this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
-21 points (11.1% liked)
Explain Like I'm Five
19523 readers
110 users here now
Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I took a self defense class once that covered attackers with a knife. Most of the class was around defending against attacks on the belly, the instructor said it was the most obvious target. That makes sense too, it's high lethality, hurts like a bastard, isn't protected by bones, and it's in easy reach for most people.
In the context of fencing, I'd have to guess there's two things at play. First, if you're much shorter than your opponent, I'd guess the belly is roughly the same height as where you've been practicing striking people anyway. Second, if your opponent is especially tall, then strikes against the belly are further away from his perspective (his eyes are up here), and that might put them at a disadvantage.
I don't know much about fencing, so correct me where I'm wrong, but I imagine the belly is the physically lowest legal target to score a point? I'd think that technically anybody would be disadvantaged to defend the lowest point, but their height makes it more pronounced. If you're 5'2" your belly is something like two feet below your eyes, but if you're 6'3" it's like three feet. That's a pretty significant difference.