After centuries of practice, training and competition, fencing has conclusively proved that the best strategy in a knife fight is not getting into a knife fight.

I love that Loit got a yellow card for fencing sarcastically

You always know its a top tier sport when you have to put a rule in place to stop people from falling asleep in the middle of play.

Seems the solution is simple. Have the combat zone decrease as the match goes on till it is too small to avoid strikes.

Ironically I imagine this is exactly how real life duels back then could have gone. No one wanting to die or get fatally wounded for getting hasty, waiting till the enemy got careless. I bet lots of battles went like this.

The fact that dude gave an enthusiastic victory shout and cheer at the end is what makes it extra hilarious

There should be a tiger on a leash at both ends forcing the fencers to the middle. If the don't fight the tiger gets more leash, if they fight the tiger gets pulled back a bit. And then if you lose you have to fight off the tiger to get out of the building.

A fencing duel is a supervillain's worst nightmare Because there, their plans could be foiled

You see this in kendo too. Two fencers standing tip to tip to run out the clock and then go to sudden death. I’m not surprised they introduced non-combativeness penalties for fencing. They do it in Judo and MMA too.

Obi-Wan: It's over Anakin, I have the high ground! Anakin: Oh, um, I see.

Whoever control middle zone most of the time during the fight should get nice chunk of extra scores. This would encourage both fencers to push their opponent back or perform risky lunges in attempt to get ahead whenever they realize they are losing by ground control scores.

When I was a kid, I used to do this with a tree when I was very bored, although it had more action from both sides than this video.

The IOC has made changes. Now after 1 minute a rolling fire begins from each side forcing the combatants, now swaddled in gasoline-soaked lamé to strike before one or both combatants are flambé.

On the opposite end of the excitement spectrum, we could have fencing Battle Royale. Just everyone fences each other at once until one person remains.

Easy solution, make them fight in an arena with stairs and a roped up chandelier to possibly cut down in the middle.

The audience: Booring! Bring something interesting! The FIE: Introduces non-combativity penalties. Fencers: Boooooo! FIE: Why are you booing me? I'm right.

In Epee, everyone waits, then wakes up and one has won. In Sabre, everybody is zerg rushing and claiming hits. Whowever can outscream the opponent, convinces the ref. And in foil (former foilist here, now HEMA) everyone starts discussing right of way like they are in a test for a driving license. Love fencing, but the rulesets are just killing it.

The easy solution seems obvious to me: score each match individually then tally the number of wins and loses so fencers cannot rely on their teammates in team events. That's how it's done in tennis, badminton, and ping pong.

Playing competitive games online thought me one thing, often times its not how skilled a player is who decide the match but rather who makes the first mistake. Being defensive and waiting for the other players to make a mistake is easier than making a play to win a game. I can understand these guys wanting to play defensively so yeah.

This happens in fighting games too, there's a really funny melee set where neither player moved for basically the entire game. It doesn't make much sense to me though, when the timer runs out you lose if you are behind. The person in the lead doesn't need to attack but the person who is behind just sitting there waiting to be declared the loser makes no sense.

We used to "duel" with kendo practice swords in the backyard. To encourage the participants each had to do a shot of whiskey every bout. Winner of each point had to take a drink of beer. After a few rounds we had the opposite problem along with cuts, bruises, and jammed fingers.

Where there’s a rule, there are fencers taking advantage of it in unorthodox way.

This is the same energy as Smash Bros competitors stalling during a match

I've never had issues with non-combativity being abused at local tournaments, college tournaments, NACs, or Summer Nationals...seems to be an issue only with top tier international competition

Redli's hurtbox is too large while Heinzer has fast start-up and is plus on block. Devs need to do some balance patches to make Redli viable in the meta.

This (perhaps unsurprisingly) has similarities to "playing lame" in fighting games where you generally act very defensively and keep your distance. Some developers didn't like that so in Guilty Gear they put in a "Negative Penalty" for passive players that gets rid of all their meter (a resource that lets them do more damage (through various ways), and is tied to some defensive mechanics) I think it's cool that something similar happened in real life too.

If anything, the Swiss fencer just proved the point that aggressive fencing is the way to go

I bet the karate kumite match where a guy won gold by running face-first into his opponents kick and losing consciousness will live in similar infamy. Either that, or kumite will become a sport of trying to knock oneself out strategically. The FIFA event of martial arts.

For each x time of passivity the fencer furthest from their back line revives a point. Forces the passive fencer forward.

1:00 "This time, the referee tried to explain to the fencers that they are supposed to fence in their fencing match." 1:25 "It was not very effective"

Funny fact: the ref for the first match (Hun vs Est) is the same one in Sui vs Hun

Watching Heinzer vs Redli looks like I am watching a sabreur trying to take on a high level epeeist. This is comical on so many levels.

I think it should be handled much like a "stalling" call in wrestling is handled. If you're called for passivity the first time its a warning. Each subsequent call would result in a penalty touch for the opponent. If both are using this rule knowing that one has a higher score and can "double passive" until they are both awarded penalty touches, The rule should state you cannot win a match on a passivity penalty touch. Just spitballing. I also think that with the addition of reliable wireless touch systems, epee should be fought "in the round". In other words, in a ring, not on a piste, giving the fencers the ability to use any lateral movement. Stepping out of the ring would result in a warning the first time and penalty touches for subsequent violations.

Most sports break down when both sides decide not to play. That's why passivity is very often sanctionable offence, both in and out of the arena.

Is this where the term “sitting on the fence” came from? If not, they certainly were doing it!

There is a rule now in epee fencing that if you stay passive for 1 minute straight then you get a yellow card and if you do it again then you get another yellow card which result in you getting a red card which gives the opponent 1 point so fencing is alot more interesting now i promise😄

I remember my fencing instructor tell me about this when he told me the rules of my first competition. It's weird how i've not searched for stuff like fencing but still this comes up in my recommended.

What was really painful to watch for me in the first video is how unconditioned many fencers of the old times seem to be - no offense, but Loits moves, body fitness, etc are just not on the Olympic level... it looks terrible.

Thanks for educating me on this:)

I know we’re all talking about the video content, but I LOVE that fact that you put (Epee) in the title because as a Sabre fencer it’s so annoying watching tips n tricks for “fencing” but it’ll be a foil or epee video. It’s the little thing!

I don’t know how the rules were back in day but not listening to the referee is cardworthy according to the rules, and if the referee sais they have to fence they have to fence or get penalised

Thank You, this is educational! :)

I knew nothing of fencing before this video, now I know something, thank you very much for this one, very informative

This is the main reason I got into HEMA as opposed to MOF. Not to say MOF fencers aren't great athletes or talented but rather that the art of fencing has become more a game than a martial art. We still have plenty of variance in scoring rules but in general the idea is to hit and not get hit, as receiving an after blow or doubling in a real fight would more than likely get you severely injured or killed. As far as I understand it this isn't much of a concern in MOF so long as you landed the first hit.

When I was a kid, I used to play this football video game where I was much better on offense than on defense....so, to win, I would opt to kick first, then I would score as quickly as I could and go for two points after each score. then, i would let the other team score so I could get the ball back. after the half, I get the ball back, then just try time it so I would always have more points and longer possession of the ball. ....to me, this is similar, with a huge difference: this seems to be a tactic that works, whereas my actions were me trying to play the odds, not learning to play the game.

Damn, Max delivers really glorious moments)

that used to happen in the past with duels where neither of them attacked and putting a rule about being too passive can help prevent it from happening as much but you can use that rule to gain an advantage

This reminds me of the episode of "The Big Bang Theory", where Walawisz and Kuthrapali were having a wrestling match to see which one would be the sidekick if they ever became super heroes -- spent over a half an hour dancing around and never touched each other.

I think, the missed minute should be added to the rest time, so that they will get tired for the next round. Then it wont pay off ... Ten push ups would increase that effect

In some ways, what is happening here is a microcosm of what happens in too many matches: needless posturing and willfully gaming the rules. That said, it takes three to do nothing.

In the high school foil league that I was in, there was a rule that if there was 1 minute of consecutive non-action (meaning no blade contact or serious attempts at earning a point), the match would end. The fencer with the most points at that time is declared the victor. If both fencers have the same number of points, there is a sudden victory overtime of 1 minute. One fencer is designated by coin flip to be the winner if no point is scored before the overtime period starts.

I dont even do fencing or know nothing about it, but the sports implications in general this have makes a lot of interesting to watch

I still want to give the priority-period system that was floated a bit ago a try, i thought it was fun

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

US Men's Epee team has done it a few years ago at an international tournament, fencers coming on guard, saluting each other, and ref moving to the next encounter, over and over. I know it was Soren on the team, so I'm guessing Seth and Cody too. Should be on KZfaq, but I can't find that video again. Anyone has the link?

The second match was intense What a comeback fencing super aggressive only to have your opponent forfeit.

This is the kind of stuff that happens to martials arts when you take away the risk/damage factor and it gets reduced to point fighting, thank God for MMA for saving most of martial arts that are empty handed

Just put there two walls like from a videogame pushing them towards each other slowly. You don't lose if you touch the wall.

Even if it's not the subject, the way how fencing relay work is just so great. The fact the way to count points advantage the team which are behind, without feeling unfair (at least to watch) is so great. [for those who doesn't know, the first relay stop after 3 min or 5 points. The second after 3 more minutes or first team to 10 points. That mean, if we are at 30-15, and if on a relay, a team is really in an excellent mood and win 75% of his points, if it's the team which is ahead he will gain 5 more points while the losing team will only gain ~1.66 (35-17), but if it's the team which are behind which win 75% of his points, they will gain 15 points while the other team only gain 5 (35-30).]

I guess the saying is true " the master never fights"

P-cards, like them or not, is keeping us an Olympic sport

I dont play fencing but I cant help but draw parallels to competitive gaming, specifically Smash Bros Melee where in their 1v1 ruleset a modification to reduce the clock to discourage stalling and camping and encourage more interesting play is being deliberated. I personally have no issue with it since most games end in less than 3 minutes but i cant help but think what ramifications this might have for the future seeing as how people are willing to go to great extents to win

Have the floor lit up each side with LEDs, in 2-3ft increments. It starts all green, but the judge can turn sections red if the combat is to passive, until both fencers are fighting in the middle only afew ft apart.

0:35 That victory scream after doing nothing really sells this LOL

Why was the Estonian guy stalling in the first place? He was behind in points, so it naturally seems it was on him to initiate the exchanges to make a comeback.

Even chess between the GM is more interesting to me, although I hardly know what they are trying.

It’s like two seniors fighting in the grocery store parking lot, over a handicap space, throwing air punches from about ten feet away from each other while cussing 😂😂😂

I have solution, contracting field(piste). There is main timer what counts round like it does now and there is another timer that is alot shorter like 30 seconds or so wich is contracting the field from 14m to 0m wich makes them to attack at some point, so you get atleast some action in 30 seconds. Ofc i have not put much thought to the optimal timer for contracting field but it just popped in my head.

I want to see the olympic contest of Claymores!

I thought in the old fencing rules it says that if you don’t try your hardest you also commit an offense to the rules, so officially this was already illegal. I tried to look it up, but some people seem to be not just a little fed up with the old situation. The rules in the way they have been written come off as being way more stern and strict in supporting good sportsmanship. That actually gives me hope. Hurrah FIE.

What a stunner! I am especially enthralled at 2:10.

7:25.. IM JUST AMAZED. THATS SO MUCH ENERGY

This is the best fencing I've ever seen.

Didn't they recently change this rule to force fencers to fight?

True masters of their craft

This looks like a comedy skit. It's about a step away from being an actual Monte Python episode.

no sympathy for the Japanese team. I'm not against using the loophole (as long as it's not an infringement like yakimenko-ing during the bout) for winning the bout (in this case, using the new passivity rules p-black loophole) but I can't believe that (apparently) NO ONE in the Japanese team questioned something wrong with the Israeli team like... the Israeli team tried the exact same method against Japan but their FIE rank, which means they would lose the match if they continued to use this method so the Japanese team should question this question : "why is the Israeli team willing to lose intentionally? Are they trying something funny?" but apparently no one realize before it was too late.

"How do you think non-combativity should be dealth with?" That really depends on a lot of factors. Mostly regarding: 1) what the goals are 2) how any change would influence other things, and if those other things would also be a problem For instance, you could add a rule that places a scoring value on the distance of each player's feet relative to the piste (the playing area). With the idea being to give a type of alternate scoring special points for the time each player spent as being the player the farthest from their own back edge of the piste. This scoring of special points could be what is used to determine the winner in a timeout. You could even change color of piste zones to create a more visual experience for this, etc. But this type of change could have any number of unwanted things come out of it. It adds non-intuitive complexity to the sport. It changes the ways players play. It requires players keeping track of new things like lines on the piste, guessing who has gotten what points (unless there is some audible tracker, etc.), etc. Plus any other number of things, or how those things can then themselves influence further things. For another example of a possible change, you could add a "shot clock". Where players alternate being designated in control ("possession") for set time interval. And if there is combat within that player's possession, then they get a special point, and possession changes to the other player. Also, possession changes anytime a regular point is scored. This scoring special points could be what is used to determine the winner in a timeout. There are many more of such rules that could be created and tried out. It all depends on what is desired and what the subsequent outcomes are. It's likely that any change made will require ongoing re-visiting to ensure the change is good and that it doesn't need re-tuning or removal. Even if these types of rules don't make sense for the sport (which is going to be the case for most possible rule changes), they could still be fun or interesting variations to try out. Which might lead to the develop of some interesting or useful alternate formats and player and audience experiences.

The solution is really simple. Just introduce King of the Hill rules. The space in the center should only be large enough for one person, the one to hold the space for the longest time will win the relay point. Both combatants will now fight to dominate the space, while this is happening, the other points are counted as normal. King of the Hill point can be more than 1 pt. Whatever is right to motivate the players.

I think it should be a double black card. If you don't want to fence, go home.

wait.... 4 minutes? (edit : I'm referring to 2001 Estonia vs Hungary bout, whose individual match is 4 minutes instead of 3)

Love how they raise their weapons pointing on each other sometimes, giving me some "No u" vibes

Perfect example of Yoda "Do or do not; there is no try"

Mini combat sports have a similar problem, what do you do when the audience wants action and one combatant is an expert counterpuncher? It also happens sometimes in the group stage of the World Cup soccer tournament. Under that format for teams play a round robin with two teams advancing, and it is possible that the two teams scheduled to play each other last both come into the match with two wins. Under that scenario, if the final game ends in a draw, both teams advance. And since 0-0 is a draw, the optimal strategy is to play very tight defense and ignore offense.

Shorter rounds with the default winner being the person who has taken the most ground?

A excellent example on how the easiest solution is often the best, you can’t argue with next to flawless results, “skills” almost never win against a abuseable advantage, mechanical loophole or just logic

Are individual competitions referred to as bouts and team events as matches or is this a U.S. versus international term difference? I live in the U.S. and have attended many national tournaments up to the highest level as a spectator/parent and I am accustomed to bout. Granted, I only watched individual competition.

So anyway, only Loit that got carded by referee?

Why didn't the 2001 guys attack, they were losing?

Tough rule because usually there are 2 fencers equally non-competitive. But if you could point out the more evasive fencer, I'd like to see the other team getting a 2-on-1 power play like in handball, ice hockey etc. 😄

Force offensive and defensive rounds. So, if you're on an offensive round you have to win the bout with your opponent beyond the middle line; if your opponent pushes you back, even if you strike them you aren't awarded points. If you're on a defensive round, points are awarded as usual if you win from anywhere. Rounds can alternate even if a competitor has not yet scored, perhaps 30 seconds into a bout if nobody has been struck the rounds of Offense / Defense shifts. This can be easily portrayed by Green and Red lights beyond your opponent; if you see a Green light behind your opponent, you're on Offense and if you see a Red light behind your opponent, you're on defense. - This will certainly force teams that want to play passive and drag out their lead to an easy victory to have to keep fighting (giving the other team and more fair chance) because if they are pushed back when it is their turn for offense, even on a win or what would normally be a draw (1pt for each team), only the defending competitor could be awarded the point. Tada, easy fix.

And THIS crap is why I do sabre.

As a foilist, the idea that fencing needs passivity rules seems bizarre

I like how they are moving up and down just like those sprite fighters in old arcade games when they are idle.

Come at me bro. No you come at me. No you come at me bro.

one touch epee was thing along time ago. In case of a double or time runs out they both lose and from what I understand the competition was just a series of ever smaller pools with everybody fencing everyone. As far as teams, I can't really see a solution to doubles unless you flip the lights on the box and make them all fence wifi at the same time in a rectangle. You get hit, your light comes on and you're out. last team with a man alive wins the point in case of doubles no points because you would both be out. It would be cool to see the team event involve some group fighting scenarios.

Unless they are all fencing at the same time, team fencing is stupid.

This looks like a Monty Python skit

I don't know you, but I rofled watching this!

It's amazing how fencing can turn something as exciting as a sword fight into an absolute snoozefest. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt any of these fencers would last more then a couple seconds on an actual battlefield.