Talk:Sabre (fencing)/Archive 1

Vjasper's post
I am confident that this page can be expanded quite a bit. If anyone is willing to help I'd gladly appreciate it. Currently the only thing that I can really think of to do is adding detailed section on right-of-way.Vjasper 20:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

70.50.53.43
Please stop accusing User:Vjasper of vandalism. In addition, your unexplained removal of content from this article could be construed as vandalism. See WP:POINT. Thank you. Isopropyl 18:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the Valid Target picture
The valid target picture appears to include the hand. Would anyone like to remedy this? Vjasper 19:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture of a sabre
Does anybody have a picture of a sabre that could be used to illustrate the sabre blade, bell guard and handle? The "The Sword" paragraph would work better with such. Iotha 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could just take a picture of one of mine, if we can't find anything else. Does a gold Y-Section blade on a used Uhlmann guard sound good? I'll take a picture sometime tomorrow. Vjasper 05:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I took a picture of a sabre that was lying around my fencing club (I just added it), however my picture doesn't really display the Y-shape of the blade or the button, perhaps you should focus on that? Iotha 01:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed
Why on earth is the Angelo citation marked as citation needed? Why would a citation need a citation? I mean, come on people, it's a citation! Therefore, by definition, it doesn't need a citation! People need to let the horse / target area argument die. In the same source there are demonstrations of sabre parries to protect the legs and horse while on horseback. Now you here people talking about how the fleche is prevented because you can't cross your legs on the horse, when this rule was made up to eliminate the "fence!" followed by simultaneous fleches problem which plagued the sport even more post-electric in our lifetimes!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.17.235 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Flunge Picture
The picture in the technique section is not actually a flunge. Please remove it.En Marchant 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this article need a picture of a flunge, because I have a fairly decent one from one of my club's practices. It was taken right in the middle of the action, but I'm not gonna add it if its just gonna get removed shortly after. CecilTyme (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New Rules
I added the new rules about the cross-over backwards. I heard this at a fencing tournament, and I have no written source for it. Could someone please find a written source about the new rules, also about the one which sais that coming forwared *without* an extended arm while your opponent doesn't make a simultaneous attack constitutes an attack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.254.131 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sabre picture
The handle is labeled "French grip," but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. The sabre grip is quite different from a French...


 * Also, there's no button on the tip of a sabre. Enelson (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a button. Not one like on foil, but the blade is bent back and folded onto itself, thus creating a little 'loop', making the weapon safer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.254.131 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Target area?
Regarding this section: "The target area originates from dueling sabre training.[citation needed] To attack the opponent's leg would allow him to "slip" that leg back and attack one's exposed arm or head given that the higher line attack will outreach the low line (there is a classic example of the leg slip in Angelo's "Hungarian & Highland Broad Sword" (PDF).). The target area is from the waist up excluding the hands. Right-of-way applies, much as it does to foil." I heard a different explanation of this from my fencing instructor. She told me the saber target area was determined based on mounted soldiers. If you were on a horse, the most exposed area would be the waist up. Even though saber fencing isn't done on horses (well, not that I know of...), during training, a mounted soldier would have wanted to get used to attacking that area. I don't claim to know more, nor do I claim that this explanation is correct, however, the current explanation doesn't make any sense. If it were only because someone could do a "leg slip," then why not have the legs included in the target area and make the "leg slip" a normal technique? Just because there is a way to counter a technique that goes for a certain target area doesn't mean you get rid of that target area. On the contrary, I would assume learning how to adapt to such a technique and learning how to use that situation to your advantage would make much more sense than just ignoring it, seeing as that is a very important part of fencing. 66.41.202.126 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC) (I have some account, but I'm too lazy to log in)


 * The explanation you propose is covered in the opening section:

A common misconception concerning the origin of sabre's target area is that the legs are removed as targets due to sabre's origin as a cavalry weapon.
 * The point about the leg slip is that the leg slip is such a powerful manoeuvre against attacking the legs, that not targeting the legs is the best way to counter it. One of the reasons that the mounted explanation makes no sense is that fighting from horseback is so radically different to fighting on foot, that I would doubt that sabre fencing as-is would have more than the minutest value in training mounted swordsmen.  Advancing and retreating would be banned, for example, and although a leg cut wouldn't stop your opponent dead, it would certainly reduce his usefulness in battle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRB (talk • contribs) 10:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What you said is true. However, missed my point.  In training, you would not neglect a target area.  If an opponent attacks your legs in battle, and you have never learned how to deal with such an attack, you will have a lot of difficulty beating that enemy.  Also, the bladework aspect of sabre can be applied to mounted combat, but a mounted soldier also needs to be able to fight on foot.  If something happens to a soldier's horse, or they aren't near it, they need to have solid footwork to be able to fight.  By applying mounted combat techniques to fighting on foot, they get practice in both areas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.37.144 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ROW with PiL
I removed an edit that added text saying that point in line does not estabish ROW, but only prevents the opponent from getting ROW. That is incorrect - it does establish ROW. See http://www.fencingofficials.org/Info/HandbookForReferees.html section on PiL which states "The point in line exists as the highest level of priority". Jsavit (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ROW: Deceiving the opponent's attempt to beat the blade
I'd like to see a citation for this, as it makes no sense to me.

An opponent attempting to do a beat implies to me that they do not have ROW, and are attempting to establish it with the beat, so gaining ROW by deceiving that beat seems odd. Deceiving a beat seems more of an action for not losing ROW.

Or am I mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.119.99 (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, looks like I was right. The reference seems to be to this:


 * Pour juger de la correction d'une attaque il faut considérer:
 * a) Si l'attaque part lorsque l'adversaire est en position "pointe en ligne" (Cf. t.10), l'attaquant doit au préalable écarter l'arme de l'adversaire. Les arbitres doivent être attentifs à ce qu'un simple frôlement de fer ne soit pas considéré comme suffisant pour écarter le fer adverse.
 * b) Si, en cherchant le fer adverse pour l'écarter, le fer n'est pas trouvé (dérobement) le droit à l'action passe à l'adversaire.
 * c) Si l'attaque part lorsque l'adversaire n'est pas en position "pointe en ligne", l'attaque peut être portée par un coup droit ou par un dégagement, ou par un coupé ou bien être récédée de feintes (Cf. t.77.1) obligeant l'adversaire à la parade.


 * http://www.fie.ch/download/rules/fr/RTECHN.pdf


 * Parts A and B are about assessing ROW specifically for point in line, rather than being general to ROW in saber, so essentially, a lot of this section of the article is incorrect.


 * I'd gloss it thus:


 * a) if an attack is executed against an opponent who has point in line, the attacker must remove the point in line. Judges should be mindful that simply making contact with the blade is insufficient and the blade must actually be moved aside.
 * b) if an attempt to beat the blade is made, and missed (because of a derobe), the opponent maintains the right of way.67.101.119.99 (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also worth noting, there is no reference to target limitations for the point attack--I've never heard of this either.67.101.119.99 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

New equipement?
Could somebody add a bit to the article about the new masks? Sabre is the only weapon to use the masks with the "window". Notes on controversy, effect on target area, regulation, potential use of this mask in other weapons, etc. would be nice. So would a picture :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.213.2 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The other weapons use visors, too. Sabre is the only one where the target area is potentially compromised by it, and therefore the only one where a real controversy has arisen. I agree that there should probably be some information about this, but as I am no sabreur, I fancy I am not the one to add it (although I might, eventually, if no one else does)PRB (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Visor masks are banned in all three weapons now (and as a professional armorer, I say good riddance!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.218.70 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Parry 3 vs parry 6
I have a difficult time with the idea that some think 6 is an extension of 3. The hand and blade positions don't protect the same line (3 and 2 protect the outside line, 1 and 4 the inside, and 5 and 6 the head). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.218.70 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sabre(fencing)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabre(fencing)&redirect=no Sabre(fencing)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Technique
It seems to me that the technique section is rather pointless. Technique and styles tend to change rather quickly and they vary greatly from region to region and coach to coach.

I’d just like someone else’s opinion on this, because as it stands now, I don’t see a reason for the technique section. Bigbrain132 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)