What is a parry?

[cowpaste]

What is a parry (in foil)?

Is a parry a deflection of a point that would hit me if I didn't deflect the point? ie. Fencer A tries to poke fencer B in the belly. Fencer B use parry-seven to move fencer A's point as it moves towards fencer B. Fencer B can now riposte safely with a straight extension.

Or is a parry merely a beat-attack that occurs specifically right after your oppent's attack falls short? ie. Fencer A tries to poke fencer B in the belly. Fencer B retreats so that fencer A's point falls short. Fencer B then "beats" fencer A's point with a parry-seven, and extends for a riposte as he lunges.

I have done both of the two situations listed above. I find that the first situation is more favorable because the riposte is very fast and a simple extension. However, it is much harder to perform because if you decide to use the wrong parry, you are screwed.

The second situation is nice because it is very safe. Even if you parry incorrectly, you opponent's attack has fallen short, and you won't get hit. Also, it is much easier to see which line your opponent has chosen when you are moving backwards at the same time. This is due to basic physics and relative motion and junk. The down side is that you pretty much *have* to lunge/advance to hit your opponent with a riposte. You have moved out of his extension distance, and therefore he is out of your extension distance.

Please don't be too critical of the second situation. For example, I know someone is probably thinking, "Well, fencer B should have parried as he was retreating." or "Fencer B should have made his parry and riposte into one smooth continuous action as he lunged." etc. Basically I'm just trying to express my newbie idea that maybe ALWAYS RETREAT is not the best idea in certain situations.

So...what do you guys think?

[edew]

A parry is to deflect an attack. If the attacker falls short, you managed to "deflect" it (in a longitudinal way, as opposed to a lateral way, say), so that's the parry. You needn't make the beat attack to get right of way, although making the beat attack isn't necessarily a bad thing. The beat might cause your opponent to react in a way favorable to you, but in most cases, beating the blade in that situation is not a good idea: any time you touch your opponent's blade, your opponent has an idea where your blade is, which means he can take the right of way back by beating your blade.

Always retreat is the best idea in general. Of course, in certain situations, stepping in is the best idea. But if you need to speak in generality, retreating is the best idea.

[cowpaste]

I agree that in general, retreating is a good idea. Also, I see your point on why I shouldn't beat after the retreat. Why beat for ROW when I already have it? The thing is, why learn all those parries if simply retreating is usually the best thing to do?

[achilleus]

Learning fencing is like learning almost anything else. You learn the fundamentals, rules, and conventions. Once you have mastered the rules and fundamentals, you learn how to break them at the appropiate time.


Retreat then parry, and learn all the parries.

[pkt]

Originally posted by cowpaste
I agree that in general, retreating is a good idea. Also, I see your point on why I shouldn't beat after the retreat. Why beat for ROW when I already have it? The thing is, why learn all those parries if simply retreating is usually the best thing to do?

... Most masters teach step back, parry/riposte. It's safer and more visble for the ref as it give you that extra fencing time.

I think the operative words here should be 'need not' not 'Shouldn't'.

In foil, unlike in sabre where an attack ends when the front foot lands, I think most foil refs will still give the attack the RoW if you do not parry the attack as long as the attacker do not withdraw the line.

OTOH, if the attack was a flick attack, that'd be a diff't kettle of fish, a totally diff't call.

Don't you agree, Eric?

PK

[cowpaste]

The "foot" down rule still applies somewhat in foil in my opinion. I believe we recently had a discussion about the foil flèche, where the attack ended after the attacker put his foot down. Personally, if I were direction a bout where the defender merely attacked after the retreat in the situation above, I would give him the attack and the other fencer a remise. Of course, I am no expert, and no two directors are alike, therefore it is probably a good idea to beat that blade anyway. What do ya'll think?

[cowpaste]

Originally posted by achilleus
Retreat then parry, and learn all the parries.

I think you fail to see another point of mine. You can't really "parry" a blade if you have retreated. It now becomes more like a beat-attack....

[edew]

You can parry while retreating. People do that all the time. If your retreats are so big that it's impossible for your opponent to reach you, then he just has to wait you out by advancing slowly and wait until you reach your end line. Then you're going to have to parry. In any case, it's always wise to make the parry while making the retreat.

[edew]

Wrong thread.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by cowpaste
I think you fail to see another point of mine. You can't really "parry" a blade if you have retreated. It now becomes more like a beat-attack....

Incorrect. For example, a single retreat against an adv-lunge will give you extra time to see where the attack is going, and use the proper parry, but may not remove you completely out of distance.

Retreat then parry does not always mean retreat beyond distance.

[cowpaste]

Originally posted by achilleus
Incorrect. For example, a single retreat against an adv-lunge will give you extra time to see where the attack is going, and use the proper parry, but may not remove you completely out of distance.

Retreat then parry does not always mean retreat beyond distance.

If a simple retreat against an advance-lunge does not remove you completely out of distance, then obviously your opponent started that advance-lunge when he was closer than advance-lunge distance. The thing is, most attackers aim beyond their opponents because they know most people will retreat from their attack. In this case, I agree that retreating while you parry is pretty much always a good idea. That way your riposte is a simple extension.

The examples I stated above were for attacks from your opponent that were of perfect distance. In this case, almost any movement backwards will move you out of distance. That would mean the riposte would have to be assisted by a lunge, which makes it slower. I just wanted to know what you guys thought about ripostes that were lunge-attacks. I hope that made sense.

[edew]

You must be joking.

The distance between two fencers is just a perception. You can be twenty inches apart and still be at advance-lunge distance. I think you will agree that your simple retreat from twenty inches away isn't going to get you away from your opponent's advance-lunge.

Ripostes may certainly be made with a lunge. Many people do the riposte with a lunge. I don't understand why you have this fetish with ripostes with a lunge. Done all the time.

Speed is not necessarily an asset in ripostes. A nice slow riposte can be much more effective than just quickly shooting the arm out at the target.

[achilleus]

My intial comment was in response to this post of yours:

Originally posted by cowpaste
I agree that in general, retreating is a good idea. Also, I see your point on why I shouldn't beat after the retreat. Why beat for ROW when I already have it? The thing is, why learn all those parries if simply retreating is usually the best thing to do?

With regards to attack made at 'perfect distance', (I'm not quite sure that's the proper term. 'Perfect distance' for who? Not the attacker if one retreat leaves them short..., but I understand what you mean.) both solutions work, they have different advantages and disadvantges, some of which you mentioned.

One of the top US coaches (Buckie Leach) drills his students to retreat out of distance, letting the attack fall short, and then intiate a riposte/new attack, with or without the blade, and with lunges or adv-lunges.

Personally, I was originally taught that you have 3 lines of defense, in order of priority:

1. Feet
2. Blade
3. Point with displacement of target

The order can change if you fence epee; Defense with point becomes 2.

[pkt]

Originally posted by edew
You must be joking.

...

One can't be more succinct than that!!!

PK

[pkt]

achilleus

I admire Patroclus too.

PK

[NJP3]

Or you can retreat enough that your oponent's attack falls short then extend to and hit him w/o blade contact, and it will still be called: attack parry repost (even if they hold line). Called a distance parry, new rule as of a year or so ago.

[edew]

Please, there's nothing "new" about this rule. It has been applied for many years. An attack that lands short (or long, as in missing the body) ends the attack and the attacker's right of way ends. The defender has the opportunity to gain right of way should he so chooses, but making an offensive action. In that case, any remise by the original attacker is late and does not have right of way.

[NJP3]

oh sorry i was informed that it wasnt always this way. I was told that, untill recently, if fencer A attacked fell short but held point in line then fencer B attacked into it w/o displacing blade, that point in line got the touche. But perhaps i was told incorrectly. Doesnt matter, i like it the current way is best anyway!

[cowpaste]

Why would someone advance-lunge into me from 20 inches away? If I saw someone do that, I would probably just stand there and take it. Then I would win the bout because they broke all their swords!

Okay okay, eveyone wins. I'll retreat when I parry more often (It might be a very small retreat though!).

[edew]

I'm not saying people would want to advance-lunge from 20 inches away. I'm saying that they can, if they want (and not bury the blade into your chest). You apparently think there's only one type of lunge and one type of advance and one type of extension. Fencing is not discrete. It's a continuum.

Indeed, I was fencing this evening and was working on making such attacks. I wasn't 20 inches, but I was certainly close to my opponent. Closer than a long advance-lunge distance. But I got in close, and finished with advance-lunge nonetheless. It's all in the timing, the influence, and perception, and the, well, influence. If it feels like an attack, it's an attack.

The reason we all suggest you retreat is because most decent fencer isn't going to feed you his attack to be parried. He'll tried to get around your parry. If you stand there like a statue, he'll make the feint, you'll attempt to parry it, and he'll disengage around it. If you're standing there, he'll hit you. If you retreat, you live to see another day and get to parry the feinted attack. Maybe he'll feint againt, maybe he'll commit to the attack then. In either case, you either catch the blade, or you retreat once again.

If you stand there, you're dead.