Sword Master Rates 10 Sword Fights From Movies And TV | How Real Is It? | Insider

David Rawlings: Oh my God, this is terrible. There is a lot wrong with this. Hello. My name is David Rawlings, from the London Long

sword

Academy. I'm a full-time fencing instructor and today I'm going to watch a bunch of

sword

fighting clips and critique them horribly. So basically what I have here is a long sword. To me, the longsword is generally a sword that is held with two hands, so whether the grip is short or long, it doesn't

real

ly matter. You have a pommel, a cross, a hilt, a sword. Generally within fencing, we divide it into two halves, but different authors divide it into different divisions.

So we'll have a strong half, which is the half from the middle to the grip, and then from the middle to the point is the weakest part, and we're

real

ly looking at the geometry and the leverage. You get this great thing in historical European martial arts, like I do, but you can't carry swords on your shoulder, because that's very, very frowned upon, and no one would ever do it. Except there are actually reviews in the manuals that say you shouldn't do it, which implies that people do. So, carrying the sword in the hand is a very, very good thing, and you see it a lot, people holding a sword on their shoulder and just walking around with it without a scabbard, necessarily, so that it's ready to use.

I'm having trouble with this fight in particular, because there's a lot of reverse grappling, with the sword held backwards down here. It's not a good way to use the sword. You sacrifice your ability to defend yourself up top, very, very clearly. You have no scope. Is not safe. But he has changed his grip, yes! Oh, and it's back. I like how it moves. I think it has a good organic feel to it. Generally, the sword moves in front of him, which is a very, very good thing. He rarely stays behind him, so he closes the space between himself and his opponent with his sword.

One of the things I like about some of the fight scenes in "The Witcher" is that there is this idea of ​​moving between opponents. And you see this in things like Godinho, where the idea of ​​spinning, something that people really frown upon within the HEMA community, is used a lot because you're trying to keep opponents away from each other, so it's not just about to fight against you and concentrate on moving towards you; it's against making you back up and then hitting the next person, the next, the next. So these spinning movements actually become quite important, and this angular, sinister, in-your-face idea goes out the window.

It is not this approach. Suddenly it's much wider and it's a gust. The thing is, most of my opinion of this fight scene is that Henry Cavill is very, very good physically. And what is shown in this fight scene is probably the most disappointing fight scene in “The Witcher.” So for Henry Cavill, he'll be like an eight. For the actual quality of the fight, there will be about four. So there are parts in there that actually aren't that bad, looking at it. There are dodges from the Emperor's Sword, which could be accidental, but you have these moves of just moving as the parry approaches.

Actually, that's not so bad. These types of things are seen quite frequently. You see it in Dexterity when opponents move around each other. When a stop comes, you tune out underneath while it happens. So you have potential for some pretty interesting moves there. Good stop. This is seen in Talhoffer, usually accompanied by a wrap, due to the closure and the short distance. In quite a few treatises the movement of the heels is mentioned, which is often also accompanied by a movement of the jaw. So potentially within this fight scene, I would say that in those last two actions, from the cover to the leg kick to the heel lift, I would say they are actually pretty good actions.

Typically you'd see more control of the opponent's weapon arm, or his off-hand balance as well, but that part is actually reasonably good. So that's why I'm going to give it a six because I think those two aspects save it a little bit. Well, again we have some very, very good things about this. The first part of this is to push the opponent away. I really like this. Create distance between the two opponents. Now, you could argue that maybe he wanted to push opponents into each other, but he has a very, very good instinctive response. Push one, take his weapon, and then move on to the other.

And then a nice clean finish on one of the cuts. Nothing fancy, just a simple anger cut in effect. Fairly good! Producer: Give it? David: I would give it a seven. I think it's something quite comfortable. Again, I think it's very easy, judging this from a HEMA perspective, to focus too much on one individual, and this is showing good awareness of space, keeping that distance and then simple finishes, nothing fancy. So immediately, the first attack is this big, I'll spin you around, I'll expose my back and the distance is so bad they could stab you in the back.

Yeah, it's a sword or a saber or something, so you have to go and cut out candles or decorations. You don't use this like that. This one is terrible. Very often in Japanese swordsmanship, you are moving glass deposits, slag deposits effectively, silicon deposits that may be in the steel. You move them along the entire length of the sheet and through those folds you basically spread them out. This ensures that your sword does not have any particular weak points. Now with European swords, before we had that consistency, we did something very similar, except we twisted them like ropes, so if one thread was weak, then that could be a problem in itself, but you have multiple threads, and twist them By joining them together, you create something stronger.

That said, swords break, swords bend, and there is always a thin tip, and it cannot be guaranteed. The process is not perfect, even today with much clearer definitions of how steel should be made and produced, blades still break, so it is not impossible for this to happen. So, this is where things get really terrible. There's this crazy idea that somehow longswords are really heavy, clumsy weapons. They are not! You can swing a longsword much faster and with much more dexterity than a rapier. It's still balanced enough to use one-handed, but you have the advantage of being able to move it in this front-hand position.

Now, even in the most barbaric moment of a longsword, the barbarian technique, we have a technique called rage strike, which is a strike that uses the entirety of the previous oblique slings. That is the most powerful blow you can make, but it is not done foolishly. It is made as a mechanic. It's a way to claim space in front of you. Claim that space for yourself, kill with it if you can, and then chase your opponent through that. Wide swings serve no one and represent the actual piece of equipment very, very poorly. Doing a spin when you're not facing the opponent's sword is crazy, because you don't know what he's doing with his sword.

And since you are so close and you don't know where their sword is, they can obviously cut you freely, because they are still looking at you, they still have all the necessary security in their hands. Three, four out of 10. This, in case you didn't know, is the best fight scene ever seen in a movie. The fence on it is completely irrelevant. The fence is part of a narrative device, it's not meant to overwhelm you, it's just there, happening as the dialogue does. Inigo: You're using Bonetti's defense against me, huh? Westley: I thought it was appropriate, considering the rocky terrain.

David: There are references to Bonetti's defense. I don't even really know what that is. But the references to Thibault, and to one of my favorite Thibault systems, do not show any knowledge of Thibault. Thibault ope

rates

on the idea of ​​the perfect angle seen in much of swordsmanship and Spanish skill in particular, here where you have a 90 degree angle, which is maintained as much as possible. And you don't make lateral movements with your arms. But all this is what we call vulgar angles, where the tip is higher than the handle and a lot of lateral movement. Íñigo: Naturally.

You should wait for him to attack with Capo Ferro. Westley: Naturally. But I find that Thibault nullifies Capo Ferro. David: Rapier, some people will call it a side sword. The divisions are really something later. We don't worry too much about that. It is a sword that you hold in one hand. Now, again, we have the quillons. Very often, or it could just be like the cross guard in effect, very often people would hold this just like that without their finger on the bars, and these additional rings would be to prevent things from falling on your fingers when you're holding the sword. usually.

And this allows you to put your thumb there. Later, you start seeing people holding the sword like that. OK? But it is not universal. Sometimes it's just used like that. OK? Sometimes they are very, very ornate, as you can see here, there are a lot of wires around here. And then sometimes it's just a simple cup. Westley: There's something I should tell you. Inigo: Tell me. Westley: I'm not left-handed either. David: The idea of ​​being able to fence with both hands shouldn't necessarily be a problem. Fighting with someone who has a different treatment than you shouldn't be an uncommon experience either, so this kind of thing, although fun, you don't want to do this kind of thing at close range, because obviously while you're busy changing your hand sword, your opponent can stab you and this kind of thing.

Here, you have a little bit where when the blade passes, it disconnects, so the blade switches from one side to the other. And to combat that, what you're doing is, instead of doing side parries like this, wrap around the sword and stay engaged with it. And that can be used to knock the opponent's sword out of their hands. So there is a degree of reality in that. It's good. Technically, I'd still give it a six or seven. Even with his fencing parody, he still has better swordsmanship than many others. That's pretty good, because in effect, you have a very, very unpleasant version of a concluding move.

This is basically where when using a sword to parry, here we do something with the left hand. If we were doing True, the idea would be to restrict the opponent's weapon hand so he can control it. And we can choose whether they live or die, and we can show mercy at this point. If you're doing this, it's lovely. You don't have to worry as much about the guy's left hand, because the guy has both hands on the sword, there's a closure of the line, and the guy gives him the distance. Because he doesn't have to move his feet.

The guy will come and hit him anyway. He can put it aside. He manages to get through it. He still has control of the opponent's sword and can finish him off. So I really like it quite a bit. That's pretty good. I'm not entirely sure that holding your palm down with a long sword is a good way to not have your sword taken away. Oh my god, this is terrible. There is a lot wrong with this. Again, we go back to the idea that if you have a long sword, you have to do this with it, and it has to be wide and rotating, and it has to be these big movements.

He is meant to be right-handed. You get the idea that there's basically half the. The idea of ​​being this kind of space here, more like halfway between here and here. You don't want to be further than this distance from your opponent with the point at all times, so if he pushes you away, you're trying to find a way to get the point across to him. Most long swords inherently try to dominate a space very, very close to your opponent's corner. If you are moved enough, you will immediately return to another opening. If they are holding steady on the blade and the angle is tight, just enough to stop like this, you are trying to get the blade in and still keep contact there.

This whole broad movement is complete nonsense. Well, knock down the blade and hit it again. Now, one could argue that, in effect, this is almost an assent. The idea of ​​hitting someone's sword and then hitting it again with the false blade. Here you can see where the sword opens and one person is standing with the tip of it right in front of the other. If you don't stop, come back here. You stay here and stab them immediately, because the sword has moved out of presence. Well, that was good. Yes, if someone has your back and you have a spear, stab them in the back of the leg.

That, again, redeeming feature, gives it another point. I quite like the fight scene between Brienne of Tarth and Arya. I think that's pretty good. It's cohesive. It has that real focus so that the movement is constant. None of them are really sacrificing. There are no big breaks. There is always a desire to return to the fight. I want to be back in this. In general, I like dog

fights

because they're just like, uh, pff, dead. That's good, and I think having that idea that a sword is intrinsically there to stab someone or hit them with it and removing all the complicated details is a very good thing to have in a series.

Yes, she is dead now. Yes, here you really are seeing absolute theater. And that's fine. It is what it is. But it is terrible, terrible to fight with swords. This idea of ​​separating people to fight; So you don't want to be standing still. You don't want people managing the spacewhile your space becomes increasingly narrower. One of the things that is often misunderstood is that pattern welded blades were often given a mirror polish. And I believe, unless this is anecdotal, that there is reference to people blowing on the blades, so that the breath highlights the welding pattern for a moment, so you can see it.

So, yes, historically the blades are incredibly polished in several different places. Certainly in Japanese swords, that's one thing, certainly in European swords, that's one thing. Interesting tactical decisions here. So you have a point where someone has control of the sword, and if you think about parrying daggers, you really have options of taking the opponent's sword with your dagger or taking him with your sword and attacking him with the other. But to do that, you'll want to maintain that contact. So, doing an action like this, with the opponent's sword still directly in the middle, really doesn't make any sense.

So you had a checkpoint or a checkpoint, both have been sacrificed. It is surprising that one of these people did not die in the process. There should have been a gutting or a stab wound or whatever. Or the other person should have crossed the gap in the middle. From the standpoint of voting for a good cohesive fight scene involving realistic technique, I'll give it a two. Okay, the first miracle of this fight is that they don't manage to kill each other. There are ways that involve fighting around someone. Usually that other person is disabled, so they're in a position where you don't have to worry about them.

They'll be upside down or something. Or maybe you'll be someone's bodyguard, so it's a way to move around each other. I really wouldn't want to have my back turned to someone brandishing something sharp or burning. A lot of this is almost a method of showing how he feels. So you have an expression of emotion in the fight scenes, instead of necessarily it being a very, very tight and cohesive fight. His anger is always explicit. It's all these wide, powerful cuts that aren't necessarily good for defense. It is very stylized. I think in things like "Revenge of the Sith," you have these very, very dynamic fight scenes between Obi-Wan and Anakin, and I think they're much more expressive in combat, even if the distance is a little bit. fun.

Even if they are standing face to face and waving swords. There's a lot more aggression and interaction in that. As such, I think I would give it a five out of 10. There are aspects to it that I really enjoy. If I wanted to enjoy the fight scene, it would be an eight. I really love Yoda's fight scenes. I always have. Again, it is that point where you separate any desire from reality. It doesn't have to be real. You know, if he has dragons, if he has strength, it doesn't matter. It has to be something that expresses all the things you want there.

Yes absolutely. If you can cut meat, you can cut cloth. It depends, again, on different things, like how sharp the sword is. But they are made to cut things. The horses were very realistic. Let's give him one.