Friday, July 24, 2009 Mastreo Myer with David Achileus

[Lafaugere]

Why are you making the subsequent changes of engagement when they are never being answered? If they fail to disengage in the first action why not attack the line you are now threatening? I understand this is a plastron lesson but what is the point if the teacher is not responding to your initial actions. What is this programming into your fencing? Just curious...I like what I am seeing though.

[givebreak]

L,

First there is the technical ability to do so. maintaining the engagement on the change can be tricky as you will likely displace the original point of contact.

Second is the tactical reason. I may not want the first line on the change, but the second line. Or, I may need the second line to evoke the enemy's response. Should the enemy move on the first line I have all the contraries to use anyway.