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!