0:00 Introduction 0:40 Technical Reminder 2:07 Reprise after fall short 4:57 Reprise in defense 7:43 Redoublement
Пікірлер
Against the march, initiating an attack against an opponent who makes a mistake or hesitstes is not a reprise, it is a simple attack. A reprise immediately follows the initial failed attack. If anything, that situation is a failed reprise by the initial attacker.
@brynmorticus Жыл бұрын
Really awesome video. This is a highly underrated channel.
@anonymousposter1 Жыл бұрын
The discussion of the difference between losing right of way (a failed attack) versus gaining right of way (just because your opponent loses right of way does not mean you cannot immediately lose it back to your opponent) is super clear and helpful here. My coach says sometimes one fencer drops the right of way and it sits there on the strip until someone picks it up again. Sometimes either fencer can pick it up again.
@user-qs3im2sb9v5 ай бұрын
Point is well made about the defender doing backward cross steps to recover after pulling short, this prevents them from coming forward and opens a window for the reprise to start. The big problem with this is knowing how the referee will call it - as you say there's room for interpretation here about how long is too long to wait etc. I wouldn't attempt the reprise at 4-4 unless I know the referee has been calling it previously and I'm confident the opportunity is there. Would rather take my chances on defence.
@stevep1762 Жыл бұрын
Exactly !
@fencingbrothers6266 Жыл бұрын
Love the content!
@chrisdotdash5154 Жыл бұрын
Great job, great pedagogy ! 👏
@pascalaubrit8494 Жыл бұрын
Merci !
@fencingbrothers6266 Жыл бұрын
good job😍
@benjaminducerf2698 Жыл бұрын
First of all thank you for the work compiling and editing these clips. It's really a service to everyone. Putting your energy and love for fencing on youtube is a wonderful gift for the community. But there are some mistakes in your video's basic fencing glossary that need to be corrected. If you don't mind, please take the following criticism constructively. There is a section of the video titled "Reprise in defense [sic]" [?!] That's just not what reprise means. Reprise is defined as assuming a role for an additional course of time, in fencing this is the role of attacker, in theatre or film it's when an actor plays the same character in a new production. To say defender reprises literally means defender assumes the role of defender again which I'm sure is not what you meant to express. The examples you showed in that section are of defenders assuming the role of attacker, not attackers repeating the role of attacker. The right way to say this in English is "the defender assuming the role of the attacker". On the topic of attackers reprising: please find in T.13.3 @ FIE rules where in the explanation of technical terms they place reprise in a class of "other offensive actions" this definition T.13.3 "The reprise of the attack: A new attack executed immediately after a return to the on-guard position". You should understand the key phrase here of returning to on guard position is central to the concept but missing in your explanation of who has priority. The defender who makes the attacker miss has as much time to start their attacking turn as it takes for the attacker to return to their on guard position. An attacker who does not return to on guard after the distance pull and is doing an offensive action is either redoubling or remising and the defender has priority to hit them back in our modern convention, with freedom similar to the riposte (directly/indirectly/in place/stepping back or forward). Suppose an attacker is pulled short but returns to on guard and attacks again satisfying reprise but they do it in extremely slow motion then they would not have the priority if the defender assumed the attacking role themselves during the exaggeratedly long time that the previous attacker recovers to on guard, even though the attacker "reprised" as an action, the attacker in this example failed to be the one who initiates the final action, it's the defender beginning during the attacker's extensive recovery who has taken the initiative. If you speed the attacker up to world cup or olympic games speed, the window of time is still defined the same way but now there is a chance that the defender lacks the balance to assume the attack first. There is a not-so-classical technique that the Korean team had been using and became very trendy for everyone by 2019 of stopping hard in a tiny lunge in 4m, juking quickly to on guard, and then who steps forward first is the de facto attacker, no attack in preparation or attack-no being called. In 2022 this 4m manipulation starts to be called attack-no depending if the other fencer is reprising themselves or using distance pull. Way back in 2005-2009 there was both attack-no AND attack-in-preparation penalizing the modern 4m reprise move, Covaliu scored many points lunging directly into what we would call a reprise today when the arm of the attacker pulled back to on guard on the march. Reprise in 4m remains contentious ground, but the insinuation that on the long attack different referees have control of the outcome by their preference is just not true - because in the long attack there is a clear line of who is initiating in time and that line is drawn across the amount of time the attacker is spending returning to on guard, the same way it's written in the definition. If the video interpretation shows this clearly and the referee mistakenly applies the rule I suggest protesting to the technical committee
@geringasG Жыл бұрын
In the redoublement section, I don't think I agree with the distinction, I could direct you to the technical rules again and here we see a T.13.2 defines a redouble similar to the reprise with differences: occurs when the other player fails to hit back after parry or distance and pull and another difference redouble is defined as a new action not a new attack. Technically a reprise could be in the class of redoubles since it itself is an action when it's also the case that the defender doesn't try to hit back but continues defending. But a redouble doesn't have to be a correct attack from on guard the way a reprise has to be, it can be for example a recover forward into a flunge or it can be done like a remise in the same lunge to another target, or recover forward lunge with lockout 4 is pretty common. But critically, a redouble arrives so to speak unchallenged in initiative, there's isn't a counter-offensive - the defender doesn't even attempt to hit. The craziest example of redouble that I ever saw was a Russian fencer Savich using 3 redoubles in a row against Ochoki in their elimination match at the jr/cadet worlds. I forget which year. In that era, the scoring box had a very short timing for single lights and no one trusted the riposte vs the remise, so they would hold the parry and retreat to create distance to initiate the attack instead of attempting the riposte. But each time Ochoki parried and retreated Savich redoubled lunging again, and on the third try his redouble succeeded with one light. Savich's savage redoubles played a part in the defeat of the formidable American. If you're searching for videos of redoubles that succeeded check out 2005-2009 Zsolt Nemcisk he occasionally made great use of it while people where very cautious about ripostes.
@geringasG Жыл бұрын
I got a question don't you have to wait he find balance again before calling attack no
@FelixFelix-tw4wy Жыл бұрын
left with a few questions: which point went which way after review? would be nice to know becuase I'm not gonna do it myself (lazy)
@axelvekemans6750 Жыл бұрын
Sorry, all the touches are scored by the person who does the reprise.
@fencingbrothers6266 Жыл бұрын
@@fencingbrothers6266 awesome, thanks for the video
@axelvekemans6750 Жыл бұрын
Thanks ! I appreciate it :)
@fencingbrothers6266 Жыл бұрын
Actually, the hardest move in fencing is fencing the referee....
@samsignorelli Жыл бұрын
Their inconsistency is a sharp blade.
@WaybackFencingClub Жыл бұрын
Great video! I hope refs call more of the actions you highlighted where the original attacker puts in a retreat or blade search during long attack and defender takes over. I think your terminology might be a bit confusing due to historical differences in the use of these terms. French school. reprise is a renewal of the attack by going through the guard position and a redoublement is like a remise but you change the line of attack by disengage or cutover and possibly with an appel from the initial lunge. Italian school. they have something called radoppio which as far as I can tell is identical to the French use of the the word reprise but it gets translated as redoublement, which for the classical french school is something else as explained above. The great master Laszlo Szabo in his work "Fencing and the Master" talks about this on page 248 saying " the most differing interpretations in fencing are connected precisely with renewed attacks." Also, what is being in called in the 4 meter zone actually is not a reprise but simply a step forward which should be called as a preparation but it is getting priority over someone who executes a correct lunge by starting with the hand but maybe nobody knows nothing except for some middle aged guy from eastern europe with a big ego.
@esgrimaxativa5175 Жыл бұрын
Great job providing this reference
@geringasG Жыл бұрын
@@geringasG thanks. I hope more people with more power than me in the sport see this comment and act upon it.
Against the march, initiating an attack against an opponent who makes a mistake or hesitstes is not a reprise, it is a simple attack. A reprise immediately follows the initial failed attack. If anything, that situation is a failed reprise by the initial attacker.
Really awesome video. This is a highly underrated channel.
The discussion of the difference between losing right of way (a failed attack) versus gaining right of way (just because your opponent loses right of way does not mean you cannot immediately lose it back to your opponent) is super clear and helpful here. My coach says sometimes one fencer drops the right of way and it sits there on the strip until someone picks it up again. Sometimes either fencer can pick it up again.
Point is well made about the defender doing backward cross steps to recover after pulling short, this prevents them from coming forward and opens a window for the reprise to start. The big problem with this is knowing how the referee will call it - as you say there's room for interpretation here about how long is too long to wait etc. I wouldn't attempt the reprise at 4-4 unless I know the referee has been calling it previously and I'm confident the opportunity is there. Would rather take my chances on defence.
Exactly !
Love the content!
Great job, great pedagogy ! 👏
Merci !
good job😍
First of all thank you for the work compiling and editing these clips. It's really a service to everyone. Putting your energy and love for fencing on youtube is a wonderful gift for the community. But there are some mistakes in your video's basic fencing glossary that need to be corrected. If you don't mind, please take the following criticism constructively. There is a section of the video titled "Reprise in defense [sic]" [?!] That's just not what reprise means. Reprise is defined as assuming a role for an additional course of time, in fencing this is the role of attacker, in theatre or film it's when an actor plays the same character in a new production. To say defender reprises literally means defender assumes the role of defender again which I'm sure is not what you meant to express. The examples you showed in that section are of defenders assuming the role of attacker, not attackers repeating the role of attacker. The right way to say this in English is "the defender assuming the role of the attacker". On the topic of attackers reprising: please find in T.13.3 @ FIE rules where in the explanation of technical terms they place reprise in a class of "other offensive actions" this definition T.13.3 "The reprise of the attack: A new attack executed immediately after a return to the on-guard position". You should understand the key phrase here of returning to on guard position is central to the concept but missing in your explanation of who has priority. The defender who makes the attacker miss has as much time to start their attacking turn as it takes for the attacker to return to their on guard position. An attacker who does not return to on guard after the distance pull and is doing an offensive action is either redoubling or remising and the defender has priority to hit them back in our modern convention, with freedom similar to the riposte (directly/indirectly/in place/stepping back or forward). Suppose an attacker is pulled short but returns to on guard and attacks again satisfying reprise but they do it in extremely slow motion then they would not have the priority if the defender assumed the attacking role themselves during the exaggeratedly long time that the previous attacker recovers to on guard, even though the attacker "reprised" as an action, the attacker in this example failed to be the one who initiates the final action, it's the defender beginning during the attacker's extensive recovery who has taken the initiative. If you speed the attacker up to world cup or olympic games speed, the window of time is still defined the same way but now there is a chance that the defender lacks the balance to assume the attack first. There is a not-so-classical technique that the Korean team had been using and became very trendy for everyone by 2019 of stopping hard in a tiny lunge in 4m, juking quickly to on guard, and then who steps forward first is the de facto attacker, no attack in preparation or attack-no being called. In 2022 this 4m manipulation starts to be called attack-no depending if the other fencer is reprising themselves or using distance pull. Way back in 2005-2009 there was both attack-no AND attack-in-preparation penalizing the modern 4m reprise move, Covaliu scored many points lunging directly into what we would call a reprise today when the arm of the attacker pulled back to on guard on the march. Reprise in 4m remains contentious ground, but the insinuation that on the long attack different referees have control of the outcome by their preference is just not true - because in the long attack there is a clear line of who is initiating in time and that line is drawn across the amount of time the attacker is spending returning to on guard, the same way it's written in the definition. If the video interpretation shows this clearly and the referee mistakenly applies the rule I suggest protesting to the technical committee
In the redoublement section, I don't think I agree with the distinction, I could direct you to the technical rules again and here we see a T.13.2 defines a redouble similar to the reprise with differences: occurs when the other player fails to hit back after parry or distance and pull and another difference redouble is defined as a new action not a new attack. Technically a reprise could be in the class of redoubles since it itself is an action when it's also the case that the defender doesn't try to hit back but continues defending. But a redouble doesn't have to be a correct attack from on guard the way a reprise has to be, it can be for example a recover forward into a flunge or it can be done like a remise in the same lunge to another target, or recover forward lunge with lockout 4 is pretty common. But critically, a redouble arrives so to speak unchallenged in initiative, there's isn't a counter-offensive - the defender doesn't even attempt to hit. The craziest example of redouble that I ever saw was a Russian fencer Savich using 3 redoubles in a row against Ochoki in their elimination match at the jr/cadet worlds. I forget which year. In that era, the scoring box had a very short timing for single lights and no one trusted the riposte vs the remise, so they would hold the parry and retreat to create distance to initiate the attack instead of attempting the riposte. But each time Ochoki parried and retreated Savich redoubled lunging again, and on the third try his redouble succeeded with one light. Savich's savage redoubles played a part in the defeat of the formidable American. If you're searching for videos of redoubles that succeeded check out 2005-2009 Zsolt Nemcisk he occasionally made great use of it while people where very cautious about ripostes.
I got a question don't you have to wait he find balance again before calling attack no
left with a few questions: which point went which way after review? would be nice to know becuase I'm not gonna do it myself (lazy)
Sorry, all the touches are scored by the person who does the reprise.
@@fencingbrothers6266 awesome, thanks for the video
Thanks ! I appreciate it :)
Actually, the hardest move in fencing is fencing the referee....
Their inconsistency is a sharp blade.
Great video! I hope refs call more of the actions you highlighted where the original attacker puts in a retreat or blade search during long attack and defender takes over. I think your terminology might be a bit confusing due to historical differences in the use of these terms. French school. reprise is a renewal of the attack by going through the guard position and a redoublement is like a remise but you change the line of attack by disengage or cutover and possibly with an appel from the initial lunge. Italian school. they have something called radoppio which as far as I can tell is identical to the French use of the the word reprise but it gets translated as redoublement, which for the classical french school is something else as explained above. The great master Laszlo Szabo in his work "Fencing and the Master" talks about this on page 248 saying " the most differing interpretations in fencing are connected precisely with renewed attacks." Also, what is being in called in the 4 meter zone actually is not a reprise but simply a step forward which should be called as a preparation but it is getting priority over someone who executes a correct lunge by starting with the hand but maybe nobody knows nothing except for some middle aged guy from eastern europe with a big ego.
Great job providing this reference
@@geringasG thanks. I hope more people with more power than me in the sport see this comment and act upon it.