|
| A few notes, not really full ideas or discussion points:
In the middle of the strip, contrast in movement is extremely problematic once the fencers get within distance. It's not unique to the "jump" problem, but I think it's going to get worse before it gets "better".
It actually may benefit someone to train fast counter-attacking just outside of distance, to create the perception that the opponent has made a short attack. I have seen people jump-back and counter attack into the oncoming (one-tempo) offense to create the same perception.
A side note is I was thinking about the idea of teaching timing in terms of:
when to initiate an action, when to abandon an action, when to transition or when to redevelop.
| | |
| I am currently enrolled in a intro to athletic training class which I mention because I learned a few interesting facts today (I am really posing here as a reminder to myself)
1. Your body replaces about 30% of your bone every month. Hence the near 3 month recovery time for a major fracture of bones such as the femur.
2. An ankle sprain is not an injury that prevents participation in sports. I actually knew this in the fact that I fenced a tournament on a severe 2nd degree sprain on my lead ankle. It was actually one of my best performances to date (not best result, but performance...don't forget the difference).
3. Certain bones don't heal on their own if fractured. (navicular bone in the wrist). I was particularly interested in this one considering it could be a career-ending injury (for a fencer).
4. If you isolate or immobilize part of the body (basically stop muscular work because of rehab), you are likely to loose 20-30% of your strength in as little as 3 days. [Question is this % from your 1RM, across any testing protocol, an acute neurological response to inactivity?, etc.]
I am sure that I will be posting more information in this area as I come across it.
| | |
| One of the biggest obstacles in a fencer's growth is the skill level of their regular practice partners and local opponents. The ability to grow as a fencer depends on opponent's responding in predictable ways to certain stimulus.
For example:
If a saber fencer is given a lesson on the second intention action [false counter-attack, parry-ripsote] the biggest hurdle to understanding or comprehending the action (thus being able to apply it)- may not be their own difficulties in mechanical execution, or the tactical understanding to apply the action...it may be that their opponent does not have the prerequisite experience to respond correctly to the false-action- whether that be to respond to the false action, or to respond correctly recognizing it as a false action.
The opponent of the fencer may never give the opportunity for the fencer to practice the skill in a real setting (a setting that is not a drill or lesson) because their response isn't predictable, and thus no repetitions can be made to build successful actions.
In the example above the opponent may:
1. Upon seeing the false-counter-attack, stop their offensive action (be intimidated by the defender's collapse of distance).
2. Upon seeing the false-counter-attack, attempt to parry (perceiving it as a real counter-attack).
3. Not perceive the counter-attack at all (and continue to collapse the distance instead of attack).
4. Not know how to respond- but either continue moving (as above). In other words they know they are being counter-attacked, but don't conceive that finishing an attack as a possibility.
5. Assuming the false-counter attack is executed at the right distance and time, the opponent may not have the experience to recognize the potential for being attacked in preparation (or stop-cut in time), and not finish "on-cue".
Though the experienced fencer is probably already thinking of tactical solutions against each of these weaker opponents it is still difficult- perhaps impossible- to lead the opponent to act within expectations (proverbial horse to water). Again, this fencer already has the experience to execute the original intention/action. Even the fencer most committed to forcing a particular tactical outcome probably doesn't need to practice the repetitions of the action they are forcing.
I've spent a lot of time describing the problem with moving between practice or training, and application in a real setting. The solutions to these problems are many, though not really what I wanted to put down my thoughts about.
I was thinking that the "levels" of a fencer may actually be defined by those cues in experience. As fencers move up in their skill level there tend to be a very homogenous set of fencing behaviors. The belief that "he/she doesn't move/fence/react like a saber/foil/epee fencer" stems from the recognition of those behavior patterns. On the other hand at the same time a fencer does put their own qualities or uniqueness into each movement they make- so no two fencer's attacks are quite the same, etc.
When a fencer is ready to "level" up, the problem they will likely face is that their practice partners will not facilitate the transition because they, themselves do not demonstrate the common behaviors or assumptions of the next level. In fact, the behaviors that a fencer takes for granted, are those that are common at their level, and the ones that they don't see from their peers often are the ones they need to make those jumps.
Fencers on the cusp- who have just gone into another level, are likely to have more problems fencing the group just below themselves than the group just above. I would argue because the opponent's don't behave "how they are supposed to".
I am curious to create a "exam" listing a great number of behaviors that you would expect a fencer to respond to. The exam basically would be an assessment to place a new student in the appropriate group.
Some examples of behaviors taken for granted:
1. Not flinching when an opponent strikes you.
2. Following though on an attack (when counter-attacked)
3. Having an attack parried in the "correct" sector
4. Having an attack parried at the right time
5. The uniformity or disruptive change in distance between fencers.
6. Disengaging or deceiving certain blade actions or attempted blade action.
7. Attacking into certain openings.
8. Not attacking into certain openings.
9. Specific, trained responses (avoiding a toe-touch by reassembly plus counter-attack to the arm).
And so on.
| | |
| I got a lesson from my friend Carolyn this past weekend; I haven't worked with Carolyn in quite some time. A few things I noted taking a lesson:
1.A. The "traditional" method of giving a lesson by cue-response (as opposed to a bouting type lesson, or cueing by fencing action) forces a student to have only one coach...or to be in complete control over their response. C's cue for making a distance-parry and riposte was identical to J's cue for attack in preparation + parry. If the coach has one set of cues for each action, it makes it difficult to adjust when switching coaches. B. A coach who used fencing actions as cues would have the advantage that their student should be able to take a lesson from any other coach (but multiple other coaches may be difficult for the reasons above). The same may not be as true in the reverse order because a student is expecting a set of "cues" rather than responding naturally to actions.
2. Her warm-up actions intend to work on a very specific area of the fencer, such as the front leg, the tip of the blade, etc. Not that this was origional, but she verbalizes what everything is attempting to do, so an action that may not be obvious WHY you are doing it is reavealed to you anyway. I made the assumtion (knowing C) that this was not something she did uniquely for me, but with all her students.
3. A. Some tips in terms of thought process with actions: Parry by positioning the midle of the blade. This thought process is usually better than thinking about movnig the hand into position or the tip into position. B. Catch/stop the cutting motion with the fingers (on impact) rather than with the hand. Doing that process allowed me greater reach, speed, and quickness from the target or position. I am curious to see how that will impact my lessons with J (he is not in conflict there, but I think some troubles I had with some actions he described might be solved with this one). C. "Test" your opponent's reactions on the front foot of the advance. It is not set down (not a half-step) but still driving forward while you test. The test needs to read the defense and make an adjustment while in motion rather than once it is set (and can't make an adjustment). This is similar to Ed's "slow back foot" but it is executed on the front foot. I was thnking at some point a fencer could look both times- the only problem is that the back foot ends up making you behind. This idea was about building stronger offensive actions.
More later... | | |
| A slide where the fencer's back foot/hips are thrown forward are probably a sign of jumping from the back leg. | | |
|
