A FENCING COACHES COMPENDIUM



Épée Tempo


Coach Allen Evans, Dominion Fencing
 


Critical Tempos

In classical Italian fencing, tempo was defined by blade actions. A parry and then a riposte were two tempos—dui tempo—one action, then another. If the fencer made a counter-attack with opposition (in which the parry and the riposte happen together) it was termed a stesso tempo, or single tempo. It is fitting that these definitions of tempo were blade-centric, considering that footwork in the classical school was limited because of terrain and by tradition. In modern fencing, however, the definition of tempo has changed to include many other factors besides blade actions. Fencing has evolved, and the definition of tempo has evolved with it.

Why discuss tempo at all? In all weapons, scoring actions occur on changes in tempo.1 Modern épée has moved away from the complicated blade actions and counter-actions of its ancestors. Épée is no longer a game of technical blade skills, it is now a contest of competing tempo. Understanding tempo is crucial to understanding épée.

At its simplest, modern tempo can be defined as a relationship between distance, speed, and technique.2 This definition of "tempo" differs from some texts, which define "tempo" only by the speed of an action. Scoring actions succeed because they occur in less time than a defense takes to thwart them. However, speed is not the only consideration in determining tempo. A fast execution of a fencing action over a long distance to a target may take more time than a slower execution of the same action done at a closer distance. Both footwork and blade technique are important in this definition. Good footwork technique means that attacking footwork takes less time to cover a given distance, and the fencer is able to steal more distance on the initial preparation. Good blade technique results in good choices of blade movements and faster execution of those movements. This decreases the time of an action since the point moves directly to the target along a shorter path. By choosing an optimal technique and making that technique "smooth", better fencers execute actions in a shorter time then a poorer fencer, even if distances are comparable. The goal of the fencer is to place him or herself in a position of a tempo advantage over the opponent, recognize the advantage, and use the advantage. We define this position as a "one-tempo situation".

An additional factor making a one-tempo situation is surprise. If the defender does not recognize the attacker's attempt to create a one-tempo situation the defender will fail to take appropriate action in time. A defending fencer may have superior speed and technical ability, but if caught by surprise by an attacking action the defender will hesitate in picking the appropriate response. This delay increases the time the attack is given to finish. The opponent can literally be hit while thinking.

If distance, speed and technique are used in defining tempo on the part of the attacker, these factors must also influence the tempo of the defender. Defending blade actions, speed, and changes of distance—coupled with the defender's technical abilities and awareness of the tactical situation—all factor into whether the attacker can gain the tempo advantage and score.

In the conventional weapons priority gives one fencer—the attacker—the advantage in finding the correct tempo to finish an attack, while the other fencer attempts to deny that tempo in defense. The roles of attacker and defender persists until someone is hit, or the roles are reversed when the defender "takes" the priority from the attacker (which may be done in a variety of ways).

In épée, the roles of "attack" and "defense" do not exist—or at least are poorly delineated. The lack of priority in épée means that both fencers are free to seek an appropriate tempo to score without consideration of who is "attacking" or "defending". The attacking épée fencer does not obligate the defender to a restrictive set of actions in defense. Because of this, attacking entails a risk to épée fencer. In classical times the épée fencer was very conservative in attacking and was taught to do nothing that exposed the fencer to large tempos that might allow a counter-attack. Classical épée fencers worked to the opponent's hand, attempting to score against any exposed target while keeping his or her own hand protected behind the bell guard. Arms were carried well out in front of the body, and actions were made to the opponent's forearm and wrist.

Modern fencers ignore many of these classic strategies. Their blades are carried well back while on guard, and attacks are made to both shallow and deep targets. Emil Beck—the late coach of Tauberbishofscheim—estimated that fully 80% of all épée touches occur to the body. Often these are single-light touches, in which one of the fencers "steals" so much of the tempo that the opponent is unable to make a counter-attack in time to put two lights on the scoring machine. Modern épée is characterized by two fencers maneuvering while feinting to lure their opponents into an error of tempo.

Despite the role of tempo in scoring touches, many books on épée do not address tempo at all. This would seem to be a very critical omission.3

Part of this omission is due to the difficulty of defining exactly what "tempo" is. Simply defining "tempo" in terms of speed or rhythm—as some coaches do—would leave out necessary factors mentioned previously. By defining "tempo" as the relationship between a fencer's rate of movement, the distance to the opponent's target, and technique, it may be asking one word to do too much. Hopefully the following examples will make the usage of "tempo" clearer:

  • A fencer is a long lunge distance to an opponent, who is on guard in the high line. The fencer lunges, and the opponent parries the attack and scores with a riposte. A lunge is often defined as a "one-tempo" footwork action, but because of the distance, the realistic tempo was more than one-tempo. The attacker had a much longer tempo (distance/rate/technique) to cover than the defender, and the attack was stopped.

  • Consider the same situation with the opponent's blade held in a low line on guard. The fencer now lunges and scores before the opponent can parry. The attacking fencer has not gotten faster or closer, but the tempo situation has changed in the fencer's favor because of change in the position of the opponent's blade. The increased time needed to make the parry from the absence of blade allowed the attack to score.

  • The fencer is some distance away from the opponent, but still within his or her ability to reach with a lunge. The fencer begins a lunge. The opponent—seeing the attack start—begins a parry. The fencer deceives the parry and scores. In this example, the fencer understands that the one-tempo situation did not exist. The fencer anticipates the opponent's parry and makes a two-tempo attack (feint and disengage) while covering the distance needed to score.

  • The opponent attacks the fencer, who parries. As the fencer parries, the opponent starts to recover. The fencer realizes that the opponent's expansion of the distance will not allow a simple, direct riposte. Instead of making a direct riposte, he binds the opponent's blade and makes a lunge, "carrying" the opponent's blade through more than one tempo to score. Controlling the blade over the longer tempo denied the opponent a remise, parry, or counter-attack.

These are simple examples, but they should illustrate the concept. Tempo is not a set distance or speed but a relationship between these two elements, as well as the fencer's technique. For every fencer, the goal is to be able to make a hit with the simplest action possible, done at the correct time, and at the correct distance. This implies that shorter tempo actions are always preferable to longer tempo actions, and that attacks should not be stretched out over multiple tempos unless the fencer is controlling the opponent's blade actively or passively.



"...80 percent of all épée touches occur to the body..."

Épée Tempo and Distance

Scoring to any target requires that the attack be carried out at the proper time and distance. The fencer can make the proper attacking tempo, the tempo may be made by the opponent's actions, or both fencers can create the tempo (willingly or unwillingly). This constant battling of tempos is what makes épée such a difficult game to fence and to teach.

Épée's strong characteristic is the existence of two distinct distances, as determined by the target upon which the the fencer is attempting to score. There are the forward targets of the hand and the foot: both are close (relatively) to the fencer, but both are small, hard to hit, and easy to move. The body is easier to hit but is much further away than the hand or the foot. Achieving a one-tempo situation to the opponent's hand or foot may be easy, but this attack will often miss, and this will result in giving the opponent an advantage that can be exploited with a counter-attack. The attack to the body is sure hit, but scoring against a deep target means penetrating a deeper space/tempo, which exposes the attacker to a counter-attack or parry riposte by the opponent.

Épée is unique in that a fencer may both be too close and too far at the same time, either because of their own miscalculation, or an unexpected change in distance by the opponent. The fencer may find himself or herself in a "dead zone" when the distance to the near target (the hand or foot) is over penetrated, but the fencer remains too far away from a deeper target to score easily. In this case, the fencer will be very vulnerable to the opponent.4



Épée Footwork

Along with blade actions, footwork must be used to gain—and then exploit—a tempo advantage over the opponent. Épée is characterized by controlled, high speed footwork. This footwork allows the épée fencer to maneuver in a very loose and hard-to-predict fashion, allowing for very quick changes of direction and speed.5 Since the judging of the scoring tempo in épée is absolute (the box determines if the fencer has "won the tempo" or not) quick changes of direction are necessary to exploit openings by the opponent, or escape attempts by the opponent to score.

Footwork can be broken down into three separate types, depending on the role of the footwork:

  1. Maneuvering footwork,

  2. Preparatory footwork, and

  3. Attacking footwork.

Maneuvering footwork is "place-holding" footwork for an épée fencer. At the beginning this footwork keeps the fencer at a safe distance, and little else. The beginning fencer primarily maneuvers, and preparatory footwork is either non-existent, or very basic. Often the beginner is maneuvering and then simply attacks with no preparation at all. Because the beginning fencer does not properly prepare, many of their attacks fail, and they often resort to scoring with sudden remises or through unplanned in-fighting. More sophisticated fencers use maneuvering footwork to explore the opponent's reactions and responses (at which time, it starts to become more like preparatory footwork). This exploration is not part of preparing for an attack, but a way to keep mobile while a plan is developed.

Preparatory footwork actively seeks to exploit tempo. The better the fencer, the less time spent in maneuvering and the more time spent in preparation. The differences between these two types of footwork blur, and then disappear. At the advanced level, the fencer's footwork exists in both realms at one: it is both maneuvering and preparation. Through the use of fluid and balanced footwork the advanced épée fencer achieves one-tempo situations, and denies the opponent the same. The accomplished fencer arrives at any point while maneuvering or preparing with the potential to execute a defense or to make an attack.

Attacking footwork is just what it seems: the footwork that covers the remaining distance to the opponent to land an attack. It is often short, explosive, and takes advantage of tempo stolen by preparatory footwork. To be be effective, attacking footwork must be faster than the other two types of footwork. The fencer—by maneuvering or preparing at a slower speed than they attack—ensures that attacking footwork will have maximum acceleration in the eyes of the opponent. Attacking footwork ends with the fencer in balance and ready to resume an attack or escape an opponent's attack (this condition is not necessary in the fleche, as this footwork carries the fencer past the opponent).

Ideally, attacking footwork is combined with a quick and accurate extension of the weapon. The point leads the way to the attack, and the hit should be scored just as, or soon after, the extension finishes. The fencer must be able to strike any target with a variety attacking footwork. For example, many coaches train their students to attack the chest with a fleche, but other targets, such as the thigh or the upper weapon arm should also be considered. Physical training (weight lifting and pliometrics for advanced fencers) is done to ensure that attacking footwork has maximum power.



Tempo on the Attack

Preparatory footwork must help create a one-tempo situation for the student, and then attacking footwork exploits that situation in the actual attack. Blade actions may be used to assist in creating tempo, such as making a beat to open a target, for example. Controlling the opponent's blade also can "protect" the fencer as they close distances of more than one tempo. In all cases, the goal is to deny the defender any time—any tempo—to make a defensive blade action or open the distance.

Creating a one-tempo situation can be done in two ways: actively or passively. In creating the tempo actively, the fencer makes a piece (or pieces) of footwork to close the distance, with associated blade actions as might be necessary. For instance: the opponent is standing just out of one-tempo distance. The fencer moves forward—inside the one-tempo distance—and the opponent remains still. The fencer lunges and scores. By moving forward, the fencer has taken the initiative to close the space in order to execute the attack with the lunge.

To create a one-tempo situation passively, the fencer lets the opponent close the space. For example: the fencer is being pushed backwards by the opponent. On one of the opponent's advances, the fencer fails to retreat, and the opponent's momentum carries him or her into the fencer's one-tempo distance, and the fencer executes a scoring action.

Of course, stealing tempo from the opponent is rarely this easy. The fencer may have to do more work than simply making (or failing to make) a step in order to achieve a scoring situation. The fencer has a number of options to capture tempo:

  1. Establishing a pattern and breaking it. One of the easiest ways to capture tempo actively is to establish a pattern of regular steps, such as advance, retreat and then break that pattern: advance, advance, for example. Unexpected pauses in a pattern can also break the rhythm of the footwork and give the fencer a scoring opportunity.


  2. Breaking the opponent's pattern. Conversely, the opponent's pattern of footwork can be taken advantage in the same way. The opponent is making the following pattern: retreat, advance. The fencer advances on the opponent's retreat, but then makes an advance on the opponent's advance, closing the space quickly. Attacking footwork by the fencer (another advance or a lunge) will score.


  3. Changing the speed or size of the footwork, or both. The fencer is advancing at a slow, steady pace. The opponent is keeping the distance. Suddenly, the fencer accelerates his or her advance to close the space. Alternately, the fencer can be making advances of one size, while the opponent keeps a comfortable space. Without the opponent noticing, the fencer brings the back foot up closer to the heel of the front foot while advancing, and is able to lunge from this position to score.

  4. Using deceptive footwork. In stealing tempo, there are several types of footwork that have their own built-in tempo stealing abilities, such as a half-steps, jumps, and slides. These steps, in place of an advance or retreat, can help the fencer shorten the tempo in order to make a successful attack. In addition, they can be hard for the opponent to see. Deceptive footwork can convince an opponent that the tempo either hasn't changed—when, in fact, it has—or has changed to the opponent's advantage. For instance a half retreat may often fool the opponent into finishing a step that brings them into a one-tempo situation, and allows the fencer to score.

In the first two cases, the opponent is "motor-set" to continue a pattern or action. The fencer uses the opponent's momentum against them. In the third case, the fencer simply catches the opponent by surprise, freezing them with a sudden acceleration or a change in distance. In the last case, the fencer attempts to gain additional distance/tempo without the opponent realizing that the distance has changed. In all cases, the tempo-stealing footwork must satisfy these conditions:

  1. The start of the footwork must be hidden from the opponent.

  2. The footwork must ensure that the fencer arrives at the right distance to the opponent—it must steal tempo.

  3. The fencer must end the preparatory footwork on balance and ready to execute a second preparation (if necessary) or conclude the attack.

  4. The footwork must be capable of responding to a change of decision during the preparation by reversing direction (either forwards or backwards) and ending with the fencer in balance.

Preparation cannot be done in a vacuum. The fencer must constantly assess the results of any preparation on the opponent. Executing a pre-planned attack without having taken the proper tempo can result in the fencer being scored against. Rushing into an attack without seeing the results of their preparation, the fencer may arrive at the end of the preparation out of balance, and be unable to attack or respond to a change by the opponent. In each case the fencer can find the tables reversed: attempting to score has resulted in being scored against!

Modern fencers generally fence just outside of the one-tempo distance to the opponent's forward targets. Preparatory footwork is confined to quick jumps or advances with attacks to the wrist, hand, or foot. Often attacks to the forward target are diversions or are preparations themselves. These attacks to the forward targets may be used to open up lines of attack to deeper targets, to find a weakness in the opponent's defense, or to encourage the opponent to make a mistake with blade work or distance that the fencer can exploit.

Attacking the opponent's body requires that a larger tempo be taken in the initial preparation, without being hit in return. In foil and saber, an attack can be carried over multiple tempos, provided the attacker can out-maneuver the defender's attempts to take back priority. In épée, this is not so simple: the opponent is just as likely to punish an attack executed over multiple tempos by a counter-attack in the first tempo.

Actions to the body are predicated on:

  1. A good choice of time to go: distance has collapsed or is about to collapse, or can be made to collapse, and/or the defender's blade is out of position or may be captured and controlled.

  2. The initial preparation has resulted in a one-tempo situation to the opponent's deep target, or restricts the opponent's actions to make such a tempo more likely (in the case of second-intention actions).

  3. The fencer has the ability to follow the preparation with even greater speed and good hand position.

  4. The fencer initiates the attack with the point leading to the target.

If the attacker does not conceal his or her intentions sufficiently, the defending fencer may be able to retreat enough to keep their point between them and the attacker, "resetting" the attacker at the forward target. If the attacker goes to the opponent's body regardless, the risk in a double hit or single hit against the attacker rises considerably. If the fencer is able to make a preparation that results in a one-tempo situation to the opponent's body, and hesitates, the opponent may be successful in hitting the fencer, or escaping the attack. It is a common error for a beginning fencer to be in position to score to the torso, and then take the time to make an additional preparation (such as a feint), when the fencer should be finishing the attack. It is just as incorrect to make a two-tempo attack in a one-tempo situation as it is to make a one-tempo attack in a two-tempo situation.

The fencer may attempt to control the defender's blade on the preparation and attack. This control can be very active (by the use of beats, presses, oppositions, or binds) or more passive (such as a feint that draws a parry). By influencing the opponent to move his or her blade out of position—or by purposefully attracting the counter-attack and taking the opponent's blade—the attacker can artificially extend the tempo over which they can attack. Even so, the attacker must go through the final space to the target quickly, or the defender will be able to take advantage of the slowness of the fencer in completing the attack to mount a defense or counter-offense.

In all cases, the attacker must end the attacking action either scoring or in balance. If the attack does not succeed, the attacker must be ready to respond to a subsequent action by the opponent and make a defense, or to continue their attack.



Timing of the Attack—Teaching the Student When to Attack Deep Targets

When teaching an épée student to attack, the coach must emphasize two things: target selection and tempo to that target. As noted before, the leading targets of the hand and foot are closest to the student, but are difficult to hit. The student should find making the proper tempo to attack the forward targets relatively easy by using the methods discussed above. A harder problem for the student is attacking the deeper targets of the torso. The body is an easier target (and perhaps the preferred one) but in the regular course of play, the body is more than one tempo away. The solution to this has always been to attack a forward target, and then remise or re-attack to the deeper target:

Student:makes an attack to the coach's hand with an advance.
Coach:makes a largish parry of counter-6 while standing still.
Student:disengages or rolls off the parry and fleches to the shoulder.

Here the combination of the coach making a large parry and failing to retreat allows the student the tempo to go to a deeper target after their initial attack to the forward target. Both the coach's large parry and the coach's failure to open the distance while defending gives the student the tempo to attack the coach's body. If the coach had retreated, and made a smaller parry, the situation changes:

Student:makes an attack to the coach's hand with advance (or lunge).
Coach:makes a small parry of counter-6 while retreating.
Student:disengages or rolls off the parry and redoubles to the hand or foot.

In the lesson above, the student has not captured the tempo necessary to attack the deeper target. The parry is small and the retreat puts the coach's body more than one tempo away. The student decides to re-attack the hand, or changes the target to the foot. If the student had attempted to continue to the coach's body with an additional simple attack, it would have been appropriate for the coach to parry the attack and score against the student.

A second option for the student is to cover the distance to a deeper target in pieces. The student makes an action, the coach responds while the student waits, and then the student takes the response and scores to the deeper target. The lesson below is a classic second intention action:

Student:makes short attack to coach's forearm with advance.
Coach:retreats with a small parry and ripostes.
Student:counter-ripostes with opposition to the upper arm or shoulder with a lunge or fleche.

The coach retreats to make the parry and subsequent riposte, but does not retreat an entire tempo, in order to facilitate scoring with a riposte of his or her own. The student not only covers the distance to the coach's body in small, one-tempo segments, but gets the added advantage of controlling the coach's blade through the last action, decreasing the chance that the coach can counter-attack. The student, by initiating the action, can be "ahead" of the coach/opponent in execution. The student makes an attack, waits for the riposte, and has his or her own response waiting.

Sometimes the student can make an action directly to the body of the opponent. This can occur if the opponent fails to control the tempo, or is "stuck" and cannot retreat quickly enough to escape an attack. A good example:

Coach:makes a failed attack to the student's foot. The coach is in a lunge, with the blade down.
Student:as the coach finishes the attack, the student fleches to the coach's shoulder.

Because the coach has both closed the space and is fixed in place with his or her blade far out of position, the student is able to go directly to a deeper target. At best, a very quick opponent might counter-attack against the student, possibly resulting in a double touch. This same lesson could be done with a shallower, false attack to the student's foot by the coach. The student has an advantage with the coach unable to recover quickly from the attack, but the distance to the coach is much longer than in the lesson above, too long for a simple attack by the student. The student must make a feint and disengage attack to score, or see if the coach attempts a remise that will enable the student to take control of the coach's blade. Again, it is the distance and respective blade positions of the student and coach that determines a one-tempo or multi-tempo action by the student on the attack.

Another example:

Coach:simulates an opponent maneuvering forward and attempting to pick up the student's blade with a counter-6.
Student:
avoids coach/opponent's attempts to find blade, giving ground each time. On one of the coach's forward steps the student, instead of retreating, deceives the coach's search in 6 and scores with a fleche or a lunge to the chest.

In the lesson above, the student could have easily timed the coach's advance and sweep to score with a counter-attack to the forward target and a retreat, staying just in front of the coach. However, the student uses the combination of coach's forward step and their own passive taking of distance (by not retreating) to collapse the distance between them. This places the student in a one-tempo situation to the coach's body, which is easier to score against.

Actions on the opponent's blade can help the student move through more than one tempo to score to a deep target. Often a strong action will provoke a blade response from the opponent, rather than a distance response, allowing the student to "freeze" the opponent and score:

Coach:is maneuvering/preparing slightly out of distance from the student.
Student:makes a slide advance and engages the coach's blade strongly in 4.
Coach:attempts to retreat (late) while pressing back against the press from the student.
Student:disengages from coach's press and fleches to score to the chest or thigh.

At all times, the student is attempting to create surprise in the opponent. The student can do this with footwork techniques, or with a combination of footwork and blade work, as briefly outlined in the examples above. Surprise can also occur if the student can misdirect the opponent's attention. By making an unexpected attack (such as going to the foot after making many attacks to the hand) or by showing the opponent one preparation and making the attack with another (showing the opponent several false attacks preceded by beats, and then attacking without a beat, for example) the student can "train" the opponent and then confound his or her expectations. The opponent may hesitate while choosing his or her response. The student "steals" tempo because of the lag in the opponent choosing a response and acting on it. The opponent is hit while still trying to decide on the optimal action.



Épée Tempo and the Defense

With the role of tempo on the attack outlined, the role of tempo on the defense becomes clear: the defender must deny tempo opportunities to the attacker, or "allow" them to occur when the defense has been prepared to channel the attacker into a line or distance the defender is ready to control. This is the concept behind the defining move of épée, the arrêt against the attack to the foot. In the arrêt, the defender's foot is pulled back while the defender extends out to touch the opponent in the shoulder or arm. The once forward target is now a deep target, and the opponent's near target is even closer than before the attack, allowing an easy counter-attack.

In a more complicated fashion, the student can combine denying the opponent the proper distance with the control of the opponent's blade. This leads to another common épée tactic: the invitation and parry-riposte. As below:

Student:makes deep approach in stepping forward, dropping the tip of his or her blade in invitation.
Coach:makes an attack to the students forearm or chest.
Student:steps back and makes a parry of counter-6 and riposte with opposition to coach's arm or body.

The student's step forward entices the coach to make a direct attack to the body, while dropping the blade slightly to remove any temptation for the coach to attack the forward target. Stepping back, the student escapes the attack and puts the coach at a tempo disadvantage: with the student's hand not an obvious target, the coach attacks to the student's body. This target is more than one-tempo away, and the student easily parries the coach's attack. The student controls the coache's blade with a riposte in opposition to prevent a remise. As on the attack, control of timing and distance on the defence is essential.

The coach must also show the student that if the opponent is over-eager and acts too soon, or makes a correct preparation but hesitates, the student can escape and turn the tables on the opponent, as below:

Coach:makes quick—but shallow—advance and captures student's blade in 4.
Student:jumps back, and rolls off the capture to make a counter-attack in the opposite line as the coach attempts to finish his or her attack.

The student can often give the opponent a blade "cue", in the anticipation that the opponent will not recognize that the student has simultaneously denied the opponent the distance to score. In this lesson the student "pulls" the coach/opponent out to get hit, while "cuing" the coach when to begin the attack:

Student:strong advance towards coach, followed by an immediate retreat to let off the pressure.
Coach:advances to fill the distance.
Student:makes a counter-6 sweep at the end of the coach's advance.
Coach:disengages the student's sweep and lunges.
Student:with an additional retreat, makes a counter-attack in the middle of the coach's disengage to score.

In defense and attack the student faces choices in targets. When defending, opening the space to make actions to the opponent's hand insures that the student is (mostly) safe, but the hand is very difficult to hit. Allowing the distance to collapse to score against the opponent's easier hit torso is dangerous without controlling the opponent's blade.

Student:Slightly out of distance, makes a half advance with a sweep through 4 for the coach's blade.
Coach:Avoids the sweep and attacks with a lunge.
Student:Makes a parry of 6 and scores with opposition or with croise.

This is a classic counter-time action by the student. The student gives the illusion of closing the distance (with the half step) while searching for the coach's blade. The coach is "unaware" that the distance is not optimal for an attack to the student's body, and tries to cover the distance with a slightly longer than one-tempo lunge. The student has lured the coach into a classic mistake: the coach believes that because he can reach the student, he can score. The student, however, has time to make a parry and riposte against the coach.

With a few exceptions (such as the lesson above), the student is being taught to open the space to score against the coach/opponent when defending. In some cases, the student may want to collapse the space to score. By collapsing the space suddenly the student may catch the opponent still preparing and unready to attack. Timed correctly, the student can catch the opponent with his or her blade in a such position that the opponent cannot easily score. The student may also collapse the space and control the opponent's blade at the same time as the distance is changed, as in the case when taking a strong parry while moving forward. Collapsing the space should not be over used by a student in a bout, or a coach in the lesson. It works because it is unexpected, and the student is able to take advantage of an opponent who is not ready to score, but closing the space anyway. In-fighting as a situation should be practiced, but is probably best avoided as a tactic except with very advanced students.



Épée Tempo and the Lesson

In the lesson, simple attacks over more than one tempo should not be done by the student. The coach should give the student actions in lesson that reflect realistic tempos and distances. However, an inexperienced épée coach may not have significant fencing or coaching experience to feel the correct tempo for every situation. At the start, the new coach may have to determine tempo in a lesson very roughly, until coaching experience (and trial and error by his or her student's on the strip) acclimate the coach. An rough guide for the new coach: on the attack or the defense, the student should attack the target closest to their point (either directly or indirectly), before proceeding to a deeper target. For instance:

Coach:sweeps for the student's blade while retreating.
Student:avoids the sweep, and seeing that his or her point is in front of the coach's hand, makes a small lunge to the hand.
Coach:makes a counter 6 parry while stepping forward.
Student:the student's point rolls off the coach's parry of 6 and is now past the coach's hand, close to the coach's chest. The student remises to the coach's chest.

This is a slightly artificial example, yet it is a common series of hits in beginning and intermediate épée. At each step, the student does not extend his or her attack out too far. When the distance collapses, the student would have been pressed to retreat enough to put the point back in front of the coach's hand, so a remise to the body made more sense in terms of the tempo available.

Sometimes this rule requires that the student move backward to attack the closest target. In this example, the student's initial attack to a near target fails. Rather than trying to cover a big distance to the coach's body, the student makes a longish recovery to put the point back in front of the coach's hand to score:

Student:attacks the coach's hand with a small lunge, landing just in front the bell.
Coach:makes a blade parry of 4, and advances while holding the student's blade.
Student:makes a long retreat on the recovering from the lunge, "rolling off" the coach's parry to replace the point and score on the coach's hand in the opposite line.

In this lesson, there might be the temptation to teach the student to make a strong remise to the body or thigh. The shallow penetration of the initial attack, however, would not give the student enough time to make the remise and avoid a counter-attack by the coach (who has to only snap the point down to score against the student). Opening the space on the recovery puts the coach's near target close to and in front of the student's point, giving the student a better chance of a one-light touch.

It is difficult for the coach to cover every tempo/distance situation, and every possible opponent. Even so, if the student is given the correct tempo in the lesson, it will assist their "feel" of tempo in a bout, even in situations not covered in their training. The coach's examples of tempo serve as templates of common situations, to which the student adds bouting experience. The student given a feel for tempo in training will make fewer mistakes and learn from bouting much faster than a student not exposed to good examples of tempo in training.

There is a danger, however, in following this rough guide to determining tempo too slavishly. In simple situations, this rule has some validity. Under this guide, the new fencer will become accustomed to attacking the hand or the foot as a preparation, and continuing to the body when the coach creates the proper tempo. Rarely do real opponents always cooperate with an ideal lesson situation, however. For instance, the opponent fencing with a strong absence of blade may keep his or her hand well out of normal fencing position. Against this opponent, the rule breaks down and an inexperienced student may make the mistake of "chasing the hand", or attacking the opponent's body from too far way.6 The observant coach will note these situations, and work in lesson to resolve them with the student. As with fencing itself, the beginning coach will learn from his or her mistakes, or the mistakes of the students they teach.



Conclusions

Unlike the classic épée of 50 years ago, the modern épée fencer uses many more tools to develop attacks. The hand and the foot remain targets of opportunity, but when given the tempo, an épée fencer's preference is to score to the deeper targets of the torso and thigh. Exploiting these tempos, however, takes practice, skill, and power. All three must be used in combination to score decisive hits. A modern épée fencer is constantly moving and attempting to create tempo or exploit the opponent's mistakes in tempo, while staying in balance, prepared to execute an attack or a defense at any time.

It is the job of a coach not just to teach actions, but to teach the appropriate tempos with these actions. It is imperative for the coach to reinforce good choices of tempos and targets to the student. Lessons that feature long, deep attacks are very impressive to an audience, but condition the student to make attacks in inappropriate tempos. Reinforcement of good tempo and good target choices in the lesson is the best way to educate the student in when and where to attack.


1My thanks to Neal Durando for this excellent observation during an email exchange in the winter of 2007.

2Much of the next three paragraphs on tempo comes from Cues in Tempo and The Importance of Preparation on this web site. Please see these web pages for a more discussion of tempo.

3This has been partially rectified with the publishing of Épée 2.0 by Johan Harmenberg, the World and Olympic champion from Sweden. this book, however deals with the transition from the "old" game of épée to the "new" game of épée and does not give many insights on the evolution of the weapon since that time (the 1970's).

4The classical solution is to teach the beginning épée fencer to remise to the elbow in this situation. However, this action takes a surprising amount of point control. Most beginning épée fencers simply remise to the body in this situation, and hope for the best.

5It is this bouncing/hopping footwork that leads to the distinctive, half-lunge on guard of many épée fencers. The lower on guard loads the powerful quadriceps muscles for quick movement, and the lower center of gravity assures that the fencer will not move out of balance.

6Opponents who fence with an absence of blade, especially those that combine this with gripping a French handle by the pommel, bedevil many beginning épée fencers. I have had some success in building drills and lessons with the student imagining where the opponent's hand would be if they were fencing a conventional on guard.

Written November 2007, last edit, January 2008. I would like to thank Coach Gary Copeland and Coach Jim Denton for their long discussions on this subject, which have helped immensely, and Neal Durando for his assistance.

Copyright © 2007 by Allen L Evans. This article may be reproduced freely, as long as it remains unmodified and his copyright notice is included.