This is one awesome thing about fencing. The UFC jealously guards any video of theirs from hitting the interwebz (which they have a right to do, not questioning that). So good luck finding a lot of old fight footage. The FIE, which governs modern fencing, takes the opposite approach, and has its own YouTube channel with over 2,000 videos. Surfing through what's out there, I found this absolute gem from Paris last winter: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBges9RWwKU"]YouTube - 20101112 mf individual Paris 16 red Sintes Victor FRA 15 vs Baldini Andrea ITA 10 sd No[/ame] What I love about this: (1) It's good, clean fencing. Nobody is parrying like windshield wipers or remise-ing (starting a new attack after a failed attack) like a sewing machine. (2) These guys are truly top-notch. Form and technique is unimpeachable. (3) The intensity is up at eleven the entire time (both during the points and arguing with the ref afterward). (4) No mechanical failures to delay the bout. Anyway, instantly fell in love with this video and had to share it. Full-screen it and bump it up to 480p so you can see the blades better. Rules primer for those watching. A green or red light on that fencer's side means that he hit valid target area (the grey vest). A white light means he hit invalid target area. If just one red/green light goes off, that person gets a point. If one white light goes off, the bout is stopped and restarted at the point of the off-target hit. If lights on both sides go off, you only consider the light of the person who had right-of-way. To oversimplify, the person attacking and advancing has right-of-way, and the other person can get RoW away from them by parrying the attack. When the referee raises his hand on your side, that means he's saying it was your touch.
I have absolutely no clue about fencing, and I've seen roudabout 5 minuntes of the clip so far but it's quite nice and I guess I'll take the time and watch it all. Oo Is it common to have mechanical failures in a top level match?
Oh sure, but they're normally detected right away, and there's procedures in place for annulling a touch if a mechanical failure changed the outcome, so it's more of an annoying delay than something that would affect the outcome of the bout. Blades can snap, but more often than that, the tip of a foil or epee has a bunch of small moving parts in it that must be perfectly aligned for the electric scoring system to work properly. But that's what spares are for One back-up weapon is required for even local tournaments (so that you don't have to forfeit the bout if your weapon quits working), and I've seen serious competitors showing up to competitions with up to a half-dozen weapons. Normally, around three is adequate; an armorer/teammate/coach can work on diagnosing and repairing a malfunctioning weapon while you keep going with one of your spares.
I've noticed there are different types of fencing, some with the torso being the only valid target while others allow thrusts to the head. Does strategy change dramatically with the extra target area? Or does it become more technical when you can only attack the torso?
There are three different sports in modern fencing--foil, epee, and saber. Strategy differs dramatically in each, but I wouldn't call any of the three more technical, or more sophisticated, than the others. Foil uses a piercing weapon, and only torso is target area. Right-of-way rules exist. The inability to go for an opponent's arm, combined with right-of-way requirements and the piercing-only nature of the weapon, means that blade-play is absolutely critical in foil. Foil has by far the longest phrases (exchanges of blade-play) of the three sports. In terms of footwork and speed, it's somewhere between the patient stalking of epee and the aggressive sprint of saber. While the video in the original post is an incredibly fun bout to watch, the bout below is probably a better representation of foil fencing in general: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGmihF97XIA"]YouTube - 20100129 mf gp paris 16 green MEINHARDT Gerek USA 15 vs JOPPICH Peter GER 14 sd No[/ame] Epee uses a piercing weapon, and the entire body is target area. There are no right-of-way rules; the first to land a touch gets a point (and both sides get a point if you hit within 0.04 seconds of the other). The combination of whole-body target area (your wrist or toe can get picked off if you're not careful) and the absence of right-of-way rules (the absence of right-of-way encourages stop-hits) makes epee a very defensive game. It's a game of distance, timing, patience, and luring the opponent to attack first. You have long periods where it seems like nothing is happening, but each person is actually subtly manipulating distance, getting the other's rhythm, etc, before there's a quick exchange of blades or a quick hit to the wrist or something like that. Here's a representative bout: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuLnQ5t-EoM"]YouTube - 20101112 me Paris final podium Novosjolov Nikolai EST 15 vs Grumier Gauthier FRA 8 sd No[/ame] Saber is the only modern fencing style where you can score with cuts instead of just the tip. Everything above the waist is target area. There are right-of-way rules (explained in the original post). The combination of cutting and right-of-way rules means that the best defense is a good offense. It's a very aggressive style. Although bladework is important, speed of footwork, speed of changing direction, and the ability to either see an opening and attack quick, read a fast attack and get in one solid parry-riposte, is decisive; there are rarely long exchanges of blade-play. It's by far the most physically intense. Here's a representative bout: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r_fo3Shwyk"]YouTube - 20101112 ms Paris final podium Limbach Nicolas GER 9 vs Won Woo Young KOR 15 sd No[/ame]
Mitlov, Thanks for the videos and explanations. I think fencing is cool, but really don't know anything about it, or what is considered 'representative' or 'exceptional' fencing - so it's neat to see it explained by someone who does know.
Just to clarify, everyone in each of those videos is of exceptional skill. They're all best of the best of the best. When I say they're representative, I merely mean that the overall rhythm and strategy is representative of the sport, not that they're any less talented than the folks in the first video. I'd call the first video unusual--the intensity was unusually high, and the fencing was unusually dynamic--by I certainly would not suggest that the foil fencers in my post #5 (Meinhardt and Joppich) are less than exceptional. They're very, very big names.
