Fiction frequently glorifies violence, the nobility and bravery of pitched battle. Assuming we've dealt with little moral ethical nitpicks like whether violence was the first option or the last. Let's talk about the art of fight depiction. Writing any kind of battle / conflict requires an understanding of four things: Plausibility - Can the person (or device) do the things you want to show. More, is the demonstration a mere illogical excess to meet some battle voyeur's aesthetic? Is there a far simpler (potentially) safer or more effective action to take?
Like this example: The director / writer planned some elaborate sword and whip fight... the actor didn't feel up to it that day. Most people would chose the 'bang, problem solved' approach. Real battles are about survival, when the stakes are potential crippling or death. If your options are gun or a whip... the practical and pragmatic choice is 'gun' if you have any sanity. A protagonist only uses the lesser weapon if there's some overriding adherence to honor or fairness... If you use that excuse, you better sell the blue bejeezus out of it and NEVER vary or compromise on it.
If you use plot armor to block the consequences of it... your honor as a writer... meh. Drama - Do the elements add and make the conflict interesting - the most IMPORTANT aspect though is WHY... Why are we here? What's the GOAL?
What's the COST if we lose this fight? These things go toward character investment. If the fight means nothing, why put your life on the line? I won't believe your character is fighting his guts out with nothing at stake. Many animes make this mistake, a character just going to bonkers excessive lengths for little more than pride. Yeah, you gonna have to do some work to justify that.
The plot advancement ratio and dilution - Let's be honest here. By the third or fourth fight in a book, some readers just skip the fight. So, dang it, make the fight advance the plot. The longer and more detailed the depiction, the more important this is. In other words, WHEN the reader skips the fight they should later find that something important happened critical to understanding the story- this can be character advancement, emotional trauma... but there should be SOMETHING. Non-essential non-consequential fights are essentially padding in the worst self-indulgent way.
Authenticity - The original prompt for this answer was about how to show dual-wielding daggers... generically known as a Florentine fighting style. So, what's the first admonishment here? Know something about fighting beyond watching an anime or a martial arts movie.
Two handed melee goes directly to plausibility as it requires significant skill to overcome the drawbacks. More, using two short weapons gives up reach. Anyone who knows anything about fighting will tell you: REACH trumps everything. You can't harm a guy you can't get to. There has to be a HUGE deficit in skill and speed for a dagger to beat a spear for instance. The bigger the reach (up to a point), the greater the advantage.
As numerous practicums have shown, just because you get past the spear point doesn't mean you are safe. Reverses, slips, butt slams and so on. So, as to the two dagger thing... a person choosing two daggers if other weapons are available is either ridiculously skilled or just ridiculously over confident. Bringing two daggers to a sword fight is only a tiny bit better than bringing a knife to a gun fight. So, before I even worried about how to show two dagger fighting... I'd worry about what kind of messed up reason a person would intentionally make that choice.
As a resource, I recommend checking out the Shadaversity YouTube channel as Shad who is both a writer and a historian, gives some really brass tax discussions about weapons, weaponry, warfare, pop culture tropes and how practical / impractical they are: Shadiversity