Interestingly, apparently not only did professional swordsmen (like Olympic fencer) used to be in Hollywood, fencing as a hobby used to be more popular. So in some old films you actually get swordfighting with a bit of realism to them:
There's still Hollywood fakery sprinkled all over, but generally the swordplay is pretty realistic. And it's not just high low parry, you actually see like a riposte and leveraging of the sabre's forte. Flynning is much more obviously fake swordfighting:
There's not even an attempt to make it seem real, it's just high-low parry over and over again for pretty much the entire fight. Of course, Star Wars (yes, even the OT) tends toward the latter here. Actually, in many respects the fight between Obi-Wan and Vader is the best for this, at least until Obi-Wan's twirl. But the key point is OT fights tend not to dwell too long on pointless sword swatting. If you rewatch the fight between Luke and Vader in ESB, for one Vader isn't trying to kill Luke. He is instead basically trying to overpower him. There's a few moments of Flynny slapping but they're brief and most of it seems genuine.
The Phantom Menace though is 100% flynning. Just not even trying. And here it's even worse than the scant moments in ESB, since the characters are set to kill each other. They're refusing tactical advantages constantly. So many scenes you could just imagine someone like taking a step and just stabbing the other and winning instead of doing some dumb flip/twirl, ignoring your opponent's weakness, etc. Not only that, but there's zero character development and the fight just ****ing drags. I don't understand how prequel fans can even pretend it's watchable. Blows my mind.