A hypothetical fourth weapon (2)

[kalivor]

I am incredibly disappointed that this is not a petition to bring back the single stick.

[oiuyt]

I am incredibly disappointed that this is not a petition to bring back the single stick.

A weapon in which the US has won all three Olympic medals ever awarded....

-B

[Allen Evans]

Here's a fourth weapon for you:

Foil target area
Slashing weapons
Double touches allowed
Round piste

...and pre-planned fires by indirect weapons on parts of the competition area.

[Gav]

You could also move the disk (have it rotate and rock) with spikes periodically come up from underneath.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUdMBciScd0

[oso97]

You could also move the disk (have it rotate and rock) with spikes periodically come up from underneath.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUdMBciScd0

Now that was some kewl beans.

[Hokiiaidoka]

Honestly, the arguements for a fourth weapon are frankly sort of worthless, but, if anything were to happen, I would think it should be saber without ROW. My argument is based on the opinions of a layman. If we want to make fencing more spectator friendly (which is probably a questionable motive anyway), we should use saber, which, to the layperson is more sword like weapon (you cut and swash and buckle? and all that fun stuff), the only current problem with it is the inclusion of ROW rules, which are slightly archaic and confusing procedures. I have heard a lot of complaints that saber without right of way would be a meat grinder at best (since fencers motivations would be to just run at each other), but I disagree, since just like in epee, it would change the risk reward scenario. Why don't we see epeeists running at each other? Because the chance of the other person getting a counter is so high. I would argue that it is even easier to get a happenstance-stick-your-blade-out-there counter in saber, meaning the attacker would have to take very precise and well thought out actions to keep the opponent from countering. Whether this would be realistic or not is still questionable, but that is a different question. I think that it would make a less confusing, more spectator friendly event, if that is indeed what we want.

PS. As for the idea that if you counter into someone's arm and then still get hit in the chest being unrealistic. Last semester I was in a full out lunge, my opponent stuck her blade out for a counter. For some odd reason the blade didn't bend, and went straight through my glove, and then straight through the webbing of my thumb. When I was halfway through my lunge, when I probably couldn't have stopped myself if I wanted to, she stabbed me in the hand, this resulting in an IMMEDIATE stop of my action, I literally dropped my sword mid lunge and couldn't move my hand. Given the intricacies of the muscles of the hand, I would imagine any counter to the arm would have the same effect. Now, we could argue all day about the effects of adrenaline and in a real duel blah blah blah, but in this case, the counter would have easily won the duel for her. (BTW, I don't blame her at all, this was a freak accident, but it did teach me something about the "realism" of counterattacks (I healed up fine as well).)

[Guided by Wire]

indirect weapons

I hope you mean light mortar.

[Allen Evans]

Why stop there?

"Artillery adds dignity, to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl"
- Frederick the Great, king of Germany, 1740 to 1786

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Unabashedly lazy right now:
Is there a point to ROW?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[K O'N]

I do believe that I would actually pay to see this. I've always been impressed by the speed and skill of the wheelchair fencers I've seen, and I can only imagine that 2 on 2 wheelchair epee would be amazing.

I would totally love to see a documentary about this sport.

K O'N
call it "Murderstick"

[I_luv_saber]

As far as fencing in a ring, I would just about bet that most fencers would end up fencing mostly linear anyway. There would be some lateral movement - but the majority of fencing would stay linear, I think.

In regards to other fencing weapons, I've always been interested in bayonet fencing and/or singlestick. Not saying it should be an addition to the sport, but it would be cool to learn. I don't think there are many around who know it anymore, though...

/thread drift.

[Superscribe]

You are all uncreative peons without any desire to further our sport with meaningful suggestions. All the suggestions before me have sucked. Here are the only good ones

Two handed epee.

Saber with the same rules as today, but making the blade only a foot long and no bell guard.

Foil with the same rules as today, but with a buckler.

Affix three, footlong mini-saber blades to the backs of each hand, and pretending like you're wolverine. Sabre ROW. You are now allowed to cross over. Corps a Corps judiciously un-enforced.

First-person-to-touch-without-being-touched anywhere on the body with "spears" that are now 7 feet long. You can only score with the point.

Tie the off-hand of both fencer's together. The first person to score with a flexble sword like weapon on the back foot of the opponent 5x wins. ROW will be foilish. Corps a Corps strictly enforced.

Anything with a tag team component would be awesome. Rule is, during a tag, a team must have 2 feet on the piste at all times. The tagged must have a foot on the strip just as the tagger takes one foot off. As the tagger takes both feet off, the tagged must be completely on the strip. The tagged can enter the strip from either side. If we assigned ROW on a team basis instead of individual, you'd get some crazy things happening (i.e one person parries, steps off, and the riposte comes from the fencer stepping on, as long as the action is continuous.)

[NGV]

You are all uncreative peons without any desire to further our sport with meaningful suggestions. All the suggestions before me have sucked. Here are the only good ones

Two handed epee.

What would be the purpose of using two hands with a point weapon? Can't really picture this.

Saber with the same rules as today, but making the blade only a foot long and no bell guard.

Short sabers might be cool, but I'd keep the guard.

Foil with the same rules as today, but with a buckler.

Seems like that would lead to constant off targets, unless the buckler is conductive (or you get rid of OT). I'd rather see saber with a buckler anyway.

Affix three, footlong mini-saber blades to the backs of each hand, and pretending like you're wolverine. Sabre ROW. You are now allowed to cross over. Corps a Corps judiciously un-enforced.

Sounds like it would be fun, but hard to ref.

First-person-to-touch-without-being-touched anywhere on the body with "spears" that are now 7 feet long. You can only score with the point.

Sweet!

I like the creativity. My proposed new weapon would have a target area of saber plus foil (arms, head, torso) with no off-target lights, use epee blades and guards, and have foil tips and foil ROW. After all, there's no inherent reason that the conventional point weapon must be light and whippy and the non-conventional one should be bigger and clunkier - it's just a historical coincidence. Why not try it the other way?

If we want to get a little more imaginative, note that the advent of wireless fencing creates the possibility of fencing saber on horseback. I bet that would get some TV coverage during the Olympics.

[larkascending]

What would be the purpose of using two hands with a point weapon? Can't really picture this.

No, two epees, one in each hand!

[K O'N]

No, two epees, one in each hand!

One of my high school kids made a couple of two-into-one body cords so we could do this a couple of years ago. Very enjoyable after-SN summer game, still sort of fencing but not too serious.

K O'N

[alpine]

No, two epees, one in each hand!

Just saw a tournament with a "Zombie Sabre" event for Halloween. No lame, just masks as target since, as everyone knows, you can only kill zombies by whacking them in the head.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


This wiki article describes a nonhypothetical usage of another weapon, by non-humans. Quite funny!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson