Fencing on the Frozen Tundra

January 5, 2010

7th Incontro

Filed under: Incontro — milwaukeetourney @ 10:47 pm

The text reads: “When two fencers launch an assault at the same moment, both are at fault.”

This is the most straightforward and intuitive of the incontri. If both fencers attack at the same time without making any attempt to protect themselves, they are both at fault.

6th Incontro

Filed under: Incontro — milwaukeetourney @ 10:43 pm

EDITED Video posted

The text reads: “When, during an attack with an advance, the attacker stops or hesitates after the first step, and then invites or feints, thus provoking a counterattack, he is in error.”

This is perhaps the most complicated of the incontri. It defines the priority of entering into distance while making an attack. Implicitly, what this is saying is that the attack must be a single uninterrupted action. As long as it meets the other requirements for priority (line, time, and measure), the advancing attack has priority. However, if the advancing fencer pauses upon entering into distance, his attack has ended, and he no longer has priority. Any attack made after this pause is a second, separate attack, for which priority has to be established anew.

December 30, 2009

5th Incontro

Filed under: Incontro — milwaukeetourney @ 10:14 pm

The text of the incontro is: “When during the execution of an attack the opposing steel is not sufficiently deviated from the line and therefore causes a double hit, the attacker is at fault.”
This might seem at first to be similar to the first case, but is actually slightly different. While the first case deals with attacking into an attack, this incontro deals with lunging onto a point that is not attacking. In this case, the attacker is at fault.

4th Incontro

Filed under: Incontro — milwaukeetourney @ 10:10 pm

The text of this incontro is: “When a fencer has parried an attack and rests on the parry, and then ripostes late and is touched by a simple replacement or second thrust, the defender is responsible for the double hit and error.”
If Fencer A attacks, and is parried by Fencer B, and Fencer B rests on the parry, Fencer A can renew the attack. If Fencer B then ripostes, they are at fault.  The distinction between this case, and the 3rd case is the timing of the riposte.

3rd Incontro

Filed under: Incontro — milwaukeetourney @ 10:06 pm

The text of this incontro is: “When the simple replacement or second thrust is accomplished against an adversary who ripostes rapidly, and without a retreat, there is a double hit, the fencer who repeats the thrust is at fault.”
This one is fairly straightforward. Fencer A attacks, and is parried. Fencer B, who has parried, ripostes immediately, while Fencer A replaces the point. Fencer A is at fault for the double touch.

2nd Incontro

Filed under: Incontro — milwaukeetourney @ 10:01 pm

The text of this incontro is: “When, following a riposte with feints, the counterattacker effects the replacement in time, the counterattacker is in error.”
This is a slightly more complicated scenario. The example video begins with a few examples of correctly executed attacks: 1)a straight thrust (By the taller fencer, Charles)

2)followed by a straight thrust (Charles) that is parried (by Laura) and a riposte

3)followed by a straight thrust (Charles) that is parried (Laura), and a riposte that is actually a feint by glide and disengage (Laura) that evades a lateral parry (Charles).
What follows that is the incontro. The first part of the action is the same.  However, upon making his parry on the lunge, Charles makes a thrust, despite Laura having evaded his parry. Therefore, Charley (the counter-attacker) is at fault.

1st Incontro

Filed under: Incontro — milwaukeetourney @ 9:51 pm

The text of this incontro is: “When an attack is performed correctly in or out of measure, and is opposed with an arrest, time thrust, or body evasion in which the counterattacker neither covers himself with opposition of the hand, nor selects the propitious moment to initiate his action, the counterattacker is at fault.”
This is fairly straightforward. If you make a tempo attack (ie. attacking at the same time as your opponent) without sufficiently deviating the opponent’s point or removing your own target, you are at fault.  It should be clear, however, that one fencer attacks first, and the other fencer’s reaction to this is to attack back.

Incontro Videos

Filed under: Incontro — milwaukeetourney @ 9:49 pm

What follows are videos of members of the Milwaukee Classical Fencing Society demonstrating the seven incontros (double touches) described by Eugenio Pini.  These are the seven ways in which it is possible to create a double touch, and in each case one or the other or both of the fencers are at fault.  We have done this with a variety of fencers, at different speeds, and different angles, to make the situations described as clear as possible.

We are going to use these determinations as the rules for dealing with the double touch for our tournament, the fencer at fault in each case receiving the point.  These are all fairly intuitive, and are not really that different from the standard rules at most fencing tournaments.  The main difference is that in most tournament rules, either both fencers receive the touch, or neither do.  These rules provide a case for either one or the other fencer to receive the touch, or both.

It is emphasized that these rules only come into play if there is a double touch.

Please feel free to ask questions in the comments, by emailing milwaukeetourney@gmail.com, or at the tournament.

Blog at WordPress.com.