I once watched a coach give a lesson to an up and coming Junior fencer. The coach would open a line and make a large step backward. The student would stretch in a long lunge and hit the coach. This went on for several repetitions. Each time the coach would open the line, step back, and the student would lunge and score. Occasionally the coach would suddenly make a parry and riposte against the student's attack. Lighting fast, the student would parry the riposte and counter-riposte to score.

While I was watching, one of the fencers of the club sat down next to me. Together, in silence, we watched the lesson as it went up and down the strip: straight attack, straight attack, parry riposte and counter-riposte. The student moved well, and there was no denying his speed. At one point in the lesson, after a particularly fast and accurate riposte by the student, the fencer watching the lesson turned to me and said: "What an amazing lesson!".

I had been thinking about this lesson for several minutes. I turned to the fencer (who also took lessons from this coach) and asked in turn: "Why don't all the attacks hit?"

The fencer didn't understand the question, so I explained: "The student scores several times in a row with a straight attack, then, in the same distance, he is parried and must score with counter-riposte. So why doesn't that one attack—out of all the others—fail to score?"

"Because the coach parried the attack!" the fencer replied. I was not happy with this answer. "If that is true, why didn't the coach parry the first three attacks by the student? Were those attacks any different?". I went on: "The student makes a series of attacks that score, then, suddenly, the same attack is parried and he must defend against the riposte and score with a counter-riposte. Does he know why? Does he know what didn't work in the attack the coach parried that worked the first three times?"

The fencer watching the lesson with me didn't have an answer. Later, I talked to the coach, who told me that the parry and riposte against the student was "replicating the bout", in which the student must be ready to make a quick counter-riposte if the initial attack failed.

"What was the purpose of this lesson?"

This seemed reasonable on the face of it. But as I thought about the lesson, I wondered what the purpose of the lesson was. To teach the straight attack? If so, it is not a very good lesson when the coach, at any time, could chose to successfully defend against the attack. Was the lesson to teach the student a lighting fast parry and riposte? It certainly did that, with the disadvantage that the student was also being taught to make attacks from a distance at which the attacks were certainly designed to fail.

What does this lesson teach?

I watched this student in later competitions. I would often see this student make attacks from out of distance. In local competitions his speed and technical ability would often result in the direct attack scoring against the opponent. At the local competitions, if he was parried, his technical skills and speed saved him. In National competitions, however, his opponents could parry or escape this student's initial attack. As a variation, the student's opponents would open the distance to avoid his attacks and encourage the student to creep closer and closer to start the attack, making him vulnerable to attacks on preparation. I never saw his coach notice this problem and take steps to correct it.

"The student is scoring only when the coach decides to let the student score"

In the lesson outlined above, the coach decided if the student was going to score or be parried. The lesson asked the student to execute one technique by command (the lunge), and another technique by surprise (the parry and counter-riposte). It is difficult to say that this was a bad lesson—certainly the lesson had something to teach—but I could argue that it was certainly not a realistic lesson in terms of "replicating the bout". The student is scoring only when the coach decides to let the student score. The actions in the lesson are arbitrary, and even self-defeating.

This is a lesson that is given quite often by coaches. It is not a "bad" lesson. It is not wrong to teach a student to make a long lunge, or to teach the student to be able to parry and counter-riposte when their attacks are parried. It IS a lesson that makes no sense except in the technical execution of fencing actions: of fencing "things". It could be argued that this lesson does not teach a fencer to fence at all. While it incorporates all the actions of fencing, it ignores a principal component of fencing, which is tempo.

What is tempo? Everyone uses this word, but no one really defines it. I like what Coach Gary Copeland, of Northern Colorado Fencers Club says about tempo:

"This concept of the tempo is so elusive that many coaches don't even mention it. It is a concept that defies description, because it is not rooted in a fixed distance or motion. It is so variable, so transitory, that anything written of it doesn't quite describe it; in fact, any description can be shown to be wrong under certain circumstances. Often coaches avoid the issue all together and hope that the student learns it on the strip."(1)

A beginning fencer often thinks of tempo as being the same as speed. This is not necessarily true. Tempo in fencing is composed of three chief elements: time, distance, and technique (however, see this note. Faster fencers do take less time to execute any given action, but distance and the use of technique modify total elapsed time of the action. A fast action over a long path to the target may take more time—despite the speed of execution—than a slower action done at a closer distance. The path of a weapon to a target may be direct or very convoluted, with each possible path having a certain distance that the blade has to travel from start to finish. This path will incorporate the motion of the fencer's body in any footwork, as well as blade movement. By choosing an optimal technique and making that path "smooth", the fencer's technique plays into the execution of the action: better fencers pick the correct technique and execute it well, reducing the time it takes to score.

By including all of these factors in defining tempo, it is clear that the tempo of an action also depends not only on the executing fencer, but also on the opposing fencer. The opponent's technical abilities in executing blade actions, changes of distance, and ability to recognize the intention of the fencer will effect the outcome of an attack. All of these abilities play against each other on both sides of the attacker/attacked equation. The opponent who keeps the distance open allows more time to recognize the start of an attack, distance which the attacker may use to execute a successful compound attack...and round and round.

What does this mean in terms of actually scoring against the opponent? It means that if the tempo situation for the attacker is of a smaller time than for the defender, the attacker should be able to score. If the defender's tempo for the defense is shorter than the attacker's, the defender will successfully stop the attack or score with a counter-attack. In the end, the fencer that scores is the fencer that creates a tempo advantage over his or her opponent, recognizes the advantage first, and uses good technique to score.

The final scoring action in a phrase is always a simple action. Before the final scoring action there may be feints, beats, parries, and all the assorted fencing skills taught in lesson, but the final hit occurs in a simple action to the target. Consider the "feint, one-two". This multi-tempo action ends in a disengage of the last parry of the opponent and a simple, one-tempo thrust. In a successful parry and riposte, the defender has lured the attacker to make an attack that is easily parried and the riposte—a one tempo action—scores. It is the fencer's goal to create "one-tempo" situation and finish.

In the course of a bout, the absolute speed of a fencer is unchangeable (we can ignore the effects of fatigue for the moment) i.e. no fencer is going to be able to increase their innate speed over the period that the bout takes place. For any given path of the fencers point to his opponent's target, there is an "ideal" path can be traveled for the tip or edge to score. The fencers technique will determine how closely the ideal path is followed and thus how fast the tip or edge will reach the target: better fencers take shorter, smaller, more efficient paths to a target than a less skilled fencer. Technique is also a constant during the bout, though while the technique of a particular action by a particular fencer may be unchangeable, the fencer can change techniques, e.g. switch from an beat attack to an attack with a press, that will alter the tempo of the situation.

Both fencers being roughly equal in skill, the discussion of tempo boils down to two variables: distance and choice of technique. The goal of a fencer is to create situations of distance and blade relationships that will allow the simplest of techniques to score. For the fencer, this means control of footwork and of distance. The fencer must also know what technique to use when. For any given situation and opponent, the fencer wants to chose the best technique for themselves, the opponent, and that distance.

To be successful, the fencer must do three things. They must understand the distance between them and their opponent, and how that distance is changing. They must choose the right technique for that distance. They must execute the technique well, and at the right time. Of these conditions, the easiest one for the coach to focus on is the execution of technique. It is the skill where improvement can be made quickly, or at least quicker than the other two. Often, then, the coach (who must justify the cost of lessons to the student with results) focuses on technique first, and ignores the other two conditions.

This is not necessarily an incorrect choice. Beginning fencers need a modicum of technique simply to get on guard and fence! To execute technique well is important, for a poorly executed attack, no matter what the choice of time or distance, will often fail. In addition, by improving technique, the coach has some impact on the student's ability to gain time against an opponent, since—as we noted above—technical skill has some effect on tempo.

For some coaches, however, the focus on technique insures that the lesson never evolves past executing actions with more and more refinement. Even after the student has moved beyond the basics of the execution of technique, the coach continues to emphasize it above everything else. The coach fails to teach the student the proper time and place for the execution of the action. The fencer lunges well, but still chases targets from too far away that are hard to hit, or lunges too long, or too late. The student takes many lessons, improves their technical skills but essentially learns nothing about being in the bout.

Sometimes the error is more fundamental. Many technical skills have a "built in" tempo to them. A simple attack should be done over a shorter distance than a compound attack. Yet, many coaches teach a beginning fencer actions with dissimilar tempos (such as straight attack and a feint and disengage) at the same distance/tempo. This only adds to the difficulty of teaching the student "fencing" as opposed to "technique". The student sees no difference in the two tempos presented by the coach, but is asked to do two different actions. When to make a straight attack? When to make a feint disengage? The coach tells the student that they have to make a disengage when the opponent parries. But wouldn't it be beneficial to the student to be able to recognize those tempo situations in which the opponent is likely to make a successful parry? The student learns when a disengage is necessary as a factor of trial and error. Not the best solution for the student.

THE SOLUTION

For the coach, it is important to understand that every student has a distance at which they can make a lunge to score against an opponent. I will refer to as the "one-tempo distance" or "one-tempo situation" (For a good discussion of this see: "The Importance of Preparation" in this site). Any action executed outside of this distance should be a multi-tempo, or second-intention action.

The technical abilities of a student at the start of their training are going to be poor. At the start, the coach should emphasize not just the execution of actions in their proper technical form, but also with an eye towards execution of each action in a proper tempo/distance. The coach teaches simple actions, working to insure that the actions can all be done with the same level of skill (what ever level that skill is for that particular student). Especially in working with the blade#&!51;where actions in the inside high line are "hard-wired" into a student—the coach should do many repetitions in lines other than the high inside line to insure that the rest of the lines of attack and defense are as comfortable for the student as the inside high lines are. Again, the emphasis is not on a high level of skill in each of the lines, just the same level of skill in all lines.

The coach must also take time to emphasize footwork skills in every lesson. Everyone does footwork, but few fencers do it well, and few are taught to use it as an integral part of a any fencing action. A fencer must integrate footwork in their attack and their defense. They must be able to move with control and without building up a great deal of inertia. For the coach, this means paying particular attention to the transitions between advancing and retreating. Footwork and distance are the primarily regulators of the tempo in a bout, and only by being able to do footwork well will the student began to make a successful fencer.

Finally, the coach must develop an appreciation in the student for the tempos in a bout. Any attacking action by the student should have a reasonable chance of scoring within the skill level of the student. This means that when working in a tactical framework the coach should not ask the fencer to make long, slow lunges, unless the student is expected to execute a second intention parry and riposte, or a disengage in the lunge.

To ensure that this occurs, coach must put the technical actions taught to the student into the context of their tempo. Here is a simple drill to show the student the importance of the one-tempo situation:

---

The student takes a position at a close lunge distance from the coach, and then makes a retreat, to be at advance-lunge distance.

The student should now be outside of their one-tempo distance (this starting distance may need some adjustment). With both fencer and coach on guard, the student should make an advance in preparation, with a short, smooth step.

Before the student advances the coach will have decided to either stand still or to retreat on the student's advance. If the coach stands still when the student advances, the student will finish the advance at the one-tempo distance and should lunge without hesitation. If the coach retreats as the student advances, the student should recognize that the one-tempo situation has been lost, and retreat back to the start, to begin again.

The coach should stand still several times, then retreat several times, and then stand still or retreat randomly on the student's advance. Each time, the student should either flow smoothly into the lunge, or stop, and "reset" without bobbling or taking an extra step

---

It is important the coach give a black and white situation for the student when they first begin this drill. The coach must move instantly on the student's advance, or the coach must stand still. Only this large contrast will enable the student to see that there is or there is not a chance to score with a simple attack. It may be helpful for the coach to watch the student's feet to ensure that the timing of the coach's retreat is perfect.

At first, the student will advance and lunge without looking. If the coach retreats, the student will finish in the wrong space, allowing an easy parry and riposte by the coach. The student will often then try to compensate by making the advance very quickly (the coach should be ready for this). At the end of the advance the student will be off balance and try to rush into the lunge. Again, another easy parry and riposte on the part of the coach. A student may also try to beat the blade, and they should be admonished that they should be able to score without making time by attacking the blade.

The next evolution in this exercise is an additional cue for the student. On the student's advance, the coach should stand still, while at the same time making a slow sweep or search for the student's blade. The student should "protect" their blade from the coach's search, finish the advance, and and then lunge to score.

The coach should do this several times, alternating between searching for the blade on the student's advance, and not searching. On the times when the coach does not search for the blade, he or she is free to step back at the proper time to cause the student to abort the attack and reset.

Then the coach should sweep for the student's blade AND step back. A large percentage of students seeing this for the first time will cue off of the sweep, ignore the change in distance, and lunge after avoiding the sweep. The coach should be able to parry and score easily. The student is distracted by actions involving the blade and loses the idea of attacking only in the correct distance. The parry and riposte by the coach brings the student's attention back to watching the space.

THE CONCEPT OF "LATE" AND "EARLY"

So far we have discussed the coach moving in a "good distance/bad distance" framework. Either the coach can be hit, or the coach cannot. But fencing is never so black and white. Fencers move at different rhythms and speeds, and unlike the coach, the opponent will not have complete knowledge of the impending attack, or be so naive as to stand still and get scored against. The next step in the exercise brings the drill closer to the real world.

As before, the coach and student assume the advance lunge distance. The coach should begin the exercise again—coordinating his or her retreat to the advance of the student—or not moving, allowing the student to score.

The coach should then change from retreating at the same time as the student's advance to retreating slightly later. At first, the coach should make the difference in timing so slight that the student does not see a difference: the coach is still leaving in such a way that he or she cannot be hit. The coach should increase the delay in retreating, starting later and later behind the student's advance. At some point, the student will be indecisive about whether to lunge or not—the student will make an advance and "bobble" at the end of it: recognizing that the distance is hovering on the edge of their ability to reach with a simple attack. The coach can encourage the student to attempt a solution to this problem of "almost" the right space, or tell the student to make a feint and a disengage, depending on their own coaching style. It is important that the student feel the difference in the tempo between the coach leaving "on time" and leaving a little "late" (requiring the feint and disengage) or very "late" (allowing the straight attack).

This is the start of real fencing. Now various blade techniques can be taught to the student within a proper context of tempo. If the coach is very "early" in leaving the space, the student must understand that there is no blade technique that will allow him or her to score against the coach - only more preparation with footwork and blade work—alone or in combination—will create a scoring situation for the student. If the coach is very "late" leaving the space (or does not leave at all) there is no need for the student to make any other preparation: they simply need to execute good attacking footwork (lunge or fleche) to score. Every situation in between has a possible solution in blade technique or footwork or both.

PROBLEMS AND DIFFICULTIES

"The smoother the execution of the lunge, the longer the one-tempo distance..." 

When the coach and student begin this drill of a simple advance in preparation, it will seem that the student must be very close to the coach to finish with a simple attack. Even some coaches are not comfortable with this distance, and will feel that the student should be moved further away. However, this would be a mistake. It is a rare beginning student whose one-tempo distance is more than three quarters of their lunge—at least at the start. Attacking from unrealistic long distances is exactly how the student gets into trouble on the strip. The coach should resist the urge to move the student out to a long distance.

This is not to say that it is wrong to teach long lunges. Quite the contrary! The smoother the execution of the lunge, the longer the "one-tempo distance" for the student becomes as the student gains the ability to hide the start of the lunge and to accelerate at the end. Technical skills must be taught. When the coach teaches purely technical skills, the coach must emphasize that the lesson is focusing on a technical action, and not a tactical one. Technical lessons can always be done outside of a tactical context. The coach should inform the student that today's lesson will be focusing on a technical skill, not a bouting skill. It can often be helpful, during these lessons, for the coach to take a much more relaxed stance to look less like an opponent and more like an "observer" of the skill being practiced.

During a lesson "in tempo" whenever the student is experiencing difficulty with the technical execution of an action, the coach should return to a technical lesson of the skill and try to find the difficulty. The coach should always try to return to working the action in the right tempo before concluding the lesson.

One of the advantages to giving a lesson with actions at the correct time and distance is that the student will understand why poor technical execution can cost time/tempo in a bout, and be motivated to perform actions more correctly.

When the lesson has moved to the coach leaving slightly late from the student's one-tempo distance, it is time to teach all the classical blade actions commonly found in lessons: beat, press, feint, and so forth. It is important to show the student that these actions are not done in a static manner: but grow out of the tempo situation. The student will often want to get close to the coach and then stop to "prepare" on the blade. This is a grave mistake. Blade actions should be taught to "steal" time from the coach/opponent or to remove a blade that is a threat. The coach should never allow the student to achieve a one-tempo situation and then STOP to deal with an opponent's blade!

CONCLUSION

Lessons need not make a radical change to be taught in a proper context of tempo. Every fencing action has a tempo associated with it, and many actions can be thought of as being in the same "tempo family" and can be taught in similar ways. The coach that takes the time to teach actions to the student while being aware of the context of tempo gives the student a powerful start to their competitive career.
 

(1)"Beginning Épée Manual" unpublished. Gary Copeland, Northern Colorado Fencers.

Written: January 2006. Last edit: June 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by Allen Evans. This article may be reproduced freely, as long as it remains unmodified and his copyright notice is included.