Absence of the blade...

[o4aversob]

Why do people fence with absence of the blade? I feel limited in tactics when I bout with someone who uses this technique. I don't see the advantages in fencing without your blade in front of you. What weakness is there in employing the absence of the blade. The entire thing is quite puzzling to me.

[labouche]

Well you kinda answered your own question. You asked why people do it as you said that your tactics are limited against people who do. When you leave your blade down your opponent can't make any beat-attack actions. That's why some fencers do it. There are many reasons and it depends on the situation, however, you'll find that when most people do it they are well out of lunge distance because when you leave your blade down it has to travel further for a parry.
-la bouche

[retardedspleen]

in sabre, low line (absence of blade) has A LOT of options from the attacker. If you wanna know some tactics against it, think about it like this, if its just sitten down there are they attacking? when somebody is moving forward and not attacking, what can you do? attack into preperation? when they start their attack, and the blade rises up, you have the option to take a beat attack. Theres always a counter move to everything. Ask your coach how to deal with it. hopefully (s)he will have some good advice.


Chris Triplett

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Sometimes it's just fatigue, where it feels good to let the blade droop for a bit. Most of the sabre fencers I see using it have a couple of things in mind.

Usually, they're trying to trigger an attack, for which they're laying in wait with a parry/riposte. Sometimes, sabrists with a fast hand will make a quick attack in prep from lowline. This tends to work well against an opponent who is not comfortable with low line parries. It does require a director who can see the arm/blade extension clearly.

If you're fencing an opponent with a quick beat attack, it's a way to make them change their game. Often you can see the low level beat coming better, and disengage it for an easy touch.

For sabre, the blade absence leaves the whole target area open, so it might not be the first fencing position of choice for a newer fencer. It is a nice change up in the middle of a match though, if you've practiced with it extensively.

[GGK]

Originally posted by o4aversob
I feel limited in tactics when I bout with someone who uses this technique. I don't see the advantages in fencing without your blade in front of you. What weakness is there in employing the absence of the blade. The entire thing is quite puzzling to me.

So many new fencers feel they need to beat the blade and than hit. Well the blade ain't there. Also new fencers have an under-developed sense of distance. Removing the blade removes a major distance reference for a beginner.

Weakness? Everything is open. If you are in lunge distance you should be unstoppable. And when you draw a parry from them it is ussually a slight semicircle to 3 or 4...most fencers habitually go to one...So you can make then go to a particular position...hmmm?

Of course these are only a few peices of a larger puzzle...maybe it's lazyness, maybe habit, or maybe invitation into a trap.

I agree with Chris, ask your coach.

[onesandzeros]

For me, fencing with absence of blade (in foil) is just another tactic used to confuse a fencer who insists on beat attacks. Or like GGK posted, trick them on distance. You'll be surprised how many people simply walk into that trap where you just raise your arm up and make the touch. Combine that with a check-step and try to outwit your opponent.

In epee, the absence of blade removes a large target area (the forearm) and you put yourself in a good spot to counter to their wrist if they attack your body.

* I am no expert...these are just tactics I have found work for me in the level I fence at.

[Inquartata]

The low-line position ( in sabre ) also places your blade in the best place to make a stop-cut to the bottom of the arm as the opponent comes in.

In effect, the blade, when it's held that low, is in a position which makes watching it difficult for the opponent, especially if you are drawing his attention with body and head feints. Moving to 3 and 4 require mere wrist actions, and even going to 5 is pretty natural---it sweeps up a lot in its travel upward.

I've only started using it in the last year or so, and like it a lot.

[Delmont]

What inq said. I like to use it in sabre. It catches many people off guard and its usually good for 1-3 points when I'm behind. But it is very risky. Hm, I remember a nice lunge to my head...

[whtouche]

Sure (in sabre) absence of blade can be risky, but, personally at least, I think it's safer than advancing with your blade up. It's just too easy to take a beat attack. I fence mostly in absence of blade unless I'm specifically doing something else. That way, if someone tries to counter attack you just bring your hand forward and tag them on the arm, or just make a normal low line attack (which makes up the bulk of my attacks anyways). It's just a natural position for me - and as has been said before here several times - definetly a good tool to have in the box.

[o4aversob]

Absence of the blade seems to be a frequent move in saber, but I was wondering what's its use in foil.

[neevel]

Originally posted by o4aversob
Absence of the blade seems to be a frequent move in saber, but I was wondering what's its use in foil.

Well, as has been noted above, against a less experienced opponent who tends to use the blade as a metric for distance, it removes that tool. Using it to deny someone who make extensive use of blade preparations or prise-de-fer attacks their favored actions has also been mentioned.

It can be a useful postion to initiate feints from, as well. Starting with the blade held away, begin bringing the blade towards the feint position at a slower, measured tempo. The combination of the tempo and the withdrawn initial position will frequently cause opponents to mis-read the immediacy of the threat. Then make a noticeable acceleration as you actually place the feint- this will make it much more noticeable to (and more likely to draw a reaction from) an opponent who has been lulled by the tempo of the initial phase. If the opponent does not react, you're of course ready to make a final tempo change and hit with the feint.

It's a very non-committed position in terms of how you can finish the attack. Depending on where you're holding the blade in absence, you're either already cocked for a flick, or can use the motion of arm forward as the windup for the flick. You can still bring it in for a thrust, though, so your opponent has to worry about defending a broad range lines and target sections. Hit with a flick attack started from absence, you're likely to draw a wide parry the next time you feint from absence, which sets up a straight thrust.

And then there's using absence as an invitation, to set up a parry-riposte.

-Dave

[Rolls]

I always advise someone who is having trouble with absence of blade to ignore it. Treat it like your fencing anyone else. Eventually, if you attack that person, they will have to parry or get hit. When they parry, they are no longer in absence and you can continue as if they had never been.

Rolls.

[jBirch]

Hey All,

Just a further note: in epee it removes the favoured forward target and leaves you primed for toe attacks. The forward target of the person in absence (in epee) then becomes the top of the knee if they keep a lower stance or their toe if they're more upright.

As well, as Inq alluded to, any actions that you initiate against it are more keenly felt by your opponent. If you're having trouble fencing someone who is in absence of blade, feint, feint, then feint some more. You'll see a favoured parry which is usually quite broad (1, c6, 4 or 5), followed by a snappy attack (usually some variant of a flick). Use that knowledge to your advantage. It also helps if you remove your blade as well (so you too are in absence of blade) occasionally, to really hoop up their feel for the distance between you. If you are constantly showing and changing the perceived distance, you'll draw interesting actions that you can work with.

Hope this helps!

[pkt]

Originally posted by o4aversob
Absence of the blade seems to be a frequent move in saber, but I was wondering what's its use in foil.

Go back and read from the beginning. It's abundantly clear you haven't done that since the lesson's been given.

But to give you a concrete example.

In the 1976 Montreal Olympics men's Foil Final between Italy's Fabio dal Zotto and Soviet Union's Alexander Romankov, the former almost fenced the whole bout with his foil close to his front knee, point to the piste - not touching the piste, of course - he'd make feints with his foil or his body, a la Bruce Lee, then he'd fleche and hit.

At the end of the bout Romankov was almost in tears at his inability to do anything about this 19-year-old's tactics...

In my tourney in the Sunday just past, I scored my 1st 2 points in my 1st foil bout in that manner... The kid didn't know what hit him. Alas, I lost the bout but redeemed myself by beating the same kid in DE by a wide margin.

PK

[shmagoogin77]

sound pretty nice

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Wouldn;t the guy just be advancing down the strip in prep, if the point was constantly aimed at the floor? Why not just attack into prep?

[pkt]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
Wouldn't the guy just be advancing down the strip in prep, if the point was constantly aimed at the floor? Why not just attack into prep?

...the advancing fencer can execute a contre-temp, can't he?
Do you think dal Zotto didn't know that?
Do you think dal Zotto's not prepared for that?

It's no different from the tempo of the flick attack these days.

Does any one know what the score was for that bout?

PK

[reposte]

One of the best things that a talented fencer can apply against an absence of blade attack is the PIL. Mind you, you really have to know PIL execution in order to make the best of it.
Another thing I advise against a retreating hand fencer is to focus your eyes of the guard and the forearm of the fencer attacking and not - as many many other do - on the chest of the advancing fencer.
This gives you a much stronger "feel" of the advancing fencer, enabling you to counter or attack into preperation in a much safer way.
Two more things:
Counter attack and block "position" - I don't know how you call it but it's basically an Epee move that's called a "stop hit" - very effective if you can get close enough.
Last thing: Practice with an individual coach a second intention attack into preperation.
The absence of blade is unjustly identified with the Germans, although from the little I've seen - the truely nasty AOB's are the Italians and always have been - see the Dal Zotto remark earlier.
Watch Sanzo and Cassara for more up to date reference.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by reposte

Counter attack and block "position" - I don't know how you call it but it's basically an Epee move that's called a "stop hit" - very effective if you can get close enough.

Closeout.

-B :)

[Joe biebel]

I like to fence with presence of blade and absence of blade. The two compliment each other, nicely. Attacks made with small takes, disengages, thrusts, etc. (with presence of blade) draw a certain type of response, usually pretty controlled. Attacks from absence of blade, ie., point near floor, flesche to high target will usually draw a "severe" response. If you can hit before the parry, fine. The defenders parry attempt is usually pretty predictable and more easily avoided.

Setting defensive traps with absence of blade are fun. You can press your opponents distance with your point hovering just off (any gaping invitation will do) the floor, inviting attack. When the attack comes, you sweep for the blade in the most obvious open sector but with at least one additional parry programmed into your hand for the coming deception. Feels good, looks good when you guess right. There is also the potential for a clever move by your opponent that reverses the advatage and looks real bad. Sort of a "I knew, you knew, I knew you knew, you knew I knew you knew", etc. scenario.

Joe Biebel