Darth Maul vs. Darth Tyranus Who is the better sword fighter?
#3
Posted 24 June 2005 - 12:18 AM
i don't think maul knew force lightening...
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#4
Posted 24 June 2005 - 12:37 AM
Both Ray Park and Christopher Lee are talented swordsmen.
#6
Posted 24 June 2005 - 05:24 AM
Well, not quite. Ray Park is certainly a capable martial artist. He looks great in the role as Darth Maul, but his sword fighting skills were only briefly displayed. Double lightsaber is based on long staff techniques, not sword.
Christopher Lee's ability is certainly overstated. He's not a swordsman, which requires knowledge and training with a live blade, technically speaking. If anything, he's would be a fencer or a stage fencer. The first requires real fencing knowledge, the second requires stage training, and not necessarily fencing training. "Talented?" Well, I doubt that. He's admitted he couldn't really do any of the fighting because of his age. Also, he was quite pleased with his double, who did all the work.
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Tyrannus is better than Maul because of his age and experience in training at the Jedi temple.
This post has been edited by njamilla: 24 June 2005 - 05:25 AM
#7
Posted 25 June 2005 - 10:05 PM
Edited for sake of clarity.
This post has been edited by Mnesymone: 25 June 2005 - 10:09 PM
#8
Posted 26 June 2005 - 12:05 PM
Looking at it from a more critical point of view, there's a lot to be qualified by these statements. I know it wasn't the intent, but being an intelligence officer doesn't make someone an "experienced fighter." And "competition-level fencer" doesn't really say much qualitatively. Everyone who who goes to competitions is a "competition-level fencer." Did he do win championships? Did he become renowned as the best 25 in his day? Etc.
When it comes to martial arts, simple statements about experience, level, and ability are often ascribed merits by amateurs that don't know the full contexts of particular experiences. For example, a mid-level fencer who goes to the US fencing nationals in which there are a thousand fencers in a dozen different categories doesn't mean they're experienced or good. Similarly, just because you get a black belt in any martial art, doesn't mean you have the ability to defend yourself.
Swordsmanship, strictly speaking, is fencing with and practice for a live blade. Fencing has become the competitive avenue of olympic sport. Stage fighting is choreography -- fake fencing. Fencing is about winning with particular weapons according to particular rules. Swordsmanship is about using live blade effectively in combat.
Not trying to diminish Lee's fencing ability, nor your post about him, but general thoughts about a person's abilities are often prone to becoming urban legends. Just repeating his superior ability tends to cement the information in the public psyche. If you listen to an interview Lee on his website (there was a long one a year before the release of EP 3), he never paints a picture of himself being a superstar fencer back in the day. He's extremely deferrential about his abilities, crediting the choreographer and his stunt double. In fencing, there's a credibility gap that makes any fencer instinctively question public claims of fencing prowess. The proof is in the pudding, not the recipe, so to speak. It's actually to his credit that he makes no overt claims about his fencing abilities. It actually shows he knows something about the art.
This post has been edited by njamilla: 26 June 2005 - 12:07 PM
#11
Posted 26 June 2005 - 05:51 PM
As for Christopher Lee's abilities...I have no idea about his practical skills, but he's a very impressive fencer on screen. I recently saw a 70's version of the Three Musketeers where he played the Cardinal's chief henchman (the name escapes me), and he was very good. He certainly lived up to his reputation as a swordsman.
#12
Posted 27 June 2005 - 04:59 PM
Who lives up to his reputation as a swordsman? Richelieu or Lee? (LOL) Technically, what you mean is that Lee's stage fighting performance makes Richelieu look great as a swordsman.
Sorry for being such a pain in the ass.
#13
Posted 28 June 2005 - 04:29 AM
Fencing, (I can fence, though I don't very often because of equipment/time issues - to all you budding fencers out there - don't think you know what swashbuckling is and I cannot stress how important balance is to fencing) is a form of swordsmanship often dulled down into a friendly competitve form - however it was a genuine duelling technique and surprisingly enough a battle technique and so a fencer counts as a swordsman without have trained with a fighting weapon.
And I did specify 'intelligence officer in active service' - perhaps I should have gone for more clarity with field surface - he was an Air Force ground man, which was an interesting job to be sure.
#14
Posted 28 June 2005 - 07:13 AM
Also, I got these two books that I ordered off amazon about sword fighting. One of them was a 15th century book by Hans Talhoffer (A real 15th century sword fighting master) and the other book was 'Medevial swordsmanship' by John Clements. Did you hear about these people? If so, what do you think about them?
Thanks
#15
Posted 28 June 2005 - 08:02 AM
Also, I got these two books that I ordered off amazon about sword fighting. One of them was a 15th century book by Hans Talhoffer (A real 15th century sword fighting master) and the other book was 'Medevial swordsmanship' by John Clements. Did you hear about these people? If so, what do you think about them?
Thanks
No, I'm not part of any recreation group. Mostly aikido, kendo these days. Time, money, interest prevents more experimentation with other groups. I'm not much into the renaissance fair stuff, much less the battles that happen during the summer.
I haven't read the talhoffer book in detail, though I have copies of excerpts of it. Pictures are extremely helpful, but they have their limits, especially to a modern audience. Clements -- I've had a bit of e-mail correspondence with him. I like his books a lot. He makes a lot of poignant observations. Pictures, still, have their limits. The video at his website are very informative. But like any training, you have to know what to look for when you watch a demonstration, even after years of training. Pictures (and drawings) show what the illustrator intends to show; real demonstration shows how the whole body is connected. It makes a difference how someone holds their grip, whether their center of gravity is slightly canted to the side, or whether the toes curl a little during a stance.
Not to speak for Clements, but he strives to make European sword fighting distinct from Asian fighting arts. I'm more of the type which looks for similarities. There's room for both. And it has to be that way. Arts don't flourish with a wishy-washy attitude. You find your principles, train with them, and strive for mastery.
And I did specify 'intelligence officer in active service' - perhaps I should have gone for more clarity with field surface - he was an Air Force ground man, which was an interesting job to be sure.
Again, not to be rude, but all fencers will call themselves swordsmen until they learn how limited fencing techniques are during a battlefield encounter. The same is true of kendo-ka who think their sparing will work when you put a steel sword in their hand. Whenever you impose rules, you change the manner of the encounter. Much of fencing is convention designed for safety. Ultimately, fencing isn't about safety. It's about effectiveness. I LOVE fencing -- I'm a foilist. There are some people who say there isn't much fencing can really teach a person about battlefield fighting (some SCA people, for instance) because they engage in the melee. I'm not one of those people. I feel that there is a vast amount of knowledge that can be learned from the more modern forms, whether Western or Asian.
It isn't what style or art you do, it's how you train. You can train for competitions or you can train for actual combat. Both are helpful; and probably even necessary. So when you get a guy like Gillard, who isn't even a fencer, you get a particular style of sword fight choreography. With Peter Diamond, who was a strictly Western competitive fencer, you get another style. Diamond loved the swashbuckling flourish. I, in my own movie, have another style. We all have modes of thought, different priorities -- any yet can be successful. When you judge other people's choreography, however, you have to be clear about your standards for judging.
I think Lee was great as Dooku. (His duel was rather perfunctory, however.) He was hired for his acting abilities -- his stage presence, etc. It is impossible for his stage double to have done Dooku's role. So, again, are we looking at Gillard's choreography? The skills of Lee's double? The character's lightsaber skill? GL's direction? Once a person begins to ask these kinds of questions, discussion move past the gusher/basher points of view.