Sport fencing perspective (foil): We pretty much always retreat with the parry because, as you get to high level competition, everyone uses indirect attacks (multiple disengages, second intention attacks) to score. Having the extra distance buffer greatly increases the likelihood that you'll spot the disengage and thus parry effectively. The way I was taught to deal with this is to always maintain distance, even as you feint. As an example, if I feint, and my opponent retreats while taking his defensive action, I step forward as I disengage, thus getting myself back into measure before I lunge. PS: There are a few cases where I step in as I parry, but this always leads to infighting (which isn't very HEMAesque). I don't think I've ever fenced someone who stands their ground as they parry. (And they aren't new)
This was really interesting because it both confirmed and contradicted what I have learned in foil fencing. I was taught to always retreat before you parry. It was the distance that was defending you. But I was also taught that you never wanted to get so far away that your riposte could not hit.
Even in the fencing sabre you are taught to retreat during a parry. This is due a variety of reasons. If your opponent smashes their blades into yours it can completely break through your parry. You want to parry the foible (weak) of their blade with your forte (strong) which is hard if they do a deep lunge with their attack which can cause your parry to be completely useless. Also since fencing sabres are more flexible, they can whip around and hit you still if you don't parry on their foible. Of course this is keeping in mind that the fencing sabre is probably quite a bit lighter than the ones they are using. (Same idea applies for all other sport fencing weapons)
Fantastic video as always! I watch every one. Always informative and interesting content. Pleeeeease do more instructional videos like this!!! It's absolute gold. Thanks and more techniques and tactics please!!! 👍🏻🤺
Most of us sadly will never be able to visit your fencing school in Person, could you do a tour one day ? Like showing the organisation,the training hall, how you plan stuff, your office, that kind of stuff ?
I generally prefer to attack with the lunge and redouble if they retreat out of the initial attack. That way I don't have to set up to pursue in the same way.
Defending in place entails some serious risks: you're more vulnerable to feints, enemy's attempts to close the distance and get into wrestling, etc. Of course retreating with a parry carries you out of the distance which you'll have to make up for in order to counter attack, but it definitely gives you more time to properly organise your defence and improves your chances of not getting hit - "primum vivere", right? ;-). I'd say that parrying in place with an instant riposte should only be employed as a finishing move - after you've carefully probed your enemy and set him up for a safe finish.
BrodatyOlo He studies Waite who says stay in place. But Roworth and a number of broadsword systems say to slip the leg on each parry to be better protected
There is also drawing the opponent into chasing you so you can thrust while they are disordered on the advance. It takes a skilled swordsman to maintain a good guard through a series of thrust advance thrust.
I've mostly trained earlier systems, but we always taught our less physically dominant fighters to keep range and tire out the more imposing opponents.
And I would suppose, in a battlefield situation, you want to avoid retreating backwards if you can, as you may trip on something behind you. Gymnasia don't have discarded weapons, artillary rounds, dead bodies, those kinds of things for you to worry about, but you would have to step over these in actual combat.
New book: 'On how to deal with those pesky people who parry your strikes (hooooow.....DARE they in the first place...?????).' By Matt 'The Striker' Westonhammer
In the Swedish sabre manuals of the late 19th century this is called a half-step, or literally, "half-march," except that the feet actually so the rear foot moves in front for a bit. Obviously not a stance to linger in, but it provides excellent reach that an opponent might easily underestimate.
moving away is a great way to asses the other person's skil lvl safely (protecting show your own skill lvl) wait for them to make a mistake and take avantage of that. training with diffrend tactics like that is kinda like diffrend styles in kungfu leanrning mroe styles will make you more divers and will give you skills for other styles
The medieval and renaissance German fencing masters generally advice to always try to take the initiative in striking, if possible. And never do static blocks. (see Joachim Mayer e.g.) If all you do is react and defend and wait for your time, chances are high that it is you who will fail at some point and get hit. Get the first strike, make your opponent react and try to make them react in a way that you can predict and exploit. Mostly by forming a balde bind, taking control and displacing the opponents blade (often through leverage) and then strike safely. That is how their systems tend to work.
when i teach any fighting system, the absolute most important lesson is teaching one to move in and take advantage of over reach. training fight over flight is hard.
God damn it Matt... my wife sometimes see's me watching these, if she see's that t-shirt tan she'll leave me for you in a heartbeat. Be more careful in the future.
Long time viewer. Love your fencing, semi-instructional videos. Could I ask however if you could get like, rolly panels or staple some blankets of the walls when you record in the gym? Acoustics were so strong I could barely make out what you were saying if you weren't directly speaking to the camera. Please keep the good work!
Sure, in an enclosed space it's common to close down an opponent. In field that likely will never happen though and even in a large room like this one, a person can retreat in circles.
Dammit Matt! You made me realize I can't remember what my instructor called it. I think we named it a "reverse advance" since the movement begins with the back foot coming forward rather than the front, but I can't say for sure anymore. Argh!
Interesting video. As a modern sabre fencer of 30 years and still fencing at the veterans level, I have to disagree with your choice of tactics. The maxim in modern sabre is: never parry in place. This is not because you don't trust your parry but because you don't have time to react if you stay in place. You must yield distance to buy time to see the attack. Or, conversely, step forward into the attack so the attack primarily bypasses you. The "gathering step" is an invitation for an attack into preparation because it puts you off balance which creates a moment when you don't have a stable base to wield your weapon. Modern sabre teaches moving both feet with the step so as to maintain balance and allow you to abort the attack if your opponent tries an attack into preparation. A step back might take you out of distance for a riposte, which just means that you take a step forward with the riposte, which is not a problem if you have maintained balance. The same applies if you do a distance parry of 2 steps. You do a step lunge with your riposte while your opponent is still recovering their balance from their lunge. Because defending is so difficult in modern sabre, fencers try to get their opponents to attack in the wrong moment if they have yielded priority, but most often they try to go on the offensive and seize priority because they know that trying to defend is a very poor strategy. An interesting video nonetheless.
I would like to point out the tremendous difference in weight and speed between modern and historical saber. This slows the weapon down considerably. You might query Matt directly - I suspect his approach makes sense given the weapons they are using.
The weight of the blade has no effect on footwork and ultimately, regardless of weapon, the person with better footwork will win. This is something that high level sport fencers understand, while recreational fencers get distracted by flashy blade actions and "trick" moves. Which is why world class fencers spend hours everyday practising dull, tedious, footwork, while recreational fencers begrudge having to do 10 minutes of footwork as part of warm up. With the better footwork, the high level fencer will be able to parry every attack, which will seem to the unkowledgeable that the elite fencer has really good parry's because the observer did not notice the 6" step back with the parry, that makes all the difference. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the video, and some of the others he has produced, I just think he could learn a lot more from modern fencing if he wanted too.
Another great video! does a perfect job of explaining your point and teaching a lesson. On another note, maybe you should invest in a clip on microphone, the audio is a little... rough
I don't know.... Withdrawal as One parries, I like, because the attacker tends to follow with exposing their elbow and forearm to One's blade during a side step with high guard stance. Then, NOBODY in their right mind would call me even a moderate sword.
go offensive and keep backing them up until they fall off the dock? Practicing on a pier is great for building mindfulness of feet & position. (make sure it's shallow - the gear gets OMFG heavy when you go in the water)
I try to advance or retreat based on the strength of my guard. If I feel like I can't parry or block effectively then I'll retreat, if I see the attack coming or through the feint I can step in with the parry to ensure they can't escape or so I can put more pressure on them than they can handle without the initiative and being behind a move. If you always retreat, eventually the opponent will land a hit. Standing, neutralizing the attack, and countering is the best way; but it's also the most dangerous and stresses skill and ability the most. Proximity negates skill. If I know I can't win a long exchange, it's best to parry/block as best as I can early on while moving in and launch attacks closer in where my opponent has less reaction time. Because if I try to stay out at distance and win the fencing game against a more skilled opponent I'll probably fail.
Interesting footwork. It looks like you guys put your left feet all the way behind your right? I haven't done much sabre yet, but Roworth recommends 'slipping the right foot back till the middle of it becomes opposite the left heel', and that to me makes a lot more sense since you can step even further back if necessary. Any specific reason for having the left foot so far to the right?
Ahhhhhh! I wish there was a hema closer to me.. the closest is 4 hrs and I'm not sure how legit they are. I want to learn military saber really bad. And longsword of course, but really saber looks like a blast. Same with single stick. Maybe someday.....
I thought it's easiert to maintain forward pressure. Most people are slower moving backwards than forwards... Moreover, you might cause them to trip or bump into something.
In competitive fencing the speed of the footwork makes parries ‘à pied ferme’ very dangerous business. Because of the speed fencers are tought to ‘parry’ with a half step backwards. In many cases the defensive action should therefore be qualified as a counter attack or a binding.
Question: Would the redouble ever be used in historical fencing? Or is it too risky considering that even the lunge is not as often used in historical fencing as it is in modern fencing?
Did learning swordfighting from the treatises in present any problem if used in real life situations in historical times? As in the video about untrained English soldiers beating French ones in duels in Waterloo, a lot of decisions by the untrained seemed to make sense over what was taught by these specialists. Could a noble lad taught to duel by one of them, be at a disadvantage in situations like war, or even skirmishes? If they had different rules for different types of combat, did they not get sometimes confused between them? Like retaining some habits from fencing and using them in a packed formation where they wouldn't work.
The reason a good swordfighter sometimes loses to a peasant is simply that a good swordfighter usually fights people who understand fighting, spars with people who know how to minimize the risks to themselves while fighting, and they get used to opposing a similar smart mindset to their own. A peasant doesn't understand any of this and will simply run in aggressively and swing until either they or their opponent dies, and this often catches experienced fencers off guard. It's likely that the peasant will get hit too while doing so, but they have a relatively good chance of getting a better strike in as an experienced fencer doesn't expect it.
This falls into the same category as the 30 year kung fu master getting beaten down by the new MMA kid. Over training and complex techniques are the result of schooling and people making a living teaching. Not real world conflict. Most fancy moves fail under pressure against unwilling opponents. Just look at any of the Hema events. You rarely see anything but the basics at play in real time. I believe Musashi commented about the folly of being overly absorbed in the art, rather than the reality.
Bill Kennedy I'd say the MMA v Tai chi comes down to someone who trains combat going up against someone who doesn't, rather than an over reliance on esoteric technique.
Well that's my point.....sort of. An over reliance on advanced technique automatically moves you away from training for combat into the realm of training for fantasy combat. Unless you're dueling one on one with rules for etiquette and acceptable behaviour.
It depends, in part, upon which system you're talking about. The polite foil fencing taught in the salle would not be as effective as the military system set out in Roworth's Art of Defence on Foot or all the nasty back alley tactics in Giganti's 2nd book. On top of this some masters advised their students to spar with untrained and/or drunk opponents to learn how to handle them. Want to be a soldier? Read diGrassi or Marozzo.
Not exactly in relation to fencing, but say an officer was fighting someone who retreated with the parry in battle, wouldn't it just be easier for them to quick-draw their pistol and shoot them in the chest?
No, because they might attack in the mean time, and not many people are accurate under pressure (not to mention fumbling when going for the draw) when an opponent is rushing them.
It's been a while since I've fought a Napoleonic battle, but usually one doesn't sword fight with a loaded pistol in the holster - due to the fact it's been fired. Same reason a modern soldier usually won't set down his loaded rifle to draw his sidearm, use the better one first...
In most sport duels wouldn't the retreating person eventually run out of room to back up? If that is the case why not just press until they have to stop?
So, if you want to bait a better fencer into a grapple so they can't sword you, retreat on your parries until they bring their back foot forward on the feint so you can then step inside the actual attack and take them to the ground where your BJJ videos you've watched will give you an easy win?
Hey Matt, do HEMA practitioners and fencers retreat whilst parrying to bait their opponent into advancing too much? Seems like moving back whilst parrying would be a good way to trick the opponent into overcommitting, is this a valid tactic?
Or maybe they don't trust the other fencer who may attack in some erratic manner that even he doesn't know what he is doing. I've seen time and time again someone with a decent level try to parry the aggresive attacks of a wild fencer (usually a beginner) in place and just get hit.
_If someone is a superiour fencer run away..._ How do you know if someone is a superior fencer? It's not like in anime that enemies got an aura that tells it. I have some experience in martial arts and can tell if someone does something poorly, but it's much harder to judge if someone is good, especially when you don't know his martial arts background. Someone can be fast and agile, but maybe not very good technically, or someone might be very skilled, but not that quick on their feet any more. Both can be very dangerous, the first in being aggressive, the second in being underestimated.
You know when someone is a superior fencer when you reach the level of skill that lets you see it. Generally, you can tell by noting footwork. You can tell with the contact of swords. You can tell as you begin to fall behind their tempo. It is not difficult to tell. And it is not magic.
Well getting beaten is obviously a way to tell that he's superiour, but what I meant was telling it in advance so that you can run... I sparred once unarmed against a rather chubby woman and she was an entirely different league. She was all over the goddamn place. She hit me and when I tried to hit back, she was already out of reach again, despite having much longer arms and legs... I also got quickly tired of chasing after her.
you can tell by the gleam in their eye. they will have an eagerness to do battle. You also do the inverse. judge your own skills, if you are poor or average at best, then assume they are superior to you...and run away.
It depends where you start. In tournaments and in actual fights, you tend not to spring into existence right next to the opponent. You normally start further away and have to move closer in order to 'engage' them. Of course a self defence situation may differ.
I have some street fighting experience. So Yes, You start farther away, You get closer and when opponent attack, You just move out of range instead of blocking attacks, You repeat it few times. Idea is to observe patterns of attack, speed of the opponent, his skill, etc. It is risk reduction strategy, You don't show Your own skill and speed (maybe with exception of Your footwork). Opponent can counter it with a rush, but that is risky. This is strategy for one opponent, if there is more opponents You need to take initiative and attack, make fight as short as possible.
If the opponent is further away then of course it will take longer to get to them, but your alternative option is to not be able to reach them. So you have to gain ground somehow.
scholagladiatoria Very good point, but now that I am thinking about your reply, would it not be advantageous to retreat when parrying? Retreating would give you more time to deal with the real attack, making it harder over all to pull off on someone who retreats with the parry. You then could use not retreating as a surprise move against your opponent, a surprise measure grab at the right time to easily make a hit perhaps? Maybe a default retreat makes sense?
I will concede, you must attack such a person at some point , and when you do your method makes a lot of sense. I also must concede that you normally don't have unlimited ground to give up. At some point you wont be able to retreat so liberally, if at all.
I think the question here is what to do with an opponent who retreats too much and too often. If someone's making an attack and you're not certain where it will land or your blade isn't in a good position to parry it then retreating with the parry is great (also it's more likely to end up on your forte). But if you know where the attack will land and don't intend to flee then (most of the time) its better to stand ground or retreat only a little so that you can hit back.
I see. This makes sense. I must admit, I think I was a little defensive at first. I don't fence much anymore, and even when I did it was very limited. But my strategy was when first fencing someone, I would default to parry with retreat, then chose not to retreat with a parry when I thought the time was right for an attack. I guess I thought that a default retreat was a good idea.
This one has the worst audio of any of your videos. If you are playing for points by all means don't retreat, if it's life or dead not so good advice. Cheers. Peter
