The distance parry is executed by a timed retreat to make the opponent’s attack fall short, ending the attack. The stop is immediately followed by a response. However, some reject the stop-by-distance status as a stop and deny that the following response is actually a response. Although the default when studying classical fencing is always to be consistent with the school and master studied, the Classical Weapons Academy believes that the parry by distance and response is a valid theoretical construct that must be understood.

Luigi Barbasetti (1932) stated that “any move that renders an opponent’s attack harmless is a parry.” Included in this is the step back. Barbasetti’s characterization was consistent with Masaniello Parise’s earlier description (1884, Holzman’s translation): “from any fencing action, it is possible to defend with the stop by distance done by taking a step back.

• Defensive actions are usually described as avoidances or parries with blades.

• Offensive action after a save is commonly called a response, no matter how it is delivered.

• The flow of combat in the classical period is the opponent’s attack, the defender’s defense against the attack, the defender’s immediate attack after the defense. This construction of the fencing phrase is an almost universal constant in the period, and is a tactically coherent model, expressed as attack, parry-response.

The contrary opinion is that neither the stop nor the replica in the stop by distance are what they say they are. Rather, in this modern view, the fencer “stands back” (takes a small step back) and then “takes charge of the attack”.

• The argument is that a parry occurs only when there is contact with the blade, either by tac-au-tac (the strike parry), blade opposition, or flying parry. This is certainly the dominant view of what a stop was; most classical period texts readily available in English do not address the idea of ​​retreating and then attacking; one stopped on the spot and retaliated. Deladrier (1948) went so far as to say that a beginner who learns to withdraw from an attack will lose confidence in his parries.

• Because there is no stop, the action after the shooter retreats cannot be a response. It must be a new attack.

Although it’s tempting to think of this as a discussion of word choice, it misses the point. Many sources based on the French school generally ignore retreat as a defense against attack. This may have been a cultural value, reflected in the term Ninth Parry or Coward’s Parry (an English term of uncertain age), which appeared as a consensus that a retreat step was a dishonorable way of avoiding an attack.

A convenience sample suggests that the sources discussing stopping by distance are based on Italian or Italian schools. This terminology reflected the concept that a parry beats the attack and tied the response to the parry by distance. This is different from the idea that the defender is now starting a separate attack. The link is important because it considers the relationship between the retreat, the opponent’s actions, and the response to strike against a recovery as a unified flow conducted with the same tactical considerations as a sword-based parry and response. Understanding this construction provides a valuable perspective for fencing it.