Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:33 am
I'm trying to stay in lurking mode, and all I could offer before was a ringing "me too!" to Paul's words; but Ceddie's comments reflect what has become a common assumption that, as Logan says, doesn't appear to have any basis in the common evidence available. The SCA fought with a "positive" thrust for years -- where I came from, originally like Paul's model: less than a body thrust, but enough to move the head. Lacking any real proof that there is a real danger, 35 years of history and my own experience cause me to support Paul's contention entirely: "It worked very well for a very long time. I see no reason why it should be changed."
In this particular case, the SEM's fiat of "directed touch" was issued without any effort to communicate the rationale behind this new ruling. The unanswered questions are literally legion: was there a recent spate of thrust-related injuries of which we are simply not aware? Were they regional, or were they widespread? Were they unique to a given scenario (tourney vs melee), or did the setting have no bearing? Was it weapon-specific (two-handed vs one-handed), or was it happening with all weapons and thrusting tip designs? And most important, were there any intermediary measures attempted to control the problem before changing the blow definition itself?
Saving real reference to real injury (that which required a doctor's attention -- not a week's worth of self-administered tylenol or second-hand, backstabbing whinging), this change simply does not make sense. And, as has happened in the past, intelligent fighters, experienced in these things, have lost respect for the rule-makers and play according to their own standards in defiance of the regulations (see Dmitry's comments). This last is really only dangerous during interkingdom game-play, but it illuminates both the power and effect of the SEM when such decisions are made in the regional "vacuum" that has inspired the creation of so many similar conventions in the past.
What concerns me more is the effort to "reverse justify" the reason for rules like these, as Ceddie's comments appear to do (and I don't mean to single out Ceddie personally, only to use his arguments as an example of similar postings I have read). Reasonable men would infer that, if there is a rule, it must have a reason. Unfortunately, many of those "reasons" were either locally inspired (for any who have followed the history on padded/unpadded pole arms, you will understand), or they were in response to the extreme conduct of a single person in a single event. While this might have been thought reasonable "at the time", it invariably failed to address the wider interests of the combat community at large -- either as to regional differences (hardwood spear shafts, anyone?), or the need to enforce the existing rules against the extravagance of an individual or recognized group (3-step charges?).
I would encourage those who have a disagreement with the rules or their interpretation to seek out the real rationale for their creation and then draw their own conclusions. Don't assume that everything is sensible and intended for your own welfare. Sometimes, your well-being is not seen the same as in another region (where the SEM lives). Most importantly, look to the -complete- history of our fighting culture and try to get a sense of where we came from. I have seen rule after rule applied to our game over the last 25 years, all ostensibly for our "safety", but rarely-if-ever supported by a body of evidence demonstrating anything but a -fear- of possible injury. And at this rate, I have to agree with Logan and Paul: if we continue at this pace, we run the risk of becoming little more than rattan fencers, with all the negative connotation that implies.
With respect,
Alfred of Carlyle
In this particular case, the SEM's fiat of "directed touch" was issued without any effort to communicate the rationale behind this new ruling. The unanswered questions are literally legion: was there a recent spate of thrust-related injuries of which we are simply not aware? Were they regional, or were they widespread? Were they unique to a given scenario (tourney vs melee), or did the setting have no bearing? Was it weapon-specific (two-handed vs one-handed), or was it happening with all weapons and thrusting tip designs? And most important, were there any intermediary measures attempted to control the problem before changing the blow definition itself?
Saving real reference to real injury (that which required a doctor's attention -- not a week's worth of self-administered tylenol or second-hand, backstabbing whinging), this change simply does not make sense. And, as has happened in the past, intelligent fighters, experienced in these things, have lost respect for the rule-makers and play according to their own standards in defiance of the regulations (see Dmitry's comments). This last is really only dangerous during interkingdom game-play, but it illuminates both the power and effect of the SEM when such decisions are made in the regional "vacuum" that has inspired the creation of so many similar conventions in the past.
What concerns me more is the effort to "reverse justify" the reason for rules like these, as Ceddie's comments appear to do (and I don't mean to single out Ceddie personally, only to use his arguments as an example of similar postings I have read). Reasonable men would infer that, if there is a rule, it must have a reason. Unfortunately, many of those "reasons" were either locally inspired (for any who have followed the history on padded/unpadded pole arms, you will understand), or they were in response to the extreme conduct of a single person in a single event. While this might have been thought reasonable "at the time", it invariably failed to address the wider interests of the combat community at large -- either as to regional differences (hardwood spear shafts, anyone?), or the need to enforce the existing rules against the extravagance of an individual or recognized group (3-step charges?).
I would encourage those who have a disagreement with the rules or their interpretation to seek out the real rationale for their creation and then draw their own conclusions. Don't assume that everything is sensible and intended for your own welfare. Sometimes, your well-being is not seen the same as in another region (where the SEM lives). Most importantly, look to the -complete- history of our fighting culture and try to get a sense of where we came from. I have seen rule after rule applied to our game over the last 25 years, all ostensibly for our "safety", but rarely-if-ever supported by a body of evidence demonstrating anything but a -fear- of possible injury. And at this rate, I have to agree with Logan and Paul: if we continue at this pace, we run the risk of becoming little more than rattan fencers, with all the negative connotation that implies.
With respect,
Alfred of Carlyle
, I found some more evidence of thrusting being frowned upon in some situations. Of couse, it must be seen in the light of Asbjorns many references clearly showing the opposite, but it is quite sweeping in its way for its time and place.