History Main / FlyNning

1st Dec '16 2:18:16 AM JohnnyLawless
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** "Heavier" in this context means that the blade is thicker and more durable. Rapiers have a slender blade, but it is very long, often over 40 inches, and they have a heavy pommel to counterbalance that long blade. As a result, rapiers are actually quite a bit heavier than you'd think, from their appearance, often as much as 3-4 pounds, which is fairly heavy for a single-hand sword.
*** Also, rapiers are anachronistic for the time period of "Rob Roy." They'd been out of fashion for over fifty years, and the smallsword, which is similar in proportions and purpose to the modern foil, as well as being the ancestor thereof, was the preferred personal sidearm. It was a much more compact and easy-to-carry weapon than the Rapier, which, despite being a superior dueling sword in most respects, was very clunky, awkward, and heavy to have on you as an every-day-carry weapon.
14th Nov '16 5:27:37 PM JulietF2
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Every swordfight in the 7th Doctor serial "Battlefield." Unfortunately.
7th Nov '16 8:17:37 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Compare ATeamFiring, which replaces the swords with bullets. Contrast SingleStrokeBattle, which doesn't look elaborate ''enough''. See also AnachronismStew as swords and sword fighting techniques shown on film tend to be hundreds of years ahead of what would have been available in the time setting of a medieval film.[[note]]Might be a case of AcceptableBreaksFromReality, given that most cultures kept only haphazard records of their martial arts. On the flipside, some films use anachronistic techniques when there's a knowledge base concerning the techniques they ''did'' use.[[/note]] For details on how to avert this trope, see our UsefulNotes page on UsefulNotes/EuropeanSwordsmanship.

to:

Compare ATeamFiring, which replaces the swords with bullets. Contrast SingleStrokeBattle, which doesn't look elaborate ''enough''. See also AnachronismStew as swords and sword fighting techniques shown on film tend to be hundreds of years ahead of what would have been available in the time setting of a medieval film.[[note]]Might be a case of AcceptableBreaksFromReality, given that most cultures kept only haphazard records of their martial arts. On the flipside, some films use anachronistic techniques when there's a knowledge base concerning the techniques they ''did'' use.[[/note]] For details on how to avert this trope, depict sword fighting more accurately, see our UsefulNotes page pages on UsefulNotes/EuropeanSwordsmanship.
UsefulNotes/EuropeanSwordsmanship and UsefulNotes/{{Kenjutsu}}.
25th Oct '16 11:52:05 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the first. In 2004-5, foil has been reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. What this means is a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.
** Kendo has similarly developed into a de-fanged version of its martial ancestor, ''UsefulNotes/{{Kenjutsu}}'', replacing the solid ''[[WoodenKatanasAreEvenBetter bokuto]]'' with the lighter, more flexible ''shinai'', implementing the use of protective armor, mandating four legitimate target areas, and other changes to practice and competition that began in the 18th century. Especially since it's revival after World War II it has been explicitly defined as an activity for self-cultivation rather than training for combat, while ''kenjutsu'' and other forms of ''koryuu'' carry on the older martial legacy.

to:

** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the first. In 2004-5, the foil has been cut-out time was reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. What this means is The cut-out time results in a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.
** Kendo has similarly developed into a de-fanged version of its martial ancestor, ''UsefulNotes/{{Kenjutsu}}'', replacing the solid ''[[WoodenKatanasAreEvenBetter bokuto]]'' with the lighter, lighter and more flexible ''shinai'', implementing the use of protective armor, mandating four legitimate target areas, and other changes to practice and competition that began in the 18th century. Especially since it's revival after World War II it has been explicitly defined as an activity for self-cultivation rather than training for combat, while ''kenjutsu'' and other forms of ''koryuu'' carry on the older martial legacy.
25th Oct '16 11:49:59 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the fist. In 2004-5, foil has been reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. What this means is a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.

to:

** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the fist.first. In 2004-5, foil has been reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. What this means is a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.
25th Oct '16 11:46:59 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points incentivizes all kinds of behavior that would be perverse in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the fist. In 2004-5, foil has been reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. What this means is a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.

to:

** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points incentivizes creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be perverse suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the fist. In 2004-5, foil has been reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. What this means is a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.
25th Oct '16 11:44:03 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is a move that basically whips your point around your opponent's pary by making the blade curve, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points incentivizes all kinds of behavior that would be perverse in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the fist. In 2004-5, foil has been reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. What this means is a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.

to:

** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is a move that basically whips flicking your point blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's pary by making the blade curve, parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points incentivizes all kinds of behavior that would be perverse in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the fist. In 2004-5, foil has been reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. What this means is a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.
25th Oct '16 11:38:05 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The classic {{sword|Fight}}play of {{Swashbuckl|er}}ing {{movies}}: Threaten high countered by parry high, threaten low countered by parry low, lather, rinse and repeat as you climb the spiral tower staircase, until the hero can drive his sword through the villain's heart. It looks good, and the "tink-tink-tink" of sword tips clashing has become [[TheCoconutEffect familiar to the ear]] over the decades.

But it's not real swordplay. It's not a decent simulation, or even a poor simulation like electronically scored Olympics rules fencing. Basically, it works out to the two combatants deliberately trying to hit each others' weapons with an impressive clanging sound, rather than trying to actually hit each other. Each attack will be deliberately aimed too high or off to the side so that it would miss the opponent even if they stood still without defending, and yet the defender will go out of their way to meet it in midair with a static block instead of taking advantage of the attacker's mistake by avoiding and striking back in the same motion. There is no such thing as a single-time defense and counterattack when two people are Flynning, even with weapons such as the rapier where this is a fundamental technique, and the two fighters take turns giving and receiving attacks as if they have an understanding not to hurt each other. Note that in real, deadly, swordplay, pure blocking parries that stop the vigorous movement of the enemy's sword dead are practically unknown. Even if damage to your own blade were impossible, just slightly diverting an attack so it keeps moving but misses you, while your own still-mobile sword goes on to NOT miss your enemy, is plainly far more desirable than bringing both blades to a halt.

to:

The classic {{sword|Fight}}play of {{Swashbuckl|er}}ing {{movies}}: Threaten high countered by parry high, threaten low countered by parry low, lather, rinse and repeat as you climb the spiral tower staircase, until the hero can drive his sword through the villain's heart. It looks good, exciting, and the "tink-tink-tink" of sword tips clashing has become so [[TheCoconutEffect familiar to the ear]] over the decades.

decades that this is what audiences think a sword fight is supposed to be like.

But it's not real swordplay. It's not a decent simulation, or even a poor simulation like electronically scored Olympics rules fencing. Basically, it works out to the two combatants deliberately trying to hit each others' weapons with an impressive clanging sound, rather than trying to actually hit each other. Each attack will be deliberately aimed too high or off to the side so that it would miss the opponent even if they stood still without defending, and yet the defender will go out of their way to meet it in midair with a static block instead of taking advantage of the attacker's mistake by avoiding and striking back in the same motion. There is no such thing as a single-time defense Then the swordsman who just paried will make his own telegraphed attack for the other guy to parry, and counterattack when two people are Flynning, even with weapons such as the rapier where in this is a fundamental technique, and the two fighters fashion they take turns giving and receiving attacks as if they have an understanding not to hurt each other. Note that in real, deadly, swordplay, pure blocking parries that stop the vigorous movement of the enemy's sword dead are practically unknown. Even if damage to your own blade were impossible, just slightly diverting an attack so it keeps moving but misses you, while your own still-mobile sword goes on to NOT miss your enemy, is plainly far more desirable than bringing both blades to a halt.


Added DiffLines:

[[folder:Sports]]
* Any sword fight that has rules to prevent injury or is scored as a competition is almost flynning by definition; the only question--and it is a controversial question--is to what degree it does or doesn't simulate a real sword fight. Obviously, even students training for real combat cannot learn or practice under the same conditions as an actual bloody fight, or else they would be get maimed or killed before they even attained proficiency. You have to watch their practice and make sure they aren't trying to kill each other, that they learn to respect the blade and aren't doing things like eye-gouging and biting. In that sense, the first defense against injury is voluntary restraint and control. Blunt and foiled swords were the first compromise in equipment to improve safety, and already this creates a huge difference in how the fencers will behave in sparring, because they will be a ''heck'' of a lot more cautious and less prone to being LeeroyJenkins if they know their opponent's sword can wound them. Then you introduce things like masks and padded armor, which almost inevitably lead to more reckless tactics since the fear of injury is lessened--although the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Peltzman_effect Peltzman effect]] can ironically lead to ''more'' injury when the fighters learn to rely on the armor instead of self-control and start hitting each other as hard as they can. Add rules against grappling, right-of-way, designated target areas, and before you know it it's a slippery slope.
** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is a move that basically whips your point around your opponent's pary by making the blade curve, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points incentivizes all kinds of behavior that would be perverse in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the fist. In 2004-5, foil has been reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. What this means is a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.
** Kendo has similarly developed into a de-fanged version of its martial ancestor, ''UsefulNotes/{{Kenjutsu}}'', replacing the solid ''[[WoodenKatanasAreEvenBetter bokuto]]'' with the lighter, more flexible ''shinai'', implementing the use of protective armor, mandating four legitimate target areas, and other changes to practice and competition that began in the 18th century. Especially since it's revival after World War II it has been explicitly defined as an activity for self-cultivation rather than training for combat, while ''kenjutsu'' and other forms of ''koryuu'' carry on the older martial legacy.
** [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_fencing Academic Fencing]], or the ''mensur'', is a very curious kind of fencing practiced by student corporations in certain European universities which developed during the 19th century and is still practiced today according to strict rules. Both participants wear armor that protects the exposed parts of their body, and they wear goggles that protect the eyes and nose, but the rest of the face is fair game. The swords have large hand guards, and narrow blades with sharp edges but no point. Unlike sport fencing in which the participants can advance and retreat, participants in the ''mensur'' stand their ground at a fixed distance while they exchange cuts. They may defend themselves by parrying, but dodging is not allowed. There is no score, nor is there a winner or loser; instead the object is to prove your character by putting yourself in harm's way, and to take any cuts to your face stoically without flinching. The duelling scar (''Schmisse'') on the face was worn as a badge of honor, and many upper-class Germans and Austrians before World War II had these scars on their faces.
[[/folder]]
25th Oct '16 8:45:12 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


This trope is named for the swashbuckler film star ErrolFlynn. It is worth noting that, as some of the examples below illustrate, quite a number of his colleagues in early 20th century Hollywood actually ''were'' expert fencers, but rather than go for realistic fights they used their knowledge to produce something that [[RuleOfCool just looks cool]] instead.

to:

This trope is named for the swashbuckler film star ErrolFlynn. ErrolFlynn, whose movies were full of this kind of fighting. It is worth noting that, as some of the examples below illustrate, quite a number of his colleagues in early 20th century Hollywood actually ''were'' expert fencers, but rather than go for realistic fights they used their knowledge to produce something that [[RuleOfCool just looks looked cool]] instead.
25th Oct '16 6:59:07 PM PaulA
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Invoked in-universe in Creator/CliveCussler's Dirk Pitt novel ''Dragon''. Pitt is forced into a duel with a Japanese man who fancies himself a samurai trained in the use of the katana who expects to gut Pitt like a fish in one or two moves. Pitt, a trained fencer, picks a European sword and starts Flynning to defend himself, throwing off his opponent's technique.

to:

* Invoked in-universe in Creator/CliveCussler's Dirk Pitt Literature/DirkPittAdventures novel ''Dragon''. Pitt is forced into a duel with a Japanese man who fancies himself a samurai trained in the use of the katana who expects to gut Pitt like a fish in one or two moves. Pitt, a trained fencer, picks a European sword and starts Flynning to defend himself, throwing off his opponent's technique.
This list shows the last 10 events of 204. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.FlyNning