The Armour Archive

blackbow wrote:I don't know anybody that hits or takes light that is in possession of any renown.

Neither condition is anyhere in my commentary... AoC

True. I had to sort through it again. My bad.

Blackbow

carlyle wrote:

blackbow wrote:I don't know anybody that hits or takes light that is in possession of any renown.

Neither condition is anyhere in my commentary... AoC

Based on the poll, and Blackbow's follow up commentary; this seems like less of an objective poll, and more like a tool to push an agenda. (Not necessarily a problem, but different than first presented.)

Here is the problem, you have asked us to define a subjective criteria "A telling blow", then given a list of objective options (bruise/welt/etc) and one subjective option "Leave no doubt."

Like there is any doubt as to the outcome of that poll??


But even better, you then seem to try and use that "definition" to support *your* view of how hard a "telling" blow is, or rather how hard it takes to "remove doubt".

We could just as easily continue the poll by asking "How hard of a hit does it take to 'remove all doubt'"?

(Generalizations approaching...)
In Meridies, I can hit someone pretty darn light, and he has no doubt that I hit him. In An Tir I must use a whole lot more effort to remove that doubt.

So to keep the 'answers' as supplied here, we are left with
"You must hit him as hard as he requires to call it good, and there is no such thing as a calibration problem, and no such thing as 'rhino-hides' in our game." Do you really think this is true?

If it is true, why do we try and teach people proper calibration when they first start? The basic An Tir and basic Meridies fighters have been *taught* how hard they need to be hit.


It reminds me of that George Carlin skit about driving.
We each always drive the perfect speed.
Anyone driving slower (and thus gets in our way) is an asshole.
Anyone driving faster, is a maniac.

blackbow wrote:Well, I'm amazed at the agreement. Pleasantly. But I'll cover these in no particular order.

Enrico, Kilkenny, & whoever else thinks that there should be something indicating what armor is being swung at:

Nope. "A telling blow should leave no doubt" pretty well covers that for me. I only included "mark" and "welt" and "bruise" as options for discussion.

There are two schools of thought regarding what armor we ought to be wearing, just like there are two schools of thought regarding the "if you have to think about it" question. There's the "real armor is the only way" crowd, and there's the "whatever floats your boat" crowd.

If the SCA ever tries to enforce any sort of "armor as worn" rule then I will immediately request the BOD that the SCA move to a submission rule. Fight until you're bested, and you determine what constitutes bested. Corollary to that, when you guys start swinging at me with real swords, I'll put on real armor. Till then, meh.

That said, for the people that take lighter, good for you, but I didn't go to all the trouble of putting on my 12 lbs of helmet and chainmail for you to play tag with. This ain't tiddlywinks. If you want to play that game then there are plenty of groups out there that don't wear armor. Find one of them. There are places in the SCA that hit so light I could probably wrap a wifflebat in duct tape and win.

I was talking to some friends this past weekend and one of them said something I had never heard; he said that while there are people out there that think I take too hard a shot, that most of the people out there know that if they hit me and I take it, it was a legit, telling blow, and that anybody who thinks I ought to take lighter is just PO'd because I don't take bullshit shots.

That's pretty much a direct quote.

I like that. And I'm okay with that.

Blackbow

Wait a minute... "A telling blow should leave no doubt" is an escape clause that renders the entire process here meaningless.

And is there any need to address the whole concept that if a person accepts the blow "it was a legit, telling blow" ?

This argument boils down to people take what they take and a telling blow is defined by whether or not it was accepted.

Peace out.

G

Kilkenny wrote:

blackbow wrote:Well, I'm amazed at the agreement. Pleasantly. But I'll cover these in no particular order.

Enrico, Kilkenny, & whoever else thinks that there should be something indicating what armor is being swung at:

Nope. "A telling blow should leave no doubt" pretty well covers that for me. I only included "mark" and "welt" and "bruise" as options for discussion.

There are two schools of thought regarding what armor we ought to be wearing, just like there are two schools of thought regarding the "if you have to think about it" question. There's the "real armor is the only way" crowd, and there's the "whatever floats your boat" crowd.

If the SCA ever tries to enforce any sort of "armor as worn" rule then I will immediately request the BOD that the SCA move to a submission rule. Fight until you're bested, and you determine what constitutes bested. Corollary to that, when you guys start swinging at me with real swords, I'll put on real armor. Till then, meh.

That said, for the people that take lighter, good for you, but I didn't go to all the trouble of putting on my 12 lbs of helmet and chainmail for you to play tag with. This ain't tiddlywinks. If you want to play that game then there are plenty of groups out there that don't wear armor. Find one of them. There are places in the SCA that hit so light I could probably wrap a wifflebat in duct tape and win.

I was talking to some friends this past weekend and one of them said something I had never heard; he said that while there are people out there that think I take too hard a shot, that most of the people out there know that if they hit me and I take it, it was a legit, telling blow, and that anybody who thinks I ought to take lighter is just PO'd because I don't take bullshit shots.

That's pretty much a direct quote.

I like that. And I'm okay with that.

Blackbow

Wait a minute... "A telling blow should leave no doubt" is an escape clause that renders the entire process here meaningless.

And is there any need to address the whole concept that if a person accepts the blow "it was a legit, telling blow" ?

This argument boils down to people take what they take and a telling blow is defined by whether or not it was accepted.

Peace out.

G

Ding Ding! Good Duke, you get a doughnut.

Kilkenny wrote:http://local.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=24454814&GT1=24000

[img]http://www.teesforall.com/images/Simpsons_Homer_Donuts_Shirt.jpg[/img]

Oscad: how many people out there do you think take shots not because THEY have no doubt but because they think someone else has no doubt?

Actually I didn't put "leave no doubt" in realizing that it was that galvanizing a definition (or that vague a definition, whichever way you think about it).... I was basically just listing all the options I could think of so that somebody didn't whine because there weren't enough options. As you can see, I started with the physical marks and then went to the mental side.

The only reason I listed it as a "poll" is because that was the only way to have the options for voting.

As for the rest of the commentary: Truthfully I don't think I've ever run into somebody that could truly be defined as rhino-hiding. Rhino-hiding, to me, is being hit and standing there and saying "that wasn't hard enough" over and over and over with a clear intent simply to win the fight. Maybe I'm too simplistic in my approach, but to me, if you just wanna prove that the other person can't knock you out, why bother to even block the shots? Just stand there and take the hits until the other person gives up. And I've never seen anybody do that.

I've seen people get hit with what everybody else thinks is sufficient force and either say nothing, or say "no" and continue, but in order to believe they're rhino-hiding, I'd have to believe that they set out to deliberately cheat in the first place. Much like that video from Gulf Wars...the immediate, leaped-for assumption is that somebody was cheating, instead of the assumption that somebody required more force than other people though necessary.

Calibration problem? I had a conversation with a gentle at Sapphire Joust because he was fighting with a greatsword, and people were knocking the bejesus out of him and he wasn't taking shots or even saying anything. Turned out it wasn't his calibration that was a problem; it was his lack of communication that I told him was going to wind up with him in the hospital. I honestly don't know anybody that cared whether he took a particular SHOT; it was more that he was being hit repeatedly and not saying anything.

Really, "calibration problems" seem to boil down to one of two things. Either A) you're cheating to begin with or B) you're not communicating effectively. I simply don't believe that somebody who likes a harder shot than people around him represents a "calibration problem" because he's not alone. Every kingdom has its share of people who simply want to be hit hard in order to feel that they actually were BESTED, and not simply punked out. In order to believe that a person has a true calibration problem I'd have to see him wind up in the hospital with something broken after multiple attempts by multiple people to fight him and have him take a shot. I've HEARD of people cheating but I have never seen it. And I simply can't believe that somebody who was demonstrably cheating in any melee or tournament wouldn't eventually run into somebody that could clean his clock and give him a mild concussion or broken bone, which is the easiest way to define "calibration problem."

Re: Meridies and An Tir fighters being taught how hard they needed to be hit; possibly, but if they were taught by more than one person it's likely they were hit with more than one level of force. Say Meridies hits with a 2-4 on average and An Tir hits with a 6-8 on average. Within that range you're still going to get what I believe to be a significant level of variance.

I don't think it's possible for "Leave no doubt" to represent less than about a 6 on a 10 scale. People that hit/take lighter than a 5 can get hit, and call it good, but that's more of a referee calling the out in baseball. "yes, you were hit with a sword." "Leave no doubt" to me means the equivalent of being tackled in the NFL. I.e., "you just got tackled by an NFL player. There is no doubt that your forward momentum has been stopped and that you are on the ground." One is an observation; the other is an experience.


Blackbow

Oscad wrote:Based on the poll, and Blackbow's follow up commentary; this seems like less of an objective poll, and more like a tool to push an agenda. (Not necessarily a problem, but different than first presented.)

Here is the problem, you have asked us to define a subjective criteria "A telling blow", then given a list of objective options (bruise/welt/etc) and one subjective option "Leave no doubt."

Like there is any doubt as to the outcome of that poll??


But even better, you then seem to try and use that "definition" to support *your* view of how hard a "telling" blow is, or rather how hard it takes to "remove doubt".

We could just as easily continue the poll by asking "How hard of a hit does it take to 'remove all doubt'"?

(Generalizations approaching...)
In Meridies, I can hit someone pretty darn light, and he has no doubt that I hit him. In An Tir I must use a whole lot more effort to remove that doubt.

So to keep the 'answers' as supplied here, we are left with
"You must hit him as hard as he requires to call it good, and there is no such thing as a calibration problem, and no such thing as 'rhino-hides' in our game." Do you really think this is true?

If it is true, why do we try and teach people proper calibration when they first start? The basic An Tir and basic Meridies fighters have been *taught* how hard they need to be hit.


It reminds me of that George Carlin skit about driving.
We each always drive the perfect speed.
Anyone driving slower (and thus gets in our way) is an asshole.
Anyone driving faster, is a maniac.

I don't think it's possible for "Leave no doubt" to represent less than about a 6 on a 10 scale.

You still have not address the issue I raised--there are times when you know you're dead, your opponent knows you're dead, and there's nothing you can do to stop them. In a tournament, among people who know each other well enough to judge such a situation and each other, what exactly is the problem with merely tapping them? In my experience, it certainly leaves no doubt--in my situation I was on my knees, with both sword and shield bound and useless, leaving me entirely undefended. I wouldn't have complained had my opponent clocked me hard--that's how I lost my legs in the first place--I just don't see the issue with accepting such a blow.

Honestly, I feel that the differrence between you and me is that you'd rather judge the contest on a more physical level, while I would rather judge it on a more intellectual level. You're more interested in how hard a blow is, I'm more interested in how clean the blow is. Neither is necessarily wrong; we each play the game to the best of our abilities, and we each have different value hierarchies. I'm just hesitant to say that one is better than the other. I'll fight either type of fighter, and have a lot of fun doing it.

And I simply can't believe that somebody who was demonstrably cheating in any melee or tournament wouldn't eventually run into somebody that could clean his clock and give him a mild concussion or broken bone, which is the easiest way to define "calibration problem."

As one who has had a bone broken on the field (not due to calibration issues; when you literally ARE the battlefield and you're built like a toothpick, bad things happen), this is a bad way to define "calibration problem". Many of us would like to not get to that point. As I said earlier, what's the point of breaking your toys?

My bad, G - I scanned your original post and didn't read all the way to the end. To answer your question, though, you and I are talking about two different things. I'm talking about a telling blow and you're talking about somebody who's lost a chess match and is conceding defeat. Mind you, I do that all the time. I have no need to get blasted to admit I'm out of position and defenseless. Especially if I'm fighting with a spear. I'm actually in favor of DKFB (I'd much rather have everybody on the same page - if you got outmaneuvered, you're dead... it's that simple). It's the situations where it isn't so clear-cut that I (and many others) require something definitive. As I'm sure you've heard, light and clean is still light. If I'm going to get hit with a shot, I don't want to have to wonder why it didn't feel good - did I do something right or did he do something wrong?

Blackbow

Gregory wrote:

I don't think it's possible for "Leave no doubt" to represent less than about a 6 on a 10 scale.

You still have not address the issue I raised--there are times when you know you're dead, your opponent knows you're dead, and there's nothing you can do to stop them. In a tournament, among people who know each other well enough to judge such a situation and each other, what exactly is the problem with merely tapping them? In my experience, it certainly leaves no doubt--in my situation I was on my knees, with both sword and shield bound and useless, leaving me entirely undefended. I wouldn't have complained had my opponent clocked me hard--that's how I lost my legs in the first place--I just don't see the issue with accepting such a blow.

Honestly, I feel that the differrence between you and me is that you'd rather judge the contest on a more physical level, while I would rather judge it on a more intellectual level. You're more interested in how hard a blow is, I'm more interested in how clean the blow is. Neither is necessarily wrong; we each play the game to the best of our abilities, and we each have different value hierarchies. I'm just hesitant to say that one is better than the other. I'll fight either type of fighter, and have a lot of fun doing it.

And I simply can't believe that somebody who was demonstrably cheating in any melee or tournament wouldn't eventually run into somebody that could clean his clock and give him a mild concussion or broken bone, which is the easiest way to define "calibration problem."

As one who has had a bone broken on the field (not due to calibration issues; when you literally ARE the battlefield and you're built like a toothpick, bad things happen), this is a bad way to define "calibration problem". Many of us would like to not get to that point. As I said earlier, what's the point of breaking your toys?

I have fought in the SCA for more than 17 years now, in multiple different kingdoms, at local events, Crown Tournies, and at Pennsic. I have taught people their first lesson as well as faced Royalty of all sorts. During my career, I have always sought out the best, toughest opponents I could find; I was taught early on that the best way of becoming the best, is to face the best. Even if your opponent never says a word to you, they can't but help teach you, both on and off the field, by their actions.

What I have learned, through this observation, is that ACTUAL blow standards vary wildly. It depends upon who the fighters are, how well trained they are, even what Kingdom they reside in. For example, in Trimaris I observed that the "Blow Standard" included a 'touch to the face' that was lighter than a blow to elsewhere. This isn't to say that they demanded that a blow to the face be light, just that fighters were taught that since the conventions of combat state "open-faced helm" then blows should be accepted as if there were no armour to that area. By comparison, Atlantia and the East Kingdom tend to expect a comparitively higher level of force for blows to the face, perhaps with an understanding that a light blow to the unarmoured face would cause damage, but be unlikely to disable. A simple tap to the face would not normally be noticed in Atlantia by most fighters.

I have observed that a new fighter tends to both throw, and accept, lighter blows than they will a year from that point in time. Once they learn how to move a sword efficiently and they lose the fear of being hit, a fighters "Blow Standard" will naturally increase until it matches the "Blow Standard" of the his/her fellow fighters (meaning the opponents whom the fighter normally faces.) If a fighter changes the group with which he fights, his "Blow Standard" will adapt to the new group (as they adapt themselves to him at the same time.)

The Conventions of combat try to outline what the "Telling Blow" Standard should be, but it has a simple flaw. It lists the level of armour that each competitor is assumed to be wearing and then says, "Blows that would incapacitate through this armor are telling blows." The flaw is that "incapacitate" is not defined, and very few fighters throughout the Known World have actually swung a real, sharp sword against the appropriate armour to see what the result actually turn out to be. I leave that educational experience for someone else to spearhead.

My opinion is that the blows I throw should land with enough force on my opponent that they are left with no doubt it was a good blow, and then should be able to salute and retire back to their camp without some lasting injury preventing them from doing so. We all know this one, it's a law I do my best to live by, "Don't break your friends or their toys." I expect that a killing blow on me will land with a sharp, hard shock to a valid target and will leave me in no doubt that it was a good blow.

I accept that both I and my opponents (the new people or low skilled people who I am training aside) will walk away with bruises and welts. Damage that goes past that means that something went wrong during a fight, wether it was human-based or equipment-based needs to be determined and corrected. Likewise, walking away from a practice without bruises and welts usually means that the practice either got side tracked into something non-tourney-style, or the quality of my opponents wasn't as good as I would like them to be.


Frederich Von Teufel

Frederich: I think you should have that whole passage included in the next KWB.

Blackbow

Frederich Von Teufel wrote:I have fought in the SCA for more than 17 years now, in multiple different kingdoms, at local events, Crown Tournies, and at Pennsic. I have taught people their first lesson as well as faced Royalty of all sorts. During my career, I have always sought out the best, toughest opponents I could find; I was taught early on that the best way of becoming the best, is to face the best. Even if your opponent never says a word to you, they can't but help teach you, both on and off the field, by their actions.

What I have learned, through this observation, is that ACTUAL blow standards vary wildly. It depends upon who the fighters are, how well trained they are, even what Kingdom they reside in. For example, in Trimaris I observed that the "Blow Standard" included a 'touch to the face' that was lighter than a blow to elsewhere. This isn't to say that they demanded that a blow to the face be light, just that fighters were taught that since the conventions of combat state "open-faced helm" then blows should be accepted as if there were no armour to that area. By comparison, Atlantia and the East Kingdom tend to expect a comparitively higher level of force for blows to the face, perhaps with an understanding that a light blow to the unarmoured face would cause damage, but be unlikely to disable. A simple tap to the face would not normally be noticed in Atlantia by most fighters.

I have observed that a new fighter tends to both throw, and accept, lighter blows than they will a year from that point in time. Once they learn how to move a sword efficiently and they lose the fear of being hit, a fighters "Blow Standard" will naturally increase until it matches the "Blow Standard" of the his/her fellow fighters (meaning the opponents whom the fighter normally faces.) If a fighter changes the group with which he fights, his "Blow Standard" will adapt to the new group (as they adapt themselves to him at the same time.)

The Conventions of combat try to outline what the "Telling Blow" Standard should be, but it has a simple flaw. It lists the level of armour that each competitor is assumed to be wearing and then says, "Blows that would incapacitate through this armor are telling blows." The flaw is that "incapacitate" is not defined, and very few fighters throughout the Known World have actually swung a real, sharp sword against the appropriate armour to see what the result actually turn out to be. I leave that educational experience for someone else to spearhead.

My opinion is that the blows I throw should land with enough force on my opponent that they are left with no doubt it was a good blow, and then should be able to salute and retire back to their camp without some lasting injury preventing them from doing so. We all know this one, it's a law I do my best to live by, "Don't break your friends or their toys." I expect that a killing blow on me will land with a sharp, hard shock to a valid target and will leave me in no doubt that it was a good blow.

I accept that both I and my opponents (the new people or low skilled people who I am training aside) will walk away with bruises and welts. Damage that goes past that means that something went wrong during a fight, wether it was human-based or equipment-based needs to be determined and corrected. Likewise, walking away from a practice without bruises and welts usually means that the practice either got side tracked into something non-tourney-style, or the quality of my opponents wasn't as good as I would like them to be.


Frederich Von Teufel

bkillian wrote:a telling blow should hit your opponent in such a way that they know they have been bested. Truth is we should do away with "telling" as a descriptor.

The above, which I voted as "other" although "Leave no doubt" was close. I didn't vote for "Leave No Doubt" because it approaches an impossible (statistical) standard.

What I mean by this is that - I prefer to give and take blows that "Leave No Doubt" however, I will usually take just under that threshold as a mark of generosity and humility.

I voted for "Leave No Doubt" mainly because the actual armor that people wear can impact how the shot is recieved a lot.
I for example wear a padded cuise/gambesen and a maille shirt along with a kidney belt. If I get hit with a good shot there, I expect that it is going to have a signifigant sting and possibly bruising to it. A lord or lady wearing plate is going to have signifigantly different expectations.
To take a shot I really do expect to get a good strong sting everywhere but the helm.

Broadway wrote:I'm curious... who is the other guy, asside from me, who chose: "leave a bruise".

That was me. Boom Yow! wasn't a choice.

DA

Seaan O'Hagan wrote:
I for example wear a padded cuise/gambesen and a maille shirt along with a kidney belt. If I get hit with a good shot there, I expect that it is going to have a signifigant sting and possibly bruising to it. A lord or lady wearing plate is going to have signifigantly different expectations.

This is something I am dealing with at the moment. I wear a hidden armour, but plate in essence. I was in a fight recently in a Kingdom, Lochac, where the calibrations are different from the East Kingdom where I grew up.

Now, those who wear plate, how do you gauge thrusts to the body? The man I was fighting put a thrust to me. He demonstrated what he did when we stopped to query (see where I'm going with this?) the shot. I agreed in the post-match replay that he did indeed plant the shot, and to him it felt on par with what the Kingdom practices are. To me I didn't notice the blow to the extent that I took it as a Telling Blow.

Now, advice time from those who wear body plate? How do you guage these things?

I am actually in the process of scaling down my armour further towards minimum, but I would like to hear ffrom those Plate bearing people if you are listening.

I tried to get Boom Yow! included but the licensing and trademark rights were too expensive.

Blackbow

DarkApprentice wrote:

Broadway wrote:I'm curious... who is the other guy, asside from me, who chose: "leave a bruise".

That was me. Boom Yow! wasn't a choice.

DA

A telling blow should:

intentionally defeat my defense.

Caspar

Caspar wrote:A telling blow should:

intentionally defeat my defense.

Caspar

This.

Well stated, your Excellency.

Some folks throw harder than others, but this will typically decide the issue for me.

Can I change my vote to "vaporize"?

I still feel "Satisfaction" is a better choice than "telling". If the blow satisfies both combatants then the fight is done.

g-