Every student has things they get right immediately. Show someone a skill that has 5 important aspects. You demonstrate, they repeat it, and the first time they do it they do 3 of the aspects correctly. Excellent. Now you just focus on teaching the remaining 2 aspects. They master the skill. Later, you send them to teach someone new the same skill. Now, your student can do the skill, but they've only been exposed to teaching 2 aspects. Those are what they had to think about and work through and struggle with. Consequently, they are going to focus on those 2 things. It's entirely possible that they are not aware of the other three, or would have to rediscover them in the process of teaching. This is why teaching can be a useful learning tool: it forces you to re-examine basics, and make new discoveries about what is important. But if the newcomer automatically does the same 3 aspects as the student did correctly? Then the only thing taught is the remaining two. If those 3 are extremely common? Then, over time, it's easy to turn this into tradition. For this skill, there are only two important aspects to teach. Anyone who can't do it right after being taught those two things, well, they just don't get it.
To be a teacher, you have to examine skills, break them apart, and learn ALL the pieces. For a student, especially one in a competitive discipline, or with limited time, this is a waste. If someone never intends to teach, then teaching them all the parts and the whole process of learning them is not an efficient use of time. Even if they are going to be teaching, it may be that their students will be preselected in some manner, the teaching knowledge may be focused. If you're teaching writing skills, you can reasonably expect not to have to teach the alphabet. You may expect someone who can teach writing skills to be able to teach the alphabet (just teach them the alphabet song!), only to discover they do it in a shockingly ineffective manner (okay class, today we learn the vowels, tomorrow the common consonants, then the uncommon consonants, then regroup them to learn the ones that are sometimes silent, then we'll learn about Q. I had a lot of trouble with Q, so we'll break it down into the specific tongue and lip movements needed to form the sound. Then just put them all together in a new, seemingly arbitrary order!).
Systematic example:
My fencing coach was a product of the soviet system. A member of a national team that routinely swept the Olympics (1st, 2nd, 3rd), he was then taught to teach in their thorough, research-based methodology. He is a master of the discipline of fencing, well-known and respected throughout the fencing world.
Except.
The soviet system worked by exposing everyone in the entire country to some fencing, picking the winners from each group, the winners of winners, etc, and then taking that roughly trained cream of the crop and laser-honing them with all the available fencing knowledge. Basically, they're pre-selected for aggression, competitiveness, and basic physicality. As a result, my coach could teach everything... except aggression, competitiveness, and basic physicality. Anyone without those traits he privately considers hopeless for real fencing.
Coming up: my experiences, as someone who lacked aggression, competitiveness, and basic physicality, in learning fencing
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
swing harder
another great Belegarth forum interaction, where a discussion on weapon control was decaying into a debate about who hits harder. I attempt to disambiguate.
Vocabulary. "Harder" is a nonspecific term.
example: Person A punches someone in the chest and breaks their rib. Person B pushes someone in the chest and they fall over.
Who hit harder?
Person A exerted more force in a short time window. They hit harder?
Person B exerted more force overall. They hit harder?
Hitting hard in Belegarth is about riding the line between the two kinds of harder. You want enough punch to make it smack, but not damage. The foam in weapons helps convert the punch into push. Speed and weight add punch. For safety's sake, you have to error on the side of push.
With experience and practice, you get more and more control and can push right up to that line more of the time. To be clear, though, this isn't about being "better" or stronger, or even about being able to hit "harder" in any kind of absolute sense, this is about gaining a sensitivity to what the Belegarth standard of hitting is.
And for control. Another example:
Sprint a set distance past a line. Sprint the same distance to a wall.
The first time is going to be faster. You don't have to worry about stopping.
You can swing faster if you don't have to worry about hitting someone in the head. But since you do, you can't swing that fast. That is a disadvantage, it's a safety thing, that's the way it is. A lighter weapon can swing faster and more carefree in that regard.
So you have to swing more like you're sprinting to a wall. but... not exactly. If, instead of a blank wall, you were sprinting towards a wall with a couple doors in it, and someone was trying to stop you, but could only close one door at a time. You would not be able to sprint as fast as going past the line, but if your judgement was good, you would be able to go faster than you would if you had to stop at the wall since you would accelerate to the finish.
This is feinting speed. Gaining in options and control what you're giving up in pure speed.
and the only response I got:
What I mean by "harder" is simply swinging hard. But there are a few that refuse to take a redshot unless it makes a loud SMACK, regardless of how hard it hit, even when I move them. They seemed to standardize on how hard a redshot is and yes, some (Thrax, Slaug) will take light redshots. Others, want you to literally move their body. I remember tearing someones shield off their handle.
Vocabulary. "Harder" is a nonspecific term.
example: Person A punches someone in the chest and breaks their rib. Person B pushes someone in the chest and they fall over.
Who hit harder?
Person A exerted more force in a short time window. They hit harder?
Person B exerted more force overall. They hit harder?
Hitting hard in Belegarth is about riding the line between the two kinds of harder. You want enough punch to make it smack, but not damage. The foam in weapons helps convert the punch into push. Speed and weight add punch. For safety's sake, you have to error on the side of push.
With experience and practice, you get more and more control and can push right up to that line more of the time. To be clear, though, this isn't about being "better" or stronger, or even about being able to hit "harder" in any kind of absolute sense, this is about gaining a sensitivity to what the Belegarth standard of hitting is.
And for control. Another example:
Sprint a set distance past a line. Sprint the same distance to a wall.
The first time is going to be faster. You don't have to worry about stopping.
You can swing faster if you don't have to worry about hitting someone in the head. But since you do, you can't swing that fast. That is a disadvantage, it's a safety thing, that's the way it is. A lighter weapon can swing faster and more carefree in that regard.
So you have to swing more like you're sprinting to a wall. but... not exactly. If, instead of a blank wall, you were sprinting towards a wall with a couple doors in it, and someone was trying to stop you, but could only close one door at a time. You would not be able to sprint as fast as going past the line, but if your judgement was good, you would be able to go faster than you would if you had to stop at the wall since you would accelerate to the finish.
This is feinting speed. Gaining in options and control what you're giving up in pure speed.
and the only response I got:
What I mean by "harder" is simply swinging hard. But there are a few that refuse to take a redshot unless it makes a loud SMACK, regardless of how hard it hit, even when I move them. They seemed to standardize on how hard a redshot is and yes, some (Thrax, Slaug) will take light redshots. Others, want you to literally move their body. I remember tearing someones shield off their handle.
Friday, November 25, 2011
remember
"Suppose there's no such thing as learning, or intuition, or skill, or thought. Suppose instead that it's all just memory; suppose that every cut and counter-cut and parry and block is just recollection of the same fight fought out a lifetime ago. Suppose the draw is religion, the sword before and the sword after, because when the hand closes around the hilt, the sword has already been drawn and swung, and the skin cut open. Suppose that nothing is learned—languages, names, skills, facts—only remembered from the last time round, which was nothing more than a memory of the time before that, the same sequence of moves repeated over and over at the instructor's word of command until they're perfect, and that's religion."
Saturday, November 5, 2011
teaching new skills
Someone on the Belegarth forums was going to be teaching at weekend training event and was asking for advice about how to present material and work with students in a group setting. I started writing out some bits, then remembered how every other interaction on that forum went and stopped. Then I finished writing them and here they are:
From Guru Mike Casto-
Every lesson should:
Revisit a basic concept - show them how there is more to learn about something they thought they knew
Present a new concept
Give some future material - something they can't pull off now, but is new/intriguing and that they can work towards having in the future
---
I really like the "these things are the same but different" style lesson. You take a concept, and show it in different forms. For example, with the basic concept of opposition (blocking out an opponent's line of attack as you're hitting them), you could have an attack with opposition, a parry-riposte with opposition, and a counter-attack with opposition. Beginners feel like they've just learned a whole slew of new things but had something to hang on to while you took them through it. More experienced students get a new linking insight between several things, often unlocking comprehension and making them think of other new possibilities. For a seminar that wants some 1h sword, 2h sword, double stick material, rather than tackling the basics of all the different weapon types, you take, say, a single line of attack, and show uses and application in all the weapon types. This could get boiled down to how to stand and physically do it if they need a lot of work, or expand into several variations and distances if they don't.
---
When correcting individually in a group setting, you can list briefly three or four things to change. Self-directed students will file them away and pull them out to work on their own later. Then, just pick ONE thing for correction right now. Give details, move 'em physically into place if you have to, demonstrate if they need it. Let them rep it three or four times, correcting ONLY that one thing, if they get that right, just say good and have them do it again, don't correct something else unless it is critical. A lot of over-teaching happens here, where you correct one thing, then when they do it once you correct something else, and then they lose that first thing, and then you move on to another student thinking you've showed them two things but they really just lose both.
--
One of the easiest ways to help someone learn a new skill is to pay attention to any sign of positive or negative transference. Positive transference is when the skill they are learning is similar to something else they know- plugging in that knowledge can immediately boost the skill. Noting negative transference can be even more important- a different skill that they know is getting in the way, and telling them explicitly that what they are doing is NOT like that will help them clear the slate instead of trying to force a different skill to be something it's not.
--
At coaches college, we got some material about stages of learning a physical skill. They broke it down something like this:
Stage 1: Cognitive. Mistakes are common, all movements are consciously controlled.
Stage 2: Autonomous. Mistakes are rarer, thought not necessary unless things get off track
Stage 3: Associative. Mistakes are very rare, no thought necessary, skill can be combined with other skills.
It's important to realize that these are stages that must be progressed through. It's tempting to tell a student to just stop thinking and do, because you know that's how it's done when you've got it, and, indeed, it can be useful and necessary to do so... but only after they've progressed past the cognitive stage. When they are first introduced to a movement, they HAVE to think about it, telling them not to will not accelerate the process. Only encourage them to not think about it once you're sure they actually have the skill.
From Guru Mike Casto-
Every lesson should:
Revisit a basic concept - show them how there is more to learn about something they thought they knew
Present a new concept
Give some future material - something they can't pull off now, but is new/intriguing and that they can work towards having in the future
---
I really like the "these things are the same but different" style lesson. You take a concept, and show it in different forms. For example, with the basic concept of opposition (blocking out an opponent's line of attack as you're hitting them), you could have an attack with opposition, a parry-riposte with opposition, and a counter-attack with opposition. Beginners feel like they've just learned a whole slew of new things but had something to hang on to while you took them through it. More experienced students get a new linking insight between several things, often unlocking comprehension and making them think of other new possibilities. For a seminar that wants some 1h sword, 2h sword, double stick material, rather than tackling the basics of all the different weapon types, you take, say, a single line of attack, and show uses and application in all the weapon types. This could get boiled down to how to stand and physically do it if they need a lot of work, or expand into several variations and distances if they don't.
---
When correcting individually in a group setting, you can list briefly three or four things to change. Self-directed students will file them away and pull them out to work on their own later. Then, just pick ONE thing for correction right now. Give details, move 'em physically into place if you have to, demonstrate if they need it. Let them rep it three or four times, correcting ONLY that one thing, if they get that right, just say good and have them do it again, don't correct something else unless it is critical. A lot of over-teaching happens here, where you correct one thing, then when they do it once you correct something else, and then they lose that first thing, and then you move on to another student thinking you've showed them two things but they really just lose both.
--
One of the easiest ways to help someone learn a new skill is to pay attention to any sign of positive or negative transference. Positive transference is when the skill they are learning is similar to something else they know- plugging in that knowledge can immediately boost the skill. Noting negative transference can be even more important- a different skill that they know is getting in the way, and telling them explicitly that what they are doing is NOT like that will help them clear the slate instead of trying to force a different skill to be something it's not.
--
At coaches college, we got some material about stages of learning a physical skill. They broke it down something like this:
Stage 1: Cognitive. Mistakes are common, all movements are consciously controlled.
Stage 2: Autonomous. Mistakes are rarer, thought not necessary unless things get off track
Stage 3: Associative. Mistakes are very rare, no thought necessary, skill can be combined with other skills.
It's important to realize that these are stages that must be progressed through. It's tempting to tell a student to just stop thinking and do, because you know that's how it's done when you've got it, and, indeed, it can be useful and necessary to do so... but only after they've progressed past the cognitive stage. When they are first introduced to a movement, they HAVE to think about it, telling them not to will not accelerate the process. Only encourage them to not think about it once you're sure they actually have the skill.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Playin' it safe
"Every decisive action changes the battlefield."
note: this is about sparring/competition, but i'm gonna use words like "fight" and "fighting distance" because it's easier than saying "competitive bouting situation" and "sparring distance" or whatever term would be emcompass combat sports in general. also my use of "you" switches at will between a theoretical "you" in a fight and a "you" in charge of training a group of the first "you"s. whatever!
It's hard to get people to take risks in a fight. The main problem is this: the default fighting distance is safe. You're as close as you think you can get without risking yourself, whatever the compromise is between wanting to hit and wanting to get away that you are comfortable with. You don't even have to think about it, your body just *knows*. Without experience, it's probably wrong, but nonetheless, it *knows*. So here's the thing: you're in a safe place, but in order to hit the other person, you gotta leave that safe place. And... you don't want to. What you really want to do is be able to hit the other guy without leaving your safe place. So you feint, you stomp, you bait, you do everything you can to make the other guy come a little bit closer and open up so you can just hit them. But they don't, because nothing you're doing actually matters to them because you're sitting way back there in your safe place. When they do get close enough and you finally swing, it's because they're already swinging at you and you hit each other. Simultaneous hits. Sad tuba noise.
What the deal is:
"Every decisive action changes the battlefield." Anything you do that actually matters is going to change the situation. Is going to take you out of your safe place. You'll occasionally be able to catch the other guy making a mistake out of nowhere, but that is relying on your opponent to make an unforced error. The higher the skill level, the rarer those are. Relying on unforced errors is extremely passive and generally not tenable unless you have a fortress to hang out in. You gotta get out there, take some risk, create forced errors, make your own openings. Create your situations instead of reacting to situations.
Let's fix it!
So you got a bunch of timid fighters, won't attack, won't take risks, and you resolve to train this out of them. You start the training montage sequence. You're working targets, getting faster, learning how to find openings, getting stronger, attack attack attaaaaack! And then, in the fight.... more simultaneous hits. Except now they're hitting and getting hit harder.
Wha-wha-what?
Yeah, I know. What happened? Here's the thing: the physical act of attacking was never the problem. The real problem is mental confidence. The question that weighs people down is not "What if I don't hit?", it's "What if I get hit?". And, faced with that question, most people will stay in their safe place rather than attack. Even if, objectively, it means they get hit more. It's a feeling thing, not a fact thing. You can't really talk them out of it.
Let's fix it! part 2: the fixening
You want to get them to attack? Work defense. Work it into their bones, massage it into their reflexes. Have them block and block and block. Have them step forward and block. Have them swing and miss, then block. Have them swing and get blocked, and block. Have them swing and hit, and block. Convince their bodies that, no matter how things go wrong, they can deal with it. (even if it's not true) In saber fencing, parrying is hard. The weapons are so light and fast, and the rules of right of way favor the attacker. Nonetheless, lessons in saber fencing are heavily weighted towards parrying. You do it at the start of every lesson, and work random parry-ripostes in everywhere. You got to. For the feelings.
And then...
They will attack. They always wanted to. They just couldn't because their conservative subconscious didn't like the odds. Now that they've learned some different statistics, and they like their odds better.
note: this is about sparring/competition, but i'm gonna use words like "fight" and "fighting distance" because it's easier than saying "competitive bouting situation" and "sparring distance" or whatever term would be emcompass combat sports in general. also my use of "you" switches at will between a theoretical "you" in a fight and a "you" in charge of training a group of the first "you"s. whatever!
It's hard to get people to take risks in a fight. The main problem is this: the default fighting distance is safe. You're as close as you think you can get without risking yourself, whatever the compromise is between wanting to hit and wanting to get away that you are comfortable with. You don't even have to think about it, your body just *knows*. Without experience, it's probably wrong, but nonetheless, it *knows*. So here's the thing: you're in a safe place, but in order to hit the other person, you gotta leave that safe place. And... you don't want to. What you really want to do is be able to hit the other guy without leaving your safe place. So you feint, you stomp, you bait, you do everything you can to make the other guy come a little bit closer and open up so you can just hit them. But they don't, because nothing you're doing actually matters to them because you're sitting way back there in your safe place. When they do get close enough and you finally swing, it's because they're already swinging at you and you hit each other. Simultaneous hits. Sad tuba noise.
What the deal is:
"Every decisive action changes the battlefield." Anything you do that actually matters is going to change the situation. Is going to take you out of your safe place. You'll occasionally be able to catch the other guy making a mistake out of nowhere, but that is relying on your opponent to make an unforced error. The higher the skill level, the rarer those are. Relying on unforced errors is extremely passive and generally not tenable unless you have a fortress to hang out in. You gotta get out there, take some risk, create forced errors, make your own openings. Create your situations instead of reacting to situations.
Let's fix it!
So you got a bunch of timid fighters, won't attack, won't take risks, and you resolve to train this out of them. You start the training montage sequence. You're working targets, getting faster, learning how to find openings, getting stronger, attack attack attaaaaack! And then, in the fight.... more simultaneous hits. Except now they're hitting and getting hit harder.
Wha-wha-what?
Yeah, I know. What happened? Here's the thing: the physical act of attacking was never the problem. The real problem is mental confidence. The question that weighs people down is not "What if I don't hit?", it's "What if I get hit?". And, faced with that question, most people will stay in their safe place rather than attack. Even if, objectively, it means they get hit more. It's a feeling thing, not a fact thing. You can't really talk them out of it.
Let's fix it! part 2: the fixening
You want to get them to attack? Work defense. Work it into their bones, massage it into their reflexes. Have them block and block and block. Have them step forward and block. Have them swing and miss, then block. Have them swing and get blocked, and block. Have them swing and hit, and block. Convince their bodies that, no matter how things go wrong, they can deal with it. (even if it's not true) In saber fencing, parrying is hard. The weapons are so light and fast, and the rules of right of way favor the attacker. Nonetheless, lessons in saber fencing are heavily weighted towards parrying. You do it at the start of every lesson, and work random parry-ripostes in everywhere. You got to. For the feelings.
And then...
They will attack. They always wanted to. They just couldn't because their conservative subconscious didn't like the odds. Now that they've learned some different statistics, and they like their odds better.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
feinting at the critical point.
Close range = able to hit by extending arm
Medium range = able to touch weapons, hit arms if they're extended.
Long range = just barely unable to touch weapons.
Out of distance= anything more than that.
In fencing terminology, a feint is a simulation of an offensive or defensive action, so it doesn't actually finish. Feint a stab, finish with moulinet = a compound attack (attack preceded by one or more feints or attacks on the blade). If you finish an attack, but intended from the start for it to blocked and to hit with a second shot, that's called a second intention attack. If you start a stab, intending to finish or moulinet depending on your opponent's response, that's what we usually call an open eyes action. The timing and distance setup is slightly different for all three.
Feints are most effective at the critical point as you are transitioning into close range. From medium range, there's time for multiple feints before a shot hits. From close range, while you're feinting your opponent is probably just hitting you. depending on all the other situational stuff and setup.
There are two levels to combat sports- there's the mental game and the baseline, physical reality. For example, medium and long range feints are totally possible, but they're about setting up the mental situation. It's about choices and setups. But there is also a baseline, physical reality. There is a distance and position at which it is physical not possible to parry. The time it takes the blade to travel to the target is less than the time it takes for the visual stimuli to trigger the reaction and the block to arrive. This is where the idea of "action beats reaction" comes from- action time for the attacker being < reflex + action of the defender. Generally, this is true at close range, depending on various setup factors. It is generally NOT true at medium range- the time it takes to step and cut is greater than the time it takes register the attack and move to block. Somewhere along the line between those two positions is a critical point- the point at which it becomes biologically impossible to start a block. So when I say that feints are most effective, what I mean is that they are closer to that critical point. They are butting right up against that hard, physical reality where it becomes impossible to block. The idea of recovering from a feint is possible with mental-type feints, but not feints at the critical point.
What is usually meant by "high level" is full speed through trained, efficient paths. Any sort of conscious decision process becomes way too slow. You've prepped your brain, your reactions are trained, and once you get in close, you're gonna do what you're gonna do.
If you slow down enough that you can make a decision to finish or not finish, you have to move further away from that critical point. Instead of getting into that hard physical reality, you're playing more of a mental game. That works at all levels from medium distance or further back, but at closer distance, it only works if your opponent is playing too. If they're more of a more pure physical speed mindset, it fails. Feints that change intention depending on the reaction they cause are harder to pull off the faster and more trained the opponent.
When I say that at medium range, there is time for multiple feints, what I mean is that there is, physically, time to do them. There is, physically, moving at top speed, (depending on various other factors, etc) time to do two feints (not "a lot of feints") as you attack from medium distance. and on the other side, the same. during an attack from medium distance, at top speed, there is generally extra time for the defender beyond the stimulus-response and action. So the defender could, for example, feint a counterattack and still be able to parry. Or feint a parry in a different line before closing the one the actual attack is coming on. Or sit and do nothing until they make a parry at the critical point for parries.
The "best" compound attack (using a feint) relies on knowing your opponent will parry and when, and so can be done at full speed. A second intention attack can be done knowing what your opponent will do, but not exactly when, since you don't care if their parry succeeds or not. So those both rely on prediction and not reflexes (on the part of the attacker). An open eyes attack, on the other hand, has a decision point where somewhere along the line you are deciding whether the feint becomes a real attack or if it is going to disengage to another line. Good reading skills matter here, but not prediction - if you could read or predict before you started, it would not be an open eyes attack.
If my feints are indistinguishable from my attacks - right up to the critical point - then you can make the block... 50% of the time. But you're guessing. That's what feints should do- they should FORCE the defender to make a choice without certainty. Whoever is committing before that critical point gives the other person more opportunity to make an informed choice. If I can make my attack so the feint is at the critical point, but after that I could hit three different targets, then my success rate goes up to 66% if we're both picking randomly. If I can make my attack so that I can read your parry and attack the opening line, my success rate goes to %100 if I can get to that situation. Which means the real game changes to the defender not letting that situation start.
Medium range = able to touch weapons, hit arms if they're extended.
Long range = just barely unable to touch weapons.
Out of distance= anything more than that.
In fencing terminology, a feint is a simulation of an offensive or defensive action, so it doesn't actually finish. Feint a stab, finish with moulinet = a compound attack (attack preceded by one or more feints or attacks on the blade). If you finish an attack, but intended from the start for it to blocked and to hit with a second shot, that's called a second intention attack. If you start a stab, intending to finish or moulinet depending on your opponent's response, that's what we usually call an open eyes action. The timing and distance setup is slightly different for all three.
Feints are most effective at the critical point as you are transitioning into close range. From medium range, there's time for multiple feints before a shot hits. From close range, while you're feinting your opponent is probably just hitting you. depending on all the other situational stuff and setup.
There are two levels to combat sports- there's the mental game and the baseline, physical reality. For example, medium and long range feints are totally possible, but they're about setting up the mental situation. It's about choices and setups. But there is also a baseline, physical reality. There is a distance and position at which it is physical not possible to parry. The time it takes the blade to travel to the target is less than the time it takes for the visual stimuli to trigger the reaction and the block to arrive. This is where the idea of "action beats reaction" comes from- action time for the attacker being < reflex + action of the defender. Generally, this is true at close range, depending on various setup factors. It is generally NOT true at medium range- the time it takes to step and cut is greater than the time it takes register the attack and move to block. Somewhere along the line between those two positions is a critical point- the point at which it becomes biologically impossible to start a block. So when I say that feints are most effective, what I mean is that they are closer to that critical point. They are butting right up against that hard, physical reality where it becomes impossible to block. The idea of recovering from a feint is possible with mental-type feints, but not feints at the critical point.
What is usually meant by "high level" is full speed through trained, efficient paths. Any sort of conscious decision process becomes way too slow. You've prepped your brain, your reactions are trained, and once you get in close, you're gonna do what you're gonna do.
If you slow down enough that you can make a decision to finish or not finish, you have to move further away from that critical point. Instead of getting into that hard physical reality, you're playing more of a mental game. That works at all levels from medium distance or further back, but at closer distance, it only works if your opponent is playing too. If they're more of a more pure physical speed mindset, it fails. Feints that change intention depending on the reaction they cause are harder to pull off the faster and more trained the opponent.
When I say that at medium range, there is time for multiple feints, what I mean is that there is, physically, time to do them. There is, physically, moving at top speed, (depending on various other factors, etc) time to do two feints (not "a lot of feints") as you attack from medium distance. and on the other side, the same. during an attack from medium distance, at top speed, there is generally extra time for the defender beyond the stimulus-response and action. So the defender could, for example, feint a counterattack and still be able to parry. Or feint a parry in a different line before closing the one the actual attack is coming on. Or sit and do nothing until they make a parry at the critical point for parries.
The "best" compound attack (using a feint) relies on knowing your opponent will parry and when, and so can be done at full speed. A second intention attack can be done knowing what your opponent will do, but not exactly when, since you don't care if their parry succeeds or not. So those both rely on prediction and not reflexes (on the part of the attacker). An open eyes attack, on the other hand, has a decision point where somewhere along the line you are deciding whether the feint becomes a real attack or if it is going to disengage to another line. Good reading skills matter here, but not prediction - if you could read or predict before you started, it would not be an open eyes attack.
If my feints are indistinguishable from my attacks - right up to the critical point - then you can make the block... 50% of the time. But you're guessing. That's what feints should do- they should FORCE the defender to make a choice without certainty. Whoever is committing before that critical point gives the other person more opportunity to make an informed choice. If I can make my attack so the feint is at the critical point, but after that I could hit three different targets, then my success rate goes up to 66% if we're both picking randomly. If I can make my attack so that I can read your parry and attack the opening line, my success rate goes to %100 if I can get to that situation. Which means the real game changes to the defender not letting that situation start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)