Half-baked fencing system

[LooNBB]

[JediMouse]

1) Vader plays by the rules? What about tossing junk at Luke on Bespin?

 

2) When you list rapier, epee and foil, I know you are still thinking sport fencing. Forget it. Those guys in the white outfits with the screen-mask helmets may be great athletes, and it may be based on actual fencing, but modern sport fencing only bears a slight resemblance to medieval/renaissance swrodfights, and the weapons bear even less.

 

The name foil comes from the item's (a piece of sports equipment, not a weapon) function -- to foil (that is, defeat) an incoming attack. It is designed to be quick and light, so as to be very defensive in nature. It does not have a blade edge. It also does not have a point. It is *considered* to have a point, thus scoring only with thrusts.

 

The names rapier and epee come from the French, "epee rapiere," which simply means "long sword" (well, more like "rediculously long sword," at the time). The sport fencing rapier is a heavier, slower weapon than the foil, and counts points as though a short length of the end of the blade (for lack of a better word) were sharp, so cuts and such can count. The epee is sort of halfway between foil and rapier. Don't even get me started on the sabre (as a sport fencing "weapon").

 

And it has nothing to do with "Western-style;" when I said that, I meant fencing in the European fashion, instead of kendo in the Asian fashion. These sport "weapons" are exactly that -- sports equipment. Western fencing swords (which are not for sport fencing) would be the rapier (which in this case is a one-handed, three foot long blade, front is edged all the way up, back is edged for the last six inches or so, blade is about a half-inch wide), or in later periods, smallsword and such, which for style, are all based on rapier anyway.

 

Almost all lightsaber use in the classic trilogy is based on kendo, not on European fencing -- a move or two here and there notwithstanding. Don't try to compare the saber fighting in this game with fencing -- it doesn't apply.

 

~JediMouse~

[GreyJedi]

Originally posted by Kataarn

@Mandamus:

 

We've already established that the lightsaber is NOT weightless, as people seem to think.

 

Check out the 'Sabers' thread to see the logical physics and chemistry behind this establishment.

 

Besides, only a fool would try to thrust with a lightsaber. You can do that with Rapiers because you have no other way to attack. However, with a lightsaber, if you thrust, you leave yourself WIDE OPEN to retaliation...something your opponent is definitely going to take advantage of.

 

Besides that fact, Qui-Gon didn't die from a thrust, you can't exactly 'thrust' with saberstaves, because there's no point.

 

 

There is an old saying in western fencing: "The point is quicker than the edge." A thrust is faster than a slash.

[Mandamus]

However, you didn't, claimed something that has been proven otherwise, therefore I think it was a pointless claim...and frankly, just made you look dumb.

 

Yeah, I'm dumb. If you'll read my posts, I haven't disagreed with anything anyone has said. Go read a book on swordsmanship, Thrust-boy.

 

I recommend "Autumn Lightning" by Dave Lowry -- a true story of an American teenager who learns the "way of the sword".

 

Good posts, Jedimouse. Keep 'em coming. Do you have any training with bokken vs. staff? I was wondering what the tactics would be for the swordsman (thinking of Darth Maul vs. Obi-wan, naturally).

 

And what would you all think of a "Light-Naginata" (a light-saber with REACH)?

 

M.

[Chanke4252]

This is a dumb dumb thread that has been discussed in one form or another multiple times. Shut up and stop whining for god's sake. This is my last visit to this board because the information is no longer interesting or worthwhile. The game is what it is, get on with life and stop arguing about how they should totally revamp the saber system in a patch, because thats a completely unrealistic thing to want and completely unfair of you to expect it from Raven or any other company.

[JediMouse]

No, I have no training in those forms. However, my instinct would say that your approach (as the swordsman) would differ depending on the style being used by the staff-wielder.

 

If the staff is wielded in Bo style, all strikes and parries are with the ends of the weapon, in the last six inches, usually. Your biggest worry would probably be his reach. My instinct would say say out at his range, and try to strike for his hands to make him drop the weapon.

 

If he is using a European quarterstaff style, strikes are usually still with the ends of the staff, but most parries are with the center section. Same instinct, go for the hands.

 

Of course, with a lightsaber, some of the strategy may change -- you'll notice that Obi-Wan used his greater speed to get inside Maul's best range, disabling his ability to parry with the ends of the weapon (the light-blades). Instinct took over, and Maul brought up the centre of the weapon to parry, and had it cut in half.

 

~JediMouse~

[Caster]

To cause more damage.

 

Think about it, by slowing the speed of the swing, the saber stays in contact with the flesh for a longer period of time causing more damage and pain.

 

And there's also the bullet type affect. The faster the bullet, the "cleaner" the wound and less damaging. But if a bullet gets lodged in a person, that creates a whole long list of complications.

 

-Caster

[Manos_Argentis]

>There are several thrust moves, and you can actually parry in >two ways, lightsaber collision, or by going on the defensive and >not attacking and keeping your eyes on your opponent.

 

Neither of those two are parries. They're blocks.

 

 

>So I guess Qui Gon didn't die to a thrust by Maul, and Darth >Vader wasn't repeatedly parrying Luke in the fight that resulted >in his hand being cut off? Light saber clashes, probably the >signature of the mythos, doesn't result from parries?

 

Darth Maul wasn't ever thrusting, was he? And that final blow was more like a cut than a thrust. I was talking about short and long thrust, not to mention the oh-so lovely flash thrusts.

 

And Darth Vader was blocking repedeatedly, not parrying.

 

 

>You have a stance key, giving you three stances, which controls >your height, speed and length of attacks, and also your arc of >guard, it also changes how you hold the weapon.

 

Gee... Three stances... I stand corrected. No, serious, irony aside, I meant choosing which side you face the opponent with, chosing a high, low or medium guard, change how you hold the weapon etc. etc. individually. Like my personal favourite, having a low stance, but a high guard, with the sword hand above eye hight, pointing the blade downwards. It makes you almost impossible to hit.

 

 

>I think you may have mistakenly bought JK1

 

Yea, I thought so too. Imagine my disapointment. But Jedi Knight I was never this large and resource-hungry. *grins*

 

Om.

[GreyJedi]

Originally posted by Mandamus

 

Yeah, I'm dumb. If you'll read my posts, I haven't disagreed with anything anyone has said. Go read a book on swordsmanship, Thrust-boy.

 

I recommend "Autumn Lightning" by Dave Lowry -- a true story of an American teenager who learns the "way of the sword".

 

Good posts, Jedimouse. Keep 'em coming. Do you have any training with bokken vs. staff? I was wondering what the tactics would be for the swordsman (thinking of Darth Maul vs. Obi-wan, naturally).

 

And what would you all think of a "Light-Naginata" (a light-saber with REACH)?

 

M.

 

If I recall, the Jyo (short staff) was created specifically as a short Bo (long staff) to counter the use of two katana used to trap the Bo.

 

The problem with thinking of of Maul's double bladed saber as a Bo or Jyo is that you can't fully utilize the length of the double bladed saber to "tsuki" (thrust), because you will be forced to hold the center piece (can't hold the blade of a lightsaber).

 

We practice bokken v jyo in our aiki-ken and aiki-jyo classes. I don't know if kendo or kenjitsu teaches sword v staff techniques.

[JediMouse]

Personally, I always thought that the greatest benefit of Maul's weapon was the longer hilt. I'd use one blade at a time (maybe deploying the second for a surprise hilt-stab), and just use the longer hilt for leverage in a block or saber-lock.

 

~JediMouse~

[enDless_Deliriu]

Lots of good posts on sword fighting here.

 

Anyhow, I'm going to talk about some brief parts with my own untrained/unexpert opinion (basically off of stuff I have read)

 

 

First. Maul didn't thrust into Qui-Gon. He stabbed him. To the best of my knowledge, a thrust is basically quickly moving the blade forward in a strait line into the person.

 

If you watch, maul bumps Qui-Gon's arms up with the hilt, and then spins. The spin ends up putting the lightsaber blade through Qui-Gon resulting in a stab.

 

 

As for parrying and blocking. The difference is this (to the best of my knowledge)

 

A block simply stops the attack. Someone is attacking downwards at you, you put your weapon up to block it. It stops the attack but doesn't really gain you anything.

 

A parry on the other hand, doesn't stop the attack so much as pushing it aside and leaving the person open for a counter attack.

 

 

As to the thrusting debate. Thrusting is a worthwhile technique. It is quicker than a slash, and as such can be used to attack while the opponent is still preparing their slash. It has it's disadvantages as all attacks can have, but it does have it's uses, and it is a deadly technique.

 

 

If I'm wrong, would someone please correct my mistakes (Oh, and didn't the rapier start out as a slashing weapon, then as time went on the blade became narrower and longer until you have what people see as Rapiers today? )

[Fyunch Click]

Well, sort of...

 

The rapier is actually a court sword. It was designed for the noble to wear to court. Since he did not need to wear the broadsword, since no one was wearing armor, he needed a sword that would be functional yet attractive. Hence the rapier was born. It was designed to cut and stab through clothing. It is really an outgrowth of the dagger.

 

Rapiers grew in length until some blades were up to 60" long. Queen Elizabeth the 1st had the blades measured at the gates to London and if they were over a certain length the ends were cut off to conform with the law. Sort of a way to keep the pen!s envy down.

 

Anyhoo, the parry is a form of blocking. To call them seperate things is not really correct. At least not in my book.

Any attack made by your enemy should be looked upon as an opporitunity for YOU to attack. When your enemy attacks they leave themselves open for attack and are defenseless. There are many methods for striking your enemy, none of which are more advantageous than the other: Use all of them to your advantage. Also remember, the point of a blade can cut and the edge can stab.

Just some random thoughts running through my head...

[JediMouse]

Re: rapier evolution.

 

The rapier was an evolutionary step of the broadsword. First, you have broadswords, which, as the name implies, have relatively wide blades. The points weren't generally sharpened, as it made the metal too thin and subject to breakage (early in the development of steel, you understand). Also, they didn't hold an edge well, and certainly weren't razor-sharp. You didn't cut an enemy so much as crush him -- the wedge shape of the edge of the blade focuses the energy of the attack on a small area (though not as small as a true edge), thus providing great force.

 

Later, as steel got better, cuts were more possible because the edge could be maintained. Later still, the point became a viable stabbing option as well. During this whole time, armour was becoming heavier and tougher, but made the user much slower. As missile weapons started catching up (bow becomes longbow, becomes crossbow, becomes black-powder weapons), armour didn't protect nearly as well as it did, and it became much more important to be fast and maneuverable.

 

As armour fell out of style, so did the heavier hand weapons. A lighter, faster style of sword became more popular -- though not right away. The name rapier, from "epee rapiere," was applied not by the weapon's makers or wielders, but by those who heard about it's use -- it seemed a rediculously long sword, thus the translated name. However it quickly proved it's worth in speed and ability. It's blade was narrower and longer than a broadsword, and it tended to incorporate more hand-protecting designs as time went on.

 

I don't believe it evolved into thinner forms, all the way to the sport weapon of today -- that item is a completely separate item meant to non-lethally simulate the length of a rapier, that's all. Anything even halfway between a rapier (sword) and a sport fencing rapier would be so light and bendable as to be useless in combat.

 

~JediMouse~

[WulfeTemplar]

It is obvious to me that most of you are not the true die hard Star Wars fans you claim to be.

1. The lightsaber has no weight except for the hilt.

2.The constuction of a saber is detailed in I,Jedi. A book a dearly love. And just because it does not exist now someday it will.

3.TaunTauns are reptiles and oh my God they have FUR

4.There are thrusting moves in kendo and bushido I know this as FACT

Also this little bit of news for you the reason for the difference in

fighting styles in SWE1 and the other three is because Ray Parks

(Darth Maul)was the fight instructor of the movie. His style is KungFu and some bushido hence the fight parts of the movie were better than the other 3.

Now I am not some nerd or fanatic. I am a Drug Task Force Agent

that happens to be 35 years old and a BIG KID at heart. I love the movies ever since old Lucas started making them in 77.

The game can only do so much to relate true fighting with a lightsaber. True it could have done more but think of all the keys you would have to map out to do them. Well I will get off my soapbox for now.

[kasiel]

One thing that always sorta annoyed me was that everyone

 

with a lightsaber seemed to hold the damn things "wrong"..

 

 

Now I don't know if this comes from a style difference or

 

something, but in kendo one of the most basic rules is that

 

you've gotta have one hand right underneath the swordguard

 

(tsuba) and the other at the very bottom of the handle(tsuka)

 

preferably with your left pinky covering the end.

 

 

Take a look at anyone (in the movies or in the game, whatever..)

 

and you'll see that everyone holds them with both

 

hands together (baseball bat stlye).

 

 

I know... It isn't really kendo, (some of the moves are too

 

outrageous to be kendo, and the sword is a bit long) just...

 

different. I just don't think one could get much strength holding

 

a lightsaber that way.

[Wes Janson SMR]

Lightsaber Duelist in the Jedi Arts (boy, I love saying that) need more control than strength. However, they do draw on that strenght and finesse through the Force.

 

That brings me to another point in dueling. Adding in Force to the equation forces (pun) different mechanics of style and form. Without the Force, Jedi couldn't do half the things they're able to - to say nothing about their endurance for the longer matches.

 

When your opponent knows where you'll swing before you even do it, that calls for something a little more different than Kendo...or Tennis.

[GreyJedi]

The seperation of the hands on the hilt of the sword is such that you acheive maximum control and power. Power from the hit comes from using your hips to swing the sword, not your arms. Think of domination cuts.

 

But as mentioned before, you want movies to be visually spectacular, not realistic.

[kasiel]

I know,,,

 

but if you strike a heavy blow with both hands together

 

on something "Solid State", wouldn't the sword swivel in

 

your hands? (I get the impression that a lightsaber swing has

 

a lot less inertia than what I'm used to)

[Wes Janson SMR]

Yup. Plus lightsabers supposedly have no weight behind them, so controling something as light might not need the aformentioend forms, or at least in a way we know of.

 

But personally, I remembe reading how lightsabers give off a gyroscoping effect, requiring some strength on the wielders part.

 

But agian, strength and control are guided by the Force. The Force, people. It's a concept people keep excudnig. Proper Martial Art forms don't fully apply to Force-adept combatants. When your opponents knows what move you're gonna do, you'll need to do it faster, and mix it up a lot more. Faster, and varried. Throw in a bout of acrobatics, and you've got a formula for throwing off your opponent.

[Sartori]

Originally posted by Mandamus

 

Yeah, I'm dumb. If you'll read my posts, I haven't disagreed with anything anyone has said. Go read a book on swordsmanship, Thrust-boy.

 

I recommend "Autumn Lightning" by Dave Lowry -- a true story of an American teenager who learns the "way of the sword".

 

(snipped)Do you have any training with bokken vs. staff? I was wondering what the tactics would be for the swordsman (thinking of Darth Maul vs. Obi-wan, naturally).

 

as a B rated fencer in college an a current nidan in kendo i have hit quite a number of people with the point of my shinai. heard of tsuki? its rather effective, and you have no time to sidestep if preformed properly It suprises the hell out of most of them as they are not accustomed to facing it.

 

 

The difference between a parry and a block is that a parry is followed by a riposte, a block is pointless unless you are not trying to win.

 

Vader and Obi-wan execute several cuts exactly from kendo kata in ep4

 

Manos, some of the positions you are describing are silly. A prime guard position? a simple attack with opposition would take your hand off. Remember you the slightest touch cuts.

 

the most important factors in sword work (or any form of combat) are timing and distance, technique only matters after that.

 

Obi-wan and Qui were both idiots in ep 1.

watch the DVD in slow mo and look at all the maai (openings) Maul leaves. there are multiple places where either of them could have simply stepped in and skewered him. Please raise your sabre above your head like that. Your intestines will make interesting patterns on the floor.

 

of course the scene was choreographed by a wushu practitioner, an inferior sword art in my experience (yes I have sparred with several, and perhaps they were not true practitioners, but they all left incredibly large openings that were easily exploited.)

 

but Wushu is nicer to watch (for the uninformed. true sword work is in the details that are easily missed) and so plays better in theaters.

 

-----------------------

it cuts

[GreyJedi]

Originally posted by Wes Janson SMR

Yup. Plus lightsabers supposedly have no weight behind them, so controling something as light might not need the aformentioend forms, or at least in a way we know of.

 

But personally, I remembe reading how lightsabers give off a gyroscoping effect, requiring some strength on the wielders part.

 

But agian, strenght and control are guided by the Force. The Force[/i], people. It's a concept people keep excudnig. Proper Martial Art forms don't fully apply to Force-adept combatants. When your opponents knows what move you're gonna do, you'll need to do it faster, and mix it up a lot more. Faster, and varried. Throw in a bout of acrobatics, and you've got a formula for throwing off your opponent.

 

 

If you believe in Ki or Chi, they might be a force analogue.

[Wes Janson SMR]

Similar concepts, but they're applied differently. No matter how powerful one's chi can be channeled, there's no way that someone can lift a car with telekenesis. He may be able to strike a man down with a finger, but not lift a car with his mind, nor see the imediate future, nor block bullets with a sword.

[GreyJedi]

Originally posted by Wes Janson SMR

Similar concepts, but they're applied differently. No matter how powerful one's chi can be channeled, there's no way that someone can lift a car with telekenesis. He may be able to strike a man down with a finger, but not lift a car with his mind, nor see the imediate future, nor block bullets with a sword.

 

I thought I was being obvious, but I suppose not. I meant that the force, being in fiction what ki is to a martial artist. What comes to mind most is the "unbendable arm" trick. The use of the body's energy instead of muscular strength to either move your opponent or stay planted yourself.

 

As I said before, fiction must be more spectacular than real life, or it wont really hold our attention. Especially in a Sci-Fi or Fantasy setting. But that doesn't mean that the seed for the fictional ideas aren't grounded in real life concepts.

[Wes Janson SMR]

Yeah, I see what you mean.

 

But again, I was pointing out the key differences. The "unbendable arm" trick is only the tip of the iceberg of proper energy control.

 

But hey, check out this theory. Perhapse Obi-Wan and Vader grew more mindful of practical combat over the years. It wasn't that they were too old to flip around and go crazy with the wall-jumping. The battle was serious, so no childish tomfoolery (such as meaningless and suicidal acrobatics) would have any kind of practicality.

 

That, or he was just trying something different to throw off his old student.

[GreyJedi]

Originally posted by Wes Janson SMR

But hey, check out this theory. Perhapse Obi-Wan and Vader grew more mindful of practical combat over the years. It wasn't that they were too old to flip around and go crazy with the wall-jumping. The battle was serious, so no childish tomfoolery (such as meaningless and suicidal acrobatics) would have any kind of practicality.

 

Probably not true, but I like this theory.