4 ms·

I’m biased because I’ve practiced fencing for a long time, but you keep saying it’s dumb without explaining why. First of all, which weapon do you refer to? Fo

by edu 2y ago

I’m biased because I’ve practiced fencing for a long time, but you keep saying it’s dumb without explaining why. First of all, which weapon do you refer to? Foil, epee or saber? They look quite different. Saber is very fast and might look as you say, both fencers jumping quickly to each other to get their right of way and score. Epee looks quite different, there’s no right of way and the score target is the whole body, so it tends to be slower. Foil is in the middle in terms of speed, and much more technical. IMO the issue with fencing is not that it looks “dumb”, but that it’s not easy to understand what is happening without knowing the rules. And then things happen fast.

jalapenos 2y ago
So a layman like me finds it instinctively dumb for the following reasons. If I watch the hundred meter sprint, I kind of get it. They're aiming to run super fast. It's a relatable activity. See it in the movies. Would do it if a dog is chasing you. Swimming - crocodile chasing you. Javelin, they're chucking a spear really far - not so useful now, but I get it. People used to do that to fight or hunt. Others, like pole vault or weight lifting or gymnastics etc, have spectacle appeal. Now we come to fencing. I see two guys with what look somewhat like swords. A bit floppier, but I get they're not going to a real sword. They face off apart from each other. They look poised. All of this, so far, is not dumb. I get this. This is mimicking a sword fight. Like boxing is mimicking a fist fight. I feel suspense. I am ready to see this fight play out. Then they rush into each other and stab and get stabbed as if the swords were pool noodles. This is now clearly a dumb activity with no real world parallel, and there's also no spectacle since they're just poking or slapping each other with floppy little sticks. Not so entertaining. Basically, unlike say boxing, there's a distinct lack of hurt. Fight sports must include hurt of some kind to not appear dumb. My opinion is this could be rectified quite simply - raise the costs of getting hit, until the fight looks real. If a stab to the torso meant you're out of the competition, even if you stab them first, the whole thing would adjust immediately to stop looking dumb. So they could restructure the point system until the behaviour of the contestants was clearly trying to avoid getting stabbed (as if that were actually painful or deadly) while trying to stab the other person. More substantial swords that spectators can actually see would help too. Make the saber actually a saber.
- thoroughburro 2y ago
  As a different layman, your objections seem ridiculous and might be summarised as “I would prefer to watch professional wrestling or a stage fighting demonstration in which the actors are trained to strongly emote the storyline of the action to the audience.” Or, “I prefer sports which uninterested parties can easily understand.” Nothing you’ve said speaks to objective entertainment value.
  - jalapenos 2y ago
    They poke each other simultaneously with a barely visible "sword" and you only know who won if you know what the lights on the board mean. Someone getting punched and falling down - immediately clear who's winning, makes sense. Ball gets kicked in a net - immediately clear, makes sense. Common knowledge of sword fighting, albeit coming from movies, is: if you get stabbed by a sword, that's bad. You're not winning. And yet in fencing, they get stabbed and then some lights appear and they have "won" somehow. What I personally prefer is only relevant to the extent you will feel better about your day if you believe you have beaten a stream of text on the internet. What matters is what's universally true, and obviously it's universally true that for spectators to enjoy watching something their ability to understand it is a factor.
    - jbaber 2y ago
      They're simulating a duel, which really did involve rushing at each other.
      - dagw 2y ago
        As yet another layman, if they want to simulate a duel then they should make it first clean hit wins. Kind of like judo or boxing, where you do have points, but if someone lands a 'finishing' attack they win. Points only come in if no-one finishes the fight.
- varjag 2y ago
  Well duh, that's a recurring theme between true performance sports and spectacle sports. Top performance in Greco Roman wrestling is harder than in WWE. 10m rifle/pistol is harder than IPSC. Formula 1 is harder than monster truck races. Marathon is harder than wife-carrying, though for sure the opposites are much more spectacular.

by edu 2y ago

jalapenos 2y ago

So a layman like me finds it instinctively dumb for the following reasons. If I watch the hundred meter sprint, I kind of get it. They're aiming to run super fast. It's a relatable activity. See it in the movies. Would do it if a dog is chasing you. Swimming - crocodile chasing you. Javelin, they're chucking a spear really far - not so useful now, but I get it. People used to do that to fight or hunt. Others, like pole vault or weight lifting or gymnastics etc, have spectacle appeal. Now we come to fencing. I see two guys with what look somewhat like swords. A bit floppier, but I get they're not going to a real sword. They face off apart from each other. They look poised. All of this, so far, is not dumb. I get this. This is mimicking a sword fight. Like boxing is mimicking a fist fight. I feel suspense. I am ready to see this fight play out. Then they rush into each other and stab and get stabbed as if the swords were pool noodles. This is now clearly a dumb activity with no real world parallel, and there's also no spectacle since they're just poking or slapping each other with floppy little sticks. Not so entertaining. Basically, unlike say boxing, there's a distinct lack of hurt. Fight sports must include hurt of some kind to not appear dumb. My opinion is this could be rectified quite simply - raise the costs of getting hit, until the fight looks real. If a stab to the torso meant you're out of the competition, even if you stab them first, the whole thing would adjust immediately to stop looking dumb. So they could restructure the point system until the behaviour of the contestants was clearly trying to avoid getting stabbed (as if that were actually painful or deadly) while trying to stab the other person. More substantial swords that spectators can actually see would help too. Make the saber actually a saber.

thoroughburro 2y ago
As a different layman, your objections seem ridiculous and might be summarised as “I would prefer to watch professional wrestling or a stage fighting demonstration in which the actors are trained to strongly emote the storyline of the action to the audience.” Or, “I prefer sports which uninterested parties can easily understand.” Nothing you’ve said speaks to objective entertainment value.
- jalapenos 2y ago
  They poke each other simultaneously with a barely visible "sword" and you only know who won if you know what the lights on the board mean. Someone getting punched and falling down - immediately clear who's winning, makes sense. Ball gets kicked in a net - immediately clear, makes sense. Common knowledge of sword fighting, albeit coming from movies, is: if you get stabbed by a sword, that's bad. You're not winning. And yet in fencing, they get stabbed and then some lights appear and they have "won" somehow. What I personally prefer is only relevant to the extent you will feel better about your day if you believe you have beaten a stream of text on the internet. What matters is what's universally true, and obviously it's universally true that for spectators to enjoy watching something their ability to understand it is a factor.
  - jbaber 2y ago
    They're simulating a duel, which really did involve rushing at each other.
    - dagw 2y ago
      As yet another layman, if they want to simulate a duel then they should make it first clean hit wins. Kind of like judo or boxing, where you do have points, but if someone lands a 'finishing' attack they win. Points only come in if no-one finishes the fight.
varjag 2y ago
Well duh, that's a recurring theme between true performance sports and spectacle sports. Top performance in Greco Roman wrestling is harder than in WWE. 10m rifle/pistol is harder than IPSC. Formula 1 is harder than monster truck races. Marathon is harder than wife-carrying, though for sure the opposites are much more spectacular.