Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Fencing, another kind of swordfighting

245

Posts

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Fire Truck wrote: »
    Why don't, instead of super strict strip fighting, let them circle around each other, in a slightly less strict encirclement?

    Because the way you can simply change the angle of your point means moving to the side of someone doesn't have much use.

    COMPLETELY 100% WRONG OH MY GOD THIS IS THE WRONGEST THING EVER EVEN MORE WRONG THAN BEING A GAY OR FUCKING BABIES

    Seriously, no, this is indicative of a very serious lack of understanding of combat in general. Minor angular adjustments that cause the opponent to miss and have to readjust his stance are incredibly important moves to be able to make in combat. Goddamn, that's like saying that slipping is useless in boxing, because the guy just has to readjust his jab by an inch to hit you in the face. Yeah, that's EXACTLY the point. He misses by an inch, and you're in position to hit him.

    You can move an inch, the mat is like an inch wide.

    Secondly if you aim for the face in fencing you are a fucking idiot.

    Thirdly you don't understand the sport.

    First, of course you can't sidestep WHEN YOU ARE ON A NARROW-ASS STRIP. No fucking shit! The question was "why don't we NOT FIGHT ON A NARROW STRIP" and I explained why sidestepping is useful. It is obvious that sidestepping is only useful when you have someplace to go.

    Second, you aim for the face in BOXING. Also, sabre has head cuts. I have, rarely, hit the face in fencing. It has its place, but it's not something you do every time. There's a section in The Book Of Five Rings, in the Fire chapter, specifically, entitled "Stabbing The Face" and describes the usefulness of that tactic. That was written by Musashi, widely regarded as the greatest Japanese swordsman and strategian ever to pick up a katana, but I guess he's a "fucking idiot" because you don't understand how and when to stab the face.

    Thirdly, I taught the sport professionally in a club that had multiple Olympians on staff. I fenced throughout my childhood, from age 10 to age 23. I competed at the national level. What qualifications do you have? Don't tell me I don't know the sport, I used to earn my fucking living from it.

    Jesus christ.

    Third time. A katana is a point/blade weapon.

    Completely different.

  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Why does fencing only take account the point of the weapon, as if it had no blade? I've never understood how that became the weapon of choice for duels, it seems so much less effective than a sword where you have the entire edge to work with.

    Mind you, I've obviously never used a sword against someone before.

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    You mean classical styles that involve sharp blades as opposed to single point weapons that completely change the style that you would use a point weapon?

    No I have never heard of that.

    And if you managed to read my post martial arts are completely different.

    Fencing IS a martial art. All martial arts are the same at their core, they all derive from the same principles. The specific applications and situations change, but the principles never do.

    If fencing was a martial art the we'd all fence epee rules with sabre style hits.

    It's a sport.

  • PussumPussum Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Fencing is cool, but there is way to much going on for me to keep up with while watching. I have never actually had a duel with someone, but it looks like it would be a great work out.

    venomsigva5.png
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    By the way, I love this video. The 2004 Olympic Fencing - Women's Saber finals.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=sg3yvKEQYc4

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    I'm willing to stop lurking in SE++ and start to talk about this fantastic sport.

    Yeah there's no tactical advantage to side-stepping, because the excuse we give is that it's supposed to represent fighting in a hallway. The strip or "piste" is like a meter wide so there's some room to move about a little, but most competitive fencers hug one side of the piste in order to minimize the attack vectors to just depth and height.

    Yes, this is correct, but it's a tautology. There's no advantage to side-stepping when side-stepping is impossible because of terrain. However, the question was about changing the terrain so that it doesn't look like a fight in the aisle of an airplane. If you did that, then side-stepping would be possible, and it would make sense tactically to use it.
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    And the face is completely valid target in epee and saber. If you flesche at the face, it creates a more threatening reaction from the other guy, and he's likely to make a wider parry or something. Saber cut to head happens all the time.

    So, who from SE++ fences where?

    Ah, yes, this is true. You can unbalance a person psychologically by striking the face. You can also cause them to flinch or react in a way that opens other targets. Controlling an opponent's mental/emotional state is very useful.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • EtchEtch Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender annihilates all competition when it comes to shit he knows.

  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    You mean classical styles that involve sharp blades as opposed to single point weapons that completely change the style that you would use a point weapon?

    No I have never heard of that.

    And if you managed to read my post martial arts are completely different.

    Fencing IS a martial art. All martial arts are the same at their core, they all derive from the same principles. The specific applications and situations change, but the principles never do.

    If fencing was a martial art the we'd all fence epee rules with sabre style hits.

    It's a sport.

    It's both, just like boxing, karate, jiujitsu, etc.

    You can do it by the sport rules, or you can do it "for real."

    So if fencing is a sport, then boxing is just as much a sport. And sidestepping, slipping, arcing, etc. all apply in boxing. So now that we've dispensed with the bullshit "martial arts vs sports" argument, we can get on with you explaining to me why the best way to attack someone is directly in front of them, where they can hit you and all their weapons are pointed right at your face.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • PussumPussum Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Second, you aim for the face in BOXING. Also, sabre has head cuts. I have, rarely, hit the face in fencing. It has its place, but it's not something you do every time. There's a section in The Book Of Five Rings, in the Fire chapter, specifically, entitled "Stabbing The Face" and describes the usefulness of that tactic. That was written by Musashi, widely regarded as the greatest Japanese swordsman and strategian ever to pick up a katana, but I guess he's a "fucking idiot" because you don't understand how and when to stab the face.

    Defender, would this be a book (The Book Of Five Rings) someone could pick up at their local main library or is it one of those "really damn good and informative, but completely obscure and extremely difficult to find" books?

    From that small little snipit of information you posed about it I am completely intoxicated with the idea of reading it.

    venomsigva5.png
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Rolo wrote: »
    Why does fencing only take account the point of the weapon, as if it had no blade? I've never understood how that became the weapon of choice for duels, it seems so much less effective than a sword where you have the entire edge to work with.

    Mind you, I've obviously never used a sword against someone before.

    Historically, the epee wasn't suited for cutting. The edges were often kept a little bit sharp, so as to discourage people from trying to grab your sword while you were fighting, but the weapon was very light and was made to be a thrusting-only weapon. So, basically, it comes down to "because that's how the weapon was actually used."

    Cutting is useful, but the thing about cutting is that you need to be closer to do it. The tip is the longest-range part of the weapon. The fighting styles for on-foot civilian duels at the time, for whatever reason (I actually do not know for sure what the reason was) did not favor cutting.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • Fire TruckFire Truck Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Fire Truck wrote: »
    Why don't, instead of super strict strip fighting, let them circle around each other, in a slightly less strict encirclement?

    Because the way you can simply change the angle of your point means moving to the side of someone doesn't have much use.

    COMPLETELY 100% WRONG OH MY GOD THIS IS THE WRONGEST THING EVER EVEN MORE WRONG THAN BEING A GAY OR FUCKING BABIES

    Seriously, no, this is indicative of a very serious lack of understanding of combat in general. Minor angular adjustments that cause the opponent to miss and have to readjust his stance are incredibly important moves to be able to make in combat. Goddamn, that's like saying that slipping is useless in boxing, because the guy just has to readjust his jab by an inch to hit you in the face. Yeah, that's EXACTLY the point. He misses by an inch, and you're in position to hit him.

    Woah now.

    I'm not saying that in many martial arts moving to the side is bad. One of the basic tenets of the martial art I practice is moving forward at an angle to put yourself off the line of attack, and I understand that minor adjustments can make all the difference.

    But in terms of fencing, it has been my experience that, so long as you're keeping good distance, being able to move off the strip wouldn't be that useful, since you would have enough time to readjust your stance back into a straight line with your opponent. I never meant to imply that making adjustments to your body position in terms of shifting to the side was a bad idea. One of my favorite maneuvers was to step to the side of the strip, parry prime, then flick under my opponents arm. That sort of shit hinges on moving to the side. However, it wouldn't be that useful for me, in the context of fencing, to be able to move several feet to the side, as the time it would take me to do so would give my opponent time adjust, again assuming we are at good distance.

    Also the setting up of the electric equipment thing I mentioned.

    dansmith3_zps6f7d5d05.jpg
  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    You mean classical styles that involve sharp blades as opposed to single point weapons that completely change the style that you would use a point weapon?

    No I have never heard of that.

    And if you managed to read my post martial arts are completely different.

    Fencing IS a martial art. All martial arts are the same at their core, they all derive from the same principles. The specific applications and situations change, but the principles never do.

    If fencing was a martial art the we'd all fence epee rules with sabre style hits.

    It's a sport.

    It's both, just like boxing, karate, jiujitsu, etc.

    You can do it by the sport rules, or you can do it "for real."

    So if fencing is a sport, then boxing is just as much a sport. And sidestepping, slipping, arcing, etc. all apply in boxing. So now that we've dispensed with the bullshit "martial arts vs sports" argument, we can get on with you explaining to me why the best way to attack someone is directly in front of them, where they can hit you and all their weapons are pointed right at your face.

    Boxing you can win by hitting hard and flooring people, therefore you hit hard, every student who was taught to fence by a decent school is always taught not to follow through, you depress the point and you stop. If you gave a sport fencer a rapier they would be useless in a fight as they would mostly just scratch the opposition's belly.

    Fine then defender.

    You are in a fight, you can't kick, you can't use your left hand.

    All you can do is jab with your right, you can't grapple you can't hook.

    What is the sensible stance for you to take.

    (it's a side profile to lower your hit zone isn't it?)

  • EstocEstoc Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    As a lurker who does fencing, I'm siding with Defender on this one. Even with a strip that is about only 3 feet wide, a little bit of lateral movement can be a pretty tatical manuver. Fencing is a game that is determined by inches an centimeters: say my opponent is pretty consistent in hitting the same spot on the right side of my chest. However, he didn't notice that I moved about a quarter step to my right, and that I can capitalize on this fact. He does the same attack in some way, and as such I either parry the attack easier, or he just barely misses; either way my riposte (immediate attack after parrying an attack) is coming quick, and I'm in a good spot to see it land.

    My opponent might pick up that I'm doing this, and change tactics, but if he doesn't, he'll probably (not) see more side-to-side movement until he does.

  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Thirdly, I taught the sport professionally in a club that had multiple Olympians on staff. I fenced throughout my childhood, from age 10 to age 23. I competed at the national level. What qualifications do you have? Don't tell me I don't know the sport, I used to earn my fucking living from it.

    Multiple Olympians from when and where? I'm not trying to question your proficiency of the sport, but I've seen great fencers refuse to stay up to date with the competition in order to be successful. I was taught by a women's foilist from the 1968 Mexico City, but she was stuck in the past of classical fencing and refused to adapt to changing rules and timings. Her students that kept with her never made it past the "C" rating. Those that went to many competitions learned there and eventually adapted over time to the modern sport. That's not always the case though; the coach of Penn U. was a great fencer from that time who has kept up to date with the sport and lead many fencers to the finals in national tournaments.

    Then again, many Olympians from the former USSR are now coaches here and completely rock the sport with their students. That's probably what you mean, Defender. The Olympians and national champions today, in the United States, are produced by the Oregon Fencing Alliance, New York Athletic Club, the Fencer's Club, and the top universities of Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, St. John's, and Columbia.

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Pussum wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Second, you aim for the face in BOXING. Also, sabre has head cuts. I have, rarely, hit the face in fencing. It has its place, but it's not something you do every time. There's a section in The Book Of Five Rings, in the Fire chapter, specifically, entitled "Stabbing The Face" and describes the usefulness of that tactic. That was written by Musashi, widely regarded as the greatest Japanese swordsman and strategian ever to pick up a katana, but I guess he's a "fucking idiot" because you don't understand how and when to stab the face.

    Defender, would this be a book (The Book Of Five Rings) someone could pick up at their local main library or is it one of those "really damn good and informative, but completely obscure and extremely difficult to find" books?

    From that small little snipit of information you posed about it I am completely intoxicated with the idea of reading it.

    The Book Of Five Rings is WIDELY available. You can easily find a paperback copy, and I would recommend the Shambhala printing of the book, translated and with editor's notes/foreword by Thomas Cleary. Cleary has translated a number of Japanese texts and very well-reputed. Bearing in mind that this is like translating Shakespeare into Japanese (Musashi wrote this book in the 1600s), there's a good amount of language barrier to overcome, and Cleary's translation is very easy to understand.

    It's not very expensive and it's one of the best strategy manuals I've ever read. It's only like 50 pages long, but it requires multiple readings and careful reflections to grasp the full meaning of the text (Musashi writes "you must study this carefully" at the end of practically every paragraph). Japanese business schools supposedly often have a semester-long course on just this book. Musashi's martial art is still practiced in Japan, too. Definitely get it, it's great.

    EDIT: Another great thing about Musashi is that he's all about winning. He says it flat out. "This is my military science of strategy, and the point of strategy is to win." There's no "honor" or "fair fight" or "guns are for cowards who can't face hand-to-hand combat" bullshit in his work. At one point, despite being a renowned fencer, he comes right out and says "in an open battlefield, before the two armies have collided, the gun is the absolute best weapon that exists." He had no pretensions about swords being the ultimate thing or whatever.

    The one area where I disagree with him is that he emphasizes that the best defense is a good offense. I believe that this is true in some cases, but not all. Musashi was also FUCKING HUGE. He was like six feet tall, which is a lot for Japan in the 1600s, and he would fight with two swords at a time, while most people would need two hands to use a single sword properly, so I think that his philosophy was affected by that. Also, he frequently fought one-versus-many, and in those cases you NEED to attack and destroy rapidly or you'll be overwhelmed eventually.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • TheidarTheidar Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Rolo wrote: »
    Why does fencing only take account the point of the weapon, as if it had no blade? I've never understood how that became the weapon of choice for duels, it seems so much less effective than a sword where you have the entire edge to work with.

    Mind you, I've obviously never used a sword against someone before.

    Historically, the epee wasn't suited for cutting. The edges were often kept a little bit sharp, so as to discourage people from trying to grab your sword while you were fighting, but the weapon was very light and was made to be a thrusting-only weapon. So, basically, it comes down to "because that's how the weapon was actually used."

    Cutting is useful, but the thing about cutting is that you need to be closer to do it. The tip is the longest-range part of the weapon. The fighting styles for on-foot civilian duels at the time, for whatever reason (I actually do not know for sure what the reason was) did not favor cutting.

    I'm not 100% sure but I think it's because the current steelwork skills in Europe didn't match what was going on in japan and couldn't reliably keep an edge. Broadswords didn't hold an edge as well as a katana and cut through with a combination of sharpness (which they wouldn't reproduce at truly light weights) and the weight of the blade)

    With the advent of bullets it made standard armour useless, so people stopped wearing it. People didn't need to bust through all the steel armour so they shifted to light weapons.

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Estoc wrote: »
    As a lurker who does fencing, I'm siding with Defender on this one. Even with a strip that is about only 3 feet wide, a little bit of lateral movement can be a pretty tatical manuver. Fencing is a game that is determined by inches an centimeters: say my opponent is pretty consistent in hitting the same spot on the right side of my chest. However, he didn't notice that I moved about a quarter step to my right, and that I can capitalize on this fact. He does the same attack in some way, and as such I either parry the attack easier, or he just barely misses; either way my riposte (immediate attack after parrying an attack) is coming quick, and I'm in a good spot to see it land.

    My opponent might pick up that I'm doing this, and change tactics, but if he doesn't, he'll probably (not) see more side-to-side movement until he does.

    No, you are siding with me.

    Apparently 3 feet isn't enough for defender.

  • WevsWevs __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    Hahaha.

    Defender.

  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Rolo wrote: »
    Why does fencing only take account the point of the weapon, as if it had no blade? I've never understood how that became the weapon of choice for duels, it seems so much less effective than a sword where you have the entire edge to work with.

    Mind you, I've obviously never used a sword against someone before.

    Historically, the epee wasn't suited for cutting. The edges were often kept a little bit sharp, so as to discourage people from trying to grab your sword while you were fighting, but the weapon was very light and was made to be a thrusting-only weapon. So, basically, it comes down to "because that's how the weapon was actually used."

    Cutting is useful, but the thing about cutting is that you need to be closer to do it. The tip is the longest-range part of the weapon. The fighting styles for on-foot civilian duels at the time, for whatever reason (I actually do not know for sure what the reason was) did not favor cutting.

    I suppose it's easier to avoid serious injuries (getting your stomach slashed open) with a thrusting point weapon versus a slashing or cutting weapon, which might have been a way to make civilian duels more legal and less deadly.


    I'd like to see what swordfighting would look like when it hasn't been abstracted into a type of sport, and was instead about simply trying to incapacitate or kill your opponent, though. I'm sure it wouldn't look like movie swordfighting, in much the same way movie fist fights don't look like MMA.

  • PussumPussum Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »

    The Book Of Five Rings is WIDELY available. You can easily find a paperback copy, and I would recommend the Shambhala printing of the book, translated and with editor's notes/foreword by Thomas Cleary. Cleary has translated a number of Japanese texts and very well-reputed. Bearing in mind that this is like translating Shakespeare into Japanese (Musashi wrote this book in the 1600s), there's a good amount of language barrier to overcome, and Cleary's translation is very easy to understand.

    It's not very expensive and it's one of the best strategy manuals I've ever read. It's only like 50 pages long, but it requires multiple readings and careful reflections to grasp the full meaning of the text (Musashi writes "you must study this carefully" at the end of practically every paragraph). Japanese business schools supposedly often have a semester-long course on just this book. Musashi's martial art is still practiced in Japan, too. Definitely get it, it's great.

    Awesome. I'm a little on the broke side right now so I will reference the library and see if they have. I am a big fan of hand to hand combat so any book that can offer me the ability to expand my defensive and offensive strategies while allowing me the opportunity to think and learn I am all for. The book may be based in weapon combat but I am sure those lessons can easily be applied to any type of combat if one were to actually pay attention to what the book is teaching.

    Thanks for the heads up!


    EDIT:

    Thanks Theidar and redfenix. I did not notice you guys posted links.

    venomsigva5.png
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    You mean classical styles that involve sharp blades as opposed to single point weapons that completely change the style that you would use a point weapon?

    No I have never heard of that.

    And if you managed to read my post martial arts are completely different.

    Fencing IS a martial art. All martial arts are the same at their core, they all derive from the same principles. The specific applications and situations change, but the principles never do.

    If fencing was a martial art the we'd all fence epee rules with sabre style hits.

    It's a sport.

    It's both, just like boxing, karate, jiujitsu, etc.

    You can do it by the sport rules, or you can do it "for real."

    So if fencing is a sport, then boxing is just as much a sport. And sidestepping, slipping, arcing, etc. all apply in boxing. So now that we've dispensed with the bullshit "martial arts vs sports" argument, we can get on with you explaining to me why the best way to attack someone is directly in front of them, where they can hit you and all their weapons are pointed right at your face.

    Boxing you can win by hitting hard and flooring people, therefore you hit hard, every student who was taught to fence by a decent school is always taught not to follow through, you depress the point and you stop. If you gave a sport fencer a rapier they would be useless in a fight as they would mostly just scratch the opposition's belly.

    Fine then defender.

    You are in a fight, you can't kick, you can't use your left hand.

    All you can do is jab with your right, you can't grapple you can't hook.

    What is the sensible stance for you to take.

    (it's a side profile to lower your hit zone isn't it?)

    Yes, you should lower your profile because you only have one limb to attack with, and it's on the "front" of your stance.

    That doesn't mean that I should never sidestep, and it doesn't mean that I should attack my opponent from directly in front of his weapon.

    Also, you're oversimplifying boxing. Who hit harder, Ali or Foreman? Uh-huh, Foreman. And who won? It's not about hitting hard and flooring people, and your statement that you "don't follow through" in fencing, as though that differentiates from boxing, implies that boxers overcommit, whereas fencers stay on balance and don't overcommit. That's nonsense. Boxers are very careful about when they do and don't commit. They have hard, straight right punches with lots of commitment, and quick, probing jabs. Fencers have their super-committed moves, too. There's the "quick jab" extension, and there's the lunge, and there's the fleche. Don't tell me that leap-sprinting at a guy with a move like that isn't a huge commitment.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Ah, yes, this is true. You can unbalance a person psychologically by striking the face. You can also cause them to flinch or react in a way that opens other targets. Controlling an opponent's mental/emotional state is very useful.

    The best fencers all have about the same proficiency physically.

    It's the individual tactics and the ability to remain focused during high stress bouts that determine the difference between the one touch throughout the day that gets someone to the finals.
    Estoc wrote: »
    As a lurker who does fencing, I'm siding with Defender on this one. Even with a strip that is about only 3 feet wide, a little bit of lateral movement can be a pretty tatical manuver. Fencing is a game that is determined by inches an centimeters: say my opponent is pretty consistent in hitting the same spot on the right side of my chest. However, he didn't notice that I moved about a quarter step to my right, and that I can capitalize on this fact. He does the same attack in some way, and as such I either parry the attack easier, or he just barely misses; either way my riposte (immediate attack after parrying an attack) is coming quick, and I'm in a good spot to see it land.

    My opponent might pick up that I'm doing this, and change tactics, but if he doesn't, he'll probably (not) see more side-to-side movement until he does.

    The speed and subtlety of side-stepping is minor compared to the speed and reaction of a forward lunge or parry-riposte. Lateral movement is especially moot when it comes to the chaos of infighting prevalent in epee. I've seen people who were out of ideas try to move from side to side, and it just makes the person look like he or she is out of ideas.

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    You mean classical styles that involve sharp blades as opposed to single point weapons that completely change the style that you would use a point weapon?

    No I have never heard of that.

    And if you managed to read my post martial arts are completely different.

    Fencing IS a martial art. All martial arts are the same at their core, they all derive from the same principles. The specific applications and situations change, but the principles never do.

    If fencing was a martial art the we'd all fence epee rules with sabre style hits.

    It's a sport.

    It's both, just like boxing, karate, jiujitsu, etc.

    You can do it by the sport rules, or you can do it "for real."

    So if fencing is a sport, then boxing is just as much a sport. And sidestepping, slipping, arcing, etc. all apply in boxing. So now that we've dispensed with the bullshit "martial arts vs sports" argument, we can get on with you explaining to me why the best way to attack someone is directly in front of them, where they can hit you and all their weapons are pointed right at your face.

    Boxing you can win by hitting hard and flooring people, therefore you hit hard, every student who was taught to fence by a decent school is always taught not to follow through, you depress the point and you stop. If you gave a sport fencer a rapier they would be useless in a fight as they would mostly just scratch the opposition's belly.

    Fine then defender.

    You are in a fight, you can't kick, you can't use your left hand.

    All you can do is jab with your right, you can't grapple you can't hook.

    What is the sensible stance for you to take.

    (it's a side profile to lower your hit zone isn't it?)

    Yes, you should lower your profile because you only have one limb to attack with, and it's on the "front" of your stance.

    That doesn't mean that I should never sidestep, and it doesn't mean that I should attack my opponent from directly in front of his weapon.

    Also, you're oversimplifying boxing. Who hit harder, Ali or Foreman? Uh-huh, Foreman. And who won? It's not about hitting hard and flooring people, and your statement that you "don't follow through" in fencing, as though that differentiates from boxing, implies that boxers overcommit, whereas fencers stay on balance and don't overcommit. That's nonsense. Boxers are very careful about when they do and don't commit. They have hard, straight right punches with lots of commitment, and quick, probing jabs. Fencers have their super-committed moves, too. There's the "quick jab" extension, and there's the lunge, and there's the fleche. Don't tell me that leap-sprinting at a guy with a move like that isn't a huge commitment.

    Remind me again.

    Ali won on points didn't he?

    He didn't knock anyone out.

    Ok now in my imaginary fight world.

    The other dude is under the same rules.

    He's kinda smart too, he takes a side profile.

    He steps to the left.

    what do you do?

  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Rolo wrote: »
    Why does fencing only take account the point of the weapon, as if it had no blade? I've never understood how that became the weapon of choice for duels, it seems so much less effective than a sword where you have the entire edge to work with.

    Mind you, I've obviously never used a sword against someone before.

    Historically, the epee wasn't suited for cutting. The edges were often kept a little bit sharp, so as to discourage people from trying to grab your sword while you were fighting, but the weapon was very light and was made to be a thrusting-only weapon. So, basically, it comes down to "because that's how the weapon was actually used."

    Cutting is useful, but the thing about cutting is that you need to be closer to do it. The tip is the longest-range part of the weapon. The fighting styles for on-foot civilian duels at the time, for whatever reason (I actually do not know for sure what the reason was) did not favor cutting.

    I'm not 100% sure but I think it's because the current steelwork skills in Europe didn't match what was going on in japan and couldn't reliably keep an edge. Broadswords didn't hold an edge as well as a katana and cut through with a combination of sharpness (which they wouldn't reproduce at truly light weights) and the weight of the blade)

    With the advent of bullets it made standard armour useless, so people stopped wearing it. People didn't need to bust through all the steel armour so they shifted to light weapons.

    I believe that Japanese blacksmithing was so intricate because they had dog ass for metals. European swords were surely more durable, and Europeans simply didn't have the need to come up with advanced smithing techniques because they had such high-quality materials to start with.

    Yeah, light weapons started being used in response to armor not being an issue.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    You mean classical styles that involve sharp blades as opposed to single point weapons that completely change the style that you would use a point weapon?

    No I have never heard of that.

    And if you managed to read my post martial arts are completely different.

    Fencing IS a martial art. All martial arts are the same at their core, they all derive from the same principles. The specific applications and situations change, but the principles never do.

    If fencing was a martial art the we'd all fence epee rules with sabre style hits.

    It's a sport.

    It's both, just like boxing, karate, jiujitsu, etc.

    You can do it by the sport rules, or you can do it "for real."

    So if fencing is a sport, then boxing is just as much a sport. And sidestepping, slipping, arcing, etc. all apply in boxing. So now that we've dispensed with the bullshit "martial arts vs sports" argument, we can get on with you explaining to me why the best way to attack someone is directly in front of them, where they can hit you and all their weapons are pointed right at your face.

    Boxing you can win by hitting hard and flooring people, therefore you hit hard, every student who was taught to fence by a decent school is always taught not to follow through, you depress the point and you stop. If you gave a sport fencer a rapier they would be useless in a fight as they would mostly just scratch the opposition's belly.

    Fine then defender.

    You are in a fight, you can't kick, you can't use your left hand.

    All you can do is jab with your right, you can't grapple you can't hook.

    What is the sensible stance for you to take.

    (it's a side profile to lower your hit zone isn't it?)

    Yes, you should lower your profile because you only have one limb to attack with, and it's on the "front" of your stance.

    That doesn't mean that I should never sidestep, and it doesn't mean that I should attack my opponent from directly in front of his weapon.

    Also, you're oversimplifying boxing. Who hit harder, Ali or Foreman? Uh-huh, Foreman. And who won? It's not about hitting hard and flooring people, and your statement that you "don't follow through" in fencing, as though that differentiates from boxing, implies that boxers overcommit, whereas fencers stay on balance and don't overcommit. That's nonsense. Boxers are very careful about when they do and don't commit. They have hard, straight right punches with lots of commitment, and quick, probing jabs. Fencers have their super-committed moves, too. There's the "quick jab" extension, and there's the lunge, and there's the fleche. Don't tell me that leap-sprinting at a guy with a move like that isn't a huge commitment.

    Remind me again.

    Ali won on points didn't he?

    He didn't knock anyone out.

    Ok now in my imaginary fight world.

    The other dude is under the same rules.

    He's kinda smart too, he takes a side profile.

    He steps to the left.

    what do you do?


    Rumble in the jungle? George Foreman?

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kf64ZCYVcEI

  • WevsWevs __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
  • WevsWevs __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Rolo wrote: »
    Why does fencing only take account the point of the weapon, as if it had no blade? I've never understood how that became the weapon of choice for duels, it seems so much less effective than a sword where you have the entire edge to work with.

    Mind you, I've obviously never used a sword against someone before.

    Historically, the epee wasn't suited for cutting. The edges were often kept a little bit sharp, so as to discourage people from trying to grab your sword while you were fighting, but the weapon was very light and was made to be a thrusting-only weapon. So, basically, it comes down to "because that's how the weapon was actually used."

    Cutting is useful, but the thing about cutting is that you need to be closer to do it. The tip is the longest-range part of the weapon. The fighting styles for on-foot civilian duels at the time, for whatever reason (I actually do not know for sure what the reason was) did not favor cutting.

    I'm not 100% sure but I think it's because the current steelwork skills in Europe didn't match what was going on in japan and couldn't reliably keep an edge. Broadswords didn't hold an edge as well as a katana and cut through with a combination of sharpness (which they wouldn't reproduce at truly light weights) and the weight of the blade)

    With the advent of bullets it made standard armour useless, so people stopped wearing it. People didn't need to bust through all the steel armour so they shifted to light weapons.

    I believe that Japanese blacksmithing was so intricate because they had dog ass for metals. European swords were surely more durable, and Europeans simply didn't have the need to come up with advanced smithing techniques because they had such high-quality materials to start with.

    Yeah, light weapons started being used in response to armor not being an issue.

    Steel strength is largely a manufacturing process (don't argue on this with me and I wont argue any computing points with you) they either had better smithing techniques or a high control of carbon content in their steel.

  • WevsWevs __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    Good thread though.

  • EstocEstoc Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Blaket wrote:
    No, you are siding with me.

    Apparently 3 feet isn't enough for defender.

    Huh, somehow I am siding with you. This is why tend to avoid arguments.

    On the strip, sidestepping with a bit of moderation can be nice way to keep a step ahead of your opponent. Just make sure it isn't the only way.

  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Fire Truck wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Fire Truck wrote: »
    Why don't, instead of super strict strip fighting, let them circle around each other, in a slightly less strict encirclement?

    Because the way you can simply change the angle of your point means moving to the side of someone doesn't have much use.

    COMPLETELY 100% WRONG OH MY GOD THIS IS THE WRONGEST THING EVER EVEN MORE WRONG THAN BEING A GAY OR FUCKING BABIES

    Seriously, no, this is indicative of a very serious lack of understanding of combat in general. Minor angular adjustments that cause the opponent to miss and have to readjust his stance are incredibly important moves to be able to make in combat. Goddamn, that's like saying that slipping is useless in boxing, because the guy just has to readjust his jab by an inch to hit you in the face. Yeah, that's EXACTLY the point. He misses by an inch, and you're in position to hit him.

    Woah now.

    I'm not saying that in many martial arts moving to the side is bad. One of the basic tenets of the martial art I practice is moving forward at an angle to put yourself off the line of attack, and I understand that minor adjustments can make all the difference.

    But in terms of fencing, it has been my experience that, so long as you're keeping good distance, being able to move off the strip wouldn't be that useful, since you would have enough time to readjust your stance back into a straight line with your opponent. I never meant to imply that making adjustments to your body position in terms of shifting to the side was a bad idea. One of my favorite maneuvers was to step to the side of the strip, parry prime, then flick under my opponents arm. That sort of shit hinges on moving to the side. However, it wouldn't be that useful for me, in the context of fencing, to be able to move several feet to the side, as the time it would take me to do so would give my opponent time adjust, again assuming we are at good distance.

    Also the setting up of the electric equipment thing I mentioned.

    Sport fencers usually think that sidestepping is useless because they have never learned to do it right. People who train in "traditional" martial arts like Shotokan tend to be very linear fighters as well. Sport fencers don't learn to sidestep because they always fight in an environment where it's not really possible. But if you drop them into a ring and have them fight a trained ring fighter, the ring fighter will use sidestepping, and the linear fighter will lose. Now, the obvious objection is "no shit, because the ring fighter has the home court advantage!" But think about it. If sidestepping were useless, the ring fighter would have no advantage, because the only thing he gains by being in a ring is the ability to sidestep, and if that is a useless move, then he'll never do it, so the advantage is nullified.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    redfenix wrote: »

    Loss of techniques isn't actually unheard of in ancient times.

    The romans made concrete.

    No one made in between about 500 to some time in the 1700's I think, when they rediscovered it by accident.

    They didn't discover the actual roman concrete recipe until the 1800's I think.

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Fire Truck wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Fire Truck wrote: »
    Why don't, instead of super strict strip fighting, let them circle around each other, in a slightly less strict encirclement?

    Because the way you can simply change the angle of your point means moving to the side of someone doesn't have much use.

    COMPLETELY 100% WRONG OH MY GOD THIS IS THE WRONGEST THING EVER EVEN MORE WRONG THAN BEING A GAY OR FUCKING BABIES

    Seriously, no, this is indicative of a very serious lack of understanding of combat in general. Minor angular adjustments that cause the opponent to miss and have to readjust his stance are incredibly important moves to be able to make in combat. Goddamn, that's like saying that slipping is useless in boxing, because the guy just has to readjust his jab by an inch to hit you in the face. Yeah, that's EXACTLY the point. He misses by an inch, and you're in position to hit him.

    Woah now.

    I'm not saying that in many martial arts moving to the side is bad. One of the basic tenets of the martial art I practice is moving forward at an angle to put yourself off the line of attack, and I understand that minor adjustments can make all the difference.

    But in terms of fencing, it has been my experience that, so long as you're keeping good distance, being able to move off the strip wouldn't be that useful, since you would have enough time to readjust your stance back into a straight line with your opponent. I never meant to imply that making adjustments to your body position in terms of shifting to the side was a bad idea. One of my favorite maneuvers was to step to the side of the strip, parry prime, then flick under my opponents arm. That sort of shit hinges on moving to the side. However, it wouldn't be that useful for me, in the context of fencing, to be able to move several feet to the side, as the time it would take me to do so would give my opponent time adjust, again assuming we are at good distance.

    Also the setting up of the electric equipment thing I mentioned.

    Sport fencers usually think that sidestepping is useless because they have never learned to do it right. People who train in "traditional" martial arts like Shotokan tend to be very linear fighters as well. Sport fencers don't learn to sidestep because they always fight in an environment where it's not really possible. But if you drop them into a ring and have them fight a trained ring fighter, the ring fighter will use sidestepping, and the linear fighter will lose. Now, the obvious objection is "no shit, because the ring fighter has the home court advantage!" But think about it. If sidestepping were useless, the ring fighter would have no advantage, because the only thing he gains by being in a ring is the ability to sidestep, and if that is a useless move, then he'll never do it, so the advantage is nullified.

    The ring fighter has a huge advantage, he has two weapons to use, more if it's a martial art.

    Additionally lets make it actually even and put them in an open field.

    Fighter moves to the side.

    Fencer steps back and resets and goes forward again and has explosive attack that the ring fighter can't realistically block.

  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Sport fencers usually think that sidestepping is useless because they have never learned to do it right. People who train in "traditional" martial arts like Shotokan tend to be very linear fighters as well. Sport fencers don't learn to sidestep because they always fight in an environment where it's not really possible. But if you drop them into a ring and have them fight a trained ring fighter, the ring fighter will use sidestepping, and the linear fighter will lose. Now, the obvious objection is "no shit, because the ring fighter has the home court advantage!" But think about it. If sidestepping were useless, the ring fighter would have no advantage, because the only thing he gains by being in a ring is the ability to sidestep, and if that is a useless move, then he'll never do it, so the advantage is nullified.

    I've never considered that. Very interesting.

    Good thread.

    By the way, the guy in the video is a complete douchebag.

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Rolo wrote: »
    Why does fencing only take account the point of the weapon, as if it had no blade? I've never understood how that became the weapon of choice for duels, it seems so much less effective than a sword where you have the entire edge to work with.

    Mind you, I've obviously never used a sword against someone before.

    Historically, the epee wasn't suited for cutting. The edges were often kept a little bit sharp, so as to discourage people from trying to grab your sword while you were fighting, but the weapon was very light and was made to be a thrusting-only weapon. So, basically, it comes down to "because that's how the weapon was actually used."

    Cutting is useful, but the thing about cutting is that you need to be closer to do it. The tip is the longest-range part of the weapon. The fighting styles for on-foot civilian duels at the time, for whatever reason (I actually do not know for sure what the reason was) did not favor cutting.

    I'm not 100% sure but I think it's because the current steelwork skills in Europe didn't match what was going on in japan and couldn't reliably keep an edge. Broadswords didn't hold an edge as well as a katana and cut through with a combination of sharpness (which they wouldn't reproduce at truly light weights) and the weight of the blade)

    With the advent of bullets it made standard armour useless, so people stopped wearing it. People didn't need to bust through all the steel armour so they shifted to light weapons.

    I believe that Japanese blacksmithing was so intricate because they had dog ass for metals. European swords were surely more durable, and Europeans simply didn't have the need to come up with advanced smithing techniques because they had such high-quality materials to start with.

    Yeah, light weapons started being used in response to armor not being an issue.

    Steel strength is largely a manufacturing process (don't argue on this with me and I wont argue any computing points with you) they either had better smithing techniques or a high control of carbon content in their steel.

    Are you a materials engineer or something?

    So if that's the case, please tell me where this information is right/wrong:

    1) Japanese iron was like, drawn from sand or something. Point being, it was horrible, they had really low-quality base materials. Europeans had good ore.

    2) As a result, Japanese swordsmiths had to come up with more clever manufacturing to make weapons that lasted more than two hits and didn't use a lot of metal (since they didn't have a good ore supply). Europeans didn't have this issue.

    3) Everyone ended up with weapons that basically worked just fine if you took care of them properly.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Fire Truck wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Fire Truck wrote: »
    Why don't, instead of super strict strip fighting, let them circle around each other, in a slightly less strict encirclement?

    Because the way you can simply change the angle of your point means moving to the side of someone doesn't have much use.

    COMPLETELY 100% WRONG OH MY GOD THIS IS THE WRONGEST THING EVER EVEN MORE WRONG THAN BEING A GAY OR FUCKING BABIES

    Seriously, no, this is indicative of a very serious lack of understanding of combat in general. Minor angular adjustments that cause the opponent to miss and have to readjust his stance are incredibly important moves to be able to make in combat. Goddamn, that's like saying that slipping is useless in boxing, because the guy just has to readjust his jab by an inch to hit you in the face. Yeah, that's EXACTLY the point. He misses by an inch, and you're in position to hit him.

    Woah now.

    I'm not saying that in many martial arts moving to the side is bad. One of the basic tenets of the martial art I practice is moving forward at an angle to put yourself off the line of attack, and I understand that minor adjustments can make all the difference.

    But in terms of fencing, it has been my experience that, so long as you're keeping good distance, being able to move off the strip wouldn't be that useful, since you would have enough time to readjust your stance back into a straight line with your opponent. I never meant to imply that making adjustments to your body position in terms of shifting to the side was a bad idea. One of my favorite maneuvers was to step to the side of the strip, parry prime, then flick under my opponents arm. That sort of shit hinges on moving to the side. However, it wouldn't be that useful for me, in the context of fencing, to be able to move several feet to the side, as the time it would take me to do so would give my opponent time adjust, again assuming we are at good distance.

    Also the setting up of the electric equipment thing I mentioned.

    Sport fencers usually think that sidestepping is useless because they have never learned to do it right. People who train in "traditional" martial arts like Shotokan tend to be very linear fighters as well. Sport fencers don't learn to sidestep because they always fight in an environment where it's not really possible. But if you drop them into a ring and have them fight a trained ring fighter, the ring fighter will use sidestepping, and the linear fighter will lose. Now, the obvious objection is "no shit, because the ring fighter has the home court advantage!" But think about it. If sidestepping were useless, the ring fighter would have no advantage, because the only thing he gains by being in a ring is the ability to sidestep, and if that is a useless move, then he'll never do it, so the advantage is nullified.

    The ring fighter has a huge advantage, he has two weapons to use, more if it's a martial art.

    No I mean like a kickboxer versus a Shotokan guy, OR a single-sword fencer trained "in the round" (a ring) versus one trained "on the piste" (a strip). There is no difference in armament.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Rolo wrote: »
    Why does fencing only take account the point of the weapon, as if it had no blade? I've never understood how that became the weapon of choice for duels, it seems so much less effective than a sword where you have the entire edge to work with.

    Mind you, I've obviously never used a sword against someone before.

    Historically, the epee wasn't suited for cutting. The edges were often kept a little bit sharp, so as to discourage people from trying to grab your sword while you were fighting, but the weapon was very light and was made to be a thrusting-only weapon. So, basically, it comes down to "because that's how the weapon was actually used."

    Cutting is useful, but the thing about cutting is that you need to be closer to do it. The tip is the longest-range part of the weapon. The fighting styles for on-foot civilian duels at the time, for whatever reason (I actually do not know for sure what the reason was) did not favor cutting.

    I'm not 100% sure but I think it's because the current steelwork skills in Europe didn't match what was going on in japan and couldn't reliably keep an edge. Broadswords didn't hold an edge as well as a katana and cut through with a combination of sharpness (which they wouldn't reproduce at truly light weights) and the weight of the blade)

    With the advent of bullets it made standard armour useless, so people stopped wearing it. People didn't need to bust through all the steel armour so they shifted to light weapons.

    I believe that Japanese blacksmithing was so intricate because they had dog ass for metals. European swords were surely more durable, and Europeans simply didn't have the need to come up with advanced smithing techniques because they had such high-quality materials to start with.

    Yeah, light weapons started being used in response to armor not being an issue.

    Steel strength is largely a manufacturing process (don't argue on this with me and I wont argue any computing points with you) they either had better smithing techniques or a high control of carbon content in their steel.

    Are you a materials engineer or something?

    So if that's the case, please tell me where this information is right/wrong:

    1) Japanese iron was like, drawn from sand or something. Point being, it was horrible, they had really low-quality base materials. Europeans had good ore.

    2) As a result, Japanese swordsmiths had to come up with more clever manufacturing to make weapons that lasted more than two hits and didn't use a lot of metal (since they didn't have a good ore supply). Europeans didn't have this issue.

    3) Everyone ended up with weapons that basically worked just fine if you took care of them properly.

    Structural Engineer who has a good background in material hardening. I have several files on it back at the office.

    We kind of just agreed with each other.

    You said the Japanese had to make better quality items due to their limited supply. Ie. their manufacturing was superior.

Sign In or Register to comment.