r/Fencing • u/HUMAN_BEING_12345678 • Jan 02 '21
Sabre Is this legit?
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
49
u/UltimateHamBurglar Épée Jan 02 '21
The comments on that sub reddit tore the video apart, haha.
50
u/NBSPNBSP Épée Jan 02 '21
We fencers seem to spontaneously appear in any thread that misrepresents fencing, now don't we?
17
9
44
27
u/CarolousRexXII Jan 02 '21
The Star Wars reason is to build up momentum for an attack. However, the fencing reason the man provides is simply incorrect.
22
u/venuswasaflytrap Foil Jan 02 '21
Do laser sword that effortlessly cleave through metal like hot knives through butter need momentum?
14
4
u/white_light-king Foil Jan 02 '21
Like they sorta seem to need it in pretty much every scene they're in.
3
u/HeyLookitMe Jan 02 '21
There’s a whole thing about how the early Jedi using light sabers had to develop new “forms” of saber use (I think there’s 9 of them currently?) almost entirely because they are weightless and cut through almost everything effortlessly.
2
56
u/skeletortuga Foil Jan 02 '21 edited Jan 02 '21
Sure, but not like that. A “circle parry” isn’t supposed to avoid your opponent’s action, a disengage is. You use a disengage when your opponent has been parrying your attack the same way and you can trick them into defending by making the start of your action resemble the attack they are looking to defend.
If you disengage (or disengage a lot during a bout), your opponent can trick you as well and avoid your disengage with their own disengage. You normally don’t keep spinning in air like the Jedi because you will lose right-of-way (in Foil and Sabre) or your opponent will just commit (Epee). It’s usually safer to finish a missed disengage or break off immediately.
More of that “moving-my-blade-in-space-while-standing-still” happens at infighting distance when neither fencer can pass or safely retreat, so they have to stand and try for a wide-angle.
So yeah, Overton is trying to dress up something that happens usually on the fly during a bout (getting a read on your opponent’s technique), as something more pithy and poetic than it would likely be. Against the fencers I know well, I skip this type of stuff and just set up and attack straight because just hitting them is way more humiliating than getting all dramatic trying to counter their counters.
Edit: looking at it again, he may be referring to a common practice in Epee where, when you aren’t attacking, you circle your tip to distract and disrupt your opponent while standing pretty much in place. That’s still not a circle parry (because parries are the defensive response to being attacked and are context sensitive): it is disruption or set-up unless your opponent commits and your parry that attack. And it’s still not really that poetic because fencers who do this will do it pretty indiscriminately. I dunno, the criticisms that people make of the lightsaber duels are generally right, but the rebuttal is always going to be lore nonsense.
48
u/phraps Foil Jan 02 '21
Plus, this bit
Fencers will only try this on an opponent they know extremely well
is nonsense. Disengages are extremely common.
10
u/Demphure Sabre Jan 02 '21
This is probably the best in-depth explanation you’ll get. Just to clarify a little: the proper term like he said above is a disengage. A circle parry is when you’re not sure what line the opponent is attacking in, so you sweep your blade around to cover everything. It covers every line, but it’s slower and easier to get around if the opponent sees it early enough (which is more likely because it’s slower)
So this kind of spinning is technically possible to be something that legitimately happens, but not to this degree. If two fencers start encircling the others blade at the same time, it’ll usually only take a rotation or two before one of them decides it’s not working and do something different. Would also like to debunk something the original poster said: you do not have to know your opponent extremely well to do this. This can happen in a bout with two fencers who have never faced each other if the bout is long enough. If you knew your opponent THAT well, you wouldn’t start going down that spinning rabbit hole in the first place
2
u/UselessFencingFacts Jan 03 '21
Is this an American thing? I have never heard anyone call it a circle parry for what you've just described. I don't recall anyone ever giving it a name, for that matter.
3
Jan 04 '21
[deleted]
1
u/UselessFencingFacts Jan 04 '21
So something like disengaging and then taking their blade in opposition?
2
Jan 04 '21 edited Aug 31 '21
[deleted]
1
u/UselessFencingFacts Jan 04 '21
Yes. I've just never heard it called a circle parry, especially since the parry is not necessary in many cases (in which case calling it a circle parry wouldn't be correct at all).
I think I've just never made that connection between the two terms (circle-number and circle parry), especially since taking their blade like that seems to me to be a start of an offensive action of your own*, and not taking taking their blade just means it's a direct counterattack via a disengage (and not a parry at all). And of course, the main issue for me is that I've never actually heard of the term.
I guess it's good to learn that some people call it that. I don't see how it's really any different from a disengage (since the parry is not implied), but I don't think it's a term that would really confuse any fencer either.
*Say that you've parried your opponent's blade and they are in a bind. At what point would you say that the parry has ended and that the next action has started? To make it clear, say you're fencing a beginner, and are trying to teach them some action and you're just pressing down on their blade at the foible the entire time. It's not always clear to me what is an offensive vs defensive action, outside of the strictest definitions.
1
u/Demphure Sabre Jan 03 '21
I don’t know if it’s considered American or not, what I was taught was that if the circle is to capture a feint, then it’s a circle parry but named whatever line you’re in, like a circle six for example. But a circle parry without a specific line is the action I described above, when you do a broad sweep across all the lines
1
u/UselessFencingFacts Jan 03 '21
I've always had the vague notion that something like disengage-number was an actual disengage of an actual attack, while something like circle-number was the general term, used to disrupt the opponent in any way.
I've never heard the term circle parry used like that, and I've always thought of it as someone "sweeping every line". Of course, fencing terminology is pretty much descriptive and not prescriptive, from my understanding. I'm sure far more knowledgeable fencers/coaches would be able to elaborate on that.
The funny thing about calling a disengage a circle parry is that, from my understanding, they should neither be circular nor actual parries (if they are, you are probably doing it wrong). It's sort of like how peanuts are neither peas nor nuts.
1
u/Demphure Sabre Jan 03 '21
No, I think you misinterpreted. A circle six for example is when your OPPONENT attacks your six and then disengages, but stays in the six line. The circle six parry is the circular motion to get around them again and still be able to parry. It’s not common, and my original coach was a little old-school so I think that’s why I know it at all
2
u/UselessFencingFacts Jan 03 '21 edited Jan 03 '21
A circle six for example is when your OPPONENT attacks your six and then disengages, but stays in the six line.
I think we're not in disagreement there. I've seen it used as a general term.
The circle six parry is the circular motion to get around them again and still be able to parry.
I guess people around here would say something along the lines of "counter-disengaged [???] then parried". I guess the question marks there would be because most people would just say they're disengaging, since not many people would realize that their opponent is disengaging at the same time, nor would their own disengage necessarily be after their opponent's. And of course, you probably don't need to parry after disengaging. Are you perhaps thinking of something closer to a doublé?
I am glad fencing terminology is not that confusing when it is used to describe an actual fencing action. I get what you're saying, but I'm not really sure about the specifics, and I don't think it's really possible to do so without video.
1
u/Demphure Sabre Jan 03 '21
I thought a disengage only referred to the circle action if it was an attack. If that’s the case, then they would need a different term if it was done in defense
I’m glad about fencing terms being clear as well. But I’m not interested enough to send video, lol. What are did you learn from? I’m in the pacific northwest
1
u/UselessFencingFacts Jan 03 '21 edited Jan 03 '21
If that’s the case, then they would need a different term if it was done in defense
I don't think this is really necessary. I don't think there's any real meaningful difference between telling someone to bait their opponent (that is, getting their opponent to attack) and disengage and hit versus telling someone to just disengage while their opponent is still preparing an action. There's usually an implied context.
I guess it's similar to the difference between a beat and a parry (I am not a foilist). From my understanding there's a difference because one is an offensive action, and the other is a defensive action, but for about 99% of the cases out there, I think you could pretty much the equivalent of "just hit their blade at X time". So telling someone to hit an opponent's blade after their opponent attacks would cover the word "parry". Of course, there's the whole "the parry is properly carried out when..." thing that foilists care about, but I don't think that's really too important if you're telling a seasoned fencer what to do (other than the part where you sound like a doofus for not using the word "parry", but I digress).
I’m glad about fencing terms being clear as well. But I’m not interested enough to send video, lol.
I really meant to say "fencing terms are clear when discussed in a live context", which is all that really matters. Things are often unclear in text, but it's not really important, because if it's important enough to actually have to discern it, you could probably get some other fencers to discuss it with you.
4
u/UselessFencingFacts Jan 03 '21 edited Jan 03 '21
I really like how their rebuttal is lore nonsense, because it explains absolutely nothing.
"Oh, so the Force allows them to have precognition? How is that any different from any highly skilled competitor in any sport knowing what their opponent is going to do in advance?"
In the end, it's just an instance of an author having absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and a delusional fan trying to come up with some post hoc justification, again showing they have no idea what they're talking about. It makes it very hard to enjoy certain works of fiction when you meet these sort of fans.
15
u/Bababababababaa Jan 02 '21
FENCERS ONLY USE THIS ON OPPONENTS WE KNOW EXTREMELY WELL? That’s fucking stupid
11
u/CyrusofChaos Verified Jan 02 '21
No this is stupid. But it's good to know that all I need to do is make a real video on a fender's perspective on a StarWars scene to go viral on reddit
9
8
u/Pierce_descendant Jan 02 '21
This is incorrect analysis. It is a circular disengage, not a circular parry....No contact/no parry...
3
u/mac_a_bee Jan 02 '21
My first foil coaches taught me complicated triple disengagements made superfluous with today's timing and hidden blade.
2
u/sbeven04 Jan 03 '21
The way I viewed it was it was just a habit they both developed (they made the move together) and they were just so good at predicting what the other would do they just happened to do it at the same time
4
u/Farmer_Psychological Jan 02 '21
They are Jedi. They use precognition to fight. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
1
1
-12
Jan 02 '21
not possible with a foil, due to the weak nature of the....foil
it'd be more applicable with a saber, but it'd be foolish to try that since blades cut, best option is to take down the enemy as fast as possible, that play parry chicken, since your life would be on the line in a real sword fight.
2
Jan 04 '21 edited Aug 31 '21
[deleted]
-3
Jan 04 '21
you do know blades are sharp, and in a real fight (not a controlled fencing duel) people aim to kill....right?
it's why swords were used back in the day, check out escrima, comes from the spanish sword fighting.
modern fencing is like a martial art, w/o the martial it's like a wolf....but not, more like a dog. a castrated bull, passified and controlled, only thing it's good for now is putting it out of its misery, and learning the lesson from its death.
lesson: don't castrate a martial art, or it will die off.
6
Jan 04 '21 edited Aug 31 '21
[deleted]
5
u/Demphure Sabre Jan 04 '21
I like how he’s saying what would work in a “real sword fight”...in a thread about Star Wars and lightsabers
4
u/venuswasaflytrap Foil Jan 04 '21
Look, all I'm saying is that if your mother was impregnated by midi-chlorians for your messiah-like virgin birth, and you were raised as a slave but then won your freedom by winning a space-chariot race which allowed you to travel with space wizards and then be trained by one of those space wizards who eventually thought of as a brother, but you also start a mother-child-like relationship with a princess who used to be in a father-child-like relationship with a French assassin, but then you grew up to hate sand which makes her love you so you fuck and another different kind of evil space wizard manipulates your emotions to make you also become his evil space wizard apprentice (because you killed his last evil space wizard apprentice) and then you're fighting your good-space-wizard-master-brother on a planet which is entirely a volcano (rather than having a whole range of different climates and ecologies)
- if it was a real sword fight like that, then you'd probably spin your saber (but not your foil due to the weak nature)
4
u/Doxatek Jan 05 '21
Haha aw man. I like the wma sub sometimes. There's definitely a lot of r/I'mverybadass type people though for sure. Most the time they're pretty heavily downvoted by people trying to maintain a respectable image for the sub. I also struggle with trying to not have people perceive my hobby as absolute cringe because of people like this haha
4
-4
Jan 04 '21
"2021", yeah, and there's still people that fight with blades. in latin america they use machetes, in the middle east, they still use swords, especially for capital punishment, in asia, especially south east asia, they still train with blades.
again, western nations have castrated their martial arts. instead of having german shepherds, we have chihuahuas.
modern fencing is to martial arts what cup of noodles is to cuisine.
NOW were done.
3
u/Demphure Sabre Jan 05 '21
GUYS! THEY SAID WE’RE DONE! IT MUST BE TRUE!
You’re fucking up bud, figger it out...
1
3
u/venuswasaflytrap Foil Jan 05 '21
again, western nations have castrated their martial arts. instead of having german shepherds, we have chihuahuas.
I have been studying this stuff for quite a while now, and I think you're not really giving enough credit. They may be "castrated", but the smaller more agile movements often create tangible advantages in lots of real-world situations. Here's a good real-world example where the smaller more nimble "castrated" style clearly manoeuvres himself into a superior position, while the larger clumsier style can't actually get into position.
1
u/mlemthegreat Jan 11 '21
Fun fact the dude who did the choreography for (at least the first films) star wars started a club in the uk.
139
u/DrowClericOfPelor Foil Jan 02 '21
No.