Limited Grappling Experiment [SCA]

[Corwin_Roberts]

Or, "Enough talk. Let's put it to the test."

Lots of people want to see SCA armored combat have options for grappling. There have been several excellent discussions on the subject in recent years. Like this one:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=80150

The governing documents of the SCA provide options for suggesting changes, and that's exactly what I'm doing. However I've never been involved in an experimental weapons procedure, so I come to you for input.

The purpose of this thread is to put together a well-constructed, tightly-controlled proposal for limited grappling in the SCA. Safety, testability and fun are all important goals.

Many people disapprove of grappling on principle, and will oppose it in any form. If this is you, your opinions are duly noted, but this is not the place to discuss them. My goal here is to come up with a proposed set of rules that does allow for safe, enjoyable grappling as part of our game, not to debate the merits of its existence.

The basics of my proposed proposal are as such:

1. Grappling would be a separate, secondary authorization.
2. Grappling would be limited to single-combat scenarios where both combatants are authorized in the form, and agree ahead of time to allow it.
3. Throwing to the ground is forbidden.
4. Grabbing the head or neck is forbidden.
5. Putting stress on a joint for the purpose of causing pain or submission is forbidden.

This leaves a lot of room to play with, but it still needs a lot of work. Is a trip or sweep the same as a throw? Can we use weapon heads to "hook" or grab body parts? Can I tangle his legs with my haft? Or my blade? What about punching and kicking? I'd like these and other likely questions to be addressed in the final draft.

So my questions for you are twofold:

First, what changes to this draft would you like to see for the sake of safety, clarity, fun and enforceability?

Second, what does a good experiment proposal look like? How should it be written?

I'm especially interested in hearing from current and former senior marshals, as well as individuals in or outside the SCA with experience grappling in armor.

Remember, this is for the purpose of proposing a test, so that actual data can be acquired, not for debating opinions and conjecture. With that in mind, I welcome your input, and thank you for your thoughtful replies.

Respectfully yours,
Corwin Roberts

[Aaron]

I'm interested in what happens with grappling. The Avalon group has done it for years with great success. You are actually much safer IMO in full armour grappling then grappling without any armour at all. But it looks goofy. There is a good picture somewhere of the Tuchux Charity Tournament and some goofy bits that are actually serious.

Now I would be concerned with the "wings" on the arms and knees of most armour. The armbars don't work as well with the articulated arms because the articulated arm supports the arm. Chokes don't work as well with a gorget, but he wings on the arms could be a serious hazard IMO.

Slip, trip and fall stuff might be of concern. I would start the opponents on the ground before they graduated to fighting from their feet. Yes, I'm on record now in favor of knee fighting....the shame.

But if the grappling in armour was well monitored and NOT for any points, etc... (keep the ego out) it could go well IMO. Once the ego takes charge, restraint sometimes follows and injury fills the void.

With respect,

-Aaron

[Aaron]

Once my cap-a-pie suit is entirely tuned up, I was planning on running an Arts and Sciences experiment in grappling.

"Knocked from the Horse and On the Ground"

I've done Combatives enough to realize that it's best if you start on the ground, as far as injuries, safety and whatnot. So I’d lay flat on my back, give my unarmoured opponent a simulated dagger (a banana would work IMO) and see (1) IF I can escape with a full grown “peasantâ€

[Kilkenny]

I haven't been involved in any formal experiment proposals, so I won't be much help on what the preferred form might be today.

I will note that one of the real hazards in our game is landing on our heads. A fall where your helmet is the first thing to meet the planet is a harder blow than any weapon strike. With that in mind, I would submit that trips and sweeps are at least as big a risk as throws. In a proper throw, you've got hands on the other fellow and some say in how they go down. Trips and sweeps can take you ass over teakettle pretty quickly.

I'm not sure what the point is on barring joint locks. I would think submission would be a perfectly good victory condition.

I would not necessarily prohibit grabbing head or neck, but would prohibit grabbing the grill (no face masks). Grabbing the head isn't inherently dangerous, imo, but the grill is (to both parties - fingers trapped in a bar grill could get snapped in a very big hurry).

No punching or kicking. We're supposed to hit each other with our weapons, not our hands and feet, imo.

If part of the purpose is to expand our options for exploring more historic techniques, then we should definitely include use of weapons for trapping/grabbing, etc. Fiore's section on the dagger shows a number of applications and we might as well get this part into the package now, rather than having to come back and start over again with an expanded request for another round of experimentation.

[Aaron]

If grappling is mixed with weapons, full gauntlets or finger gauntlets would be required IMO. This limits the grappling, but would add to the experience IMO.

-Aaron

[Corwin_Roberts]

The idea is, in fact, to mix grappling in with weapons fighting, for those who have the authorization. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

EDIT: Period wrestling as a completely separate division is awesome, and I'd love to see more of it at events, but that's not what I was getting at here.

[Balin50]

I think it could be done at smaller scales. Just like anything the more folks doing it the bigger the chance for a idiot to be among them and hurt someone.

Balin

[Aaron]

I would suggest starting slowly, with two reasonable people watching and one with a videocamera to document the bouts (and show the errors if there is a danger).

-Aaron

[raito]

One of the problems with grappling in an SCA armoured context is that it defeats one of the (unstated) purposes of the rules, which is to allow the small and the large to be on relatively equal footing. there's a reason wrestling, et al. have weight classes.

But...

I'd allow throwing to the ground, and being thrown to the ground would result in a loss.

I'd probably do the same with intentional disarms, if the disarmer retains a weapon. We are supposed to be doing weapons, right?

I wouldn't allow kicks and punches. I haven't seen much of that in the manuals for fully armed men.

I agree with Gavin that head grappling is allowed, facemasking not.

I'd allow trips and sweeps if done either over a foot that's on the ground, or by a foot that's not higher than the ankle. My reasoining for this partciular restriction is complex.

So to win, you either hit the other guy with a good blow, deliberately put him on the ground (3 points down is sufficient), or deliberately disarm him while still armed. If you do down to 3 points while doing the above, you don't win (not a lot of ground fightng in the manuals I've seen either. That seemed to be reserved for to the death single combats). Then again, I like the idea of driving the other guy out of the lists for a win, too.

How do you deal with grappling from/to the knees?

[knitebee]

one thing that Adrian Empire has in there rules on it that I'd sugest adding. Not only is it with prior discusion of the fighters involved but also of the marshal. If the marshal doesn't feel the fighters can do it safely or if the marshal doesn't feel qualified to insure safety through the match with grapling then it wont be done.

[Mikhail_Voronov]

3. Throwing to the ground is forbidden

Umm, one problem i would have here.



Throwing to the ground is the point. Why would you eliminate the primary prupose of grappling?

[paulb]

I don't support including grappling in SCA combat, but following the purpose of this thread, I will make the following comments:

1. I strongly support Gavin's point about forbidding throws, trips and sweeps. Coming from a Judo background, I am very familiar with the damage a bad fall can cause. I'm also familiar with how easily a sweep or a trip can result in a bad fall, even if a fall was not the intention.

Think about driving the lower edges of your opponent's helmet through his/her collar bones - or having a tasset turned out, and being landed on edgewise.

2. I strongly support Brian's point about requiring that grappling bouts have marshalls who are qualified to marshall grappling. Again, in Judo, I have seen the dangers of not having a qualified referee/marshall. Often, the combatants are not aware of the danger of the particular technique being applied, either due to ignorance, or because the circumstances are such that they cannot determine what is happening.

Regards,

[Gaston de Clermont]

It seems there's a wealth of grappling that could be done from the waist up pretty safely. We might need to adjust armour standards a little to address Paul's concerns.

[Steven H]

Hello,

I like the idea of including grappling in the SCA since I come from a WMA background.

The ideas presented here make sense so far. But the follow-up question seems to me to be what are we attempting to represent? If it's grappling as it appears in period manuals, then we still need to distinguish between armoured and unarmoured.

* The armoured grappling assumes much more armor than SCA rules are normally intended to portray.

* The unarmed grappling from period manuals does include hand attacks, and pommel strikes etc. for the purpose of unbalancing the opponent to make a trip/throw/grab more successful.

* Kicks also appear (in Fiore) and in two distinct forms 1) a push kick (which I think could be fine) and 2) kicks to groin and knee, which should disallowed.

I'm new to the SCA and I'm interested to see how this develops.

Cheers,
Steven

[Edwin]

Grappling to me is manipulating an opponent's body. If causing an opponent to fall down is not legitimate, I wouldn't understand the point to allowing grappling in such a limited way. Either one is allowed to manipulate an opponent's balance, or not. If we are, people are going to fall down, and I cannot perceive rules, in an honor-system context, that establish sufficiently clear criteria.

IMO, reaps an sweeps are throws. There are numerous Judo throws that can be performed that are not bodily throwing an opponent to the ground, yet that's where opponents end up.

Once in SCA practice, I was in position and moving to execute a perfect Ukegosh; a side hip throw. My opponent put himself in that position at precisely the right time. All I needed to do was relax my hips and he would have been thrown; fortunately I was conscious enough of the situation to prevent the throw from happening. It seemed to me that no existing SCA rule would have been adequate, interpreting by letter-of-the-law.


I used to say that grappling was impossible to implement. I don't say that anymore... maybe it is possible. I just haven't read or heard rules that seem adequate.

[mrks]

I have had a fair amount of backyard practices.

grabbing the hands/feet/arms is right out. easy way to get an injury.
facemasking and head locks torques the neck.
kicking is fine as long as its not at the knee joint or hands.
punching is also not that bad if you are in full plate. would hate to take an armoured fist if I was wearing leather or a tee shirt.

lots more that needs to be built in but thats a start. some injuries have been experienced by doing those things.

[Tristan vom Schwarzwald]

Speaking as someone that had his ACL torn DUE to an incorrectly executed throw...I think you are openning a can of worms if you want to include throws...joints are really easy to damage if you do something wrong. It takes, for instance, remarkably little force to dislocate a shoulder...

[Kilkenny]

[quote="Aaron"]Once my cap-a-pie suit is entirely tuned up, I was planning on running an Arts and Sciences experiment in grappling.

"Knocked from the Horse and On the Ground"

I've done Combatives enough to realize that it's best if you start on the ground, as far as injuries, safety and whatnot. So I’d lay flat on my back, give my unarmoured opponent a simulated dagger (a banana would work IMO) and see (1) IF I can escape with a full grown “peasantâ€

[sha-ul]

[quote="Aaron"]Once my cap-a-pie suit is entirely tuned up, I was planning on running an Arts and Sciences experiment in grappling.

"Knocked from the Horse and On the Ground"

I've done Combatives enough to realize that it's best if you start on the ground, as far as injuries, safety and whatnot. So I’d lay flat on my back, give my unarmoured opponent a simulated dagger (a banana would work IMO) and see (1) IF I can escape with a full grown “peasantâ€

[Jon Barber]

[quote="Kilkenny"][quote="Aaron"]Once my cap-a-pie suit is entirely tuned up, I was planning on running an Arts and Sciences experiment in grappling.

"Knocked from the Horse and On the Ground"

I've done Combatives enough to realize that it's best if you start on the ground, as far as injuries, safety and whatnot. So I’d lay flat on my back, give my unarmoured opponent a simulated dagger (a banana would work IMO) and see (1) IF I can escape with a full grown “peasantâ€

[Signo]

You can allow a lot of techniques that allow for a contact or a manipulation of the opponent body without need to land him. There are plenty of things you can do that doesn't pose a danger, and allow a much more immersive gameplay. The problem with every techniques that end with a fall to the ground is that both parties must cooperate in that moment. A switch in behavior that I think it's impossible in a competitive bout. What I mean is this: when I apply a technique in my group, my opponent escape it only if I do it wrong and he can escape safely, if I do it right he accept it, because escape can be more dangerous for him or for me. At this point there is a sort of agreement, and he help me putting him on the ground in the most safe way possible. In this way it is pretty much safe. You just need to draw the line where you acknowledge the technique BEFORE it takes place, and not after. After is too late. If you acknowledge it before, you always have time to call for a stop if you don't feel safe with what's going on.
I hope you can understand what I mean.
My last problem with landings is with fighters that are overweight, they can suffer more from a bad fall, and their partner could not be strong enough to prevent it.

[Kenji]

I come from a martial arts background - I love grappling as I have trained in various forms of jujutsu and taijutsu. Some of us have trained for many many years to be good at martial arts (and associated grappling) and I just cant see how this can be done safely - tho I would liek to hear the possibilities in more detail. I would be interested to know what the Tuchux use as their ruleset.

I would like to know exactly what techniques would be considered ok to use.
I think the list of allowable (and safe) techniques would be much shorter than the non-allowed techniques list.

As far as I have been trained, grappling is designed to destroy an opponent.
I cant think of any grappling techniques that can be used safely, since grappling is designed to cause the opponents compliance through pain, joint locks and taking his balance.

I have seen and have no issue with grappling "of" weapons - taking an opponents weapon by the haft. But grappling with weapons is dangerous (its designed that way) - using your own weapon to unbalance or lock up an opponent.

I also wear a heavy helmet and would hate to be thrown to the ground with it on

[co10Broek]

I would recommend beginning with learning to fall, in and out of armor. Even if we are not taking people to the ground, accidents happen and falling is a reasonable skill set to have prior to authorization.

I would also like to see a method of acknowledging submission. It seems to me that the standard double tap may be difficult to communicate in an armored fight.

Perhaps the authorization should be structured e.g.
Striking with fists and feet
locking joints (yes I know some joint locks can be concluded with a takedown, this is an arbitrary distinction on my part.)
throws, trips, sweeps
I also like the suggestion a friend of mine had that falling be an authorization.

Jean-Michel
Intrigued but wary. . .

[Corwin_Roberts]

There have been many excellent replies so far. Thank you.

I'm also seeing some immediate problems that need fixing. One is an issue of terminology.

"Grappling" means different things to different people. To some grappling is defined as submission-fighting. to others it means knockdown fighting, or joint locks, or limb devastation, what have you.

According to the current SCA rules, grappling is defined as ANY intentional contact between your body and your opponent's. That's the standard that I believe is overly restrictive. I believe there is quite a bit of body-to-body contact that can be done safely and add to the quality and enjoyment of our game.

The next problem is a wide variety of opinions regarding the safety of various techniques. And, well, that's to be expected. That's what experiments are for. On the other hand, opinions born of long experience and observation should be taken into account.

The rules do need to address the worst-case scenario. We need to keep in mind that the vast majority of us are not well-trained athletes, "authorizations" do not produce consistent results, weapons can apply a lot of leverage against a joint unintentionally, not everyone wears the same kind of armor, we may fight on grass, gravel or concrete, etc.

On the other hand, some of these problems can be minimized with well-written rules and some of them are not as dangerous as we think.

In light of the varied thoughts presented here, my current inclination is to work in baby steps. Rather than "grappling", perhaps something like this would be a better place to start:

Corps à Corps

1. Still a secondary authorization
2. No grabbing, punching or kicking
3. No intentional or prolonged contact below the waist
4. No intentionally bearing your opponent to the ground

Under these rules, authorized combatants could use open hands, arms, elbows, head and torso to redirect, push, and otherwise manipulate each other, so long as nothing is grabbed (except for hilts & hafts... and your own blade) or bashed (except with the business end of a weapon), nobody is knocked down, and all required body parts remain covered.

I'd still love to see options for knockdown fighting in the SCA, but that would essentially require sending every marshal in the SCA to Judo camp for six months, and I don't see that happening any time soon. One step at a time.

What do you think?

[Lucas]

I also have studied martial arts, and cannot see the *safe* application of grappling and/or striking to our game without a complete overhaul of the rules, armour requirements, and marshal safety training.

As we are a volunteer organization, the cost in both time and money to make our equipment both safe *for any eventuality* coming from grappling, and training our safety personnel to a higher standard would be prohibitive. Unless we just simply allow striking. And people are going to fall down from being struck with an armored fist-maybe not all, maybe not half, but enough that armour modification would be necessary-which brings me back to the original point about cost from armour modifications. (Think about our "hard elbow behind shield" rule-not a lot people get struck there, but the rule is there "just in case" a weapon somehow finds its way down there.) Now think about the amount of "just in case" rules that would be created by allowing armoured grappling.

Also, IMHO the board of directors will consider this proposal, but will not approve it, simply because of the potential liability. The injury rate will skyrocket. Our sport in it's current form is relatively safe; Usually those who try to bend the rules, or forgo certain equipment are those who get hurt.

Lucas

[Hrolfr]

Corwin, why don't you contact Count Alaric (our KEM) and ask what information he would like to see.

[Diglach Mac Cein]

While this is a really interesting concept, I think the authorization process for it would need to be REALLY strict. SCA combat rules are written for the "lowest common demoniator" - in the case of grappling, not just the serious WMA or martial artist, but the guy who just wants to be able to use his size and power to push around other fighters.

I also wonder how hard a line we can draw between "pushing / manipulating / redirecting" and a elbow hook, or someone resisting by yanking the other guy off balance, and we end up with more of a wrestling match than a swordfight.

As a special "subset" of armored combat, like cut and thrust is for fencing, much more likely.


.

[Edwin]

There's still the issue of throws that are variations of lifting an opponent, and then essentially letting them drop. In a practice setting, that is when the uke (person being thrown) is intended to not be injured, nearly every throw is variation of lift-and-drop. There's no driving-to-the-ground. Some throws have very subtle lifts. Most of those throws can also be performed naked, that is without grabbing on to a gi or similar clothing.
That is the reason I wrote about the example using ukigosh; I didn't at any time grab on the guy I was practicing with. If I'm allowed to make contact to an opponent with my body or they can contact me with their body, I have the potential to cause them to fall down. The very tricky part in crafting adequate rules is that I would not be applying force to cause them to fall, but rather would be not using force at the correct time. I have a hard time seeing rules that would work in a competitive setting that eliminate the soft throwing techniques.

Using consequences as a criteria for whether a prhoibited throw was performed would be just as troublesome. Did the fighter A fall because fighter B performed a perfect Judo throw... or did fighter A fall because he tripped... or did fighter A fall on purpose to make it look fighter B was violating rules?

[Baron Alejandro]

frère jean-michel is very wise, and should be heeded in this matter.

I would recommend beginning with learning to fall, in and out of armor. Even if we are not taking people to the ground, accidents happen and falling is a reasonable skill set to have prior to authorization.

.

I also agree that it shouldn't be a 'lowest common denominator' auth. It should be *ADVANCED*. Cerebral flatulence - perhaps require some type of modern training?

[Aaron]

dude are you and the mrs planning on public foreplay

Good suggestion!

[Aaron]

...end up with more of a wrestling match than a swordfight.

Realistically I'd be using my pollaxe or polehammer to smash/cut/slam someone's shins (haft is fine) and toss them on the ground with the hook. But if they blocked that, the next bit is to get in close and confine them. When I've walked through that first shot and got in close, I've just put my pollaxe behind them, locking both arms to their side and then down we go. Lighter people I just pick up and carry away.

-Aaron

[Steven H]

There have been many excellent replies so far. Thank you.

I'm also seeing some immediate problems that need fixing. One is an issue of terminology.

"Grappling" means different things to different people. To some grappling is defined as submission-fighting. to others it means knockdown fighting, or joint locks, or limb devastation, what have you.

According to the current SCA rules, grappling is defined as ANY intentional contact between your body and your opponent's. That's the standard that I believe is overly restrictive. I believe there is quite a bit of body-to-body contact that can be done safely and add to the quality and enjoyment of our game.

The next problem is a wide variety of opinions regarding the safety of various techniques. And, well, that's to be expected. That's what experiments are for. On the other hand, opinions born of long experience and observation should be taken into account.

The rules do need to address the worst-case scenario. We need to keep in mind that the vast majority of us are not well-trained athletes, "authorizations" do not produce consistent results, weapons can apply a lot of leverage against a joint unintentionally, not everyone wears the same kind of armor, we may fight on grass, gravel or concrete, etc.

On the other hand, some of these problems can be minimized with well-written rules and some of them are not as dangerous as we think.

In light of the varied thoughts presented here, my current inclination is to work in baby steps. Rather than "grappling", perhaps something like this would be a better place to start:

Corps à Corps

1. Still a secondary authorization
2. No grabbing, punching or kicking
3. No intentional or prolonged contact below the waist
4. No intentionally bearing your opponent to the ground

Under these rules, authorized combatants could use open hands, arms, elbows, head and torso to redirect, push, and otherwise manipulate each other, so long as nothing is grabbed (except for hilts & hafts... and your own blade) or bashed (except with the business end of a weapon), nobody is knocked down, and all required body parts remain covered.

I'd still love to see options for knockdown fighting in the SCA, but that would essentially require sending every marshal in the SCA to Judo camp for six months, and I don't see that happening any time soon. One step at a time.

What do you think?

Sounds like a good starting point. I'd allow hand strikes. They are part of the historical set of techniques used to disrupt an opponenet and with the armour requirements shouldn't be too dangerous.

Cheers,
Steven

[jester]

Okay, I e-mailed the president of the SCA (not the current president) a few years back asking about wrestling OUT OF ARMOR. The SCA doesn't have a policy on this, so it's not forbidden. If you do a search on the SCA and Glima you'll find that actual tournaments have been held. Things may have changed in the passing years and your local Kingdom is free to restrict activities, but unarmored wrestling is pretty much wide open.

For grappling/wrestling in armor I would suggest that taking your opponent to the ground is the primary end-game condition. The ground is not the place you want to be in a fight. The other two end-game conditions would be immobilization and submission.

I would suggest that grappling needs to be a separate authorization because participants need to demonstrate a knowledge of the effects of armor on common techniques (joint locks tend to be more effective, and painful, in armor) and the ability to safely fall to the ground WHILE WEARING A HEAVY HELMET. In general, our system of combat regulates the weapons and armor and we trust in the safety of those items to ensure the safety of our opponents. Hit'em hard and let the armor do it's job. In grappling the safety of your opponent becomes the duty of the participant and we rely upon the knowledge and judgment of our opponent/partner to keep us safe.

I would also suggest that our general system of combat is currently not up to the task of dealing with grappling. We have people taking the field who think they are recreating a war scenario opposed by people who think they are recreating a tournament. Without some commonality of purpose, down at the scenario level at least, the resulting conflicts could be problematic. I'm comfortable grappling with someone who understands the idea of 'besting an opponent'. I'm not comfortable with the idea of grappling with someone who thinks he has to crush me because this is meant to be a war and winning is the only thing that matters.

[GermanicMayhem]

So now were SCMMA..... not sure about everywhere but with events having an "admission price" and with wanting to add what will be considered a restricted full contact measure you may have to add to this - on hand medical sevice, potential permission issues with the various state agencies who run the parks we use for events, and since events are designed to make money for the host you might be required to obtain a sports license like the bars and such that hold the tough man competitions.... essentially events will be charging admission to watch a fist fight.... do you plan to make pugelist one of the weapon types for crown?

[RoaK]

The only grappling I'd see us doing is grabbing the non weapons edged parts of weapons (hafts, shafts and stuff) and maybe the edges of shields. In my opinion we should stay away from grabbing body parts and throwing people to the ground.