The Armour Archive

Dafydd wrote:First, he's dead-on about the disdain for the convention of right-of-way that is sometimes present among SCA rapier and C&T fighters. While we probably are better off without a formal right-of-way convention in our rules, it's still a rule that adds realism to sport and practice fencing, not one that takes it away.

I categorically disagree. Both right-of-way and lack of it have their pro's & cons. It should be noted, by the way, that the largest component of modern sport fencers are epeeists; a discipline which has never seen right-of-way, ever. Double-touches are common, and in certain circumstances, a winning strategy in a <i>sport</i>.

The rules are gamed more than you would seriously believe when right-of-way is determined in foil - exaggerated and artificial actions (things I'd <i>never</i> do in a real sword fight) are sometimes employed to ensure to the judge of the match that <i>you</i> have right of way, and the other guy doesn't.

As well, right-of-way & electric equipment have completely destroyed any semblance that sabre bears to an actual sword fight.

W. Chisenhall
Head Coach, Fencing
University of Missouri

DukeAlaric (George S.) wrote:By the nature of the game, rapier tries to see how "light" they can hit someone and achieve their desired effect, while heavy tries to hit harder.

Your Grace,

I hope you'll pardon me if I seek to correct an error you may be making. While I can't speak for other kingdoms, I can state with certainty that rapier fighting in Atlantia does not seek to hit 'lighter', they seek to hit with a very specific calibration, which is <i>not</i> a touch....just as, I would wager, armoured combat seeks to do - I doubt that any worthy Atlantian knight hits as hard as he possibly can.

Baron Alejandro wrote:

DukeAlaric (George S.) wrote:By the nature of the game, rapier tries to see how "light" they can hit someone and achieve their desired effect, while heavy tries to hit harder.

I hope you'll pardon me if I seek to correct an error you may be making. While I can't speak for other kingdoms, I can state with certainty that rapier fighting in Atlantia does not seek to hit 'lighter', they seek to hit with a very specific calibration, which is <i>not</i> a touch....just as, I would wager, armoured combat seeks to do - I doubt that any worthy Atlantian knight hits as hard as he possibly can.

Other kingdoms do have a contingent of folks that say if you feel it, you're dead, but follow that up with anything that hits harder than that is too hard. And a few that insist any hit on their person is too hard.

I hear tell that in Calontir, you can't even tell you've been hit!

Wow. My bad.

I didn't realize that it was illegal or bad manners to post this here.

Terribly sorry.

Can we delete it?

BdeB wrote:All i have to say about this thread is this....

this was some guys blog post from several years ago. Josh did you get his permission to post this? (I honestly don't know...)

I've written a number of things on the interwub when torced about something over the years and I personally would be pissed if someone took something I had written years ago and posted it for discussion on a list without my permission.

Josh W wrote:Wow. My bad.

I didn't realize that it was illegal or bad manners to post this here.

Terribly sorry.

Can we delete it?

BdeB wrote:All i have to say about this thread is this....

this was some guys blog post from several years ago. Josh did you get his permission to post this? (I honestly don't know...)

I've written a number of things on the interwub when torced about something over the years and I personally would be pissed if someone took something I had written years ago and posted it for discussion on a list without my permission.

It is not bad manners at all, nor is it illegal. Though the notion that publishing material on the web somehow nullifies your copyright is absurd, your action in quoting this blog quite arguably falls under fair use: you attributed the source and your purpose was to discuss the quote itself rather than to create a new work. Some might reasonably quibble with the length of your quote, but an argument could be made that the article was short enough that quoting it in its entirety was necessary to the purpose. Certainly you couldn't republish, say, a novel for "discussion", but this is hardly a novel. I'd not care to quote something much longer than the article you did.

As for courtesy...

BdeB wrote:I will say that if someone took something I posted on a blog and published it on the internet for 'discussion' somewhere else without my permission I would be at the very least, extremely pissed.

And the rest of the world would laugh at your naivete. If you publish it, then you'd best be prepared for it to be discussed, even (gasp) quoted. See the area in light grey under your name above. To do so is not rude in the last, even if you didn't want your sentiments repeated, so long as the quotes are fair use. The solution is, of course, to avoid making public sentiments that you do not want repeated with your name attached.

Saritor wrote:Other kingdoms do have a contingent of folks that say if you feel it, you're dead, but follow that up with anything that hits harder than that is too hard. And a few that insist any hit on their person is too hard.

I only encounter such people at Pennsic, and never past the second or third round of any tournament I enter. In melee, I most commonly see them heading toward the resurrection point.

I don't fight in armor, but I've seen what looks like some terrible, terrible armored combat from time to time-- I wouldn't presume to judge all armored combat by its worst practitioners, nor all unarmored combat by its worst, as the initial rant clearly does.

zachos wrote:People that are upset with the rant should probably read it again. He is annoyed at the way people he has heard have been saying SCA Heavy is THE way to fight and that other forms are for wusses/idiots/people who can't do heavy. His point is that all forms of combat we involve in are sport combat because there are rules that regulate them. He says that SCA heavy is no more or less a sport combat than rapier/foil fencing.

I think most people would agree with that. I think its possible he needn't have gone on about overweight fighters, but thats what people do when they are annoyed.

Cut through the annoyed tone and you'll find he's making sense.

I cut through the annoyed tone and found a whiny crybaby that needs his binky.

Saritor wrote:
Other kingdoms do have a contingent of folks that say if you feel it, you're dead, but follow that up with anything that hits harder than that is too hard. And a few that insist any hit on their person is too hard.

I hear tell that in Calontir, you can't even tell you've been hit!

Marshal voice:
Here in Northshield, a legal touch is defined as "blows will be counted as though they were struck with a real blade, extremely sharp on point and edge. Any blow that would have penetrated the skin shall be counted a good blow"

Studies have been done that show that 3lbs of pressure (not even enough to bend your blade) will easily penetrate skin.If you feel it, it counts. You will hear the statement"no such thing as light in rapier" here a lot.

Anything much harder than that, and you will get people complaining about you hitting "too hard".

I've seen a person very nearly fail an advanced authorization for hitting too hard, when he wasn't even hitting hard enough to put much bend in the blade.

Personal voice:

It's a freaking contact sport. You are going to get hit. If you don't want to get hit, then find something else to do.

DukeAlaric (George S.) wrote:By the nature of the game, rapier tries to see how "light" they can hit someone and achieve their desired effect, while heavy tries to hit harder.

Your Grace,

I hope you'll pardon me if I seek to correct an error you may be making. While I can't speak for other kingdoms, I can state with certainty that rapier fighting in Atlantia does not seek to hit 'lighter', they seek to hit with a very specific calibration, which is <i>not</i> a touch....just as, I would wager, armoured combat seeks to do - I doubt that any worthy Atlantian knight hits as hard as he possibly can.[/quote]


As you know I have lived in several Kingdoms, and most of my experiences fencing have been in other places.

There is a different mentality in Heavy- unless I am fighting someone in insufficient armor, or a beginner, I regularly try to hit harder than is necessary for the blow to just be "good." This is because if my opponent manages to get some stick or shield on it, then I want to make sure that the blow is still good anyway.

Depending on the opponent, this often goes into the "as hard as I can safely swing" category- and by safe I mean me not open myself up to a shot, not safe as in I might hit you too hard.

g-

DukeAvery wrote:I disagree that sca combat is a sport, but I agree that it is sport like. The rules allow you to approach it as either a sport or as a sparring format for martial arts practice. It has shallower and deeper ends, if you know where to look and can travel.

Regards,

Avery

It is most definately a sport in that it disallows a great many strikes that would disable or kill. One can't hit below the thigh. One cannot specifically aim for the hands, elbows, throat, groin or inside of the thigh. You fight from the knees when "wounded" in the leg, when in period you most assuredly would not, but quickly dispatched after falling to the ground in agony.

I've studied a bit sword fencing from real medieval manuals, circa 1300, and very little, if any, of those techniques are used in SCA fighting, at least in the groups I've been around.

That not withstanding, SCA sport fighting is fun. It does take effort to learn and excell at. But to claim it is a form of martial combat that would be on par with it's historical counterpart is ludicrous, like claiming SCA chivalry is comparable to real medieval chivalry, when clearly it is not.

To me that was the jist of the authors rant, that SCA sport fighting is compared to medieval fighting and said to be comparable with it, which it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts

...
Martial arts or fighting arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. Martial arts all have very similar objectives: to physically defeat other persons and to defend oneself or others from physical threat. In addition, some martial arts are linked to beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism or Shinto while others follow a particular code of honor. Many arts are also practiced competitively, most commonly as combat sports, but may also take the form of dance.
...

SCA combat is not a sport, because in modern sports winning is the whole point. In SCA combat, how you win is at least as important as whether you win.

I invite any of you to take one of Paul's classes (when offered) and afterwards explain to me why sca heavy fighting isn't a martial art.

The criticism earlier that sca fighting is of such variable quality overall is valid, which I did not offer a rebuttal. This however, may also be said of more 'conventional' martial arts.

Regards,

Avery

It is most definitely a sport in that it disallows a great many strikes that would disable or kill. One can't hit below the thigh. One cannot specifically aim for the hands, elbows, throat, groin or inside of the thigh.

The inside of the thigh is a prohibited target? Really? I never knew... As a lefty I often hit people in the inner thigh and am sometimes hit there (when lucky- often if I am unwise and open I get cup shotted) But I have been doing this for 27 years and nobody has ever told me the inner thigh was not fair game when open. Must have slept through that piece of training from my knight....

about the rant - sounds like a bad case of sour grapes. I've encountered these types in the past. We had a "knife fighting expert" years ago in a local group that insisted on telling all us crude SCA types about how inauthentic our styles were and how a "real" fighter could just take us down

Got him into armour so he could demonstrate his prowess. Gave him many, many, many opportunites - never laid his sword on me. Gave him a "dagger" and fought him with a short sword. Never touched me. Gave him permission to grapple - he still could not get close enough - and I never hit anything but his head or weapon arm to prove the point (he had problems with our "fight from the knees" approach which I acknowledged was definitely not authentic)

Finally we played with Rubber knives out of armour. He was capable of getting me about 50% of the time - the rest were double kills or me getting him.

What the fellow who wrote the blog post does not acknowledge is the same thing my "knife fighting expert" did not recognize - Any full contact martial activity does give you the fundamentals of combat. Many of our SCA moves don't translate into practical street fighting - many of the wraps don't work that well as practiced in SCA combat (the wrap to the butt example earlier) but a wrap with a sharp sword to the hamstring or back of the foot is very effective. Just because I avoid hitting peoples hands in my sport doesn't mean that I can't chop off their fingers in a real street fight - I know how to hit the target because I avoid hitting it in my sport. Hard to hold a weapon with no fingers, and it's hell on the concentration. And many of the basic shots we use work fine with a baton or sword. Kempo karate, Tae kwan do, Kendo, etc... - all are "inauthentic" because they incorporate sport moves- but all can be used to lethal effect, just like SCA skills.

If he gets over his "my Kung Fu is great, yours sucks" attitude, he would probably be OK. But his approach to the issue (Yeah, I am overweight- yes, I am working on it, but he can f*cking bite me) won't win him many friends. Less alcohol, more decaf and liberal use of the delete key would be a good thing. Unless he is of the time that just enjoys tossing live grenades to see what sort of stuff will get blown up. But if he is that miserable about all the people he is dealing with, then he either needs to find different folks to hang with or leave.

Baron Alejandro wrote:
As well, right-of-way & electric equipment have completely destroyed any semblance that sabre bears to an actual sword fight.

Why I resisted electric sabre. Know that I kilet you by the bruise that you shall surely have in the morning. Sabre is the manly way to fence. Prissy Epeeists - BAH! (rant, foam...)

Johann ColdIron wrote:What ever good observations he made, and there are a few, are lost in the delivery.

I want to see how good he is with the M14 & bayo...

Cut about two feet off a pretty regular pole-arm, and see what he does with it!

Mind you would have to build a mace head onto the butt end, and I'm not sure the rules would allow it!

Oskar

DukeAvery wrote:SCA combat is not a sport, because in modern sports winning is the whole point. In SCA combat, how you win is at least as important as whether you win.

Really? What aspects of "how" should I looking for then, in judging whether an SCA bout is good or teh suck?

Clean not thick. Willing to accept a good blow rather than to ignore it for the victory.

welder wrote:

DukeAvery wrote:SCA combat is not a sport, because in modern sports winning is the whole point. In SCA combat, how you win is at least as important as whether you win.

Really? What aspects of "how" should I looking for then, in judging whether an SCA bout is good or teh suck?

Well, I would say that there a couple of things that you could look for here. Both technique and honor would be two important things to look for here.

First technique: While in a single fight, the only thing that ultimately matters is who gets the final touch, it is more important that continues to make touches in their other fights as well. So, the first thing to look for in a fight is whether or not the techniques that they are using can repeatedly yield positive results. For instance, I could charge someone in a bout and make a touch, but if I have a 50% chance of getting hit each time I do, then it is not a good technique. So, if I'm trying to judge someone based on their fighting, then I would try to determine whether they are fencing with an internally consistent system of fencing that allows them to react to many different situations.
Some would argue that there is also an aesthetic quality here as well. For instance, someone fighting with a distinctly modern style (ie, lots of bouncing, pommeling the sword, fleching, etc...) might be considered less desirable than someone fencing in a recognizably period system.

Second, and I think this may be closer to what his Grace was thinking about is honor. Winning a fight honorably is far more preferable to winning a fight dishonorably. The SCA is one of the only groups that I know of in which combatants are the only ones responsible for calling touches against themselves in tournaments. This can be a great strength and a great weakness. On the one hand it allows people to act honorably and acknowledge touches against themselves that a judge may not have seen, or decline touches which they did not think landed on their opponent. On the other hand it can lead to fencers not acknowledging touches or allowing their opponents to accept touches that they new to be invalid. In this case, how you win is extremely important. People who don't call shots create a reputation for themselves and people will stop fighting them.

These are my thoughts at least. To me, how a fight is fought matters just about as much as who actually won it.

It is the contest not the victory i seek.



Balin

There once was a fighter, a very excellent fighter, who won many tournaments and honors. One day before a tournament the victor of which would be our Queen's Champion (a most prestigious position), this fighter asked me if I was feeling well. It was an odd question, for although we had faced each other before many times he had never expressed any concern for my health. I answered I felt fine, and asked why. He then remarked that I didn't look well and that he hoped I would take care of myself. This was perhaps the only time I had ever seen or would see this fighter display any kind of emotion, and he radiated sincerity.

His question (although it shouldn't have) caused me to doubt myself and I performed poorly that day. I thought nothing of it until the next tournament when I overheard him express the same sentiments to another fighter. Innocent comments or no, this fighter would go on to earn a reputation as one of the worse rhinos in kingdom history. A reputation, I'm happy to say, he has overcome.

No one fight makes the fighter. What I ask myself, and I ask about myself, is whether one is a builder or a climber.

Regards,

Avery

DukeAvery wrote:
SCA combat is not a sport, because in modern sports winning is the whole point. In SCA combat, how you win is at least as important as whether you win.

Going by fighters near me. Winning is the whole point. I have heard some armour ideas poo pooed as "not winnable"


thast ok I guess. Winning is very important for some folks. For some its just playing the game thats important. As long as one side respects the other then its all good.

JvR wrote:Going by fighters near me. Winning is the whole point. I have heard some armour ideas poo pooed as "not winnable"


thast ok I guess. Winning is very important for some folks. For some its just playing the game thats important. As long as one side respects the other then its all good.

Winning IS the point. HOWEVER, in the SCA, the journey is JUST as important.

Nobody likes loosing. That is why we Compete. If winning (or dominating our opponent) was NOT the point, then we would not have set up our rules to simulate a "win" and "lose". At the SCA fighting core, winning is the point. But, in the SCA, unlike other competitive activities, winning is not the ONLY point. HOW you win is just as important, if not MORE important, than the fact that you won.

Irish is wise.

InsaneIrish wrote:

JvR wrote:Going by fighters near me. Winning is the whole point. I have heard some armour ideas poo pooed as "not winnable"


thast ok I guess. Winning is very important for some folks. For some its just playing the game thats important. As long as one side respects the other then its all good.

Winning IS the point. HOWEVER, in the SCA, the journey is JUST as important.

Nobody likes loosing. That is why we Compete. If winning (or dominating our opponent) was NOT the point, then we would not have set up our rules to simulate a "win" and "lose". At the SCA fighting core, winning is the point. But, in the SCA, unlike other competitive activities, winning is not the ONLY point. HOW you win is just as important, if not MORE important, than the fact that you won.

Depends on what you're recreating. In a war or judicial combat scenario, winning is the only thing that matters. In a deed of arms, fighting well is what matters. Since our rules foster the former scenario by various means, it's hardly surprising that 'winning is what matters' is the attitude that seems to prevail.

jester wrote:Depends on what you're recreating. In a war or judicial combat scenario, winning is the only thing that matters. In a deed of arms, fighting well is what matters. Since our rules foster the former scenario by various means, it's hardly surprising that 'winning is what matters' is the attitude that seems to prevail.

Nope, the SCA does not recreate Judicial combat, so, that is an irrelevant example. As for war? HOW we fight is STILL as important if not MORE important than if we win.

At our core, even in melee war, it is our honor that judges how we take shots. If someone "rhinos" his way through, he may win, but in the end, everybody knows he's a Dbag.

Don't confuse melee tactics with 'win at all costs' they are not the same. Yes, melee focuses more on the over all outcome as opposed to individual glory. But, we still take and give the same as we do in the tourney lists.

InsaneIrish wrote:

jester wrote:Depends on what you're recreating. In a war or judicial combat scenario, winning is the only thing that matters. In a deed of arms, fighting well is what matters. Since our rules foster the former scenario by various means, it's hardly surprising that 'winning is what matters' is the attitude that seems to prevail.

Nope, the SCA does not recreate Judicial combat, so, that is an irrelevant example. As for war? HOW we fight is STILL as important if not MORE important than if we win.

At our core, even in melee war, it is our honor that judges how we take shots. If someone "rhinos" his way through, he may win, but in the end, everybody knows he's a Dbag.

Don't confuse melee tactics with 'win at all costs' they are not the same. Yes, melee focuses more on the over all outcome as opposed to individual glory. But, we still take and give the same as we do in the tourney lists.

The SCA recreates a lot of scenarios, so I don't think it's irrelevant. As for the rest of your argument.... That risks running into the debate about 'what are we doing'. Folks argue that because we are fighting according to a rule set we are intrinsically doing deeds of arms even if we label them as wars or what have you. In that context, how we fight is far more important than winning. However, our rule set applies 'wounds' and assumes that combatants 'die' and, in doing so, it fosters a mindset closer to those appropriate for war or judicial combat.

brucer wrote:

It is most definitely a sport in that it disallows a great many strikes that would disable or kill. One can't hit below the thigh. One cannot specifically aim for the hands, elbows, throat, groin or inside of the thigh.

The inside of the thigh is a prohibited target? Really? I never knew... As a lefty I often hit people in the inner thigh and am sometimes hit there (when lucky- often if I am unwise and open I get cup shotted) But I have been doing this for 27 years and nobody has ever told me the inner thigh was not fair game when open. Must have slept through that piece of training from my knight....

about the rant - sounds like a bad case of sour grapes. I've encountered these types in the past. We had a "knife fighting expert" years ago in a local group that insisted on telling all us crude SCA types about how inauthentic our styles were and how a "real" fighter could just take us down

Got him into armour so he could demonstrate his prowess. Gave him many, many, many opportunites - never laid his sword on me. Gave him a "dagger" and fought him with a short sword. Never touched me. Gave him permission to grapple - he still could not get close enough - and I never hit anything but his head or weapon arm to prove the point (he had problems with our "fight from the knees" approach which I acknowledged was definitely not authentic)

Finally we played with Rubber knives out of armour. He was capable of getting me about 50% of the time - the rest were double kills or me getting him.

What the fellow who wrote the blog post does not acknowledge is the same thing my "knife fighting expert" did not recognize - Any full contact martial activity does give you the fundamentals of combat. Many of our SCA moves don't translate into practical street fighting - many of the wraps don't work that well as practiced in SCA combat (the wrap to the butt example earlier) but a wrap with a sharp sword to the hamstring or back of the foot is very effective. Just because I avoid hitting peoples hands in my sport doesn't mean that I can't chop off their fingers in a real street fight - I know how to hit the target because I avoid hitting it in my sport. Hard to hold a weapon with no fingers, and it's hell on the concentration. And many of the basic shots we use work fine with a baton or sword. Kempo karate, Tae kwan do, Kendo, etc... - all are "inauthentic" because they incorporate sport moves- but all can be used to lethal effect, just like SCA skills.

If he gets over his "my Kung Fu is great, yours sucks" attitude, he would probably be OK. But his approach to the issue (Yeah, I am overweight- yes, I am working on it, but he can f*cking bite me) won't win him many friends. Less alcohol, more decaf and liberal use of the delete key would be a good thing. Unless he is of the time that just enjoys tossing live grenades to see what sort of stuff will get blown up. But if he is that miserable about all the people he is dealing with, then he either needs to find different folks to hang with or leave.

Inner thigh is a legal target. Just can't hit below the thigh... i.e. the knee.

While that's true, in war or judicial combat you had actual loss of life or limb to tell you when you lost. Our activity is somewhere in between all these things where the loser must acknowledge that they have lost and the winner is not encouraged to point out the telling blow to their opponent.

jester wrote:The SCA recreates a lot of scenarios, so I don't think it's irrelevant. As for the rest of your argument.... That risks running into the debate about 'what are we doing'. Folks argue that because we are fighting according to a rule set we are intrinsically doing deeds of arms even if we label them as wars or what have you. In that context, how we fight is far more important than winning. However, our rule set applies 'wounds' and assumes that combatants 'die' and, in doing so, it fosters a mindset closer to those appropriate for war or judicial combat.

You are trying to combine SCA battle content with SCA battle technique.

if you strip down all our content to the core basics of the fighting we do, then melee, war, judicial, or tournament, it is all the same.

Winning is the point, but the introduction of honor/renown is what makes us different than competitive Tae Kwon Do or olympic fencing. It is not just enough to win. We want to win cleanly and with honor.

Maybe it was just the group I fought with that disallowed it, of which I am grateful, as I've been hit in the inner thigh, and it really hurts.

The premise that something is only a sport if winning is the only goal is quite flawed.

I have played many sports many times where winning was not the only goal or even a goal at all. If that were true then the tradition of pingpong at my uncle's house 'round Xmas time would really suck, especially with 3 generations playing each other...

The premise that calling your own blows somehow makes competition take a backseat is equally silly. How many backyard games of baseball have a referee? Most sports played by most people most of the time are self-judged. I've yet to see a ref calling score at the local raquetball court where winning is the only thing that matters...

G

PS-modern sabre might suffer from electricity and rules but modern epee with electricity rocks!

The premise that something is only a sport if winning is the only goal is quite flawed.

I have played many sports many times where winning was not the only goal or even a goal at all. If that were true then the tradition of pingpong at my uncle's house 'round Xmas time would really suck, especially with 3 generations playing each other...

The premise that calling your own blows somehow makes competition take a backseat is equally silly. How many backyard games of baseball have a referee? Most sports played by most people most of the time are self-judged. I've yet to see a ref calling score at the local raquetball court where winning is the only thing that matters...

G

PS-modern sabre might suffer from electricity and rules but modern epee with electricity rocks!

Are we arguing that sca-combat may be a non-competitive sport? I freely admit I had not allowed for this baffling possibility.

Regards

Avery

Obviously not what I'm saying. Saying SCA combat IS a sport and arguing it's not because "winning isn't the only objective" makes no sense because that is not a requirement or even a common trait of sports

Sports may be divided into two broad categories - competitive and non-competitive. SCA fighting is (obviously) competitive, therefore, if it is a sport it is a competitive one.

SCA combat is not a competitive sport, because the utmost goal of all competitive sports is winning. It is not enough to win an sca fight, you must win it well to garner the greatest renown. Therefore, sca combat is not a sport, but merely sport-like.

I find your refutation weak, and therefore suggest we agree to disagree.

Gaston de Vieuxchamps wrote:Obviously not what I'm saying. Saying SCA combat IS a sport and arguing it's not because "winning isn't the only objective" makes no sense because that is not a requirement or even a common trait of sports

In which sports is winning not the objective?

Eynar wrote:

Gaston de Vieuxchamps wrote:Obviously not what I'm saying. Saying SCA combat IS a sport and arguing it's not because "winning isn't the only objective" makes no sense because that is not a requirement or even a common trait of sports

In which sports is winning not the objective?

Marathon Running....

Yes while some do compete towards the objective of winning, the majority compete to break personal goals, for some crossing the finish line is the only goal.

Professional Soccer.
No sport that allows games to end in a 0-0 tie can state that winning is the objective.