Q & A

Charles writes to ask:

1. Regarding feints, does their technical execution differ at all depending on their number -- would the first out of three feints be different from a single feint?
2. Concerning intentions in fencing…..(do you) acknowledge or teach "false attacks"?
3. Then how far would you go into counter-ripostes, and counter-counter-ripostes, etc? (Perhaps this is an idle question missing the point of the exercises, but I'm curious because some people set certain limits on how deep the actions get...)
4. Awfully broad question, but does footwork differ much between weapons in your school? How about bladework, besides the obvious differences between thrust and cut, and the changes necessitated by longer or shorter blades?

These are good questions.

First, let me say that, as a general principle, form follows function.

That is, “technique” is infinitely malleable in order to meet the specific needs of a particular tactical situation. While technical exercises establish a “baseline” of “standard” execution, that pattern must not be rigid. It must be flexible enough to be applicable in a wide range of circumstances. It doesn’t do you any good to execute a technique “right,” if it results in you being touched.

So, the only really true answer to any tactical question is, “It depends.”

At this point, it will be good to define “tactics.” Here’s my definition. Tactics comprises all those choices made “in the moment” during the course of the combat.

All tactical choices are based on an If/then model. If my opponent does A, I’ll do A1; if my opponent does B, I’ll do B1.

Some tactical choices are more likely in certain circumstances than are others.

You can guess what your opponent is going to do.

Or you can set the stage so that your opponent makes the choice that you want him/her to make.

I prefer not to guess.

Further, tactical choices follow five principles:

1. Put the point on the target
2. Feel the blades
3. Take your time
4. Keep your distance
5. Continue the phrase

I’ll go into these in more detail sometime if you like.

For now, understand that technique, tactics and strategy are all interdependent and based on definite principles.

We don’t do ANYTHING, unless we know what the combat rationale for it is.

With that proviso, I’ll address these particular elements.

In RE: Feints.

The purpose of a feint is to elicit a particular response from the opponent by providing him/her with false information. This means “communication” must take place. Your action sends a message; your opponent receives the message, deciphers its meaning and responds appropriately (all people act in accordance with what they believe to be true). The burden is on you to ensure that your opponent receives the message and ascribes to it that meaning which you intend for it to be given.

Malcolm X once said, “If somebody asks you a question in English, you don’t answer in Chinese.” There’s a corollary to that: if you want someone to understand you, you have to speak their language.

Consequently, while any feint must have a sufficient degree of verisimilitude, the actual amplitude and character of any particular feint must be such that the opponent will receive the message and give it the meaning you want him/her to give it, and then respond “appropriately,” which is to say, predictably and to your advantage.

Think of a feint like opening a door.

How wide do you open it? How long do you hold it open?

Wide enough for long enough so you can get in.

But here’s an important question: when is a feint not a feint?

And here’s an example Ms. Wyatt suggested:

You aim a thrust at your opponent’s chest.

Your opponent does nothing.

What do you do then?

Personally, I’d lunge and hit him.

It’s only a feint if my opponent responds – remember our IF/Then model.

So EVERY feint must be a real and true action with lethal intent.

Until it isn’t.

Back in the 1600’s a fellow named Capo Ferro wrote something that suggests to me that he was my kind of fighter. He said that your opponent can only make a feint either within distance or without. If without distance, ignore it. If within distance, as your opponent feints, kill him.

In RE: “intentions” in fencing.

I teach only one intention: to touch without being touched.

That may seem like a flippant answer. It is and it isn’t.

I mean that your focus must be on touching your opponent, not on playing around.

The longer a fight lasts, the worse your chances of coming out of it unscathed.

I’m reminded here of the famous scene in the film “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” in which Harrison Ford, as Indiana Jones, is confronted by a sword-flourishing opponent. Jones’ response is simply to shoot the man where he stands. (Shades of Capo Ferro)

You may not think that very gallant. But tactically, the most direct, most immediate response possible, is usually best.

In Re: False attacks

In addition to the foregoing on feints, the false attack – like everything else you do – must accomplish a specific purpose, and not devolve into a mindless fishing expedition. A false attack can be used to assess your opponent’s preferred defensive responses. It can be used as the “set-up” for a counter-time. It can be used to give your opponent an inaccurate estimate of your attacking distance. It should never be done just to do something, like nervous conversation in an elevator.

On the flip, (but not flippant) side, you, yourself, must be able to recognize false actions for what they are and NOT respond to them as your opponent wishes --- unless, of course, your response is ALSO a false action being used to lure your opponent into what will be a discommodious position for him/her to be in. You might, for example, “parry” the false attack in order to invite your opponent to direct an offensive action at another target – where you are ready to parry-riposte like lightning. In other words, you use the opponent’s own false attack against him/her to set up an ambush.

RE: The number of counter-ripostes.

Our fifth tactical principle is “continue the phrase.” If you can continue the phrase longer than your opponent can, your opponent is done for.

Technically, if you can do one counter-riposte, you can probably do more than one.

We train to be able to carry on the phrase indefinitely. The phrase never ends.

That may mean one counter-riposte; it may mean a hundred. It’s all the same to us.

We often work counter-ripostes for as long as the student can sustain the phrase, physically and psychologically --- which means we’re working on both physical endurance and psychological endurance (the ability to sustain mental focus).

BUT when you do that kind of an exercise, every thrust must have lethal intentions; the exercise must never be allowed to become a game of half-hearted patty-cake.

RE: footwork

There are a finite number of ways to move the feet and body.

Therefore, it should be no surprise that footwork from one weapon to another --- and often from one martial art to another --- is hauntingly familiar. While there are certain movements particularly well-suited to particular actions with particular weapons, I find no reason why any specific footwork could not be employed with any weapon, given the appropriate tactical circumstances.

Remember: all linear actions (thrusts) are basically the same and are delivered and dealt with in a very similar manner, and all circular actions (cuts) are basically the same and are delivered and dealt with in the same manner.

As far as bladework goes, remember form follows function.

The length, weight, shape and balance of any tool is determined by the job it has to do. A tool is handled in a certain way because that’s the most efficient way to do the job for which it was designed.

Likewise, the length, weight, shape and balance of a sword will determine the manner in which it is used.

I hope these comments are helpful.