In the article by Gil Pezza, “On the Primacy of Fundamentals", the main theme is the concept of initiative which the author proposes to consider, instead of speed, as a component of the classic fencing triad: tempo, measure (distance), and speed. I’ll write about this more general theme in another article. Here I wish to review in greater detail the concept of initiative. This is not a new idea for me but I don’t think others proposed or defined it before the publication of my “Epee Course Notes” which are for the past fifteen years required study material for aspiring fencing instructors and masters in Italy. From the part regarding the attack:

Attack

 Attack is any offensive action preceded (or simultaneous with in case of a simultaneous attack) by the initiative, without pause or interruption until the completion of the hit, irrespective of its success.

 The fencer who has the initiative is the one who,  starting from the last interruption or the last pause in the action, is the first to advance towards the opponent, until a touch by either or both is scored, or until the next pause or interruption. Initiative and threat (real or simulated)—taken together—constitute the start of an attack which in turn can be concluded or interrupted. Initiative in and by itself is part of the preparation.

As explained more in detail in a footnote:
 

It’s necessary to introduce the concept of “initiative” because it cannot be deduced (with sufficient clarity from either the treatises or the Règlement Technique (RT) that an attack can take place only when advancing; and also because in epee it is easier to hit while retreating during a preparation, i.e., an advance by the opponent without a threat. These hits, even if the attack has not started, should be called counter-offense hits.

There is an important distinction to be made first, which is always in the mind of scholarly writers of books on fencing, especially fencing treatises: The terminology and the teaching progression don’t always go hand in hand. Let me explain what I mean by this. The logical order and sequence for a classification which groups together actions of the same type (e.g., all parries, or all counter-offense actions), for the purpose memory committal, is often quite different from the order and progression that are used to teach the same. While the former is more helpful to the teacher the latter is more helpful to the student, and varies, in methodology, from one instructor to another. Indeed, fencing treatises usually embody the difficult equilibrium between these two competing needs. Some treatises are organized by lessons, like in the seminal treatise by Masaniello Parise, A theoretical and Practical Treatise on Epee and Saber Fencing; others, instead, are organized by subject. Regardless of how our books and treatises are organized, they must all cover both theory and practice and, therefore, the two methods are always mixed together. In my opinion it would be best to keep classification and definitions separate from the teaching methodology.

Let’s go back to initiative and my definition of it which favored the first approach intended to correctly classify certain offensive actions which are executed while retreating and which cannot be called attacks without betraying common sense.

If we want to emphasize the teaching aspect, and hence the tactical one, we can broaden the concept of initiative.

Let’s start from a diagram I used years ago in an article on writing about the fencer model.  [embed the link to the article in English: http://www.accademiadellascherma.it/educazione-e-formazione/psycho-fencing-mind-tactics-and-coaching.html] The diagram (No 3 in the article) is reproduced immediately below.

In this diagram, A and B represent the two fencers. Arrows entering the two rectangles are the inputs. Exiting arrows represent the motory action. A and B receive data both form their own movements (blue arrows in the lower part) and from the opponent’s movements (red arrows in the upper part). Input data are elaborated by each fencer and produce a decision about what movement to execute. Sports like fencing where the most relevant part of the information come from the opponent and vice versa are called tactical sports.

The system of the two adversaries represents a dynamic system which tends to maintain a situation of equilibrium until at least one of them decides to go from the preparation stage to offensive action or provocation. Equilibrium consists in maintaining the measure (distance) a distance which gives sufficient time to see the opponent’s attack, defend against it, or execute a counter-offensive action against it. I call the minimum limit of this distance (measure) the “critical point” beyond which it is not possible to defend by relying on reaction times. Beyond this point the equilibrium above is broken. Therefore, the offensive action begins if the fencer starting it has also created the other necessary conditions such as attitude/position, start of a certain movement like searching for the blade, a stop hit, and so forth; or if those conditions do not materialize, then it is best to retreat to a safer distance.

Distance (measure) is felt more than seen. We are genetically programmed to recognize the danger zone even when the opponent brandishes a tool, or a weapon which gives him greater reach.

The quest for distance—which is the preliminary condition—begins with movement, therefore from the initiative of one of the two fencers or of both. Usually, there are several alternating phases when one of the two moves first—and “leads”—and the other follows.

To “follow” (as opposed to “leading”) means to react to the opponent’s movement—therefore by necessity with a time delay equal, at a minimum, to our own reaction time (approximately two tenths of a second). It is important to note, however, that to “follow” does not necessarily mean to retreat and to “lead” does not always mean to advance. Often, the “leading” fencer moves back to provoke a step forward from his opponent and take advantage of this anticipated movement.

In this sense, initiative does not belong only to the fencer who advances first, but also to the one who leads even when retreating. It should be noted that the ”leading” fencer has a key advantage on the  opponent—those two tenths of a second, which in fencing are not insignificant.


Some practical applications

 •    A most effective way to “steal the distance ” and hence to reach the “critical point” when the opponent least  expects it, is to start the attack or  provocation on  the opponent’s  start of the step forward, i.e., when the opponent’s  forward foot lifts up for the step forward, and before it lands on the strip.

•    It’s easier to steal the distance when the opponent leads. You follow the opponent for a while to get him used to the idea that when he advances you will retreat, and then you start in the right moment as described above.

In reality the leadership in a bout switches rapidly between the fencers: first one, then the other. When one stops or hesitates usually the other takes advantage to take the leadership even if only to recover part of the lost ground. In such a case it is wise to retreat before starting with the desired action to make it difficult for the opponent to foresee the start of our action.

When the opponent opts for a passive defense and refuses to lead, a good way to flush him out is to alternate advances with retreats. The opponent will tend to synchronize his movements with ours. Starting our step backwards, slowly, we will have to focus on the forward foot of our opponent who will tend to advance to follow us, and in this case, and only in this case, we will quickly invert direction to launch our action.

Counter-initiative instead, is the advance executed on the opponent’s advance, including the movement of his front foot only. And since we have considered as part of the initiative also the retreat of the leading fencer, we could consider as counter-initiative our ploy to allow the opponent to enter into the critical point having anticipated his actions thereafter and being ready to neutralize them with the appropriate counter-action(s).

Initiative and counter-initiative are part and parcel of the game to win the preliminary battle of distance (measure). It consists in reaching the critical point as part of an action plan, since both fencers can reach the critical point together. It is the fencer who has planned for this situation to occur that can act “in tempo,” i.e., with those two tenths of a second of advantage which make the difference once we pass the “critical point.”

Giancarlo Toràn

Translation by gram

Maestro Toran while teaching in ProPatriaScherma Club