Which weapon

[VorpalCat]

Can you please provide your source(s)?

Also, the rapier did not exist in the 4th century BCE. Let alone the foil.

Yes huh!

[migopod]

Hitler could not possibly have been an epee fencer.

If he had been he never would have attacked anybody first and the Third Reich would have been carded for passivity while happily bouncing away in Berlin.

[OROD]

Can you please provide your source(s)?

Are you suggesting that I am not the most authoritative source for fencing knowledge on the interwebs? Ahh, wait, I see you're new to this forum. Well no need to thank me, now you know better.

Also, the rapier did not exist in the 4th century BCE. Let alone the foil.

Heh, that's exactly what the epeeists and saberists would have you believe. Actually, foil was originally invented by Aristotle, who later went on to teach it to his student Alexander the Great. Alexander considered it such a powerful and devastating technique that he tried to suppress the knowledge. However, 3 centuries of so later some documents were discovered which detailed the foil method. These were taken to the middle east and eventually came into the hands of a carpenter named Joshua (Josh to his friends), who used them to attain a great degree of enlightenment. He also considered these methods to be so powerful that they motivated him to take on the Roman Empire. Unfortunately for him the Roman Empire was too much for him to handle and things ended badly. The Romans then once again suppressed foil. Also, in order to obfuscate all knowledge of foil, they henceforth referred to Josh as "Jesus". Foil, however, was later re-discovered.

And now you know.

.

[Fiat Slug]

Are you suggesting that I am not the most authoritative source for fencing knowledge on the interwebs? Ahh, wait, I see you're new to this forum. Well no need to thank me, now you know better.

Heh, that's exactly what the epeeists and saberists would have you believe. Actually, foil was originally invented by Aristotle, who later went on to teach it to his student Alexander the Great. Alexander considered it such a powerful and devastating technique that he tried to suppress the knowledge. However, 3 centuries of so later some documents were discovered which detailed the foil method. These were taken to the middle east and eventually came into the hands of a carpenter named Joshua (Josh to his friends), who used them to attain a great degree of enlightenment. He also considered these methods to be so powerful that they motivated him to take on the Roman Empire. Unfortunately for him the Roman Empire was too much for him to handle and things ended badly. The Romans then once again suppressed foil. Also, in order to obfuscate all knowledge of foil, they henceforth referred to Josh as "Jesus". Foil, however, was later re-discovered.

And now you know.

.

Wait, Alexander who was a mere mortal, thought that the foil was too powerful but Jesus (Josh to his friends) who happens to be the son of God, could not effectively use it against the Romans? How can this be?

Also, if foil really is such a powerful weapon, then why am I still getting bruises on my arms?

[OROD]

Wait, Alexander who was a mere mortal, thought that the foil was too powerful but Jesus (Josh to his friends) who happens to be the son of God, could not effectively use it against the Romans? How can this be?

I will gladly explain it to you. So, Alexander used what he learned about foil from Aristotle to conquer most of the known world. He was also fond of using his foil for untying his shoelaces and other assorted knots. But, he was afraid that such power could not be contained and might one day be used against him. Hence, he decided to bury the secret.

Now Josh, he never really claimed to be the son of God. It was in fact his "followers" who, upon seeing what one could do with proper foil technique, viewed him as "godlike". I often get this reaction from women. We also have to remember Josh was a humble carpenter, and as such, taking on the Roman Empire was a bit out of his pay grade... even with the nice Maraging blade he used.

Also, if foil really is such a powerful weapon, then why am I still getting bruises on my arms?

Probably 'cause you need to use your foil to parry instead of your arms.

.

[eac]

A quantitative way to look at height advantage in weapons is to look at the heights of the top 20 in the world in each weapon:

Epee (not everybody has a listed height):
1. 6'1"
3. 6'2"
5. 6'4"
6. 6'4"
7. 6'3"
11. 6'4"
14. 6'3"
15. 5'9"
16. 5'8"
17. 6'3"
18. 6'3"
19. 6'3"

Sabre:
1. 6'4"
2. 6'4"
3. 6'4"
4. 6'0"
5. 6'2"
6. 5'10"
7. 5'11"
8. 6'0"
10. 6'4"
11. 6'1"
13. 6'2"
14. 5'11"
17. 6'5"
19. 6'0"

Foil:
1. 5'9"
2. 5'9"
4. 6'2"
5. 6'4"
6. 5'7"
7. 5'7"
8. 6'2"
9. 6'0"
12. 6'1"
14. 6'0"
18. 5'7"
20. 6'4"

So, it is possible to be good and short and male in all weapons, but foil more so than the other two. I'm mildly surprised that sabre people are so tall; you always hear about tall epee people, but not particularly about tall sabre people.

[Fiat Slug]

Probably 'cause you need to use your foil to parry instead of your arms.

D'oh!

.

[sabrefencer93]

The correct answer is "yes."

Although at 5'3" I wouldn't automatically figure you for an epeeist, but that's about it. Try all three, do what you like.

i agree though, try all three, however in epee it seems as being tall would be to your advantage. more height and a longer arm span. Depends a lot on your psychology too. Are you an aggressive person? than you would probably enjoy sabre or foil most, are you a passive person? then you would probably enjoy epee more, But the only way to tell is to try out all three! I prefer sabre, because i am naturally aggressive and its what im best at, however, im really starting to enjoy epee more and more, which couldn't be more opposite.

[OROD]

... in epee it seems as being tall would be to your advantage. more height and a longer arm span...

Because... in epee the arm is not target area??

.

[eac]

Because... in epee the arm is not target area??

.

If you look at the data I posted, it would appear that height helps. The problem then is to figure out why.

While I don't know very much about epee, my impression is that if you're so short and your opponent is so tall that you have to rely heavily on hitting the arm, and they have all the other options available (toe, torso, whatever) along with the arm, they have a pretty big advantage.

In foil, the height advantage gets somewhat reduced by the fact that your target gets smaller when you get shorter, so you have less area to cover. Since finding target to hit is not such a big problem in epee and sabre, this might explain the large average height in the top 20's in the world.

[NGV]

While I don't know very much about epee, my impression is that if you're so short and your opponent is so tall that you have to rely heavily on hitting the arm, and they have all the other options available (toe, torso, whatever) along with the arm, they have a pretty big advantage.

I'd say that isn't necessarily that a shorter fencer must rely heavily on hitting the arm - rather, going for the deeper target requires more preparation and more risk, which then opens up opportunities for the taller fencer.

In foil, the height advantage gets somewhat reduced by the fact that your target gets smaller when you get shorter, so you have less area to cover.

That's part of the reason that height isn't such an advantage in foil - but only a small part, I think. By far the most important reason is the vastly longer lockout time, combined with the protection of right-of-way.

Since finding target to hit is not such a big problem in epee and sabre, this might explain the large average height in the top 20's in the world.

In saber, my guess is that the current dominance for tall fencers is linked to the reduced lockout time, which makes earning a one-light touch by outreaching your opponent more practical than it was previously.

[crquack]

If you look at the data I posted, it would appear that height helps.

What are the figures for almost any other athletic endeavour? Apart from gymnastics I can only think of soccer where short stature is not necessarily a liability.

[eac]

What are the figures for almost any other athletic endeavour? Apart from gymnastics I can only think of soccer where short stature is not necessarily a liability.

Anecdotally, you can be short at slot receiver (see Wes Welker) and at runningback (see Chris Johnson) in football. Small people can fit into small spaces and change direction quickly. There exist not-particularly-tall cornerbacks, but they can sometimes have issues with tall receivers.

[Inquartata]

the rapier did not exist in the 4th century BCE.

Actually it dates at least to the 15th century BC, in the form of the bronze Minoan/Mycenean and Celtic/Gaelic thrusting swords. These were tangless blades attached to hilts by rivets, and would have been perilous to use for anything other than thrusting and light slashing. See Oakeshott's "Archaeology of Weapons".

In saber, my guess is that the current dominance for tall fencers is linked to the reduced lockout time, which makes earning a one-light touch by outreaching your opponent more practical than it was previously.

My guess is that there's little reason to suspect that correlation has crossed the Rubicon into causation.

[larkascending]

What are the figures for almost any other athletic endeavour? Apart from gymnastics I can only think of soccer where short stature is not necessarily a liability.

Figure skating. In women's figure skating, being taller than 5'4" or so is a big liability (as is having any kind of curves). A lot of promising young skaters start falling off the map when they're in middle school.

[piste off]

What are the figures for almost any other athletic endeavour? Apart from gymnastics I can only think of soccer where short stature is not necessarily a liability.

Dwarf tossing. Or as epeeists call it, ROW-fencer tossing.

R-

[Superscribe]

Motorcycle racing. Horse Racing. Car Racing.

Wrestling.

Some positions in hockey I think.




Height matters in soccer.

[NGV]

Height matters in soccer.

Depends on the position - for central defenders and goalkeepers, it matters a lot (you'll still see players at those positions around 5'9'', but not many, and that's about the limit). Being tall is necessary for certain types of forwards, and useful for certain types of central midfielders.

For outside midfielders and outside defenders, height isn't very important, and attacking midfielders can sometimes benefit from being closer to the ground and to the ball.

[crquack]

Some positions in hockey I think.




Height matters in soccer.

NGV got there first on the soccer thing. I agree entirely. How tall is Messi? Arshavin? Keegan?

OTOH if you want to play top flight hockey today *size matters*!

[redheaded_sabreuse]

Let's see, I'm 5'5", fenced all three weapons, and now I've decided to train exclusively in sabre and foil.

This is largely because

1) Sabre is really fun,

2) Foil is really fun, and

3) I don't like pain.

Yes, all you passionate epeeists, go to town on that one. I shall chortle at the wit of your responses.