Sue-Proof. You might want to do some research into medieval combat sources. Not just the Fechtbooks, but the texts that describe actual trials by combat. Yes, they could go on for hours. Especially as the armor protected them from many of the injuries - it was not uncommon in warfare for Knights to die of suffocation, heat exhaustion - caused by continuous fighting in armor. Believe me it lasted more than thirty seconds.
I know the difference between fencing and a duel. I doubt any of your instructors have actually fought a duel to the death. So all any of us can speak about is dueling with restricted conditions. I'm talking about duels where FIRST BLOOD is the indicator. And yes, it lasted considerably longer than thirty seconds.
I think making an overall assertion that "Anything lasting longer than thirty seconds' - especially when there is written historical evidence to support the contrary - is probably a risky assertion. As indeed may generalizations can be.
I am familiar with AARMA and the original parent organization HACA. Some of the members do good work, some of them don't.
"Fencing has little to do with the 'real thing' " - well, yes and no. The 'period historical combat' that many groups do, has 'little to do with the real thing' - if you consider the real thing to be fighting to the death. No one is doing that. No one has any intention of doing that. SO it's all a 'simulation', no? There are lessons to be learned from ALL simulations. Understanding their limitations and their inherent strengths and weakness is the key.
The metaphor of the duel as a conversation in steel, is a long held conceit passed on by fencing master who taught people to fight to the death. Like a converstaion, there is an exchange, a give and take, if you don't pay attention, you can be hurt. There is attack and riposte. Their is point counter point. The conceit is as old as swordplay itself, and the language is reflected in such comments as 'What a witty riposte"
The thread is about writing a 'realistic' swordfight. My point is that understanding the various period and cultural styles of combat is a very handy reference. I certainly bring my experience and training of more than thirty years of training and fighting with various weapons on foot, and on horseback into bear when I write a combat scene. But the important thing is to stress CHARACTER and PLOT when writing, rather than to show off my knowledge of period combat to an audience that might not understand. Sure, I can use a word that reference's the proper period or style. Perhaps my character is Spanish, or French. But to fill the description with arcane descriptions of movements taken from my shelf of period fencing manuals, defeats the purpose of entertaining and informing. It's a careful mix one must balance.