|
| In this post I thought I might talk about offensive preparations using the blade, specifically, positioning.
On the surface, there might not seem to be a whole lot to talk about, or people may take "positions" for granted. First I will say that my view is that positions are artificial (a tool for teaching) if they are assumed to be static. In my view, positions are dynamic- they bleed together, blur into each other, shift, change, explode, etc. "Positions" are often transient, and not maintained by advanced fencers (or certainly not without purpose). Some fencers change positions (as a preparation) in obvious ways: take Pavel Kolobkov...he fences the stereotypical "Russian Epee" style (see Epee 2.0): constant shifts between 6 and 2, which he makes all of his actions from. This is certainly a change in position, but I am talking about a more subtle use of position(ing) as a preparation.
One classical example is to change positions (lines) or open a line (position) a little wider as an "invitation". These invitations are generally a set-up for a second intention parry-riposte or used to provoke an attack on preparation/counter-attack for a counter-time action. Again, this IS the use of position(ing) as preparation, but let's get to a more subtle level...
Quite a while back, when I was taking lessons with Jacek, he was teaching me to execute a series of actions from a sweep, or sweeps forward. The sweep itself was a preparation, however, it was also misdirection if I used it as I have taught some of my saber students...to hide a change in DEPTH of a hand position.
Depth, I have described in the past, is the distance a hand/guard/part of the weapon is from a fencing target. If your hand is very close to your own target when you parry, you have made a very deep parry. If your tip is very close to your opponent's target before you deceive a parry- it is a DEEP preparation. A preparation that barely penetrates past an opponent's tip is SHALLOW. A shallow parry, therefore is a parry taken far in front of the body (think small-box parry).
When a fencer considers the advantages and disadvantages of any particular variation in position, they can effect the outcome of any action, and increase the chances of success.
Going back to the lesson example, what I was using that particular sweep for, was to hide my OTHER preparation (the real one)- which was a change in position, to hold my blade farther out in front of me. From this position, my blade is at a higher risk for an attack au fer or possible pris de fer (but actions in opposition is saber are uncommon still...perhaps given more time). On the other hand, the advantage I gain is either in a defensive blade interaction, or closer targets for attack-in-preparation or counter-attacks. The change in position was hidden by another (LOUDER) preparation, however the sweeps were not the objective I was trying to achive.
On offense (saber) I taught the same re-positioning of the saber (to a more forward position) in order to get the tip deeper in actions that wanted to attack forward-target (hand) or take the blade. The change in position, allowed less time for the opponent to respond if they recognized the beginning of those actions in time to counter or prevent them. This positioning was made by slowly advancing the weapon after lowering the tip foreward (out of distance and slowly enough to try and avoid the hyper-overcalled "attack short" of late).
A slow adjustment, alowing it to drift in position, can place it in an ideal position to get a head start on an opponent's taregt or blade, without alerting the opponent to the intent.
Another example: back before my coach Alex was gone, he told me that an "Olympic Level" opponent would see through an attempt to trap them by invitation + parry-riposte as a large opening was obvious to them. His conjecture was that a very small opening (perhaps as small as a slight turn in the guard) would be enough for them to see the weakness, but not obvious enough to give it away. I had an opportunity to test this idea in some training bouts I fenced Mariel just before the Olympics in 2008. I can't prove causation, but I did set up 6 actions using an invitation to 3 that involved only a change in my wrist position- before I explain the results, I will explain the preparation a little further:
. On the guard-line before "Fence" occured, I hyperflexed my wrist in the 3rd/guard position (I would consider this a "Hungarian" style guard or more traditional style, as opposed to the "Russian" style guard holding the blade straight forward when on guard). On my first advance (which was an ultra-slow, small "preparation step") I held the position on my front foot, and deliberately let my hand relax to a "Russian" forward guard position as my back foot came forward. My perspective of Ed's coaching is that he focuses a great deal of attention on "open eyes" actions and especially on the second half-tempo of an attack (the "slow back foot" which I believe has been written about in some USFCA articles). If Mariel was watching me closely to determine when to attack/where to attack she would have more attention late on her preparation step (not that she was asleep on that first half tempo, but the only actions that are a threat from the line are too obvious- they require an insane amount of speed). I will argue that Mariel has a tendancy to prefer the flank as target (I, myself believe it is the best target to hit, and especially against opposite-handed fencers...I am righty, she is a lefty), so I was also banking on the fact that if she didn't see the opening, I would gamble on it anyway. As I accelerated on the second tempo (advance-lunge) I made a small, fast, false attack, attempting to draw her out because either she could see that I was in error- OR because she would believe that I was not good enough to escape her reach/timing even if it was a trap- and attack me. I parried 3 on her attack and hit with a direct riposte. After riposting 4 times in a row, I feared that she would have seen through my trap (I second guessed myself, oveestimated her tracking my actions, or made some other guess that gave me no other evidence for). My fourth action was the exact same set-up but I made a rapid compound parry (3-4) assuming she would deceive my parry 3...to which I was cut on the flank...directly, and without hesitation. I feared that I out-maneuvered myself and executed the origional trap in 3 on the next action, successfully. At this point, I changed actions. I am curious now to know how many times I could have pulled that off before she would have made an adjustment...there was after all nothing at stake. I do remember that she had a slightly confused look on her face- I think because she couldn't figure out how the "accident" happened (the accident being that a non Olympic-level fencer could parry her 4 times in a row...or I should say maybe 6 if I hadn't made an error). I am convinced that had I moved my hand into a 4th position or halfway towards 4th, she would have hit me with a compound attack.
On another note, I had once coached my epee fencers to hide a similar change in position (from a "normal" guard position, to a more forward one) by using a beat+step back. Tactically, this preparation was highly misdirected and disguised by using several strong (exploratory) beats followed by an immediate step back (further out of distance). After one or two, the fencer would make the third but change the position of the arm (slight extention) on the retreat. From this foreward position a stop-hit can hit even earlier than from a normal guard position, increasing the chances of a one-light touch, or the possibiliy of adding a safety-parry after the counter-attack arrives.
Positioning is a powerful tool under the umbrella of "preparatory actions". It's importance is underscored, although most fencers likely make adjustments in position without any conscious thought very successfully. | | |
| . In foil and saber, the concept of "right of way" creates a sort of fuzzy logic for who is the "offensive" player (epee is another matter completely, as it could be argued that NO player is the offensive player or BOTH players are the offensive player...it may be moot).
. I have tried to convince my fencers that there is no such thing as "right of way" only priority of the touch (in a double touch situation). This may be a semantic game, but to me it would clear up many misunderstandings about what a referee "sees" or doesn't "see". Try typing the phrase "right of way" into a search of the rulebook...no such phrase. There is a "right of attack", "right to riposte", "right to stop-hit", "right to renew the attack", but what the rules are explaining is that the ACTION that follows, for example, a parry has the right to be called a riposte, a delay of the riposte allows the original attacker a NEW ATTACK (even if convention of explaining the phrase forces the cumbersome 'attack is parried, riposte-no, remise' out of the referee's mouth).
HOWEVER
. "Right of way" is a useful tool for coaches, for fencers, and for this explanation about tactics. IF there was a "right of way" that granted a (n offensive fencer) special properties that allowed them to score (which is how people frequently think about it...remember, plenty of actions that do not have ROW score all the time), the thought process in the fencer's mind is:
1. GET RIGHT OF WAY.
2. THEN attempt to score a touch.
This kind of mentality may be observed in two fencers (think foil) who are momentarily, maneuvering around a location on the strip without really gaining or loosing ground, and both making sweeping actions for the opponent's blade. The first one that finds it begins to develop an offensive action.
. Because of this "turn based" mentality fencers will frequently avoid situations where they were entitled to make an action with priority simply because it wasn't their turn. Now, I am getting far off my intended mark with this tangent, so back to the point.
. There are times when a fencer will make a parry while continuing to break distance (avoiding renewals that occur NOT because of a delay on the part of defense, but because the machine rewards the first hit in all weapons with a narrow margin for response). Once blade contact happens the offensive player will back off of a renewal (mainly for tactical reasons, they got punished too many times by a good defensive player who does not implicate a riposte when in distance, and does not delay appreciably to be late to turn on a light).
. Let's take one more step back a moment. A defender gets attacked an makes a parry. In that instant that they have made blade contact there is a process that was most likely already underway- the decision to make an immediate response (Parry+Riposte, for the sake of this I am arguing it is a defensive action, although the rules define a riposte as offense), or allow the opponent to recover (escaping immediate danger) but then develop an attack of their own. This situation happens quite frequently, especially when the (defending) fencer lacks confidence in their ripostes' success, or worries about the opponent being able to punish them with a one-light remise. The added "safety" of the thought that the defender is entitled to a free shot on the opponent (regardless of how many tempos have occurred after the parry) blinds fencers to the danger of the opponent who is lurking for an action within that time frame just before the return attack begins.
. The binary relationship in "I am attacker, now I am defender, now I am attacker" (and the opponent is the opposite), is a weak position to be in (mentally). I would argue that there are actually three states(attacker, defender, and neutral), and each of these states may be shared to some degree or another. Instead of, I am defender 100%, it may actually be said that I am 0.7 defender, 0.3 neutral. There are situations where both fencers believe that they are the attacker, rather than it being black/white, it is probably more like one fencer is 0.6 attacker but the opponent happened to be 0.8 the attacker.
Those situations where someone believes that they must establish "right of way" are actually neutral positions. I am moving forward against an opponent who is point-in-line. If I beat the blade but do not immediately attempt to thrust home the attack, the beat is a preparation...although I may have the "right to an attack" I have not taken it. this cannot truly be a solid offensive position, but it may be one in development.
Anyway, I can see that at 3am my post is really falling into a sort of stream of consciousness rather than what I wanted to write about actions made in transition (from offense to defense or defense to offense). Have to wait for the next post...
| | |
| In the previous post I was discussing the goals of offensive and defensive preparatory actions. In this post I am going to give some examples of specific preparations and how they might be applied to leverage a relationship that benefits a primary action (such as a direct attack with a lunge, or beat-feint-deceive with a fleche).
Movement based preparations.
The first type of preparation are based on footwork: changes in direction (perhaps more accurately, location), rhythm, tempo, speed, and the size of steps are all necessary tools to create certain relationships between fencers.
First, direction ( location). Classically, the advice to a left handed fencer has been to move to the left side of the strip to afford them certain advantages over a right handed opponent. It is a rare situation where lateral movement has been explored in fencing. However, even in this classical situation this advantage is all but eliminated when the right handed fencer moves to their right, aligning the fencers back to a in-line relationship. The moment the left-handed fencer moves the right-hander moves to match. The only benefit afforded the left-handed fencer in this case is to prevent the opponent from fleching past them because they would have to step off the fencing strip to do so. This does not particularly afford an offensive advantage.
On offense, a preparatory movement that can facilitate simple attacks and compound-attacks (feint-deceive) utilizing a small lateral drift toward either sideline. Lets start by stating that the examples given are going to be for fencers who are both right-handed. The offensive fencer will start by making consecutive, small advances down the middle of the strip. The defensive fencer should be attempting to maintain distance (if they close distance or stand their ground another preparation can be executed to push them back). As the offensive player continues forward they will actually be stepping diagonally so that in a few steps they are by one of the sidelines...in this example let's assume it is to the right sideline. The defensive player is going to feel vulnerable from a very real change in the relationship that opens the inside line to a greater degree. If the attacker is executing a simple attack, the need to close the distance before the opponent attempts to equalize with some lateral movement. If the lateral steps are executed with a surprise change of rhythm or tempo, and the defensive player can be caught off balance, they will be less likely to attempt to move laterally as they attempt to get away. Because the defensive player must make a wider parry to deflect a deep attack to the inside line, this preparation will also facilitate a feint-deceive...the parry will be easier to perceive because it will have to be executed earlier to close the line in time and the defender is also likely to execute the parry with more speed/force, which will make it more difficult to execute a compound parry.
Second, if the defender is out of distance, but is attempting to collapse the distance or hold ground, the offensive player may push them back by taking a few rapid steps followed by an immediate deceleration to open the distance. The defend who is seeking to attack on preparation will be less likely to execute the action so long as the steps are small, and the offensive player never gets within lunge distance of the defender. For reasons that are discussed in "Epee 2.0" a beat may also serve to push someone back in a conventional weapon...but works best at a slow speed and at close distance. A beat may precede an offensive push to discourage an attack on preparation by giving the false impression that the beat is really part of an attaque-au-fer rather than a simple preparation. In either case, successive push-preparations can help herd the opponent to a limit, where they will have a difficult time escaping the actual attack. An offensive push is unlikely to be more than two quick steps, but rarely only a single-step forward. Other than a beat, and especially when out of distance, rapid feints with a withdrawn blade (fanning motion) can discourage an attack on preparation because of the likelihood of an accidental blade contact, which can be perceived as a counter-time parry by the referee, or may actually deflect the blade, allowing a genuine counter-time offense by change of decision (improvisation).
Third, a change in tempo coupled with an explosive change in speed can get the offensive player within striking distance of the opponent before they can normalize their balance and break distance to a safe range. I believe this preparation has been discussed in past posts about offensive actions- i.e. blitz, accelerated attack, "Moorehouse", etc.
I'll continue with other examples in the next post. | | |
| In order to understand how to use preparatory actions on offense, you have to unserstand the gosls for a defensive player. The offensive player has the burden of maintaining the imaginary property of "right of way" while attempting to close the distance to get within reach of the weapon. Offense is allwed only one movement of the weapon, either to execute an attack, or an attack on the weapon. This burden allows the defense some wide lattitude in disrupting an offensive development.
Defensive goals are:
1. Control the distance by first keeping distance, then making adjustments to disrupt the offensive player's momentum
2. Get offense to stop or hesitate by a surprise or sudden collapse in distnace or pressure from a counter-offensive threat
3. Force a missed strike by inviting or provoking the attacker to swing at an inopportune moment
4. Close off lines off attack, or otherwise contol the movements of the opponents weapon through use of positioning and sweeps (attempted blade takes).
Offensive preparations can be thought of as a mirror to counter the goals of defence. Specifically:
1. Movement - the offensive player may have several goals that can be acomplished through footwork alone. First, the offensive player must move close enough to get within striking range. Although the defensive player is going to attempt to keep a safe distance, the limits of the playing field will ultimately force a confrontation. Second, just as the defensive player will make adjustments to the distance, so will the offensive player. Changes in the size, speed and tempo of the steps taken can create a moment where the distance collapses favorably to overrun the opponent, to create moment where the opponent is caught off balance, or develop the momentum to push them back to a limit. Third, the offensive player may maneuver to a side of the strip to access a target, or threaten a target from position.
2. Positioning - the position of the weapon can be critical to protect the blade from being taken, to access certain targets, or facilitate an offensive blade take. Offensively, certain positions or movements will discourage an opponent from executing an attack on preparation. Movements of the blade or tip can also be used to probe or reconnsaissance for a line to attack or feint an attack.
3. Interaction - an action made against the opponent's blade to force the defender to yeild space or risk being hit by an attack-au-fer or pris-de-fer. If the offensive player intends to make a second intention action, intentionally missing a beat or engagement can tempt the defensive player to transition within reach. An interation risks allowing a fencer to transition if it fails to find the blade.
The offensive preparations aim to create a greater and greater imbalane in the offensive players favor until they can arrive at a tempo to attack within range of a certain footwork (such as a lunge, fleche or ballestra). In a future post I plan on giving some examples of some offensive preparatory actions, and how they can be applied to a primary offensive action such as a feint-deceive. | | |
| I found an article on "tempo" or "timing" that made me realize the difference between feint-deceive and feint-hit (a compound attack that does not rely on the opponent's parry).
The main difference relates to the definition of tempo (an Italian coaches definition), and how that particular article understands timing (meaning the choice of when to execute a movement). There was a distinction betwewen going on one's own tempo- moving but not in relation to an opponent's movement, and moving "in tempo" which means on someones movement.
I finally have a distinction for a feint-hit and feint deceive that I like, because now I don't have a certain category of action that stands appart from all the rest.
An action can be executed on your own initiative (regardless of what the opponent is doing), or may require some action or mechanism of the opponent- certain actions are not possible without the opponent's participation, i.e. feint-deceive or feint-in-tempo (feint in time). That being said there is also the possibility of a simple attack happening on ones own initiative, or on the tempo of the opponent. Arguably it may be less difficult for a person to conceive of an action happening ONLY in concert with an opponent's tempo (movements) but consider...
In saber a fencer (1) makes two steps and a lunge, planning to attack the oponent. The opponent (2) attempts to parry the attack. Fencer (1) has several options and not all of them will be made "in tempo":
A. Hit fencer 2 directly with speed/timing BEFORE the parry can be successful. In spite of the hand tempo.
B. Collapse the distance so that it is easier to hit directly, again in spite of the parry.
C. Make an indirect attack...which I have seen many coaches teach as a feint-deceive- whether they realize it or not. This action may happen once the distance is correct (irrespective of the parry), OR on the parry (which is likely to happen if the distance is right to attack, even if there is no "feint" to provoke a parry).
D. By compound feint-deceive...happening pre-planned and the parry coincidentally is occurring (you can tell because the change of line is happening BEFORE the opponent responds with a parry). Or Provoking the parry and decieving it in hand-tempo (the parry begins before the deception).
E. As a compound attack executed on a change of decision...which is completely an action made on hand tempo because it is not premeditated.
There are several circumstances that may influence if a fencer is able to pull off an action on thier own initiative OR on the tempo of the opponent. One last thought, there is a coach friend of mine who would argue that every action executed on the opponenets tempo is a mistake...because it is likely to be a trap. A MMA friend of mine made a counter argument I find equally valid...attack a weakness even when it is likely to be a trap. Attack it becaue, intentional or not, it is still a weakness...therefore exploitable.
| | |
|
