I don't think the last point between Homer and Ferjani was controversial at all. Homer was ready to go, and didn't raise his hand until after Ferjani took two steps in which case the referee was not supposed to cal halt.
Me as well. Homer literally went deeper into the squat and then decided he didn't want to commit to his defensive action decision and tried to play the "didn't hear" card.
17:50 "here, let me stab myself for you" sport sabre is absolutely stupid when it comes to... itself? sabre fencing? oh right, i forgot! its only fencing in the name, its actually just electrical tag!
...and barbed wire is only fencing in the name, it's actually just spiky wire. Seriously, if this kind of fencing is not for you then that's fine but there's no need to be so negative, it's not good for you. If every time you got the urge to write something negative about a form of fencing that you don't like you were to write something positive about a different form of fencing that you do like, you would probably be a happier person. Live and let live.
@@SlicerSabre i like the actual game itself, i just had some bad time with the fencers themselves. literally, 99% of problems with the current game's rules would be fixed if you made the time to double longer. (and also added something to discourage doubles.) those people who claim to know how to fence with real swords when all theyve done is just the sport. i hate them.
You don't watch much right-of-way fencing, do you? Okay let me explain, when Kakhiani (the fencer on the right) fully extended her arm, that means she established the point in line. Point in line is one condition where the defending fencer (that is the fencer that establishes the point in line) has the priority without the need to parry or dodge the attacking fencer's attack. The fencer with point in line have the right of way until its blade got deflected, thus breaking the point in line. Before we back to the bout, here are some contexts: - because of point in line's paradoxical situation (where defending fencer with point in line doesn't need to parry or dodge the attack), calls for point in line are quite inconsistent (I don't know how inconsistent it is in sabre but it's definitely quite inconsistent in foil) (yeah, fencing has this kind of problem with inconsistent enforcement of the rulebook) - with the arm fully extended like that, it's harder to make parries and feint counterattack. That's why fencers rarely maintain the point in line. Most of the time, point in line is used to control your opponent's tempo, rather than to produce touches. Back to the bout between Gregorio (the fencer on the left) and Kakhiani. Kakhiani established the the point in line and Gregorio, expecting Kakhiani to retract the line, lunged at Kakhiani and Kakhiani unexpectedly (by Gregorio) maintained the point in line and hit Gregorio with the tip and got the touch (also it was one light so Kakhiani would get the touch regardless of right of way) edit: actually after seeing it once again, Kakhiani made the disengage with the point (just in case you don't understand: disengage DOESN'T break the point in line). I can't tell whether Gregorio made effort to beat the blade (thus breaking the point in line and regain the right of way) but that's a very reasonable assumption. If we look at one isolated clip, then yes it seems that Gregorio made stupid mistake but with some context of how fencers fence, it wasn't the case. Also actually, there are many aspects in sabre fencing that defy martial realism and totally arguable and legitimate. This case, however, you picked the wrong one.
@@funnysecksnumber6998 also about your solution, it won't work. increasing lockout time (the period when second hit can be made after the first hit, or double time in your terms) won't work. It will only make the game unplayable. If we only increase the lockout time then it will only make the problem worse. Making double hit in sabre right now is very easy (at least compared to foil and epee) and increasing the lockout time will make it even easier. What about we remove right of way altogether? Well, not only we remove the most essential part of sabre fencing, it would make the game only slightly different from epee (assuming we DECREASE the lockout time to make it harder to make second hit) and since it's very easy to make hit with sabre, the game will truly devolve into a game of tag (yes, really) Okay, what about we remove the right of way AND maintain (or even INCREASE) the lockout time? The result is simple: the game will be unplayable. Reasons are: 1. As I said earlier, it's very easy to make second hit in sabre with the current lockout time. Increasing the lockout time will only make it even easier. 2. Let's assume the behaviour of the match is like epee (it won't be the same, or even arguably similar since the nature of the weapon). The fencers will fence "cautiously" and then one fencer make some mistake with distance or bladework and the other fencer hit that fencer, then what happened next? The fencer who get hit will be able to make double within the lockout time and since it's easy to make hit in sabre and considering the fencers' build in average is athletic, they will make the second hit registered. With this settings, the second hit will register almost 100% of the time. These reasons are enough to make me say that the game will be unplayable.
@@funnysecksnumber6998 you might want to argue that "the fencer who gets hit will be fatally injured in real fight and they won't be able to make the second hit" (the fencers who get hit is not always fatally injured even in real fight but let's just assume it's the case). Well the problem in this reasoning is: it is a sport, not a real fight. The fencers will use everything within the rule to win and not to lose so if they can make hit within the lockout time in our scenario, they will try and they almost always successful. But don't worry: I've got the nice setting that makes the bouts behave like you want. That setting is: make them fence with real swords. That way, the fencer who gets hit will unable to make the second hit, just like in real fight (as I said before, that's not always the case but let's assume it is)
Did I miss any other upsets?
Kim Jiyeon defeated both Zagunis (#1) and Velikaya (#2) in London?
Paskov (#302) defeating Yakimenko (#1) in the first rounds of the Rio olympics 2016
@@p20040391 That's number 4 in the video
@slicer oops sorry, missed that bit, I must be blind
Ha Hansol winning Algiers (Nov 2018)?
I have to disagree with Darryl on that last touch. He didn't raise his hand until AFTER alle, and he was ready to go.
Great original idea for a video. Very entertaining thanks
Funny enough Fares is now a force to be reckoned with on the circuit. So it could be considered as his coming out party if anything
The rush of blood to go for a remise against the world number 1 :3
Marius Florea was the ref for both the Paskov-Honeybone and the Ferjani-Oh match. Coincidence? Probably.
Kim Jiyeon defeated both Zagunis (#1) and Velikaya (#2) in London?
(A little later but)
Yeah she did, her match in semi final in London against zagunis is incredible
It is somewhere on UA-cam, on the Olympic channel
I like this! You should do more videos like these.
Will do!
I don't think the last point between Homer and Ferjani was controversial at all. Homer was ready to go, and didn't raise his hand until after Ferjani took two steps in which case the referee was not supposed to cal halt.
Me as well. Homer literally went deeper into the squat and then decided he didn't want to commit to his defensive action decision and tried to play the "didn't hear" card.
That's crazy. That bout between Kahkiani and Puzstai was amazing. And to think that Puzstai was only 17? and Kahkiani was how old?
The best part about kakhiani is that she did it wearing a penn state mask. I find that so funny for some reason
7:11
“I didn’t never forgive and that’s why I win”
Watching paskov fence pisses me off man
Last one from paskov is definitely a prep from the English
couldn't you have simply matched the audio on voronov's clips?
Where’s the bout between xu bs Dershiwitz?
Thank you its best video
Glad you liked it!
the guy in the middle of the video really made the famous fencers looks bad. (the second guy after the tall Chinese guy)
The look on the european faces when the chinese man scores with surprise
*is fulfilling*
@@platinipirate710 lol Chinese inferiority complex hard at work.
17:50 "here, let me stab myself for you"
sport sabre is absolutely stupid when it comes to... itself? sabre fencing? oh right, i forgot! its only fencing in the name, its actually just electrical tag!
...and barbed wire is only fencing in the name, it's actually just spiky wire.
Seriously, if this kind of fencing is not for you then that's fine but there's no need to be so negative, it's not good for you. If every time you got the urge to write something negative about a form of fencing that you don't like you were to write something positive about a different form of fencing that you do like, you would probably be a happier person. Live and let live.
@@SlicerSabre i like the actual game itself, i just had some bad time with the fencers themselves. literally, 99% of problems with the current game's rules would be fixed if you made the time to double longer. (and also added something to discourage doubles.)
those people who claim to know how to fence with real swords when all theyve done is just the sport. i hate them.
You don't watch much right-of-way fencing, do you?
Okay let me explain, when Kakhiani (the fencer on the right) fully extended her arm, that means she established the point in line. Point in line is one condition where the defending fencer (that is the fencer that establishes the point in line) has the priority without the need to parry or dodge the attacking fencer's attack. The fencer with point in line have the right of way until its blade got deflected, thus breaking the point in line.
Before we back to the bout, here are some contexts:
- because of point in line's paradoxical situation (where defending fencer with point in line doesn't need to parry or dodge the attack), calls for point in line are quite inconsistent (I don't know how inconsistent it is in sabre but it's definitely quite inconsistent in foil) (yeah, fencing has this kind of problem with inconsistent enforcement of the rulebook)
- with the arm fully extended like that, it's harder to make parries and feint counterattack. That's why fencers rarely maintain the point in line. Most of the time, point in line is used to control your opponent's tempo, rather than to produce touches.
Back to the bout between Gregorio (the fencer on the left) and Kakhiani. Kakhiani established the the point in line and Gregorio, expecting Kakhiani to retract the line, lunged at Kakhiani and Kakhiani unexpectedly (by Gregorio) maintained the point in line and hit Gregorio with the tip and got the touch (also it was one light so Kakhiani would get the touch regardless of right of way)
edit: actually after seeing it once again, Kakhiani made the disengage with the point (just in case you don't understand: disengage DOESN'T break the point in line). I can't tell whether Gregorio made effort to beat the blade (thus breaking the point in line and regain the right of way) but that's a very reasonable assumption.
If we look at one isolated clip, then yes it seems that Gregorio made stupid mistake but with some context of how fencers fence, it wasn't the case.
Also actually, there are many aspects in sabre fencing that defy martial realism and totally arguable and legitimate. This case, however, you picked the wrong one.
@@funnysecksnumber6998 also about your solution, it won't work. increasing lockout time (the period when second hit can be made after the first hit, or double time in your terms) won't work. It will only make the game unplayable.
If we only increase the lockout time then it will only make the problem worse. Making double hit in sabre right now is very easy (at least compared to foil and epee) and increasing the lockout time will make it even easier.
What about we remove right of way altogether? Well, not only we remove the most essential part of sabre fencing, it would make the game only slightly different from epee (assuming we DECREASE the lockout time to make it harder to make second hit) and since it's very easy to make hit with sabre, the game will truly devolve into a game of tag (yes, really)
Okay, what about we remove the right of way AND maintain (or even INCREASE) the lockout time? The result is simple: the game will be unplayable. Reasons are:
1. As I said earlier, it's very easy to make second hit in sabre with the current lockout time. Increasing the lockout time will only make it even easier.
2. Let's assume the behaviour of the match is like epee (it won't be the same, or even arguably similar since the nature of the weapon). The fencers will fence "cautiously" and then one fencer make some mistake with distance or bladework and the other fencer hit that fencer, then what happened next? The fencer who get hit will be able to make double within the lockout time and since it's easy to make hit in sabre and considering the fencers' build in average is athletic, they will make the second hit registered. With this settings, the second hit will register almost 100% of the time. These reasons are enough to make me say that the game will be unplayable.
@@funnysecksnumber6998 you might want to argue that "the fencer who gets hit will be fatally injured in real fight and they won't be able to make the second hit" (the fencers who get hit is not always fatally injured even in real fight but let's just assume it's the case). Well the problem in this reasoning is: it is a sport, not a real fight. The fencers will use everything within the rule to win and not to lose so if they can make hit within the lockout time in our scenario, they will try and they almost always successful.
But don't worry: I've got the nice setting that makes the bouts behave like you want. That setting is: make them fence with real swords. That way, the fencer who gets hit will unable to make the second hit, just like in real fight (as I said before, that's not always the case but let's assume it is)