Excellent video. This is an essential skill that must be developed for point fencing. If you do it right your opponent won't see your attack coming because, in general, people are very bad at depth perception. Better learn how to maintain distance and cover a line otherwise you'll get hit every time. Regarding older fencers: I had a few lessons from an 85 year old gentleman (Austrian champion of 1935). I was a very fit 20 yet he wiped the floor with me. 🥵
Brilliant! To do damage with a point requires very little force, so this contradicts the usual patterns of movement designed to generate power! This is the use of the weapon optimally. Sometimes you truly hit the nail on the head. Cheers
This video got to me just in time. Been messering around for a couple of years. Just last week I found a couple of foils at a car boot sale & decided to hone some point control. Have also subbed cause you explain it good 👍
Wonderful video. I would argue that 'blade before body' rule also applies to the cut, it keeps you safe as you enter striking distance, just like it does with a thrust (so called fighting in 'true time'). When you can thrust, thrust. When you can't thrust, cut! Or cut into distance in order to thrust, or thrust into distance in order to cut.
“Blade before body” absolutely applies to the cut. You are particularly vulnerable during the preparation phase of the cut, and many people make the mistake of leading with the body because it is more “natural” - for generating maximum speed/force in the cut. Works fine when you’re chopping wood. Not so well when the wood is also trying to chop you. -AAC
fencing reminds me of stiletto knife fighting. I don't know how to use a sword of any kind really, but I did take some time to learn the basics of how to use my switchblades.
Without the blade fighting exploding in Europe right now especially the UK maybe your channel will get a big chunk of new subscribers as I want to learn how to defend against blade work
Thanks Ill remember this. It will come in handy if a world war breaks out. I cant see tanks missiles and machine guns standing a chance. Do you have any tips on using a lance on a horse
Don't let Rob Childs see this. He's running around pretending he invented this concept. He'll sue you for infringing on his fake intellectual property. 😂 Seriously though, great video. I really appreciate your honesty and sincerity. I share your videos with my fencing instructor, who really enjoys them. Thanks for all your hard work.
Rob doesn’t claim to have invented it. Every fencing school, modern or classical, teaches “point moves before body”. It’s really common sense if you fence at all. Your body is large and slow compared to the point of a sword. You telegraph your intention by moving your body or legs before the point. If you’re feinting, then maybe you want to telegraph, but in a direct attack the point goes first.
As a teacher of another discipline, also with thousands of former students over 26 years, yes it's easy to recognize the thousands of hours it takes to distill the key points to such clear, impactful and intuitive points. The slow speaking, the eye contact, the brevity. Wow. This guy not only knows his stuff, but he's become a master communicator at his craft. Impressed.
Thank you for those kind words. You make me blush! Seriously, though, it’s very satisfying to be praised by a colleague. Thank you very much. I’m glad you enjoy my work. -AAC
Xero Speedforce shoes spotted at 3:04. Might you consider doing a review? A lot of people still don't know about barefoot shoes. In tandem with your other content, I think it might help some people along on their journey.
Fencing has been around a lot longer than just a couple hundred yrs. The 1st record of "fencing" (aka sword fighting as a sport) we have is from 588AD in Byzantine Empire. As far cut vs thrust goes they both have their purpose. There are times when cut is better & there are times when the thrust is better.
Thanks for your comment. 1. You are correct that the IDEA of “fencing” - sword fighting contests --goes back a long, long time. And according to Vegetius, the Romans knew of and made effective use of the point. The roots always precede the fruits. But I would argue that what I refer to as “scientific swordsmanship” made it’s appearance circa the 15th Century. 2. There are conditions in which a cut may be a tactical choice that is equally efficient to or more efficient than a thrust. That is a separate consideration from which type of action is more effective and efficient in principle. -AAC
He's talking about fighting with a smallsword or rapier mostly. If you don't know, he runs a classical fencing salle that does smallsword, rapier, sabre, and I think he does sport foil, epee, and sabre.
@@swordmastery, Would I be correct in assuming "sword fighting" is a broader term that covers all kinds of fighting with every type of sword? Whereas "fencing" is a specific type of sword fighting with a smaller range of blades? Or, is fencing possible with any blade, as distinct in style as ballet dancing is from break dancing ?
Thanks for your question. Good one. Could warrant a languid chat over a coffee, but I’ll try to be succinct. There is no universal agreement on how and when to use which term and why. The answer, I think, is that it depends on context: what you’re talking about, and who you’re talking to. Too many people think “fencing” refers to the sport still CALLED that, though it no longer IS that. (Prior to around 1980, the sport of fencing DID reflect the principles governing the actual use of the sword.) When I want to make it clear that I’m talking about REAL fighting with REAL swords, I often use “sword fighting,” even though, as you say, it is a very broad term that could cover a lot of different things. I tend to use “fencing” less and less every time I see what currently passes for it. It isn’t what we do, and we don’t want to be associated with it. On the other hand, there is certainly an association between “fencing” and the point-dominated civilian single combat that appeared around the time of the Renaissance and culminated in the use of the small rapier (smallsword), and after about 1800, the dueling sword. What we refer to as “scientific swordsmanship." Add to all that the common use of “fencing” poetically and metaphorically, and you’ve the makings of a linguistic Marx Brothers movie. -AAC
@@swordmastery Thanks for clearing this up. I'll take you up on the coffee if you're ever visiting Scotland. I live a couple of hundred yards from Edinburgh Castle.
While I'm not in disagreement with what the individual is saying, attacking with the point is tantamount to being shot. The immediate effect will depend on target placement. Generally this will focus on prominent organs. If these organs are not compromised then the opponent will still be functional. This is often seen in firearm conflicts where an individual is shot several times and still continues to be effective. A cut on the other hand, targeting the arterial system often has an effect in seconds. This does not even take into effect damage to ligaments and tendons. I therefore argue that that under most circumstances cutting is preferable to a thrust.
I will concede that you have a 'point' about the immediately felt power of a good cut. However, thrusts are not only more deadly over all, but can stop a fight in its tracks too. A thrust to the face is usually a fight ender, fatal or not (a thrust to the weapon hand, arm, or even dominate leg, can be as well). And of course, a thrust to heart, lung, or liver... likely your opponent has a maximum of one more attack before the wound becomes too much for him to deal with. In general, as swords developed, armies and duelist moved from favoring a cutting sword to a thrusting sword. They kill people better.
Thanks for your comment. Like any lover of the sweet science, I’m a huge fan of Willie Pep. I cannot disagree with your “all-time greatest genius of the jab” description. He also slipped punches like a ghost. However, the use of the jab in boxing is completely different from the use of the thrust in fencing. -AAC
as a fencer for more than 50 years I cannot follow or confirm your explanations with chain links or that the arm follows the tip. On the contrary The foot pushes the body, the arm stretches and pushes the weapon and with that the tip of the epee goes in the direction you want.
If you've been fencing for more than 50 years...then I dare say you've been performing the lunge incorrectly for more than 50 years! In a properly executed lunge...the arm extends prior to the foot pushing the body forward.
Overly precious and dramatic presentation. And the horse-and-cart analogy is false. The horse pulls the cart but the sword does not umm pull the arm. And the speaker never explains "why". First master the facts. Then master the clarity. Then master the drama.
Would the phrasing "lead with the point and let the body follow when needed" explain it better? It's hard to give a "why?" in words to something you need to feel to understand. Maybe the horse and buggie analogy is a bit off but the motion definitely consists of leading with the point and taking up slack in the body to the point of ending in s full deep lunge when needed.
In boxing, the legs, back, and shoulder muscles end in the last 3 knuckles. The knuckles are the point of the sword, the force harnessed and then uncoiled, releasing a large amount of force at that point. The force generated in the muscle chain is much like the force generated by a horse pulling on its harness.
The horse goes before the cart, the sword goes before the arm Every hard and fast rule in fighting is made to be broken At the right time and place by the right person
Though it may not be actually true, the point does not in fact pull the hilt, it feels true; which is more important. Especially the chain metaphor. You feel the wrist go to full extension, then the elbow, shoulder and on towards your back leg.
Nice point on 'the point.' But..! For every point, there's a counter, always at least one escape. Thus, when it comes to 'hacking' fencing, this is possible by a judicious and detailed study of body mechanics. Indeed, thinking outside the box, as you say counterintuitively..! There are karate forms, for example, which require the move you well illustrate. One might also source animal movement. Vertebrates. Heck, all movement disciplines to find out how this primary move can be carried out with speed, accuracy, strength. This is a lifelong study. True. And perhaps 'hacking' doesn't convey this tenacity of research. Yet, when life and death are at stake who wouldn't be interested in hacking into it. I suppose one must have a meditative mind as well, such as the bujitsuka of old, for whom an honorable death was a reprieve from an odious existence, suitably directed at the enemy. Thus, justice in form and faith directs the heart's arrow straight to the bullseye, where there is no turning back.
I don't know that I agree. I have found success in point first and body first movement in rapier fencing. A step feint into thrust for instance... Also I take issue as a scientist with your description of "scientific" fencing. Such a discipline should be based primarily in empirical guessing and checking (science) rather than being defined in opposition to natural and intuitive (primal, as you say) fencing.
data science or economics analyses (does this produce wins reliably) would both use quantitative (empirical) data. In other words, if you prove with numbers that this works, then 'scientific' works well enough for me, but I'm a language teacher, not a scientist. Mind you, you're talking about language more than science too though.
@@scrtwpnx yes, with the caveat of I want my action to be less committed rather than just smaller. I could use an extension to bait the over parry, or I could use a step feint to bait a line change while also keeping measure more ambiguous. that action has its limitations too, but its important to think of all the ways that principal can manifest rather than subscribing only to playing with the point. I'll also add that the extension runs the risk of being contained by the parry. All well and good if I bait a parry, but if the parry is functional (which working so far forward makes a distinct possibility), I'm screwed. Much of the time I'd rather risk the attack in prep, but that's just my style.
@@stephenanon2000 While it is true that point-centric fencing has a lot of advantages, and those advantages could be soundly described as being effective in a scientific way (supported not proven, that's important), I don't think that's the context in which "scientific" is being used here. To non scientists (and I don't mean to gate keep here but there really is a divide) something being "scientific" is shorthand for refinement, credibility, quantitative-ness, even superiority. These things are often conflated with science, despite not actually being core to the ideal. It is also abundantly clear to me for reasons partly elaborated in my other comments that OPs use of scientific is as an appeal to those associated qualities, and not a suggestion that point forward fencing as he teaches is a result of the scientific process (at least on his part). Something being counter intuitive (such as fencing with the point as he submits) is neither evidence for or against that action being scientific. At most, it shows an openness to engage outside of only an intuitive framework. I am a scientist and a fencer. My style and my club's style is broadly scientific in nature, and an important part of that is to purposefully set aside preconceived notions and doing a lot of resistive training. I don't collect quantitative data on my fencing like I do in my research, but my approach is still scientific. And I don't mean just in a linguistic sense, I do mean actually scientific.
Thanks for your comment. The word “science” from Latin “scientia” broadly means “knowledge.” It is also a term of art describing a particular method of acquiring knowledge, known as the “scientific method.” My use of the word, in this case, could be argued to straddle or combine both uses. I contrast what I call “instinctive” or “primitive” swordsmanship with scientific swordsmanship because the former lacks the developmental process of the latter. Scientific swordsmanship is based on observation of certain phenomena (differences between point use versus edge use) which led to a hypothesis, (the point is superior to the edge), which was then tested experimentally by numerous parties, whose results led to adjustments and refinements in the hypothesis. I believe that fulfills the criteria for the scientific method. Instinctive swordsmanship - using the edge as a sharp club - does not require the type or degree of training as does the use of the point. This is similar to the difference between wide, swinging (circular) “haymaker” punches that are instinctive and natural (evidenced on every playground on Earth), compared to the sweet “science” of boxing which is built on straight punches (the jab and the straight right). Thanks again for your comment. -AAC
I absolutely agree that the thrust is THE basic technique of the foil (rapeir/smallsword). If it’s a secret, it’s the worst-kept secret in history. That’s why it puzzles me that so few “fencers” do it correctly. -AAC
TLDR: The presenter has taught with the cue "Like the tip is pulling you" so many times he feels an illusory pull when he thrusts, and thinks everybody should feel the same thing. Leading with the point is basic, and important. Your obsession with "perfect form" is identical to that of many traditional martial arts - and equally silly.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
This is among one of the best things I have ever watched so far, I could listen to you for hours
Fully agree!
Excellent video. This is an essential skill that must be developed for point fencing. If you do it right your opponent won't see your attack coming because, in general, people are very bad at depth perception. Better learn how to maintain distance and cover a line otherwise you'll get hit every time. Regarding older fencers: I had a few lessons from an 85 year old gentleman (Austrian champion of 1935). I was a very fit 20 yet he wiped the floor with me. 🥵
Brilliant! To do damage with a point requires very little force, so this contradicts the usual patterns of movement designed to generate power! This is the use of the weapon optimally. Sometimes you truly hit the nail on the head. Cheers
Great video!
Brilliant tutorial, I can't believe the stuff I can learn for free. I have a sword for home defense, it's also a wall hanger.
This video got to me just in time.
Been messering around for a couple of years. Just last week I found a couple of foils at a car boot sale & decided to hone some point control.
Have also subbed cause you explain it good 👍
Wonderful video. I would argue that 'blade before body' rule also applies to the cut, it keeps you safe as you enter striking distance, just like it does with a thrust (so called fighting in 'true time'). When you can thrust, thrust. When you can't thrust, cut! Or cut into distance in order to thrust, or thrust into distance in order to cut.
“Blade before body” absolutely applies to the cut. You are particularly vulnerable during the preparation phase of the cut, and many people make the mistake of leading with the body because it is more “natural” - for generating maximum speed/force in the cut. Works fine when you’re chopping wood. Not so well when the wood is also trying to chop you.
-AAC
Thank you - great insight 👏👏👏👏🙏🏿
Ty for the wisdom and teaching man. Respect.
Nice video.
I think to sum up the point vs the blade is that the point is elegant and precise whereas the blade is brutal and forceful.
fencing reminds me of stiletto knife fighting. I don't know how to use a sword of any kind really, but I did take some time to learn the basics of how to use my switchblades.
Without the blade fighting exploding in Europe right now especially the UK maybe your channel will get a big chunk of new subscribers as I want to learn how to defend against blade work
Reap what you sow daddio. Now i feel motivated!
Thanks Ill remember this. It will come in handy if a world war breaks out. I cant see tanks missiles and machine guns standing a chance. Do you have any tips on using a lance on a horse
Don't let Rob Childs see this. He's running around pretending he invented this concept. He'll sue you for infringing on his fake intellectual property. 😂
Seriously though, great video. I really appreciate your honesty and sincerity. I share your videos with my fencing instructor, who really enjoys them. Thanks for all your hard work.
Rob doesn’t claim to have invented it. Every fencing school, modern or classical, teaches “point moves before body”. It’s really common sense if you fence at all. Your body is large and slow compared to the point of a sword. You telegraph your intention by moving your body or legs before the point. If you’re feinting, then maybe you want to telegraph, but in a direct attack the point goes first.
Thank you.
Beautiful poetry of experience
As a teacher of another discipline, also with thousands of former students over 26 years, yes it's easy to recognize the thousands of hours it takes to distill the key points to such clear, impactful and intuitive points. The slow speaking, the eye contact, the brevity. Wow. This guy not only knows his stuff, but he's become a master communicator at his craft. Impressed.
Right I love this man as a teacher
Thank you for those kind words. You make me blush!
Seriously, though, it’s very satisfying to be praised by a colleague.
Thank you very much. I’m glad you enjoy my work.
-AAC
Xero Speedforce shoes spotted at 3:04.
Might you consider doing a review? A lot of people still don't know about barefoot shoes. In tandem with your other content, I think it might help some people along on their journey.
Don't practice till you get it right, practice till you don't get it wrong
point pulls arm pulls body
Fencing has been around a lot longer than just a couple hundred yrs. The 1st record of "fencing" (aka sword fighting as a sport) we have is from 588AD in Byzantine Empire. As far cut vs thrust goes they both have their purpose. There are times when cut is better & there are times when the thrust is better.
The latin word "gladiator" literally means "swordsman". So in fact, it was around for even longer than that.
Thanks for your comment.
1. You are correct that the IDEA of “fencing” - sword fighting contests --goes back a long, long time.
And according to Vegetius, the Romans knew of and made effective use of the point.
The roots always precede the fruits.
But I would argue that what I refer to as “scientific swordsmanship” made it’s appearance circa the 15th Century.
2. There are conditions in which a cut may be a tactical choice that is equally efficient to or more efficient than a thrust. That is a separate consideration from which type of action is more effective and efficient in principle.
-AAC
That's interesting, but isn't the pointy stick as old as time?
Isn't it the opposite? I thought that fencing had a linear progresion in development?
I hate to contradict someone with great skill but 1:20 fencing went back before the Trojan Wars, thousands of years BC.
He's talking about fighting with a smallsword or rapier mostly. If you don't know, he runs a classical fencing salle that does smallsword, rapier, sabre, and I think he does sport foil, epee, and sabre.
Thanks for your comment.
Just to clarify: We do NOT practice, teach, or participate in “sport” fencing.
😃
-LBW
@@swordmastery, Would I be correct in assuming "sword fighting" is a broader term that covers all kinds of fighting with every type of sword? Whereas "fencing" is a specific type of sword fighting with a smaller range of blades?
Or, is fencing possible with any blade, as distinct in style as ballet dancing is from break dancing ?
Thanks for your question. Good one.
Could warrant a languid chat over a coffee, but I’ll try to be succinct.
There is no universal agreement on how and when to use which term and why.
The answer, I think, is that it depends on context: what you’re talking about, and who you’re talking to.
Too many people think “fencing” refers to the sport still CALLED that, though it no longer IS that.
(Prior to around 1980, the sport of fencing DID reflect the principles governing the actual use of the sword.)
When I want to make it clear that I’m talking about REAL fighting with REAL swords, I often use “sword fighting,” even though, as you say, it is a very broad term that could cover a lot of different things. I tend to use “fencing” less and less every time I see what currently passes for it. It isn’t what we do, and we don’t want to be associated with it.
On the other hand, there is certainly an association between “fencing” and the point-dominated civilian single combat that appeared around the time of the Renaissance and culminated in the use of the small rapier (smallsword), and after about 1800, the dueling sword. What we refer to as “scientific swordsmanship."
Add to all that the common use of “fencing” poetically and metaphorically, and you’ve the makings of a linguistic Marx Brothers movie.
-AAC
@@swordmastery Thanks for clearing this up.
I'll take you up on the coffee if you're ever visiting Scotland.
I live a couple of hundred yards from Edinburgh Castle.
Ah yes, the pointy end goes into the other man.
200 years? I doubt that.
While I'm not in disagreement with what the individual is saying, attacking with the point is tantamount to being shot. The immediate effect will depend on target placement. Generally this will focus on prominent organs. If these organs are not compromised then the opponent will still be functional. This is often seen in firearm conflicts where an individual is shot several times and still continues to be effective. A cut on the other hand, targeting the arterial system often has an effect in seconds. This does not even take into effect damage to ligaments and tendons. I therefore argue that that under most circumstances cutting is preferable to a thrust.
Napoleon Bonaparte disagrees with you...ah but what did he know!!!
I will concede that you have a 'point' about the immediately felt power of a good cut. However, thrusts are not only more deadly over all, but can stop a fight in its tracks too. A thrust to the face is usually a fight ender, fatal or not (a thrust to the weapon hand, arm, or even dominate leg, can be as well). And of course, a thrust to heart, lung, or liver... likely your opponent has a maximum of one more attack before the wound becomes too much for him to deal with. In general, as swords developed, armies and duelist moved from favoring a cutting sword to a thrusting sword. They kill people better.
Finger Eyejabs jabs notwithstanding
The Steven Seagal of Swords
It's hard not to compare this to Willie Pep. The all-time greatest genius of the jab is hard not to compare to this point of the rapier bigot.
Thanks for your comment.
Like any lover of the sweet science, I’m a huge fan of Willie Pep.
I cannot disagree with your “all-time greatest genius of the jab” description. He also slipped punches like a ghost.
However, the use of the jab in boxing is completely different from the use of the thrust in fencing.
-AAC
Beautifully said
Cool
this knowledge could gave helped Guthrie vs Archibold in the pub fight
as a fencer for more than 50 years I cannot follow or confirm your explanations with chain links or that the arm follows the tip.
On the contrary
The foot pushes the body, the arm stretches and pushes the weapon and with that the tip of the epee goes in the direction you want.
If you've been fencing for more than 50 years...then I dare say you've been performing the lunge incorrectly for more than 50 years! In a properly executed lunge...the arm extends prior to the foot pushing the body forward.
Overly precious and dramatic presentation. And the horse-and-cart analogy is false. The horse pulls the cart but the sword does not umm pull the arm. And the speaker never explains "why". First master the facts. Then master the clarity. Then master the drama.
Would the phrasing "lead with the point and let the body follow when needed" explain it better? It's hard to give a "why?" in words to something you need to feel to understand. Maybe the horse and buggie analogy is a bit off but the motion definitely consists of leading with the point and taking up slack in the body to the point of ending in s full deep lunge when needed.
In boxing, the legs, back, and shoulder muscles end in the last 3 knuckles. The knuckles are the point of the sword, the force harnessed and then uncoiled, releasing a large amount of force at that point.
The force generated in the muscle chain is much like the force generated by a horse pulling on its harness.
The horse goes before the cart, the sword goes before the arm
Every hard and fast rule in fighting is made to be broken
At the right time and place by the right person
Though it may not be actually true, the point does not in fact pull the hilt, it feels true; which is more important. Especially the chain metaphor. You feel the wrist go to full extension, then the elbow, shoulder and on towards your back leg.
Nice point on 'the point.' But..! For every point, there's a counter, always at least one escape. Thus, when it comes to 'hacking' fencing, this is possible by a judicious and detailed study of body mechanics. Indeed, thinking outside the box, as you say counterintuitively..! There are karate forms, for example, which require the move you well illustrate. One might also source animal movement. Vertebrates. Heck, all movement disciplines to find out how this primary move can be carried out with speed, accuracy, strength. This is a lifelong study. True. And perhaps 'hacking' doesn't convey this tenacity of research. Yet, when life and death are at stake who wouldn't be interested in hacking into it. I suppose one must have a meditative mind as well, such as the bujitsuka of old, for whom an honorable death was a reprieve from an odious existence, suitably directed at the enemy. Thus, justice in form and faith directs the heart's arrow straight to the bullseye, where there is no turning back.
I don't know that I agree. I have found success in point first and body first movement in rapier fencing.
A step feint into thrust for instance...
Also I take issue as a scientist with your description of "scientific" fencing. Such a discipline should be based primarily in empirical guessing and checking (science) rather than being defined in opposition to natural and intuitive (primal, as you say) fencing.
fundamentally you still want a smaller action to draw out their larger action. so ideally you use an extension to draw out an over parry
data science or economics analyses (does this produce wins reliably) would both use quantitative (empirical) data. In other words, if you prove with numbers that this works, then 'scientific' works well enough for me, but I'm a language teacher, not a scientist. Mind you, you're talking about language more than science too though.
@@scrtwpnx yes, with the caveat of I want my action to be less committed rather than just smaller. I could use an extension to bait the over parry, or I could use a step feint to bait a line change while also keeping measure more ambiguous. that action has its limitations too, but its important to think of all the ways that principal can manifest rather than subscribing only to playing with the point.
I'll also add that the extension runs the risk of being contained by the parry. All well and good if I bait a parry, but if the parry is functional (which working so far forward makes a distinct possibility), I'm screwed. Much of the time I'd rather risk the attack in prep, but that's just my style.
@@stephenanon2000 While it is true that point-centric fencing has a lot of advantages, and those advantages could be soundly described as being effective in a scientific way (supported not proven, that's important), I don't think that's the context in which "scientific" is being used here. To non scientists (and I don't mean to gate keep here but there really is a divide) something being "scientific" is shorthand for refinement, credibility, quantitative-ness, even superiority. These things are often conflated with science, despite not actually being core to the ideal. It is also abundantly clear to me for reasons partly elaborated in my other comments that OPs use of scientific is as an appeal to those associated qualities, and not a suggestion that point forward fencing as he teaches is a result of the scientific process (at least on his part). Something being counter intuitive (such as fencing with the point as he submits) is neither evidence for or against that action being scientific. At most, it shows an openness to engage outside of only an intuitive framework.
I am a scientist and a fencer. My style and my club's style is broadly scientific in nature, and an important part of that is to purposefully set aside preconceived notions and doing a lot of resistive training. I don't collect quantitative data on my fencing like I do in my research, but my approach is still scientific. And I don't mean just in a linguistic sense, I do mean actually scientific.
Thanks for your comment.
The word “science” from Latin “scientia” broadly means “knowledge.” It is also a term of art describing a particular method of acquiring knowledge, known as the “scientific method.”
My use of the word, in this case, could be argued to straddle or combine both uses.
I contrast what I call “instinctive” or “primitive” swordsmanship with scientific swordsmanship because the former lacks the developmental process of the latter. Scientific swordsmanship is based on observation of certain phenomena (differences between point use versus edge use) which led to a hypothesis, (the point is superior to the edge), which was then tested experimentally by numerous parties, whose results led to adjustments and refinements in the hypothesis. I believe that fulfills the criteria for the scientific method.
Instinctive swordsmanship - using the edge as a sharp club - does not require the type or degree of training as does the use of the point.
This is similar to the difference between wide, swinging (circular) “haymaker” punches that are instinctive and natural (evidenced on every playground on Earth), compared to the sweet “science” of boxing which is built on straight punches (the jab and the straight right).
Thanks again for your comment.
-AAC
Too drawn out, too much talk for the sake of talk. Could have told us in 39 seconds.
This is basic foil technique. No secret.
I absolutely agree that the thrust is THE basic technique of the foil (rapeir/smallsword).
If it’s a secret, it’s the worst-kept secret in history.
That’s why it puzzles me that so few “fencers” do it correctly.
-AAC
TLDR:
The presenter has taught with the cue "Like the tip is pulling you" so many times he feels an illusory pull when he thrusts, and thinks everybody should feel the same thing.
Leading with the point is basic, and important.
Your obsession with "perfect form" is identical to that of many traditional martial arts - and equally silly.