This is a compilation video we made for our recent workshop on second intention actions, Featuring a heap of amazing actions from the 2013-2014 A-grade men’s sabre circuit. Fun was had with the music selection for this one.
This is a compilation video we made for our recent workshop on second intention actions, Featuring a heap of amazing actions from the 2013-2014 A-grade men’s sabre circuit. Fun was had with the music selection for this one.
Marching attacks have become more powerful this year, as updates to the FIE rule interpretations have given more flexibility to the attacker. We ran a workshop recently on how to take them down.
To illustrate, we made a video, using a compilation of successful defensive actions from the 2014 Coupe Acropolis in Athens. Starring Nikolai Kovalev (RUS), Daryl Homer (USA), Aron Szilagyi (HUN), Won Wooyoung (KOR), Veniamin Reshetnikov (RUS), Oh Eunseok (KOR) and Maximilian Kindler (GER).
Hope it’s useful!
Sabreurs have a choice at the start line.
Two members of the Korean men’s sabre team, Gu Bon Gil and Kim Jung Hwan, use combos of unusual techniques to attack in the 4m without completely sacrificing the tactical flexibility of preparations.
Here’s a video:
The overall idea of these combos is to use a very direct long-range attack to beat (or match) the opponent’s preparation and defensive actions, then occasionally abort the attack with an aggressive check fall-short based on the cross-over. We’ll look at the attack in this post, and follow up on the fall short at a later date.
Gu Bon Gil regularly employs an attack which enables him to hit an opponent anywhere from the middle line to their start line during a single advance lunge, without requiring Gu to pick an attack distance prior to launch or make adjustments mid-air. The attack is composed of:
In case you didn’t watch the video, it looks something like this:
We’ll look at each component in turn.
The primary role of the advance is to give the fencer sufficient momentum to launch the lunge. The advance thus needs to be fast enough to impart momentum to the fencer but not so fast that it causes the fencer to lock up or hesitate prior to the lunge. We figure it’s probably around 80% power for most people.
The fencer needs to keep their weight and focus on driving through the back foot, minimalise weight on the front foot, stay upright and not lean forward. When done correctly, the advance looks like it ‘skims’ the ground with the front foot releasing for the lunge just as the back foot touches the ground at the end of the advance.
Should the fencer detect a hesitation or a retreat in their opponent during the advance, the fencer can extend their attack range by bringing their back foot all the way forward to their front foot before launching the lunge. This action can extend the attack range by another 1.0m -which will hit an opponent well behind their start line.
Alternatively, the fencer can ‘soft abort’ their attack by driving their back foot softly into the ground at the end of the advance to convert their lunge into an advance lunge. We recommend this option over the long lunge because it gives the fencer more control during the attack, more opportunities for feints and other preceding actions, and greater range. However, conversion from lunge to advance lunge may not be possible if the opponent’s action is well-disguised or late.
The lunge is long and direct. Its range is around 50% more than a lunge from standing position. This extra power comes from the momentum of the preceding advance. The fencer must therefore avoid any deceleration of their attack during the transition from advance to lunge. As noted earlier, Gu efficiently transitions from advance to lunge by keeping his weight off the front foot and releasing it as soon as his back foot touches the ground.
A good advance lunge has a characteristic tempo signature of 1-2…pause…3, or “bada…boom”, from the advance…lunge.
Gu’s blade actions are direct but have flexibility to disengage to different targets during the lunge to deceive the opponent’s parries without being called as preparations.
The first attack is a flat cut to the opponent’s flank (assuming same handed opponent). This flank cut is designed to hit an opponent that advance-lunges, in their arm or flank, early in the lunge. The cut is flat to whipover the opponent’s guard if it comes in the same line of the attack.
If the opponent hesitates, usually because they are preparing and/or looking for the parry, Gu disengages his flank cut to hit flat on the belly. He sometimes replaces this with a cutover to chest. Either way, the chest/belly cut hits during the mid to late phase of the lunge and is highly angulated and flat to hit through the opponent’s parry.
All of the actions described above are done while Gu is still in mid-air. If the opponent manages to retreat out of range of these attacks, Gu remises his disengage-belly-hit to the high line. This remise looks like an attack to head…but it’s only a feint. The real hit occurs as Gu lands his front foot for the lunge and is either a belly or flank cut, depending on opponent’s hand position.
Gu’s attack combo is very effective at hitting the opponent while maintaining priority across most situations in the 4m. The only way for an opponent to win is to either take parry in the 4m – risky – or retreat both late and so quickly that Gu misses the attack. In the latter case, the opponent will almost always be so off-balance and distant that Gu can mount an effective defense.
Work on your parries.
Although there’s always the chance this will happen.
The net effect is that the opponent is left with very few options other than to attack every time in the hope that they get a lucky attack or the simultaneous.
Facebook turned up something interesting this morning, via the guys at the fantastic Swordsport Productions page:
It comes from the guys over at The Fencing Coach. They’ve used the Elo rating system, which was developed for chess but is now used across a range of sports to track player performance and predict match results. It’ll be fascinating to see how it stands up to the experimental test tomorrow in Kazan. It pretty much exactly mirrors my predictions last week, which have been based largely on anecdotal observation of the 2013/2014 A-grade season. Here’s to a Kim v Reshetnikov final!
Those of you who’ve trained at Sydney Sabre may already be familiar with Elo: it’s the system we use for our internal ranking scoreboard. The data we collect is not as useful for predicting the results of a standard competition, as we include the results of matches fenced with handicaps, but it is an extremely powerful predictor of match outcomes under our standard club training conditions, and functions very well in its primary role as a matchmaking system.
It’s worth noting that this isn’t based on the win/loss results over the season, as a true Elo model should be, only on the FIE ranking at the end of the season. The aim is apparently to do a proper Elo model over 2014/2015, and it will be very interesting to see how that stacks up against the more traditional FIE points-based rankings.
As far as Friday goes, my personal suspicion is that an on-form Szilagyi has the edge on Reshetnikov if the two should meet in the semifinal. Szilagyi, however, is likely to face a couple of difficult early matches against the kind of awkward fencers he traditionally has trouble with. Given the table above, my pick is for a Kim/Szilagyi final, in which Szilagyi will probably have the upper hand given Kim’s recent spate of injuries.
That said, margins in sabre are so small that attempts at casual punditry are unlikely to end well. This is why a true Elo model for 2015 would be so tremendously exciting.
The march in sabre has changed significantly since the introduction of the current cutoff times in 2004. Gone are the days when the attack in sabre meant that you would advance on your opponent expecting to finish with their counterattack. The athleticism and timing of A-grade sabreurs make it difficult, if not impossible, for a marching attacker to react fast enough to a well-timed blade action from the defender.
Over the last 10 years, sabreurs and referees have developed a whole new class of marching attacks. These marches focus on surprising the defender with rapid tempo and distance changes, rather than finishing with the counterattack. Here’s a video summarising the latest range of marching attacks as demonstrated in the 2014 Athens World Cup.
You can’t learn fencing from a book.
Every few weeks, we’ll get a keen fencer at SSC who asks if there is a book that explains some aspect of fencing, like how to make a cut, take a parry, or what to do off the start line. We get these requests a lot, and we generally refer them to the stack of fencing manuals that we have strewn around the lounge.
It soon becomes readily apparent that while books can provide a lot of background information on how to fence, there is no substitute for actually doing it. Detailed explanations on the bio-mechanics of the lunge are a poor substitute for actually practising lunges and having someone knowledgeable refine your form.
The same goes for refereeing. There are plenty of fencing rules (check out http://www.britishfencing.com/governance/rules/fie-rules/ for the English translations of the official FIE rules). The fundamental role of a referee is to apply these rules to the bout.
Problem is, the rules don’t provide enough detail to cover all the richness of what happens in a real bout. No set of rules is ever likely to do this. So real-life referees have standardised interpretations of the rules that they apply in bouts. These interpretations cover the nuances in real life bouts that the written rules don’t, or can’t.
Take the classic example of attack-counterattack at the start of the bout. From the FIE Technical Rulebook (translation courtesy of British Fencing):
T.7.1 The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche (cf. t.56ss, t.75ss).
T.8.3 Counter-attacks are offensive or offensive–defensive actions made during the offensive action of the opponent.
T.75.1 Any attack properly executed (cf. t.7) must be parried, or completely avoided, and the phrase must be continuous.
T.80.1 When during a phrase both fencers are hit simultaneously there is either a simultaneous action or a double-hit.
T.80.3 The fencer who is attacked is alone counted as hit:
a) If he makes a stop hit on his opponent’s simple attack;
b) If, instead of parrying, he attempts to avoid the hit and does not succeed in so doing;
c) If, after making a successful parry, he makes a momentary pause (delayed riposte) which gives his opponent the right to renew the attack (redoublement, or remise or reprise);
d) If, during a compound attack, he makes a stop hit without being in time;
e) If, having his point ‘in line’ (cf. t.10) and being subjected to a beat or a taking of the blade (prise de fer) which deflects his blade, he attacks or places his point in line again instead of parrying a direct hit made by his opponent.
T.80.4 The fencer who attacks is alone counted as hit:
a) If he initiated his attack when his opponent had his point ‘in line’, without deflecting the opponent’s weapon. Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent’s blade.
b) If he attempts to find the blade, does not succeed (because of a derobement) and continues the attack.
c) If, during a compound attack, he allows his opponent to find the blade, and continues the attack while his opponent ripostes immediately.
d) If, during a compound attack, he bends his arm or makes a momentary pause, during which time the opponent makes a stop hit or an attack while the attacker continues his own attack.
e) If, during a compound attack, he is stop-hit one period of fencing time (temps d’escrime) before he makes his final movement.
Whew! There are plenty of other sub-rules defining simple, indirect and compound attacks but the main rules are above. So – have a crack at separating the calls in the video below based on those rules:
Plenty of tough calls were made in that video, calls that less experienced referees would have abstained from or called ‘simultaneous’. These calls are tough because they require a referee to recognise actions that are not easily described by written rules, relying instead on interpretations that say that this action is a preparation while another is an attack. Further, these interpretations must be the same across all FIE referees.
So if the interpretations are so important, why aren’t they written down in the rules?
One reason is that there are so many situations that the interpretations cover that trying to write them all down is impractical. Another is that, like with other aspects of fencing, the written word is a poor substitute for actually seeing it in action. A third reason is that the interpretations change from season to season – how bouts were refereed even in 2008 is markedly different from bouts in 2012, a single Olympic cycle.
The upshot is that there is no substitute for refereeing under supervision and watching calls being made correctly by other referees, on a regular basis. Bad referees read the rules and try to apply them from first principles to the situation. Infuriatingly bad referees take interpretations from previous seasons and refuse to update their interpretations for the current one.
Good referees make a lot of regular, up-to-date empirical observations so they can correctly apply the rules to the situation they see before them. With the current availability of sabre videos from top competitions freely available on the web, there is no excuse for any referee, even those in the murkiest backwaters of the fencing world, to be less than competent in making the right calls in sabre.
Just got back from the Athens A-grade Senior World Cup a few days ago and spent most of my time there hanging out with referees and taking videos. The refereeing has changed significantly in the last couple of years, with a strong element of rewarding fencers for accomplishing the actions that they attempt, while penalising incidental hits or gaining priority. Here’s a video that summarises the changes for an experienced sabre referee:
Below is a summary of refereeing and fencing points I made while on the road. I’ll follow up with a more comprehensive analysis of current sabre tactics and refereeing guidelines over the next couple of months as I digest some of the other videos that have been coming out of the Chicago world cup.
The last post and its conclusions (in a nutshell: start the bout in slow prep and bias towards the attack; move towards fast prep and defence in the second half) seem to have generated some interest and more than a few questions. Main groups of questions were:
I’m currently laid up for at least a week tending to another quadriceps tendonitis flare-up (9 months and counting), so here, have some answers and more stats.
We used competitions with World Cup-grade sabre fencers, even if the event itself was not a world cup. To date the dataset is small but should grow every time new competition videos become available. Bouts used to date were:
Being as we are in Australia, we rely pretty heavily on videos from the FIE and Andrew Fischl (a.k.a CyrusofChaos) for the analysis. We do plan on wandering off to a couple of World Cups this year to grab some of our own videos as well.
How are you classifying preparations and actions, and do you have a rigorous set of definitions for each?
We’re classifying preparations and actions according the main teaching syllabus used at the Sydney Sabre Centre (aka the Codex). The terms are broadly based on those used in fencing clubs based in the USA, the UK and Australia but have been extensively revised and clarified (e.g. we make a distinction between a ‘step’ with just the front foot, and an ‘advance’ made with a front step and bringing up the back foot). When the latest version gets updated I’ll probably post the glossary to the blog, but it’s a fairly involved affair with several hundred entries.
The other part is whether the classification of actions themselves are rigorous. That’s a tougher question to answer. Most the analysis has been done by me at this stage, so at least the data are more or less consistent. The other folks who are doing the classifications are all sabre fencers who have been trained at Sydney Sabre for at least a year, so the classifications should also be broadly consistent with how I’m doing it. Upshot is that I think the data are okay, but the noise level is high and we should be careful about drawing conclusions from small statistical differences, especially before we’ve tested it on the piste.
Really, defense with fast prep?
Yes. Though our local itinerant Korean swordsman, Dong Hwan Kim, was stressing the point that we should be starting with slow prep with a bias on the attack. Ably demonstrated at a recent NSW state competition before he started messing around:
One of the notable things in this bout was how more than half the successful preparations were slow, followed by medium prep. Fast preparations made up less than 10% of the successful preparations. What’s more interesting is what the different preparations worked against: slow preparations succeeded against all other types of preparation, but fast never beat slow, and medium only worked against medium prep.
From slow preparation the most common winning action was AiT, and this combo made up about a third of all successful actions in the entire bout.
The second most common action was advance then fall short, usually from either a slow or medium prep. These occurred about a quarter of the time. Yet these combos had fairly bad odds of success – advance fall short in slow and medium prep made up about half of all unsuccessful actions as well.
Less commonly attempted actions which had an excellent success rate were advance draw cut, AoP fall short and advance back step counter-attack. Why? One possibility is that each of these actions encourage the opponent to do what you want them to do, e.g. advance back step encourages the opponent to hold their attack for the counterattack, advance (extension) induces the opponent to launch an extended attack for your draw cut, and AoP/check helps your opponent finish short. By contrast, advance fall short induces your opponent to hold their attack, which isn’t great if you’re attempting to make them fall short.
So – slow preparations and attacks work. At least if you’re a former Korean national junior team fencer up against a totally outclassed opponent (which for now is pretty much all of us).
In the next few posts I’ll start laying out some early ideas about how to do decent stats analysis on actions outside of the 4m – a harder problem because of more external factors, more scope for false positive/negatives, and greater variety of parameters – and a couple of articles on the biomechanics of sabre footwork and how we’re going to get my knee back in shape before the Athens World Cup.
Sabre fencing was once the weakest discipline of the three Olympic fencing events. It had a reputation for being a loud and boring sport where every point consisted of two guys charging at each other, then screaming at the referee to award them the point.
Since the 2008 Olympics, such simultaneous actions in sabre have become less common. There are a few reasons. Referees have become much more consistent in awarding the attack to the first person who commits to a lunge, rather than the person who runs in the quickest (or yells the loudest). Sabreurs have also become better at hitting on their opponent’s preparation. They’ve also become a lot more mobile than say 10 or 20 years ago. This all makes for some interesting exchanges at the start of the bout – people can’t just run into the middle expecting to get the attack or the simultaneous. Case in point: the men’s sabre team final at the London 2012 Olympics between South Korea and Romania. (edit: Apparently the IOC doesn’t let third part sites link to Olympics videos, even if they are on Youtube. Have some sweet World Championships action instead.)
But wait: there were still a large number of simultaneous actions at the start. Conventional theory says that the best basic tactic in sabre is still to use the simultaneous, especially at the start and end of the bout, to set up other actions. These actions should be set up with a slow preparation step (very common at the 2008 Olympics), and almost never with fast footwork in the middle (due to the risk of the opponent attacking on preparation).
So the questions on my mind are:
For the purposes of this exercise, I defined ‘success’ as either winning the point immediately in the 4m centre zone, or the winning the priority outside of the 4m centre zone immediately after the initial exchange of actions.
I got the data by enlisting folks from the Sydney Sabre Centre to watch Youtube videos of World Cup bouts and other high-level competitions. Each point in these bouts was classified in terms of:
I did some quick and dirty frequency counts in Excel of the preliminary data (from two team bouts and six individual bouts, 244 data points). Here is the summary table for the analysis as of October 2013:
Simultaneous attacks initiated by one party (denoted as “AiT”) succeeded only 39% of the time, despite comprising around 49% of all attempted actions.
Simultaneous works okay against advance fall short (i.e. a sloppy retreat without using a check) and counter-attacks, but rarely works against opponents who use a check fall short (denoted as AoP fall short), attacks on preparation (denoted AoP), and even the risky parry riposte forward.
Slow preparations are okay – but its more important to either go slow or fast than to be somewhere in the middle.
Slow preparations were attempted less often (97 counts) than fast (173) or medium preparations (220). They were successful about half the time, whereas fast preparations were successful slightly more often (57%) and medium preparations slightly less (47%).
I’m not sure exactly why this is, but it’s interesting.
No easy answer here, but the most successful combos appear to be:
An important caveat is that the distance between the sabreurs is critical – some actions have very different odds of success when the distances are small (i.e. ‘deep’ distance):
Compare situations where the distance is large (i.e. ‘short’):
On reflection, the above isn’t too different from what most of my coaches have been telling me for the past couple of years. One of the more intriguing anomalies is the draw cut, which was a significant part of the game played by guys like Lopez from a few years ago, but has become a little rarer in recent years. It appears to be a bit more effective than I would have expected. By contrast, advance parry riposte is making a comeback (see Chicago 2013 team finals) but doesn’t appear to have great odds for success.
Next steps are to get a few thousand more data points and test out the above in training to see if it all works – and why.
Science is a method to distil truth from the world. The core of science is experimentation: formulating a hypothesis about how something works, aggressively testing it, collecting observations in the form of data, analysing the results, and coming to a conclusion. All of these steps require “invention, sagacity, [and] genius” (Whewell, History of Inductive Science, 1837, and in Philosophy of Inductive Science, 1840) – and in my personal experience, a generous helping of luck.
It can be nigh on impossible to truly apply the scientific method in some fields. I have the greatest respect for people trying to work in these areas, and a fair amount of sympathy too. Sometimes it’s because no one can figure out how to actually do more than just observe, for example in astrophysics. In other cases, such as economics, ethical considerations limit the scale and types of experiments that can be performed. Then there are those fields where the results are so ambiguous as to challenge the best analytical techniques available, like psychology and nutrition.
Scientific methods are slowly becoming more common in areas far removed from the halls of academia. Evidence-based policy making in government, data analytics in business strategy, and sports analysis are three ways in which the tools and mindsets of science are being disseminated through to broader society. These are tough fields to work in, given the complexity of the systems involved, the constraints on what can be done, and time scales available; but the potential rewards are huge.
This blog documents my attempts to apply science to my day-to-day life. The idea that truth comes from experimentation is probably the one constant in my career to date – a career that has been maddeningly unfocused: I started off as an engineering undergrad in computer engineering, then branched off to medical science, cryptanalysis, photonics and surface (bio)-chemistry before going to grad school in molecular biophysics (supervised by a former bioscience head at Los Alamos). The birth of my first son knocked me off my career trajectory, whatever that might have been. These days I work as a management consultant for a cool boutique by day, and a sabre fencing instructor by night.
I’ll try to tackle three questions in this blog for the most part:
I’ll be relying on you to keep challenging the assertions in this blog. The name, by the way, comes from a bit of wisdom from a grizzled old post-doc back when I first started in a lab:
“Trust no one. Assume nothing. Show me the data.”