Coachly
Thoughts
Vol. 1, Issue 2; 21 Feb 2003
The topic this time around is the parry-riposte: two actions that should
always come together and follow immediately, because a parry without a riposte
is just delaying the inevitable hit, and the riposte without parry is just
a counterattack.
I will be breaking this pair apart for the purposes of the discussion, but
don't worry. They shall be reunited in the end, it's their destiny.
The parry is a redirection of an attack away from the attack's original
line and target to somewhere where the attack is rendered useless. Sometimes
in saber, attacks are parried into the legs because that off-target does
not stop the action. Most of the time, the attacks are simply shifted away
from the fencer's target area. There is a difference between a parry and
a block, because a block applies a direct counterforce to stop the attack
while the parry utilizes a force in a different direction to move the attack
away - and dissipate the force of the attack, if you're really good.
Technically,
that makes saber's head-parry (or parry 5) a block. But it works, so I won't
argue semantics. In saber and foil the parry is utterly essential to victory,
because if you constantly counterattack your opponent the odds are against
you due to right of way. For that matter, so are the rules. In Epee, however,
it becomes far more important to prevent an attack continuation (attacking
after having been parried) because the parry does not take Right of Way
from your opponent. In fact, there is NO RoW in Epee, so your parries had
better be sharp and effective.
A
few coaches in epee don't even teach parries, as they consider it a waste
of time better spent doing other things. Personally, I disagree. I feel
that a properly executed parry-riposte is one of the most useful tools in
the epeeist's arsenal right next to the head-thrust, both for sheer unconventionality.
For the purposes of epee, I have found that the parry works best as part
of a blade binding maneuver. This is when you use your blade and guard to
both prevent your opponent from scoring on you while lining up your own
attack. It's a combination of a disengage and a circular parry with riposte
(in opposition, if you want to be REALLY technical). That way, even if your
attack misses, your opponent's blade isn't going to be burying itself in
your tender areas.
Getting
back to foil and saber (right of way weapons), there has been an interesting
semantic discussion of late regarding parries and whether or not they're
sufficient. The shorthand for insufficient parry is 'mal pare,' which I
think is French for 'bad parry.' Basically, the discussion relates to whether
or not the mal pare should be announced as part of the sequence of actions.
Then again, there's also the issue on what exactly qualifies as a mal pare.
There are two basic schools of thought on that issue. One states that ANY
attempt to defend oneself is sufficient for fencing purposes. I don't entirely
agree, but I can see the logic behind the argument. That is, the flexibility
of the blades and the extreme prevalence of whipover in saber and flicks
in foil make a complete stopping of the opponent's blade extremely difficult.
Historically, such attacks were impossible to execute due to the rigidity
of the weapons employed. It is also a valid argument when you consider that
fencing is supposed to be an elegant sport with elegant conduct. I say that
because some fencers take it in their minds that they can - and do - power
through their opponent's attempted parries. I consider that type of strategy
to be a crutch for good technique, especially when the fencer in question
should know better. Besides, no one I know enjoys being slammed around on
the fencing strip by someone who thinks he's Conan the Destroyer.
The
opposing argument is that the parry must stop the attack completely, and
it must be an active attempt at the defense. This, I feel, puts quite a
burden on the defender because not only must they completely stop the blade
from touching them (hard enough to do in practice, near impossible in electric
gear) they must completely commit to the parry. It is typically done by
making a large motion with the arm in the direction of the parry. In some
cases, I have observed the attacker self-parry and then continue when the
defender executes the riposte, only to have it called insufficient parry,
therefore attack-counterattack.
As I read back over this, I note that my descriptions favor the first school
of thought and are hostile towards the second. That isn't entirely the case,
but I find myself agreeing more with the first than the second. I will state
that if the blades were stiffer and whipping them around like pasta noodles
was not the technique de jour I would support the second school - with the
exception of the active parrying thing. That's because I don't like encouraging
overly aggressive behavior at the expense of solid technique. After all,
how many sane people would run hell-bent for leather towards someone else
who had a sword without any intention of defending themselves?
I
don't like the notion that the defender has to overcommit to the defense,
because it's entirely too easy to change lines. This is just as true in
foil as in saber, but the ease of contact in saber means that I am thinking
of the saber as I write. The fact of the matter remains that many directors
give the attacker carte blanche and a get-out-of-jail-free card when it
comes to deciding the action. This has led to a typical tournament bout
wherein both fencers charge down the strip and make obvious attacks at each
other in an attempt to sway the director to award Right of Way to them.
That, my friends, is what led to the Priority system and the eventual abolition
of the crossover advance.
Getting back to the original topic, the announcement of the mal pare is
not traditionally done in competitive bouts, nor is it required. It is,
however, typically announced in practice bouts so that both fencers can
learn as much as possible from the experience.
Now, for the riposte. As I said above, a riposte without parry is nothing
other than a counterattack - a stop hit for the specifically minded. That
includes the notion of the distance parry, which isn't really a parry at
all but instead some VERY precise and noteworthy footwork. It should be
pointed out here that all of this is totally irrelevant if the initial attack
misses. The key word there is "Initial." If Fencer A attacks Fencer
B and misses, then Fencer B launches a counterattack, and Fencer A continues
and they both hit at the same time, Fencer B gets the point because Fencer
A's initial attack did not arrive. At that time, Fencer A loses the right
of way and it passes to Fencer B.
I
know that some people will argue that a continuation, more technically called
the Remise, keeps right of way, but I believe they are mistaken (the rulebook
is more than a little vague about that, which results in the whole mal pare
debate). If the initial attack is stopped, parried, redirected, made to
miss or otherwise not arrive, then the riposte, counterattack, stop hit
or what-have-you gains that right of way. If the original attacker makes
no attempt to parry after the original attack has missed, they don't keep
right of way just because they attacked first. Strike one, you're out.
That also applies to compound attacks: for example, a beat-attack. If I
evade your beat and hit you, it's my attack into your preparation because
you're looking for my blade first instead of looking to hit me. I don't
have to counter-beat your beat if you miss my blade - in fact, it's to my
detriment if I do! If the beat misses, and I go searching for your blade,
then you've turned the tables on me and you could attack into MY preparation.
Complicated? Oh yes, but that's the end result of the rules of Right of
Way.
Stay tuned for the next Installment, where I stop ranting and start scribing
drill ideas!