Fencing Basics | Intentions and Hand Snipers

DISCLAIMER:
Do not practice martial arts of any kind, particularly weapon martial arts, without an experienced instructor and the required safety standards. Practice all techniques at your own risk.
How do you deal with those pesky hand snipers? What is meant by 1st, 2nd, and 3rd intentions in fencing? These questions and more will be answered in this fun and simplified video which breaks down each topic.
NOTE: This video clearly contains satire and, as a result, some stereotypes and caricatures are present for entertainment value.
Also, how would YOU deal with hand snipers? Would love to hear them in the comments :)
Just a Bug's channel
/ @justabug
My Living History Group's
Website: sengokubushido1545.wixsite.co...
Tik Tok: sengoku_bushi_1575
Instagram: sengoku_no_bushido

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

Got any other topics about Asian historical fencing or generic historical fencing in general that you would like me to cover in this series? Let me know in the comments 😀

[@TreyYork1]

At the simplest level: connect, compare, and contrast your training and understanding with the "Dog Brothers* folks! Fight under their rule-set-- and if you somehow think it's too restrictive-- odds are they'll meet you in the middle!
If you have an inclination towards Choy Li Fut's insane weapon approach, I'd tune in...I don't know how it would go, but I'd watch! Jian(Gim) training absolutely doesn't have the audience/market that it could command!

[@AshagonAuditore]

This needs more attention, you don't know how hard it is to find good kenjutsu/fencing content!

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

As someone who has been doing HJMA purely from a living history and historical source perspective, I very much understand 😅 am so glad you sport the video, thanks for your kind words mate 🙏

[@odysseus9504]

Good balance between memes and practical advice!

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

Cheers for the kind words mate 🙏 a crucial balance in my honest opinion 😎

[@eakwing1]

Wonderful video, thank you for the insights!

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

Thanks for the kind words mate 🙏hope it all helps.

[@synthemagician4686]

Informative, entertaining, and concise. 10/10 Great video my dude.

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

Many thanks for your words of support mate 🙏 am very glad they the vid has been helpful.

[@KUNALBISWASVIDEOLOGS707]

Brother i love it, subscribing & liking also will be sharing in future ..

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

Cheers heaps for the kind words of support mate 🙏 I am grateful

[@KUNALBISWASVIDEOLOGS707]

@@NathanaelTheAussie Pleasure is all mine, thank you.

[@TheVoidstrider]

Fuckin' helpful. Educational, even. And obviously entertaining. And so obvious that only a fool could claim it's unhelpful. Well done. More of this, please.

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

Cheers mate! 🙏 thanks for your kind words of support.
It definitely seems people are wanting more of this and am glad people find it helpful. Will definitely need to continue this series.

[@Ruizg559]

Depending on your skill level, just walking down a hand sniper usually gets them to go for it.
I do hand snipe, but only if my opponent isn't protecting their hands or arms. When sparring, I use it as a reminder to them and myself to always be defensively minded even when attacking.

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

This is a very good way to be, to be honest 👍 thanks for sharing 😊

[@TheMissingno]

Is there a difference between a hand snipe and a regular hand hit?

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

To be honest, in my opinion at least, not really. At least for me, I use the term to just be an informal nomen for hand strike or a joke term for those silly people who rely only on first intention hand hits.

[@jack91x]

Perhaps it's just a difference in schools of thought, but shouldn't ALL of your attacks be intended to hit? If an attack isn't going to hit me, I don't even have to parry it. Even if your "goal" is to put yourself in a position to set up something else, the only way to make someone commit to a parry is to force them to do so by throwing a good attack that would actually hit. Every play is based on the event that your first, second, 3rd, etc, failed due to the skill of the opponent, forcing you to lead them into an unfavorable position. When I throw a horizontal inside cut and transition to a thrust in the bind, this is because they HAD to come into the bind or my initial attack would hit.

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

Thanks for your genuine question and thoughts, I get what you are saying here. I feel I agree and disagree.
In the sense of convincing the opponent of the threat of a strike, I agree that the movement needs to be done in order that the opponent feels they have to respond. The human brain perceives this in a variety of ways, and the more trained someone is the more refined these are. The more trained someone is in swordsmanship, the more convincing that threat needs to be. I would argue this is done not only by having the weapon in measure but, also, using the body. After all, the body and hips telegraph far more than the arms do, even more so when fighting against someone who constantly relies on 1st intention counters.
The area where I feel I disagree is, the way I see it, making a movement to get a reaction from the opponent and making a movement to hit the opponent are two different things in intention. For example, I can threaten with a strike to which the opponent reacts in order to set up my second strike to hit them (2nd intention) - this seems to be what you are alluding to in your horizontal cut example. You can see in my video examples that if I committed to trying to hit the opponent as a 1st intention it would have either resulted in me being hit or a double at best. The two times I did fully commit in the videos immediately resulted in these exact results.
Not saying 1st intention hits are always bad, not by any means. if the opportunity presents itself then definitely take it. The only issue I have is that, because intention = commitment, it is dangerous to be fully commited against a skilled opponent who has not yet committed. If one is intending on having their intention (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) landing on the opponent every single time repetitively, then one can become more predictable as a result.

[@GarldBonkdonk]

I don't think all attacks should intend to hit. Feints need to be believable without actual commitment. Example: Fiore's Punta Falsa is a dedicated 'feint' knowing full well that first cut should not land, exploiting an opponents over eagerness to parry out wide. Most attacks should have an option point where you're able to follow through and hit, but like all things in fencing there is no 'ALL' or "Always" or "Never". There are plenty of situations where the magical words 'It Depends' comes into play. You should respect your opponents skill, but don't attribute magical godhood to them and assume they'll always know when you're feinting versus when you're committing to hitting. If they never make a mistake, you're never going to win anyways, so leave room for them to fail.
Another example for us hand-snipers, myself chief among them, is that cutting short is a brilliant way to convince the uninitiated to step into finger-eliminating distance. 'Opps my first intention was bad, I hecked up and now my sword is too low, woe is me who is exposed - PSYCH you stepped into measure as was my plan all along and now your descending cut at my head is met with me clipping your hands while I pass backwards away from your threat'. If that first cut was intended to land instead of 'oops' my opponent would have to parry, as you say, but then they are no longer lured into the place I wanted them.
You can absolutly play with every cut intending to land, and as you describe you'll end up in plenty of interesting binds to potentially exploit. But it's not the only way to play.

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

@@GarldBonkdonk This is a good way of putting it, I agree with what you are saying here 👍

[@MartinGreywolf]

Fun fact: whether to use feints or only attacks that want to hit is up to personal preference in almost every period that has more than one technical source. Fiore and Lichtenauer use feints, I.33 doesn't. Destreza tells you explicitly all feints are bad (and some late Diestros do sneak them in while trying to pretend they aren't feints), Italian rapier loves them.
Long and short of it is that feints are dangerous for the user because they depend on your opponent's reaction, and that means they fail badly when your opponent sees through them or doesn't see them at all. On the other hand, they are really, really damn useful when they work, to a point where a whole lot of people thought they were worth the risk even in combat to the death.

[@mitchelldavis482]

​@MartinGreywolf Feints are not dangerous to the user if they are non-commital if the user knows what they are doing. Bolognese has two levels of commitment, one of which is reserved for feigning. If these hit, fine, but they don't have to. Commitment requires more energy and distance coverage and therefore potential danger to the user. Uncommitted strikes are easier to break, but harder to feel through ie they are good for testing the opponent's reactions both with the body and sword. This is discussed or observed in Destreza, pretty much all Italian sources but the Bolognese go into the most detail, and in Kenjutsu. It exists implicitly in all forms of weapons based martial arts and especially in dueling contexts. The more skilled a person is, the easier it is for them to make a decision in the middle of a non-commital action either to turn it into a committed action or to make another test. In becoming aware of this, one can look to their preferred sources and observe the different posta or guards as places of maximal opportunity for certain kinds of actions. Any such position is therefore one which can be used as a point of decision if one faints to it.

[@TopLob]

Cartoonishly animated, but leaving the wrist to be responsible for the sword's movement. How pointless.

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

"pointless"....I see what you did there ;) XD