]

Well, firstly, the original question was regarding why an Extended Arm was
treated as an attack versus an Extending Arm -- that is, why was there this
distinction made, and what was the impact on it, when you had Fencer A begin
their extension and Fencer B extending into it, with the objective of having
the Extended Arm before Fencer A, and therefore having the attack. What you
are bringing up is a new discussion, though still an interesting one.


--- "Robert L. Browning II" <browning5800@comcast.net> wrote:
> I've been thinking about this "extended vs. extending" argument for some
> time, and don't think that extending is a good idea for several reasons,
> which follow:
>
> - Extending during the lunge increases the number of moving parts,
> increasing the likelihood of missing (cet. par.) the intended target.
>
Agreed. One has much more control over the blade and point if there are less
"parts" moving. It is difficult to keep the point on target if you are using
not only your fingers, but also your arm, and executing the lunge at the same
time.


> - The extended blade provides maximum protection by putting the maximum
> distance between YOUR point (something an adversary must avoid or move) and
> YOUR valid target (or your hide, in the case of sharps). An adversary
> attacking with a bent arm, or even an extending arm will impale themselves
> upon the extended arm in the case of simultaneous attacks.
>
Agreed. I've always been taught in epee that if you have a bent arm during the
attack, you are exposing a considerable amount of target to your opponent. And
I also agree that you invite the counter with a bent arm as well. But, again,
the basic premise is -- is the extending arm still a threat or an attack?
Regardless of whether one can counter into it or not, wouldn't one want to
consider defensive options against it, if only because one could be injured or
killed by someone using an extending versus extended, arm.


> - The whole problem with accepting an extending a blade in SF is directors,
> especially if they call themselves "referees" (sheesh), are becoming less
> effective at distinguishing the difference between the extending attack and
> a faulty attack. I'm just not convinced anyone can consistently determine
> who was extending first. Since fencing time is relative, why should the
> director grant priority to the first person who performs the smallest
> portion of a simple attack and may not get the time (esp. in the case of a
> stop hit) to finish it? The director is assuming the attacker WOULD HAVE
> CORRECTLY FINISHED the attack were it not interrupted, which by the
> frequency of bent arm attacks in SF, is a pretty big reach.
>
Agreed. I've said as much myself, that the skill of directing (or refereeing)
is as much a skill as fencing itself -- and too few people are very skilled at
it, or even take the time to become skilled at it. And, unfortunately, this as
much breeds into modern fencing the very incorrect actions that, by the rules,
should not be called. And, as a result, these incorrect actions become
accepted and called valid.


> Now, none of this isn't anything we don't already know, but consider this:
>
> - Attacking with an extending arm limits your own ability to do feints.
> Feints are typically taught by simulating a simple attack, which means one
> places the blade in line with some body language to convince the adversary
> to react as if it were a real attack. The last thing one would want on the
> strip is for the adversary to know whether your next action is an attack
> (executed with an extending arm) or a feint (noted by the extended arm).
>
> Now I do see some people who disengage mid-lunge, but I've never seen anyone
> perform more than one action mid-lunge.
>
Well, there's two things there to consider. Firstly, is the question of
whether the extending arm should be treated as an attack (or, is it a threat).
If this question is no, then rightly no one would do what you described -- it's
very difficult, with the extended arm, to perform disengages after a certain
point in the lunge. If disengages should be done with the tip around the
blade, after a certain point the tip cannot disengage around the blade, as the
tip would now have to travel around the arm (a much longer path, which takes
more time).

Now, if we treat the extending arm as an attack, then one can perform one or
two more disengages -- remembering that if too many are executed, it becomes a
compound action, and susceptible to the simple counter-offensive action. So,
even in modern fencing, it is inadvisable to commit too many actions during (or
in preparation of) the attack -- because each action, rightly, changes it from
simple to compound.


-Brian

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Jeffrey Savit]

Hi Robert,

Reasonable points, however:

> Extending during the lunge increases the number of moving parts, increasing the likelihood of missing (cet. par.) the intended target.

That's why this is not for everyone, in particular, not for beginners. I've seen this taught by internationally known maestros to high-level competitors who have more control over their motion.

>- Were the weapons sharp, extending during the lunge means the point penetrates the target through a little less body weight and quite a bit more tricep contraction.

I don't see why: at the end of the lunge, the arm is extended in either case. Even if not, you would add the velocity of the arm to the velocity of the feet and get a faster impact velocity if still extending. It feels more like being punched than the other way. In either case you get the job done and draw blood: neither foil nor epee require that the target be hit hard.

>- The extended blade provides maximum protection by putting the maximum distance between YOUR point (something an adversary must avoid or move) and
YOUR valid target (or your hide, in the case of sharps). An adversary attacking with a bent arm, or even an extending arm will impale themselves
upon the extended arm in the case of simultaneous attacks.

I repeat my point that foil is a "conventional" weapon, judging double hits via ROW. A foilist who extends into an extending arm has committed suicide and should be punished by ROW. Remember, he has to start extending after the original fencer has started extending - he is reacting to an offensive action by sticking his point out. I specifically excluded bent arm attacks because, by our conventions, it is not a threat. The issue of the bent arm is irrelevant to this discussion.

>The whole problem with accepting an extending a blade in SF is directors, especially if they call themselves "referees" (sheesh),

I agree with the "sheesh". I prefer "directors" to refs.

> I'm just not convinced anyone can consistently determine who was extending first.

I consider that the absolute benchmark of a competent director (and they do exist). If they can't do that, they can't do anything right. Also, it's far easier to detect the forward motion of the arm than detect the moment in time when the arm is fully extended while watching two fencers in motion. Seeing an angle (two angles!) is a lot harder than seeing forward motion and straightening of the arm.

> Since fencing time is relative, why should the
director grant priority to the first person who performs the smallest portion of a simple attack and may not get the time (esp. in the case of a stop hit) to finish it? The director is assuming the attacker WOULD HAVE CORRECTLY FINISHED the attack were it not interrupted

Because, for that moment in time, that's the fencer who has seized ROW. It's not permanent, and as you point out, you can lose ROW via mistakes or via actions by your opponent. But the initial owner of the ROW is the fencer who starts the offensive action.

>frequency of bent arm attacks in SF,...

.... is high because too many directors tolerate it (which I find intolerable). It has nothing to do with an attack with an extending arm. They are separate animals.

>Attacking with an extending arm limits your own ability to do feints ... an attack (executed with an extending arm) or a feint (noted by the extended arm) ... Now I do see some people who disengage mid-lunge, but I've never seen anyone
perform more than one action mid-lunge.

Harder to do, but quite doable by higher level fencers, which is why this is not suitable for beginners, as I've said, and probably why most texts on teaching fencing insist on "extend, then lunge". If somebody's doing a compound attack with multiple feints, they're probably not going to start to lunge on the first feint for the reason you mention.

regards, Jeff

Jeff Savit


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Aaron Chusid]

>>- Were the weapons sharp, extending during the lunge means the point
>penetrates the target through a little less body weight and quite a bit more
>tricep contraction.
>
>I don't see why: at the end of the lunge, the arm is extended in either
>case. Even if not, you would add the velocity of the arm to the velocity of
>the feet and get a faster impact velocity if still extending. It feels more
>like being punched than the other way. In either case you get the job done
>and draw blood: neither foil nor epee require that the target be hit hard.
>

Full extension on impact means your body weight and momentum push the tip
into your opponent; with a non-straight arm, some force is added through
pushing with the arm, but some is lost because the force of impact will try
to force more bend into the arm.


>I repeat my point that foil is a "conventional" weapon, judging double hits
>via ROW. A foilist who extends into an extending arm has committed suicide
>and should be punished by ROW. Remember, he has to start extending after the
>original fencer has started extending - he is reacting to an offensive
>action by sticking his point out. I specifically excluded bent arm attacks
>because, by our conventions, it is not a threat. The issue of the bent arm
>is irrelevant to this discussion.
>

But one of the conventions of the weapon is that EXTENDED is better than
EXTENDING, for exactly the reasons specified. Also remember that I don't
need to beat you to the extension, I just need to extend in such a way that
I close out the line, oppose into your blade, or slip in a bind. The force
of your lunge will then trap your sword, and my attack hits easily. This
is what you should be afraid of when you lunge without full extension.

I still think you're talking about a ridiculously small period of time;
being told that your lunge can start before your arm is fully extended.
This is obviously true, but the actions should be happening at such speed
that your opponent cannot tell (or a director on the side) that one clearly
started before the other clearly ended. If your opponent CAN perceive
this, you have made an error.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Aaron Chusid]

>As I understand it, if I am extending, I should be threatening target (no
>points towards the ceiling or the floor, or out into thin air). Of course,
>there are complications with whether it is direct or indirect, but I would
>think that there is no question about whether my point is on target or
not. If
>I'm not on target with it, I would not be threatening, and therefore not
>attacking. Correct?
>

Correct.

>I agree, there are numerous scenarios where a counter is appropriate -- a
>counter-attack with strong opposition (to move the opponent's blade off
target)
>works very well. As does a counter-attack into an opening presented by the
>opponent during his attack. Or, if it is made in time against a compound
>attack. Certainly, these are all valid and plausible scenarios. But still,
>there are one of three outcomes presented here -- either I am hit, and my
>opponent is not; I am hit and so is my opponent, or I hit my opponent and am
>not hit. I think I risk an awful lot by countering into an action made by my
>opponent -- even when an extending, not extended, arm.
>

Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because it is one of three
options means it will happen 33% of the time. In any given fencing
actions, the result is either I hit, you hit, we both hit, we both miss,
but some situations are much more likely to produce one result over the others.

>Well, again, if the extension (whether extended or extending) comes first
>(which is how the attack is still defined in the USFA/FIE rulebook), it should
>always precede the launching of the lunge (or fleche). No, what I am most
>concerned about is the fine distinction made between extending and extended --
>if, as you say, rule one is not to get hit by your opponent, and rule two is
>hitting your opponent (defense versus offense), then would it not be a more
>appropriate action to treat an extending arm as a threat, and therefore, an
>attack? And that one would want to either parry or avoid the extending
motion,
>in order to launch a counter action when it was appropriate to do so (i.e.,
>when you will not get hit)?
>

It demands a response, yes. My concern is not for the defender's safety in
this case (obviously you must react some way); my concern is that one of my
students is lunging with extending arm and about to get skewered for it.
Lunging so that the arm is *noticably* not fully extended invites the
counter, plain and simple.

>What I am seeking to understanding is this philosophical aspect of classical
>and modern fencing -- in classical fencing, the proper attack is with the arm
>extended. And I can see very valid reasons for it. But, even if one's arm is
>extending, one risks a lot to have the arm extended into it, if your own
>extension started after your opponent's. So, it would be better, IMO, to
treat
>the extension made by the opponent as an attack, because of the notion
that you
>may not finish your extension in time to be extended before your opponent is
>extended. Therefore, the proper action would be to parry and riposte, even if
>the arm is extending.

Do you understand the difference between one tempo and two tempo defense?
Parry-riposte is two tempo; stop hits are one tempo. Either way I'll
defend, but in the situation you are advocating my defense will also drive
a point into your lungs.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Mike]

If I may add my observations and opinions peacefully -


> - Extending during the lunge increases the number of moving parts,
> increasing the likelihood of missing (cet. par.) the intended target.
>

I agree fully as I prove to my students at every chance against stationary
dime-size targets. But, against moving targets of larger size I find that a
little extra flexibility in the weapon's trajectory helps plant the final
touch with adaptability.

> - Were the weapons sharp, extending during the lunge means the point
> penetrates the target through a little less body weight and quite a bit
more
> tricep contraction. The extending lunge gives the protected target a
> marginally better chance of surviving the attack, because the point didn't
> penetrate. Note that this would apply to the epee as well.

In a properly exacuted lunge, extended or extending, the hand should land
the
point with straight arm a hairbreadth before the front foot lands.

>
> - The extended blade provides maximum protection by putting the maximum
> distance between YOUR point (something an adversary must avoid or move)
and
> YOUR valid target (or your hide, in the case of sharps). An adversary
> attacking with a bent arm, or even an extending arm will impale themselves
> upon the extended arm in the case of simultaneous attacks.

If 'fencer A' has an extended arm before the lunge, and both were to lunge
simultaneously, it would hopefully be seen by 'fencer B' before his lunge
was started due to the extending arm of 'fencer A' or 'fencer B' would be
counter-attacking and be about crashing into 'fencer A' who started at lunge
distance. If at simple lunge distance , simultaneously 'fencer A' starts
extending to get the straight arm before the lunge and 'fencer B' starts
forward motion as he extends the arm in his(her) lunge, I believe 'fencer A'
will hit with a straighter arm than 'fencer B' but at the same instant in
time visually
to a Director. As a spectator I would say 'fencer A' scored against 'B's
preperation for a stop hit in a bout , or that both died in sharps.

> - Attacking with an extending arm limits your own ability to do feints.
> Feints are typically taught by simulating a simple attack, which means one
> places the blade in line with some body language to convince the adversary
> to react as if it were a real attack. The last thing one would want on
the
> strip is for the adversary to know whether your next action is an attack
> (executed with an extending arm) or a feint (noted by the extended arm).
>
> Now I do see some people who disengage mid-lunge, but I've never seen
anyone
> perform more than one action mid-lunge.

I practice 2-3 blade actions in the lunge, and am quite successful. And I
have been hit too often by 1-2's and double's in a fast oncoming lunge. My
feet don't always do as told to retreat and I just don't get the multiple
parries fast enough. Yes, the first feint is with extending arm with at
least 1/2 to 2/3 extention before the foot moves. The next feint as the arm
straightens, and final blade action with a straight arm to the hit.

Hope I'm not too long winded.
Mike Anson



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Jeffrey Savit]

Hi Aaron, Mike:

Aaron said:
>Full extension on impact means your body weight and momentum push the tip into your opponent; with a non-straight arm, some force is added through
pushing with the arm, but some is lost because the force of impact will try to force more bend into the arm.

But, as I think I've said, the attacker IS extended at the moment he hits (Mike Anson reiterates this). In any case, this has nothing to do with ROW, which is what I started the thread with. And, the objective of fencing is NOT to hit hard.

>But one of the conventions of the weapon is that EXTENDED is better than EXTENDING, for exactly the reasons specified.

The FIE rules on ROW make no such distinction of "better". Other systems do, I suppose. I'm discussing the rationale for the FIE case.

>An adversary attacking with a bent arm, or even an extending arm will impale themselves upon the extended arm in the case of simultaneous attacks.

Bent arm we here all agree on; extending arm means the other guy started extending *later* and therefore is the one who is impaling himself.

>I don't need to beat you to the extension, I just need to extend in such a way that I close out the line, oppose into your blade, or slip in a bind.

If you manage to oppose the attack and prevent it from landing, then obviously all questions about who acquired ROW are moot. That's not the scenario I describe and is irrelevant with respect to the discussion. In that case the action is called something like "attack from my left, closed out via opposition from my right. touch right". Initial ROW from left, but taken away by the blade action.

By the way, I'll make the counter argument that it's far easier to do blade takings against people who are fully extended, especially if they've locked their elbows. It's almost the only people worth doing binds against. I enjoy meeting that situation! :-)

>I still think you're talking about a ridiculously small period of time

Small perhaps, but suitable for gaining advantage in the attack. Small differences win touches. That's why this is taught.

>my concern is that one of my students is lunging with extending arm and about to get skewered for it.
Lunging so that the arm is *noticably* not fully extended invites the counter, plain and simple.

Here there is a fundamental disagreement. If you are extending your lethal point at my chest, I definitely should be preparing to defend myself rather than make a counter attack during the (as you point out) "ridiculously small period of time" between your "extending" and "extended" states.

For entry level fencers I agree that enforcing a strong notion of extension followed by lunge is very important.

I totally concur with Mike's Anson's comments.

I'll add that the last few posts have moved the conversation from "what is valid ROW" to "what is sensible to do". I'm fine with that: differences make interesting fencing, and we all have the opportunity to test what we think is the "best system" on the strip. I know that this is a CF list, but be aware that I've seen maestros teach this to international competitors for over 20 years. That small period of time really matters at high levels.

By the way: if we all agreed on everything, it would be pretty boring, both on-line and on-strip. For fun, read Nadi's comments in "On Fencing" on innovation hated by traditional fencing masters, and his advocacy of non-standard practice like raising the rear heel, and sliding during the lunge. (I'll get the page numbers if anyones asks). So, this is a conflict that well precedes the modern SF era.

Happy fencing all,
Jeff Savit


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Jeffrey Savit]

Hi Aaron, Mike:

Aaron said:
>Full extension on impact means your body weight and momentum push the tip into your opponent; with a non-straight arm, some force is added through
pushing with the arm, but some is lost because the force of impact will try to force more bend into the arm.

But, as I think I've said, the attacker IS extended at the moment he hits (Mike Anson reiterates this). In any case, this has nothing to do with ROW, which is what I started the thread with. And, the objective of fencing is NOT to hit hard.

>But one of the conventions of the weapon is that EXTENDED is better than EXTENDING, for exactly the reasons specified.

The FIE rules on ROW make no such distinction of "better". Other systems do, I suppose. I'm discussing the rationale for the FIE case.

>An adversary attacking with a bent arm, or even an extending arm will impale themselves upon the extended arm in the case of simultaneous attacks.

Bent arm we here all agree on; extending arm means the other guy started extending *later* and therefore is the one who is impaling himself.

>I don't need to beat you to the extension, I just need to extend in such a way that I close out the line, oppose into your blade, or slip in a bind.

If you manage to oppose the attack and prevent it from landing, then obviously all questions about who acquired ROW are moot. That's not the scenario I describe and is irrelevant with respect to the discussion. In that case the action is called something like "attack from my left, closed out via opposition from my right. touch right". Initial ROW from left, but taken away by the blade action.

By the way, I'll make the counter argument that it's far easier to do blade takings against people who are fully extended, especially if they've locked their elbows. It's almost the only people worth doing binds against. I enjoy meeting that situation! :-)

>I still think you're talking about a ridiculously small period of time

Small perhaps, but suitable for gaining advantage in the attack. Small differences win touches. That's why this is taught.

>my concern is that one of my students is lunging with extending arm and about to get skewered for it.
Lunging so that the arm is *noticably* not fully extended invites the counter, plain and simple.

Here there is a fundamental disagreement. If you are extending your lethal point at my chest, I definitely should be preparing to defend myself rather than make a counter attack during the (as you point out) "ridiculously small period of time" between your "extending" and "extended" states.

For entry level fencers I agree that enforcing a strong notion of extension followed by lunge is very important.

I totally concur with Mike's Anson's comments.

I'll add that the last few posts have moved the conversation from "what is valid ROW" to "what is sensible to do". I'm fine with that: differences make interesting fencing, and we all have the opportunity to test what we think is the "best system" on the strip. I know that this is a CF list, but be aware that I've seen maestros teach this to international competitors for over 20 years. That small period of time really matters at high levels.

By the way: if we all agreed on everything, it would be pretty boring, both on-line and on-strip. For fun, read Nadi's comments in "On Fencing" on innovation hated by traditional fencing masters, and his advocacy of non-standard practice like raising the rear heel, and sliding during the lunge. (I'll get the page numbers if anyones asks). So, this is a conflict that well precedes the modern SF era.

Happy fencing all,
Jeff Savit

Jeff Savit, Sun Microsystems
jeff.savit@sun.com
Tel: 201/498-8306


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Aaron Chusid]

>If you manage to oppose the attack and prevent it from landing, then
>obviously all questions about who acquired ROW are moot. That's not the
>scenario I describe and is irrelevant with respect to the discussion. In
>that case the action is called something like "attack from my left, closed
>out via opposition from my right. touch right". Initial ROW from left, but
>taken away by the blade action.
>
>By the way, I'll make the counter argument that it's far easier to do blade
>takings against people who are fully extended, especially if they've locked
>their elbows. It's almost the only people worth doing binds against. I
>enjoy meeting that situation! :-)
>

After thinking about this all a great deal while sitting in my armchair, I
decided to go do the only sensible thing; go get a friend and stab him a
few times. Let me distinguish three types of actions:

1. Moving forward while extending; this is essentially the bent arm
attack, and, as we have all agreed, a Very Bad Thing.

2. Extending fully then beginning forward motion; this is, also by popular
consent, the Classical View and the best thing to teach beginners.

3. An overlap of the last 10% of the extension and the first 10% of the
lunge; this is, I believe, what you are discussing, Jeff? Whatever those
numbers may be, the extension starts, and the lunge begins before extension
reaches completion.

Based on these distinctions, I will put forth two ideas:

1. #3 is a desirable state because it increases speed, but it is a
difficult thing to teach, and also, in my experience, comes naturally over
time and practice.
2. If your opponent can perceive that your lunge begins before the
extension completes (a measure that changes drastically based on your
opponent), then #3 essentially becomes #1.

This second point is why I am concerned. If you are merely talking about
the first point, then yes, good, and fine. But I'll never teach it as more
than a mention in my classes, because I believe my students will gain more
from deliberately completing their extension first than by deliberately
shaving time off their attack, and I also believe they'll start doing this
naturally in time.

I do not believe my point about binding the attacking blade is irrelevant;
you asked "what's wrong with this?" and I answered, "It's more likely to
draw this response." If the attacker is doing #3 from above, then yes he
should and does gain ROW, but if he's not very careful in doing it, he gets
bound and poked. Secondly, it is not more easy to bind someone who is
fully extended; it is more easy to bind someone who has stiffened their
arm, which is what you describe. A fully extended, loose, relaxed arm (one
of the difficult concepts to pick up) is much harder to bind than an
extending arm, because the extending arm does part of the bind for you,
once you catch the tip.

On a completely different note, I would like to remark on and thank
everyone for their courtesey in this discussion; after all, what has the
world come to if you can't be polite to the people you're trying to stab?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Brian D. Schenck]

--- Aaron Chusid <aaron@to-the-point.org> wrote:
> Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because it is one of three
> options means it will happen 33% of the time. In any given fencing
> actions, the result is either I hit, you hit, we both hit, we both miss,
> but some situations are much more likely to produce one result over the
> others.
>
I do not believe that, at any point, I attached a quantitative assessment of
any likelihood of any one of those scenarios happening more than any one or the
other. I do not believe that anyone could, actually, attempt to attach such an
assessment. However, my point remains, those are the three possible outcomes
of such a scenario -- the question is, why would one not treat it as a threat?


> It demands a response, yes. My concern is not for the defender's safety in
> this case (obviously you must react some way); my concern is that one of my
> students is lunging with extending arm and about to get skewered for it.
> Lunging so that the arm is *noticably* not fully extended invites the
> counter, plain and simple.
>
So, it is then a question of form only? That is, because it is more
appropriate to have the arm fully extended in the attack (as it provides
greater reach and protection during the attack)? Question: wasn't Right-of-way
developed as a primarily defensive technique -- that is emphasising defense
over offense? If so, why teach Right-of-way such that if the attack is not
proper, one should counter into it?


> Do you understand the difference between one tempo and two tempo defense?
> Parry-riposte is two tempo; stop hits are one tempo. Either way I'll
> defend, but in the situation you are advocating my defense will also drive
> a point into your lungs.
>
Oh, I do understand the difference -- I do use stop hits myself. However, if
the person is extending (and we aren't talking the "marginal" extension of some
modern fencers, where their arm is no more than 40% to 60% extended -- I'm
referring to those who, as Jeff says, are approximately 80% to 95% extended),
do they not also stand the chance of driving their point through your lung?


-Brian

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Brian D. Schenck]

--- "Brian D. Schenck" <bdschenck@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So, it is then a question of form only? That is, because it is more
> appropriate to have the arm fully extended in the attack (as it provides
> greater reach and protection during the attack)? Question: wasn't
> Right-of-way developed as a primarily defensive technique -- that is
> emphasising defense over offense? If so, why teach Right-of-way such that if
> the attack is not proper, one should counter into it?
>
To provide a little further clarification -- I do understand that one would
want to counter into an attack, if they were certain either the attack will
miss (through displacement of the target) or will not land in time. But, in my
mind, this is an example of an "aggressive" defense -- that is, rather than
parry-riposte, one takes advantage of openings in the other person's attack.
This, I agree, is a proper application of sound tactical theory -- if an
opening is presented during the attack, one should consider taking advantage of
it. And it is most certainly an offensive action. But, is it made counter to
a threat?


-Brian

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LId...sNAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/