Parrying in epee
Michael A. Buckley
and had fair success but have a miserable parry. About as close to a
parry as I come is counter attack with opposition. When I do make a
parry, it is usually desperate (in response to a fleche that caught me
is distance) and my ripost is non-existent. So there's the background,
now too questions for netland.
1)
Against attack to low target, I almost universally see seconde as
opposed to octave. Even against the thigh or the bottom of the wrist.
Why?
Second really leaves the back of the hand open for disengage or
remise.
Is it because of the ease of dropping to really low target (i.e. toe)
from a feint to the wrist?
2)
Quarte is rare in my experience. Obviously, you must uncover your arm
to make four (unless you go in quartatta) but I see people desperately
scooping with counter sixte rather than make an obvious four.
Why?
3)
Why no septime? Too hard to maintain opposition for the ripost?
4)
How the hell do you make a decent ripost from prime or seconde?
5)
What is the consensus on prime vs. quarte vs. (more scooping) counter
sixte against fleche?
6)
Anyone ever use tierce against lefties trying to jump to the outside?
Sorry for the long post and thanks in advance.
--
-- Mike Buckley
hay...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
>I've decided to learn how to parry. I've fenced epee for a while now
>and had fair success but have a miserable parry. About as close to a
>parry as I come is counter attack with opposition. When I do make a
>parry, it is usually desperate (in response to a fleche that caught me
>is distance) and my ripost is non-existent. So there's the background,
>now too questions for netland.
>1)
>Against attack to low target, I almost universally see seconde as
>opposed to octave. Even against the thigh or the bottom of the wrist.
>Why?
>Second really leaves the back of the hand open for disengage or
>remise.
>Is it because of the ease of dropping to really low target (i.e. toe)
>from a feint to the wrist?
against a feint to the thigh what they are really afraid of is an angulated attack that the octave won't be strong enough to deflect. If the timing is right
octave is perfectly adequate, I make more of a spank parry that doesn't commit me to anything but the timing is more delicate than the seconde.
By the way don't parry feints only attacks, if they feint move or make a false
parry or attack into preparation
>2)
>Quarte is rare in my experience. Obviously, you must uncover your arm
>to make four (unless you go in quartatta) but I see people desperately
>scooping with counter sixte rather than make an obvious four.
>Why?
Quarte covers attacks to the chest, unlike foil you must not release the blade
until they do. Leave you guard in quarte so they cant remise, you don't have to
make an oppostion just leave you guard where they have to go around it to hit
you and move the point at them immediately without delay. Most who try to
counter-sixte against an attack to the chest are simply panicing because they
don't know how to quarte well. Any thing to the right of the breastbone
(assuming you're right handed can be parried with counter sixte, any farther
away and counter sixte is too slow.
>3)
>Why no septime? Too hard to maintain opposition for the ripost?
There's no target there that can't be reached more easily by counterattack
>4)
>How the hell do you make a decent ripost from prime or seconde?
From seconde you can make a sideways flick to the forearm or continue
into sweeping seconde and bind the blade as you step in.
Since you only use prime with a yielding parry or with a step in when you
riposte you simply turn the hand over tuck the point in toward your opponent
and push
>5)
>What is the consensus on prime vs. quarte vs. (more scooping) counter
>sixte against fleche?
You can only counter sixte if they're going to that part of the target
otherwise prime can be very effective unless they're not giving the fleche
all they've got, if they're not completely committed to the fleche quarte
is safer.
>6)
>Anyone ever use tierce against lefties trying to jump to the outside?
I find tierce too slow to use against a lefty in epee.
gary hayenga
Palit, Suman
>I've decided to learn how to parry. I've fenced epee for a while now
>and had fair success but have a miserable parry. About as close to a
An excellent idea, believe me..:-)
>
>1)
>Against attack to low target, I almost universally see seconde as
>opposed to octave. Even against the thigh or the bottom of the wrist.
>Why?
>Second really leaves the back of the hand open for disengage or
>remise.
>Is it because of the ease of dropping to really low target (i.e. toe)
>from a feint to the wrist?
>
As to why you can't do that, I can only imagine that you haven't yet
learned to parry correctly on instinct. As to how to get rid of this habit,
the only way out is to drill yourself. Have a teammate attack you on the
low line constantly, and try to parry octave and riposte, preferably on the
hand.
>
>
>2)
>Quarte is rare in my experience. Obviously, you must uncover your arm
>to make four (unless you go in quartatta) but I see people desperately
>scooping with counter sixte rather than make an obvious four.
>Why?
Scooping rarely works, unless your opponent is slow. In most cases, you land
up dragging the blade on your body. Usually, if you are in the position
to make a parry quarte, your opponent has opened himself up enough for a
stop-hit.
>
>3)
>Why no septime? Too hard to maintain opposition for the ripost?
Yes, I think...
>
>4)
>How the hell do you make a decent ripost from prime or seconde?
>
I really don't know..I myself stick to quarte/sixte/octave combo...:-)
>5)
>What is the consensus on prime vs. quarte vs. (more scooping) counter
>sixte against fleche?
Depends on where the fleche is coming from. If the attack is to your quarte,
scooping from quarte to sixte wouldn't be advisable, IMHO. I usually parry
quarte and riposte with a low-line bind if I time it right. Otherwise,
I try a riposte with opposition & in-quartata.
> -- Mike Buckley
Suman Palit
Morgan Burke
|> I've decided to learn how to parry. I've fenced epee for a while now
|> and had fair success but have a miserable parry. About as close to a
|> parry as I come is counter attack with opposition. When I do make a
|> parry, it is usually desperate (in response to a fleche that caught me
|> is distance) and my ripost is non-existent. So there's the background,
|> now too questions for netland.
|> 1)
|> Against attack to low target, I almost universally see seconde as
|> opposed to octave. Even against the thigh or the bottom of the wrist.
|> Why?
|> Second really leaves the back of the hand open for disengage or
|> remise.
|> Is it because of the ease of dropping to really low target (i.e. toe)
|> from a feint to the wrist?
Seconde leaves you in a better position to hold the blade, close up
distance and still riposte to either body or legs. Octave is better
for riposting from normal fencing distance due to the orientation of
the blade (curved into the target), but gives a weaker prise de fer
due to the position of the thumb.
|> 2)
|> Quarte is rare in my experience. Obviously, you must uncover your arm
|> to make four (unless you go in quartatta) but I see people desperately
|> scooping with counter sixte rather than make an obvious four.
|> Why?
I suspect sixte is much more common in epee because it is effective at
blocking attacks to the arm/hand, and sets up a good riposte to the same.
Since this attack is so common in epee, many epeeists never bother to
learn other high-line parries, and resort to sixte in all situations.
The most obvious reason why you should learn quarte well is for fencing
left-handers (assuming you are right-handed). Everywhere you normally
use sixte against a right hander, quarte will work against a leftie (maybe
even better, since they are probably expecting sixte all the time). Quinte
(as in pronated quarte) may also work well for riposting to the arm.
|> 3)
|> Why no septime? Too hard to maintain opposition for the ripost?
Septime blocks attacks to the trailing waist and leg, which are rarely
attacked. Even if they are, the extra distance/time needed to land the
hit means prime will work at least as well and also leave you in better
position to close and riposte (see 1, above).
|> 4)
|> How the hell do you make a decent ripost from prime or seconde?
To hit the body, pull the hand up high, get some severe angulation in
the wrist, and thrust downwards and forward to the lower abdomen.
Takes practice. Otherwise, hit the thigh.
|> 5)
|> What is the consensus on prime vs. quarte vs. (more scooping) counter
|> sixte against fleche?
If you want to take the blade, I'd use counter-sixte (assuming the fleche
is directed at your leading shoulder). Prime can also work well,
especially if the fleche is directed low or against your trailing side,
but the riposte is slower and more difficult (unless you can get the
opponent to run onto your point as he moves forward).
Quarte doesn't let you take the blade as well, and you can't count on
your opponent to redouble on a fleche allowing you to release his blade,
so it doesn't work well against a fencer of the same handedness. Don't
forget to use quarte against lefties, though.
|> 6)
|> Anyone ever use tierce against lefties trying to jump to the outside?
Tierce is best against cuts, including flicks, to the outside of the
leading arm/flank.
-- Morgan Burke
mor...@sitka.triumf.ca
Randell Jesup
>and had fair success but have a miserable parry. About as close to a
>parry as I come is counter attack with opposition. When I do make a
>parry, it is usually desperate (in response to a fleche that caught me
>is distance) and my ripost is non-existent.
The simple answer: spend a bunch of time fencing foil, especially if
you didn't when you started fencing. (All fencers should start with foil
even if they plan to move to other weapons.)
--
GNU Emacs is a LISP operating system disguised as a word processor.
- Doug Mohney, in comp.arch
Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.
je...@cbmvax.commodore.com or rutgers!cbmvax!jesup BIX: rjesup
Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.
Palit, Suman
>mabu...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Michael A. Buckley) writes:
>>I've decided to learn how to parry. I've fenced epee for a while now
>
>you didn't when you started fencing. (All fencers should start with foil
>even if they plan to move to other weapons.)
>
I second wholeheartedly. I fence epee primarily, but during every practice
meet, I do line drills, parry drills, etc with a foil. The transition to
epee (as far as parries are concerned) is simple and is essentially a
tactical problem, e.g., how do you ensure that the remise doesn't get
you before your parry-riposte has a chance to score, etc...
Just to learn how to do correct parry-ripostes, and to train yourself to
do it unconsciously, pick up a foil..
Suman
P.S. Lot's of luck as well...:-)
Scott Shinberg
Michael A. Buckley wrote:
MB> How the hell do you make a decent ripost from prime or seconde?
Prime-reposte was one of my favorite ways to score, although it's
applicability was limited. I found it efficient when fleched against
(by another righty).
I used two ripostes depending on how far my opponent had proceeded. If
he were still in front of me, I'd often side-step to my right slightly
turning a bit toward him and hit with a backwards flick of the wrist,
usually striking him in the chest.
My second (and more impressive) riposte was to go from prime (my right
hand in front of me) to moving my epee completely around my right side
and striking my opponent as he's beside me. Obviously once he passes
the action stops. My bell ended up behind my head as I struck.
In three years of trying, I was never able to teach this last technique
to any of my teammates, but it worked beautifully!
scott
* RM 1.2 * Eval Day 80 * "Easy" is easy to say.
Robert E Arthur
Scott Shinberg <scott.s...@ase.com> wrote:
>
>Michael A. Buckley wrote:
>MB> How the hell do you make a decent ripost from prime or seconde?
>
>Prime-reposte was one of my favorite ways to score, although it's
>applicability was limited. I found it efficient when fleched against
>(by another righty).
Yup, especially when your opponent is holding your blade in (assuming right-
handed) his sixte line. This is simply a ceding parry against a sixte
envelopement, though it works against any attack with sixte opposition.
Unfortunately, one of my main failings is trying *not* to parry prime against
this, since when you see it coming, it is easy to do something about it.
Oh well, such is life :-)
Byeeeee,
Bob.
Scott Shinberg
Michael A. Buckley wrote:
MB> How the hell do you make a decent ripost from prime or seconde?
Prime-reposte was one of my favorite ways to score, although it's
applicability was limited. I found it efficient when fleched against
(by another righty).
I used two ripostes depending on how far my opponent had proceeded. If
Scott Shinberg
RR> >Prime-reposte was one of my favorite ways to score, although it's
RR> >applicability was limited. I found it efficient when fleched
RR> against >(by another righty).
RR> Yup, especially when your opponent is holding your blade in
RR> (assuming right- handed) his sixte line. This is simply a ceding
RR> parry against a sixte envelopement, though it works against any
RR> attack with sixte opposition.
Righto!
scott
* RM 1.2 * Eval Day 81 * '\o.,@o.+:"/~!v <-- Tagline debris.
STFZ
For a different point of view, I favor beginning fencers in their
career weapon, with minimal cross-training in the others. My Master
growls at me if I even THINK about practicing a little foil, while
on the other hand, one of our advanced A-foilists practices in epee
occasionally. It improves point control, is good weight training
since epees are heavier, and teaches better control over the opponent's
blade. All foil does for me (as an epeeist) is make me parry more
than counterattack, which in epee is an undesirable trait.
|| "Far better it is to dare mighty things,
|| to win glorious triumphs, even though
|| checkered by failure, than to take rank
|| with those poor spirits who neither enjoy
|| much nor suffer much, because they live
|| in the gray twilight that knows not victory
|| or defeat."
|| -Teddy Roosevelt
Palit, Suman
>
>For a different point of view, I favor beginning fencers in their
>career weapon, with minimal cross-training in the others. My Master
Yes, but how would a beginning fencer know what his career weapon is going
to be like. Unless you subject him to a battery of psych tests or something
like that, you wouldn't know. Not every tall and gangly fellow with long arms
likes to fence epee, for instance. That's why it's a good idea to do at least
a year or so of foil, since the transition from foil to epee/sabre is easier
than the converse. But I agree that once you've selected your weapon of choice
you should pretty much stick with it exclusively...
Suman
Morgan Burke
|> >Just to learn how to do correct parry-ripostes, and to train yourself to
|> >do it unconsciously, pick up a foil..
In article <14JAN94.12...@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU>, STFZ <ST...@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU> writes:
|> For a different point of view, I favor beginning fencers in their
|> career weapon, with minimal cross-training in the others. My Master
|> growls at me if I even THINK about practicing a little foil, while
|> on the other hand, one of our advanced A-foilists practices in epee
|> occasionally. It improves point control, is good weight training
|> since epees are heavier, and teaches better control over the opponent's
|> blade. All foil does for me (as an epeeist) is make me parry more
|> than counterattack, which in epee is an undesirable trait.
Not undesirable. A parry is the only way to stop the opponent's attack,
which is a desirable trait in every weapon. If you are mostly
counter-attacking instead then either your opponents have lousy form
that's full of holes and timing opportunities, or you're playing
Russian roulette with the timing circuit, or you're using opposition
parries.
Foil training will teach you how to parry well, but it won't make you
parry instead of counter-attack when you switch back to epee. That's
just a tactical error on your part; you have to remember which weapon
you are fencing.
Although foil training _can_ improve one's parrying technique, it is
debateable how much it will help one's ripostes, which can be quite
different between the two weapons. Epee ripostes are typically fast,
direct, and either incorporate some opposition or are timed with the
opponent's release of the blade or passing of the target. A foil
riposte is often slower, less direct, and with more variable timing,
since you are responding to the opponent's tactics, rather than the
clock. Epee-style ripostes can work in foil, but the reverse is less
true. Of course, if the problem isn't the type of riposte you do, but
simply the ability to riposte at all, then foil training will help,
since ripostes are encouraged by foil style. Once the instinct to
riposte is developed, then you can worry about the details.
Foil training will also strengthen your footwork (foil attacks are
longer, requiring stronger legs), improve your ability to find and
avoid the blade (a consequence of right-of-way), and--believe it or
not--give you a stronger counter-attack (due to the need for opposition
and dodging to ensure the single light), all of which are of immense
benefit to epee fencing.
Foil is the most universal of the three weapons, and training in it can
be beneficial to fencers of all weapons. I know numerous epee fencers
with strong foil backgrounds, and several who compete in both weapons as
a matter of course. Just this week I noticed that the Canadian National
Foil champion, David Waller, is also A-classified in epee. Canadian
National Epee team member Dan Nowolsielski is B-classified in foil.
I also don't think it is possible for a beginner to determine what their
career weapon is, and that it isn't fair to decide for them. Many fencers
change their main weapon every few years, and as mentioned above, many
others give equal time to two weapons or more. In my experience, the
multi-weapon fencers have larger repertoires, a wider range of experience,
and are generally tougher opponents. The single-weapon fencers are more
predictable and easily fall victim to certain attacks that exploit their
narrow instincts.
-- Morgan Burke
mor...@sitka.triumf.ca
Robert E Arthur
Morgan Burke <mor...@sitka.triumf.ca> wrote:
>In article <CJG94...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, mabu...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Michael A. Buckley) writes:
>|> 4)
>|> How the hell do you make a decent ripost from prime or seconde?
>
>To hit the body, pull the hand up high, get some severe angulation in
>the wrist, and thrust downwards and forward to the lower abdomen.
>Takes practice. Otherwise, hit the thigh.
My coach suggests a sort of pendulum motion, almost like a flick to chest.
Bring the point forward and up. This can *eally* strain the wrist, so don't
do it too often, if at all (I ignore *all* doctors advice. I don't fence
particularly competitively(i.e. to win) and don't have the sense to look after
myself :-)). As for seconde, keep the hand out and point in, and punch the
hit on to the chest whilst holding the opponent's blade.
Byeeeee
Bob.
... "Not tonight darling - I've got a modem."
Susan Mullhaupt
>A parry is the only way to stop the opponent's attack,
I use stop hits, breaking ground, displacement and trickery to stop as many
if not _more_ attacks than I parry.
For the beginner, footwork/control of distance is the _first_ priority in
shutting down an attack. Once the rudiments of time and distance are
taking root, you can successfully integrate the embryonic parry-like
spasms of the usual beginner into the game. First you want to develop the
defensive reflexes of the feet, then the reflexive parrying of the hand, and
then you want to introduce mental control over the hand parts of the parry.
Although the director should clearly think of a parry in terms of "that
defensive action with the blade which stops an attack". The fencer making
the parry is not served well by this idea.
Often, a good parry _doesn't_ stop an attack, but deflects it enough to
exhibit control over the attacking blade. In foil and in sabre, it is actually
desirable for the defender to start the riposte while the attacker continues
to press the attack after a parry.
>If you are mostly
>counter-attacking instead then either your opponents have lousy form
>that's full of holes and timing opportunities, or you're playing
>Russian roulette with the timing circuit, or you're using opposition
>parries.
It's very worthwhile to play the first and third bets against all your
opponents and the second one may make sense if your opponent is much
better than you.
>Foil training will teach you how to parry well, but it won't make you
>parry instead of counter-attack when you switch back to epee. That's
>just a tactical error on your part; you have to remember which weapon
>you are fencing.
It's also another point in favor of not regarding parries as _reflexes_
but as conscious actions.
>Once the instinct to
>riposte is developed, then you can worry about the details.
Can you clarify what you mean here? I'm not sure I agree with this.
>Foil is the most universal of the three weapons, and training in it can
>be beneficial to fencers of all weapons.
Although I have no doubt that fencing foil helps almost any sabreur, I
generally think of foil as a subset of sabre. The only real difference is
that off-target hits still stop the action in foil. By rights, they
should in sabre; but that's another story. So aside from this point, foil
is more like one of the possible common denominators between sabre and epee.
>Just this week I noticed that the Canadian National
>Foil champion, David Waller, is also A-classified in epee. Canadian
>National Epee team member Dan Nowolsielski is B-classified in foil.
This is not new. de Beaumont was a many time epee champion of Britain
but also medaled in sabre. In the U.S., there are many multi-weapon
champions, notably J. R. de Capriles (Foil/Epee), S. Hall (Foil/Sabre),
L. G. Nunes (Foil/Epee/Sabre), L. Anasti (Foil/Epee), and others.
In fact there was a 3-weapon championship help from 1907 until 1941.
Nunes must have been a particularly talented fencer, winning many U.S.
national championships:
1917: Epee
1921: Outdoor Epee, 3-Weapon
1922: Epee, Sabre, 3-Weapon
1924: Foil, Epee
1925: Outdoor Epee
1926: Epee, Sabre, 3-Weapon
1928: Epee, Outdoor Sabre, 3-Weapon
1929: Sabre
1930: 3-Weapon
1932: Epee
This guy must have had a great sense of distance and _nasty_ point control.
Now it looks to me like Nunes was probably an epeeist, but one who did not
suffer from mastering other weapons. A glance in the back of the USFA rule
book shows that there were also great fencers who concentrated on one
weapon at the same time as Nunes was fencing all three. N. C. Armitage
was a perennial Sabre champion, and never seems to have won any title in
any other weapon, but almost certainly got beat by Nunes in the 1929
championship, since Armitage won the 1929 Outdoor Sabre title.
>I also don't think it is possible for a beginner to determine what their
>career weapon is, and that it isn't fair to decide for them. Many fencers
>change their main weapon every few years, and as mentioned above, many
>others give equal time to two weapons or more. In my experience, the
>multi-weapon fencers have larger repertoires, a wider range of experience,
>and are generally tougher opponents. The single-weapon fencers are more
>predictable and easily fall victim to certain attacks that exploit their
>narrow instincts.
I agree entirely with all of this. In fact I have concentrated on sabre
a lot in the past year but if they screw up the rules it looks like back
to foil for me.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
David Airey
: In fact there was a 3-weapon championship help from 1907 until 1941.
: Nunes must have been a particularly talented fencer, winning many U.S.
: national championships:
: 1917: Epee
: 1921: Outdoor Epee, 3-Weapon
: 1922: Epee, Sabre, 3-Weapon
: 1924: Foil, Epee
: 1925: Outdoor Epee
: 1926: Epee, Sabre, 3-Weapon
: 1928: Epee, Outdoor Sabre, 3-Weapon
: 1929: Sabre
: 1930: 3-Weapon
: 1932: Epee
As far as I know, only two people have held dual world titles:
Aldo Nadi, Nado Nadi.
Their coach Bepe Nadi.
I'll look up dates, but I'm pretty sure it was foil/Epee.
David.
Daniel P. Vunck
>In article <2hdft4$k...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> ai...@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au (David Airey) writes:
> [ I mention some multi-weapon U.S. Champions]
>>As far as I know, only two people have held dual world titles:
>>Aldo Nadi, Nado Nadi.
>>Their coach Bepe Nadi.
>I thought that the family name was Naldi. In any case, these guys were
>_awesome_ fencers.
>>I'll look up dates, but I'm pretty sure it was foil/Epee.
>This brings up a question: What ever happened to 3-weapon championships?
>I think that this kind of event would tend to favor more experienced
>fencers, and better 'quality' fencing.
>What would people think of a tournament where instead of three one-weapon
>tournaments glued together, each bout was fifteen touches, five in each weapon?
>(What I mean by this is the same as each 'bout' being a best of three five
>touch bouts, one in each weapon. These should probably be in the order
>epee-sabre-foil or sabre-epee-foil so that foil would be the deciding
>weapon, although this discriminates against foil specialists when it comes
>to indicators.)
>You could do this dry pretty easily, but electric would be a pain. Too bad,
>because I bet there aren't very many useful epee judges (not floor judges)
>left in the world. In my club, we refer to dry epee as the 'comedy weapon'
>since it's pretty hard to tell what happened even with the best of intentions.
>The particular attraction of three-weapon bouts as opposed to three separate
>one weapon tournaments is that a fencer like me, (good in foil and sabre but
>uh, well, umm, good in foil and sabre...) would not be likely to place very
>high, although in three one-weapon tournaments I could probably get through
>more rounds. In other words, three one-weapon tournaments glued together
>tends to favor fencers who are strong in two weapons, but a single tournament
>with three-weapon bouts favors true three-weapon fencers, _and_ places
>fencers accordingly.
>Later,
>Andrew Mullhaupt
Here in Va. once a year we hold a three weapon tournament. It is
somewhat diferent than Andrew describes.
Ours is a team event (teams of 3) where each team member must be
able to fence any of the weapons. The way it works, if I remember
correctly, is that there is a coin toss. The team who wins the toss
gets to choose which two fencers will fence first. The other team
gets to choose which weapon they will use. The team who lost the
toss gets to select the fencers for the second bout (from the
remaining fencers) while the other team gets to pick the weapon
(from the remaining two.) The last bout will be the two fencers who
have not fenced, fencing the last weapon.
This can be very wierd. Often the best fencer in each weapon will
not get to fnce it.
Dan Vunck
VCU Fencing Club
p...@cabell.vcu.edu.edu
Susan Mullhaupt
[ I mention some multi-weapon U.S. Champions]
>As far as I know, only two people have held dual world titles:
>Aldo Nadi, Nado Nadi.
>Their coach Bepe Nadi.
I thought that the family name was Naldi. In any case, these guys were
_awesome_ fencers.
>I'll look up dates, but I'm pretty sure it was foil/Epee.
This brings up a question: What ever happened to 3-weapon championships?
Morgan Burke
|> In article <2h70qs$4...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> mor...@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
|> >A parry is the only way to stop the opponent's attack,
|>
|> I use stop hits, breaking ground, displacement and trickery to stop as many
|> if not _more_ attacks than I parry.
Okay, semantic problem. These actions don't _STOP_ the attack; they
attempt to avoid or pre-empt it. The attack continues unabated, although
it may miss or hit out of time. If you really want to STOP the attack,
99 times out of 100 you must parry or otherwise engage the blade. (The
other 1 time you can try something really slick like finta in tempo or something.)
[...]
|> Often, a good parry _doesn't_ stop an attack, but deflects it enough to
|> exhibit control over the attacking blade. In foil and in sabre, it is actually
|> desirable for the defender to start the riposte while the attacker continues
|> to press the attack after a parry.
Very true, but since the subject is "parrying in epee" these concerns
probably detract from the points trying to be made.
[...]
|> >Once the instinct to
|> >riposte is developed, then you can worry about the details.
|>
|> Can you clarify what you mean here? I'm not sure I agree with this.
The original poster, Michael, expressed concern about his parrying
ability by saying: "When I do make a parry, it is usually desperate...
and my ripost is non-existent." Several people suggested that he could
improve his parrying by training in foil. Good advice, but since the
riposte is a major part of his problem, and foil ripostes are generally
different from epee ripostes, it is not a complete solution.
Since Michael's ripostes are "non-existent", however, some foil training
could be beneficial just to develop the ability to riposte at all. Once he
can riposte at will, then he can concern himself with the tactical
differences between foil and epee riposting techniques.
|> >Foil is the most universal of the three weapons, and training in it can
|> >be beneficial to fencers of all weapons.
|>
|> Although I have no doubt that fencing foil helps almost any sabreur, I
|> generally think of foil as a subset of sabre. The only real difference is
|> that off-target hits still stop the action in foil. By rights, they
|> should in sabre; but that's another story. So aside from this point, foil
|> is more like one of the possible common denominators between sabre and epee.
That is more or less what I meant when I said "universal". Foil skills
in their entirety can be used to fence any weapon, so foil training will
always have some relevance to fencers of epee and sabre. By contrast,
typical sabre or epee training is often specialized towards the unique
aspects of their particular methods (head cuts, counter-attack to forearm,
etc.), with little relevance to the other weapons.
[...]
|> >Just this week I noticed that the Canadian National
|> >Foil champion, David Waller, is also A-classified in epee. Canadian
|> >National Epee team member Dan Nowolsielski is B-classified in foil.
|>
|> This is not new. [...]
Not new at all. The point is that versatility and cross-weapon training
is not only beneficial to many fencers, but may even be a hallmark of
champions, rather than a training burden that keeps fencers from
achieving their best.
-- Morgan Burke
mor...@sitka.triumf.ca
Bruce Prickett
>>As far as I know, only two people have held dual world titles:
>>Aldo Nadi, Nado Nadi.
>
>>Their coach Bepe Nadi.
>
>I thought that the family name was Naldi. In any case, these guys were
>_awesome_ fencers.
Nadi, unless they changed it at some point - this is how it's spelled
in Aldo Nadi's book
...
>because I bet there aren't very many useful epee judges (not floor judges)
>left in the world. In my club, we refer to dry epee as the 'comedy weapon'
>since it's pretty hard to tell what happened even with the best of intentions.
"Dry" epee used to be easier to judge - the point d'arret made it pretty
obvious when there was a hit. I've also heard that the thread holding the
point d'arret to the button would be soaked in ink, to make a spot at the
point of impact. This spot could be removed by lemon juice, leading to the
jokes/fencing legend about cheaters who soaked their jackets in lemon juice.
Anyhow, this is all second hand for me - I've only seen a point d'arret once,
and I was glad they weren't being used anymore!
Anyone have some bloody dry-epee stories ?;) (actually, I'd like to hear if
my version of pre-electric epee stuff is correct or not).
Bruce P.
Morgan Burke
|> This brings up a question: What ever happened to 3-weapon championships?
|> I think that this kind of event would tend to favor more experienced
|> fencers, and better 'quality' fencing.
There is a simple way of rigging up something like this without
having to devise a whole new tournament format. Simply host your
regular tournament with three one-weapon championships (that way
you'll still get your regular turnout), but offer additional
medals/trophies for "overall champion" or something like that.
The overall champ would have to enter at least two weapons, and his
overall score is simply the total number of fencers he places ahead
of. Eg. Fencer A places 10/40 in foil, 2/12 in sabre, and doesn't enter
epee; his final score is (40-10)+(12-2) = 40. Fencer B places 20/40 in
foil, 6/12 in sabre, and 15/30 in epee; his score is 41 and he beats A,
even though A performed better, because A didn't fence epee.
If you like you can normalize the scores from different weapons.
Scores could be normalized to the level of the highest-turnout weapon
(40 in the above case). The above scores normalized would be
(40-10) + (12-2)*40/12 = 63.3 for A and (40-20) + (12-6)*40/12 +
(30-15)*(40/30) = 60 for B. Now A wins, because of his strong
performances, despite B's extra epee points.
Of course there are a zillion other ways to do it, but these methods
have the benefit of using familiar tournament formats with larger
turnouts, simple computations, and testing the fencers' abilities
against the best single-weapon fencers, not just other multi-weapon
fencers. However, it wouldn't necessarily favour "more experienced
fencers, and better 'quality' fencing", as you put it, since you're
still up against the regular lot of fencers.
-- Morgan Burke
mor...@sitka.triumf.ca
Susan Mullhaupt
> I've also heard that the thread holding the
>point d'arret to the button would be soaked in ink, to make a spot at the
>point of impact. This spot could be removed by lemon juice, leading to the
>jokes/fencing legend about cheaters who soaked their jackets in lemon juice.
In de Beaumont's book, he describes such a foil system using points with a
cotton wad soaked in phenolpthalein and ammonia which would leave a
red mark on the jacket.
I always figured that the reason it didn't catch on was that getting
hit on the mask might get tiresome after a while - or maybe you'd
wear a gas mask under the fencing mask.
Of course the lemon juice would have prevented these hits from showing
so maybe your stort is the same as this one.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Susan Mullhaupt
>In article <2haf4i$r...@ysics.physics.sunysb.edu>, mull...@mathlab.sunysb.edu (Susan Mullhaupt) writes:
>|> In article <2h70qs$4...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> mor...@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>|> >A parry is the only way to stop the opponent's attack,
>|>
>|> I use stop hits, breaking ground, displacement and trickery to stop as many
>|> if not _more_ attacks than I parry.
>
>Okay, semantic problem. These actions don't _STOP_ the attack; they
>attempt to avoid or pre-empt it. The attack continues unabated, although
>it may miss or hit out of time. If you really want to STOP the attack,
>99 times out of 100 you must parry or otherwise engage the blade. (The
>other 1 time you can try something really slick like finta in tempo or something.)
>
No, I meant _stop_ an attack. Of course these actions can also avoid attacks,
but a lot of fencers _do not_ have the ability to automatically press home
an attack if you change the scene drastically enough. I find that sometimes
a fake parry in the wrong line can actually stop an attacker from
completing his cut. This is entirely psychological, and really good
opponents do not usually have such buttons to press. But it is suprising
to me that a lot of fencers _do_ need the opponent to do something they
expect or else their attack can collapse.
I think that I use distance a lot to change how the opponent feels about
his attack while it's in progress. I know a lot of times when I am _not_
controlling distance, the opponent makes me feel awful about my attacks, too.
Now I have no knowledge of a refined vocabulary for the things that one
does when emotionally loading the opponent, but a lot of it is kind of
like method acting; you make yourself appear more or less vulnerable
or attentive, and a lot of it is body language. A classic one is to
prevent attacks by making an obvious invitation to cover an advance
into lunging distance. Several pretty good sabreurs around here do this.
There is no good reason why to do it, and the opponent should just launch
the number one right into the teeth of it, but that isn't what happens most
of the time.
Stopping attacks in progress is less likely than preventing them, but
this happens too, and I think more than one chance in a hundred.
>|> >Just this week I noticed that the Canadian National
>|> >Foil champion, David Waller, is also A-classified in epee. Canadian
>|> >National Epee team member Dan Nowolsielski is B-classified in foil.
>|>
>|> This is not new. [...]
>
>Not new at all. The point is that versatility and cross-weapon training
>is not only beneficial to many fencers, but may even be a hallmark of
>champions, rather than a training burden that keeps fencers from
>achieving their best.
I agree completely.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Palit, Suman
>
>
>Anyone have some bloody dry-epee stories ?;) (actually, I'd like to hear if
>my version of pre-electric epee stuff is correct or not).
Well, a year ago, I met a fencer out of Port Arthur (or was it Beaumont?)
at a tournament. He was just into his seventies, and fenced very handily,
trounced me quite convincingly, but that's another story....
Apparently, he started fencing over fifty years ago (and I thought, WOW, this
guy is really old..:-| ) and used to fence collegiate foil & epee, when
epee used to be fenced with the points'd arret. It seems you could tell who
were the epee fencers at a tournament by the numerous scars on their
fencing arms. Most of the pre-electric epee tournaments he went to were
one-touch competitions, and if you lost five or six bouts, you were ususally
out of the rest of the tournament, so I guess dry epee wasn't so horrifying
after all....
>
>Bruce P.
>
Suman Palit
P.S. And oh yes..he did say that the only way to do well at one of those
dry epee tournaments, was to have a really good parry and a careful (as
opposed to reflexive) riposte. Personally, I think that is still the best
tactical advice for fencing epee.
The Dark Mage
>I've decided to learn how to parry. I've fenced epee for a while now
>and had fair success but have a miserable parry. About as close to a
>parry as I come is counter attack with opposition. When I do make a
>parry, it is usually desperate (in response to a fleche that caught me
>is distance) and my ripost is non-existent. So there's the background,
>now too questions for netland.
Confession: when I first started fencing, about a year ago, my friend
was teaching me more by the "Ok, stand like this, hold the blade like
this, now just try to keep my blade away from you while keeping your
point in line" method than anything else; soon after, I started fencing
with the local SCA group; by the time I started "real" fencing in the
beginning of last semester, I sorta had a clue, a quick "Ok, here's how
college fencing works as opposed to what you're coming from" and "plug
that into there" and I got right onto the strip.
In all that time, no one ever showed me what any of the numbers were
(well, sort of - when I first heard someone mention something about
"six", I asked a couple of people... The closest I got was "well,
here's four and here's six, keep getting the others messed up and
anyways no one uses 'em too much"...)
So I know 4 and 6 (I use 6 a lot), but where are the others?
>2)
>Quarte is rare in my experience. Obviously, you must uncover your arm
>to make four (unless you go in quartatta) but I see people desperately
>scooping with counter sixte rather than make an obvious four.
>Why?
well, I'm left handed, and I find myself using 4 a lot on those rare
occaisions when I fence other left-handed-types. (what's "quartatta"?)
>6)
>Anyone ever use tierce against lefties trying to jump to the outside?
Here's one I wanna here! ;) What exactly are you doing, and how would
I stop you? :)
--dm
Theo Norvell
>my version of pre-electric epee stuff is correct or not).
>
>Bruce P.
>
Not quite. I think you are combining two separate methods to aid
detecting hits.
One was the three pronged point d'arret which left a little tear in
the jacket.
The other consisted of small sponge on the end of the weapon which
was surrounded by a spring loaded barrel. A hit of sufficient force
would cause the barrel to retract and the sponge to deposit some
red ink on the jacket.
It both cases, the president was armed with a pencil for circling
hits so that they wouldn't be counted twice.
For fun, my coach and his buddies used to fence with the pronged
point d'arret wearing only shorts. He described these one-hit
bouts as `long' but very good for the parry.
So that's the answer to the original query of how to learn to parry in
Epee. Never mind foil, just get some old epees and take your jacket off.
Theo
Carlie Coats
[stuff omitted...]
>This brings up a question: What ever happened to 3-weapon championships?
>I think that this kind of event would tend to favor more experienced
>fencers, and better 'quality' fencing.
>
>What would people think of a tournament where instead of three one-weapon
>tournaments glued together, each bout was fifteen touches, five in each weapon?
>(What I mean by this is the same as each 'bout' being a best of three five
>touch bouts, one in each weapon. These should probably be in the order
>epee-sabre-foil or sabre-epee-foil so that foil would be the deciding
>weapon, although this discriminates against foil specialists when it comes
>to indicators.)
>
>You could do this dry pretty easily, but electric would be a pain. Too bad,
>because I bet there aren't very many useful epee judges (not floor judges)
>left in the world. In my club, we refer to dry epee as the 'comedy weapon'
>since it's pretty hard to tell what happened even with the best of intentions.
>
>The particular attraction of three-weapon bouts as opposed to three separate
>one weapon tournaments is that a fencer like me, (good in foil and sabre but
>uh, well, umm, good in foil and sabre...) would not be likely to place very
>high, although in three one-weapon tournaments I could probably get through
>more rounds. In other words, three one-weapon tournaments glued together
>tends to favor fencers who are strong in two weapons, but a single tournament
>with three-weapon bouts favors true three-weapon fencers, _and_ places
>fencers accordingly.
>
>Later,
>Andrew Mullhaupt
The way I organized them (when I was Bout Committee Chair for New England)
was to treat each encounter under team-match rules: each pool does a
round-robin in each of the three weapons. For each triple of encounters
with an opponent, two or more bout wins constitutes a match win; else if
epee double-defeats and the other two weapons split, you count touches
received. IMHO, the team match rules make it more balanced (unlike the
way it is when you fence one 15-touch bout changing weapons at 5 and 10
touches; if a fencer is *very* strong in the last weapon, that completely
controls the match.
As a matter of fact, I won one of these tournaments by going for the double
defeat in epee--both my opponent and I were undefeated in matches before we
met. He beat me 5-4 in foil (*my* weapon!), I beat him 5-1 in sabre, and
when the epee score got to 1-1 (his weapon), I realized that if I tried to
*win* the bout, I might lose (and lose the match). So I played successfully
for the double defeat, won the match on touches, and therefore the tournament.
Hence it makes things even more interesting if you fence the epee round last!
Carlie J. Coats, Jr. co...@cardinal.ncsc.org
Environmental Programs
North Carolina Supercomputing Center
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Susan Mullhaupt
>>What would people think of a tournament where instead of three one-weapon
>>tournaments glued together, each bout was fifteen touches, five in each weapon?
>>(What I mean by this is the same as each 'bout' being a best of three five
>The way I organized them (when I was Bout Committee Chair for New England)
>was to treat each encounter under team-match rules: each pool does a
>round-robin in each of the three weapons. For each triple of encounters
>with an opponent, two or more bout wins constitutes a match win; else if
>epee double-defeats and the other two weapons split, you count touches
>received. IMHO, the team match rules make it more balanced (unlike the
>way it is when you fence one 15-touch bout changing weapons at 5 and 10
>touches; if a fencer is *very* strong in the last weapon, that completely
>controls the match.
I think that for round robins, doing each of the three weapons as
separate pools is certainly a very practical suggestion. On the other
hand, I do not see your point that this is more 'balanced' than using
three-weapon bouts. Suppose a fencer is very strong in the first two
weapons that get fenced. He will win a lot of bouts without even having to
score a touch with the third weapon. I though about the best two out of three
weapon approach and decided against it for this reason. The point of a single
fifteen touch bout is that the loser will have had a chance to fence all
three weapons meaningfully.
On the other hand, I do see the problem that you are getting at; suppose we
are fencing epee last. I being good in foil and sabre quickly establish a
10-0 lead. Now we switch into epee, and the 'A' class epeeist opponent
cleans me out to win 15-10. The bout structure is favoring a one-weapon
fencer over a two-weapon fencer.
This actually suggests yet another bout design problem. I think I have an
idea for this but I'll have to work it out carefully.
>As a matter of fact, I won one of these tournaments by going for the double
>defeat in epee--both my opponent and I were undefeated in matches before we
>met. He beat me 5-4 in foil (*my* weapon!)
>Hence it makes things even more interesting if you fence the epee round last!
Yes, of course epee poses special problems. You could handle the epee doubles
like sabre double (of last year's rules) without needing special rules.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Morgan Burke
|> >career weapon is, and that it isn't fair to decide for them. Many fencers
|> >change their main weapon every few years, and as mentioned above, many
|> >others give equal time to two weapons or more. In my experience, the
|> >multi-weapon fencers have larger repertoires, a wider range of experience,
|> >and are generally tougher opponents. The single-weapon fencers are more
|> >predictable and easily fall victim to certain attacks that exploit their
|> >narrow instincts.
In article <19JAN94.14...@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU>, STFZ <ST...@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU> writes:
|> Actually, I would think it only makes you predictable if you weapon-
|> hop... I fenced Julio Diaz (a foilist) recently in epee, and although
|> he beat me quite nicely (he is an excellent fencer with much more
|> experience than I), I found him delightfully predictable going on the
|> knowledge that he was a foilist. I expected him to parry, so I simply
|> continued the riposte or took a counterattack in opposition. In more
|> cases than not, I retained at least a double touch against him because
|> after he took "right of way" he simply ignored my blade. I do have
|> a lot more respect for riposte speed and flicks coming in handy after
|> fencing him, though.
If this fencer was a foilist, then it isn't surprising that you found him predictable when fencing epee; he's not only a single-weapon fencer, but
one who is out of his element.
Dual-weapon fencers don't seem to have these problems. I fence a number
of foil/epee fencers and their epee instincts don't affect their foil
game at all. They have very different behaviour from single-weapon
epee fencers who pick up a foil. I also regularly fence a sabre/foil
dual weapon fencer. Not only is he a good foilist, but when we fence
sabre, point attacks don't faze him (bummer, since they work so well
against single-weapon sabreurs...).
|> I still must stand by my premise that parrying is not always desirable
|> in epee, however. If your reaction is to parry on an action that
|> would be better counterattacked, your parry wastes valuable time and
|> points.
I don't think anyone has claimed that parries are _always_ desireable.
There are obviously many occasions when counter-attacks are more
appropriate. The two moves are complimentary, but not interchangeable.
-- Morgan Burke
mor...@sitka.triumf.ca
STFZ
Actually, I would think it only makes you predictable if you weapon-
hop... I fenced Julio Diaz (a foilist) recently in epee, and although
he beat me quite nicely (he is an excellent fencer with much more
experience than I), I found him delightfully predictable going on the
knowledge that he was a foilist. I expected him to parry, so I simply
continued the riposte or took a counterattack in opposition. In more
cases than not, I retained at least a double touch against him because
after he took "right of way" he simply ignored my blade. I do have
a lot more respect for riposte speed and flicks coming in handy after
fencing him, though.
I still must stand by my premise that parrying is not always desirable
in epee, however. If your reaction is to parry on an action that
would be better counterattacked, your parry wastes valuable time and
points.
-Mer
Kerry Anderson
strong enough interest. My approach to the event is that everyone enters specifying
their "weapon of choice" (presumably their strongest weapon). When a competitor
comes across another with the same "weapon of choice", they fence with that weapon.
When the two "weapons of choice" differ, they fence using the third weapon. For
example, my weapon of choice would be epee. When I come across another epeeist, we
fence epee. If I come across a foilist, we fence sabre. I don't *think* there would
be any benefit in picking a "weapon of choice" different from your strongest.
Hopefully, we`ll try it out some day.
Kerry Anderson
Susan Mullhaupt
> When a competitor
>comes across another with the same "weapon of choice", they fence with that weapon.
>When the two "weapons of choice" differ, they fence using the third weapon. For
>example, my weapon of choice would be epee. When I come across another epeeist, we
>fence epee. If I come across a foilist, we fence sabre. I don't *think* there would
>be any benefit in picking a "weapon of choice" different from your strongest.
There _can_ be benefit from choosing a weapon other than your specialty. Suppose
you and I know we will meet in the final. I expect you will choose epee, which
is your strongest weapon. I am strongest in sabre, so I choose foil. Now this
means that we fence sabre, which I prefer.
I am a pretty good example of a guy who would choose my second strongest
weapon, (foil), since I want to fence epee against sabreurs _only_. I
would get to fence sabre against epeeists, (Hooray!) and foil against
foilists (which I do a lot anyways). I expect that unless everyone chooses
foil, that I will do pretty well in a round robin since I will _kill_
all the epee fencers who chose epee, and most of the sabreurs I have to
usually worry about will fence epee with me, which is pretty much a toss up.
I'm not so bad in foil so I think I'd be maximizing my chance of moving up.
Now let's say this strategy gets me to the direct elimination; who will I
be fencing? Well, I've helped deplete the epeeists so I will be fencing
mostly foil against foilists and epee against sabreurs, so I'm really
in a foil tournament.
Of course what's to stop yon epee fencer from realising this trick can work
for him too, so he chooses foil, (a likely second weapon for epeeists I know)
and so now it really is just a foil tournament.
Now the foilists can't do any better than to stick with foil, since any
other choice will force them up against sabreurs in sabre or epeeists in
epee, and you can't expect them to chance this in the direct elimination.
Now for the _really_ interesting part. I know that everyone is more likely to
choose foil, so _I_ choose _epee_! Now, I get to fence sabre against
everyone, which is just fine with me, except any epeeists who were dumb
enough to stick with epee. _They_ will beat me, but get killed by all the
other sabreurs who picked foil, so I'll get to the next round, (they won't)
and I'll be in sabre against everyone. So I'm really in a sabre tournament
with a lot of foilists who tended to beat the sabreurs, so I sweep the
elimination round!
But wait! I'm not even started yet! (Cf. Iocaine powder/Princess Bride...)
Of course the other sabreurs realise this strategy is available to them
too, and the foilists have an advantage by switching to ...
What you have here is a game likely to have cooperation/defection strategies
and they will be based on how many of each kind of fencer are entered that
you might get stopped by.
So instead of "no advantage" to choosing a weaker weapon, let's say it's
hard to analyze choosing a weaker weapon...
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
David Airey
: In article <1994Jan18....@mcnc.org> co...@cardinal.ncsc.org (Carlie Coats) writes:
: >>What would people think of a tournament where instead of three one-weapon
: >>tournaments glued together, each bout was fifteen touches, five in each weapon?
: >>(What I mean by this is the same as each 'bout' being a best of three five
:` >>touch bouts, one in each weapon...)
One format designed to itroduce frustration but very good for social events is
to chose the weapon at the start of each bout - by lot!! For pool bouts
the draw is made when fencers ar call as 'in preparation' but for DE bout
(and you have to have a DE - even if there are only four of you) the
format is 3*5 with the draw made just before the start of each bout - fencers
given a considerate one minute to change equiment.
try it
No one likes it but every-one enjoys it.
DAVID
Kerry Anderson
In article <CJxs6...@NoFC.Forestry.CA> kand...@nofc.forestry.ca writes:
> When a competitor
>comes across another with the same "weapon of choice", they fence with that weapon.
>When the two "weapons of choice" differ, they fence using the third weapon. For
>example, my weapon of choice would be epee. When I come across another epeeist, we
>fence epee. If I come across a foilist, we fence sabre. I don't *think* there would
>be any benefit in picking a "weapon of choice" different from your strongest.
Well, I've had a fewe responses pointing out that there may be an advantage to picking
a weapon other than your strongest as a "weapon of choice". I still think that it
would depend largely on the actual turnout (i.e. lots of foil fencers vs few sabeurists, etc.) and one could find out the best choice through a cost-matrix approach
BUT if all the "weapons of choice" are hidden until the beginning of the tournament
one could not do such an evaluation.
Anyways, the whole idea was for a fun tournament. If players wanted to use this
format for a serious tournament, they could use last years results to assign "weapons
of choice".
Kerry Anderson
P.S. Much of the discussion is on trying to *trick* other fencers into fencing your
weapon of choice. What about fencers with the samer weapon of choice? If I come
across a strong epee fencer, I WANT to fence epee against him. I don't want our
bout to fall more to *chance* in foil or sabre.