Salt Lake City 2019 - Seminar - Attack in Preparation in Foil

If you like what I do here, don't forget to subscribe! You can also help support my videos on Patreon and follow my Instagram account for daily content!
/ cyrusofchaos
/ cyrusofchaos
This is a seminar about calling attack in preparation on the long attack in foil. The seminar was lead by Justin Meehan and Sean McClain.

[@dudeofvalor9294]

Late to the party but loved this and pretty much agree with everything the guy running the seminar said. I also liked the idea that you are looking for the attacker to make a mistake and that absence of blade is not a mistake. For me attack in prep happens when you miss with a search, you stop or you never attack when the defender hits you. I’ve found attack in prep is usually obvious as the one with right of way often shouts ‘just finish!’

[@karis9050]

dude your live commentary while sitting right there in the seminar is killing me lmao, "I completely disagree with that" had me rolling

[@CyrusofChaos]

lol did I actually say that 🤣

[@karis9050]

​@@CyrusofChaos16:28

[@eliassantiago5203]

This was actually amazing to watch.

[@CyrusofChaos]

Elias Santiago glad you enjoyed it

[@Niko-du8gt]

I know that guy, Justin Meehan. I did a ref seminar with him.

[@paules3437]

I certainly appreciate the effort made here. As an educator, allow me to suggest a few things: 1. Make it professional. Don't stand there in your parka with your coffee cup. Then you just look like you're doing it casually, not professionally. 2. Use clear language. Avoid pronouns like "he," or worse, "they" and adjectives like "this." For example, if you say "So this fencers starts an advance and then that one lunges. So the attack belongs to him" is startlingly unclear. Instead, us "Fencer A" and "Fencer B" and make your language absolutely as simple as possible: "I will refer to the fencer on the left as 'Fencer A' and his opponent as 'Fencer B.' So... Fencer A starts an attack and is waving his blade. In the middle of Fencer A's blade movement, Fencer B lunges...." 3. Get a slow motion reply so everyone can actually see it. Repeating a real-life speed touch isn't helpful in terms of instruction and clarity. 4. Plan to demonstrate various points with a colleague, so each of you can take the part of one fencer. Further, practice the various scenarios beforehand so they are clear to the audience. It takes only a moment of ambiguity to make a particular demonstration unclear, so practice is necessary. 5. Consult with an actual teacher, preferably middle or high school, who understands the principles of learning and teaching. 6. See if you can find a quiet space. Knowing that that's difficult, make sure the presenter is audible. I noted that someone brought him a microphone/headset a few minutes in, which was a good idea. Again, I appreciate ANYONE willing to do this kind of work, but it'd be much more effective if it were clearer.

[@the_dauminator2966]

All of this feels too subjective. The seminar was supposed to help guide people to a certain method of calling, yet, it seemed as though people could call the exact opposite action as a touch even after the seminar. I feel as though attack in prep should happen if there is a clear hesitation in the attacker that causes his hand to be much slower to the target than the defender. Am I missing something, or is this just a more simple way of looking at it?

[@inscrutablemungus4143]

I think the point here was that unless the defender does something to make the attacker make a significant mistake (i.e, counter-time action causing the attacker to search and miss, or one that makes the attacker stop completely), it's _always_ the fencer moving forward who has RoW. And I agree with that. I think it's more important to have black and white criteria to make these calls than to have very subjective notions on attacker's hand moving slower or who started the lunge when. My concern with the subjective calls is that local/regional refs will try doing them and make lots of wrong calls. I think foil is in a great place right now with respect to balance between offense and defense. You don't need attack in prep with all of these hand speed nuances in order to defend effectively. Let's not fix what isn't broken IMO.

[@byronbranch4645]

Noooo the first guy said...if a fencer is marching forward...swings at the blade ( misses) and is attacked and then The marching fencer finishes their attack it's their touch. I'd disagree a million percent. If you were confident in your right of way you would not waste time swatting at the blade before you finish your action

[@CyrusofChaos]

Byron Branch that's not true. You "swat at the blade" to make the counterattack less dangerous. The counterattack is the strongest action in foil and parrying it is much safer than finishing with it

[@byronbranch4645]

@@CyrusofChaos see. This is why we need someone to figure out who is right 😂

[@CyrusofChaos]

Byron Branch my point is it's already very hard to attack in foil, hence the gradual shift to any forward action with a light is an attack

[@peters.778]

@@CyrusofChaos Lol. Sorry that I am so direct, but this is the most ridiculous definition of an attack I've ever heard. An "attack" is clearly defined in the rules (t.9: The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche, further clarified in t.101). It's unfortunate, that 90% of the refs don't follow the rules any more (as nicely demonstrated in this video). Slowly moving forward with unextended arm (thus denying the opponent the possibility to parry) is not "attacking". I'm glad that I'm fencing epée.

[@paules3437]

See my post of a moment ago. Your phrase "it's their touch" isn't clear. Who is the "their" you're referring to?The "Marching fencer" or the other fencer? What's why I've advocated using "Fencer A" and "Fencer B".

[@byronbranch4645]

This is definitely something that needs clarification cause I hate that arm withdrawn lunge where your body moves infront of your arm as it slides back and it's still called an attack.

[@CyrusofChaos]

Byron Branch but this is the way fencing is these days. I really like Sean's point about how it shouldn't be called because it is called so rarely at the top level. The line that did it for me was "for every one amazing call you make trying to see this action you'll make ten terrible calls". Isn't a lot of consistency worth getting rid of this action that none of the top guys like? I've seen cases where attack in prep gets called on the long attack in sabre. Those are GP refs making the call but all the fencers are annoyed and confused when it gets called against them. When people ask me how to defend against someone who has a good "matching" attack I just tell them that you need to work harder to confuse them with your distance. The longer they take to hit you the more time you've got to set something up

[@byronbranch4645]

@@CyrusofChaos I totally agree with you. This would be a great discussion for a forum. Honestly they should (FIE) just have a referendum vote to determine "hey what are we going to call this action from here on out?"

[@esgrimaxativa5175]

@@CyrusofChaos Slow down! did you just say you've seen AIP on a long attack in saber? Maybe too many of us saber guys were starting to do long attacks like in foil and some proud saber refs just had enough and want to go back to pre-2005 days. With that said I think that if foil refs are more forgiving with foil attack calls on long attacks and it continues this way, we will see the logical evolution towards saber like bouts; a brutal fight in the 1st zone to get ROW and then have a good time coming down the strip only concerned about getting your light on. A lot of times while watching foil, I think why do they just stop advancing and give up the ROW sometimes? Considering they can literally run at each other unlike saber. I think if I were a foil fencer I would concentrate on always getting the ROW off the blocks, take advantage of more crossover footwork, abuse the heck out of the off target rules in case I am counterattacked, and take clear advantage of the longer time given to finish these marching attacks.

[@CyrusofChaos]

@@esgrimaxativa5175 as a sabre fencer that seems like an obvious thing to do. why, then, doesnt every foil fencer do that? the answer is, it is very very hard to hit target in foil. in sabre, hitting target when you want to is so easy that it is basically taken for granted. i personally get annoyed when i have the ability to hit but i dont, but in foil it is the opposite. it is incredibly difficult to hit target and the defender must be approached carefully. only a small subset of the best foil fencers in the world can make the incredibly problematic attacks that people in the comments deem so problematic and even those fencers make their attacks very carefully. these people are the best in the world BECAUSE they are so good at hitting target. they shouldnt be punished for that, at this level the defender just has to work harder

[@paules3437]

It mystifies me that fencing interpretation of attack is now 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what it once was. Simply taking a step forward didn't use to be an attack; now it is.This idea of "momentum" seems very nebulous. If an attack is defined ( as others have noted) as an extension (i.e., an extendING) of the arm preceding a lunge or flèche, then why does a fencer advancing earn the right of way, regardless of what his arm is doing? Imagine a fencer should getting on guard, then beginning the bout by pointing his sword arm straight BEHIND him, pointing toward HIS end of the strip! If he starts advancing like that, acc. to recent interpretations, he still has right of way. Baffling. Further, like so much in life, the SUBTLETIES of the game disappear if we don't acknowledge an attack on the preparation. "Waving his blade" is not an attack, yet we see again and again how it's interpreted that way. Ugh.

[@paules3437]

Oops Here I am making statements about clarity and I didn't proof properly. The sentence should read, "Imagine a fencer getting on guard..." the word "should" wasn't suppose to be included.

[@paules3437]

Or even "supposeD to be included." Sheesh. I'd better read more carefully! : )

[@connorfoley-walker5672]

It's more of the fact that if you're advancing, your opponent is retreating, which isn't an offensive action and therefore can't be an attack. That's the explanation I've heard.

[@inscrutablemungus4143]

Ok, let me give you an analogy: Let's say the two of us are at a bar and have had one too many. I hear you say something, get offended and start aggressively moving towards you with my fists clenched. You back up until you reach a wall. Out of options, you throw a desperate punch to get me to stop. Who started the fight? 99+% would say I did. This is the logic behind 'momentum'. If you are retreating (or ducking/dodging) for any reason whatsoever (with point in line being the singular exception), you find me threatening -- otherwise you wouldn't be trying to put distance between the two of us. It's that simple. As for blade pointing behind/to the sky etc., flicks are a thing. We're not trying to kill the other person, just land our tip on target for the requisite amount of time. If a fencer can do that with their blade pointing backwards, that's threatening target.

[@paules3437]

How can a blade pointing backwards be threatening the target?@@inscrutablemungus4143