But I propose that the spirit of fencing, hit without being hit, is being lost on the current generation of fencers in favour of score as many points as possible. I therefore suggest a system where a point is subtracted each hit you take and you can't go below 0:
i.e.
X X O X O - 3X - 1
O O X O X - 2X - 1
In this system of scoring you would have to be hit a maximum of 1/3 attacks in order to actually progress in points (2 steps forward 1 step back) and so in order to stop people dying the bout lasts a set number of attacks, 15 or so, unless of course you fancy your chances as a marathon runner.
If it looks unfair to you I'll just claim that's 'cos you're still thinking in "hit hit HIT!" mode. The penalising for being hit is less significant at 15 attacks or so.
I'm also going to be modelling more systems, maybe even chuck in some exponential stuff, but that's just too weird to put on b3ta.
Thoughts?
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:50, archived)
but playdoh is fun, too; somewhat edible, as well!
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:52, archived)
lol like a fence post...I give up too.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:57, archived)
but I really don't give a fuck about this
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:51, archived)
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:52, archived)
It was an easy roffle for the ones with obvious-humour lobes.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:55, archived)
If there were cleaver fencing I'd prefer that.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:54, archived)
The foil fencers can just fuck off with their flaily shit and epeeists can keep on smacking rocks against each other.
I want to slow down the sabreurs a little bit, get them scared.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:56, archived)
Give them proper sabres and take off their armour, see how many points they're willing to concede then.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:58, archived)
at the beginning of the game conceding a point is actually of far greater effect than scoring a point; as shown above with despite an orthodox win of 3 vs 2 it becomes a draw that goes through to sudden death.
People seem to forget what they're emulating when they fence.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 11:01, archived)
and have worked with Bowie knives, which are similar in technique to sabres. A good sabreur will still probably chop the fuck out of me, of course, I haven't put the hours in, but he'll do so with all sorts of bad habits.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 11:06, archived)
you're pretty much guaranteed to get cut in some way, so the idea is to minimise the damage done to you, such as even grabbing the blade to get control of the weapon. How much of this rings true?
Then again... bowie knives are quite different to kitchen knives.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 11:10, archived)
you're likely to get cut, so make sure it's on the backs of your hands and forearms and not the palms/insides, outer leg rather than inner leg and so on. And finish up quickly before you go into shock :)
I met one guy who took an attacker's knife out of the equation by jamming it into his thigh and holding it there while he punched the crap out of him. He's a very scary guy.
Yup, 10" or so is the cut-off between small and large knives - whether you have a realistic prospect of getting past the blade with your bare hands. Most etymologies of fencing indicate the sword is your protection, rather than your weapon - you keep it between you and your attacker.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 11:18, archived)
what interests me and what I find appealing about fencing is the background, the practicalities people faced in trying to apply a sharp piece of metal to other people in a way that stopped the same being applied to them. The movements and rhythms and dynamics of it. And something like epee fencing is basically a game of "tag".
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:57, archived)
Foil is for vicars
Epee is for the French.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 10:58, archived)
I'd love to be able to use a sword, all fancy like. I MIGHT BUY ONE.
(, Fri 19 Jun 2009, 11:00, archived)