Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Crazy Achmed
Mar 13, 2001

FOREWORD: I am a sport fencer, so when I refer to "fencing" in this post I will be defaulting to modern Olympic fencing, not classical or historical fencing (more on those later). Feel free to discuss those, as well as kendo, wushu, etc. in this thread, but let's not let this devolve into a shitstorm of neckbeards arguing over whose school knows how to handle their hanzo steel better.

WHAT IS FENCING?
Fencing is a modern sport based on the age-old tradition of trying to stick a sharp pointy thing into another person, preferably without getting stabbed yourself in the process. It rewards cunning and finesse as much as it does raw speed and strength, so while it's a fun way to get or keep fit, you don't necessarily need to be running marathons or constantly chugging protein shakes in order to not get clobbered all the time.

Fencing as a sport is largely derived from training regimens for learning how to duel with smaller one-handed swords. I'm no historian, but in a nutshell, at some point people realised that the practise bouting they were doing was actually tons of fun in itself. Rules evolved for consistently determining winners and losers - and as they did the participants quickly learned the most effective ways of winning within those rules - which began to gently push fencing away from actual combat and into the realms of sport.
From there on, it's caught on all over the world and has been in every Olympic games since their modern revival.

There are three forms in modern fencing, each defined by their weapon.

FOIL
The foil was originally developed as a practise weapon for learning how to duel with a smallsword. The smallsword itself is a smaller, lighter descendent of the rapier, which rose to popularity through the somewaht dubious honour of being much easier to wear on your hip without accidentally bashing people in the leg or getting stuck in doorways.

Foils are designed for thrusting attacks and have a four-sided blade with no cutting edge - the name of the game is to stab your opponent with the point of your weapon. (There's a little button in the tip to detect hits, which needs 500g of force to activate.)

A hit anywhere on your opponent will halt the match, but will only score a point if it lands in the target area (torso and groin). The rules of foil are based around a concept called "priority" or "right of way", which is basically a way of working out who should be awarded points when both fencers end up simultaneously burying their swords in each other. Grossly simplified, the idea is that if you are being threatened, you need to remove the threat (make your opponent stop pointing their weapon at you, by parrying or some other means) before you yourself attack.

EPEE
The epee was developed a little later on in response to people wanting a practise weapon that more closely resembled a real smallsword than a foil. The epee is considerably heavier than the foil, sports a less flexible blade, and has a larger guard to better protect the hand and arm. Like the foil, you mist hit with the point, and the pressure to activate the button in the tip is heavier (750g - said to be the amount of force required to pierce the skin of an unarmored opponent).

By the time the epee came into being, duels were generally beight fought only to first blood rather than to the death, so the rules of epee reflect this in that the first fencer to land a touch anywhere on their opponent wins. If both fencers land a touch on each other within 0.04s, both get a point. As such, epee tends to be a bit slower than foil and sabre, with your opponent's hands, arms, feet and head being preferred targets simply because they're closer to you than their body is.

Funnily enough, this does resemble real duelling quite a bit sometimes. Here's some archive footage of two frenchmen spending a lot of time posturing defensively and pecking at each others' wrists, before one of the lands a hit to the wrist, winning the bout and making the other guy drop his blade in pain.

SABRE
Unlike the foil and epee, the sabre is a cutting rather than a thrusting weapon (although you can still stab with it). It was originally the weapon of choice for 18th century drive-bys, i.e. lopping people's heads off as you charge past on your horse, but came into more widespread use as a standard military weapon throughout Europe.

The modern sport sabre is much, much lighter than the cavalry sabres and cutlasses of days gone by. As such, it tends to be the fastest of the three weapons: a second is an awfully long time when you're fencing sabre. Entire first-to-5 bouts can be fenced within a minute of game time (not including stoppages), and while it can be confusing to watch it is definitely an exhilirating experience.

Sabre has similar rules to foil, having a concept of priority/right-of-way and a target area (everything above the waist). As it's an edged weapon, contact between the blade and your opponent's target area, whether cutting or stabbing, is considered a valid hit.

CLASSICAL AND HISTORICAL FENCING
As I've been touching on throughout this post, modern sport fencing is very different from actually fighting with swords, although there are some transferrable skills and techniques. The fact that you don't get horribly wounded led to the development of styles and techniques that, while they might be considered impractical, risky or even suicidal in a real swordfight, are very effective at winning within the rules of the game. Historical fencing splits from the family tree here, and aims to teach swordfighting as a martial art rather than a sport.

Classical fencing is closer to modern fencing, but instead aims to revive and carry on the style of the late 19th to early 20th centuries, before the advent of the electrical scoring system. I've heard it said that fencing is the second fastest sport after shooting, and as you might guess it can be pretty difficult trying to gauge whether a hit was valid or not with just your eyes. What the electronic scoring box did was allow hits to be detected that would otherwise have been missed by the naked eye. This is epitomised by the infamous "flick" in foil, where the flexibility of the blade is exploited by using a whip-like technique to make it curl right around a "correct" parry and still land on target. Classical fencing considers this sort of thing to be not in the spirit of things.

GETTNIG STARTED
If you think any of this sounds like it might be fun, I strongly encourage you to give it a go! The best place to start is to look for a local club and get in touch with them.

Fencing has a bad and undeserved reputation as an exclusive sport for weird rich people, but in reality it is pretty easy to get into. Most clubs are very welcoming to newcomers and will lend you all the equipment you need. If you have a quick hand and eye and a good bit of cunning, then you don't need to be the fittest person in the world, either (although there's no substitute for being in shape in the long run).

And, despite the aim of the game being to stab or slash your opponent, it boasts one of the lowest injury rates in the Olympic games - lower than table tennis. I guess those tables must have pretty sharp corners. Provided you wear the proper equipment, fencing is perfectly safe and it doesn't hurt when you take a hit.

The only word of warning I can give is that learning to fence will ruin your enjoyment of swordfight scenes in movies forever. Stop trying to hit the other guy's weapon and try to hit him instead, goddammit!




Anyway, discuss all things fencing here. I've been fencing on a relatively casual level for quite a few years now and have helped run a few beginners' courses - I'm not the most adept or experienced but I (hopefully) know a thing or two about things. I do know that there are more experienced people lurking around, so ask away and we'll see who comes out of the woorwork. Suggest anything you think I should add to this post; I'm about to get very busy with moving house but I'll edit, check and add some images, etc. to this post when I next have a chance.
(Also, who do I talk to about possibly getting the BLADE MASTER post icon for this therad?)

Allez!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Schiavona
Oct 8, 2008

Fencing is fun and I loved it when I did it years ago, but as soon as we were taught about flicks I decided foil can go gently caress itself forever and switched to sabre. If I remember correctly, hitting someone with the guard counts in foil matches, so if you're insanely aggressive and fast you can basically punch someone with it and get a point. Bad strategy in real matches, great strategy if it's a bunch of teens loving around in fencing lessons.

Neon Belly
Feb 12, 2008

I need something stronger.

Schiavona posted:

Fencing is fun and I loved it when I did it years ago, but as soon as we were taught about flicks I decided foil can go gently caress itself forever and switched to sabre. If I remember correctly, hitting someone with the guard counts in foil matches, so if you're insanely aggressive and fast you can basically punch someone with it and get a point. Bad strategy in real matches, great strategy if it's a bunch of teens loving around in fencing lessons.

Quite the opposite - hitting someone with the guard will gain you a card. Depending how far back you're going, flicks in foil aren't as much as a thing since 2005.

Neon Belly fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jan 8, 2015

ImplicitAssembler
Jan 24, 2013

Been doing kendo for some 15 years, recently started Katori Shinto Ryu as well and did some modern fencing (foil and tiny bit of sabre) years ago.
In the last couple of years I've wanted to pick up modern fencing again, but don't have the time.

Armagnac
Jun 24, 2005
Le feu de la vie.

Crazy Achmed posted:

The only word of warning I can give is that learning to fence will ruin your enjoyment of swordfight scenes in movies forever. Stop trying to hit the other guy's weapon and try to hit him instead, goddammit!

Hahaha... I fenced and did a bit of kendo as a kid, and it completely ruined all sword & lightsaber fights, except for Kurosawa... Only movie director who ever properly directed sword fights.

Verisimilidude
Dec 20, 2006

Strike quick and hurry at him,
not caring to hit or miss.
So that you dishonor him before the judges



I've been practicing historical fencing for almost 2 years now, as well as some katana-based fencing here and there. Primary weapon is the longsword (German school), secondary is the langes messer (German), as well as some experience with dagger, and Italian rapier. Practicing Olympic fencing with my school's club is quite an experience, and I find myself frustrated during matches. My biggest gripe is that some actions by my opponents can be downright suicidal, such as them flicking my torso while simultaneously running themselves directly into my weapon, and then they get the point because they hit first (this is foil). That's the name of the game though, so I can't complain.

And yes, if you learn how to fight with a weapon you will look at any weapon fight in a movie and think to yourself "none of this makes sense." Though to the credit of the actors, I have been told that when an actor with experience in stage combat starts to learn how to fight they're generally better at giving forward pressure than even most technically skilled students. So they have good pressure but bad technique, while novices tend to have good technique but bad pressure.

Also there ARE some good movie fights out there. The final fight in Rob Roy springs to mind, as well as this saber fight from the Polish movie Deluge.

Verisimilidude fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Jan 8, 2015

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp
I have been studying historical fencing for a couple of years off and on because I'm a meganerd and it's a fun hobby, and mostly am going to lurk the thread, glad to see it here though.

I've studied some German and Italian Longsword, sword and buckler, Italian rapier, Spanish rapier, German "rapier"(supposedly they didn't really use rapiers per se, Meyer was a response to rapiers), and Bolognese sidesword.

Southern California is a really great place to get into historical swordfighting because there's a lot of groups doing it right now. LA has like 6 at least.


And yeah, as Verisimilidude says, it does mess you up for movie fighting scenes a bit, the big duel in Princess Bride does a lot of shout-outs to various styles but does very little of them. Having said that, the guy who choreographed it, Bob Anderson, was a legend who almost certainly knew what he was doing, but making an accurate duel and one that looks cool in a movie are two different things.

Crazy Achmed
Mar 13, 2001

Gadamer posted:

Quite the opposite - hitting someone with the guard will gain you a card. Depending how far back you're going, flicks in foil aren't as much as a thing since 2005.
Not only will you get carded for this, but in foil (and epee), touching your opponent with the guard doesn't even send a signal to the scoring box. You have to close the switch at the tip of the weapon.

If anyone is actually using punching with the guard as a tactic, then I would hope their coach clamps down on that pretty loving hard. Otherwise, find another club where they actually fence properly. It's the equivalent of refs and coaches turning a blind eye to someone trying to use pro-wrestling moves in boxing lessons.

For anyone who's curious, here is done now information including circuit diagrams from Leon Paul (a major fencing equipment manufacturer):

Foil - http://www.leonpaul.com/acatalog/Armoury_Foil.html

Epee - http://www.leonpaul.com/acatalog/Armoury_Epee.html

Sabre - The reason I can't find a diagram for this is that it's brutally simple. The entire blade (and the guard too) is live, and hits are signalled by touching it on your opponent's target area.

On the subject of the flick - yes, it's a pretty dastardly tactic, but it is by no means easy to pull off. It is possible to parry them and they fail horribly if your distance isn't perfect.
Off the top of my head, the rules were changed relatively recently to discourage flicking, by increasing the duration that the tip switch needs to be closed for in order for the box to register a hit.
Also, if screw up a flick enough you'll end up clubbing your opponent with the blade and getting carded for that too.

Verisimilidude posted:

Practicing Olympic fencing with my school's club is quite an experience, and I find myself frustrated during matches. My biggest gripe is that some actions by my opponents can be downright suicidal, such as them flicking my torso while simultaneously running themselves directly into my weapon, and then they get the point because they hit first (this is foil). That's the name of the game though, so I can't complain.
Oh yeah, I can see how this would be frustrating for you. Someone charging in for a flick is showing off sport fencing's somewhat abstract nature at its finest :)

Just to explain the logic behind this, though - they would only win the point here if they started attacking you before you extended your weapon towards them.
In this situation the onus is put on the defender, the idea being that no matter how suicidal your assailant might be in their attacks, if you are being threatened you should ideally find a way to remove the threat rather than counterattacking and hoping that their bum-rush misses you.

I do agree that it's suicidal from a martial arts point of view, but so is counterattacking rather than defending, right?

Either that or fence epee instead, I'm terrible at it but double hits have saved my rear end many a time :madmax:

Anyway, does anyone know of any decent android apps for fencing? Specifically, is there one out there that can generate and keep track of a poule and/or DE structure?
I have Riposte, which is great for reffing, but it lacks tournament features.

Also is that how you spell poule? I've never bothered to check.

Crazy Achmed fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Jan 9, 2015

ImplicitAssembler
Jan 24, 2013

Zeitgueist posted:

I have been studying historical fencing for a couple of years off and on because I'm a meganerd and it's a fun hobby, and mostly am going to lurk the thread, glad to see it here though.

I've studied some German and Italian Longsword, sword and buckler, Italian rapier, Spanish rapier, German "rapier"(supposedly they didn't really use rapiers per se, Meyer was a response to rapiers), and Bolognese sidesword.

Southern California is a really great place to get into historical swordfighting because there's a lot of groups doing it right now. LA has like 6 at least.


And yeah, as Verisimilidude says, it does mess you up for movie fighting scenes a bit, the big duel in Princess Bride does a lot of shout-outs to various styles but does very little of them. Having said that, the guy who choreographed it, Bob Anderson, was a legend who almost certainly knew what he was doing, but making an accurate duel and one that looks cool in a movie are two different things.

Ridley Scotts 'The Duellists' does it best. Having said that, I don't really get bothered by bad swordplay in movies...lifes too short for that.

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp

ImplicitAssembler posted:

Ridley Scotts 'The Duellists' does it best. Having said that, I don't really get bothered by bad swordplay in movies...lifes too short for that.

Oh it's not ruining the movie, lots of poo poo doesn't really make sense when you know the technical details.

I can still watch Hackers too.

Neon Belly
Feb 12, 2008

I need something stronger.

Crazy Achmed posted:

On the subject of the flick - yes, it's a pretty dastardly tactic, but it is by no means easy to pull off. It is possible to parry them and they fail horribly if your distance isn't perfect.
Off the top of my head, the rules were changed relatively recently to discourage flicking, by increasing the duration that the tip switch needs to be closed for in order for the box to register a hit.
Also, if screw up a flick enough you'll end up clubbing your opponent with the blade and getting carded for that too.
Oh yeah, I can see how this would be frustrating for you. Someone charging in for a flick is showing off sport fencing's somewhat abstract nature at its finest :)

The timing changes were done in 2005. I've never seen/heard of someone getting carded for landing flat.

But, on the point of it looking awesome, you can still pull off things like this touch around 1:05:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VUUyI1_fI&t=1s

Verisimilidude
Dec 20, 2006

Strike quick and hurry at him,
not caring to hit or miss.
So that you dishonor him before the judges



Crazy Achmed posted:

On the subject of the flick - yes, it's a pretty dastardly tactic, but it is by no means easy to pull off. It is possible to parry them and they fail horribly if your distance isn't perfect.
Off the top of my head, the rules were changed relatively recently to discourage flicking, by increasing the duration that the tip switch needs to be closed for in order for the box to register a hit.
Also, if screw up a flick enough you'll end up clubbing your opponent with the blade and getting carded for that too.
Oh yeah, I can see how this would be frustrating for you. Someone charging in for a flick is showing off sport fencing's somewhat abstract nature at its finest :)

Just to explain the logic behind this, though - they would only win the point here if they started attacking you before you extended your weapon towards them.
In this situation the onus is put on the defender, the idea being that no matter how suicidal your assailant might be in their attacks, if you are being threatened you should ideally find a way to remove the threat rather than counterattacking and hoping that their bum-rush misses you.

I do agree that it's suicidal from a martial arts point of view, but so is counterattacking rather than defending, right?

The thing is I'm not necessarily counterattacking when it happens. I'm maintaining my defensive position, and the attacker is literally running into my weapon. It's where imo things like right of way tend to break down. It assigns absolute roles to individuals (attacker/defender) when in actual swordplay offensive actions have to be defensive simultaneously rather than after-the-fact. It's the difference between swordplay and electric tag.

Anyway, I don't want to turn this thread into Olympic vs Historical/Classical fencing, so how about some pictures of equipment?



From left to right, lange messer trainer, Cheblowski federschwert, Albion Crecy for cutting practice, and Regenyei federschwert (my oldest and dearest trainer).

Verisimilidude fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jan 9, 2015

Omglosser
Sep 2, 2007

Glad to see this thread. I've becoming genuinely interested in fencing since getting older and less obsessed with katanas and ninjas. But seriously I spent 3 years doing modern Arnis. Basically it's another cousin/variant of Kali or Escrima, but with some grappling. We practiced with sticks and fake knives and all kinds of stuff.
When someone says "Errol Flynn fencing", what are they referring to exactly? Does it differ from anything listed in the OP?

I asked in the other thread but I'll ask again, does anybody know anything about this school? I'm going to contact them regardless.
http://nwifencingclub.com/index2.html

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp

Omglosser posted:

When someone says "Errol Flynn fencing", what are they referring to exactly? Does it differ from anything listed in the OP?

Its basically Bob Anderson fencing I suspect. A bit of modern fencing and historical fencing done up to look good for the camera.

Anderson was the fight choreographer for almost every movie swordfight you've ever seen, up to and including the LOTR movies and Star Wars.

Neon Belly
Feb 12, 2008

I need something stronger.

Verisimilidude posted:

The thing is I'm not necessarily counterattacking when it happens. I'm maintaining my defensive position, and the attacker is literally running into my weapon. It's where imo things like right of way tend to break down. It assigns absolute roles to individuals (attacker/defender) when in actual swordplay offensive actions have to be defensive simultaneously rather than after-the-fact. It's the difference between swordplay and electric tag.

How does epee compare to this, as double touches and timing lock outs are a common occurrence?

Verisimilidude
Dec 20, 2006

Strike quick and hurry at him,
not caring to hit or miss.
So that you dishonor him before the judges



Gadamer posted:

How does epee compare to this, as double touches and timing lock outs are a common occurrence?

I'm not sure how it works with epee, but in longsword tournaments double hits are common, and in kendo as well (at least from what I know watching tournament videos of the latter). In kendo it seems like they just ignore it and keep going, while in longsword we pause to count the hit and depending on the rule system either award points based on who had a more targeted, higher quality attack, give a warning to attempt to prevent double hits, or ignore it and move on with the match.

Since we're talking about it, here's a few videos that I think are pretty rad.

Rapier exhibition

Rapier sparring in the park

Rapier versus longsword

ImplicitAssembler
Jan 24, 2013

Verisimilidude posted:

and in kendo as well (at least from what I know watching tournament videos of the latter). In kendo it seems like they just ignore it and keep going

No you don't. The official stance is that there is no such a thing as simultaneous hits and one will always hit first. If no point is scored, it's because neither attack is deemed good enough.
They implemented similar (but less strict) policy for sabre fencing at the London Olympics to discourage people using it as a defensive tactic, something which upset quite a few of the Sabre fencers and made the whole thing much more interesting to watch.

As for the 'suicidal' atttacks, it's very common in the early stages. In kendo and JSA in general, the concept of 'sutemi', which translates to something varying between 'attacking with reckless abandon' and 'throwing your life away', refers to attacking without caring for your own life. The basic concept of that is that if are worrying about getting hit, you will not attack freely and then increase the likely of your attack failing and then getting hit. This is primarily taught through 'kakari-geiko' which is a method of practice, where you continuously attack your partner, regardless if they attack you or not.
In a similar vain, there is no concept 'blocking' in kendo. There's counter-techniques, but no blocks.

Now, back to suicidal attacks. Again, these are very common in the early stages, as people are encouraged to attack, but don't know what an opening looks like. Through repeated practice, you will develop the eye/mind for it and because you have always been taught to attack, your attacks, when you do attack, have a much higher chance of success.

Verisimilidude
Dec 20, 2006

Strike quick and hurry at him,
not caring to hit or miss.
So that you dishonor him before the judges



ImplicitAssembler posted:

No you don't. The official stance is that there is no such a thing as simultaneous hits and one will always hit first. If no point is scored, it's because neither attack is deemed good enough.
They implemented similar (but less strict) policy for sabre fencing at the London Olympics to discourage people using it as a defensive tactic, something which upset quite a few of the Sabre fencers and made the whole thing much more interesting to watch.

As for the 'suicidal' atttacks, it's very common in the early stages. In kendo and JSA in general, the concept of 'sutemi', which translates to something varying between 'attacking with reckless abandon' and 'throwing your life away', refers to attacking without caring for your own life. The basic concept of that is that if are worrying about getting hit, you will not attack freely and then increase the likely of your attack failing and then getting hit. This is primarily taught through 'kakari-geiko' which is a method of practice, where you continuously attack your partner, regardless if they attack you or not.
In a similar vain, there is no concept 'blocking' in kendo. There's counter-techniques, but no blocks.

Now, back to suicidal attacks. Again, these are very common in the early stages, as people are encouraged to attack, but don't know what an opening looks like. Through repeated practice, you will develop the eye/mind for it and because you have always been taught to attack, your attacks, when you do attack, have a much higher chance of success.

That's good to know. I didn't mean to assume, I just don't speak Japanese and my experience with Kendo is limited to what I've gathered from YouTube.

Mordieth
Dec 23, 2008

ImplicitAssembler posted:

No you don't. The official stance is that there is no such a thing as simultaneous hits and one will always hit first. If no point is scored, it's because neither attack is deemed good enough.
They implemented similar (but less strict) policy for sabre fencing at the London Olympics to discourage people using it as a defensive tactic, something which upset quite a few of the Sabre fencers and made the whole thing much more interesting to watch.

As for the 'suicidal' atttacks, it's very common in the early stages. In kendo and JSA in general, the concept of 'sutemi', which translates to something varying between 'attacking with reckless abandon' and 'throwing your life away', refers to attacking without caring for your own life. The basic concept of that is that if are worrying about getting hit, you will not attack freely and then increase the likely of your attack failing and then getting hit. This is primarily taught through 'kakari-geiko' which is a method of practice, where you continuously attack your partner, regardless if they attack you or not.
In a similar vain, there is no concept 'blocking' in kendo. There's counter-techniques, but no blocks.

Now, back to suicidal attacks. Again, these are very common in the early stages, as people are encouraged to attack, but don't know what an opening looks like. Through repeated practice, you will develop the eye/mind for it and because you have always been taught to attack, your attacks, when you do attack, have a much higher chance of success.

An example:
http://youtu.be/Q4SHWXQBVL4?t=2m37s

Crazy Achmed
Mar 13, 2001

Fair enough, Verisimilidude, sounds like those foilists were being pretty drat sloppy on their attacks. I'm curious to hear more about how the rules/scoring system works in historical, if you want to elaborate...

Anyway, tell us a bit more about what you do! Does sidestepping/lateral movement play a big part, or do fights end up being fairly linear? How do you deal with stabbing attacks given that those weapons don't look flexible at all? And are there any weapon match-ups that are surprisingly balanced/unbalanced?

EmmyOk
Aug 11, 2013

What weapon do you fence OP? I always spell it poules and it hurts me when people say pools

thomawesome
Jul 19, 2009
Toe touches 4 lyfe. I fenced epee in college for about three years, and have competed in tournaments. Thinking of going back, as I'm back in school. If anyone has questions about epee specifically, let me know. My girlfriend fenced saber, so I can probably get specific info from her if anyone is curious.

Tsunemori
Nov 20, 2006

HEEEYYYWHOOOHHH
Question for OP and any other fencers out there: do you know anything about Torao "Tiger" Mori? He was a pretty pro Kendo player who moved to USA and studied fencing, and within 6 months came first or second in the national tournament. Ended up coaching or something. He said "kendo and fencing are exactly the same".

I have been doing kendo for 7 years, and upon trying (modern) fencing, I find it so different! In kendo, it's all about moving the body in first, and the hands/sword last. In fencing it seems to be the other way around, to establish "right of way". I'm guessing this comes from fencing being purely a sport.

Any comment on the "unrealism" of modern fencing, or what Torao Mori said?

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp
I have a teacher who says, having studied quite a few sword arts, that "all fencing is the same". That, to a certain extent, there's only so many ways you can kill a person and defend getting killed.

If you're good in one art, you may find you're good in another, rules aside. This is, of course, a really debatable point but I think what he's saying is that while the style parts and training might be different, in the end you're trying to do very very similar things.

Chamale
Jul 11, 2010

I'm helping!



Crazy Achmed posted:

The only word of warning I can give is that learning to fence will ruin your enjoyment of swordfight scenes in movies forever. Stop trying to hit the other guy's weapon and try to hit him instead, goddammit!


This is very true, and those two duels were mentioned on the first day I joined a fencing club. The first duel in The Princess Bride is also brilliant, because the two swordfighters prefer to show off and have fun rather than actually kill each other.

Zeitgueist posted:

I have a teacher who says, having studied quite a few sword arts, that "all fencing is the same". That, to a certain extent, there's only so many ways you can kill a person and defend getting killed.

If you're good in one art, you may find you're good in another, rules aside. This is, of course, a really debatable point but I think what he's saying is that while the style parts and training might be different, in the end you're trying to do very very similar things.

What about the half-sword style of historical fencing? It's really different from fencing because you often want to swing the sword around and smash your opponent with the pommel, but for this reason it's too dangerous to actually practice. Which is a shame, because I think it looks cooler than modern sport fencing.

BirdOfPlay
Feb 19, 2012

THUNDERDOME LOSER

Verisimilidude posted:

The thing is I'm not necessarily counterattacking when it happens. I'm maintaining my defensive position, and the attacker is literally running into my weapon. It's where imo things like right of way tend to break down. It assigns absolute roles to individuals (attacker/defender) when in actual swordplay offensive actions have to be defensive simultaneously rather than after-the-fact. It's the difference between swordplay and electric tag.

Here's what you're missing from Olympic fencing, all the conventions start with "the attack" being an axiom. There is no real "defensive position" that would compromise the attack. The two closest you'll get is point-in-line and attack in preparation. Point-in-line is literally defined as an offensive-defensive position in the rulebook, and attack in prep requires, well, an attack. Both options are offensive, which goes back to the conventions starting from "the attack" and working from there.

Crazy Achmed
Mar 13, 2001

EmmyOk posted:

What weapon do you fence OP? I always spell it poules and it hurts me when people say pools
I'm mostly a foilist, but I do a bit of sabre and epee as well.

Tsunemori posted:

Question for OP and any other fencers out there: do you know anything about Torao "Tiger" Mori? He was a pretty pro Kendo player who moved to USA and studied fencing, and within 6 months came first or second in the national tournament. Ended up coaching or something. He said "kendo and fencing are exactly the same".

I have been doing kendo for 7 years, and upon trying (modern) fencing, I find it so different! In kendo, it's all about moving the body in first, and the hands/sword last. In fencing it seems to be the other way around, to establish "right of way". I'm guessing this comes from fencing being purely a sport.

Any comment on the "unrealism" of modern fencing, or what Torao Mori said?
Oh yeah, fencing is quite abstracted from actual dueling, and even more so from to-the-death combat.

There's a kendo club that uses a room at the gym directly above where I usually fence. I always see them on the way to training and am pretty curious about the structure, techniques and rules.

Establishing priority with the arm in fencing comes (I think) partially from the sport's origin as training for first-blood civilian duels. That is, the original aim was not normally about putting all your weight behind a killing blow.

I think it also relates a lot to the nature of the weapons, as well: range is king with a stabbing weapon like an epee, it makes more sense to put the business end of your weapon as close to your opponent while keeping your own soft and squishy bits as far away as possible from danger, regardless of whether the weapons are sharp or not. Better to miss your shot than to win but get wounded/killed in the process.

At least, I know from experience that if you "attack" by stepping forward with a bent arm, the other person will just extend their arm and you'll impale yourself long before your weapon gets anywhere near their body.

Of course, this being sport fencing, "long before" means 0.3s at most.

I've never really watched a proper kendo match, much less with good commentary, but from what I've seen a lot of the motions and concepts are pretty similar. Like, the motions for guarding (and riposting) versus strikes to the shoulders and head look almost identical to sabre fencing. The idea of priority seems quite similar, too, but my knowledge of establishing an attack in kendo boils down to "make it look like you really, really meant it".

Crazy Achmed fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jan 12, 2015

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp

Chamale posted:

What about the half-sword style of historical fencing? It's really different from fencing because you often want to swing the sword around and smash your opponent with the pommel, but for this reason it's too dangerous to actually practice. Which is a shame, because I think it looks cooler than modern sport fencing.

I know some neat disarms that use halfsword grips.

P-Mack
Nov 10, 2007

Chamale posted:


What about the half-sword style of historical fencing? It's really different from fencing because you often want to swing the sword around and smash your opponent with the pommel, but for this reason it's too dangerous to actually practice. Which is a shame, because I think it looks cooler than modern sport fencing.

It's primarily for armored combat, as it gives you improved tip control for finding gaps in the armor, and leverage for various throws and locks. As you allude to, armored fighting is difficult to practice with intensity, since the techniques were designed to kill people already wearing the best possible protective equipment.

The thing where you grip the blade with both hands and swing it like a hammer is called a mordschlag, or "murder stroke." Might not necessarily kill a man in armor, but would definitely ring his bell and leave him vulnerable to a follow up technique.

Zeitgueist, how much luck have you had pulling off those halfsword disarms in open sparring? I imagine it would make you feel like an absolute baller.

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp

P-Mack posted:

Zeitgueist, how much luck have you had pulling off those halfsword disarms in open sparring? I imagine it would make you feel like an absolute baller.

Haha, not even once. The guy who taught me them said when he does manage(rarely) it's pretty awesome.

thrakkorzog
Nov 16, 2007

Tsunemori posted:

Question for OP and any other fencers out there: do you know anything about Torao "Tiger" Mori? He was a pretty pro Kendo player who moved to USA and studied fencing, and within 6 months came first or second in the national tournament. Ended up coaching or something. He said "kendo and fencing are exactly the same".

I have been doing kendo for 7 years, and upon trying (modern) fencing, I find it so different! In kendo, it's all about moving the body in first, and the hands/sword last. In fencing it seems to be the other way around, to establish "right of way". I'm guessing this comes from fencing being purely a sport.

Any comment on the "unrealism" of modern fencing, or what Torao Mori said?

Right of way makes sense, if you consider not being stabbed is more important than stabbing someone else. After all, if you get stabbed, you're kind of hosed, but if you can stab someone without getting stabbed yourself then you're golden.

For all the complaints of artificiality of right of way rules, it basically boils down to "Don't get stabbed, stab the other guy first." Which seem like a pretty basic rule for any sword fighting system.

thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 12:04 on Jan 12, 2015

Jeza
Feb 13, 2011

The cries of the dead are terrible indeed; you should try not to hear them.

thrakkorzog posted:

Right of way makes sense, if you consider not being stabbed is more important than stabbing someone else. After all, if you get stabbed, you're kind of hosed, but if you can stab someone without getting stabbed yourself then you're golden.

For all the complaints of artificiality of right of way rules, it basically boils down to "Don't get stabbed, stab the other guy first." Which seem like a pretty basic rule for any sword fighting system.

I still find right of way dumb as heck, even though I spent most of my time with foil. Not much is more frustrating than stabbing somebody in the heart then have them hit you a little later, only to find they extended their arm fractionally before you. But it does make for flashier fighting I guess.

Anyway, Épée fo' lyfe. Simultaneous hits just makes more sense to me. In the end, having the most efficient system for stab and don't get stabbed means you win.

Crazy Achmed
Mar 13, 2001

Jeza posted:

I still find right of way dumb as heck, even though I spent most of my time with foil. Not much is more frustrating than stabbing somebody in the heart then have them hit you a little later, only to find they extended their arm fractionally before you. But it does make for flashier fighting I guess.

Anyway, Épée fo' lyfe. Simultaneous hits just makes more sense to me. In the end, having the most efficient system for stab and don't get stabbed means you win.
Well, I did read that epee came about from people wanting a weapon and rule set closer to real dueling. Plus, there's less gear and it breaks down a lot less often :)

Foil priority boils down to "if you are being attacked, you must stop the incoming threat before trying an attack of your own." It's a sensible rule of thumb no matter what weapon or discipline you're training. So to hammer this point home, if the attacker gets through unimpeded, the defender is considered to have hosed up and only the attacker's hit is counted.

Without an epee-style double hit, this definitely encourages more reckless attacking. The drawback of the double hit, though, is that it encourages reckless counterattacking in lieu of a proper defence.

Where the abstraction really takes off is in the timing: doubles in epee only count if the hits land within 40ms of each other, which I'm sure most HEMA types would consider bullshit. And in foil you only need to move an attacker's point off target for a fraction of a second for the defence to be considered valid.
And, as you pointed out, it can also only be a fraction of a second that decides who was attacking first and who should have been defending...

All this makes sense in terms of "don't get stabbed" theory, but given that nobody actually dies, the logical way to win is often to exploit these edge cases as far and hard as you can.

That said, as a foilist I quite like epee as it is really drat good for teaching me to do proper parries, and making sure I have good point control and distance.

On a related note, I really need to practise getting my point at just the right angle to get round the bell guard versus a straight attack, because seeing someone ram their forearm into your point and then fall short is p. cool :getin:

Crazy Achmed fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jan 13, 2015

Ataxerxes
Dec 2, 2011

What is a soldier but a miserable pile of eaten cats and strange language?
If anyone is interested in historical manuals for various weapons they can be found here: http://www.hroarr.com/manuals-books/
Not all of that stuff is in English, though.

kznlol
Feb 9, 2013
I did Fencing in high school (I was a weird rich kid at a weird rich kid's school), and my abiding memory is that it did actually hurt (not enormously, but enough to be more than simply unpleasant) to get hit, even with foils, let alone epee/sabre. It is entirely possible we had badly fitted equipment and whatnot, though.

My first question is sort of a pedagogical one - our instructor was rather insistent that we used french grip weapons so that we'd use our fingers, not our wrists. As a rebellious idiot of a teenager, I disobeyed immediately and acquired a pistol grip, and after becoming much less of an idiot have always idly wondered if I should have listened to the instructor. My second question is more loosely related to teaching methods - I recall being taught various parries named in accordance with french numbers, and drilling them relentlessly, but the speed with which fencers engage in competition seems to preclude anything except pre-planned sequences or nearly reflexive reactions - how can engagements be more than a rather more complicated version of rock/paper/scissors when speeds are so high (I know they must be but it boggles my mind)?

EmmyOk
Aug 11, 2013

Epée is awful, the lack of RoW just leads to two people shuffling around petrified of accidentally doubling while a point behind. Sabre is worse though because it's too fast and utterly graceless. Foil is the only true weapon and Baldini is our Christ :italy:

Crazy Achmed
Mar 13, 2001

kznlol posted:

I did Fencing in high school (I was a weird rich kid at a weird rich kid's school), and my abiding memory is that it did actually hurt (not enormously, but enough to be more than simply unpleasant) to get hit, even with foils, let alone epee/sabre. It is entirely possible we had badly fitted equipment and whatnot, though.

My first question is sort of a pedagogical one - our instructor was rather insistent that we used french grip weapons so that we'd use our fingers, not our wrists. As a rebellious idiot of a teenager, I disobeyed immediately and acquired a pistol grip, and after becoming much less of an idiot have always idly wondered if I should have listened to the instructor. My second question is more loosely related to teaching methods - I recall being taught various parries named in accordance with french numbers, and drilling them relentlessly, but the speed with which fencers engage in competition seems to preclude anything except pre-planned sequences or nearly reflexive reactions - how can engagements be more than a rather more complicated version of rock/paper/scissors when speeds are so high (I know they must be but it boggles my mind)?
Normally it shouldn't be more than "unpleasant" to get hit, but you might get a few bruises if your jacket is thin and especially if something goes wrong, mostly bad technique like the other guy "punching" in his/her attacks, or attacking from too close a distance.

Your preference of grip is really up to you, the "best" one is the one that feels most comfortable and functional for you. I think that your coach was right about it being good to start learning on a post grip, but so long as you remember to use your fingers rather than your biceps, it's no big deal.

You're right that there is a certain element of high speed rock paper scissors to fencing, but it's a lot deeper than that. Paper will sometimes beat scissors if it's pulled out at just the right time and distance, or if the paper is a bit thicker than normal and the other guy's scissors aren't up to scratch...

The parries that we drill into reflex are chosen because they work really well in a foil/epee/sabre duel. But that's just the basics, there are a lot more things you can do...

Think of it more like tennis or badminton, in that although there are a limited number of ways you can hit the ball, that doesn't mean the game is tactically shallow.

EmmyOk
Aug 11, 2013

Crazy Achmed posted:

Normally it shouldn't be more than "unpleasant" to get hit, but you might get a few bruises if your jacket is thin and especially if something goes wrong, mostly bad technique like the other guy "punching" in his/her attacks, or attacking from too close a distance.


If they are attacking from too close it's your fault the distance is hosed not theirs

Crazy Achmed
Mar 13, 2001

EmmyOk posted:

If they are attacking from too close it's your fault the distance is hosed not theirs
You're right, but I was thinking more of those times when someone decides to lunge from extension distance. I guess you should still be getting the hell out of dodge if you see that coming at you, though.

Anyway, stabbing chat: to parry an attack to your outside lower line, do you guys prefer octave or seconde?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Verisimilidude
Dec 20, 2006

Strike quick and hurry at him,
not caring to hit or miss.
So that you dishonor him before the judges



Here's a good article about getting hit by noobs

http://boxwrestlefence.com/blog/2014/04/14/dying-hands-babes-arms/

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply