Defense in Sabre
Bruce Micales
I have been reading this news group off and on for the past month
paying close attention to comments made concerning sabre fencing.
I have come to the conculsion, that most American sabre fencers
think that defense in sabre is a waste of time or shows bad technique.
Excuse me..am I missing something here? I will admit that DEFENSE in
sabre is difficult, and that having the attack in sabre is important, but to
ignore defense or to suggest that is a waste of time is just plain WRONG!!!!
Think about it, if two fencers both attack (great - a simultaneous
attack) and if neither try to defend against the other...well then you have
a mess. This makes sabre fencing very confusing and frustrating to both the
fencers and the people matching!'
On the other hand, a sabre fencer that knows how to employ either
the Italian or Hungarian defense systems will be able to handle this
situation, defend him or herself and get the point!
This lack of concern for defense in sabre was probably one
reason why the fleche (and other footwork) has been banned from sabre.
Therefore, the effort must be made to attach more importance to
defense in sabre and worry less about offense (that is easy!). This will
GREATLY improve the sabre bouts (both for the fencer and the spectator),
reduce the number of simultaneous attack, and make directing a lot easier.
I realize that this point of view will cause several people to wail
and grind their teeth, however, I feel that a more classical view of sabre
fencing should be discussed.
Oh, one last point...the defense in sabre is NOT that hard..I use
both the Hungarian (mostly) and the Italian defense systems and they work
VERY well. The number of positions required (excluding demi parries) is
five, although there are variations (i.e. turning the knuckle bow).
Thanks for reading this posting..and I appreciate all comments (but
keep them nice!)
Bruce Micales
Susan Mullhaupt
>
> I have come to the conculsion, that most American sabre fencers
>think that defense in sabre is a waste of time or shows bad technique.
>Excuse me..am I missing something here? I will admit that DEFENSE in
>sabre is difficult, and that having the attack in sabre is important, but to
>ignore defense or to suggest that is a waste of time is just plain WRONG!!!!
You're missing something. The sense of the argument is that defense in
sabre is far more complicated than in the other two weapons, and much less
likely to be successful. Great masters have basically stated this case
for many years, e.g. Michel Alaux' dictum "sabre is the weapon in which
it is necessary to attack in order to prevent attack". Now this does not
mean that you can be a good sabreur if you have no ability to parry, in
fact _most_ time in sabre practice is spent on mobility, and then defense.
But it _does_ mean that you cannot be a good sabreur if you are willing
to allow yourself to be attacked. So the aspect of defense which is more
or less universally discredited is defense as a _strategy_.
> Think about it, if two fencers both attack (great - a simultaneous
>attack) and if neither try to defend against the other...well then you have
>a mess. This makes sabre fencing very confusing and frustrating to both the
>fencers and the people matching!'
It is actually so common because it is a result of the natural preference
of the experienced sabreur to attack if at all possible when there is any
question of being attacked.
> On the other hand, a sabre fencer that knows how to employ either
>the Italian or Hungarian defense systems will be able to handle this
>situation, defend him or herself and get the point!
I don't think the Italian system enjoys much favor among modern sabreurs,
but the Hungarian system is the predominant mode. But you may know how
to employ this system and still if you opt for defense in preference to
you are probably optimistic about the chance of success of your defense.
> This lack of concern for defense in sabre was probably one
>reason why the fleche (and other footwork) has been banned from sabre.
No, there is no good reason for this ban. But that's another story.
Everyone is concerned about defense in sabre, and the fact that defense is
so hard in sabre is the reason that distance in sabre has grown so large.
But then when you want to attack, the large distance means you need the
high amplitude footwork. It is precisely because sabreurs came to understand
the role of mobility in defense that we have had to develop longer range
and more continuable attacks than in the other weapons.
> Therefore, the effort must be made to attach more importance to
>defense in sabre and worry less about offense (that is easy!).
You tell your students to concentrate on defense and I'll tell mine to
make sure thay get the attack first. Who will the students want to listen
to after we have a match? You can get an inkling by considering the very
offense oriented games which are found at the higher levels of modern
sabre fencing.
>This will
>GREATLY improve the sabre bouts (both for the fencer and the spectator),
As I have said before, I do not give a damn for how it looks. But the _quality
of a bout_ is a very hard thing to talk about. Some of the things which _can_
be said about sabre is that long rallies are indicative of bad fencing on
both parts, and high mobility is probably associated with good fencing,
perhaps on both parts. A monotonous bout which is lopsided is a very good
indicator of good fencing by the winner and bad fencing by the loser.
> I realize that this point of view will cause several people to wail
>and grind their teeth, however, I feel that a more classical view of sabre
>fencing should be discussed.
What do you mean "more classical"? The kind of sabre fencing that should be
promoted is sabre fencing which is more likely to hit without being hit.
This is the traditional aim of _all_ fencing. But I would be happy to
hear what "classical" fencing is to you.
> Oh, one last point...the defense in sabre is NOT that hard..I use
>both the Hungarian (mostly) and the Italian defense systems and they work
>VERY well. The number of positions required (excluding demi parries) is
>five, although there are variations (i.e. turning the knuckle bow).
You don't use Sixte? I find it makes sense occasionally when parrying a
head riposte from a chest cut.
But I suppose it will not help to quote the guys I always quote when
explaining that defense at sabre is much less successful than offense,
etc. So try this. Fence a bout with priority against yourself throughout,
that is, just like the old priority thing bnut always against you. See
how well you do compared to usual against a few people that you fence a lot.
If you're right, and defense is easy, and offense overrated, you should be
at no great disadvantage. But if you're like most people, you will be
giving up a lot of your sabre game when you give up those preemptive first
strikes. Let us know how it turns out.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Bruce Micales
Thank you for your comments on my post: Defense in Sabre. However,
I feel that I MUST correct you on your basic assumption that I am
advocating the use of a defensive strategy in place of an
offensive strategy. Nothing could be further from the truth, and
I RESENT that statement. I suggest that you reread (carefully) the
following paragraph from my post:
>>I will admit that DEFENSE in sabre is difficult, and that having the
>>attack in sabre is important, but to ignore defense or to suggest that
>>is a waste of time is just plain WRONG!!!!
As you can CLEARLY see, I admit that the defense is difficult and
that the attack is important in sabre. I would NEVER allow myself to be
attacked if I could get in the attack myself. HOWEVER, should I miss that
chance, then I would rely on my defense to parry the attack and then ripost.
This statement along causes all your post replies to fall flat on
their face since your assumptions were incorrect. Please read the posts
more carefully in the future.
>I don't think the Italian system enjoys much favor among modern sabreurs,
>but the Hungarian system is the predominant mode.
A good sabre fencer will employ both defense systems (to confuse the
opponent). However, it does take several years of study to fully master
these defense systems. This requires time and patience. If you have
neither, then yes you are correct that you had better learn how to get
the attack and hit your opponent on the first strike. The question I
have..what happens you miss or are parried by your opponent?? I think
you had better parry... if you have studied defense.
>is that long rallies are indicative of bad fencing on both parts,
Not if they are equally matched and they are looking for the others
weak points and defening themselves. "Fencing With The Sabre" by Professor
Roger Crosnier, clearly states "The ability to follow up a rally or, even
better, to impose it on the adversary, is bound to be an advantage. It can
be aquired by assiduously practising counter-riposte."
>What do you mean "more classical"? The kind of sabre fencing that should be
>promoted is sabre fencing which is more likely to hit without being hit.
>This is the traditional aim of _all_ fencing. But I would be happy to
>hear what "classical" fencing is to you.
You have just defined classical fencing and that defense is
important..thank you!
>
>> Oh, one last point...the defense in sabre is NOT that hard..I use
>>both the Hungarian (mostly) and the Italian defense systems and they work
>>VERY well. The number of positions required (excluding demi parries) is
>>five, although there are variations (i.e. turning the knuckle bow).
>You don't use Sixte? I find it makes sense occasionally when parrying a
>head riposte from a chest cut.
What... you parry...I thought you said defense had little chance to
succeed..but yet you parry. Worst yet you counter-riposte..this could lead
to a long rally!!!! :-)
Sixte is needed only in certain instances. Also when you do Sixte,
you leave your shoulder and flank wide open for attack!
Therefore, so that it is clear to you and all others that read this
post: I am not advocating a Defense only techique. I am merely stating
that you and others have UNDERRATED defense in sabre when in fact defense is
just as important in sabre as offense. Besides, if you are going attack (
or going to be attacked) does it not make sense to have a good defense in
case the attack fails??
Defense in sabre is hard while offense is easy (in comparison).
More time should be spent on defence and less on offense - you need both,
but one is easier to learn (offense) than the other (defense).
I hope this settles the matter. Thank you again
Bruce Micales
Bruce Micales
>From: bmic...@facstaff.wisc.edu (Bruce Micales)
>Subject: Re: Defense in Sabre
>Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 00:33:03 GMT
In my original post, I was suggesting that the defense in sabre
should be given more attention than has been given in the past. I was NOT
advocating that the offensive strategy in sabre be replaced by only a
defensive strategy. My case is simply stated in the following statement:
>>I will admit that DEFENSE in sabre is difficult, and that having the
>>attack in sabre is important, but to ignore defense or to suggest that
>>is a waste of time is just plain WRONG!!!!
Unfortunately, Mr. Mullhaupt misinterpreted this statement and
assumed I was advocating a defense only strategy.
This was not the purpose of my post and such a strategy would be
doomed to failure. However, to clarify my position: having the attack is
essenstial in sabre, however, it is EQUALLY important that the sabre fencer
have a well-honed defense. The defense in sabre is hard and can only be
mastered by years of study. On the other hand, offense is (in comparison)
easy. In the end, however, a well defended sabre fencer (who also
attacks!) will be able to defeat a sabre fencer who has not mastered the
defense.
This is all that my post is attempting to state. If you have any
replies, please note that I am advocating the use of DEFENSE and OFFENSE
in sabre fencing. In addition, I am well aware of the fact that the
defence in sabre is difficult to master. Please confine your replies to
these ideas.
Thank you
Bruce Micales
Susan Mullhaupt
> As you can CLEARLY see, I admit that the defense is difficult and
>that the attack is important in sabre. I would NEVER allow myself to be
>attacked if I could get in the attack myself. HOWEVER, should I miss that
>chance, then I would rely on my defense to parry the attack and then ripost.
You alternate between saying that defense in sabre is difficult and then easy.
It is hard, and most people know this.
> The question I
>have..what happens you miss or are parried by your opponent?? I think
>you had better parry... if you have studied defense.
Look, many of us in the discussion have been fencing for _many_ years.
It is pretty silly to take the attitude that we may have not "studied
defense". But it is _not_ a certainty that you should parry. The most
common case in which parrying is a bad choice is when the opponent
has evaded your attack by breaking ground, or holds your attack
after parrying it, or is indecisive in transitioning to his offense.
Here, you should maintain the attack. Just because your attack failed
does not give the opponent the right of way automatically. Only in the
case where the opponent makes an immediate _direct_ simple riposte
are you obliged to parry. Even in this case I like to stop with opposition
into counterattacks and ripostes, effectively getting in my counter
riposte before making my parry.
>>is that long rallies are indicative of bad fencing on both parts,
>
> Not if they are equally matched and they are looking for the others
>weak points and defening themselves. "Fencing With The Sabre" by Professor
>Roger Crosnier, clearly states "The ability to follow up a rally or, even
>better, to impose it on the adversary, is bound to be an advantage. It can
>be aquired by assiduously practising counter-riposte."
Well Crosnier is not wrong, but the ability to _avoid_ a rally by
scoring first has proved to be far more useful than the ability to
follow up a rally. And as far as imposing a rally on an opponent, it is
_obvious_ that imposing a rally on an opponent is less desirable than
imposing a hit on him. Any time you allow the opponent a scoring chance
which it was in your power to prevent you have made a mistake. So in
plain truth many long rallies means that both fencers are unable to
score well. Really good sabreurs with hit pretty high frequency once
they are in distance, and this has been true for a long time.
>>What do you mean "more classical"? The kind of sabre fencing that should be
>>promoted is sabre fencing which is more likely to hit without being hit.
>>This is the traditional aim of _all_ fencing. But I would be happy to
>>hear what "classical" fencing is to you.
>
> You have just defined classical fencing and that defense is
>important..thank you!
Look, nobody ever said that defense was unimportant, what I have
consistently said is that defense is not as successful in sabre as
in the other weapons, and that relying on it is a big mistake. It
is not about how people practice, or what they think sabre should look
like, defense is what you should spend your time _avoiding_ if you want
to succeed in sabre.
>>> Oh, one last point...the defense in sabre is NOT that hard..I use
>>>both the Hungarian (mostly) and the Italian defense systems and they work
>>>VERY well. The number of positions required (excluding demi parries) is
>>>five, although there are variations (i.e. turning the knuckle bow).
>
>>You don't use Sixte? I find it makes sense occasionally when parrying a
>>head riposte from a chest cut.
> What... you parry...I thought you said defense had little chance to
>succeed..but yet you parry. Worst yet you counter-riposte..this could lead
>to a long rally!!!! :-)
Nope, usually I use Sixte when I have set up the counter-riposte as
the main attack by drawing a head riposte as a way to penetrate a
fencer who has grown wary if I have been getting the jump on him.
I generally use this trick against people who are making too much
of a habit of riposting head and relying on their defense. Since
they are making two mistakes, (predictable riposte and relying on defense)
then it stands to reason that they are fencing badly and can be beat.
So in other words, I rely on parries only when I have determined that
the opponent is pretty much inferior in thinking to me. It helps if
he has a reasonably good hand (so I know what tempo it will be and
where the blade will be) and that the opponent feels safe in his parry,
(otherwise his uncertainty in his parry may translate into too much
variablilty in his riposte). So if you see me fencing and a rally happens
you can be _sure_ that at least one fencer is doing badly.
It is pretty normal to turn a good confident parry into a liability
but it is harder to turn a good attack into a liability. If I get to
fence against opponents with either good offense or good defense
I will choose to fence the opponent with the good defense every time.
> Sixte is needed only in certain instances. Also when you do Sixte,
>you leave your shoulder and flank wide open for attack!
Like I said, I use it when I am pretty much calling the tune. And
if the guy starts to wise up, he shouldn't go for the wide open
side (flank) since that is obvious. He should probably take advantage
by starting in the head line and completing chest, or even disengaging
through to belly or to flank (the long way). This way he has a whole range
of attack options. He shouldn't worry about making an indirect riposte if
he expects me to go Sixte since I will not be in a position to get much
in his tempo. And so it is true - I _can't_ rely on Sixte, I rely on the
_surprise_ and _predictability_ of my opponent. You should never rely
on a parry in sabre. If you have anything to rely on defensively,
it is either "be on the attack instead" or "feets don't fail me now".
> Therefore, so that it is clear to you and all others that read this
>post: I am not advocating a Defense only techique. I am merely stating
>that you and others have UNDERRATED defense in sabre when in fact defense is
>just as important in sabre as offense. Besides, if you are going attack (
>or going to be attacked) does it not make sense to have a good defense in
>case the attack fails??
Defense is _hard to underrate_ in sabre. The only thing good to say about
defense in sabre is that the only thing worse than being on defense in
sabre is not being on defense _when you are forced to_.
> Defense in sabre is hard while offense is easy (in comparison).
>More time should be spent on defence and less on offense - you need both,
>but one is easier to learn (offense) than the other (defense).
Every decent sabreur spends lots more time working on footwork and
defense than offense. But this does not lead to a balanced game.
> I hope this settles the matter. Thank you again
Probably doesn't. For example I still maintain that there is a grave
deficiency in the thinking of people who want to see more counter
ripostes and counter-counter ripostes, etc. in sabre. It is usually
bad fencing. Relying on defense is bad sabre fencing for sure,
unless the opponent is at an embarassing disadvantage, in which
case there is still bad fencing on the strip.
The discussion which prompted your comments has always been about
the relative merits of defense vs. offense as strategies in sabre,
and whether the static, tentative and congested fencing which is
the product in the near term of the fleche ban can be thought of
as in any way desirable.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
TIM...@lexmark.com
Tim Edwards - Foil, Sabre, Epee, in that order.
Bruce Micales
>From: TIM...@lexmark.com
>Subject: What are Hungarian and Italian? (was: Defense in Sabre)
>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 19:33:25 GMT
>Ok, I'll bite. What do you guys mean by the Italian and Hungarian styles?
>
>Tim Edwards - Foil, Sabre, Epee, in that order
These are defense systems used in sabre. These two systems differ
in the tempo of parries and the parries that are used.
However, one system is not better than the other. Please understand
that an offense is also needed but of these two (offense vs. defense), the
defense is the most difficult to master and takes several years of study to
master the defense completely.
Should you require further information about these defense systems,
please EMail me at :bmic...@facstaff.wisc.edu
Thanks
Bruce Micales
Bruce Micales
>From: TIM...@lexmark.com
>Subject: What are Hungarian and Italian? (was: Defense in Sabre)
>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 19:33:25 GMT
>Ok, I'll bite. What do you guys mean by the Italian and Hungarian styles?
>
>Tim Edwards - Foil, Sabre, Epee, in that order.
These are defensive styles used in sabre fencing that differ in the
tempo of the parry and (in some cases) the parry itself.
For more information, please EMAIL me at bmic...@facstaff.wisc.edu
Thank you
Bruce Micales
Bruce Micales
>From: mull...@mathlab.sunysb.edu (Susan Mullhaupt)
>Subject: Re: Defense in Sabre
>In article <bmicales.7...@facstaff.wisc.edu> bmic...@facstaff.wisc.edu (Bruce Micales) writes:
>> As you can CLEARLY see, I admit that the defense is difficult and
>>that the attack is important in sabre. I would NEVER allow myself to be
>>attacked if I could get in the attack myself. HOWEVER, should I miss that
>>chance, then I would rely on my defense to parry the attack and then ripost.
>You alternate between saying that defense in sabre is difficult and then easy.
>It is hard, and most people know this.
Sorry, no I did not. I said that the defense is difficult and that defense
is not that hard. Both indicate a "degree of hardness". A poor choice of
phrasing on my part, but I never stated that defense was both difficult and
easy!
>Look, many of us in the discussion have been fencing for _many_ years.
>It is pretty silly to take the attitude that we may have not "studied
>defense".
This is no more silly than you taking the attitude that I would take
a defense-only strategy :-).
However, on a more serious note, I would like to point out that
Crosnier talks about defense, compound attacks, compound ripostes, and
counter-offensive movements in his book "Fencing With the Sabre".
I will therefore take my schooling from an European fencer simply because
they are more succesful at sabre fencing than any American sabre fencer.
The European school of sabre fencing does place a large emphasis on
defense (i.e. the Hungarian school of fencing).
>> Not if they are equally matched and they are looking for the others
>>weak points and defening themselves. "Fencing With The Sabre" by Professor
>>Roger Crosnier, clearly states "The ability to follow up a rally or, even
>>better, to impose it on the adversary, is bound to be an advantage. It can
>>be aquired by assiduously practising counter-riposte."
>Well Crosnier is not wrong.......
If you agree with Crosnier, then why do you disagree with Crosnier?
>Look, nobody ever said that defense was unimportant, what I have
>consistently said is that defense is not as successful in sabre as
>in the other weapons, and that relying on it is a big mistake.
Why do you think that I rely on defense only???? I have said time and time
again that both defense and offense are important.
As far as I am concerned this matter is settled. You (Mr.
Mullhaupt) have not correctly answered my post at any time since you
maintain that I beleive in a defense-only strategy. This is wrong, this was
not the purpose of my post. I was merely voicing my opinion (stated in
my first post). Had you said that I was incorrect in my conclusion
from my first post then fine I can accept that. However, you (Mr.
Mullhaupt) twisted my words and made it sound as if I advocated a defense-
only strategy. I have clearly stated (and I'll do it one last time) that
both defense and offense are important in sabre, and neither should be
underrated.
I apologize to all the members of this newsgroup (and thank them
also) for having to "put up" with these posts. However, as far as I am
concerned, the matter is closed.
If you wish to respond, then please Email me at bmicales@facstaff.
wisc.edu .
Thank you
Bruce Micales
Bruce Micales
they are more successful at sabre fencing than any American sabre fencer.
The European school of sabre fencing does place a large emphasis on
defense (i.e. the Hungarian school of fencing).
>>Not if they are equally matched and they are looking for the others
>>weak points and defening themselves. "Fencing With The Sabre" by
>>Professor
>>Roger Crosnier, clearly states "The ability to follow up a
rally or, even
>>better, to impose it on the adversary, is bound to be an
advantage. It can
>>be aquired by assiduously practising counter-riposte."
>Well Crosnier is not wrong.......
If you agree with Crosnier, then why do you disagree with Crosnier?
>Look, nobody ever said that defense was unimportant,
However, one gets the impression that you or others feel this way.
>and that relying on it is a big mistake.
Why do you think that I rely on defense only???? I have said time
and time again that both defense and offense are important.
As far as I am concerned this matter is settled. You (Mr.
Mullhaupt) have not correctly answered my post at any time since you
maintain that I believe in a defense-only strategy. This is wrong, this
was not the purpose of my post. I was merely voicing my opinion (stated
in my first post). Had you said that I was incorrect in my conclusion
from my first post then fine I can accept that. However, you (Mr.
Mullhaupt) twisted my words and made it sound as if I advocated a defense-
only strategy. I have clearly stated (and I'll do it one last time) that
both defense and offense are important in sabre, and neither should be
underrated. I was merely asking for more important be paid to the
defense in sabre.
Imi Bokor
: Ok, I'll bite. What do you guys mean by the Italian and Hungarian styles?
:
: Tim Edwards - Foil, Sabre, Epee, in that order.
I believe that the old Italian school based sabre on the prime-seconde-quinte
whereas the Hunagarian school was based on terce-quarte-quinte. Since these were
about the only two significant sabre nations for about seventy years until the
19709's they also dominated schools of thought in fencing sabre.
d.A.
Bruce Micales
>From: i...@neumann.une.edu.au (Imi Bokor)
>Subject: Re: What are Hungarian and Italian? (was: Defense in Sabre)
>Date: 24 Jun 94 06:17:34 GMT
>d.A.
The Italian defense also uses tierce-quarte-quinte while the Hungarian
defense does not use prime-seconde very much. In addition, the Italian
defense uses demi (half) parries. Thus you are responding to feints.
The Hungarian defense does not respond to feints and the tempo of parring in
the Hungarian defense is such that a parry is done at the last moment (
before the actual attack will arrive).
Bruce Micales
Imi Bokor
: Bruce Micales
Sure. And this is the point I have been trying to impress upon Andrew.
The "Hungarian school" has been by far the most successful in sabre over the
past 50 or 60 years -- Russian and Polish sabre is also based upon it.
But Andrew does not believe in its efficacy. Still, each of us fences as (s)he
prefers.
My name is a dead give-away for my being brought up on the Hungarian school of
fencing even if my competiton experience is in epee.
d.A.
Bruce Micales
>From: i...@neumann.une.edu.au (Imi Bokor)
>Subject: Re: What are Hungarian and Italian? (was: Defense in Sabre)
>: Bruce Micales
>d.A.
I agree 100%. Well said Imi, Well said.
Bruce Micales
Bruce Micales
>From: bmic...@facstaff.wisc.edu (Bruce Micales)
>In article <55...@grivel.une.edu.au> i...@neumann.une.edu.au (Imi Bokor) writes:
>>From: i...@neumann.une.edu.au (Imi Bokor)
>>Subject: Re: What are Hungarian and Italian? (was: Defense in Sabre)
>>Date: 25 Jun 94 12:08:58 GMT
>>Bruce Micales (bmic...@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote:
>>: In article <55...@grivel.une.edu.au> i...@neumann.une.edu.au (Imi Bokor) writes:
>>: >From: i...@neumann.une.edu.au (Imi Bokor)
>>: >Subject: Re: What are Hungarian and Italian? (was: Defense in Sabre)
>>: >Date: 24 Jun 94 06:17:34 GMT
>>: >TIM...@lexmark.com wrote:
>>: >: Ok, I'll bite. What do you guys mean by the Italian and Hungarian styles?
>>: >:
>>: >: Tim Edwards - Foil, Sabre, Epee, in that order.
>>: >I believe that the old Italian school based sabre on the prime-seconde-quinte
>>: >whereas the Hunagarian school was based on terce-quarte-quinte. Since these were
>>: >about the only two significant sabre nations for about seventy years until the
>>: >19709's they also dominated schools of thought in fencing sabre.
>>: >d.A.
>>: The Italian defense also uses tierce-quarte-quinte while the Hungarian
>>: defense does not use prime-seconde very much. In addition, the Italian
>>: defense uses demi (half) parries. Thus you are responding to feints.
Sorry Imi, I was not being judgemental on what you had said about the
Italian verus the Hungarian defense. However, I went back and re-read my
post that followed yours, and it could certainly be taken that way! Sorry,
that was not my intent..I was just expanding further on these
defense systems.
Again..sorry :-(
Bruce Micales
Susan Mullhaupt
>: The Hungarian defense does not respond to feints and the tempo of parring in
>: the Hungarian defense is such that a parry is done at the last moment (
>: before the actual attack will arrive).
>Sure. And this is the point I have been trying to impress upon Andrew.
You have been wasting your time trying to explain why you should parry
back, and at the last moment. The Hungarian school is _not_ strictly
limited to close parries, nor is it necessary to wait until the last
possible moment to make the parry. It is just as respectable from a Hungarian
point of view to keep the parries as far forward as possible, which means
that they must occur much earlier, in fact almost as early as possible.
If you employ the forward defense, you still do not react to all feints,
but you _can_ react to feints which bring the blade close enough for you
to engage. In which case you _do_ react to the feint by making a parry
as part of a cut through the blade, (i.e. you use the forte of the blade
to take the blade for control and to cue the director that you are making
a parry).
It is going to all very well to claim that this isn't "true" Hungarian
practice, but in fact the Hungarian style and the Italian style cover
a variety of practices. I was taught my version by among others, a Hungarian
master who I believe was on the Hungarian national sabre team before the
revolution.
The place where it _does_ make sense to wait as long as possible, (and
a point that longtime readers of r.s.f. are perhaps bored with from me by now)
is when an attack of your own has been _parried_. The most effective
defense is then to force the opponent to make the first move by waiting
with your blade still engaged. Note that this does not mean that it is
best to make _all_ parries as late as possible, (it is not) nor that
just because this is more effective as defense, that defense in general
is very reliable. The only reason that you want to wait in this case is
because it is pretty unlikely that if you choose a more offensive continuation
that you will get the right of way. Usually, waiting only delays your
transition to offense, and, for many fencers who do not understand mobility
in sabre (and there are lots of them these days) it can radically increase
the chances that the opponent's attack will succeed.
So do not think that you have failed to explain why you parry early, you
have succeeded. But you have failed to overcome many years of sabre
fencing (including several fencing that way in the beginning) and convince
me that it is a good idea in general. I don't fence that way, and I
can regularly beat the people I know who fence that way. It is much
more consistent with my overall thinking to use early parries in order to
transition to the attack when the opponent is still mentally on offense.
Waiting just allows the opponent more chances to change his attack into one
that you can't follow. So I do not fence this way, nor do I teach my students
this.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Susan Mullhaupt
> I was merely asking for more important be paid to the
>defense in sabre.
More than enough attention is paid to defense in sabre already. Sabre
defense should actually be put together out of equal parts footwork,
offensive moves, and defenseive moves. So the part of the game which
is explicitly defensive needs no extra emphasis. In fact it probably
gets more work than it deserves, since it's so hard that everyone
usually feels that that's where they need the work.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Imi Bokor
: Later,
: Andrew Mullhaupt
I regret that Bruce Micales posted to this groups something I had sent him
quite deliberately as private communication.
While I agree with you about the ludicrousness of banning the fleche, I
must say I am tiring of your insistance on distorting or misconstruing
most things I have written.
At no stage did I say that the Hungarian school of fencing EXCLUDES anything
the rules allow. All I said, and I stick by it, is that the Hungarian
school of fencing uses as ITS BASIS certain tactical and technical
considerations, including (i) parrying as late as possible (ii) not
reponding to feints and in sabre using terce-quarte-quinte as the BASIC
and positions. Of course the Hungarian school puts most emphasis on
footwork, distance and timing rather than on bladework.
There are divergences of opinion and variations in approach in the
Hungarian school. Bay's approach is very different from Vass's for
example.
Finally, I did not suggest that parries be taken close to the body.
I did suggest that moving the hand foreward to parry can make the parry
deceive, which is one reason for holding the parry back in time until
the opponent is committed.But at no stage did I suggest that pulling
the hand BACKWARDS to parry is good technique. Quite the opposite!
I can only conceive of rare and exceptional circumstances where that might
be advisable.
So please, if you wish to continue discussing fencing with me, try
to answer my comments rather than the comments you thought someone
who does not always agree with you is likely to make, especialy if he
is northern American. I am not northern American. I, like all of the
fencing coaches I have ever had, was born in Hungary, as my name
readily testifies.
By the way, who WAS your sabre coach?
d.A.
Bruce Micales
>>: The Hungarian defense does not respond to feints and the tempo of
>>:parring in
>>: the Hungarian defense is such that a parry is done at the
>>:last moment
>>:(before the actual attack will arrive).
>>Sure. And this is the point I have been trying to impress upon Andrew.
>You have been wasting your time trying to explain why you should parry
>back, and at the last moment.
The two main reasons for this sort of parry: 1)
surprise (last minute parry when your opponent thinks that he/she has the
hit - however, this does take practice to get the tempo right) and 2)
drawing your opponent in close for a fast riposte. It should be noted that
a defense SOLELY of this fashion is dangerous.
>If you employ the forward defense, you still do not react to all feints,
>but you _can_ react to feints which bring the blade close enough for you
>to engage. In which case you _do_ react to the feint by making a parry
>as part of a cut through the blade, (i.e. you use the forte of the blade
>to take the blade for control and to cue the director that you are making
>a parry).
True, I agree. However, this sounds more like attack on the preparation.
I have done this sort of action (and thank you for reminding me of it), but
I have considered it an OFFENSIVE movement. Since I consider it an
offensive movement and that this movement can be employed in the Italian
defense, it was not included when describing the _difference_ between the
two defense systems.
> Usually, waiting only delays your
Yes, waiting is death in sabre. You parry then you riposte..you can play
with tempo to confuse your opponent, however, you do not wish to lose the
right of way.
>So do not think that you have failed to explain why you parry early, you
>have succeeded. But you have failed to overcome many years of sabre
>fencing (including several fencing that way in the beginning) and convince
>me that it is a good idea in general. I don't fence that way, and I
>can regularly beat the people I know who fence that way. It is much
>more consistent with my overall thinking to use early parries in order to
>transition to the attack when the opponent is still mentally on offense.
>Waiting just allows the opponent more chances to change his attack into one
>that you can't follow. So I do not fence this way, nor do I teach my
>students this.
>Later,
>Andrew Mullhaupt
This kind of "delayed" parrying is also a mind game that you can play with
your opponent. However, if this is the only type of defense that you use,
then yes it will not work very well (just like if fleching is your only form
of attack). However (and this is what I advocate), using a mixture of
Hungarian, Italian, long defense, and short defense (offense is implied) and
making the use of these tactics in an unpredictable manner makes it harder
for your opponent. Is this hard? You bet it is hard (but it is worth it).
Does it work? Yes it does.
On the other hand, your type of sabre fencing also works.
Other than these few items (noted above), I agree with you.
Bruce Micales
Bruce Micales
>From: bmic...@facstaff.wisc.edu (Bruce Micales)
>>In article <bmicales.8...@facstaff.wisc.edu> bmic...@facstaff.wisc.
>>edu (Bruce Micales) writes:
>> I was merely asking for more important be paid to the
>>defense in sabre.
>More than enough attention is paid to defense in sabre already. Sabre
>defense should actually be put together out of equal parts footwork,
>offensive moves, and defenseive moves. So the part of the game which
>is explicitly defensive needs no extra emphasis. In fact it probably
>gets more work than it deserves, since it's so hard that everyone
>usually feels that that's where they need the work.
>Later,
>Andrew Mullhaupt
Well, from what I have seen from American sabre fencers, I do not beleive
that enough attention is paid to the defense. It appears that more
attention is paid to the offence. Now, I agree with you 100% that sabre is
an offensive weapon and that to increase your chances in scoring, you should
have the attack.
However, in cases where you do not have the attack or lose
it (by a parry), it is best to have a good defense (as you say... "since it'
s so hard"). Ideally, you want the attack and hit..however realistically
this may _not_ happen.
I am sorry, Andrew, but you have not convinced me that enough attention is
given to defense. Now, let us shake hands, smile and drop this subject. I
will not convince you and you will not convince me, therefore, let us agree
on the following:
1) Defense in sabre is important (esp. if you miss the chance
to be on the attack).
2) Offense in sabre is important (esp. if you wish to score).
3) Footwork is important for both Defense and Offense in sabre.
4) The amount of time spent studying these various ascepts
of sabre fencing should be decided by fencing masters.
If you wish to reply, please send me EMAIL at : bmic...@facstaff.wisc.
edu . I think people are getting a little tried of this discussion.
Let us chance the subject...How is the weather?? Do you have a dog?? :-)
See ya later
Bruce Micales (FYI..left-handed sabre fencer)
Susan Mullhaupt
>
>: >Sure. And this is the point I have been trying to impress upon Andrew.
>: It is going to all very well to claim that this isn't "true" Hungarian
>: practice, but in fact the Hungarian style and the Italian style cover
>: a variety of practices. I was taught my version by among others, a Hungarian
>: master who I believe was on the Hungarian national sabre team before the
>: revolution.
>
>While I agree with you about the ludicrousness of banning the fleche, I
>must say I am tiring of your insistance on distorting or misconstruing
>most things I have written.
I don't understand what misconstruction you are thinking about.
>At no stage did I say that the Hungarian school of fencing EXCLUDES anything
>the rules allow. All I said, and I stick by it, is that the Hungarian
>school of fencing uses as ITS BASIS certain tactical and technical
>considerations, including (i) parrying as late as possible (ii) not
>reponding to feints and in sabre using terce-quarte-quinte as the BASIC
>and positions. Of course the Hungarian school puts most emphasis on
>footwork, distance and timing rather than on bladework.
Sure, and the part about parrying late is not really so appropriate these
days. In fact prime and seconde are not really outcasts in the Hungarian
school, but they do generally occur in sweeps for the point.
Now I do not understand what misconstruction there is here, you may want
to think I am responding to things you said, but beyond the fact that you want
to parry _late_ (which you have explicitly said, and repeatedly) I am not
using anything else. Parrying late is often advocated, and I have been
convinced by instruction and experience that one should _not_ always parry
late, and in fact it might be advocated that one should _seldom_ parry late.
>Finally, I did not suggest that parries be taken close to the body.
>I did suggest that moving the hand foreward to parry can make the parry
>deceive, which is one reason for holding the parry back in time until
>the opponent is committed.But at no stage did I suggest that pulling
>the hand BACKWARDS to parry is good technique. Quite the opposite!
>I can only conceive of rare and exceptional circumstances where that might
>be advisable.
_Waiting_ prevents you from making the parry as far out as I would like.
The perfect parry achieves engagement, control of blade, and completes the
riposte almost simultaneously. You want to shut down any problem the oponent
might cause by having time to think once you achieve engagement. So I have
_not_ claimed that you (or Bruce) have suggested pulling back. But you _do_
suggest _waiting_ which tends to prevent you from parrying as far forward as
possible. So while we agree that pulling the hand back to parry is almost
always a serious mistake, I still think that if we were practicing parries
in the same room, you would see that what I suggest involves parrying
_far_ from the body and what you suggest is what I call a "close" parry.
(The close parry is the one that most books start with).
>By the way, who WAS your sabre coach?
I have have several coaches, starting from Cliff Kirmss, (an American)
going through Joaquin Redondo (a Cuban) to Laslo Pongo (the Hungarian
I mentioned) and also Herb Mones (an American, who has won the last
three New York State Championships). In foil and epee, and for conditioning,
I studied with George Weiner, (a former member of the American Olympic
Pentathlon team). Now I will admit that I am not as good a fencer as
_any_ of these guys, I will also claim that I have learned to think about
fencing pretty well over the last twenty years.
If you get annoyed at misunderstandings, you might want to consider a
different form of expression thatn the net.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Susan Mullhaupt
>By the way, who WAS your sabre coach?
Have you been able to find any reference to Laslo Pongo in your
researches? I just today got the announcement that the club he coaches
put out for their summer location and it advertises
"Fee includes one lesson weekly with Hungarian National
Champion"
Now this is certainly about the weekly lessons that Laslo teaches,
and almost certainly he was a sabre champion, although he is reputed
to have been a truly great fencer and he does teach foil and epee.
I _know_ Laslo was not an Olympic or World champion, but I would be
interested if anyone has a record of Hungarian national champions
going back to WWII?
By the way - it's not the sort of thing you can bring up in one
of his lessons - _he_ does all the talking (shouting).
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Bruce Micales
>I regret that Bruce Micales posted to this groups something I had sent him
>quite deliberately as private communication.
Please Note: The following reply was posted at the request of the author (
Imi Bokor) ::
>PLease post this as is in my name!
Sorry Imi, I do not now if this is possible or how to do it. However, you
get the credit!
>
>It seems that I inadvertently posted a couple of items which I then
>attributed to bmicales as the person responsible for posting them.
>He has since pointed out my error. I sent him the following message
>
>> Dear Bruce,
>>
>>Sorry about the false attribuion.
>>I'm a bimbo when it comes to computers, so I must have done it
>>inadvertently. My humblest apologies for the fasle attribution!
>>
>>If you feel a public apology is in order, please post this
>>as my confession to being a deadshit!
>>
>>
>>cheers,
>>
>>imi
>
>but he is too considerate to post it as it stands.
>
>d.A.
>
>d.A.
Please note: I do not consider Imi Bokor any of the things that he refers
to himself in the above message. He made a mistake and corrected it when
presented with the facts. Thank you Imi for correcting this as quickly as
you did.
I do not harbor any ill-will towards Imi Bokor for this mistake and I wish
to assure all members that EMAIL sent to me will be treated with the upmost
respect that it deserves.
I merely wish to clear my name of having posted EMAIL in a public forum when
in fact I never had.
This matter is now closed.
Thank you (Imi and others) for reading this....now FENCE!
Bruce Micales
Department of Anatomy
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Imi Bokor
: Later,
: Andrew Mullhaupt
I don't know all of the names, but the ones which stick out are
Gerevich, Berczelly, Kovacs.
But it is Hungarian custom to call national champions any member of
a team which wins a teams "gold medal". By the way, if he is
Hungarian, then his name is Laszlo (without the diacriticals)
d.A.
Susan Mullhaupt
>: I _know_ Laslo was not an Olympic or World champion, but I would be
>: interested if anyone has a record of Hungarian national champions
>: going back to WWII?
>I don't know all of the names, but the ones which stick out are
>Gerevich, Berczelly, Kovacs.
>But it is Hungarian custom to call national champions any member of
>a team which wins a teams "gold medal". By the way, if he is
>Hungarian, then his name is Laszlo (without the diacriticals)
There is no doubt that Laszlo (I will take your word for the spelling
although he may have Anglicized it when he immigrated in 1956) is
a Hungarian and has a great reputation as a fencing master (which
I have known about for almost twenty years). I was told long ago
that he was a member of the Hungarian national sabre team, but I
had no real idea of whether he was a champion until the advertisement
of his club. As for his last name, I am certain that he spells it
Pongo.
In any case, people who want to work with him can show up at the club
that he coaches - the Long Island Swordsman.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Imi Bokor
: There is no doubt that Laszlo (I will take your word for the spelling
It is very generous of you to "take my word for it", since I am a native
speaker of Hungarian. My name, "Bokor Imre", could not be anything else
but Hungarian. I was born in Budapest andt confess that I did not
have an easy time mastering English.
: although he may have Anglicized it when he immigrated in 1956
The English equivalent of "La'szlo'" is "Leslie".
d.A.
Susan Mullhaupt
>It is very generous of you to "take my word for it", since I am a native
>speaker of Hungarian. My name, "Bokor Imre", could not be anything else
>but Hungarian. I was born in Budapest andt confess that I did not
>have an easy time mastering English.
Can you relax a little on this one? I have been professionally associated
with Hungarians for almost twenty years. My thesis advisor was Hungarian,
I was a colleague of Jonas (the "counter" revolutionary), patronized
the unique Hungarian health-food/ice cream restaurant in Hoboken,
(every day for almost ten years) and my landlord is a Hungarian author.
My life outside of fencing is littered with Hungarians. Once I got
into trouble for getting a ride to a meeting at one of our National Labs
from a close friend and colleague who was at that time in the Hungarian
Army reserves. As a result, he "taught" me to drive (in English, sort
of...).
Now I have met a _lot_ of Hungarians, but never one who was so committed
to proper orthography in the national names. Are you sure you're not
really French?
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Susan Mullhaupt
>Now I have met a _lot_ of Hungarians, but never one who was so committed
>to proper orthography in the national names. Are you sure you're not
>really French?
Someone has sent me e-mail which causes me to believe that not everyone reading
this realised that I am of course referring to the Academie Francais, and
all the other official organs by which the French defend their language
and culture from invasion. What I am asking Imi here, is, in effect,
apart from the concern over the dictionary, does he have the final
qualification for membership...
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt