The future of C&T

[Estienne]

No no Keegan, if you really want fireworks you say something like:

"I can't wait until some King makes a C&T Knight - who has never picked up a stick of rattan in his/her life but came up through rapier, thus would be the first "rapier peer" based on prowess"

Of course, such an obvious troll will find few takers here on the archive, right?

[Broadway]

The SCA fighters that will not accept it would be the "sport fighters" who wear SCA minimums and the ones who have no control and constantly "swing for the fences."
-C

Are you combining the two? Because I rarely see a sport fighter that does not combine it with utter control and finess. I also rarely see a "swing for the fences" uncontrolled fighter, ever. Its like a myth... or at least it is in the three or four kingdoms on the east coast that I've fought in... maybe it is different elsewhere...

[Count Johnathan]

Hoo boy. *grabs the popcorn and waits for the fireworks and bonfire to start*

Don't worry, I'm going to ignore that buffoonery.

[Keegan Ingrassia]

No! You can't! Think of the peanut gallery! Where will we go to get our entertainment??

[Keegan Ingrassia]

Of course, such an obvious troll will find few takers here on the archive, right?

Bwahahaha! You've been here long enough to know that there's someone on the Archive who will champion any cause, no matter how lost.

[Count Johnathan]

Goodness! Ridley Scott historical fantasies NOOOOOOOooooooo.........

Well at least they are violent anyway. I guess that counts for something. If we are lucky he will team up with Mel Gibson and they can make a movie about William Wallace and Maximus coming back from the dead and joining forces with Robert Longstride(WTF?) to fight off the evil hordes of Genghis Kahn to save the queen of America so she can kill Lincoln, take his throne and free the slaves!

Oooh, I can't wait!

[Grimr Hvitulfsson Ulfhamr]

I think that C&T is cool. I still think rattan is cooler and it will remain my main thing. However, I'm planning on acquiring a C&T kit as well.

Like I said earlier, I don't think C&T will threaten rattan. However, WoW and other online things will.

I honestly think SCA fighting is a dying sport. Here in Europe it will die sooner than in the States but it will die there, too. Kids of today just are not interested in this thing. They want a more organized thing like MMA or they wanna be knights in the virtual world without unnecessary sweating and bruises.

GrimR

[Peikko]

If it were to replace heavy fighting, meaning at the same force level as heavy fighting now, I think it would become incredibly expensive. As it stands now we dent 14 and 12 gauge helms imagine what steal weapons are going to do to armour. Instead of having a helm that has lasted over 20 years, you would need to repair or replace your helm every season. To add to this, what about axes and pole arms? With blunted edges they would really become mass weapons doing real crushing damage to folks even in tin cans, as that is what they were designed to do.

Can anybody in WMA substantiate this?

Utter bullshit

[Liutger]

I think armoured fighting in C&T would be fun. But I would not want to be hit with a "killing shot" but rather a "good shot" which would be something other than "light shot". So if it skips off the armour, it could be called light. But due to the armour, I would prefer having two or more judges count the shots and determine the outcome. That lets me just focus on fighting and having some good fun.

-Aaron

well, there you go "destroying the SCA" again...with your focus on fighting and "having some good fun".

[cblackthorne]

The SCA fighters that will not accept it would be the "sport fighters" who wear SCA minimums and the ones who have no control and constantly "swing for the fences."
-C

Are you combining the two? Because I rarely see a sport fighter that does not combine it with utter control and finess. I also rarely see a "swing for the fences" uncontrolled fighter, ever. Its like a myth... or at least it is in the three or four kingdoms on the east coast that I've fought in... maybe it is different elsewhere...

No, Im not combining the two. I apologize for the way it read, but I meant for them to be two seperate groups.

There are those fighters that prefer minimum armor for rattan fighting and there is nothing wrong with that. Minimum armor supports their fighting style. IF C&T were to evolve into a heavier sport, the armor requirements would probably not be anything a sport fighter would be interested in. Some of them would complain about it because they couldnt particpate without using heavier armor, while other sport fighters might actually give a try. Who knows....?

As far as "swing for the fences" fighters, they are not a myth. In 25 years in the SCA, Ive fought a good number of them. I have had discussions with some who say they are trying to hit as hard as they can every time they step on the field. I call it a lack of control because the person is deliberately hitting with eveything they have rather than just enough to get a good blow. They dont seem to care about breaking their friends.

Regards,
C

[Broadway]

IF C&T were to evolve into a heavier sport, the armor requirements would probably not be anything a sport fighter would be interested in. Regards,
C

What would stop a sport fighter who wears hockey elbows (that provide full coverage) under a tunic while fighting heavy, from doing the exact same thing while fighting C&T?

[jester]

IF C&T were to evolve into a heavier sport, the armor requirements would probably not be anything a sport fighter would be interested in. Regards,
C

What would stop a sport fighter who wears hockey elbows (that provide full coverage) under a tunic while fighting heavy, from doing the exact same thing while fighting C&T?

Where that *is* the armor standard. Why would heavier armor be required? If I want to go rattan-hard in C&T I'll armor myself up. The rules allow for that. If I don't armor up enough, I'll get hurt. If I want to do blosfechten (unarmored fighting) then I'll armor down to the current minimums (actually, I'll probably add forearm guards). I fail to see why C&T has to add more rules or require more armor. That's not evolution that's accumulation of red tape that will narrow the scope of the activity.

How about we require participants to have a clear understanding of what each event is trying to do, to accept responsibility for their own safety, to approach the game knowing that 'breaking your toys' means you don't get to play anymore rather than trying to bubble wrap everyone and pander to the lowest common denominator?

[Marco-borromei]

What I HOPE would stop them would be a rule set based on REAL [not presumed] armor standards.

What I'd like to see would be 2 classes of steel combat [or three if we kept thrust only rapier]:
Unarmored C&T
Armored C&T

Unarmored would be essentially what it is today, with visible or hidden SAFETY GEAR [head, throat, groin, elbows, knees] and a calibration based on what a sharp steel blade does to cloth covered flesh.

Armored would require historic-ish armor [albeit modern materials], and count armor as worn, allowing a calibration based on what parts of the armor could be defeated by a steel blade [helmet/plate is proof, chain proof against cuts, etc]. When both opponents are in armor, the techniques, targets, and power are different.

If you show up in a shirt [hidden hocky arms or not], you are UNARMORED, so play in that class. If you show up in 15th cen cap-a-pie, you are ARMORED, so can play in that class.

Just a Dream....

[Johann ColdIron]

IF C&T were to evolve into a heavier sport, the armor requirements would probably not be anything a sport fighter would be interested in. Regards,
C

What would stop a sport fighter who wears hockey elbows (that provide full coverage) under a tunic while fighting heavy, from doing the exact same thing while fighting C&T?

Wouldn't prevent them from participating. I've done C&T in my mostly plastic hidden armour for heavy. If an armour as worn standard was adopted it would place those in no metalic "safety equipment" into an unarmoured catagory. Some coming from heavy where that safety equiment is considered proof against all but killing blows might have a problem adapting to that new paradigm.

I'd be fine with that from either side. I fight in a late period rig with only a steel helm and gorget. I consider the rest of my body unarmoured in heavy combat. If I am carrying the steel then I consider it armour. Armour as worn standards in C&T would motivate me to finish a breastplate I have had on a shelf too long. Ultimately I want to transition way from the plastic to spring steel so I can add or delete armour depending on which dicipline I am doing, be it Heavy, Rapier or C&T. Right now it is two separate rigs. Too much gear to haul around and change in and out of.

[cblackthorne]

IF C&T were to evolve into a heavier sport, the armor requirements would probably not be anything a sport fighter would be interested in. Regards,
C

What would stop a sport fighter who wears hockey elbows (that provide full coverage) under a tunic while fighting heavy, from doing the exact same thing while fighting C&T?

I guess it all depends on how the armor standards ended up.

My personal preference would be C&T increasing the hit calibration to rattan minimums and doing away with touch kills as are currently used in rapier/heavy rapier. To do that, I think you would have to increase the armor requirements to rigid protection over most of the target areas and not just vital locations. The armor requirements for ECS, Adria, and other groups that do steel fighting might be appropriate.

Ive done SCA fighting for 25 years and steel fighting in Adria for over 5 years and while I enjoy both games, I have to say there is something special about a full speed, steel on steel fight. The ring of sword on sword brings a whole new level of fun to the fight. To me, thats what the "dream" is all about.

Regards,
C

[cblackthorne]

I think its also worth saying that personally, I wouldnt want to see armored C&T replace rattan fighting, but be added as a compliment to it as another martial activity.

Regards,
C

[Broadway]

Given the choice, why would I get all dressed up in armour and fight people with sticks, when I could get all dressed up in armour and fight people with swords?

I wouldn't.

Not having the intent to replace it doesn't mean it wouldn't naturally replace it.

Sure, you'd have a few die hard old school guys who would keep up the rattan fighting... but you wouldn't have near as many new folks mess with it... Unless you made it some sort of authorization requirement to fight with the metal weaponry.

Not saying any of this is a bad thing.

I think its also worth saying that personally, I wouldnt want to see armored C&T replace rattan fighting, but be added as a compliment to it as another martial activity.

Regards,
C

[Malachiuri]

Here in Calontir our program is more or less stalling. We have lots of people interested and come out to play, but until the rules are made permanent, nobody is going to drop the money to kit up if there is a chance they will never get to use it again.

The other issue we are running into is the paucity of good early period weapons. I have been working with a few vendors on making one hand weapons that will pass the SCA flex test but its a slow process at best. So far the most popular weapon we are using is the Hanweii practical hand and a half because it looks damn cool and folks want to swing it.

If we could buy a crate of solid, good looking 14th cent and earlier weapons things would definitely take off faster here.

As for the topic of this thread on the whole, I hope that CT will continue to be a more period learning/competition platform. My knees and elbows are shot, but I like the technical aspects of combat so its a perfect outlet for me.

[Peikko]

What I HOPE would stop them would be a rule set based on REAL [not presumed] armor standards.

What I'd like to see would be 2 classes of steel combat [or three if we kept thrust only rapier]:
Unarmored C&T
Armored C&T

Unarmored would be essentially what it is today, with visible or hidden SAFETY GEAR [head, throat, groin, elbows, knees] and a calibration based on what a sharp steel blade does to cloth covered flesh.

Armored would require historic-ish armor [albeit modern materials], and count armor as worn, allowing a calibration based on what parts of the armor could be defeated by a steel blade [helmet/plate is proof, chain proof against cuts, etc]. When both opponents are in armor, the techniques, targets, and power are different.

If you show up in a shirt [hidden hocky arms or not], you are UNARMORED, so play in that class. If you show up in 15th cen cap-a-pie, you are ARMORED, so can play in that class.

Just a Dream....

sounds good to me.

[JoshLittle]

So far the most popular weapon we are using is the Hanweii practical hand and a half because it looks damn cool and folks want to swing it.

If that sword passes the flex test how does any other sword fail it? I have several of the 4th gen arming swords from Hanwei which have a blade that is only 2" shorter than their H&H and it's flex is non-existant. Meanwhile, the sword that really should be passed, the Arms and Armor Federschwert, is not on any list that I've ever seen for C&T approved weapons.

I agree that a lot more weapons from the 14th century and earlier need to be accepted. Right now, from the lists that I've seen, the weapons are heavily weighted to the southern Europe 15th century and general 16th century and beyond spectrum. A lot of that has to do with the fact that there was a body of already approved heavy rapier blades in existence, obviously.


Josh Little
Ars Gladii
http://www.arsgladii.com

[jester]

So far the most popular weapon we are using is the Hanweii practical hand and a half because it looks damn cool and folks want to swing it.

If that sword passes the flex test how does any other sword fail it? I have several of the 4th gen arming swords from Hanwei which have a blade that is only 2" shorter than their H&H and it's flex is non-existant. Meanwhile, the sword that really should be passed, the Arms and Armor Federschwert, is not on any list that I've ever seen for C&T approved weapons.

I agree that a lot more weapons from the 14th century and earlier need to be accepted. Right now, from the lists that I've seen, the weapons are heavily weighted to the southern Europe 15th century and general 16th century and beyond spectrum. A lot of that has to do with the fact that there was a body of already approved heavy rapier blades in existence, obviously.


Josh Little
Ars Gladii
http://www.arsgladii.com

It would help if groups were better at sharing information, but that's a problem for another discussion. I can, for instance, produce a lot of testimonials to the effectiveness of Paul Binns' arming swords, but only because I've tracked down people to ask what they've been using for years.

I think you're referring to the #203 Fechterspiel sword from Arms and Armor. That's not on the approved list. But the Hanwei SH2333 Federschwert is on the approved list (according to the list I have from 2009).

The testing process for swords is not well publicized (again, the experimental process in the SCA is largely a question of who-you-know) and some swords that might be perfectly acceptable have not been approved because no one has stepped them through the testing process. The $400 price tag on the Fechterspiel sword might have something to do with that.

[JoshLittle]

It would help if groups were better at sharing information, but that's a problem for another discussion. I can, for instance, produce a lot of testimonials to the effectiveness of Paul Binns' arming swords, but only because I've tracked down people to ask what they've been using for years.

The Hammaborg guys are using those, correct? I've looked into those, but the bigest drawback is the wait list time (6+ months I think right now).

I think you're referring to the #203 Fechterspiel sword from Arms and Armor. That's not on the approved list. But the Hanwei SH2333 Federschwert is on the approved list (according to the list I have from 2009).

Yep, that's it (http://armor.com/train203.html for those wanting to follow along). I can't stand the Hanwei feders - it's like fencing with a metal tape measure. I've seen that same list - why is it that the only published list is from several years ago? Have no new blades been approved since then? Back to the better sharing discussion...

You're probably right in that there is most likely a chicken and egg situation going with blade approval. Most people looking for a C&T blade won't spend the money blades like the A&A trainers cost just to see if the blade will pass. It would take people who are coming into C&T from established steel fighting groups (most likely WMA/HEMA) that already have investments in these weapons to let them be tested non-destructively. If destructive tests are still on the table for C&T blade approval, the initiative will stall at some point as I'm surely not going to allow destructive testing on my fleet of steel weapons. Higher end blades marketed towards the WMA groups, such as the A&A and Albion weapons, would never be able to penetrate into C&T for that fact alone.

Josh Little
Ars Gladii
http://www.arsgladii.com

[LOGOS]

You guys are talking about cheap and A&A in the same paragraph? They are good swords, but they certainly aren't cheap. Darkwoods are cheaper.

Most SCA people are not going to pony up that kind of change for what they see as ancillary activity.

Why don't you guys talk to Hanwei about modifying and fitting the already approved pratical side sword blade into a cruciform hilt? It's not perfect, but that's the best you're going to get south of $150 or so. That or convince them to change the Knightly sword yet again. IMHO it's a touch heavy anyway.

No blade/sword maker is going to go through the expense and hassle of getting swords/blades approved until they are convinced the market is worth it. I'm not seeing it right now.

There are many things that need to happen for C&T to take off and I don't think anything will change anytime soon. That's Ok, I have plenty of people to play with. . And I always have spare swords for anyone wanting to try it if they can convince me they won't break my blades by trying to throw powered-through flat snaps.

[Dauyd]

You guys are talking about cheap and A&A in the same paragraph? They are good swords, but they certainly aren't cheap. Darkwoods are cheaper.

Most SCA people are not going to pony up that kind of change for what they see as ancillary activity.

Actually, their point was that the A&A swords AREN'T cheap.

However, the A&A sword linked to above is in the same price range as a Darkwood Bated rapier (mine was half again that much). The people willing to spend that kind of money don't see it as an ancillary activity.

[JoshLittle]

Yeah, definitely NOT saying the A&A is cheap stuff. I'm looking at it from the prospective of a WMA instructor who dabbles around the periphery of SCA combat (mostly heavy). I'd be interested in playing in the C&T world. I already have a stable of weapons that should work fine for C&T but they are not approved, probably because they are on the higher end of the price scale and therefore probably haven't been put into the testing bucket yet. The A&A trainers (Fectherspiel, Spada da Zogho, and Scholar's Sword models) would make perfect C&T weapons - far more so than the Hanwei stuff. I guess I'm just not looking to make the reverse investment - buying something that is less effective, cheaper, and less safe than a blade I already own. SCA C&T could be a fun place for WMA students to go and test their interpretations against a larger pool of fencers than their own school allows. But not if they are forced to buy inferior stuff to replicate something they already invested in.

And they are not that expensive. Dauyd is correct - my Darkwood Pappenheimer and my A&A longsword cost about the same.

[LOGOS]

You're talking apples and oranges. A Darkwood longsword is about $100 cheaper than the comparable A&A. Is the A&A better? Probably. $100 better? Not sure. $100 is lot of money for many SCA people.

Admittedly, the few WMA who might want to play in the SCA who already have expensive swords are screwed. I'm not sure how big that pool is, frankly.

I hear lots of excuses from people looking for the perfect simulator - they may be waiting a long time. If I really wanted to explore C&T, I'd find a way to adapt what is out there - but I'm from the old days when we all made all our own (admittedly crappy) stuff.

I'm not defending the blade approval process by any means - I think it's awful. IMHO the people in charge are not all that interested in seeing C&T expand.

[St. George]

There are those fighters that prefer minimum armor for rattan fighting and there is nothing wrong with that. Minimum armor supports their fighting style. IF C&T were to evolve into a heavier sport, the armor requirements would probably not be anything a sport fighter would be interested in. Some of them would complain about it because they couldnt particpate without using heavier armor, while other sport fighters might actually give a try. Who knows....?

Minimum armor is simply a definition of what is allowed in the game. "Minimum armor" would also have a usage in C&T or rapier.

A "sport fighter" is going to wear whatever he or she has to to play the sport. If vambraces were suddenly required in the SCA, then so-called sport fighters would wear them.

People will complain any time there is a change (except in a situation like the hard elbow under a shield rule. If that went away I doubt anyone would complain or notice).

As far as "swing for the fences" fighters, they are not a myth. In 25 years in the SCA, Ive fought a good number of them. I have had discussions with some who say they are trying to hit as hard as they can every time they step on the field. I call it a lack of control because the person is deliberately hitting with eveything they have rather than just enough to get a good blow. They dont seem to care about breaking their friends.

This perceptually off from the way that most fighters I know perceive things. Most people I know do hit towards the "as hard as I can" limit.

You have a different conception about fighting than I do- in that I routinely swing harder than I might in order to generate a good blow. This is done because I may have miscalculated, and want to make sure that if it does land, some of this miscalculation is accounted for and the shot might end up being good anyway. Just a different way of playing the game I guess. I learned from other sports that you don't cut it too close, or you might lose: you don't run "just enough faster than the other guy" to win, you don't "hit a ball just out of their reach" you put it away, etc, etc.

BTW I care a lot about not hurting my friends, but at the same time, the majority of them wear good armor, and I really don't have to worry about hurting them. Your friends should consider an upgrade if they are getting hurt, and uphold their end of the on field bargain if they are potentially getting hurt. If they choose to wear mins, and get hurt by an otherwise regular shot, then that is THEIR fault. I should not have to lower my fighting standard because they choose to wear rags rather than armor.

g-

[Therion]

But the Hanwei SH2333 Federschwert is on the approved list (according to the list I have from 2009).

Link/citation? I thought the 2009 list gave the 1st Generation federschwerts a thumbs down.

The 2nd generation feders came out in January of 2010.

I'm not arguing or complaining, just looking for a citation. It's been a couple of months since the last time I checked to see if the new federschwerts had been SCA-legalized yet.

(yes, I have several 2nd generation feders in stock)

[Aaron]

Would this work for C&T? A local knight uses one like it (but not for anything but slow work).

-Aaron

[Saritor]

Link/citation? I thought the 2009 list gave the 1st Generation federschwerts a thumbs down.

The list Jester has, IIRC, includes experimental weapons, which are legal in the Outlands for C&T-qualified combatants, provide they report usage &c up the chain as normal. AFAIK, they are still experimental-not-approved, and we have a couple of people using 1st gens that came from you (albeit not directly, since I sold them off after buying them originally from you).

I don't think they've used them much, as they prefer the non-whippy nature of the 4th gen longswords for any longsword play they do.

[Saritor]

Would this work for C&T? A local knight uses one like it (but not for anything but slow work).

Which, Aaron? I didn't see a picture posted or anything.

[jester]

Link/citation? I thought the 2009 list gave the 1st Generation federschwerts a thumbs down.

The list Jester has, IIRC, includes experimental weapons, which are legal in the Outlands for C&T-qualified combatants, provide they report usage &c up the chain as normal. AFAIK, they are still experimental-not-approved, and we have a couple of people using 1st gens that came from you (albeit not directly, since I sold them off after buying them originally from you).

I don't think they've used them much, as they prefer the non-whippy nature of the 4th gen longswords for any longsword play they do.

Thank you for clarifying that, and my apologies to everyone else for not citing my source. That was careless and confusing.

[Aaron]

Would this work for C&T? A local knight uses one like it (but not for anything but slow work).

Which, Aaron? I didn't see a picture posted or anything.

Whoops. These:

http://www.therionarms.com/reenact/ther ... c1169.html

[Saritor]

Nope, sorry. They work okay for backyard practices, and WMA groups have used them.

I personally don't like the balance on them, but they're cheap WMA gear.

You can get the C&T legal Hanwei longswords (practical hand and a half) off the internet for a variety of prices (including from Hal/Therion), and they are C&T legal. Slightly more investment, but I have one that's been used at WMA practices for a while, taken a beating and is still intact.

Hal, it was you that had the story about making sure your contact only shipped you the stuff from 1st Shift, wasn't it?

[jester]

If I buy a Hanwei hand and a half, cut it down by four inches with a plasma cutter and re-hilt it as a one handed sword, would that require re-evaluation before being allowable as a C&T blade?