Eule wrote: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.
Well, I happen to know the answer for (at least a segment of) the amateur auto racing circuit...
The SCCA (Sports Car Club of America) gives it's members secondary injury insurance as part of being a dues paying member, and it's dues are approximately 2x the amount of SCA dues (on the order of $70 a year) for a "Pit Crew" licensed member. (You also get a much nicer magazine, but I think that's as much because the "Hey, we want to sell you stuff for your car" market is much more lucrative than the "Hey, we want to sell you armor" market)
Membership is *required* to get into certain areas of the event (the pits and onto the track, mostly), along with waivers that make the SCA waiver look tame. It is heavily enforced, there is no "I just want to see what it's like before committing". You can purchase a single weekend membership ($20) a limited number of times, however.
I also point out that running a car at an SCCA event will set you back $200+, not including any mechanical or fuel cost, that's just entry fees. Significant difference in cost scope there.
Leo Medii wrote: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!
Most folks know I'm a big fan of being authentic and *especially* eliminating all plastic in the SCA, but in this particular case I see the distinct need for stating that no balsa jousting armour can be made of plastic.
Gorm wrote:I also point out that running a car at an SCCA event will set you back $200+, not including any mechanical or fuel cost, that's just entry fees. Significant difference in cost scope there.
Balsa approval is going to be a work in progress. What I am working on now is to get an idea of where folks are located at, and what resources are in place throughout the SCA. I've started with the armor requirements so that folks know what kit will be required. I would assume that some folks are going to have to get out to their shops, or contact their favorite armorers to bring their kit up to speed. There will be some folks who already have the appropriate gear, and in some cases have already been balsa jousting. The next step in those situations will be to get those folks in touch with their KEO. Where it will go from there will depend on what opportunities exist in that kingdom for getting the folks with the experience working with the local SCA marshalate. In some cases, the KEO's are already familiar with balsa jousting, so they are ahead of the curve and it should be relatively easy to get practices going. In other cases, we'll need to get the KEO's comfortable with those with the balsa experience and proceed at the rate we can maintain standards at.
I am presuming that will happen on a case by case basis as folks indicate they want to add balsa to an event. When is the equestrian event you are referring to?
Regards,
Dave/Alexis
Eule wrote:Most folks know I'm a big fan of being authentic and *especially* eliminating all plastic in the SCA, but in this particular case I see the distinct need for stating that no balsa jousting armour can be made of plastic.
Bravo! Good man. Plastic really has no place on the Jousting Field. As noted above, it just doesn't have the rigidity (at least the forms of plastic likely to be used by SCA folks) to withstand a socket strike to the solar plexus. I'm sure that NASA makes some stuff that would be great, but...unlikely to be found in SCA use, and its existence would be used as an excuse for sub-standard kit, IMO.
BTW, I am very pleased to note how things are going on this thread. I like seeing that reason is being held to on the proposals, and that being a tad bit overzealous in regards to armour standards is a good thing.
And as others have noted before me, if you hold to using high-quality reproductions of historical jousting armours from the Age of Plate, you can't go far wrong insofar as safety goes. (With the exception of sallets...)
Cheers!
Gordon
"He who wields the sword will be first served"
Charles Napier
Rittmeister Frye wrote:Plastic really has no place on the Jousting Field.
Truth be told, I'd love Alexis to state "no plastic on the jousting field"...then, as a Marshal I would be justified in refusing plastic Walmart garage pavilions, plastic water bottles, plastic lawn chairs, etc. Hmm...even cell phones!
...but, alas, I'm sure my most sincere justifications on the matter to him won't give me the satisfaction I so deeply require...
Rittmeister Frye wrote:Plastic really has no place on the Jousting Field.
Truth be told, I'd love Alexis to state "no plastic on the jousting field"...then, as a Marshal I would be justified in refusing plastic Walmart garage pavilions, plastic water bottles, plastic lawn chairs, etc. Hmm...even cell phones!
...but, alas, I'm sure my most sincere justifications on the matter to him won't give me the satisfaction I so deeply require...
Alas! Well, you can always hope for it though! Have you tried blackmail?
Cheers!
Gordon
"He who wields the sword will be first served"
Charles Napier
Yeah, you know it's a tough sell to get me to go authentic on things....
What we have done in our kingdom is use the equestrian events as a showcase opportunity to get folks to elevate their game. While there is still plenty of folks who could improve their kits, it has been gratifying to see that most folks will step up when presented with more authentic examples.
With the balsa there is going to be a much higher degree of authenticity simply because the margin of error in the activity is smaller, so there has to be less tolerance for compromises.
Regards,
Dave/Alexis
ps Steve last time I checked those coronels weren't made of steel
Sir Alexis wrote:ps Steve last time I checked those coronels weren't made of steel
Unless your name is Rod Walker, wearing maille, and you are ABSOLUTELY Crazy. Of course he was jousting with someone he knew very well, and had made hundreds of passes with. Still nuts, but less so that one might otherwise suspect.
Cheers!
Gordon
"He who wields the sword will be first served"
Charles Napier
I am presuming that will happen on a case by case basis as folks indicate they want to add balsa to an event. When is the equestrian event you are referring to?
There are two events in the Middle this summer that would be able to have balsa jousting.
Baron Wars and Seige of Talonval.
These events have an excellent track record of EQ participation, and our current EQ Dean already is prepared for balsa jousting, as is Chris, Steve, myself and Jeff. All are IJA jousters, and are ready to participate at the start up of any balsa activity.
Lion of Irnham - Martial undertaking should never be a lowest common denominator endeavor.
Coronels on lances even better. I believe they should be mandatory.
Balsa density/hardness-
I've used balsa from 2 companies and have had no problem with excessive variation in hardness/density. Most suppliers are fine with a customer specifying the density of the sticks ordered, though it sometimes costs more for specific density. We have used and I would suggest 6-8 pound density, which is usually considered "medium" density. This density provides reasonable strikes that you can "feel" without being too hard. Lighter density doesn't offer any "feel" so you don't really know if you've hit, and breaks so easily that the abruptness of the secondary socket or "ferrule" hit is, in my opinion, unacceptable. This abruptness can lead to hand injuries. Overall the balsa should be of sufficient density that it will absorb and "re-direct" some of the impact of the strike, so the hand doesn't have to take all of it if there's a secondary ferrule strike, which is like hitting with unbreakable wood.
The way the balsa tip is cut can aid in this also. It is possible to joust without cutting the balsa in any way, but doing so creates more opportunity for the balsa to shear at the socket, rather then shattering. We have found that making one cut 1/3 of the length and another cut 1/2 of the length provides a 3 zone resistance. The end third breaks easily, the portion from the end of the first cut to the end of the second takes more force to break, and the remaining solid portion takes a lot of force to break. This final tough portion also absorbs a lot of the impact and can aid in the "redirect" of the lance so if/when the socket hits, it reduces the recoil.
Abruptness of the impact should be considered in the "breaking" equation, so it really important to think of the balsa as an "energy absorption" device, not just something to make spectacular splinters.
All of this assumes extra breakage points are given in the scoring. When breakage points are awarded, it's in the jouster's best interest to try for a ferrule strike on every pass. This is the only way to try to be sure the breakage points are awarded. A side effect of this is that if the riders run close to the tilt, the strike angle gets quite acute and the force increases significantly. That's where hand and other injuries happen from lance recoil.
Once jousters become more experienced, the density of the wood can go up a little, say 8-10 pound balsa, but should be no denser than 10 pounds per cubic foot. Anything denser than that generally doesn't break, which is where stories of "unbreakable" balsa come up. Some balsa can be as dense as mahogany and is harder to break than some oak. Balsa is a hardwood after all.
There are many, many, many factors involved in this balsa jousting equation. Please try to take them all into account.
Where marshalling is concerned, I hope experienced but non-SCA advisors' perspectives and opinions will be given more weight in this than an SCA marshall who may have the "authorization" but not the experience with this type of activity. If somebody's "marshalling card" is given more weight than the practical experience of somebody who doesn't happen to be in the SCA, there will be problems. Dave, stick to your guns about heeding people with experience regardless of background or affiliation. It will help this effort in the long run.
Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:Where marshalling is concerned, I hope experienced but non-SCA advisors' perspectives and opinions will be given more weight in this than an SCA marshall who may have the "authorization" but not the experience with this type of activity. If somebody's "marshalling card" is given more weight than the practical experience of somebody who doesn't happen to be in the SCA, there will be problems. Dave, stick to your guns about heeding people with experience regardless of background or affiliation. It will help this effort in the long run.
Bingo, +1.
There are a number of "qualified" EQ Marshals who are barely able to stay in the saddle, let alone be competent judges of horsemanship who have been set loose upon the landscape. At least in my experience. Add to this that the knowledge of a ground-qualified Marshal is going to be based upon a completely different set of assumptions means that properly qualified Marshals for Balsa Jousting are going to have to be brought up pretty much from scratch. There are a few folks out there who can hit the ground running, but not many. Pulling together a competent set of Marshals will take a bit of effort, I believe. Sadly it will also probably step on a lot of toes, but there it is.
Edited to add: I think it would be in error for anyone who has not/does not Balsa Joust to be officially qualified to Marshal for it. It may reduce the pool of available Marshals, but there are some serious details of the sport that can easily be overlooked by the novice. Having it's own category of the Marshallate would probably be a good idea. (Been a while, but as I recall you must be qualified to Heavy Fight in order to Marshal for that sport, and Rapier-qualified to Marshal for that end of things. Correct?)
Cheers!
Gordon
Last edited by Rittmeister Frye on Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
"He who wields the sword will be first served"
Charles Napier
There are a number of "qualified" EQ Marshals who are barely able to stay in the saddle, let alone be competent judges of horsemanship who have been set loose upon the landscape. At least in my experience. Add to this that the knowledge of a ground-qualified Marshal is going to be based upon a completely different set of assumptions means that properly qualified Marshals for Balsa Jousting are going to have to be brought up pretty much from scratch. There are a few folks out there who can hit the ground running, but not many. Pulling together a competent set of Marshals will take a bit of effort, I believe. Sadly it will also probably step on a lot of toes, but there it is.
Cheers!
Gordon
How about we let those with actual experience at this thing be the ones to "marshall" it?
Heck, I'll repeat it, as I think it's worth strong consideration:
I think it would be in error for anyone who has not/does not Balsa Joust to be officially qualified to Marshal for it. It may reduce the pool of available Marshals, but there are some serious details of the sport that can easily be overlooked by the novice. Having it's own category of the Marshallate would probably be a good idea. (Been a while, but as I recall you must be qualified to Heavy Fight in order to Marshal for that sport, and Rapier-qualified to Marshal for that end of things. Correct?)
Cheers!
Gordon
"He who wields the sword will be first served"
Charles Napier
Rittmeister Frye wrote: There are a number of "qualified" EQ Marshals who are barely able to stay in the saddle, let alone be competent judges of horsemanship who have been set loose upon the landscape. At least in my experience.
If this is true, it's no wonder you have such a poor opinion of SCA Equestrian activities. All of my marshals have extensive horse experience and many are horse professionals (or semi-professionals) in the "real world". I wouldn't have it any other way.
Heck; I am the Kingdom Eq Marshal and I have some jousting experience and I don't consider myself qualified to be a balsa jousting marshal at this point!
For better or worse, the SCA is a rather large organization. That means that the equestrian marshals are going to vary in skill sets. In our area (South Texas), our marshals tend to be rather accomplished riders, including several who ride as part of their employment, or compete well in a number of disciplines. Some currently foam joust, a few have balsa jousted.
That said, I know there are areas where the marshals may not be as experienced, which is why this is being handled as an experimental activity. That status allows us to control who is allowed to participate, and more specifically, who is allowed to marshal. As we are selecting folks to help introduce this activity to the SCA the primary criteria is expertise, not current affiliation with the SCA.
I hope folks do keep in mind that we aren't simply trying to be able to run an IJA or IJL tournament at an SCA event. Instead we are trying to provide an opportunity for those who are willing to put together the appropriate kit, and acquire the necessary training, to joust at SCA events. To accomplish this it is going to require those with the expertise to be willing to work with those in the SCA structure to help educate folks and establish the high standards necessary to balsa joust safely.
Currently we have some folks who already participate in the SCA and other groups. I am hoping they will liaison for other non-members.
I'll be working with our current kingdom equestrian officers (KEO's-head marshal for an area/kingdom) to get them in contact with those with the expertise. Following introductions, if there are issues getting the local equestrians going, then they will be addressed on a case by case basis. I assume there will be some instances of 'culture-clash' that arise. If so, they will be resolved in the interest of safety regardless of affiliation.
Overall, I have been quite pleased to see how positive this discussion has proceeded. I look forward to seeing it move past the discussion stage and start turning into actual events.
Regards,
Dave/Alexis
I know that much of what I say on this thread is negative, but I do want to let you know that I appreciate what you are doing, and how you are managing to keep it all in perspective while keeping your cool too. It's a thankless job, but I certainly appreciate what you're doing. Keep up the good work.
(Not that I won't blast you later if things go askew, though! )
Thanks.
Cheers!
Gordon
"He who wields the sword will be first served"
Charles Napier
How does your group measure the eye opening on frogmouth style helms?
Not sure what you mean by "group". With WorldJoust tournaments, we choose competitors whose gear is historically accurate. We come from the point of view that if historical armour is used, it will work, because it did for our ancestors. There's more to it than that, but that's the essential idea. We don't need to measure helm sights because we trust the competitors to look after themselves and their own safety by using gear that's historically right and therefore as safe as it can be. They assume the risk and the people we invite have a pretty strong familiarity with historical armour, it's one of several reasons we invite those that we do.
How does your group measure the eye opening on frogmouth style helms?
Not sure what you mean by "group". With WorldJoust tournaments, we choose competitors whose gear is historically accurate. We come from the point of view that if historical armour is used, it will work, because it did for our ancestors. There's more to it than that, but that's the essential idea. We don't need to measure helm sights because we trust the competitors to look after themselves and their own safety by using gear that's historically right and therefore as safe as it can be. They assume the risk and the people we invite have a pretty strong familiarity with historical armour, it's one of several reasons we invite those that we do.
Keep in mind we do have an "inspection", but it's to make sure all the elements are present, not micro-managing the specs of those elements.
Jeff,
I was under the impression that you don't allow sallets even though they were used in historical jousting, for safety reasons. I don't see that restriction in the link you posted, so perhaps I was mistaken?
Richard Blackmoore
Is the SCA a better place for having you in it? If not, what are you doing there?
We're still considering how we feel about "close sallets". They're much safer than the separate type, but they're really too late (1490's) for our time period (1440-70), and they're not jousting helmets. You're incorrect that they were jousting helmets historically. They were field helmets, used on the battlefield. Sallets are seen in judicial combat, but not on the tilt field.
.....honestly, there are too many "rumours" and "impressions" going around about our tournaments. It makes me crazy. I hope people will ignore the hearsay and rumor. Or just email us with questions-- we're pretty easy to reach.
Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:We don't allow sallets with separate bevors.
We're still considering how we feel about "close sallets". They're much safer than the separate type, but they're really too late (1490's) for our time period (1440-70), and they're not jousting helmets. You're incorrect that they were jousting helmets historically. They were field helmets, used on the battlefield. Sallets are seen in judicial combat, but not on the tilt field.
.....honestly, there are too many "rumours" and "impressions" going around about our tournaments. It makes me crazy. I hope people will ignore the hearsay and rumor. Or just email us with questions-- we're pretty easy to reach.
Hey Jeff. I was just asking since you pointed us to your rules and I did not see the sallet restriction you just confirmed listed there. I would not have asked if you had not posted the link. I wasn't complaining, just confirming what I thought you or Jeff Wasson told me about not allowing sallets.
Since you made the point about 'close' sallets, I assume you are referring to the early close helms Helmschmied developed that looked like sallets but really had close helm construction. I agree those are much safer.
Though I did think some of the two piece sallets were sometimes used for jousting both before and after 1470, not just judicial duels. I'll have to go back and examine my notes and illustrations. Perhaps not prior to 1470 though, I'll assume you are correct for now and that my memory is just off until I have time to look.
Richard
Is the SCA a better place for having you in it? If not, what are you doing there?
Are you guys refering to Sallets like the Italian Bellows Visored Sallets? I'm trying to get a perspective on what your talking about.
No. Helmschmied made close helms that look just like sallets. But when you look closely, the bevor and visor both have pivot points at the side of the helm and pivot up separately, just like the corresponding portions on what we normally think of as close helms. One of these is in the same museum as the Sigusmund & other Emperor Maximillian harnesses, another attributed to him is still in the NYC Met IIRC. They also appear in copies of the Thune Sketchbook.
I don't have time to dig up a picture, but there are already on the AA in older posts.
So these look like sallets, but they really are a completely different design. There isn't universal agreement as to what these were used for, some believe they were used for jousting as well, not just war, foot combat or melee, etc.
Richard
Is the SCA a better place for having you in it? If not, what are you doing there?
Here is a picture of what they are talking about. It is referred to as a close sallet because the bevor articulates on the same hinge point as the visor and therefore won't open a gap up as has occurred when using a separate bevor.
I have clarified the specification for armours used at WorldJoust Tournament events:
Jousting armour may be any style used specifically for tournament jousting in Europe between the years 1440-1470. Exchange helmets for foot combat and/or melee may be used in those events, but may not be used for jousting.
As an example, Jeffrey has a 1470 Italian export type armour with 3 exchange helmets. He uses a great bascinet for jousting, a barbuta for the foot combat, and an armet for the melee.
Piers Brent wrote:I think there are a few jousting sallets but late and specialized.
You do see sallets in jousting but you DON'T see sallets in the tilt! Most modern and probably all competitive jousting today is tilting.
I doubt anyone here is talking about reproducing a joust of war in the SCA!
When worn in the late 15th/early 16thC Rennen style of "at large" (not tilt barrier) jousts sallets are worn with massive guards with built in bevors. In the tilt you really only see helms (Frogmouth) armets and great bascinets - and later - close helms...
So - just to clarify - we really are talking about - "The Tilt" or "Joust of Peace" in the context of modern competitive jousting.
Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:Brent is probably thinking of rennhuts, which are a different type of specialized 16th c sallet for a very specific type of german joust.
Yes that sounds right.
Kinda an off topic but on the current off thread.
But what about early close helms or proto-close helms or whatever don't you start seeing them in the 1470s and 80s?
Piers Brent wrote:Yes that sounds right. Kinda an off topic but on the current off thread. But what about early close helms or proto-close helms or whatever don't you start seeing them in the 1470s and 80s?
No, they pretty much descend from the "closed sallets", and don't really start turning up until after 1500, at least as a full close helmet. However, sometimes it's difficult to see the difference between an armet and a close helmet, and armets were certainly in evidence much earlier than this.
Cheers!
Gordon
"He who wields the sword will be first served"
Charles Napier
Dragon_Argent wrote:So - just to clarify - we really are talking about - "The Tilt" or "Joust of Peace" in the context of modern competitive jousting.
Very astute. Which is one of the reasons why doing historical jousting before 1420ish is unlikely to happen because of the introduction of the tilt. I think it might be fun to do so without but certainly not what people are doing.
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.
)
