Home | Articles | Workshops | About | Updates

There are countless reasons why an attack hits or fails: distance, explosiveness, mindset, choice of line, efficiency of execution, etcetera. What these mostly boil down to is the time to target - how long does it take from initiation to contact? If this is short, then the defender cannot parry and the attack will succeed. If it’s longer, then the attack will need to be more complex and able to defeat the defender’s potential responses. Both ‘long’ attacks and ‘short’ attacks can be very effective, but they need to be used differently. For this reason, it's important for fencers to understand which type of attack they are making and prepare it appropriately.

For visual stimulus, normal human reaction time is around a quarter of a second (250ms). Reactions are actually faster for audio or tactile stimulus, but we’ll leave those aside for the moment. This means that from the moment an attack begins, there is a minimum time of ~250ms before the defender can do anything in response to this. Any earlier reaction by the defender is either luck, or a reaction to something which happened before the attack (we’ll talk about telegraphing later). For the attacker to react to the defender’s response then takes at least an additional ~250ms. As a result of this, we can break down the attack into three range bands, based on time to target

Direct attack (less than ~300ms from initiation to contact). These happen at the closest range, hitting only with extension of the arm or a short step. When trying to stretch these out to maximum distance with footwork, the footwork must be fully committed — in order to reach the target as fast as possible, the lunge or pass has to be so explosive it will take additional time to recover balance after making the hit. These cannot be parried by a reaction to the attack itself, since there is no time to do so. If the defender parries, they will be reacting to something which occurred before the attack itself began, such as the attacker’s preparatory step into close distance.

Indirect attack (~300ms to ~600ms from initiation to contact). These happen at an intermediate range, hitting with a moderate step. At this distance, the defender is able to react to the attacker, with a parry or counterattack or otherwise. Critically, the attacker is not able to counter-react to the defender, since there is not enough time for two reaction cycles to occur. Therefore for the attack to hit reliably, the attacker needs to pre-plan how they will deal with the defender’s expected response, for example by disengaging the parry they have seen this defender tends to favour. Zbigniew Czajkowski calls this an ‘eyes-closed’ action Zbigniew Czajkowski, Understanding Fencing, SKA SwordPlay Books, 2005.

Eyes-open attack (more than ~600ms from initiation to contact). Finally we have attacks at the longest range, hitting with a very large step or potentially a combination of steps and blade actions. Again, the defender is able to react to the attacker during this attack, so it is unlikely to hit as a simple direct action. However, the attacker is now able to counter-react to the defender’s reaction, if it comes early in the attack. This allows ‘eyes-open’ plans, such as beginning an early extension as the attack begins without any specific plan for how to finish, and then hitting the target which becomes available in response to the defender’s specific choice. The defender may also choose to respond late, preventing a counter-reaction but instead allowing the attacker to use an indirect attack to finish.

Both indirect and eyes-open attacks can be grouped under the general heading of ‘long attacks’, and they often appear quite similar in practice. Both can end up looking like “I started my attack, evade your parry and hit to the available target”. In an indirect attack, the attacker has pre-decided what the parry is likely to be and how to defeat it, and they execute this plan regardless of whether there is actually a parry. In an eyes-open attack, the attacker has not decided in advance what to do and is reacting in real-time to the action they observe. This gives flexibility, but allows the defender additional options (such as feinting a parry to set up their real parry) which would not be available in the eyes-closed indirect attack.

It might seem a little unusual to talk about ‘range bands’ based on time, instead of distance. This is done for two reasons: firstly, it connects directly to reaction time, which is the underlying basis of these categories. Secondly, the same distance might be in very different time bands for different fencers or situations. Explosiveness and height are two obvious factors here, but there are other important ones. One is efficiency — an action which is straight and direct to the target will be quicker than one which takes unnecessary deviations or detours - and so can fall into a shorter time band even from the same distance. Another is movement — if I’m trying to hit someone who is moving backwards, the time to target will be longer even if my attack was launched at the same initial distance.

Finally, it’s worth saying a few words about telegraphing. When looking at attacks in this way, a telegraph can be understood simply as any (unconscious & unnecessary) action which allows the defender to begin reacting before the attack is initiated. The general result of this is to push the attack up the range bands — what could have been a direct attack will now be exposed to a reaction and so needs to be handled as an indirect attack instead. Obviously, some such actions are necessary: in order to make a direct attack, the distance must be very close and so a step forwards is required first. The defender can attempt to pre-emptively parry in response to this step. So I find it makes most sense to only consider a movement a telegraph when it is unnecessary for the performance of the action and is not consciously part of the attacker’s plan.

I welcome questions, comments or feedback on this article. You can reach me by email:

tea at fechtlehre dot org