Clash of techniques

One wierd fencing "technique" I saw was one guy who thought he was "cool" whipping his foil and hitting the ground with the tip to intimidate his opponent. Is this a real technique or was this guy just strange? On a hard surface he could break a real sword.

It is kind of hard to explain, but there was kind of a strange non-seriousness in that class like I often see in paintball games. Partially it was because they treated their foils as toys, but there was more to it than that. I've seen it in eastern martial arts at times as well.
 
if it was epee, then the foot is a valid target - whipping your sword at the ground would make the opponent wary about advancing, maybe lean too much and be off balance.

Personnaly, I regard 'whipping' and stop hits as cobblers. If you wouldn't do it with sharps, don't do it with fencing blades.

Don't like electric fencing, either. The game is much better when you rely on the person who is hit to cry "touche".
 
During the 1976 Olympics, IIRC, the Soviet fencing team had rigged its fencing weapons so that the Soviet team member could touch a hidden button on his weapon and it would show a "Touch" scored on his opponent, actual touch or not. This was giving the Soviet team a decided advantage in all of the events where fencing of any type was involved until one of their tem members allowed a bit of sweat to get into the system on his blade's hilt and it shorted out. The resulting lighted Christmas Tree effect tipped off even the most blase judges and the Soviet fencers were heavily penalized, I think suspended from the games for that year. There was, according to my epee fencing friend, a major scandal that rocked the fencing world for years thereafter.
 
Thanks for the info. I actually like whipping a sword if the design of the sword supports it, but not at the ground. In Eskrima there is a technique like this called pictos where you whip the blade/stick into the opponent. I've found this works well and is hard to block.
 
how does that saying go, if you strike at the same time your enemy does, the worst result is you both die.....

fascinating question, i wonder if there is any historical context for it, if there were ever any european vs japanese sword play?

from what i know about samurai, guile and trickery were taught as well as hard fighting techniques. Fencing seems more straightforward but had its advantages over the long arcs needed to gain speed for the samurai swords to slice. would be interesting if a match could be rigged somehow, without hurting anyone, to see exactly what would happen.
 
are often used in conflict. It is true skill that keeps the swordsman alive, but the tricks work now and again.

The east vs. west issue hase been discussed ehre many times. Do some searchs on the archives and you'll find plenty of discussion.

Keith
 
There are historical accounts of encounters between katana weilding samurai and european rapier fencers in the 16th century. The rapier won more often it appears.

Daniel
 
Hello,
If you don't mind, I'd like to make a point;)

I agree with many of you, but I think the issue is not clear cut:rolleyes: I assume both combatants are of equal skill (within their respective disciplines)

Well: within the Samurai's repertoire are such as: various schools (some of which DO allow for thrusting as an early or opportunistic end to the fight) fast draw, body movement, a range of weapons (not just swords)& weapon combinations, possibly armor & maybe a horse :eek:

The fencer, on the otherhand has such as: various schools (some of which DO allow for slashing attacks (based on, but not restricted to weapon type)) a range of weapons (not just swords) & weapon combinations, body movement, possibly armor & maybe a horse :eek:

As you can see, with such a variety of combinations available to both, the outcome cannot be decided in such an easy manner, each conflict has to be viewed on a case-by-case basis.

Sorry that I couldn't be more helpful:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top