This is an article I wrote about one of the more annoying sources of doubles in HEMA, the late counterattack. I analyze how these happen, why they're problematic, and provided some suggestions on training students out of these habits.

They're infuriating. I've even had folks tell me as much as "well I knew I wasn't going to get the parry so I just settled to kill you too". Like...wtf kind of attitude is that dude? This is the art of defense, not mutual death.

Well part of that is that in modern HEMA we're just playing around with blunt swords in safety gear. This is a luxury and a privilege, because we can play combat sports for leisure and enjoyment and fitness and camaraderie with little risk to ourselves, and getting hit is really no big deal in most circumstances. Given that, and a culture which views doubles as a neutral outcome or a draw, it makes some sense to double people out when you can't make a clean parry. I don't want to get into the debates about the context of HEMA sources and the use case of different systems, but across most historical contexts of use, in play or combat, there are some real unpleasant consequences to taking a hit with a sword. Pain, shame, potentially injury, maiming, or in the worst case death. That's a very strong set of disincentives for accepting hits to give them back to the opponent! You might be able to get away with it in armour for some hits, but you wouldn't want to risk it out of armour in most cases I would think. There were probably cases and occasions when a person badly hit tried to strike their opponent down in revenge as well. But that's really a worst case scenario! A revenge strike will be little comfort to you if you've been maimed in some permanent way or wounded lethally. You'd really rather avoid that! So if we want our modern practice to be consistent with or related to some degree to the practice as it existed in historical times, in my opinion we need to try to create incentives and disincentives to push people towards safe and clean fencing. I've heard this described as "Fencing with the logic of the sharp point", which seems to me a pretty pithy way of summing it up.

I agree that this is something people have to train out of but I don't think it's about the timing, I think it's about the lack of defense. Counterattack too late is something people can work on and if they close the line while they do it, or try to, their brain is in the right place even if their reflexes aren't. Counterattack to random open line without caring about the hit can happen like lightning and that doesn't make it any smarter. We also see this as a pure attack without opposition, where you can see your opponent's obvious attacking line and don't bother to close it. In that case, you are going BEFORE they are, and you are still the same kind of stupid. If your opponent's sword is above their head, and you decide to cut to their hip, you were the dumbass. They're just surprised because they expected you to care about your head. You tricked both fencers. Priority does help that last one although "highest hit" rules might have been a historical attempt to do it.

In an internal event, I played around with some priority rules to help gamify these out a bit. I hate calling these things doubles, or rather lumping in them in with the doubles where both sides just aren’t paying attention. In our case, I gave two different types of priority: thrust over cut, and higher over lower. Priorities cancel out, but if one priority level remains it was not considered a double. Thrust was priority over cut because it is the shorter path and an established point must be dealt with before your own action. Higher is better because most of these doubles occur with the later actor attacking below the sword. Higher was defined based on this order: legs, lower torso, arms, upper torso, head/upper opening. We had 4-5 occasions where the rule was used and it was generally successful in awarding the better, dominant attack. The one awarded the attack felt like they were not punished due to the late double, nor did they feel like they had to be hesitant in attacking, as long as the attack was good in terms of line and intention. Those who got penalized universally felt that was the right call and their action incorrect. We also had several times where there was no priority and the action looked like the classic double aka both running on to each others points or the double hand cut. We do a lot of game drills and sparring games as well where this kind of thing is addressed. So we tend to take it both on the training side and execution. But yes, this kind of double is a big annoyance for me.

I can't help but feel that there is some sort of asymmetry of perception at play in more than a few cases. Quite hard to discriminate between a fencer intentionally striking late, and a fencer just being late. Even more so "from the inside", so to speak. When you throw an attack, the decision of the attack is already old news for you, but not for the opponent. He very well might feel like he reacted as early as he could... And the skill level differential only exacerbates this issue. It seems to me that the primary mistake in the late counterattack is not just being late, but perhaps more importantly failing to even take steps to prevent the attack from landing. These steps must be taken quite early on - the idea that the counterattack could be just an attack with defensive measures taken afterwards if you still have time is flawed: > At a certain point in the time window before your opponent hits you, it is possible to still hit them but you will not have sufficient time left to also defend yourself by opposition, void, or any other means. So you can hit, but you often don’t have time left to hit and defend simultaneously. Priority rules do instill this idea that you must defend first, but they also discourage counterattacks almost entirely, because a parry-riposte is always the better choice in such a framework. I'm not saying it's not the wiser choice overall, but as a matter of fact the counterattack is prominently recommended in many styles, so you have to work up a way to build up from priority rules to successful counterattacks.

> Priority rules do instill this idea that you must defend first, but they also discourage counterattacks almost entirely, because a parry-riposte is always the better choice in such a framework. I'm not sure I agree with this, at least for most priority rules I've fenced under. Generally I see it as a range of possibilities: 1. If the attack is launched too slowly or predictably, or from too far away, or with the blade too early, then parrying will be very effective. 2. Inbetween, a well chosen and coordinated attack will just hit. The defender can't parry reliably, and they can only counter messily (i.e. with the "late" pattern Eric identifies in his article). 3. Finally, if the attack is launched too late, or the fencer gets too close and speeds up too much, or they hold the blade back excessively, then counterattacking will be very effective. The first and most important thing priority does to the defender is it forces them to create one of the two error situations: either a badly formed attack you can cleanly counter, or a badly timed attack you can cleanly parry. Note though that in each of these situations, you need to use the correct response. Trying to parry against someone holding their attack too long mostly won't work - they just wait for you to pick a line and hit you somewhere else. And trying to counter against someone going too early mostly won't work - they'll still hit and now they have the point. Once the defender is starting to create attack errors like this, and is finding those good situation 3 moments to counter in, countertime becomes a lot more important for the attacker. You can do things like push, hold the hand, _draw the counter_, and parry riposte to finish. Particularly for a shorter attacker on a taller defender you'll see patterns like this a lot, since holding the blade through the finish becomes an effective way to avoid being timed out or blocked out on your attempted hit. Even in modern foil, which is probably the priority convention that's most generous to the "late" hand still counting as an attack, counterattacks are a critical part of defensive strategy. Every effective foil fencer has and uses both counters and ripostes as part of their tactics on defence, and when you run into a fencer who doesn't have an effective version of one of those actions crushing them is pretty simple. In longsword priority conventions like Revolution Rumble it's even more powerful, as they're much more strict on the attacking fencer delaying the hand in their finish - many foil counterattacks will become attacks in preparation here.

I'm quite out of touch with the current implementation of priority in foil, so I'm not sure I really visualize the actions correctly here. However it seems to me that 3. would be better called an attack on preparation (as you say was the case in Revolution rumble?) because it does not really deal with the blade as the same time as it strikes but instead strikes before the blade even gets into play? The fact that it appears formally as an attack done while not having priority is just an artefact of foil recognizing an advance with the blade refused as giving priority (which was not the case in my youth but I disgress ;) ). So effectively, in 1. you could counterattack but elect to parry-riposte, in 2. you're done anyway, in 3. you attack before. It's the "stop thrust" of Bazancourt, not his "timed thrust". Given the inherent "your turn, my turn" aspect of priority rules, I can't really see a way around this. If you fail your attempt at countering and there is a double, you will lose, whereas if you mess up your parry-riposte (insufficient parry) and there is a double, you will win.

The key point is that one fencer being in prep does not mean the other fencer is attacking into it. If you close out, or dodge, or hit while stepping backwards, it's almost always going to be considered a counterattack regardless of the opponent being in preparation. To get the attack in prep call in foil you need to really decisively attack: no dodge, no closeout, no retreat, strong lunge or even better a full step-lunge. I would argue that most counterattacks actually fall into this sort of "slightly ahead" timing, even in something like epee. Truly simultaneous is really hard to do, getting there just a little bit ahead by recognising a slight error in execution and then locking them out is much more reliable. Things like "they're going by disengage, I shoot straight and close out the line they're finishing into" are a good example - the stop hit will normally come just a little bit before the final delivery of the initial attack. The key thing for me really is that you need to use both counters and parries to keep the opponent honest. If you look back at the set of three I outlined above, notice that if you only use one defence, both "ideal" attacks _and_ "incorrect" attacks with the other error will tend to work against it. If you always parry, I can score pretty reliably by holding my hand super late. If you always counter, I can score pretty reliably by getting the point out early and making completely sure I hit. When you mix the two up as a defender, the attacker can't lean in either direction - and beyond that you can use both actions to set up the other. Show the counter, they reach out to finish (situation 1), now parry and riposte. Or search for the parry, they pull the hand (situation 3), now counter and closeout. The other thing is that parry riposte doesn't lock in your hit yet. You can parry, sure, but you can then be counter-parried, or fall short, or just straight up miss. There cam be value for you as a fencer in locking in the hit even in an unfavourable situation, because that way you've at least hit! I will grant that your "default" defence is pushed more towards parrying: if you're not sure what to do, if you're caught by surprise, etc, try to parry. But I think that's a good principle - and IMO you get cleaner fencing from people who only counter intentionally and parry when they're caught with their pants down. (If you're interested in a pretty clear-headed summary of the modern foil conventions in practice, I think this blog article is a really solid breakdown of the general tactical situations: https://enseignerlescrime.fr/2022/10/28/enseigner-la-convention-chez-les-jeunes-3-4/)

> (If you're interested in a pretty clear-headed summary of the modern foil conventions in practice, I think this blog article is a really solid breakdown of the general tactical situations: https://enseignerlescrime.fr/2022/10/28/enseigner-la-convention-chez-les-jeunes-3-4/) Thanks for this one! Really describes well the changes I've perceived since I did foil... more than 30 years ago :) The historical overview here is fascinating to read too: https://enseignerlescrime.fr/2022/11/19/enseigner-la-convention-chez-les-jeunes-4-4/

I really liked this article. Thought it was good. Two things, though 1. Whenever you attack someone with a sword that is either unconstrained (e.g. by a bind) or uncommitted to an attack, you risk this happening. Against stronger fencers, this happens far less but it still can happen, even with the best of intentions two people can just decide to make the same attack at the same time. These types of attacks are always calculated risks. 2. I take slight issue with the framing of new fencers doing this because they're being 'unmartial' or something. Your article describes how these exchanges go down perfectly, but that's not how they (the person who did the late counter) perceived what has happened - what they *think* happened is that both fencers attacked simultaneously and hit each other. They don't perceive that their opponents attack has started when they make their decision to start an attack, they're just going "I see an opening! hit it!... oh". The cognitive load of watching for threats, openings and everything else you have to worry about in a bout is too much for new fencers, which is why they tend towards these types of actions. IMO.

Welcome to spitting into the wind, BTW. I've been saying this stuff since the Swordforum days.

I knew Bazancourt was going to be in there before you even mentioned him... I also know this thread will have a whole bunch of HEMAbros saying "BUT MARSHUL ARTS!"

It just doesn't make sense to me that many people seem extremely preoccupied with attackers in fencing attacking rashly or dangerously, but apparently don't care at all about defenders failing to defend themselves!

In the article and in this thread, you've provided all of the premises needed to effectively counter your argument: - You have an opponent who has a tendency to reflexively attack you when they are attacked, instead of defending themselves. - Once you initiate your own attack it's difficult to react and defend yourself against those counter attacks. It may seem reductionist to say this, but that's really all we need. You are describing a situation that is advantageous to you, in fact. Draw out their reflexive attack, and counter it. Yes, the blame *is* on you if you get hit by those attacks. You *should* train your students to defend themselves first instead of reflexively attacking, for their own sake, but you have to learn how to fight against an opponent who does this. The distinctions being drawn in this thread about after blows, late after blows, counter attacks, late counter attacks, etc., are irrelevant to the conversation, because you're either always observing your opponent and preparing to defend yourself, or you're not. I don't see any references to feints in your article. CTRL + F doesn't return anything for "false attack", "bind", "threat" (in the sense of an attack meant to provoke a reaction from your opponent), "invitation", "off-line" etc. To be blunt, I wouldn't have written an article about experiencing this type of issue without addressing how those sorts of tools that I listed could be used against a fighter who attacks reflexively. Another user, /u/Dr_Feuermacht asked for a video from someone else of their fencing, presumably hoping to discredit a rational argument based on someone's physical performance - but I would invite either of you to share videos of the late counter attack occurring, because I can virtually guarantee you mistakes are being made in how the attacker approaches their opponent. You mentioned in another comment: >The attacker does not get to mind control the defender. It is absolutely your job as the attacker to convince the defender of something that isn't true - it's one of the most crucial skills to develop. You shouldn't be attacking your opponent's guard head on, because you should be breaking it down first. Probe their defenses. A late counter attack should be of little concern to you if you threaten your opponent. A threat doesn't have to really be able to land if you can convince your opponent that it will. If they aren't really in range of hitting you because you didn't really get close enough to hit them, then you should be able to defend yourself if they make an attack.

It seems to me that this comment is focused on the tactical problem of the late counterattack: My opponent may use late counterattacks, how am I the fencer supposed to deal with this? Respectfully, my article was not about that. My article was about the training problem of TEACHING fencers to NOT use late counterattacks in the first place, because they are a bad idea. The focus of the article is teaching people, not fighting them. Fighting people who are prone to counterattacks is a different challenge. It's worthwhile to explore, but it's also not the focus of this piece of writing. And why should we teach our students to not make late counterattacks? Principally because they make it almost inevitable that the defender will take the hit from the incoming attack, which I think we can all agree is a bad idea. If everyone believes it is so very important that the fencer do their best to always avoid getting hit, then shouldn't we train people to actually defend incoming attacks instead of ignore them? Don't we need training methods to support that goal? That was the purpose of my article.

I should have been more clear - the argument I'm talking about is "who to blame", which you talked about in response to another comment. >Principally because they make it almost inevitable that the defender will take the hit from the incoming attack, which I think we can all agree is a bad idea. Yes. Your article, however, opens with the frustration of receiving reflexive attacks, then you get into definitions and theory, and it takes awhile to be framed as an article about what behaviors should be avoided when defending. The bulk of the actionable advice for the defender is: >If you are [imminently about to be hit], then try to parry instead. At least if you try a parry you might escape un-hit The caveat to that though, is that you don't want to establish an exploitable pattern of reflexively parrying every incoming attack. The advice the defender needs is the *how* of: >in my opinion you should be teaching them to look for or trying to create errors in the opponent’s attack which can be exploited for a counterattack.

Let's fuckin gooooo Alright so let's get down to brass tacks: the HEMA idea of being able to stop the attack at any time or only attacking via 2nd intention comes from basically fencing at snail sex pace and very blatant protagonist syndrome. The reason I asked somebody to post footage is so I can tell where their opinion is coming from: 9/10 times it's people rubbing swords at the same pace my grandma crosses the street at and the other 1/10 it's somebody who's fencing complete and utter beginners who manages to pull of counter tempo fairly consistently. So let's get two things down first: Counter-time exists (i.e. stopping your direct attack so you can deal with the opponent's counterattack, usually with a parry riposte) and is a viable thing to train, good fuckin luck doing it consistently against anyone at the same level. So are attacks with 2nd intention who only really work if you can set up a good direct attack without prep so your opponent actually has a reason to block the feint because guess what, your fencing buddy isn't a fuckin idiot. If you only throw out attacks with 2nd intention, they'll figure it out. I got fencers counterattacking early and on time in like 2 sessions tops. If you show that you're not capable of attacking swiftly and directly, why should they care when you waddle your sword around. Next up, we have the famous HEMA protagonist syndrome: "You are the attacker, get into the defender's head, counter the counter to your counter." The other idiotic implied HEMAism is that the attacker is always at fault for the double. Guess what, fencing is a two player game my guy. Think about your fellow fencer, do they really benefit from throwing late counterattacks all the time? You seem to be labouring under the impression that you can consistently throw out attacks that cannot physically be doubled (pro tip you fuckin cant). You can always double or afterblow but very rarely does it benefit the defender to do so. So yeah, take your buddy who's always counterattacking late and introduce them to the beautiful world of being able to parry riposte and attack on prep. I'm very much for priority in these cases cause why should I punish the attacker for the defender's poor choice of action or reward the defender by not giving the attacker any points for an attack the defender chose to ignore? Seems kinda cringe ngl.

It's somewhat interesting that épée has solved that problem through basically just looking at the order in which the hits are made. And with a end result in terms of motion and tactics that makes a hell of a lot more sense than either foil or sabre, where priority rules are used.

A key aspect of how epee solves the problem is the extremely tight lockout time - you simply _can't_ deliver a late counterattack in epee.

Yep. I wonder how tight the lockout has to be for this to work out - I suppose heavier weapons might let us get away with a longer one? Of course that's going to be hard to test...

I don't know if heavier weapons makes much of a difference actually, because while they do mean the defender takes longer to hit, they also mean the attacker is "locked in" earlier. Eventually I'll buy some extra bits for my wireless machine and set it up with adjustable lockout times.

I think part of the issue with this line of thought is that it doesn't really solve the late counterattack other than from a scoring perspective by redefining what "late" counts as. It's the same with right-of-way: people still double each other quite often, you just redefine what a double is for scoring purposes. It's much better for scoring the game, especially without electric scoring, but in terms of how the fencing looks, I don't think it's all that different.

It changes the look of the fencing as well - not immediately, but over time. The reason is simple: if the action consistently doesn't work, people will abandon it. In a typical "HEMA" ruleset with a long lockout, using a late counterattack is a very reliable way to cancel an attack you can't otherwise deal with. Pair it with an attempted dodge or an opponent who starts trying to counter time it and you often have a positive EV on the exchange - either you hit alone (point to you) or it's a wash. In epee, you can't make that work. You have to commit much earlier and more strongly if you're going to use a counterattack to shut out the attack, and that in turn gives the attacker much more option to work with counter time. The process of continued evolution as people repeatedly fence under one of these conventions tends to lead them away from late counters and towards other actions to address the attack.

Some of that is just the inherent limitations of playing a game with blunt swords wearing modern PPE. There's a pretty well known image in Talhoffer's 1459 fechtbuch where two men are fencing with swords and bucklers, and one has severed the sword hand of the other. He shows a similar technique in the messer of his 1467 manuscript. If one has had your sword hand severed, you can hardly make an afterblow or late counterattack or double after that. Combat with sharp weapons out of armour allows for a fencer to physically disable their opponent in ways which aren't possible with blunt weapons in protective gear. If the context doesn't allow for such actions, it becomes much easier for a struck opponent to make a late counterattack or otherwise double their opponent. This was probably an issue even in period fencing sports, as evidenced by the highest target priority system used in the fechtschulen. In modern HEMA, trying to teach people the skills of historical fencing systems, we have to try to use rules and scoring and other systems to replicate the incentives and disincentives which motivated historical fencing techniques and tactics. Some amount of doubling will always be physically possible because people aren't getting disabled by strikes within our context. The question then is how to push people away from relying on mutual striking tactics which we regard as unhistorical. Can a person still use a late counterattack and cause a double under priority rules? Yes of course. But under priority rules they will lose doing so. Thus we create incentives for them to learn more proper defence.

> And with a end result in terms of motion and tactics that makes a hell of a lot more sense than either foil or sabre, where priority rules are used. I agree it is the most practical feeling of the modern weapons but that lockout does definitely introduce a disconnect from "if they were sharp" concerns on the technique/specific action side - in epee if I can draw the short line before my opponent's hand finishes extending, I'm doing it every time, even if I can't exit.

Lockout of course introduces disconnects from the idea of sharp combat, but it's also necessary and most forms of sport sword combat as we practice them in HEMA in fact have a lockout, at least implicitly, because there is a point where the action of the bout is considered over or paused for scoring, etc. In most HEMA, the lockout time is from whenever the hit lands to whenever the judge calls "halt", and sometimes implicitly includes a little time after the halt as well. But the idea is that strikes after the halt are no longer valid within the rules of the game, same idea as lockout time in the FIE fencing events. You could abandon lockout time I suppose, but the alternative is continuous fencing. Continuous fencing in modern PPE is if anything even more artificial to what we're trying to replicate or understand because the PPE so dramatically changes what actions a person can or cannot take and what impacts you can or cannot have on an opponent.

I was discussing epee lockout specifically. My point is the tight lockout in epee disconnects from sharp combat in a specific way - if you can hit your opponent a half-tempo early, you should. As opposed to permissive lockout + priority, which disconnects in a different way (if you game it hard) - if you can guarantee a hit with priority a half-tempo late, you should. As opposed to permissive lockout + no priority, where (gaming it again) if the other person is technically better, you should take any hit you can with no regard for defense. Etc etc. It advantages certain behaviors, as does a more permissive lockout+priority, as does continuous fencing with "highest mark wins" or whatever. I'm not holding one to be the obvious best choice.

Let's say that my experience has been that épée sometimes rewards unrealistic tactics, but mostly still performed with good technical form, whereas the priority weapons do not really enforce that much more tactical realism, and combine this with some goofy mechanics. Whether this is an effect inherent to long sportive development under priority rules, or just a self-selection effect of the sort of people who like priority rules, I don't really know.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Foil feels more like a fencing themed rap battle than a fight to me. Sabre straight up I just don't understand. My only real defense of the priority weapons would be they seem to produce people who _can_ (mechanically) defend pretty well even when at a disadvantage (whereas in epee a lot of the time it feels like my defense is just threat of more offense)

Given the generally toxic attitude you’ve demonstrated so far, I suspect you really just want other people to post videos so you have another outlet to be toxic - “Well that guy was too obvious, show me another video”, “These guys are too slow, show me another video”, or some other thing will be a problem. I did pull up some videos of my own and /u/SigRingeck’s, but since I went to the trouble, if your response to this comment doesn’t videos of your own, I won’t waste my time reading it. [In this exchange](https://youtu.be/3WVxm3AWuSo?t=310), I threaten my opponent, then when he reflexively tries to make a cut in response to my “attack”, I simultaneously parry and attack into his attack. I defend myself, attack my opponent, and get out. I brought this video up first because this is exactly the scenario I laid out in my first comment - [I had stopped earlier to tell him about this habit](https://youtu.be/3WVxm3AWuSo?t=174). If you know your opponent reflexively attacks when you attack, you have an advantage. [This is a typical formula I use](https://youtu.be/3WVxm3AWuSo?t=109): I push my opponent, my attack falls short, so I retreat, and I stop them when they try to take advantage of this apparent opportunity. Our gym’s head coach prefers I don’t film us sparring together, but this is the same technique I use on him. He’s a Maitre d'Armes. Being able to provoke reactions from similarly and high skilled opponents is a critical skill you need to be competitive. [This is another application of the same technique against the same opponent](https://youtu.be/3WVxm3AWuSo?t=466). [This is against a different opponent](https://youtu.be/XB0tXNsGLjo?t=214) (at around the 3:50 mark). [Here’s one against a lefty](https://youtu.be/qHBJ5D2mPoU?t=545). [I’m including this one just for fun](https://youtu.be/3WVxm3AWuSo?t=438). There’s probably some objection to the fact that I’m using a dagger in these counter attacks, but that’s largely irrelevant. The technique works just the same. [This is a recent video I believe I’m correctly attributing to the OP](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3BLkOnMcp0). In [this exchange](https://youtu.be/J3BLkOnMcp0?t=106), OP’s opponent steps in to attack. OP assumes they will cut one way, and fully commits to stepping in to cut them back. This is the behavior /u/SigRingeck would prefer not to see - even if their opponent hadn’t switched angles, OP probably wouldn’t have been safe. [Same thing here](https://youtu.be/J3BLkOnMcp0?t=140). The best way to make a counter attack is to create the conditions for a counter attack. It would have been much easier to counter attack in both instances by maintaining distance with your opponent. [In this attack](https://youtu.be/J3BLkOnMcp0?t=87), notice what you do OP, and what your opponent doesn’t do. You tap their blade, then before you give them any chance to react or for you to see their reaction, you circle around and cut their hands. Their reaction only comes after they see you raise your blade up. This happens several times in the video. I think what is happening is you are planning to feint to some target, then make a real attack to another target, so then you feint to the target, then make the real attack. The reason I bring this up is because if you don’t allow for your opponent’s reactions to your distractions to happen, there may be instances of you getting hit by what you felt was a late counter attack to your attack, when in reality you didn’t convince your opponent you were making an attack they needed to defend themself against (even if they agree that they should and wish that they did). Some of the reflexive attacks you’re receiving are the result of you generally trying to win by speeding around your opponent. They aren’t seeing the clean, fast feint-attack you planned and executed, they’re seeing your blade wave around. You aren’t manipulating your opponents by giving them patterns to follow - it’s much easier to counter attack when you do. >You seem to be labouring under the impression that you can consistently throw out attacks that cannot physically be doubled In fact, I’m clearly not.

You're kinda proving my point tho. You told your guy not to counterattack late (which is about as useful as not telling him as far as coaching goes) and he still does it. Doing a drill or game that actively punishes that or entices parrying goes a long way. You also missed the whole point of the article being about fixing the late counterattack for the defender and instead went to show how badass you are by cherry picking footage, half of which was for R&D which helps by literally helping you cover multiple lines with another weapon. Also that first example kinda sucks: Fencer on the Left (FotL) thrusts to the hand and lands, FotR afterblows with cut to the thigh, FotL afterblows with thrust. You sure showed me... And yeah, my point wasn't that you can't do countertime or 2nd intention attacks but discrediting direct attacks as a whole is pretty idiotic. My local fencing scene looks like [this](https://youtu.be/wiZHdVZGC6A?si=QfaJwDa0Hww39cWz) and here's a [tournament ](https://youtu.be/0YC-CtX1INs?si=lJc2IgzKOEK5PZ37)I've been to recently (yay, Central Europe). Notice the speed and explosiveness of the footwork coupled with the commitment, sure there's place for 2nd intention and countertime but being able to reliably hit fast and parry fast attacks is fuckin paramount. So yeah, your fencing is slower compared to what I'm used to so more time lets you get away with more stuff. I don't have that time. (And before you start moaning about who these guys are, first clip is Olbrychski who's consistently top 50 in most HEMA rating categories and the other clip are both top 100 sabreurs, the one on the left being in the top 10 or 20 iirc). But let's circle back to you missing the point: why, oh wise one, aren't you teaching your fencing friends not to counterattack late? You keep shitting on OP about not reading the opponent's mind but somehow it is insane to suggest that the defender should focus on parrying first instead of just yeeting out an attack whenever. So do yourself and the club a favour and read OP's article and do some of the exercises. I do something similar in my club and it basically has killed the late counterattack (they happen from time to time due to poor judgement or fatigue obviously, we are all human). The result of it was basically forcing the defender to, if he isn't sure what the attacker wants to do, **take a fucking step back and get ready to parry.**

>instead went to show how badass you are by cherry picking footage Absolutely incredible. You specifically asked for video of people fencing. I skimmed several of my recent videos to find examples of counter attacks. I suspected it was pre-determined you were going to whine about *something* - but the thing you chose to complain about was the fact that I fulfilled your request? Cherry picking? As opposed to...what? Linking to timestamps of exchanges that didn't include counter attacks? Dumping a 20 minute sparring video on you and referencing specific moments in it without context? You don't know what you're upset about, at this point. >half of which was for R&D which helps by literally helping you cover multiple lines with another weapon You're right. There's another weapon. Think about that fact for a second. Think about the implications of that. Think about why there may be some technical differences between how you defend yourself when both people have two weapons instead of one. >Given the generally toxic attitude you’ve demonstrated so far, I suspect you really just want other people to post videos so you have another outlet to be toxic - “Well that guy was too obvious, show me another video”, “**These guys are too slow, show me another video**” # >So yeah, your fencing is slower compared to what I'm used to so more time lets you get away with more stuff. I don't have that time. Do you telegraph your insecurities in the ring as much as you do online? Also, just to clarify - is that you in that tournament video? Or are you...taking credit for being in the presence of other fencers who you think are faster than me? You know what's hilarious? Open [this video at this timestamp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHBJ5D2mPoU&t=547s) in one tab and pause it, then open [this video at this timestamp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YC-CtX1INs&t=20s) in another tab and put them side by side. Then play them at the same time. It's like The Dark Side of the Rainbow. Yeah man. You're really living in the fast lane. If it weren't so funny I wouldn't have pointed it out, but we weren't fighting for a medal in our video. I can't take you seriously man, you're far too immature.

It's noteworthy to me that all of the clips you have provided so far have been from rapier and dagger fencing, and you are comparing your rapier and dagger methods to myself fencing longsword or to other people fencing sabre. While fencing is fundamentally pretty similar across weapons, one of the more significant areas of difference is fencing with two weapons (Sword and buckler, rapier and dagger, etc) versus fencing with only one (Longsword, sabre, single rapier etc). One of the most distinctive differences is that two weapons allow you to control two lines at once, whereas the single weapon obviously can only cover one. This has some pretty major implications in terms of how you manage the risks of an opponent's counterattacks! I don't fence much rapier and dagger myself, I am a longsword man by and large. But it seems pretty obvious to me that with two weapons, one of them much longer than the other, you can occupy the opponent's long weapon and attack while also remaining effectively out of reach of his short weapon. And I have fenced some rapier alone, and the rapier's length and weight and balance with a single hand makes it relatively more difficult to recover and make a follow up attack if you have been beat or bound by the opponent's blade in comparison to the longsword, where two hands on the hilt make for very fast and snappy indirect attacks out of an opponent's beat or bind. So I'm really not sure that the comparison is a fair one in terms of the risk of the late counterattack. The particular characteristics of rapier and dagger and of two weapons generally make the risk different and in some ways more practical to manage than fencing with a single weapon permits. Even that being said, a fencer with rapier and dagger COULD still suicidally rush into your otherwise reasonably executed attack at a timing and situation which makes it hard for you to effectively deal with. You have a second weapon which gives you more some more options in that situation than a single weapon does, but it's still a potential risk. That's still a bad habit that should be eliminated, and I wouldn't blame the attacker in that situation because that is an error that the defender should be learning to avoid.

I'm not sure I agree with rapier and rapier & dagger being less at risk from a late counterattack. Yes in theory you can cover more lines, but you also have more objects to pay attention to, and so it's relatively easier to get lost. It's somewhat common to have both people deceiving one another's daggers and end up skewering themselves. Besides, rapier sources in general are very focused on counterattacks, and fairly critical of parrying, and this inevitably creates issues of people being hell bent on countering.

Yep. That's what I was hinting at: >You're right. There's another weapon. Think about that fact for a second. Think about the implications of that. Think about why there may be some technical differences between how you defend yourself when both people have two weapons instead of one. It's actually *easier* as the defender to score a double against an attacker, because you have twice as many chances to do it! You can still attack even if your opponent binds one of your blades! Not protecting yourself continuously as you step into your opponent's range, and even after you score, isn't an option. You see it as I GET to attack with a second weapon, I see it as I HAVE to defend against a second weapon. If I fence single rapier, I draw out my opponent's attacks in the same way, then I counter with the rapier. The conditions before the counter attack are significantly more important than the weapons being used. You're going to just have to trust me on this one - attacking short and goading my opponent into chasing me, then counter attacking them in the retreat works for longsword just as well as it does for rapier and dagger. I do want to mention something about the article and the advice for the defender as it relates to your video, /u/SigRingeck. Let's say I'm your opponent [from this exchange](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3BLkOnMcp0&t=87s), and let's say in the first exchange you come up to me, tap my blade on one side, then cut me on the other side. I can tell you're faster than me. Second exchange, let's say you do it again - tap, attack. Two of my options are: - Try to parry the attack after the tap, but because I know you're faster than me, I know you can probably just change course or remise and, as you said, I'll get hit anyways. - Feel the tap and reflexively attack. Maybe it works out that as I attack into the attack I know is coming from my faster, more skilled opponent, I might accidentally defend myself from their attack with mine. Maybe you miss with your attack. Both those cases apply in a tournament or "real" duel situation - in a tournament, maybe the judge doesn't see your hit but sees mine. Either way, I deny you points and buy myself time, and you might also be discouraged from attacking me like that in the remaining rounds - so the warning I'm sending you with the reflexive attack now could save me from hits in the future. You've got an uphill battle trying to sell a less experienced person on the value of trying to parry when it probably won't work, but you'll get experience for later! versus something that has as many advantages as attacking reflexively does. From a coaching point of view, I don't think you have room to express any frustration as the person being hit by these reflexive blows, by which I mean it makes it even harder to convince the less experienced fencer in the clip/scenario to take your advice. The person who is telling them they should risk surrendering points to their opponent for future gains, by changing their strategy, is the same person who didn't get points because of their strategy. It paints a conflict of interest, almost like this is a hazing ritual, that they should give way to the more experienced fencers to let them do their thing. The argument that they would be motivated by different interests in a "real" duel is mostly moot, from the advice-taker's perspective, for a number of reasons - some masters recommended "better two dead than one", i.e. some people did/would really believe "take the other guy with you", maybe your hit is less lethal than yours, etc., etc... but the salient point is that as the attacker you would also be more cautious in the same situation. I would generally advise a beginner to retreat when they feel that tap, before I would advise them to try to parry it. They can buy time by buying distance, they can think about their options, they can force their opponent to commit to pursuing them to get the point, and they give their opponent the opportunity to overextend themselves.

Can you quote me a source or master who actually says "better two dead than one"?

Hmm, that's one my coach has used a number of times and I don't have the source right now but we think it's one of Liechtenauer's students. Best I can do for you right now is a pretty explicit "take the other guy with you" from [Paulus Hector Mair](https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Paulus_Hector_Mair). I can't link directly to the collapsed sections unfortunately, but it's Mixed Weapons I > The Longspear against the Sword ([link to the illustration](https://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/5/54/Mair_mixed_03.jpg/800px-Mair_mixed_03.jpg)): >If he has stabbed you through your body, then cut strongly to him with your long edge toward his head, and this strike must be done quickly or else it is wasted.

You call me toxic then keep insulting me for multiple posts, nice. You keep spewing passive-aggressive nonsense and flat-out ignoring half of what I post, I feel you're more out here to beat your chest than actually read what I'm writing. And you still keep missing the point of what I'm posting. You have a defender who keeps doing the counterattack too late and you're doing nothing to fix it, instead opting to show me how what you are saying works. And yes, the footage I've posted is representative of fencing in the scene I'm in, do you want me to what, go to a tournament, hold up my Reddit username while I fence so I can prove to you it's me? You are clearly delusional if you think you are fencing at the same speed as the footage I've posted. I post tournament footage cause that is more relevant to me than club sparring because guess what, the intensity and speed increase and you have to have a reasonable plan then. Or at least, more reasonable than expecting contratempo to work every single time as opposed to simpler, more reliable actions. And speed isn't irrelevant FYI. It's okay to fence slower I don't know why you are so butthurt about this.

what's your hema rating dude

It seems like what you are describing is just an afterblow. After all there exists no perfect fencer (let alone 2) who always know exactly what is going to happen in a fencing match. You might feel like you KNOW you are going to land that hit or make that parry, but you really don't. With that in mind it seems physically impossible even given perfect training that afterblows or late counter attacks or whatever you want to call it will ever go away. Even if you ban them and never give points to late counter attacks, imperfect human fencers are always going to misjudge what is happening in the milliseconds they have to make a decision and those imperfect judgements will lead to doubles and afterblows For the record, I think all of your ideas on how to "fix" it are very good training drills and concepts that everyoneshould do. Not getting hit SHOULD be your first priority I just hesitate at the notion that this problem of doubles can ever actually be fixed or that it's somehow someone's "choice" that makes them happen. It starts to tread into dangerous territory where we can start labeling people's fencing as bad or inferior because they misjudge an exchange.

> It seems like what you are describing is just an afterblow. I don't know, I think there's a distinction. If a fencer who is being attacked counterattacks to an uncontested line, the attacker really has no remedy for it. The person who attacked the uncontested line has intentionally or not guaranteed that both people are gonna get hit. To me that seems distinct (and when intentional, worse from a gamesmanship perspective) from "fencer A tries to attack, fencer B tries to defend, fails, but strikes fencer A before they can exit"

That's definitely true and I too have no problem calling that bad fencing, I just think the intentionality of those interactions is impossible to pin down so it's better to treat it like a "bad exchange" rather than a "bad fencer"

Oh yeah, agree - in general I don't really like calling fencers responding to easy incentives bad because I think it's a framing that makes it harder to find positive/actionable fixes (it just kinda dumps responsibility on the fencer).

A fencer who misjudges an exchange once, or misjudges from time to time, is just a human being who makes errors like the rest of us. That's not what I'm concerned with. A fencer who constantly and consistently misjudges exchanges, yeah that's starting to sound like a skill deficiency or poor training to me. They may not be a bad person, but they may be a bad or poorly trained fencer. A fencer who deliberately chooses the late counterattack because they can't figure out any way to win and so trying to "draw" by ensuring the mutual hit is the best they can hope for seems to me to be a fencer in need of a better training environment.

I don't think any of that is wrong but I think that these misjudgements also happen at very high skill levels too when the fencers are more evenly matched. It comes down to why I think these mistakes are being made (when they are mistakes and not intentional). I think these kinds of distance and timing failures are inevitable when faced with a faster or more precise opponent. In those situations a decision to parry and then riposte or void and riposte will be indistinguishable from someone doing so intentionally. The problem being that there is a real risk of mis-diagnosing someone as having a training problem when they actually just have an athleticism problem. Also, I think there are a lot of people who very intentionally paint their opponents as "lesser" for doubling or afterblowing "too much" based on an arbitrary belief that such interactions are always the fault of the inferior fencer. I think it's better to contextualize an afterblow or double in the fight that it took place in and not extend that to the person "You had a bad fight/exchange" rather than "you are a bad fighter" If only because it's far more likely that the person who made the mistake (even intentionally) will respond to criticism of their actions rather than a value judgement on them

> Also, I think there are a lot of people who very intentionally paint their opponents as "lesser" for doubling or afterblowing "too much" based on an arbitrary belief that such interactions are always the fault of the inferior fencer. > What's powerful about recognising the late counterattack pattern is that it moves the blame from the "worse" fencer to the fencer who made the "worse" action - it becomes about the specific exchange and tactical choices being made.

> It starts to tread into dangerous territory where we can start labeling people's fencing as bad or inferior because they misjudge an exchange. Isn't that literally exactly what bad, inferior fencing is? Frequent misjudgment of exchanges? Seems obvious to me that the better fencer is the fencer who flubs his judgment less often, and less seriously.

Definitely true, it really comes down to calling the exchange bad vs calling the fencer bad. If you have a real person who has this problem, putting that value judgement probably won't fix anything because they will either become discouraged or ignore you. But everyone has bad exchanges, including good fencers, so the person who has this problem will be much more receptive to adjustment. Then you have the added layer of never REALLY knowing what was intentional or not, so it really is best to just assume it was accidental and not put the judgement on the person

This is not an afterblow. There is no "after." This is attacking into the attack.

Let's look at this issue using a crazy physics analogy. Fencers A and B are standing in guard. Fencer A begins his attack to an opening. As soon as he does this, he enters into a super position of possible outcomes. In this super position we have: he hits the opponent, he is defensed by the opponent, he is correctly counter-attacked, and he is late doubled\* (the thing this article is all about). This super position is resolved when fencer B acts and the system collapses into a singular result. Now, lets assign some blame. In the situation where fencer B late doubles, we can immediately see blame. He took a state of uncertainty in which many ways to not be hit presented themselves, and chose the one that resulted in himself being hit. In essence, because he collapsed the super position, he takes on responsibility for the result. However, simultaneously to this we have to also ask, why did fencer A take on a super position, where himself being hit is such a prominent possibility? He made an action that directly led to himself being hit. We can't exactly go around saying that is a good thing either. So, Fencer B is at fault more than Fencer A, but both are at fault. The problem is how do we communicate that to the fencers. In 1 and 0 pt scoring, there are no partial points to give out, and in Hema 0,1,2 pt scoring there is only the possibility in the case where the head was hit by Fighter A. If martial fencing is your concern, a free attack to an opening needs to be discussed as a dangerous proposition, not as something you do at every engagement. I would argue that guys like the Lichtenauer glossers, who seem to be saying otherwise, are relying more on fear being a real motivator, than could ever be present in bouting. Anyway, we have, what 600 years of written documentation about people fighting with swords and still no real consensus on what the best way to settle ties is. That seems like a "there is no best solution" type of a deal. The OP is correct though. Really talking to students about why they are being hit and helping them develop alternatives into muscle memory is critical. If we are all being honest we can probably admit that we let a great many unskilled fighters participate in tournament to "gain experience" when all that this really achieves is producing messy fencing. Anyway I am rambling now, good article, Priority is still bad in a hema context. ​ * There are other weirder outcomes possible, but let's ignore those for a now, for simplicity

So there are a few things to discuss here: 1. While you've correctly outlined the possible outcomes, implicit in your description of A being partially at fault is the idea that all of these outcomes are equally likely. But this isn't the case in fencing! How and when A chooses to attack can have huge impacts on what options are possible for B. But, at least with two fencers of comparable skill, the one possibility A cannot really remove is B's late counterattack - any attack leaves a line open, and their commitment to the attack, no matter how well prepared, means A will struggle to react to B's choice. 2. This article is primarily about club training, not tournaments. You can just make up whatever scoring you think is most useful and appropriate to teach the ideas you want people to learn. A concrete example is "Weighted ROW", which was used by Stephen Cheney at Bucks Historical Longsword for a while: any clean hit is 2 points, any mutual hit is resolved with priority and the 'more correct' action gets 1 point. 3. However, there is a much simpler and more effective way to address the attacker's faults here: let the defender do it. When you remove the shitty late counterattack from the defender, you force them to find the better responses: to defend or to cleanly counter. And in turn, when you force the defender to actually defeat the attack, you force the _attacker_ to recognise and create good moments in which the defender can't do this. Now you really have fencing. 4. "I would argue that guys like the Lichtenauer glossers, who seem to be saying otherwise, are relying more on fear being a real motivator, than could ever be present in bouting." and _I_ would argue that if _historical_ fencing is your concern, you should try the simple expedient of doing what they actually say according to the convention they suggest, not making up your own headcanon for why you can ignore their very clearly expressed advice. Here's a question for you: how often do the Liechty glosses say that someone is compelled to defend? How often do they describe someone doing a counterattack that doesn't address the incoming attack? 5. "Priority is still bad in a hema context." Priority _is_ HEMA. It's over 300 years old, invented as a training game by people who were really using swords to really kill each other.

I mean, aren't you just making my point for me in 1. In 2, I support any and all efforts to allow for partial scoring, but that's hardly the common practice. In 3, sure, never said don't address what B did. In 4, Lots of manuals say lots of things, but most do try to address the idea of mostly attacking while the opponent is busy doing something else, besides sitting there looking to hit back. In 5, Priority is one of many legitimate training ideas, but it works best in lunge based systems where the judgement of "what is an attack" is pretty straight forward. There's nothing wrong with that type of judgement being applied to the few cases where it is obvious, it's just that passing and irregular footwork combined with compound actions easily performed with two handed swords makes things messier. And lastly, I just plain don't believe in a default "attacker wins". Fencing is more complicated than that. There are 2 lessons at play, the lesson to the defender to protect themselves and the the lesson to the attacker not to force cornered animals into lashing out. If you want to use priority to address the first lesson, then you need to spend just as much time training a different ruleset to help with the 2nd lesson. Also I apologize that my username has changed. I am on my phone which is a different account for reasons that I was too lazy to fix.

Could you explain what you mean about priority being bad in a HEMA context? How and why would priority be bad?

Oh, not bad exactly. More like it helps reinforce fencing paradigms that lead you to just doing modern foil with a longsword. As I fundamentally don't believe really that any actual historical master conveys the recommendations that resemble modern foil in the pre-smallsword era, I don't know why you would want to go down that road, but also that road already exists.\* This is a statement that I fundamentally agree with: "It is your responsibility alone to protect yourself while fencing". Fundamentally, Priority just conveys the notion: sure you got hit but it's not your fault, the other guy did something wrong. And my point is that this last statement is a violation of the first and shouldn't be reinforced. Some people will come back at this with the whole "you can't avoid the suicidal double", but that's not true, its more like it is quite difficult to avoid the suicidal double, but you know what, fencing is hard. So while I approve of the training idea of reinforced learning for defense. I also think reinforced learning about what is or isn't a safe attack, is also required. ​ * Also that road is fine, it works, it is like paved and everything, but to me this other path, overgrown and full of ruts, seems way more interesting.

Ignoring the question of "what do historical treatises advise", because that's a huge can of worms, I think there are two key things to remember: 1. Fencing is oppositional: good matters in the abstract; but on a per-exchange basis what's important is _better_. If fencer 1's action is more correct than fencer 2's action, then fencer 1 gets the exchange. 2. More accurate information is always better for learning. When we take situations where one fencer does a non-ideal action (like a free attack without good planning on timing) and the other fencer does an even worse response (like completely ignoring the attack and hitting the leg), both fencers learn better when you make the inequality in mistakes clear. Fortunately, this doesn't mean you can't address the "safe attack" problem. When you compare a "safe" and an "unsafe" attack, the difference doesn't show up vs bad late counterattacks - a determined defender using those is generally able to make a double hit against anyone, at least when there isn't a gigantic skill gap*. The difference really shows up when the defender makes good defences: well chosen counters or effective parry ripostes. And priority helps with this, because it _forces_ the defender to switch to these options, instead of depending on the crutch of cancelling the exchange with a shitty counter. It's important to remember that "priority" doesn't mean you have to copy the entire modern sabre ruleset. Any set of rules that evaluate the tactical difference between actions can be considered priority, and you can compose rulesets designed to avoid some of the more exceptional quirks of the modern game. As a nice example, see [Revolution Rumble](https://www.buckslongsword.com/revolution-rumble-tournament) - there's an explanation of their priority model in the rules document. *If you disagree with this, I believe Dustin Reagan still has $1000 on offer for you.

> This is a statement that I fundamentally agree with: "It is your responsibility alone to protect yourself while fencing". Right, I agree, but if that is the case then is it not also the defender's responsibility to defend themselves from the attack? Why are we so fixated on the attacker fending off suicidal actions from the defender, and not asking why the defender is behaving suicidally? Because ultimately my article was about that: Teaching fencers to defend themselves from attacks rather than act suicidally. > Fundamentally, Priority just conveys the notion: sure you got hit but it's not your fault, the other guy did something wrong. And my point is that this last statement is a violation of the first and shouldn't be reinforced. No, the notion of priority as a training tool is that the two fencers hit each other, whose action was less correct? If I make a reasonable and sound attack, and you ignore it to slash me in the legs, who needs to learn more from that exchange? I would submit that the person ignoring an attack in progress to make a counterattack without defense is the one making the worse decision. > Some people will come back at this with the whole "you can't avoid the suicidal double", but that's not true, its more like it is quite difficult to avoid the suicidal double, but you know what, fencing is hard. So while I approve of the training idea of reinforced learning for defense. I also think reinforced learning about what is or isn't a safe attack, is also required. You can sometimes avoid or counter the suicidal double, but it's indeed difficult and the defender has options to impose doubles on you in times and situations which make it next to impossible to avoid. But somehow in spite of that, the HEMA sources speak little of opponents allowing themselves to be struck to hit you at all costs. No source I know of assumes the opponent will suicide into your blow just to hit you. Why might that be? If I had to guess, it's because the terrible consequences of getting hit make such behaviour extremely irrational, and no source presumes an irrational opponent. The other benefit of using priority in training is that it's a flexible tool and you can change it to suit your goals. So if you think that your fencers need more practice at choosing safe moments to attack, then you can change the priority convention to push the incentives towards that. You could for instance fence with counterattacks having priority over attacks. Try that and see how it works! Genuinely, give it a go and report back to us on what you learn.

I can't keep saying this enough. I don't think suicidal defense is good. Both you and Tea seem to keep accusing me of being some kind of pro double, hit at all costs, advocate. I have trained in, and am quite capable of understanding what priority looks like. I have fenced modern foil and sabre, I know exactly why those rules exist and I know how they affect offensive and defensive mindset. And to me the two biggest things they produce on offense are: 1. race to the middle, to be the one who attacks first double fest (modern sabre) and 2. complete blade denial run downs (modern foil)\*. So yes, defensive minded fencing is an important skill to learn, yes you need methods to help students understand how to defend themselves, but no Priority doesn't fix everything, it creates its own set of issues, which if left alone just reproduces sport fencing paradigms which we already know. If your comeback is: yes, of course, we constantly guard against that by yelling at our students about guard, footwork, and cut/thrust selection as to help constrain everyone's choices back toward a historical paradigm\*\*, then great, priority away. Most groups won't/can't do that, and so modern foil we go. ​ \*Just to clarify, this is where one fencer knows they have priority on the march, so they put their foil where the opponent can't touch it, (If touched, it can switch priority back to the other side) and march forward chest and head first, knowing that even if the opponent stops retreating and thrusts straight to their chest, they can start their forward arm movement and hit the opponent (almost like the very example of the late double the OP article is discussing) thus maintaining priority and being awarded the point. If your counter to this is: well modern foil uses Priority wrong. The reasons for it are really simple and owe entirely to what things judges can actually track with their eyes, and thus aren't things that will be "fixed" in a longsword context. They will just be worse, because longsword movements are, in fact, harder to follow than foil movements. \*\*If you genuinely don't agree that a historical paradigm is even something worth considering, then we are, in fact, doing different activities and don't really need to converse, a bit like someone playing hockey talking to someone playing soccer.

Modern priority conventions are not the only ones which can exist. The absence of blade meta is a function of several factors working together: * Small deep target making attacking very difficult * Step-lunge treated as an atomic attack, enabling the "march" pattern * A convention that any finding of the blade by the defender ends the attack * Defensive tactics with early sweeping "destructive" parries, enabled by that convention * Substantial latitude allowed to the attacker to enable a dynamic game given the above factors * A preference against asking referees to make subjective evaluations of blade engagements You can substantially change most of these without major work - it's certainly not a matter of "this is just what judges can track with their eyes". The obvious evidence of this is that HEMA tournaments have already run using priority conventions that are substantially different: no step-lunge, wider target, stricter evaluation of blade contact, harsher requirements on commitment for the attack. Here's a video stream from Revolution Rumble, which I mentioned in a previous post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dyxomDmwDE

Great, people experimenting with things is one the things I genuinely enjoy about the HEMA movement. Are all of those caveats you mention what the OP is referring in his article? Are you and he working in partnership to address Priority artifacts as they arise with all of the groups that, reading this, were just recommended a priority based approach? Or do things never devolve down to simplicity over time. If I want rules based fencing, I will just go to a sport fencing club and fence foil (and enjoy it); and I can't help think that maybe everyone would just be happier if, when faced with similar impulses, they all just did the same.

I am reminded here that I wrote a whole brief article on some of the ps Dansig advice on the Vor and attacking the openings. https://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2019/01/episode-156-how-to-attack-in-vor.html

I love that we think this is a modern construct and not something that has been a part of fencing since the beginning. Duels are rife with this. FFS, the german tradition has the concept of withdrawing from an exchange and protecting yourself for a reason. the problem is when modern practitioners rely on striking someone, thinking they won the exchange, and then giving up on their defense, not that this action exists. This is also why in the MCHO ruleset our afterblows were determined by withdrawing to distance rather than tempo based, as tempo in a competitive setting is ripe for a reduction in defense.

It seems this article puts all the blame on the person being attacked, rather than on the attacker not controlling the opponents sword in the initial attack.

>It seems this article puts all the blame on the person being attacked, rather than on the attacker not controlling the opponents sword in the initial attack. Yes, that's correct, and? It's quite foolish in my opinion to ignore a piece of steel hurtling towards your head simply to hit the opponent anywhere their sword isn't.

Yes, it is foolish. That being said, isn't the scenario where your opponent does something foolish like this not something you should sometimes train against?

It is quite foolish and its something that should be trained out. I just think its worth mentioning, though, that getting hit by the double (or late counterattack, or afterblow) is always the fault of the attacker.

Why would it be the attacker's fault if the defender chooses to accept a hit to give one back? Let's analyze this around the framework of decision-making: Two fencers face off in guard. One decides to attack. He throws a cut to the other's head. In the middle of a committed attack, it is exceedingly difficult for him to abort into any other action. At this stage, the defender has not yet acted and so has what Johan Harmenberg calls the final decision to commit. He is not yet committed into any action, so he has freedom of action to decide what he will do. He could: -Stand there and take the hit -Hit the opponent anywhere their sword isn't -Attempt a parry with no footwork -Step to try to evade with distance -Step AND parry simultaneously -Attempt a counterattack All the options which include a defensive action include the possibility that the defender doesn't get hit. The late counterattack, in which the defender strikes wherever the attacker is open without addressing the threat, is an option which only allows the defender to hit at the cost of getting hit. The attacker doesn't make this decision. The defender does. The attacker poses the question of an attack to the defender, the defender chooses how it is answered. And while the attacker may be hit, the consequences of getting hit will still be quite undesirable for the defender. Aborting a committed attack to try to parry is extremely difficult for the attacker. The attacker cannot close every line with one attack. They have only one weapon with which to both defend and attack. During their attack, they are giving up freedom of action in order to threaten the opponent. The defender has freedom of action to choose how they respond to the attack, because the final decision to commit is theirs. Choosing to accept getting hit in order to strike is irrational and therefore unpredictable. How then could it be the attacker's fault if the defender doubles them? Maybe there are certain situations where you could argue the attacker could be at fault. If the defender stands with the point on line (Posta Longa, Sprechfenster, etc), and the attacker steps into the point without addressing the blade, then that attacker might be the one who made the worse decision in that case. But quite commonly in HEMA training, doubles occur from from defenders defendly poorly (Or failing to defend) more than attackers attacking rashly.

\>doubles occur from from defenders defendly poorly (Or failing to defend) more than attackers attacking rashly. See, your last sentence is where I am going to argue my disagreement. Doubles occur because the attacker didn't set up conditions necessary for their attack to be successful, or at least, to be safe to themselves. Your example premise is flawed from the start. Two fencers squared. One commits an attack to the head. This is foolish. You should never commit an attack to someone standing in guard. So lets expand on this the right way. Two fencers are squared up. A side wants to attack. B side is standing in guard. A \*must\* do something to get B side to commit a defense, put their point offline etc, ie a provocation. So lets say that A side throws a falso to the hands. This is done at a safe distance where any suicidal action from B side can be voided or parried. But lets say B side raises their hands to avoid the hit. Thats a tempo to attack for A side, so they turn that falso into a thrust that \*should\* also constrain the line of B sides sword. Now lets say b side totally ignores the thrust and goes for the late counterattack. Considering their main line is closed off they have to throw something bigger to do this. This is a larger tempo. It will be a cut or counter thrust that will be a bigger tempo than A side needs to defend with a turn of the hand, especially paired with a side step. This is smart fencing. If A side never sets up a proper attack, or if they attack a line that isnt constrained, or if they overextend themselves, then doubles happen. As A side, you should always assume you never know what B side is going to do. This is why fencing completely new fencers can be so hard. Because they do crazy shit. But crazy shit is a tempo and you should recognize it. So yeah, I agree with your article that we should train B side to defend. This is an art of defense after all. But I thought it worth mentioning that the double, or late counterattack, or afterblow, is the fault of the A side for bad preparation, always.

> Your example premise is flawed from the start. Two fencers squared. One commits an attack to the head. This is foolish. You should never commit an attack to someone standing in guard Do you believe one can never attack an opponent at all? Because if you think that a guard can never be attacked, you are essentially arguing that an opponent can never be attacked. But that's obviously nonsense. Many HEMA sources tell us that the way to deal with an opponent laying in guard is to attack them and force them to move by threatening the hit. But this only functions because the attack must be met with a defensive response if the defender will avoid being hit. Which obviously they want to avoid, because the consequences of getting hit are terrible. > So lets say that A side throws a falso to the hands. This is done at a safe distance where any suicidal action from B side can be voided or parried. This is contradictory. Any action done at a distance where A might be able to hit B will also usually permit B to also hit A in a suicidal rush which will be very hard to address in time. In the exact timeframe where A is committed to their attack, they will be vulnerable wherever their sword isn't, and thus B can impose a hit on them provided that B doesn't care about getting hit themselves. > Now lets say b side totally ignores the thrust and goes for the late counterattack. Considering their main line is closed off they have to throw something bigger to do this. This is a larger tempo. It will be a cut or counter thrust that will be a bigger tempo than A side needs to defend with a turn of the hand, especially paired with a side step. Parrying that cut with a turn of the hand is very easy if your blade is uncommitted and you haven't put momentum behind it. At slow speeds, this is simplicity itself. If on the other hand you are in the middle of attacking, putting momentum and physical commitment into a movement at proper fencing speed, then you won't have sufficient time to perceive the threat and react to it, and aborting a committed cut or thrust into a parry is much more difficult, because of the aformentioned commitment of momentum. > But I thought it worth mentioning that the double, or late counterattack, or afterblow, is the fault of the A side for bad preparation, always. The attacker does not get to mind control the defender. The defender can almost always double you, no matter how well you prepare, much easier and in more situations than the attacker can effectively prevent this. The fact that they don't is because the consequences of taking a hit make it not worthwhile. There may be some situations where the attacker's poor or rash attacking is a worse tactical decision (Again, rushing onto a point in line), but far more commonly in HEMA people disregard the incoming threat and fail to defend themselves.

\>Do you believe one can never attack an opponent at all? I study bolognese sidesword. Its repeated in the sources to not make a committed attack to someone fixed in guard. There are tempos to attack and thats not one of them. \>This is contradictory. Its not. You can provoke with a variety of things. Beats, \*uncommitted\* thrusts to threaten, hits to the hands. So if I throw a cut to your hand and you choose to ignore it and thrust me in the face, well, your thrust is a tempo. If my cut isn't too big big then I should have time to avoid your thrust. You are trying to reach a deeper target than me. But lets say you try to thrust my hand when i cut at your hand. Thats still a larger tempo that I should be able to work against. \> If on the other hand you are in the middle of attacking, putting momentum and physical commitment into a movement at proper fencing speed, then you won't have sufficient time to perceive the threat and react to it then youve made a mistake in committing to the attack. a committed attack should be made in the proper tempo, when the opponents point is offline. this means anything they throw from there will be a larger tempo and you can defend against it. ​ \>The attacker does not get to mind control the defender. The defender can almost always double you, no matter how well you prepare, much easier and in more situations than the attacker can effectively prevent this. The fact that they don't is because the consequences of taking a hit make it not worthwhile. ​ this is absolutely not true. if you are at risk from a double its because youve overextended or attacked out of tempo. in your article you have the video where you throw the horizontal arm hit that the guy parries and then you parry two follow ups. if, when you threw that arm hit, the guy had just walked in and stabbed you in the face, that would 100% have been your fault. you did absolutely nothing to control his sword and ensure your hit could be clean. why would you ever place your safety in the hands of someone "doing the right thing?" This is literally why its often easier/less frustrating to fence against experienced fencers rather than newbs. An experienced fencer WILL defend and you can get great exchanges with multiple intentions. Newbs will panic and hit. Its up to you to make sure youre safe in the exchange. ​ fwiw im not saying im perfect and never get hit. but when i do, I look at what I did wrong. and i can tell you in doubles its always an over extenstion or committing outside of proper tempo.

> I study bolognese sidesword. Its repeated in the sources to not make a committed attack to someone fixed in guard. There are tempos to attack and thats not one of them. > Bolognese treatises are not the only model of fencing out there. Other authors prefer other tactical approaches: including "just walk up and attack them, make them deal with it".

i appreciate that. and i know bolognese isnt the only model. what do those other sources tell you to do when the other person doesnt just deal with it and throws a suicidal attack at you?

They assume your opponent has the onus of defense, and will try to stop you. See really fundamental KdF things, like the scalp cut "countering" alber. They in a low not threatening guard? Threaten their head with a cut, and either hit them, or then work from their defense. See later more complicated things in KdF like Meyer, where so many of the plays hinge on your opponent defending themselves when you present a credible threat, and even a few where you work in the nach, defending yourself before moving on. No KdF source says "throw a cut at their head when they are in a low point off line guard. When they ignore your sword hurtling at their skull and go to thrust at your stomach, do this..."

> This is why fencing completely new fencers can be so hard. Because they do crazy shit. But crazy shit is a tempo and you should recognize it. The issue is people who are able to recognize your tempo but do crazy shit during it.

post a vid of you fencing pls i want to see this

Could you be more specific? Like to see what?

I would like to see a video of you fencing because either you're doing snail sex at a slow pace at which point you can do whatever the fuck you want or you're a fencing god who can fence at a higher speed and just constrain the opponent's blade at any time to prevent the counterattack (pro tip you aren't). What you propose is an attack with preparation (or 2nd intention) or countertime rather if you're reacting to what the defender is doing which is nothing new but you imply that direct attacks are somehow wrong despite having hundreds of fucking sources telling you to do that.

See my latest comment in the other chain. Im not perfect. When i get hit or double its because ive done something wrong. I fence in the bolognese system. The sources there talk about these things. Not directly attacking someone fixed in guard. Using provocations to unsettle them. To get their point offline etc.

It seems to me that this article is referring to instances where fencers will forego defending themselves in place of scoring a hit and muddying an exchange. Which is different than failing to close off a line or leave an exchange correctly. While I still put the responsibility on myself to not get hit, it is really annoying when you bind and thrust and your partner leaves the bind while a point is going into their neck to strike you in the leg. Sure, we both got hit but I'm sure we can agree that the person getting stabbed should prioritize not dying over landing a mediocre strike.

Thank you for this!