An opportunity for enlightenment

[Eirik]

Broadway asked that I move this to another thread :

If I may... and I am not picking on Sir Leo, just using his words because they so eloquently convey the sentiment I'm trying to understand... but this seems like a good opportunity to gain enlightenment.

I've mentioned before that I was away from combat for 10 years, and this is the one thing that has changed 180 degrees from when I used to fight.

A perspective....

I was taught that Honor+Prowess= Renown. Prowess is gained through practice and learning the physical game. Honor is displayed through conduct, by both calling your shots clean and well, and how you conduct yourself during combat. There was little honor gained in taking a cheap shot, or beating up a new fighter, or forcing your opponent to simulate oral sex from their knees, because it takes so little prowess to accomplish this. It was more honorable to nobley engage your opponent, offering them every opportunity to win even if it meant getting your ass handed to you royally. Because there was no honor lost when you've faced your opponent with no more advantage than skill at arms, win or lose, the only way to imply insult would be to choose which opponents you offer that courtesy. The mindset then would be if you won't drop your shield for Sir Nukem Kwik-Li, but you do for me, you are clearly saying you don't need an advantage to win, and therefore offering the insult.

How did we get from that to this?

I would find the act so insulting to my skill as an opponent that I would do every single thing in my power to stomp the snot out of the person (within the rules of the SCA of course).

Just my .02.

[Theoderic]

To know the man you have to go beyond reading his words. I pray you cross swords with him and judge his character.

These words seem to suggest that Leo would find great insult if he were to be belittled in baton combat. The result would be him fighting with all that his prowess could muster. How is that not knightly?

[Foxman]

This is something I’ve been examining myself recently.

Consider this from the An Tir Book of Combat:
This is from the Current 9th Edition (July 2009) in the optional/historical section

SP8- Even Advantage Systems:
These are practiced by many fighters and are often considered a mark of chivalry. They are never required, and there is certainly no dishonor when a less skilled fighter facing a more skilled opponent chooses to forgo these systems. There are three basic variations:
a) Point system: If you take your opponent's leg or arm, that is one point. Try to stay no more than one point ahead. If you then take something else off arm, that is two points, so you give up a point by dropping your shield or to your knees.
b) Even fight: if you take your opponent's leg, you also go to your knees, or if
opponent has to fight with off arm, you also fight with one arm, but your sword arm.
c) Bad Form: often if a fighter accidentally hits an arm or leg when aiming for the body or leg, the striking fighter will give up that limb to even the fight.

I’ve heard in regards to a) that a white belt is a ‘point’ in this System.

[Urdok]

Broadway asked that I move this to another thread :

If I may... and I am not picking on Sir Leo, just using his words because they so eloquently convey the sentiment I'm trying to understand... but this seems like a good opportunity to gain enlightenment.

I've mentioned before that I was away from combat for 10 years, and this is the one thing that has changed 180 degrees from when I used to fight.

A perspective....

I was taught that Honor+Prowess= Renown. Prowess is gained through practice and learning the physical game. Honor is displayed through conduct, by both calling your shots clean and well, and how you conduct yourself during combat. There was little honor gained in taking a cheap shot, or beating up a new fighter, or forcing your opponent to simulate oral sex from their knees, because it takes so little prowess to accomplish this. It was more honorable to nobley engage your opponent, offering them every opportunity to win even if it meant getting your ass handed to you royally. Because there was no honor lost when you've faced your opponent with no more advantage than skill at arms, win or lose, the only way to imply insult would be to choose which opponents you offer that courtesy. The mindset then would be if you won't drop your shield for Sir Nukem Kwik-Li, but you do for me, you are clearly saying you don't need an advantage to win, and therefore offering the insult.

I'm trying to understand this statement a bit- are you saying that, so long as one consistently either matches or does not match the wounds of one's opponent, there is no disparagement implied? This is as opposed to Leo who believes (as I do) that it is almost always disparaging.

[Blackoak]

Eirik, not everyone has your view. I personally don't want my opponents dropping their advantages, but I don't get upset if they do.

Me personally I don't give up anything. I don't take arms or legs on accident, so I am not going to give up an advantage to make it "fair".

I really don't understand the idea of giving my opponent every opportunity to win even if it gets me my ass handed to me. What does that even mean?

Honorable to me is giving you 100% when lay on is called, hitting you hard enough to not think about my blows, and calling my shots when I am hit. I don't think I am any less honorable that an opponent who will give up advantages nor do I think I am dishonorable for being all over a legged opponent (which is what I do).

Don't confuse different fighting cultures with honor.

Uric

[raito]

I understand Leo's point, and to a some extant I have the same belief.

If I am wounded, and you give up a limb, you are making a statement. And that statement is that you do not require that limb to prevail. As I am disagreeable by nature, I disagree with that statement. And I shall do what is right and necessary to prove your statement false. If you prevail, you were correct. If I do, then I was.

And if I am the one doing the wounding, it is just the same. I am making the statement. and if I prevail, my statement is correct. If I do not, then my statement was false, and I was mistaken.

The difference may be that I do not take it as an insult to my person. I see it as more akin to a dare on the part of the other person (or myself).

[Eirik]

I thank you all for taking the time to respond. I am learning, I think.

Cyrano- I thought I had made the point that I wasn't aiming this at Sir Leo, but perhaps that wasn't clear enough, so here it is in another fashion: I have heard this a lot, from many folks from many fighting cultures.... Sir Leo simply stated it as concisely as I've heard it put, and still convey the feeling. I, too, hope to cross swords with him someday if for no other reason than to be in the presence of his awesome kit.

Yes, Urdok, that is exactly the way it was taught to me. I'm not saying either perspective is wrong, in fact, I am REALLY struggling with this right now. I used to give up my advantage in tourneys, because it made the fight more fun and challenging. Who cares if I lost? I had fun! Frankly, I felt it was what Ld. Eirik van Aandrud would do... But I am shifting persona to an much earlier period. I don't think the new Eirikr would be so generous... but the principle, I'm finding, is fairly entrenched in me from my former years of fighting. Hence this thread, that I might understand the change and, honestly, feel better about myself after fighting. I feel like I'm fighting dirty when I don't give up a gained advantage, and I KNOW this is a holdover from the old days, when most folks did this.

Sir Uric- First, thank you for the excellent definition of what you consider to be honorable combat. It helps explain the current mindset. You are most correct that everyone does not share the same view. In fact, that IS the reason for this thread. Almost everyone used to drop their advantage in tourneys, now almost no one does. This represents a shift in philosphy, at the least. Imagine, if you will, that you took a 10 year break, and when you came back everyone was gacking folks in the crotch. It's a legal shot, but only folks who are douchebags used to throw them... now everyone does. While that scenario may be hyperbole, it is a similar experience. Wouldn't you find it a little difficult to get used to? With folks saying "if he didn't gank my nuts, it'd piss me off", wouldn't you want to know how we got there?

And to be sure, I am not confusing culture with honor. I joined the SCA in the early '80's and actually really enjoy the diverse fighting cultures I've experienced. I'm not sure where that assumption comes from, but my apologies in advance if I lead you to believe that I felt this was the case.

[Eirik]

I understand Leo's point, and to a some extant I have the same belief.

If I am wounded, and you give up a limb, you are making a statement. And that statement is that you do not require that limb to prevail. As I am disagreeable by nature, I disagree with that statement. And I shall do what is right and necessary to prove your statement false. If you prevail, you were correct. If I do, then I was.

And if I am the one doing the wounding, it is just the same. I am making the statement. and if I prevail, my statement is correct. If I do not, then my statement was false, and I was mistaken.

The difference may be that I do not take it as an insult to my person. I see it as more akin to a dare on the part of the other person (or myself).

Thanks raito!! I think you've come closest to understanding the way this used to be viewed with the dare thing.

But what if the statement your opponent is making is "I'd rather take a chance on losing and pit skill vs skill with no advantage on my part"? You're assuming you know the motivation of your opponent. Aren't you, in fact, assuming the worst intentions? Perhaps that is where the focus shifted. Used to be everyone who armed up and took the field was assumed to be honorable, with honorable intentions. While now it seems everyone is still considered honorable, but their intentions are now assumed not to be so- You're not trying to gain honor by not taking the easier win, you're flagrantly insulting my prowess.

I think I get it.

[Patrick]

Disclaimer:
I have been out of fighting for several years now, due to certain injuries that made it impossible to fight, so this opinion was formed a while back. Don't let me mislead you into thinking that I am some sort of hot stick or something. I always tried to be a good fighter and give a fun fight, but I was never white belt material.

Actual response:
Years ago I knew Sir Alphonso D'Strada and I posed this sort of question to him in terms of a chess game. If I capture my opponent's queen, thus gaining an advantage, am I expected to remove my own from the board to even things up? No. Then why, if I manage to successfully reduce his ability to threaten me on the field, am I expected to give up an advantage I have worked for and earned?

His response was illuminating and formed part of my fighting philosophy from then on. He said that there's nothing wrong with having an advantage, but when the fight ceases to be a fight, there's something wrong. He then explained in terms of spear fighting (he was darned good with that poke-stick). If he took a swordsman's leg, thus immobilizing him, he (the spearman) has a choice of whether to choke up on his weapon until the sword guy at least has a chance to reach him or just hang out and snipe from out of sword range until he gets a kill. If he chokes up, it continues being a fight. The spearman still has the mobility advantage, but has given up his range advantage. If he snipes from his own greater range, there's no fight at all, just slaughter.

For me, I don't expect anyone to give up his arm because I left mine hanging out there to be hit. I don't expect anyone to give up his leg because I didn't block. But I really hate to be on the ground and knowing that I may as well just yield because this guy isn't going to take a chance on getting close enough for me to even have a long shot at hitting him.

I'd say to treat your opponent the way you want to be treated, keeping in mind that when it is no longer a fight, it is also no longer interesting for either the spectators or your worthy opponent. And shouldn't be interesting for you, either.

-Patrick

[Urdok]

Well, for starters the Armour Archive is not the world. I think you'll still find plenty of other fighters who will match wounds out there. I know I have. If you're feeling like you might mistakenly offer insult by taking either course, I think asking before the bout how your opponent plays the game will be a good safe guard there.

It was more honorable to nobley engage your opponent, offering them every opportunity to win even if it meant getting your ass handed to you royally.

I suspect that for some of us, there has been a shift in the meaning of "nobly engage." For me, personally, to nobly engage a fighter means that I give them the full extent of my abilities and take and give blows fairly. To do otherwise, in my eyes, is insulting my opponent. It's me not taking them seriously as a fighter. Can it be challenging and fun to not use your favorite shot or willfully drop your shield? Yes, but that doesn't mean your opponent is going to take the gesture as an honor. Same extends for matching wounds. As I posted in another thread, that tradition never struck me as chivalric, but rather an act of pity (at best) to showboating (at worst). If you've gained an advantage over me, please, use it. I'll accept it gladly as penance for me being to stupid, slow, or unskilled to stop you.

[Urdok]

His response was illuminating and formed part of my fighting philosophy from then on. He said that there's nothing wrong with having an advantage, but when the fight ceases to be a fight, there's something wrong. He then explained in terms of spear fighting (he was darned good with that poke-stick). If he took a swordsman's leg, thus immobilizing him, he (the spearman) has a choice of whether to choke up on his weapon until the sword guy at least has a chance to reach him or just hang out and snipe from out of sword range until he gets a kill. If he chokes up, it continues being a fight. The spearman still has the mobility advantage, but has given up his range advantage. If he snipes from his own greater range, there's no fight at all, just slaughter.

For me, I don't expect anyone to give up his arm because I left mine hanging out there to be hit. I don't expect anyone to give up his leg because I didn't block. But I really hate to be on the ground and knowing that I may as well just yield because this guy isn't going to take a chance on getting close enough for me to even have a long shot at hitting him.

I'd say to treat your opponent the way you want to be treated, keeping in mind that when it is no longer a fight, it is also no longer interesting for either the spectators or your worthy opponent. And shouldn't be interesting for you, either.
-Patrick

Just to throw it out there- if you can no longer touch him (and I mean at all, not, just 'realistically' or you might be able to but the odds are extremely long) hasn't he bested you then? Wouldn't the honorable thing be to yield in that circumstance (assuming one wanted to avoid being clubbed while effectively helpless)? While it might be welcome to face a foe willing to "make a game of it," isn't it unreasonable to expect them to do so, when by your own admission, he's already effectively won?

[herrhauptmann]

Have a half formed idea, I'm trying to not ramble: The basics is the reason for taking the handicap. Because you hit me with a valid shot, or as an apology for hitting me with an invalid shot.

If you take my sword arm in a tournament due to my lack of skill, then let me switch the wound to my shield arm, I'll be very grateful. I can't fight reversed, nor do I have the equipment to do so.
If you then chose to drop your own shield and fight me single weapon vs single weapon, I'd feel a bit insulted. Even if you were an uberduke to my 2 years experience.

If an error on your part makes it impossible for me to fight with my shield; perhaps I got sloppy, and a solid shot of yours hits the base of my hand on my shield arm, right where the tiny bones of the wrist are (I use a shield basket and gardening glove, so it's possible).
a] That's technically not a target zone, so I wouldn't have to acknowledge the shot.
b]Even if it's an invalid target, I'd still be unable to continue using my shield. I just wouldn't be able to use that hand.
If at this point you discard your own shield, keeping parity because I'm physically unable to fight properly, regardless of the rules; then I'd gladly accept the handicap as an apology for unintended harm.
I'd still wish to finish the match, but even if I won, I don't think I'd accept the victory. Let's face it, I wouldn't be able to continue fighting, and your honor/honesty deserves the chance to continue.

[Vladimir]

I stand by what I have stated before.

If I earned the advantage, I keep it. (in war scenarios extend this to my side earning the advantage)

If I did not earn the advantage (bearpit tourney) then I give something before starting. Whether my opponent be a super-duke, new knight, or newly authorized fighter, all opponents are treated the same.

[Eirik]

Thanks Urdoc. Yes, in part, I do not wish to piss anyone off or ruin their fun because of a perspective difference. I'm not going by just the Archive, either, I am going by what I see in the local fighting as well.

I can understand the mindset that if you give up an earned advantage, you are NOT giving 100% in their eyes, and as such, are denying them the opportunity to beat you at your best, and despite their disadvantage. This makes sense to me, and would explain why one might get pissed.

I guess that's what changed, and I believe rightfully so. Perspective. Instead of looking at the honor gained by the guy giving up an earned advantage, the focus now is on the opportunity lost for his opponent to gain honor by defeating his opponent despite the advantage.

Holy crap, I think I GET it.

Thanks again. I see things from a whole new perspective....

[Eirik]

I stand by what I have stated before.

If I earned the advantage, I keep it. (in war scenarios extend this to my side earning the advantage)

If I did not earn the advantage (bearpit tourney) then I give something before starting. Whether my opponent be a super-duke, new knight, or newly authorized fighter, all opponents are treated the same.

This seems a reasonable approach to me. One thing Stonecastle was known for was no mercy on the melee field. To quote Sir Pare': "Hell no, we got crops to bring in next week".

But, I have a question that stems from a personal experience, if I might: Would the earned advantage thing also extend to an accidentally inflicted wound? i.e. you swung for his head, missed and accidently clipped his arm on the overshoot? ( I mean, it wasn't exactly my "skill at arms" that gained the advantage... more like Moe, Larry, and Curly with a ladder )

[Vladimir]

If a shot skips off the ground, bounces off my shield, rebounds off a tree, and still hits me soundly in a legal target area while remaining in the grip of my opponent, then it is good.

[Blackoak]

Sir Uric- First, thank you for the excellent definition of what you consider to be honorable combat. It helps explain the current mindset. You are most correct that everyone does not share the same view. In fact, that IS the reason for this thread. Almost everyone used to drop their advantage in tourneys, now almost no one does. This represents a shift in philosphy, at the least. Imagine, if you will, that you took a 10 year break, and when you came back everyone was gacking folks in the crotch. It's a legal shot, but only folks who are douchebags used to throw them... now everyone does. While that scenario may be hyperbole, it is a similar experience. Wouldn't you find it a little difficult to get used to? With folks saying "if he didn't gank my nuts, it'd piss me off", wouldn't you want to know how we got there?

And to be sure, I am not confusing culture with honor. I joined the SCA in the early '80's and actually really enjoy the diverse fighting cultures I've experienced. I'm not sure where that assumption comes from, but my apologies in advance if I lead you to believe that I felt this was the case.

Eirik, I didn't mean to accuse you of confusing culture with honor, just stating that they can be different creatures, sorry if I implied it.

I understand your culture shock, but I don't see either way as dishonorable. Nor do I see the difference as vast as the nut shot example. I think people need to be open minded that there are 2 different philosophies of fighting, neither being dishonorable.

If someone yields an advantage every time, then I see no reason to find insult with them. I really like Patrick's chess explanation, hopefully that will help you some.

Uric

[Baron Alcyoneus]

If the standard response when someone takes an arm in a region, the person taking an arm matches it, and then takes a leg, and matches it (or vice versa), then it is not a "Point of Honor", but "Point of Convention".


It would also make for a bunch of stupid looking fights.



If you take my leg, I want to take your damned leg (assuming I can't get your head or body first), NOT be given a booby prize. I have a bit of experience fighting from the ground, although many people don't even bother trying to take my leg- I don't make it isn't easy for them, so you shouldn't think that it is all over if you don't give up your leg. I'd rather earn the victory at a disadvantage if that is the way it works out, or lose. It doesn't matter.

If your skill is far greater than your opponent's, would it be a point of honor to take out single dagger vs his sword and shield to make it even, or insulting?


Giving up an arm or leg isn't going to convince me that you are an honorable opponent. You'll have to do better than that.

[Eirik]

I'm think his Excellency Baron Alcyoneus has said it so much better than I.

Thank you sir!

Thanks Sir Uric... I did think you were saying that I had the two confused.

I overstated the nut thing for emphasis, but you're right...

Thanks again to all who've responded...

[Leo Medii]

I stand by my statement. If someone takes my leg, or arm, or anything that causes me to lose the ability to use that asset in an SCA fight, I expect them to pay me honour by besting me with thier full arsenal till the very end of the fight. To do any less is telling me that I am now unworthy of thier best effort. When this happens I ramp up my game to the utmost I can within the standards of our combat. I want to beat these people unlike any other opponents I ever face in SCA combat. I want to beat them then, because they felt I was unworthy of thier best fight once I was "wounded".

What some consider a "point of honour" I think is an insult to the person who is "given" something that is not taken with skill. How is a fighter to learn, to adapt and to be hungry for a victory that is even more well earned if they are given something not earned?

[Vladimir]

Leo, how do you feel in situations where the advantage was not earned by the current fighter, but rather by another previous fighter?

[Baron Alcyoneus]

War/melee, or "wounds carried" bearpit?

[Leo Medii]

Leo, how do you feel in situations where the advantage was not earned by the current fighter, but rather by another previous fighter?

I do not like this idea. Retained wounds tourney's are interesting in concept, but do not work IMO in SCA combat.

[Broadway]

I AGREE WITH LEO MEDII!!!!!!!1

(on all counts thus far)

[Baron Alcyoneus]

I think those types of bearpits work okay. It penalizes those who do things that are more 'game' than 'real'. Would you really trade your leg for a kill if playing for keeps with sharp steel, knowing that the barber-surgeon wasn't going to be making you better?


Edited to add:

If your life truly were at stake, you might willingly trade your arm or leg to ensure that your enemy were killed, and would not be killing you instead.

But you would be thinking that you could trade an arm or leg each time to kill the next 5 enemies you faced.

[Vladimir]

War/melee, or "wounds carried" bearpit?

Sorry, I was thinking of bearpits.

In my view an advantage earned by your team in melee is treated the same as one earned by yourself.

[Count Johnathan]

Giving up an earned advantage is rarely intended as an insult but can easily be perceived to be one. I rarely do it because I want my opponents to know that even if they are disadvantaged I still see them as a threat and I respect their abilities.

I have given up earned advantages a few times but only when keeping said advantage felt wrong. I was fighting a friend of mine once and he had a sore shoulder. I had taken his legs which was not much of a disadvantage to him but when I pressed him on his knees I threw an off body shot and a block attempt cost him his right arm. There I was standing with both my sword and shield while he sat there on his knees holding his sword in his off hand. I could have given him use of his good arm but having a sore right shoulder this was still not much of a gift so instead I put my shield behind my back and continued the fight. I don't think he was offended by that and it did give him a slight opportunity for a more even fight. I would not have minded it if our positions had been reversed.

It is important to note that keeping an earned advantage is in no way dishonorable or unchivalrous. It is a physical contest that involves the possibility of gaining an advantage through a successful strike to an arm or leg. We enter into these contests knowing that if we should lose a limb we might have to continue in a disadvantaged position. It's just part of the game.

"Points" of chivalry. That term bothers me a lot. Nobody wins points for chivalry in this game. There are acts of chivalry but not points. I understand that different cultural settings apply different terms and they aren't actually keeping score with these "points" (or at least I hope not) but I do wish people would refer to them as acts of chivalry instead of points. Points for chivalry just sounds erroneous and gives the wrong impression IMO.

[Iain (Bunny) Ruadh]

When I first started I would often give of an advantage as a 'point' ...

A bit of time has passed and I find myself much more often looking over my shield (or just out of range for single blade) and asking if they are prepared (I despise asking if my opponent is 'comfy') and noting that I know them by their arms and prowess and will not yield the advantage. A salute and smile is often all that is needed to make that link with your opponent. You both know you'll be sharing a story or drink that evening afterward.

Now on those few that I do take the 'point' and settle in to a cocky fight, I give the proper smile, laugh, etc to let them know I do feel them my equal or that I'm just overly full of myself and if I get beat, then I expect a full 'whoopin' for my arrogance. The trick on this is that I am the one who knows where I stand with my opponent. I don't let convention and tradition dictate it.

[benz72]

Disclaimer:
I have been out of fighting for several years now, due to certain injuries that made it impossible to fight, so this opinion was formed a while back. Don't let me mislead you into thinking that I am some sort of hot stick or something. I always tried to be a good fighter and give a fun fight, but I was never white belt material.

Actual response:
Years ago I knew Sir Alphonso D'Strada and I posed this sort of question to him in terms of a chess game. If I capture my opponent's queen, thus gaining an advantage, am I expected to remove my own from the board to even things up? No. Then why, if I manage to successfully reduce his ability to threaten me on the field, am I expected to give up an advantage I have worked for and earned?

His response was illuminating and formed part of my fighting philosophy from then on. He said that there's nothing wrong with having an advantage, but when the fight ceases to be a fight, there's something wrong. He then explained in terms of spear fighting (he was darned good with that poke-stick). If he took a swordsman's leg, thus immobilizing him, he (the spearman) has a choice of whether to choke up on his weapon until the sword guy at least has a chance to reach him or just hang out and snipe from out of sword range until he gets a kill. If he chokes up, it continues being a fight. The spearman still has the mobility advantage, but has given up his range advantage. If he snipes from his own greater range, there's no fight at all, just slaughter.

For me, I don't expect anyone to give up his arm because I left mine hanging out there to be hit. I don't expect anyone to give up his leg because I didn't block. But I really hate to be on the ground and knowing that I may as well just yield because this guy isn't going to take a chance on getting close enough for me to even have a long shot at hitting him.

I'd say to treat your opponent the way you want to be treated, keeping in mind that when it is no longer a fight, it is also no longer interesting for either the spectators or your worthy opponent. And shouldn't be interesting for you, either.

-Patrick

I've heard something similar to this as well and have always wondered why that didn't just end the fight. Clearly the spearman has bested the swordsman in this instance. It HAS ceased to become a fight. Similarly, if the swordsman manages to grasp the spear in his off hand and close then the spearman has lost the fight, being bested by the swordsman. What is the advantage of continuing to a 'kill' once the outcome is set? Why do we insist on ending a fight with a 'death' instead of recognizing the skill of our opponent and yielding an untenable position? To return to the chess example, we do not capture the king, merely place him in checkmate and declare victory.

[Eirik]

I've heard something similar to this as well and have always wondered why that didn't just end the fight. Clearly the spearman has bested the swordsman in this instance. It HAS ceased to become a fight. Similarly, if the swordsman manages to grasp the spear in his off hand and close then the spearman has lost the fight, being bested by the swordsman. What is the advantage of continuing to a 'kill' once the outcome is set? Why do we insist on ending a fight with a 'death' instead of recognizing the skill of our opponent and yielding an untenable position? To return to the chess example, we do not capture the king, merely place him in checkmate and declare victory.

Because I have won this battle more than once by defending well enough to frustrate "the spearman" into doing something stupid and losing for their troubles. This is why I do not yield. You have bested me when you intentionally defeat my defenses, and land a blow to a critically disabling area, not before.

[Steve S.]

It is a large can of worms to "match wounds" with your opponent. I decided some time ago not to do it. The possibility to give offense or appear conceited is too great.

We all take to the field to win. Do it.

Steve

[BdeB]

"If you take an opponent's leg or arm, in some places, it is applauded if you stop using one of your own limbs. Why? It seems to me there are only two reasons people ever do this. One reason is to show off, "I'm so good I can beat you with one shield tied behind my back." The other reason is to show off, "Aren't I a wonderful guy? Even though I've lopped off this schmoo's arm on purpose, I'll make a grandstand play of giving up an arm too." (It's usually not the same arm they've taken.)" - Duke Gyrth Oldcastle, Fundementals of Oldcastle Sword and Shield

RIP my friend.

[Eirik]

We all take to the field to win. Do it.

Steve

I do not. I take the field for love of combat. The outcome is not nearly so important to me as is giving a good fight to my opponent.

But I do strongly suspect this mentality is what drives the changes I see.

[Kilkenny]

I understand Leo's point, and to a some extant I have the same belief.

If I am wounded, and you give up a limb, you are making a statement. And that statement is that you do not require that limb to prevail. As I am disagreeable by nature, I disagree with that statement. And I shall do what is right and necessary to prove your statement false. If you prevail, you were correct. If I do, then I was.

And if I am the one doing the wounding, it is just the same. I am making the statement. and if I prevail, my statement is correct. If I do not, then my statement was false, and I was mistaken.

The difference may be that I do not take it as an insult to my person. I see it as more akin to a dare on the part of the other person (or myself).

But what if I am not making that statement ?

I have never thought of it in that fashion. It is not inherent in the action.

It could be a desire to continue the contest in as even a manner as possible, with no offense intended whatsoever.

An opponent may be more interested in the best contest possible than in winning. And they may consider keeping it "even" to be part of making it "the best contest possible".

I try not to read insult into another person's actions unless there is simply no possible other way of understanding what they are doing.

Give up a limb when you take mine ? Fine by me. Keep your advantage? Fine by me.

I don't feel any need to read anything into it either way. My job is still the same - make my best effort to hit you with a stick

[Skutai]

How about instead of having us both fight from the ground my opponent simply allows me to stay standing?

*cough* *counted blows* *cough*