The Armour Archive

I know that according to the rules of the SCA, that in the course of a fight, that we are allowed to use two handed weapons one handed, especially if we "lose and arm," but then why do we have weight limits on single handed weapons?

Doesn't this seem hypocritical?

According to the rules, it is ok for me to fight with a sword in one hand and use a "Bardiche" or spear, or "Christian style" greatsword in the other, but I can't make a one handed sword that weighs more than "x" pounds, and is over "y" inches long?

Why the disparity?

And then why should someone be allowed to fight one handed with a two handed weapon at all? Does this make sense to anyone, or have I just been knocked in the head too many times?

Alaric

Your Grace

I may be stabbing in the dark, but perhaps it has to do with low profile thrusting tips being able to be used on one handed non mass weapons exclusively.

Alric

DukeAlaric (George S.) wrote:I know that according to the rules of the SCA, that in the course of a fight, that we are allowed to use two handed weapons one handed, especially if we "lose and arm," but then why do we have weight limits on single handed weapons? ... Doesn't this seem hypocritical?

According to the rules, it is ok for me to fight with a sword in one hand and use a "Bardiche" or spear, or "Christian style" greatsword in the other, but I can't make a one handed sword that weighs more than "x" pounds, and is over "y" inches long?

Why the disparity?

Unless it is a kingdom specific ruling, (which I won't comment on) there is no weight limit on single handed swords, (Society marshal rules) however there is on single handed mass weapons. (5lbs)

That being said, your greatsword is restricted to weighing in at or less than 6lbs. But a single handed sword could weigh 7lbs.

I see your point though when you are speaking of mass-weapons. Single handed varieties must weigh in at 5 or less, but a polearm (two handed mass weapon) may be up to 6 lbs. While there is a maximum length for single handed mass weapons, there is no minimum (society rules) for two handed, so yeah there is questionable grey area there.

I surmise that the reason for this seeming discrepancy is that generally a two handed polearm will not be effectively ballanced for one handed use, in short a person just would not be able to generate enough speed/power with an akward weapon... at least not without movements exaggerated enough to be obviously unsafe.

*Before anyone jumps on me about how much force they or so-and-so can generate with a typically two handed weapon, my point is based on the normative (both person and polearm) not exceptionally skilled individuals ((who should know better anyhow))

And then why should someone be allowed to fight one handed with a two handed weapon at all? Does this make sense to anyone, or have I just been knocked in the head too many times?

Your logic makes sense. But I do feel that use of two handed weapons single handedly is appropriate, granted I have a Japanese persona, so with my greatsword I try very hard to be effective with one or both hands. I also practice using my polearms and spears single handedly as well. IMO most two handed weapons being used single handedly is in melee situations.

Depending upon the format of a particular tournament it may or may not be appropriate to continue after loosing an arm. If I was participating in a "fun" bearpit, I would continue. If it was a more formal Pas-de-arms I would more than likely retire the field to my opponent, since I would be unable to continue in a proper gentlemanly manner.

-Takeda

Why the disparity?

Because our rules for heavy weapons are have develpoed as a result of isolated ideas rather than as a coherent system of ideas.

Cet's right.

I also smell hypocrisy in the fact that we require lanyards on one-handed weapons, but aren't required to tie the weapon to our hand when we fight with a two-handed weapon in one hand.

Cet wrote:

Why the disparity?

Because our rules for heavy weapons are have develpoed as a result of isolated ideas rather than as a coherent system of ideas.

I agree, however, I would also add that many a rule and revisions to said rule have developed over time. This means the rules have had many different authors with all sorts of different concerns.

The obvious solution would be to re-write the basic SCA combat rules into a coherent system. However, I fear that a re-write would be done by a committee in which instead of designing a horse, would create a camel. Would I accept appointment to such a committee: probably. Would I be affective in such a committee: I don't know. Would I survive the new rules and the eventual flood of criticism: probably not.

Mord.

laynards are about the stupidest rule we currently have.

anyway, the rules dont make any sense alaric. they conflict. the weight issue does make sense since you cant swing a 6lb 6' polearm with the same effectviness as a 36" 5' mace (i know i know what mace is built like that).

grrrrr josh brought up laynards....

regards
logan

Josh Warren wrote:Cet's right.

I also smell hypocrisy in the fact that we require lanyards on one-handed weapons, but aren't required to tie the weapon to our hand when we fight with a two-handed weapon in one hand.

I also smell hypocrisy in the fact that we require lanyards on one-handed weapons, but aren't required to tie the weapon to our hand when we fight with a two-handed weapon in one hand.

You are a lot less likely (and is it even possible) to chuck a 5' greatsword or 6' polearm into the crowd by "accident" with one hand than you are with a shorter "single sword".

(lanyards still suck.., however).

Maeryk

I have seen tired fighters fling a one handed weapon 20 feet when he lost his grip. (without lanyards ov course)

I have never seen a two handed weapon launched like that. (on accident)

That said, going to 'no weapon can wiegh more than 6 lbs' should cover all the bases.

I just wonder why if someone brings a two handed weapon to the field, why they are suddenly allowed to sling it around if they lose an arm, or why we have to put up with such "Lame-iosities" as Christian style great sword, or bardiches used in one hand.

Alaric

Stick Tag?

Leo Medii wrote:Stick Tag?

DING!

Give the man a prize!

Leo

Logan wrote:grrrrr josh brought up laynards....

And here I was just thinking how Logan seemed to be pretty quiet lately. Guess nobody here had been pushing the right buttons, is all ...

I agree with your opinion of lanyards (though I reserve this kind of response for things like "madu", myself ). Still, years ago I came up with a design from a single strap of leather that has worked very, very well for me in the past. Well enough that, as silly as they may be, the level of irritation has been reduced to little more than background noise.

I used to make them by the handful and give them away at events (I even took them off of my own weapons last June when my duke found himself in need of them). I would be happy to send you a couple if you want to forward me a mailing address. I could probably even write up the instructions for making them, but popping them in the mail would be easier (and I'm feeling particularly lazy this morning).

With kind regards,

Alfred

Alfred,

Perhaps you could put me on list of people (if there is one) who want instructions on how to do some niffty non pain in the ass lanyards.

I have a viking sword with a mandrake cross guard and pommel weight that looks nice and I just wouldn't want anything on there to mess it up like the one i have on my axe.

Lodinn

Lodinn wrote:Alfred,

Perhaps you could put me on list of people (if there is one) who want instructions on how to do some niffty non pain in the ass lanyards.

I have a viking sword with a mandrake cross guard and pommel weight that looks nice and I just wouldn't want anything on there to mess it up like the one i have on my axe.

Lodinn

No Need!

Photo essay here...
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=57539

Thanks Robert,

But I don't have baskets on my sword or axe so I will have to find another means.

Lodinn

Lodin,

Baskets are not necessary to the design. I have used the same strap on cross-hilted swords with similar success; I just attach the weapon loop around the grip.

One-handed axes may be more problematic because they do not usually have a pommel to prevent the strap from slipping off the end. Since I regard these weapons as virtually unfightable in the SCA context, though, you're pretty much on your own ...

Seriously, though -- have you considered boring a hole through the lower part of the handle near the butt, or even screwing an eye in the butt itself to attach the strap? Both might provide the attachment point you need without overly disrupting either the look or the performance.

With regards... AoC

There's a local fighter who fights two weapon, sword and offhand axe. The axe is a bearded axe, 4' long, which he holds close to the head, kind of Madu style. I told him he'd have to have a lanyard on the axe if he's going to USE it one handed (that's the term in the marshall's handbook). He wrote to East Kingdom KM and told me the reply was : it's a two handed weapon, so you don't need a lanyard...that seems like having your cake and eating it too...

The axe is a bearded axe, 4' long, which he holds close to the head, kind of Madu style.

Is it simply a large blocking device? Holding the axe at the head negates the use of it as a viable attacking weapon in my opinion.

i dont really have that many hot buttons.....

i appreciate the offer but i prefer lanyards that will give before my wrist does. so i make mine enough to satisfy the rule while not being so dangerous to me or my opponent.

regards
logan

carlyle wrote:

Logan wrote:grrrrr josh brought up laynards....

And here I was just thinking how Logan seemed to be pretty quiet lately. Guess nobody here had been pushing the right buttons, is all ...

I agree with your opinion of lanyards (though I reserve this kind of response for things like "madu", myself ). Still, years ago I came up with a design from a single strap of leather that has worked very, very well for me in the past. Well enough that, as silly as they may be, the level of irritation has been reduced to little more than background noise.

I used to make them by the handful and give them away at events (I even took them off of my own weapons last June when my duke found himself in need of them). I would be happy to send you a couple if you want to forward me a mailing address. I could probably even write up the instructions for making them, but popping them in the mail would be easier (and I'm feeling particularly lazy this morning).

With kind regards,

Alfred

dukelogan wrote:laynards are about the stupidest rule we currently have.

anyway, the rules dont make any sense alaric. they conflict. the weight issue does make sense since you cant swing a 6lb 6' polearm with the same effectviness as a 36" 5' mace (i know i know what mace is built like that).

grrrrr josh brought up laynards....

regards
logan

Josh Warren wrote:Cet's right.

I also smell hypocrisy in the fact that we require lanyards on one-handed weapons, but aren't required to tie the weapon to our hand when we fight with a two-handed weapon in one hand.

No criticism, Your Grace, but here is an example of the potential for conflict in revising the rules. You don't like lanyards, but some people do like lanyards--myself for example. I particularly like lanyards when fighting melee, especially in bridges, where my sword has been knocked out of my hand. I also like lanyards when fighting indoors.

Were we both on a revision committee, would our difference of opinion lead to conflict?

Mord.

They are required with basket hilts there? Here we only require them if you don't have a basket hilt, a few do use them though. Also would a trigger not be an equvilent restant without the hassle (and potiential injury) of a wrist strap?

From The GA Marshals handbook:
V. EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
B. Weapons Standards
1. Overall Standards:
d. Weapons used single-handed shall have a wrist strap (or equivalent restraint) which will keep the weapon from leaving the immediate area of the user. A basket hilt will be considered to be the equivalent. In a melee, the "immediate area" may be defined as the field, so long as spectators and bystanders are not in danger of being hit by accidentally flung weapons.

Wow, Mord -- a moment of clarity! Thanks!!

I've never liked lanyards, and in the West they do seem vestigial. But we don't have any indoor fighting here. I started in the Midrealm, however, where indoor practices and tournaments are the norm. And while weapon restraints seem more inconvenience than anything out-of-doors, lanyards do make a lot of sense in these enclosed spaces.

On the other hand -- and forgive me if I am reading this incorrectly -- it seems that Logan is using a 'marshal pacifier' that will actually break before it might cause any damage to the wearer should it get fouled. While I sympathize with his frustration, doesn't a 'break-away' solution risk subverting the intent of the rule? Here I'm more concerned with the example it may set -- only because less skilled or sensible fighters might use a similar rationale and approach for other restrictions that they think are silly but do, in fact, really serve a purpose.

With respect,

Alfred

mord, let me make sure i understand.

if youre saying that you like laynards personally i would say that removing them as a requirement wouldnt effect you at all. you would still be free to use them and i wouldnt have to take the risk of wearing one. so, no conflict.

if youre saying that you like them as a general safety issue i would only ask that you cite examples of injuries that would have been prevented by laynards. if you did, and it makes sense, again no conflict.

personally i think they are more dangerous to the fighters and, as such, i dont like them. i use them only because they are required and i know if i put a silly trigger inside my hilt i would never put a finger in it. to me thats cheating so i just use the laynard.

regards
logan

Sir Mord wrote:

dukelogan wrote:laynards are about the stupidest rule we currently have.

anyway, the rules dont make any sense alaric. they conflict. the weight issue does make sense since you cant swing a 6lb 6' polearm with the same effectviness as a 36" 5' mace (i know i know what mace is built like that).

grrrrr josh brought up laynards....

regards
logan

Josh Warren wrote:Cet's right.

I also smell hypocrisy in the fact that we require lanyards on one-handed weapons, but aren't required to tie the weapon to our hand when we fight with a two-handed weapon in one hand.

No criticism, Your Grace, but here is an example of the potential for conflict in revising the rules. You don't like lanyards, but some people do like lanyards--myself for example. I particularly like lanyards when fighting melee, especially in bridges, where my sword has been knocked out of my hand. I also like lanyards when fighting indoors.

Were we both on a revision committee, would our difference of opinion lead to conflict?

Mord.

carlyle wrote:Wow, Mord -- a moment of clarity! Thanks!!

I've never liked lanyards, and in the West they do seem vestigial. But we don't have any indoor fighting here. I started in the Midrealm, however, where indoor practices and tournaments are the norm. And while weapon restraints seem more inconvenience than anything out-of-doors, lanyards do make a lot of sense in these enclosed spaces.

On the other hand -- and forgive me if I am reading this incorrectly -- it seems that Logan is using a 'marshal pacifier' that will actually break before it might cause any damage to the wearer should it get fouled. While I sympathize with his frustration, doesn't a 'break-away' solution risk subverting the intent of the rule? Here I'm more concerned with the example it may set -- only because less skilled or sensible fighters might use a similar rationale and approach for other restrictions that they think are silly but do, in fact, really serve a purpose.

With respect,

Alfred

Alfred,

Thank you.

I have never heard of "break away" lanyards, and, in fact, the material I use for lanyards is made not to break. These days I use mountianeering accessory cord; tough stuff by necessity and nice and light. Colorful, too, which is always welcome. I'll send you a sample if you PM me.

I admit that the real problem with a lot of lanyards is that they are too long, and so they get caught on armor and in weapons. I try to avoid this: my lanyard is only about 2 feet long, sometimes even less. Also, the loop that I attach my lanyard to my wrist is around the glove or my demi-gauntlet. This way the lanyard does not constrict my wrist.

Being an ex-Boy Scout, the necessary knots for the lanyard are almost second nature to me.

Mord.

it is a potential issue of intent my friend. the purpose fo the rule is to prevent a sword from leaving the fighters hand, flying off at great speed, and crashing into a bystander. my lanyard will prevent such an occurance. in fact, it takes a great deal of force to break one of them. enough that if it did break the sword wouldnt fly more than a very short distance away from me. when i asked the sem about my padded glove inside my well fitted basket he told me that was more than enough to satisfy the spirit of the rule. i choose to put a laynard on for just the reason you state about other people using the same rationale. fact is, however, i am using a laynard.

on the same token my spear head construction isnt legal since it doesnt incorporate a pvc cap on the end of the shaft. mine is far superior to that design but the fact that it doesnt have the required pvc cap makes it illegal. mine is safer, stronger, less prone to failure, and transfers all of the wieght of the shaft evenly unlike the small diameter pvc cap. that is one rule that should be rewritten to allow better safer technology without making that technology illegal because of strict perameters.

regards
logan

carlyle wrote:Wow, Mord -- a moment of clarity! Thanks!!

I've never liked lanyards, and in the West they do seem vestigial. But we don't have any indoor fighting here. I started in the Midrealm, however, where indoor practices and tournaments are the norm. And while weapon restraints seem more inconvenience than anything out-of-doors, lanyards do make a lot of sense in these enclosed spaces.

On the other hand -- and forgive me if I am reading this incorrectly -- it seems that Logan is using a 'marshal pacifier' that will actually break before it might cause any damage to the wearer should it get fouled. While I sympathize with his frustration, doesn't a 'break-away' solution risk subverting the intent of the rule? Here I'm more concerned with the example it may set -- only because less skilled or sensible fighters might use a similar rationale and approach for other restrictions that they think are silly but do, in fact, really serve a purpose.

With respect,

Alfred

It's my belief† that the reasoning behind the lanyard requirement has little to do with the safety of the fighters, and everything to do with the safety of the marshals, spectators, and site; before the lanyard rule was put in to place, I'd seen on more than a few occasions spectators get hit with one-handed swords that flew out of combattants' hands, and flew out and hit parts of the (usually indoor) site in a damaging fashion. I don't think I've ever seen a flying weapon hit a marshal in an injurious manner, but they are another group of unarmored gentles within range, so I thought I should include them.

OTOH, I don't think I've ever seen a fighter injured because his lanyard got caught or twisted while he was not gripping the sword; personally, I'd have no problem, as a marshal, with a lanyard that gave before his wrist did, as Logan does, so your arm doesn't suffer injury if your opponent manages to snag on the lanyard when you're not gripping the sword, so long as it holds if you just drop the sword and it's only attached to you by the lanyard - the aim of the rule, IMO, is to not have swords flying about when your grip slips, not to cause your arm to be jerked around by an opponent's weapon (who shouldn't really be throwing blow if you're unarmed or have an unarmored hand anyway). What I wouldn't agree with the Meridian standard, since I've seen quite a few basket-hilted swords fly out of hands that didn't have lyanrds on them.


As for the weapon weights issue (which started this whole thread), this is a known situation, and various alternate rule changes are being considered for the next version of the Society Marshal's Handbook.



† - I was not in on the coversation where this rule was decided upon, but is based on my recollection of second- and third-hand recountings to me, as well as post-facto conversations, and it seemed to hold consistent with other marshallate rulings of the time.

thank you koredono, you explained what i do much better than i did. yes, my lanyard will keep the sword from flying out of my hand and off into a crowd. no, you cant snag my sword and drag me across the ground by it.

thanks!
logan

Koredono wrote:It's my belief† that the reasoning behind the lanyard requirement has little to do with the safety of the fighters, and everything to do with the safety of the marshals, spectators, and site; before the lanyard rule was put in to place, I'd seen on more than a few occasions spectators get hit with one-handed swords that flew out of combattants' hands, and flew out and hit parts of the (usually indoor) site in a damaging fashion. I don't think I've ever seen a flying weapon hit a marshal in an injurious manner, but they are another group of unarmored gentles within range, so I thought I should include them.

OTOH, I don't think I've ever seen a fighter injured because his lanyard got caught or twisted while he was not gripping the sword; personally, I'd have no problem, as a marshal, with a lanyard that gave before his wrist did, as Logan does, so your arm doesn't suffer injury if your opponent manages to snag on the lanyard when you're not gripping the sword, so long as it holds if you just drop the sword and it's only attached to you by the lanyard - the aim of the rule, IMO, is to not have swords flying about when your grip slips, not to cause your arm to be jerked around by an opponent's weapon (who shouldn't really be throwing blow if you're unarmed or have an unarmored hand anyway). What I wouldn't agree with the Meridian standard, since I've seen quite a few basket-hilted swords fly out of hands that didn't have lyanrds on them.


As for the weapon weights issue (which started this whole thread), this is a known situation, and various alternate rule changes are being considered for the next version of the Society Marshal's Handbook.



† - I was not in on the coversation where this rule was decided upon, but is based on my recollection of second- and third-hand recountings to me, as well as post-facto conversations, and it seemed to hold consistent with other marshallate rulings of the time.

dukelogan wrote:mord, let me make sure i understand.

if youre saying that you like laynards personally i would say that removing them as a requirement wouldnt effect you at all. you would still be free to use them and i wouldnt have to take the risk of wearing one. so, no conflict.

if youre saying that you like them as a general safety issue i would only ask that you cite examples of injuries that would have been prevented by laynards. if you did, and it makes sense, again no conflict.

personally i think they are more dangerous to the fighters and, as such, i dont like them. i use them only because they are required and i know if i put a silly trigger inside my hilt i would never put a finger in it. to me thats cheating so i just use the laynard.

regards
logan

Sir Mord wrote:

dukelogan wrote:laynards are about the stupidest rule we currently have.

anyway, the rules dont make any sense alaric. they conflict. the weight issue does make sense since you cant swing a 6lb 6' polearm with the same effectviness as a 36" 5' mace (i know i know what mace is built like that).

grrrrr josh brought up laynards....

regards
logan

Josh Warren wrote:Cet's right.

I also smell hypocrisy in the fact that we require lanyards on one-handed weapons, but aren't required to tie the weapon to our hand when we fight with a two-handed weapon in one hand.

No criticism, Your Grace, but here is an example of the potential for conflict in revising the rules. You don't like lanyards, but some people do like lanyards--myself for example. I particularly like lanyards when fighting melee, especially in bridges, where my sword has been knocked out of my hand. I also like lanyards when fighting indoors.

Were we both on a revision committee, would our difference of opinion lead to conflict?

Mord.

Your Grace,

The subject of lanyards is a specific part of this thread where the general subject was problems with the Society rules. I like lanyards and use them. You don't like lanyards and considered them a safety problem. Honestly, I have never considered lanyards a safety problem; as a side note, I would very much appreciate a further explaination of your opinion. Also, if you wish I will happily send you some of the material I use for lanyards (mountaineering accessory cord--please PM me if you wish).

I agree with your conditions for keeping or cutting any particular rule. Safety should be the first consideration.

However, my concern is not so much lanyards, but the larger issue. How can rules be revised to be more coherant and useful? The politics of that, alone, frighten me. There are currently 19 Kingdoms in the SCA, and I would dare say that that each kingdom needs to be represented, but please realize that each kingdom has their own ways. The possibility for conflict over small issues could, imo, bog-down the process if care is not taken.

Mord.

Logan -- Thanks for the elaboration. The idea of restraining a weapon so that it can do little damage if it does fly free makes sense. It's a little funny, because I was thinking along the same lines for the parallel discussion on lanyarding greatweapons. Used one-handed, I've never seen a great weapon "lost" in combat that didn't drop very close to the fight. Like Koredono, I have seen more than a few purpose-built, one-handed weapons fly off into a crowd (though as noted, almost exclusively at indoor events). Combined with the impracticality of restraining great weapons, I think we can reasonably accept that they do not need lanyards, even when wielded one-handed.

Mord raises an interesting conundrum. Either we bog down the ruleset with the broad range of interpretations and sensibilites that a camel-building committee might introduce; or we continue with the current system that subjects us to the whims of the current SEM, regardless of whether the latest "hot button" has been considered in the context of the entirety of the existing rules and conventions.

It does feel a lot like a situation that places the fighting community between a rock and hard palce. If I had to choose, however, I would probably prefer the committee. First, because it provides the appearance, at least, of having a representative voice in the process. And second, because anything that actually does make it through is probably so clearly a safety issue that we really do need it.

With respect... AoC

mord i hope my position was made more clear in that last post (the one carlyle is referring to).

alfred, i am 100% behind having a commitee decide our rule set with veto power going to the sem. suffering the whims of a single sems opinion is taxing especially when you view this fighting contest as more a test of courage and determination than one of tag and feel-good policy. im not slamming the job of the sem but rather some very applicable examples of dis-service. a well balanced commitee is the way to go and one that, quite frankly, can make the need for specific kingdom laws an outdated idea.

my main concern is safety. not a bunch of could be would be might could maybe happen if.... type of stuff but real safety concerns. my second is protecting the sport and keeping it as pure and as uncomplicated as possible.

regards
logan

Your Grace, Alfred,

Ok, a committee. Having looked, briefly, at the Martial Activities section of SCA.org, the SEM is responsible for: 1. rattan fighting, 2. fencing (rapier), and 3. equestrian activities. I am going to assume that we are only with rattan fighting and its rules. Who should be on a committee to revise the rattan rules?

1. Experienced fighters who understand fighting.
2. Experienced marshals who understand safety
3. People who make armor who understand what can be made and technical concerns.
4. An administrator(s) who can, A. keep everything organized. B. keep the ball rolling on the revision. & C. "iron out" any difficulties or conflicts.

People who have qualifications 1 and 2 are plentiful. However, I strongly suspect qualifcations 3 and 4 are harder to come by. Also, I would not be surprised if I missed something.

Servo,

Mord.

i would say:

1. is crucially important
2. is only important as long as they understand real risks and real safety issues.
3. not a concern
4. very important. good managerial skills are crucial to clear, concise, and meaningfull communications.

i would add that the last ingredient would have tobe a true love of this sport and the organization.

regards
logan

Sir Mord wrote:Your Grace, Alfred,

Ok, a committee. Having looked, briefly, at the Martial Activities section of SCA.org, the SEM is responsible for: 1. rattan fighting, 2. fencing (rapier), and 3. equestrian activities. I am going to assume that we are only with rattan fighting and its rules. Who should be on a committee to revise the rattan rules?

1. Experienced fighters who understand fighting.
2. Experienced marshals who understand safety
3. People who make armor who understand what can be made and technical concerns.
4. An administrator(s) who can, A. keep everything organized. B. keep the ball rolling on the revision. & C. "iron out" any difficulties or conflicts.

People who have qualifications 1 and 2 are plentiful. However, I strongly suspect qualifcations 3 and 4 are harder to come by. Also, I would not be surprised if I missed something.

Servo,

Mord.

dukelogan wrote:i would say:

1. is crucially important
2. is only important as long as they understand real risks and real safety issues.
3. not a concern
4. very important. good managerial skills are crucial to clear, concise, and meaningfull communications.

i would add that the last ingredient would have tobe a true love of this sport and the organization.

regards
logan

Sir Mord wrote:Your Grace, Alfred,

Ok, a committee. Having looked, briefly, at the Martial Activities section of SCA.org, the SEM is responsible for: 1. rattan fighting, 2. fencing (rapier), and 3. equestrian activities. I am going to assume that we are only with rattan fighting and its rules. Who should be on a committee to revise the rattan rules?

1. Experienced fighters who understand fighting.
2. Experienced marshals who understand safety
3. People who make armor who understand what can be made and technical concerns.
4. An administrator(s) who can, A. keep everything organized. B. keep the ball rolling on the revision. & C. "iron out" any difficulties or conflicts.

People who have qualifications 1 and 2 are plentiful. However, I strongly suspect qualifcations 3 and 4 are harder to come by. Also, I would not be surprised if I missed something.

Servo,

Mord.

Your Grace,

I agree with you on qualification #2. I also admit that I'm probably not qualified--sure, I've marshalled my share of lists and done inspections, but I've never been asked to make policy. What in your opinon, are the real risks and safety issues?

Please allow me to explain why I think an armorer should be included. I would want someone who works with the various materials for armor to give the committee an informed opinion. As a librarian I could probably look up information on various materials and variations of materials, but that doesn't mean I will understand what they will do.

My "philosophy" with armor is pretty simple; it should, first, protect the wearer from serious injury--broken bones and bruised internal organs. Style comes second.

Cordially,

Mord.

when i say "real risks and injury" i mean things that are dangerous and probable. for example, ive had marshals in other kingdoms chastize me for not wearing any arm armor. they claimed it was stupid and dangerous. odd, ive never had a broken arm from sca sport combat (did have my left elbow broken but i wasnt wearing an elbow cop.... long story). of the three arms that i know i have broken in sca combat one was wearing a metal vambrace. so, do i think vambraces should be required? no. however, it is both injury probable and physically dangerous for someone to not wear a helmet. i mean it doesnt take a huge shot to break a guys nose with rattan.

what i really dislike are silly rules created because some people believe that we are fragile beings. i think rules should cover things that fall into the above criteria and plain common sense. i think rules like "three step charge" or the worst "no more than whatever degree swings" are just stupid and pointless. i can dangerously charge someone within three steps and i can swing 360 degrees and not hit someone hard. its all about control. those that show a lack of control should be corrected or removed.

the marshals in the sca are generally good guys. i do tire of the whole vicitm aspect many take when their failures are pointed out. the whole "well you could always volunteer to do it". like that absolves them from error. active marshalling is also something that is a cancer on this sport. anyway, im ranting now..... sorry.

regards
logan

Sir Mord wrote:

dukelogan wrote:i would say:

1. is crucially important
2. is only important as long as they understand real risks and real safety issues.
3. not a concern
4. very important. good managerial skills are crucial to clear, concise, and meaningfull communications.

i would add that the last ingredient would have tobe a true love of this sport and the organization.

regards
logan

Sir Mord wrote:Your Grace, Alfred,

Ok, a committee. Having looked, briefly, at the Martial Activities section of SCA.org, the SEM is responsible for: 1. rattan fighting, 2. fencing (rapier), and 3. equestrian activities. I am going to assume that we are only with rattan fighting and its rules. Who should be on a committee to revise the rattan rules?

1. Experienced fighters who understand fighting.
2. Experienced marshals who understand safety
3. People who make armor who understand what can be made and technical concerns.
4. An administrator(s) who can, A. keep everything organized. B. keep the ball rolling on the revision. & C. "iron out" any difficulties or conflicts.

People who have qualifications 1 and 2 are plentiful. However, I strongly suspect qualifcations 3 and 4 are harder to come by. Also, I would not be surprised if I missed something.

Servo,

Mord.

Your Grace,

I agree with you on qualification #2. I also admit that I'm probably not qualified--sure, I've marshalled my share of lists and done inspections, but I've never been asked to make policy. What in your opinon, are the real risks and safety issues?

Please allow me to explain why I think an armorer should be included. I would want someone who works with the various materials for armor to give the committee an informed opinion. As a librarian I could probably look up information on various materials and variations of materials, but that doesn't mean I will understand what they will do.

My "philosophy" with armor is pretty simple; it should, first, protect the wearer from serious injury--broken bones and bruised internal organs. Style comes second.

Cordially,

Mord.