What's the best weapon

[drippingwet]

I thought I'd start this for a laugh.

But I think foil is very booshank. You can only hit with point, and on top of that, you can only hit on torso, and on top of that, you have to contend with the daftness of certain rules - it's all very testing.

Some people might say things like most club epeeists and sabreurs are middle aged men and women lookin for an interesting weight loss programme, who can't handle foil. But I don't know about that. So which is the best weapon?

(this is a totally daft question).

[Kismet]

Epee, of course.

I mean...you can hit anywhere you want!

[drippingwet]

Yes, I suppose a beat attack to the toes would be a novel idea to me, but I still think my foil booshank.

[Grey]

Limitations create options. Without the limitation of existence, physics and logic, how in the nine hells can you lunge? If you do not exist, the first limitation, you can do nothing at all. Nothing is defined by existence, hence it is a limitation. Physics is require for working of the human body mechanically and the gravity, friction and numerous other forces working in conjunction with your lunge. The logic of lunging another criteria for attacking, is whether you have right of way, whether the opponent is caught flat-footed or unprepared, whether your lunge is fast enough etc.

How can you say that you have to contend with daft rules? You should rejoice for it gives you extra options and styles to execute your attack.

[drippingwet]

1. "Limitations create options. Without the limitation of existence, physics and logic, how in the nine hells can you lunge?"

So you mean fencing is based on the fallibility (limitations) of human beings? If humans were perfect, nobody would ever score because for every action there's a reaction?

But from what you say, there's limitations in all weapons, no? So what's your point?

2. "If you do not exist, the first limitation, you can do nothing at all."

Fair enough.

3. "Nothing is defined by existence, hence it is a limitation."

Couldn't get that one.

"Physics is require for working of the human body mechanically and the gravity, friction and numerous other forces working in conjunction with your lunge. The logic of lunging another criteria for attacking, is whether you have right of way, whether the opponent is caught flat-footed or unprepared, whether your lunge is fast enough etc."

What's this got to do with the best weapon?

"How can you say that you have to contend with daft rules? You should rejoice for it gives you extra options and styles to execute your attack."

Take this example:
Opponent is out of distance
Opponent extends first
Opponent closes distance
I respond by sticking out a line while opponent is still out of hitting distance opponent impales himself but hits me aswell and takes the point.

In a real duel, the enemy would quit the attack, or beat the blade, or something. Hence the example is not logical and is daft.

[riceboy]

It's all about the rapier!

Want to talk about the epee as the "dueling weapon," well here's the real dueling weapon in all it's glory. What other weapon can you study where reading 16th century writings is requirement, and knowledge of a foreign language a plus?

(of the modern weapons)

Classical Foil. None of this flicking for us, complex phrasing and stricter right of way make this a weapon for the thinking man. Though epee with points d'arrat are really cool too...

[Grey]

"So you mean fencing is based on the fallibility (limitations) of human beings? If humans were perfect, nobody would ever score because for every action there's a reaction?"

Yes. That is exactly correct. If we are perfect, we wouldn't have a lot of problems and mistakes which are not possible. When we are hit, we have made a mistake either in having executed poor parries or distancing. It can also be attributed to not having trained sufficiently or not being fast enough (insufficient physical conditioning). It is simple logic, think through before asking.

"But from what you say, there's limitations in all weapons, no? So what's your point?"

Yes, there is limitations in all weapons. The limitations define the different ways which you play your game. I'm trying to explain that the ROW convention is not "daft" if you look through it thoroughly and understand it further rather than simply calling it "daft" which is fairly easier compared to exploring the opportunities offered.

"3. "Nothing is defined by existence, hence it is a limitation."

Couldn't get that one."

I'm trying to express that the state of "nothingness" or inexistence is defined by existing material. Hence I'm trying to explain that existence itself is one of the prime reason for limitations.

"What's this got to do with the best weapon?"

It has nothing to do with the best weapon. I'm trying to stress on limitations being an important part of creating options, in reply to "daft" conventions.

"In a real duel, the enemy would quit the attack, or beat the blade, or something. Hence the example is not logical and is daft."

We are clearly discussing sport fencing. If you wish to discuss dueling it is fine too, but I will explain clearly from the point of view of sport fencing. Your enemy is following in accordance with the rules laid down by the ROW convention. You are the one who is clearly not following the rules. Your line can only be constituted as legal if your opponent has not yet began his/her extension. In sport fencing you CLEARLY play by an agreed set of rules. An example would be an epeeist claiming that "Epee is Truth". It is as much truth as the sport and is unrealistic compared to a real duel.

If it is a real duel, your opponent begins extension of the weapon, I highly doubt that you will stick out your weapon in a line. A duel is a matter of life and death and decisions made will be different. There are reasons why the Right Of Way convention is laid down in Foil and why classical fencing focuses so much on proper techniques. Unless you have truly taken part in a duel and used that particular tactic to deter an opponent from striking you and instead beat your blade or "something", than could you mention your stated scenario.

Continuing with dueling, supposedly your opponent does execute a beat or bind and successfully brings your weapon out of line and kills you, where is the logic in your point-in-line? If you were to stick out a line in response to an immediate threat by your opponent and it ends with both you and your opponent impaling each other... I will say that both of you do not understand the purpose of a duel (Please note that there is a technique to counter lines or counter attacks. It is refered to sometimes as "closing the line" which prevents your counter attack from suceeding. It is taught in Epee now albeit in different forms but rarely in foil). The objective of a duel is to survive and unfortunately, to kill your opponent or to fence until he/she has given up. But by not defending yourself when clearly threatened not only shows that you are not sound of mind but suicidal. Classical fencing originates from dueling (which therefore, is slightly removed from sport fencing) and therefore places emphasis on "safe" techniques. It would do a Fencing Master no good if his charges ended up dying in duels of any sort all the time. How could the Fencing Master be considered a Fencing Master?

In your example, not only are you challenging the rules laid down by sport fencing itself, you hold little regard for the centuries of study of fencing by scholars, Fencing Masters and knowledge learned through the loss of lives. I admit this sounds extremely arrogant and blown up but what you've stated shows little understanding in fencing theory.

I apologise if I've offended you, but I wish to enforce a point on the topic of "limitations" and the manner which you have laid down your example.

[esskreemr]

I'll have to go with grey on this one (hopefully with fewer esoteric phrases).

Foil is governed by a set of conventions. These conventions teach us that certain actions have less than desired consequences. Though we don't always have to follow the conventions (counterattack), the results are more likely positive if we do. In addition, the rules provide a type of guideline that aids in learning the sport... For instance, we know that ideally a parry is followed by a riposte, we know that if an opponent is presenting a threat, we must remove that threat before introducing our own.

The rules of foil, including the restricted target, guide us to the prime target areas while not completely excluding the values of hitting the non-target areas. A hit to the big toe is not likely to be lethal, a thrust to the chest is.

[drippingwet]

"In your example, not only are you challenging the rules laid down by sport fencing itself, you hold little regard for the centuries of study of fencing by scholars, Fencing Masters and knowledge learned through the loss of lives. I admit this sounds extremely arrogant and blown up but what you've stated shows little understanding in fencing theory."

I understand that it is a sport and artificial rules have their place. But it seems you think my example also goes againt centuries worth of fencing study and the knowledge learned through loss of life. Take another example... Today it seems you can beat the opponent's blade and then wait a few seconds before actually launching your attack, and still have RoW in any simultaneous hit. Was the value of this kind of stuff really learned through the loss of life or centuries of study? That beat would have meant nothing in a duel, so why would it survive as a good tactic?

I'm not against RoW, it makes sense - If you're opponent starts an attack, you wouldn't respond by attacking the opponent, because you'd both hit, but you'd be making the error. My problem lies in things like beats that seem to give RoW even after a delay, or delayed ripostes, or slow extensions of the arm during a march, and then converting the slow extention into a lunge when the defender tries to AIP. And even worse, is if the ref is giving benefit of the doubt or is being biased towards the one who's advancing, just for advancing (don't know if this actually happens). In the sport context I can accept these things. But when you seem to be saying this stuff originated over hundreds of years or was learned through death or injury, I don't see how a beat with a delayed follow-up would have privided protection against a simultaneous action for the duellists.

I'm not obsessed about this stuff, I'm just saying!

[HillBilly]

Originally Posted by riceboy

It's all about the rapier!

Want to talk about the epee as the "dueling weapon," well here's the real dueling weapon in all it's glory. What other weapon can you study where reading 16th century writings is requirement, and knowledge of a foreign language a plus?

(of the modern weapons)

Classical Foil. None of this flicking for us, complex phrasing and stricter right of way make this a weapon for the thinking man. Though epee with points d'arrat are really cool too...

argh no they hurt!

[Alain]

Although it's good to learn with, foil is a practice weapon. Sabre is for mad people. For me, épée is the best because it's the most realistic: hit, or be hit; the art of making the fewest mistakes...

[LordTofuDog-jnr]

Originally Posted by Grey

"So you mean fencing is based on the fallibility (limitations) of human beings? If humans were perfect, nobody would ever score because for every action there's a reaction?"

Yes. That is exactly correct. If we are perfect, we wouldn't have a lot of problems and mistakes which are not possible. When we are hit, we have made a mistake either in having executed poor parries or distancing. It can also be attributed to not having trained sufficiently or not being fast enough (insufficient physical conditioning). It is simple logic, think through before asking.

"But from what you say, there's limitations in all weapons, no? So what's your point?"

Yes, there is limitations in all weapons. The limitations define the different ways which you play your game. I'm trying to explain that the ROW convention is not "daft" if you look through it thoroughly and understand it further rather than simply calling it "daft" which is fairly easier compared to exploring the opportunities offered.

"3. "Nothing is defined by existence, hence it is a limitation."

Couldn't get that one."

I'm trying to express that the state of "nothingness" or inexistence is defined by existing material. Hence I'm trying to explain that existence itself is one of the prime reason for limitations.

"What's this got to do with the best weapon?"

It has nothing to do with the best weapon. I'm trying to stress on limitations being an important part of creating options, in reply to "daft" conventions.

"In a real duel, the enemy would quit the attack, or beat the blade, or something. Hence the example is not logical and is daft."

We are clearly discussing sport fencing. If you wish to discuss dueling it is fine too, but I will explain clearly from the point of view of sport fencing. Your enemy is following in accordance with the rules laid down by the ROW convention. You are the one who is clearly not following the rules. Your line can only be constituted as legal if your opponent has not yet began his/her extension. In sport fencing you CLEARLY play by an agreed set of rules. An example would be an epeeist claiming that "Epee is Truth". It is as much truth as the sport and is unrealistic compared to a real duel.

If it is a real duel, your opponent begins extension of the weapon, I highly doubt that you will stick out your weapon in a line. A duel is a matter of life and death and decisions made will be different. There are reasons why the Right Of Way convention is laid down in Foil and why classical fencing focuses so much on proper techniques. Unless you have truly taken part in a duel and used that particular tactic to deter an opponent from striking you and instead beat your blade or "something", than could you mention your stated scenario.

Continuing with dueling, supposedly your opponent does execute a beat or bind and successfully brings your weapon out of line and kills you, where is the logic in your point-in-line? If you were to stick out a line in response to an immediate threat by your opponent and it ends with both you and your opponent impaling each other... I will say that both of you do not understand the purpose of a duel (Please note that there is a technique to counter lines or counter attacks. It is refered to sometimes as "closing the line" which prevents your counter attack from suceeding. It is taught in Epee now albeit in different forms but rarely in foil). The objective of a duel is to survive and unfortunately, to kill your opponent or to fence until he/she has given up. But by not defending yourself when clearly threatened not only shows that you are not sound of mind but suicidal. Classical fencing originates from dueling (which therefore, is slightly removed from sport fencing) and therefore places emphasis on "safe" techniques. It would do a Fencing Master no good if his charges ended up dying in duels of any sort all the time. How could the Fencing Master be considered a Fencing Master?

In your example, not only are you challenging the rules laid down by sport fencing itself, you hold little regard for the centuries of study of fencing by scholars, Fencing Masters and knowledge learned through the loss of lives. I admit this sounds extremely arrogant and blown up but what you've stated shows little understanding in fencing theory.

I apologise if I've offended you, but I wish to enforce a point on the topic of "limitations" and the manner which you have laid down your example.

You forgot to put an ' in between one of the "I'm."

Originally Posted by Alain

Although it's good to learn with, foil is a practice weapon. Sabre is for mad people. For me, épée is the best because it's the most realistic: hit, or be hit; the art of making the fewest mistakes...

Epee isn't as "truthful" as people think, in the olden days PEOPLE ACTUALLY PARRIED! They didn't bounce either. Nor did they say "Oh no, he's running at me, I'll poke his wrist and thus nullify the effect of the blade that will fall through my chest!" E.g

Duellist A - Rushes forward.
Duellist B - Pokes Duellist A's wrist but gets impaled doing it.

Who would win? Honestly, Epeeists these days...

[Grey]

"Take another example... Today it seems you can beat the opponent's blade and then wait a few seconds before actually launching your attack, and still have RoW in any simultaneous hit."

In that case, I do not believe it has right of way. Although it is true that you have taken your opponents blade, there was no immediate action after it. It should be interpreted as a beat, but no attack, then simul action. The problems which you encounter lies inherently in the way sport fencing is presided, nothing wrong with the techniques actually.

The examples that you give definately do not derive from dueling, because it will be definately suicidal to do so. Should your opponent begin an extremely slow extension resulting in you starting a fast extension, I think it should be more reasonable to state it is a simul too, because a slow extension (REALLY slow) may not constitute as a threat.

"I understand that it is a sport and artificial rules have their place. But it seems you think my example also goes againt centuries worth of fencing study and the knowledge learned through loss of life."

The only reason why I think so, is because you placed that example in the format of a duel, not because of anything else.

Quoting "In a real duel, the enemy would quit the attack, or beat the blade, or something. Hence the example is not logical and is daft."

That was the reason, the rest of your message was fine.

[Inquartata]

Holy c***, leave it to the foilists to overthink everything. And I mean EVERYTHING!

If you need a whole esoteric philosophy to justify fencing your weapon, you have missed the boat somewhere along the way. Consider switching to a weapon you can simply enjoy, instead of agonizing over principles and laws of superiority...

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by LordTofuDog-jnr

You forgot to put an ' in between one of the "I'm."



Epee isn't as "truthful" as people think, in the olden days PEOPLE ACTUALLY PARRIED! They didn't bounce either. Nor did they say "Oh no, he's running at me, I'll poke his wrist and thus nullify the effect of the blade that will fall through my chest!" E.g

Duellist A - Rushes forward.
Duellist B - Pokes Duellist A's wrist but gets impaled doing it.

Who would win? Honestly, Epeeists these days...

In the "olden days" that stab on the wrist would go through the wrist, and he would certainly drop his weapon. You need to consider the effects of steel in the flesh rather than steel just touching or grazing the flesh.

[Irensaga]

I'm one of those sport-oriented fencers who doesn't care if sport fencing resembles actual duels, prefers pistol grips because they get the job done, and has never been even remotely interested in the SCA.

From a sport perspective, I prefer sabre. Lots of fast-paced action and impressive legwork.

However, I still fence foil as my primary weapon because it keeps me disciplined (and point control comes in surprisingly handy in sabre).

I do epee occasionally.

[Grey]

"In the "olden days" that stab on the wrist would go through the wrist, and he would certainly drop his weapon. You need to consider the effects of steel in the flesh rather than steel just touching or grazing the flesh."

Ever considered suicidal duelists which was raised by drippingwet? (pun intended) Yes, it is true that steel in flesh is not such a delightful experience but the amount of force in the lunge could POSSIBLY carry the weapon towards the target. Your weapon, is a sharp and thin blade (compared to a long sword). A thrust is unlikely to severe the wrist completely nor stop the motion of the weapon moving forward. As you know, a lunge should not take more than a second (which is quite long) to carry the point to the target.

Technically speaking, we still have to account for shock and the fact that you've struck the offensive opponent in the midst of his/her attack. Added to the fact that in Epee, hitting 1/25th of a second before his tip actually depresses... You're talking about a very high possiblity of being hit. I would agree that it is nowhere life threatening. It is still however, enough to cause an injury, which is steel in YOUR flesh.

Considering that if it is a duel indeed, wouldn't the opposing fencer attempt something less dangerous which would be less likely to caused himself/herself to be hit? Apart from that, your thrust to the wrist may be a glancing thrust, which will not have much of an effect from stopping the opposing weapon from hitting you unless you have executed step backs or have other precautions. Only a direct hit will give you the opportunity to perhaps hopefully, stop the weapon. In the scenario that you are given, how confident are you that you can stop the attack coming towards your chest under stress? If your counter does not take effect, it is certain fatality for you. How about parrying and retreating? Isn't that safer? He/She is aiming for your chest after all. A lot of options, risks and problems starts coming up that requires consideration.

In dueling everything goes. It is hard to justify that epee really resembles dueling. No doubt, Foil or Sabre, does not really resemble dueling either.

ps : My post wasn't to justify that my weapon is the best. It was to clear up the way it was being portrayed =p

[LordTofuDog-jnr]

Originally Posted by Grey

"In the "olden days" that stab on the wrist would go through the wrist, and he would certainly drop his weapon. You need to consider the effects of steel in the flesh rather than steel just touching or grazing the flesh."

Ever considered suicidal duelists which was raised by drippingwet? (pun intended) Yes, it is true that steel in flesh is not such a delightful experience but the amount of force in the lunge could POSSIBLY carry the weapon towards the target. Your weapon, is a sharp and thin blade (compared to a long sword). A thrust is unlikely to severe the wrist completely nor stop the motion of the weapon moving forward. As you know, a lunge should not take more than a second (which is quite long) to carry the point to the target.

Technically speaking, we still have to account for shock and the fact that you've struck the offensive opponent in the midst of his/her attack. Added to the fact that in Epee, hitting 1/25th of a second before his tip actually depresses... You're talking about a very high possiblity of being hit. I would agree that it is nowhere life threatening. It is still however, enough to cause an injury, which is steel in YOUR flesh.

Considering that if it is a duel indeed, wouldn't the opposing fencer attempt something less dangerous which would be less likely to caused himself/herself to be hit? Apart from that, your thrust to the wrist may be a glancing thrust, which will not have much of an effect from stopping the opposing weapon from hitting you unless you have executed step backs or have other precautions. Only a direct hit will give you the opportunity to perhaps hopefully, stop the weapon. In the scenario that you are given, how confident are you that you can stop the attack coming towards your chest under stress? If your counter does not take effect, it is certain fatality for you. How about parrying and retreating? Isn't that safer? He/She is aiming for your chest after all. A lot of options, risks and problems starts coming up that requires consideration.

In dueling everything goes. It is hard to justify that epee really resembles dueling. No doubt, Foil or Sabre, does not really resemble dueling either.

ps : My post wasn't to justify that my weapon is the best. It was to clear up the way it was being portrayed =p

My point exactly. (Pun intended, sadly )

[mrbiggs]

I like foil because that's what people fence, and I'm good at parrying.

I like epee because I really enjoy wrist shots, and I suck at sabre.

[wildmoppet]

I like foil because my first ever competition was foil and I won gold in it, despite being an epeeist by that stage and learning the ROW rules in a hurry.

I love epee because its more of a phsycological game than the others which involve too many rules and junk.
I am not a fan of sabre because I'm really rubbish at it and the sabreurs at our clubs are murderously violent.