Why Do We Feint?
Authors note: this article chiefly looks at the feint in foil. Saber and épeé, while having similarities, have a separate section devoted to them. Any other exceptions to practices in saber and épeé are noted in the test.
During a fencing bout the fencer—through observation, preparation, and (occasionally) trial and error—uncovers the intentions and behavior of the opponent. At the same time, the fencer disguises their own intentions, lays false perceptions, and suggests misleading courses of actions to the opponent. Using all of this information and attempting to mask their true goals, the fencer works to cause specific reactions on the part of the opponent while misleading them at the same time.1 Essentially, the role of the fencer is to lie to the opponent while discovering what lies the opponent is telling in turn. The feint is a lie that the attacking fencer tells the defender to give the defender misinformation about the attacker's timing, target placement, and intention or where they intend to finish their attack. This lie allows the fencer to hit targets that might not be available if they were to use a simple direct attack.
In an ideal situation the fencer wants to score with a simple direct attack. This rarely happens as consistently as the attacker might wish. The defender works very hard to deny the attacker the distance necessary to score with a simple attack while also disrupting the attacker through false parries, false counter-attacks, and so forth. The defender's hope is to find the attackers blade to end the attack (in the weapons with priority), or to force the attacker to over prepare or delay their attack thus making the attacker vulnerable to an attack on the preparation or counter-attack.
While denying the attacker the distance to make a direct attack, the defender attempts to stay close enough to score with simple attacks of their own if the attacker should make an error in judging the distance. This confluence of intentions results in both fencers working just outside the distance needed for a direct attack. Both fencers maneuver, hoping for an error or a lapse of attention that will give them just enough time to make this attack.
To score, the attacker must find a way to "steal" time/distance and out-maneuver the defender's attempts to disrupt and/or find the attacker's blade with their own. The attacker must convince the defender to move their blade into a predictable position (or in a predictable way) so that the attacker can close the distance without the fear of the defender finding their blade.
A fencer could simply wait just outside of the opponent's distance and hope that the opponent will eventually make a mistake that the fencer can take advantage of with a simple attack, but the modern game is fast, distance closes quickly, and mistakes that will allow a fencer to attack in the oppnent's preparation are few. In the weapons with priority it is to the fencer's advantage to take the initiave and put pressure on the opponent to force a mistake, to surprise, re-direct, or hide their action in such a way that the defender can not respond to the finish of the action in time.
With few chances to catch an opponent with a simple attack, the next possible action is to close to the one tempo distance with a feint of attack. The feint redirects the defenders attention (causing them to stop or pause in their attempt to control space) and causes the defender to move their blade in a motion that the attacker can avoid. The attacker's feint may also force the defender to make a mistake in timing: causing an action that is too early (a parry, for example) or one that is too late (a counter-attack).
Previously, feints were solely a function of the blade. The attacker showed a willingness to start an attack and then maneuvered their blade through the defense in a sort of "thread-the-needle" approach: the extended blade went around and past one or more parries to score. There was an unspoken agreement (supported by the pedagogy of the time) that defenders cooperated with this approach to offense by parrying as late as possible. This allowed attackers to close the distance before starting an attack and also reduced the number of parries the defender might attempt. The reasons for this unspoken agreement between attacker and defender are complex, but I suspect were an outgrowth of the belief in "artful" blade phrases in pre-20th Century fencing, though there well could be other factors. In "threading the needle" it was in the attacker's best interest to start slow to give themselves time to maneuver through the defenders' complex defense. Defenders did not attempt to parry until the extension by the attacker had started.
For the most part, those days are behind us. The model in defense is now to parry early, to disrupt, interrupt, and clog the path the attacker's blade can take to the target. One might say that current defense in all weapons is more "in depth" than in the past. This is especially true in the weapons with priority, where finding the blade allows the defender to take over the initiative. In saber, the electrification of the blade has made it easy to make scoring actions to the near target of the hand and arm, forcing the attacker to hold the blade back much as foilists, for fear of exposing themselves to a counter-attack to their near target. At the same time, the saber fencer must balance "hiding" the blade against the box timing that makes an attack into the feint (preparation) a viable option for the defender.
With all of these changes, the concept of a "feint" is still a valuable one, even if a "feint" is not the blade action that a coach from the 1950's (or even the 1970's) would recognize now. Any current discussion of feints must recognize that the defender must be threatened even as the attacker is more vulnerable than ever before.
Old versus New Fencing
The old advice of "start slow and finish fast" concerning feints does not adjust for the current use preemptive parries designed to shut down an attack in its beginning by "jamming" the space between the two fencers. In addition to the use of early reaching and searching parries, modern foil defense uses the sudden collapses of the space between the fencers to execute close-out counter-attacks and attacks in preparation.
Initiating the feint with a slow, hanging lunge can give the attacker time to place the point on those defenders that collapse the space with a parry or who counter-attack. But giving the blade too early during this lunge can result in the attacker's blade being found (parried) by the defender while the feint is still developing. The attacker has the simultaneous and difficult task of threatening the defender with the finish of an impending attack, while keeping the blade out of the reach of the opponent's defense. This is usually accomplished by holding the hand back in foil—sometiems through multiple steps—rather than making a full extension at the start of the attack.
The current interpretations of priority allow this, but the attacker still has to balance a number of difficult tasks. The attacker must put the hand into play in such a way that they are seen to be threatening the defender early in the start of their offensive acton. This is accomplished by taking the initiative to control the closing of the distance to the defender. After taking the initiative foil and saber fencing allows the attacker to be more vauge in their threats, showing their willingness to threaten "zones" of the defender's target, rather than making direct indications of where the feint is threatening. Since the defender can collapse the space between the two fencers at any moment, the attacker has a difficult job of closing the space, choosing the time to hit, and avoding the attempts of the defender to "clog the zone" between them with blade work. Under these situations it is difficult to choose the time to hit and to finish the attack accurately on target (though the expanded target in saber as opposed to foil makes this less difficult for saber fencers: one of the reasons that offense is so much more valued in saber).
On the defenders side, early and disruptive parries start as soon as the defending fencer realizes they have lost the initiative. Since the attackers are content with threatening zones (they are able to finish the attack with one final, simple movement to the target of choice) the defender has to protect large areas of their target with early, sweeping parries without knowing where the final blade action is going to start and finish. The defender's early sweeping parries build up a great deal of momentum, so if the attacker chooses an unexpected line or time to finish, the defender my may find themselves unable to move their blade to cover a specific target. Combined with slightly retarding the finish of the attack, it is easier for the attacker to avoid the defenders blade actions.
In saber, the ease of scoring to the forward target has made the old-fashioned, full extended feint almost obsolete. "Sky-hook" counter-attacks make leading with a fully extended arm from out of distance very dangerous. The saber "feint" is now more of a suggestive blade motion with a change of speed or rhythm of footwork, forcing an early parry from the defender and resulting in the attacker scoring with what an earlier generation of fencing teachers would term an "indirect" cut rather than a long and fully extended feint/cut as was taught years ago. The fully electrified saber blade makes it easy for the attacker to hit the opponent's forward target as well, so saber fencers too are making preemptive sweeps and parries to break up the attack, much like their foil counter-parts.
As a result of the adoption of "defense in depth", feints in foil and saber are often done with bent arms and changes of speed and rhythm in the footwork, rather than a full extension of the arm. More and more, the arm does not follow a pre-scribed timing with the foot, but is coordinated with the tactical situation. The arm may still extend before the foot, but may also extend with the start of the foot, and (more and more) start after the initial movement of the foot on the final moment of the attack.
What does this mean for "hand before foot" in the attack in foil? Extending the blade early in saber and foil gives the opponent too many options, including a false parry/real parry, close out counter-attack, or an early reaching parry. The slow feint is still useful against defenders who hold their ground and delay their parry, but these fencers are fewer and fewer. Now the feint must be more dynamic, with the understanding that the defender is not going to cooperate in the timing and the placement of their parry.
There are times when a fully extended feint in foil is useful. Michael Marx, many time Olympic Team member and National Foil Coach feels that a fully extended arm on the feint should be done with a full speed lunge, with the commitment of the arm. The disengage is done with a quick movement of the fingers near the end of the lunge. This approach has a certain amount of logic to it, as the competitive fencer accelerates the feint as fast as possible, the defender is less likely to make a "planned" parry and is more likely to make an "instinctive" or "panic" parry, which is always going to be truthful. Of course, every tactical situation depends on the distance and how it is closing. There is not a single solution for all the combinations of early parries and closing distances.
When is as Important as How
Critical in making a feint-disengage is the when of the action. The "when" of the feint can be summed up in the word "surprise". Creating surprise is worth a long discussion on its own, but I will make a few remarks here. Surprise occurs when the opponent's expectations (their ability to predict an opponent's next action) are confounded. There is a relationship between the uniqueness (or magnitude of change) presented to the opponent and the amount of surprise generated (as well as the opponent's ability to react to surprise). In essence, a surprise is the end result of a prediction about the opponent that fails.
Surprise in feints can be of two types: the first is an attack that the opponent expects to defeat but is out maneuvered by the attacker. this is an attack that has a "known beginning" and "known end". The feint and finish of the attack is preplanned based on the knowlege that the attacker has about the defender's reaction. The attcker generates a predicted defensive response from the opponent and the attacker avoids it and scores. Making these feints relies on:
- Technical skill
- Anticipation of events (predictable tactical environment)
- Knowning the behavior of the opponent will be consistent given the right stimulous (the feint).
The second type of feint breaks the relationship between expectation and decision making. The feint is unexpected by the opponent and triggers a "startle response" that either freezes the opponent or causes them to over react. The attacker may not necessary know the response of the opponent, only that by their surprise action, they will generate an defensive or counter-offense response at a predictable time. This is more of a "known beginning" and "unknown ending" action. With this is mind, surprise is created by:
- Unanticipated changes of direction
- Changes of speed
- Sudden and dramatic changes in blade position
Reconnaissance during the bout allows the fencer to somewhat predict the opponent's reaction in a given situation though small changes in distance can lead to different reactions. A feint at a very close distance may result in a counter-attack, while a feint from further out may elicit a parry. Each of the weapons instills in the participants unique responses depending on the amount of training the athlete has had in the weapon and the situation. For unskilled fencers the startle response in all the weapons may be to make a thrust (or cut, in the case of saber) when surprised with a strong feint. In foil and saber, skilled fencers tend to "train out" these reactions as not useful fairly early. In épée, however, counter-attacking when surprised is still a useful response to being startled. You should be aware of the the possible responses to a strong feint at the level your student's peers and include these responses in your student's lessons.
Surprise is more complete when when the opponent's attention is someplace other than an impending threat, such as when the opponent is preparing their own attack, recovering from an attack that has just failed, or simply doing their initial reconnaissance of the fencer. This is the time when the student should concentrate on achieving the proper distance to score. At times, this will be the one-tempo distance, and the student is free to make a simple attack. More often, the student will not gain the complete advantage necessary for a simple attack, and will have to make a feint, or a series of feints, to score.
Along with the distance preparation, the student can prepare on the blade before making a feint. Strong beats, sudden takes of the blade or changes of engagement, all can help "sell the feint": i.e., provoke a strong startle response. Dave Littell, in his Lessons with Victor, gives several good examples of blade preparations that can help increase the surprise of a feint.
The "How" of a Feint
Coaches often teach the feint and disengage by telling their students to start an attack, to "see" the coach's parry coming, and avoid the parry. This advice was offered in conjunction with "floating" or "waiting" lunge. Two things preempt this advice from being useful today in foil and saber: the speed of the reaction of modern fencing, and the use of preemptive, disruptive parries to break up the attack. Modern épée also suffers from some of these afflictions, as more and more blade actions are designed to be disruptive and hamper the fencer from making an unobstructed approach to the opponent.
The goal in all three weapons now is to feint so that the attacker actively forces the parry on the opponent by blade position, speed, and timing of the action(s) when attacking. With the information the student in the bout in their reconnaissance there will be some idea of the opponent's timing and choice of parries. By these clues and by making a strong feint with surprise, the studnet understands when the opponent must parry. Knowing the timing of the opponent's parry allows the student to plan their disengage.
The analogy to this timing to avoid the parry is a batter hitting a pitch in baseball. Tests have shown that a batter makes a decision about whether to swing within the first few meters that the ball travels after leaving the pitcher's hand. The batter, knowing something about the pitcher and seeing the release of the ball and the first few meters of the ball's flight, makes a decision to swing and decides the timing and the placement of the bat in that swing. A traveling baseball, like a fencing action, happens far too quickly for a player to watch the terminal phase of the action (this is a slight over-simplification, as the actual dynamics of thrown balls and eye tracking are much more complex). The role of the pitcher is to know the timing of the batter, and to give the batter incorrect information about the pitch, forcing the batter to misjudge when and where to swing.
As fencers fence at closer and closer distances with more speed, the time to react to a feint decreases. This decreases the time the opponent has to judge the feint and means that feints can be less precise. This is somewhat offset by the defender's willingness to parry earlier, which gives them more time to make multiple parries. However, the increased speed of the parries (and the larger movement those parries have to make to protect a larger zone of target) means that there is an increase in momentum in the parries, which reduces the number that can be done in a given amount of time and increases the chance that the defender will not be able to overcome their momentum if they should over commit to an early parry. Feints are made with powerful changes in energy in the advance/blade presentation, which the opponent must respond to or risk a simple finish by the attacker.
When should a fencer feint? The problem is a simple one: the fencer's tip is at Point A. The opponent's target is at Point X, a certain distance away from Point A. The opponent's blade is at Point B and can move from Point B to protect Point X in time T. If the attacking fencer is capable of moving their tip from Point A to hit Point X in less than time T, then the fencer should not feint. If the fencer is close enough and fast enough to hit with a simple attack, there is no reason to feint.
If the fencer cannot make the attack in less than time T, the fencer has to increase the time that opponent uses to find the fencer's blade. By making a feint and disengage the attacker forces the opponent to move their blade through the first attempt to parry and then to attempt a second parry, making the opponent's blade travel distance longer. This increase in blade travel distance increases the time T, which is hopefully now large enough for the fencer to cover the distance and score.
The alternative is that the fencer must get closer to reduce the time it takes for them to cover that time T on the attack. Simple in practice. Much harder to do in the reality of a bout.
The Three Rules of a Lie: Teaching the Feint
Since the feint being a lie, we can use some ancient wisdom guiding the telling of lies 2:
- First Rule for a Lie: The truth always works better than a lie.
- Second Rule for a Lie: When a lie must be told, it should be as much like the truth as possible.
- Third Rule for a Lie: The best lies are simplest ones.
In fencing, the execution of a simple attack fulfills the First Rule. A direct attack against a defender is devastating when it scores. If the defender becomes convinced they can be hit with a simple attack, it puts them under great psychological pressure to parry subsequent attacks. As a result, the defender is much more likely to parry earlier and on less provocation; the defender cannot take the chance that anything that looks like the start of an attack is not ultimately capable of scoring on them.
Even if the simple attack against the opponent is parried (and it often will unless done with some skill) it should be done with enough conviction to persuade the opponent that any similar attack will arrive unless it, too, is parried. If the student cannot execute a convincing simple attack, feints by the student will be ignored by the opponent. The student may not necessary be able to score with a simple attack every time. But the student must have a good grasp of mechanics and control of distance to make the simple attack believable to the opponent and their feints look very much like their simple attacks. Only by making the possibility of scoring with a direct attack real will make a future feint a surprise.
Once the "truth" has been told with a simple attack, the "lie" to the opponent becomes easier. Feints succeed by embracing a contradiction: the student convinces the opponent that a simple attack is about to land when it might be—in fact—started from too far away to succeed. Here, the Second Rule comes into play. The student's feint must appear to the opponent like a simple attack to convince the opponent that they must parry that particular action.
The key to the Second Rule is to embrace the idea that a feint is simply an attack that lands somewhere other than the initial zone that the attack threatens.
This is a good time to mention that I hate the word "feint", since it implies a different action from making an "attack". Many students will make committed direct attacks, and then radically change how they start a feint by making stiff, arrested movements on the feint.3 These sorts of stiff motions are rarely successful except against unskilled fencers. The extension is too stiff to be a real attack, the student's arm finishes extending too soon, and the point of the student's weapon stops moving too soon. The feint may even be done slower than an attack with the hope that the opponent can "see" it and be convineced to parry. The opponent is unlikely to react to such a feint. If the opponent does react, the student's tensing of big muscles to convince the opponent that they should be afraid is likely to result in a disengage that is too slow, too big, and easily parried. The best way to perform a feint is to perform an attack. By making a believable attack, the opponent is more likely to react than respond (instinct versus choice). The defender stops moving and answers the question posed by the feint with a blade reaction (an parry in foil and saber, or a counter-attack in épée).
The third rule is perhaps the simplest. Lots of complicated blade motions on the feint only help defeat fencers your student is going to beat anyway. The key to a sccussful feint is always the same: observation of the opponent's reactions, good reconnasiance, distance, and surprise.
The Mechanics of the Feint
(Note that this section primarily discusses feints in foil. There are additional notes on saber and épée below)
When ever I work on a student's feint, I always begin by making the student execute simple, straight, accelerating attacks. If the student hopes to hide the feint well, they must be able to score with an attack. The mechanics of the simple attack should be practiced. The lunge must accelerate though the attack, and there must be good coordination between the hand and the foot.
The student should be able to vary the timing and the acceleration of their hand in the simple attack See this article elsewhere on the web site). This assists in making the feint adaptable to a variety of situations. Being able to change the relationship of the acceleration of the hand with their front foot gives the student a great deal of flexibility in how they close the distance and when the arm needs to be accelerating to the hit. With someone executing very disruptive, early parries, the student's arm may not extend until their front foot has landed. In other situations, it may be a full on early extension and disengage in the lunge.
A feint must have some penetration of the distance to the target. Even in a small way, the point of the weapon must be moving forward, even if the amount is very slight. Blade motion that stops moving forward does not convince the opponent that an attack is about to finish. The skill is to understand the opponent's sense of time to know when they will parry based on the penetration of the point to the target. Each oppenent may react differencely to a penetration of the space with the point. If the student has not penetrated very deeply and the opponent makes their parry early, the student may have additional disengages to make. However—as always—opponents are all different. Some opponents parry very early and some parry very late. To some extent this can be simulated by you in the timing of your parries in your lessons, but the student will ultimately learn "how much feint they need to give" by fencing a variety of opponents with different timings, both in practice and competition.
I start teaching feints with the student making simple attacks at a distance in which they can stilll reach me with a lunge, but can no longer score against me with a simple attack before I can parry (most fencers can physically reach with a lunge further than they can score with a simple attack). I do not want them at a distance at which they can score with a direct attack, obviously. I make them extend early in the timing of the hand with their foot the first time that I introduce this exercise. I parry all of their attacks while keeping the timing of my parry the same. I may decrease the distance to simple attack range, and have them hit me direct, and then expand the distance again to contrast the two different distances.
Now that the student has learned the rhythm of my parry, it becomes an easy matter for them to simply anticipate my parry and make the disengagein the right time in the middle of their lunge. The student simply has to make sure that their blade is not where it was when it has been parried on the previous trials, much like anticipating stepping through a swinging door without getting smacked.
I emphasize that the mechanical action of the disengage around my lateral parry should not be a circl as is often shown in fencing books, but a drop and lift of the point under the (lateral) parry. The motion is like a "V" rather than a "U". I would avoid any reference to making circular motions, and show the dropping and lifting of the point with the fingers instead. This will help insure a small disengage, and ensure that most of the work done in avoiding your blade is done by your parry passing over or past the student's blade, rather than the student moving the point. This allows the student to make a very direct approach to the target, with the point of their weapon moving forward much of the time.
I look for a very soft arm on the disengage. Beginning and intermediate students carry too much tension in the arm when they make a feint (as if it will make the feint more effective). A soft grip and elbow allows maximum mobility in avoiding the opponent's blade. Tensing a muscle makes it very slow, and if the student has to make open eyes compound attacks against an opponent, they will be unable to change the direction or finish of the disengage. A tense muscle usually means that the student is "motor-set" 4 to make pre-planned disengage.
As the student gets more advanced, I introduced more variation in the timing of the foot and hand. These variations go hand in hand with the student's increased understanding of what their one-tempo distance is. The feint becomes more sophisticated, coming off of changes of direction, acceleration, and so forth. The student must now make more use of independent hand and foot actions to coordinate the feint over various distances to defeat the timing of the opponent's defense, the disengage (or coupe) that the student needs, and all those other factors that enter into a successful compound attack. The hand may be held back more and the lunge started slightly slower, with big acceleration of both hand and feet in the last action of the attack, or the hand may be started quickly and the lunge explosive. All of this will depend on the tactical situation we are simulating. In the lesson I also I try to give students more surprise actions to cope with, such as stepping in and collapsing the distance when I make my parry. A soft wrist and elbow is important in making the adaptations necessary to score in such situations. The student should at the very least be able to coordinate feint-attacks with:
- The hand starting first, and finishing first (ahead of the feet). This is often the most useful in attacks in preparation and feint-in-tempo actions.
- The hand starting slightly behind, but finishing ahead of the feet after one or more disengages. Useful against the fencer that makes a very late, simple parry.
- The hand starting first, retracting, making the necessary number of disengages, and finishing last: with or slightly after the landing of the front foot. This is useful against an opponent that makes many early parries, or may attempt late, close-out counter-attacks that will need to be avoided at the last minute.
From this foundation, I work on expanding the idea of the feint. Different distances, different times, different situations, and different footwork. The student also varies from the classical definition of arm leading the foot to make a feint-in-tempo disengage to lost and broken time attacks against a varied of defending timings.
In starting the feint, the initial blade motion from the student can be slightly wide the target. By doing this, the student will encourage the opponent to make simple, lateral parries. If the student wishes a circular parry from you, the thrust should be directed right over the bell—though keep in mind that not all opponents are so readily predictable.
When responding to the feint in the lesson, show the student that if you pick the "wrong" parry to take when the student makes their feint, you have chosen a longer path to making your defensive action. This allows the student time to make the appropriate counter-disengage to defeat you. By careful point placement and knowing something of the opponent's tendencies (if the opponent has a favorite parry in certain situations, if they are easily threatened in one line over another, and so forth) the student can mre easily predict the parry the opponent will do, and the timing of that parry.
Many classical schools advocate the idea that little parries on the part of the coach will equal little disengages on the part of the student. I do not make little parries when first teaching the feint and disengage for two reasons. First, a small, perfect parry is not what the beginning student sees when they are fencing their peers. Second, when a student is shown an artificially small parry, I will finish the parry quite early. I must then hold the line 'open" for the student to have time to finish the disengage and the hit. If my blade is stopped, and the student hasn't reached the target yet, I have time to make a second parry, and the student should understand this. If the student feels that they can finish in a line being held open for them, this student will be vulnerable to a false parry/real parry by the opponent. A small parry held open should be a sign to the student that another parry can occur and they should be ready to make another disengage. The cardinal rule is always: "Attack into an opening line and feint into and open line." The student should hit you while your blade is still moving on your last parry.
As the student grows in skill, your parries can come earlier and be more disruptive. Now the student is moving forward to attack while holding the blade well back to "hide" the blade from your defense. The student is not really "attacking" at this point, but you are defending (by wide, early parries), so priority will be interpreted in the student's favor. However, the actual physics of time and movement can play the student false, if they are unable to coordinate their extension to defeat your concealed counter-attack/attack into preparation.
In the lesson, these variations should be explored to help develop the student's sense of timing, as well as the tactical reasons for each one. They should be done slowly at first so that the student gets a feel for the time.
Feints in the Lesson
The article Cues in Tempo, introduces a simple lesson to show the idea of the relationship of time/distance to the direct attack: the student takes a position just outside the distance needed to make a simple attack against you. The student advances in preparation, and you make the choice to stand still (and receive a direct, simple attack) or retreat at the same time as the student (leaving the distance unchanged). It is easy to adapt this lesson to include the option for a feint and disengage by the student.
The key modifier is the timing of your retreat from the student's preparatory advance. If you have not moved by the time the student's front foot has landed (with the back foot immediately following, of course), then the student should be able to finish with a simple attack and score against you. If you have started to move at the same time as the student's front foot starts (or even before), the student will not reach you in time (at least with one step), and must not attack. If you choose to delay your retreat slightly—in the middle of these two extremes—the student should feel that they can reach you with the length of their lunge, but not in time to avoid your parry. This is opportunity for the student to make a feint and disengage: the student can reach you with a lunge, but not hit you with a simple attack.
As simple as this sounds, there are many difficult skills in play. The student must be able to see the small change in distance/timing of your "late" retreat. If the student can see the difference between you not leaving the space during the advance, you leaving the space late, or you leaving the space early (in relationship to your student's advance), the decision to feint comes easily. Then the mechanical actions, and the feeling for the disengage, must be perfected. The student must be able to make a reasonable-sized disengage in the middle of the lunge (this is one of the few fencing actions that actually works better the further away the student is).
This may take a little bit of experimentation on your part to cue the lesson properly. If you leave too late on the student's step they should correctly accerate and hit you. If you leave to early, they may not see the opportunity to reach you with a feint and disengage in the lunge, and simply abort their attack. This is not necessarily wrong, of course, but it is a sign that you are not picking the middle ground between "on time" and "too late" very well.You will need to get a feel for timing of this action.
Once the student has learned to make a good feint and disengage, to accelerate at the end of the action, and to differentiate the compound attack from the simple attack, all sorts of timing and distance choices can be introduced in the lesson. For example, in a student initiated lesson the student can make a sudden change of direction against you (from moving backward to moving forward) as their feint, coupled with a change of blade aspect as well (from low to high is very effective). Here, the change of direction by the student becomes the feint which provokes an early, "panic" reaction from you. In the lesson, the student can mix up using a coupe or a disengage to avoid your parry, as each has slightly different timing and a different "look and feel" to the opponent. There are a wide variation of actions to be done using different blade work and different footwork to set up the action.
A final caveat: Feints can be done to excess. Some fencers fall in love with feints and spend a great deal of their time moving their blades in elaborate patterns to provoke a response from their opponents. The student often loses track of the fact that they may have already achieved that critical distance needed for a direct attack and be hit while making that last feint by an alert opponent. If the student makes a feint when they should be finishing the attack, the student is essentially trying to fit two actions into a space that requires only one. You should test the student often by letting them capture the correct space for a simple attack in compound-attack focused lessons. When you allow (or the student takes) the distance for a direct attack, the student should finish with a direct attack without hesitation. It is just as incorrect to make a compound attack from too close as it is to make a simple attack from too far away
Other Aspects of Feints
Many fencers protect some areas of their target better than others. The opponent that has a strong high inside parry may have an inadequate low line parry. A feint and disengage that starts in the high line and finishes in the opposite high line may take great skill to execute successfully against this opponent. The same high line feint that finishes to the low outside line, however, might be successful even when executed with lesser skill. In the same way, this opponent may be easily convinced to make an early parry with a low outside feint, while parrying much later for an attack in the high inside line. These differences must be understood by the student, and exploited. You should teach your students to feint in all possible lines, to look for differences in the timing of the parries in each line, and how the timing of the parries effects the feint and the timing of the student's disengage and finish.
The Timing of Multiple Feints
The purpose of a feint is to freeze or out maneuver the opponent to allow the fencer to bring their point (or edge) close enough to the target to finish with a simple action (obviously, all compound actions finish with a simple action at the end). This penetration may occur through a combination of arm extension and foot action. Sometimes, however, one feint is not enough. The nervous, twitchy fencer will parry any blade extension and will often over-react to a sudden change of rhythm by the student without any blade extension at all. To score against this opponent, the student may not need to feint at all, but simply fence close to the opponent and make a sudden change in rhythm. This will usually prompt a nervous opponent to sweep for the student's blade, and the student can score with an indirect attack. If this opponent combines the habit of an early parry with an attempt to expand the distance however, the student may need to make multiple blade actions.
Likewise with a calm opponent the student will have to be prepared to avoid early blade actions from the opponent designed to slow or break up the student's attack. The student will have to approach carefully and make their first feint only after hiding or protecting their blade against these early disruptions. Rather then multiple feints it might be more accurate to call the actions deceptions of an attempt to find the blade, a feint, and then a disengage and hit. This is done primarily while carefully controlling the distance on the approach: not too close and not too far from the opponent.
Once the student has the basics of executing the attack with feint, you should show variations in the rhythm of the initial parry between two extremes of opponents, reactive or calm. You should also show the student how to make the necessary reconnaissance to determine which type of fencer they are dealing with. You must role play through these situations, reacting artificially early or late to the student's preparation. The reactive fencer will parry very quickly, and with little provocation. Sometimes this early parry will also be coupled with an expansion of the distance. If the opponent is far enough away to demand more than one feint, this early parry will result in very little penetration on the feint to the target. After rounding this first parry, the student will have to extend more on the second feint, perhaps with additional footwork. This should be possible since the nervous fencer (or the simulating coach) will often make the first parry too big, and must overcome the momentum of the parry and "recover" their blade. This will extend the time that the student has to penetrate in the second feint, and this feint may have to be held longer in a given line to "show" the opponent that the threat is continuing, and to give the opponent enough time to stop their blade motion after the first parry and start their second. The rhythm of blade actions from the student are "fast - s l o w - fast".
The calm opponent, on the other hand, may try to parry as late as possible, while using many false parries to "herd" the student's blade into a line that the opponent can control. This opponent will not react to quick or jerky motions of the blade. The student will have to combine a real threat with a change of speed to convince the opponent that they are finishing an attack, all the while anticipating the opponent making false parries or false counter-attacks. When the student has gained a distance advantage, the opponent may still have time to make two fast parries to try to find the blade. These parries will either be lateral or circular, and the student will have to understand the opponent's inclinations in this regard. The calm opponent is more difficult to predict in their timing, and in the lesson, you should teach the student to be aware of the amplide of the opponent's hand motions and the distance the student has to cover to make a final action.
The student must be cautions with those opponents that use large and early sweeps on defense. The student should not confuse avoiding these sweeps as the signal to start an attack (or to finish one). The opponent will be making deceptive blade actions will the distance is still too far. Trying to finish the attack too early will simply give the opponent a better opportunity to find the student's blade as they lunge into the wrong distance. For the opponent who reaches out to find the student's blade early, it is advisable that the student keep the arm back and use changes of rhythym and foot speed to approach the opponent (while at the same time being wary of the opponent's inevitable attempt to attack on the student's preparation). The student may make wide, threatening actions with the blade while still considerably out of distance, concealing the avenue of attack. Once the distance has started to collapse—either because the student has gained the distance, or the opponent is slowing down in an earnest attempt to find the student's blade—the blade actions must be tighter and the student should be ready to finish.
When making multiple feints the student may be alternately given foot problems (the student is still not close enough to score direct and must find a way to close the distance) with hand problems (the student is not close enough to take advantage of an opponent's opening line). This demands excellant skills in controlling the space as it collapses, good blade skills, and patience.
Feints in Épée and Saber
The other two weapons bring their unique characteristics into play when making feints. In both épée and saber, the forward target makes a counter-attack an ever present danger. In saber, the counter-attack has made the days of extending the arm completely while threatening a target with the edge a thing of the past. In fact, it could easily be argued that there is no blade "feint" in saber any longer: just occurrences in which the defender—feeling the closing of tempo from an advancing opponent—parries too early and is hit with an indirect attack, as opposed to a feint and disengage. Sudden changes in footwork rhythm (or size of steps) and a small indication of the blade (moving it no more than six to eight inches in one direction or the other) to suggest to the defender which line needs to be protected is the prevailing method of feinting in saber. Classical arm extending feints are still done in saber with the point, but these have a great deal of risk associated with them, as they give the opponent an early opportunity to find the blade.
Just as in foil, it is critical in saber that the hand be coordinated with the footwork on the attack. Preparations in saber are often carried out over more than one advance in the face of a defender making disruptive blade actions on defense. The student must understand that carrying the blade far back entails a strong risk of an attack in preparation against them if they are too conservative. During the preparation, the student must balance the coordination of their hand and their approaching footwork very carefully. The student must also be able to change the line of the cut while still in the lunge. Cutting a different line after the front foot lands runs the risk of being called as a remise.
Feints in épée have some of the same dangers as those with saber, though the épée fencer has the protection of the bell and the physics of hitting a smaller target like the hand/arm with a point weapon in their favor. However, for the most part the feint in épée has many of the characteristics of the feint in foil: it must follow the three rules for "telling a lie". The feint must be done close to a real target, and in a realistic distance. The lack of priority in épée means that the attacker must take more risk when making a feint. Very often, the feint in épée is, in fact, a real attack to the forward target that has a chance (if small) of scoring. It may only turn into a feint after the fact, when the defender has attempted to parry the attack and exposed themselves to a second, deeper attack. Has the fencer then made a feint and disengage, or an attack and remise? This is important from a conceptual view (and at the higher levels of épée, should be nuanced to the student) but at the beginning and intermediate level, these distinctions may not be very important. The preparation/feint does what is required: freezing the opponent or moving the opponent's blade out of position while placing fencer's point within easy striking distance of another target on the opponent.
Because of the nature of this attack/preparation duality and the vulnerablity to a counter-attack, the épée student rarely makes lost time attacks except against very unusual opponents, or in order to draw a counter-time reaction from the opponent. For the most part you should teach hand first or hand with the foot on the feint in épée.
TFeints in épée may draw a mix of reactions, since the épée fencer is not bound by convention to parry the feint but may respond with an attempt to stop-hit, or make an attack of their own. The attacking fencer must read their opponent very carefully to make an action with a known end. Feints in épée are much more "open eyes" actions than in foil.
In both saber and épée, the forward target of the opponent is always a viable place for a touch. In some cases the purpose of the feint will not be to draw a parry with the hope of finishing to a deeper target, but to draw a counter-attack for a counter-time action to the forward target, or a taking of the blade. Using a remise off of a parry&Mdash;in both weapons—adds yet another dimension, though here we start to step into true second-intention actions rather than feints. These sorts of actions give feints much more versatility in saber and épée than in foil.
Unexplored Territory
This is a very simple look at feints. There are many aspects of feints I have not touched on, including feints as a preparation, changes of decision when making feints, feints in the riposte...there is a long list of topics! For you as a the coach, the most important ideas are:
- Feints have a unique tempo of their own, the student should understand that at long distance/times, they should anticipate making a feint.
- At reduced distances, the coach should insist that the student finish the attack.
- The student does not "look" for the parry by the opponent, but uses the penetration of the feint to force the opponent to parry at a particular time of the student's choosing.
- The feint should be smooth, continuously moving forward, and threaten the opponent—the feint as a "motion" should be corrected by you.
- The opponent should never get more of a feint than they need, and proper preparation in distance, and optional actions on the blade will help "sell" the feint.
With these principals in mind, the coach can assist their students in understanding multi-tempo actions on the attack.
1Ideally, the fencer is also opportunistic, in order to take advantage of the opponent's mistakes, but ideally, the fencer hopes to encourage the opponent to make mistakes that the fencer can act on. ⏎
2These rules are adapted from a series of seminars by late Maitre Ed Richards, with appreciation. ⏎
3A few years ago, a young fencer told me that no one ever fell for his feint and disengage, and wanted my help. I put him on guard, told him to move around a bit, and then, when he was ready, to make an attack with a feint and disengage. After a few confident steps froward and back, the student made blazingly fast (but short) feint at the end of an advance, an immediate disengage, and then a lunge. The initial action took place so quickly, and from so far away, it was over before I could think to form a parry. By then the fencer had stopped, disengaged, and lunged to my closed line, running right into my guard. "This is what always happens", he said, sadly. "I'm just not fast enough to make a feint, disengage." I avoided laughing, and worked on showing him a better way to approach feints. ⏎
4 After the famous martial artist, Bruce Lee. ⏎
© by Allen Evans. This document may be reproduced, provided all credit is giving and this notice included. Last updated on May 2021 for spelling, structure, and some content.