The Armour Archive

I'm not a jouster, but I've enjoyed reading this thread, so take my comments with a grain of salt. My experience is SCA heavy fighting, and my very poor attempts at armoring.

(c) Body
(2) Rigid defense for the chest. This can take a variety of historical forms including a rudimentary breastplate or a reinforced surcoat. If it is leather based it should be made from at least 10 ounce (4mm) thick hardened leather and if it is made from metal, at least 14 gauge (1.6 mm) mild steel or equivalent.

Am I reading this correctly to state that "hardened" 10z leather would be considered equivalent to 14 gauge mild steel??

I use to fight in a mild 16 gauge breastplate, and my cousin fought in a hardened leather breastplate that was actually thicker than 10z. One year at Pennsic he took a spear thrust to the sternum, which literally lifted him off his feet. I thought he would never be able to catch his breath again, and thought we were going to have to take him to the hospital. I could get hit like that and have to make myself "take" the shot.

I couldn't imagine taking an errant lance shot to a non rigid metal breast plate.

I ride with some hard-hitting folk. (WCJA/FreeLancers)

I agree that perhaps leather breastplates are too light for 3' balsa tips.
A decent socket hit might cut right through leather?
Pretty much anything would be ok for mounted (crested helm) combat with the 1" balsa cannes, but lance passes may require metal in the target area (chest/neck/head).

What is the target area? Are we to wear IJA-style small wooden targes or take it directly on the chest/head? How many passes per match? Are there different match styles? How does the scoring (points not tips) work?

I have several friends -w- mounts and armour and a ground crew who are ready to go in 2010.

Trystyn of Anglesey wrote:I ride with some hard-hitting folk. (WCJA/FreeLancers)

I agree that perhaps leather breastplates are too light for 3' balsa tips.
A decent socket hit might cut right through leather?
Pretty much anything would be ok for mounted (crested helm) combat with the 1" balsa cannes, but lance passes may require metal in the target area (chest/neck/head).

What is the target area? Are we to wear IJA-style small wooden targes or take it directly on the chest/head? How many passes per match? Are there different match styles? How does the scoring (points not tips) work?

I have several friends -w- mounts and armour and a ground crew who are ready to go in 2010.

It will depend on what the tournament organizer details.

I want to second what John said about the chinstrap requirement. In my incredibly limited experience of getting hit, I did have one shot that skipped up off my shield and into my visor (houndskull basinet). Now this was not a very hard shot at all, but it did jar my helm up and back a bit ( a couple of head shakes and it resettled).


It did make me think though that if it had been a much harder hit, I would be
glad as all-get out that I _didn't_ have a chinstrap on. I would much rather
have the helm lift, rotate, fly off, whatever then have that force transferred
to my jaw/head.

Just something I have been thinking about.

dominic wrote:I want to second what John said about the chinstrap requirement. In my incredibly limited experience of getting hit, I did have one shot that skipped up off my shield and into my visor (houndskull basinet). Now this was not a very hard shot at all, but it did jar my helm up and back a bit ( a couple of head shakes and it resettled).


It did make me think though that if it had been a much harder hit, I would be
glad as all-get out that I _didn't_ have a chinstrap on. I would much rather
have the helm lift, rotate, fly off, whatever then have that force transferred
to my jaw/head.

Just something I have been thinking about.

Thirded.

If my helm isn't attached to the breastplate I'd rather have it come off than break my jaw.

Kilkenny wrote:Jeffrey, do you recall earlier in this thread when you pretty well jumped down my throat regarding a comment I made that people get hurt jousting ?

Most people, including me, consider a bone break that requires pinning to be "hurt".

Just sayin'

IMHO Jeff did not jump down your throat earlier. Also Jeff's injuries listed there are IMHO self-inflicted. Once your lance tip has shattered you have scored maximum points for the run, if it's hurting you, drop it. Unless your tourney will have a point penalty for dropping your lance, that is another ball game.

In our game you have to keep control of the lance from the moment it's handed to you until the moment you hand it back, -unless- it is wrenched free by the force of the strike. Guys who chuck lances away don't get invited back as it is considered -very- bad form.

Even so, the damage was done on impact. Carrying the lance to the end of the tilt isn't what did the damage, and dropping it wouldn't have decreased the severity of the injury.

And of course his injury was self inflicted since no one forces him to joust.

Gwen

it is wrenched free by the force of the strike. Guys who chuck lances away don't get invited back as it is considered -very- bad form.

I agree. It is a pet peeve of mine to see guys drop the lance mid-run. You MUST be in control the entire pass from taking the lance to handing it down to the squires. MUST.
Sometimes, a hit is so hard they heliocopter out of your hand, that is OK. Dropping on purpose? Lame.

Tarquin,

Are you honestly saying that you think there is time to make the -choice- to let the lance go on a really strong impact??

Hi all,
I figured the eye slot was going to be the biggest issue. Questions about engineering measurements aside (I do have an engineering degree btw ), the reason for the original specification was based on the 15 mm standard used in the IJA (based on the 4th edition rulebook that I have). If that standard has changed, or should be changed based on experience, then we should go to where there is a consensus in the jousting community. As we have seen in the discussions on this list, there are all sorts of ways to joust. The goal is to make it 'reasonably' safe, since we can't make it 'completely' safe.
On the same line, the mail over padding set forth for the body was also drawn from the IJA background. This was done based on my understanding that, as a group, they have quite a bit of experience behind their recommendations, and they are consistent with the IJL. I know there are 'harder hitting' groups out there, but that is not where we are headed with this experiment. Our goal is to make sure folks go home in one piece and not lament long term injuries.
I would like to see the discussion develop over the next week or two and see what kind of consensus we reach on some of the details.
As for the specific issue of measuring the eye slots, the measurement is to made 'as presented to an oncoming rider'. While this allows some wiggle room (if one person is on a 14 hh horse against a 17hh horse do we account for the angle? ), the intention is that we don't want excessively large eye slots. I would expect both riders and marshals to be reasonable in interpreting the standard. If someone isn't being reasonable, they will be addressed

From the initial commentary, it sounds like there is a consensus to at least go down to a 1/2" eye slot (Ariadne, is that easy enough to measure? ). If we need to adjust that further, then we will.

I hope it is clear that the only 'agenda' here is to come up with the best standards we can. I'm glad everyone is providing their input and expertise to help us do that.

With regards,
Dave/Alexis

p.s. time to go load up the armor to fight in our crown tourney in 30 degree weather (I know, warm for some of you, but chilly for us here in south Texas )

At work I have a spreadsheet that calculates equivalent thickness for metals of different strengths and different tempers. Equivalent to resist denting that is. A very strong but thin piece of spring steel can behave very elastically, bend, cause injury and pop bac into it original shape. This is a prime reason proper shap is necessary for safety rather then just adding more metal but it's a good foundation for 'or equivalent'.

I'll see if I can find the spread-sheet.

I don't have data on leather or plastic or padding and maile. That will have to be confirmed experimentally. (preferably without people inside)

Sean

Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:Tarquin,

Are you honestly saying that you think there is time to make the -choice- to let the lance go on a really strong impact??

it is you holding the lance stiff and on target that gives big impacts. It doesn't take much to get a shatter and score max points.


Vamplates also make a big difference in hand injuries.

Tarquin Bjornsson wrote:

Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:Tarquin,

Are you honestly saying that you think there is time to make the -choice- to let the lance go on a really strong impact??

it is you holding the lance stiff and on target that gives big impacts. It doesn't take much to get a shatter and score max points.


Vamplates also make a big difference in hand injuries.

I think you and I play different games. You obviously don't understand how my fellow competitors and I joust with each other. That's fine. No problem.

It doesn't take much to get a shatter and score max points.

Are we talking about balsa here, or foam? The balsa we use has the same density as mid-grade pine or harder. It takes a hard, clean shot to get a break, and a hard, on target shot to break to the ferrule and score max. points.

Anyway, this doesn't have much to do with the topic, which is currently armour regs for balsa jousting in the SCA.

Gwen

On the matter of mail with padding on the torso, the desire is to cover as wide a range of time periods as possible. I know there a number of folks who want to do 14th century, and personally I don't think we need to go to 15th century to be able to safely balsa joust. If folks are happy with requiring at least some form of rigid protection over the chest, then I'm fine with that, just trying to be as accommodating as possible.
On the eye slots, I haven't heard anyone lobbying for the larger slots, and quite a few lobbying for the 3/8ths. Since I'm guessing that most SCA folks are likely to have to make new visors or helms to participate, how much objection is there to going ahead and setting the standard at the 3/8th's to an oncoming rider?
Regards,
Dave/Alexis

just trying to be as accommodating as possible.

Honestly, this is one of the biggest problems with SCA rules and red tape.

If you begin to sacrifice common sense and safety to include more people, the chance of injury or incident will rise. When it comes to jousting, and horses in general, I think it's best to err on the side of caution and standards of safety.

Hey careful about tarring with too broad a brush
I won't try to defend every 'compromise' ever done in the SCA, but I hope folks realize that on this specific issue, the standards that are being developed for balsa jousting are being worked out right here, based on careful consideration of the input of the folks inside and outside the SCA who have experience with balsa jousting.
Note I said as accommodating as possible. I hope it's been pretty clear in the discussion here that this is not a case of 'dumbing down' the requirements, especially if they affect safety or common sense.
Specifically, I know there are groups, such as the Aussies and New Zealand folks who have been balsa jousting for years in 14th Century kit. Setting a standard that allows them to continue doing what they have been safely doing for years (in very nice kit btw) within the SCA sounds like an eminently reasonable thing to do.
If, in the course of discussion, it comes out that there have been groups balsa jousting using a standard that does not have a good track record, then we will account for that also.
Regards,
Dave/Alexis

p.s. If anyone thinks that things are being 'compromised' please speak up. The best chance for this to succeed is when folks understand why the standards are where they are.

I think a maximum 3/8" ocularia is prudent.

Trystyn,
Regarding targeting and scoring, those are likely to be worked out at the tournament level. My understanding is that the vast majority of folks are likely to use an ecranche, thus maximum scoring will be based on breaking a lance on the shield. If someone wants to organize a tournament that specifies no shields, then I would expect that the tournament organizer will set the bar higher on the level of armor required. Not just in specifications, but also overall fit and finish as well.
For the foreseeable future, balsa jousting is likely to roll out on an event by event basis. As such, the specific jousting taking place in a given area is going to reflect who is taking point on getting things organized. As tournaments are proposed, then I would expect there to be a bit of discussion as to the format, who is suitably armed for different formats, and then it will come together as the specific resources are evaluated.
Regards,
Dave/Alexis

IMHO, always err on the side of caution. Should someone joust in full 13th century kit, then they should have sometype of extra-protection under their maille on their chest. Misses happen, folks, and injuries occur, this is one medieval sport that should have a fairly comprehensive set of minimum standards.

!/4" to 3/8" occulars should be mandated (splinters are a beast, just ask Lance from Kelly Bailey's troupe), but chinstraps should be optional (a properly fitting and padded helm is sufficient).

When we did the IJA Sword of Valour Tournament in Michigan back in 2007, we stipulated that echrance and grand gardes were interchangeable (as Cassandra's kit is set up to WCJA Realgestech standards). No one seemed to have a problem, and it seems to me that as long as the shield minimum sizes are adhered to, if folks that prefer to have their grand garde, rather than strap on echrance, would be okay. But, again, that is up to the individual tournament/SCA rules.

Since I am, again, at work, I will be short for now, but I will email you Dave and give you my thoughts (and see if I can find my v.6 IJA rulebook).

Alexis,

I think the armour requirements you posted for balsa jousting are a good starting point.

My comments would be:

1. In general, a .60 inch eyeslot is way too big for general safety when lots of balsa shards are flying around. Especially with some people using close fitting helms, then even the coronels can be a problem if you get a hit to the helm. 3/8" max I think is much safer, like Trystan suggested.

2. Leather armour is absolutely unacceptable as primary projection for balsa jousting. MSR had a 'bad' piece of balsa go completely through Jeff Wasson's wood shield and keep going (picture on his armour site or the MSR website someplace). And that was scored balsa IIRC. If someone has a leather gorget as secondary protection that is one thing, but having leather be the only thing stopping a lance from nailing your throat, is extremely inadequate in my opinion.

3. 3/8" padding minimum under some armour makes a lot of sense. Under a lot of full plate armour just 3/8" is overkill for many if not most spots. Leading to unnecessary heat build up. This is good example of it is hard to write simple hard and fast rules that apply to all types of armour, if you are going to have jousting done in everything from 11th to 16th century harness. For example a chinstrap is pointless as well as historically incorrect in a bolt on helm with a suspension harness and certain other types of armour, so you need equivalency rules if you want to keep the rules simple.


After talking to you about why you went with foam jousting, I understand your approach now. Originally I was against foam jousting, as it allowed people to joust without proper armour or appearance. My problem with it is that once you let people do things without proper armour, it is always hard to go back and increase the standards for safety or appearance in the SCA. Because "we've always done it this way and you are oppressing me/ruining my fun/forcing me to upgrade or replace kit" becomes the rallying cry. I always thought people should learn to ride in armour competently, before they go after someone else with a lance.

However I agree that the foam jousting did convince the SCA powers that be to allow it to grow and for balsa to be introduced. So in the end your approach was better than mine, in that yours got jousting going where my approach would have likely left it DOA. It was a pleasure to see it in person at Gulf Wars and video from other SCA events.

But for the balsa jousting, I'd really like to start off with very strict safety standards, not worry about being accomodating. Otherwise you'll get a bunch of people building or buying leather harness and helms with huge occulariums and then complaining when we try to get rid of those in a year or two.

Let's get it right the first time. Set a high bar for those who want to do this, so we don't get a serious injury or worse and have the whole program shut down.

It is hard to tell combat archers they need to use ammo that won't go into a rattan combat helm's eyeslot, then justify .60 occulariums with fragmenting balsa tips in the tiltyard.

Thank you for taking this project on. Please consider any of my comments as intended to be suggestions or constructive criticism, not in any way meant to be offensive. I commend you for your good works on behalf of equestrians.

Richard Blackmoore

Richard Blackmoore wrote:
2. Leather armour is absolutely unacceptable as primary projection for balsa jousting. MSR had a 'bad' piece of balsa go completely through Jeff Wasson's wood shield and keep going (picture on his armour site or the MSR website someplace). And that was scored balsa IIRC.

Richard Blackmoore

The pic in question is on his website. The encranche was 1/2" plywood.

http://www.wassonartistry.com/images/jo ... G_0625.JPG

Galvyn Lockhart wrote:

Richard Blackmoore wrote:
2. Leather armour is absolutely unacceptable as primary projection for balsa jousting. MSR had a 'bad' piece of balsa go completely through Jeff Wasson's wood shield and keep going (picture on his armour site or the MSR website someplace). And that was scored balsa IIRC.

Richard Blackmoore

The pic in question is on his website. The encranche was 1/2" plywood.

http://www.wassonartistry.com/images/jo ... G_0625.JPG

That's the pic I remember. I think there is also one of it sticking through the back but I could be wrong. Can you load the pic into the thread so people don't have to click the link to see it?

Give my best to your family.

Richard

Back in 05, Cassandra and I were jousting at the Silverleaf Renaissance Faire in Michigan. We always purchased our balsa from Lone Star Balsa and did the rounding outselves. We were using 8' pine dowel and a 3' section of balsa in the realgestech-style and though we blasted the crap out of each other, we couldn't get a break (we had to score them deeply for the next show).

After the show, Cass took one of the tips and beat it repeatedly over the edge of a 20 yard dumpster and still couldn't get it to break. The varying "hardness" of balsa has always seemed to be an issue in the Northern Hemisphere (as they can apprently order it by 'hardness' down under). Also, I know that Rod and the folks from Australia have put a few balsa tips completely through full wooden shields in the past, so that should be a competitors consideration before mounting up to joust.

Now, I really need to get back to work (but I probably won't....)

we don't get a serious injury or worse and have the whole program shut down.

Given the sketchy insurance climate we live in here, a catastrophic injury to an SCA person balsa jousting would effectively shut down ALL balsa jousting in the US. What the SCA does with this program may have far reaching implications, potentially impacting those of us -not- in the SCA.

Something to think about. I sure do.

Gwen

Lloyd wrote:Back in 05, Cassandra and I were jousting at the Silverleaf Renaissance Faire in Michigan. We always purchased our balsa from Lone Star Balsa and did the rounding outselves. We were using 8' pine dowel and a 3' section of balsa in the realgestech-style and though we blasted the crap out of each other, we couldn't get a break (we had to score them deeply for the next show).

Funny - from the same source doing the same ripping and rounding Chris and I had a piece or two like that. He jacked me about 4-5 times and after I beat the piece against the ground and still did not get it break. Sometimes the balsa gets mis-labeled clearly and a tough piece. Clearly why armor has to be up to standards.

I noted this elsewhere, but thought it should be mentioned here as well. I agree that anything above a 1/2" ocular opening should not be allowed. However, given the standards of groups like the IJA/IJL being 1/2" do we want to go below that? I am pretty sure my basinet is probably right at 3/8" (will measure tonight) but I would have to put off jousting in the SCA if we go below my equipment I have for the same game otherwise until I could get a new visor made.

Also, I think I saw mention of screens up there somewhere. How is the proposed attachment of that going to be done? I am not sure I would really want a screen inside my helm - it fits good and is a snug fit, but there is NOT a lot of room there in there and I certainly do not want to put something like on the outside. And yeah, I have taking a few balsa hits on it for the record.

Raynold of Wharram wrote:I noted this elsewhere, but thought it should be mentioned here as well. I agree that anything above a 1/2" ocular opening should not be allowed. However, given the standards of groups like the IJA/IJL being 1/2" do we want to go below that? I am pretty sure my basinet is probably right at 3/8" (will measure tonight) but I would have to put off jousting in the SCA if we go below my equipment I have for the same game otherwise until I could get a new visor made.

Also, I think I saw mention of screens up there somewhere. How is the proposed attachment of that going to be done? I am not sure I would really want a screen inside my helm - it fits good and is a snug fit, but there is NOT a lot of room there in there and I certainly do not want to put something like on the outside. And yeah, I have taking a few balsa hits on it for the record.

I don't want to tell other groups to change their rules, I'm just giving my opinion that I think .60 is too big. I prefer 1/4", at most 3/8".

So for the SCA, I'd like to see us err on the side of safety for once, whether the other groups follow suit or not.

In the MSR, SCA and other groups I've been involved with over the decades, we've had people at times who simply can't ride well. But they insist on riding in armour. Then they decide they want to joust. So they want the biggest occularium they can get, instead of learning to ride properly and get used to a smaller eye slot for safety in the tilt. A recipe for disaster. At least now most groups require people to ride better before jousting, a plus. I just don't want to see helm safety dumbed down just so more people can play without having to be good at this. Balsa jousting should always err on the side of caution in the SCA, given the number of people who want to do it, who are used to taking chances with other types of combat and who don't like rules. Set the right rules at the outset and we won't have to argue.

"I want to joust!"

-Great, learn to ride. Then learn to ride in armour. Then wear the right equipment per the rules and we are happy to have you learn to joust. That should be the SCA's approach.

I don't want to see that allowed for balsa jousting in the SCA.

Black Swan Designs wrote: we don't get a serious injury or worse and have the whole program shut down.

Given the sketchy insurance climate we live in here, a catastrophic injury to an SCA person balsa jousting would effectively shut down ALL balsa jousting in the US. What the SCA does with this program may have far reaching implications, potentially impacting those of us -not- in the SCA.

Something to think about. I sure do.

Gwen

That, of course, is the concern regardless of the entity sponsoring the activity...SCA, MSR, Renfaires, IJA, IJL, WCJA, WJ, etc. There are a few on that list I'd be much more concerned about over the SCA. I'm glad we have an attorney heading up this experiment!

Of course, as you mention, the insurance climate in the US can be ridiculous, did you notice any additional insurance regulation after the 2007 incident in England?

Also, since you are an event organizer and probably know the answer...isn't the insurance General Liability for the venue...i.e. not meant to cover the participants? If so, why would a participant injury effect the GL coverage? Silly question, I know...we're talking about insurance companies doing whatever they want here!

Richard has it dead on. This sport is not for the "fly by night" kind of participant. It requires a TON of upkeep, expense and cost. I fully believe that the people that wish this in the SCA will make the effort to both be as safe as possible, and meet stringent requirements of safety.
I have to agree that anything over 1/2 inch for vision is way too big. Smaller is better, and I have very good vision in my great bascinet that has slightly over 1/4 inch of opening. I see a lot of "SCA" faceplates that have far larger openings that are designed for the SCA with the look of a historical visor. I do not feel that these are safe enough for balsa (but fine for the foam). I also do not feel that any type of leather is suffcient as a stand alone defense, for the reasons stated above, and the chance that an armor failure could shut down balsa in one sweep.
In the realm of earlier time frame jousting, the honest outlook is that the kind of jousting we are doing is actually later in time frame as presented. The tournaments we are putting on are a far difference than the more "war training" of the earlier tourneys. That however, is just my opinion.

I would also add that at the outset of balsa, we begin the trial with the "scored" lances and not the solid balsa dowl. This is something that can both let us begin with a safer (IMO) lance and then later switch over to less scored, or solid balsa tips. It would be far more feasible to make minor switches like this than trying later to ammend armor and other equipment requirements.

did you notice any additional insurance regulation after the 2007 incident in England?
In the US or in England?

isn't the insurance General Liability for the venue...i.e. not meant to cover the participants? If so, why would a participant injury effect the GL coverage?
It's not a silly question at all. My feeling is that an injury to a competitor opens the door to an insurance company waking up to the nature of the event and saying 'hold on here- people can get HURT doing that??? What if a piece of wood flies into the audience? What if a kid runs out on the field?'

Because the safety record is currently so good, they don't seem to understand the potential for disaster. My fear is twofold- 1) That a catastrophic injury to a competitor would clearly point out the potential danger to the audience, and 2) the domino effect such an injury could have on the audience.

We hold our event in an equestrian facility, and the jousting takes place in a fully (polo wire net) fenced arena. At a reenactment event you'll probably have a double row of rope to keep the audience out of harm's way. If a lance helicopters out of someone's hand, or someone is hit and hurt or unhorsed and a horse runs into the audience people could get hurt.

My concern isn't so much for the participants, because my assumption is they're doing it of their own volition, and assume the risks entailed in the activity. I guess it's more the trickle down effect that concerns me.

Gwen

Black Swan Designs wrote:did you notice any additional insurance regulation after the 2007 incident in England?
In the US or in England?

isn't the insurance General Liability for the venue...i.e. not meant to cover the participants? If so, why would a participant injury effect the GL coverage?
It's not a silly question at all. My feeling is that an injury to a competitor opens the door to an insurance company waking up to the nature of the event and saying 'hold on here- people can get HURT doing that??? What if a piece of wood flies into the audience? What if a kid runs out on the field?'

Because the safety record is currently so good, they don't seem to understand the potential for disaster. My fear is that a catastrophic injury to a competitor would clearly point out the potential danger to the audience.

Gwen

Both...either.

I certainly share your concerns Gwen...I love the sport too. I wonder how this very topic is handled in auto racing, eventing (where, of course, 2008 had several deaths in an International setting), and the big one...rodeo.

I think the simple answer, of course, is money. Smaller events just don't have the budget to cover outrageous premiums....however, these equally dangerous (if not more) events have found a solution for the catastrophic (i.e. Dale Ernhardt, Christopher Reeves, Frodo Baggins, dozens of cowboys and stock, etc.).

The US insurance industry doesn't seem to pay much attention to stuff outside the US, so I don't think Paul Allen's accident appeared on the radar. Also, in England his death was not seen as a jousting accident per se, just a freak accident occuring during shooting on a TV show.

In most of the sports you name the audience is protected at least fairly well- in auto racing they are in stands which are generally higher than the course, rodeo they are in bleachers behind pipe corral, eventing they are pretty far away or outside an arena, etc.

And yes, if we any of us had wads of cash to throw down for insurance and purpose built tiltyards with galleries/bleachers/stands, spectator safety wouldn't even be an issue.

Gwen

Richard, thanks for the input, certainly no offense taken
In looking at the feedback so far, it is appearing that we are likely to just go ahead and shoot for the 3/8" as presented to an oncoming rider standard. Less anyone claims too much bias, it means I'll get to modify my own helm, which sits at the 1/2" mark Either that, or I just go ahead and make another one....
Regarding the body, it is appearing that some sort of rigid protection is appropriate. From the commentary so far, it seems that even the groups that allow mail over padding routinely use more. If that is the case, are there recommendations for what constitutes a sufficient coat of plates or similar armor to either supplement the mail or replace it? From an armorer's standpoint, the protection offered will depend on a combination of the material used for the plates, the size of the plates and the spacing/attachment. The difficulty is trying to define it clearly for someone trying to meet the standard who hasn't jousted enough to understand the nature of the hits.
I wanted to address one thing again, since it has been mentioned several times recently. I know there is a fear of the lowest common denominator. In this case, this is one arena that there won't be any apologies for telling folks no. The standard we are shooting for here is that if their kit isn't up to snuff, they won't be balsa jousting in the SCA. Now that being the standard, we will still be relying on educated marshals to know what they are seeing when someone approaches them wanting to joust. That is where the next challenge will be, getting folks in place to see that we are doing things 'right'.

Regards,
Dave/Alexis

A COP over maille I would consider sufficient protection. However, the COP must be of metal construction IMO. A plastic COP might crack under the kind of impact of a balsa strike and would certainly not stand up to a sleeve strike if the balsa broke on the target and the metal had a secondary hit on the body.

Another question, what are you looking for in terms of volunteers/marshals/experimental folks for the endeavor? We were talking about this at our kingdom 12th night Saturday, and the possibility of having a balsa "demo" joust at our large EQ event in the Midrealm.

Thanks!