Sorry but that’s simply wrong. I have done two years or sabre fencing in my youth - it’s all about reaction time and correct execution of a parry. If you always knew exactly which angle to parry at, and had the reaction speed to execute this in time, then you could fence for a long time without anyone getting hit. You’d have to outsmart your opponent by slowly leading them into a trap where they have to execute a movement that throws them off-balance, so that you then can execute an attack that they can’t regain their balance to parry.
If you always knew exactly which angle to parry at, and had the reaction speed to execute this in time, then you could fence for a long time without anyone getting hit
Only if all your knowledge and reaction speed was defensive rather than offensive. If you gained an equal amount of offensive reaction speed and knowledge you could adjust strikes as you saw the opponent begin to parry.
My point is that slow motion wouldn’t change anything. In fast motion the attacker doesn’t have time to adjust their attack, and the defender doesn’t have time to adjust their defence. In slow motion nothing changes. The defender can adjust their defense, but the attacker can also adjust their attack. Slow motion doesn’t somehow make defending work better and attacking worse.
Slow motion doesn’t somehow make defending work better and attacking worse.
I disagree. As an attack comes closer to hitting, the weapon is by the very definition of “closer”, closer to the defender than to the attacker - meaning the attacker is increasingly extended, while the defender will pull their defence closer to their own centre of mass. At this point, reactions by the defender require smaller movements, and less acceleration, while the attacker has more momentum in their extended attack, and requires more energy, and more time to change direction.
Sorry but that’s simply wrong. I have done two years or sabre fencing in my youth - it’s all about reaction time and correct execution of a parry. If you always knew exactly which angle to parry at, and had the reaction speed to execute this in time, then you could fence for a long time without anyone getting hit. You’d have to outsmart your opponent by slowly leading them into a trap where they have to execute a movement that throws them off-balance, so that you then can execute an attack that they can’t regain their balance to parry.
Only if all your knowledge and reaction speed was defensive rather than offensive. If you gained an equal amount of offensive reaction speed and knowledge you could adjust strikes as you saw the opponent begin to parry.
Play that out in your mind in slow motion and you’ll realise why your logic is flawed.
My point is that slow motion wouldn’t change anything. In fast motion the attacker doesn’t have time to adjust their attack, and the defender doesn’t have time to adjust their defence. In slow motion nothing changes. The defender can adjust their defense, but the attacker can also adjust their attack. Slow motion doesn’t somehow make defending work better and attacking worse.
I disagree. As an attack comes closer to hitting, the weapon is by the very definition of “closer”, closer to the defender than to the attacker - meaning the attacker is increasingly extended, while the defender will pull their defence closer to their own centre of mass. At this point, reactions by the defender require smaller movements, and less acceleration, while the attacker has more momentum in their extended attack, and requires more energy, and more time to change direction.