Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

thud · 12-11-2005, 04:13 PM

I'd enjoy sabre more if there was more bladework to it. So here's something purely hypothetical: if I was God of Fencing and I put in double-touches and took out the right of way and increased the lock-out time to something really long like 750ms and called it the fourth weapon, would that put some more bladework into sabre? Would it work? Would it be fun? I guess it would be a cross of all three traditional weapons.

RebelFencer · 12-11-2005, 04:15 PM

No. No. and No.

HDG · 12-11-2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

No. No. and No.

Rebel, I dig the new Southpark-inspired tag/signature.

prototoast · 12-11-2005, 05:11 PM

Based on your vague rules description, it sounds as though it would be incredibly easy to achieve a double touch and thus the first person to get a lead would end up winning.

thud · 12-11-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prototoast

Based on your vague rules description, it sounds as though it would be incredibly easy to achieve a double touch and thus the first person to get a lead would end up winning.

Well, I put up an artificially high lock-out time because I don't really know what you'd need. I don't think there's anyway to tell without physically testing, so I'm just assuming that there is some ideal lock-out time for this. The purpose was simply to emphasize that parries and other blade engagements would have to completely close the line of attack, a la epee.

MyrddinsPrecint · 12-11-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thud

Well, I put up an artificially high lock-out time because I don't really know what you'd need. I don't think there's anyway to tell without physically testing, so I'm just assuming that there is some ideal lock-out time for this. The purpose was simply to emphasize that parries and other blade engagements would have to completely close the line of attack, a la epee.

the number of doubles would still be astonishing.

........

sabre would be over even faster though.................

RebelFencer · 12-11-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDG

Rebel, I dig the new Southpark-inspired tag/signature.

Thanks! I aim to please.

Manethrin · 12-11-2005, 08:05 PM

I always thought we should get something like broadsword back into play.

sabreteur · 12-11-2005, 08:06 PM

Qualification: I only have two years of fencing experience. All of it sabre, one year in the old timing, one year with the new; so feel free to disregard my opinion.

The new, tighter timing is way way more fun. It allows for any number of dirty tricks to steal points from your opponent. If anything I'd tighten the timing even more.

The other concept I've thought about is for greater public interest in our sport I'd like to see a form of fencing more like a real honest to God duel.

Points would be awarded based on the damage a real weapon's touch would do and the bout would last until an incapacitation would be calculated to have occurred. I presume some new electronics would be needed to pinpoint location and impact strength for that calculation.

The piece de resistance: For the viewing public's pleasure, real-time computer animation could add red marks matching the location and severity of the 'wound' on the athletes as they fence. (Sorry, I know that's sick, but you've gotta know the public would love it.)

KD5MDK · 12-11-2005, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thud

Well, I put up an artificially high lock-out time because I don't really know what you'd need. I don't think there's anyway to tell without physically testing, so I'm just assuming that there is some ideal lock-out time for this. The purpose was simply to emphasize that parries and other blade engagements would have to completely close the line of attack, a la epee.

Except for that in epee, you have 40! ms of lockout time. 750 is some... 19 time that.

keropie · 12-11-2005, 11:03 PM

The lower lock out time will enforce more sloppily heavy attacks (not sloppy on the side of preparation, but more on the side of 'yeah, parry this as I drive you and your weapon to the floor), more distance defence (remises can't arrive when I'm too far away), and more counterattacks. It will NOT reward more parries, so they won't happen. As mentioned above there are now more 'dirty tricks' to get touches, which is BAD for a sport. So, honestly, if you wanted to reward parries more, you would be better off sticking with priority (that's why parries happen mostly, after all), and changing the machine to more heavily ignore whipover actions.

Additionally, the idea of 'completely closing' a 'line' (they're more planes in saber, after all) against a thin piece of steel that wobbles over stuff and only needs the most minute of contact to set of the machine is somewhat absurd. If you really make such a parry and the opponent is unable to deceive it, the first thing we should do is check the opponent for a pulse, and then brain activity. If I know that all I have to do to get a touch (double or single) is make an attack that will whipover to target, I can make some ugly nasty side-of-the-blade actions with a saber that are awful tough to parry with the blade.

So no, I don't think it would work out quite as you'd intended

prototoast · 12-11-2005, 11:34 PM

What if you made a sabre out of two pieces of metal insulated from each other for the upper and lower part of the blade, and if blade contact was made on the lower part (the "parry" part) you got a buffer (more than just whipover protection) when the opponent couldn't score... yeah, that would be pretty stupid.

thud · 12-12-2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prototoast

What if you made a sabre out of two pieces of metal insulated from each other for the upper and lower part of the blade, and if blade contact was made on the lower part (the "parry" part) you got a buffer (more than just whipover protection) when the opponent couldn't score... yeah, that would be pretty stupid.

I guess the sabre itself is part of the problem. See, I almost proposed full-body target, but that would require electrified pants, or electrified knickers and electrified socks...and then electrified shoes...so I didn't! But as long as we're talking about a fourth weapon in which fencers would only need to purchase that new piece of equipment, I suppose that redesigned sabres would be viable. I dunno if they can make these things stiffer, though, nor if they can do what you just said.

thud · 12-12-2005, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabreteur

The new, tighter timing is way way more fun. It allows for any number of dirty tricks to steal points from your opponent. If anything I'd tighten the timing even more.

The other concept I've thought about is for greater public interest in our sport I'd like to see a form of fencing more like a real honest to God duel.

Points would be awarded based on the damage a real weapon's touch would do and the bout would last until an incapacitation would be calculated to have occurred. I presume some new electronics would be needed to pinpoint location and impact strength for that calculation.

See, tighter timing already makes the weapon more like a duel, if you're talking about the first-blood duels that epee is based on. In that case, "real damage" wouldn't be necessary. Even if you were to try to base this off a "duel to incapacitation," one could argue that a simple cut to the wrist is incapacitation enough. I'd look at it with more of a sport point of view, such that harder to reach targets would be worth more than easy targets (if, for example, you manage to get a touch on the back shoulder, you get three points). I don't know that there's a large enough difference in target regions to justify that, though.

thud · 12-12-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keropie

Additionally, the idea of 'completely closing' a 'line' (they're more planes in saber, after all) against a thin piece of steel that wobbles over stuff and only needs the most minute of contact to set of the machine is somewhat absurd. If you really make such a parry and the opponent is unable to deceive it...

Well how the heck did people fight with live sabres, anyway? And deceives are a part of fencing, right?

LUDICROUS · 12-12-2005, 01:09 AM

Lots of armour? thin, blunt blades?

Slowly?

keropie · 12-12-2005, 02:53 AM

With live steel blades that cut along the wide axis only, and the fact that the linear distortion along the wide axis of the blade is minimal, whipover isn't the same sort of concern. Additionally, they often had bucklers or shields of some sort, and armor. And 'touches' mattered a whole lot less than 'bleeding to death' or 'absolute loss of blood to the brain due to the brain being in the head that's lying on the ground.'

Sport fencing has (thankfully) evolved far past dueling. No longer are all but one of us bleeding, maimed, or dead at the end of a tournament. I, for one, am glad that we don't kill one of every two in a bout. I don't think I'd ever have started the sport, and I'm quite sure I'd be dead.

Oh, and for what it's worth, the changes to the blade fail the basic principle that capteurs also failed: simple (and workable) is a good thing. This principle, incidently, has also been failed in the new foil timings as the longer closing timing has now increased the failure of touches due to 'microbreaks' (from that very nice article from the Italian Fencing Federation).

Cheers

JackOfHearts · 12-12-2005, 03:21 AM

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy I call "Samurai" from my fencing club. We were wondering if it would be feasable to add a weapon like a katana to fencing, and we've even thought up of a prototype. Though there are still a few kinks to work out in the plan though... but it was just speculation, not a serious venture.

thud · 12-12-2005, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackOfHearts

We were wondering if it would be feasable to add a weapon like a katana to fencing, and we've even thought up of a prototype. Though there are still a few kinks to work out in the plan though... but it was just speculation, not a serious venture.

And Manethrin brought up broadswords a bit ways up there. I'd actually love to see some kind of interweapon fencing, so that we could bring the oriental and occidental fencing arts together, but of course that brings up a whole other set of logistics to play with that I won't dare get into here. But for what it's worth, kendo fencers and naginata fencers do square off sometimes.

thud · 12-12-2005, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keropie

With live steel blades that cut along the wide axis only, and the fact that the linear distortion along the wide axis of the blade is minimal, whipover isn't the same sort of concern. Additionally, they often had bucklers or shields of some sort, and armor.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that anyone wielding a live sabre wasn't wearing armor. By this time, guns were the mainstay of infantry combat, and so it wasn't practical wearing iron anymore. But maybe I'm thinking a little too recently in history.

It's a good point about the difference in width, though I don't know just how different they were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by keropie

Sport fencing has (thankfully) evolved far past dueling.

Certainly few of us want to kill anyone, but there are some of us who like cutting, but also like the phrase to last a little longer than two seconds, or like the weapon to feature a little more bladework...or maybe some of us are just ****ty at footwork...

I don't want hypothetical sabre to be like live sabre, I just figure they must've had some way of staying alive back then, so they must've been doing something (parrying) with their blades. I like epee, but sometimes I wanna cut someone and enjoy it just as much!