![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anotheranonI've come to the point in my game that it's as much a mental as physical exercise and the next logical progression is improving my tactics. And I thought lunges were hard...
My assignment is deceptively simple. There are only 4 elements to name: offense, defense, preparation, feint. Time is an outside factor that affects the appropriateness of the action (parry takes less time than a lunge) and whether it's the real deal or not (attacks from long distance are not threatening). I need to read my opponent and find out what combination of these they are doing, and come up with a counteraction(s). I'm to do this while I'm fencing, and/or while watching video, and get in the habit of evaluating.
My thinking is still so rigid that I define what I see in terms of actions: 3 steps forward from a certain opponent means it's a real attack; the appropriate action is parry-riposte, for example. Coach wants me think in broader terms so I'm more flexible in my responses. I do understand why this is necessary, but it involves breaking some assumptions that I've become comfortable with (ALWAYS riposte after parry; lunges are for attack only).
Also, when I miss a touch, my default assumption is that the problem is technical and if I just do it better it will work, when really my tactics are faulty and I need to do something different. This may be the hardest habit to break as no matter how many times coach assures me my technical skills are "enough good", I feel (and look!) so stiff and slow that I have trouble believing that.
Coach also alerted me to the fact that I unconsciously stay a step or so too far back to reach my opponent effectively, which explains why I thought my depth perception was bad and why my deep lunges still fall short - I've been further away than I thought I was!
Fortunately, due to Nationals there's a lot of gold medal bout footage floating around, so I can not only watch good fencing, I can try to unravel what's going on.
As ever with this sport, I'm trying to see another bit of the iceberg. It's frustrating but certainly never gets dull.
My assignment is deceptively simple. There are only 4 elements to name: offense, defense, preparation, feint. Time is an outside factor that affects the appropriateness of the action (parry takes less time than a lunge) and whether it's the real deal or not (attacks from long distance are not threatening). I need to read my opponent and find out what combination of these they are doing, and come up with a counteraction(s). I'm to do this while I'm fencing, and/or while watching video, and get in the habit of evaluating.
My thinking is still so rigid that I define what I see in terms of actions: 3 steps forward from a certain opponent means it's a real attack; the appropriate action is parry-riposte, for example. Coach wants me think in broader terms so I'm more flexible in my responses. I do understand why this is necessary, but it involves breaking some assumptions that I've become comfortable with (ALWAYS riposte after parry; lunges are for attack only).
Also, when I miss a touch, my default assumption is that the problem is technical and if I just do it better it will work, when really my tactics are faulty and I need to do something different. This may be the hardest habit to break as no matter how many times coach assures me my technical skills are "enough good", I feel (and look!) so stiff and slow that I have trouble believing that.
Coach also alerted me to the fact that I unconsciously stay a step or so too far back to reach my opponent effectively, which explains why I thought my depth perception was bad and why my deep lunges still fall short - I've been further away than I thought I was!
Fortunately, due to Nationals there's a lot of gold medal bout footage floating around, so I can not only watch good fencing, I can try to unravel what's going on.
As ever with this sport, I'm trying to see another bit of the iceberg. It's frustrating but certainly never gets dull.
