• illi@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    16 hours ago

    doing foil-style fencing moves

    Fighters should do virtually everything possible to stay outside the range of their opponent’s blade

    So I know what you are saying and you have a point.

    But I find it funny as the modern olympic fencing boils down to “I stabbed you a split second before you stabbed me! I win!”

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Depends on the particular fencing style. Sabre and Foil have right-of-way and Epee does not. So in Epee, it’s whoever strikes first. In the others, the person who initiates the attack gets the point if they both touch during the attack regardless of who touched first.

      It sounds silly, but part of the idea with foil and sabre is that they were initially training for actual self-defense, where it didn’t matter if you stabbed your attacker if you got killed in the process. So the rule was you had to first keep yourself from getting touched before you could try and score a point of your own.

      • illi@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Right. Didn’t realize (or forgot) only epee is like this. I don’t really follow olympic fencing closely.

        OP might even not meant olympic fencing originally, that’s just where my mind went and I’ve found it funny.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        13 hours ago

        So the rule was you had to first keep yourself from getting touched before you could try and score a point of your own.

        That doesn’t sound like it leads logically to “you get the point if you were the aggressor, even if you also get touched” but sports rules are often many layers of arcane nonsense with too much deference given to the past. (I’d treat it more like a serve fault in tennis. Reckless attack is a do-over, twice in a row is a point for the other person.)

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 hours ago

          It’s about a fundamental difference between offense and defense.

          When you go on the offense, defeating the opponent is the primary goal.

          If you’re defending yourself, survival is the primary goal.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yeah, good point. People make essentially suicidal attacks in modern sport fencing because as long as they touch their opponent first the fact they were run through a tenth of a second later doesn’t matter. But, a lot of fencing is staying at least one blade’s length away from the opponent and probing and poking, so up until that final suicidal attack they’re giving the opponent’s weapon plenty of respect.

      • illi@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Yep. Also, ignoring sports, the more this ws the case the more the weapons developed to be lighter with point of ballance closer to the hilt.

        If lightsabre blade doesn’t weigh anything, it’s the ultimate weapon for this sort of style of fencing (bonus points for any contact with the blade being harmful).

        Your thinking made perfect sense, it’s just my mind immediately went to the suicidal attacks in sport fencing and I’ve found it funny.