Post by Flamberge on Aug 31, 2005 0:19:01 GMT -6
An interesting and animated discussion about footwork took place on Fencing.net last week.
www.fencing.net/forums/fencing-discussion/t19268.html
I asked the Maestro to cut the gordian knot of the arguments and I paste here his interesting and informed comments for those who may not have seen it.
Post #14
The maestro corner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both people who are new to fencing and experts pay attention to the footwork and legwork of a fencer. The public tends to watch the larger parts and the more mobile parts of the fencer -- legs and weapon arm. The experts know the importance of the arm-leg coordination and therefore they will pay close attention to it.
A large part of the fluidity in the movement and elegance of a good fencer comes from the legs play. The hand coordinates with the feet, but this is not a logical consequence, rather the result of a specific training. One cannot state that a good footwork is sufficient to make a good fencer, but the ability to get a good foothold on the strip, i.e., the combination -- among other things -- of equilibrium, sure footed in the footwork, speed in moving about -- therefore control of the measure -- are the preliminary and fundamental elements of fencing, and therefore they are prerequisites which must be strengthened in order to facilitate the learning curve of the other fencer techniques.
In essence, if one is not sure in his movement, he risks to find himself at the wrong measure and the hand will not be able to execute what the brain will ask him to do when facing a specific situation.
One should not forget however an intense training of the coordination arm-legs (both symmetric and asymmetric, i.e., right leg-right arm and left leg-right arm) which should be taught from the beginning when learning how to fence. This is why the young children should be trained first to walk in en garde position in a relaxed way, even without holding the foil in their hand. Unfortunately, today this is done less and less because kids get bored quickly. But if you learn how to properly move on the strip you will have a learning curve which may be a bit slower at the beginning, but you'll learn other techniques easier and quicker later on.
It is important to state that THE footwork does not exist, rather A footwork which is characteristic of each athlete (like handwriting is characteristic of each individual). Each fencer will interpret in his own very personal way the basic movements of the step forward, the lounge, the step backwards, and their combinations. Small variations of the center of gravity, of anticipation or delay in the movement of one foot vis-a-vis the other represent unique characteristics of each fencer which can be imitated if they appear to be successful, but which do not constitute THE footwork, only one of its individual interpretation.
Here follows a critical analysis of some of the postings in this thread:
Gav is certainly right when he states that good footwork is valid for every weapon. If a fencer moves well, if he is coordinated and reactive on his legs, if he maintains a good center of gravity and a good equilibrium, his movement will be fluid in all three weapons.
As D+F+P says, it's obvious that the sabreists move differently than the foilists, but one must not confuse two things: one is the mechanic, i.e., the principle of the movement, another is the execution of the movement. It is evident that from the kinetic point of view the basic steps, step forward, lunge, etc., they are always the same and they are valid for all three weapons, like Gav properly states. What Sabreur says that the steps of the foilist are longer than the sabreist and all the rest is also true, but Gav in his post writes about the mechanic of the movement, while Sabreur writes about its execution (interpretation).
The interpretation of the movement, beside being a personal characteristic, can also be influenced by tactical reasons. If the sabreist were to use long steps in attack he would find impossible to execute variations in the rhythm which separate the preparation of the attack from its completion. Conversely, if the epeeist were to use long walks he would be more easily a victim of counterattack, etc., like the examples given by Sabreur.
Gav is right again when he says that footwork and timing are not the same thing and that a good footwork is always valid and can be easily adapted to every weapon, irrespective of the timing difference of each weapon. The mechanic of the step is always the same. The fencer will have then to know how to adapt the mechanic to the context of the tempo and measure of each weapon. One could even paradoxically state that THE footwork in absolute terms can be learned only by trying all three weapons at a fairly good level, i.e., when one would have had the experience of trying all possible situations of distance-tempo-measure which can be encountered.
Gav is also right when he recommends to practice a lot what is called "leg-fencing" and every person who wishes to become a good fencer ought to invest a lot of time and effort, especially at the beginning, in these drills, which are boring, but fundamentals. Steps sequences in various directions, lunges, fleches, etc., sensitivity of the foot on the ground, perception of the equilibrium and of the surrounding space with closed eyes, variations in speed, accelerations and decelerations.
Both Achilleus and JBirch hit the nail on the head. Mechanic of the movement, tempo, measure, and interpretation of the same make a unique mix that cannot be separated. The eye just see the end result, but this is the hardest part for the fencer to learn. If we want to dissect the various factors, we can talk about the mechanic of the movement -- the same for each weapon; the tactic -- different for each weapon; and personal interpretation. These are all different facets of the same crystal. However, in the end, what counts is coordination.
A discussion of the differences -- even in teaching -- of epee, foil and saber, is an entire different topic and goes outside what is being covered here. Just to oversimplify for a moment, in saber lunge the foot arrives after the touch (you can even hear it). One could conclude that the saber lunge is different from the other weapons, but this is not so. The coordination between arm-leg is slightly shifted, but the principle is the same.
A final comment on the need not to emphasize too much the footwork discussions. Nobody, for quite some time, has invented anything new in the mechanic of the movement. In my opinion no leading maestro has really invented in recent times a system of movements which is better than anyone else, even though many insist they did. Some teachers follow certain models and this can be seen in their pupils. But I prefer a more laissez-faire attitude because a rigid system tends to slow down the individual initiative and ability to find the right solution to the movement problem which he has to face each time on the strip.
A good maestro should observe and notice the typical and innate characteristics and way of moving of each student and discern which ones could give him an advantage, by strengthening them with specific drills. These natural tendencies should be encouraged and adapted to the footwork.
Lastly, if we talk about high caliber fencers, since at this level we must accept that they master the footwork, the maestro should concentrate on the sensitivity of the foot on the strip, on the rhythm and the tempo in the execution of the movement, on the spatial perception, and again on the coordination of the entire body in motion. This is in my opinion the modern and more widely accepted interpretation of the concept of footwork -- after the basics have been learned and mastered. This is quite different from the time when maestro Janos Kevy was training his fencers to fleche so many times that the fleche became a characteristic of his school.
Finally it is not a specific footwork which can be winning or typical, but the best interpretation of each movement under different circumstances by each individual fencer.
Note:
More "lessons" to follow which I think you may find interesting and helpful in learning about fencing from a real maestro who is extremely generous with his time and knowledge.
www.fencing.net/forums/fencing-discussion/t19268.html
I asked the Maestro to cut the gordian knot of the arguments and I paste here his interesting and informed comments for those who may not have seen it.
Post #14
The maestro corner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both people who are new to fencing and experts pay attention to the footwork and legwork of a fencer. The public tends to watch the larger parts and the more mobile parts of the fencer -- legs and weapon arm. The experts know the importance of the arm-leg coordination and therefore they will pay close attention to it.
A large part of the fluidity in the movement and elegance of a good fencer comes from the legs play. The hand coordinates with the feet, but this is not a logical consequence, rather the result of a specific training. One cannot state that a good footwork is sufficient to make a good fencer, but the ability to get a good foothold on the strip, i.e., the combination -- among other things -- of equilibrium, sure footed in the footwork, speed in moving about -- therefore control of the measure -- are the preliminary and fundamental elements of fencing, and therefore they are prerequisites which must be strengthened in order to facilitate the learning curve of the other fencer techniques.
In essence, if one is not sure in his movement, he risks to find himself at the wrong measure and the hand will not be able to execute what the brain will ask him to do when facing a specific situation.
One should not forget however an intense training of the coordination arm-legs (both symmetric and asymmetric, i.e., right leg-right arm and left leg-right arm) which should be taught from the beginning when learning how to fence. This is why the young children should be trained first to walk in en garde position in a relaxed way, even without holding the foil in their hand. Unfortunately, today this is done less and less because kids get bored quickly. But if you learn how to properly move on the strip you will have a learning curve which may be a bit slower at the beginning, but you'll learn other techniques easier and quicker later on.
It is important to state that THE footwork does not exist, rather A footwork which is characteristic of each athlete (like handwriting is characteristic of each individual). Each fencer will interpret in his own very personal way the basic movements of the step forward, the lounge, the step backwards, and their combinations. Small variations of the center of gravity, of anticipation or delay in the movement of one foot vis-a-vis the other represent unique characteristics of each fencer which can be imitated if they appear to be successful, but which do not constitute THE footwork, only one of its individual interpretation.
Here follows a critical analysis of some of the postings in this thread:
Gav is certainly right when he states that good footwork is valid for every weapon. If a fencer moves well, if he is coordinated and reactive on his legs, if he maintains a good center of gravity and a good equilibrium, his movement will be fluid in all three weapons.
As D+F+P says, it's obvious that the sabreists move differently than the foilists, but one must not confuse two things: one is the mechanic, i.e., the principle of the movement, another is the execution of the movement. It is evident that from the kinetic point of view the basic steps, step forward, lunge, etc., they are always the same and they are valid for all three weapons, like Gav properly states. What Sabreur says that the steps of the foilist are longer than the sabreist and all the rest is also true, but Gav in his post writes about the mechanic of the movement, while Sabreur writes about its execution (interpretation).
The interpretation of the movement, beside being a personal characteristic, can also be influenced by tactical reasons. If the sabreist were to use long steps in attack he would find impossible to execute variations in the rhythm which separate the preparation of the attack from its completion. Conversely, if the epeeist were to use long walks he would be more easily a victim of counterattack, etc., like the examples given by Sabreur.
Gav is right again when he says that footwork and timing are not the same thing and that a good footwork is always valid and can be easily adapted to every weapon, irrespective of the timing difference of each weapon. The mechanic of the step is always the same. The fencer will have then to know how to adapt the mechanic to the context of the tempo and measure of each weapon. One could even paradoxically state that THE footwork in absolute terms can be learned only by trying all three weapons at a fairly good level, i.e., when one would have had the experience of trying all possible situations of distance-tempo-measure which can be encountered.
Gav is also right when he recommends to practice a lot what is called "leg-fencing" and every person who wishes to become a good fencer ought to invest a lot of time and effort, especially at the beginning, in these drills, which are boring, but fundamentals. Steps sequences in various directions, lunges, fleches, etc., sensitivity of the foot on the ground, perception of the equilibrium and of the surrounding space with closed eyes, variations in speed, accelerations and decelerations.
Both Achilleus and JBirch hit the nail on the head. Mechanic of the movement, tempo, measure, and interpretation of the same make a unique mix that cannot be separated. The eye just see the end result, but this is the hardest part for the fencer to learn. If we want to dissect the various factors, we can talk about the mechanic of the movement -- the same for each weapon; the tactic -- different for each weapon; and personal interpretation. These are all different facets of the same crystal. However, in the end, what counts is coordination.
A discussion of the differences -- even in teaching -- of epee, foil and saber, is an entire different topic and goes outside what is being covered here. Just to oversimplify for a moment, in saber lunge the foot arrives after the touch (you can even hear it). One could conclude that the saber lunge is different from the other weapons, but this is not so. The coordination between arm-leg is slightly shifted, but the principle is the same.
A final comment on the need not to emphasize too much the footwork discussions. Nobody, for quite some time, has invented anything new in the mechanic of the movement. In my opinion no leading maestro has really invented in recent times a system of movements which is better than anyone else, even though many insist they did. Some teachers follow certain models and this can be seen in their pupils. But I prefer a more laissez-faire attitude because a rigid system tends to slow down the individual initiative and ability to find the right solution to the movement problem which he has to face each time on the strip.
A good maestro should observe and notice the typical and innate characteristics and way of moving of each student and discern which ones could give him an advantage, by strengthening them with specific drills. These natural tendencies should be encouraged and adapted to the footwork.
Lastly, if we talk about high caliber fencers, since at this level we must accept that they master the footwork, the maestro should concentrate on the sensitivity of the foot on the strip, on the rhythm and the tempo in the execution of the movement, on the spatial perception, and again on the coordination of the entire body in motion. This is in my opinion the modern and more widely accepted interpretation of the concept of footwork -- after the basics have been learned and mastered. This is quite different from the time when maestro Janos Kevy was training his fencers to fleche so many times that the fleche became a characteristic of his school.
Finally it is not a specific footwork which can be winning or typical, but the best interpretation of each movement under different circumstances by each individual fencer.
Note:
More "lessons" to follow which I think you may find interesting and helpful in learning about fencing from a real maestro who is extremely generous with his time and knowledge.