Distance plays a fundamental role in modern fencing. In its simplest form, the distance problem is “can I hit the opponent’s target area with my weapon, or do I have to use footwork to change the distance in order to hit?” Traditionally, this problem is described in terms of short, medium, and long distance, in that order. In modern highly mobile fencing, this is an inadequate characterization of the distance problem.

First we need to define the distance. Distance has been defined as the physical distance between the two shooters as measured by the extension and whether footwork (the lunge and forward lunge) is required to bring that weapon extension to the target. Given the differences in overall range, in saber and sword, forward aiming, and multiple distances depending on the intended target and the mobility of opponents, this has never really been satisfying. For example, a fencer can be at traditional medium distance (thrust), but to trap an opponent he has to launch the forward thrust attack within the opponent’s response time and OODA loop.

The first change to thinking about modern distance is to reorder the distance from further to closer to the target. We do not initiate close range attacks with an extension. We have to get to the distance that the extension can hit.

Second, there are two sets of distances, yours and your opponent’s, and various subsets in sword and saber, depending on the target attacked and the target defended.

Third, we must include the tactical intent of the opponent into the equation. An attack received by the opponent collapsing the distance is no longer a thrust distance, and the tactical intent of the two shooters was never actually given.

Fourth, we need to use the actual tempo as the determinant of the distance. An attack with a thrusting thrust, even a rapid acceleration thrusting thrust, is a two-timing action and inherently takes longer and is therefore tactically slower than a thrusting attack. This is regardless of how the rules define a forward thrust for right-of-way purposes.

And finally, there are three special cases. The counteroffensive occurs within a tempo. Infighting distance and passing distance are two special cases where the action occurs independently of tempo (infighting) and as an expanding tempo (passing).

So what is a better approach? The old division into 3 or 5 distances is less relevant in modern fencing than an approach based on fluidity of action. I suggest distances that are actual envelopes of space and time:

Set-up distance: distance at which set-up foot and paddle work is required to get to the distance you can expect to hit the mobile opponent in a two-time action (tempo is actually defined as the time to complete an action simple sword or footwork). regardless of how the rules define the tempo for right-of-way purposes).

Two-Count Distance: The distance at which you can hit the opponent on the intended target with a two-cool attack. This can be the old distance if the opponent is stepping forward or the middle distance if the opponent is expected to fall back under attack. For the defender, this is the distance at which the blade setup or final action can be defeated and at which the defender’s action can control the pace required for the response.

One Tempo Distance: The distance at which a one tempo blade action or a combined one tempo blade action and footwork can result in a hit. This can be anywhere in the old lunge or lunge forward distances. For the defender this is the envelope to defeat the final attack or the distance at which the advanced parry intercepts the early development of the attack.

Inside time or counter-offensive distance: the distance at which the attacked fencer can hit with counter-offensive. With fast footwork, this can be anywhere within two or one tempo distances of the attacker. The defender is literally operating within one of the attacker’s tempos.

Infighting Distance: The distance at which tempo is largely irrelevant, the action is confused with multiple attempts to set the sword, and unusual attitudes are required to reach the target.

Passing Distance – The opening distance as the opponent passes the defender and at which the referee’s assessment of the immediacy of the defender’s attempt to hit becomes the dominant factor as to whether the hit is allowed.

This approach requires a good tactical understanding of both the attacker’s and defender’s courses of action by both fencers, identifies the category of actions each will need, accounts for the movement of both fencers, and sequences the distances in the actual flow of the fencer. combat to start. where the action begins It is not something that is taught in a beginner’s class. However, for intermediate and advanced fencers it should make distance more relevant, not just something you read about in the first chapter of a fencing manual.