![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Fencing 12 June 2025
Just returned from the Upper Bavaria Open Fencing Tournament - Jacob’s first competition under German rules and his return to competitive fencing after a long break. The format followed European youth fencing regulations, which meant a significant equipment change for Jacob: a shorter and stiffer foil compared to one he was using in U.S. tournaments.
Jacob competed against 11 fencers in his age/weapon group and secured 3rd place. The tournament featured 41 bouts in total; I watched 26 of them. The majority were decisively one-sided (typical scores: 5:0 or 10:0), but six matches between the top four fencers - Jacob, Jan, Paul, and Daniel were interesting. Each had a distinct competitive style:
Jan specialized in a single, highly refined forward strike — fast, clean, and initiated only from optimal position and distance. He didn’t vary much, but when this signature move landed, it was highly effective.
Daniel was the only fencer consistently employing lateral movement, drawing opponents off-line to open new angles. He was also uniquely comfortable taking calculated risks on priority calls.
Paul and Jacob were the most mobile fencers, using fast repositioning and a wide variety of tactical maneuvers. Both relied on dynamic footwork and complex attack sequences rather than single-strike precision.
6 key matches:
1. Jan vs. Paul – 5:4 . Jan executed his forward strike flawlessly, while Paul showed balanced tactical variety. In the end, Jan’s precision edged out Paul’s broader strategy by one point. It was an opening bout, the most intense and interesting one, and it could have been as well final too.
2. Jan vs. Jacob – 5:1. Jan’s signature attack, which Jacob later called “invisible”, dominated the bout. Jacob couldn’t find a counter in time - his usual tactical variety was neutralized before it could be deployed.
3. Paul vs. Jacob – 5:1 . Paul outmaneuvered Jacob using the same movement-based tactics Jacob typically excels at, forcing mistakes and punishing openings.
4. Jan vs. Jacob – 8:10. This was the inflection point for Jacob. Going in, he said, “I can’t win, but I’ll aim to lose 3:10.” Instead, he figured out how to break Jan’s setup phase, denying him the positioning needed for his signature strike. Jacob absorbed seven direct attacks but managed to control priority, landing multiple points during transitions and off-tempo phases.
5. Daniel vs. Jacob – 10:7. Daniel had been blowing through opponents all day with 5:0 and 10:0 wins. He was last year’s winner in this age group (as one of the youngest at the time). Now, older and more experienced, he was expected to dominate. But Jacob disrupted Daniel’s game by turning his own strength - priority play - against him. Jacob won four priority points while conceding only three and managed to block the lateral setups Daniel had used so effectively in earlier bouts. The score was 7 to 8 in Daniel’s favour, Jacob noticed that 5 seconds were remaining. Jacob misjudged that he needs to attack quickly as time is running out, he forgot that there would be second round once the timer hits 0. So he quickly lost 2 points in 3 seconds as he could not prepare for the attacks and stared those with low confidence.
6. Final: Daniel vs. Jan – 10:1. In the final, Daniel completely shut Jan down. His lateral pressure left no space for Jan’s setup-dependent attack. The result was decisive.
This wasn’t a high-level championship — in national or even Bundesland-level events, these four would likely place mid-pack. But within the context of this regional tournament, the tactical contrast between styles made for excellent viewing.
Jacob competed against 11 fencers in his age/weapon group and secured 3rd place. The tournament featured 41 bouts in total; I watched 26 of them. The majority were decisively one-sided (typical scores: 5:0 or 10:0), but six matches between the top four fencers - Jacob, Jan, Paul, and Daniel were interesting. Each had a distinct competitive style:
Jan specialized in a single, highly refined forward strike — fast, clean, and initiated only from optimal position and distance. He didn’t vary much, but when this signature move landed, it was highly effective.
Daniel was the only fencer consistently employing lateral movement, drawing opponents off-line to open new angles. He was also uniquely comfortable taking calculated risks on priority calls.
Paul and Jacob were the most mobile fencers, using fast repositioning and a wide variety of tactical maneuvers. Both relied on dynamic footwork and complex attack sequences rather than single-strike precision.
6 key matches:
1. Jan vs. Paul – 5:4 . Jan executed his forward strike flawlessly, while Paul showed balanced tactical variety. In the end, Jan’s precision edged out Paul’s broader strategy by one point. It was an opening bout, the most intense and interesting one, and it could have been as well final too.
2. Jan vs. Jacob – 5:1. Jan’s signature attack, which Jacob later called “invisible”, dominated the bout. Jacob couldn’t find a counter in time - his usual tactical variety was neutralized before it could be deployed.
3. Paul vs. Jacob – 5:1 . Paul outmaneuvered Jacob using the same movement-based tactics Jacob typically excels at, forcing mistakes and punishing openings.
4. Jan vs. Jacob – 8:10. This was the inflection point for Jacob. Going in, he said, “I can’t win, but I’ll aim to lose 3:10.” Instead, he figured out how to break Jan’s setup phase, denying him the positioning needed for his signature strike. Jacob absorbed seven direct attacks but managed to control priority, landing multiple points during transitions and off-tempo phases.
5. Daniel vs. Jacob – 10:7. Daniel had been blowing through opponents all day with 5:0 and 10:0 wins. He was last year’s winner in this age group (as one of the youngest at the time). Now, older and more experienced, he was expected to dominate. But Jacob disrupted Daniel’s game by turning his own strength - priority play - against him. Jacob won four priority points while conceding only three and managed to block the lateral setups Daniel had used so effectively in earlier bouts. The score was 7 to 8 in Daniel’s favour, Jacob noticed that 5 seconds were remaining. Jacob misjudged that he needs to attack quickly as time is running out, he forgot that there would be second round once the timer hits 0. So he quickly lost 2 points in 3 seconds as he could not prepare for the attacks and stared those with low confidence.
6. Final: Daniel vs. Jan – 10:1. In the final, Daniel completely shut Jan down. His lateral pressure left no space for Jan’s setup-dependent attack. The result was decisive.
This wasn’t a high-level championship — in national or even Bundesland-level events, these four would likely place mid-pack. But within the context of this regional tournament, the tactical contrast between styles made for excellent viewing.