Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Then why do excavations of medieval battlefields show a large number of corpses with one of their legs removed?Alex Moon wrote:Attacking the legs is actually a bad idea. Simple geometry puts the attacker at a disadvantage.
). The flashy styles would be much like this, you see swirling death approaching, and you doubt.... 
, but I eventually got to him when I decided to go for sneaky tactics, like hitting his feet, for wich he was utterly unprepared. Neither of us is an expert duelist, but it proves the point, I guess.Lin., is called "line", i
Better than a dozen small borderline spam post's (My great weakness).Behold! One of my humongously enormous posts! why do I drift so much when writing? Is it my rich personality... or the fact that I'm bored to DEATH?! Sorry if it's excessive)
Interestingly enough Darth Sidious's style is flashy but the attack's are mule (the direct stab's at the Jedi masters),When the Sith began to re-emerge, it makes sense that the Jedi styles (specially those of the survivors) shifted to a duelist configuration.
Not to get off topic but, having fenced against the Spanish style (and tried it some) it is indeed a very strong style. However, it does have it's weaknesses just like every style does. As a friend of mine (who isn't a master but did train with Maestro Rhodes and Maestro Martinez for decades) once said "Spanish style is amazing and powerful... until it isn't". The position you describe is, indeed intimdating upon first contact. It's antithetical to how you think a swordfight should move since the person isn't. The counter is, quite often, breaking the guard. Because the person can only really attack from the wrist they run the risk of being dragged off line or (due to full extension of the arm) having a vulnerble underside of their arm.LordOskuro wrote: The "line" position was scary because it was simple yet powerful. And specially because you don't know very well how to counter it. It's a little ridiculous, the opponent is staying still, and yet you don't know what to do.
Exactly. There is no ultimate sword style. Every style has it's flaws and benefits and one does need to adapt to the situation. But, speaking in generalities, economy of motion is favourable to being nedlessly flashy. That's not to say the most economic attack/defense might not look flashy, but in general things shouldn't be needlessly flashy unless you are trying to intimidate.LordOskuro wrote: wich reminds me of a little spar I had with a friend of mine... he practises Kendo and is convinced of it being the ultimate sword skill... ok, so I took several hits to the head with the soft-combat sword
Yes they are more dangerous. Given fighters with equal reaches, the fighter going for the legs actually shortans his reach by significant amount vs his opponant who strikes at head/chest level.. This means that in order to strike an opponants legs, the first fighter must move inside his opponants reach. This is stupid. Any swordsman with a decent head and some training will avoid your attack, and then kill you.Mobiboros wrote:That's really only true if someone executes a poor or unskilled attempt to strike the legs. Strikes ot the legs or head require some complexity to execute properly. They are often strikes of opportunity but they aren't inherently and more disadvantageous than any other strike if done properly.Alex Moon wrote: Attacking the legs is actually a bad idea. Simple geometry puts the attacker at a disadvantage.
Of course it does. That's why your attacks have to be ones that your opponant must defend against. Attacking the legs doesn't do that. It simply leaves you exposed.EDIT: I should note that every attack is opening yourself up to counter attack. There's no such thing as a perfect attack. The minute you begin to execute an attack you've moved your sword from the guard position and your opponent now has an opening to attack you as well.
Because medieval battlefields are not duels writ large. There are a lot of other factors that come into play. I'm talking about sword duels, since that was what this thread was supposedly about.The Spartan wrote:Then why do excavations of medieval battlefields show a large number of corpses with one of their legs removed?Alex Moon wrote:Attacking the legs is actually a bad idea. Simple geometry puts the attacker at a disadvantage.
A low stance can actually be very defensive, and give you excellent striking ability to the legs of an opponent. Witness the low stance in Kendo. The fact that legs aren't legal targets in Kendo doesn't invalidate leg attacks in the context of a serious duel.Alex Moon wrote:Because medieval battlefields are not duels writ large. There are a lot of other factors that come into play. I'm talking about sword duels, since that was what this thread was supposedly about.The Spartan wrote:Then why do excavations of medieval battlefields show a large number of corpses with one of their legs removed?Alex Moon wrote:Attacking the legs is actually a bad idea. Simple geometry puts the attacker at a disadvantage.
Not relevant. The low stance in Kendo isn't used to attack the legs. It is a guard from which a swordsman can thrust at his opponant's face/chest, or knock aside a strike with his own strike upwards, and then immediately cut downwards again.Eleas wrote:A low stance can actually be very defensive, and give you excellent striking ability to the legs of an opponent. Witness the low stance in Kendo. The fact that legs aren't legal targets in Kendo doesn't invalidate leg attacks in the context of a serious duel.Alex Moon wrote:Because medieval battlefields are not duels writ large. There are a lot of other factors that come into play. I'm talking about sword duels, since that was what this thread was supposedly about.The Spartan wrote: Then why do excavations of medieval battlefields show a large number of corpses with one of their legs removed?
Hello? Shields. Hello? Good.The Spartan wrote:Then why do excavations of medieval battlefields show a large number of corpses with one of their legs removed?
Holy crap. You're actually serious?Alex Moon wrote: Not relevant. The low stance in Kendo isn't used to attack the legs. It is a guard from which a swordsman can thrust at his opponant's face/chest, or knock aside a strike with his own strike upwards, and then immediately cut downwards again.
Alex Moon wrote: Yes they are more dangerous. Given fighters with equal reaches, the fighter going for the legs actually shortans his reach by significant amount vs his opponant who strikes at head/chest level..
Yes... as any attack will do when an opponent is using the same weapons you are. 2 equal length swords means unless your reach is longer, you are inside his reach on every attack.Alex Moon wrote: This means that in order to strike an opponants legs, the first fighter must move inside his opponants reach.
So, your opponent doesn't need to defend against leg attacks? They can just stand there and take the attack? That really is poor thinking. Any attack made against an opponent, they must defend against. They may not need to parry it with their sword but they must defend.Alex Moon wrote: This is stupid. Any swordsman with a decent head and some training will avoid your attack, and then kill you.Alex Moon wrote:
You've, quite honestly, never fenced before then if this is how you think. Or you fight terribly defensively to the point of nearly not attacking at all. Avoiding an attack is not simple. Especially when it's at the legs because your attacking the persons point of mobility. Plus, the attack to the legs doesn't mean you give up your defense. Oftn the fencer will swipe with his offhand or offhand dagger at the enemies sword to ward any incoming attack while they make the attack.
Alex Moon wrote: Of course it does. That's why your attacks have to be ones that your opponant must defend against. Attacking the legs doesn't do that. It simply leaves you exposed.
Amen to that, it can be a little tricky to hit if you dont know what you're doing, but it is an excellent target, it doesnt require any loss in reach to attack it and due to the physical limitations of armour at the time (the need to move your legs makes armouring the inner thigh very problematic) it's a good soft target and a quickly disabling/leathal one (and in a real fight disabling and leathal may as well be interchangable past a certain point).Eleas wrote:Holy crap. You're actually serious?Alex Moon wrote: Not relevant. The low stance in Kendo isn't used to attack the legs. It is a guard from which a swordsman can thrust at his opponant's face/chest, or knock aside a strike with his own strike upwards, and then immediately cut downwards again.
My previous statement touched on the fact that there are no techniques in Kendo that attack the legs. Consequently, of course the low stance isn't used to attack the legs in Kendo. However, it easily could be, merely by stepping forward and raising the blade slightly for a tsuki at the kneecap, or angling to the side and performing a kesa-giri, or any number of variants.
Just because said moves aren't textbook-neutered Kendo doesn't mean they don't work. That makes my point highly relevant. In fact, one of the preferred targets in medieval dueling was the inside of the thigh, where a sliced femoral artery would lead to a quick death.
Interesting you think of it like that, as there is in oriental disciplines a concept called I believe "mushin", or "no mind" where you try to act without involving thinking about your movement...training so that reflex will provide the right response to an attack or opening. It's odd that you consider this "mule" fighting. It's basic solid fighting without flair, but also without any great flaw. Which brings us to:Jazz Intern wrote:Mule moves don't require the same amount of brain capacity to work, and allow more focus on the force because more of the mind should be open.
What's that, an answer to the original question in the question?Jazz Intern wrote:It also can be the kiss of death to saber whirling menace to just do a quick stab or slash.
At which point? At the start of their fight he was fighting against an opponent with four blades and enough limbs to use them...later on, it was rather more difficult to do...what with loosing his sabre etc...Jazz Intern wrote:(why didn't Obi wan Just stab General Greivous duing ROTS?)
1. See my comments above about mushin, actually focusing on competence and faster, simple solid movements can keep you from getting cut in half.Jazz Intern wrote:The down sides are: 1, While it maybe alot less complicated, if you don't put some of your mind into the fighting, You'll get cut in half fast. 2, Mule moves won't impress that padawan.
This'll be good...Jazz Intern wrote:Fancy moves have many upsides and down sides as well.
How about making a point in english on this one...you'll find that for any flashy move there's a more basic economical, generally better move that can achieve the same thing...While these moves are flashy, they get to places mule moves can't, like standing over your opponent's "Pieces."
If you're faster than your opponent then you're faster...that means that a simple quick attack would be even faster than the flash move...maxamizing the speed advantage...and relying on your opponent being slower than you is a poor course of action as these "fast" flash moves often are far slower and leave you open to all sorts of unpleasant things if it turns out you arent as quick as you thought.Also, fancy moves are often fast enough your opponent can't thonk fast enough to parry and/or counter attack.
Which is a long way of saying that they leave you in a worse position by wearing you out.However, while they may be fast, they often tire you out quickly, and have many useless moves.
In a real fight you dont want to waste any energy because you never know what the next few minutes will actually hold...it's less of an issue in a sport like fencing when you have a very good idea what the next few minutes will hold.(My fencing instructor always says "THATS UNESSESARY MOVEMENT! DON'T DO IT AGAIN!")
The answer to that is simple, solid moves are infinitely better than pointless flashy moves...there are no real advantages offered up (the advatage of speed really lies with simple economical moves) and major downsides, they leave you dangerously exposed at times through silly movements that serve no purpose.also, such moves tend to reveal weak areas like the back or legs.
So which wins?
Experiece would be five years spent training with a complete range of melee weapons, from swords to polearms...the principles remained the same with all of them, it's actually the same as in computing...make the common case fastest building speed and competence with moves that are always of utility.If you have personal expeirences, don't be afraid- I'm a nerd too!
Indeed, the only possible use of flash moves lies in the mental part of a fight, and there it's best to play a cagey game till you know what's going on. Fancy moves might be considered like bluffing in poker, it can be useful on occasion, but only as part of a well thought out strategy, and without some good solid cards you're going to lose your shirt all the same against a half decent opponent.weemadando wrote:Keep it simple. Don't give away your knowledge too early. If Jedi A, knows Jedi B's style right off the bat because they are doing a certain kata, then A naturally has the advantage.
I'd say even then, keeping it as simple as you can is the best approach. The situation is more complex neccesitating more complex moves, but you should always strive to keep it as simple as possible. Again, this is where the mental aspects come in, understanding the area and moving for advantage in terms of terrain, positioning etc...something that is totally absent from fencing.Eleas wrote:For pure effect, nothing beats the traditional minimalism, at least in one-on-one duels on reasonably flat terrain. You need to get creative only if you're being attacked from both sides.
Again, at which point should Obi-Wan have stabbed Gervious? Grevious arms game him a reach advatage, and a stab before he'd incapacitated a couple of those sabres would have left him dangerously exposed...or does the idea of locking with two blades and striking back with the third not seem like it might end badly? Fighting to disable an opponent is a good tactic too, not every strike has to be a kill provided it helps you along by reducing your opponents ability to fight.Jazz Intern wrote:When I say flashy moves, I also mean fast moves. so either way, it boils down to other things, like terrain, or weapon choice. With a single saber, mule moves, because you can't overwhelm your opponent like with a saber staff or dual sabers. However, a truly skilled opponent, (who would unlike obi wan just stab Greivous) will see through such illusions.
I am not trained in traditional fencing, however, I would say that it would depend entirely on the setting, and what happens. In any fight the real key is how well you improvise...you cannot go in with a plan set out of X followed by Y because that kind of thinking will get you killed. Against a highly aggressive opponent, I very often allow them to go on the offensive and then counter off of a parry. As has been mentioned I think, on the offensive is often when you are most exposed...the trick is being ready for the opening and making use of it quickly...which is where good solid "mule" moves come in.gizmojumpjet wrote:I'm wild about hearing the opinions of an actual duellist. Totally based on your opinion, how would someone trained in traditional fencing deal, for example, with Anakin's aggression?
There is also the issue of attacking to the lead leg...this will actually often be the closest point of an opponents body. Nevermind if you have a weapon with superior reach such as a spear which would allow you to strike quickly at the legs and feet...which is a very good way of keeping your opponent on the defensive as you can control in part how they can move.Mobiboros wrote:Given fighters of equal reaches, which is uncommon (since in duelling with rapiers even half inches can make a difference). That aside, attacking the legs does not shorten your reach. You don't simply drop your arm to attack the legs, your entire body moves into position to do it. You drop your stance quite low and attack near straight at the legs. You actually present less of a profile in doing it.
This is why an attack has to be well executed and why "mule" moves are superior, they are designed to limit your exposure to a counter from a competent opponent.Yes... as any attack will do when an opponent is using the same weapons you are. 2 equal length swords means unless your reach is longer, you are inside his reach on every attack.
I wouldnt hold up fencing too highly here...for example a good counter to many fencing moves is a simple half step to the off-side and a punch to the teeth of a hopelessly overbalance person...Alex Moon wrote:You've, quite honestly, never fenced before then if this is how you think.
Adding the use of an off-hand weapon aids a great deal and demonstrates another reason the legs can be a good target, they are out of reach defensively of an offhand dagger.Or you fight terribly defensively to the point of nearly not attacking at all. Avoiding an attack is not simple. Especially when it's at the legs because your attacking the persons point of mobility. Plus, the attack to the legs doesn't mean you give up your defense. Often the fencer will swipe with his offhand or offhand dagger at the enemies sword to ward any incoming attack while they make the attack.
Or move. Any attack that offers the threat of harm has to be avoided or negated.So, your opponent doesn't need to defend against leg attacks? They can just stand there and take the attack? That really is poor thinking. Any attack made against an opponent, they must defend against. They may not need to parry it with their sword but they must defend.
I would think that flashy moves, requiring more thought and concentration, would be easier to detect in the Force than simpler, more reflexive strikes.Sam Or I wrote:Today I am pulling alot of stuff out of my ass (don't ask), but what about this.
Jedis have a precog ability. Mule moves are easily and quickly seen, while fancy moves are alittle harder to comperhend, and it gives a split second advantage in the time the oppentent takes to figure out what move hes going to do next.
Exactly my point. Which is why I said that legs are a perfectly valid target. Because in a real-terrain swordfight the stance is often wider the lead leg is quite often the closest target, as it the lead forarm.Keevan_Colton wrote: There is also the issue of attacking to the lead leg...this will actually often be the closest point of an opponents body. Nevermind if you have a weapon with superior reach such as a spear which would allow you to strike quickly at the legs and feet...which is a very good way of keeping your opponent on the defensive as you can control in part how they can move.
Quite so. Economy of motion. That was my original point. Flashy moves may intimidate, but that will only take you so far.Keevan_Colton wrote: This is why an attack has to be well executed and why "mule" moves are superior, they are designed to limit your exposure to a counter from a competent opponent.
When say fencing, I don't mean collegiate fencing. Right of way, fighting on a strip, etc... are not at all like real swordfighting with a rapier. When I say fencing I mean actual renaissance rapier technique. Which was not only thrusts but flick, tip, draw and push cuts. It also encompasses italian and english wrestling (the modern equivalent would be like Judo. Locks, tosses, trips, knee and elbow strikes and some punching).Keevan_Colton wrote: I wouldnt hold up fencing too highly here...for example a good counter to many fencing moves is a simple half step to the off-side and a punch to the teeth of a hopelessly overbalance person...
Offhand weapons are also very common with proper rapier use. Daggers being most common, but small bucklers, canes, capes and secondary swords are also common. All of which change the tempo and tone of a fight. Hell, with a cane, legs are not only valid targets but tripping becomes a common maneuvar.Keevan_Colton wrote: Adding the use of an off-hand weapon aids a great deal and demonstrates another reason the legs can be a good target, they are out of reach defensively of an offhand dagger.
I never said it should be dismissed, but it should be recognized there is no such thing as a perfect defense. It's possible to fight a defensive waiting game and attack only when an opponent opens up. But it's also valid to fake an opening to try to get an opponent to attack it knowing they open thei defense on any attack.Keevan_Colton wrote: Fighting in a solid defense is not something to be dismissive of, there is a place for it. There is no point in exposing yourself without a good oppertunity. Depending on the circumstanes waiting for your opponent to expose himself with an imperfect attack can be the best offense.
Exactly. Any attack that offers a threat must be negated in some way (parry' dodge, voiding, whatever). This is actually where collegiate fencing gets the very stylized concept of "right of way". If you are being "threatened" you must defend before you can attack.Keevan_Colton wrote: Or move. Any attack that offers the threat of harm has to be avoided or negated.
In general, with German longsword at least, you want to keep it simple....often make two or three strikes when one would be enough or stepping through and thrust, and for this they receive praise from the ignorant.
With their bad parries and wide fencing they try to look dangerous with wide and long strikes that are slow and with these they
perform strikes that miss and create openings in themselves....
But real fencing goes straight and is simple in all things without holding back or being restricted just as if a string had been tied or as if they had been connected.