sport vs. martial art
Sep. 16th, 2007 09:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anotheranonToday I managed to fence smallsword without inadvertently mixing in my foil game!
This is possibly more surprising than it should be. After all, modern foil technique is descended from historic smallsword: the footwork and stance are extremely similar and the weapons are similar (though smallswords are 3-5" shorter). So there shouldn't be much mixing 'cos they're the same, right? Right?
The difference comes in the emphasis on defense and the importance (or not) of not getting hit. In modern foil, the target is limited to the torso and while parrying for right of way is descended from the very good idea of pushing your opponent's blade away from you, it's not as essential as it would be in a martial art - if your opponent hits your arm, an off-target touch is called and you start again.
The way I train for smallsword is to treat it like a real weapon, and if you're stabbed in the arm with a 30" ice pick it will stop you in your tracks :P As such, almost every attack uses some sort of opposition to not only get your opponent out of the way but to assure that they stay away, i.e., blades are always in contact, while in sport fencing they almost never are.
Comparing today's smallsword lesson to Thursday's foil lesson highlights the difference. One example: a counterattack (attack into opponent's attack without parrying) that causes a double touch can be a good idea in foil. It results in the ref calling a halt to figure out who had right of way - even if I'm hit I might still score a touch. Counterattacking in smallsword is stupid because unless I've taken action to get my opponent's point away from me, I'm still dead :P
It's these modern rules that sometimes sends historic fencers into a sword-snobbing tirade of "that's not real fencing", and it's the lack of emphasis on just who was exercising good technique that causes some modern fencers to think that historic fencers are bunch of untrained barbarians :P
Both sides are right - modern fencing is rather like playing tag with sticks, and it is possible to fence smallsword (and other historic weapons) and rely on dumb luck/sheer physical force rather than good practice. I often find myself defending each to the other side because I see the merits of both in terms of fitness and self-discipline.
This is possibly more surprising than it should be. After all, modern foil technique is descended from historic smallsword: the footwork and stance are extremely similar and the weapons are similar (though smallswords are 3-5" shorter). So there shouldn't be much mixing 'cos they're the same, right? Right?
The difference comes in the emphasis on defense and the importance (or not) of not getting hit. In modern foil, the target is limited to the torso and while parrying for right of way is descended from the very good idea of pushing your opponent's blade away from you, it's not as essential as it would be in a martial art - if your opponent hits your arm, an off-target touch is called and you start again.
The way I train for smallsword is to treat it like a real weapon, and if you're stabbed in the arm with a 30" ice pick it will stop you in your tracks :P As such, almost every attack uses some sort of opposition to not only get your opponent out of the way but to assure that they stay away, i.e., blades are always in contact, while in sport fencing they almost never are.
Comparing today's smallsword lesson to Thursday's foil lesson highlights the difference. One example: a counterattack (attack into opponent's attack without parrying) that causes a double touch can be a good idea in foil. It results in the ref calling a halt to figure out who had right of way - even if I'm hit I might still score a touch. Counterattacking in smallsword is stupid because unless I've taken action to get my opponent's point away from me, I'm still dead :P
It's these modern rules that sometimes sends historic fencers into a sword-snobbing tirade of "that's not real fencing", and it's the lack of emphasis on just who was exercising good technique that causes some modern fencers to think that historic fencers are bunch of untrained barbarians :P
Both sides are right - modern fencing is rather like playing tag with sticks, and it is possible to fence smallsword (and other historic weapons) and rely on dumb luck/sheer physical force rather than good practice. I often find myself defending each to the other side because I see the merits of both in terms of fitness and self-discipline.
misapplication of counter-attack here
Date: 2007-09-17 02:19 pm (UTC)With a competent referee, you're dead and have no chance at the point, so don't even bother. To properly counter-attack in foil, you need to make the attacker miss. This can be by avoiding the point entirely by removing your target, or by opposition to remove their blade.
I would never subscribe for the "commit suicide and pray" version of the counter-attack that you're talking about here.
Making any action in fencing is stupid unless you have a clear plan: Every action has a purpose and every tactic has a response.
Craig
http://www.fencing.net/
Re: misapplication of counter-attack here
Date: 2007-09-17 11:55 pm (UTC)If you read the link to my latest foil lesson, you'll see that constant poor counterattacks are a failure of mine, and I'm still struggling with the "feint counterattack and parry riposte" strategy my coach described this week because I've been trying vigilantly not to perform any at all.
Thanks for checking in over here :)
Re: misapplication of counter-attack here
Date: 2007-09-18 04:10 pm (UTC)Counterattacks are part of the fencing game, and you should sprinkle them in. If your opponent knows that you'll never counter-attack, then they don't have to keep their attack "honest" because there is no chance that you're going to catch them in the middle of it.
Counter-Time is a neat tactic to pull off. With it you're going "plans within plans" (to borrow from Dune) - Your final "plan" is to hit them with parry-riposte, but you can't quite get them to commit to their attack when you want them to. So, you counter-attack and hit them while they are setting up their attack.
Now, they say "Hey, he'll counterattack (CA) when I start, so I just have to wait and see the CA develop and then I'll finish my attack. Once you feel that he's "bit", you throw a very short CA (actually, a feint of one) out when they are just out of distance to hit you with the developing attack. They will feel that the distance will close when you CA, so they are safe finishing and hitting you. That's when you stop and parry-riposte, letting their own momentum from the attack land their target right onto your point.
Craig
Fencing.Net (http://www.fencing.net/)