As a coach, have you ever wondered why your fencing students seem not to be able to understand how all of the parts of their technique and tactics tie together into one package? Even students who seem otherwise gifted will somehow seem to miss the main point. I think it is because we teach technique, and we teach tactics, and we forget to teach the underlying truth.
Classical fencers make a big point about how their fencing is guided by the concept of "hit without being hit." This sounds very nice, but it actually never was true. Modern martial artists will tell you that in a knife fight you have to accept the probability that, even if you win, you will get cut. Certainly dueling was not a clean, injury free process in its early days. The number of duels fought in the 1600 and 1700s between reasonably well matched opponents in which one emerged completely unscathed has not been recorded, but there are enough cases in which all of the skilled combatants, sometimes as many as 6, were seriously wounded or killed by multiple hits to question the truth of hit without being hit. And in the late 1800s and early 1900s we see fencing champions and masters, Nadi and Terrone being examples, being wounded in the duels they fought. A duel always meant that you could expect to lose blood.
That suggests that a more correct way to describe fencing is to "hit the opponent first as often as you can, and get hit as few times as possible." It is a longer fundamental statement, but a more realistic, more historically accurate, and more achievable one. Of course, first has to be understood in right of way terms in foil, in right of way and lockout time in sabre, and simply first in epee. This statement also is more useful in teaching the tactical reality that every hit counts, even in defeat, in competitions where indicators are in play.
Fencing is a balance of offense and defense. Offense is how we hit our opponent, whether by pure offensive action, by offensive action after a defensive action (the parry-riposte sequence), or by counteroffensive action (stop hits and countertime actions). Defense is how we keep from being hit, either by blade action or by footwork. We can only hit the opponent by offense or counteroffense, and we keep from being hit by defense. As obvious as this is to us as coaches, it is not obvious to all fencers, and far from obvious to beginners who have not learned the terminology, much less the underlying theory.
If the essence of fencing is to "hit the opponent first as often as you can, and get hit as few times as possible," it seems reasonable to simplify offense and defense to
... "See the target, hit the target."
This communicates the reality that we have to (1) identify a target, and (2) guide our action to hit that target. The target may be as simple as hitting an opening line in an inattentive opponent, or it may be as complex as having to create an opening through preparatory actions. But, if we do not have a target in mind, we will be hard pressed to select an appropriate technique and control the blade to the hit.
... "See the threat, block the threat."
Similarly, this statement communicates that we have to recognize the opponent's threat, whether that threat is potential (for example, the blade position of a parry) or in progress. We then have to select an appropriate action to deny that threat the opportunity to hit.
And the two phrases together address the reality that most actions have both offensive and defensive characteristics. An attack on the opponent's preparation is seeing the target and hitting it, but it is also blocking the threat by preempting it. Similarly a successful disengage attack in epee against the torso must either be blindingly fast or must close the line with opposition to prevent the stop hit, thereby blocking the threat.
Although these seem simplistic, in reality many fencers attack blindly without having a target in sight or in mind - they attack because they think should attack. Why else do fencers attack into closed lines? Similarly, many fencers defend without recognizing the true nature of the threat. Every coach can probably point to examples of this behavior in fencers who have been fencing for more than one season. That suggests these three statements may be useful in communicating truths to your students.
Walter Green is a Maitre d'Armes (Fencing Master) certified by the Academie d'Armes Internationale. He teaches modern competitive and classical fencing, historical swordplay, bayonet fencing, and Asian martial arts swords at Salle Green (http://www.sallegreen.com), the fencing school he operates in Glen Allen, Virginia. Maitre Green also trains fencing coaches through the Pan American Fencing Academy (http://panamfencing.com).
Copyright 2010 by Walter G. Green III. All rights reserved.
Visit : Fighting Knife Review
No comments:
Post a Comment