Winning by only attacking

[The Bayer Hunter]

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on the possibility of winning in foil by using only aggressive actions and no defensive actions.

It seems to me that in modern foil (with flicks and priority givin for almost any type of attack) this is quite possible.

[veeco]

Well, it's like everything. If you're wondering how the best offence would fare against the best defence, that's not a question that can be answered.

If you're attacking someone whose offence is great and whose defence sucks, then you gain an edge.

On the other side, if you're attacking Mr Parry Riposte, then you're doomed.

I think it's probably better to have a varied game and adapt it to whatever situation you encounter. After all, that's how we human beings have been so successful in the past, isn't it?

[MikeHarm]

Attack, parry riposte, remise, touch for your opponent. You'd be hearing that a lot.

Mike

[thebigriddle]

Ok, my thought on always attacking. Well, I believe that most of one should is attack. This creates dominance and control over the opponent. You have to be very aware of what are you doing and takes a lot of practice to get good at it. I generally don't like to go defensive. I am also very aware of people who try defensive set-up. Defense means to me being very reactionary. You want the opponent to react and respond to you. Being aggresive doesn't mean being fast, but unyielding never quiting. This requires patients. Just remember the biggest part of the game is getting control of the center. There are millions of techniques to do this. But the game is always the same.

[space_cadet]

My thoughts are that is not a good idea. Go to your coach or any fencing coach and ask them the same question.
When you encounter a fencer at your level or better, you will be royally screwed.

------------------
Cadet à Space

[The Bayer Hunter]

Space Cadet, Mike Harm.

I've got to disagree with you guys. I think it is very possible to win using only attacking moves. In modern foil, good flicks can get around any parry (or at least make the opponent make far too big parries to be practical). This leaves only the counter attack to be feared by the attacker. Theoretically, if the attacker is concious of the potentional counterattack, he should have no problem either putting the point on mid-attack or doing a counter time action.
Especially with 95% of judges giving any forward movement right of way, you have to admit that attacking well and very often is a huge advantage.

[MikeHarm]

This seems like the classic Italian and French schools of fencing argument, which will never be solved I think.

Historically they were a very even match for each other.

Mike

[Matt_Bailey]

Mike: Actually, historically, most Italian stylists beat most French stylists in duels.

"Attack, attack, attack" is a refraim echoed by succesful fighters and millitary leaders all over the world. Musashi and Ringeck, Alexander and Patton.

I would add the caveat, that INTELLIGENT attack is the way to go. Attack when you see an opening, or make one, don't attack blindly. Every attack should also be defense (cover your *** while you attack) Even purely "defensive" actions like parry should be thought of in an attacking manner. As Musashi says "No matter what you do, whether you hit, parry, catch and block, you must think of it as an oppurtunity for killing, you must think of carrying it on into attack".

[Christopher J Umbs]

Aw Matt... ya beat me to it. As soon as I saw the heading, my first thought was Italian. The best quote is from Barbasetti

To be convinced of the truth of this statement, one needs but to witness a bout , during which it will be clear that the principal concern of the two contestants is to parry. Yet no one could deny that the parry is not an immediate consequence of the intention not to attack. The parry is, at best, an action of secondary importance provoked by the attack. (...) It is true that in accordance with our conception of fencing the adversary must be forced into a position where he can do no harm; to acomplish this we believe that the attack is the best means of preventing any action on his part. The defense manifesting itself in the parry, as we have stated before, is really nothing more than a simple corrective measure, which, no matter how efficient it may be, remains only a passive factor.
Briefly, our method could be expressed in this one sentence: "The best parry is the blow." Aftern definetly establishing this fundemental principle, it only remains for us to study carefully all the forms of attack which can be recommended and executed against the various defensive tactics."

[MikeHarm]

Sometimes they were beaten, but sometimes the Italian stylists would run into fellows like Lucien Gaudin too. Aldo Nadi didn't do so well against him did he?

Mike

[Matt_Bailey]

Mike: Aldo Nadi doesn't even count for this discussion, being more of a modernist than anything else. We are speaking of duelling. Nadi's duelling record, is less than exemplary to say the least.

(I suppose it would draw immense flames if I said what I really thought of the French school. I suppose I would draw even more flames if I said what I really thought of foyning fence in general. Oh well, such is the price of being an iconoclast.)

[space_cadet]

To The Bayer Hunter,
You seem to be an inexperienced fencer judging by your other posts. I suggest that you take a look at Olympic level fencing. You see that foil and epee fencers use the defensive skills as part of their game.

------------------
Cadet à Space

[This message has been edited by space_cadet (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Matt_Bailey]

.

[This message has been edited by Matt_Bailey (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Christopher J Umbs]

One of the early French writers on the epee was Jean Joseph-Renaud who was completely disgusted with the French school of foil, calling it decadent and one lesson in French foil was enough to cause a duelist to loose the benefit of 10 epee lessons.

For a completely articifial academic game, I like French foil just fine, but I've also studied Italian foil so my personal sytle is a mix anyway.

[space_cadet]

To Matt Bailey,
I intended that remark for The Bayer Hunter since he posted a remark after my remark, not towards your remark. I have edited it to clear things up.

------------------
Cadet à Space

[This message has been edited by space_cadet (edited 03-23-2001).]

[This message has been edited by space_cadet (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Matt_Bailey]

Spacey:

Looks like I'm the idiot. My deepest appologies.

[d8m2k]

Ever watch Ann Marsh, Iris Z. fence?
Although they have many talents, their games are based off very strong attacks.
Cliff just added some basic defense to his game within the last year.
G. Schiel (GER) made the olympic team, and all she does is attack, remise. And she wins.

It is possible to win with attacks, although you may need to change. How much you need to change depends on how good your attack is, and at what level you want to win at.

[DarkTransient]

Great idea! I think the opposite will work just as well! What about winning by defending only? Make no offensive move, and your opponent will eventually drop dead on the stripe due to exhaustion.

[d8m2k]

Originally posted by DarkTransient:
Great idea! I think the opposite will work just as well! What about winning by defending only? Make no offensive move, and your opponent will eventually drop dead on the stripe due to exhaustion.

Or your opponent, who is very strong in attacking, has hit you 15 times and you lose very quickly.

[Matt_Bailey]

"Defense is a way of maneuvering into position for offense. The sword is more important than the shield. And the mind is more important than both. All else is supplemental"

Damn, I wish I could remember who said that.