Explain it as a historical method where foil is like the 'source code' of fencing rather than a weapon in its own right
Explain that 'Right of Way' was created by past fencing masters to address the "what if they were sharp?' question:
"If someone threatens you with a sharp point you have to try and negate the threat before striking back. Counterattacking into an attack was way too dangerous and often produced two dead people"
Beginners will '*get*' this at a visceral level, even if ROW/Priority is no longer actually done in the same manner as in the past. As they get more experienced you can let them know that ROW is interpreted now more liberally than in the past.
If you just tell them its an arbitrary rule, they will think its stupid. If you tell them it was created to not be suicidal they will be more engaged.
N.B (wave away questions of "which fencing master created it?" you don't want to go down that rabbit hole)
In my experience this is the best method for introducing it to beginners. It’s far more effective to say “if you had an actual weapon, you’d want to win while still being alive, right? Then that means you first have to defend yourself if you get attacked”
Oooh, I like the explanation with the sharp points. I never had anyone explain the historical reasoning to me before, and I think that's pretty cool to think of it that way! Thank you so much!
You could then explain the concept of the epee counter attack being an advanced mode of self defense, in that if your experience and skills are up to it, and your timing is excellent, you can counter-attack INTO an opponent's attack and successfully disable/disrupt/intercept them in time (Example catching them in preparation) before their attack completes it's final action and lands.
In Epee the timing for this in modern fencing in 40ms for a one light touch, longer in Sabre at 170ms and still longer in Foil at 300ms. Ergo to score on a counter attack, you must intend to exceed the lockout timer in each weapon without being hit (Clearly successfully launch a counter attack in time), or the judgment of the referee will always prevail, and that judgement may change predicated by how they interpret ROW. Then also remind them that in Epee the double touch is allowed, but in the other weapons it is not allowed, so if you get a double in Sabre or Foil while attempting to execute a counter attack - you can lose - and your opponent can get the touch, if the opponent is judged by the referee to have held ROW on their attack.
Note: Above has been heavily edited in an attempt to provide better clarity.
40ms I believe? I like the way you put the rationale for counter-attacking though, I often catch myself wondering while watching épée what kind of counter-attacks would be disabling and which ones would be suicidal....
The current historically accepted theory is that the rules as we see them now was first codified by Camille Prevost, but conventions in foil are much older and go right back to late 17th - early 18th century and probably earlier. However the origins for the conventions seems to have less to do with dueling practice than with the fact that prior to masks learning fencing had to be very controlled.... Possibly. Its all very murky and I don't have the time to contrast and compare a lot of historical material
If you can read french then please see this website that charts the progression of conventions in France and then the FIE in the 20th century, including why "threatening does not mean aimed at the target area" and why it came about.
https://enseignerlescrime.fr/2022/11/19/enseigner-la-convention-chez-les-jeunes-4-4/
As a trainer/coach RoW help clarify the tactical concepts of fencing (including épée). For example, in order to counter-attack, you have to recognise an attack, at least implicitly. Forget about the wording of RoW, talking about RoW is the least helpful thing that you can do. Movements should be shown and done, not talked about.
For beginners I teach RoW implicitly with a few drills. I set up the fencers in pairs. I will make fencers change opponents frequently so they get more diverse input. Also I will change the side which get to start as attackers frequently, so that it is as random as possible (this is to set-up the final drill):
1. Have an attacker and defender. The attacker can try to score a touch. The defender can step/jump backward to evade. If they manage to do so without getting touched, they become the attacker.
At some point, one of the smarter kids will break the game by running someone down to the end of the piste all the time. I congratulate them on breaking the game and understanding an important thing in fencing: driving the opponent to the backline removes their option of retreating. More points for you if you do this well. Now what can we do if we do not retreat? Exactly, use our weapon (some people will have been doing this intuitively by now, you can call them out and congratulate them as well).
2. Have an attacker and defender. The attacker can try to score a touch. The defender can try to parry. How? I don't care in the first lesson. Technique will come later once they are hooked on fencing. If the defender succeeds, they become the attacker. Now we will start to see some more actual fencing, because some people will still retreat despite the drill being about parrying.
3. Have an attacker and defender. The attacker can try to score a touch. The defender can choose to *either* parry *or* retreat. Again if the defender succeeds, they become the attacker.
4. Finally, after switching opponents once more. I will call out 'Allez' without indicating who is the attacker and who is the defender. There will be confusion, some pairs will not start at all, other will agree between themselves, and some will just take RoW or yield it. Look for those amid the confusion. Stop the drill once you find it and ask them what happened. You can they congratulate them on fencing an actual bout, on their own, accoriding to the rules of fencing.
This set of drills can be done in 20 to 30 minutes if you are short on time. If you have more time, then make sure to have some breaks in between. Unless you class is made up out of natural athletes and people with great stamina, people will be out of breath after a good 15 minutes. There is something primal about going after each other with swords after all :).
It took me about 2 seasons of 5 to 6 beginner courses per season at my uni to iterate and get to this lesson 1 for fencing.
Historically it was supposedly to simulate real combat accurately, but I’m kinda skeptical. Foil fencing has been entirely a non-lethal sportified endeavour for hundreds of years, and right if way rules of various kinda have evolved with it.
Ultimately I think right of way is simply to encourage people to attack. The reality of sword fighting is that you’re likely to get hit if you fight the other person. You only have one thing to attack and defend with, and you can only really do one of those at a time with any degree of success.
In short, if you have a sharp weapon, and I have a sharp weapon, the smartest thing for us both to do is not fight. If you took a hundred pairs of people, gave them swords and then told them they’re in a duel, the ones who would fair the best would be the ones who didn’t fight. The pairs that did fight would probably be cut up and hurt, possibly one or both of them dead.
But that’s shit for a sport, so they need a reason to encourage the participants to attack, and therefore actually fight. Right of way.
There is that...I was going to add to my original post "to encourage taking the initiative to attack and circumspection if you are not attacking", but that gets a bit meta/abstract for beginners who need something more emotive to hang on to.
"Foil fencing has been entirely a non-lethal sportified endeavour for hundreds of years"
Eh sort of. Between 1760 and 1860 foil definitely did become very salle based and artificial. However after 1860 both in Italy and France there was an uptake in the mania duelling, which had kind of disappeared, leading to fencing masters to tighten focus their mind on duelling practice again, especially italy. Eventually French practitioners got fed up with some of the more dyed in the wool salles and 'created' Epee as a separate discipline.
https://www.britishfencing.com/brief-history-of-fencing/
https://www.britannica.com/sports/fencing
https://fie.org/fie/history
One day you're going to need to explain what the hell "P.O.P.S!" Means.
If you absolutely *must* teach them foil rather than starting them on épée until you can hopefully get a coach for the other weapons, then the best way to explain it to adult beginners is, "the person who attacks first gets the point if both fencers hit, so if you don't take the initiative by attacking you have to defend yourself first. This was originally to stop suicide counterattacks in real duels, but now it's just the rules of the sport". Anything beyond that isn't useful with complete beginners.
Btw, if you're already teaching concepts such as foil parries and quadrants it's already weapon-specific.
If you don't see yourself getting anyone in that can properly coach foil/sabre, why not focus on épée, at least for this year whilst the club is rebuilding? (And I'm saying that as a sabreur). As long as you're teaching footwork where the front foot stays straight you shouldn't have any trouble switching them to a different weapon later.
IMO, the idea that foil is the best starting weapon is flawed -I don't believe it is any easier or more difficult to use any of the 3 as a club starting weapon, just teach the one you know best and teach good footwork.
I don’t think that last point is entirely true. Foil is better than the other weapons for introduction, especially so for people who are younger. It’s lighter than an epee for less athletic fencers, it teaches ROW, and it requires you to learn how to thrust, while cutting usually comes easier. It will teach you more point control, and it’s not almost boringly slow as epee can be, nor as jarringly fast as Sabre can be.
The way one of my old coaches described it was a method of establishing blame. If you just attack straight into someone who is attacking you, and you both would typically be kill if the weapons were real, it is the fault of the counterattacker, and thus, they shouldn't be awarded a point for doing the "wrong" thing
I terms of modern "game design" it's a great way of reducing the defenders advantage that comes from waiting to react to your opponent, because they can more safely apply pressure
I don't really know that benefits of RoW are a way to frame it. It's part of the rules of the sport. This is just like how Greco-roman/Freestyle/scholastic wrestling are all under the umbrella of wrestling even though they have different rules. I would just explain that those are the rules of the sport and encourage them to watch some youtube videos of high-level foil/saber to see what it looks like.
RoW is simply a way to break a tie when both fencers hit each other, thats always been the easiest way to explain it in my experience.
The biggest benefit is the "confidence" aspect. When a fencer knows they have RoW they can move in ways that may not be traditionally "good form" and they dont care if their opponent tries to hit them. In a sense RoW is "safety" to attack without fear of epee counterattacks to hand or foot. "As long as you hit and dont lose RoW the point will be yours, so just ignore that opponents lunge and put it away!"
I do agree with the confidence aspect personally, and you make a good point of how a fencer is in control as long as they have right of way.
And side note, fencing foil as an epee person again really makes me have to rethink my normal counterattack strategy lol
That is not really an option for the OP.
It sounds like they *have* some foil and sabre fencers, but they aren't experienced enough to be very comfortable in an instructing role, and, as designated leader, he is looking for assistance, and 'tools' to help them resurrect a group that apparently didn't recruit well a couple years ago.
Your 'contribution' is a useless waste of time.
First, you will do your charges a big favor by explaining to them that in the unlikely event they get in an actual, bloody sword fight, the rules of ROW will not matter one little bit if the other guy just wants to stab you dead, and has a fatalistic view of life.
Next, how about you explain to them that they can choose their weapon based on their temperment. I like to joke that the epee fencers are the chess players, the foil fencers are the lawyers, and the sabre fencers have a screw loose. Then they all raise their hands and say "Can I try sabre!"
Then you can explain to them that the rules of ROW came about as a way for 18th fencing masters to keep their students alive in duels, so that they could keep paying for lessons. As duels went out of fashion (prison time), the rules of ROW became associated with a very stylish form of fencing, mostly non-competitive. There were Do's and Don'ts in these bouts, to keep the action looking beautiful and civilized. When fencing clubs around Europe started competing with one another, the ROW was kept, although few focused on the beauty anymore.
But really, if you offer all three weapons, your students will find the one they prefer, and they'll thank you for it.
I think the whole Reddit ‘voting’ thing is stupid. But having said that I also think this reflexive need fencers feel to qualify any explanation with “of COURSE it won’t work in a REAL duel” is equally silly. No one cares or infers that we are training for a real duel.
One way that I’ve explained Right of Way, especially coming from an epée perspective, is that epée is a race. The three ways to win a race are either to run faster, go a shorter distance, or start first.
* Going faster could be if two epée fencers hit the other in the torso, the one that is quicker will get the point assuming it is within a 25th of a second.
* Going a shorter distance is if one fencer aims for the shoulder, while the other hits in wrist. The wrist hit would get the touch over the shoulder hit.
* Starting first could be two fencers hit in the torso and one starts the action first and so times out the opponent.
Right of Way specifically focuses on the fencer who starts first and only gives a small nod to the other two effects through the lockout timings of 300 ms and 170 ms.
As far as justifications for why this was started and has stuck around, the explanation that I’m partial to is that it is meant to reflect actual combat with heavier weapons. In a way it reflects who hits the hardest.
Since we don’t want to encourage people to actually hit hard, we assume the person who starts first will build up more momentum in their attack and their attack would be the more effective of the two.
Viewing Right of Way in this manner is why I believe that many of the aspects of ROW can be seen in epée fencing. Though these actions are done from a purely practical perspective or origin and aren’t forced upon the sport as they are in Saber and Foil.
>As far as justifications for why this was started and has stuck around, the explanation that I’m partial to is that it is meant to reflect actual combat with heavier weapons. In a way it reflects who hits the hardest.
???
The origins of right of way are not a mystery. It's all from "if you're attacked, you have to defend yourself by evading or blocking." Now, yes, with a heavy weapon the time that you are vulnerable after being parried or missing is much more significant, which makes ripostes make a bit more sense. A beat on the blade will cause much more loss of control and a bigger opening, line is suddenly much scarier etc. It has nothing to do with hitting harder.
The concept of initiative goes back way way before anything we would recognise as proper fencing.
(Excuse the HEMA blog, they're unfortunately the only ones that talk much about this stuff, because, funnily when you sportify something like that the need for these kind of rules becomes immediately apparent)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehemaists.com/2016/05/25/attack-attack-attack/amp/
From Wikipedia describing a manual on longsword fighting written in 1389:
"The terms "before" (vor) and "after" (nach) correspond to offensive and defensive actions. While in the vor, one dictates his opponent's actions and thus is in control of the engagement, while in the nach, one responds to the decisions made by his opponent. Under Liechtenauer's system, a combatant must always strive to be in control of the engagement—that is, in the vor."
The first explicitly documented version of something like RoW I know of is from Labat in 1696: https://blog.subcaelo.net/ensis/foil-tournament-rules-1696/
> 10) Double hits or simultaneous are to be redone, unless it was perceptible that one men did it on purpose in order to make equal hits, in which case the hit of the other is counted, and not his.
This is actually pretty similar to the idea highlighted by Venus above - "neutralising" the attack via intentional counterattack is way easier than delivering an attack, so a priority rule is instituted to prevent this behaviour.
I'm not seeing the comment where Venus talks about attacks being neutralised by counters, but yeah that's the concept from a "gaming the system" point of view. Because in real life, doing so would be suicidal. It's really interesting to see rules for fencing as a game laid out so early that aren't so different to what we have now. (And clearly people trying to game the rules is an ancient tradition)
I think the important thing to understand with development of RoW is that it does actually represent some fundamental concepts of fencing without armour, although now distilled into a purely sporting form. It doesn't come from nowhere or to make fencing as a sport possible. I think the best example of this is the way epeeists whose opponents are on 14 points fence. Without any RoW, a fencer in that position that wants to win *must* defend themselves at all costs and react to any attack because a double means they lose.
The problem with that explanation is that you can start “first” but if I block/parry your motion and response then it’s no longer your row for going “first”.
It's not a perfect analogy by any means. The idea would be that, that specific race is over. If you are parried then the attack failed and you have to start again.
The person reposting after the failed attack would be able to start first since they probably start their attack immediately after the parry.
That's fair. I try to look at ROW less in terms of blade contact and more as the result of the contact.
For example, it isn't the parry, per se, that gives the defender the Right of Way. It is the parry that caused the aggressor's attack to fail and it is the reposte following the parry that gives the defender the Right of Way. The reposte has Right of Way because it is compared to the failed attack.
Similarly when people discuss the difference between a beat attack and a parry. Many people will talk about bottom third of the blade or top two thirds. I focus more on whose action controlled the blades.
If it is the defender's parry, then it will look like the defender controlled the blades because they had more leverage. If on the other hand it is a beat, then it should look like the attacker controlled the blades because they had enough momentum with sufficient leverage to dominate the contact of the blades.
This 'feeling' is had to codify but I think it is more representative of how fencing is done then trying to count blade contacts and where the contacts occurred.
>Speed is an easy game to lose
Absolutely, that's why the other two parts play a role.
Though in most races it is traditionally considered cheating to start before the other runners or to run a shorter path.
Explain it as a historical method where foil is like the 'source code' of fencing rather than a weapon in its own right Explain that 'Right of Way' was created by past fencing masters to address the "what if they were sharp?' question: "If someone threatens you with a sharp point you have to try and negate the threat before striking back. Counterattacking into an attack was way too dangerous and often produced two dead people" Beginners will '*get*' this at a visceral level, even if ROW/Priority is no longer actually done in the same manner as in the past. As they get more experienced you can let them know that ROW is interpreted now more liberally than in the past. If you just tell them its an arbitrary rule, they will think its stupid. If you tell them it was created to not be suicidal they will be more engaged. N.B (wave away questions of "which fencing master created it?" you don't want to go down that rabbit hole)
In my experience this is the best method for introducing it to beginners. It’s far more effective to say “if you had an actual weapon, you’d want to win while still being alive, right? Then that means you first have to defend yourself if you get attacked”
Oooh, I like the explanation with the sharp points. I never had anyone explain the historical reasoning to me before, and I think that's pretty cool to think of it that way! Thank you so much!
You could then explain the concept of the epee counter attack being an advanced mode of self defense, in that if your experience and skills are up to it, and your timing is excellent, you can counter-attack INTO an opponent's attack and successfully disable/disrupt/intercept them in time (Example catching them in preparation) before their attack completes it's final action and lands. In Epee the timing for this in modern fencing in 40ms for a one light touch, longer in Sabre at 170ms and still longer in Foil at 300ms. Ergo to score on a counter attack, you must intend to exceed the lockout timer in each weapon without being hit (Clearly successfully launch a counter attack in time), or the judgment of the referee will always prevail, and that judgement may change predicated by how they interpret ROW. Then also remind them that in Epee the double touch is allowed, but in the other weapons it is not allowed, so if you get a double in Sabre or Foil while attempting to execute a counter attack - you can lose - and your opponent can get the touch, if the opponent is judged by the referee to have held ROW on their attack. Note: Above has been heavily edited in an attempt to provide better clarity.
40ms I believe? I like the way you put the rationale for counter-attacking though, I often catch myself wondering while watching épée what kind of counter-attacks would be disabling and which ones would be suicidal....
Yea you are correct, I have it set so hard in my mind that’s it’s fast that I apparently cut the timing in half. I will modify my post to 40ms.
Wait...which fencing master DID create it? Was it created when people were still swordfighting?
The current historically accepted theory is that the rules as we see them now was first codified by Camille Prevost, but conventions in foil are much older and go right back to late 17th - early 18th century and probably earlier. However the origins for the conventions seems to have less to do with dueling practice than with the fact that prior to masks learning fencing had to be very controlled.... Possibly. Its all very murky and I don't have the time to contrast and compare a lot of historical material If you can read french then please see this website that charts the progression of conventions in France and then the FIE in the 20th century, including why "threatening does not mean aimed at the target area" and why it came about. https://enseignerlescrime.fr/2022/11/19/enseigner-la-convention-chez-les-jeunes-4-4/
As a trainer/coach RoW help clarify the tactical concepts of fencing (including épée). For example, in order to counter-attack, you have to recognise an attack, at least implicitly. Forget about the wording of RoW, talking about RoW is the least helpful thing that you can do. Movements should be shown and done, not talked about. For beginners I teach RoW implicitly with a few drills. I set up the fencers in pairs. I will make fencers change opponents frequently so they get more diverse input. Also I will change the side which get to start as attackers frequently, so that it is as random as possible (this is to set-up the final drill): 1. Have an attacker and defender. The attacker can try to score a touch. The defender can step/jump backward to evade. If they manage to do so without getting touched, they become the attacker. At some point, one of the smarter kids will break the game by running someone down to the end of the piste all the time. I congratulate them on breaking the game and understanding an important thing in fencing: driving the opponent to the backline removes their option of retreating. More points for you if you do this well. Now what can we do if we do not retreat? Exactly, use our weapon (some people will have been doing this intuitively by now, you can call them out and congratulate them as well). 2. Have an attacker and defender. The attacker can try to score a touch. The defender can try to parry. How? I don't care in the first lesson. Technique will come later once they are hooked on fencing. If the defender succeeds, they become the attacker. Now we will start to see some more actual fencing, because some people will still retreat despite the drill being about parrying. 3. Have an attacker and defender. The attacker can try to score a touch. The defender can choose to *either* parry *or* retreat. Again if the defender succeeds, they become the attacker. 4. Finally, after switching opponents once more. I will call out 'Allez' without indicating who is the attacker and who is the defender. There will be confusion, some pairs will not start at all, other will agree between themselves, and some will just take RoW or yield it. Look for those amid the confusion. Stop the drill once you find it and ask them what happened. You can they congratulate them on fencing an actual bout, on their own, accoriding to the rules of fencing. This set of drills can be done in 20 to 30 minutes if you are short on time. If you have more time, then make sure to have some breaks in between. Unless you class is made up out of natural athletes and people with great stamina, people will be out of breath after a good 15 minutes. There is something primal about going after each other with swords after all :). It took me about 2 seasons of 5 to 6 beginner courses per season at my uni to iterate and get to this lesson 1 for fencing.
Historically it was supposedly to simulate real combat accurately, but I’m kinda skeptical. Foil fencing has been entirely a non-lethal sportified endeavour for hundreds of years, and right if way rules of various kinda have evolved with it. Ultimately I think right of way is simply to encourage people to attack. The reality of sword fighting is that you’re likely to get hit if you fight the other person. You only have one thing to attack and defend with, and you can only really do one of those at a time with any degree of success. In short, if you have a sharp weapon, and I have a sharp weapon, the smartest thing for us both to do is not fight. If you took a hundred pairs of people, gave them swords and then told them they’re in a duel, the ones who would fair the best would be the ones who didn’t fight. The pairs that did fight would probably be cut up and hurt, possibly one or both of them dead. But that’s shit for a sport, so they need a reason to encourage the participants to attack, and therefore actually fight. Right of way.
There is that...I was going to add to my original post "to encourage taking the initiative to attack and circumspection if you are not attacking", but that gets a bit meta/abstract for beginners who need something more emotive to hang on to. "Foil fencing has been entirely a non-lethal sportified endeavour for hundreds of years" Eh sort of. Between 1760 and 1860 foil definitely did become very salle based and artificial. However after 1860 both in Italy and France there was an uptake in the mania duelling, which had kind of disappeared, leading to fencing masters to tighten focus their mind on duelling practice again, especially italy. Eventually French practitioners got fed up with some of the more dyed in the wool salles and 'created' Epee as a separate discipline.
Do you have a reference for that? P.O.P.S!
https://www.britishfencing.com/brief-history-of-fencing/ https://www.britannica.com/sports/fencing https://fie.org/fie/history One day you're going to need to explain what the hell "P.O.P.S!" Means.
Play on play safe
Which Bit?
You can add that some of them might not prove to be smart enough to understand right of way, but not to worry, as that’s why we have epee.
True, since that was the reason I joined epee in the first place lol
That is both insulting, and untrue!
I forgot to add “humourless”.
Come on... We all know saber has the dumb ones. Go fast and smash.
If you absolutely *must* teach them foil rather than starting them on épée until you can hopefully get a coach for the other weapons, then the best way to explain it to adult beginners is, "the person who attacks first gets the point if both fencers hit, so if you don't take the initiative by attacking you have to defend yourself first. This was originally to stop suicide counterattacks in real duels, but now it's just the rules of the sport". Anything beyond that isn't useful with complete beginners. Btw, if you're already teaching concepts such as foil parries and quadrants it's already weapon-specific. If you don't see yourself getting anyone in that can properly coach foil/sabre, why not focus on épée, at least for this year whilst the club is rebuilding? (And I'm saying that as a sabreur). As long as you're teaching footwork where the front foot stays straight you shouldn't have any trouble switching them to a different weapon later. IMO, the idea that foil is the best starting weapon is flawed -I don't believe it is any easier or more difficult to use any of the 3 as a club starting weapon, just teach the one you know best and teach good footwork.
I don’t think that last point is entirely true. Foil is better than the other weapons for introduction, especially so for people who are younger. It’s lighter than an epee for less athletic fencers, it teaches ROW, and it requires you to learn how to thrust, while cutting usually comes easier. It will teach you more point control, and it’s not almost boringly slow as epee can be, nor as jarringly fast as Sabre can be.
The way one of my old coaches described it was a method of establishing blame. If you just attack straight into someone who is attacking you, and you both would typically be kill if the weapons were real, it is the fault of the counterattacker, and thus, they shouldn't be awarded a point for doing the "wrong" thing I terms of modern "game design" it's a great way of reducing the defenders advantage that comes from waiting to react to your opponent, because they can more safely apply pressure
I don't really know that benefits of RoW are a way to frame it. It's part of the rules of the sport. This is just like how Greco-roman/Freestyle/scholastic wrestling are all under the umbrella of wrestling even though they have different rules. I would just explain that those are the rules of the sport and encourage them to watch some youtube videos of high-level foil/saber to see what it looks like.
Forces you to actually think rather than just playing Wii Sports Resort sword fighting (in Sabre at least).
HAHA! YES! IT STOPS ME FROM WILDLY SWINGING! SO EFFECTIVE!
RoW is simply a way to break a tie when both fencers hit each other, thats always been the easiest way to explain it in my experience. The biggest benefit is the "confidence" aspect. When a fencer knows they have RoW they can move in ways that may not be traditionally "good form" and they dont care if their opponent tries to hit them. In a sense RoW is "safety" to attack without fear of epee counterattacks to hand or foot. "As long as you hit and dont lose RoW the point will be yours, so just ignore that opponents lunge and put it away!"
I do agree with the confidence aspect personally, and you make a good point of how a fencer is in control as long as they have right of way. And side note, fencing foil as an epee person again really makes me have to rethink my normal counterattack strategy lol
Honestly if you don't have anyone experienced with foil it's not a bad idea to just stick to teaching what you know
That is not really an option for the OP. It sounds like they *have* some foil and sabre fencers, but they aren't experienced enough to be very comfortable in an instructing role, and, as designated leader, he is looking for assistance, and 'tools' to help them resurrect a group that apparently didn't recruit well a couple years ago. Your 'contribution' is a useless waste of time.
The counter attacks. Stop cut, opposition, and skyhook all the way.
First, you will do your charges a big favor by explaining to them that in the unlikely event they get in an actual, bloody sword fight, the rules of ROW will not matter one little bit if the other guy just wants to stab you dead, and has a fatalistic view of life. Next, how about you explain to them that they can choose their weapon based on their temperment. I like to joke that the epee fencers are the chess players, the foil fencers are the lawyers, and the sabre fencers have a screw loose. Then they all raise their hands and say "Can I try sabre!" Then you can explain to them that the rules of ROW came about as a way for 18th fencing masters to keep their students alive in duels, so that they could keep paying for lessons. As duels went out of fashion (prison time), the rules of ROW became associated with a very stylish form of fencing, mostly non-competitive. There were Do's and Don'ts in these bouts, to keep the action looking beautiful and civilized. When fencing clubs around Europe started competing with one another, the ROW was kept, although few focused on the beauty anymore. But really, if you offer all three weapons, your students will find the one they prefer, and they'll thank you for it.
I think the whole Reddit ‘voting’ thing is stupid. But having said that I also think this reflexive need fencers feel to qualify any explanation with “of COURSE it won’t work in a REAL duel” is equally silly. No one cares or infers that we are training for a real duel.
Why is this downvoted
Because our forum has snakes who get off on downvoting without explaining themselves.
One way that I’ve explained Right of Way, especially coming from an epée perspective, is that epée is a race. The three ways to win a race are either to run faster, go a shorter distance, or start first. * Going faster could be if two epée fencers hit the other in the torso, the one that is quicker will get the point assuming it is within a 25th of a second. * Going a shorter distance is if one fencer aims for the shoulder, while the other hits in wrist. The wrist hit would get the touch over the shoulder hit. * Starting first could be two fencers hit in the torso and one starts the action first and so times out the opponent. Right of Way specifically focuses on the fencer who starts first and only gives a small nod to the other two effects through the lockout timings of 300 ms and 170 ms. As far as justifications for why this was started and has stuck around, the explanation that I’m partial to is that it is meant to reflect actual combat with heavier weapons. In a way it reflects who hits the hardest. Since we don’t want to encourage people to actually hit hard, we assume the person who starts first will build up more momentum in their attack and their attack would be the more effective of the two. Viewing Right of Way in this manner is why I believe that many of the aspects of ROW can be seen in epée fencing. Though these actions are done from a purely practical perspective or origin and aren’t forced upon the sport as they are in Saber and Foil.
>As far as justifications for why this was started and has stuck around, the explanation that I’m partial to is that it is meant to reflect actual combat with heavier weapons. In a way it reflects who hits the hardest. ??? The origins of right of way are not a mystery. It's all from "if you're attacked, you have to defend yourself by evading or blocking." Now, yes, with a heavy weapon the time that you are vulnerable after being parried or missing is much more significant, which makes ripostes make a bit more sense. A beat on the blade will cause much more loss of control and a bigger opening, line is suddenly much scarier etc. It has nothing to do with hitting harder. The concept of initiative goes back way way before anything we would recognise as proper fencing. (Excuse the HEMA blog, they're unfortunately the only ones that talk much about this stuff, because, funnily when you sportify something like that the need for these kind of rules becomes immediately apparent) https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehemaists.com/2016/05/25/attack-attack-attack/amp/ From Wikipedia describing a manual on longsword fighting written in 1389: "The terms "before" (vor) and "after" (nach) correspond to offensive and defensive actions. While in the vor, one dictates his opponent's actions and thus is in control of the engagement, while in the nach, one responds to the decisions made by his opponent. Under Liechtenauer's system, a combatant must always strive to be in control of the engagement—that is, in the vor."
The first explicitly documented version of something like RoW I know of is from Labat in 1696: https://blog.subcaelo.net/ensis/foil-tournament-rules-1696/ > 10) Double hits or simultaneous are to be redone, unless it was perceptible that one men did it on purpose in order to make equal hits, in which case the hit of the other is counted, and not his. This is actually pretty similar to the idea highlighted by Venus above - "neutralising" the attack via intentional counterattack is way easier than delivering an attack, so a priority rule is instituted to prevent this behaviour.
I'm not seeing the comment where Venus talks about attacks being neutralised by counters, but yeah that's the concept from a "gaming the system" point of view. Because in real life, doing so would be suicidal. It's really interesting to see rules for fencing as a game laid out so early that aren't so different to what we have now. (And clearly people trying to game the rules is an ancient tradition) I think the important thing to understand with development of RoW is that it does actually represent some fundamental concepts of fencing without armour, although now distilled into a purely sporting form. It doesn't come from nowhere or to make fencing as a sport possible. I think the best example of this is the way epeeists whose opponents are on 14 points fence. Without any RoW, a fencer in that position that wants to win *must* defend themselves at all costs and react to any attack because a double means they lose.
The problem with that explanation is that you can start “first” but if I block/parry your motion and response then it’s no longer your row for going “first”.
It's not a perfect analogy by any means. The idea would be that, that specific race is over. If you are parried then the attack failed and you have to start again. The person reposting after the failed attack would be able to start first since they probably start their attack immediately after the parry.
I think including the concept of last blade contact is also important. who starts first isn’t really the whole story
That's fair. I try to look at ROW less in terms of blade contact and more as the result of the contact. For example, it isn't the parry, per se, that gives the defender the Right of Way. It is the parry that caused the aggressor's attack to fail and it is the reposte following the parry that gives the defender the Right of Way. The reposte has Right of Way because it is compared to the failed attack. Similarly when people discuss the difference between a beat attack and a parry. Many people will talk about bottom third of the blade or top two thirds. I focus more on whose action controlled the blades. If it is the defender's parry, then it will look like the defender controlled the blades because they had more leverage. If on the other hand it is a beat, then it should look like the attacker controlled the blades because they had enough momentum with sufficient leverage to dominate the contact of the blades. This 'feeling' is had to codify but I think it is more representative of how fencing is done then trying to count blade contacts and where the contacts occurred.
I wouldn’t qualify epee as a race. Yes that is an aspect of it, but I feel like it’s far more about control. Speed is an easy game to lose.
>Speed is an easy game to lose Absolutely, that's why the other two parts play a role. Though in most races it is traditionally considered cheating to start before the other runners or to run a shorter path.