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 fences, this is an inadequate characterization of the distance problem.

First we have to define the distance. The distance has been defined as the physical distance between the two fencers measured by the extension and if necessary the footwork (the lunge and the forward lunge) to bring that extension of the weapon to the target. Given the differences in overall range, in saber and sword, forward targeting, and multiple distances based on intended target and opponents’ mobility, this has never really been satisfactory. For example, a fencer may be at a traditional medium distance (lunge), but to catch an opponent he must perform the attack with an advanced lunge within the opponent’s response time and the OODA loop.

The first change to thinking about modern distance is to reorder the distance from farther 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 go.

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

Third, we must include the opponent’s tactical intent in the equation. An attack received by the opponent collapsing distance is no longer at lunge range, and was never actually given the tactical intent of the two fencers.

Fourth, we need to use the actual tempo as a determinant of distance. An attack with a forward lunge, even a fast acceleration forward lunge, is a two-stroke action and inherently takes longer, so it is tactically slower than an attack with a lunge. This is regardless of how the rules define a forward lunge for right-of-way purposes.

And finally, there are three special cases. The counteroffensive occurs within a tempo. Inside fight distance and passing distance are two special cases where the action occurs independently of tempo (inside fight) and as an expansive tempo (pass).

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 the fluidity of the action. I suggest distances that are real envelopes of space and time:

Preparation distance: distance that preparatory work with the foot and blade is required to reach the distance that you can expect to hit the moving opponent in a two-beat action (the tempo is actually defined as the time to complete a simple blade or footwork action regardless of how the rules define tempo for right-of-way purposes).

Two-Beat Distance – Distance at which you can hit the opponent on the desired target with a two-beat attack. This can be the old out of range if the opponent steps forward or the middle distance if the opponent can be expected to retreat 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 tempo required for the response.

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

Inside Tempo or Counteroffensive Distance: the distance at which the attacked fencer can hit with the counteroffensive. With quick footwork, this can be anywhere within distances of two or a tempo from the attacker. The defender is literally operating within one of the attacker’s tempos.

In-Fight Distance: The distance at which the tempo is largely irrelevant, the action is confused with multiple attempts to place the blade, and unusual poses are required to hit the target.

Passing distance: the opening distance when the opponent overtakes the defender and in which the referee’s assessment of the immediacy of the defender’s attempted hit becomes the dominant factor in determining whether the hit is allowed.

This approach requires a good tactical understanding of the attacker and defender courses of action by both fencers, identifies the category of actions each will need, takes into account the movement of both fencers, and sequences the distances in the actual flow of the fence. combat to begin. where the action begins. It is not something I teach in a beginner class. However, for intermediate and advanced fencers, the distance should be more relevant, not just something you read about in the first chapter of a fencing manual.