On Your Knees!

[Count Johnathan]

correction to post added

Yeah and those asshats are asshats becouse they fool nobody...

People who do that will have minimum glory

Yet they persue it and there is no way to eliminate their presence otherwise the SCA would be the utopia we seek. A counted blows system would further their cause and encourage their behavior. No loss of honor for gaming the system in such a way will give them the glory they desire.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Perhaps you need to hit harder. Maybe your problem is that you want the game to be light tag with no penalties.

Sorry I don't buy it. If I swing a steel sword at you as hard as I do with rattan you would go down hard. Technique is important. My technique is to kill you if I were using steel. The fact that I use rattan instead keeps my opponents from really dying.

I am truly sorry if you think that is false. I know otherwise. I live in one of those pesky A kingdoms though and we hit harder than in some other areas without calling it "excessive"

Sir, respectfully, if armour was so ineffective, Why the hell would anyone have worn it? As my brother Ulric pointed out in my FB discussion... Why would period fighting manuals have taught you specifically and exclusively to avoid armour rather than trying to power through it with a sword?

I have challenged HE Einar Vikingsson to flat-snap my helmed head with a steel sword (I regularly fight with) to prove his point. If you care to question the calibration of a Vikingsson, go hard- but please let me express that they're the REASON Avacal is known as a Principality of monsters.

Duke Rorik, Count Vik and their descendents and their ilk are death on legs.

If you don't believe this to be the case, take it up with them.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

correction to post added

Yeah and those asshats are asshats becouse they fool nobody...

People who do that will have minimum glory

Yet they persue it and there is no way to eliminate their presence otherwise the SCA would be the utopia we seek. A counted blows system would further their cause and encourage their behavior. No loss of honor for gaming the system in such a way will give them the glory they desire.

..? You honestly think that the only thing lacking to make the SCA into a Utopia would be an end to rhino-hiding? I can't even address this assertion, it's so skewed..

IF a guy's gonna shrug a head-rocking face-thrust by pretending he caught it on the nose, how's a counted blow system gonna make him less of a dick-cheese? he's already decided to throw out all reason and chivalry. The system he uses to avoid losing is irrelevant to him.

[Vladimir]

For some reason this post never went up. The argument is moot now, but since I happen to still have it in as a word file.

Quoting myself.

Count Johnathan

The game we play is still young, though inspired by an old one. I'm sure if you looked at other sports with local branches of amateur leagues SCA combat will surely be one of the newest.

I believe you are saying the game is good and you don't think the rules need to be changed.

This is all well and good, but is a matter of opinion. That said, I will remind everyone that you never claimed your opinion to be a matter of sacred writ or anything.

However, it frequently seems as if you are saying the game is perfect, and any changes would be a perversion of a perfect system. I doubt that is what you mean, but it sometimes seems that way.

As evidenced by the current arguments about knee fighting, thrusting, combat archery, armour material, weapon material, even rules on your appearance on the field we can see that our combat rules are in a state of constant flux.

This is a good thing, because it means people are always trying to improve our game, that people care enough to want it to get better.

A perfect game is an impossible goal, but constant improvement is possible. Why lock ourselves into stasis when we should be constantly striving to improve ourselves and our game.

[Count Johnathan]

Perhaps you need to hit harder. Maybe your problem is that you want the game to be light tag with no penalties.

Sorry I don't buy it. If I swing a steel sword at you as hard as I do with rattan you would go down hard. Technique is important. My technique is to kill you if I were using steel. The fact that I use rattan instead keeps my opponents from really dying.

I am truly sorry if you think that is false. I know otherwise. I live in one of those pesky A kingdoms though and we hit harder than in some other areas without calling it "excessive"

Sir, respectfully, if armour was so ineffective, Why the hell would anyone have worn it? As my brother Ulric pointed out in my FB discussion... Why would period fighting manuals have taught you specifically and exclusively to avoid armour rather than trying to power through it with a sword?

I have challenged HE Einar Vikingsson to flat-snap my helmed head with a steel sword (I regularly fight with) to prove his point. If you care to question the calibration of a Vikingsson, go hard- but please let me express that they're the REASON Avacal is known as a Principality of monsters.

Duke Rorik, Count Vik and their descendents and their ilk are death on legs.

If you don't believe this to be the case, take it up with them.

I am not saying armour was ineffective but I am saying that you are underestimating the strengths of a sword. It seems that you feel that in order to consider a sword to have given you a wound it must cut you. What I suggest is that snapping bone, crushing soft tissue, and knocking people out is in every way incapacitating. You cannot honestly say that if you used a steel sword the way the high caliber fighters use rattan that you would not be causing severe injuries to people even though they are wearing armour.

[Ulric]

No that is not correct. Many times over many years many people have had serious injuries occur that ended their ability to continue fighting (at least for the duration of the bout) because they were struck on very real and often far superior modern sport armour with a simple taped up rattan stick. I've shattered bone, knocked people out etc. fighting rattan. Most people who have played for more than a decade have and so we need not ask anyone because we already know.

Far superior modern sport armour?

I do not believe our armour is superior in any way, shape or form.

The guys who did this in period did this for KEEPS. The relied upon their armour to protect life and limb, not just from (comparatively) minor injury.


Could we injure someone through maille? Sure, SOME of us could. SOME. Is a cracked rib going to stop someone fighting for their life, in earnest? not likely. A PROPERLY constructed, padded/suspended helmet is alot different from most worn in the SCA.

As for plate? good luck really injuring someone in plate with a single handed sword before he incapacitates you with a poleaxe, or enters the wrestle.... there is a reason the sword was dropped as a primary armament in favor of crushing/pole weapons.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Perhaps you need to hit harder. Maybe your problem is that you want the game to be light tag with no penalties.

Sorry I don't buy it. If I swing a steel sword at you as hard as I do with rattan you would go down hard. Technique is important. My technique is to kill you if I were using steel. The fact that I use rattan instead keeps my opponents from really dying.

I am truly sorry if you think that is false. I know otherwise. I live in one of those pesky A kingdoms though and we hit harder than in some other areas without calling it "excessive"

Sir, respectfully, if armour was so ineffective, Why the hell would anyone have worn it? As my brother Ulric pointed out in my FB discussion... Why would period fighting manuals have taught you specifically and exclusively to avoid armour rather than trying to power through it with a sword?

I have challenged HE Einar Vikingsson to flat-snap my helmed head with a steel sword (I regularly fight with) to prove his point. If you care to question the calibration of a Vikingsson, go hard- but please let me express that they're the REASON Avacal is known as a Principality of monsters.

Duke Rorik, Count Vik and their descendents and their ilk are death on legs.

If you don't believe this to be the case, take it up with them.

I am not saying armour was ineffective but I am saying that you are underestimating the strengths of a sword. It seems that you feel that in order to consider a sword to have given you a wound it must cut you. What I suggest is that snapping bone, crushing soft tissue, and knocking people out is in every way incapacitating. You cannot honestly say that if you used a steel sword the way the high caliber fighters use rattan that you would not be causing severe injuries to people even though they are wearing armour.

That's exactly what I'm saying and why I'm asking HE to flat-snap my helm, as I stand flat-footed, with one of my rebated weapons.

[Vebrand]

That's exactly what I'm saying and why I'm asking HE to flat-snap my helm, as I stand flat-footed, with one of my rebated weapons.

LOL...right so are you going to wear a period helm that is mostly to be made of thinner metal (say 18 to 20 gauge) and have it padded historically? Also depending on the time period the so called flat snap would be with the flat of the sword not the blade to do more concussion. Remember the object is most battle was not to kill another noble but to take them hostage for ransom. These type of arguments always crack me up.

vebrand

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

That's exactly what I'm saying and why I'm asking HE to flat-snap my helm, as I stand flat-footed, with one of my rebated weapons.

LOL...right so are you going to wear a period helm that is mostly to be made of thinner metal (say 18 to 20 gauge) and have it padded historically? Also depending on the time period the so called flat snap would be with the flat of the sword not the blade to do more concussion. Remember the object is most battle was not to kill another noble but to take them hostage for ransom. These type of arguments always crack me up.

vebrand

vebrand: A period sword (with notable exceptions such as a tuck/estoc) flexes on the axis perpedicular to the edge.. you get LESS concussion from the flat than you do with the edge. Hitting me with the flat would make the blow mechanically less efficient.

As for the gauge of the helm, let me go and get a rundown of the gauges in extant museum pieces... this may require the services of an armourer.

[Count Johnathan]

No that is not correct. Many times over many years many people have had serious injuries occur that ended their ability to continue fighting (at least for the duration of the bout) because they were struck on very real and often far superior modern sport armour with a simple taped up rattan stick. I've shattered bone, knocked people out etc. fighting rattan. Most people who have played for more than a decade have and so we need not ask anyone because we already know.

Far superior modern sport armour?

I do not believe our armour is superior in any way, shape or form.

The guys who did this in period did this for KEEPS. The relied upon their armour to protect life and limb, not just from (comparatively) minor injury.


Could we injure someone through maille? Sure, SOME of us could. SOME. Is a cracked rib going to stop someone fighting for their life, in earnest? not likely. A PROPERLY constructed, padded/suspended helmet is alot different from most worn in the SCA.

As for plate? good luck really injuring someone in plate with a single handed sword before he incapacitates you with a poleaxe, or enters the wrestle.... there is a reason the sword was dropped as a primary armament in favor of crushing/pole weapons.

Nothing in period was anywhere near as awesome as 12 or even 14G stainless full welded helmet construction with modern various density shock absorbing foams. Yes armour was effective. Often it was very effective but if it was a guarantee that no harm would come to the wearer then nobody would have died as many millions did in medieval battle. Yes plate is superior to maile and yes plate did make swords almost useless but what we are talking about so far has not been an armour as worn method. We have so far only discussed an alteration of fighting convention and this particular subject was based on the effectiveness of maile and leather (our current standard) vs edged weaponry.

Aside from this all SCA helms in reality are plate. Many people have been harmed even through good helmets with good padding by a single rattan sword so to say that we are not striking as hard with rattan as it would take to incapacitate an opponent with a steel sword is just not correct.

I'm not saying that rattan is as effective as steel or that armour was never effective. I am saying that rattan allows me to strike as hard as I would need to incapacitate my opponent with steel vs maile and keeps our sport reasonably safe.

I apologize if this became a different conversation that detracted from the topic at hand. I did not intend on that. My question about it was in agreement to other questions about why suddenly my arm was some how more durable than my head or torso. I desire to know the theory behind the rule.

[Count Johnathan]

That's exactly what I'm saying and why I'm asking HE to flat-snap my helm, as I stand flat-footed, with one of my rebated weapons.

I'll do it. When you wake up we can discuss this some more.

Edit to add : Ok strike that. I suggest not doing such a test! There are a couple of problems with it anyway. First it is unlikely that you will come away unharmed. Second it is also unlikely that any of your friends could or would bring themselves to hitting you in the head with a steel sword with the intent to kill or incapacitate you.

It would not anwser the original question anyway. To do that you would have to put on a mail hauberk and some leather vambraces and then have someone strike you with the intent to remove your arm. In such a test I suspect the end result would not be as pleasant as you think. You would not be able to pick up a glass of milk after that test much less a sword.

[Whitewolf Sr.]

If he wakes up!

[Ulric]

Nothing in period was anywhere near as awesome as 12 or even 14G stainless full welded helmet construction with modern various density shock absorbing foams.

I apologize if this became a different conversation that detracted from the topic at hand. I did not intend on that. My question about it was in agreement to other questions about why suddenly my arm was some how more durable than my head or torso. I desire to know the theory behind the rule.

I would beg to differ on the issue of helmet-awesomeness They were thick where they needed to be, sometimes upwards of 3mm (11ga).

But in any case, what we do is a sport, not a real combat re-creation.

I support a system without acted wounds for several reasons-

-I feel once someone loses a limb, much of the elegance of the fight is lost

-Knee fighting (in my opinion) looks silly and drives away potential new members (this is FACT. I've spoken to many who chose not to participate because of it)

-Slows the pace of action down to a crawl at times

-We aren't _really_ trying to dismember each other- Just as sport Judo is different from it's combat application, so too is SCA different from medieval armed combat. Why pretend otherwise by acting wounded?


We can debate about the protectiveness of real armour all day long, but until someone steps into proper period armour and is struck with proper period weapons, all we can do is make educated guesses.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

My friends have hit me with intent through, using steel before. We love each-other like that.

However, I'll go with Ulric on this (unsurprisingly) and repeat something that I said earlier, since I realize that I've gotten dragged into an irrelevant conversation:

The durability and effectiveness of armour isn't an issue here BECAUSE we're not recreating any sort of intent-to-kill combat.

However, IF we're not recreating real duels with real wounds, why the silly Monty Python skit?

So, to avoid further confusion, let me look at this A la Spock.. with raw logic.

EITHER (as some of you seem to think) we're recreating a duel with intent, along with its resulting grisly wounds OR we're not.

IF we're not, THEN the best possible rule-set is the one with the least weaknesses is the one to be preferred.

Therefore IF we have established that the current system is not perfect (and even the most conservative among you have conceded as much.), THEN we can only gain by improving it.

In order to ACTUALLY IMPROVE the system, a new rule would have to address the shortcomings of a current rule, while simultaneously not creating shortcomings of its own which are either equal to or greater than, the shortcomings of the rule it is replacing.

IF we have established that the Vitus System addresses some, if not all, of the shortcomings of the current system, then the question becomes of whether or not the new system will create shortcomings of equal or greater magnitude than those it is eliminating (hence the testing).

(and this is where I leave off on pure logic -since without empirical data it's irrelevant) and wedge my tongue back into my cheek)

Now, it appears to me that the main concerns of our opponents are that, under the Vitus System, one, several or all of the following will occur:

-we will experience a sudden spike in dishonourable persons rhino-hiding, assjacks who until now had been kept under control by knee-fighting (and nobody has yet explained why this should be, in any logical manner).

-People will forget how to count to two, resulting in interminable battles of leg-blow after leg-blow and guys saying "One... One... One..." over and over again...

-Someone, somewhere, will win Crown by continually charging his enemies and blocking strikes with a forearm (which forearm has yet to be discussed, since one is usually behind a shield and continually static-blocking with the other would likely result in a tingly forearm after about the third fight, making it difficult to grip a sword).

-That we will have much greater incidence of people intentionally choosing to invite a limb-blow in exchange for an opportunistic kill (Why they wouldn't do this now, however, has net been expressed either, since most tourneys are not 'kept wounds', taking a guy's head and trading it for my leg seems just as advantageous at the moment).

This is what I'll be watching out for as I test the system, as I'm sure will my co-conspirators. Did I miss anything?

[Count Johnathan]

Well as you say you are resolved no matter what so again good luck.

The problem is that very few people in comparison to the numbers that are out there want to change and remove the options that most everybody else seems to be ok with.

Why not go to a different ruleset? Because the one we have even with all of it's "flaws" is loved by thousands. Our rules have seen this game go from 100 people maybe at the largest event to many thousands annually.

People love this game as it is. After 40 years and thousands of people experimenting and trying new things it is very arrogant to think that we require you to come along and "fix" it for us.

It is sad that you can only seem to insult it. How's this for raw logic? If this game and it's rules no longer suit you then go do something else. Let all of the other thousands of participants continue to enjoy what we do without you bitching about it. Better yet learn to block your legs and then it would not longer be an issue for you.

Au revoir.

[Ulric]

Round and round we go!

It will catch on, or it won't. Or it will for some, and not for others, and there will more more "alternate ruleset" tourneys.

*shrug*

I fail to see why people wishing to see change (for the better in their eyes) constantly are met by "Don't like it? go away and play somewhere else"

Nobody is bitching. Nobody is insulting it. Or doubting that many people enjoy things "as is". We are questioning why things are done the way they are, and if there is a different way to do them.

Is there REALLY a problem with that?

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Well as you say you are resolved no matter what so again good luck.

The problem is that very few people in comparison to the numbers that are out there want to change and remove the options that most everybody else seems to be ok with.

Why not go to a different ruleset? Because the one we have even with all of it's "flaws" is loved by thousands. Our rules have seen this game go from 100 people maybe at the largest event to many thousands annually.

People love this game as it is. After 40 years and thousands of people experimenting and trying new things it is very arrogant to think that we require you to come along and "fix" it for us.

It is sad that you can only seem to insult it. How's this for raw logic? If this game and it's rules no longer suit you then go do something else. Let all of the other thousands of participants continue to enjoy what we do without you bitching about it. Better yet learn to block your legs and then it would not longer be an issue for you.

Au revoir.

Considering that every point here has been addressed repeatedly, all I can say is that you're right, Sir: I am actually an evil Nazi alien who just hates knee-fighting because I'm grossly disadvantaged when fighting that way, and I'm doing this so that I can skew the game in my favour. It's all part of an evil plan to win crown by any means necessary, o that I can hold a secret Council of Kings at Pennsic, dissolve the BoD, rebuild the society to be more in line with Duke Cariadoc of the Bow's Libertarian model and make "Knighthood" only for our Equestrian champions... it's all coming together so nicely, too!

You caught me.

[Whitewolf Sr.]

Society for Creative Anachronism Inc., Rules of the List

Please read them

I really hope this helps guide you

OOPs to many OPTIONS!!!!!!

[Count Johnathan]

Well damn why didn't you say so before? If your gonna disolve the BOD I'm in.

When do we start using these new rules?

[somomailler]

Wow. Finally got around to reading this whole topic and it astounds me at the lack of some thought processes.

First off let me say that how hard is it to realize this is a sport, not a historical group. If it was it would be the sca.
If you dont like the way its done why not just stick to your rebated steel.

Second the issue of are we recreating bouts where the participants tried to harm each other. Hmm well are armor standards are that of the norman era, so that leads to the obvious answer of there where full plate tournaments done in the 11th century. So if your wearing maille and i strike you with a real sword in the thigh is it going to take your leg off...no. Are you gonna be able to fight...maybe. In all actuallity i probably shattered a bone or two, making you do one of two things. You either continued to fight as well as you could or you would lay down and hope you live to fight another day.

And if i strike you with a rebated sword at the force we strike with here locally a limb blow is gonna break bone and destroy muscle. Is it gonna destroy the armor, not likely. a shot to the head from a rattan sword that rocks the head would be if done with a low flexibilty weapon like a sword, would in all chance break the neck or give a serious concussion. Fit a piece of maille or plate to a dead hog. Strike the hog with the force we use in sca combat and bones and tissue are gonna be serverly damaged.

So off the rant and to the final point. If you dont want to go to your knees, dont. You can be recreating the man the after having his leg broken decided to lay down and not contiue the fight. But i can tell you that if we were fighting to the death as they did in your period (crusader) that i wouldnt lay down from a broken leg, id sit on my butt and try and kill my enemy.

oh and the issue of arm shots. We are fighting sword and shield. I get armed. I lose my shield and am possibly fighting offhanded. How does this not show someones skill in fighting? Im sure that period knights trained to be deadly with both hands, because crap happens. If this wasnt the case, armor worn behind a shield wouldnt have excisted(sp?)

im thankful for the men and women that made the game so long ago so that i might be able to knock the snot outta my buddies.
my .02 cents

[Broadway]

Somomailler, you might have read the whole thread, but you didn't read it very well.

[Vebrand]

Well damn why didn't you say so before? If your gonna disolve the BOD I'm in.

When do we start using these new rules?

Now that's funny.

[Vebrand]

Francisco as I have said on this topic you don't have the overall support for a change at this time and the way you are going about it is not getting you any votes. Count Johnathon has given you some solid advice even if he disagrees with you. You want to buck the system and buck it hard you have said. Do honestly know how many people have tried that and failed. The armor as worn, no knee fighting, armor as proof from archery, grappling, etc. All this and more have come before and while some are used in limited situations they have not been widely used and mostly because of how they have been presented. I have been around long enough to know you will just be another in the long list at the current rate.

Here is some advice from a guy who first put on armor in 1983 and has seen a few things. If you really want to see changes you have to realize the SCA is a slow moving mass. You have to realize that nothing makes a change happen faster than safety but you have to back your point up with facts and not simple conjecture. Saying knee fighting is bad for you is one thing we can agree on, but you have to show a history of injuries caused by it and the average number of injuries a year. You have to be a salesman and be willing to take two steps back to take one step forward. You can not be a zealot or you will turn people off. You cannot blast the current system as totally wrong or you will turn them off. You have to work within the system. As Johnathon said hold tourneys with the Vitus rules. Sponsor them not only at local events but at interkingdom events. Great western, Estrella, Gulf Wars, Lilies and of course Pennsic. You have to win people to it over time no convert them by force. That method does not nor has it ever worked with the SCA.

Vebrand

[Goldor]

So those that are against it, are you saying that you'd tell Francisco if he won Crown to go fuck his self because you don't agree with the rule he is implementing for his time as King? If so then what about the no thrusting that was being talked about in another thread, why is that any different?

[Count Johnathan]

So those that are against it, are you saying that you'd tell Francisco if he won Crown to go fuck his self because you don't agree with the rule he is implementing for his time as King? If so then what about the no thrusting that was being talked about in another thread, why is that any different?

No actually. I think we would all agree that one of the joys of being king is that you get to make the rules for your kingdom(for the most part). There is good and bad that go with that. If the rules you set are good and solid and people like them your kingdom will flourish! If they turn people off the kingdom will suffer reduced participation. Being king is on a larger scale much like what we have suggested to Francisco. If you sponsor a tourney you can make the rules. Sort of like being king for a day in that regard.

If he were my king and told me of these rules I would accept that was the way folks were going to fight at least for his reign. I would try it and if I liked it I would continue. If it sucked I would take a six month break from fighting on the kings field. It's that simple.

Edit : Of course if he wins crown in An Tir and calls us up here in Atenveldt and tells us that as king he has decided that Atenveldt is going to fight under these new rules we would laugh and mock him publicly.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

So those that are against it, are you saying that you'd tell Francisco if he won Crown to go fuck his self because you don't agree with the rule he is implementing for his time as King? If so then what about the no thrusting that was being talked about in another thread, why is that any different?

No actually. I think we would all agree that one of the joys of being king is that you get to make the rules for your kingdom(for the most part). There is good and bad that go with that. If the rules you set are good and solid and people like them your kingdom will flourish! If thy turn people off the kingdom will suffer reduced participation. Being king is on a larger scale much like what we have suggested to Francisco. If you sponsor a tourney you can make the rules. Sort of like being king for a day in that regard.

If he were my king and told me of these rules I would accept that was the way folks were going to fight at least for his reign. I would try it and if I liked it I would continue. If it sucked I would take a six month break from fighting on the kings field. It's that simple.

All of which is a moot point, since the chances of me winning crown in the near future are entirely dependent on 70% of the field catching dysentery the night before

That particular post was intended in humour.

[Gaston de Vieuxchamps]

I'm very good at knee-fighting BTW. I wasn't knighted because I was good at counted blows.

Ditto.

I tried to read the whole thread, honestly.

I have no interest in plunging into argument with the present crowd but I have to add a few things.

I'm not sure how much experience Jonathan Sr has with telling blows systems or when and where but his experience that blow calling got worse is contrary to nearly everyone else's experience. I've done it far and wide and polled others who have done the same and almost universally the experience has been that blow calling was the same or better.

Knee fighting is dangerous to healthy knees. Most of our knee injuries are to people standing, that is true. We have a lot of people in danger of knee injuries that have nothing to do with our rules but rather with their own body habitus. I am not one of theose people. The only knee injury I've ever recieved in a lifetime of martial arts was from fighting on my knees at Pennsic in pickups against another king. His kingdom's rules for corkscrewing are different fom mine. He hit my leg, I went to my knees he stepped behind me and thundered my naked back. We fought again, he hit my leg again, he stepped behind me again and I fervently pivotted to avoid a repeat. I got the block and he took another step and thew the shot again, I tried the same pivot but he was standing on my foot! I rolled around on the ground in agony and he asked if he should wait or go find someone else to fight. It nearly ended my fighting career. My experience is not unique. Aside from knee injuries, there is another cost to giving up arms and legs that has been overlooked. Not everyone is nice all the time (refer to Jonathan's threats earlier in the thread). If you want to bruise someone and prove a point, the easiest way is to take a limb thus allowing you to have a better opportunity to score a "home run". Every single day this happens somewhere in the SCA. Lot's of unneccessary bruises can be attributed to this strategy. I must admit I've even been guilty of it myself. I've also been a victim. Even when it's not intentional the rate of ouchies goes way up whenever a fighter is forced to fight at a disadvantage. We all know this.

When SCA fighting began it was a bit tongue-in-cheek. "Best death" was a virtue. That is the spirit under which acted wounds was born. We take a more serious approach today and it no longer serves us as well. The SCA has evolved. Thanks to those that came before. But just as our equipment, apearance, attitude, and understanding has evolved so should our rules.

The whole pig carcass thing is bunk. If we were hitting hard enough with rattan to break each other's bones or tear joints through armour then we would be breaking each other's bones and tearing joints through armour. It does happen. (My own ulna was shattered through good armour--perfect blow at perfect time from a heavy-hitting squire-brother that's always given me his "best".) ....but it's not a requirement for a good blow in any kingdom. No region requires the kind of force necessary to actually incapacitate though period armour with a sword, nor should they! We'd be getting regularly incapacitated. If a blow is hard enough for a real sword to maim you through armour, then it's hard enough for a rattan sword to maim you without armour. Every single "good" blow that misses armour would be incapacitating. We'd be sending people to the hospital every event. It's a game. we've arbitrarily decided how hard is hard enough and that's just fine. Don't try to justify it.

We are used to seeing acted out wounds. We don't see it the way outsiders and newbies see it. If we did then we would have already abandonned it.

G

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

My what a guy, that Gaston!

Edit: Sorry. Couldn't resist. been waiting all thread to say that. elegantly summarizing what a lot of us feel in such a manner seemed like the right time to do it.

[Count Johnathan]

"...We take a more serious approach today and it no longer serves us as well..."

You mean YOU your grace. The rest of US are ok with it. I am sorry but I know through these boards that you have delved into many various forms and methods of fighting. Like others who at this point seem to have lost the taste for SCA fighting as is I say fine go do something else. It is not a rational idea for you or the other few you must be speaking of when you say "us" to attempt to alter the rules for the rest of us. You have your options as you well know so use them. You are also doing the Aveloc system with HG Baldar no? You have also used rebated steel no?

It just seems that while you may be different from Francisco here you too have come to realize that SCA rattan fighting no longer suits you. Thats ok just walk away if it now leaves you unfulfilled. You also fail to see that it was not just my father who experienced the negatives of such a proposal. Others have though I do not know to what extent. I do know hewever that it is not "nearly everyone else's experience"

I was waiting for someone to mention the fact that a standing fighter stands the real chance of harming a downed opponent by twisting. That is the most dangerous aspect of knee fighting IMO but in tourney most kingdoms at this point do not allow circling a downed opponent. Most do not allow the standing fighter to step past the knees or hips of the downed opponent so if a fighter is not breaking the rules the possibility of such an injury has been dramatically reduced.

"..."Best death" was a virtue. That is the spirit under which acted wounds was born. We take a more serious approach today..."

Stop taking yourself so seriously and go back out and have fun. If it's not fun do something else... oh wait, you do.

"...The whole pig carcass thing is bunk. If we were hitting hard enough with rattan to break each other's bones or tear joints through armour then we would be breaking each other's bones and tearing joints through armour. It does happen. (My own ulna was shattered through good armour--perfect blow at perfect time from a heavy-hitting squire-brother that's always given me his "best".) ....but it's not a requirement for a good blow in any kingdom..."

The pig carcass thing is not bunk. No we are not required to strike so hard because this is a gentlemans game and we have decided for the most part to have reduced power calibration. That is a good thing but if I do strike that hard it is not excessive it is correct and appropriate. I am pleased if an opponent is willing to accept a lesser blow as I am but the saying goes "Hit hard, take light". You severely contradict yourself with the above statements. If you want a game where we hit lighter and don't fight from our knees by all means go do that. Some will go with you as they already have on occassion but swarms of SCA fighters did not flock to your game. A few did and will. You will find more I am sure but those of us who enjoy what we do now and those of us who have not yet lost our taste for SCA combat as is would be very offended if you felt yourself to be so important and self rightous as to explain to us what we should or should not be doing and what we would or would not enjoy.

You of all people should know this your grace. It is not your place to tell us what we appreciate.

[Gaston de Vieuxchamps]

You never cease to entertain.

I have by no means "lost my taste for SCA fighting". I have been a reformer all my life. One must love our game enough to bother.

I honestly think the "experiences" of telling blows are a lot of hearsay and supposition. Every time I've been there and asked the questions the results have been the same.

Nowhere in my statements did I advocate a lighter game. I simply responded to the argument made regarding power and armour worn. I shouldn't have because it's really just a red herring.

When you talk down thusly to the squire you, as your father might feel one should respect their "betters" but what logic compells you to tell me what opinions I have the right to express? If you think I'm no longer qualified to comment on the state of the SCA simply because I've delved into the larger world of medievalism then you are unflateringly sectarian for such a big tent organization. If you like, I can resume my current SCA fighting accomplishments and contributions but it will have to be off list as I don't want to start sounding too much like the other side of the argument. Suffice to say I'm far from done with this club and resorting to attacking the source is beneath your status.

G

[Broadway]

"...We take a more serious approach today and it no longer serves us as well..."

You mean YOU your grace. The rest of US are ok with it.

You mean YOU your Excellency. Some of the rest of US, don't agree.

[Count Johnathan]

You never cease to entertain.

I have by no means "lost my taste for SCA fighting". I have been a reformer all my life. One must love our game enough to bother.

I honestly think the "experiences" of telling blows are a lot of hearsay and supposition. Every time I've been there and asked the questions the results have been the same.

Nowhere in my statements did I advocate a lighter game. I simply responded to the argument made regarding power and armour worn. I shouldn't have because it's really just a red herring.

When you talk down thusly to the squire you, as your father might feel one should respect their "betters" but what logic compells you to tell me what opinions I have the right to express? If you think I'm no longer qualified to comment on the state of the SCA simply because I've delved into the larger world of medievalism then you are unflateringly sectarian for such a big tent organization. If you like, I can resume my current SCA fighting accomplishments and contributions but it will have to be off list as I don't want to start sounding too much like the other side of the argument. Suffice to say I'm far from done with this club and resorting to attacking the source is beneath your status.

G

Actually I wasn't talking down to a squire. I was involved in conversation back and forth in a setting of equality. An online chatboard. It's been pretty civil between me and Francisco so far. The only time I mentioned title was yours when I addressed you as your grace. I won't make that error again believe me. I think you seek a different game because well ... you do. I didn't say you were unqualified to comment on the state of the SCA I said that it was not your place to tell us all what we appreciate. When I attempted to start a movement to remove what I feel is an unsightly aspect of our game I got much the same type of reply as you did from me above. I learned at that time how vast the opinions in this game were and that no individual or even a small vocal body of people had the right to tell everyone else what aspects of the game were no longer suitable. Sucks when the table is turned doesn't it?

Your comments that when others speak of their experiences they are "a lot of hearsay and supposition" is grossly offensive. You mean full of shit Gaston? Get off your high horse. You disregard the experiences of others yet you expect us to accept that what you say is honest and accurate. I hope you can recognize the issue with that. I don't really care what you resume Gaston. From what you have had to say here, any respect I might have had for you has been eliminated.

[Count Johnathan]

"...We take a more serious approach today and it no longer serves us as well..."

You mean YOU your grace. The rest of US are ok with it.

You mean YOU your Excellency. Some of the rest of US, don't agree.

Oh goodyou understand my point then.

[Count Johnathan]

Round and round we go!

It will catch on, or it won't. Or it will for some, and not for others, and there will more more "alternate ruleset" tourneys.

*shrug*

I fail to see why people wishing to see change (for the better in their eyes) constantly are met by "Don't like it? go away and play somewhere else"

Nobody is bitching. Nobody is insulting it. Or doubting that many people enjoy things "as is". We are questioning why things are done the way they are, and if there is a different way to do them.

Is there REALLY a problem with that?

Sorry I missed this before. No there is really no problem questioning the methods or trying new things. The problem is when a few attempt to alter and remove the options that others appreciate. I learned that the hard way I guess. I made a lot of people angry by voicing my personal opinion on the flying twigs. It was an interesting experience and it caused me to change my views about our game a lot.

I did suggest holding tournaments with these rules so that the attempt would not interfere with our other pre-organized fighting events. It was honest helpful advice from someone who knows what a disruption bucking the system can be.

[Vladimir]

Just to clarify, wasn't the SCA created by a group of people who wanted to "buck the system"?