Outrageous 12-4 Comeback by Meinhardt!

[@xDinomanx]

Gerek was so good in this match as well as his other ones. During the entire day he had to fight for every victory, this one especially. If he can fence with this kind of intensity at Tokyo Olympics, I don't think anyone will stop him.

[@PhoenixWyatt]

Really great job by Meinhardt seeing when to renew/continue attack for all of the video calls- most of them Semenyuk took a little step back before starting but there was even one (the first one I think) where Semenyuk's feet don't move but he brings his blade down off the target before starting. Same with the line-that-wasn't-a-line. So impressive!

[@ericdew2021]

Back in 2003, Gerek came down from San Francisco to Stanford to fence with the "big kids" (he was 12 or 13 at the time). I fenced him and was leading 14-4 or something like that. I wanted to hit him with a particular action (I forgot what) to finish off the bout. Parry-riposte, 14-5. Again: 14-6. Ok, try something else... 14-7... 14-8, 14-9... and I said to myself, "Ok, just score anyway you can." 14-10, -11, -12... ends up 15-14 for Gerek and that was the closest I ever got to beating him.

[@OlympicFoil]

That's wild 😁

[@noahz]

Great use of video challenge by Meinhardt

[@OlympicFoil]

yeah really really great, this is like an ideal example of what the video challenge can do if used well

[@kaikungsiu4545]

I think Meinhardt is the best😊

[@OlympicFoil]

Me too!

[@OlympicFoil]

I been training in the mountains with the king of fencing thumbnails Slicer Sabre: kzbin.info/door/CT4FI5gT5_uXuUdWZ_M8MQ MS Paint is a wonderful thing lads 😄😄😄

[@ehvlwkrma]

can anyone tell me why the last point was meinhardt?

[@OlympicFoil]

He started a good attack before Semnyuk

[@noelabsol2834]

5:56 why this decision?

[@OlympicFoil]

At first the referee gave the hit as Point in Line, but them after going to video review the call changed to attack from Meinhardt because the point in line moved away from the target area too much

[@noelabsol2834]

@@OlympicFoil thanks for the explanation